Serini: Good or Evil?

[Matt620]

I think now, after seeing her motivations, a question could be drawn. What is your opinion?

Me, I'm firmly in the "evil" camp. Allowing innocents to suffer because "the world might survive" and "maybe some other people might get a better deal or something" makes me think she's no more good than Redcloak.

[hroþila]

It's "allowing innocents to suffer because the alternative would (according to your honest assessment of the situation) seriously endanger EVERYBODY's very existence, including but not limited to the innocents you wanted to spare in the first place".

Her motivations and actions so far are perfectly compatible with a Good alignment.

[facw]

My job is to protect the world

This doesn't strike me as an evil sentiment. I suppose you could twist it, but I don't think we've seen her do anything that says that is the case. She isn't interested in letting Xykon win because it will help kobolds and orcs, he main concern is that the gate and the world could be destroyed dooming everyone. The fact that she thinks some would do better to offset those who will suffer under Xykon's tyranny is just a side benefit (it's also a sign that she doesn't know as much about Xykon as she claims, ask the goblins, hobgoblins, and ogres how well serving Xykon has worked out for them...)

On top of that, she's not handing the gate over to Xykon, she clearly wants the defenses to hold, she just thinks that these people who have destroyed three other gates would make the gates less safe rather than more.

And of course see The Giant's comments about why Redcloak is evil (https://www.patreon.com/posts/45605183) and see if you really think Serini really fits in the same boat... It's not at all clear her ends are evil, she just believes a total victory is impossible and is striving for the best outcome for the world. And we've seen nothing about her means that are especially evil, indeed she seems intent on taking her enemies alive and sending them off unharmed, which certainly doesn't seem like the evil way to handle them (perhaps she has other reasons, but nothing so far suggests she doesn't care about their wellbeing).

She certainly seems like she's going to be an antagonist, but good people can certainly be at odds with one another.

Perhaps she really has gone off the deep end, but I don't think we've seen anything to indicate that she's anything but a well intentioned character operating off different information and experiences than The Order, and thus coming to different conclusions about what is best.

[Finagle]

Neutral for sure. Willing to let innocents die to preserve the balance. Correctly predicts some hero will come out of nowhere and defeat Xykon after a few years of tyranny. Thinks that's fine. Has sympathy for Evil races that practice slavery.

Of course she's not in possession of the full story that Xykon will be betrayed at the last minute by Redcloak. Well I suppose that Plan is only known by one mortal in the world. You'd figure Xykon would have tried to Speak With Dead after the Tsukiko incident, but I guess that requires a body.

[Leliel]

Neutral for sure. Her goal is "prevent the world from being destroyed" and "the plight of goblinoids sucks enough to the point where a lich in charge might be a net improvement" is canonically not a bad read on the situation.

Her being nihilistic enough to view Xykon as "Plan B" isn't Good, but it's still a few miles from Evil.

[Jason]

Neutral, probably Neutral Good. She is trying to protect the world the best way she knows how.

[ziproot]

I would go more with Chaotic Neutral. She's trying to protect the gate from anyone. She's Chaotic as seen with her treatment of prisoners, and she does not care that innocents will die under Xykon's rule, so in my mind she isn't Good. However, she doesn't want to destroy the world and didn't kill the paladins, so she isn't Evil either. That would put her at Chaotic Neutral.
Edit: Also, she's a rogue, and rogues are almost always Chaotic.

[Marsala]

Definitely Neutral. She wants to keep the world from being destroyed and is willing to embrace somewhat non-Good (though not really Evil, either) methods to do it. She's probably Chaotic Neutral, too.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

Yeah, she almost certainly isn't evil.

Consider what would happen if she were given information on the Godsmoot-- about how willing the gods are to destroy the world if the Gate falls into the wrong hands, and about Hel's potential to get on top. At the very least, she would be a bit more sympathetic with the Order-- perhaps she'd become an ally rather than a foe! Just because a character is currently in opposition to the protagonists doesn't mean they're evil.

[Alex Warlorn]

I think now, after seeing her motivations, a question could be drawn. What is your opinion?

Me, I'm firmly in the "evil" camp. Allowing innocents to suffer because "the world might survive" and "maybe some other people might get a better deal or something" makes me think she's no more good than Redcloak.

I'd say she's Chaotic Neutral.

[AMoonWalker]

Good, Chaotic Good that is smart and realizes she's been dealt a crappy hand, but still very much good.
And not neutral. Really, read the damn text.
She is doing her damnedest to preserve as many live as possible. Given how bad good's hand is right now (it's still below 20s vs an epic arcane caster with a crazy tough template, even before you consider Redcloak as backup), it looks like the way to save the most lives is to accept that some will die. She's calculating, that doesn't make her evil or even neutral. Just smart, and in a tough enough situation that the "best option" doesn't look possible.
And noting that the least deaths option might happen to improve the lives of a certain section of the greater population in no way discounts that.

The assumption that good must be perfect or it isn't good, or that good means only respecting the lives of others commonly classified as "good" goes in total opposition to the lesson The Giant has been trying to teach people over the entire course of this thousand+ page comic.

[Aidan]

Not sure on where precisely she would fit into the alignment chart, but Serini, most definitely is not evil.

Her goal is to protect the gate, at all costs. She seems to prefer that Xykon not find the gate, but at the end of the day, she wants the gate in one piece. Assuming that she knows the exact fates of each of the other gates, Serini knows that two individuals, notably Roy and O-Chul, were both ready to destroy the gate near them when it became clear that the other option was to allow Xykon to control it. From Serini's perspective, without the Order and the paladins, there is a 100% chance of existence continuing. Furthermore, she properly identifies that trading everyone's life's are more valuable then allowing a dictator to come to power, who would certainly eventually be toppled.

She doesn't plan to give the gates to Team Evil, she just recognizes that without the Order and the Paladins, Team Evil will simply continue as they were, none the wiser to where the gate truly is.

[Forum Explorer]

I think now, after seeing her motivations, a question could be drawn. What is your opinion?

Me, I'm firmly in the "evil" camp. Allowing innocents to suffer because "the world might survive" and "maybe some other people might get a better deal or something" makes me think she's no more good than Redcloak.

I'm going with Neutral. She's very willing to let a lesser evil win, to prevent a greater evil, rather than taking a risk to get a good result. In this case, she'd let Xykon win to prevent the world from being destroyed, rather than joining the OotS to try and kill Xykon, both saving the world, and preventing Xykon from ruling it.

But at the same time, she isn't really taking evil actions in her plan. Eliminating the memory of those seeking the gates is a way to eliminate the OotS and paladin buddies as a threat without actually hurting them. And she isn't helping Xykon get to the gate either.

[Good Coyote]

I just keep remembering what the deva said about Roy and the blood oath: "He was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities—including his ability to judge what was best."

My opinion right now is that it's not impossible for Serini to be Neutral, but... it's not impossible for her to be Good. I... have a hard time stretching that to Evil. It's technically possible, but it would feel like learning new information about her. Learning that she was Good or Neutral would just seem like a certain twist on what we already know.

[Hurkyl]

I would go more with Chaotic Neutral. She's trying to protect the gate from anyone. She's Chaotic as seen with her treatment of prisoners, and she does not care that innocents will die under Xykon's rule, so in my mind she isn't Good. However, she doesn't want to destroy the world and didn't kill the paladins, so she isn't Evil either. That would put her at Chaotic Neutral.
Edit: Also, she's a rogue, and rogues are almost always Chaotic.
To defend the Evil position... I don't think most Evil people are interested in destroying the world.

And her overarching strategy seems be obfuscation and secrecy. Evil or not, killings the paladins would be counterproductive for two reasons:

* If the paladins go missing, it would invite people to investigate what happened to them.
* Releasing the paladins with selective memories removed would reinforce the cover-up she's maintaining.

[dancrilis]

We don't have enough information - I suggested that when she was taunting and beating her prisoners that she might be evil and I stand by that, however 'might be' is not 'is'.

Right now she could be any of the nine alignments without her needing anything explained (other then potentially a throw away line to cover Soon associating with an evil character 'I wasn't evil at the time', 'I have an amulet for that' etc).

Given that she could be any of the nine alignments I am going to shrug and say 'probably true neutral' until given reason to think otherwise.

[Clistenes]

I would say Chaotic Good. She is trying to save the world, she cares for disadvantaged folk, and she avoids killing if she can...

That doesn't mean she isn't misguided, or that her actions aren't going to get the world destroyed...

[Psepha]

Neutral for sure. Willing to let innocents die to preserve the balance. Correctly predicts some hero will come out of nowhere and defeat Xykon after a few years of tyranny. Thinks that's fine. Has sympathy for Evil races that practice slavery.

Of course she's not in possession of the full story that Xykon will be betrayed at the last minute by Redcloak. Well I suppose that Plan is only known by one mortal in the world. You'd figure Xykon would have tried to Speak With Dead after the Tsukiko incident, but I guess that requires a body.

I think that's jumping to some unfair conclusions to be honest.

In regards to the world having to survive a few years of Xykon's tyranny, I don't think she thinks that it's "fine", it's just that it's the least bad option. She's been presented with the ultimate trolley problem, and she's made her choice - it's not a happy choice, but between more die and less die she's chosen less.

With the "sympathy for evil races that practice slavery thing" I have to say... I feel like fighting against that mentality is kind of a big thing in this comic. You can't boil an entire race down to "they're eeeeeevil", so far we've only seen her interacting with trolls who appreciated her friendship and went out of their way to save her. She hasn't advocated for the demon baby-eaters of super-Hell, she's just commented that there are more than just PC races in the world and a lot of them have a raw deal. A lot of them deserve sympathy.

I also think it's important to consider what she's doing with the paladins. She was presented with two targets who, from her perspective, are endangering the entire world. It would have been incredibly easy to kill them outright, but she's going to extraordinary lengths to avoid killing them, and has no murderous intent towards the Order of the Stick either.

[Edreyn]

I'd say that her approach is True Neutral, almost precisely fitting of how TN is seen in generic rules.
She wants to preserve the world as a whole, not specific creatures, organizations or countries. Neither she cares about their happiness, just only their existence.
That's exactly the approach of True Neutrals.

She states that living under a tyranny is better that non-existing at all - and there are many who would agree with her.

As she imagines, even if Xykon would rule the world, he won't be able to punish everyone he wants just by his will, not even deities in this world have such power. She says "the world is large", she believes that there won't be way too many suffering ones.

So, this part isn't evil too.
What would I call evil? For example if she said something like: "Xykon would win anyway, so we'd better pledge loyalty to him right now, so when he conquers the world, we'd get a better place in the new world". That would be truly evil. But she, instead, tries to reduce the potential damage.

[faustin]

You know it's good writting when readers regularly debate the characters status as hero or villain based on complex motivations and actions, rather than any arbitrary alignment.

[hroþila]

There's a big difference between not caring for the well-being and happiness of other people, and believing that regrettably it can't be helped that some people will suffer because there's no reasonably safe way to prevent that without causing even more harm. She's not philosophically alright with Xykon being a tyrant and making people suffer, she's being realistic. Just like Roy isn't ok with Tarquin's tyranny but he has other priorities than fighting him right now.

[DavidBV]

Evil is discarded, and Good is a very likely possibility.

It is much, much easier to just kill people than capturing them and erasing their memories; she's putting herself through inconvenience and risks to avoid harming her opponents.

Even when she argues that Xykon is not as bad as destroying the world, she expresses that the "monster races" may improve their lives, which demonstrates empathy with creatures she doesn't even know that lay far awayfrom her own society and ancestry, and that's recurring theme Rich has used very often to define the most "Good" characters in the comics: from OotPCs with Roy and the "Iron Golems" fans, to "How the Paladin Got his Scar".

If I had to bet: Chaotic-Good often behaving as True Neutral because of circumstances.

[Dion]

It’s D&D. She’s literally whatever alignment is pencilled into the box on her character sheet.

And then, you know, she can justify it or whatever with words and stuff.

[MoiMagnus]

I think now, after seeing her motivations, a question could be drawn. What is your opinion?

Me, I'm firmly in the "evil" camp. Allowing innocents to suffer because "the world might survive" and "maybe some other people might get a better deal or something" makes me think she's no more good than Redcloak.

Assuming we can trust what she says (otherwise, there is not a lot we can say right now).

On one side:
+ She doesn't act specifically for her own profit.
+ She doesn't torture her prisoners.
+ Her objective is still to save the world from destruction
+ Contrary to Redcloak she works for the good of everyone (saving the world), not specifically the good of the peoples she consider as part of her group.

On the other side:
+ She definitely fell into moral relativism, meaning that for her, everything but the destruction of the world is fine as every system oppresses some innocents in some ways.
+ She definitely has some resentment toward the status quo, the paladins, and possibly the gods.

All of that put her IMO in the "Chaotic Neutral, with upcoming switch back to CG or fall to madness and CE by the end of her character arc".

Interestingly enough, the "I protect the gate and I don't care even a little about what happen to the remaining of the world" could be a LN behaviour. As a chaotic person, she is not doing it because of some oath or personal code. She is doing it because she believes it is still the best choice.

[Finagle]

With the "sympathy for evil races that practice slavery thing" I have to say... I feel like fighting against that mentality is kind of a big thing in this comic. You can't boil an entire race down to "they're eeeeeevil"
Slavers just scream "evil". Remember how we were outraged at Buggy Lou and the Empire of Blood for practicing slavery? The slaves crucified on the hillside and set on fire, for daring to escape? Same thing. That's why Serini is Neutral, it's not a problem for her. No way a Good character would take their side. CG, NG, LG they're all 100% against it.


A lot of them deserve sympathy.
Their slaves deserve sympathy. Slavers, no.

[Gallowglass]

Truuuuuuuueeeeee Neutral.

[Dion]

Has sympathy for Evil races that practice slavery.


I don’t detect a lot of sympathy for humans?

Or did you have another race in mind?

I think what the argument boils down to here is “Serini is evil because she wants to save all races and people from certain oblivion, even humans who routinely practice slavery like Tarquin! Anyone who wants to save evil human slavers like Tarquin from oblivion is evil.”

Is that the argument?

[Ionathus]

The way I see it, Serini views the whole conflict as a hostage situation.

According to her information, the world is not under existential threat if Xykon gets what he wants. What he wants (ruling the world) is terrible, and will cause lots of suffering for many people living in the world, so she's doing what she can to misdirect and delay him from that goal.

However, in her view, Xykon essentially has a hostage -- if anyone tries anything crazy and attacks him directly, that hostage stands a high chance of dying. Unfortunately, that hostage happens to be "all of existence."

I'm hard-pressed to come up with good examples of a story in which The Hero actually lets The Villain escape using a hostage. That's because it's not heroic to give in to hostage demands, and some noble hero like Superman or whoever is more likely to "take a third option" and find a way to both save the hostage AND stop The Villain from even escaping.

The Order and O-Chul/Lien see themselves as Superman. They think they'll be able to think of something clever and stop The Villain without endangering The Hostage. They're full of righteous fury and noble sentiments and they think it's the final battle between Good and Evil. Because of how they think and behave, their personalities simply won't let them back down in this situation.

Serini does not see herself as Superman. She sees a hostage situation, and the death of that hostage is so abhorrent to her that she is unwilling to oppose The Villain...for right now. Her unwillingness to provoke a fight and inadvertently cause the death of The Hostage (who is, again, all of existence) might make her less Heroic, but it certainly doesn't make her less Good.

[GrayDeath]

Chaotic Good (she thinks herself that) with classic True Neutral Arghuments and likely soon to follow actions.

[InvisibleBison]

I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that Serini is Chaotic. Are only chaotic people allowed to lie? It seems to me that you could make a pretty good argument for being lawful. As she says in #1229, she's tasked herself with protecting the world, and she's willing to do whatever is necessary to do that. Devotion to duty is a quintessentially Lawful trait.

[woweedd]

Honestly, not sure it matters, but...Good person, misreading the situation. She's kinda a jerk, but then, if being a snarky cynical type excluded you from the Good Guy club, Roy would be out long ago. She was Lawful Good, I think we can assume (she was considering multi-classing to Paladin....Huh), but as for now...I think she's a Good person, who's at odds with our protagonists, because, well, she just doesn't have all the information. She makes a pretty good case for the idea that letting Xykon win and take over the world is the better option then destroying the world and having EVERYONE be hosed, at this point where every prior attempt to salvage the situation has failed. However, she is missing quite a few key pieces of information. Namely, A. Xykon (or, rather, Redcloak's) actual plan for the Gates will probably lead to the world being destroyed ANYWAY, B. The Gods could and probably would blow up the planet if it got to that point C. The Order don't intend at all to destroy the Gate, or indeed, get near it and, slightly-smaller-problem D. Despite the diversity of his forces, Xykon's world wouldn't actually be an improvement for anyone, because that guy fundamentally doesn't care about anyone other then himself, and, given the option, would probably just kill every humanoid in his forces and turn them into undead, if Redcloak wouldn't bellyache about it.

[EmperorSarda]

Has sympathy for Evil races that practice slavery.


She lists Kobolds, Orcs and Trolls. None of which we have seen any evidence for practicing slavery.


We don't have enough information - I suggested that when she was taunting and beating her prisoners that she might be evil and I stand by that, however 'might be' is not 'is'.


Her hitting Lein and O'Chul was as damaging as Rafiki hitting Simba with his stick. No damage was done. Her giving them each a wack of her staff does not constitute a beating.

[woweedd]

She lists Kobolds, Orcs and Trolls. None of which we have seen any evidence for practicing slavery.



Her hitting Lein and O'Chul was as damaging as Rafiki hitting Simba with his stick. No damage was done. Her giving them each a wack of her staff does not constitute a beating.
Especially Mr. "Constitution 25" over there,

[Psepha]

Slavers just scream "evil". Remember how we were outraged at Buggy Lou and the Empire of Blood for practicing slavery? The slaves crucified on the hillside and set on fire, for daring to escape? Same thing. That's why Serini is Neutral, it's not a problem for her. No way a Good character would take their side. CG, NG, LG they're all 100% against it.


Their slaves deserve sympathy. Slavers, no.

Who even mentioned slavers though? By that logic, the Empire of Blood practices slavery, and the Empire of Blood contains humans, thus all humans practice slavery = all humans are evil = Roy is evil

And have we even had confirmation that trolls keep slaves? Do orcs?

[Goblin_Priest]

Why not neutral?

[Riftwolf]

My take is Embittered Neutral. She probably started out CG but becoming a pariah probably burnt away what empathy she had.

[ziproot]

I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that Serini is Chaotic. Are only chaotic people allowed to lie? It seems to me that you could make a pretty good argument for being lawful. As she says in #1229, she's tasked herself with protecting the world, and she's willing to do whatever is necessary to do that. Devotion to duty is a quintessentially Lawful trait.

Except

She's a rogue
She attacked the paladins with tranquilizers while invisible
She lied to the paladins about letting them go


Lawful non-Evil characters care about honor. If Serini cared about honor, she would have at least shown herself to the paladins before capturing them.

EDIT: Lawful Evil characters also seem to care about honor.

[brian 333]

A case can be made that Serini is LAWFUL GOOD.

1. In the flashback she claims that she qualifies to multiclass as a paladin. Perhaps this was similar to the Elanicus episode, or perhaps not.

2. She treats beings unlike herself honorably.

3. She uses non-lethal force when lethal force would have been easier. (Example, attracting the attention of the bugbear village to the palladins.)

4. She holds the lives of the many innocent people she does not know to be as valuable as the lives of the few she does know.

5. She considers herself the ultimate judge of what is best for everyone.

A paladin's code could be based on her observed behavior:

A paladin is Good, treats equitably with strangers, practices restraint when using force, affords equal justice to all, and defends those who cannot defend themselves.

I don't believe she is LG, but she has done nothing to make it a less likely option than CG or any other alignment, (though I would rule out Evil for story reasons having nothing to do with observed behavior.)

[InvisibleBison]

Except

She's a rogue
She attacked the paladins with tranquilizers while invisible
She lied to the paladins about letting them go



Rogues can be of any alignment.
Ambushes are not chaotic.
While lying is chaotic, a single chaotic act does not a chaotic character make.



Lawful non-Evil characters care about honor. If Serini cared about honor, she would have at least shown herself to the paladins before capturing them.

Characters who care about honor are Lawful, but not all Lawful characters care about honor. And even so, "honor" isn't a fixed, universal thing. For all we know, attacking people from ambush is how honorable halflings wage war.

[Leliel]

I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that Serini is Chaotic. Are only chaotic people allowed to lie? It seems to me that you could make a pretty good argument for being lawful. As she says in #1229, she's tasked herself with protecting the world, and she's willing to do whatever is necessary to do that. Devotion to duty is a quintessentially Lawful trait.

Mostly because she got along with uber-Chaotic dude Girad Draketooth, and no evidence suggests she's changed from then. She also doesn't seem to have a high opinion of Paladin oaths, though she respects them.

[The Pilgrim]

Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral.

Take Therkla (confirmed as Neutral). She didn't mind that Hinjo was Good and Kubota was Evil. For her, it was just a conflict between two big Lords. She just picked the side of the one Lord she cared about (Kubota), and when she began caring for someone on the other side (Elan) she just wanted to stop them all from killing each other.

[InvisibleBison]

Mostly because she got along with uber-Chaotic dude Girad Draketooth, and no evidence suggests she's changed from then. She also doesn't seem to have a high opinion of Paladin oaths, though she respects them.

Hmm...

I seem to recall Girard being more anti-paladin than anti-lawful. But that might just be because the only lawful character we see him interact with is a paladin (if Serini isn't lawful, of course). I think this does suggest that Serini is more likely to be non-lawful than lawful, though it's far from conclusive and doesn't rule out her being neutral.


Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral.

I think you're misinterpreting her dialogue. She definitely thinks Xykon taking over the world would be bad; it's just that she sees it as being better than the world being destroyed. She's trying to protect as many people as she can, within the limits of her ability to influence the situation. That seems Good to me.

[dancrilis]

Her hitting Lein and O'Chul was as damaging as Rafiki hitting Simba with his stick. No damage was done. Her giving them each a wack of her staff does not constitute a beating.

The arresting officer apprehended the well intentioned trespassers and during questioning she proceeded to hit and poke them (lightly) with a stick.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that Serini is Chaotic. Are only chaotic people allowed to lie? It seems to me that you could make a pretty good argument for being lawful. As she says in #1229, she's tasked herself with protecting the world, and she's willing to do whatever is necessary to do that. Devotion to duty is a quintessentially Lawful trait.

Saving the world isn't a oath that she feels obligated to uphold. It's seeing the world be endangered and deciding to do something about it. And considering she's operating without an organization or any oversight at all, that points more to chaotic than lawful. What's more, she's very much operating on a case by case basis.

Really it looks more like she's picked a goal, preserving the world, and will do anything it takes to achieve that goal. That's more Chaotic than Lawful. Someone who is willing to cross the line in order to do something does not scream lawful to me.

[Dion]

Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral.


That isn’t the choice. Her choice isn’t “should good people or bad people run the world”.

Her choice is “should there be a world or not be a world”.

And, I’d point out that she’s gone to great expense and personal risk in support of that choice.

Now, you might argue that choice is also neutral. After all, the world is probably where she keeps most of her stuff.

But it’s worth remembering the choice she actually has, and not the choice we wish she had.

[Forum Explorer]

That isn’t the choice. Her choice isn’t “should good people or bad people run the world”.

Her choice is “should there be a world or not be a world”.

And, I’d point out that she’s gone to great expense and personal risk in support of that choice.

Now, you might argue that choice is also neutral. After all, the world is probably where she keeps most of her stuff.

But it’s worth remembering the choice she actually has, and not the choice we wish she had.

That's not her choice though. Her choice is 'Do I trust the OotS (and associated allies) to not destroy the world?' Because it isn't like any of the parties involved want the world to be destroyed. She could gamble on the OotS and actively help them against Xykon, but is instead taking the safe bet of letting Xykon win, and that without any fighting there is no reason for the gate to be destroyed at all.

[Sandman]

Good?
Bad?

She's the halfling with the crossbow.

[ziproot]

Hmm...

I seem to recall Girard being more anti-paladin than anti-lawful. But that might just be because the only lawful character we see him interact with is a paladin (if Serini isn't lawful, of course). I think this does suggest that Serini is more likely to be non-lawful than lawful, though it's far from conclusive and doesn't rule out her being neutral.



I think you're misinterpreting her dialogue. She definitely thinks Xykon taking over the world would be bad; it's just that she sees it as being better than the world being destroyed. She's trying to protect as many people as she can, within the limits of her ability to influence the situation. That seems Good to me.

The Giant has confirmed Girard to be Chaotic Neutral. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?411301-Interview-Questions-For-Rich/page3#post19163226)

[Good Coyote]

The Giant has confirmed Girard to be Chaotic Neutral. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?411301-Interview-Questions-For-Rich/page3#post19163226)

You can be Chaotic without being anti-Lawful. Elan is Chaotic himself but supports other people's choices to be Lawful.

That said... it's true we only see Girard railing against paladins, but the way he does it seems broader. He attacks honor as a whole, for example. That doesn't mean that he'd see all Lawful people as dangerous hypocrites like paladins though, it seems probable that he saw a lot of them as chumps.

And it does kinda seem like Serini might have liked Girard more than he liked her. Maybe she had the crush first and that led her to not take offense at his alignment aspersions (rather than having a similar alignment first and that leading to the crush).

On the other hand he did end up apparently getting along with her the best out of all the surviving Scribblers, since only she got the alert that Soon had "broken his word." And he also trusted that she would not give Soon the real coordinates. So he didn't see her as a chump either.

Much to thonk about.

I would put Lawful as possible but very surprising for her as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

Serini: Good or Evil?

I think now, after seeing her motivations, a question could be drawn. You forgot one, so the question is both incomplete (you forgot neutral) and apparently simply a vehicle for your pre determined opinion. :smallconfused:

Neutral, probably Neutral Good. She is trying to protect the world the best way she knows how. As good a guess as True Neutral, but I don't care what her alignment is since I am more interested in her as a character in a story.

You know it's good writting when readers regularly debate the characters status as hero or villain based on complex motivation s and actions, rather than any arbitrary alignment. *laughed, I did* :smallcool:


Honestly, not sure it matters It doesn't.

A case can be made that Serini is LAWFUL GOOD.
{snip fun post} That was an interesting take, thanks for the grin

Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral. We note the challenge to the frame of the question, and we approve of it. :smallsmile:

Good?
Bad?

She's the halfling with the crossbow. *applause*

[Dion]

That's not her choice though. Her choice is 'Do I trust the OotS (and associated allies) to not destroy the world?'

No, she really doesn’t care.

It makes literally no difference if the OotS destroys the gate intentionally (which has happened only once) or if they’re a bunch of incompetent chuckleheads who get caught up in the chaos of a big battle and destroy it accidentally (which has happened three times).

As far as she is concerned, both situations have the same outcome. The gate is destroyed, the snarl escapes, and the world is destroyed.

