Eugene, Roy & Football (SOD spoiler!)

[Mightymosy]

I am talking about the scene in SoD when Eugene misses Roy's soccer game and shows utter disregard for the game anyway.

I've noticed this to be a trope in American movies: the dad misses (baseball, football) games and that's portrayed as bad.

I think the scene may be supposed to show how bad of a father Eugene is, but honestly that wasn't my impression when reading it.

When I was a kid, I didn't give a bullhonkey whether my parents watched me playing sports. If anything, I would be happy doing something *on my own*.
Thinking about it, I found it rather embarassing than motivating when my mom cheeree from the sidelines (as if you needed your mother to succeed, you know? can't have THAT as a boy).

I didn't expect my parents to learn the basics of Starcraft or MtG either - because it were MY hobbies, not theirs. My father had a job that was important and VERY timeconsuming - and NEVER did it even occur to me to feel "left alone" or something. Basically I always knew he cared for me even if he never went to my sports games or other stuff.

What do you people think?
Am I such a different child? Is it really so important for other children to have their parents watch their games? It it an American thing? Or just a Hollywood thing Rich copied?

[Quebbster]

My son definitely prefers to have me present at his games, though it's not a big deal if I miss out either. People are different, including Children.
Think the Point of this scene is to show that Roy feels like he isn't important to Eugene (which is in contrast to the scene immediately Before, where Eugene decides to not go after Xykon because he doesn't want to make Roy fatherless). Eugene doesn't even know what sport is being played, it's literally "just this thing my kid does".
You felt like your father cared for you in his own way. Roy obviously didn't feel the same way about Eugene, and he wasn't exactly wrong.

[Morquard]

Usually when it's portrait like that it's not just some "random game" or even practice. It's a huge thing (for the kids anyway) like a season finale or another important game, and they want everyone to be there. And the told everyone to be there. And they told the kids "Sure, don't worry, I promise I'll be there!"

And then they aren't. After they promised.

[Darth Tom]

At 16, I was trying for Olympic selection in archery. Never quite made it to the top level, but had 18 years of competing at top national and some international pro-am events. As a teenager, my parents always tried to attend my competitions, and ended up taking up the sport themselves. In such an individual, technical sport, it's really nice to have people there with whom you can talk through how it's going.

"I'm feeling a bit this, that." "Is it like what you had at X,Y?" "Not really, it's more this." "It's tough conditions today, looks like everyone's struggling all down the line." Those sort of things really help.

Also, it's nice to have people there who care about your results for your sake, not for their implications for selections and rankings. I'm a bit on the spectrum, struggled to make friends my own age, and had never been sporty, so it was always a great hero moment to excel at something in front of my parents and know that they cared. It also taught me how to make friends with proper adults, and made me realise that I was an unwitting hero to a bunch of other kids, but that's another story.

Certainly, when I moved away from home my enjoyment of competitions dropped because I no longer had that emotional support and engagement. For years after, I went with my other half, who also shoots, but she is (fair enough) less supportive than parents. When she got a shoulder injury and could no longer compete, I felt no desire to continue.

This is of course in no way what Rich could have been going for, but in terms of the effects parental support can have, I think it's worth telling because for me it was very significant indeed. I hope it has been interesting.

[Wizard_Lizard]

My parents have never shown up to my chess matches...
Although that is understandable.
Personally I don't care if they show up or not to my other sports. (Canoe Polo.)

[factotum]

I'm sure Roy didn't expect his father to show up for the game, but that's mainly because he was already totally disillusioned with Eugene. If he'd had a better relationship with his father then him not showing up might well have been a big deal. (Note that Roy's mother seems far more irritated at Eugene in that scene than Roy himself is).

[Kish]

This strikes me as a bizarre question. What does Roy's relationship with Eugene have to do with either Hollywood or any real-world person's relationship with their parents? Eugene's disregard for Roy is plain whenever he's on-panel.

[Fyraltari]

This strikes me as a bizarre question. What does Roy's relationship with Eugene have to do with either Hollywood or any real-world person's relationship with their parents? Eugene's disregard for Roy is plain whenever he's on-panel.

The question, as I understand it, is wether the use of Eugene not showing up at Roy’s matches to demonstrate his lack of care has basis elsewhere than in Hollywodian clichés.

[Aveline]

I played soccer as a child. My mom came to my games, and I was happy that she did. It made me feel like she was proud of me, and it made me feel good about playing. My dad never came to my games, and I did in fact wonder at that time if he didn't care at all about what I was doing. That made me feel bad about soccer and bad about myself.

[Mightymosy]

The question, as I understand it, is wether the use of Eugene not showing up at Roy’s matches to demonstrate his lack of care has basis elsewhere than in Hollywodian clichés.
This, basically.
I don't understand what's so bizzare about the question.
For me personally it has always been weird in Hollywood movies when it's supposed to be a big fuss, and likewise in SoD.

It is indeed interesting for me to read people's personal experience and feelings about this, thanks for sharing!

Colored by my own experience, I read the scene quite differently, emotionally speaking.
When Eugene didn't know the soccer rules, my initial gut reaction was "Of course he wouldn't. He has WAAAY more important stuff to think about, like wizard spells" (incidentally, I also never got why Harry Potter people were so enthusiastic about Quidditch - well, at least that one had magic).
When I was young, I knew dad had way more important stuff in mind than caring to, for example, learn the colors of MtG, or say, the supply limit for a Protoss fleet. Or earlier than that, how I built my Legos of whatever. Personally, it was always the stuff that *I* cared about - why should he care about it?? He was busy earning the money so that I could even *have* that stuff in the first place...

Now, of course it is hard to pull that scene out and isolate it from the other dismissive stuff Eugene does to Roy (forcing him to become a wizard would be the biggest offender I think).
But the "I am sad my dad doesn't watch my game" stuff has tickled me then and in Hollywood movies, so I asked whether that was a real thing. Especially since I don't remember seeing it in German movies.
Incidentally, I remember stuff like "soccer moms" not being much of a thing in my childhood, but have heard it to be more prominent these days. Maybe there is a cultural difference, maybe one we slowly adopt? Just speculation here, not first hand experience and only very vague information at any rate.

[Peelee]

The question, as I understand it, is wether the use of Eugene not showing up at Roy’s matches to demonstrate his lack of care has basis elsewhere than in Hollywodian clichés.
This, basically.
Yes. For ecample:

I played soccer as a child. My mom came to my games, and I was happy that she did. It made me feel like she was proud of me, and it made me feel good about playing. My dad never came to my games, and I did in fact wonder at that time if he didn't care at all about what I was doing. That made me feel bad about soccer and bad about myself.
There's a very good likelihood that it might be a cliche because a good amount of people emphasize with that.

[Cizak]

When Eugene didn't know the soccer rules, my initial gut reaction was "Of course he wouldn't. He has WAAAY more important stuff to think about, like wizard spells" (incidentally, I also never got why Harry Potter people were so enthusiastic about Quidditch - well, at least that one had magic).
When I was young, I knew dad had way more important stuff in mind than caring to, for example, learn the colors of MtG, or say, the supply limit for a Protoss fleet. Or earlier than that, how I built my Legos of whatever. Personally, it was always the stuff that *I* cared about - why should he care about it?? He was busy earning the money so that I could even *have* that stuff in the first place...

Of course adults have more important things to think about than their kids' interests.* Which is why it means so incredibly much to many children when the adults in their lives actually do make an effort to learn about such things. Caring about what your loved ones are doing and how they're feeling about it is generally a good way to retain a healthy relationship.

And as Sarah said, Eugene is smart. Learning soccer rules would probably take him an afternoon at the very most. But he doesn't do that, because it's not important. Which means, at least to Roy, that a big part of his life is not important to Eugene.

*Arguably, depending on what you're classifying as important in your life.

[Kish]

When I was young, I knew dad had way more important stuff in mind than caring to, for example, learn the colors of MtG, or say, the supply limit for a Protoss fleet. Or earlier than that, how I built my Legos of whatever. Personally, it was always the stuff that *I* cared about - why should he care about it?? He was busy earning the money so that I could even *have* that stuff in the first place...
While this does much to explain why the negative presentation of Eugene is largely lost on you, I think in general a "my father doesn't care at all about any of my interests and that's just fine because he earns money" attitude is a whole lot further from the default than you apparently think it is.

[Fyraltari]

It should be noted that school sport competitions are given much more importance in the U.S., where they are, unless I am misinformed, seen as minor newsworthy sport events than in Europe where they are seen as child’s play.

Edit : Though I know that I would have been hurt if my parents hadn’t made time to watch my school plays.

[Peelee]

It should be noted that school sport competitions are given much more importance in the U.S., where they are, unless I am misinformed, seen as minor newsworthy sport events than in Europe where they are seen as child’s play.

Depends on where you are in the US.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Depends on where you are in the US.

Doesn't the entire country participate in some kind of ritualistic observation of a bunch of college students play hand-and-football? Never mind the insane lengths the country will go to avoid dealing with the damage done to the professional players, but actual, exploited, unpaid college students?

(and I'm hesitating about posting this, because I get the feeling "US sports are really political" is likely a thing, and thus might be a topic verboten in the forums)

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Doesn't the entire country participate in some kind of ritualistic observation of a bunch of college students play hand-and-football? Never mind the insane lengths the country will go to avoid dealing with the damage done to the professional players, but actual, exploited, unpaid college students?

(and I'm hesitating about posting this, because I get the feeling "US sports are really political" is likely a thing, and thus might be a topic verboten in the forums)

Grey Wolf

High school isn't college, though.

[Keltest]

Doesn't the entire country participate in some kind of ritualistic observation of a bunch of college students play hand-and-football? Never mind the insane lengths the country will go to avoid dealing with the damage done to the professional players, but actual, exploited, unpaid college students?

(and I'm hesitating about posting this, because I get the feeling "US sports are really political" is likely a thing, and thus might be a topic verboten in the forums)

Grey Wolf

Yes. I live in a college town (State College, for the curious) and whenever there are home games for the college football team, the number of people in town doubles overnight.

Also, while there are some political overlaps, as far as im aware there isn't much controversy about the actual legality of anything as pertaining to national or state laws, just within its own organizational structure.

[Peelee]

Yes. I live in a college town (State College, for the curious) and whenever there are home games for the college football team, the number of people in town doubles overnight.

Also, while there are some political overlaps, as far as im aware there isn't much controversy about the actual legality of anything as pertaining to national or state laws, just within its own organizational structure.

I used to date a girl who lived in Tuscaloosa. I very specifically avoided ever going there on the weekends during football season.

[Keltest]

I used to date a girl who lived in Tuscaloosa. I very specifically avoided ever going there on the weekends during football season.

Smart man. You can tell football season has started here when you cant go grocery shopping on weekends anymore.

[jwhouk]

TV Tropes to the rescue! (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ParentalNeglect)

[Mightymosy]

Yes. For ecample:

There's a very good likelihood that it might be a cliche because a good amount of people emphasize with that.
Yeah, Aveline's post I noticed.
Hence my "thanks for sharing".
It was exactly what I had asked for with this thread's question, and was, as I said, interesting to read.

It being a trope or cliche doesn't make it any more true, though. There are lots of stupid cliches.

While this does much to explain why the negative presentation of Eugene is largely lost on you, I think in general a "my father doesn't care at all about any of my interests and that's just fine because he earns money" attitude is a whole lot further from the default than you apparently think it is.

I don't know if I would agree with your usage of default in this context. There are so many opinions on how to raise children that I don't know if I would consider something a default here. That's why I asked, also.

Anyway, for me it has always been clear that
1. interest in me as person (which my parents REALLY REALLY SHOWED to great extent!!)
and
2. interest in my hobbies (a little here and there)
are very different things.

In short, I have always known my parents to love me and care for me, because they cared for my emotional wellbeing, but I would have never tied that into them being interested in my interests.

It is, really, interesting to read that appearantly that is a thing, though.
Good to remember when raising children, as well.


TV Tropes to the rescue! (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ParentalNeglect)

Interesting. This one would fit more to the impression I got when reading the strip in SoD:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhenYouComingHomeDad

Basically, I thought Rich wanted to paint Eugene in a *slightly* more sympathetic way, just like he did with Redcloak.
In the sense that he is dismissive to Roy, yes, but not because he is evil or anything, but he doesn't know better or can't do better.

But the more important part for me anyway is to understand that people really felt that way as children, like Roy.

Consider that settled, you may now close the thread as solved.

[woweedd]

I'll admit to getting some of MM's perspective, which I think is the first time i've even understood where he was coming from: I've managed to get through my teenage years with a relative lack of strife with my respective parental units. That said, keep in mind: The usual example of a trope is a workaholic parent who really DOES love their kid, but is too busy to spend time with them. This is, admittedly, not the best for parenting, but understandable. V would fall in this: They aren't the most attentive parent, but it's clear they do have a protective instinct for their kids that I sincerely hope is unknown to any other: I mean, the last time someone threatened them, it lead to that person's entire family tree getting wiped out. Eugene is in another category: The outright neglectful. As the incident with Eric should prove, eugene was NEVER anything resembling a good father, and it's clearly not that that wants to support Roy, but can't: It's all but stated he's done this before, and doesn't much care, because he, ultimately, doe snot care about his son. Heck, he doesn't care to TRY and show interest, even though, as Sara points out, with his intelligence, he could easily learn the rules to nay physical sport given a few hours, and only doesn't do so because he considers physical matters beneath him. He's a ****.

[Peelee]

It being a trope or cliche doesn't make it any more true, though. There are lots of stupid cliches.
Indeed. Do you think I should edit that post and put in specific language to show that I am not certain about this?

Basically, I thought Rich wanted to paint Eugene in a slightly more sympathetic way, just like he did with Redcloak In the sense that he is dismissive to Roy, yes, but not because he is evil or anything, but he doesn't know better or can't do better.
Eugene does know better. He's a fully functional adult. Why do you think he doesnt know better, or can't do better?

[Fyraltari]

Basically, I thought Rich wanted to paint Eugene in a *slightly* more sympathetic way, just like he did with Redcloak.
In the sense that he is dismissive to Roy, yes, but not because he is evil or anything, but he doesn't know better or can't do better.
Pretty sure that scene was there to show that Eugene was being insincere with Right-Eye as to why he wasn't interested in his offer, even though, like a broken clock showing the right time he gives him good advice.


Consider that settled, you may now close the thread as solved.
We don't close thread around here, we wait for them to turn into Miko or Star Wars threads.

[Kish]

Pretty sure that scene was there to show that Eugene was being insincere with Right-Eye as to why he wasn't interested in his offer, even though, like a broken clock showing the right time he gives him good advice.
Did he really? Yes, he phrased it in a way designed to sound wise, but look at the actual results; his advice was disastrous for the person he gave it to and for himself. Both would have been better served to stay focused on destroying Xykon until Xykon was destroyed, because whatever Eugene said, it wasn't about petty revenge for Redcloak's brother, and while it might have been for Eugene himself, it was a "petty revenge" he'd committed himself to with a magically binding blood oath.

[Peelee]

Now I'm just wondering how the battle of Dorukan's dungeon might have gone had Eugene been there.

[Mightymosy]

I'll admit to getting some of MM's perspective, which I think is the first time i've even understood where he was coming from: I've managed to get through my teenage years with a relative lack of strife with my respective parental units. That said, keep in mind: The usual example of a trope is a workaholic parent who really DOES love their kid, but is too busy to spend time with them. This is, admittedly, not the best for parenting, but understandable. V would fall in this: They aren't the most attentive parent, but it's clear they do have a protective instinct for their kids that I sincerely hope is unknown to any other: I mean, the last time someone threatened them, it lead to that person's entire family tree getting wiped out. Eugene is in another category: The outright neglectful. As the incident with Eric should prove, eugene was NEVER anything resembling a good father, and it's clearly not that that wants to support Roy, but can't: It's all but stated he's done this before, and doesn't much care, because he, ultimately, doe snot care about his son. Heck, he doesn't care to TRY and show interest, even though, as Sara points out, with his intelligence, he could easily learn the rules to nay physical sport given a few hours, and only doesn't do so because he considers physical matters beneath him. He's a ****.

Has the incident with Eric ever been shown?
Is it a bonus strip in one of the books?

Because I always found it strange we never got to see it.
SoD would have been a perfect place to show that, and show how awful Eugene was then.
But we didn't get that.

That's why I always have been and will reserve judgment until we see the case.



Indeed. Do you think I should edit that post and put in specific language to show that I am not certain about this?

Eugene does know better. He's a fully functional adult. Why do you think he doesnt know better, or can't do better?
Up to you what you do with your posts.
My point is just that common real stuff may become movie cliches, but not every movie cliche is real.

The scene in SoD has him consider Right-Eye's offer and deny it on the basis of his family.
He then proceeds to try to watch Roy's game and fails.
To me, these scenes alone don't really make Eugene look bad, honestly.

Consider what later happens to Lirian: Xykon tortures people's loved ones if he thinks it furthers his goals.

In the bar scene, Eugene is confronted by his past: a past he doesn't want to mess with his family - which would be a good reason if it WAS the reason.

Later comics (current book, for example), paint him in a more selfish, negative light, however.
I don't know if this supposed to be negative character development, or if this is indeed just a misreading of the SOD part on my part, honestly.
Again, the scene that maybe was supposed to portray Eugene as a selfish liar (the sports scene) just didn't do that to me, personally.
For me, Eugene HAD important stuff to do: his past came back to haunt him, and he made the decision to fend it off from his family. And in true Hollywood manier, he promptly then lied to his family "to protect them from his troubled past" ("plane of water").



