What alignment is Oona?

[Conradine]

She loves and respect her animal servants, likes to fight but do not show sadism or extreme bloodlust, quite polite, serves her community although she works by herself...

she reminds me of Therkla. I would go for True Neutral.

[understatement]

She loves and respect her animal servants,

Belkar.


likes to fight but do not show sadism or extreme bloodlust,

Hilgya.


quite polite, serves her community although she works by herself...

Jirix, Malack.


she reminds me of Therkla. I would go for True Neutral.

Let's try Evil.

[Precure]

I'll go with Stupid Evil.

[Worldsong]

Lawful Good, clearly. She believes in rewarding proper conduct, organized hierarchies, and cooperation with others.

[Bunny Commando]

I would say Evil, too.
She attacks people without cause. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1033.html) Wait, she attacked because she wanted to fed them to the MitD. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html)
She believes that the MitD has no right to be a free individual. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html)
She's ok in helping a Lich. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1039.html)
She's willing to kill someone just because no one gave her a good reason not to kill. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1213.html)

She's certainly funny and charming, but I do believe she's clearly evil.

[Jason]

Neutral Evil. I dont know what else to call someone who is willing to kill someone they don't know anything about because they can't think of a compelling reason not to kill them.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll go with Stupid Evil. Oona is not stupid: where does this come from? She has a somewhat stilted mode of expression to give her a unique voice, just as Bandana does.

[Worldsong]

Oona is not stupid: where does this come from? She has a somewhat stilted mode of expression to give her a unique voice, just as Bandana does.

Bandana has a unique voice?

[hroþila]

I don't think we've seen enough of Oona to rule out most alignments.

Bandana has a unique voice?
Yeah, she certainly has a particular idiolect. She doesn't speak the same way as the rest of the crew. Her y'all is the most obvious feature of her idiolect, but there are others.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bandana has a unique voice?
Yes she does. Her verbal style was commented upon in detail (how she uses phrases and a kind of blue collar expressive style); I was subjected to this examination of her dialogue while reading the overblown arguments during the Andi vs Bandana "argument" as the the battle with the frost giants went on.
EDIT:
Oh, I see hroþila said it more clearly than I can. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[Worldsong]

I don't think we've seen enough of Oona to rule out most alignments.

Yeah, she certainly has a particular idiolect. She doesn't speak the same way as the rest of the crew. Her y'all is the most obvious feature of her idiolect, but there are others.


Yes she does. Her verbal style was commented upon in detail (how she uses phrases and a kind of blue collar expressive style); I was subjected to this examination of her dialogue while reading the overblown arguments during the Andi vs Bandana "argument" as the the battle with the frost giants went on.
EDIT:
Oh, I see hroþila said it more clearly than I can. Thanks! :smallsmile:

Huh. I never really noticed. Shows what I pay attention to.
Auto-wrench remains a fun one though.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Lawful (affable) Evil, rather clearly: strong opinions on the necessity for strict hierarchy, and has no problem with murdering people she does not know as a treat for a friend.

GW

[Fyraltari]

Apathetic Violent.

[Precure]

Oona is not stupid: where does this come from?

She was hunting humans because she misunderstood MitD
She's following Redcloak's order to kill two clerics because hesaid please and there is not a good reason not to kill them.

[Ron Miel]

Bandana has a unique voice?

Poor grammar that annoys V. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html)

[Riftwolf]

I'd go with Neutral Evil. Or whatever the evil version of Beastlands is. Where naughty dogs go.

[Worldsong]

She was hunting humans because she misunderstood MitD
She's following Redcloak's order to kill two clerics because hesaid please and there is not a good reason not to kill them.

That's more Evil than stupid.


I'd go with Neutral Evil. Or whatever the evil version of Beastlands is. Where naughty dogs go.

I think that's Chaotic Evil.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's more Evil than stupid.

Agreed. To quote Pratchett, "Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things." That Oona considers Paladins to be an appropriate treat for a friend's pet (which, lets not forget, that's what she thinks MitD is) is effectively treating people as things. Same thing for not needing a good reason to attack the dwarves, although admittedly "being in her tribe's grounds uninvited attacking a guest" is probably Neutral in and of itself.

Grey Wolf

[Tvtyrant]

She's evil, she's just not villainous. I can imagine her doing any number of horrible things with little or no prompting, but she wouldn't set out looking to change the world or ambitiously reach for power.

[Schroeswald]

Oona is not stupid: where does this come from? She has a somewhat stilted mode of expression to give her a unique voice, just as Bandana does.
I think its pretty clear that her dialect isn't her being stupid, she just strikes me as having an accent (to me it seems russian for some reason).


Yes she does. Her verbal style was commented upon in detail (how she uses phrases and a kind of blue collar expressive style); I was subjected to this examination of her dialogue while reading the overblown arguments during the Andi vs Bandana "argument" as the the battle with the frost giants went on.
EDIT:
Oh, I see hroþila said it more clearly than I can. Thanks! :smallsmile:
Oh I pity you if that was a major part of the conversation around Andi v Bandana, I'm so glad I haven't read many threads from that era.

[Fyraltari]

"being in her tribe's grounds uninvited attacking a guest" is probably Neutral in and of itself.
What about "being in tribe's ground uninvited and being attacked by a guest"?

I think its pretty clear that her dialect isn't her being stupid, she just strikes me as having an accent (to me it seems russian for some reason).

Sounds to me like she's just not quite fluent in common, and falls back on her native tongue's sentence structure.

[Jason]

I think its pretty clear that her dialect isn't her being stupid, she just strikes me as having an accent (to me it seems russian for some reason).Because she is dropping her articles and speaking of herself in third person, being like stereotypical Russia accent when is speaking English.

[Friv]

I'm going to vote"Lawful Evil, leaning towards Lawful Neutral," assuming that she's generally been honest in her interactions.

Oona generally believes in hierarchies as preferable to chaos. She is pro-community and believes in her cultural code, and doesn't have much respect for the traditions of others that don't match those of her community. She thinks it's acceptable to murder sentient beings in order to do something nice for her in-group, which is both evil and community-oriented, and she's willing to kill people based on someone in the in-group asking her nicely, which is the same.

[Riftwolf]

Oh I pity you if that was a major part of the conversation around Andi v Bandana, I'm so glad I haven't read many threads from that era.

It's kind of a Scorpion and Turtle situation whenever you read the main discussion thread. You knew what it was before you started.
(From what I remember the only thread where Bandanas accent was called out was her big speech when Andis back was turned; it got kinda ugly on the thread. Most of the anti-Andi rhetoric was along the lines of 'why are we having another pointless subplot alongside another pointless subplot after endless debate at the Godsmoot, why can't we just kill Xykon already')

[understatement]

It's kind of a Scorpion and Turtle situation whenever you read the main discussion thread. You knew what it was before you started.
(From what I remember the only thread where Bandanas accent was called out was her big speech when Andis back was turned; it got kinda ugly on the thread. Most of the anti-Andi rhetoric was along the lines of 'why are we having another pointless subplot alongside another pointless subplot after endless debate at the Godsmoot, why can't we just kill Xykon already')

Wish (kind of) granted!

[Dion]

She has a thick accent, and she is clearly much happier talking to animals and monsters than to people. If she were on earth, she’d probably be a crazy person running a big cat sanctuary.

But... I’m pretty sure she’s not stupid.

What is her class, anyhow? Ranger with beast master prestige class? Some kind of specialized Druid? Is she a spell caster?

[Lethologica]

What is her class, anyhow? Ranger with beast master prestige class? Some kind of specialized Druid? Is she a spell caster?
Such questions are best answered over at C&LG (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?607385-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XVII-When-you-Wish-upon-a-Stat), which has identified Oona as a Beast Heart Adept based on what she was riding when hunting Lien and O-Chul. I hope that means more to you than it does to me.

[Edea]

Hard to say.

Would need to see how alignment spells interact with her to really nail that down. She's certainly not Good, and I don't really see her being Chaotic, but for that remaining square of alignments (LN/TN/LE/NE) I don't really know enough about her to decide.

[Gurgeh]

I don't think we've seen enough of Oona to rule out most alignments.
I've got to line up behind this position. Anything further is really just projecting, at this point.

[Dr.Zero]

She was hunting humans because she misunderstood MitD
She's following Redcloak's order to kill two clerics because hesaid please and there is not a good reason not to kill them.


That's more Evil than stupid.

Frankly, if a monster which is supposed to usual devour people as snacks (I can go for a black dragon, for example, but arguably MiTD kind is considered quite more violent, dangerous and overall "worse") something maybe looking like this
https://honeysanime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hakaijuu-wallpaper.jpg

says to someone something on the line of: "You know, back in Azure City I really liked a human paladin. I REALLY liked him!" I challenge everyone who is not on this side of the 4th wall to think that it befriended him.

[mjasghar]

Since she had no problems when Protection from Good was cast on her we can rule out any Good alignment

[Worldsong]

Frankly, if a monster which is supposed to usual devour people as snacks (I can go for a black dragon, for example, but arguably MiTD kind is considered quite more violent, dangerous and overall "worse") something maybe looking like this
https://honeysanime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hakaijuu-wallpaper.jpg

says to someone something on the line of: "You know, back in Azure City I really liked a human paladin. I REALLY liked him!" I challenge everyone who is not on this side of the 4th wall to think that it befriended him.

As an autistic person I'm rather strongly opposed to calling people stupid for misunderstanding what someone else said. A large part of my life consists of me misunderstanding others and others misunderstanding me because our mental frameworks aren't aligned. And from what I've heard different cultures can have similar effects, especially if the person from the different culture isn't familiar with the language.

EDIT: So basically I'm agreeing with you.

[Precure]

She was hunting humans because she misunderstood MitD.

That's more Evil than stupid.

Agreed.

Failure to understand something is "more evil than stupid?" Interesting hot take, but I disagree. :smallamused:

[Fyraltari]

Misunderstanding Monster-san may have been stupid depending on what exactly was said (we don't know that). Deciding to kill two random paladins to feed him is straight-up evil.

[Worldsong]

Failure to understand something is "more evil than stupid?" Interesting hot take, but I disagree. :smallamused:

Misunderstanding someone has little to do with intelligence at all if the two people have different cultures and even different native languages.

Interpreting something someone else said in a way that involves capturing some paladins to use them as food is Evil.

[Precure]

Really now? Would you say same for Elan and Thog? She had also believed that she has "power of shrinky dinking" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1213.html). Sorry but that's not a hill worth dying for.

[Worldsong]

Really now? Would you say same for Elan and Thog? She had also believed that she has "power of shrinky dinking" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1213.html). Sorry but that's not a hill worth dying for.

What causes misunderstandings is difference in mental frameworks and flawed communication. One of the easiest ways for such a difference to exist is a significant difference in intelligence. However other methods to create such differences include different cultures and the easiest way for flawed communication to occur is through differences in language comprehension.

Also Oona expresses surprise at Maxrah turning into Minrah the moment she attacks. That hardly screams stupidity, especially since another explanation could be her not being very familiar with the spell Minrah was using. It's not like everyone in the world is a spellcaster or has an intimate knowledge of all the spells in existence.

And I disagree. The stance that miscommunication does not equal stupidity is certainly worth dying for, because the alternative is that literally everyone in existence is stupid.

[Fyraltari]

And I disagree. The stance that miscommunication does not equal stupidity is certainly worth dying for, because the alternative is that literally everyone in existence is stupid.

I mean, that's essentially correct.

"Intelligence" is really just a patchwork of different unrelated mental skills and people are generally clever in some areas and stupid in others.

[Worldsong]

I mean, that's essentially correct.

"Intelligence" is really just a patchwork of different unrelated mental skills and people are generally clever in some areas and stupid in others.

True, but my follow up argument was going to be that if we go in that direction then calling Oona stupid doesn't really mean anything anymore because everyone else is also stupid, so you might as well base her alignment on other traits such as Lawfulness and Evilness.

[Malloon]

Oona is far too insightful to be *generally* stupid - she noticed immediately that Redcloak didn't answer her question, for one, and understands and agrees with his comments about her trying his patience. And that's just one page. Imagine as contrast how Elan or the Monster in the Darkness would have reacted (back before they became a little more insightful). Oona's demeanour can be explained by a combination of her being ignorant about certain things, her not being ashamed about who she is or to *seem* stupid, and a partial two-way language barrier.

Oona is friendly, helpful to her friends and allies, knows where to put healthy barriers, is smart enough to protect a vital resource without violence, believes in a natural and good hierarchy between beasts and masters, and is prepared to kill people at a moment's notice as a favour to her friends.

Lawful evil, but friendly.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also Oona expresses surprise at Maxrah turning into Minrah the moment she attacks. That hardly screams stupidity, Thank you for a fine post and saving me the effort. +1 A language barrier does not create a default stupidity on one party's part. All it does is require a bit more work to communicate effectively.

[Dion]

As an autistic person I'm rather strongly opposed to calling people stupid for misunderstanding what someone else said. A large part of my life consists of me misunderstanding others and others misunderstanding me because our mental frameworks aren't aligned.

My personal theory is that neurotypical people actually misunderstand what is being said about 95% of the time.

Like, neurotypicals literally never seem to know what is going on. They constantly ignore the evidence of their eyes and their ears and just pretend to understand whats happening and pretend that they’re understood by others, just to make social interactions less difficult.

Oona doesn’t hide her constant social confusion like most neurotypicals do. That doesn’t make her stupid. It makes her socially awkward, and it probably makes her relationships with other people very difficult. And it probably explains why she decided to be a beast master instead of a bard.

[Conradine]

Dwarves and paladins are, more or less, natural enemies of bugbears. And they are in her territory, with weapons and armors. It does not strikes me as Evil that she attacks them.

For sure, it's way less evil than travelling to a village and slaughter unarmed civilians, including children.

[Keltest]

Dwarves and paladins are, more or less, natural enemies of bugbears. And they are in her territory, with weapons and armors. It does not strikes me as Evil that she attacks them.

For sure, it's way less evil than travelling to a village and slaughter unarmed civilians, including children.

Thats kind of a huge double standard there. If its not ok for the paladins or dwarves to attack the bugbears just for being there, it isnt ok for the bugbears to attack the dwarves or paladins just for being there.

[Fyraltari]

Dwarves and paladins are, more or less, natural enemies of bugbears.
Wot?

And they are in her territory, with weapons and armors. It does not strikes me as Evil that she attacks them.
You mean the entire ice floe? You just get to attack anybody armed that's somewhat near where you live? I guess legalization is one way to solve banditry.


For sure, it's way less evil than travelling to a village and slaughter unarmed civilians, including children.
Whataboutism aside what does this have to do with Oona's actions?

[KorvinStarmast]

Thats kind of a huge double standard there. If its not ok for the paladins or dwarves to attack the bugbears just for being there, it isnt ok for the bugbears to attack the dwarves or paladins just for being there. To be fair to Oona; her first response was not "Attack!" but it was "Hmm, listen to this very interesting conversation which is getting more bugbear-like at the moment" and then (as her guest was being attacked for sure) she got involved in a kinetic sense.

[Metastachydium]

Dwarves and paladins are, more or less, natural enemies of bugbears.

Paladins? Since when?
Also, neither paladin wears armour which was or could be visible to Oona when she attacked (she came from behind and the paladins have cloaks), O-Chulseemed to be unarmed, while Lien was carrying a spear that probably is in fact supposed to double as a fishing instrument (mind you, they were walking above a body of water).

[Thales]

Oona is friendly, helpful to her friends and allies, knows where to put healthy barriers, is smart enough to protect a vital resource without violence, believes in a natural and good hierarchy between beasts and masters, and is prepared to kill people at a moment's notice as a favour to her friends.

Lawful evil, but friendly.

I agree with this assessment. Moreover, I think that had the Order made it to the Pole before Team Evil did, they probably would have been able to befriend Oona in much the same way.

[Bunny Commando]

Dwarves and paladins are, more or less, natural enemies of bugbears. And they are in her territory, with weapons and armors. It does not strikes me as Evil that she attacks them.

For sure, it's way less evil than travelling to a village and slaughter unarmed civilians, including children.

Oona has no way to know that O-Chul and Lien are paladins; what she did was to attack two individuals without any warning with the intent of feeding them to someone else.

Durkon was unarmed and engaged in a diplomatic meeting with Redcloak under truce; Redcloak broke the truce and tried to kill Durkon, Minrah intervened to defend Durkon and Oona is willing to kill them just because she can't find a reason not to kill them.

None of the individuals she tried to kill is known to have killed unarmed civilians, including children.