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time! There’s no way they’re going to destroy the gate again. Unlike the road runner cartoon, this time they’re really going to pull it off! See? They’ve even painted a hole on the side of the cliff, and put up a sign says ‘tunnel’. Are you seriously trying to tell me that plan is going to fail?”

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time! It would be a cool thing if Serini killed, or tried to kill, Elan for his "blow it up because I am an idiot" move ... but I am not sure if she has the granular detail that we the readers do on how that came to pass, nor am I sure that she's sufficiently interested in revenge for previous gate blow ups (her distrust of O-Chul and Lien considered)to want to kill him for it. Probably not.
A neat side effect is that it would lead to a Haley Versus Serini rogue battle, which might be colorful ... but there is little reason for Rich to go there as far as I can guess ...

Elan is still in the Order, and the Order is near a gate.
From the perspective you are sharing, she's seeing a pattern that is bad ... Elan near a gate.

Where ya sit determines what ya see

[ziproot]

You can be Chaotic without being anti-Lawful. Elan is Chaotic himself but supports other people's choices to be Lawful.

That said... it's true we only see Girard railing against paladins, but the way he does it seems broader. He attacks honor as a whole, for example. That doesn't mean that he'd see all Lawful people as dangerous hypocrites like paladins though, it seems probable that he saw a lot of them as chumps.

And it does kinda seem like Serini might have liked Girard more than he liked her. Maybe she had the crush first and that led her to not take offense at his alignment aspersions (rather than having a similar alignment first and that leading to the crush).

On the other hand he did end up apparently getting along with her the best out of all the surviving Scribblers, since only she got the alert that Soon had "broken his word." And he also trusted that she would not give Soon the real coordinates. So he didn't see her as a chump either.

Much to thonk about.

I would put Lawful as possible but very surprising for her as well.
Oh, sorry. I was thinking you were implying Girard wasn't chaotic. Silly me.


No, she really doesn’t care.

It makes literally no difference if the OotS destroys the gate intentionally (which has happened only once) or if they’re a bunch of incompetent chuckleheads who get caught up in the chaos of a big battle and destroy it accidentally (which has happened three times).

As far as she is concerned, both situations have the same outcome. The gate is destroyed, the snarl escapes, and the world is destroyed.

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time! There’s no way they’re going to destroy the gate again. Unlike the road runner cartoon, this time they’re really going to pull it off! See? They’ve even painted a hole on the side of the cliff, and put up a sign says ‘tunnel’. Are you seriously trying to tell me that plan is going to fail?”

Soon's gate was not destroyed by the Order. Lirian's gate was destroyed before the Order existed. So I'm counting ... 1? The Order intentionally destroyed one and accidentally destroyed another. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

EDIT: By 1 I mean 1 accidental destruction. They destroyed 2 gates all together.

EDIT 2: Merged posts.

[InvisibleBison]

Saving the world isn't a oath that she feels obligated to uphold. It's seeing the world be endangered and deciding to do something about it.

Serini doesn't say "The world's in danger and only I can save it". She says "My job is to protect the world". A job isn't a one-time thing; it's an ongoing commitment. She's been living at Kraagor's Tomb doing her job long before any actual threats to the world showed up.


And considering she's operating without an organization or any oversight at all, that points more to chaotic than lawful.

Organizations are slightly predisposed towards being lawful, but there's no requirement that lawful characters be part of an organization.


What's more, she's very much operating on a case by case basis.

Why do you say that?


Really it looks more like she's picked a goal, preserving the world, and will do anything it takes to achieve that goal. That's more Chaotic than Lawful. Someone who is willing to cross the line in order to do something does not scream lawful to me.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. You could also say that she's adopted a principle that she allows to guide all of her actions, and she's willing to do whatever it takes to abide by that principle, which is extremely lawful behavior.

[Scottzg]

You know it's good writting when readers regularly debate the characters status as hero or villain based on complex motivations and actions, rather than any arbitrary alignment.

Yeah! I'm not sure about her alignment yet (i don't think she's evil), but she's an awesome character. I'm excited to see what her role in the story will be.

[Forum Explorer]

No, she really doesn’t care.

It makes literally no difference if the OotS destroys the gate intentionally (which has happened only once) or if they’re a bunch of incompetent chuckleheads who get caught up in the chaos of a big battle and destroy it accidentally (which has happened three times).

As far as she is concerned, both situations have the same outcome. The gate is destroyed, the snarl escapes, and the world is destroyed.

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time! There’s no way they’re going to destroy the gate again. Unlike the road runner cartoon, this time they’re really going to pull it off! See? They’ve even painted a hole on the side of the cliff, and put up a sign says ‘tunnel’. Are you seriously trying to tell me that plan is going to fail?”

That still comes down to trust. She simply doesn't trust the OotS to not destroy the last gate, either accidently or on purpose. She could trust them and work together with them to try and achieve the best result (IE, Xykon is destroyed and the gate is preserved), but thinks that it isn't worth the risk.


Serini doesn't say "The world's in danger and only I can save it". She says "My job is to protect the world". A job isn't a one-time thing; it's an ongoing commitment. She's been living at Kraagor's Tomb doing her job long before any actual threats to the world showed up.



Organizations are slightly predisposed towards being lawful, but there's no requirement that lawful characters be part of an organization.



Why do you say that?



That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. You could also say that she's adopted a principle that she allows to guide all of her actions, and she's willing to do whatever it takes to abide by that principle, which is extremely lawful behavior.

Not really. A job can very much be a one-time thing. In this case she could view it as her job, because it was her mistake (letting Xykon get her diary, writing said diary in the first place) that let Xykon find the gates in the first place.

True, but someone operating without an organization is less likely to be Lawful.


Because she isn't trying to defeat Xykon. Xykon is currently after a gate, and has destroyed a gate in the past.


I'd disagree, but this is where arguments about Lawful and Chaotic always get messy. See, I see the difference between these two to be all about the means. Lawful and Chaotic characters can have the same goals or the same end. Or basically they want the same thing in the end to happen. The Lawful character though is strict about what means are acceptable to achieve said goal, while the Chaotic character is not.

[Bobby M]

I dug out my account that's been mothballed for nearly a decade to vote evil.

Now, I admit I view alignment differently than the Giant, but if she were a player at my table, I'd have shifted her alignment one step down the axis for this. In my view of what she has actually done, and not her justifications is to actively work to aid evil in conquest against the heroes.

I also disagree with her logic that Xykon's rule, which in no way guarantees the world survives, is better than the gods unmaking the world. The gods unmaking the world isn't great, but it isn't oblivion, as souls will go to their final destinations just a little sooner. What is at stake isn't existence but the amount of suffering caused. Xykon is a sadist who easily gets bored. Given unlimited power and time, he will continue to escalate the suffering he inflicts in both scale and intensity into hellish proportions.

The worst thing about her choice is that there is clearly another option that doesn't risk the gate. Help the heroes stop Xykon AWAY from the gate. Call in help, provide information, provide equipment or items, or even help herself, she could help tilt the odds away from a terrible fate without compromising the integrity of the gate, but chooses what she feels is the easier path, which to me is clearly evil.

Edit: Trying to clean up typos.

[Dr.Zero]

I dug out my account that's been mothballed for nearly a decade to vote evil.

Now, I admit I view alignment differently than the Giant, but if she were a player at my table, I'd have shifted her alignment one step down the axis for this. In my view of what she has actually done, and not her justifications is to actively work to aid evil in conquest against the heroes.

I also disagree with her logic that Xykon's rule, which in no way guarantees the world survives, is better than the gods unmaking the world. The gods unmaking the world isn't great, but it isn't oblivion, as souls will go to their final destinations just a little sooner. What is at stake isn't existence but the amount of suffering caused. Xykon is a sadist who easily gets bored. Given unlimited power and time, he will continue to escalate the suffering he inflicts in both scale and intensity into hellish proportions.

The worst thing about her choice is that there is clearly another option that doesn't risk the gate. Help the heroes stop Xykon AWAY from the gate. Call in help, provide information, provide equipment or items, or even help herself, she could help tilt the odds away from a terrible fate without compromising the integrity of the gate, but chooses what she feels is the easier path, which to me is clearly evil.

Edit: Trying to clean up typos.


Like I pointed out in another thread (I think the strip discussion thread), people who will find unacceptable to live under X can simply kill themselves (plenty of ways: poison, heroic rebellion for dwarves to avoid Hel, etc), obtaining -for themselves- exactly the same result of the Gods unmaking the world. (For dwarves something better)

Who, instead, will prefer to live, will be able to do so.

So Serini's action brings to a stricter better outcome.

She is definitely LG (Logical-Good).

[Bobby M]

Like I pointed out in another thread (I think the strip discussion thread), people who will find unacceptable to live under X can simply kill themselves (plenty of ways: poison, heroic rebellion for dwarves to avoid Hel, etc), obtaining -for themselves- exactly the same result of the Gods unmaking the world. (For dwarves something better)

Who, instead, will prefer to live, will be able to do so.

So Serini's action brings to a stricter better outcome.

She is definitely LG (Logical-Good).


Again, strong disagreement. There is a major, and hopefully obvious distinction, between an instant and painless transition to your afterlife alongside all of your loved ones and individual suicide. And I apologize, but I am not going to have a conversation about the merits of suicide here or anywhere else.

[Dr.Zero]

Again, strong disagreement. There is a major, and hopefully obvious distinction, between an instant and painless transition to your afterlife alongside all of your loved ones and individual suicide. And I apologize, but I am not going to have a conversation about the merits of suicide here or anywhere else.

Which is a fun reaction, since your initial assumption was that the "suicide" of the whole world (even of the ones who could disagree) would be a great option.

[Bobby M]

Which is a fun reaction, since your initial assumption was that the "suicide" of the whole world (even of the ones who could disagree) would be a great option.

Yep. Just remembered why I quit logging in.

[Dr.Zero]

Yep. Just remembered why I quit logging in.

Yeah, sorry to bring you the news that "Killing everyone in the world without even asking their opinion" is not exactly any better than... almost anything.

[Ruck]

I don't think we have enough information to definitively declare Serini's alignment, but I do think the argument that she is Evil requires some uncharitable assumptions about her motivations or reading too much into minor actions. (And as other people have said, if she was Evil she would probably be handling the current situation differently.) I guess I'd lean towards Good, but Neutral is also a possibility. Don't think we have enough information at this time to settle on anything, though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Like I pointed out in another thread (I think the strip discussion thread), people who will find unacceptable to live under X can simply kill themselves
Lovely job of channeling Eugene Greenhilt's suggestion that al of the dwarves collectively kill themselves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html)so that his inconvenience is lessened.

Yep. Just remembered why I quit logging in. Yeah, some things don't have much hope of improvement. (If it makes any difference, I liked your "DMside view of the situation")

Don't think we have enough information at this time to settle on anything, though. When has that stopped anyone from (1) leaping to conclusions and (2) initiating a (usually pointless) argument about alignment?

[Jason]

The way she sees it, if the final gate goes then the Snarl gets loose. Living under Xykon' s rule until he is eventually destroyed is preferable to the Snarl eating everyone's souls. What she doesn't know is that the gods will destroy the world if Xykon captures the gate, so "living under Xykon's rule" is not really a viable choice. Once she understands that the only option left will be"join forces with the Order to try to stop Xykon from capturing the gate."

[Anachronity]

I hate D&D alignment because it's cartoonish to a fault. Clearly she's evil, because she used poison. :smalltongue:

More seriously, her intended actions here are purely pragmatic: she feels that a villain controlling a large part of the world is not worse than everyone in the world dying. However, The Giant has clarified that this sort of pragmatism is evil (https://www.patreon.com/posts/45605183) with his comments on Redcloak.


The potential nobility of his goals does not really soften the brutality of the actions he regularly takes in support of them, and the fact that he believes it does is neither here nor there when determining his alignment. This is what people mean when they say that the ends do not justify the means. It is a common tenet of the Evil alignments that yes, they do, while Good alignments tend to believe that doing bad things is bad.She believes the ends justify the means, and is engaging in an act that is clearly evil in the short term out of interest in a long-term goal. So yeah she's evil in GitPverse

[Rrmcklin]

I hate D&D alignment because it's cartoonish to a fault. Clearly she's evil, because she used poison. :smalltongue:

More seriously, her intended actions here are purely pragmatic: she feels that a villain controlling a large part of the world is not worse than everyone in the world dying. However, The Giant has clarified that this sort of pragmatism is evil (https://www.patreon.com/posts/45605183) with his comments on Redcloak.

She believes the ends justify the means, and is engaging in an act that is clearly evil in the short term out of interest in a long-term goal. So yeah she's evil in GitPverse

She's not though, you're conflating her thinking Xykon ruling is preferable to cessation of existence, to her actively wanting and trying to help Xykon rule. But that's not what's happening. If that was what she wanted she'd just go and bring Xykon and co. to the actual gate. I'm sure she'd prefer he'd never find it, but at this moment she's pretty sure those meddling around are more likely to lead him to it and/or destroy it and ruin everything than they are to actually keep him away/destroy him.

[Jason]

More seriously, her intended actions here are purely pragmatic: she feels that a villain controlling a large part of the world is not worse than everyone in the world dying. However, The Giant has clarified that this sort of pragmatism is evil (https://www.patreon.com/posts/45605183) with his comments on Redcloak.

She believes the ends justify the means, and is engaging in an act that is clearly evil in the short term out of interest in a long-term goal. So yeah she's evil in GitPverse

The Giant's comments on Redcloak are that noble goals don't excuse evil methods. Serini is not using evil methods. She is in fact going out of her way to protect the gate without killing people. She simply thinks a few centuries under an evil overlord is preferable to everybody getting their souls eaten and the world being destroyed. And really, it's hard to argue with her logic.
Neutral Good.

[Good Coyote]

You can kinda read it the other way around. Serini believes that the ends (stopping Xykon) do not justify the means (destroying the Gates).

I don't see her actually handing the Gate over on a silver platter yet. She just isn't willing to work with people who she (I think wrongly) perceives as willing to stop Xykon at all costs (ends justifying the means).

[Scottzg]

Again, strong disagreement. There is a major, and hopefully obvious distinction, between an instant and painless transition to your afterlife alongside all of your loved ones and individual suicide. And I apologize, but I am not going to have a conversation about the merits of suicide here or anywhere else.

I'm not convinced. Personally, i feel like it's worse to make the decision for everyone than it is to force everyone to make a horrible decision.

I'd rather not have to confront that choice for myself though, so it's complicated.

I think a Good person could take either position and be totally justified, assuming it's intention that is what matters.

[Anachronity]

She's not though, you're conflating her thinking Xykon ruling is preferable to cessation of existence, to her actively wanting and trying to help Xykon rule. But that's not what's happening. If that was what she wanted she'd just go and bring Xykon and co. to the actual gate. I'm sure she'd prefer he'd never find it, but at this moment she's pretty sure those meddling around are more likely to lead him to it and/or destroy it and ruin everything than they are to actually keep him away/destroy him.
The Giant's comments on Redcloak are that noble goals don't excuse evil methods. Serini is not using evil methods. She is in fact going out of her way to protect the gate without killing people. She simply thinks a few centuries under an evil overlord is preferable to everybody getting their souls eaten and the world being destroyed. And really, it's hard to argue with her logic.
Neutral Good.What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

The most I could see for her by that logic is maybe neutral because she's defending the gate from everyone she believes might destroy it, regardless of their intentions for doing so. Like a construct might guard a relic.

[Ruck]

What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

I agree with the people you quoted, and I think maybe the part of The Giant's answer that might be relevant here is that Redcloak's self-justifications are not necessarily his actual motivations. Goals and intentions do matter; perhaps not as much as actions, but they matter. (As far as actions go, I'll reiterate that an Evil or probably even a Neutral character would be much more cavalier about simply killing someone they thought might be a threat to all existence.)

[agustin1987]

I'm not getting an evil vibe off of Sereni :annoyed:. She knows the Paladins were in contact with someone who was coming to meet them in two days. They didn't make the meeting, so the amnesia potion isn't going to fool the paladin's bosses/allies that they found nothing there. The block of missing time will be a giveaway to something happening. Therefore, if you're evil there's no downside to killing the Paladins.

[Dr.Zero]

Lovely job of channeling Eugene Greenhilt's suggestion that al of the dwarves collectively kill themselves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html)so that his inconvenience is lessened.

This is the second comment which shows some kind of indignation about the "who can't deal with X can kill themselves", when we are casually talking about total global multi genocide.
I can't stop to find this kind of reactions funny, since it assumes that giving to people the possibility to decide is some kind of evil when compared to killing them uncaring of their opinion.

(Edit: on a side note, dwarves would come out definitely better being killed in a honorable rebellion against the lich tyrant than being killed without asking... and going to Hel)

[KorvinStarmast]

I hate D&D alignment because it's cartoonish to a fault. Clearly she's evil, because she used poison. :smalltongue: The problem is, among other things, the desire to take a single act and use that as The Determinent of alignment; sort of the reverse Halo Effect. And this can be traced to the root of how Paladin's were originally built "any {something} act immediately and irrevocably end the Paladin and they revert to a Fighting Man" - and yet in the DMG for 1e the atonement possibility was raised. I'll not take this further, but how alignment is implemented in such a mechanistic way makes it clunky, at best, as a game tool. As a means for doing a critique or analysis of fiction, it's useless.

You can kinda read it the other way around. Serini believes that the ends (stopping Xykon) do not justify the means (destroying the Gates). Because they are out of spare gates. I think she'd be less adamant about this were some of the other gates still standing.

This is the second comment which shows some kind of indignation..
No indignation involved. "If you don't like it you can go and kill yourself" is a pretty lousy solution set to a problem.


(Edit: on a side note, dwarves would come out definitely better being killed in a honorable rebellion against the lich tyrant than being killed without asking... and going to Hel) Which highlights the cultural+deity based screw job that they got in this version of OoTSworld.

[Dr.Zero]

No indignation involved. "If you don't like it you can go and kill yourself" is a pretty lousy solution set to a problem.

And, again, being one possibly outcome "everyone dies, no question asked"...

[Good Coyote]

What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

The most I could see for her by that logic is maybe neutral because she's defending the gate from everyone she believes might destroy it, regardless of their intentions for doing so. Like a construct might guard a relic.

This seems to contradict the deva's comments on Roy, if a person's intentions and motivations are never supposed to matter.

I'm not sure the Redcloak comments apply to Serini at all though, because it seems from her point of view, that's exactly what she's criticizing other people for: being willing to go to drastic lengths (the means, destroying the Gates) to achieve their ends (stopping Xykon).

[Dion]

Like I pointed out in another thread (I think the strip discussion thread), people who will find unacceptable to live under X can simply kill themselves

I recognize you’re trying to tell a joke, but this is not funny.

At all.

Please do not joke about suicide.

[Forum Explorer]

What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

The most I could see for her by that logic is maybe neutral because she's defending the gate from everyone she believes might destroy it, regardless of their intentions for doing so. Like a construct might guard a relic.

No, Redcloak is pretty different. He might have noble goals, but that's all he has. I mean, we see him reject a peaceful solution simply because he wanted an even better result. He's fully willing to have every goblin in the world die so that in the next world the goblins will be even more equal.

[pnewman]

She's Lawful Good.

When you're Lawful "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

She's fighting, at great personal risk, to save as many of the many as she possibly can.

That's Lawful Good.

[ziproot]

The quote you put for Lawful to me makes more sense as Good. You could still I guess say Serini is Lawful Good but you would have to provide the "code" that Serini follows (and your own personal code doesn't count; following your own code makes you Chaotic).

[hamishspence]

You could still I guess say Serini is Lawful Good but you would have to provide the "code" that Serini follows (and your own personal code doesn't count; following your own code makes you Chaotic).
Only if you don't punish yourself when you break your own personal code.





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

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

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

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

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

[ziproot]

Only if you don't punish yourself when you break your own personal code.

Thank you for correcting me. If I understand correctly, that means that if you choose a personal code as a "rulebook", then you have to follow it at all times, or else be punished, at least for "you shall follow the law" on the Lawful Good (http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html#commandments), Lawful Neutral (http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html#commandments), and Lawful Evil (http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html#commandments) commandments.

EDIT: As for the "following your own code is harder", I agree with that as well. If you follow an external code, then that code can be changed. If you follow your own code, you are stuck with it. Changing the rules on your own code makes you more Chaotic.

[hamishspence]

At the very least "turning yourself in" or "doing some kind of penance" is necessary to avoid a "tick" in the "Not Lawful" column. The DM might not change your alignment for one incident, especially a minor one, but enough of them, and they should change the player's alignment.

[Riftwolf]

I'd like to point out that Serini only attacked the paladins once they announced they wanted to search for the gate to protect it. If the paladins/orders priority was stopping Xykon, then Serini's been stalling him for (days? Weeks?) without him even figuring out the door trick. The paladins don't need to defend the gate to stop Xykon, or vice versa.
Serini might not be nice anymore, and her experience has embittered her (especially to those willing to rip the seams on the universes trousers 'for the greater good'), but I wouldnt peg her as evil.

[ziproot]

What I got from the end of Utterly Dwarfed (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1189.html) was that Team Evil was about to run out of gates. Then they would realize that they were tricked. The Paladins then began discussing what to do. They were still talking hypotheticals and hadn't even agreed on a course of action when they were ambushed. Serini was running out of time, and instead of just talking to the Paladins, she ambushed them, refused to show herself, and took advantage of the Paladin behavior, lying to them several times. As Elan said to another Neutral aligned character (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?209334-Is-Varsuuvius-Lawful-Chaotic-or-True-Neutral/page10&p=11664984#post11664984), a plan involving lying to a paladin is not a good plan (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html).

If the Paladins said something like "prepare to enter one of the gates" or started to head towards one, and/or Serini showed herself and talked to them in a situation where neither of them were in chains , the situation would be different. Instead, the Paladins were coming up with a plan to deal with Team Evil with help from the Order once they figured out the shell game, and Serini blew it. She refused to show herself in battle, lied to Paladins, and ignored the Order's sending call. Not Evil, but definitely not Lawful.

[hamishspence]

Lawful characters can lie, or twist the truth into a pretzel. Durkon has no problem deceiving Miko:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html

[ziproot]

I know lawful characters can lie. I'm a lawful character and I lie. But that's different. Durkon lied to protect his friends. Serini lied to advance her own personal goals, and shot both paladins in the back.

[InvisibleBison]

Serini lied to advance her own personal goals, and shot both paladins in the back.

And how are either of those incompatible with being lawful?

[ziproot]

And how are either of those incompatible with being lawful?

Because Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral characters don't cheat in a fight (and that is why you don't see many Lawful rogues):

http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html#adventuring
http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html#adventuring

Lawful Evil characters might cheat but I'm assuming Serini is Evil.

http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html#adventuring

Here is an example of not cheating in battle: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html

[DavidBV]

Because Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral characters don't cheat in a fight (and that is why you don't see many Lawful rogues):

http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html#adventuring
http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html#adventuring

Lawful Evil characters might cheat but I'm assuming Serini is Evil.

http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html#adventuring

Here is an example of not cheating in battle: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html

You can't "cheat" at something that doesn't have set rules. A fight is not a game nor part of a tournament. When powerful people outnumbering you intrudes your home, as is the case with Serini, anyone with a smidget of sanity would use every advantage possible including stealth, surprise, etc.

Paladins typically won't susprise-attack enemies, like Miko in your example, but Roy is lawful and was more than happy to prepare ambushes many times (pyramid, and right now). You don't waste an advantage like the element of surprise just because you are lawful, especially when saving the world is at stake.

I don't know if Serini is Lawful (likely she isn't, being a thief and by her attitude) but her tactics to disable enemies don't prove it in any way.

[InvisibleBison]

Because Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral characters don't cheat in a fight (and that is why you don't see many Lawful rogues)

This statement is unsupported by the actual rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos) about what constitutes lawful behavior.

[ziproot]

That is one of the more extreme cases of Lawful, I agree. But, Roy still attacks people head on. Sneak attack, by definition, is dirty fighting, and dirty fighting is not Lawful.

EDIT: Not Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral.

[hamishspence]

Rogues have Sneak attack as a class feature, and no "May not be Lawful" restriction anywhere.

[King of Nowhere]

any statement on the like "character of X alignment would never do Y action" is wrong. no exception.

and if taking a lesser evil is an evil action, then anything is an evil action. what's she supposed to do, risk world destruction to stop xykon? isn't that a "using evil means and sacrificing innocents in the pursue of a good goal" too? you can construe everything as a sacrifice of innocents if you look hard enough.

serini is clearly CG, no argument about it.

[InvisibleBison]

That is one of the more extreme cases of Lawful, I agree. But, Roy still attacks people head on. Sneak attack, by definition, is dirty fighting, and dirty fighting is not Lawful.

EDIT: Not Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral.

The actual rules that define Lawful behavior don't contain any prohibition on sneak attacks or dirty fighting. The house rules that you linked to earlier aren't authoritative.

[Edreyn]

In Neverwinter Nights 2, there was a paladin who used guerilla tactics against orcs. And it comes from Wizards of the Coast themselves. So yes, Lawful can use ambushes and the like.

[halfeye]

shot both paladins in the back.

You probably wouldn't like this film:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068853/

[Ruck]

That is one of the more extreme cases of Lawful, I agree. But, Roy still attacks people head on.

The same Roy who gets annoyed when he's planning to ambush the ogres and Miko blows it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html)?

[KorvinStarmast]

any statement on the like "character of X alignment would never do Y action" is wrong. no exception. good point.

So yes, Lawful can use ambushes and the like. Yep. The attitude taken contrary to that common sense point is rooted in this weird D&D phenomenon that I call Paladin-hate

Paladins are hard to play well. (I like how Rich presents us with O-Chul as "well, if you are gonna paladin, this is a good example of how to do it").
They are easy to play badly. Miko, please, put that Katana down!
There was a Kobold press interview with Dave Arneson years ago where he offered that his favorite class to play was Lawful Good Paladin - because it was such a challenge.

It has also been a class that's hard to DM well (in my experience), until D&D 5e but that's off topic for this thread since OoTS is based on 3.x and its archaic attitudes. D&D 5e has done a good job of sorting out most of the hard parts of playing and DMing a paladin. Hey, it only took 40 years, so maybe it was kinda tough in the first place.

Rich has a Christmas ornament somewhere that says
It life was fair we wouldn't need paladins

I have a slightly different take
If this was easy, anybody could do it.

[woweedd]

I'd note that I doubt she's evil, simply because, if she was, she'd probably have just, you know, KILLED the Paladins while they were knocked out. Takes them off the board, but with no chance of them escaping.

[ziproot]

I thought the post came through earlier. Anyways, I was wrong about sneak attack. Still, I doubt Serini is Lawful Good. She doesn't strike me as the type of person that "tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice" (d20srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)), though you could argue that Serini tries. Lawful Neutral, maybe, though I doubt giving control of a god-killing knot to a chaotic evil lich whose only form of entertainment is watching people die, would help bring order. I could be wrong, but people who are Chaotic Evil are "hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable" (same source as above). Evil? Not really, or she would have been perfectly fine just killing the Paladins.