Pretty sure that scene was there to show that Eugene was being insincere with Right-Eye as to why he wasn't interested in his offer, even though, like a broken clock showing the right time he gives him good advice.

We don't close thread around here, we wait for them to turn into Miko or Star Wars threads.

See, to me that wasn't as clear. Especially since the book later shows what Xykon does to loved ones of people he fights. And it's the reason Eugene gives, when pressed by RE.

That doesn't make Eugene a saint at any rate, but my impression was that the scene(s) were meant to paint Eugene in more shades of grey, if you get what I mean.
Like Sara said: Eugene did, at times, focus his energy on being a good father.
And to Eugene, this might have been being the perfect wizard example, and enable such life for Roy.
After all, that's the example his father gave to HIM, showing absolute disinterest in his books.
Basically, the whole Greenhilt family story doesn't quite seem black/white to me.

[Peelee]

Up to you what you do with your posts.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/992/401/e37.png

My point is just that common real stuff may become movie cliches, but not every movie cliche is real.
And not every common real stuff will be applicable to you.

[Fyraltari]

Has the incident with Eric ever been shown?
Is it a bonus strip in one of the books?

Because I always found it strange we never got to see it.
SoD would have been a perfect place to show that, and show how awful Eugene was then.
But we didn't get that.

That's why I always have been and will reserve judgment until we see the case.
I will pass on the scene where a father refuse to listen to his small child resulting in an explosion that kills a two/three years old and severs him into bits and the fallout thereof, thankyouverymuch.




The scene in SoD has him consider Right-Eye's offer and deny it on the basis of his family.
He then proceeds to try to watch Roy's game and fails.
To me, these scenes alone don't really make Eugene look bad, honestly.
He didn't try to watch the game, he went to see Right-Eye instead and once that was done he said he was already "late for an equally pointless appointment". Even if he doesn't care about football, he knew this was important to his son and didn't care. That's bad parenting.


Consider what later happens to Lirian: Xykon tortures people's loved ones if he thinks it furthers his goals.
Yeah and Xykon does not have revenge as a goal. In fact he never pursues any of his opponents loved ones to punish them. If he did do that he would have killed Eugen after killing his master.


In the bar scene, Eugene is confronted by his past: a past he doesn't want to mess with his family - which would be a good reason if it WAS the reason.
But it isn't the reason he stopped going after Xykon, he wass bored with it before he had a family.


Later comics (current book, for example), paint him in a more selfish, negative light, however.
I don't know if this supposed to be negative character development, or if this is indeed just a misreading of the SOD part on my part, honestly.
Again, the scene that maybe was supposed to portray Eugene as a selfish liar (the sports scene) just didn't do that to me, personally.
With the exception of his very first appearance Eugene has always been portrayed as an emotionnally abusive father and a terrible husband and son. The revelation that he killed Eric in a lab accident and that did not make him reconsider his work/family priority is not recent. Nor is his agreeing to have his son kidnapped by a secret paramilitary force to endure a close-door trial and be forced into service by a comploting politician or his heartfelt agreeing to never again see his family.


For me, Eugene HAD important stuff to do: his past came back to haunt him, and he made the decision to fend it off from his family. And in true Hollywood manier, he promptly then lied to his family "to protect them from his troubled past" ("plane of water").
Protect them from what? Sara had always known he was an adventurer.






See, to me that wasn't as clear. Especially since the book later shows what Xykon does to loved ones of people he fights.
Nothing. He doesn't have the attention span for it.

And it's the reason Eugene gives, when pressed by RE.

That doesn't make Eugene a saint at any rate, but my impression was that the scene(s) were meant to paint Eugene in more shades of grey, if you get what I mean.
Like Sara said: Eugene did, at times, focus his energy on being a good father.
She didn't say that, she said that he focused on being a good husband for a while (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html), then grew bored of that too but was stuck with her because of the children.

And to Eugene, this might have been being the perfect wizard example, and enable such life for Roy.
After all, that's the example his father gave to HIM, showing absolute disinterest in his books.
That's a poor excuse.

Basically, the whole Greenhilt family story doesn't quite seem black/white to me.
Ain't gonna side with the guy who gets angry his son is allowed into Heaven, myself.

EDIT


Did he really? Yes, he phrased it in a way designed to sound wise, but look at the actual results; his advice was disastrous for the person he gave it to and for himself.
Both would have been better served to stay focused on destroying Xykon until Xykon was destroyed, because whatever Eugene said, it wasn't about petty revenge for Redcloak's brother, and while it might have been for Eugene himself, it was a "petty revenge" he'd committed himself to with a magically binding blood oath.
It is true in a more general sense. However I disagree, following Eugene's advice allowed Right-Eye to live the best years of his life until Redcloak came back. Keeping to try to kill Xykon would only have resulted in an earlier grave. As for Eugene the reason that isn't applicable is because of literal magic, which doesn't undercut the value of the real point. As "You should pursue revenge forever because if you don't, the promise you made while drunk years ago will keep you stuck in Limbo regardless of the rest of your life (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceWhaleAesop)" isn't very useful as far as advices go in real life.

[Ruck]

I think it's pretty obvious that the soccer scene is supposed to show that not only does Eugene actively not care about Roy's interests or even supporting him in the way a father ought, it shows that he's so callous toward him he'd rather schedule something to conflict on purpose with the soccer game than support Roy, AND he makes sure to let Roy know how little interest he has in what he does. There's neglectful from being inattentive or not making an effort, and there's going out of your way to let your son know you don't care. Eugene is doing the latter.

EDIT: Also I generally agree with Fyraltari's assessment; I think Eugene is a bad father and from all evidence not even a particularly good person.

[Kish]

It is true in a more general sense. However I disagree, following Eugene's advice allowed Right-Eye to live the best years of his life until Redcloak came back. Keeping to try to kill Xykon would only have resulted in an earlier grave.
Why are you assuming that? If you think Xykon's undefeatable someone better get a message to Roy. There's no non-meta reason at all why the group that defeated Xykon had to be led by a human fighter, not a goblin rogue.

[Fyraltari]

Why are you assuming that? If you think Xykon's undefeatable someone better get a message to Roy. There's no non-meta reason at all why the group that defeated Xykon had to be led by a human fighter, not a goblin rogue.

Because the same goblin Rogue with a Wisdom bonus and a magic dagger couldn't do it either. Also, this is a world where one can just nail a piece of paper that says they'd pay for dead kobolds for a dozen adventurers to jump on the nearest kobold and kill him, so yes, I do think there are non-meta reasons for why a goblin rogue couldn't get a band of adventurers together to kill Xykon.

[Aveline]

Anyway, for me it has always been clear that
1. interest in me as person (which my parents REALLY REALLY SHOWED to great extent!!)
and
2. interest in my hobbies (a little here and there)
are very different things.

In short, I have always known my parents to love me and care for me, because they cared for my emotional wellbeing, but I would have never tied that into them being interested in my interests.

It is, really, interesting to read that appearantly that is a thing, though.
Good to remember when raising children, as well.

Again, the scene that maybe was supposed to portray Eugene as a selfish liar (the sports scene) just didn't do that to me, personally.
For me, Eugene HAD important stuff to do: his past came back to haunt him, and he made the decision to fend it off from his family. And in true Hollywood manier, he promptly then lied to his family "to protect them from his troubled past" ("plane of water").

This isn't absolutely universal, but parents/guardians are often the main source of a child's validation. Children need guidance, and before long they may come to expect it in some form and, hopefully, seek it out. When someone fails to live up to the responsibility of guiding their child, it can feel like a betrayal, and the child may feel that they can't count on the guardian.

My reading of the soccer scene was that Eugene was consistently failing to be an attentive father, and regardless of whether he had a legitimate excuse on this occasion, it had come to be an expected pattern that he wouldn't be involved in his son's life. Sara had a whole speech prepared.

It's not that the soccer game in and of itself is what was important to Roy (although Roy clearly was working hard to carry his team to victory); it's that Eugene didn't care no matter what Roy did if it wasn't wizardry.


That doesn't make Eugene a saint at any rate, but my impression was that the scene(s) were meant to paint Eugene in more shades of grey, if you get what I mean.
Like Sara said: Eugene did, at times, focus his energy on being a good father.
And to Eugene, this might have been being the perfect wizard example, and enable such life for Roy.
After all, that's the example his father gave to HIM, showing absolute disinterest in his books.

This, I admit I have a hard time following. Are you suggesting Eugene consciously chose to be cold to his son, due to his relationship with his own father? Because if any connection can be made, the one I see is that Eugene is a smarmy intellectual whose fighter-phobia exceeds his minimal love of family.


And not every common real stuff will be applicable to you.

I think Mightymosy's understanding of this fact is implicit in that he made a thread to ask whether or not the "sports trope" is common real stuff.

[Mightymosy]

I hope the multi-quotes don't mess this up, but I'll try :-)


I will pass on the scene where a father refuse to listen to his small child resulting in an explosion that kills a two/three years old and severs him into bits and the fallout thereof, thankyouverymuch.
Well, your choice, but I'd say the comic is violent enough that this wouldn't actually be the worst thing painted, for my taste.
My point is not that I want to see it to enjoy it, but I wonder if there is a reason we only are being told, not shown (of course, Rich might share your taste and consider such a scene worse than all the other stuff that happened. He DOES seem to be particular averse of violence against babies, that much is true.




He didn't try to watch the game, he went to see Right-Eye instead and once that was done he said he was already "late for an equally pointless appointment". Even if he doesn't care about football, he knew this was important to his son and didn't care. That's bad parenting.
Well, I thought he wanted to do both, and the meeting with RE took longer than expected.
Happens to "important" people, that their calendar turns out more full than they expected, no?

Anyway, of course he finds the soccer game pointless. I'd concur, I find soccer pointless as well, for the most part.
Again, for me that is not the same as not caring for your son (of course, I'd still take a different route than Eugene, mind you. Just saying that that scene particular didn't ring with me so much).

You CAN loath appointments you do for your loved ones, can you not?
Have you ever gone to, I don't know, I concert of a band your gf loves and you hated? Or, the classic, visit her parents with her? Not all may apply, but I certainly consider hating an appointment compatible with liking a person you go to said appointment with.




Yeah and Xykon does not have revenge as a goal. In fact he never pursues any of his opponents loved ones to punish them. If he did do that he would have killed Eugen after killing his master.
Yes, Xykon does so either on strategic purpose or just on a whim

The reason NOT being revenge doesn't help your tortured loved ones, does it?




But it isn't the reason he stopped going after Xykon, he wass bored with it before he had a family.

After doing it for ten years or so, without ever finding a trace, no? Maybe not commitment enough for a blood pact in a fictional story, grant you, but in our mortal RL terms that*spme commitment* to a case, considering you still have to make a living somehow.

The scene in the tavern is not about him quitting, it's about him *returning* to the quest. And he decides not to.

He quit because of boredom, maybe.

But he declines to not return to the quest, why? Is it boredom? I find that less than clear. But I tend to take the characters' words for granted unless evidence shows otherwise, myself.



With the exception of his very first appearance Eugene has always been portrayed as an emotionnally abusive father and a terrible husband and son. The revelation that he killed Eric in a lab accident and that did not make him reconsider his work/family priority is not recent. Nor is his agreeing to have his son kidnapped by a secret paramilitary force to endure a close-door trial and be forced into service by a comploting politician or his heartfelt agreeing to never again see his family.

1. Again, is it such clear that HE killed Eric? Honestly, I'm unclear on this one. I thought it was an accident because he didn't pay enough attention.
That's why I wanted a more clear description or depiction of the event.
If I missed it, sorry, then please someone tell.

2. Yes, Eugene is particularily more bad in the webcomic - as I said, my impression was, at the time I read SoD, that prequel Eugene used to be a slightly better person than current Eugene. And like I said, I very well could be wrong about that, with one of the reasons that the sports scene just worked on me much differently than on other people (it is a key scene in the book, is it not? At least regarding Eugene and Roy).



Protect them from what? Sara had always known he was an adventurer.


From the most dangerous person in the world?

Sara married an adventurer, yes. But she wouldn't be the first fictional character to try to convince her husband to quit the dangerous business, if not for me, stop for the kids!

Again, I think the story hints at stuff but doesn't give enough details. You could very well be right with your interpretation, but for me the depiction is not as evident as for you.




Nothing. He doesn't have the attention span for it.

Again, Xykon DID torture the dead Lirian, no matter for what reason.

Of course, Eugene didn't know that yet, but as a learned wizard he clearly must be able to imagine all the cruel stuff his profession is capable of inflicting onto other people, no need to imagine the specifics, thanks.



She didn't say that, she said that he focused on being a good husband for a while (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html), then grew bored of that too but was stuck with her because of the children.


Yes, like I said, not a saint at any rate.

At the time of the tavern scene I would have put him like, maybe the guy in Die Hard? Crappy father if you're honest, but still not the worst of persons?
Maybe there are better examples.



That's a poor excuse.


Yes. Yes. And yes.

It is not an excuse but a reason.

Isn't that how people believe this works in RL? People are bad parents because they learned it that way from their parents?

I find the Greenhilt line a particularily well done writing, exactly for that reason. Horace and Eugene are very different, yet on thing they are more similar than either of them would probably like to admit.

It will be interesting to see how Roy treats his children. His "perfect ending dream" seems to imply that he manages to have a grudge towards wizards in his family. Would he support a child of his that were to become a wizard? Personally, I think Roy has the mind and the heart to break the vicious cycle, and I am curious to see.



Ain't gonna side with the guy who gets angry his son is allowed into Heaven, myself.


Side would be a little much, maybe. More like devil's advocate, maybe?

ETA:

This isn't absolutely universal, but parents/guardians are often the main source of a child's validation. Children need guidance, and before long they may come to expect it in some form and, hopefully, seek it out. When someone fails to live up to the responsibility of guiding their child, it can feel like a betrayal, and the child may feel that they can't count on the guardian.

My reading of the soccer scene was that Eugene was consistently failing to be an attentive father, and regardless of whether he had a legitimate excuse on this occasion, it had come to be an expected pattern that he wouldn't be involved in his son's life. Sara had a whole speech prepared.

It's not that the soccer game in and of itself is what was important to Roy (although Roy clearly was working hard to carry his team to victory); it's that Eugene didn't care no matter what Roy did if it wasn't wizardry.


Yes, Eugene was failing in being an attentive father, I just didn't initially read the soccer scene as such. I thought it was to show that Eugene didn't use to be as bad as he is now - in line with Sara's "he used to be better".



This, I admit I have a hard time following. Are you suggesting Eugene consciously chose to be cold to his son, due to his relationship with his own father? Because if any connection can be made, the one I see is that Eugene is a smarmy intellectual whose fighter-phobia exceeds his minimal love of family.

.

No, I got the impression that Eugene is good at wizardry, but not good at people.
Thus, the raises Roy the way he was raised: Teach your son the stuff you are good with yourself, and show disinterest in what your son likes.
(#498: Gorace: Your father never really took to it (fishing), Gods know that I tried --> Horace wants Eugene to enjoy fishing just like himself, does NOT want to read the books his son is interested in)
SoD 19: Eugene: It took me a year to convince him (to let me go to wizard school) -> Horace blocked Eugene's desired career, Eugene blocked Roy's desired career)

It's possible Horace went about this a little nicer than Eugene eventually did, but the pattern is still similar.

[Aveline]

1. Again, is it such clear that HE killed Eric? Honestly, I'm unclear on this one. I thought it was an accident because he didn't pay enough attention.
That's why I wanted a more clear description or depiction of the event.
If I missed it, sorry, then please someone tell.

The exact details of the events are left vague, but I take it as fact that Eugene took actions that directly led to Eric's death.


Yes. Yes. And yes.

It is not an excuse but a reason.

Isn't that how people believe this works in RL? People are bad parents because they learned it that way from their parents?

I find the Greenhilt line a particularily well done writing, exactly for that reason. Horace and Eugene are very different, yet on thing they are more similar than either of them would probably like to admit.

It will be interesting to see how Roy treats his children. His "perfect ending dream" seems to imply that he manages to have a grudge towards wizards in his family. Would he support a child of his that were to become a wizard? Personally, I think Roy has the mind and the heart to break the vicious cycle, and I am curious to see.

This bit I can agree with.

[Peelee]

Well, I thought he wanted to do both, and the meeting with RE took longer than expected.
[snip]
You CAN loath appointments you do for your loved ones, can you not?
Wait, I'm confused. Did he want to go see Roy's game, or did he loathe it?

Anyway, of course he finds the soccer game pointless. I'd concur, I find soccer pointless as well, for the most part.
Nothing wrong about that. However, would you tell that to your kid to his face while he's upset that you missed his game? Because Eugene would.

The reason NOT being revenge doesn't help your tortured loved ones, does it?
Again, confused. At what point did Eugene not telling Sara things protect them? At what point did Xykon personally go after the family of someone he fought, specifically to go after their family and with no other major motive?

[Mightymosy]

Wait, I'm confused. Did he want to go see Roy's game, or did he loathe it?


I think he didn't WANT to see Roy's game, but he still tried to because presumably Sara told him that needed to be done to be a good father.

Have you never done something for a child which you yourself found utterly silly but still did it because the child might be happy?

Was it to appease Sara? To appease Roy??
The exact internal reasons why he tried to attend are unknown, we just know he tried and came late.

And we know he loathed soccer, that'S for sure.
He considers it waste of time, especially once his son attends wizard school, like he wishes for him.