[Keltest]

To be fair to Oona; her first response was not "Attack!" but it was "Hmm, listen to this very interesting conversation which is getting more bugbear-like at the moment" and then (as her guest was being attacked for sure) she got involved in a kinetic sense.

Thats fine for Durkon, but the paladins?

[Worldsong]

Thank you for a fine post and saving me the effort. +1 A language barrier does not create a default stupidity on one party's part. All it does is require a bit more work to communicate effectively.

Thank you. And yes language barriers are the worst.


My personal theory is that neurotypical people actually misunderstand what is being said about 95% of the time.

Like, neurotypicals literally never seem to know what is going on. They constantly ignore the evidence of their eyes and their ears and just pretend to understand whats happening and pretend that they’re understood by others, just to make social interactions less difficult.

Oona doesn’t hide her constant social confusion like most neurotypicals do. That doesn’t make her stupid. It makes her socially awkward, and it probably makes her relationships with other people very difficult. And it probably explains why she decided to be a beast master instead of a bard.

I think that what happens is that in any instance of communication/interaction there's a decent amount of filling in the gaps, but when the interaction is between two people who share a similar culture and mindframe/mindset they'll mostly fill in those gaps with accurate assumptions.

When people with different cultures and/or mindframes try to fill in the gaps problems show up.

And people who are just strange in general (whether due to autism, unusual upbringing, or other deviations) learn to try harder to pick up all the data so the amount of assumptions they need to make is reduced but that both takes more effort and doesn't work as well as already being similar enough that you can make a reasonable guess at the other person's intentions.

[Conradine]

Thats kind of a huge double standard there. If its not ok for the paladins or dwarves to attack the bugbears just for being there, it isnt ok for the bugbears to attack the dwarves or paladins just for being there.

The ( big ) difference is that Oona is patroling her territory, near her settlement; the paladins hunted the goblins in their own homes.


You mean the entire ice floe? You just get to attack anybody armed that's somewhat near where you live? I guess legalization is one way to solve banditry.

Actually, in ancient times, the standard reaction to armed foreigners approaching a settlement was shot first- ask later.
Actually, even in not so ancient times.

[Keltest]

The ( big ) difference is that Oona is patroling her territory, near her settlement; the paladins hunted the goblins in their own homes.



Actually, in ancient times, the standard reaction to armed foreigners approaching a settlement was shot first- ask later.
Actually, even in not so ancient times.

I fail to see how that difference meaningfully affects the morality of attacking random people for no reason. Let alone for the specific purpose of feeding them to an animal as a convenient treat.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The ( big ) difference is that Oona is patroling her territory, near her settlement; the paladins hunted the goblins in their own homes.

Ah yes, the infamous "everywhere I can reach with my winged beast" method of determining the area of unmarked terrain that can be considered "territory" for the purposes of justifying murder. Not particularly different from "I killed you because there was no-one there to stop me" approach to murder. By that logic, the paladins considered the land where the goblin village was to be part of their territory too, and thus were perfectly entitled to kill those armed squatters. (They obviously were not)

Now, IMnpHO, killing someone hours away from your village, and no danger to it in any way shape or form for the "crime" of being armed in a world where random encounters are a thing is Evil. And doing so so you can provide a treat to a pet is no better.


Actually, in ancient times, the standard reaction to armed foreigners approaching a settlement was shot first- ask later.
Actually, even in not so ancient times.
[citation needed]

Grey Wolf

[dancrilis]

Now, IMnpHO, killing someone hours away from your village, and no danger to it in any way shape or form for the "crime" of being armed in a world where random encounters are a thing is Evil. And doing so so you can provide a treat to a pet is no better.

I don't know where you expect her to acquire her human treats humanly if not in the wild - the bugbears don't seem to have the resources to farm them, she could I suppose import from Gobbotopia in the future but they haven't estiblished trade relations yet.

On topic - I see Oona as CE (I get a bit of a Thog, Xykon feel to her - fairly friendly, happy, willing to kill at a moments notice etc) and Greyview as NE, but I could see Oona as CN or NE (and maybe at a stretch TN) - I can see why some argue for L but I disagree on that (I don't see her as a Tarquin, Redcloak, Kubota character in the slightest).

[Riftwolf]

I agree with this assessment. Moreover, I think that had the Order made it to the Pole before Team Evil did, they probably would have been able to befriend Oona in much the same way.

I like this alternative reality. Of course, then everyone would complain that Oona was a superfluous subplot getting in the way of the Roy/Xykon fight. Or shipped her with, oh, let's say, Durkon.

[Cazero]

Or shipped her with, oh, let's say, Durkon.
Come on, do this right.
Oona anime harem comedy. Redcloak is such a tsundere.

[Schroeswald]

Come on, do this right.
Oona anime harem comedy. Redcloak is such a tsundere.

I think we're getting better, but not that much better. We'd ship her with Minrah.

[Keltest]

I think we're getting better, but not that much better. We'd ship her with Minrah.

Youre not thinking big enough. Obviously the correct ship is the Flumphs. Both of them, simultaneously.

[Olinser]

Youre not thinking big enough. Obviously the correct ship is the Flumphs. Both of them, simultaneously.

As long as Belkar gets to watch.

[Precure]

Where do the language barrier argument comes from? She doesn't seem to have any problems with understandIng others when they were arguing about Dark One. Broken speech patterns was usual.

[Olinser]

Where do the language barrier argument comes from? She doesn't seem to have any problems with understandIng others when they were arguing about Dark One. Broken speech patterns was usual.

As somebody that has worked with quite a lot of people that speak English as a 2nd language and translators of varying quality for several languaes, Oona would fight right in with a lot of newer people I worked with that aren't quite fluent and their native language has different sentence structure.

Her speech patterns are consistent with a non-native English speaker who understands pretty much everything said, but has not completely mastered the language to the point of fluent speaking - leaving out a lot of proper sentence construction words (i.e. doesn't seem to use 'the' hardly at all), uses words that are technically correct but in improper tense (i.e. 'preparing faster then, yes?' or 'that is sounding good to Oona'), or uses words and sentences that are not quite correct for what Oona is clearly trying to say (i.e. 'sometimes shaman is with the asking and helping, yes?').

They don't paint Oona as stupid, but as somebody speaking a language they have relatively good knowledge, but lack complete speaking fluency.

[hamishspence]

Something like

"Oona speaks Goblin as a birth language, but has only fairly recently learned Common, which the Monster and Redcloak use when speaking amongst themselves"

would fit the bill nicely.

[Metastachydium]

By that logic, the paladins considered the land where the goblin village was to be part of their territory too, and thus were perfectly entitled to kill those armed squatters. (They obviously were not)


The thing is, they probably did. Shojo explains that the Guard's mandate is from the Twelve Gods, and since, says Shojo, the jurisdiction of the Twelve is not limited (which is of course not quite the case, but Shojo does not know or deliberately ignores that), neither is that of the Guard, and therefore they can take action against those who „threaten existence” wherever they please or have to (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The thing is, they probably did. Shojo explains that the Guard's mandate is from the Twelve Gods, and since, says Shojo, the jurisdiction of the Twelve is not limited (which is of course not quite the case, but Shojo does not know or deliberately ignores that), neither is that of the Guard, and therefore they can take action against those who „threaten existence” wherever they please or have to (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html).

Jurisdiction and terrain ownership are not synonymous concepts.

GW

[Metastachydium]

Jurisdiction and terrain ownership are not synonymous concepts.

GW

Evidently. But in this particular case there is little effective difference: even if the pretext used is not ownership, we still have a party claiming to have a right to act freely upon any invidiual who meets some specified criterion (which does not have to be trespassing) in a remote area they do not effectively control.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Evidently. But in this particular case there is little effective difference: even if the pretext used is not ownership, we still have a party claiming to have a right to act freely upon any invidiual who meets some specified criterion (which does not have to be trespassing) in a remote area they do not effectively control.

No, the ethical cases are not even remotely the same.

GW

[Metastachydium]

No, the ethical cases are not even remotely the same.

GW

So a secret society claiming to have jurisdiction someplace wehere the gods they refer to do not have such jurisdiction and „exercising their monopoly on violence”there on the basis of this false claim is somehow ethically more acceptable than claiming ownership over a tract of land and attacking „tresspassers”?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So a secret society claiming to have jurisdiction someplace wehere the gods they refer to do not have such jurisdiction and „exercising their monopoly on violence”there on the basis of this false claim is somehow ethically more acceptable than claiming ownership over a tract of land and attacking „tresspassers”?

"Not the same" doesn't mean "ethically more acceptable", it means "not the same".

GW

[Jason]

Where do the language barrier argument comes from? She doesn't seem to have any problems with understandIng others when they were arguing about Dark One. Broken speech patterns was usual.

Understanding a second language is much easier than speaking it fluently.

[Precure]

They don't paint Oona as stupid, but as somebody speaking a language they have relatively good knowledge, but lack complete speaking fluency.


Understanding a second language is much easier than speaking it fluently.

Based On this, language barrier couldn't be used as a justification for Oona's misunderstandings.

[Keltest]

Based On this, language barrier couldn't be used as a justification for Oona's misunderstandings.

I dont think Oona has particularly misunderstood anything except the MITD, and thats clearly a case of her having confirmation bias about the relationship between humanoids and monsters.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Based On this, language barrier couldn't be used as a justification for Oona's misunderstandings.

"Much easier" does not mean "perfectly". That she has trouble expressing herself demonstrates she is not a perfectly fluent speaker. Which means she can probably follow conversations, but is still liable to misunderstand common phrasing especially when they contain words with multiple meanings, false friends and/or homonyms. For example "I liked a few humans" being misunderstood to mean "I found them delicious" rather than the intended meaning of "I thought they were good friends". Especially, as Keltest points out, if she's predisposed to think of humans as sources of food.

Grey Wolf

[KorvinStarmast]

Thats fine for Durkon, but the paladins? She's patrolling the area around her people's homeland (which is what Rangers and Marchwardens have always done) and found intruders.
Common response to that is to defend borders/repel unauthorized invaders, slay them, etc.
Hardly evil to defend your homeland, as I see it.

[Keltest]

She's patrolling the area around her people's homeland (which is what Rangers and Marchwardens have always done) and found intruders.
Common response to that is to defend borders/repel unauthorized invaders, slay them, etc.
Hardly evil to defend your homeland, as I see it.

She was hunting them as a snack for the MITD. I really dont get this "she was defending her borders" argument. It doesnt really make it not evil to murder strangers without an established hostile intent and no warning to turn back, and she explicitly was trying to capture them to feed to a (perceived) pet anyway, so it wouldnt matter even if that defense somehow made it better.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

She's patrolling the area around her people's homeland (which is what Rangers and Marchwardens have always done) and found intruders.
Common response to that is to defend borders/repel unauthorized invaders, slay them, etc.
Hardly evil to defend your homeland, as I see it.

1) Slaying people just for crossing a border is Evil, unless they are, say, an army (heck, even then... armies in training mistakingly crossing international borders happens every couple of years in RL, and retaliating would be excessive). In D&D some exceptions might be made for things like undead abominations, but two people in blue cloaks does not.

2) Unless there was a border crossing that Rich filed to include, the paladins were just walking across a completely undescriptive chunk of ice. They are not even in sight of the settlement, and the flying panel (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1036.html) suggests it is quite some distance away. There is a point where "defending your homeland" crosses the line into "murdering people who'd not even know it was your homeland to start with", and it becomes Evil before you get to that point.

Grey Wolf

[Jason]

She was hunting them as a snack for the MITD. I really dont get this "she was defending her borders" argument. It doesnt really make it not evil to murder strangers without an established hostile intent and no warning to turn back, and she explicitly was trying to capture them to feed to a (perceived) pet anyway, so it wouldnt matter even if that defense somehow made it better.
Exactly.

Good response to intruders: "Hi guys, my name's Oona, pleased to meet you. Hey, did you miss those signs saying this is bugbear territory? I know, I know, it's an ice flow - the signs keep faling over. Why don't you tell me what or who you're looking for and we'll try to help you while I walk you out of our borders?"

Neutral respone to intruders: [sound of crossbow being cocked] "Get off my lawn. I'm going to count to three."

Evil response: What Oona did. Ambush them without warning and feed anything left over to your pet monster.

[GMantis]

Oona is not stupid: where does this come from? She has a somewhat stilted mode of expression to give her a unique voice, just as Bandana does.
She decided to kill Minrah despite stating that Minrah had a point. Seems a classical example of irrational evilness. Which is not exactly the same as being stupid, just that the impulse to do evil overrules more vital considerations.

[Worldsong]

Exactly.

Good response to intruders: "Hi guys, my name's Oona, pleased to meet you. Hey, did you miss those signs saying this is bugbear territory? I know, I know, it's an ice flow - the signs keep faling over. Why don't you tell me what or who you're looking for and we'll try to help you while I walk you out of our borders?"

Neutral respone to intruders: [sound of crossbow being cocked] "Get off my lawn. I'm going to count to three."

Evil response: What Oona did. Ambush them without warning and feed anything left over to your pet monster.

Best response: "WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY SWAMP."

[hamishspence]

She decided to kill Minrah despite stating that Minrah had a point. Seems a classical example of irrational evilness. Which is not exactly the same as being stupid, just that the impulse to do evil overrules more vital considerations.

Seemed less about "impulse to do evil" and more about "desire to keep Redcloak moderately happy, after Redcloak has made a courteous request" to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

1) Slaying people just for crossing a border is Evil, Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on, nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.

[Fyraltari]

Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on
It is well known after all that heavier-than-air flight is a surefire sign of an archaic time period.

nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.
This is asinine. It’s never been right to kill two people for crossing an invisible frontier.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on, nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.

Yes, it is Evil in both any time period you care to quote and yes, it is Evil in the game. This is not my opinion, but the RAW of what it means for an action to be Evil: murdering people who are no danger to you, for no better reason than walking in an unmarked, unremarkable ice flow "because they crossed a boundary" is Evil.

Grey Wolf

[dancrilis]

... murdering people who are no danger to you, for no better reason than walking in an unmarked, unremarkable ice flow is Evil.

But they are a danger to her settlement - Paladin's (notably blue clad human paladins) have a history of roaming the world finding goblinoid settlements and attacking them with barely any warning, they shouldn't be surprised that some goblinoids choose to attack as soon as they see anyone matching that description.

She stated on panel 7 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html) that she almost got the monster in the darkness a special dinner - but she didn't claim that was her sole reason for attacking humans encroaching on the territory.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But they are a danger to her settlement
No they are not.


Paladin's (notably blue clad human paladins) have a history of roaming the world finding goblinoid settlements and attacking them with barely any warning, they shouldn't be surprised that some goblinoids choose to attack as soon as they see anyone matching that description.

And if anyone was claiming this was retaliation, we'd be having a different conversation. But that is not the claim being made.

Of course, you'd need to provide evidence that a) Oona recognized them as Azure Guard Paladins; b) that she is aware of the Azure Guard crimes; c) the relevance of the surprise to the morality of an action ("they shouldn't be surprised"? they aren't surprised. That doesn't make the attack any less Evil); and d) that guilt by association is a valid moral position, since neither of these paladins have ever done anything of the sort.

But then, I'd not be interested in having that conversation, so really don't care if you can answer any of the above.

Grey Wolf

[Bunny Commando]

I would like to point what Oona actually said: in comic 1037 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html) she says that she attacked Lien and O-Chul because she wanted to fed them to the MitD. O-Chul and Lien, in her view, were not trespasser or intruders or enemy combatants: they were prey, food for what she considers merely a beast.

[dancrilis]

No they are not.
They are relatively mid/high-level characters who are directly out to oppose the interests of Oona's new allies, and are/were seeking to scout its location before bringing in reinforcements to attack those allies - who happened to be in her village.

She didn't know any of that - but that doesn't change the fact that 'they are a danger to her settlement' is a true statement.



But then, I'd not be interested in having that conversation, so really don't care if you can answer any of the above.

Fair enough.

[KorvinStarmast]

No they are not.Yes they are - from what we know:

Oona is patrolling her people's lands and marches when she spots armed knights, warriors, attempting to infiltrate into her lands. These knghts are from a nation that is hostile to her ally (Redcloak).
Yes, Oona is already allied with Redcloak/goblins at this point - we find out a strip after the two armed invaders disappear into the cold water.
She has already aligned her people (at least somewhat) with Redclaok and his cause, even though she hasn't the fervor for TDO that he displays.
Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not.

Yes, a potential threat to her people; taking them out is at worst a neutral act. And, did you see the size of that flying creature? Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.