EDIT: Changed a transition word so this makes more sense.

[Ruck]

She doesn't strike me as the type of person that "tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice"

I think just from the evidence of the last handful of comics since her appearance that you could easily make the case she's at least three out of four.

[Forum Explorer]

I think just from the evidence of the last handful of comics since her appearance that you could easily make the case she's at least three out of four.

Really? So far she's 0 for 4 in my books.

Lies to the Paladins is the easy fail.
She promised the paladins something, and hey, didn't go through with it.
So far we've yet to see her help anyone.
And we haven't seen her speak out against injustice either. Not being racist, and treating monsters like trolls as people doesn't mean she openly tries to stop the racism against them either. I doubt if L hadn't brought it up, she would've talked about it herself.

[Good Coyote]

And we haven't seen her speak out against injustice either. Not being racist, and treating monsters like trolls as people doesn't mean she openly tries to stop the racism against them either. I doubt if L hadn't brought it up, she would've talked about it herself.

? Injustice has to exist first before you can speak out against it. The idea that it only counts if you spontaneously say "Hey guys who aren't being racist, racism is wrong!" is... an interesting one.

[Ruck]

Really? So far she's 0 for 4 in my books.

Lies to the Paladins is the easy fail.
Sure.


She promised the paladins something, and hey, didn't go through with it.
She promised the world to defend the last gate and she has kept that promise.


So far we've yet to see her help anyone.
Keeping the world from being annihilated certainly helps people.


And we haven't seen her speak out against injustice either. Not being racist, and treating monsters like trolls as people doesn't mean she openly tries to stop the racism against them either. I doubt if L hadn't brought it up, she would've talked about it herself.

We saw it in the last comic, unless you think her mention of kobolds and orcs and trolls was an accident, but more importantly, her defense of the gates is to keep the injustice of all the world's people being annihilated through no fault of their own from happening.

[Forum Explorer]

? Injustice has to exist first before you can speak out against it. The idea that it only counts if you spontaneously say "Hey guys who aren't being racist, racism is wrong!" is... an interesting one.

Kinda sorta, not really what I was getting at. A conversation with people you fully expect to have no memory of said conversation isn't speaking up against anything. From Serini's perspective this conversation is just for kicks or maybe some personal satisfaction.

Point is, she isn't really speaking up against an injustice when no one 'hears' her.


Sure.


She promised the world to defend the last gate and she has kept that promise.


Keeping the world from being annihilated certainly helps people.



We saw it in the last comic, unless you think her mention of kobolds and orcs and trolls was an accident, but more importantly, her defense of the gates is to keep the injustice of all the world's people being annihilated through no fault of their own from happening.


Except she isn't, she's letting Xykon do whatever he wants with the Gate. She's assuming he won't destroy the world accidently, or out of boredom. But he very well might. And of course we know that Xykon getting control of the Gate equals the destruction of everything anyways.


Except again, she isn't keeping the world from being annihilated. She's assuming that the good guys are willing to destroy the world when they really aren't.


See above for why I don't think that counts. Also that doesn't count because again, she's not actually protecting the Gate. She's just stopping the OotS from getting to the Gate and is fully willing to allow the massive injustice of the countless people Xykon will murder and torture out of boredom.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think she's evil, personally, I think she's a good case for Chaotic Neutral, though I could see an argument for Chaotic good. But Lawful Good? Not a chance.

[hroþila]

Except she isn't, she's letting Xykon do whatever he wants with the Gate.
If he finds it. Which the defenses she built are doing their best to prevent.

Seriously, she isn't letting Xykon do anything any more than the police would be letting someone with a hostage do whatever they want if they choose to let them go rather than trying to shoot them and endangering the hostage's life.

[dancrilis]

She's assuming that the good guys are willing to destroy the world when they really aren't.


Roy has bluntly stated that knowing what he knew at the trial he would still have destroyed the Gate - to prevent it falling into 'the wrong hands', (panel 1 and 2 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html)).
Roy has destroyed another gate to prevent it falling into 'the wrong hands', (panels 7, 9, 16, 18 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0896.html)), he did this knowing he didn't know the consequences (panel 20 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0896.html)) also worth noting that 4 of the 6 members of the order decided this was the correct course of action (panels 22,23 and 25 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0896.html)).
Roy found Heimdall's arguement to be persuasive, (panel 14 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0998.html)).

Faced with a decision:
1. Team Evil gets the Gate and does whatever they plan with it.
2. Destroy the Gate and force the gods to unmake the world.

I wouldn't be so sure that Roy would not pick option 2.

On Serini - not sure if it has been mentioned before (and I might be alone on this) but I get the impression that in panel 8 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1228.html) her 'I can't let that happen' seems more personal then merely doing her duty i.e she might have things or people she actively cares about.

[Jason]

Paladins are hard to play well. That depends entirely on your group.


any statement on the like "character of X alignment would never do Y action" is wrong. no exception.
I disagree, assuming you mean "and keep their current alignment after having taken said action," because there certainly are actions you cannot take and remain in your current alignment: good, evil, lawful, chatic, or neutral.

[Ruck]

Kinda sorta, not really what I was getting at. A conversation with people you fully expect to have no memory of said conversation isn't speaking up against anything. From Serini's perspective this conversation is just for kicks or maybe some personal satisfaction.

Point is, she isn't really speaking up against an injustice when no one 'hears' her.




Except she isn't, she's letting Xykon do whatever he wants with the Gate. She's assuming he won't destroy the world accidently, or out of boredom. But he very well might. And of course we know that Xykon getting control of the Gate equals the destruction of everything anyways.


Except again, she isn't keeping the world from being annihilated. She's assuming that the good guys are willing to destroy the world when they really aren't.


See above for why I don't think that counts. Also that doesn't count because again, she's not actually protecting the Gate. She's just stopping the OotS from getting to the Gate and is fully willing to allow the massive injustice of the countless people Xykon will murder and torture out of boredom.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think she's evil, personally, I think she's a good case for Chaotic Neutral, though I could see an argument for Chaotic good. But Lawful Good? Not a chance.

She is not "letting Xykon do whatever he wants with the gate"; she is counting on her defenses to stop him and doesn't want the Order or the paladins risking its destruction. She would rather risk him finding it eventually than risk anyone blowing the whole thing.

As far as the rest... You're assuming Serini should just trust the people who have destroyed three gates not to do it again. She clearly doesn't. That is not the same as "not actually protecting the gate" and it also doesn't give her any credit for drawing the best conclusion she can from limited information. She doesn't have the omniscient view of the author or even to the extent of the reader.

[halfeye]

My opinion on this thread's question: Insufficient data.

[Forum Explorer]

She is not "letting Xykon do whatever he wants with the gate"; she is counting on her defenses to stop him and doesn't want the Order or the paladins risking its destruction. She would rather risk him finding it eventually than risk anyone blowing the whole thing.

As far as the rest... You're assuming Serini should just trust the people who have destroyed three gates not to do it again. She clearly doesn't. That is not the same as "not actually protecting the gate" and it also doesn't give her any credit for drawing the best conclusion she can from limited information. She doesn't have the omniscient view of the author or even to the extent of the reader.

Except she isn't telling the paladins that she doesn't want them interfering because she thinks her defenses can handle it. She's saying she isn't willing to take any chances with the Gate being destroyed.


I'm saying it would be a 'good' act to believe them when they say they won't destroy the last gate, and to work with them to defeat both the greater evil of the gate (and thus the world) being destroyed, and the lesser evil of Xykon ruling the world. Because yes, sometimes being good means taking a chance on people.

The fact that she isn't willing to confront Xykon, or assassinate Redcloack, points to her being less than good.

[Ruck]

Except she isn't telling the paladins that she doesn't want them interfering because she thinks her defenses can handle it. She's saying she isn't willing to take any chances with the Gate being destroyed.
But her defenses have handled it to this point.


I'm saying it would be a 'good' act to believe them when they say they won't destroy the last gate, and to work with them to defeat both the greater evil of the gate (and thus the world) being destroyed, and the lesser evil of Xykon ruling the world. Because yes, sometimes being good means taking a chance on people.
And from Serini's perspective it's a foolish chance to believe people who have already done the thing they say they won't three times. Good is not dumb.


The fact that she isn't willing to confront Xykon, or assassinate Redcloack, points to her being less than good.

She's been pretty explicit about why she hasn't confronted Xykon, and again, good is not dumb. I don't see what's good about dying for no reason.

[Thecommander236]

So I've been rereading the comic and I can't help that Serini's reasoning is damn near the same as Redcloak's from
Page 544. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0544.html)

Im not saying she's evil, but I think she's got the same kinda insanity that Redcloak has. She's willing to sacrifice the world for own plans rather than try to compromise. She pushed her chips into the center of the table too. Convincing her to join the Order of the Stick is going to take something truly shocking to change her mind. To her, her way is the only way.

I'm wondering though. I wonder if Eugene can get involved here somehow. He appeared in front of Shojo a long time ago when Shojo asked for Celestial aid.

My guess is Eugene tries to talk to Roy when everyone else in chains falls asleep and he falls foul of some trap that Serini has that forces him to manifest and causes considerable pain.

Could give Roy the motivation to break free and destroy whatever device that Serini uses to keep herself hidden. Eugene needs some comeuppance as well and Roy and his father need something to actually bond them together a little bit.

[Emanick]

I'm saying it would be a 'good' act to believe them when they say they won't destroy the last gate, and to work with them to defeat both the greater evil of the gate (and thus the world) being destroyed, and the lesser evil of Xykon ruling the world. Because yes, sometimes being good means taking a chance on people.

I disagree with this. Optimism about other people is not necessarily Good, and pessimism about other people is not necessarily Evil (or even non-Good). It's easy to think otherwise, because being Good is probably correlated with an optimistic worldview, just as Evil is probably correlated with a pessimistic worldview, because it's easier to be Good if you believe the best of other people, and it's easier to be Evil if you believe that people are basically untrustworthy. But neither optimism nor pessimism is necessarily determinative when it comes to alignment. Just look at Lien (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1032.html) (or look at me, for that matter - Lien sums up some of my own beliefs about the world quite eloquently there). (Or maybe don't look at me, if you think I'm Evil, because in that case that would hardly support my point. :smalltongue: )

It is absolutely possible to think that people will generally screw up or act selfishly when push comes to shove, and yet work to help them anyway. It is also possible to believe that most people are naive do-gooders, and thus work to exploit them. Trust in humanity (or in any sentient beings, for that matter) may be correlated with moral fiber, but is definitely not determinative of it.

[understatement]

Im not saying she's evil, but I think she's got the same kinda insanity that Redcloak has. She's willing to sacrifice the world for own plans rather than try to compromise. She pushed her chips into the center of the table too. Convincing her to join the Order of the Stick is going to take something truly shocking to change her mind. To her, her way is the only way.


No.

She is, in fact, the complete opposite of sacrificing the world. Her "plans" involve keeping millions of lives alive rather than dying in a sudden mass rush.

I am so confused on the insistence of Serini not helping the Order equates to Serini being insane or self-centered. She thinks the Order has no chance to defeat Xykon. She's not wrong on that.

[Thecommander236]

No.

She is, in fact, the complete opposite of sacrificing the world. Her "plans" involve keeping millions of lives alive rather than dying in a sudden mass rush.

I am so confused on the insistence of Serini not helping the Order equates to Serini being insane or self-centered. She thinks the Order has no chance to defeat Xykon. She's not wrong on that.

Mostly because she's willing to sacrifice millions of lives without even NEGOTIATING with the people who are trying to stop the villains. She's the aggressor here. She didn't even know the paladins' thoughts on the matter before she attacked them. She went straight to "mind wipe" them before she even talked to them.

No amount of persuasion was going to get her to stop. She thinks the paladins would rather murder the entire world instead of, you know, throwing their lives away trying to kill a lich.

They're paladins. Mass Genocide isn't really their thing.

And before you point out the Paladins from O'chul's back story. Serini has no reason to think that these two paladins are willing to commit mass murder. A destroyed gate can be sealed. A destroyed planet can't be remade. (Not even with the knowledge of there being millions of worlds as no two were the same).

[Forum Explorer]

But her defenses have handled it to this point.


And from Serini's perspective it's a foolish chance to believe people who have already done the thing they say they won't three times. Good is not dumb.



She's been pretty explicit about why she hasn't confronted Xykon, and again, good is not dumb. I don't see what's good about dying for no reason.

They've bought time, and made Xykon stronger. This isn't a stable impasse, eventually they'll catch on and beat this trick. Serini doesn't have any confidence that her defenses will actually destroy Xykon, or she would've mentioned that instead of talking about how Xykon's rule might be bad, but not as bad as the total destruction of the world.


But Good does forgive. It's not like the OotS wanted to destroy the Gate any of those times. Regardless, even that is a moot point, because they could fight Xykon when he is no where near the Gate. Attack him after he's cleared one of these dungeon crawls in the Bugbear Village. He'll be weaker from taking some damage and used up spell slots, and they'll be no where near the Gate, so no risk of it being destroyed by accident. Serini's plan is completely unnecessary.


Because she's worried about the Gate being destroyed, sure. But she doesn't have to fight near the Gate. And she's an epic level Rogue. She could easily assassinate Redcloak when he's low on spells and has a good chance to get away afterwards. That'd actually stop Xykon's plans in his tracks since he needs a high level divine caster, and considering she apparently knows that O-Chul's sword was used to blow up the Sapphire gate, I'd be surprised if she didn't know Redcloak was necessary.


I disagree with this. Optimism about other people is not necessarily Good, and pessimism about other people is not necessarily Evil (or even non-Good). It's easy to think otherwise, because being Good is probably correlated with an optimistic worldview, just as Evil is probably correlated with a pessimistic worldview, because it's easier to be Good if you believe the best of other people, and it's easier to be Evil if you believe that people are basically untrustworthy. But neither optimism nor pessimism is necessarily determinative when it comes to alignment. Just look at Lien (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1032.html) (or look at me, for that matter - Lien sums up some of my own beliefs about the world quite eloquently there). (Or maybe don't look at me, if you think I'm Evil, because in that case that would hardly support my point. :smalltongue: )

It is absolutely possible to think that people will generally screw up or act selfishly when push comes to shove, and yet work to help them anyway. It is also possible to believe that most people are naive do-gooders, and thus work to exploit them. Trust in humanity (or in any sentient beings, for that matter) may be correlated with moral fiber, but is definitely not determinative of it.

Not optimistic, forgiveness. Giving genuinely repentant people another chance is a pretty classically good thing to do. Sure, you can be pessimistic about them not messing up again, even take steps to mitigate said possible mistake such as ensuring they fight Xykon no where near the Gate. Or for a real world example, only loaning people money that you can afford to never get back.

[understatement]

Mostly because she's willing to sacrifice millions of lives without even NEGOTIATING with the people who are trying to stop the villains. She's the aggressor here. She didn't even know the paladins' thoughts on the matter before she attacked them. She went straight to "mind wipe" them before she even talked to them.

She literally tells Lien that a lot more people would survive if the world remained intact. Where are you getting this "sacrifice" thing from? She's the exact opposite of that.


No amount of persuasion was going to get her to stop. She thinks the paladins would rather murder the entire world instead of, you know, throwing their lives away trying to kill a lich.

Again, no. She believes the paladins are willing to risk reality as a last resort to kill/prevent Xykon (which also involves risking their lives, fyi). And guess what? That is exactly what O-Chul and Miko tried to do.


They're paladins. Mass Genocide isn't really their thing.

And before you point out the Paladins from O'chul's back story. Serini has no reason to think that these two paladins are willing to commit mass murder. A destroyed gate can be sealed. A destroyed planet can't be remade. (Not even with the knowledge of there being millions of worlds as no two were the same).

Okay, so I'm guessing the bone here is that because Serini is so hostile to the paladins, she must have malicious intentions.

Otherwise, this chunk is not really clear in meaning, since the second half is exactly Serini's mindset.

A destroyed gate is impossible to seal unless you have an epic Divine and Arcane Caster with a specific spell. The only people who hit these requirements are also dead (soul-trapped, but Serini doesn't know that).

(Also, if O-Chul and Lien had been part of the paladin order in the older days, they would most certainly be an exception rather than the norm. But that's a pretty different topic, so I'm not going to toe into that one).

[Thecommander236]

She literally tells Lien that a lot more people would survive if the world remained intact. Where are you getting this "sacrifice" thing from? She's the exact opposite of that.



Again, no. She believes the paladins are willing to risk reality as a last resort to kill/prevent Xykon (which also involves risking their lives, fyi). And guess what? That is exactly what O-Chul and Miko tried to do.



Okay, so I'm guessing the bone here is that because Serini is so hostile to the paladins, she must have malicious intentions.

Otherwise, this chunk is not really clear in meaning, since the second half is exactly Serini's mindset.

A destroyed gate is impossible to seal unless you have an epic Divine and Arcane Caster with a specific spell. The only people who hit these requirements are also dead (soul-trapped, but Serini doesn't know that).

(Also, if O-Chul and Lien had been part of the paladin order in the older days, they would most certainly be an exception rather than the norm. But that's a pretty different topic, so I'm not going to toe into that one).

O'Chul knew the first two gates were destroyed. Each member of the Order of the Scribble had divining devices to show if a gate was active or destroyed. Two gates were destroyed and the world was fine.

The risk of the Snarl escaping with a third gate gone was unknown, but deemed to be improbable. It was mostly understood that as long as one gate stood, the world could last a bit longer.

Líen wasn't lying. They CAN'T destroy the last Gate. Everyone knows that. With Xykon in charge, millions will die under his rule. The Paladins don't want that to happen. But she then assumes that destroying the 3rd Gate is the same thing as destroying the last Gate in the minds of the Paladins and the Order of the Stick.

If she saw O'Chul swing his sword at the gate, then she saw the Order of the Stick talk about why they were going to destroy the 4th Gate, but wouldn't destroy the last Gate. She would've seen Roy specifically say they will not destroy the last Gate of she could scry on the Gates.

Even if she didn't see O'Chul swing his sword at the 3rd Gate or Roy destroy the 4th Gate, she has no reason to believe that they would see the act of destroying one Gate (which won't end the world immediately) as the same thing as destroying the last Gate which will murder literally everyone.

She just assumes that PALADINS would take "murder everyone" over "murder most everyone". If the Paladins valued freedom over life, they would be murdering slaves they couldn't save instead of throwing away their lives trying to save them like Ho Thanh did.

Even Paladins would probably take oppressive rule over death to all living things. At least oppressive rule could eventually be fixed.

She's so blinded by her own biases about Paladins that she can't see that Lien LITERALLY agreed with her that the last Gate can't be destroyed under any circumstances. Actually, she did acknowledge it, but she is still trying to wipe their minds instead.

That's some impressive double think right there. The paladins are horrified by the idea that destroying the world is preferable to Xykon winning, but they also don't see Xykon winning as an acceptable answer so she thinks they'll destroy the world instead which they already acknowledged isn't an acceptable solution? The ****?

And hell, she said the Paladins had 4 chances to stop the end of the world. They weren't even involved in the 1st, 2nd, or 4th Gates. Why is she assuming the good guys screwed up 4 times? Even the Order of the Stick messed up, at most, 3 times. The Paladins were only present at 1 Gate. So did she see O'Chul attempt to destroy the 3rd Gate or not? And if she saw that, then what makes her think they were involved with the 4th Gate? Maybe she listened in to the Paladins' conversations, but she just ASSUMES that the Paladins were okay with Roy and company destroying someone else's Gate whereas their own Gate was theirs to destroy.

And also take into account that the Paladins put Roy and company of trial for destroying the 2nd Gate. In fact, I'm surprised the idea of putting O'Chul on trial for trying to Weaken the Fabric of the universe isn't seen as a plot hole. I guess he would argue that he had reason to destroy the 3rd because he knew Xykon was still alive while Elan "knew" Xykon was dead and, therefore, he didn't need to destroy the 2nd Gate. That or the law ruling in favor of destroying the 2nd Gate meant it was okay for him to destroy the 3rd Gate, but they all knew that Eugene and Shojo rigged that trial.

The point is that Serini's "logic" is impossible to follow.

[Ionathus]

The point is that Serini's "logic" is impossible to follow.

No, the point is that not every single character needs to immediately accept "yeah, but we REALLY mean it this time" as a valid excuse when it comes to the continued existence of the entire world.

When it comes right down to it, either The Order or The Sapphire Guard are responsible for 3 out of 4 gate destructions. That's a losing record by anyone's count. Would it be nice if Serini rolled over and immediately trusted the protagonists to keep their Last Gate promise? Sure, that would be really polite and convenient.

But last time I checked, neither "politeness" nor "convenience" are required for a person to be either logically solid, morally upright, or both.

This group has bungled the gate defense three times already. Take away their Protagonist status and they simply don't deserve another chance.

[brian 333]

I follow it just fine. First, you have to go with the things she actually knows and not include speculation about what she might know.

1. She probably knows nothing about gate 1 because she had no reason to look before it was too late.

2. She may or may not know about gate 2, but if she does she has made no mention of it.

3. She obviously knows about the Azure City gate because her statements were too specific.

4. She could have been there, but could not have scryed on gate 4 for the same reason Vaarsuvious could not.

Other than observing or having detailed reports on 3, we have no evidence she knows anything about the other gates, except that they fell.

She obviously knows about the OotS. This may be from many sources, not the least of which is the paladins's unguarded conversation.

When you whittle it down to the bare bones, Serini's position makes sense. Add in a touch of Girard reminding her how Soon wanted ALL knowledge of thd gates erased, and you have a case for Serini believing the paladins and their henchmen orchestrated the whole fiasco.

Serini has not revealed any knowledge of the Mantle, so as far as we know she has no way to know that Xykon winning means the end of the world anyway.

[Dion]

The point is that Serini's "logic" is impossible to follow.

Suppose you give a toddler a glass of juice. They spill it. Four times in a row.

And suppose the toddler asks for more juice, and says “I promise not to spill the juice again, because this time I’ll be extra careful not to roller skate down the stairs with juice unless I’m carrying an umbrella too.”

Are you going to be a old meanie who doesn’t listen to logic and denies the fifth glass of juice?

[Forum Explorer]

Suppose you give a toddler a glass of juice. They spill it. Four times in a row.

And suppose the toddler asks for more juice, and says “I promise not to spill the juice again, because this time I’ll be extra careful not to roller skate down the stairs with juice unless I’m carrying an umbrella too.”

Are you going to be a old meanie who doesn’t listen to logic and denies the fifth glass of juice?

That's a really bad analogy.

[Emanick]

Not optimistic, forgiveness. Giving genuinely repentant people another chance is a pretty classically good thing to do. Sure, you can be pessimistic about them not messing up again, even take steps to mitigate said possible mistake such as ensuring they fight Xykon no where near the Gate. Or for a real world example, only loaning people money that you can afford to never get back.

Forgiveness is Good, yes. But forgiveness doesn't mean continuing to give people with a poor track record additional responsibilities. You can personally forgive somebody in your heart without, say, being as willing to share sensitive information with them as you were before, giving them money that you can't afford to never get back (as you say), or even giving them a fourth chance to investigate the Gates without destroying them.

[Good Coyote]

Kinda sorta, not really what I was getting at. A conversation with people you fully expect to have no memory of said conversation isn't speaking up against anything. From Serini's perspective this conversation is just for kicks or maybe some personal satisfaction.

Point is, she isn't really speaking up against an injustice when no one 'hears' her.

Ahh, thanks, that makes way more sense. A good point. I do think it's fairly representative of the kinds of things that she would say anyway, but you're right that it's not as much "pictured onscreen" with that caveat.



And also take into account that the Paladins put Roy and company of trial for destroying the 2nd Gate. In fact, I'm surprised the idea of putting O'Chul on trial for trying to Weaken the Fabric of the universe isn't seen as a plot hole. I guess he would argue that he had reason to destroy the 3rd because he knew Xykon was still alive while Elan "knew" Xykon was dead and, therefore, he didn't need to destroy the 2nd Gate. That or the law ruling in favor of destroying the 2nd Gate meant it was okay for him to destroy the 3rd Gate, but they all knew that Eugene and Shojo rigged that trial.


Shojo rigged the trial and Shojo also ordered the trial. He ordered it not as the leader of Azure City (which still has law and magistrates to implement it, as V disintegrated a guy to avoid), but as the leader of the Sapphire Guard. After the fall of the Gate, the Guard was dissolved. Otherwise the paladins could not be investigating other Gates now without breaking their oath.

Hinjo could try O-chul if he really wanted to. Attempted vandalism, attempted destruction of royal property, attempted murder (of anyone who could potentially be devoured by the Snarl), even though there is no Azure City law that specifically mentions the Gate (since it was a secret). But he doesn't want to. It's up to his discretion and he's got other things to worry about.

[Forum Explorer]

Forgiveness is Good, yes. But forgiveness doesn't mean continuing to give people with a poor track record additional responsibilities. You can personally forgive somebody in your heart without, say, being as willing to share sensitive information with them as you were before, giving them money that you can't afford to never get back (as you say), or even giving them a fourth chance to investigate the Gates without destroying them.

Which is all true. But there's the really obvious, glaring issue, that there is a really obvious solution that doesn't put the Gate at risk at all. I've mentioned it a few times now. Fight Xykon after he's gone through a couple of dungeons outside in the Bugbear village. Unless the Gate is secretly located in Kraagor's statue or something, there should be no risk to the Gate, and it's likely the best chance you have to win.

If you fail? Xykon takes over the world anyways. I can't see any reason to not try this.

[Liquor Box]

It does appear that she's trying to save the world. She'd rather take shorter odds of a world under Xykon than long odds of no world at all. People's mileage obviously varies on whether she's making a smart gamble or not, but I don't think that;s really decisive in settling her alignment.

I do think though, that suggesting her efforts to save the world (whether you agree with her logic or not) show her goodness are misguided though. By seeking to save the world, she is also seeking to save herself. Belkar is also seeking to save the world (and undertaking at least as much personal risk), and he is canonically evil. If Xykon knew that ending the world would end his own existence he'd probably try to save it too. Saving the world, when it also involves saving your own skin either doesn';t change your good/evil status or is at least not conclusive.

When we judge Belkar (and when Roy did get judged after he died) we judge him on his actions with little regard to the saving the world plotline. Applying the same logic to Serini, I've argued that her drugging and capture of the paladins (which I think was not necessary to accomplish her goals) was in itself a moderately evil act (although most disagreed with me). However, I think that from a narrative perspective, it's much more likely that she's neutral or good.

[Good Coyote]

It does appear that she's trying to save the world. She'd rather take shorter odds of a world under Xykon than long odds of no world at all. People's mileage obviously varies on whether she's making a smart gamble or not, but I don't think that;s really decisive in settling her alignment.

I do think though, that suggesting her efforts to save the world (whether you agree with her logic or not) show her goodness are misguided though. By seeking to save the world, she is also seeking to save herself. Belkar is also seeking to save the world (and undertaking at least as much personal risk), and he is canonically evil. If Xykon knew that ending the world would end his own existence he'd probably try to save it too. Saving the world, when it also involves saving your own skin either doesn';t change your good/evil status or is at least not conclusive.