Nothing wrong about that. However, would you tell that to your kid to his face while he's upset that you missed his game? Because Eugene would.

And that tells us what?

I certainly would pick different words with my kids than Eugene, if that's what you are wondering about.


Again, confused. At what point did Eugene not telling Sara things protect them? At what point did Xykon personally go after the family of someone he fought, specifically to go after their family and with no other major motive?

Actually I checked the scene again right now:
He lies IN FRONT OF ROY about where he was.
He later attempts to clarify to Sara, but is interrupted.

Maybe at this point he thinks Roy is too young to hear about such bloody stuff, but intends to speak openly to Sara about it later?

Also, NOT telling Sara of course would be a mistake. Again, a well-used trope, but fictional and real characters still lie to their loved ones all the times, for reasons they think are good.


What does it matter whether Xykon would hunt down Sara and Roy?
What matters is that is a possibility to Eugene.
Or, even easier: he might murder Eugene and leave Roy a half orphan and Sara a widow.

[Fyraltari]

Well, I thought he wanted to do both, and the meeting with RE took longer than expected.
Happens to "important" people, that their calendar turns out more full than they expected, no?
A football game last one hour and a half. That conversation did not.


Anyway, of course he finds the soccer game pointless. I'd concur, I find soccer pointless as well, for the most part.
Again, for me that is not the same as not caring for your son (of course, I'd still take a different route than Eugene, mind you. Just saying that that scene particular didn't ring with me so much).
You CAN loath appointments you do for your loved ones, can you not?
Have you ever gone to, I don't know, I concert of a band your gf loves and you hated? Or, the classic, visit her parents with her? Not all may apply, but I certainly consider hating an appointment compatible with liking a person you go to said appointment with.
If you care for someone then doing something you know is important to them is not pointless. Tedious? Yes. Boring? Possibly. Painful? On occasion. But pointless? No. There is a point: to be agreeable to someone you care about.


Yes, Xykon does so either on strategic purpose or just on a whim

The reason NOT being revenge doesn't help your tortured loved ones, does it?
Again, he never went after someone's loved ones be tactically OR ona whim, he doesn't have the patience.


After doing it for ten years or so, without ever finding a trace, no? Maybe not commitment enough for a blood pact in a fictional story, grant you, but in our mortal RL terms that*spme commitment* to a case, considering you still have to make a living somehow.
You do realize, he's an adventurer, right? Tracking a bad guy and killing monsters on the way IS how he makes a living.



The scene in the tavern is not about him quitting, it's about him *returning* to the quest. And he decides not to.

He quit because of boredom, maybe.

But he declines to not return to the quest, why? Is it boredom? I find that less than clear. But I tend to take the characters' words for granted unless evidence shows otherwise, myself.
Then why not take Sara's word on it? Eugene is angry in the afterlife because he is being forced to deal with something he abandonned long ago. Why would he not want to shirk that in life too?




1. Again, is it such clear that HE killed Eric? Honestly, I'm unclear on this one. I thought it was an accident because he didn't pay enough attention.
That's why I wanted a more clear description or depiction of the event.
If I missed it, sorry, then please someone tell.


It wasn't my job to watch the grown-ups (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)

You (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1009.html) knew your father was doing something dangerous. [...] How many pieces was it in? More than five?

Sounds like Eugene was doing an experiment than exploded in Eric's face.



2. Yes, Eugene is particularily more bad in the webcomic - as I said, my impression was, at the time I read SoD, that prequel Eugene used to be a slightly better person than current Eugene. And like I said, I very well could be wrong about that, with one of the reasons that the sports scene just worked on me much differently than on other people (it is a key scene in the book, is it not? At least regarding Eugene and Roy).
That's a very low bar to pass.





From the most dangerous person in the world?

Sara married an adventurer, yes. But she wouldn't be the first fictional character to try to convince her husband to quit the dangerous business, if not for me, stop for the kids!
That doesn't make sense. According to you he was "protecting" them from a job he had already turned down. He didn't tell Roy where he was because he did not want him to know what his job was yet, but he had no reason to hide it from Sara.
Again, I think the story hints at stuff but doesn't give enough details. You could very well be right with your interpretation, but for me the depiction is not as evident as for you.





Again, Xykon DID torture the dead Lirian, no matter for what reason.
The reason was that she beat him and forced him to become a lich to get even. I see where you're confused, Xykon did not torture Lirian further after stuffing her soul inside his gem. He did treaten Dorukan with making her watch her own body get eaten, but it took him months to think of that one and he used the body he had at his disposal, and it didn't work as Dorukan only left his castle because he finally knew where Lirian's soul was. Again he never makes the effort to track his ennemies' families, half the time he can't be bothered to remember their names.


Of course, Eugene didn't know that yet, but as a learned wizard he clearly must be able to imagine all the cruel stuff his profession is capable of inflicting onto other people, no need to imagine the specifics, thanks.
Yeah and he also knew that Xykon didn't bother killing him either after killing Fyron.




Yes, like I said, not a saint at any rate.

At the time of the tavern scene I would have put him like, maybe the guy in Die Hard? Crappy father if you're honest, but still not the worst of persons?
Maybe there are better examples.
Oh, I will happily conced that Eugene is only the second-worst father in this comic.


Yes. Yes. And yes.

It is not an excuse but a reason.

Isn't that how people believe this works in RL? People are bad parents because they learned it that way from their parents?
People are bad parents for plenty of reasons. And a lot of people are good parents despite having terrible parents.



I find the Greenhilt line a particularily well done writing, exactly for that reason. Horace and Eugene are very different, yet on thing they are more similar than either of them would probably like to admit.
Oh, yeah Horace most likely was a crappy father as well.


It will be interesting to see how Roy treats his children. His "perfect ending dream" seems to imply that he manages to have a grudge towards wizards in his family. Would he support a child of his that were to become a wizard? Personally, I think Roy has the mind and the heart to break the vicious cycle, and I am curious to see.
Seeing as his newfound powers have been likened to those of a wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1025.html), without it bothering him and that he does express emotion toward his wizard of a sister, I'm not worried.

[Peelee]

I think he didn't WANT to see Roy's game, but he still tried to because presumably Sara told him that needed to be done to be a good father.

Have you never done something for a child which you yourself found utterly silly but still did it because the child might be happy?
I can state with absolute honesty that I have never thought doing anything for my son was pointless, nor have I at any point loathed any of the things I've done for him, and everything I've done for him I have wanted to do.

If you need to be told what to do to be a good father, that implies you might not be a good father. If you then fail spectacularly at what you were specifically told to do to be a good father, then it's pretty plain-as-day you're not a good father.

I certainly would pick different words with my kids than Eugene, if that's what you are wondering about.
Fun fact, the appropriate response to that is "no."

What does it matter whether Xykon would hunt down Sara and Roy?
What matters is that is a possibility to Eugene.
Is it a possibility to Eugene, though? That's not the first excuse he gives, it's just the first one that doesn't immediately get holes punched in it.

Or, even easier: he might murder Eugene and leave Roy a half orphan and Sara a widow.
You got On the Origin of PCs on hand, perchance? Go ahead and pop open to page 41, top splash panel, and tell me again how big a concern that must have been to him.

[LadyEowyn]

I’m with Fyraltari. It’s very strange to me that Eric’s death is never mentioned at Eugene’s “entry interview” for Celestia. Negligently killing your young child and then letting your son blame himself for it for the next decade is way more serious than “editing your own Wikipedia article”.

[Keltest]

I’m with Fyraltari. It’s very strange to me that Eric’s death is never mentioned at Eugene’s “entry interview” for Celestia. Negligently killing your young child and then letting your son blame himself for it for the next decade is way more serious than “editing your own Wikipedia article”.

Its hard to say how much Eugene would actually know about Roy's guilt. Roy certainly wouldn't have talked to Eugene about it, and he seems to have gotten over it at least enough to maintain a relationship with his father.

Anyway, negligent is not the same thing as evil. It makes him a crappy parent, but we already knew that, and "being a good parent" is not a prerequisite for being good.

[Ruck]

I’m with Fyraltari. It’s very strange to me that Eric’s death is never mentioned at Eugene’s “entry interview” for Celestia. Negligently killing your young child and then letting your son blame himself for it for the next decade is way more serious than “editing your own Wikipedia article”.

The Start of Darkness epilogue reads a little too much like Eugene's evaluation was finished up and he was ready to enter Celestia except for the blood oath, because to me, Eugene's afterlife status (based on what we've seen of his life and what we know he's done, i.e. with Eric) suggests someone who falls well short of Celestia's standards. My headcanon is that the Blood Oath came up before the deva really looked very deeply into his record, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation of what actually happens in the scene. (Indeed, now that you mention it, I think that's the only interpretation that explains why Eric didn't come up.)

[Fyraltari]

The Start of Darkness epilogue reads a little too much like Eugene's evaluation was finished up and he was ready to enter Celestia except for the blood oath, because to me, Eugene's afterlife status (based on what we've seen of his life and what we know he's done, i.e. with Eric) suggests someone who falls well short of Celestia's standards. My headcanon is that the Blood Oath came up before the deva really looked very deeply into his record, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation of what actually happens in the scene. (Indeed, now that you mention it, I think that's the only interpretation that explains why Eric didn't come up.)

Yeah, the Deva tells him "that's what I'm trying to determine" to me that indicates that the review had just begun. Then he was probably looking at Eugene's life in chronological order and the Oath happened before he met Sara. It is odd, though, that it was never brought up during his previous deaths.

[Aveline]

The Start of Darkness epilogue reads a little too much like Eugene's evaluation was finished up and he was ready to enter Celestia except for the blood oath, because to me, Eugene's afterlife status (based on what we've seen of his life and what we know he's done, i.e. with Eric) suggests someone who falls well short of Celestia's standards. My headcanon is that the Blood Oath came up before the deva really looked very deeply into his record, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation of what actually happens in the scene. (Indeed, now that you mention it, I think that's the only interpretation that explains why Eric didn't come up.)

Yeah. Roy's deva was ready to chuck him in True Neutral for abandoning a friend to an unknown fate if he hadn't gone back and made up for it later. Eugene's mistake with Eric was substantially more serious, if for no other reason than that Eric was killed.


Yeah, the Deva tells him "that's what I'm trying to determine" to me that indicates that the review had just begun. Then he was probably looking at Eugene's life in chronological order and the Oath happened before he met Julia. It is odd, though, that it was never brought up during his previous deaths.

Sara, not Julia.

(Maybe the devas always see the Blood Oath first and always stop there?)

[Rogar Demonblud]

My point is not that I want to see it to enjoy it, but I wonder if there is a reason we only are being told, not shown (of course, Rich might share your taste and consider such a scene worse than all the other stuff that happened. He DOES seem to be particular averse of violence against babies, that much is true.

The question has come up repeatedly due to a certain subset of the fanbase who really wanted to see slaughtered children depicted in the strip. The Giant quite firmly put down his Size 800 Quintuple Zs on that---There Will NOT be dead children depicted in this comic.

Going further down this road lead to bannings due to advocating genocide, moral justification, etc.

Xykon never tortured Lirian. He killed her, he used a soul bind spell (which per RAW leaves the soul in stasis, so she doesn't experience time at all), he animated her corpse.

I could say more about the kind of parent Eugene is, but that gets political in a hurry. The short version is my job involves putting people like him as far away from their kids as possible.

Parents missing their children's activities is a nice red flag for other issues, BTW. It speaks to a lack of involvement that predators look for, among other things.

[DaOldeWolf]

I dont think Roy´s father is that bad. I can think of many things that my parents have done that are way worse than missing a game and then calling it pointless. I dont know what that says about my parents though.

[Fyraltari]

Sara, not Julia.
Thank you, fixed.


(Maybe the devas always see the Blood Oath first and always stop there?)
I don't like Eugene much but he isn't dumb. It sounds like he would have gone back to hunting Xykon if he had known he'd be stuck on Cloudstreet if he did not.

The question has come up repeatedly due to a certain subset of the fanbase who really wanted to see slaughtered children depicted in the strip. The Giant quite firmly put down his Size 800 Quintuple Zs on that---There Will NOT be dead children depicted in this comic.

Actually, there have (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html) been already. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html)

[Peelee]

I don't like Eugene much but he isn't dumb. It sounds like he would have gone back to hunting Xykon if he had known he'd be stuck on Cloudstreet if he did not.

I choose to believe Myrtok always brought him back too fast for the process to get started.

[Fyraltari]

I choose to believe Myrtok always brought him back too fast for the process to get started.

Does that mean Durkon's tombstone will have on display :

Durkon Allotrope Thundershield
113X-1181
1181-1181
1181-1XXX

[Rogar Demonblud]

I choose to believe Myrtok always brought him back too fast for the process to get started.

Unlikely, since at least the one time he died one year and was rezzed the next.

[Fyraltari]

Unlikely, since at least the one time he died one year and was rezzed the next.

That was an awkwad New Year party, I tell you.

[Aveline]

That was an awkwad New Year party, I tell you.

"Hey fellas, want to see a trick?"

(Insert relevant SMBC here.)

[Kish]

Sara, not Julia.
Presumably the Blood Oath also took place before he met Julia...

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah. Roy's deva was ready to chuck him in True Neutral for abandoning a friend to an unknown fate if he hadn't gone back and made up for it later. Eugene's mistake with Eric was substantially more serious, if for no other reason than that Eric was killed.
I don't usually invest much effort in defending Roy, but this is one instance where I think the comic's stance is pretty wonky- by all appearances, his initial assessment that attacking the bandits would be suicidal was basically correct and only worked out otherwise due to sheer blind luck. And sure, it's kinda strange that he would later turn around and assume he could pull off a rescue where 4 of his teammates had failed, but that just means his belated rescue was stupid-heroic, not that abandoning Elan was evil.

(If you like, one can argue that Roy was never in any serious danger due to meta-factors based on his narrative role- i.e, "the rescuer prevails"- but by the same logic Elan was never in any real danger due to meta-factors based on his narrative role- i.e, the "the happy-go-lucky-bard gets laid.")

[Rogar Demonblud]

Presumably the Blood Oath also took place before he met Julia...

Years before, since Julia's a teenager now.

[Ruck]

I don't usually invest much effort in defending Roy, but this is one instance where I think the comic's stance is pretty wonky- by all appearances, his initial assessment that attacking the bandits would be suicidal was basically correct and only worked out otherwise due to sheer blind luck. And sure, it's kinda strange that he would later turn around and assume he could pull off a rescue where 4 of his teammates had failed, but that just means his belated rescue was stupid-heroic, not that abandoning Elan was evil.

Let's look at #153. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html) If he had said the rescue was suicidal and that they should come up with some better plan or find more resources or allies, that would be one thing. His initial reaction, though, was essentially "Good riddance"-- he compared Elan to syphilis! And not only that, it happened on a personal sidequest of his, to someone who looked up to him and considered him a friend. It would have been both Chaotic and Evil for Mr. Big Time Hero Guy With A Sense of Responsibility to essentially lead his team on a personal side mission and then leave one of them to presumably die without even trying to find a solution to rescue him. (And really, the whole operation would have gone better if the team's fighter, leader, and strategist had been on board from the start.)

[Aveline]

I don't usually invest much effort in defending Roy, but this is one instance where I think the comic's stance is pretty wonky- by all appearances, his initial assessment that attacking the bandits would be suicidal was basically correct and only worked out otherwise due to sheer blind luck. And sure, it's kinda strange that he would later turn around and assume he could pull off a rescue where 4 of his teammates had failed, but that just means his belated rescue was stupid-heroic, not that abandoning Elan was evil.

(If you like, one can argue that Roy was never in any serious danger due to meta-factors based on his narrative role- i.e, "the rescuer prevails"- but by the same logic Elan was never in any real danger due to meta-factors based on his narrative role- i.e, the "the happy-go-lucky-bard gets laid.")

Huh, I actually thought Roy got off way too easy on everything else. I can't be the only one who didn't buy "turns out the gifts would have been destroyed" as a response to "you impersonated a king and took gifts meant for him", or "I don't remember that one" to "you dangled someone out a window".

[Jasdoif]

I can't be the only one who didn't buy..."I don't remember that one" to "you dangled someone out a window".If anyone bought the memory charm that kept Roy from remembering doing that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html), my guess would be the Oracle.

[Aveline]

If anyone bought the memory charm that kept Roy from remembering doing that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html), my guess would be the Oracle.

I'm not saying I don't believe Roy. I'm sure he doesn't remember, and I'm sure he's confident the gifts wouldn't have been destroyed in an explosion if he hadn't impersonated royalty.

I just don't think they're good excuses.

[Keltest]

I'm not saying I don't believe Roy. I'm sure he doesn't remember, and I'm sure he's confident the gifts wouldn't have been destroyed in an explosion if he hadn't impersonated royalty.

I just don't think they're good excuses.

The window bit could conceivably be glossed over because the Oracle, who was the victim, denied him the ability to atone.

And while I do think Roy's excuse was weak, it was a weak charge to begin with since he sincerely tried to deny the gifts and was overruled.

[Rogar Demonblud]

He was also planning on paying for the bill out of his share of the treasure.

[DaOldeWolf]

Huh, I actually thought Roy got off way too easy on everything else. I can't be the only one who didn't buy "turns out the gifts would have been destroyed" as a response to "you impersonated a king and took gifts meant for him", or "I don't remember that one" to "you dangled someone out a window".