@bunnycommando: your points are noted

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes they are - from what we know:

Oona is patrolling her people's lands and marches when she spots armed knights, warriors, attempting to infiltrate into her lands. These knghts are from a nation that is hostile to her ally (Redcloak).
Yes, Oona is already allied with Redcloak/goblins at this point - we find out a strip after the two armed invaders disappear into the cold water.
She has already aligned her people (at least somewhat) with Redclaok and his cause, even though she hasn't the fervor for TDO that he displays.
Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not.

Yes, a potential threat to her people; taking them out is at worst a neutral act. And, did you see the size of that flying creature? Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.
Like I said to dancrilis: you did not claim any of that. You claimed that murdering people for crossing a boundary is not Evil. It sounds like you now want to instead switch to "it is not Evil to murder known enemies (not just any individual), regardless of their physical location (not just for crossing a boundary)" which is a claim that has exactly 0 overlap with your original claim - not so much moving the goalpost as much as pretending you were playing baseball all along.

FTR:


1) Slaying people just for crossing a border is Evil
Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on, nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.

GW

[Bunny Commando]

Yes they are - from what we know:

Oona is patrolling her people's lands and marches when she spots armed knights, warriors, attempting to infiltrate into her lands. These knghts are from a nation that is hostile to her ally (Redcloak).
Yes, Oona is already allied with Redcloak/goblins at this point - we find out a strip after the two armed invaders disappear into the cold water.
She has already aligned her people (at least somewhat) with Redclaok and his cause, even though she hasn't the fervor for TDO that he displays.
Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not.

Yes, a potential threat to her people; taking them out is at worst a neutral act. And, did you see the size of that flying creature? Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.

@bunnycommando: your points are noted

If my points are noted, then I would like to ask you how you came up with your reconstruction of what happened.
In 1037 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html) she states that she was not patrolling her people's land, she was exercising Lancer. If her primary intent was defending her territory she certainly succeeded: yet she feels embarassed about her failure.
Lastly, if Oona has identified O-Chul and Lien as enemies of her ally Redcloak (even if there's no proof to support that conclusion) one would think that she would tell Redcloak what happened; in 1038 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1038.html) and all subsequent strips she does not even if it would be a valuable information for Redcloak to know - it would mean his enemies are near.

[Jason]

Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not. That's the sticking point. Oona obviously did not know they were enemies of Redcloak. If she had then she would have told Redcloak "hey I bagged some of those paladins you were warning us about." She doesn't even mention the incident to him - meaning she didn't connect the intruders with her ally Redcloak and his Plan at all.


Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.Economical but also evil. Actively hunting sentients for food for youself or your animals is evil behavior, not neutral.

[Worldsong]

I'm pretty sure we've had the conversation about whether hunting sapients for the sake of food is automatically Evil before.

Then again that conversation might have ended up being inconclusive.

Although I will say that of all the reasons one might have to attack sapients, 'I want to eat you' still sounds like one of the less objectionable motivations. It certainly beats 'Because I hate you.'

Then again, that's not a very high bar to pass...

[Fyraltari]

I'm pretty sure we've had the conversation about whether hunting sapients for the sake of food is automatically Evil before.

Then again that conversation might have ended up being inconclusive.

Although I will say that of all the reasons one might have to attack sapients, 'I want to eat you' still sounds like one of the less objectionable motivations. It certainly beats 'Because I hate you.'

Then again, that's not a very high bar to pass...

What about "I think my friend would enjoy the taste of you more than that of the food we usually eat"?

[Worldsong]

What about "I think my friend would enjoy the taste of you more than that of the food we usually eat"?

I think my argument for that last time was that Oona bears (some) responsibility for keeping her guests fed and any food she happens to come across which helps fill MitD's stomach means there's more food left for the rest of the tribe (and guests), and given that said tribe lives out on the north pole with only known food source a really dangerous dungeon it's not unlikely that her tribe has to be very careful with ensuring there's enough food to go around.

EDIT: or to put it otherwise, hunting sapients for the sake of survival could arguably extend to survival of the community, including temporary members of the community.

[Fyraltari]

I think my argument for that last time was that Oona bears (some) responsibility for keeping her guests fed and any food she happens to come across which helps fill MitD's stomach means there's more food left for the rest of the tribe (and guests), and given that said tribe lives out on the north pole with only known food source a really dangerous dungeon it's not unlikely that her tribe has to be very careful with ensuring there's enough food to go around.

EDIT: or to put it otherwise, hunting sapients for the sake of survival could arguably extend to survival of the community, including temporary members of the community.

I think she already has that covered, though. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html)

[Worldsong]

I think she already has that covered, though. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html)

True enough. Of course I could argue that Team Evil isn't necessarily a reliable source of food given the uncertainty of the duration of their stay and whether the monsters they'll be clearing out are monsters who provide edible food for the bugbears, but since I don't actually disagree with Oona being Evil that probably wouldn't really be anything but semantics.

One thing I do feel is important to say though is that I believe that alignments are a bit more forgiving when someone has grown up with certain habits which within their culture make sense and they're mostly having trouble adapting to a new environment or scenario where things are different.

Which doesn't mean that what Oona does isn't wrong, but I'd say that if that was the only bad thing she did it wouldn't on its own shift her to Evil because it'd make sense that someone who has grown up with the habit of considering every piece of food vital to the survival of the tribe isn't going to drop that habit the moment Team Evil shows up and makes getting food from Kraagor's Tomb a lot easier.

EDIT: Actually I could imagine a character who'd immediately drop that habit but then we'd be talking about a Good-aligned character who was never very happy about the idea of hunting people even if it was for the sake of sustenance and who is all too happy to use the convenience of Team Evil to convince their tribe that they should forego the hunting of sapients for at least as long as Team Evil is helping out.

[KorvinStarmast]

Economical but also evil.
No. Hunting for your food is not evil.

[Lethologica]

No. Hunting for your food is not evil.
Hunting sapient beings for your food is, generally speaking.

I can vaguely see the outlines of a boundary-value problem where "they will die if I do" intersects with "I will die if I don't." (Also, a perhaps-overlooked question of whether Oona regularly hunts sapient monsters in Monster Hollow.) But hunting sapient beings because (you think) your friend likes the taste does not approach that boundary.

[Worldsong]

Hunting sapient beings for your food is, generally speaking.

I can vaguely see the outlines of a boundary-value problem where "they will die if I do" intersects with "I will die if I don't." (Also, a perhaps-overlooked question of whether Oona regularly hunts sapient monsters in Monster Hollow.) But hunting sapient beings because (you think) your friend likes the taste does not approach that boundary.

The question is whether Neutral characters should respect the lives of other sapients to the point of significant, possibly terminal, personal inconvenience.

Given that I'm pretty certain that mercenaries generally fall in the Neutral range rather than the Evil range on the vertical axis I'd say the answer to that question is no.

It also helps that mercenaries and cannibals share the trait that they'll kill for the sake of personal sustenance, with the main difference being that mercenaries kill for money which they then use to buy resources needed for survival whereas the cannibal skips that part and turns the person they kill into the resources they need for survival.

Also as I argued above, Oona is responsible for keeping her tribe fed and filling MitD's stomach does help with that since, as a guest, it's reasonable to assume any food he eats come from the same storage as what the tribe survives on.

That she'd try to get MitD something which she thinks he likes is more another sign of her being friendly towards her guests.

EDIT: of course for both mercenaries and cannibals there's the clause that they actually need to be relying on their homicidal habits for their survival... Although I'm not sure how that interacts with the possibility for a mercenary to simply get another job.

[Jason]

No. Hunting for your food is not evil.
If you are sentient and you are aware that the beings you are hunting are also sentient, and you have alternatives to hunting sentients, then yes, it is evil for you to hunt sentient beings for food.

If you don't have alternatives and/or the person is willing to die in order to feed you or is already dead it might be considered neutral behavior to eat someone. It's still not good behavior.

Because treating people as a consumable or disposable resource is (generally, at least) evil.

Trying to kill people for the express purpose of feeding them to your pets when there are alternatives is definitely evil behavior.

[Lethologica]

The question is whether Neutral characters should respect the lives of other sapients to the point of significant, possibly terminal, personal inconvenience.
Er, yes, that is the boundary-value problem. But there is no indication that this is a matter of significant or terminal personal inconvenience.


If you don't have alternatives and/or the person is willing to die in order to feed you or is already dead it might be considered neutral behavior to eat someone. It's still not good behavior.

Because treating people as a consumable or disposable resource is evil.
I disagree with lumping the bolded part in with the rest. See for example the ritual cannibalism (https://diggercomic.com/blog/2008/03/30/digger-395/) in Digger. If the death has nothing to do with the consumption, then the issue is not the treatment of people, but the treatment of bodies.

[Jason]

I disagree with lumping the bolded part in with the rest. See for example the ritual cannibalism (https://diggercomic.com/blog/2008/03/30/digger-395/) in Digger. If the death has nothing to do with the consumption, then the issue is not the treatment of people, but the treatment of bodies.
Ritual cannibalism specifically is not about treating a person like any other consumable. Whether it would be considered evil or not would depend largely on the purpose of the ritual.

If you are trying to steal the strength or powers of your defeated enemies that is probably evil. If it is intended to honor a worthy adversary or friend then it probably isn't evil.

[Worldsong]

Er, yes, that is the boundary-value problem. But there is no indication that this is a matter of significant or terminal personal inconvenience.

They live out in the frozen wastes and the only source of food we know of is a dungeon which contains creatures of such power that Xykon gets XP from exploring the dungeon. I'd say the established details of the setting imply that for these bugbears life is a struggle and starvation isn't unheard of. In which case every piece of food would be important.

[Lethologica]

They live out in the frozen wastes and the only source of food we know of is a dungeon which contains creatures of such power that Xykon gets XP from exploring the dungeon. I'd say the established details of the setting imply that for these bugbears life is a struggle and starvation isn't unheard of. In which case every piece of food would be important.
Look, per the comic we're talking the difference between special and not-special dinner, not the difference between dinner and no dinner. I don't care whether it could be the case that Oona Neutrally hunts sapient beings for survival, because that's not what this is.


Ritual cannibalism specifically is not about treating a person like any other consumable. Whether it would be considered evil or not would depend largely on the purpose of the ritual.

If you are trying to steal the strength or powers of your defeated enemies that is probably evil. If it is intended to honor a worthy adversary or friend then it probably isn't evil.
Yes, but the point is a little broader than that. The morality of the ritual depends on mucky stuff like who it's intended to honor or intimidate because it's not about the death of the person anymore, only the treatment of a corpse. There's no one there to treat well or poorly anymore. And that also applies to other cases of eating a person who has died for unrelated reasons.

Any health issues aside, there are two reasons to condemn eating corpses of sapient creatures. One is that it violates our cultural practices for the treatment of dead bodies - which is a contingent moral issue but not an inherent moral one. The other is that it might encourage us to produce dead bodies for the eating - that is, this act which has null moral value in itself might lead to acts which are actually bad. But that does not make the first act bad.

[Worldsong]

Look, per the comic we're talking the difference between special and not-special dinner, not the difference between dinner and no dinner. I don't care whether it could be the case that Oona Neutrally hunts sapient beings for survival, because that's not what this is.

Not really, just because Oona says "I was trying to get you some human paladins because you said you liked them" doesn't mean she doesn't simultaneously want to feed MitD because each full stomach means there's more to go around. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Lethologica]

Not really, just because Oona says "I was trying to get you some human paladins because you said you liked them" doesn't mean she doesn't simultaneously want to feed MitD because each full stomach means there's more to go around. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
It is trivially true that each full stomach means there's more to go around. That has null moral value. There is no indication that Oona attaches any of the existential urgency to the issue that you are using to justify the act.

[Worldsong]

It is trivially true that each full stomach means there's more to go around. That has null moral value. There is no indication that Oona attaches any of the existential urgency to the issue that you are using to justify the act.

Given that she's consistently portrayed as upbeat it's not very surprising she wouldn't start despairing or panic. Especially since if I'm right she's used to this and isn't going to throw a fit about it.

Besides I'm not talking about a "Either I feed MitD these paladins or we're in deep trouble", I'm talking about a perspective which covers a larger period of time and where there's just no real reason not to prioritize keeping everyone fed as much as possible.

Also I disagree with full stomachs being trivial. In a scenario where food is an uncertainty a full stomach is vital, especially since a full stomach also means that someone can be productive and useful.

[Lethologica]

Given that she's consistently portrayed as upbeat it's not very surprising she wouldn't start despairing or panic. Especially since if I'm right she's used to this and isn't going to throw a fit about it.
You're saying "the reason no indications doesn't mean I'm wrong is..." And if that's what persuades you, fine, but I'm not interested. There's no indications that you're right.


Besides I'm not talking about a "Either I feed MitD these paladins or we're in deep trouble", I'm talking about a perspective which covers a larger period of time and where there's just no real reason not to prioritize keeping everyone fed as much as possible.
This is a lot of squishy euphemistic terminology that doesn't actually address when the need is or is not urgent enough to justify killing sapients. Which is a real reason not to do something! There is no circumstance in which there is 'just no real reason' not to kill sapients!


Also I disagree with full stomachs being trivial. In a scenario where food is an uncertainty a full stomach is vital, especially since a full stomach also means that someone can be productive and useful.
The triviality is not the fullness of the stomach, but the more to go around. "The more brought in, the more there is" - well, obviously.

That any stomachs were about to be not full is precisely what you have been unable to show.

[Dr.Zero]

But why intelligence should be a factor to decide if a living organism can be killed and eaten?
This is highly discriminatory!
Oona is, actually, a champion of equality who overthrows this anthropocentric vision of the world!
Probably CG (against tradition, for the rights of the ones ignored by society).

[Worldsong]

You're saying "the reason no indications doesn't mean I'm wrong is..." And if that's what persuades you, fine, but I'm not interested. There's no indications that you're right.

Other than the fact that the setting supports the idea that scarcity is common and that so far as I'm concerned scarcity is about the only argument you need for cannibalism to shift from Evil to Neutral.

They live out in the frozen wastes because the dwarves chased them out of more favourable environments, we've been told that monster races in general have it rough, and even with the Dark One it's said that bugbears are left out in the cold (in this case literally).

If these things don't indicate that these bugbears live in unfavourable conditions where scarcity is a real issue then I don't think we're going to be able to agree on this. Quite frankly when you have a village living out on the north pole I'd say you'd have to prove that scarcity isn't an issue because even in fantasy settings the frozen wastes are depicted as being a place where only the strong survive because life be a struggle.


This is a lot of squishy euphemistic terminology that doesn't actually address when the need is or is not urgent enough to justify killing sapients. Which is a real reason not to do something! There is no circumstance in which there is 'just no real reason' not to kill sapients!

That sounds like a Good alignment point of view. Neutral isn't Good and there's lots of circumstances where Neutral characters will kill which wouldn't turn them Evil. And not just instances of "It's for the sake of justice."

As I said before, most data I've received on this subject state that mercenaries default to Neutral and those guys essentially commit violence and kill for money.

Also, Lizardfolk are rated as Usually Neutral but they're commonly known for eating people. Of course within their own tribe it's for cultural and ritualistic purposes but even softskins are potential food sources and in the previous discussion of cannibalism I believe the end result was that Good-aligned tribes are known to steer away from it but other than that it's just there and there's no indication of it being unique to Evil-aligned tribes.

Which is not to say that you can just kill people left and right and say "I'm actually Neutral", but it does mean that Neutral characters don't respect the sanctity of life the way Good characters do.


The triviality is not the fullness of the stomach, but the more to go around. "The more brought in, the more there is" - well, obviously.

That any stomachs were about to be not full is precisely what you have been unable to show.

Personally I believe I have a convincing case that scarcity is a common enough issue for these bugbears that cannibalism is a pragmatic approach.

That said I'm guessing you just have stronger objections to cannibalism than I do regardless of circumstances so I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.

[Keltest]

Its not the eating people thing thats a problem in and of itself, its the "killing them to eat because they taste different." thing thats an issue. Whether there was a scarcity issue at some point in the past, they clearly have enough food to go around now, which means that continuing to rely on eating intelligent creatures when you could otherwise not do so is evil.

[Dr.Zero]

Its not the eating people thing thats a problem in and of itself, its the "killing them to eat because they taste different." thing thats an issue. Whether there was a scarcity issue at some point in the past, they clearly have enough food to go around now, which means that continuing to rely on eating intelligent creatures when you could otherwise not do so is evil.

I like trouts and salmons, potato and melons. So I eat these things instead of others, usually (but not too much, you know, to have vitamins and nutrients all around the spectrum). Does this, in itself, make me evil? Or more evil than one who eats random food?

About intelligente creatures, I restate what I said before. :P

[Precure]

I had to maintain that Oona is most likely stupid evil. You can argue many things to justify her acting evil and stupid, but still, it is the most conclusive answer to understand the rationale behind her actions.