When we judge Belkar (and when Roy did get judged after he died) we judge him on his actions with little regard to the saving the world plotline. Applying the same logic to Serini, I've argued that her drugging and capture of the paladins (which I think was not necessary to accomplish her goals) was in itself a moderately evil act (although most disagreed with me). However, I think that from a narrative perspective, it's much more likely that she's neutral or good.

Serini's situation is pretty different from Belkar's. Now more than before, we can see how deep her resources go. She's also had more time than anyone still living to prepare. If she was in it for self preservation, she'd have Plane Shift on lock via magical item, and rather than "Existing was fun," her flippant remark would more likely have been along the lines of "Next stop, Demiplane of Margaritas on a Beach With Julio Scoundrel."

We've got Julio doing that, we've got Hilgya doing that.

I think the escape from Azure City is a good parallel and it gave us V doing something similar. V fought alongside everyone else, but ultimately chose to use their final magic to escape. In contrast, Haley was left behind because she went back for Roy, and Hinjo had to suffer a minor mutiny in order to get away, because he also wanted to keep risking himself to save others. Meanwhile Belkar did end up trapped since the Mark of Justice wouldn't let him leave Roy behind, but he made no choice to risk* himself for others and actively threw O-chul to the MitD to facilitate his own escape.

Serini's actions fall right along Hinjo and Haley's on this spectrum. (Assuming of course that her remark means what I think it does, and she didn't have an escape plan that fell through, or otherwise isn't in fact choosing to fight to the very last.)

It's not conclusive, no, but nothing is. If we drop everything that isn't conclusive, we have nothing left to discuss.

Edit: * Risk being relative of course. See: the little chat pre-battle with Haley about the difference between an adventure and a battle. Belkar enjoys a violent lifestyle and who lives by the sword, etc., but he's also a sexy shoeless god of war. When he felt actually in danger, bye-bye O-chul.

[hroþila]

I think what many people are not getting is that Serini doesn't think destroying any gate was alright as long as there were others standing. In her opinion, destroying any gate at all unacceptably increases the risk of oblivion. For her, this cavalier attitude that there are other gates so it doesn't matter is incredibly reckless and irresponsible. And frankly, she has a point. It's hard to argue with her when that attitude has led to a single gate standing between reality and oblivion. There's no safety net for accidents anymore.

The notion that Serini is willing to sacrifice the world runs contrary to what the comic is explicitly telling us.

[Liquor Box]

Serini's situation is pretty different from Belkar's. Now more than before, we can see how deep her resources go. She's also had more time than anyone still living to prepare. If she was in it for self preservation, she'd have Plane Shift on lock via magical item, and rather than "Existing was fun," her flippant remark would more likely have been along the lines of "Next stop, Demiplane of Margaritas on a Beach With Julio Scoundrel."

We've got Julio doing that, we've got Hilgya doing that.

I think the escape from Azure City is a good parallel and it gave us V doing something similar. V fought alongside everyone else, but ultimately chose to use their final magic to escape. In contrast, Haley was left behind because she went back for Roy, and Hinjo had to suffer a minor mutiny in order to get away, because he also wanted to keep risking himself to save others. Meanwhile Belkar did end up trapped since the Mark of Justice wouldn't let him leave Roy behind, but he made no choice to risk* himself for others and actively threw O-chul to the MitD to facilitate his own escape.

Serini's actions fall right along Hinjo and Haley's on this spectrum. (Assuming of course that her remark means what I think it does, and she didn't have an escape plan that fell through, or otherwise isn't in fact choosing to fight to the very last.)

It's not conclusive, no, but nothing is. If we drop everything that isn't conclusive, we have nothing left to discuss.

Edit: * Risk being relative of course. See: the little chat pre-battle with Haley about the difference between an adventure and a battle. Belkar enjoys a violent lifestyle and who lives by the sword, etc., but he's also a sexy shoeless god of war. When he felt actually in danger, bye-bye O-chul.

So your argument is that Serini is different from Belkar because you think Serini has the opportunity to escape the destruction of the world and hasn't exercised it yet, so is therefore choosing to fight rather than fighting out of necessity.

Beyond not being conclusive, that seems to me to be entirely speculative. We have no evidence whatsoever that she is able to escape and we have no evidence that she isn't just delaying to the last moment before effecting her escape. If plane shift is sufficient protection then Belkar probably has as much access to it as Serini does - as in not personally, but being a high level adventurer with presumably enough resources to pay someone to cast the spell.

I mean, I do agree that if your starting point is "she's good" you can contrive a set of circumstances that make the actions we have seen seem good. But if our starting point were a blank slate, and we were judging her on what we have seen alone, I don't think there's much evidence for that, if any.

[Thecommander236]

To be fair, Lirian was basically 100% responsible for her own Gate being destroyed and Dorukan was like 60% responsible for his being destroyed. Lirian gave Xykon and Redcloak everything he needed to become a Lich and didn't do controlled forest burns meaning her forest went up like paper ribbons when set on fire. Lirian and Dorukan were also incredibly dumb with how they used their spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Next stop, Demiplane of Margaritas on a Beach With Julio Scoundrel." Which is quite a contrast to "living at the North Pole"

I think what many people are not getting is that Serini doesn't think destroying any gate was alright as long as there were others standing. I can just see her thought bubble "We went through all that trouble to find and contain the rifts, and then spent our personaly fortunes to make the gates, and to seal them up and protect them. And you, you little {censored}s, destroy them. Get offa my lawn! !" (Or something along those lines)
And another point
The notion that Serini is willing to sacrifice the world runs contrary to what the comic is explicitly telling us. This too.

[Blue Dragon]

Neutral Good.

[Good Coyote]

So your argument is that Serini is different from Belkar because you think Serini has the opportunity to escape the destruction of the world and hasn't exercised it yet, so is therefore choosing to fight rather than fighting out of necessity.

Beyond not being conclusive, that seems to me to be entirely speculative. We have no evidence whatsoever that she is able to escape and we have no evidence that she isn't just delaying to the last moment before effecting her escape. If plane shift is sufficient protection then Belkar probably has as much access to it as Serini does - as in not personally, but being a high level adventurer with presumably enough resources to pay someone to cast the spell.

I mean, I do agree that if your starting point is "she's good" you can contrive a set of circumstances that make the actions we have seen seem good. But if our starting point were a blank slate, and we were judging her on what we have seen alone, I don't think there's much evidence for that, if any.

No. Not that she hasn't done it yet. That she does not intend to ever. It is not entirely speculative, it is based on my interpretation of her dialogue that I quoted.

We absolutely have evidence that she could be able to escape if she had dedicated her resources to prepare. There's no reason Julio should be able to do it and not her.

Belkar has not known about the Snarl for decades. He does not have a dungeon made of multidimensional stone and magic items out the wazoo. If it came down to the line, between the perfect easy choice to escape and certain death to keep fighting just a little bit longer, and Belkar chose to stay and fight, then yes, that action would be Good.

This is not an argument that Serini is Good. This is an argument that valuing others' lives above your own is a Good act.

Then, we discuss Good (and Evil, and Neutral) acts and words as evidence of people's alignments. Since no single act is ever conclusive, we would have nothing to discuss, if we threw out every single action that anyone ever took.

[Reathin]

Serini's going to an awful lot of trouble (risky trouble, too, with Team Evil nearby) to keep a bunch of people alive when it would be FAR simpler to just kill them. She could justify that as "these people are a risk to the whole world", but instead takes the high road. That's a far cry from evil to me.

Letting everybody's favorite lich win is undesirable, but far, far FAR better than risking the immortal souls of everyone in the world, including the ones who would be oppressed. That doesn't strike me as evil, that strikes me as dealing with a rough set of choices as best she can. She can't realistically beat Team Evil in a fight, and trying would deprive the Gates of perhaps their final epic level defender.

Not sure I'd compare her to Redcloak in terms of justifications for unpleasant actions. Redcloak sees an unjust behavior (ie. the treatment of goblinoids by the other sapient species, and even the gods themselves) and decides that he is justified in risking the immortal souls of everyone, including the people whose lives he desperately wants to improve. Serini, meanwhile, believes that a bad situation (Xykon's victory and subsequent brutal rule as Dictator for Unlife) is emphatically not enough justification to risk those same souls.

Personally, I'm on Serini's side for the moment, with available information. Millions, if not billions, of people could be deprived of a literal eternity if things go the way they have been for the previous gates. That's bone-chilling, if you ask me. Xykon rarely engages in soul-related mayhem, so any suffering he might inflict is temporary compared to a literal eternity of oblivion.

[halfeye]

Suppose you give a toddler a glass of juice. They spill it. Four times in a row.

And suppose the toddler asks for more juice, and says “I promise not to spill the juice again, because this time I’ll be extra careful not to roller skate down the stairs with juice unless I’m carrying an umbrella too.”

Are you going to be a old meanie who doesn’t listen to logic and denies the fifth glass of juice?


That's a really bad analogy.

It's kind of exaggerated, but I think it's about right, I especially like the bit about carrying the umbrella.

[ziproot]

It's kind of exaggerated, but I think it's about right, I especially like the bit about carrying the umbrella.

How does this analogy fit?

EDIT: I mean, it's not that it's exaggerated. The analogy is an apple and the actual situation is Fruit Pie the Sorcerer.

[TheNecrocomicon]

I hate to be throwing this in here after almost five pages of discussion thread, but isn't debate over a given character's alignment generally verboten for plenty of reasons?

[dancrilis]

I hate to be throwing this in here after almost five pages of discussion thread, but isn't debate over a given character's alignment generally verboten for plenty of reasons?

I believe that is more about if actions are 'morally justified' and as such if a character is evil for taking them or not - this is more an analysis or what we know (next to nothing) and what we can extrapolate from that (even less).

[Good Coyote]

I believe that is more about if actions are 'morally justified' and as such if a character is evil for taking them or not - this is more an analysis or what we know (next to nothing) and what we can extrapolate from that (even less).

Can I get some further explanation on this?

I think I kinda get it, like a discussion about V's Familicide and whether the evil creatures vanquished outweigh the good or something like that?

But I didn't see anything about it in the Forum Rules, so if someone who understands better could clarify for me, just so I know in the future, I'd appreciate that.

[Dr.Zero]

Personally I don't think, like I read here, that "staying to fight" a battle that you know (enough, at the best of your knowledge) you can't win is a Good act, but only a stubborn stupid act.
The classic Stupid Good attitude a lot of players expect to see in action when a paladin is involved in the campaign.

A senseless sacrifice is just that: senseless.

[Good Coyote]

Personally I don't think, like I read here, that "staying to fight" a battle that you know (enough, at the best of your knowledge) you can't win is a Good act, but only a stubborn stupid act.
The classic Stupid Good attitude a lot of players expect to see in action when a paladin is involved in the campaign.

A senseless sacrifice is just that: senseless.

An act can be Good without requiring that everyone Good take it.

That said, I've never said a fight that's impossible to win. I said "to fight a little longer even though it would certainly cause your death." Like in the pre-battle talk with Haley, when it comes to actual war, even people on the winning side will die. For example, Kraagor's sacrifice.

When your goal is "saving lives" there can even be degrees of success. You can save more people, even when you can't save all of the people.

[dancrilis]

Can I get some further explanation on this?

I think I kinda get it, like a discussion about V's Familicide and whether the evil creatures vanquished outweigh the good or something like that?

But I didn't see anything about it in the Forum Rules, so if someone who understands better could clarify for me, just so I know in the future, I'd appreciate that.

Possibly a better question for a moderator rather then to the public but the following quotes may cover it:


Sheriff of Moddingham: A while back the OotS subforum suffered a rash of "Is X morally justified?" threads. Soon, there was such a thread about everything you can imagine, parodies of such threads, and a thread about whether starting such a thread is morally justified (the inevitable meta-humor thread). These were promptly locked as somewhat spammy and threatening to overwhelm the subforum.

These were locked to prevent the forum from being overrun by endless morality disputes and parodies thereof. Like the more recent round, no one is receiving Infractions (or even Warnings) over these. It's more a matter of good forum administration than rule enforcement. We haven't added any rules, but then again, we're not willing to have a bunch of morally justified threads taking up the whole OotS subforum again.

As one of those threads notes:
"At this time, we have a moratorium on threads whose sole discussion point is whether a certain character was "morally justified" in taking a certain action in the comic."

No one's going to get Warnings or Infractions over it unless they seem to be purposefully trolling or something. Just avoid starting threads on that because they're likely to be locked, as are threads that become about it.


Roland is right, but I wanted to give some additional explanation as to what constitutes a "morally justified" thread.

"Alignment" is a feature of a game system with a reasonably strict set of guidelines; "moral justification" is a feature of the real world with no such clarity. If your discussion of a character's alignment veers so far afield from the game definitions that only real-world judgments and examples are being used, then you're not discussing alignment anymore, you're discussing morality. And in-depth discussions of personal real-world morality almost always tread into the no-politics/no-religion end of the pool.

Likewise, if everyone on your thread agrees that a character would have a listed alignment of Evil before a ten-page debate begins on his actions, then you are not discussing his alignment anymore. If you are attacking or defending a fictional character for being who they are, you are engaging in a "morally justified" debate, not a discussion of their alignment.

The locked thread regarding Tarquin began from the premise that Tarquin was Evil and then went on to discuss whether or not his evil actions were acceptable. It sought to argue that Tarquin shouldn't be admired by readers because he had committed evil acts, which is essentially one poster telling other posters that they should follow his own personal moral compass. It then followed with various posters defending Tarquin's actions, often through real-world benchmarks, even while acknowledging that he had "Evil" written on his character sheet. Thus, it was not substantially a debate about his alignment, but about whether having such an alignment was a positive or negative thing in either a character or a leader. In other words, whether being Lawful Evil was morally justified.

Hopefully, that makes things a bit clearer. As far as announcing it as a specific rule, we mostly see it as falling under the heading of no-politics/no-religion, or, in some cases, of telling other posters what to do (in this case, what to believe), both of which are already established rules. However, maybe we'll tweak the wording in the Rules of Posting to make it more clear. As Roland said, though, we are not currently infracting people for straying into this territory on account of it being a borderline case. If we enshrine it in the rules, we will begin doing so.

[Good Coyote]

Possibly a better question for a moderator rather then to the public but the following quotes may cover it:

Very true, but yes, thanks for pointing me to those quotes.

[Riftwolf]

I think what many people are not getting is that Serini doesn't think destroying any gate was alright as long as there were others standing. In her opinion, destroying any gate at all unacceptably increases the risk of oblivion. For her, this cavalier attitude that there are other gates so it doesn't matter is incredibly reckless and irresponsible. And frankly, she has a point. It's hard to argue with her when that attitude has led to a single gate standing between reality and oblivion. There's no safety net for accidents anymore.

The notion that Serini is willing to sacrifice the world runs contrary to what the comic is explicitly telling us.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Remember that Serini is acting on incomplete information, like everyone in this comic. She doesn't know Redcloaks plan, or even regard him as a great threat compared to Xykon (understandable, as Redcloak didn't maim her), so her plan (let Xykon be an evil tyrant for a few decades before some better chuckleheads topple him) makes sense to her. We know all the reasons it'll fail, but then we've been following the band of morons who popped the shirt of the universe down to its last button and think the Order are somehow the heroes of the tale.

[Shadowknight12]

If Serini was truly Evil-aligned, she would not waste time with non-lethal methods when lethal ones would suffice. She would kill and soul-trap when it would be advantageous to do so, or use mind-control potions (like love potion variants) in combination with the amnesia potion to ensure her captives follow her orders and report back the lies she wants them to believe.

I think Serini is either Good or Neutral aligned, though I am still 50/50 on which of the two she is.

[Liquor Box]

No. Not that she hasn't done it yet. That she does not intend to ever. It is not entirely speculative, it is based on my interpretation of her dialogue that I quoted.

We absolutely have evidence that she could be able to escape if she had dedicated her resources to prepare. There's no reason Julio should be able to do it and not her.

Belkar has not known about the Snarl for decades. He does not have a dungeon made of multidimensional stone and magic items out the wazoo. If it came down to the line, between the perfect easy choice to escape and certain death to keep fighting just a little bit longer, and Belkar chose to stay and fight, then yes, that action would be Good.

This is not an argument that Serini is Good. This is an argument that valuing others' lives above your own is a Good act.

Then, we discuss Good (and Evil, and Neutral) acts and words as evidence of people's alignments. Since no single act is ever conclusive, we would have nothing to discuss, if we threw out every single action that anyone ever took.
On your point that valuing others' life above your own being usually good, I agree. But I don't yet see any evidence (or even any hint) that Serini does this.

Your argument seems to be that because of her wealth she is able to afford plane shift, but from that perspecitve so does Belkar. Plane shift costs 1125gp, which is a small amount of money for someone of Belkar's level - he could trade his boots of jumping for the spell. So this does not create a distinction between her and Belkar.

You suggested that you were interpreting some text in the comic as supporting what you were saying - which piece of text was it?


If Serini was truly Evil-aligned, she would not waste time with non-lethal methods when lethal ones would suffice. She would kill and soul-trap when it would be advantageous to do so, or use mind-control potions (like love potion variants) in combination with the amnesia potion to ensure her captives follow her orders and report back the lies she wants them to believe.

I think Serini is either Good or Neutral aligned, though I am still 50/50 on which of the two she is.

Really? You think kidnappers who do not kill their victims tend to be good aligned? Even Xykon imprisoned O-Chul when he could conveniently have killed him (or soul trapped him or whatever).I appreciate that he also taunted him and harmed him (more seriously than Serini's bops on the head), but even had he merely kept him prisoner I don't think we'd be calling it non-evil.

To be sure that kidnapping is a lessor evil than killing, but it is still generally an evil act nonetheless.

There may be exceptions, like if kidnapping someone is necessary for some greater good, but I don't think that's true in Serini's case.

[Shadowknight12]

Really? You think kidnappers who do not kill their victims tend to be good aligned? Even Xykon imprisoned O-Chul when he could conveniently have killed him (or soul trapped him or whatever).I appreciate that he also taunted him and harmed him (more seriously than Serini's bops on the head), but even had he merely kept him prisoner I don't think we'd be calling it non-evil.

To be sure that kidnapping is a lessor evil than killing, but it is still generally an evil act nonetheless.

There may be exceptions, like if kidnapping someone is necessary for some greater good, but I don't think that's true in Serini's case.

Evil usually has no moral compunctions against killing, only practical or sentimental ones, and I don't think Serini spared the paladins out of sentimentality, so if she was truly evil, she would've spared them only out of practicality, because killing them would have made matters worse. That's an argument that could be made, she could know the Sapphire Guard would simply send more after O-Chul and Lien. However, she has no way of guaranteeing that the Sapphire Guard would have listened and not just sent more paladins to double-check, maybe with spellcasters in tow.

[sihnfahl]

And hell, she said the Paladins had 4 chances to stop the end of the world. They weren't even involved in the 1st, 2nd, or 4th Gates. Why is she assuming the good guys screwed up 4 times?
Because the monitoring system told them that the Gate was destroyed. But while having a major force available, they didn't find and destroy the individual(s) who destroyed the gate after the fact.

Perhaps this analogy with a police force and an organized bank robbery gang? Gang holds up one of the five major banks in a city, takes all the stuff and burns the bank to the ground.

The cops know a bank was robbed and destroyed ... but, instead of finding the robbers, they did effectively squat while the robbers hit three more banks and burn THEM to the ground over the course of several months.

[Kardwill]

But, Roy still attacks people head on. Sneak attack, by definition, is dirty fighting, and dirty fighting is not Lawful.


In the comic you referenced, Roy is planning to ambush the ogres and orders Haley to sneak attack them, before Miko blows his plan up. Not what I'd call "attacking head on". The man is willing to take any advantage he can get in combat to stay alive, as long as it doesn't hurt innocents. That strikes me as "sane" rather than "chaotic"

Hell, in the first few comics, you see him killing sleeping goblins. I don't know if those comics are canon anymore, but it's not easy to fight "dirtier" than that.

EDIT : Slow-motion-ninjaed by Ruck. I didn't see the conversation was 3 days old ^^

[Good Coyote]

On your point that valuing others' life above your own being usually good, I agree. But I don't yet see any evidence (or even any hint) that Serini does this.

Your argument seems to be that because of her wealth she is able to afford plane shift, but from that perspecitve so does Belkar. Plane shift costs 1125gp, which is a small amount of money for someone of Belkar's level - he could trade his boots of jumping for the spell. So this does not create a distinction between her and Belkar.

You suggested that you were interpreting some text in the comic as supporting what you were saying - which piece of text was it?


Belkar is capable of Good actions, and we have seen him do so, so the idea that he theoretically may be taking this one too does not actually change the discussion at all.

Serini does not just have resources. She has had decades to plan, and has used them for planning.

The one that I originally quoted. "[Existing] was fun." I explained already what I think it implies.

I want to reiterate that I am not arguing Serini is Good. I am not even trying to convince you that she has taken a Good action. I am responding specifically to your statement that such a line of opinion is "misguided."

By which I mean, I am clear at which points I am speculating, which point is an interpretation, etc. All discussion here comes with an assumed asterisk: *pending further information. There's plenty of room for reasonable people to interpret otherwise. That does not make my opinion misguided (ill-conceived or not thought out), nor does it mean I am taking a "starting point [that] she's good" and "contriv[ing] a set of circumstances that make the actions we have seen seem good."

[Dr.Zero]

Hell, in the first few comics, you see him killing sleeping goblins. I don't know if those comics are canon anymore, but it's not easy to fight "dirtier" than that.

EDIT : Slow-motion-ninjaed by Ruck. I didn't see the conversation was 3 days old ^^

Yeah, well, I was going to make that same exact example if I hadn't seen you doing it.
I blame the people who writes their reasonings pages before that I start to (re)read the thread.

[Liquor Box]

Evil usually has no moral compunctions against killing, only practical or sentimental ones, and I don't think Serini spared the paladins out of sentimentality, so if she was truly evil, she would've spared them only out of practicality, because killing them would have made matters worse. That's an argument that could be made, she could know the Sapphire Guard would simply send more after O-Chul and Lien. However, she has no way of guaranteeing that the Sapphire Guard would have listened and not just sent more paladins to double-check, maybe with spellcasters in tow.

I don't agree with your opening assertion. I think you can be evil and never kill anyone. I think there are a variety of terrible actions which fall short of killing, but are still evil. If you think of the most serious sex crimes, often it would be in one's interest to kill the victim to avoid identification, but often that does not happen - but I think we can agree it is still an evil act.

In my opinion kidnapping is in the same category. It may be less evil than killing the paladins, but it is still evil, unless there is a good justification for it (which has been the subject of much argument in a previous thread). One need not make speculative arguments about avoiding further paladins coming.


Belkar is capable of Good actions, and we have seen him do so, so the idea that he theoretically may be taking this one too does not actually change the discussion at all.

True. But I think what several people were saying was that Serini was trying to save the world so she must be good.

If your point is that Belkar trying to save the world and Serini trying to save the world are both good actions to be balanced against any mischief they caused, I think that is a reasonable position (although not the only reasonable one)


Serini does not just have resources. She has had decades to plan, and has used them for planning.

You don't need decades to plan for a plane switch - we have seen characters do it on an impulse. All you need is the means to afford it, and a city or similar to buy it from. Serini and Belkar have both presumably had both since each learned about the threat of the snarl.


The one that I originally quoted. "[Existing] was fun." I explained already what I think it implies.

I disagree that implies anything more than that she is relaxed about the possibility of dieing. I don't think it suggests she has an another option (if anything it counts against it). I could imagine Belkar sayign the same thing, and I don't think it would change anyone's opinion of his alignment.


I want to reiterate that I am not arguing Serini is Good. I am not even trying to convince you that she has taken a Good action. I am responding specifically to your statement that such a line of opinion is "misguided."

Well if she has not taken a good action, then the argument that she is good because she took that action is indeed misguided.

But perhaps you are right, and I overstated things. Perhaps it would have been better for me to simply question whether those who are suggesting Serini is good because she is trying to save the world have a similar opinion about Belkar's efforts to save the world, given both seem to have a personal interest in that outcome.

[Shadowknight12]

I don't agree with your opening assertion. I think you can be evil and never kill anyone. I think there are a variety of serious crimes which fall short of killing, but are still evil. If you think of the most serious sex crimes, often it would be in one's interest to kill the victim to avoid identification, but often that does not happen - but I think we can agree it is still an evil act.

In my opinion kidnapping is in the same category. It may be less evil than killing the paladins, but it is still evil, unless there is a good justification for it (which has been the subject of much argument in a previous thread). One need not make speculative arguments about avoiding further paladins coming.

You can absolutely be evil without killing anyone, I just said that as an evil person you wouldn't care if you had to kill people for whatever reason. And Serini, in her defense of the Gate, is actively choosing to go for non-lethal methods rather than murder. And honestly, given how well informed she is about the events of Soon's Gate? She would know the Sapphire Guard is almost gone and that Azure City has been near-decimated. Even if killing the paladins would get more people sent after them, there may not be enough high-level (or even mid-level) characters to send after them.

Sending the paladins back with their memories wiped is not risk-free, and an intelligent-enough advisor to Hinjo might realize what truly happened to them, so killing them might actually be the "safest" bet. But she chose not to.

[Liquor Box]

You can absolutely be evil without killing anyone, I just said that as an evil person you wouldn't care if you had to kill people for whatever reason. And Serini, in her defense of the Gate, is actively choosing to go for non-lethal methods rather than murder. And honestly, given how well informed she is about the events of Soon's Gate? She would know the Sapphire Guard is almost gone and that Azure City has been near-decimated. Even if killing the paladins would get more people sent after them, there may not be enough high-level (or even mid-level) characters to send after them.

Sending the paladins back with their memories wiped is not risk-free, and an intelligent-enough advisor to Hinjo might realize what truly happened to them, so killing them might actually be the "safest" bet. But she chose not to.
But Serinie doesn't have to kill anyone. Like a lot of kidnappers or other such people it may be more convenient for her to do so, but like a lot of those people (who are generally committing evil acts) she has actively chosen not to do so. Like with Serini, leaving their victims alive is not risk free, so killing them might be the criminal's safest bet, but they choose not to.

For the above reason's I'm afraid I'm struggling to accept your suggesting that kidnapping someone and not killing them (even assuming it's safer to do so) is actually good and not evil. That would suggest a lot of serious criminals are actually good.

[Shadowknight12]

But Serinie doesn't have to kill anyone. Like a lot of kidnappers or other criminals it may be more convenient for her to do so, but like a lot of those people (who are generally committing evil acts) she has actively chosen not to do so. Like with Serini, leaving their victims alive is not risk free, so killing them might be the criminal's safest bet, but they choose not to.

For the above reason's I'm afraid I'm struggling to accept your suggesting that kidnapping someone and not killing them (even assuming it's safer to do so) is actually good and not evil. That would suggest a lot of serious criminals are actually good.