I dont know. To me, it seemed like the deva was trying to get him to react and find out how he felt to see what his outlook of life was. The deva glossed over a lot of stuff like when she brought up first Roy´s teacher before just dropping the subject. The fact that there was a discussion at all, meant that part of the evaluation required interaction with Roy. Afterall, the deva said that it was important to find out if he "fit" there or if he should be sent to a different afterlife.

I think the point of many of the subjects brought up are meant to test him and see if he is has the appropiate mentality for the afterlife. It also allowed the story the chance to give us the message about the importance of trying to improve and keep fighting for what we want even if it isnt easy and sometimes we fail.

[Aveline]

The window bit could conceivably be glossed over because the Oracle, who was the victim, denied him the ability to atone.

And while I do think Roy's excuse was weak, it was a weak charge to begin with since he sincerely tried to deny the gifts and was overruled.


He was also planning on paying for the bill out of his share of the treasure.


I dont know. To me, it seemed like the deva was trying to get him to react and find out how he felt to see what his outlook of life was. The deva glossed over a lot of stuff like when she brought up first Roy´s teacher before just dropping the subject. The fact that there was a discussion at all, meant that part of the evaluation required interaction with Roy. Afterall, the deva said that it was important to find out if he "fit" there or if he should be sent to a different afterlife.

I think the point of many of the subjects brought up are meant to test him and see if he is has the appropiate mentality for the afterlife. It also allowed the story the chance to give us the message about the importance of trying to improve and keep fighting for what we want even if it isnt easy and sometimes we fail.

Hmm. Alright, you've convinced me.

[Lacuna Caster]

Let's look at #153. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html) If he had said the rescue was suicidal and that they should come up with some better plan or find more resources or allies, that would be one thing.
Yes, he could have gone out of his way to expend significant time, resources, and expectable life-years on the task of rescuing Elan, and that would be a generally-agreed-on heroic thing to do. But declining to make significant sacrifices in order to aid the helpless isn't Evil behaviour. (Otherwise you could point at every Neutral person who isn't giving half their income to feed hungry orphans and declare them to be some kind of conscious malefactor.)

I don't consider Elan's pre-existing relationship with Roy to be relevant- his specific obligation to teammates is a Lawful trait, and it's Roy's prerogative to judge how much of a 'friend' Elan is. It's Neutral behaviour that just looks Evil by comparison with what every other member of the team- including, egads, Belkar- is willing to do at the time. (It might be the single most morally upstanding thing we ever see Belkar do.)

I mean yeah, you could have more back-and-forth on the subject, but I'd argue letting Elan on the team in the first place was 'imperilling innocents', and I'm just not inclined to judge Roy too harshly for anything that happens during the 'inconsequential comedy hijinks' phase of the strip. Otherwise you've got, e.g, the problem of addressing what happened (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0149.html) to all the goblins left in Dorukan's Dungeon, and Elan is going straight to Hell.


Huh, I actually thought Roy got off way too easy on everything else. I can't be the only one who didn't buy "turns out the gifts would have been destroyed" as a response to "you impersonated a king and took gifts meant for him", or "I don't remember that one" to "you dangled someone out a window".
Eh, it's not intrinsically evil to rough someone up for the sake of information, at least in D&D. Taking the Royal Suite was selfish and dumb and underhanded, but not exactly harmful per se.

[Ruck]

Huh, I actually thought Roy got off way too easy on everything else. I can't be the only one who didn't buy "turns out the gifts would have been destroyed" as a response to "you impersonated a king and took gifts meant for him", or "I don't remember that one" to "you dangled someone out a window".

The not remembering part is unusual because it's an actual magical effect in this case-- it's hard to compare it to the real world.

The taking gifts excuse is a little weak, but I also don't think it's a serious enough crime that it would have moved him off the LG list.

[Jasdoif]

I'm not saying I don't believe Roy. I'm sure he doesn't remember....

I just don't think they're good excuses.Since Roy's not lying....I really don't see how he could be expected to speak for/against/about something he didn't at all remember doing. Poor excuse or not, "I don't remember" is really the most accurate thing he could say about dangling the Oracle out the window; and I think the whole doing your best to the limit of your abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html) thing applies here as well.

[Lacuna Caster]

Eh, it's not intrinsically evil to rough someone up for the sake of information, at least in D&D. Taking the Royal Suite was selfish and dumb and underhanded, but not exactly harmful per se.
Actually, no, I take that back. It was harmful in the sense that impersonating a monarch could easily and forseeably lead to significant censure by the real monarch he was impersonating and other general complications, even if he was willing to pay for it afterwards, and thus might land both himself and his associates in hot water.

[Peelee]

Since Roy's not lying....I really don't see how he could be expected to speak for/against/about something he didn't at all remember doing. Poor excuse or not, "I don't remember" is really the most accurate thing he could say about dangling the Oracle out the window; and I think the whole doing your best to the limit of your abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html) thing applies here as well.

Which opens us up to a philosophical question. If a paladin fell in the memory-charmed area and then left, would they not remain fallen? True, one cannot expect them to atone for an act they cannot recall, but that does not negate that the act was committed. If a vase is broken and then repaired, are the cracks not still present?

[Ruck]

Yes, he could have gone out of his way to expend significant time, resources, and expectable life-years on the task of rescuing Elan, and that would be a generally-agreed-on heroic thing to do. But declining to make significant sacrifices in order to aid the helpless isn't Evil behaviour. (Otherwise you could point at every Neutral person who isn't giving half their income to feed hungry orphans and declare them to be some kind of conscious malefactor.)
Well, to quote the Deva, "What complicates issues is that you've taken on the role of his commanding officer."


I don't consider Elan's pre-existing relationship with Roy to be relevant- his specific obligation to teammates is a Lawful trait, and it's Roy's prerogative to judge how much of a 'friend' Elan is. It's Neutral behaviour that just looks Evil by comparison with what every other member of the team- including, egads, Belkar- is willing to do at the time. (It might be the single most morally upstanding thing we ever see Belkar do.)
Well, I don't think it's Neutral precisely because Roy led Elan into the situation. If Roy failed to help a stranger, that would be Neutral. Roy being a teammate of Elan is a Lawful issue; but Roy leading Elan into danger and then deliberately abandoning him is a Good-Evil issue, I think.

(Re: Friendship, the question of what that term means is a more complicated one that time will allow for me to answer, but in brief to this point-- sometimes we can be friends with people whose personalities we don't necessarily like if they have other traits that make up for it. I think Elan's loyalty makes him a friend, and Roy doesn't object when Vaarsuvius describes theirs as "a hard-earned friendship.")


I mean yeah, you could have more back-and-forth on the subject, but I'd argue letting Elan on the team in the first place was 'imperilling innocents', and I'm just not inclined to judge Roy too harshly for anything that happens during the 'inconsequential comedy hijinks' phase of the strip. Otherwise you've got, e.g, the problem of addressing what happened (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0149.html) to all the goblins left in Dorukan's Dungeon, and Elan is going straight to Hell.
At least that, presuming it happened (and the goblins didn't just, I dunno, escape somehow and also avoided Redcloak in the process), wasn't intentionally malicious on Elan's part. But that also happened in Book 1, and Roy's abandoning Elan happened in Book 2, and he's judged on it in Book 4, so I think we are supposed to take it seriously, because the Deva takes it seriously.

[Jasdoif]

True, one cannot expect them to atone for an act they cannot recall, but that does not negate that the act was committed.Probably simplifies desiring to set right their misdeeds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm), if being fallen is the only indication of such misdeeds. Or do we break out the divinations/sleuthing and try to determine what they can't recall? Or are we watching Memento instead?

[DaOldeWolf]

Which opens us up to a philosophical question. If a paladin fell in the memory-charmed area and then left, would they not remain fallen? True, one cannot expect them to atone for an act they cannot recall, but that does not negate that the act was committed. If a vase is broken and then repaired, are the cracks not still present?

I doubt a fallen paladin and Roy can be taken in the same situation. :smalltongue: The paladin would probably search for the reason behind his falling and realice he fell. I dont think characters without restricting class features can be blamed if they dont find out that their memories were erased and that as such, cannot realize that they might have done something wrong.

As for the question, since Belkar left the place just as sick as he was inside oracle territory, I dont think the paladin gets a free pass to recover his skills.

I still stand by my theory that part of the evaluation is based on how Roy reacts and thinks. I doubt the deva would have given Roy a chance if he laughed or felt proud about any of the actions that the deva brought up. Just to further prove my theory, think about the moment when Belkar was brought up.

The deva mentions how Belkar is evil. How Roy is the commander and holds responsability on some level for his actions. Things like why he keeps Belkar around and his position on the whole situation. And for what? The deva has data that supports how Belkar is doing less evil under his care and the deva doesnt retort Roy when he mentions his reasons for keeping him around. There is zero purpose to this discussion if they already got the data they need. The deva even mentions later in the interview that there is no doubt that he is a good person and that the main issue is whether he is lawful enough for this after life. It really makes the whole discussion about his "not good actions" seem pointless.

IMHO, I think its not about classifying his actions as good or as lawful, the deva labels those actions by herself. Its about what is behind those actions that the deva seemed to care about the most. And how does Roy react to those actions? He excused himself for some his bad actions, which imply that he doesnt exactly think highly of them. He even admits how shameful his actions towards Elan were. All of the scenes show that Roy is a loyal leader who is trying to be a good person and sometimes makes mistakes. For me, the deva doesnt seem interested in discussing the details about anything and mostly seems to be trying to understand Roy as a person.

[Fyraltari]

Which opens us up to a philosophical question. If a paladin fell in the memory-charmed area and then left, would they not remain fallen? True, one cannot expect them to atone for an act they cannot recall, but that does not negate that the act was committed. If a vase is broken and then repaired, are the cracks not still present?

The mark of Justice kept cursing Belkar so it seems the metaphysical forces of this universe have decided that the answer to this kind of questions was yes.

[Quebbster]

A football game last one hour and a half. That conversation did not.

Roy was eight years old at the time. Eight-year-olds do not play for hours. The match itself probably took 45 minutes, tops.
On the other hand, Eugene probably had no input on the time and place since RE sent him an anonymous letter telling him when and where to meet him. Since he had to sneak out of Xykon's lair it's quite possible he arrived late too.

[Mightymosy]

A football game last one hour and a half. That conversation did not.


If you care for someone then doing something you know is important to them is not pointless. Tedious? Yes. Boring? Possibly. Painful? On occasion. But pointless? No. There is a point: to be agreeable to someone you care about.


Again, he never went after someone's loved ones be tactically OR ona whim, he doesn't have the patience.


You do realize, he's an adventurer, right? Tracking a bad guy and killing monsters on the way IS how he makes a living.



Then why not take Sara's word on it? Eugene is angry in the afterlife because he is being forced to deal with something he abandonned long ago. Why would he not want to shirk that in life too?








Sounds like Eugene was doing an experiment than exploded in Eric's face.



That's a very low bar to pass.





That doesn't make sense. According to you he was "protecting" them from a job he had already turned down. He didn't tell Roy where he was because he did not want him to know what his job was yet, but he had no reason to hide it from Sara.
Again, I think the story hints at stuff but doesn't give enough details. You could very well be right with your interpretation, but for me the depiction is not as evident as for you.





The reason was that she beat him and forced him to become a lich to get even. I see where you're confused, Xykon did not torture Lirian further after stuffing her soul inside his gem. He did treaten Dorukan with making her watch her own body get eaten, but it took him months to think of that one and he used the body he had at his disposal, and it didn't work as Dorukan only left his castle because he finally knew where Lirian's soul was. Again he never makes the effort to track his ennemies' families, half the time he can't be bothered to remember their names.


Yeah and he also knew that Xykon didn't bother killing him either after killing Fyron.




Oh, I will happily conced that Eugene is only the second-worst father in this comic.


People are bad parents for plenty of reasons. And a lot of people are good parents despite having terrible parents.



Oh, yeah Horace most likely was a crappy father as well.


Seeing as his newfound powers have been likened to those of a wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1025.html), without it bothering him and that he does express emotion toward his wizard of a sister, I'm not worried.
Ugh, this will be a mess on phone.....sorry if I miss a point.

1. Football games:
Good point, I didn't remember that!
But then again, maybe Eugene didn't either? I think he knows about it less than I do.....

I think we are in agreement he did a crappy job trying to attend the game.

2. Xykon

Xykon threatened to torture Lirian.
It's right in the comic.

Also, how should Eugene KNOW he wouldn't kill his family?
Just because he didn't bother to kill him?
Not a chance I would take.
3. Adventure life:
You mean that as a counter argument to quitting the oath for financial reasons?
Then ok, fair point. I forget that adventuring is a valid "profession" in that world.
4. Horace
Ok, we agree then?
5. 2nd worst father
I don't know........
Opinion time!
Which one would you pick given the choice:
Ian or Eugene?

I'd go with Eugene, but still not saying that makes him great or anything. Just I dislike Ian....

[Peelee]

Opinion time!
Which one would you pick given the choice:
Ian or Eugene?

I'd go with Eugene, but still not saying that makes him great or anything. Just I dislike Ian....

Ian in a heartbeat. He at least likes his kid, which is more than I can say for Eugene.

[Fyraltari]

Roy was eight years old at the time. Eight-year-olds do not play for hours. The match itself probably took 45 minutes, tops.
On the other hand, Eugene probably had no input on the time and place since RE sent him an anonymous letter telling him when and where to meet him. Since he had to sneak out of Xykon's lair it's quite possible he arrived late too.
Fair point however Eugene received an anonymous letter giving him a meeting in a sleazy bar without a stated reason* at the same time at his son’s big game. And he chose the bar. I mean it’s possible he spent about an hour soaking in the nostalgia but I doubt it.

Ugh, this will be a mess on phone.....sorry if I miss a point.

1. Football games:
Good point, I didn't remember that!
But then again, maybe Eugene didn't either? I think he knows about it less than I do.....

I think we are in agreement he did a crappy job trying to attend the game.

2. Xykon

Xykon threatened to torture Lirian.
It's right in the comic.

Also, how should Eugene KNOW he wouldn't kill his family?
Just because he didn't bother to kill him?
Not a chance I would take.
3. Adventure life:
You mean that as a counter argument to quitting the oath for financial reasons?
Then ok, fair point. I forget that adventuring is a valid "profession" in that world.
4. Horace
Ok, we agree then?
5. 2nd worst father
I don't know........
Opinion time!
Which one would you pick given the choice:
Ian or Eugene?

I'd go with Eugene, but still not saying that makes him great or anything. Just I dislike Ian....
1. See above.
2. How would Xykon even know Eugene has a family, let alone who they are and where they live?
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Ian. Ian did what he did out of misaimed care (and to be honest, self-centered pride, too) and was brought around to Haley’s point of view with less screen-time and fewer interactions than Eugene has. Eugene abuses his oldest son out of spite and refused to change his approach AFTER IT HAD GOTTEN HIS SECOND SON KILLED. He even tells to Roy’s face that his, and his siblings’ existence was a mistake.

*Eugene was surprised that RE knew he used to hunt Xykon. And if RE’s message had mentionnés Xykon I doubt Eugene would have bothered to show up at all, whatever you think his motive is.

[Mightymosy]

Fair point however Eugene received an anonymous letter giving him a meeting in a sleazy bar without a stated reason* at the same time at his son’s big game. And he chose the bar. I mean it’s possible he spent about an hour soaking in the nostalgia but I doubt it.

1. See above.
2. How would Xykon even know Eugene has a family, let alone who they are and where they live?
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Ian. Ian did what he did out of misaimed care (and to be honest, self-centered pride, too) and was brought around to Haley’s point of view with less screen-time and fewer interactions than Eugene has. Eugene abuses his oldest son out of spite and refused to change his approach AFTER IT HAD GOTTEN HIS SECOND SON KILLED. He even tells to Roy’s face that his, and his siblings’ existence was a mistake.

*Eugene was surprised that RE knew he used to hunt Xykon. And if RE’s message had mentionnés Xykon I doubt Eugene would have bothered to show up at all, whatever you think his motive is.

1. Do we know the content of the letter? Am at work now, so don't know.
Maybe RE came later than Eugene anticipated?
I got the impression Eugene tried to cram too much into his calendar, and missed the part that was important to his son.

As I said, I'm not particularily much into this "I care about something so my parents better care about it as well and better make time to watch it!" line, which is the most important reason the scene left me with a different impression that most people here, appearantly.

It shows Eugene's priorities, that's for sure.

2. Scrying
Also, the point about Xykon just killing Eugene, leaving Sara and Roy alone.

5. Ian
Interesting.
You are right in what you're saying, it's just that I can't stand the guy.
I would assume I would have a much better relationship with Eugene than Roy did, because I would love to become a wizard - as such Eugene would be more supportive than he is to Roy.
His worse character traits would probably not come out as much as they did.
This doesn't make Eugene a better man than he is....but I still would be happier with him as dad than Ian, I think.
Also because I simply love the ironic lines he gives Roy in book 1 and later. Reminds me of my dad.
What can I say? I love good rhetoric, even when I am on the recieving end of a quip. As long as the reasoning makes sense, I'm all for it.
Catch tetanus on the stick....he he

[Peelee]

1. Do we know the content of the letter? Am at work now, so don't know.
Sure. "The chimera has three sets of teeth."

I got the impression Eugene tried to cram too much into his calendar, and missed the part that was important to his son.
Despite his constant talk of being important, he certainly doesn't seem to be terribly busy, I gotta say.