[Dr.Zero]

I had to maintain that Oona is most likely stupid evil. You can argue many things to justify her acting evil and stupid, but still, it is the most conclusive answer to understand the rationale behind her actions.

On the evil, jokes aside, I give for granted she is Evil (because I doubt the author would give her a different label, not because what she does is worse than what known neutral people did, but this is a different problem, debated for ages since the times of Therkla and the dynamic duo of bounty hunters).

On the stupid, I don't even see this "acting stupid", so yeah, if you see things other people -specifically at least me- don't , obviously there isn't a lot to discuss about.

[mjasghar]

With regards to mercenaries: generally they are serving in the positions of national or local military, or as guards (personal or caravan).
In such circumstances, when they kill it is in ‘acceptable’ circumstances such as war or defending property or life. Their role in fantasy societies is to be professional military in an era where such militaries are limited due to low tax bases.
Mercenaries who willingly accept tasks to kill unarmed civilians etc are doing evil actions.

[Precure]

On the stupid, I don't even see this "acting stupid", so yeah, if you see things other people -specifically at least me- don't , obviously there isn't a lot to discuss about.

Can't tell the difference between someone liking a food and someone's love for a certain people.
Decided to fight someone she agreed with and had no reason to fight just because someone said please.
Honestly and truly believed that she suddenly gained the magical powers to shrink people by hitting them.

[Metastachydium]

Can't tell the difference between someone liking a food and someone's love for a certain people.

As others mentioned before, we are talking about a „powerful, horrific monster” who eats much anything and that in large quantities. Xykon and Redcloak thought feeding him human(oid)s is appropriate, and he genuinely wanted to devour the Order up to a point.


Decided to fight someone she agreed with and had no reason to fight just because someone said please.

All she said was „[g]iant woman is bringing interesting point to the table.” She never said she agrees with this „interesting point.”
Also, when one has no reason not to help one's ally and attack his enemies, attacking the enemies of one's allies is not a stupid move.


Honestly and truly believed that she suddenly gained the magical powers to shrink people by hitting them.

This is a better argument than the rest, but bear in mind that she does not know much about magic, perhaps mostly because her tribe does not have much of it.

[Lethologica]

Other than the fact that the setting supports the idea that scarcity is common and that so far as I'm concerned scarcity is about the only argument you need for cannibalism to shift from Evil to Neutral.

They live out in the frozen wastes because the dwarves chased them out of more favourable environments, we've been told that monster races in general have it rough, and even with the Dark One it's said that bugbears are left out in the cold (in this case literally).

If these things don't indicate that these bugbears live in unfavourable conditions where scarcity is a real issue then I don't think we're going to be able to agree on this. Quite frankly when you have a village living out on the north pole I'd say you'd have to prove that scarcity isn't an issue because even in fantasy settings the frozen wastes are depicted as being a place where only the strong survive because life be a struggle.
The circumstances make scarcity a regular possibility, and could make hunting sapients an accepted Neutral option when those times come to pass. But the possibility is not what makes hunting sapients Neutral. It can't be this routine, "I'll hunt up some people, keep the storage stocked, make sure everyone gets fed as much as possible because life is hard and you never know when the prey will disappear" kind of 'scarcity' you want to use for justification. That's not 'lacking the commitment to make sacrifices to help or protect others,' it's 'killing without qualms if doing so is convenient.'

So you have indications of something that does not justify your position. You do not have indications of something that does.


That sounds like a Good alignment point of view. Neutral isn't Good and there's lots of circumstances where Neutral characters will kill which wouldn't turn them Evil. And not just instances of "It's for the sake of justice."
"Neutral characters will consider more reasons to kill valid than Good ones" is not the same as "There are Neutral characters who will see no real reason not to kill people, generally speaking."


As I said before, most data I've received on this subject state that mercenaries default to Neutral and those guys essentially commit violence and kill for money.
Bizarre invocation of unseen 'data' aside, mercenaries should be all over the alignment map depending on what they fight for and how, just like every other professional fighter and fighting force. Committing violence on a battlefield has all kinds of circumstantial moral variation above and beyond that which can be found in hunting, and the kinds of situations that are assumed to regularly pertain in a given setting affect the presumed default alignment of mercenaries.


Also, Lizardfolk are rated as Usually Neutral but they're commonly known for eating people. Of course within their own tribe it's for cultural and ritualistic purposes but even softskins are potential food sources and in the previous discussion of cannibalism I believe the end result was that Good-aligned tribes are known to steer away from it but other than that it's just there and there's no indication of it being unique to Evil-aligned tribes.

Which is not to say that you can just kill people left and right and say "I'm actually Neutral", but it does mean that Neutral characters don't respect the sanctity of life the way Good characters do.
[...]
Personally I believe I have a convincing case that scarcity is a common enough issue for these bugbears that cannibalism is a pragmatic approach.

That said I'm guessing you just have stronger objections to cannibalism than I do regardless of circumstances so I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.
It's not the eating part I'm against, as my conversation with Jason should make clear enough. I have little beef with the idea of eating dead people. What I'm against is routinely hunting live people, a much more specific and harmful act. That's why I've been using the term 'killing sapients' instead of 'cannibalism'. It would be a good idea to pay attention to the words people use when guessing about why they disagree with you.

It would also help with your collection of evidence for your position - you would think to clarify, for example, whether Neutral lizardfolk tribes are killing people to eat them, or simply not wasting meat once a kill has happened for whatever other reasons.

[Dion]

I believe sneak attacks on strangers simply because you believe they’re in your territory is an evil act, regardless of what you plan to do with the bodies.

I also believe melee attacks on strangers at the request of your friend and guest, especially when your friend and guest is in mortal combat with those strangers on the edge of your village, is a neutral act

I also believe that performing an evil act doesn’t mean your alignment is necessarily evil. Neutral people can and do perform a wide variety of good and evil acts.

But she’s definitely not getting into celestia.

[Dr.Zero]

As others mentioned before, we are talking about a „powerful, horrific monster” who eats much anything and that in large quantities. Xykon and Redcloak thought feeding him human(oid)s is appropriate, and he genuinely wanted to devour the Order up to a point.

Do you know what I find funny?

That I try to immerse myself in the context, with the aforementioned horrific monster -ally of an uber evil and sadistic lich and a human hater goblin- who says with a deep, scary, creepy voice that it once really liked a paladin, and I find the idea of someone wondering: "But you mean you liked him as a friend?" to be the one really naive, at Elan level of naivety.

[Keltest]

Do you know what I find funny?

That I try to immerse myself in the context, with the aforementioned horrific monster -ally of an uber evil and sadistic lich and a human hater goblin- who says with a deep, scary, creepy voice that it once really liked a paladin, and I find the idea of someone wondering: "But you mean you liked him as a friend?" to be the one really naive, at Elan level of naivety.

I guess that depends on how much she had spoken to him previously. Anybody who spends 10 minutes with the MITD and pays any amount of attention knows he's a marshmallow. Xykon could not for the unlife of him get the MITD to be intimidating. But absent that context, its a reasonable assumption.

[WanderingMist]

Exactly.

Good response to intruders: "Hi guys, my name's Oona, pleased to meet you. Hey, did you miss those signs saying this is bugbear territory? I know, I know, it's an ice flow - the signs keep faling over. Why don't you tell me what or who you're looking for and we'll try to help you while I walk you out of our borders?"

Neutral respone to intruders: [sound of crossbow being cocked] "Get off my lawn. I'm going to count to three."

Evil response: What Oona did. Ambush them without warning and feed anything left over to your pet monster.

She was out hunting for food. She wasn't purposefully out looking for humans to kill. She believed MitD liked humans as food, and she happened to see an opportunity to try and get him some.

An Evil response would be to make sure they were dead once they fell into the water.

Anyway, my guess for her is on the borderline between Neutral and Evil.


If you are sentient and you are aware that the beings you are hunting are also sentient, and you have alternatives to hunting sentients, then yes, it is evil for you to hunt sentient beings for food.

If you don't have alternatives and/or the person is willing to die in order to feed you or is already dead it might be considered neutral behavior to eat someone. It's still not good behavior.

Because treating people as a consumable or disposable resource is (generally, at least) evil.

Trying to kill people for the express purpose of feeding them to your pets when there are alternatives is definitely evil behavior.
The alternative you are talking about is "deadly cave full of horrible monsters that can easily kill the one hunting them". The only other foods they have are the bitter fruit of eternal despair and certain berries. Evil is going out of your way to hunt sapients for food. Neutral is going after them if they just happen to show up and are less likely to kill you than other food sources.

[Keltest]

She was out hunting for food. She wasn't purposefully out looking for humans to kill. She believed MitD liked humans as food, and she happened to see an opportunity to try and get him some.

An Evil response would be to make sure they were dead once they fell into the water.

Anyway, my guess for her is on the borderline between Neutral and Evil.

Evil doesnt mean "brutally lusts for blood at every expense." It just means youre willing to hurt or see hurt people for bad or no reason.

[Tvtyrant]

She was out hunting for food. She wasn't purposefully out looking for humans to kill. She believed MitD liked humans as food, and she happened to see an opportunity to try and get him some.

An Evil response would be to make sure they were dead once they fell into the water.

Anyway, my guess for her is on the borderline between Neutral and Evil.


The alternative you are talking about is "deadly cave full of horrible monsters that can easily kill the one hunting them". The only other foods they have are the bitter fruit of eternal despair and certain berries. Evil is going out of your way to hunt sapients for food. Neutral is going after them if they just happen to show up and are less likely to kill you than other food sources.

Like if I went to the grocery store and happened to murder someone unprovoked you would consider me neutral?

[Dr.Zero]

Bah, I keep finding all this anthropocentrism irritating.
For me Oona, attacking O'Chul, has done nothing different from a primitive human hunting an elk.
Or a lion attacking a human.
Different specie + usable as food + (for someone) tastes good + in my territory = fair game.

[Worldsong]

Its not the eating people thing thats a problem in and of itself, its the "killing them to eat because they taste different." thing thats an issue. Whether there was a scarcity issue at some point in the past, they clearly have enough food to go around now, which means that continuing to rely on eating intelligent creatures when you could otherwise not do so is evil.

I've already admitted to Fyraltari that the arrival of Team Evil most likely means that currently the scarcity is less of an issue because Team Evil can make farming food from the dungeon a whole lot safer and reliable. However that wouldn't make an entire culture built around scarcity disappear so while ideally Oona would accept that during Team Evil's stay she doesn't have to hunt people to keep the food supplies topped off it doesn't make her Evil that she doesn't immediately make the switch.


Honestly and truly believed that she suddenly gained the magical powers to shrink people by hitting them.

You mean the part where she hit someone in the face, that person spontaneously shrinks an entire size category, and her first response is "Wait, did I do that?"


With regards to mercenaries: generally they are serving in the positions of national or local military, or as guards (personal or caravan).
In such circumstances, when they kill it is in ‘acceptable’ circumstances such as war or defending property or life. Their role in fantasy societies is to be professional military in an era where such militaries are limited due to low tax bases.
Mercenaries who willingly accept tasks to kill unarmed civilians etc are doing evil actions.

Okay, that's actually a pretty good point.


The circumstances make scarcity a regular possibility, and could make hunting sapients an accepted Neutral option when those times come to pass. But the possibility is not what makes hunting sapients Neutral. It can't be this routine, "I'll hunt up some people, keep the storage stocked, make sure everyone gets fed as much as possible because life is hard and you never know when the prey will disappear" kind of 'scarcity' you want to use for justification. That's not 'lacking the commitment to make sacrifices to help or protect others,' it's 'killing without qualms if doing so is convenient.'

So you have indications of something that does not justify your position. You do not have indications of something that does.

I mean... I already find the first one Neutral. So I think we have a bigger disagreement here.

At least if the 'life is hard' is backed up by 'Scarcity is actually a thing which realistically happens.'


"Neutral characters will consider more reasons to kill valid than Good ones" is not the same as "There are Neutral characters who will see no real reason not to kill people, generally speaking."

Agreed.


Bizarre invocation of unseen 'data' aside, mercenaries should be all over the alignment map depending on what they fight for and how, just like every other professional fighter and fighting force. Committing violence on a battlefield has all kinds of circumstantial moral variation above and beyond that which can be found in hunting, and the kinds of situations that are assumed to regularly pertain in a given setting affect the presumed default alignment of mercenaries.

Well given that my data comes from personal experience with DnD, asking around a bit and looking up examples of Neutral alignments on the internet it'd be a bit difficult to get a nice collection of it. Suffice to say that my experiences with DnD support the notion that while mercenaries can be all around the alignment chart the default alignment for mercenaries tends to be Any Neutral.


It's not the eating part I'm against, as my conversation with Jason should make clear enough. I have little beef with the idea of eating dead people. What I'm against is routinely hunting live people, a much more specific and harmful act. That's why I've been using the term 'killing sapients' instead of 'cannibalism'. It would be a good idea to pay attention to the words people use when guessing about why they disagree with you.

It would also help with your collection of evidence for your position - you would think to clarify, for example, whether Neutral lizardfolk tribes are killing people to eat them, or simply not wasting meat once a kill has happened for whatever other reasons.

Or maybe I read what you say and just happen to interpret it in a different way than you intend it. How about you don't assume I'm not paying attention.

Bit of a rude comment here.

However to answer your question, lizardfolk do both.


Bah, I keep finding all this anthropocentrism irritating.
For me Oona, attacking O'Chul, has done nothing different from a primitive human hunting an elk.
Or a lion attacking a human.
Different specie + usable as food + (for someone) tastes good + in my territory = fair game.

Okay I actually like just how blunt you are.

[Jason]

I think it's either sad or funny that so many people appear willing to defend ambushing, killing, and eating (or feeding to her pets) humans (canonically Lawful Good humans, in fact) as not an evil act just because Oona is kind of friendly and funny.

To sum up:

"She was defending her territory." Her statement is that she was out exercising a mount, not patrolling her territory. There are no obvious markers that this territory belongs to anyone.

"Paladins are enemies of her people and her new allies." She didn't identify them as paladins and didn't say "I was trying to defend us." It was "sorry I didn't get you some humans to eat." She didn't even mention the incident to the leaders of her new allies.

"But meat is really scarce where she lives." Well, except for the giant valley of doors full of monsters, which obviously must all be eating something too, not just each other.

"But what about ritual canabalsim?" Well, it sure didnt look like any ritual, and Oona already said she's not really the religious type.

"If she were really evil, she would have dived into the icy water to make sure they were dead." The basic arctic survival skill of "don't get into freezing cold water if you can avoid it," comes to mind.

[Worldsong]

"But meat is really scarce where she lives." Well, except for the giant valley of doors full of monsters, which obviously must all be eating something too, not just each other.

Somehow I don't think there's just a patch of vegetables right behind the door which the bugbears can just get to whenever they want.

Also I'm not defending this because of Oona. I just in general tend to defend hunting sapients.

[Bunny Commando]

Somehow I don't think there's just a patch of vegetables right behind the door which the bugbears can just get to whenever they want.

Also I'm not defending this because of Oona. I just in general tend to defend hunting sapients.

It's not just about hunting.
In 1037 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html) Oona says she wanted to feed O-Chul and Lien to the MitD; there's no evidence she and her tribe would eat them as well.
In 1213 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1213.html) she says she doesn't have a compelling reason not to kill Durkon and Minrah. There's no evidence she would eat them, they are no threat to her tribe - it was Redcloak that first resorted to violence - and they are just trying to run away.

A Neutral person has compunctions against killing innocent people - and there's no evidence Oona thinks Durkon, Minrah, O-Chul and Lien are guilty of anything; an Evil person, OTOH, has no compassion for others and kills without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Oona is certainly friendly, funny and charming. Yet she has showed a willingness to kill others just because she couldn't think of a reason not to kill - no compassion, kills without qualms.

[Lethologica]

Or maybe I read what you say and just happen to interpret it in a different way than you intend it. How about you don't assume I'm not paying attention.

Bit of a rude comment here.

However to answer your question, lizardfolk do both.
Tit for tat.

That said, I went ahead and found what appears to be the 5e MM entry for lizardfolk, and based on that, I'm going to concede.


Lizardfolk have no notion of traditional morality, and they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien. Truly neutral creatures, they kill when it is expedient and do whatever it takes to survive.

Lizardfolk rarely stray beyond their claimed hunting grounds. Any creature that enters their territory is fair game to be stalked, killed, and devoured. They make no distinction between humanoids, beasts, and monsters.

Lizardfolk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.

Once lizardfolk forge ties with outsiders, they are steadfast and fierce allies.