You are confusing legality with morality. Not everything that is illegal is also evil. Rogues like Haley and Serini (I'm not touching "criminals" because it may stray too close to the forum rules) may do acts like lying, kidnapping and stealing, which may be good, bad or neutral depending on the context, intent and goal.

[Liquor Box]

You are confusing legality with morality. Not everything that is illegal is also evil. Rogues like Haley and Serini (I'm not touching "criminals" because it may stray too close to the forum rules) may do acts like lying, kidnapping and stealing, which may be good, bad or neutral depending on the context, intent and goal.

No, I don't think I am. I appreciate that there are things that are illegal that may well be immoral. What I am referring to are the sorts of things that I am assuming we can agree are almost always evil, even in a fantasy story context - the worst sorts of sex crimes is the example I gave before. I suggest it would be a strawman to read my post above as criminal meaning "steal, possibly where the context excuses it" instead of "commits a heinous action"

But to restate it. Lots of people commit heinous crimes and make the choice not to follow up with murder despite it being convenient (and minimising risk) to do so. That does not make the heinous thing a good act and not an evil one.

Is kidnapping such an act? Often (although not so extreme as the example I gave), but it does indeed depend on context. Which puts us back to the question of whether circumstances justified Serini's drugging and kidnapping of the paladins. But to say it was actually evidence of her goodness simply because she didn't kill them is a stretch.

If someone drugged you, kidnapped you, hit you and taunted you with false promises of escape, then ultimately gave you roofies and let you go - would that show that they were good because they didn't kill you (despite it being more convenient for them to do so)?

[Shadowknight12]

If someone drugged you, kidnapped you, hit you and taunted you with false promises of escape, then ultimately gave you roofies and let you go - would that show that they were good because they didn't kill you (despite it being more convenient for them to do so)?

If it would have been more convenient for them to kill me? Yes, I would assume so. They sure went through a lot of trouble to leave me alive and it may possibly come back to bite them in the future, so I would assume some sort of moral compunction against killing me.

[Liquor Box]

If it would have been more convenient for them to kill me? Yes, I would assume so. They sure went through a lot of trouble to leave me alive and it may possibly come back to bite them in the future, so I would assume some sort of moral compunction against killing me.

It may be that we need to agree to disagree on that point then. To me the idea that someone is actually doing a good thing if they commit a heinous act that would otherwise be widely accepted as evil but forgo the convenient option of killing their victim is pretty hard to swallow. I mean if a moral compunction against killing is all you need to be able to do whatever else you want...

[Shadowknight12]

It may be that we need to agree to disagree on that point then. To me the idea that someone is actually doing a good thing if they commit a crime that would otherwise be widely accepted as evil but forgo the convenient option of killing their victim is pretty hard to swallow.

I am not claiming Serini is Good, just open to the possibility. I am willing to believe she's Neutral as well. As I said in my first post in this thread, I am 50/50 on whether she's one or the other, but I don't believe her to be Evil at all.

I think her ultimate goal is definitely Good-aligned (preventing the destruction of the world and guarding the last Gate), she has empathy towards monster races and she values saving innocents (she counters Lien's assertion about innocents not surviving with "a lot more will though"), which leads me to believe she does have overall good intentions. She might be too jaded and practical to be truly Good, but we'll see.

[Liquor Box]

I am not claiming Serini is Good, just open to the possibility. I am willing to believe she's Neutral as well. As I said in my first post in this thread, I am 50/50 on whether she's one or the other, but I don't believe her to be Evil at all.

I think her ultimate goal is definitely Good-aligned (preventing the destruction of the world and guarding the last Gate), she has empathy towards monster races and she values saving innocents (she counters Lien's assertion about innocents not surviving with "a lot more will though"), which leads me to believe she does have overall good intentions. She might be too jaded and practical to be truly Good, but we'll see.

Yes apologies, you only went so far as to suggest she wasn't evil. Then what we will have to agree to disagree about is that doing something that would otherwise be widely accepted as evil, but then refraining from killing your victim renders the act was not evil.

The second part of your post is more compelling than the "but she didn't kill the ones she kidnapped" argument, but most of those points probably apply to Belkar as well. Whether those later points outwiegh her kidnapping of the order, YMMV.

I do agree that she will probably ultimately turn out to be something other than evil from a narrative perspective, but based on her actions so far alone, i'm not convinced.

[Jason]

It is the motivation and context behind this "kidnapping" (and "kidnapping" is not really the right word for dealing with trespassers) that makes the act non-evil. A typical kidnapping is done for some kind of selfish gain - money, sex, or just the kick of exerting power over someone. Serini is protecting the existence of the world and the souls of everyone on it. She is only drugging and imprisoning the paladins because they are a threat to the world's existence, and she has every intention of letting them go once they are no longer a threat.
This is a world where the easiest and most typical response to threats, for both good and evil alignments, is to kill them outright, so Serini is showing an unusual respect for life in going so out of her way to take them alive and release them safely afterwards.
In other words in this context her actions are not evil. Quite the opposite.

[Ionathus]

Is kidnapping such an act? Often (although not so extreme as the example I gave), but it does indeed depend on context. Which puts us back to the question of whether circumstances justified Serini's drugging and kidnapping of the paladins. But to say it was actually evidence of her goodness simply because she didn't kill them is a stretch.

I agree -- nothing Serini has done (outside of choosing to defend the Gate at great personal risk rather than Plane Shifting) is actually evidence of being Good. However, I do think it's evidence of being Not Evil. Even if evil people sometimes don't kill inconvenient trespassers, the majority do. It is a tendency of evil people to be ruthless and to take the most convenient & efficient option when dealing with complications like this.

You have a good point that killing them might draw attention & more paladins from the Azurites. However, I don't feel that fully justifies the amount of work she's undertaking to subdue and mind-wipe everybody. It would still be quicker and easier to kill them. The fact that she didn't take the quickest and easiest option should be taken as evidence (probably not full proof) in favor of non-Evil alignment.

Also, I still think you're misconstruing this as a kidnapping.

Serini is effectively "in charge" up here. She's appointed herself to defend the gate. She is "The Law" in her own mind, and I think you'd be hard pressed to claim there's some other nation-state in charge up here in the wilderness*.

People get captured for trespassing all the time, especially in fantasy. Faramir does the same thing to Frodo & Sam in LotR, and that's definitely not portrayed as Evil. Serini's on her home turf here, and the paladins are trespassing. Would that hold up in a court of law? Probably not. But this isn't about whether her actions would be legal in the real world, it's about whether her actions are moral in the context of the story. And I don't see any proof that her behavior is morally reprehensible. It's rude, it's dismissive, it's arrogant, it's stubborn. But character flaws don't make you Evil.

*The bugbears may have counted once upon a time, but since they've allied with Team Evil, they're now more of an invading army with regards to the gate.

[Jason]

People get captured for trespassing all the time, especially in fantasy. Faramir does the same thing to Frodo & Sam in LotR, and that's definitely not portrayed as Evil.
Frodo and Sam were trespassing in Gondor, breaking a law that no one is authorized to enter the territory of Ithilien without the leave of the Steward of Gondor on pain of death. Capturing and interrogating Frodo and Sam, and then letting them go was in fact illegal, but Faramir had some discretion as commander of the forces of Gondor in Ithilien and the legal representative of the Steward of Gondor on the scene.

[Ionathus]

Frodo and Sam were trespassing in Gondor, breaking a law that no one is authorized to enter the territory of Ithilien without the leave of the Steward of Gondor on pain of death. Capturing and interrogating Frodo and Sam, and then letting them go was in fact illegal, but Faramir had some discretion as commander of the forces of Gondor in Ithilien and the legal representative of the Steward of Gondor on the scene.

Thanks for the context: I was going by the movies, as I only read the books long ago. Faramir might be a bad example as it sounds a little too official to be a good comparison.

[Good Coyote]

True. But I think what several people were saying was that Serini was trying to save the world so she must be good.

I haven't seen a lot of this myself. What I've seen is a lot of people replying to more nuanced positions as though this was what the person was claiming, and giving the impression that they had not read very carefully. But I understand that either way, you respond to your impression and I respond to mine.



If your point is that Belkar trying to save the world and Serini trying to save the world are both good actions to be balanced against any mischief they caused, I think that is a reasonable position (although not the only reasonable one)

Sort of. I agree that it is possible for someone to do something that leads to the prolonging of the world and have it technically not count for Good points somehow. For example, Hilgya helped but I would agree it was not in a way that bumped her up in the polls. There is less evidence that Belkar is taking a clear heroic action than there is for Serini. But it's not impossible, and it's irrelevant to the situation with Serini whether there is or not.



You don't need decades to plan for a plane switch - we have seen characters do it on an impulse. All you need is the means to afford it, and a city or similar to buy it from. Serini and Belkar have both presumably had both since each learned about the threat of the snarl.

So, again, you're just arguing that Belkar is heroic too. (Or even more heroic than Serini?) Not that Serini is not doing something heroic. These don't cancel out.

You also seem to be supporting part of my point, which is that Serini definitely could have done this if she chose to.

On the topic of Belkar doing something heroic (everything here is irrelevant to Serini): we don't actually know in OotS-world whether it's always easy to buy a spell. V struggled with a booster pack joke. In an actual world, some spells are more rare, some spells are out of stock. Some people are hogging all the good ones. Magic items are even less simple. Hilgya could do it immediately because she can cast the spell herself, and didn't even have to find it, just asked Loki. Julio could do it immediately because that's just the kind of guy he is. He wasn't planning for the Snarl specifically, but he's a planning kind of character. (Like Serini.)

Belkar only got into this "thinking ahead" stuff fairly recently, and has also only more recently learned about the Snarl. In the time after that, he's been trapped in the Azure City Resistance, suffering beneath a Mark of Justice, and... heading off on his own to get a broach of Protection From Evil. It's possible (though we don't know for sure) that Belkar actually has lined up an escape route. Although getting a magic item is more expensive and rare than a spell, it's true that he was in a big city. I'm more inclined to think "either he did or he forgot or he didnt have an option to." But it is a distinct possibility that he was fully capable and chose to pass it up because he only had enough time for the Protection from Evil broach and killing Durkula was more important.

You could dismiss all of Belkar's recent development and say that he was only motivated out of bloodthirst, or he picked spite over his own life or something like that.. But personally I would see that as a heroic choice. Maybe I'm too much like Hinjo, but there it is.



I disagree that implies anything more than that she is relaxed about the possibility of dieing. I don't think it suggests she has an another option (if anything it counts against it). I could imagine Belkar sayign the same thing, and I don't think it would change anyone's opinion of his alignment.

You are certainly free to interpret differently, but I'm not sure that you are, because I absolutely agree that it means she does not have another option! She does not have another option because she has not lined one up. This suggests she chose over several decades (or even just the few years since Xykon showed up and became a real threat) to devote all of her resources to defending everyone's survival, rather than taking some of those resources to ensure her own.

Belkar could indeed say the same thing, in that he doesn't have an escape (we presume). Roy could as well, it reminds me a lot of his "so this is it. this is what us losing looks like." speech. Which was met by a rejoinder from Belkar that he still had time to Plane Shift to Celia and ride it out if he wanted to - which Roy rejected, which was Good.



Well if she has not taken a good action, then the argument that she is good because she took that action is indeed misguided.

But perhaps you are right, and I overstated things. Perhaps it would have been better for me to simply question whether those who are suggesting Serini is good because she is trying to save the world have a similar opinion about Belkar's efforts to save the world, given both seem to have a personal interest in that outcome.

Yes. For both Serini and Belkar, it is something I put on the table and consider alongside all other info that we get.

For neither one can we say for absolutely sure (yet) what decisions they made and whether they will stick by those decisions when it comes down to it or have ever changed their minds. But I can see what I think is the most probable shape of the story, pending further revelations.

I did think that Serini's likelihood of making a heroic choice was higher than Belkar's, given her extreme amount of resources and greater time and savviness. (For example, at one point I thought "what if she planned to escape with Girard's people, who almost certainly had an escape plan imo, but now doesn't have that option?" but now I think that she is portrayed as far too worldwise to be relying on somebody else if self-preservation by that route was really important to her.) But tbh you've swayed me in Belkar's favor here.

Of course, since we know Belkar is also a slaver and mass murderer, then even if we go ahead and put a noble choice on the table, it doesn't mean as much on my impression of his alignment. There are many other things to balance against.

For Serini, I do the same thing. I put it on the table along with everything else we know. Since we know fewer other things, it has a greater weight on my impression of her alignment. (Which is Good or Neutral, by the way.) But I am still doing the same thing in both Serini's and Belkar's cases.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I'm gonna throw my hat into the ring (Is that even a saying??) and say bang on Neutral. But I agree with her lol. Better a world ruled by Xykon than say.. no world at all.

[brian 333]

What both posters on the previous page have overlooked is that Serini has a stated intent in keeping the paladins alive: to send them back to their masters with misinformation. Therefore, not killing them cannot be used as evidence of any alignment position, (except, arguably, not LG.)

[Jason]

What both posters on the previous page have overlooked is that Serini has a stated intent in keeping the paladins alive: to send them back to their masters with misinformation. Therefore, not killing them cannot be used as evidence of any alignment position, (except, arguably, not LG.)

And what will be her excuse for knocking out the Order instead of killing them?

[Shadowknight12]

What both posters on the previous page have overlooked is that Serini has a stated intent in keeping the paladins alive: to send them back to their masters with misinformation. Therefore, not killing them cannot be used as evidence of any alignment position, (except, arguably, not LG.)

If that refers to me, I actually did not overlook it, I included it in my calculations here:


And honestly, given how well informed she is about the events of Soon's Gate? She would know the Sapphire Guard is almost gone and that Azure City has been near-decimated. Even if killing the paladins would get more people sent after them, there may not be enough high-level (or even mid-level) characters to send after them.

Sending the paladins back with their memories wiped is not risk-free, and an intelligent-enough advisor to Hinjo might realize what truly happened to them, so killing them might actually be the "safest" bet. But she chose not to.

Sending back paladins with misinformation is not a foolproof strategy, nor is it necessarily the best strategy to guarantee zero return visitors, given the current state of Azure City.

[Liquor Box]

It is the motivation and context behind this "kidnapping" (and "kidnapping" is not really the right word for dealing with trespassers) that makes the act non-evil. A typical kidnapping is done for some kind of selfish gain - money, sex, or just the kick of exerting power over someone. Serini is protecting the existence of the world and the souls of everyone on it. She is only drugging and imprisoning the paladins because they are a threat to the world's existence, and she has every intention of letting them go once they are no longer a threat.
This is a world where the easiest and most typical response to threats, for both good and evil alignments, is to kill them outright, so Serini is showing an unusual respect for life in going so out of her way to take them alive and release them safely afterwards.
In other words in this context her actions are not evil. Quite the opposite.

Trespassers? They were observing the canyon from telescope distance, and its an area that a bugbear tribe shares with Serini. What from the comic makes you think watching this diversely populated canyon from a distance is trespassing. Serini hasn't even claimed that herself.

I could accept Serini's kidnapping of the paladins as justified if she actually had reasonable grounds to believe they were a threat, and if kidnapping them was the only way (or the least intrusive way to deal with them. If the paladins had seen Serini before she saw them, would them drugging, kidnapping and tying her up (and bopping her a few times) ok? Because I think there's just as good of an argument that Srini is a threat to the gate as the paladins.


I agree -- nothing Serini has done (outside of choosing to defend the Gate at great personal risk rather than Plane Shifting) is actually evidence of being Good. However, I do think it's evidence of being Not Evil. Even if evil people sometimes don't kill inconvenient trespassers, the majority do. It is a tendency of evil people to be ruthless and to take the most convenient & efficient option when dealing with complications like this.

I'm going to need a source your assertion that the majority of evil people kill innocent trespassers.

I could probably find a source that most kidnappers do not kill their victims if you like?


You have a good point that killing them might draw attention & more paladins from the Azurites. However, I don't feel that fully justifies the amount of work she's undertaking to subdue and mind-wipe everybody. It would still be quicker and easier to kill them. The fact that she didn't take the quickest and easiest option should be taken as evidence (probably not full proof) in favor of non-Evil alignment.

That wasn't actually my point. That was something ShadowKnight said. I tend to agree that it's not an obvious reason not to kill them. A more obvious reason is whatever reason most kidnappers have for not killing their vicitms.


Also, I still think you're misconstruing this as a kidnapping.

I'd be happy to discuss. The definition is "the action of abducting someone and holding them captive" Abduct means to "take someone by force or deception without lawful authority".


Serini is effectively "in charge" up here. She's appointed herself to defend the gate. She is "The Law" in her own mind, and I think you'd be hard pressed to claim there's some other nation-state in charge up here in the wilderness*.

Well, whoever leads the Bugbear tribe is probably closer to being in charge - their authority is at least recognised by someone other than themselves.

But even if not, that doesn't make her in charge. if you go into the wilderness and say "it's mine" that doesn't make it so

{quote]People get captured for trespassing all the time, especially in fantasy. Faramir does the same thing to Frodo & Sam in LotR, and that's definitely not portrayed as Evil. Serini's on her home turf here, and the paladins are trespassing. Would that hold up in a court of law? Probably not. But this isn't about whether her actions would be legal in the real world, it's about whether her actions are moral in the context of the story. And I don't see any proof that her behavior is morally reprehensible. It's rude, it's dismissive, it's arrogant, it's stubborn. But character flaws don't make you Evil. [/quote]

Not trespassing - even if she does own the canyon, observing it from a distance would not be trespassing.

I think you have the onus wrong here. Kidnapping someone is evil (although not so evil as murdering them) on its face. Someone would need to show justification for the kidnapping for it not to be evil (or proof that it was not morally reprehensible as you put it).


*The bugbears may have counted once upon a time, but since they've allied with Team Evil, they're now more of an invading army with regards to the gate.

How do you figure this? The bugbears allied with someone so thereafter their home is no longer their home so now they're invaders? That's even more of a stretch then "she says she's in charge, so she is".


I haven't seen a lot of this myself. What I've seen is a lot of people replying to more nuanced positions as though this was what the person was claiming, and giving the impression that they had not read very carefully. But I understand that either way, you respond to your impression and I respond to mine.

Maybe you are right, and I didn't read carefully enough.


Sort of. I agree that it is possible for someone to do something that leads to the prolonging of the world and have it technically not count for Good points somehow. For example, Hilgya helped but I would agree it was not in a way that bumped her up in the polls. There is less evidence that Belkar is taking a clear heroic action than there is for Serini. But it's not impossible, and it's irrelevant to the situation with Serini whether there is or not.

So, again, you're just arguing that Belkar is heroic too. (Or even more heroic than Serini?) Not that Serini is not doing something heroic. These don't cancel out.

I guess I just think that people are applying a bit of double standard. When the argument was about Belkar most people were pretty vehement that saving the world didn't make him not evil. Yet when Serini does it, it's seen as indicating she's not evil. In my opinion, the reasons for saying the two things are different don't add up.

If you think that Belkar and Serini are both acting heoricly and adding points to their good column, then that's a consistent positon, and a pretty reasonable one.

[Jason]

Trespassers? They were observing the canyon from telescope distance, and its an area that a bugbear tribe shares with Serini. What from the comic makes you think watching this diversely populated canyon from a distance is trespassing. Serini hasn't even claimed that herself.

I could accept Serini's kidnapping of the paladins as justified if she actually had reasonable grounds to believe they were a threat, and if kidnapping them was the only way (or the least intrusive way to deal with them. If the paladins had seen Serini before she saw them, would them drugging, kidnapping and tying her up (and bopping her a few times) ok? Because I think there's just as good of an argument that Srini is a threat to the gate as the paladins.
She correctly identified them as paladins of the Sapphire Guard, and in fact they were there to try to interfere with Xykon's attempt to find the gate. The fact that they were being cautious first doesn't change that. Serini correctly identified who they were and what they were doing before she decided to attack them.

Knocking them out, imprisoning them, and then doping them with an amnesia potion and sending them on their way is in fact not the least complicated way of dealing with them - far from it. It is one of the least intrusive way that spares their lives while eliminating them as a threat, however. Going out of your way to spare the life of a threat is a good-aligned action.

Contrast with Oona, who attacked them and tried to kill them just because they were humans and never had any idea why they were there or who they were.

There is a good argument to be made that Serini is taking the wrong actions in her attempt to protect the gate, and that she is in fact further endangering it by attacking the paladins and the Order. That is not, however, an argument that she is evil-aligned.


But even if not, that doesn't make her in charge. if you go into the wilderness and say "it's mine" that doesn't make it soActually yes, that is how someone legally claims previously-unclaimed wilderness territory. Move in and build permanent structures, then defend your staked-out territory from trespassers.

You could argue that it was claimed by the bugbears first, but we don't know for certain if they moved into the area after Serini did. In fact it seems likely that the bugbears moved in because they saw Monster Hollow as a resource, so they probably did arrive second.


I think you have the onus wrong here. Kidnapping someone is evil (although not so evil as murdering them) on its face. Someone would need to show justification for the kidnapping for it not to be evil (or proof that it was not morally reprehensible as you put it). Kidnapping for ransom or to abuse the victim is of course evil, but that is not what Serini is doing here. Labelling it "kidnapping" presupposes that it is an evil act. It puts the cart before the horse.


I guess I just think that people are applying a bit of double standard. When the argument was about Belkar most people were pretty vehement that saving the world didn't make him not evil. Yet when Serini does it, it's seen as indicating she's not evil. In my opinion, the reasons for saying the two things are different don't add up.
Coercion is the difference. When Belkar was being forced (with the alternative being imprisonment) to come along on the quest to save the world it wasn't earning him any brownie points. Serini has devoted herself and her fortune to protecting the gate for decades, and with no expectation of any reward or recognition for doing so. That is not an evil action.

If you think that Belkar and Serini are both acting heoricly and adding points to their good column, then that's a consistent positon, and a pretty reasonable one.
And now that he is no longer being coerced, but is coming along and being helpful of his own free will Belkar is in fact moving towards good.

[brian 333]

And what will be her excuse for knocking out the Order instead of killing them?

They are a part of the paladins' group. She knows they have been in communication. If the paladins return without their henchman, they will instantly turn around and go looking for them.

Not killing the paladins so she can use them is not proof of Good motives. Or Evil. Or Chaotic. Or even Lawful.

I could even make a case that the misinformation is being used for the Greater Good, so unless you subscribe to the 'LG never lie' philosophy, you can't even exclude that alignment as a possibility.

[dancrilis]

I could accept Serini's kidnapping of the paladins as justified if she actually had reasonable grounds to believe they were a threat,

Soon (and by extension the Sapphire Guard) agreed to a monitoring device on the gates and further agreed there would be no spying, no just checking in visits, no nothing.

The commander of the Sapphire Guard breached that leading directly to the loss of one gate (arguable two), and the next commander of the Sapphire Guard signed off on his paladins preforming a just 'checking in visit' on her gate - justifing it by effectively saying that it didn't apply because he had failed to protect his own gate.

They are in breach of the agreement as such she is justified in seeking to enforce the agreement - whether they are a threat or not is effectively seperate.

[Ailurus]

Soon (and by extension the Sapphire Guard) agreed to a monitoring device on the gates and further agreed there would be no spying, no just checking in visits, no nothing.

The commander of the Sapphire Guard breached that leading directly to the loss of one gate (arguable two), and the next commander of the Sapphire Guard signed off on his paladins preforming a just 'checking in visit' on her gate - justifing it by effectively saying that it didn't apply because he had failed to protect his own gate.

They are in breach of the agreement as such she is justified in seeking to enforce the agreement - whether they are a threat or not is effectively seperate.

You mean Serini breached the agreement.

Yes, Shojo sent paladins out to Lirian's gate after it was burned down to try to ID the threat. And he was planning on sending OOTS out to the other gates to check on them. But that is the exact same thing Serini did - after Lirian and Dorukan's gates fell, she was in some way actively spying on at least Soon's gate (and possibly Girard's gate though we don't have evidence one way or another), otherwise she wouldn't have known that O'chul's sword broke the gate. The only differences are:

1) Shojo was planning on investigating active gates (using OOTS), while Serini actually did it

2) Serini was party to the agreement, while Shojo inherited the agreement (which was made before he was born in all likelihood) from his dad, who inherited it from his friend (and that holds for every living member of the Sapphire Guard as well)

Trying to say "well, the paladins broke the agreement, so they're a threat to the gates" is meaningless unless you're also willing to use that same reasoning to declare Serini herself as a threat to the gates, because she did the same exact thing.

[dancrilis]

You mean Serini breached the agreement.

No - but I will get back to this.


Yes, Shojo sent paladins out to Lirian's gate after it was burned down to try to ID the threat.
He knew it was destroyed and had no idea what happened to Lirian so setup a 'just checking in call' same with Dorukan - I think that is fair, after all the agreement was not to interfere with the defence of the Gates and with the Gates destroyed the agreement was void for them.


And he was planning on sending OOTS out to the other gates to check on them.
This is in breach of the agreement.



But that is the exact same thing Serini did

We have no idea what Serini did.

One theory is that the divination device for monitoring the Gates destruction also provides some video and audio data on how the Gates were destroyed (neither of which would likely dramatically increase the price of the monitoring device), if that is that case it would cover her displayed knowledge fully without her needing to break the agreement.


You mean Serini breached the agreement.

Getting back to this - whether or not Serini breached the agreement without anyone noticing does not give cause for others to break the agreement unprovoked, in fact if the Paladins had went unnoticed (as she might have done) she would not have detained them.

[halfeye]

I think I should revise my statement, Serini is probably not Evil, whether she's Good or Neutral is undetermined.

[Thecommander236]

That's a really bad analogy.

Especially when it's 4 different toddlers spilling 4 different glasses.

Lirian and Dorukan doomed their own gates. Draketooth screwed himself over by not trusting anyone not related via magic blood. Hell, Serini is technically responsible for the gates being destroyed because she was the idiot that suggested they all rely on different methods to protect the gates. Instead of combining their strengths to keep the Gates together, they weakened them because each of their disciplines have a hard counter.

Then she made them all promise to not help each other when the other Gates went down. The Draketooth clan saw Gates 1, 2, and 3 go down and did nothing. Serini kept in contact with Draketooth, but apparently didn't bother to coordinate with the family after 2 Gates went down within a year?

How is any of this helpful? Now she's just thinks Xykon can rule for a few years until someone takes him down. What about SEALING the holes in reality? She just going to travel around and seal them herself? Or is she just hoping Xykon and Redcloak will seal them because the 1st Gate went down 20 years ago and no one has done jack or **** about it.

The Snarl was active during Serini's time. It killed Kraagor, so why isn't she doing anything to help resecure the Gates? Protecting this one Gate from Paladins and letting Xykon take over isn't going to save literally anyone.


Because the monitoring system told them that the Gate was destroyed. But while having a major force available, they didn't find and destroy the individual(s) who destroyed the gate after the fact.

Perhaps this analogy with a police force and an organized bank robbery gang? Gang holds up one of the five major banks in a city, takes all the stuff and burns the bank to the ground.