[Quebbster]

Fair point however Eugene received an anonymous letter giving him a meeting in a sleazy bar without a stated reason* at the same time at his son’s big game. And he chose the bar. I mean it’s possible he spent about an hour soaking in the nostalgia but I doubt it.
Yeah, I am not in any way defending Eugene's choices. It's a safe assumption he had no idea how long the game would last anyway.

[Fyraltari]

1. Do we know the content of the letter? Am at work now, so don't know.
Maybe RE came later than Eugene anticipated?
I got the impression Eugene tried to cram too much into his calendar, and missed the part that was important to his son.
We know that it was anonymous and had a password.
Why would Eugene consider that important?


As I said, I'm not particularily much into this "I care about something so my parents better care about it as well and better make time to watch it!" line, which is the most important reason the scene left me with a different impression that most people here,
But that’s not what is going on. Eugene did not miss a match he was going to with his son. He missed a match his son played in. That’s something Roy presumably trained for during the whole year. And winning is an achievement. It is not playing with LEGO or (solo) video gaming where there is no competition and where practice makes perfect, there was a real chance of failure. Not attending is sending the message that Roy’s achievement, possibly what Roy considered his biggest achievement at the time does not matter. Especially since this was not a singular event but a pattern. Eugene always missed Roy’s matches.


2. Scrying
Also, the point about Xykon just killing Eugene, leaving Sara and Roy alone.
Hilgya couldn’t scary on Durkon and she knew him. You’d expect Xykon to scrub on people he does not know exist? Also Eugene is a master illusionist.
Also I guess you did not look at the page Peelee told you to go to (understandable if you are at work or haven’t bought OtOoPCs) but Eugen is used to dying.

5. Ian
Interesting.
You are right in what you're saying, it's just that I can't stand the guy.
I would assume I would have a much better relationship with Eugene than Roy did, because I would love to become a wizard - as such Eugene would be more supportive than he is to Roy.
So would I but fatherly love has no business being conditional.

His worse character traits would probably not come out as much as they did.
That’s hardly an excuse.

This doesn't make Eugene a better man than he is....but I still would be happier with him as dad than Ian, I think.
That does not make him a better father.

Also because I simply love the ironic lines he gives Roy in book 1 and later. Reminds me of my dad.
What can I say? I love good rhetoric, even when I am on the recieving end of a quip. As long as the reasoning makes sense, I'm all for it.
Catch tetanus on the stick....he he
And if it was simply good natured ribbing that would be fine. But it isn’t, it’s a genuine expression of a father’s contempt for his son.

[Vendanna]

I know that my vision of Eugene may differ greatly from what Rich burlew thinks off, yet we know the character "tries" to be lawful good and we also must know that in Roy's story it MUST be seen as an obstacle for Roy (main reason we don't see him on screen doing a lot of good acts) we also should understand that an illusionist is a guy that tries his best to disguise something (why not his intentions?) also we know from Sara's point of view that she got to know the guy (reason why she told off roy when he badmouthed him in front of his mother)


But that’s not what is going on. Eugene did not miss a match he was going to with his son. He missed a match his son played in. That’s something Roy presumably trained for during the whole year. And winning is an achievement. It is not playing with LEGO or (solo) video gaming where there is no competition and where practice makes perfect, there was a real chance of failure. Not attending is sending the message that Roy’s achievement, possibly what Roy considered his biggest achievement at the time does not matter. Especially since this was not a singular event but a pattern. Eugene always missed Roy’s matches.

being evil's advocate here, I should remember you that this portrayal is to biase our views towards Eugene not caring to come from Roy's point of view, he could have perfectly see the entire game within the Divination school, which we know he can, then approximate the family after the game has ended.


Hilgya couldn’t scary on Durkon and she knew him. You’d expect Xykon to scrub on people he does not know exist? Also Eugene is a master illusionist.
Also I guess you did not look at the page Peelee told you to go to (understandable if you are at work or haven’t bought OtOoPCs) but Eugen is used to dying.

dunno why you brought there the "eugene is a master illusionists" without backing why it matters that he is a master illusionist. Also Eugene is "used to dying" as you said, BUT he knows very well and first hand that XYKON traps the souls of those he defeats (he did with his master in front of him) that means no resurrecting at all if Eugene fails the deed.


So would I but fatherly love has no business being conditional.

That’s hardly an excuse.

That does not make him a better father.

And if it was simply good natured ribbing that would be fine. But it isn’t, it’s a genuine expression of a father’s contempt for his son.

Well one man can not be a good father yet still be a plus for the forces of good altogetter, we don't even know if the man itself used a spell to know "which one would be the one to destroy Xykon?" and find out he ain't doing the deed himself (a possibility of why he stopped going after him) or if a spell told him the only way his Son is doing the deed is by being a total jackass to harden the boy. since that would fall in the "not shown" part of the tale to not make Eugene sympathetic to us the readers.

What we know thou, is that Roy finally did a step (even if he didn't know) to fix his relationship with his father when he didn't throw insults back at his father, and that there is a possibility that once the story is done and Roy does get his reward, we could get a non biased view of Eugene acts of good. (maybe he does ask the devas about him?). then I'll just wait to see what the author has prepared for us once that build-up moment finally comes.

[Quebbster]

dunno why you brought there the "eugene is a master illusionists" without backing why it matters that he is a master illusionist. Also Eugene is "used to dying" as you said, BUT he knows very well and first hand that XYKON traps the souls of those he defeats (he did with his master in front of him) that means no resurrecting at all if Eugene fails the deed.
I don't Think Xykon traps the souls of everyone he fights, the gem would be a lot more crowded if he had trapped any souls besides Lirian and Dorukan. Lirian was all alone in there until Dorukan got his soul trapped, after all.
Xykon did turn Fyron into a zombie, preventing Eugene from raising him though.

[Fyraltari]

I know that my vision of Eugene may differ greatly from what Rich burlew thinks off, yet we know the character "tries" to be lawful good and we also must know that in Roy's story it MUST be seen as an obstacle for Roy (main reason we don't see him on screen doing a lot of good acts) we also should understand that an illusionist is a guy that tries his best to disguise something (why not his intentions?) also we know from Sara's point of view that she got to know the guy (reason why she told off roy when he badmouthed him in front of his mother)
When it comes to one’s quality as a father whose point of view but the child’s matters?




being evil's advocate here, I should remember you that this portrayal is to biase our views towards Eugene not caring to come from Roy's point of view, he could have perfectly see the entire game within the Divination school, which we know he can, then approximate the family after the game has ended.
Approximate? Is that an autocorrect failure?
Anyway watching the game from afar does nothing to support Roy and we know he didn’t, so I’m not sure what you are trying to say.




dunno why you brought there the "eugene is a master illusionists" without backing why it matters that he is a master illusionist.
I assumed that the illusion school of magic provided countermeasures to Scrying. Was I wrong?

Also Eugene is "used to dying" as you said, BUT he knows very well and first hand that XYKON traps the souls of those he defeats (he did with his master in front of him) that means no resurrecting at all if Eugene fails the deed.
No he doesn’t. Xykon zombified Fyron, and seeing that Eugene’s old party seemed high level (based on Eugene himself) that wouldn’t stop Myrtok.




Well one man can not be a good father yet still be a plus for the forces of good altogetter
Yes one man can.

we don't even know if the man itself used a spell to know "which one would be the one to destroy Xykon?" and find out he ain't doing the deed himself (a possibility of why he stopped going after him) or if a spell told him the only way his Son is doing the deed is by being a total jackass to harden the boy. since that would fall in the "not shown" part of the tale to not make Eugene sympathetic to us the readers.
This is properly ridiculous. We don’t know that Xykon did not have a vision when he was three that told him that be acting as pointlessly evil all the time he would turn the Prime into a paradise. Seriously, we even know that Eugene went once and only once to the only character we know of with this kind of foresight and we know what he was told.


What we know thou, is that Roy finally did a step (even if he didn't know) to fix his relationship with his father when he didn't throw insults back at his father
And after that Eugene still agreed never to see his family again and even later told Roy his existence was a mistake. Roy matured. Eugene didn’t.

and that there is a possibility that once the story is done and Roy does get his reward, we could get a non biased view of Eugene acts of good. (maybe he does ask the devas about him?). then I'll just wait to see what the author has prepared for us once that build-up moment finally comes.
What would that change? Eugene could have been a selfless hero all these years it wouldn’t make him a better father.

[CJG]

When it comes to one’s quality as a father whose point of view but the child’s matters?

Well I certainly hope that there is some outside ideal since I’m pretty sure I win the mantle for “worst mom ever” during every vaccination, homework session and trip to boring boring Hebrew school.

To answer the actual OP from another perspective, I don’t find it necessary to be hyper involved in all of my kids’ activities, but I do find it necessary to make sure that they know that I care about them. Part of that care is showing some interest in their activities. My eldest does Tae Kwon Do, I know almost nothing about it, but I always ask him how class went, and I make sure that I am at every Belt graduation. I don’t have to learn everything because he is the expert and he likes teaching me about his interests.

If I were to fault Eugene with something, it would be not “allowing” his son to be more knowledgeable than he is in something. I think Horace probably suffered from the same delusion. If it didn’t interest him, than it wasn’t important, and if it wasn’t important than the kid wasn’t an expert fighter (or illusionist), he was just a dumb kid wasting his time on silly kid stuff.

I work in a STEM field and have seen my share of kids shoved through college by parents who would just not accept that their kids didn’t want to be doctors. Plenty of them end up in my labs, most don’t view their parents as monsters, just very myopic people. Granted, none of them had exploded siblings or completely neglectful parents, so there’s that.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Eugene can't be all bad!
He did (almost) make it to the LG afterlife, and the reason he fell short was a problem with law (not actively pursuing his vow) so there must be good in him!

[woweedd]

Eugene can't be all bad!
He did (almost) make it to the LG afterlife, and the reason he fell short was a problem with law (not actively pursuing his vow) so there must be good in him!
True. I mean, I got the impression Horace wasn't that good a dad either. The problem is, as any parent will tell you, there's a lot more to being a good parent then just "not being a jerk". Even well-intentioned people can screw it up in a hundred different ways.

[Lacuna Caster]

Well, to quote the Deva, "What complicates issues is that you've taken on the role of his commanding officer."

Well, I don't think it's Neutral precisely because Roy led Elan into the situation. If Roy failed to help a stranger, that would be Neutral. Roy being a teammate of Elan is a Lawful issue; but Roy leading Elan into danger and then deliberately abandoning him is a Good-Evil issue, I think.
Again, I'm in broad agreement that leading a 22-year-old-5-year-old into situations of deadly peril within monster-infested dungeons and wilderness areas was a very morally questionable thing to do... if we were taking the proceedings seriously. But taking the proceedings seriously would imply that rescuing Elan entailed such a high degree of risk that Roy was reasonably entitled to make a call to move on.

In practice, the idea that Roy was abandoning Elan to some grisly fate of death or enslavement is pretty undermined by Elan being... completely fine and dandy until Haley shows up, and the general looney-toons logic of the ensuing battle. It's assigning a moral gravity to the proceedings that just isn't sustained by the tone of the narrative, and there's only around a 50-strip gap between here and Elan recklessly endangering scores of hapless goblinoids and his teammates, which, if not explicitly done out of malice, would be hard to otherwise explain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssjokgx0pUQ).

To be honest, the main impression I get, given the way that Roy treats NPCs as interchangeable cyphers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html) and later sticks up for Belkar, is less that the commander has an obligation to his men and more that the PCs are a special and protected class of person with expectations of mutual loyalty but immune to broader standards of accountability for their actions. (Which is, in practice, exactly what happens at D&D gaming tables for entirely metagame reasons, and I'm not crazy about that.)

I am aware that the Deva takes the incident seriously later on, but.... that is what I am arguing is kinda wonky. To the extent that Roy was mildly at fault here, he made up for it pretty quickly and has done enough to put up with Elan's general... Elan-ness... that I think it's mostly a nonissue (aside, perhaps, from the general undertone of emotional abuse in their relationship.) And we shouldn't automatically think things just because the text tells us to.

[Wizard_Lizard]

True. I mean, I got the impression Horace wasn't that good a dad either. The problem is, as any parent will tell you, there's a lot more to being a good parent then just "not being a jerk". Even well-intentioned people can screw it up in a hundred different ways.

Too true...

[Quebbster]

Eugene can't be all bad!
He did (almost) make it to the LG afterlife, and the reason he fell short was a problem with law (not actively pursuing his vow) so there must be good in him!
The way I read it is that Eugene considers Mount Celestia to be the right afterlife for him. Whether or not the devas agree is Another matter - Roy's deva did say she could send him to the True Neutral afterlife without consequences after all.

[woweedd]

Again, I'm in broad agreement that leading a 22-year-old-5-year-old into situations of deadly peril within monster-infested dungeons and wilderness areas was a very morally questionable thing to do... if we were taking the proceedings seriously. But taking the proceedings seriously would imply that rescuing Elan entailed such a high degree of risk that Roy was reasonably entitled to make a call to move on.

In practice, the idea that Roy was abandoning Elan to some grisly fate of death or enslavement is pretty undermined by Elan being... completely fine and dandy until Haley shows up, and the general looney-toons logic of the ensuing battle. It's assigning a moral gravity to the proceedings that just isn't sustained by the tone of the narrative, and there's only around a 50-strip gap between here and Elan recklessly endangering scores of hapless goblinoids and his teammates, which, if not explicitly done out of malice, would be hard to otherwise explain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssjokgx0pUQ).

To be honest, the main impression I get, given the way that Roy treats NPCs as interchangeable cyphers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html) and later sticks up for Belkar, is less that the commander has an obligation to his men and more that the PCs are a special and protected class of person with expectations of mutual loyalty but immune to broader standards of accountability for their actions. (Which is, in practice, exactly what happens at D&D gaming tables for entirely metagame reasons, and I'm not crazy about that.)

I am aware that the Deva takes the incident seriously later on, but.... that is what I am arguing is kinda wonky. To the extent that Roy was mildly at fault here, he made up for it pretty quickly and has done enough to put up with Elan's general... Elan-ness... that I think it's mostly a nonissue (aside, perhaps, from the general undertone of emotional abuse in their relationship.) And we shouldn't automatically think things just because the text tells us to.
I mean, Elan isn't mentally deficient, just sorta sheltered, naive, and a bit dim. He's not meant to have an actual mental illness.

[Kish]

Huh, I actually thought Roy got off way too easy on everything else. I can't be the only one who didn't buy "turns out the gifts would have been destroyed" as a response to "you impersonated a king and took gifts meant for him", or "I don't remember that one" to "you dangled someone out a window".
You're not.

I'd add that whatever someone makes of his assessment that attacking the bandits would be suicide (which was based on what, exactly?), continuing on into the forest to find the starmetal alone was certainly not safer; if he was really, suddenly, concerned about his hide he should have turned around, gone back to the small town, and become a farmer.

[Ruck]

Ian in a heartbeat. He at least likes his kid, which is more than I can say for Eugene.


Even well-intentioned people can screw it up in a hundred different ways.


And if it was simply good natured ribbing that would be fine. But it isn’t, it’s a genuine expression of a father’s contempt for his son.

This is the crux of the issue. Eugene isn't a well-intentioned screw-up. He actively shows Roy contempt and disdain even as a child. He doesn't care about his son or his interests, and makes sure to let him know, whenever he can, that he finds him and them beneath him. This is a pattern that recurs basically every time Roy and Eugene interact.


What we know thou, is that Roy finally did a step (even if he didn't know) to fix his relationship with his father when he didn't throw insults back at his father, and that there is a possibility that once the story is done and Roy does get his reward, we could get a non biased view of Eugene acts of good. (maybe he does ask the devas about him?). then I'll just wait to see what the author has prepared for us once that build-up moment finally comes.

The first part says more about Roy than Eugene. In general, this makes a good segue to another point I wanted to make about whether Eugene is Lawful Good.

What good have we actually seen Eugene do? Here's the large majority of his characterization:


Went on a quest of vengeance for his former master until he got bored with it
Apparently was a good husband until he got bored with it
Hugely egotistical (brags about his awards and magazine covers; edits his own Wikipedia entry)
Apparently has no heroic stories of his to brag about (compare to Horace); all his stories are about winning awards for his illusions
Believes wizardry, the thing he is good at and interested in, is the only important thing in the world and everything else is a waste of time
Neglectful father to his sons; dotes on his daughter largely because she also pursues wizardry
Killed his two-year-old son with an experiment out of inattentiveness
Tells his son that having a family was a waste of time
Treats everyone we see him interact with, mostly (but not exclusively) his son, with disdain and contempt
Kidnapped a deva to hijack a summoning
set a warning to Roy about one of his team members dealing with fiends on fire; praised said team member for doing so
Suggested genocide as a solution to a personal problem, only backing down when he realized it would mean consigning an entire race to Hel
From my point of view, of anyone in the comic, Eugene has by far the most in common, in temperament and character, with Vaarsuvius. And knowing Vaarsuvius is by nature True Neutral, I'd be very surprised to hear that Eugene was actually Lawful Good because he was secretly living a selfless life of heroism that contradicts everything we saw of him on panel, and that for some reason none of the Greenhilts ever talked about it. And I think it would be bad writing if it went that way.

[woweedd]

This is the crux of the issue. Eugene isn't a well-intentioned screw-up. He actively shows Roy contempt and disdain even as a child. He doesn't care about his son or his interests, and makes sure to let him know, whenever he can, that he finds him and them beneath him. This is a pattern that recurs basically every time Roy and Eugene interact.