[Vulsutyr]

I'm throwing my vote in for Lawful Neutral. Not because I think eating humanoids is a Neutral act, but because I would guess that Oona doesn't think of non-goblinoid humanoids as on the same level of moral importance, in the same way I wouldn't fault a hunter/gatherer tribesman for eating a monkey.

[Lemarc]

My personal theory is that neurotypical people actually misunderstand what is being said about 95% of the time.

Like, neurotypicals literally never seem to know what is going on. They constantly ignore the evidence of their eyes and their ears and just pretend to understand whats happening and pretend that theyÂ’re understood by others, just to make social interactions less difficult.

Oona doesnÂ’t hide her constant social confusion like most neurotypicals do. That doesnÂ’t make her stupid. It makes her socially awkward, and it probably makes her relationships with other people very difficult. And it probably explains why she decided to be a beast master instead of a bard.

That's a fascinating hypothesis. I oppose it - I think most communication is mostly accurate, excluding language, cultural, and neurological barriers - but it interests me because of its symmetry. You could accuse me, a neurotypical person, of deluding myself when I think I understand others and make myself understood (and certainly I've experienced my share of major misunderstandings). I could accuse you of the proverbial "sour grapes". But it's impossible on that basis for us to ever really convince each other; we would be arguing about each other's minds, of which neither of us can ever know the opposite's. Obviously that's the case for a lot of arguments, but it's such a stark example that it's enamoured me. I'll think about this and apply my conclusions to more wishy-washy situations.

I feel obliged to say though that we have another means at hand in the case of neurotypicals vs. autists. Autism is quite common and therefore has been studied pretty extensively; there's a large body of data at hand. If neurotypicals perform significantly better than high-functioning autists in scientific tests on extracting meaning from communication, that would tend to disprove your idea. I myself don't have any such info though.

[Dr.Zero]

Okay I actually like just how blunt you are.

Thanks, I'm (kinda) proud to be the Belkar of the forum (at least for being apparently the most cynical, I'm still working about setting things on fire).

[Dr.Zero]

I guess that depends on how much she had spoken to him previously. Anybody who spends 10 minutes with the MITD and pays any amount of attention knows he's a marshmallow. Xykon could not for the unlife of him get the MITD to be intimidating. But absent that context, its a reasonable assumption.

I think there is a conceptual error in this, because of the fact that you live on this side of the 4th wall.
Being childish (like in "innocent", too), silly, naive doesn't mean being not dangerous and befriending the "snacks".

Xykon and RC know that MitD is not intimidating, is a "child", they've known it for years, still they think it would eat children.

Even more, MitD, being childish and naive as it as always been, was indeed completely fine and eager to devour the OOTS, as others have pointed out. Non only once (in DCF), when Xykon and RC were there, but twice, the second time when he was alone with Belkie and Haley.

You know it has changed because you've seen what happened with O'Chul.
But everyone else in universe has not that knowledge.

And being childish and naive -marshmallow- is a distinctive trait MitD had even when it was eager to devour humans (and halflings).

[Metastachydium]

I think there is a conceptual error in this, because of the fact that you live on this side of the 4th wall.
Being childish (like in "innocent", too), silly, naive doesn't mean being not dangerous and befriending the "snacks".

Xykon and RC know that MitD is not intimidating, is a "child", they've known it for years, still they think it would eat children.

Even more, MitD, being childish and naive as it as always been, was indeed completely fine and eager to devour the OOTS, as others have pointed out. Non only once (in DCF), when Xykon and RC were there, but twice, the second time when he was alone with Belkie and Haley.

You know it has changed because you've seen what happened with O'Chul.
But everyone else in universe has not that knowledge.

And being childish and naive -marshmallow- is a distinctive trait MitD had even when it was eager to devour humans (and halflings).

Exactly. I don't suppose I have to remind anyone that one of the other two naive and childlike major characters in the story is called Thog.
Also, the Monster can, in fact, be intimidating if that's what the situation calls for (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html).

[hamishspence]

Even more, MitD, being childish and naive as it as always been, was indeed completely fine and eager to devour the OOTS, as others have pointed out. Non only once (in DCF), when Xykon and RC were there, but twice, the second time when he was alone with Belkie and Haley.


Not exactly eager - rather conflicted in fact, between "Am I supposed to" "Do I have to wait for Xykon first" "Would revealing myself to do so, be against orders" and "I am still hungry".

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html

[Dr.Zero]

Not exactly eager - rather conflicted in fact, between "Am I supposed to" "Do I have to wait for Xykon first" "Would revealing myself to do so, be against orders" and "I am still hungry".

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html

Yes, but "I'm hungry, I'd devour them if it wasn't because I'm not sure of how Xykon is going to react" is something I think is eager enough, at least when the point we are debating is "does it see humans as acceptable food?"

[hamishspence]

True. The monster's shown themselves to be unwilling to eat babies - but not adults.

Kinda like people who'll eat beef but not veal, maybe?

[Dr.Zero]

True. The monster's shown themselves to be unwilling to eat babies - but not adults.

Kinda like people who'll eat beef but not veal, maybe?

I suppose so.
A gif from The Simpsons to show MitD's attitude.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/3o6Mbd4qw5YnZKeuwU/source.gif

(Even if the "out of the way" ends up with "and toward my esophagus!")

[Worldsong]

It's not just about hunting.
In 1037 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html) Oona says she wanted to feed O-Chul and Lien to the MitD; there's no evidence she and her tribe would eat them as well.
In 1213 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1213.html) she says she doesn't have a compelling reason not to kill Durkon and Minrah. There's no evidence she would eat them, they are no threat to her tribe - it was Redcloak that first resorted to violence - and they are just trying to run away.

A Neutral person has compunctions against killing innocent people - and there's no evidence Oona thinks Durkon, Minrah, O-Chul and Lien are guilty of anything; an Evil person, OTOH, has no compassion for others and kills without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Oona is certainly friendly, funny and charming. Yet she has showed a willingness to kill others just because she couldn't think of a reason not to kill - no compassion, kills without qualms.

I believe that Oona is Lawful Evil. What I've specifically been focusing on is the fact that her hunting O-Chul and Lien would in itself not prove her to be Evil, given that it's behaviour shared by lizardfolk who are put down as Usually Neutral.


Tit for tat.

That said, I went ahead and found what appears to be the 5e MM entry for lizardfolk, and based on that, I'm going to concede.

Huh. Didn't realize I was coming across as rude.

Oh well, at least we've found an answer to the question.

[Bunny Commando]

I believe that Oona is Lawful Evil. What I've specifically been focusing on is the fact that her hunting O-Chul and Lien would in itself not prove her to be Evil, given that it's behaviour shared by lizardfolk who are put down as Usually Neutral.

Fair enough.

[Keltest]

A Lizardfolk's neutrality is described as a total inability to understand morality in the first place though, not a judgement on the action of hunting sapient beings. Its almost certainly the way it is just to avoid having an Unaligned PC race.

[Jason]

I'm throwing my vote in for Lawful Neutral. Not because I think eating humanoids is a Neutral act, but because I would guess that Oona doesn't think of non-goblinoid humanoids as on the same level of moral importance, in the same way I wouldn't fault a hunter/gatherer tribesman for eating a monkey.
Isn't that the same excuse the paladins who slaughtered Redcloak's village were using for killing the goblin kids? "Goblins aren't on the same level of moral importance as humans."

[Worldsong]

A Lizardfolk's neutrality is described as a total inability to understand morality in the first place though, not a judgement on the action of hunting sapient beings. Its almost certainly the way it is just to avoid having an Unaligned PC race.

That kind of sounds like you're trying to shove lizardfolk in the same category as animals. I don't think their Intelligence score is low enough for that, and I'd posit that another valid way to read that excerpt is that notions such as Good and Evil just are completely absent from their own culture, not that they're incapable of comprehending them.

EDIT: Also from what I remember the mindset "I don't care about Good and Evil, I just do my own thing" is a pretty standard one for Neutral characters, even if their actions can still push them to Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic if they consistently keep behaving in a certain manner.

[Keltest]

That kind of sounds like you're trying to shove lizardfolk in the same category as animals. I don't think their Intelligence score is low enough for that, and I'd posit that another valid way to read that excerpt is that notions such as Good and Evil just are completely absent from their own culture, not that they're incapable of comprehending them.

EDIT: Also from what I remember the mindset "I don't care about Good and Evil, I just do my own thing" is a pretty standard one for Neutral characters, even if their actions can still push them to Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic if they consistently keep behaving in a certain manner.

Im not sure i see the difference between "good and evil doesnt exist for them" and "they dont understand the idea of good or evil."

[Worldsong]

Im not sure i see the difference between "good and evil doesnt exist for them" and "they dont understand the idea of good or evil."

What I mean is that I don't think we can dismiss their actions based on the idea that Good and Evil are concepts beyond their understanding when they're fully sapient. More likely Good and Evil just don't have a place in their culture but they could understand the concepts if an outsider explained them.

If said outsider could get them interested in listening to philosophical rambling.

Although even after the explanation they'd just say "Doesn't matter to me, doing my own thing."

[Keltest]

What I mean is that I don't think we can dismiss their actions based on the idea that Good and Evil are concepts beyond their understanding when they're fully sapient. More likely Good and Evil just don't have a place in their culture but they could understand the concepts if an outsider explained them.

If said outsider could get them interested in listening to philosophical rambling.

Although even after the explanation they'd just say "Doesn't matter to me, doing my own thing."

That doesnt mean it wouldnt apply to them though, it just means they dont care about the labels. Heck, most evil groups and individuals reject the labels to some degree or other, since very few people see themselves as the villain of their own story.

[Metastachydium]

What I mean is that I don't think we can dismiss their actions based on the idea that Good and Evil are concepts beyond their understanding when they're fully sapient. More likely Good and Evil just don't have a place in their culture but they could understand the concepts if an outsider explained them.

If said outsider could get them interested in listening to philosophical rambling.

Although even after the explanation they'd just say "Doesn't matter to me, doing my own thing."

It doesn't have to be beyond their understanding for them not to be capable of understanding it; it may be, so to say, beside it. Lethologica's MM entry says they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien, i.e. they do not understand these concepts, but not because they are too stupid to do so, but rather due to the fact that their mindset is so fundamentally different that this notion of morality does not mke sense to them.

[Worldsong]

That doesnt mean it wouldnt apply to them though, it just means they dont care about the lables. Heck, most evil groups and individuals reject the labels to some degree or other, since very few people see themselves as the villain of their own story.

Yes, but what I'm arguing is that I believe the labels apply to them regardless of whether an outsider explains to them the ideas of Good and Evil because they're fully sapient. That their own culture completely ignores traditional morality doesn't mean morality ignores them as well.

Also I'm rather hesitant to agree to a line of reasoning which would set a precedent that creatures can be fully sapient, fully self-aware, fully sane, and yet immune to morality.


It doesn't have to be beyond their understanding for them not to be capable of understanding it; it may be, so to say, beside it. Lethologica's MM entry says they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien, i.e. they do not understand these concepts, but not because they are too stupid to do so, but rather due to the fact that their mindset is so fundamentally different that this notion of morality does not mke sense to them.

I don't think Blue and Orange Morality means you can't be judged based on your actions though.

[Keltest]

Yes, but what I'm arguing is that I believe the labels apply to them regardless of whether an outsider explains to them the ideas of Good and Evil because they're fully sapient. That their own culture completely ignores traditional morality doesn't mean morality ignores them as well.

Also I'm rather hesitant to agree to a line of reasoning which would set a precedent that creatures can be fully sapient, fully self-aware, fully sane, and yet immune to morality.



I don't think Blue and Orange Morality means you can't be judged based on your actions though.

You were just arguing though that we cant make a moral judgement on the lizardfolk's behavior because theyre true neutral, and that it was therefore judged to be non-evil.

[Metastachydium]

I don't think Blue and Orange Morality means you can't be judged based on your actions though.

Can a blue cause have a black effect?
Actions and their motivations are the two sides of the same coin, after all.

[Worldsong]

You were just arguing though that we cant make a moral judgement on the lizardfolk's behavior because theyre true neutral though, and that it was therefore judged to be non-evil.

The Monster Manual apparently judges the act of hunting humanoids within your territory for the sake of food as fitting behaviour for a Neutral culture, although there's probably the clause that you can't single humanoids out for that.

That doesn't mean that lizardfolk aren't judged, it means that the Monster Manual judges their behaviour to be fitting for Neutral characters. Which by extension means that hunting sapients is in itself not Evil enough to render a character Evil for doing it.


Can a blue cause have a black effect?
Actions and their motivations are the two sides of the same coin, after all.

Then we're back at the argument whether your morality is based on your actions or your intent.

[Keltest]

Then we're back at the argument whether your morality is based on your actions or your intent.

Its both.

At any rate, the flip side of the coin is that the Lizardfolk dont go out of their way to target sapients and don't needlessly hunt or kill if there isnt actually a need for food. Theyre not going to go after an elf over a crocodile because they really feel like having an elf steak tonight, theyll go for whichever one they can secure more reliably/sooner/whatever suits their immediate need.

Oona meanwhile was hunting for the sake of hunting. The MITD didnt need a human to eat, Oona just thought a treat might be nice to have. Different scenarios entirely.

[Metastachydium]

Then we're back at the argument whether your morality is based on your actions or your intent.

Not exactly. All I'm implying is that the action cannot be judged in itself, since the motivation which is its cause modifies its value.

[Worldsong]

Its both.

At any rate, the flip side of the coin is that the Lizardfolk dont go out of their way to target sapients and do needlessly hunt or kill if there isnt actually a need for food. Theyre not going to go after an elf over a crocodile because they really feel like having an elf steak tonight, theyll go for whichever one they can secure more reliably/sooner/whatever suits their immediate need.

Oona meanwhile was hunting for the sake of hunting. The MITD didnt need a human to eat, Oona just thought a treat might be nice to have. Different scenarios entirely.


Lizardfolk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.

Apparently they do have a preference for human flesh though. But yes I agree that lizardfolk would focus on which prey they can more reliably capture and which prey is more likely to provide sufficient nourishment.

Although going by this if they've got roughly equal chances between a human and a crocodile they'd pick the human.

That aside, Oona wasn't out there to hunt humanoids. She was exercising her flying mount, saw O-Chul and Lien, and went "Oh, hey, I know my friend likes those."

Also she called it a special dinner rather than a treat (#1037 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html)).

To me her behaviour matches that of how lizardfolk are described pretty well.


Not exactly. All I'm implying is that the action cannot be judged in itself, since the motivation which is its cause modifies its value.

Okay, hold on, let me see if I'm getting this right. What you're saying is that we can't say that hunting sapients is Neutral based on the fact that lizardfolk, a Usually Neutral race, does it. Instead we have to judge Oona's case on its own, based on her personal motivations.

If I'm getting that right it still sounds like you're saying motivation trumps action on the morality scale.

[Keltest]

Apparently they do have a preference for human flesh though. But yes I agree that lizardfolk would focus on which prey they can more reliably capture and which prey is more likely to provide sufficient nourishment.

Although going by this if they've got roughly equal chances between a human and a crocodile they'd pick the human.

That aside, Oona wasn't out there to hunt humanoids. She was exercising her flying mount, saw O-Chul and Lien, and went "Oh, hey, I know my friend likes those."

Also she called it a special dinner rather than a treat (#1037 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html)).

To me her behaviour matches that of how lizardfolk are described pretty well.

Special dinner, treat, it amounts to the same thing. She was hunting the humans not because the MITD was going to go hungry that night without them, but because she wanted to feed him something tasty that night.




Okay, hold on, let me see if I'm getting this right. What you're saying is that we can't say that hunting sapients is Neutral based on the fact that lizardfolk, a Usually Neutral race, does it. Instead we have to judge Oona's case on its own, based on her personal motivations.

If I'm getting that right it still sounds like you're saying motivation trumps action on the morality scale.
There is a certain threshold of "you could have reasonably predicted it would turn out this way" to it as well, but that is the gist of it. A paladin who shoots a fire arrow at an ice dragon and misses, hitting the orphanage and setting it ablaze didnt do anything evil (although stupid, maybe). The rogue who sneaks in and sets the all the flour on fire in the orphanage because he hates pancakes and orphans is absolutely doing something evil.

Theres no amount of motivation that can make deliberately setting an active orphanage on fire to be a non-evil act, but doing so accidentally reflects less poorly, and for different reasons.

[Metastachydium]

Okay, hold on, let me see if I'm getting this right. What you're saying is that we can't say that hunting sapients is Neutral based on the fact that lizardfolk, a Usually Neutral race, does it. Instead we have to judge Oona's case on its own, based on her personal motivations.