The cops know a bank was robbed and destroyed ... but, instead of finding the robbers, they did effectively squat while the robbers hit three more banks and burn THEM to the ground over the course of several months.

She's one of the cops! She didn't do anything either. Neither did Draketooth's clan!

[Shadowknight12]

Hell, Serini is technically responsible for the gates being destroyed because she was the idiot that suggested they all rely on different methods to protect the gates.

Yes, how silly of her, to stop her friends and allies (and perhaps the only people strong enough at the time to properly seal and protect the Gates) from murdering each other in front of her. A terrible faux pas.


Instead of combining their strengths to keep the Gates together, they weakened them because each of their disciplines have a hard counter.

Everything has a counter.

[dancrilis]

What about SEALING the holes in reality?
One of the theme of the comics could be considered to be 'tolerance' - and Serini has reason to embrace that (trolls saved her life) and she has shown concern for the lives of trolls, orcs, kobolds etc.
Under that framework it is possible that she has realised that maybe 'The Holey Brotherhood' had a point.


She didn't do anything either. Neither did Draketooth's clan!
Which is what they agreed too.

[Dion]

I’m really confused by the “kidnap” thing. According to the dictionary, kidnap means

“take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.”

Setting aside the idea that she doesn’t seem to be asking for a ransom, where did we get the idea that what she’s done is illegal?

[Good Coyote]

I’m really confused by the “kidnap” thing. According to the dictionary, kidnap means

“take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.”

Setting aside the idea that she doesn’t seem to be asking for a ransom, where did we get the idea that what she’s done is illegal?

Kidnap is defined a little differently in different dictionaries. The point of issue seems to be that she does not have specific legal authority to do so, in the way that police have laws that say they are allowed to make arrests (and in fact you're not allowed to resist), not that there's a law specifically against what she's doing.

In my opinion, Shojo did not have the authority and therefore kidnapped the Order as well, if we're using that definition. Maybe even more clearly, since he was operating in places with laws against kidnapping. Hinjo agreed with Roy that they were "imprisoned falsely by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)."

[dancrilis]

I’m really confused by the “kidnap” thing. According to the dictionary, kidnap means

“take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.”

Setting aside the idea that she doesn’t seem to be asking for a ransom, where did we get the idea that what she’s done is illegal?

Most words have many definations, for kidnap here are three others:
1. To abduct or confine (a person) forcibly, by threat of force, or by deceit, without the authority of law.
2. To steal, abduct, or carry off forcibly (a human being, whether man, woman, or child). In law it sometimes implies a carrying beyond the jurisdiction.
3. To take (any one) by force or fear, and against one's will, with intent to carry to another place.

For the third she did that, for the first if there is no legal system in place then there is not legal authority - and even for the second element of the second point it uses the word 'sometimes' (the first element of the second point was done).

[KorvinStarmast]

And what will be her excuse for knocking out the Order instead of killing them? They are well intentioned but dangerously incompetent buffoons who must not be allowed to get close to any(more) of the gates. That appears to be her position.

[Shadowknight12]

By those definitions, every single time a band of "heroes" beats up a "villain" and then ties them up and drags them to the local authorities to "answer for their crimes", that's also kidnapping, since citizens' arrests are a fairly modern thing that don't really exist in most fantasy settings.

Perhaps capturing someone you see as bad and dangerous and taking them away from a location where they can do harm to countless innocents is widely regarded to be a good thing and we see heroes do this routinely?

[Good Coyote]

By those definitions, every single time a band of "heroes" beats up a "villain" and then ties them up and drags them to the local authorities to "answer for their crimes", that's also kidnapping, since citizens' arrests are a fairly modern thing that don't really exist in most fantasy settings.

Perhaps capturing someone you see as bad and dangerous and taking them away from a location where they can do harm to countless innocents is widely regarded to be a good thing and we see heroes do this routinely?

We actually did have Roy specifically pointing out that there was technically no law in the bandit forest, no authorities to drag the sorcerer bandit leader and her father to. So they chose to leave them both tied up instead. Which is still confinement, without legal authority. The definition of kidnapping does not require that you remain and stand guard.

I'm not sure why the word "kidnap" was given so much importance in the discussion in the first place, but yeah, it technically applies all over the place. So I think we all agree that kidnapping by this definition is actually fine if you have a good reason, it's just disagreement about whether Serini has a good reason.

[Dion]

Hmm... kidnap seems like an audacious word. Soon we’ll be arguing about whether pulling unconscious people out of burning buildings is kidnapping.

But two things do seem true:

First, on the good/evil axis, she certainly didn’t choose a path to minimize harm. After all, her options included simply TALKING to the Paladins, and telling them her concerns. Capture and mind wipe seems a surprising first move. She does not appear good.

Second, on the law/chaos axis, she clearly has chosen to exclude herself from all external authority. Even Girard, cloistered in a barren desert, managed to setup a community with rules and regulations. In contrast, Serini doesn’t even appear to be involved with the minimal structure of a bugbear hunting camp. She appears to be very chaotic.

I’m guessing chaotic neutral, but it’s hard to be sure.

[Good Coyote]

Perhaps as a lover of balance and all manner of creatures, Serini considers catch-and-release the only humane way to deal with such an endangered species as paladins. :smalltongue:

[Liquor Box]

She correctly identified them as paladins of the Sapphire Guard, and in fact they were there to try to interfere with Xykon's attempt to find the gate. The fact that they were being cautious first doesn't change that. Serini correctly identified who they were and what they were doing before she decided to attack them.

I agree she correctly identified them as members of the Saphire guard who were observing the canyon. So what?


Knocking them out, imprisoning them, and then doping them with an amnesia potion and sending them on their way is in fact not the least complicated way of dealing with them - far from it. It is one of the least intrusive way that spares their lives while eliminating them as a threat, however. Going out of your way to spare the life of a threat is a good-aligned action.

Contrast with Oona, who attacked them and tried to kill them just because they were humans and never had any idea why they were there or who they were.

One of the least intrusive? I can only think of killing them as being more intrusive.

Just because it is not the most intrusive measure she can think of (and just because Oona took a more intrusive measure) does not make her measure ok. Would you be ok with a person drugging and kidnapping you before giving you roofies and releasing you because you were observing some wilderness near where you live? Would it make it ok that they didn;t kill you?


There is a good argument to be made that Serini is taking the wrong actions in her attempt to protect the gate, and that she is in fact further endangering it by attacking the paladins and the Order. That is not, however, an argument that she is evil-aligned.

I agree, it is a good argument. That is not what we are talking about though - we are talking about the whether her kidnapping was evil.


Actually yes, that is how someone legally claims previously-unclaimed wilderness territory. Move in and build permanent structures, then defend your staked-out territory from trespassers.

You could argue that it was claimed by the bugbears first, but we don't know for certain if they moved into the area after Serini did. In fact it seems likely that the bugbears moved in because they saw Monster Hollow as a resource, so they probably did arrive second.

No, it is not. I'm not sure whether you're talking about sovereignity or ownership, but in neither case can a individual just claim it. There are some rules about nation states claiming sovereignty (although they are more complicated than you suggest), but I challenge you to find a single example of an individual (other than a king) lawfully doing so.


Kidnapping for ransom or to abuse the victim is of course evil, but that is not what Serini is doing here. Labelling it "kidnapping" presupposes that it is an evil act. It puts the cart before the horse.

No, the definition of kidnapping is "the action of abducting someone and holding them captive" Abduct means to "take someone by force or deception without lawful authority". Kidnapping does not have to be to ransom or abuse the victim (although Serini did actually taunt and hit her victims). For example, it is kidnapping when a parent take their own children in a way that deprives another parent of their custodial right.


Coercion is the difference. When Belkar was being forced (with the alternative being imprisonment) to come along on the quest to save the world it wasn't earning him any brownie points. Serini has devoted herself and her fortune to protecting the gate for decades, and with no expectation of any reward or recognition for doing so. That is not an evil action.

And now that he is no longer being coerced, but is coming along and being helpful of his own free will Belkar is in fact moving towards good.
That's a consistent position. But I will point out that from what we have seen in the comic, Belkar has done a lot more to oppose Xykon than Serini since he was free from coercion - so he must have moved toward good much more than her.


Soon (and by extension the Sapphire Guard) agreed to a monitoring device on the gates and further agreed there would be no spying, no just checking in visits, no nothing.

The commander of the Sapphire Guard breached that leading directly to the loss of one gate (arguable two), and the next commander of the Sapphire Guard signed off on his paladins preforming a just 'checking in visit' on her gate - justifing it by effectively saying that it didn't apply because he had failed to protect his own gate.

They are in breach of the agreement as such she is justified in seeking to enforce the agreement - whether they are a threat or not is effectively seperate.

But for Serini to know that the Saphire Guard breached that leading to the loss of gates, would be if she had breached that agreement herself. I don't think she can claim that the breach on an agreement that she had herself breached was a justification.


I’m really confused by the “kidnap” thing. According to the dictionary, kidnap means

“take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.”

Setting aside the idea that she doesn’t seem to be asking for a ransom, where did we get the idea that what she’s done is illegal?

Well the definition I used was this "the action of abducting someone and holding them captive."
The wikipedia definition is this "kidnapping is the unlawful transportation, asportation and confinement of a person against their will"

But if we go with your definition, why wouldn't it be illegal? Is your point that it appears to not have happened inside an established country? If that;s your point, it can still be illegal - just like piracy on the high seas (so outside any country) can still be illegal.

Edit: I see that this has been well covered by other posters.


In my opinion, Shojo did not have the authority and therefore kidnapped the Order as well, if we're using that definition. Maybe even more clearly, since he was operating in places with laws against kidnapping. Hinjo agreed with Roy that they were "imprisoned falsely by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law."

This was covered off in the 1227 thread - Shojo explicitly explained that he did have jurisdiction, and that explanation was accepted by the lawful Hinjo, as well as the Order's lawyer.


By those definitions, every single time a band of "heroes" beats up a "villain" and then ties them up and drags them to the local authorities to "answer for their crimes", that's also kidnapping, since citizens' arrests are a fairly modern thing that don't really exist in most fantasy settings.

And the question of whether the heroes doing that is 'evil' turns on whether there is justification for it. or if you are looking for a more legalistic answer - there are rules allowing citizens arrests, or more analogously bounty hunting.

Edit: I see GoodCoyoty covered this one too.

[Good Coyote]

This was covered off in the 1227 thread - Shojo explicitly explained that he did have jurisdiction, and that explanation was accepted by the lawful Hinjo, as well as the Order's lawyer.


Shojo claimed that he had authority and Hinjo did not vocally disagree at the time with a man who he thought was hopelessly demented.

Celia was arguing her first case in a country whose laws she was not overly familiar with.

Once Hinjo had more of the picture, he agreed with Roy that the Order was "imprisoned falsely by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)." And as a result, Belkar was given a lesser charge for his murder of the guard, since technically the guard was unlawfully holding him at the time. (Even though the guard didn't know this.)

Edit: I do remember the discussion in that thread, and I don't think there was a consensus either way, but I don't remember this strip being addressed at all. I just found it when I went back to look at the wording of how Hinjo saw Belkar risking his life against Miko, since it's pretty close to my own reasoning on risking one's life and the Goodness thereof.

[Dion]

Edit: never mind. I just read the thread more closely. I’m just going to assume the conversation about kidnap is intended as a joke.

We’ve established that what she’s doing is illegal because there’s no king to give her ownership of the land.

So first she needs to find a watery tart to throw swords at people, then there will be a king, then she can own the land, and then she can lawfully detain the Paladins for trespass.

But where will she find a moistened bint lobbing scimitars?

[Shadowknight12]

And the question of whether the heroes doing that is 'evil' turns on whether there is justification for it. or if you are looking for a more legalistic answer - there are rules allowing citizens arrests, or more analogously bounty hunting.

Once more, with feeling:

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good and just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's evil. Because heroes operate outside law enforcement, their actions of capturing villains and forcing them to answer to their crimes are by default illegal (since we've already established citizen arrests are usually not a thing in fantasy settings).

[Good Coyote]

Edit: never mind. I just read the thread more closely. I’m just going to assume the conversation about kidnap is intended as a joke.

We’ve established that what she’s doing is illegal because there’s no king to give her ownership of the land.

So first she needs to find a watery tart to throw swords at people, then there will be a king, then she can own the land, and then she can lawfully detain the Paladins for trespass.

But where will she find a moistened bint lobbing scimitars?

That's a very disrespectful way to talk about Lien. :smalltongue:

[Dion]

That's a very disrespectful way to talk about Lien. :smalltongue:

Look, I don’t make the rules. If you want a king, there are steps that must be followed..

[Forum Explorer]

That's a very disrespectful way to talk about Lien. :smalltongue:

Beat me to it.


Look, I don’t make the rules. If you want a king, there are steps that must be followed..

Well I'm pretty sure Lien would be very happy to throw a scimitar at Serini right now. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

[Dion]

Well I'm pretty sure Lien would be very happy to throw a scimitar at Serini right now. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

There are other options available to Serini.

For example, Xykon wears a crown, so I’m sure he’s a king.

So, Serini just needs Xykon to say it’s ok to capture and drug Paladins, and then it will be legal, and therefore Serini would be lawful good.

[Emanick]

No, it is not. I'm not sure whether you're talking about sovereignity or ownership, but in neither case can a individual just claim it. There are some rules about nation states claiming sovereignty (although they are more complicated than you suggest), but I challenge you to find a single example of an individual (other than a king) lawfully doing so.

This is really a question of what you think the philosophical underpinnings of property rights are, but it's a popular theory among political philosophers that property rights originate from developing and working unclaimed land into a settlement or cultivated area. This is known as the labor theory of property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property). Under this theory, Serini does own the land around Kraagor's Tomb because she was the one to develop and work it. Since the land isn't part of a state, this is the closest thing to lawful ownership that would be possible.

This theory is not universally accepted - and, being a philosophical concept, it isn't really provable or falsifiable. But it's the most straightforward answer to your "challenge," IMO.

[Dion]

This is really a question of what you think the philosophical underpinnings of property rights are,

I think we established this. Under English common law, you need:

1) a lady
2) a lake
3) a sword

The lady enters the lake with the sword, and hands it to the first person she sees who’s not covered in filth. That person becomes King Arthur.

Then King Arthur grants you the land, by putting a special piece of wax on a special piece of paper.

That wax, paper, sword, lady, and lake all taken together is what creates property rights, and the legal authority to detain Paladins.

It’s a very sound system, and not in any way an absurdly silly contrivance we all have just shrugged our shoulders and accepted as one of those exasperating things that exists beyond our control, like strip mall cell phone stores.

Edit: I am aware that actual property law is even more obscenely ridiculous than described above. Thank you.

[Liquor Box]

Shojo claimed that he had authority and Hinjo did not vocally disagree at the time with a man who he thought was hopelessly demented.

Celia was arguing her first case in a country whose laws she was not overly familiar with.

Once Hinjo had more of the picture, he agreed with Roy that the Order was "imprisoned falsely by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)." And as a result, Belkar was given a lesser charge for his murder of the guard, since technically the guard was unlawfully holding him at the time. (Even though the guard didn't know this.)

Edit: I do remember the discussion in that thread, and I don't think there was a consensus either way, but I don't remember this strip being addressed at all. I just found it when I went back to look at the wording of how Hinjo saw Belkar risking his life against Miko, since it's pretty close to my own reasoning on risking one's life and the Goodness thereof.

Ok, well if you are aware of the discussion, and that nations often have jurisdiction beyond their borders, but still think Shojo didn't, then that's fine. It's not really relevant to Serini's evilness though, so probably easiest to agree to disagree.


Edit: never mind. I just read the thread more closely. I’m just going to assume the conversation about kidnap is intended as a joke.

We’ve established that what she’s doing is illegal because there’s no king to give her ownership of the land.

So first she needs to find a watery tart to throw swords at people, then there will be a king, then she can own the land, and then she can lawfully detain the Paladins for trespass.

But where will she find a moistened bint lobbing scimitars?
Yes, if she was acting on the authority of the king of the lands the paladins were on, her actions would come across pretty differently.

Not sure it's reasonable to assume that there is no king though. You'd generally expect someone to claim uninhabited tracts of land in case it has value in the future. As soon as land is discovered someone nation stakes a claim. It may well be that the canyon is in part of some kingdom, just that the king enforces very little control there.


Once more, with feeling:

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good and just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's evil. Because heroes operate outside law enforcement, their actions of capturing villains and forcing them to answer to their crimes are by default illegal (since we've already established citizen arrests are usually not a thing in fantasy settings).

Yes, I agree that legality doesn't always equate to good/evil. I think kidnapping (or drugging people, and chaining them up against their will, if you don't like the term) is a bad thing regardless of whether it's legal in most circumstances. Even if the kidnappers dont then kill their victims.

I only raised the law because Dion brought it up (see post 183), and then that thread of conversation appeared to be continued in your post (post 187) where you talked about whether heros were technically kidnapping people, including raising concepts such as citizens arrests.

It's an aside from the main point of the thread, but I'm not so sure heroes usually act illegally. Think of bounty hunters or letters of marque, or indeed self defence, depending on the situation.


This is really a question of what you think the philosophical underpinnings of property rights are, but it's a popular theory among political philosophers that property rights originate from developing and working unclaimed land into a settlement or cultivated area. This is known as the labor theory of property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property). Under this theory, Serini does own the land around Kraagor's Tomb because she was the one to develop and work it. Since the land isn't part of a state, this is the closest thing to lawful ownership that would be possible.

This theory is not universally accepted - and, being a philosophical concept, it isn't really provable or falsifiable. But it's the most straightforward answer to your "challenge," IMO.

The original claim was "Actually yes, that is how someone legally claims previously-unclaimed wilderness territory.", so the question was a legal one, not a philosophical one. So, I think my original answer (or "challenge" as you put it) stands, subject i guess to the possibility that OotSverse laws are very different from laws from comparable time periods.

[Good Coyote]

There are other options available to Serini.

For example, Xykon wears a crown, so I’m sure he’s a king.

So, Serini just needs Xykon to say it’s ok to capture and drug Paladins, and then it will be legal, and therefore Serini would be lawful good.

Xykon did declare paladins an endangered species, so... Lawful Paladin Capture-and-Release Mercy Program? :smallconfused: I should have saved that joke a bit longer.

Failing that... Lien's thrown lots of weapons at lots of things... if we can't assume there's not a king, then we can't assume Orange Voice isn't he.



Ok, well if you are aware of the discussion, and that nations often have jurisdiction beyond their borders, but still think Shojo didn't, then that's fine. It's not really relevant to Serini's evilness though, so probably easiest to agree to disagree.

I think it's about as relevant as Belkar. Since Hinjo agrees that Shojo didn't have that authority, and Hinjo is the new lawful authority, Shojo did not have authority.

To be consistent, Shojo's actions must be held to the same standards as Serini's actions, just like Serini's must be held to the same standards as Belkar's.



It's an aside from the main point of the thread, but I'm not so sure heroes usually act illegally. Think of bounty hunters or letters of marque, or indeed self defence, depending on the situation.

This is surprising for many people to learn, but "self defense" is not actually lawful in many cases. Even in areas where it's an acceptable legal defense, you usually have to argue that you did the absolute minimum that you could get away with doing and still survive (or at least that you believed you were doing so at the time). That doesn't describe most adventurers.

But some places don't have a self defense stipulation at all, and you just have to hope that the authorities will use discretion and let you off, even though you definitely broke the law.

[Dion]

subject i guess to the possibility that OotSverse laws are very different from laws from comparable time periods.

So, since I feel like this has extended itself to maximum silliness, and I my attempts to pivot to Monty Python was thwarted by an insightful, informative, and interesting post about John Locke:

Can anyone suggest which time period is most comparable to “self aware stick figure fantasy parody”?

[Liquor Box]

I think it's about as relevant as Belkar. Since Hinjo agrees that Shojo didn't have that authority, and Hinjo is the new lawful authority, Shojo did not have authority.

To be consistent, Shojo's actions must be held to the same standards as Serini's actions, just like Serini's must be held to the same standards as Belkar's.

Fair comparison, since both Shojo and Belkar are reasonable analogies for aspects of Serini's behaviour.

The reasons I don't think the Shojo analogy follows is that:

One - I think Shojo had jurisdiction and Serini did not - although this may be more relevant to lawfulness than evilness.
Two - Shojo treated the Order much better after capture than Serini has the paladins
Third - and probably most importantly - Shojo captured the party for things they had actually done, rather than for things he thought they might do



I don't think I've seen any such meaningful distinctions between the goodness of Serini's endeavours to protect the gate and Belkar's endeavors to protect the gate.


This is surprising for many people to learn, but "self defense" is not actually lawful in many cases. Even in areas where it's an acceptable legal defense, you usually have to argue that you did the absolute minimum that you could get away with doing and still survive (or at least that you believed you were doing so at the time). That doesn't describe most adventurers.

But some places don't have a self defense stipulation at all, and you just have to hope that the authorities will use discretion and let you off, even though you definitely broke the law.

I can believe it differs from place to place - where I am you have to use force which is proportionate to what you were defending yourself from. Letters of Marque and bounty hunting clearly differ from place to place and across time as well.

[Forum Explorer]

Yes, I agree that legality doesn't always equate to good/evil. I think kidnapping (or drugging people, and chaining them up against their will, if you don't like the term) is a bad thing regardless of whether it's legal in most circumstances. Even if the kidnappers dont then kill their victims.


Kidnapping is a bad term, because it assumes that the Paladins had a right that is enforced by others to be there. Capturing is a much more neutral and accurate term to use since they are in an effectively lawless location.

Serini captured the Paladins in a non-lethal manner with a minimal amount of trauma and harm. From that perspective, she's actually a lot better than most people. I mean, let's use Miko for example. Her subduing the Order of the Stick was a Lawful act as they were accused criminals. She did this by basically beating them senseless. No one in the comic thought that her subduing them in such a manner was evil. Therefore, Serini subduing paladins in a much less harmful way also isn't evil.

Once you get out of the viewpoint that they are in a society, I can't see how Serini capturing the paladins is evil. They are, effectively, her enemies. There is nothing wrong with capturing enemies in a fight. They might not have known Serini was their enemy, but that's on them. Ambushes and sneak attacks aren't evil either.

[ebarde]

Why is authority and legality such a point of contention here? The rules of law kinda hinge on a government-like entity being able to properly enforce them, it's not really applicable on a situation that only a few of handful of mortals are even aware of and even fewer are in any position to do anything about it. Like, what would even be the legislative body with authority to solve this dispute? I feel that this situation is so fantastic in nature that there's really next no point of comparison we can draw. Like we can't use laws concerning defending your private property or whatever cause they weren't really made to account to the defense of a gate that will decide the future of all of reality.

I think comparing sleeping potion to drugs also requires ignoring a few key things fundamentally speaking. A sleeping potion doesn't cause life long side effects, in-universe it's arguably one of the less harmful ways to detain someone, and something that adventurers shrug off after a bit like it's nothing. There's simply no real world equivalent to a sleeping potion, the closest is I guess anesthesia but even that is way more risky and can only be done in a highly controllable enviroment.

[Good Coyote]

So, since I feel like this has extended itself to maximum silliness, and I my attempts to pivot to Monty Python was thwarted by an insightful, informative, and interesting post about John Locke:

Can anyone suggest which time period is most comparable to “self aware stick figure fantasy parody”?

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away? :smallwink:


Fair comparison, since both Shojo and Belkar are reasonable analogies for aspects of Serini's behaviour.

The reasons I don't think the Shojo analogy follows is that:

One - I think Shojo had jurisdiction and Serini did not - although this may be more relevant to lawfulness than evilness.
Two - Shojo treated the Order much better after capture than Serini has the paladins
Third - and probably most importantly - Shojo captured the party for things they had actually done, rather than for things he thought they might do



I don't think I've seen any such meaningful distinctions between the goodness of Serini's endeavours to protect the gate and Belkar's endeavors to protect the gate.

One: There isn't proof either way on jurisdiction, so this is equivalent to my distinction that Belkar has had considerably less opportunity to scheme for his own life. I believe that he had less opportunity. You believe otherwise.

I don't find the jurisdiction claim a meaningful distinction, but it's irrelevant, because having jurisdiction doesn't automatically mean that he had the right to do precisely the thing that he did. Tarquin absolutely had jurisdiction over the Empire of Blood, but still seems to have kidnapped women independent of the law.

Two: Later actions don't have any bearing on the lawfulness or goodness of earlier actions. If you want to say that it's Evil to bonk a paladin, then argue that it's Evil to bonk a paladin. It has no bearing on kidnapping. I will point out that Belkar was imprisoned in a dank hole. He also put them through the stress and emotional trauma of a fake trial. They were led to fear for their lives.

Third: Shojo did not in fact capture the Order for things they had done. That's what he claimed he was doing. But in reality, he was capturing the Order for things he wanted them to do. He captured the Order so that he could give them a job offer.

[Liquor Box]

Kidnapping is a bad term, because it assumes that the Paladins had a right that is enforced by others to be there. Capturing is a much more neutral and accurate term to use since they are in an effectively lawless location.

I don't think 'kidnapping' assumes that the paladins had a right to be there. If you are found on someone's estate and they drug you and chain you up, it's kidnapping even if you had no right to be on their estate.

I also don't think there's any reason to believe that the paladins have no right to be there. It's not clear whether the general area falls under the authority of a king or anyone else, but if it does there's no reason to assume Serini or the bugbears have more right ot be there than the paladins.


Serini captured the Paladins in a non-lethal manner with a minimal amount of trauma and harm. From that perspective, she's actually a lot better than most people. I mean, let's use Miko for example. Her subduing the Order of the Stick was a Lawful act as they were accused criminals. She did this by basically beating them senseless. No one in the comic thought that her subduing them in such a manner was evil. Therefore, Serini subduing paladins in a much less harmful way also isn't evil.

Not the minimum amount of trauma and harm - she didn't have to kidnap them at all. But even if she did have to, there was no need to hit them with her stick, or taunt them with false promises of freedom.

What makes Serini's way less harmful than Miko's (even putting aside that Mike didn't taunt or hit them afterward)? Serini drugged them into unconsciousness and Miko knocked them unconscious - both are unpleasant and (in the real world) dangerous, but neither led to any long last effects. So Mike used her skills and Serini used hers. Miko explained what they were being charged with and gave them the opportunity to surrender, but I suppose Serini doing that would have ruined her chances. So I don't think either method of capture was more or less evil than the other.


Once you get out of the viewpoint that they are in a society, I can't see how Serini capturing the paladins is evil. They are, effectively, her enemies. There is nothing wrong with capturing enemies in a fight. They might not have known Serini was their enemy, but that's on them. Ambushes and sneak attacks aren't evil either.

They are in a society, they were not her enemies until she captured them and not knowing is not on them.



One: There isn't proof either way on jurisdiction, so this is equivalent to my distinction that Belkar has had considerably less opportunity to scheme for his own life. I believe that he had less opportunity. You believe otherwise.