The first part says more about Roy than Eugene. In general, this makes a good segue to another point I wanted to make about whether Eugene is Lawful Good.

What good have we actually seen Eugene do? Here's the large majority of his characterization:


Went on a quest of vengeance for his former master until he got bored with it
Apparently was a good husband until he got bored with it
Hugely egotistical (brags about his awards and magazine covers; edits his own Wikipedia entry)
Apparently has no heroic stories of his to brag about (compare to Horace); all his stories are about winning awards for his illusions
Believes wizardry, the thing he is good at and interested in, is the only important thing in the world and everything else is a waste of time
Neglectful father to his sons; dotes on his daughter largely because she also pursues wizardry
Killed his two-year-old son with an experiment out of inattentiveness
Tells his son that having a family was a waste of time
Treats everyone we see him interact with, mostly (but not exclusively) his son, with disdain and contempt
Kidnapped a deva to hijack a summoning
set a warning to Roy about one of his team members dealing with fiends on fire; praised said team member for doing so
Suggested genocide as a solution to a personal problem, only backing down when he realized it would mean consigning an entire race to Hel
From my point of view, of anyone in the comic, Eugene has by far the most in common, in temperament and character, with Vaarsuvius. And knowing Vaarsuvius is by nature True Neutral, I'd be very surprised to hear that Eugene was actually Lawful Good because he was secretly living a selfless life of heroism that contradicts everything we saw of him on panel, and that for some reason none of the Greenhilts ever talked about it. And I think it would be bad writing if it went that way.
I don't doubt Eugene was a Lawful Good person before death. Not a nice person, but then, neither was Miko, even Pre-Fall. I think about 20 years of being stuck on a cloud have driven him a little crazy. If he were re-evulated, he'd probably be solidly True Neutral. But all indication is that, before he had Roy, he was a decent husband and a fairly dedicated researcher. Fatherhood improves some pepole. For him, it did the opposite. And, even then, he does seem to have liked Julia, in his own selfish way.

[Peelee]

I don't doubt Eugene was a Lawful Good person before death. Not a nice person, but then, neither was Miko, even Pre-Fall.

I don't doubt that either of them pinged LG. I do doubt that either of them would have passed the evaluation.

[woweedd]

I don't doubt that either of them pinged LG. I do doubt that either of them would have passed the evaluation.
I'm not entirely sure how that works, to be fair.

[Ruck]

I don't doubt Eugene was a Lawful Good person before death. Not a nice person, but then, neither was Miko, even Pre-Fall. I think about 20 years of being stuck on a cloud have driven him a little crazy. If he were re-evulated, he'd probably be solidly True Neutral. But all indication is that, before he had Roy, he was a decent husband and a fairly dedicated researcher. Fatherhood improves some pepole. For him, it did the opposite. And, even then, he does seem to have liked Julia, in his own selfish way.

Being good takes more than caring a little about your family and a lot about your job. Where are his acts of altruism? Where does he "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation"?

(also, speaking of Julia, she's also True Neutral. Funny that a supposed Lawful Good character is most similar in temperament and character to two True Neutral characters, and also has no visible record of a Lawful Good life for we the reader to rely on.)

[Peelee]

I'm not entirely sure how that works, to be fair.

Certain spells or classes can reveal alignment. If, say, Roy pings as Lawful Good with no shenanigans fooling the system, then why bother having a bouncer at Celestia's door? My theory has been that the universe dos quick and dirty spot checks of alignment, which can be wrong, but is close enough for government work. After death, however, you get a much more fine sifter.

[hamishspence]

Being good takes more than caring a little about your family and a lot about your job. Where are his acts of altruism? Where does he "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation"?

I lean to the view that the reason he got a (incomplete) review at the end of SoD was that he self-identified as LG. And that the review hadn't progressed very far before the Blood Oath came up - had it not come up, Eugene's Deva would have asked him questions like "Where are your acts of altruism?" and "Where did you battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation?"

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I lean to the view that the reason he got a (incomplete) review at the end of SoD was that he self-identified as LG

The issue with this is that The Book explicitly requires the Devas to do a full evaluation regardless of any mitigating circumstances may or may not be in effect (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). So Roy's dad evaluation had to go through his whole life. They didn't start at the oath and stop.

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

Certain spells or classes can reveal alignment. If, say, Roy pings as Lawful Good with no shenanigans fooling the system, then why bother having a bouncer at Celestia's door? My theory has been that the universe dos quick and dirty spot checks of alignment, which can be wrong, but is close enough for government work. After death, however, you get a much more fine sifter.
The afterlife has 17 planes, not 9, right? So there's a need for a more fine sifting even in some cases to separate people of the same alignment.


I lean to the view that the reason he got a (incomplete) review at the end of SoD was that he self-identified as LG. And that the review hadn't progressed very far before the Blood Oath came up - had it not come up, Eugene's Deva would have asked him questions like "Where are your acts of altruism?" and "Where did you battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation?"

I mean, I think this is pretty much the only explanation that makes sense.

(Now I'm wondering if a less Lawful afterlife would care about the Blood Oath. Eugene could have been in Neutralia all along!)

I know that's not what it's called. I didn't want to look it up.

[Peelee]

The afterlife has 17 planes, not 9, right? So there's a need for a more fine sifting even in some cases to separate people of the same alignment.

Yep (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html). Even Neutralia.

[Lacuna Caster]

I don't doubt Eugene was a Lawful Good person before death. Not a nice person, but then, neither was Miko, even Pre-Fall. I think about 20 years of being stuck on a cloud have driven him a little crazy. If he were re-evulated, he'd probably be solidly True Neutral. But all indication is that, before he had Roy, he was a decent husband and a fairly dedicated researcher. Fatherhood improves some pepole. For him, it did the opposite. And, even then, he does seem to have liked Julia, in his own selfish way.
The difference is that we have concrete evidence for Miko performing various good deeds (and hints at others), and I would say we've never seen Miko being consciously cruel in terms of her abrasive remarks. We have essentially no evidence for good deeds in Eugene's case, and the author has bent over so hard to make Eugene unlikeable and caustic that it would be incongruous to have some flashback where he, say, gives half his paycheck to orphans with diseases (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC432eD7oNQ).


I lean to the view that the reason he got a (incomplete) review at the end of SoD was that he self-identified as LG.
Yeah, but this isn't a universe where you can plausibly live in a state of confusion on your own moral standing any more than you can live in a state of confusion about your own body weight. You visit your cleric-GP and ask them to cast Detect Law and Detect Good.

[hamishspence]

The issue with this is that The Book explicitly requires the Devas to do a full evaluation regardless of any mitigating circumstances may or may not be in effect (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

The other deva simply said "I can't let you in" once the Oath had come up and the evaluation appeared to stop there. The Oath's not a mitigating circumstance, it's an aggravating circumstance.


this isn't a universe where you can plausibly live in a state of confusion on your own moral standing any more than you can live in a state of confusion about your own body weight. You visit your cleric-GP and ask them to cast Detect Law and Detect Good.

I don't think that's a thing in the OOTS-verse. Most people simply aren't so unsure about themselves that they're prepared to shell out money to ask their local cleric these kind of questions - they simply take their own perception of their alignment as valid and don't spend time trying to verify it.

[Jasdoif]

Certain spells or classes can reveal alignment. If, say, Roy pings as Lawful Good with no shenanigans fooling the system, then why bother having a bouncer at Celestia's door? My theory has been that the universe dos quick and dirty spot checks of alignment, which can be wrong, but is close enough for government work. After death, however, you get a much more fine sifter.I still like my theory.

There are four cosmic forces of alignment: Good, Evil, Law, Chaos. So it would make sense for the corner alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) to be like premium brands ("Two! Two! Two mints cosmics in one!"), and therefore the corresponding companies afterlives would be pickier about what they put into their processing pool...so to speak. True Neutral, on the other hand, operates more on cost effectiveness and can work with any souls; producing basic soul-stuff in bulk (all animals being True Neutral may or may not be a factor here). The other afterlives fall between the two extremes.

A byzantine agreement between all the afterlife-bearing planes keeps them all working efficiently, and bylaws cover the evaluation process to optimize value-vs-overhead of placement. Probably something like the corner-alignment-afterlives do in-depth interviews since they're demanding on what they accept anyway, the afterlives with Neutral alignment components using detect alignment type spells to assure a soul is Neutral in that regard, and a limit of like four evaluations before a soul is dumped into TN for trying to game the system.

Individual denizens of the plane may have their own ideas of value of still-intact souls; but the overwhelming majority of the time, the afterlives themselves can't cost-justify the resources it'd take to go after a high-level outsider over a few souls.

[Lacuna Caster]

I don't think that's a thing in the OOTS-verse. Most people simply aren't so unsure about themselves that they're prepared to shell out money to ask their local cleric these kind of questions - they simply take their own perception of their alignment as valid and don't spend time trying to verify it.
Mmmm... no? The pressure to make sure you maintained your desired alignment would be significantly more intense than the pressure to, say, get good SAT scores, and people shell out thousands of dollars trying to boost those in reality. The afterlife is where you are likely to spend thousands of years, there are few things it would be more rational to pay attention to.

Leaving aside, of course, that tending to the spiritual needs of their flock is a cleric's literal job-description. Casting DE on the assembled congregation every sunday is the kind of baseline minimum service I would expect.

[woweedd]

Mmmm... no? The pressure to make sure you maintained your desired alignment would be significantly more intense than the pressure to, say, get good SAT scores, and people shell out thousands of dollars trying to boost those in reality. The afterlife is where you are likely to spend thousands of years, there are few things it would be more rational to pay attention to.

Leaving aside, of course, that tending to the spiritual needs of their flock is a cleric's literal job-description. Casting DE on the assembled congregation every sunday is the kind of baseline minimum service I would expect.
Also, we have no word of whether DE detects your ACTUAL Alignment, or merely your professed one. The Gods don't have any special magic ability to detect your "true" alignment. Otherwise, there'd be no point in the whole evaluation process.

[hamishspence]

Casting DE on the assembled congregation every sunday is the kind of baseline minimum service I would expect.

A 1st level cleric charges 10gp for casting a 1st level spell like Detect Evil or Detect Good. Higher-level clerics charge more.

Extremely paranoid anti-evil organisations like the Order of Illumination from Complete Scoundrel - they cast Detect Evil on anyone they want to join, and they cast it regularly on members in case of corruption.

But a "regular village congregation" would not be having their cleric cast Detect Evil on all of them every week.

[woweedd]

A 1st level cleric charges 10gp for casting a 1st level spell like Detect Evil or Detect Good. Higher-level clerics charge more.

Extremely paranoid anti-evil organisations like the Order of Illumination from Complete Scoundrel - they cast Detect Evil on anyone they want to join, and they cast it regularly on members in case of corruption.

But a "regular village congregation" would not be having their cleric cast Detect Evil on all of them every week.
I think Lacuna's idea is that ANY Cleric would od that on their flock, out fo their desire to watch over their flock, which...Putting aside that not EVERY priest is a Cleric, lots of them ARE Evil.

[hamishspence]

In Cliffport, for law enforcement to be casting Detect Evil on anybody is an "illegal search and seizure":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0363.html

[Peelee]

Leaving aside, of course, that tending to the spiritual needs of their flock is a cleric's literal job-description.

[citation required]

[Keltest]

A 1st level cleric charges 10gp for casting a 1st level spell like Detect Evil or Detect Good. Higher-level clerics charge more.

Extremely paranoid anti-evil organisations like the Order of Illumination from Complete Scoundrel - they cast Detect Evil on anyone they want to join, and they cast it regularly on members in case of corruption.

But a "regular village congregation" would not be having their cleric cast Detect Evil on all of them every week.

Worse. A "regular village congregation" would not have a spellcasting priest in attendance at all. Clerics are not the only priestly class, and your average village priest would not have any spellcasting ability at all.

[woweedd]

In Cliffport, for law enforcement to be casting Detect Evil on anybody is an "illegal search and seizure":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0363.html
And that brings us to another point, one Miko demonstrates: it's very easy to fool

[Emanick]

I've always assumed that, while Detect X spells reveal your current alignment, the afterlives care about judging your life holistically, not just your alignment at the moment. It is possible for someone to shift alignments to True Neutral from Neutral Good late in life, for instance - but if that person spent most of their life as a Neutral Good person, s/he might still wind up in the NG afterlife.

[hamishspence]

Worse. A "regular village congregation" would not have a spellcasting priest in attendance at all. Clerics are not the only priestly class, and your average village priest would not have any spellcasting ability at all.

I'm guessing the reasoning would be "the random number tables say there are 1d4 clerics in even the smallest towns".

However - maybe the tables don't actually take into account who in town are residents, and who are adventurers who happen to be passing through?


I've always assumed that, while Detect X spells reveal your current alignment, the afterlives care about judging your life holistically, not just your alignment at the moment.
That would fit with Complete Divine.

Which does say that actions toward end of life are weighted more heavily, to be fair.

[Jasdoif]

I'm guessing the reasoning would be "the random number tables say there are 1d4 clerics in even the smallest towns".That's not true, actually; a randomly generated thorp would have a one-third chance of not having a character capable of detect good/evil/law/chaos. (The highest level of an adept or cleric in such a thorp is 1d6-3, with less than one meaning no one with that class can be found; and 1st-level NPC classes are handled differently and a thorp's max population of 80 is too small to get an adept out of it).

[Peelee]

That's not true, actually; a randomly generated thorp would have a one-third chance of not having a character capable of detect good/evil/law/chaos. (The highest level of an adept or cleric in such a thorp is 1d6-3, with less than one meaning no one with that class can be found; and 1st-level NPC classes are handled differently and a thorp's max population of 80 is too small to get an adept out of it).
"Thorp" will be the main villain's lieutenant in my next game.

[hamishspence]

"Thorp" will be the main villain's lieutenant in my next game.

Would the main villain be Odinp? :smallamused:

[Lacuna Caster]

Also, we have no word of whether DE detects your ACTUAL Alignment, or merely your professed one. The Gods don't have any special magic ability to detect your "true" alignment. Otherwise, there'd be no point in the whole evaluation process.
...Yes, that's my point. The whole evaluation process is somewhat redundant in a universe that automagically tracks your moral and ethical standing in the first place.


I think Lacuna's idea is that ANY Cleric would od that on their flock, out fo their desire to watch over their flock, which...Putting aside that not EVERY priest is a Cleric, lots of them ARE Evil.
Sure, fine. Then you cast Detect Good, or Detect Law, or whatever might be appropriate to ensuring the flock maintain good standing in the eyes of their deity of choice.


A 1st level cleric charges 10gp for casting a 1st level spell like Detect Evil or Detect Good. Higher-level clerics charge more.
Sure. That's why you send around the collection plate. But this is the principle reason why villagers would even bother to support their local clerical population in the first place- they want to make sure they're not going to Hell. (Or whatever their least-favoured afterlife destination might be, though generally Hell would be high on that list.)


And that brings us to another point, one Miko demonstrates: it's very easy to fool
It's not easy to fool- or certainly, if we're assuming that basic clerical magic like DE is rare and expensive to come by, spells like nondetection or powerful alignment-masking artifacts are considerably rarer. In any case, this is irrelevant in the case of people who actively want to verify their own alignments, which is what I brought up in the first place. Why would they try to doctor their own karmic diagnosis? It would defeat the purpose.

[Peelee]

Would the main villain be Odinp? :smallamused:

Ohylaxtrt. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584812-What-does-the-Crimson-Mantle%92s-aging-block-do/page9) Close guess, though.:smallwink:

[hamishspence]

this is the principle reason why villagers would even bother to support their local clerical population in the first place- they want to make sure they're not going to Hell. (Or whatever their least-favoured afterlife destination might be, though generally Hell would be high on that list.)


More likely they'd support their local clerical population because clerics cast spells like Purify Food etc.

Or simply because they're a part of the local culture.

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.

[Jasdoif]

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.There's an item that better fills that role (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness), anyway.

[Kish]

Is "all villagers regularly have a cleric check their alignments for free" a Tippyverse thing, or is this bit of goofiness further than even Tippy went?

[Fyraltari]

"Thorp" will be the main villain's lieutenant in my next game.

I approve of your approach to worldbuilding.

[hamishspence]

It might be that the reason Detect Evil is so little used in D&D fiction is that, in older editions, it was much less reliable - it detected evil intent, more than alignment.

A Chaotic Evil wizard having a drink in the pub didn't ping - because they weren't actively scheming to do something evil in that moment.

Only the vilest, pinged as Evil all the time.

That was how the 2e DMG had it, at least.

[Peelee]

More likely they'd support their local clerical population because clerics cast spells like Purify Food etc.

Or simply because they're a part of the local culture.

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.

"I haven't had my alignment checked for months, Cleric Bob is clearly doing it wrong. Judy pinged as good. Judy! Can you believe it, after the last time I talked to her down by the market? And it only had me ring up as True Neutral, so that spell is obviously on the fritz."

[Lacuna Caster]

There's an item that better fills that role (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness), anyway.
If by 'better' you mean 'vastly too expensive to ever mass-produce for the peasantry', yes, the phylactery of faithfulness is better. Having the clergy just sweep the congregation with DE once a week seems a lot more efficient.


"I haven't had my alignment checked for months, Cleric Bob is clearly doing it wrong. Judy pinged as good. Judy! Can you believe it, after the last time I talked to her down by the market? And it only had me ring up as True Neutral, so that spell is obviously on the fritz."
Yeah, and there are people who will deny the earth is round, but Cleric Bob can still send (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sending.htm) to Judy after she dies and ask her how she's doing.