If I'm getting that right it still sounds like you're saying motivation trumps action on the morality scale.

No. It does not „trump” action. But different motivations may confer different meanings to the same action.

[Worldsong]

Special dinner, treat, it amounts to the same thing. She was hunting the humans not because the MITD was going to go hungry that night without them, but because she wanted to feed him something tasty that night.

For me that doesn't read much different from the hypothetical scenario that I'm part of a hunter-gatherer tribe, I see a gazelle and know that a friend of mine likes gazelle meat (or at least I believe he does), so I try to hunt the gazelle.

What I took away from the excerpt is that lizardfolk treat sapients and non-sapients the same, and I wouldn't say that hunting a certain prey because you or someone you know likes the taste is any worse than hunting that prey because you just want to eat and anything will do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel like just because Oona targeted O-Chul and Lien in response to her believing MitD likes the taste of them doesn't mean she wasn't also hunting them because it's additional food.


There is a certain threshold of "you could have reasonably predicted it would turn out this way" to it as well, but that is the gist of it. A paladin who shoots a fire arrow at an ice dragon and misses, hitting the orphanage and setting it ablaze didnt do anything evil (although stupid, maybe). The rogue who sneaks in and sets the all the flour on fire in the orphanage because he hates pancakes and orphans is absolutely doing something evil.

Theres no amount of motivation that can make deliberately setting an active orphanage on fire to be a non-evil act, but doing so accidentally reflects less poorly, and for different reasons.


No. It does not „trump” action. But different motivations may confer different meanings to the same action.
(Edit: Keltest beat me to it. Please refer to his example.)

Now I want to see a scenario where an ice dragon is threatening an orphanage for some reason.

That aside I do agree that both motivation and action matter for the morality, but overall I'd say that I don't agree with the assessment that what Oona did is sufficiently different from lizardfolk that it conclusively changes the alignment of her action.

Also what if you got the orphans out first and were planning to trap the ice dragon within the burning remains. Unless we're saying that an active orphanage must have orphans in it at the time of the burning.

That lizardfolk can be Neutral while hunting sapients doesn't mean that all instances of hunting sapients are Neutral but it does mean that we wouldn't be able to say "You hunted sapients, therefore you are Evil." We'd have to look at the motivations and the circumstances, and in the case of Oona my perspective is that it's within the region of lizardfolk behaviour, even if her stated motivation is that she knew (or thought) that MitD would like human flesh more than whatever else they'd serve him.

[Keltest]

For me that doesn't read much different from the hypothetical scenario that I'm part of a hunter-gatherer tribe, I see a gazelle and know that a friend of mine likes gazelle meat (or at least I believe he does), so I try to hunt the gazelle.

What I took away from the excerpt is that lizardfolk treat sapients and non-sapients the same, and I wouldn't say that hunting a certain prey because you or someone you know likes the taste is any worse than hunting that prey because you just want to eat and anything will do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel like just because Oona targeted O-Chul and Lien in response to her believing MitD likes the taste of them doesn't mean she wasn't also hunting them because it's additional food.

So far as we can tell, the Bugbear tribe has sufficient food for its needs already from Monster Hollow. Heck, Oona's stated motivation for following Xykon and Redcloak into the dungeon is she wants to make sure they dont over-hunt it and cause problems for the bugbears (not that she could stop them exactly). So from that perspective, hunting sapients for food is evil. You have other non-sapient food readily available. We can amend the description of her actions to "you needlessly hunted sapients for food" if you prefer, just to make it clear where the problem is, but its still not the same situation.

[Conradine]

Well.

My opinion is that:

would Oona hunt unarmed civilians if given opportunity? If yes, Evil, if not, Neutral.

[Metastachydium]

Now I want to see a scenario where an ice dragon is threatening an orphanage for some reason.

I suppose ice dragons do occasionally get hungry and do the Neutral thing about it.


For me that doesn't read much different from the hypothetical scenario that I'm part of a hunter-gatherer tribe, I see a gazelle and know that a friend of mine likes gazelle meat (or at least I believe he does), so I try to hunt the gazelle.

What I took away from the excerpt is that lizardfolk treat sapients and non-sapients the same, and I wouldn't say that hunting a certain prey because you or someone you know likes the taste is any worse than hunting that prey because you just want to eat and anything will do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel like just because Oona targeted O-Chul and Lien in response to her believing MitD likes the taste of them doesn't mean she wasn't also hunting them because it's additional food.

That aside I do agree that both motivation and action matter for the morality, but overall I'd say that I don't agree with the assessment that what Oona did is sufficiently different from lizardfolk that it conclusively changes the alignment of her action.

That lizardfolk can be Neutral while hunting sapients doesn't mean that all instances of hunting sapients are Neutral but it does mean that we wouldn't be able to say "You hunted sapients, therefore you are Evil." We'd have to look at the motivations and the circumstances, and in the case of Oona my perspective is that it's within the region of lizardfolk behaviour, even if her stated motivation is that she knew (or thought) that MitD would like human flesh more than whatever else they'd serve him.

Y'see, hunting whatever you can get your hand on as a simple means to a simple end, pursued without much passion is one thing. What Oona does is another thing, however. Some people would tell you that slaughtering animals fro their meat is Evil. I'm not one of those folks. Nevertheless, if the person who does the slaughtering seems to feel a tad bit more joy about it than absolutely necessary… That can be creepy.

[understatement]

Well.

My opinion is that:

would Oona hunt unarmed civilians if given opportunity? If yes, Evil, if not, Neutral.

Not hurting civilians isn't a qualifier for neutral. It just means that the person has a basic moral standard.

[Worldsong]

So far as we can tell, the Bugbear tribe has sufficient food for its needs already from Monster Hollow. Heck, Oona's stated motivation for following Xykon and Redcloak into the dungeon is she wants to make sure they dont over-hunt it and cause problems for the bugbears (not that she could stop them exactly). So from that perspective, hunting sapients for food is evil. You have other non-sapient food readily available. We can amend the description of her actions to "you needlessly hunted sapients for food" if you prefer, just to make it clear where the problem is, but its still not the same situation.

Personally I'm still on the idea that while the bugbears manage to get enough food from Kraagor's Tomb to get by the conversation in 1038 indicates that life is far from easy for them.

Okay, let's put it like this: if you are correct that the bugbears can reliably and safely obtain food from Kraagor's Tomb to the point that their food supplies are a non-issue I agree that Oona hunting the humans for no other reason than that MitD happens to like the taste (so far as she knows) would be Evil.

That said given that in medieval times even villages located in the middle of fertile land can suffer from famine I'd say I need a little more evidence that Oona's tribe is doing so well before I'm fully convinved.


I suppose ice dragons do occasionally get hungry and do the Neutral thing about it.

Okay that actually made me laugh.

For the record, just because I'd say that hunting sapients isn't automatically Evil doesn't mean I'd disagree with Good-aligned adventurers doing their best to put a stop to it.


Y'see, hunting whatever you can get your hand on as a simple means to a simple end, pursued without much passion is one thing. What Oona does is another thing, however. Some people would tell you that slaughtering animals fro their meat is Evil. I'm not one of those folks. Nevertheless, if the person who does the slaughtering seems to feel a tad bit more joy about it than absolutely necessary… That can be creepy.

I think part of the reason why we raise pigs and cows, aside from convenience, is because we like the taste of their flesh.

[Metastachydium]

Okay that actually made me laugh.

For the record, just because I'd say that hunting sapients isn't automatically Evil doesn't mean I'd disagree with Good-aligned adventurers doing their best to put a stop to it.

Glad to hear both.


I think part of the reason why we raise pigs and cows, aside from convenience, is because we like the taste of their flesh.

I suppose ”rich in fat and proteins” also figures into it, but sure thing. I never said it is wrong to kill and eat something just because one likes the taste of it. That wouln't be fair.
I think my reservations regarding the Neutrality of Oona's attempt to get those humans on the table boil down to my having the impression that she enjoys hurting others. (Also, there's the thing where I don't think that expecting a sapient being to be able to empathise with other sapient beings is asking too much, but hey. The blue causes for blue effects thing (i.e. not worse, just diffferent) is something I can accept.)

[Worldsong]

I suppose ”rich in fat and proteins” also figures into it, but sure thing. I never said it is wrong to kill and eat something just because one likes the taste of it. That wouln't be fair.
I think my reservations regarding the Neutrality of Oona's attempt to get those humans on the table boil down to my having the impression that she enjoys hurting others. (Also, there's the thing where I don't think that expecting a sapient being to be able to empathise with other sapient beings is asking too much, but hey. The blue causes for blue effects thing (i.e. not worse, just diffferent) is something I can accept.)

Hmmm... I didn't really get the feeling of her enjoying hurting people, but I understand that that'd be less acceptable behaviour even for a Neutral character. Moreso I figured that she's just in general cheerful and upbeat and enjoys fighting itself more so than the actual hurting.

Also I'd say that it's less about whether you have any empathy with the prey at all, or whether that empathy is greater than your desire/need to eat.

[Metastachydium]

Hmmm... I didn't really get the feeling of her enjoying hurting people, but I understand that that'd be less acceptable behaviour even for a Neutral character. Moreso I figured that she's just in general cheerful and upbeat and enjoys fighting itself more so than the actual hurting.

We are not talking about, say, combat sports, though. She enjoys getting into fights where people are supposed to get killed despite having no stake in these fights.


Also I'd say that it's less about whether you have any empathy with the prey at all, or whether that empathy is greater than your desire/need to eat.

I'm pretty sure that does not apply here. If the predator feels empathy, it takes a little more than „they walked close enough to my territory and I know a monster who should be kind of hungry by now” to overcome it or at any rate it ought to.
A situation where the predator has empathy and thus believes the prey is a creature just like the predator, with similar feelings and thoughts and therefore, say, projects its mindset on the prey figuring the prey will understand and accept predation as the natural order of things just as the predator does… Now, that would be different, and decidedly not Evil.

[Worldsong]

We are not talking about, say, combat sports, though. She enjoys getting into fights where people are supposed to get killed despite having no stake in these fights.

I believe that falls under the Blood Knight trope which is considered to be a valid trait for a character of any alignment to have. Granted Good-aligned Blood Knights tend to at least make sure the fight they're getting into has a just cause even if they do genuinely enjoy the fighting itself.


I'm pretty sure that does not apply here. If the predator feels empathy, it takes a little more than „they walked close enough to my territory and I know a monster who should be kind of hungry by now” to overcome it or at any rate it ought to.
A situation where the predator has empathy and thus believes the prey is a creature just like the predator, with similar feelings and thoughts and therefore, say, projects its mindset on the prey figuring the prey will understand and accept predation as the natural order of things just as the predator does… Now, that would be different, and decidedly not Evil.

Honestly that does sound like a mindset that lizardfolk could have.

[Metastachydium]

I believe that falls under the Blood Knight trope which is considered to be a valid trait for a character of any alignment to have. Granted Good-aligned Blood Knights tend to at least make sure the fight they're getting into has a just cause even if they do genuinely enjoy the fighting itself.

Hence my emphasis on stakes. Enjoying conflict for its own sake is distasteful at best.


Honestly that does sound like a mindset that lizardfolk could have.

I mean, if humans may get to be anthropocentric, I believe reptiles have the right to have their own herpetocentric worldview.

[Bunny Commando]

Okay, let's put it like this: if you are correct that the bugbears can reliably and safely obtain food from Kraagor's Tomb to the point that their food supplies are a non-issue I agree that Oona hunting the humans for no other reason than that MitD happens to like the taste (so far as she knows) would be Evil.

Kraagor's Tomb may be not the sole source of food for the tribe. In 1039 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1039.html) Oona states the tribe has a Cleric capable of casting Divination spells. If by "asking and helping" she means the Cleric can cast Commune food may be a non-issue since a 9th level Cleric could provide food for at least 81 people thanks to Create Food and Water.

In 1041 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html) Oona states that the Cleric has the Craft Wondrous Item feat and that she would like to have a magic belt. IIRC, the minimum caster level required to craft a magic belt is 5, thus giving the Cleric of the tribe the capability of providing food through magic for at least 15 people - not enough that the tribe doesn't have to worry but certainly enough to make a difference, especially if the Cleric also uses her allotment of orisons to cast Purify Food and Drink and extend the "shelf life" of the food.

[mjasghar]

Let’s muddy the waters
Officially slaad are CN
Yet they are known for eating sentient beings and for using them as hosts
And they are not of animal intelligence
Fomorians often do dodgy stuff and yet are LN - somehow their abiding by Law doesn’t extend to invading lands for expansion of territory
Modrons ditto
Back on the chaotic side - most barbarian cultures are CN specifically the Horde from the Forgotten Realms. Yet their actions are often evil.
So we can go round and round this argument and I doubt we’ll convince each other.

[Jason]

One particular trait or cultural practice isn't enough to make an individual or race evil, especially if it is balanced by traits or actions of the opposite alignment.
Slaads are Chaotic Neutral because chaos and unpredictable behavior is pretty much their overriding trait. Lizard men are neutral not because eating people is not an evil act, but because other parts of their culture balance out that occasional evil practice.
Oona has some good traits, such as her politeness and willingness to be helpful to allies, and her kindness to her pets. But being willing to kill people she knows nothing about who aren't a threat to her pretty much puts her in the evil category.

[Dr.Zero]

Well.

My opinion is that:

would Oona hunt unarmed civilians if given opportunity? If yes, Evil, if not, Neutral.

I'm quite sure that all the food we eat (or give to our pets) doesn't belong to any military organization and never declared war on us.

[Mightymosy]

This thread kinda explains why D&D and similar games get a bad rep at times. Jesus

[Lemarc]

The neutrality of lizardfolk is presented as the neutrality of a crocodile. Their divine creed:


Semuanya is the unemotional and amoral reptilian ideal. Neither good nor evil, neither chaotic nor lawful, Semuanya merely exists and existence is its purpose. Live long, reproduce, ensure the safety of yourself and the race; this is the entire creed of Semuanya. Nothing else is of real importance, unless it bears directly on survival and propagation.

Slaad are presented as having "nightmarish prison camps" that they use to gestate their chestburster spawn in sentient beings. There are numerous neutral, intelligent monsters who eat people. The alignment tag isn't a moral judgment of the species and all its acts in toto, it's an indicator to the DM of their general behaviour, to aid play. Whether the description of the creature "fits" the alignment is irrelevant, that's not what it's there for. I think hunting and eating people is evil, but if lizardfolk were tagged as evil that would send a different message about how to portray them than tagging them as neutral.

[Worldsong]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

[dancrilis]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Chaos is random like that.

[Keltest]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Its not like they can just change their biology, or whatever the outsider equivalent is. They didnt collectively wake up one day and all decide to start reproducing like that.

[Metastachydium]

(Hey, Worldsong. Interesting fact I stumbled upon by accident: it would seem that Stickverse canon's kind of on your side here. Gannji and Enor are officially True Neutral (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?293540-No-love-for-Neutral-alignments-in-OOTS/page2&p=15667889#post15667889), and the latter tried human heart before, and the only reason why he wouldn't go for more is that they are not really good (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html).)

[Worldsong]

Chaos is random like that.


Its not like they can just change their biology, or whatever the outsider equivalent is. They didnt collectively wake up one day and all decide to start reproducing like that.

It's more the prison camp part which has me like "I was expecting this from the Lawful side of the axis."


(Hey, Worldsong. Interesting fact I stumbled upon by accident: it would seem that Stickverse canon's kind of on your side here. Gannji and Enor are officially True Neutral (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?293540-No-love-for-Neutral-alignments-in-OOTS/page2&p=15667889#post15667889), and the latter tried human heart before, and the only reason why he wouldn't go for more is that they are not really good (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html).)

Victory is mine!

[dancrilis]

It's more the prison camp part which has me like "I was expecting this from the Lawful side of the axis."


My statement covers that - or to put it a different way: Chaos doesn't need to follow your expectations, it does what it wants.

Edit: Although prison camps and the like would likely suit LN also.

[Worldsong]

My statement covers that - or to put it a different way: Chaos doesn't need to follow your expectations, it does what it wants.

Edit: Although prison camps and the like would likely suit LN also.

I'm aware Chaotic can be rather unpredictable. I generally align myself with Chaotic Good.

Prison camps are just a bit further out of the realm of the expected than I'm used to even with Chaotic.

[dancrilis]

I'm aware Chaotic can be rather unpredictable. I generally align myself with Chaotic Good.

Prison camps are just a bit further out of the realm of the expected than I'm used to even with Chaotic.

I believe that Gygax mentioned CG slavers at some point as possible.