I know you think that. I disagree.

The paladins are a lawful society, Miko obvoiusly believes they have jurisdiction from her reading of the charges when she arrested the order, Shinjo explicitly says so, Hinjo who is lawful and who soonafter becomes the ruler accepts it, Roy (who is very intelligent) accepts it, Roy's lawyer accepts it. It's also consistent with the way the law usually works where countries often do have jurisdiction beyond their borders (it's how they deal with pirates etc). Not conclusive, but several good reasons

What indications do we have that there was no jurisdiction? Even if noone had said anything about jurisdiction, there would be no reason to think it didn't exist.

On the other hand there is no reason whatsoever to think that Belkar would be unable to buy a spell that costs less than any one of his several magic items.


I don't find the jurisdiction claim a meaningful distinction, but it's irrelevant, because having jurisdiction doesn't automatically mean that he had the right to do precisely the thing that he did. Tarquin absolutely had jurisdiction over the Empire of Blood, but still seems to have kidnapped women independent of the law.

As I said, it may not be particularly relevant to good/evil, but instead to lawfulness. Depends how you look at it.


Two: Later actions don't have any bearing on the lawfulness or goodness of earlier actions. If you want to say that it's Evil to bonk a paladin, then argue that it's Evil to bonk a paladin. It has no bearing on kidnapping. I will point out that Belkar was imprisoned in a dank hole. He also put them through the stress and emotional trauma of a fake trial. They were led to fear for their lives.

Then we could say that Serini has kidnapped the paladins to ransom them for money. We only know that's not true because we are interpreting Serini's earlier actions in light of her later actions (or what she has said).

Later actions can absolutely help interpret earlier actions. It's the whole basis for confessions. Or if you want an action, the idea that a person dumped a body is an indication (not conclusive) that there might have been foul play in a death.


Third: Shojo did not in fact capture the Order for things they had done. That's what he claimed he was doing. But in reality, he was capturing the Order for things he wanted them to do. He captured the Order so that he could give them a job offer.

No, he did capture them for things they did do. He just used that as an opportunity to present his plan to them. It's a bit like the police picking a person up for a minor crime, so they can pressure them to inform on a more important crime - it was still for the minor crime that they were picked up.

[ebarde]

I mean, I'd much rather be affected by a sleeping potion and get bonked with a stick than get stapped by a katana and trampled by a horse until I gave up fighting.

[Good Coyote]

I mean, I'd much rather be affected by a sleeping potion and get bonked with a stick than get stapped by a katana and trampled by a horse until I gave up fighting.

They were also chained up (except Durkon) and force-marched the rest of the way from the inn, but to be charitable to Shojo, he could only really be expected to intervene in their treatment after they made it to Azure City.

And maybe he's still responsible for knowing what Miko was like and sending her anyway, but... he's pretty much paid for that one.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't think 'kidnapping' assumes that the paladins had a right to be there. If you are found on someone's estate and they drug you and chain you up, it's kidnapping even if you had no right to be on their estate.

I also don't think there's any reason to believe that the paladins have no right to be there. It's not clear whether the general area falls under the authority of a king or anyone else, but if it does there's no reason to assume Serini or the bugbears have more right ot be there than the paladins.



Not the minimum amount of trauma and harm - she didn't have to kidnap them at all. But even if she did have to, there was no need to hit them with her stick, or taunt them with false promises of freedom.

What makes Serini's way less harmful than Miko's (even putting aside that Mike didn't taunt or hit them afterward)? Serini drugged them into unconsciousness and Miko knocked them unconscious - both are unpleasant and (in the real world) dangerous, but neither led to any long last effects. So Mike used her skills and Serini used hers. Miko explained what they were being charged with and gave them the opportunity to surrender, but I suppose Serini doing that would have ruined her chances. So I don't think either method of capture was more or less evil than the other.



They are in a society, they were not her enemies until she captured them and not knowing is not on them.

It actually does, and yes, if someone broke into my house, and I subdued them and chained them up, nobody would bat an eye at that. In a society, so long as I called the cops afterwards, I would be hailed as a hero, or at least, someone brave and competent. Forget slap on the wrist, I'd get a pat on the back.

In this case, Serini is basically the cops in the first place as there is no higher authority for her to call in to hand the paladins over to.

They have no right to be there, because there are no rights in that location. A right is a legal entitlement. With no laws, there are no rights. Everything falls down to basic morality at that point, which is both relative and contextual.

Sure she did, they are her enemies and their very presence goes against her goals. In order to achieve her goals, the paladins had to be removed. Also a smack on the head that deals no damage is hardly abuse. Nor is being mean, or taunting someone evil.

What makes it less harmful is less pain was experienced, and there was less danger. Forget about real world for a second, this is D&D with very precise rules. A poison can cause unconsciousness with zero risk of any other side effects. Beating someone until they drop below 0 HP and fall unconscious is risky because you can roll too high and make it lethal.

What society are they in? And the paladins were her enemy the instant Girald's gate was destroyed and she deemed them an existential threat to the entire world.

[Liquor Box]

I mean, I'd much rather be affected by a sleeping potion and get bonked with a stick than get stapped by a katana and trampled by a horse until I gave up fighting.

Would you really?

Getting sleeping poison is dangerous (hence why anasthetics are administered by experts) and has several lingering ill effects and is delivered by a dart that does damage. Whereas if you were confronted with a person with a sword and a tame fighting horse, I'm going to guess you'd give up immediately. So in the sleeping poison case, you would be shot by a dart, feeling sick and suffer the danger of the sleeping poision. The other case you'd still be captured but unharmed.

But gratned, if you did choose to fight the person with a sword, in real life you'd probably be more hurt and in more danger. In 3.5 you'd be in no danger either way, and you'd be recovered a day or so later, so no real difference.

[Dion]

Getting sleeping poison is dangerous

No, the rules say they’re not dangerous : https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Sleep_Arrow

[Liquor Box]

No, the rules say they’re not dangerous : https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Sleep_Arrow

I don't think it was a sleep arrow, but a poisoned dart.

But yeah, under the rules they are not dangerous (although neither is subduing someone with weapons). When I said they were dangerous I was talking about in real life - hat why I said "In 3.5 you'd be in no danger either way"

[Dion]

When I said they were dangerous I was talking about in real life

Umm... forgive me for asking a silly question, but... why?

[Liquor Box]

It actually does, and yes, if someone broke into my house, and I subdued them and chained them up, nobody would bat an eye at that. In a society, so long as I called the cops afterwards, I would be hailed as a hero, or at least, someone brave and competent. Forget slap on the wrist, I'd get a pat on the back.

Did they break into her house? Did she subdue them? Did she call the cops or the equivalent? In all cases the answer is no.

A closer analogy would be that you are in the wilderness which belongs to noone, someone shoots you with a tranquilizer gun, chains you up, taunts you, and hits you while you are defenceless. Even if the wilderness had belonged to someone, they would not be entitled to do those things.


In this case, Serini is basically the cops in the first place as there is no higher authority for her to call in to hand the paladins over to.

No, Serini is no more the cops in this scenario than Xykon is, or the bugbears are, or the paladins are.


They have no right to be there, because there are no rights in that location. A right is a legal entitlement. With no laws, there are no rights. Everything falls down to basic morality at that point, which is both relative and contextual.

Well, if you look at that way Serini had no right to be there either.

But I don't think that's the best way to look at it. I think they both had a right to be there. Just like if you went to the moon, and saw someone else there - you'd both have the right to be there, noone would have the right to exclude the other.


Sure she did, they are her enemies and their very presence goes against her goals. In order to achieve her goals, the paladins had to be removed. Also a smack on the head that deals no damage is hardly abuse. Nor is being mean, or taunting someone evil.

Well if a person wants to be promoted, then their' bosses presence goes against their goals. Does that make their boss their enemy? You may see it that everyone who is contrary to your goals is your enemy, i do not.

So you'd be ok someone hitting you on the head hard enough to cause pain, but not serious injury?


What makes it less harmful is less pain was experienced, and there was less danger. Forget about real world for a second, this is D&D with very precise rules. A poison can cause unconsciousness with zero risk of any other side effects. Beating someone until they drop below 0 HP and fall unconscious is risky because you can roll too high and make it lethal.
Ah, so pain is relevant after all.

There may be less pain. But there are other side effects to knock out poison - feeling sick etc. I don't think it's clear which would be less comfortable under game rules.

Why was there less danger - under the rules there is no danger in subduing someone using non-lethal damage, just like poison. In real life there is danger in both.


What society are they in? And the paladins were her enemy the instant Girald's gate was destroyed and she deemed them an existential threat to the entire world.

Whatever society they have in the world they live on. Again, if you went to the moon, and saw someone else there, you'd still both be members of society.


Umm... forgive me for asking a silly question, but... why?
Not a silly question I don't think.

Well, in real life people's physiology reacts differently to drugs (or even more benign substances if you think about allergies). People vary significantly in terms of the dosage of drugs required to put them to sleep, and the amount needed for one person might kill another. When you are anaesthetised for surgery they ask you a whole lot of questions first, administer the drugs incrementally, and do it in a controlled environment. Even then people do sometimes die, just not often.

That's why law enforcement usually do carry nightsticks (subdue by hitting) but almost never carry tranquilizer weapons. I imagine a safe tranquilizer gun would be hugely valuable to law enforcement, but there is no such thing in real life.

[Good Coyote]

I know you think that. I disagree.

As I said.



The paladins are a lawful society, Miko obvoiusly believes they have jurisdiction from her reading of the charges when she arrested the order, Shinjo explicitly says so, Hinjo who is lawful and who soonafter becomes the ruler accepts it, Roy (who is very intelligent) accepts it, Roy's lawyer accepts it. It's also consistent with the way the law usually works where countries often do have jurisdiction beyond their borders (it's how they deal with pirates etc). Not conclusive, but several good reasons

What indications do we have that there was no jurisdiction? Even if noone had said anything about jurisdiction, there would be no reason to think it didn't exist.

Because you keep confusing the Sapphire Guard and Azure City. The Sapphire Guard is not a country. Shojo explicitly said that he was not using his authority as the leader of Azure City. He was using his authority as leader of the Sapphire Guard.

No one outside the Sapphire Guard, the Draketeeth, and the other Scribblers+Allies know that the Sapphire Guard exists, so they cannot "believe" in his authority and grant it legality.

He claims to get this jurisdiction from the gods. Most of the people there didn't argue because it was so out of left field to them that they couldn't even begin to mount a coherent counterargument.

As for Hinjo, he believed that his uncle was sadly mentally not present, but to the extent that his faculties remained, was surely doing everything he could to abide by the oaths of the Sapphire Guard, which as an organization comprised of those gaining special abilities from the Twelve Gods surely meant they all received a nominal "you're doing okay, kid." Which Shojo was not.



Then we could say that Serini has kidnapped the paladins to ransom them for money. We only know that's not true because we are interpreting Serini's earlier actions in light of her later actions (or what she has said).

Later actions can absolutely help interpret earlier actions. It's the whole basis for confessions. Or if you want an action, the idea that a person dumped a body is an indication (not conclusive) that there might have been foul play in a death.

No. That absolutely does not follow from what I said.

Following clues to find out what happened does not actually mean the clues change what happened.

This is equivalent to an argument that Belkar's risking his life is different from Serini's, because Belkar is also a slaver and mass murderer. Him being a slaver and mass murderer does not alter any facts about him risking his life to save others. I thought we agreed on this already.




No, he did capture them for things they did do. He just used that as an opportunity to present his plan to them. It's a bit like the police picking a person up for a minor crime, so they can pressure them to inform on a more important crime - it was still for the minor crime that they were picked up.

No, he did not capture them for anything they did. He knew they were innocent of any real wrongdoing (by his own, onscreen, statement). Knowing that, he had them kidnapped, one of them thrown in a dark, unpleasant hole, and allowed them to believe it was likely they would be executed. He put on a sham trial, with no legal charges because the trial was not legal.

As Hinjo and Roy agreed, he falsely imprisoned them, acting outside of the law. He explicitly denied using authority from Azure City, and he cannot have authority from the Sapphire Guard to do a thing that the Sapphire Guard explicitly forbids.

[ebarde]

It's a sleeping potion, not anesthesia. And honestly? I'd still pick it over being carried in chains to a whole other continent I've never been to like at all. And that's still considering a hypothetical scenario where the order surrenders, something they had no obligation or reason to comply with.

[Liquor Box]

It's a sleeping potion, not anesthesia. And honestly? I'd still pick it over being carried in chains to a whole other continent I've never been to like at all. And that's still considering a hypothetical scenario where the order surrenders, something they had no obligation or reason to comply with.

Surem but anasthesia is the closest real world equivilent we have.

But even the in game version (or at least the first that came up on google) causes side effects - "Even when one did not fall unconscious from it, the victim often had problems coping with subsequent detrimental effects"
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Drow_knockout_poison

You under no obligation to surrender, and you are also under no obligation to be drugged and kidnapped. It's just that surrendering is the more pleasant experience if you are going to be caputured either way

And when did Miko chain the order? I remember them travelling together, fighting ogres together, her paying for their lodgings, fighting off ogre bandits together (and Miko paying V for his spell use). I might easily have forgotten the chains though.

I have no forgotten Serini's chains though - and being shackled head and foot and being forced to sleep like that cannot be comfortable.

[Good Coyote]

And when did Miko chain the order? I remember them travelling together, fighting ogres together, her paying for their lodgings, fighting off ogre bandits together (and Miko paying V for his spell use). I might easily have forgotten the chains though.


Right here. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html) V is also gagged and Haley blindfolded for some reason. Belkar looks particularly uncomfortable. They also discuss it, and that they were dragged across half a continent, and that Roy feels the stress of impending execution here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0260.html).

[Ruck]

Why is authority and legality such a point of contention here? The rules of law kinda hinge on a government-like entity being able to properly enforce them, it's not really applicable on a situation that only a few of handful of mortals are even aware of and even fewer are in any position to do anything about it.
Plus, the question of legal authority is relevant to a Lawful/Chaotic discussion, not a Good/Evil one.

[Liquor Box]

Because you keep confusing the Sapphire Guard and Azure City. The Sapphire Guard is not a country. Shojo explicitly said that he was not using his authority as the leader of Azure City. He was using his authority as leader of the Sapphire Guard.

No one outside the Sapphire Guard, the Draketeeth, and the other Scribblers+Allies know that the Sapphire Guard exists, so they cannot "believe" in his authority and grant it legality.

Would you mind linking to where the Saphire guard is secret? I hadn't appreciated that

Them being secret doesn't really change much though. Probably best not to name real world counterparts, but the idea that an intelligence service is secret or has secret divisions does not remove its authority.


He claims to get this jurisdiction from the gods. Most of the people there didn't argue because it was so out of left field to them that they couldn't even begin to mount a coherent counterargument.

Was it out of left field for Miko, who seemed to draw on lawful authority when she made the arrest?

No, I don't think it was out of left field for the paladins, I think they have known about it and accept it.


As for Hinjo, he believed that his uncle was sadly mentally not present, but to the extent that his faculties remained, was surely doing everything he could to abide by the oaths of the Sapphire Guard, which as an organization comprised of those gaining special abilities from the Twelve Gods surely meant they all received a nominal "you're doing okay, kid." Which Shojo was not.

I don't really follow this. But Hinjo was highly lawful, I don't believe he would have condoned an unlawful arrest because the ruler was no mentally present.


Now, I have addressed your points, I have a question of my own. Even assuming that noone (Shojo, Miko etc) had said nothing about jurisdiction at all. Assume the point never came up. What indication is there in the comic that jurisdictin doesn't exist?


No. That absolutely does not follow from what I said.

Following clues to find out what happened does not actually mean the clues change what happened.

yes, that is what I am saying. Her later mistreatment of her victims suggests her earlier kidnap of them wasn't a reluctant decision by someone trying to do the least harm possible. Instead it was a clue that she was acting callously when she kidnapped them


This is equivalent to an argument that Belkar's risking his life is different from Serini's, because Belkar is also a slaver and mass murderer. Him being a slaver and mass murderer does not alter any facts about him risking his life to save others. I thought we agreed on this already.
Yes, agree. I think we agreed that later actions and statements can provide clues regarding earlier actions, but not alter what those actions where. i think Serini hitting the paladins indicates that she was not regretfully doing the minimum harm necessary when kidnapping them.




yes he did. He captured them for destroying the gate, even if his underlying motivation was to make them an offer. he may have believed that the destruction of the gate wasn't really their fault, and they'd ultimately be exculpated, but that doesn't change what he arrested them for.

[quote]As Hinjo and Roy agreed, he falsely imprisoned them, acting outside of the law. He explicitly denied using authority from Azure City, and he cannot have authority from the Sapphire Guard to do a thing that the Sapphire Guard explicitly forbids.

you'll have to spell this bit out, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

[Good Coyote]

Why is authority and legality such a point of contention here? The rules of law kinda hinge on a government-like entity being able to properly enforce them, it's not really applicable on a situation that only a few of handful of mortals are even aware of and even fewer are in any position to do anything about it. Like, what would even be the legislative body with authority to solve this dispute? I feel that this situation is so fantastic in nature that there's really next no point of comparison we can draw. Like we can't use laws concerning defending your private property or whatever cause they weren't really made to account to the defense of a gate that will decide the future of all of reality.



Plus, the question of legal authority is relevant to a Lawful/Chaotic discussion, not a Good/Evil one.

It's mostly about the definition of kidnapping. If it's a legal arrest, then it's not kidnapping. If it's extralegal, illegal, unlegal, or dislegal, then it is.

[Liquor Box]

Right here. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html) V is also gagged and Haley blindfolded for some reason. Belkar looks particularly uncomfortable. They also discuss it, and that they were dragged across half a continent, and that Roy feels the stress of impending execution here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0260.html).

Thanks. So they were initially trusted, but only chained up when Roy explicitly told her that was what she would have to do. Wheras Serini went straight for the chains. I also se that they were later put in cells, which is more comfortable than how Serini accomodates them.

I'm still struggling to see how Miko treats them any worse than Serini.

[Dion]

I think the problem with internet arguments is that nobody is ever pronounced winner or loser.

So, after carefully reviewing the thread, I pronounce my verdict:

My decision is that using D&D sleep darts is NOT an evil act.

My decision is that the North Pole does not have a king

My decision is nobody has been kidnapped, in the normal definition of kidnap that I like to use in my day to day conversations.

My decision is that O-Chul is awesome.

These are my pronouncements. Thank you.

[Shadowknight12]

Would you mind linking to where the Saphire guard is secret? I hadn't appreciated that

In Hinjo's own words (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html): "Most people who live here don't even know we exist. (Which, incidentally, makes it awfully difficult to redeem these "Sapphire Guard discount coupons" my uncle keeps giving us.)"

[Good Coyote]

^ I was a little too restrictive - Redcloak and other goblin survivors also know about the Sapphire Guard, but the Gates are a complete secret so very few people can actually know who the Guard is.


Even assuming that noone (Shojo, Miko etc) had said nothing about jurisdiction at all. Assume the point never came up. What indication is there in the comic that jurisdictin doesn't exist?

What indication is there in the comic that Serini's jurisdiction does not exist on the north pole? None at all.


Instead it was a clue that she was acting callously when she kidnapped them

I see. Similar to Shojo's callous behavior of allowing the Order to believe that he intended to kill them, and in Belkar's words "making fun of Roy to his face."



you'll have to spell this bit out, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

This is the third time that I am linking this strip, including in part of a post that you quoted before. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) It's at the last panel of the first page.

So,


I think the problem with internet arguments is that nobody is ever pronounced winner or loser.

So, after carefully reviewing the thread, I pronounce my verdict:

My decision is that using D&D sleep darts is NOT an evil act.

My decision is that the North Pole does not have a king

My decision is nobody has been kidnapped, in the normal definition of kidnap that I like to use in my day to day conversations.

My decision is that O-Chul is awesome.

These are my pronouncements. Thank you.

You're right. You are the winner. All of these pronouncements are correct. I shall now dart myself non-evily and go to sleep.

[Forum Explorer]

Did they break into her house? Did she subdue them? Did she call the cops or the equivalent? In all cases the answer is no.

A closer analogy would be that you are in the wilderness which belongs to noone, someone shoots you with a tranquilizer gun, chains you up, taunts you, and hits you while you are defenceless. Even if the wilderness had belonged to someone, they would not be entitled to do those things.



No, Serini is no more the cops in this scenario than Xykon is, or the bugbears are, or the paladins are.



Well, if you look at that way Serini had no right to be there either.

But I don't think that's the best way to look at it. I think they both had a right to be there. Just like if you went to the moon, and saw someone else there - you'd both have the right to be there, noone would have the right to exclude the other.



Well if a person wants to be promoted, then their' bosses presence goes against their goals. Does that make their boss their enemy? You may see it that everyone who is contrary to your goals is your enemy, i do not.

So you'd be ok someone hitting you on the head hard enough to cause pain, but not serious injury?


Ah, so pain is relevant after all.

There may be less pain. But there are other side effects to knock out poison - feeling sick etc. I don't think it's clear which would be less comfortable under game rules.

Why was there less danger - under the rules there is no danger in subduing someone using non-lethal damage, just like poison. In real life there is danger in both.



Whatever society they have in the world they live on. Again, if you went to the moon, and saw someone else there, you'd still both be members of society.

You were the one who said it would be kidnapping if I subdued someone on my estate and chained them up. You brought up the example, and are 100% wrong about it.


Exactly. There is no authority here. It is effectively a warzone and should be treated as such. Pretending otherwise is just being deliberately blind.

If someone attacked me on the Moon, they almost certainly wouldn't be prosecuted for it. And in absence of punishment, laws effectively don't exist. Therefore, no I wouldn't have a right to be there, and neither would they. Now, you can say that attacking me is evil, but that is contextual.

That's a dumb example that has no relevance to the situation at hand, and I'm not putting up with that BS, thank you very much.


If I'm their enemy? I'd be thanking my lucky stars it wasn't anything worse. So yeah, I'd be okay with it.


Sure, pain is relevant. It's also on a gradient. Not all pain is equal after all. A slap in the face is nowhere close to the pain of being burned for example. Also? If I say something racist and ignorant, I deserve a bonk on the head.

Well what's less comfortable? Being put under for surgery, or getting a concussion? The first is like falling asleep and the latter hurts a lot.

I was under the impression that Miko was using lethal damage as the Giant made no mention of using non-lethal force in this scenario (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?6495-Order-of-the-Stick-November-II/page17&p=291639#post291639).


Do you have any idea what atrocities happen in international waters that basically nobody does much about? In a lawless place, the only rights you have are the ones you personally enforce.


Now, if you want to move away from a law perspective, and into a D&D morality one, than I'm all for it. Remember, this is a world where it is considered perfectly acceptable by the Gods themselves for adventurers to break into a sentient being's home (IE goblins) and murder them in their sleep. Because Roy did exactly that, and is still considered Lawful Good.

Or you know, killing a wizard because you accidently sold him your companion's body to turn into a bone golem. Or killing an assassin and betraying a guild because you wanted to, basically. Haley did all of those, and she's still considered Chaotic Good. Violence is very much considered a tool of good and just people. Simply attacking someone, or even killing them, isn't enough to make an act evil. You need to look at the context.

So in context:
Serini suspects the Paladins are a threat to the Gate because they've failed or destroyed the other 4 Gates. Reasonable, if incorrect. She disables them non-lethally, and treats them rudely, but does not torture them or cause any permanent harm. She plans on removing them via an amnesia potion, so that the Gate will not be harmed. Okay. This will let Xykon eventually take control of the Gate and supposedly rule the world (in reality this will destroy the world, but Serini doesn't know that). This act is the most questionable one, and Neutral at best. But besides that, I can't see anything evil in those actions.

[Liquor Box]

In Hinjo's own words (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0287.html): "Most people who live here don't even know we exist. (Which, incidentally, makes it awfully difficult to redeem these "Sapphire Guard discount coupons" my uncle keeps giving us.)"

Thanks


What indication is there in the comic that Serini's jurisdiction does not exist on the north pole? None at all.

I can answer that question if you are actually asserting that she has some form of sovereign jurisdiction. Are you?

Either way, are you able to answer my question? Putting aside the comments that have been made, do you have any reason to believe that Azure City or the Saphire Guards would not have jurisdiction?


I see. Similar to Shojo's callous behavior of allowing the Order to believe that he intended to kill them, and in Belkar's words "making fun of Roy to his face."

Well if she made fun of Roy to his face while Roy was still a helpless prisoner (I can't recall), it's similar to the taunting. Not similar to the hitting though.


This is the third time that I am linking this strip, including in part of a post that you quoted before. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) It's at the last panel of the first page.
OK

That suggests that Shojo was acting unlawfully (not necessarily that he didn't have jurisdiction, but that he acted outside it). What more do you think it suggests?


You were the one who said it would be kidnapping if I subdued someone on my estate and chained them up. You brought up the example, and are 100% wrong about it.
Nope, that's kidnapping.

The definition is "the action of abducting someone and holding them captive", and that's what you did.


Exactly. There is no authority here. It is effectively a warzone and should be treated as such. Pretending otherwise is just being deliberately blind.
I agree there's no authority here, but you don't need authority for there to be kidnapping.

Why do you think it's a warzone? remembering that was is defined as "War is an intense armed conflict[a] between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups"


If someone attacked me on the Moon, they almost certainly wouldn't be prosecuted for it. And in absence of punishment, laws effectively don't exist. Therefore, no I wouldn't have a right to be there, and neither would they. Now, you can say that attacking me is evil, but that is contextual.

They might well be prosecuted for it if they went back to earth and what they did became apparent. They might get away with it fi there were no witnesses, but that's true if they murdered you in your house as well. That it happened on the moon (or the north or south pole) would be no different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Antarctica
"All Americans committing a crime, and any foreigner committing a crime against an American outside of a sovereign state, are subject to prosecution in a U.S. federal court. This includes international waters and Antarctica"
Wikipedia goes on to give examples of when this has actually happened.


That's a dumb example that has no relevance to the situation at hand, and I'm not putting up with that BS, thank you very much.
I don't know what example you mean here. But whichever it was, I think it was probably a really good example - most of mine are.


If I'm their enemy? I'd be thanking my lucky stars it wasn't anything worse. So yeah, I'd be okay with it.

So you are persons enemy if you are standing in the way of their goals, and if they are your enemy, you're ok with them hitting you?
So a person wants your shoes, you are standing in the way of them having the shoes, so they can hit you in the head? And you'd thank your lucky stars?


Sure, pain is relevant. It's also on a gradient. Not all pain is equal after all. A slap in the face is nowhere close to the pain of being burned for example.
Is there a difference between causing pain if it was the only way a person has to subdue their enemies, and causing pain just for fun?


Also? If I say something racist and ignorant, I deserve a bonk on the head.
Even if so, the paladins didn't say anything racist or ignorant. It was perfectly plausible that the trolls helped her for trade purposes, even if it was incorrect. I could imagine lien saying the same thing if Serini asked why elves had saved her.