More likely they'd support their local clerical population because clerics cast spells like Purify Food etc.

Or simply because they're a part of the local culture.

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.
Sure, fine, I'm just pointing out that in any reasonable simulation of what actual humans would do here, getting semi-regular alignment checkups would be pretty high on that list. (Peasants can grow their own food and draw their own water, and I'm sure CLW would be a nice perk, but they can't verify whether they're going to heaven themselves.)

In any case, it's certainly something that Eugene or other high-level adventurers could trivially afford. Blood oath aside, there's no reason why he'd be in some state of doubt or confusion as to what afterlife he could expect.

[Ruck]

Is "all villagers regularly have a cleric check their alignments for free" a Tippyverse thing, or is this bit of goofiness further than even Tippy went?

What is a Tippyverse?

[hamishspence]

What is a Tippyverse?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMagocracy

The Tippyverse is a hypothetical setting that came into being when the implications of the large scale, long distance teleportation was considered. The premise is based on the use of the 9th level spell "Teleportation Circle" which allows for quick and efficient trade between cities, safe travel that does not risk being attacked by monsters and devastating military strikes. This leads to the centralisation of population in major cities, and the all but abandonment of other areas (as it was deemed impossible to effectively defend settlements against mass strikes from enemy nations using Teleportation magic). To solve the problems of providing the necessary food and water, magical "Create Food and Water" traps were created to feed the populations of these cities. Other magical traps (such as "Wish" traps that create 25,000gp every time they are activated) are created to smooth the running of these cities. High-level Wizards have control, as they're the ones with the capability to create these items, and have enough power to ensure they stay at the top.

[Jasdoif]

If by 'better' you mean 'vastly too expensive to ever mass-produce for the peasantry', yes, the phylactery of faithfulness is better.I was thinking more like a phylactery of faithfulness might be able to prevent a change in alignment, while the detect series would only reveal that such a change had already occurred.

[Lacuna Caster]

What is a Tippyverse?
We sorta got into this discussion before at the tail end (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545494-Questions-about-the-early-strip-and-Sapphire-Guard&p=22720686&viewfull=1#post22720686) of the earlier 'sapphire guard questions' thread, though the Tippyverse per se is largely focused on the economic and military logistics and my commentary was mostly focused on corresponding impacts on social morality. I also think my assumptions are much more conservative.

[Kish]

What is a Tippyverse?
A setting with certain assumptions which Lacuna has invoked in the past. It's where the idea that a wizard who ever makes a mistake is not a wizard comes from. High-level magic is built into the setting and used constantly; everyone gets around with teleportation, for example. Anyone who isn't "Tier 1" either doesn't exist, or is a de facto slave of the wizard overlords.

D&D for people who prefer *words elided due to no-politics rule* theorycrafting to D&D.

[hamishspence]

Keith Baker's Dragonshards articles had a discussion of the question "Given that 3.5 paladins have at will detect evil, why haven't they used it over thousands of years to reshape society to eliminate its evil members"

http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-44-good-and-evil/

Detect evil exists. In 3.5, paladins can use it at will. Stop and think about that for a moment. If evil was a tangible thing that could be positively identified – and if everyone who was identified as evil was unquestionably a monster with no redeeming features, while everyone who’s good is noble and pure – how would evil still exist? Over the course of two thousand years, wouldn’t we turn to paladins and alignment-detecting magic to help us identify and weed out the bad apples until we had a healthy tree? Consider our own history of witch-hunts, inquisitions, and the like. If we had an absolute yardstick and if we knew the people who failed the test were truly vile, what would happen over the course of centuries?

The answer - evil people can be useful:


the personal alignment tells you how they conduct their personal affairs, but nothing about the big picture.

People know these things. If a paladin walks into a tavern and scans ten people, he may find that three of them are evil. This doesn’t require any immediate action on his part, and while disappointing it isn’t a surprise. In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda looks at Luke and says “There is much anger in him.” Luke hadn’t done anything bad; but what Yoda could sense was his potential to do evil. That’s what the paladin gets from detect evil. He doesn’t know where you lie on the spectrum. He doesn’t know your motivations. He knows that you lack empathy for others and may be selfish or narcissistic; that you are capable of hurting others without remorse; but he doesn’t know if you have or ever will. This is a key point with the Church of the Silver Flame. They are devoted to fighting supernatural evil: demons, undead, lycanthropy, etc. These are the things to fight with sword and spell. HUMAN evil is something that should be fought with compassion, charity, and guidance. Per Flame creed, you defeat mortal evil by guiding people to the light, not by killing them.

So – once you accept this version of alignment, you can find many jobs in society that are actually better suited to evil people. A repo man who has too much sympathy or empathy for his targets is going to have a difficult time doing his job. A tax collector may be the same way. An evil politican who’s willing to play the game of corruption in order to get things done may actually be the best hope of a city – providing that his motivation is towards the greater good. Knowing someone’s alignment is a piece of a puzzle – but it doesn’t tell you everything and it doesn’t end the story.

[Kish]

I don't believe Rich's world has the same concept of "evil" that Eberron does.

(The concept that peasants should be assumed to have constant alignment checks by default remains goofy, of course.)

[Jasdoif]

I don't believe Rich's world has the same concept of "evil" that Eberron does.Not with respect to mortals, anyway...I think the intentionally loose definitions could handily explain the gods' alignments.

[Lacuna Caster]

A setting with certain assumptions which Lacuna has invoked in the past.
...No, I haven't really been relying on assumptions related to permanent circles of teleportation and create food/water traps very much. I have been assuming that persons and institutions who obviously have access to rapid transport spells would be using those spells to achieve rapid transport when there is no discernible downside to doing so, but that's barely even Tippyverse-adjacent as inferences go.


People know these things. If a paladin walks into a tavern and scans ten people, he may find that three of them are evil. This doesn’t require any immediate action on his part, and while disappointing it isn’t a surprise. In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda looks at Luke and says “There is much anger in him.” Luke hadn’t done anything bad; but what Yoda could sense was his potential to do evil. That’s what the paladin gets from detect evil. He doesn’t know where you lie on the spectrum. He doesn’t know your motivations. He knows that you lack empathy for others and may be selfish or narcissistic; that you are capable of hurting others without remorse; but he doesn’t know if you have or ever will. This is a key point with the Church of the Silver Flame. They are devoted to fighting supernatural evil: demons, undead, lycanthropy, etc. These are the things to fight with sword and spell. HUMAN evil is something that should be fought with compassion, charity, and guidance. Per Flame creed, you defeat mortal evil by guiding people to the light, not by killing them.

So – once you accept this version of alignment, you can find many jobs in society that are actually better suited to evil people. A repo man who has too much sympathy or empathy for his targets is going to have a difficult time doing his job. A tax collector may be the same way. An evil politican who’s willing to play the game of corruption in order to get things done may actually be the best hope of a city – providing that his motivation is towards the greater good. Knowing someone’s alignment is a piece of a puzzle – but it doesn’t tell you everything and it doesn’t end the story.[/I]
The point about human evil being potentially redeemable is tenable, but I don't think, by default, you ping evil if you haven't actually done anything bad yet (and keeping the impulse in check is arguably good.) I also don't really buy arguments about 'necessary evils' in society. More-or-less by definition, anyone who can prove that their work is of net benefit to society and is at least primarily motivated as such would count as a 'good' person.

[hamishspence]

More-or-less by definition, anyone who can prove that their work is of net benefit to society and is at least primarily motivated as such would count as a 'good' person.

If they show a pattern of Evil acts, and lack the corresponding pattern of Good acts, then they might be Evil even if the acts themselves might qualify as both "Evil" and "beneficial".

While a person who does evil acts "for the greater good" can be Neutral (Heroes of Horror) - IMO they'd need to show a consistent pattern of Good behaviour, that goes beyond merely the motive for performing the Evil acts.

[Peelee]

Yeah, and there are people who will deny the earth is round, but Cleric Bob can still send (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sending.htm) to Judy after she dies and ask her how she's doing.

If evidence convinced people, well, we wouldn't have those flat earthers you've mentioned. Not to speak of other, larger groups in the news lately. Humans will be humans.

[hamishspence]

I don't think, by default, you ping evil if you haven't actually done anything bad yet (and keeping the impulse in check is arguably good.)

The

"alignment can be personality rather than deeds, it is possible to be Evil (or Good) without having done anything Evil or Good"

take is necessary for handling victims of alignment-changing magic (which does exist - Helm of Opposite Alignment is the most notable example).

Also certain "born that alignment" monsters, of which Dragons are the most notable example.

There are two major strains to alignment - deeds and personality - and both matter.



"Evil deeds but not personality" - the ultra-altruistic Evildoer whose deeds outweigh their altruism.

"Evil personality but not deeds" - certain monsters and victims of certain magics.

[Ruck]

To steer back a little to the original subjects of this thread...


Again, I'm in broad agreement that leading a 22-year-old-5-year-old into situations of deadly peril within monster-infested dungeons and wilderness areas was a very morally questionable thing to do... if we were taking the proceedings seriously. But taking the proceedings seriously would imply that rescuing Elan entailed such a high degree of risk that Roy was reasonably entitled to make a call to move on.

In practice, the idea that Roy was abandoning Elan to some grisly fate of death or enslavement is pretty undermined by Elan being... completely fine and dandy until Haley shows up, and the general looney-toons logic of the ensuing battle. It's assigning a moral gravity to the proceedings that just isn't sustained by the tone of the narrative, and there's only around a 50-strip gap between here and Elan recklessly endangering scores of hapless goblinoids and his teammates, which, if not explicitly done out of malice, would be hard to otherwise explain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssjokgx0pUQ).

The thing is, Roy doesn't know any of that when he makes the decision. Even his reasoning that the mission was too dangerous to undertake is, as others (Kish, I think) have pointed out, undercut by his subsequent decision to press on with his initial mission alone, presumably a very dangerous decision. And it reads to me like an ex post facto rationalization for abandoning Elan, rather than his primary driving desire (which is that he finds Elan annoying and is glad to be rid of him; he makes that obvious).


I am aware that the Deva takes the incident seriously later on, but.... that is what I am arguing is kinda wonky. To the extent that Roy was mildly at fault here, he made up for it pretty quickly and has done enough to put up with Elan's general... Elan-ness... that I think it's mostly a nonissue (aside, perhaps, from the general undertone of emotional abuse in their relationship.) And we shouldn't automatically think things just because the text tells us to.

Well, hold on, I don't "automatically think things just because the text tells us to." For one, I agree with the conclusion about Roy abandoning Elan. But specific to your point that Roy abandoning Elan was in the "gag-a-day" days before the strip was supposed to be taken seriously at all, I think the Deva citing that moment shows that that is not the case. We're supposed to indicate that as a moment of Roy's character, and how he's grown and changed in the meantime. (The Deva did not, say, make mention of coup de grâce-ing sleeping goblins, nor presumably blowing up a bunch of goblins in Dorkuan's Dungeon.)


The difference is that we have concrete evidence for Miko performing various good deeds (and hints at others), and I would say we've never seen Miko being consciously cruel in terms of her abrasive remarks. We have essentially no evidence for good deeds in Eugene's case, and the author has bent over so hard to make Eugene unlikeable and caustic that it would be incongruous to have some flashback where he, say, gives half his paycheck to orphans with diseases (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC432eD7oNQ).

Yeah, I think that's correct.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I assumed that the illusion school of magic provided countermeasures to Scrying. Was I wrong?

As per usual it depends on exactly which spell you're talking about, but generally defensive magics are in Abjuration.

[Kish]

I would put down the "this is a gag-a-day strip in which nothing should be taken seriously" curtain somewhere in the Dungeon of Dorukan. Kind of vague exactly where--but definitely once it blows up, those days are over.

[understatement]

I think the deva defines Good in the comic, from a Celestial POV, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) as simply fighting Evil without payment, encouragement, or reward.

Eugene can easily fit into that folder while being a complete jerkass.

[Ruck]

I think the deva defines Good in the comic, from a Celestial POV, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) as simply fighting Evil without payment, encouragement, or reward.

Eugene can easily fit into that folder while being a complete jerkass.

Sure, but as I've said, of all the slices of Eugene's life (and afterlife) the Giant has given us, he hasn't shown us that even once. And rather than stories of heroic adventure like we get with Horace, we get stories of Eugene's awards, accolades, and magazine covers.

[Fyraltari]

To be fair, Eugene got to high level and died a few times, so I'm sure he had exciting adventures but, like early V, he only cares insofar as those allowed him to get better at magic so he doesn't bring them up. Also, we hear a bit of Horace's adventures through Sara and Roy praising him, and they don't want to praise Eugene.

[Ruck]

I will certainly concede that Eugene had adventures.

[Mightymosy]

To steer back a little to the original subjects of this thread...



The thing is, Roy doesn't know any of that when he makes the decision. Even his reasoning that the mission was too dangerous to undertake is, as others (Kish, I think) have pointed out, undercut by his subsequent decision to press on with his initial mission alone, presumably a very dangerous decision. And it reads to me like an ex post facto rationalization for abandoning Elan, rather than his primary driving desire (which is that he finds Elan annoying and is glad to be rid of him; he makes that obvious).



Well, hold on, I don't "automatically think things just because the text tells us to." For one, I agree with the conclusion about Roy abandoning Elan. But specific to your point that Roy abandoning Elan was in the "gag-a-day" days before the strip was supposed to be taken seriously at all, I think the Deva citing that moment shows that that is not the case. We're supposed to indicate that as a moment of Roy's character, and how he's grown and changed in the meantime. (The Deva did not, say, make mention of coup de grâce-ing sleeping goblins, nor presumably blowing up a bunch of goblins in Dorkuan's Dungeon.)



Yeah, I think that's correct.

Original subjects....let's see.......oh, nothing about Eugene or soccer. I had high hopes when reading the initial sentence :-(

Well, whatever.

I just read the strips again in which Roy talks with his mom.
I think her words about Eugene are pretty interesting.
She says he is all to busy being unhappy for being happy for his son.
What is her point of criticism on Eugene? I mean after all we heard here in this thread, you'd expect his wife to say something about him being an abusive father or how he neglects his children (hey, at least when Eric shows up there should be something, right?).
Instead, she DEFENDS him. The fault she sees in him is that he doesn't bring things to an end. She thinks he waits for Celestia because the cosmic forces force him to finish what he started.

[factotum]

The other deva simply said "I can't let you in" once the Oath had come up and the evaluation appeared to stop there. The Oath's not a mitigating circumstance, it's an aggravating circumstance.

But...it's exactly the same Oath in both cases? How can it be a mitigating circumstance for Roy, and an aggravating one for Eugene? I'm with Grey_Wolf on this one, the linked strip indicates that Eugene went through his entire evaluation with the Deva and only the Blood Oath kept him out of Celestia. Ergo, he was Lawful Good at the time of his death.

I think the main issue here is that people are judging Eugene's entire character based on interactions with Roy, and we know they have an antagonistic relationship. Lawful Good doesn't mean you have to be nice to everyone--see also Miko. (And yes, up until the moment she Fell Miko *had* to be LG--in fact, she had to be more LG than most people are, because the requirements to remain a Paladin are stricter than the ones just to be LG).

[Fyraltari]

Because Roy died trying to fulfill his Oath, which makes it kosher as far as Celestia is concerned, when Eugene gave up on his. Roy’s deva says as much when Eugene complains that Roy is let in.

[snowblizz]

(The Deva did not, say, make mention of coup de grâce-ing sleeping goblins, nor presumably blowing up a bunch of goblins in Dorkuan's Dungeon.)
Neither which are actually evil acts in the D&D cosmology.

Though Rich has said that all the monster from the Dungeon of Dorukan got out before the explosion. Emergency Monster Exits probably.

[Mightymosy]

Being good takes more than caring a little about your family and a lot about your job. Where are his acts of altruism? Where does he "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation"?


I just realised he DID.
He spent years chasing after Xykon.
In my book, that counts as "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation".

[woweedd]

Neither which are actually evil acts in the D&D cosmology.

Though Rich has said that all the monster from the Dungeon of Dorukan got out before the explosion. Emergency Monster Exits probably.
...What? Is this another "goblins don't count" thing?

I just realised he DID.
He spent years chasing after Xykon.
In my book, that counts as "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation".
As I understand it, he gave up on that pretty quickly.

[snowblizz]

...What? Is this another "goblins don't count" thing?

Evil doesn't count thing really.

Or as one SoD paladin said, they are just orcs and therefore evil, there's no alignment penalty to just kill 'em all.

[Fyraltari]

I just realised he DID.
He spent years chasing after Xykon.
In my book, that counts as "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation".

Isn’t revenge compensation?

[Kish]

Though Rich has said that all the monster from the Dungeon of Dorukan got out before the explosion. Emergency Monster Exits probably.
Citation needed.

[woweedd]

Evil doesn't count thing really.

Or as one SoD paladin said, they are just orcs and therefore evil, there's no alignment penalty to just kill 'em all.

Putting aside the blatant racial profiling in that...Why are you assuming all the inhabitants of Dorukan’s Dungeon were Evil? At least...4 of them explicitly weren’t, and it’s stated that most of the goblins were only serving because Xykon strongarmed them.

[Sir_Norbert]

He [Eugene] spent years chasing after Xykon.

So has Belkar, and he's not getting into Celestia any time soon.

[factotum]

So has Belkar, and he's not getting into Celestia any time soon.