I think the alignment system can to an extent be broken down as follows to an extent under Gygax (someone better informed may disagree).
Good: When push to to shove they want to help people.
Evil: When push to to shove they want to hurt people.
Chaotic: They do what they want.
Lawful: They follow the system.
Neutral: They do whatever is easiest.

This is by no means absolute and depends on firmly on the DM - but effectively enslaving 'savage creature X' to work in your mines while you uplift them to civilisation could well be any of the Goods, where enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you don't want to work in your mines could be neutral (it might even help savage creature X - who knows), and enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you like the idea of someone else suffering on your behalf is Evil.

[Worldsong]

I believe that Gygax mentioned CG slavers at some point as possible.

I think the alignment system can to an extent be broken down as follows to an extent under Gygax (someone better informed may disagree).
Good: When push to to shove they want to help people.
Evil: When push to to shove they want to hurt people.
Chaotic: They do what they want.
Lawful: They follow the system.
Neutral: They do whatever is easiest.

This is by no means absolute and depends on firmly on the DM - but effectively enslaving 'savage creature X' to work in your mines while you uplift them to civilisation could well be any of the Goods, where enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you don't want to work in your mines could be neutral (it might even help savage creature X - who knows), and enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you like the idea of someone else suffering on your behalf is Evil.

I always thought it a bit strange that Chaotic would be described as 'Do whatever you want'. I mean it's definitely one aspect of Chaotic and one which tends to define a lot of Chaotic characters, but if that was the only aspect you might as well call it Hedonism.

EDIT: My personal description of Chaotic is closer to "Go with whatever works." which includes "Do fun stuff when it works."

[dancrilis]

I always thought it a bit strange that Chaotic would be described as 'Do whatever you want'. I mean it's definitely one aspect of Chaotic and one which tends to define a lot of Chaotic characters, but if that was the only aspect you might as well call it Hedonism.

EDIT: My personal description of Chaotic is closer to "Go with whatever works." which includes "Do fun stuff when it works."

Do whatever works I would see as more neutral - a neutral characer would be fine in a tight legal system if it worked for them (not running it just accepting it) a 'this is fine' mentality, a chaotic character would feel uncomfortable within it.

But we will ignore my take on it and focus on yours:
Chaotic: Do whataver works.
Slaadi: Kidnap people and hold them in camps until their spawn hatch - because it works.

[Worldsong]

Do whatever works I would see as more neutral - a neutral characer would be fine in a tight legal system if it worked for them (not running it just accepting it) a 'this is fine' mentality, a chaotic character would feel uncomfortable within it.

But we will ignore my take on it and focus on yours:
Chaotic: Do whataver works.
Slaadi: Kidnap people and hold them in camps until their spawn hatch - because it works.

I'd say that an intelligent Chaotic person would work within the system for as long as the benefits of compliance outweigh the benefits of independent action. Of course they wouldn't necessarily be happy with it...

But yeah, I guess it works out that way.

[Dr.Zero]

I'd say that an intelligent Chaotic person would work within the system for as long as the benefits of compliance outweigh the benefits of independent action. Of course they wouldn't necessarily be happy with it...


Here I dissent. Chaotics (should) hate to be told what to do.
If a thing works for them, but it is imposed (ie: by the system) on them, they should go out of their way to avoid doing that.
Then, of course, if the system is incredibly more powerful, they can bend the knee out of fear, but that must be a fear great enough to beat their natural tendency to be "free". That is very different from the common "I'm chaotic, I do what is more convenient for me."

[Keltest]

Here I dissent. Chaotics (should) hate to be told what to do.
If a thing works for them, but it is imposed (ie: by the system) on them, they should go out of their way to avoid doing that.
Then, of course, if the system is incredibly more powerful, they can bend the knee out of fear, but that must be a fear great enough to beat their natural tendency to be "free". That is very different from the common "I'm chaotic, I do what is more convenient for me."

Agreed. A chaotic person actively wants to assert their independence and control over their destiny. They may be willing to do so, but they really dont like surrendering that control.

[Worldsong]

I did say that the Chaotic person wouldn't be happy about surrendering control. It's just that I disagree with the notion that the Chaotic person has to behave self-destructively if going along with the flow is more convenient for the moment.

EDIT: to clarify, I don't think that Chaotic people don't resist being controlled, whether it's by an individual or the system. And it is a pitfall for Chaotic people that their desire to decide for themself causes them to be obstinate when compliance would actually be more effective.

I just don't think it's un-Chaotic to accept that, because of circumstances, it would be better to just swallow your pride and go along with the flow. Especially since you'd still retain control of how long you remain compliant, ready to resume doing your own thing the moment compliance is no longer required to achieve your own goals.

EDIT2: I guess more than "Go with what works" the description of "Choose your own path" would be more appropriate for Chaotic. Which brings it closer to "Do what you want" but gets rid of the implication that the Chaotic alignment has self-gratification as a primary aspect.

[Lemarc]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Well, Slaad are a pretty early monster. I think they were a submission to an early magazine, quite possibly in the time when in D&D Chaos equaled Evil, and found their way into the Fiend Folio and thereby into D&D canon. That's kind of my point: the alignment of a monster is an afterthought, an instruction to the DM of how he or she should handle them. Slaad do horrible things but they're Chaotic Neutral, which means that except those horrible things they aren't inclined to evil.

[Worldsong]

Well, Slaad are a pretty early monster. I think they were a submission to an early magazine, quite possibly in the time when in D&D Chaos equaled Evil, and found their way into the Fiend Folio and thereby into D&D canon. That's kind of my point: the alignment of a monster is an afterthought, an instruction to the DM of how he or she should handle them. Slaad do horrible things but they're Chaotic Neutral, which means that except those horrible things they aren't inclined to evil.

I blame Gygax. Again.

[Keltest]

I blame Gygax. Again.

Gygax wasnt involved with the Fiend Folio that im aware of. Most of the contributions came from the other side of the pond as he was on.

[Worldsong]

Gygax wasnt involved with the Fiend Folio that im aware of. Most of the contributions came from the other side of the pond as he was on.

Yeah but he helped establish the idea that Lawful is Good and Chaotic is Evil.

[Jason]

Yeah but he helped establish the idea that Lawful is Good and Chaotic is Evil.

Chaotic was the evil alignment in the earliest version of the game. And it was always the case in the parallel BX/BECMI games (which only had Lawfu, Neutral, and Chaotic alignments). I blame Michael Morcock and to a lesser extent Poul Anderson (Three Hearts and Three Lions) for that - Gygax got the idea from them.

The alignment system wasn't fully developed when the AD&D Monster Manual came out in '77 either. There are no monsters that are Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral in the Monster Manual because those alignments weren't codified as part of the system until the PHB came out the next year.

[hamishspence]

One of the earliest BECMI books (the Eric Holmes version of Basic D&D) made it clear that Lawful did not automatically mean Good, and Chaotic did not automatically mean Evil). Though it's true that the later ones moved away from that a bit.

[Ghosty]

I'd go with Neutral Evil. Or whatever the evil version of Beastlands is. Where naughty dogs go.

I love this. Concise and pithy. Stealing it.

A shade more Lawful than Beastlands. Let's see, opposite side from Beastlands of the Thor's Alignment Showcase is "Resistance Is Futile." https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html

Which perfectly gets Greyview, but I'm not sure about Oona.

Gehenna, maybe Acheron?

[hamishspence]

Yes, that's Gehenna. Where barghests (shapeshifting goblin-wolf fiends) make their home.

[Ghosty]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Read some of Charles Stross's books (the inventor of Slaads and Githyanki). It'll make more sense then.

I like the Laundry Archives stories, though he's written others. Some of the Laundry stories come with a slew of D&D references and in-jokes.

[Lethologica]

Read some of Charles Stross's books (the inventor of Slaads and Githyanki). It'll make more sense then.
Oh. That really does explain it.

[Lemarc]

Yeah but he helped establish the idea that Lawful is Good and Chaotic is Evil.

It's older than that, as Jason says. Those books are the source. And they don't present it as a moral thing - Chaos is a force in Moorcock, one the hero happens to be aligned with. Fundamental powers - and I vaguely remember one book where Law got the upper hand and things were terrible.

Honestly Gygax as the inventor of the nine part alignment system is, perhaps, closer to your own viewpoint than you think. He explicitly states his concept of each ideology in the first version of the DMG - that book is entirely his writing as far as I know. On Chaotic Goods:


Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.

...which actually now that I've read it is maybe not such a stunning endorsement. But at least it's no better than the lawful good description.

[Riftwolf]

Slaad as embodiments of Chaos always felt a bit wrong to me. There's way too many rules around their breeding cycle, and those rules are needlessly strict. Chaos Beasts are much better at filling the hole Slaadi occupy.

[Lemarc]

Slaad as embodiments of Chaos always felt a bit wrong to me. There's way too many rules around their breeding cycle, and those rules are needlessly strict. Chaos Beasts are much better at filling the hole Slaadi occupy.

I agree. Ever since I read Scrap Princess' version of slaad here (https://monstermanualsewnfrompants.blogspot.com/2012/02/slaadi.html), I've found the classic versions insufferably stuffy and orderly. They're an OK monster I suppose but it feels like they only got into their Chaotic Neutral outsider spot because they were the first Chaotic Neutral extraplanar monsters to come along - I never use them as written any more.

[Riftwolf]

... Scrap Princess' version of slaad here (https://monstermanualsewnfrompants.blogspot.com/2012/02/slaadi.html).....

Now *those* are some CN outsiders.

[Mariele]

Eh, I'll say she's on the nastier side of Lawful Neutral. Most of her actions seems to be based around thinking of the group and following a hierarchy. I'm also not that miffed about someone killing humans when it seems like most every monster portrayed in this comic is sentient and reasonably intelligent, even if just for jokes. Making friends with and going along with the people that are not just letting your community feast (Monster Hollow is very dangerous, after all) but might improve trade relations later, even if they're a nasty bunch and want to do Evil things, seems reasonable enough for a Neutral character.

[Conradine]

Quote Originally Posted by Conradine View Post
She loves and respect her animal servants,
Belkar.

likes to fight but do not show sadism or extreme bloodlust,
Hilgya.

quite polite, serves her community although she works by herself...
Jirix, Malack.

she reminds me of Therkla. I would go for True Neutral.
Let's try Evil.


Many good traits in the same characters do not mellow it into some kind of Neutral?

[understatement]

Many good traits in the same characters do not mellow it into some kind of Neutral?

Why would they? None of these traits are inherently good; they just make a good person better.

[goodpeople25]

She was out hunting for food. She wasn't purposefully out looking for humans to kill. She believed MitD liked humans as food, and she happened to see an opportunity to try and get him some.

An Evil response would be to make sure they were dead once they fell into the water.

Anyway, my guess for her is on the borderline between Neutral and Evil.
Interesting way of agreeing that her response was evil. Or is it not evil because she wasn't successful at making sure they were dead?

[mjasghar]

Just because she helps her community doesn’t make her good
There’s a close corollary in the Forgotten Realms -Malar
Read up on him and his priests and you’ll see something very similar to Oona, especially in the later editions where they have been trying to show how evil priests can be ‘tolerated’ due to the need to appease powerful evil gods and in areas threatened by evil non human races

[Fyraltari]

Why would they? None of these traits are inherently good; they just make a good person better.

Errr, isn’t « makes a person better » what « this trait is inherently good » means?

[understatement]

Errr, isn’t « makes a person better » what « this trait is inherently good » means?

Yeah, but there's also traits that, while are found in good people very often (loving other people, being brave, caring for pets or children), don't make an evil person somehow convert into neutral/good.

I can't pin down what is a "inherently good trait", but the closest I can come up with is "compassion and respect for the lives and dignities of other people," which Oona, Belkar, Hilgya, Jirix, and Malack definitely don't possess.

[a_flemish_guy]

I'd definitly peg her as lawfull due to to her relationship with the dark one
she isn't personally invested in him (good for festivals) but when the high priest of the dark one comes about then you have to help him with whatever he has planned, that's just how things work

if she were neutral or chaotic then I'd expect more negotiation over rewards and how much aid he would be truly getting

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, but there's also traits that, while are found in good people very often [...] don't make an evil person somehow convert into neutral/good.
There are that do? There are traits that by themselves are enough to make you call a particular person good, even if absolutely everything else about them is unrepentantly terrible? What an odd notion.

I mean ignoring the fact that trying to put people in good/neutral/evil case as if that was somehow measurable is an exercise in futility, it seems to me that the only way to describe a character as "good" is to say that their positive traits outweight their negative ones in number or intensity. It's a ridiculously subjective call to make of course so people are going to disagree as they'll draw lines at different places.
Tht makes much more sense to me than looking for particular traits that are necessary/sufficient to qualify for one case. Especially since everyone exhibits every trait at some degree. A perfectly selfish person is just as nonexistant as a perfectly selfless person, everyone is both but some are more one than the other while for others it's the opposite.


I can't pin down what is a "inherently good trait", but the closest I can come up with is "compassion and respect for the lives and dignities of other people," which Oona, Belkar, Hilgya, Jirix, and Malack definitely don't possess.
I'm not sure what you are saying, there. Is that an example of an inherently good trait? Because, that's a bit needlessly complicated, I would have gone with love, humility or compassion, for example. OR are you saying that for a trait to be inherently good it must be an expression of that? I would disagree.

[understatement]

There are that do? There are traits that by themselves are enough to make you call a particular person good, even if absolutely everything else about them is unrepentantly terrible? What an odd notion.

I mean ignoring the fact that trying to put people in good/neutral/evil case as if that was somehow measurable is an exercise in futility, it seems to me that the only way to describe a character as "good" is to say that their positive traits outweight their negative ones in number or intensity. It's a ridiculously subjective call to make of course so people are going to disagree as they'll draw lines at different places.
Tht makes much more sense to me than looking for particular traits that are necessary/sufficient to qualify for one case. Especially since everyone exhibits every trait at some degree. A perfectly selfish person is just as nonexistant as a perfectly selfless person, everyone is both but some are more one than the other while for others it's the opposite.

Classifying people is a pretty dumb idea, yeah, but the OP was referring to that because Oona possessed several traits ( that are usually seen as good, such as caring for others or the community) she somehow was neutral.

I guess I'd like to revise my stance, then; I am unsure (and I don't think) there are inherently good traits, but love and compassion are not necessarily inherently good ones. The same goes for typically-viewed-as-evil traits; malice or hatred are not necessarily inherently evil ones either.


I'm not sure what you are saying, there. Is that an example of an inherently good trait? Because, that's a bit needlessly complicated, I would have gone with love, humility or compassion, for example. OR are you saying that for a trait to be inherently good it must be an expression of that? I would disagree.

I named a broad one that I think can encompass a lot of other traits. Someone who has compassion and respect for all sentient lives embodies a lot of 'good' traits as well (empathy, understanding, selflessness, etc). I did mention a change of thought, in that yes, there's not really a concrete example of an inherently good trait.

[WanderingMist]

Classifying people is a pretty dumb idea, yeah, but the OP was referring to that because Oona possessed several traits ( that are usually seen as good, such as caring for others or the community) she somehow was neutral.

I guess I'd like to revise my stance, then; I am unsure (and I don't think) there are inherently good traits, but love and compassion are not necessarily inherently good ones. The same goes for typically-viewed-as-evil traits; malice or hatred are not necessarily inherently evil ones either.



I named a broad one that I think can encompass a lot of other traits. Someone who has compassion and respect for all sentient lives embodies a lot of 'good' traits as well (empathy, understanding, selflessness, etc). I did mention a change of thought, in that yes, there's not really a concrete example of an inherently good trait.
Multiple things I disagree with here. Those being love and compassion being not inherently good and malice not being inherently evil. Though I do agree about hatred not necessarily being evil, as a hatred of evil would logically be a good hatred to have.

But anyway:

1. The very definition of "malice" is "the desire to do evil". It cannot not be evil.

2. I think you've confused kindness with compassion. Kindness isn't necessarily good or evil. An evil person understands the value of kindness, so far as it extends to loyalty from those being treated kindly. Compassion, on the other hand, requires empathy for the plight of others, which stands directly in opposition with the total selfishness of evil. A kind person will donate to a cause and feel good about the donation. A compassionate person will donate and feel guilty that they were unable to help more.

3. I'm just going to quote myself on love here. Love cannot be evil. If the love appears to be evil, then it is not love, but some other emotion, whether it be pity, or lust, or pride, etc., masquerading as love.


And her Good acts are motivated by love for another, which we have never seen be a motive for an Evil character in-comic, at least not without it starting to pull them away from Evil, as with Belkar and MitD (platonic love in these cases, but love nonetheless). Tsukiko was driven by lust, before you mention her. Even Redcloak isn't motivated by love. He's motivated by pride and the sunk-cost fallacy while deluding himself that it's out of love for his brother and for goblinkind as a whole, a point Minrah most helpfully shouted at him in their most recent encounter.