...no he hasn't? It's been less than a year since the strip started. Furthermore, Belkar hasn't been chasing Xykon for any altruistic reason, he's just been doing it because he gets to kill stuff and take their loot.

[hamishspence]

If you go by the Timeline on the wiki, the Order of the Stick was formed around April 1183, and the current strips are in very early 1185, so it's been over a year and a half.

[Mightymosy]

...What? Is this another "goblins don't count" thing?

As I understand it, he gave up on that pretty quickly.
Has he not done it for years?


Isn’t revenge compensation?
Arguably, yes.
(But then the Blood Oath OF VENGEANCE shouldn't be a requirement for Celestia, right?)


Then again he did it also to raise Fyron, which seemed to me the primary motivation prior before the Blood Oath.

So has Belkar, and he's not getting into Celestia any time soon.
In other words: the requirement requires significant rewording, yes?

[Kish]

That's still not plural years. I suspect Sir_Norbert is blurring real-world time with OotS-world time.

That said, there is, as woweedd pointed out, no reason to presume Eugene was looking for Xykon any longer; judging by the plaque on the wall of the dungeon where he declared the Blood Oath stupid, he was less than tenth level when he quit.

[Mightymosy]

So how long did Eugene chase after Xykon?
I thought that either in SoD or in the Celestia arc him or Sara said something about "years". Mis-memory?

[Fyraltari]

Arguably, yes.
(But then the Blood Oath OF VENGEANCE shouldn't be a requirement for Celestia, right?

An oath is an oath is an oath. This is the Lawful Good afterlife, remember?

[Kish]

Indeed. "Making that oath was a mistake, I'll disregard it," if sincere and not a cover for "I just don't want to do what I don't want to do," is a fine attitude for the Chaotic Good afterlife.

We* really, really don't want Eugene there.

*"We" here means "Chaotic Good people," not "forum posters." He's your headache to deal with, Lawfuls, no pushing him off on us.

[Fyraltari]

That being said, if Eugene had found Xykon and it had turned out that Xykon had turned his life around and was sincerely remorseful of killing Fyron, I don’t think Celestia would have had an issue with Eugene not killing him as they are the lawful good afterlife. But that situation is so removed from the characters’ personalities they might as well be Emile Bluepommel and Zaïgon.

Edit: Kish, how would you feel about him being pushed to one of the Neutral places?

[Majin]

I think in one strip Roy commented something about Eugene going to hell, and a deva said that it wasn't a possibility anymore. Either it means she thought Eugene couldn't commit enough evil acts while being stuck on a cloud, or that he was already judged, and the acts he commits while dead don't change his alignment anymore. We have mostly seen him at his worst, after being stuck on a cloud for years with very little to do, with the prize being dangled right in front of him. He was always a jerk though, but maybe he still did more good than bad. His wife didn't seem to question him getting into the LG afterlife, and she knows more about him than Roy.

I do wonder if chaotic afterlife would let him in. I suppose it depends on how the oath works. I imagine the celestials judging him would be more lax at the very least, but might not be allowed to just disregard it completely.

[Quebbster]

Went back and reread the afterlife scenes and I found something interesting in strip 486 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0486.html): Eugene says that the cloud is where Good people come to be judged Before their final rest, and that the mountain is the Lawful Good afterlife. In other Words, you just need to be Good to end up on the cloud, not necessarily Lawful Good.

[Kish]

Edit: Kish, how would you feel about him being pushed to one of the Neutral places?
I would hope that suggesting that I'm concerned about having to share a D&D afterlife with the fictional character Eugene Greenhilt could not be mistaken for the most serious post ever made on this forum.

That said, if you're asking my serious evaluation of Eugene's alignment, which might very well differ from Rich's...
I don't think the character that has been presented is Good by any reasonable metric. His arguments for omnicide and for dwarf genocide to make the omnicide easier would classify him as Evil in my book unless Rich indicates he was just doing it to troll Roy and wouldn't have said those things to someone who might be convinced--which I would find odd in light of his apparent incomprehension of Roy's objections. Probably Neutral Evil; unlike Tarquin he seems to relinquish any claim that he's following the rules fairly readily, and outright lied to the deva to claim he'd completed the Blood Oath instead of coming up with some "everything I said was technically true" rationalization, but he also doesn't show the complete disregard for rules of Elan, Haley, Hilgya and Xykon.

[Ruck]

I just realised he DID.
He spent years chasing after Xykon.
In my book, that counts as "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation".


Isn’t revenge compensation?

Yes.

Also, he gave up.


Belkar hasn't been chasing Xykon for any altruistic reason

Neither was Eugene.


I think in one strip Roy commented something about Eugene going to hell, and a deva said that it wasn't a possibility anymore.

Roy's Archon said "I think we are past the point where that would be a realistic possibility." Not the same, either in terms of certainty or, IMO, authority.


I think the main issue here is that people are judging Eugene's entire character based on interactions with Roy

I'm judging it based on everything we've seen him do in the comic. I guess I need to repeat myself:


Where are his acts of altruism? Where does he "battle the forces of evil without expecting compensation"?

Where is even one example?

[hamishspence]

He had a chance to "battle the forces of Evil without compensation" in the encounter with Xyklon the Consequential.

A more altruistic person might have said "He may not be my villain, but he's still a villain" and started fighting Xyklon. Eugene instead turned round and walked away.

[Kish]

Yes.

Also, he gave up.
Also, he made it very clear that, in his eyes, his personal grudge against Xykon was everything and Xykon being a threat to the world was nothing; Roy yelled at him for it at the end of No Cure for the Paladin Blues, remember?

And to amplify what Ruck is saying: It would be amazingly easy for Rich to depict Eugene showing altruism. A panel of him helping starving orphans could replace one of the panels where he argues to let the world be destroyed for his personal convenience, to no net change in Rich's writing or drawing effort. Rich has not drawn such a panel. Ever. To get one, you need to assign hidden altruism to a panel where he's acting self-interested.

If you maintain that Rich is not trying to send a "Eugene is in fact a horrible person" message, why has he never shown Eugene being better than a horrible person?

[Fyraltari]

He had a chance to "battle the forces of Evil without compensation" in the encounter with Xyklon the Consequential.

A more altruistic person might have said "He may not be my villain, but he's still a villain" and started fighting Xyklon. Eugene instead turned round and walked away.

I thought we agreed that attacking some simply for being evil without knowing of a particular crime was evil.

EDIT: Though maybe I don’t remember correctly, did Xyklon mention he was doing something evil or was he just pissed at the 4-6 murderhobos breaking inside his home?

[Mightymosy]

An oath is an oath is an oath. This is the Lawful Good afterlife, remember?

The question was not whether I see him fit for Celestia.

I was responding to someone posting the requirement mentioned above. Which I think he fits.

Doesn't mean that I agree with the requirement

[Kish]

Given how eager Xyklon apparently was to fight, Eugene could have asked him, "Tell me about your evil scheme."

And if he seriously thought the hordling at the end of the dungeon might be innocent, then just walking away was inadequate; he should have at the very least apologized for the guards he murdered to get there.

[Fyraltari]

The question was not whether I see him fit for Celestia.

I was responding to someone posting the requirement mentioned above. Which I think he fits.

Doesn't mean that I agree with the requirement

I don’t understand what you are saying.

Edit: you said that if revenge is a compensation then the blood oath shouldn’t be a requirement to enter Celestia.

[hamishspence]

I thought we agreed that attacking some simply for being evil without knowing of a particular crime was evil.

I got the impression that the rest of his party had confused Xyklon with Xykon when Eugene told his story to them on joining the party, and so, when reports of a Xyklon villain came him, they assumed this was the guy Eugene was after, and took Eugene to him.

[Mightymosy]

I don’t understand what you are saying.

Edit: you said that if revenge is a compensation then the blood oath shouldn’t be a requirement to enter Celestia.

I see.

People said Eugene was not LG at all, having done NONE of what is expected lf LG characters, basically.
As requirement for LG it was stated "fighting evil without expecting compensation".

I said that "NONE" is not correct, since he DID hunt down a super evil guy for years, thus fullfilling one requirement for LG, as stated (not MY requirement, mind you).

You then said that revenge is compensation.

Which I can agree with.

BUT THEN, if following an oath for vengeance does NOT fit "fighting evil without compensation", then it seems weird that following an oath for vengeance would be a criterion to enter LG paradise, is my opinion.

To summarise: I don't think the "fighting evil without compensation" is a good requirement to count as LG, and following a blood oath OF VENGEANCE is NOT a good criterion for Heaven, either.
And, these two criteria together don't make sense logically, if one follows your assessment that revenge is some (usually at least a little evil i might add) form of compensation (which I agree with).

[Fyraltari]

I see.

People said Eugene was not LG at all, having done NONE of what is expected lf LG characters, basically.
As requirement for LG it was stated "fighting evil without expecting compensation".

I said that "NONE" is not correct, since he DID hunt down a super evil guy for years, thus fullfilling one requirement for LG, as stated (not MY requirement, mind you).

You then said that revenge is compensation.

Which I can agree with.

BUT THEN, if following an oath for vengeance does NOT fit "fighting evil without compensation", then it seems weird that following an oath for vengeance would be a criterion to enter LG paradise, is my opinion.

To summarise: I don't think the "fighting evil without compensation" is a good requirement to count as LG, and following a blood oath OF VENGEANCE is NOT a good criterion for Heaven, either.
And, these two criteria together don't make sense logically, if one follows your assessment that revenge is some (usually at least a little evil i might add) form of compensation (which I agree with).

There is no contradiction between:
A) trying to kill an evil-doer to get revenge does not get you good points
And
B) breaking an oath, in this case of vengeance, gives you bad points.

Edit: selflessness in the fight against evil helps on the G-E scale while upholding oaths helps on the L-C side. To get in Celestia, Eugene would have to to have more good points than evil points and more lawful points than chaotic points, so to speak.

[Peelee]

I see.

People said Eugene was not LG at all, having done NONE of what is expected lf LG characters, basically.
As requirement for LG it was stated "fighting evil without expecting compensation".

I said that "NONE" is not correct, since he DID hunt down a super evil guy for years, thus fullfilling one requirement for LG, as stated (not MY requirement, mind you).

You then said that revenge is compensation.

Which I can agree with.

BUT THEN, if following an oath for vengeance does NOT fit "fighting evil without compensation", then it seems weird that following an oath for vengeance would be a criterion to enter LG paradise, is my opinion.

To summarise: I don't think the "fighting evil without compensation" is a good requirement to count as LG, and following a blood oath OF VENGEANCE is NOT a good criterion for Heaven, either.
And, these two criteria together don't make sense logically, if one follows your assessment that revenge is some (usually at least a little evil i might add) form of compensation (which I agree with).

L and G are two separate things, not a single thing. Folloeing the Blood Oath is not LG. It is L. As such, breaking it or not abiding by it is a pretty big mark against LG, because the G isn't factored into that part.

[Fyraltari]

Given how eager Xyklon apparently was to fight, Eugene could have asked him, "Tell me about your evil scheme."

And if he seriously thought the hordling at the end of the dungeon might be innocent, then just walking away was inadequate; he should have at the very least apologized for the guards he murdered to get there.


I got the impression that the rest of his party had confused Xyklon with Xykon when Eugene told his story to them on joining the party, and so, when reports of a Xyklon villain came him, they assumed this was the guy Eugene was after, and took Eugene to him.
Re-reading thats scene, there is nothing to shows that Xyklon is evil (other than living in a dungeon, sitting on a throne and being some kind of overweight dragon-creature) or that Eugene & co killed anyone to reach them.
It's clear that Keeno the Rogue mistook Xyklon with Xykon but all that's said abiut how Keeno learned of Xyklon is that Keeno has a much better Gather information skill than Eugene.


Incidently, Roy calls Myrtok his uncle so it seems the two have a good relationship despite Myrtok being a friend of Eugene's. Contrast Nale's use of quotes when talking to Laurin. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html)

[Kish]

The panel that reads "This dungeon is suitable for 4-6 players of 9th level" indicates that it's a dungeon, in the D&D sense. Never heard of one of those that didn't involve a bunch of killing before getting to the boss. And very rarely heard of one of those where the boss wasn't doing something evil.

[Fyraltari]

I, for one, have (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html).

[Rrmcklin]

Looking through my SOD copy right now, I will note that Eugene says the only reason he never went adventuring for Xykon again since meeting Sarah is because he could never get a solid lead on him. So he was still very open to fulfilling the Oath, he just didn't have the luck. I don't know if that means anything to anyone.

I'll also note he specifically said he would have abandoned his family without a second thought so... yeah.

[Jasdoif]

Looking through my SOD copy right now, I will note that Eugene says the only reason he never went adventuring for Xykon again since meeting Sarah is because he could never get a solid lead on him. So he was still very open to fulfilling the Oath, he just didn't have the luck. I don't know if that means anything to anyone.It means he lied: Right-Eye gave him a solid lead; well after he met Sarah, seeing as Eugene missed Roy's game for that meeting.

[Peelee]

Looking through my SOD copy right now, I will note that Eugene says the only reason he never went adventuring for Xykon again since meeting Sarah is because he could never get a solid lead on him. So he was still very open to fulfilling the Oath, he just didn't have the luck. I don't know if that means anything to anyone.

Eh, Eugene says a lot of stuff. I wonder how long the Oracle of the Sunken Valley has been around for, though...

[Rrmcklin]

It means he lied: Right-Eye gave him a solid lead; well after he met Sarah, seeing as Eugene missed Roy's game for that meeting.

Ah, right. Makes him even worse then.

[Jasdoif]

Ah, right. Makes him even worse then.It does seem like an odd thing to lie about, though.

[Kish]

It does seem like an odd thing to lie about, though.
I think the implication is what he spells out here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html): in retrospect, he's chagrined that he ever cared about anyone else instead of being a perfect magicbot. It doesn't go against his self-image that he missed Roy's game, but it does go against his self-image that he rejected a chance to find Xykon.

[Fyraltari]

Eh, Eugene says a lot of stuff. I wonder how long the Oracle of the Sunken Valley has been around for, though...

Long enough for Eugene to wake up outside a valley with an amnesia, a name and less money than before*. He probably concluded that he got all he could from the Oracle and there was no point in trying again since who would be dumb to the point of enforcing a "one question per customer" rule?

*And an incomprehensible joke about someone called mr Belvedere.

[Peelee]

Long enough for Eugene to wake up outside a valley with an amnesia, a name and less money than before*. He probably concluded that he got all he could from the Oracle and there was no point in trying again since who would be dumb to the point of enforcing a "one question per customer" rule?

*And an incomprehensible joke about someone called mr Belvedere.

Imean, I got the reference (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088576/) and still though the joke was odd.

[Jasdoif]

I think the implication is what he spells out here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html): in retrospect, he's chagrined that he ever cared about anyone else instead of being a perfect magicbot. It doesn't go against his self-image that he missed Roy's game, but it does go against his self-image that he rejected a chance to find Xykon.That could be. I was thinking it was against his self-image to admit he was unable to find Xykon with his own power, particularly since the only reason he told Roy was so Roy could tell Julia, who could think less of Eugene for it....But in retrospect, he had already admitted that, hadn't he?

[Ruck]

*And an incomprehensible joke about someone called mr Belvedere.


Imean, I got the reference (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088576/) and still though the joke was odd.

Oh, the joke is totally inexplicable, but I still find it really funny. Maybe Rich is a member of the Guy Who Plays Mr. Belvedere Fan Club. (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9yn49)

[Peelee]

Oh, the joke is totally inexplicable, but I still find it really funny.

That's the best way to put it. It was funny, but just out of nowhere.

[Rogar Demonblud]

So was the set up in the series. Out of nowhere, typical American suburban family acquires a British butler. I don't think it was ever addressed.

[martianmister]

Again, I'm in broad agreement that leading a 22-year-old-5-year-old into situations of deadly peril within monster-infested dungeons and wilderness areas was a very morally questionable thing to do... if we were taking the proceedings seriously. But taking the proceedings seriously would imply that rescuing Elan entailed such a high degree of risk that Roy was reasonably entitled to make a call to move on.

In practice, the idea that Roy was abandoning Elan to some grisly fate of death or enslavement is pretty undermined by Elan being... completely fine and dandy until Haley shows up, and the general looney-toons logic of the ensuing battle. It's assigning a moral gravity to the proceedings that just isn't sustained by the tone of the narrative, and there's only around a 50-strip gap between here and Elan recklessly endangering scores of hapless goblinoids and his teammates, which, if not explicitly done out of malice, would be hard to otherwise explain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssjokgx0pUQ).

To be honest, the main impression I get, given the way that Roy treats NPCs as interchangeable cyphers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html) and later sticks up for Belkar, is less that the commander has an obligation to his men and more that the PCs are a special and protected class of person with expectations of mutual loyalty but immune to broader standards of accountability for their actions. (Which is, in practice, exactly what happens at D&D gaming tables for entirely metagame reasons, and I'm not crazy about that.)

I am aware that the Deva takes the incident seriously later on, but.... that is what I am arguing is kinda wonky. To the extent that Roy was mildly at fault here, he made up for it pretty quickly and has done enough to put up with Elan's general... Elan-ness... that I think it's mostly a nonissue (aside, perhaps, from the general undertone of emotional abuse in their relationship.) And we shouldn't automatically think things just because the text tells us to.

If he really wants to rid of Elan, he should not bring him with himself to a dangerous forest. He's the reason that they're here and responsible for their wellbeing and their actions. You're right about Roy's attitude to NPCs and inconsistent writing, but that doesn't acquit Roy from what he done.