[understatement]

Multiple things I disagree with here. Those being love and compassion being not inherently good and malice not being inherently evil. Though I do agree about hatred not necessarily being evil, as a hatred of evil would logically be a good hatred to have.

But anyway:

1. The very definition of "malice" is "the desire to do evil". It cannot not be evil.

I feel it's malicious to play a prank, but I wouldn't say every person who does a prank is evil.


2. I think you've confused kindness with compassion. Kindness isn't necessarily good or evil. An evil person understands the value of kindness, so far as it extends to loyalty from those being treated kindly. Compassion, on the other hand, requires empathy for the plight of others, which stands directly in opposition with the total selfishness of evil. A kind person will donate to a cause and feel good about the donation. A compassionate person will donate and feel guilty that they were unable to help more.

I touched on it below, but loving someone could definitely a form of compassion.


3. I'm just going to quote myself on love here. Love cannot be evil. If the love appears to be evil, then it is not love, but some other emotion, whether it be pity, or lust, or pride, etc., masquerading as love.

Well, like I said, love isn't inherently anything, it's just another facet of a character.

I mean, Nale and Sabine, among some of the most evilest characters in the comic, genuinely love each other (and not just a form of pity/lust/pride). Hilgya is surely not pitying her son either.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I feel it's malicious to play a prank, but I wouldn't say every person who does a prank is evil.

I would say pranking is mischevious rather than malicious. Malice implies active ill will and intent.

[Olinser]

Redcloak cast Protection from Good on Oona with no pain on her part, so it is literally not possible for Oona to be Good.

Neutral or Evil are the only 2 options.

[Jason]

Multiple things I disagree with here. Those being love and compassion being not inherently good and malice not being inherently evil. Though I do agree about hatred not necessarily being evil, as a hatred of evil would logically be a good hatred to have.

But anyway:

1. The very definition of "malice" is "the desire to do evil". It cannot not be evil.

2. I think you've confused kindness with compassion. Kindness isn't necessarily good or evil. An evil person understands the value of kindness, so far as it extends to loyalty from those being treated kindly. Compassion, on the other hand, requires empathy for the plight of others, which stands directly in opposition with the total selfishness of evil. A kind person will donate to a cause and feel good about the donation. A compassionate person will donate and feel guilty that they were unable to help more.

3. I'm just going to quote myself on love here. Love cannot be evil. If the love appears to be evil, then it is not love, but some other emotion, whether it be pity, or lust, or pride, etc., masquerading as love.

Malice is a wrongful desire to harm others. It is evil by definition. If you have a desire to harm someone for perfectly justified reasons, such as to protect someone else, then it's not malice.

Love is a form of advanced compassion for another person and is altruistic at its base. It cannot be evil. But love for one person is by itself not enough to redeem someone who engages in evil acts in every other aspect of their life.

Hatred of an abstract concept, like evil or sin, is a very different kettle of fish from hatred of a person or group of people. Hatred of a person is an evil act, no matter how despicable or "deserving" the person may be. Hatred always harms the hater more than the object of the hate.

[Bacon Elemental]

I think this thread has a bad case of "But people who are X alignment do Y activity therefore Y is an X-aligned activity" which is really the wrong way to look at alignment.

[Worldsong]

Hatred always harms the hater more than the object of the hate.

I can agree with most of your comment, but this particular line is going to need some backing up for me.

[Conradine]

Hatred always harms the hater more than the object of the hate.

I beg to differ. If someone hates me and express his hatred by cutting away my reproductive apparatus, no amount of guilt or spiritual harm would equate my agony.

[Jason]

I can agree with most of your comment, but this particular line is going to need some backing up for me.

Sure. Let's say you hate a public figure your whole life but never actually meet them, correspond with them, or otherwise interact with them before you die.

Who was the most negatively impacted by your hate?

The target of your hate was wholly unaffected and was probably completely unaware of how you felt about them.

You, on the other hand, were annoyed and stressed every time you thought of or talked about the person. Your hatred may even have ruined other relationships when friends became aware of your hatred for this person.

If you go and act on your hatred then you may actually do more harm to the target of your hate, but that would be your actions doing the harm, not your hate. Hate by itself only harms the hater.

[Lethologica]

But if hate gives rise to intent which gives rise to action, why does the resulting harm not follow the chain back to the original motive? I don't think the hate is so easily divorced from the hateful acts. Impotent hate harms the hater and not the hated, but that is a function of the impotence, not the hatred.

[Jason]

But if hate gives rise to intent which gives rise to action, why does the resulting harm not follow the chain back to the original motive? I don't think the hate is so easily divorced from the hateful acts. Impotent hate harms the hater and not the hated, but that is a function of the impotence, not the hatred.
"Potent" hate also harms the hater.

Yes, hate is a motive for hateful acts (obviously), but it is the acts that are doing the harm to others. The same actions with different motives would be just as harmful.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, hate is a motive for hateful acts (obviously), but it is the acts that are doing the harm to others.

In most cases, yes. But not if the hater is someone the hated cares deeply for.

As an example, in A Song of Ice and Fire, it's very clear that Tywin Lannister hates his son Tyrion, but while this is just a facet of Tywin's character, it scarred Tyrion for life.

[Lethologica]

"Potent" hate also harms the hater.
The claim you made was that hate harms the hater more than the hated.


Yes, hate is a motive for hateful acts (obviously), but it is the acts that are doing the harm to others. The same actions with different motives would be just as harmful.
And I would say those different motives are just as relevant. My position is that if someone is driven by some motive to commit intentionally harmful acts, then the motive is also implicated in the harm done, because the acts are an expression of the motive.

[elros]

In most cases, yes. But not if the hater is someone the hated cares deeply for.

As an example, in A Song of Ice and Fire, it's very clear that Tywin Lannister hates his son Tyrion, but while this is just a facet of Tywin's character, it scarred Tyrion for life.
And then Tyrion killed Tywin, so both were harmed by it.

IRL, I really like the following quotation: "Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." Makes a lot of sense...

[Goblin_Priest]

Probably chaotic evil, though I could see her being lawful evil.

[DaLucaray]

I was ambivalent before reading this thread but I'd like to reiterate that she considers MitD- a being intelligent enough to have a conversation- to be inherently subservient to another being, despite him stating that he does not see it that way or want that. If that doesn't scream "Lawful Evil" to me I don't know what does.

[Worldsong]

Sure. Let's say you hate a public figure your whole life but never actually meet them, correspond with them, or otherwise interact with them before you die.

Who was the most negatively impacted by your hate?

The target of your hate was wholly unaffected and was probably completely unaware of how you felt about them.

You, on the other hand, were annoyed and stressed every time you thought of or talked about the person. Your hatred may even have ruined other relationships when friends became aware of your hatred for this person.

If you go and act on your hatred then you may actually do more harm to the target of your hate, but that would be your actions doing the harm, not your hate. Hate by itself only harms the hater.

Hmmm... Okay no this just reads as an argument similar to shooting someone and then saying "I didn't kill him, the bullet did." Technically correct but it dismisses important connections between cause and effect.

[Jason]

IRL, I really like the following quotation: "Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." Makes a lot of sense...
That is basically what I'm getting at, yes.

[woweedd]

And then Tyrion killed Tywin, so both were harmed by it.

IRL, I really like the following quotation: "Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." Makes a lot of sense...
In fairness, in D&D, there is at least one class that can actually hate someone so hard, they die.

[Jason]

In fairness, in D&D, there is at least one class that can actually hate someone so hard, they die.
I don't think I've heard of that one, but I'm guessing it would be a class feature doing the killing, not "hate".

[Conradine]

I was ambivalent before reading this thread but I'd like to reiterate that she considers MitD- a being intelligent enough to have a conversation- to be inherently subservient to another being, despite him stating that he does not see it that way or want that. If that doesn't scream "Lawful Evil" to me I don't know what does.

Lawful Evil characters neither love or respect those below them on the hierarchy. The mark of Lawful Evil is exploiting, mistreating and belittling the "inferiors".

Oona believes in reciprocity of respect and the master's duty to protect those who serve him / her. And she puts her money were her mouth is. That's not Evil, actually I find it incompatible with Lawful Evil.


---

Tarquin? Tarquin respected his peers, not his subjects.

[Dion]

I can agree with most of your comment, but this particular line is going to need some backing up for me.

You know how hate leads to anger, and anger leads to ennui, and ennui leads to gritty sand getting all over everything, and gritty sand leads to sores, and sores lead to staph infections, and staph infections lead to the dark side?

Pretty obvious to me

[Worldsong]

You know how hate leads to anger, and anger leads to ennui, and ennui leads to gritty sand getting all over everything, and gritty sand leads to sores, and sores lead to staph infections, and staph infections lead to the dark side?

Pretty obvious to me

That checks out.

[Keltest]

You know how hate leads to anger, and anger leads to ennui, and ennui leads to gritty sand getting all over everything, and gritty sand leads to sores, and sores lead to staph infections, and staph infections lead to the dark side?

Pretty obvious to me

Somewhere, Peelee just got the worst sensation of somebody walking on his grave, and he doesnt know why.

[Cazero]

Somewhere, Peelee just got the worst sensation of somebody walking on his grave, and he doesnt know why.Now that's just silly.
The dark side leads to indoor activities, wich leads to boredom, wich leads to edginess, wich leads to pre-mortem grave-dancing parties. Everyone knows that.

[WanderingMist]

Evil doesn't mean "brutally lusts for blood at every expense." It just means you're willing to hurt or see hurt people for bad or no reason.
Getting the food necessary to survive is not a bad reason.

Like if I went to the grocery store and happened to murder someone unprovoked you would consider me neutral?
Is your only other source of food a horrible cave full of dangerous monsters that can easily kill you and will you starve otherwise? Then yes, that's neutral.

Yeah, but there's also traits that, while are found in good people very often (loving other people, being brave, caring for pets or children), don't make an evil person somehow convert into neutral/good.

I can't pin down what is a "inherently good trait", but the closest I can come up with is "compassion and respect for the lives and dignities of other people," which Oona, Belkar, Hilgya, Jirix, and Malack definitely don't possess.
What? Oona respects the lives of Greyview, MitD, and Redcloak. Dignity is entirely irrelevant, especially in an arctic wasteland where you have to do certain things in order to survive. Just because her version of respect is different from ours doesn't make it any less valid. Now, I know this is a long shot, but her speech about how beasts must serve their masters could possibly be taken as "If you do not wish to serve your master, find a new one, or become your own master", which is a harsher version of O-Chul's lesson about the value of friends and their influence on you.

I've got a quote somewhere on these forums, but love and compassion are inherently good traits. Compassion requires empathy, which is definitely against the selfish nature of Evil. And you can't have "love for others" as a motive without it starting to turn you away from Evil, which I believe applies to our Miss Oona here, as her clan and that is one of her main motivations for her actions. Yes, Nale and Sabine did love each other and were Evil, but their love for each other was not a motive for either of their goals.

[Keltest]

Getting the food necessary to survive is not a bad reason.

The fact that the seem to be surviving perfectly fine without having eaten the paladins would suggest that no, they were not food necessary for survival.

[Dion]

The fact that the seem to be surviving perfectly fine without having eaten the paladins would suggest that no, they were not food necessary for survival.

So small though. But will grow in time.

[Bunny Commando]

Getting the food necessary to survive is not a bad reason.

Per 1037 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html), Oona didn't try to kill O-Chul and Lien because she wanted to eat them; she states she wanted to feed them to the MitD due to a misinterpretation of the word "like".
There's no evidence that Oona has to provide food to the MitD; since there's a high level Cleric like Redcloak, I seriously doubt food is a concern for Team Evil.

So: killing a sapient because you believe that an animal you like will enjoy such food is quite different than killing a sapient because you need to survive.



What? Oona respects the lives of Greyview, MitD, and Redcloak. Dignity is entirely irrelevant, especially in an arctic wasteland where you have to do certain things in order to survive. Just because her version of respect is different from ours doesn't make it any less valid. Now, I know this is a long shot, but her speech about how beasts must serve their masters could possibly be taken as "If you do not wish to serve your master, find a new one, or become your own master", which is a harsher version of O-Chul's lesson about the value of friends and their influence on you.


It's a really long shot. Oona's words, after the MitD told her Xykon is not his master, are: "No, no, no. No good. Beast must always respect master, is way of things"; per her words, she believes the MitD has to be subservient to someone else and has no right to be free.

[understatement]

What? Oona respects the lives of Greyview, MitD, and Redcloak. Dignity is entirely irrelevant, especially in an arctic wasteland where you have to do certain things in order to survive. Just because her version of respect is different from ours doesn't make it any less valid. Now, I know this is a long shot, but her speech about how beasts must serve their masters could possibly be taken as "If you do not wish to serve your master, find a new one, or become your own master", which is a harsher version of O-Chul's lesson about the value of friends and their influence on you.

Oona (and by extension Greyview) is to show what the Monster shouldn't do - that is to say, simply go along with orders and not question your own sense of agency. That's not a "different version of respect," that's just not respect at all. So yes, that is an incredibly long shot.


I've got a quote somewhere on these forums, but love and compassion are inherently good traits. Compassion requires empathy, which is definitely against the selfish nature of Evil. And you can't have "love for others" as a motive without it starting to turn you away from Evil, which I believe applies to our Miss Oona here, as her clan and that is one of her main motivations for her actions. Yes, Nale and Sabine did love each other and were Evil, but their love for each other was not a motive for either of their goals.

What part of feeding sapients to the MiTD is a motive for her clan?

Also, Laurin has a love for her daughter, which drives her to conquer better land and later seize the rift. Evil? yes. Motivated by other factors as well? Definitely. Still has "love as (one of the) motives?" Yes.

Oona is not Neutral. She's funny, likable, and has a cool design. She cares for her pets. She's a better person than Redcloak, and a much better person than Xykon. No part of that pushes her up to Neutral, in the same way that Thog's love of puppies does not shift him to Neutral for some inexplicable reason.

[Precure]

And Oona still believes that she shrunk a giant, by hitting her...

[DragonclawExia]

Personally, I'm fairly sure Oona is Lawful evil. She's evil, but not Capital E Evil in the same way Redcloak is. She seems somewhat more Lawful proportionally, as she's more concerned about Rules and Obedience than Domination for Power's Sake, but she's definitely still on the lower end of the spectrum.


It's similar to Hilyga, who's Chaotic evil, in that she's more concerned about her personal freedom and survival at any cost over causing wanton destruction for chaos sake but she's still quite evil relative to Elan or Haley, who are Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral. I guess Haley is Good now too because of Elan's influence...but she was pretty Chaotic Neutral in the early strips.

[Dion]

And Oona still believes that she shrunk a giant, by hitting her...

Well, to be fair, she did hit a giant. And then the giant did shrink.

I’ll grant that she’s no Frances Bacon. But she’s pretty isolated and probably doesn’t have access to any splatbooks, so she probably hasn’t had a chance to read up on the powers of a Beastmistress.

Does that make her as dumb as Thog? I don’t know. Is she as dumb as Elan? Maybe. Is that related to her alignment? No.

[Worldsong]

Wait, are we still trying to make a big deal out of someone's reaction to something unexpected being "...Did I do that?"

[Matt4]

The last thing I expected to find on this forum was an almost 10 pages long discussion about a minor character possible alignment :smallbiggrin:

My 2 cents are that she is Lawful Evil, even if she has some redeeming qualities she is still counsciously helping a clearly evil faction.

[DaLucaray]

Two times she attacked humanoids, and two times we heard her explain her reasoning. The first time, it was because she thought MitD would enjoy the treat. The second time it was "I don't see a reason NOT to try to kill these random people". You can argue about the first statement, but Good or Neutral people do not see murder as the default way to interact with someone.

You can try to argue that she's ACTUALLY doing it to protect her tribe, but she very clearly states her intentions both times and that is not it. I'm pulling Occam's Razor here- the simplest solution (she's not lying when she casually explains her reasoning to her allies) is the one we assume.

[goodpeople25]

And Oona still believes that she shrunk a giant, by hitting her...
And Belkar suddenly discovered and then subsequently believed he had the ability to just stand there while bieng hit in the face with a point blank fireball and take no damage whatsoever.

Belkar just happened to know the ability in question and was right in that it was the ability that let that happen.

[Precure]

And Belkar suddenly discovered and then subsequently believed he had the ability to just stand there while bieng hit in the face with a point blank fireball and take no damage whatsoever.

When did this happen?