Well what's less comfortable? Being put under for surgery, or getting a concussion? The first is like falling asleep and the latter hurts a lot.
The effects of a concussion linger for days - that didn't happen to the Order, so they didn't get a concussion.


Do you have any idea what atrocities happen in international waters that basically nobody does much about? In a lawless place, the only rights you have are the ones you personally enforce.

Perhaps, depending on what atrocities you refer to. Atrocities also happen within countries with laws. The fact that people don't always obey the laws, doesn't mean that there are no laws/


Now, if you want to move away from a law perspective, and into a D&D morality one, than I'm all for it. Remember, this is a world where it is considered perfectly acceptable by the Gods themselves for adventurers to break into a sentient being's home (IE goblins) and murder them in their sleep. Because Roy did exactly that, and is still considered Lawful Good.

Or you know, killing a wizard because you accidently sold him your companion's body to turn into a bone golem. Or killing an assassin and betraying a guild because you wanted to, basically. Haley did all of those, and she's still considered Chaotic Good. Violence is very much considered a tool of good and just people. Simply attacking someone, or even killing them, isn't enough to make an act evil. You need to look at the context.

I don't think any of those things are portrayed as good in the comic. It's just that they are not sufficient to move an otherwise good character to not good.


So in context:
Serini suspects the Paladins are a threat to the Gate because they've failed or destroyed the other 4 Gates. Reasonable, if incorrect. She disables them non-lethally, and treats them rudely, but does not torture them or cause any permanent harm. She plans on removing them via an amnesia potion, so that the Gate will not be harmed. Okay. This will let Xykon eventually take control of the Gate and supposedly rule the world (in reality this will destroy the world, but Serini doesn't know that). This act is the most questionable one, and Neutral at best. But besides that, I can't see anything evil in those actions.

The reason you can't see anything evil, is because you are assuming that the first couple of sentences are sufficient to justify Serini's drugging and kidnapping of the order. I don't think they are. I think that is actually the crux of whether the kidnapping was justifiable or not. We can chat about that if you like.

[Good Coyote]

I can answer that question if you are actually asserting that she has some form of sovereign jurisdiction. Are you?

Either way, are you able to answer my question? Putting aside the comments that have been made, do you have any reason to believe that Azure City or the Saphire Guards would not have jurisdiction?

My point is that you can't claim jurisdiction exists without evidence. There is also no reason to think that Belkar is not Shojo's longlost grandnephew, and therefore it's different than Serini's case because it was a family matter.

But as I said, jurisdiction is irrelevant. Tarquin has jurisdiction in the Empire of Blood, and yet does not always invoke its laws when he kidnaps women. I was not speaking of Good and Evil when I brought that up. A police chief can have jurisdiction over an entire city and still illegally take bribes within it.



That suggests that Shojo was acting unlawfully (not necessarily that he didn't have jurisdiction, but that he acted outside it). What more do you think it suggests?

And you agree with me on that point. Good.

I'm not claiming it suggests anything else. My entire point is that, by the definition you are using, it was a kidnapping.

That was the point I made when I first brought up Shojo, with a quote from that strip, which I linked. You quoted and responded that you disagreed. I replied to that response, and in that second post, I quoted that strip and also linked it. You quoted and responded again. After that, it was too much of a hassle to link every single time, but I continued to refer to and quote that strip.

Do I understand that you now have read the strip and agree it was an unlawful capture, transportation, and confinement? A kidnapping?

[Liquor Box]

My point is that you can't claim jurisdiction exists without evidence. There is also no reason to think that Belkar is not Shojo's longlost grandnephew, and therefore it's different than Serini's case because it was a family matter.

But as I said, jurisdiction is irrelevant. Tarquin has jurisdiction in the Empire of Blood, and yet does not always invoke its laws when he kidnaps women. I was not speaking of Good and Evil when I brought that up. A police chief can have jurisdiction over an entire city and still illegally take bribes within it.

Sure but if there's unconvincing evidence one way (I think it's reasonably convincing, but I don't think we'll resolve that), and none whatsoever the other way, then I think the more reasonable conclusion is that it exists.

More than happy to drop the jurisdiction point. I'm not sure that it's relevant.


And you agree with me on that point. Good.

I'm not claiming it suggests anything else. My entire point is that, by the definition you are using, it was a kidnapping.

That was the point I made when I first brought up Shojo, with a quote from that strip, which I linked. You quoted and responded that you disagreed. I replied to that response, and in that second post, I quoted that strip and also linked it. You quoted and responded again. After that, it was too much of a hassle to link every single time, but I continued to refer to and quote that strip.

Do I understand that you now have read the strip and agree it was an unlawful capture, transportation, and confinement? A kidnapping?

Is it clear what aspect of their imprisonment Hinjo says made it false imprisonment?

Well I think technically it would be a false arrest, which is different from a kidnapping. Shojo was able to order their arrest (subject to the jurisdiction argument, which I think we've agreed to drop), he just misused that power.

But I think we are being distracted by the semantic point of whether it's a kidnapping or not. The word we apply isn;t decisive. What decisive is whether the capture is justified. Looking back it seems this point followed on from the question of whether Shojo captured for the things they did? So it goes back to my point that Shojo arrested the Order for things they'd done, and Serini caputured the paladins on suspicion they might do something.

[Good Coyote]

Is it clear what aspect of their imprisonment Hinjo says made it false imprisonment?

Well I think technically it would be a false arrest, which is different from a kidnapping. Shojo was able to order their arrest (subject to the jurisdiction argument, which I think we've agreed to drop), he just misused that power.

But I think we are being distracted by the semantic point of whether it's a kidnapping or not. The word we apply isn;t decisive. What decisive is whether the capture is justified. Looking back it seems this point followed on from the question of whether Shojo captured for the things they did? So it goes back to my point that Shojo arrested the Order for things they'd done, and Serini caputured the paladins on suspicion they might do something.

No, this point doesn't follow on from anything. It was my original point.

For whatever reason, the things that I say do not seem to be clearly understood by you, so I am dropping this discussion.

[Liquor Box]

No, this point doesn't follow on from anything. It was my original point.

For whatever reason, the things that I say do not seem to be clearly understood by you, so I am dropping this discussion.

Yeah, sorry. I think we've understood each other fine for most of the discussion, but I had trouble following that final point.

[Good Coyote]

Yeah, sorry. I think we've understood each other fine for most of the discussion, but I had trouble following that final point.

I strongly disagree. I'm sorry, but in my second to last post I explained that this is not a new final point. It was the first point that I made, the entire reason for the discussion. It's not a distraction. It was the main point.

My point was that Serini and Shojo both fit the definition put forward for kidnapping. So if the reason to refer to Serini's actions as kidnapping is because "it fits the definition" then it is only consistent to call Shojo's actions the same.

It doesn't matter at which point their imprisonment was unlawful. It was unlawful imprisonment. Confinement by force without the authority of law. Either call Shojo a kidnapper, or don't call Serini a kidnapper, or have a different reason to call it kidnapping.

But it apparently took over a full page of discussion to get that point across, with the same quote and link that was in my very first post. If I have done that now, then good, that's all I had to say. If I haven't, then I never will.

[Ionathus]

I think the problem with internet arguments is that nobody is ever pronounced winner or loser.

So, after carefully reviewing the thread, I pronounce my verdict:

My decision is that using D&D sleep darts is NOT an evil act.

My decision is that the North Pole does not have a king

My decision is nobody has been kidnapped, in the normal definition of kidnap that I like to use in my day to day conversations.

My decision is that O-Chul is awesome.

These are my pronouncements. Thank you.

Thank you, Right and Honorable Judge Dion, for your verdict.

It was a convoluted and eventful court battle, and I'm a little disturbed to learn how often our Judge talks about kidnapping in casual conversation, but ultimately justice has been served this day.

Court dismissed. Next case is scheduled for five seconds after the next strip is posted. Everyone bring your A game.

[ziproot]

I strongly disagree. I'm sorry, but in my second to last post I explained that this is not a new final point. It was the first point that I made, the entire reason for the discussion. It's not a distraction. It was the main point.

My point was that Serini and Shojo both fit the definition put forward for kidnapping. So if the reason to refer to Serini's actions as kidnapping is because "it fits the definition" then it is only consistent to call Shojo's actions the same.

It doesn't matter at which point their imprisonment was unlawful. It was unlawful imprisonment. Confinement by force without the authority of law. Either call Shojo a kidnapper, or don't call Serini a kidnapper, or have a different reason to call it kidnapping.

But it apparently took over a full page of discussion to get that point across, with the same quote and link that was in my very first post. If I have done that now, then good, that's all I had to say. If I haven't, then I never will.

I call them both a kidnapper. Hence why Shojo is Chaotic Good and Serini is most likely Chaotic Neutral.

EDIT: Of course, Dion said otherwise so I guess nobody kidnapped anyone.

[Jason]

Just because it is not the most intrusive measure she can think of (and just because Oona took a more intrusive measure) does not make her measure ok. Would you be ok with a person drugging and kidnapping you before giving you roofies and releasing you because you were observing some wilderness near where you live? Would it make it ok that they didn;t kill you?Of course not (the paladins aren't okay with it either). But that's not what was happening here.
They weren't just "observing". They were reconnoitering, as in "gathering intelligence before entering the area" otherwise known as "casing the joint". They weren't random nobodies, they were members of a group that had agreed to stay away and not interfere and that in Serini's mind has a reputation for breaking that agreement and destructively interfering, and they are the prime suspects for having destroyed the other gates with their interference (and she's essentially correct - the Order are largely responsible for the destruction of most of the other gates). She's not going to use "roofies", but a magic amnesia potion that can be carefully controlled to perform as advertised. And it's not a random wilderness area near where she lives, it's the hidden location of a rift in reality that could destroy the world if interfered with, which she has actively fortified, and she only lives there in the first place in order to protect this rift.


No, it is not. I'm not sure whether you're talking about sovereignity or ownership, but in neither case can a individual just claim it. There are some rules about nation states claiming sovereignty (although they are more complicated than you suggest), but I challenge you to find a single example of an individual (other than a king) lawfully doing so.Ownership, mostly, but ownership and sovereignty are close cousins. There aren't many modern cases of someone setting up shop in an unclaimed wilderness and then being recognized as the legal owner, mostly because there aren't very many wilderness areas that aren't already claimed by some government. But what legally-recognized nation today didn't start out as a bunch of people who moved into an area, built their homes there, and started defending it from trespassers?

Modern squatters do something similar all the time. It's called adverse possession.


That's a consistent position. But I will point out that from what we have seen in the comic, Belkar has done a lot more to oppose Xykon than Serini since he was free from coercion - so he must have moved toward good much more than her.Belkar's job is to oppose Xykon. That's literally what Roy originally hired him to do in On the Origin of PCs.

Serini's goals are 1) Protect the world from being destroyed and 2) Protect her gate. Xykon is a threat to Goal #2 but not (as far as she knows) Goal #1. The Paladins and the Order together are a threat to Goal #1, as demonstrated by the other gates they've destroyed to stop Xykon from getting them. Therefore stopping them is a higher priority than stopping Xykon.

Still, because Serini knows they mean well, she intends to stop them with non-lethal means, even though killing them would be much easier. That's a good-aligned action.
If she thought she could do it I'm sure she wouldn't hesitate to destroy Xykon. She knows she's not a match for Team Evil, so she's fighting them with the best tools at her disposal, and so far it has worked.

[halfeye]

I think we established this. Under English common law, you need:

1) a lady
2) a lake
3) a sword

The lady enters the lake with the sword, and hands it to the first person she sees who’s not covered in filth. That person becomes King Arthur.

Then King Arthur grants you the land, by putting a special piece of wax on a special piece of paper.

That wax, paper, sword, lady, and lake all taken together is what creates property rights, and the legal authority to detain Paladins.

It’s a very sound system, and not in any way an absurdly silly contrivance we all have just shrugged our shoulders and accepted as one of those exasperating things that exists beyond our control, like strip mall cell phone stores.

Edit: I am aware that actual property law is even more obscenely ridiculous than described above. Thank you.

You missed a step. King Arthur has to claim the land as part of his kingdom before granting it to anyone. Typically, this is done by planting flag on a flagpole in the ground, usually by some peon acting on the King's behalf.

[Good Coyote]

I call them both a kidnapper. Hence why Shojo is Chaotic Good and Serini is most likely Chaotic Neutral.

EDIT: Of course, Dion said otherwise so I guess nobody kidnapped anyone.

Absolutely agreed.

If the reasoning is the dictionary definition, then there's no implication that engaging in kidnapping is "Evil on the face of it" and it clearly applies in both cases. As well as to Roy and the bandit leader.

However, if it is applied selectively, only to characters whose actions the speaker doesn't approve of, then it is not used for its dictionary definition. In that case, the word is used for its emotional charge, and other people can reasonably disagree with its usage on the basis of "I don't feel that emotional charge."

So it also makes perfect sense to say "I don't find this emotional charge in either case and won't use kidnapping for either of them, no matter what the dictionary says." The Dion-ctionary has spoken.

[Liquor Box]

I strongly disagree. I'm sorry, but in my second to last post I explained that this is not a new final point. It was the first point that I made, the entire reason for the discussion. It's not a distraction. It was the main point.

My point was that Serini and Shojo both fit the definition put forward for kidnapping. So if the reason to refer to Serini's actions as kidnapping is because "it fits the definition" then it is only consistent to call Shojo's actions the same.

It doesn't matter at which point their imprisonment was unlawful. It was unlawful imprisonment. Confinement by force without the authority of law. Either call Shojo a kidnapper, or don't call Serini a kidnapper, or have a different reason to call it kidnapping.

But it apparently took over a full page of discussion to get that point across, with the same quote and link that was in my very first post. If I have done that now, then good, that's all I had to say. If I haven't, then I never will.

Strongly disagreed with what? That we have understood each other on other threads of the conversation.

I think the question of whether the capture of the order is kidnapping or not is largely semantic. But it would appear to be by several of the dictionary definitions, but probably not by a more legal definition. I would have no problem with you describing it as such.

[Dausuul]

Serini's actual alignment: Insufficient information. (Probably not Lawful, but that's about all we can say.)

The alignment of the person Serini is pretending to be in her monologue: True Neutral. Pretend-Serini is focused on what she considers the greater good. Unlike, say, Redcloak, she is not willing to commit atrocities in that pursuit; she's going to some trouble to wipe the paladins' memory instead of just killing them. But she is also not willing to stick her neck out in defense of more immediate good. Facing the possibility of Xykon taking over the world, pretend-Serini just shrugs and figures it'll work out in the end. I'd call that Neutral.

As far as Law and Chaos go, pretend-Serini seems to be pretty methodical, disciplined, and focused on her cause. On the other hand, she practically breathes deception and trickery (which is one of several reasons you should really really really not take at face value anything she says in this comic). So, again, using Chaotic means to fulfill Lawful obligations strikes me as fairly Neutral (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

[Good Coyote]

Strongly disagreed with what? That we have understood each other on other threads of the conversation.

I think the question of whether the capture of the order is kidnapping or not is largely semantic. But it would appear to be by several of the dictionary definitions, but probably not by a more legal definition. I would have no problem with you describing it as such.

Yes. I strongly disagree that you have understood my points throughout this conversation.

This entire conversation began because I explained (to someone else) the definition of kidnapping that was in use, and pointed out that it also applied to Shojo's actions, so that they would understand it is not a judgment call, and does not imply Evil. I linked my evidence that it was a false imprisonment, outside the bounds of the law.

You disagreed with that, and did not address my evidence, but simply claimed that it was covered in another thread. I disagreed with that claim, because I had not seen my evidence addressed in any other thread.

You responded again saying it was irrelevant, and that countries can have jurisdiction outside their borders. (Which was irrelevant because the Sapphire Guard is not a country, and doubly irrelevant because hypothetical jurisdiction does not disprove Hinjo and Roy's agreement that it was unlawful.)

I explained the relevance to the thread - that it goes to show the even application of the term "kidnapping," that it is consistently applied to both and should not imply Evil.

If you agreed that Shojo's actions were a kidnapping, or believed that it's pure semantics and doesn't matter anyway, and it therefore isn't important to define Serini's actions as kidnapping, then this conversation would never have happened. It kind of seems that the goalposts have shifted now that you have actually read my evidence.

[Liquor Box]

Yes. I strongly disagree that you have understood my points throughout this conversation.

This entire conversation began because I explained (to someone else) the definition of kidnapping that was in use, and pointed out that it also applied to Shojo's actions, so that they would understand it is not a judgment call, and does not imply Evil. I linked my evidence that it was a false imprisonment, outside the bounds of the law.

You disagreed with that, and did not address my evidence, but simply claimed that it was covered in another thread. I disagreed with that claim, because I had not seen my evidence addressed in any other thread.

You responded again saying it was irrelevant, and that countries can have jurisdiction outside their borders. (Which was irrelevant because the Sapphire Guard is not a country, and doubly irrelevant because hypothetical jurisdiction does not disprove Hinjo and Roy's agreement that it was unlawful.)

I explained the relevance to the thread - that it goes to show the even application of the term "kidnapping," that it is consistently applied to both and should not imply Evil.

If you agreed that Shojo's actions were a kidnapping, or believed that it's pure semantics and doesn't matter anyway, and it therefore isn't important to define Serini's actions as kidnapping, then this conversation would never have happened. It kind of seems that the goalposts have shifted now that you have actually read my evidence.

I think that what Serini did was kidnapping. What Shojo did (through his subordinates) could be classified as kidnapping through some definitions, although I think it turns on whether you think Shojo had jurisdiction to make the arrest (even he exercised it wrongly). But really, i do think the argument is semantic - I have no objection if you want to refer to what Shojo did as kidnapping. Whether it fits the definition of kidnapping doesn't decide the issue of whether it's good or evil.

In my opinion depriving someone of their freedom (whether it be called kidnapping or not) is evil, unless there is sufficient justification for it. One justification might be if the person has done something against the law, and the law provides for the m to be detained because of it. Of course in Shojo's case there is the question of jurisdicton which we disagree on, and the fact that Shojo also had an ulterior motive.

As I understand it, the argument is that Serini's deprivation of the paladin's freedom is justified because either (1) they were trespassing on 'her' territory; or (2) because Serini believed (rightly or wrongly) that the paladins were a threat to the world and kidnapping them was therefore justified.

To me those potential justifications are different. They may both be flawed for sure though. I am not sure that what Shojo did was not evil (I'm undecided) - it may well have been. We know his canon alignment is still good, but that might because he has done a lot of good stuff which outweighs it.


Of course not (the paladins aren't okay with it either). But that's not what was happening here.
They weren't just "observing". They were reconnoitering, as in "gathering intelligence before entering the area" otherwise known as "casing the joint". They weren't random nobodies, they were members of a group that had agreed to stay away and not interfere and that in Serini's mind has a reputation for breaking that agreement and destructively interfering, and they are the prime suspects for having destroyed the other gates with their interference (and she's essentially correct - the Order are largely responsible for the destruction of most of the other gates). She's not going to use "roofies", but a magic amnesia potion that can be carefully controlled to perform as advertised. And it's not a random wilderness area near where she lives, it's the hidden location of a rift in reality that could destroy the world if interfered with, which she has actively fortified, and she only lives there in the first place in order to protect this rift.

Where did you get that definition of 'reconnoiter' because every definition I can find simply says its to observe for military purposes. So, let's say they were reconnoitering (which means observing), what difference does that make?

How does Serini know they have a reputation for breaking the agreement, unless Serini had also broken the agreement by observing other gates?

Why would Serini think that they were prime suspects for other gates, or that they had any connection to the Order, unless she was breaking the agreement by observing (which we don't know she was)?

For practical purposes what's the difference between roofies and a magical amnesia poison? Roofies usually perform as advertised don't they (admittedly I have no experience with them)?

She may have fortified the canyon, but she hasn't fortified the part where they are - observing (or reconnoitering) from telescope distance.


Ownership, mostly, but ownership and sovereignty are close cousins. There aren't many modern cases of someone setting up shop in an unclaimed wilderness and then being recognized as the legal owner, mostly because there aren't very many wilderness areas that aren't already claimed by some government. But what legally-recognized nation today didn't start out as a bunch of people who moved into an area, built their homes there, and started defending it from trespassers?

Modern squatters do something similar all the time. It's called adverse possession.

Ok, ownership then.

Likewise in the OotSverse it is likely that some kingdom claims the territory, even if they don't actively exert control over it.

But if you don't have modern examples, do you have any historic examples?

Squatters rights do not allow individuals to claim vast tracts of land which have bugbear villages in them


Belkar's job is to oppose Xykon. That's literally what Roy originally hired him to do in On the Origin of PCs.

That's not mentioned in the discussion between the two of them, but I hardly think it's relevant. It's Serini's duty too, given her agreement with the Scribble when they broke up. But in neither case do I think it makes them risking their lives for those goals not good, if they would otherwise be good.


Serini's goals are 1) Protect the world from being destroyed and 2) Protect her gate. Xykon is a threat to Goal #2 but not (as far as she knows) Goal #1. The Paladins and the Order together are a threat to Goal #1, as demonstrated by the other gates they've destroyed to stop Xykon from getting them. Therefore stopping them is a higher priority than stopping Xykon.

From what Serini has actually said she knows, Xykon (or any future adventurers who come to depose him) are more of a threat to (1) than the Order or Paladins are.

[Good Coyote]

I think that what Serini did was kidnapping. What Shojo did (through his subordinates) could be classified as kidnapping through some definitions, although I think it turns on whether you think Shojo had jurisdiction to make the arrest (even he exercised it wrongly). But really, i do think the argument is semantic - I have no objection if you want to refer to what Shojo did as kidnapping. Whether it fits the definition of kidnapping doesn't decide the issue of whether it's good or evil.

In my opinion depriving someone of their freedom (whether it be called kidnapping or not) is evil, unless there is sufficient justification for it. One justification might be if the person has done something against the law, and the law provides for the m to be detained because of it. Of course in Shojo's case there is the question of jurisdicton which we disagree on, and the fact that Shojo also had an ulterior motive.

As I understand it, the argument is that Serini's deprivation of the paladin's freedom is justified because either (1) they were trespassing on 'her' territory; or (2) because Serini believed (rightly or wrongly) that the paladins were a threat to the world and kidnapping them was therefore justified.

To me those potential justifications are different. They may both be flawed for sure though. I am not sure that what Shojo did was not evil (I'm undecided) - it may well have been. We know his canon alignment is still good, but that might because he has done a lot of good stuff which outweighs it.

Of course the term "kidnapping" does not determine whether it is Good or Evil. That was my point.

That is not my argument, as you understand it or not, since I have never argued whether Serini's "deprivation of the paladin's freedom" is justified or not.

I am not part of a horde with shared opinions who are all amassed against you. I am a particular person who is saying specific things.

Not to mince words, I am not interested in saying things to people who are not interested in what I have to say. And I also don't have anything else to say, since it's now established that Shojo's actions were unlawful, not legal, outside the bounds of his lawful authority, which was the only point of contention.

[dancrilis]

And I also don't have anything else to say, since it's now established that Shojo's actions were unlawful, not legal, outside the bounds of his lawful authority, which was the only point of contention.

I don't know whether they were unlawful - Shojo was clear he arrested them on the authority of The Twelve Gods who were not limited in jurisdiction (which I find debatable - but we have seen no divine push back the way we have with Thor).

As such it could be argued that Shojo was acting lawfully*.

I suppose it depends onif Shojo was correct in that the juristiction of the Twelve Gods was limited - at least when it came to protecting the gates.

*This would open a potential can of worms such as Redcloak (or the like) claiming people have commited crimes against 'The Goblin Peoples' and then acting as he saw fit to redress such - but that wouldn't make it less lawful under this framework.

[Good Coyote]

I don't know whether they were unlawful - Shojo was clear he arrested them on the authority of The Twelve Gods who were not limited in jurisdiction (which I find debatable - but we have seen no divine push back the way we have with Thor).

As such it could be argued that Shojo was acting lawfully*.

I suppose it depends onif Shojo was correct in that the juristiction of the Twelve Gods was limited - at least when it came to protecting the gates.

*This would open a potential can of worms such as Redcloak (or the like) claiming people have commited crimes against 'The Goblin Peoples' and then acting as he saw fit to redress such - but that wouldn't make it less lawful under this framework.

My evidence is here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html). Hinjo (the new lawful authority of Azure City) agreed with Roy that it was false imprisonment, by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law.

He agreed so hard that he dropped a murder charge to manslaughter, because Belkar technically killed a man who was keeping him unlawfully captive at the time.

It's at the last panel of the first page.

[dancrilis]

My evidence is here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html). Hinjo (the new lawful authority of Azure City) agreed with Roy that it was false imprisonment, by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law.

I personally think that Roy likely passed a Diplomacy check rather then a Profession: Lawyer check for that one.

But ignoring that Belkar was being tried for secular crimes (murder) committed when held by secular authority for religious crimes commited (damaging the fabric of reality - of which he had been found innocent of) - as Shojo had previously established at trail a seperate of church and state then the state could have been out of line to hold prisoners on behalf of the church - so Roy could have used that to argue for a reduction of sentance to manslaughter (particularly given that Belkar was actually found innocent of the earlier charges against him).

But we would need to know a lot more about the legal practice of Azure city to be sure.

[Liquor Box]

Of course the term "kidnapping" does not determine whether it is Good or Evil. That was my point.

Well then, we are agreed on your point. I suggest that if you had just made your point straight up, instead of leading up to it, I would simply have agreed.


That is not my argument, as you understand it or not, since I have never argued whether Serini's "deprivation of the paladin's freedom" is justified or not.

I didn't attribute that to you at all. I answered your question about whether Shojo was kidnapping, then I talked about what I think the implications are.


I am not part of a horde with shared opinions who are all amassed against you. I am a particular person who is saying specific things.

Not to mince words, I am not interested in saying things to people who are not interested in what I have to say. And I also don't have anything else to say, since it's now established that Shojo's actions were unlawful, not legal, outside the bounds of his lawful authority, which was the only point of contention.

If you want to end the conversation then no problem, nice chatting to you.

To clarify the conclusion though, I do think Shojo had jurisdiction to arrest the order for their destruction of the first gate - but I accept that at some point Shojo exceeded his authority (not sure how he did this - it wasn't specified), at least with respect to Belkar (who Roy identified in particular). For clarity we are taking Hinjo as confirming this by his silence, just like he confirmed the extent of Shojo's jurisdiction with his silence (which you didn't accept in that case).

[Peelee]

kidnapping

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "kidnapping" more or less a legal term? Or, at least, requires inherent illegality? I would imagine "capture" would be a better term to use. Especially so as to not unduly load any question about its Stickworld morality. Everyone can agree that Serini captured the paladins, I would imagine. Not everyone can agree that she kidnapped them. And changing to "capture" from "kidnap" is akin to no longer asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".

[Good Coyote]

I personally think that Roy likely passed a Diplomacy check rather then a Profession: Lawyer check for that one.

But ignoring that Belkar was being tried for secular crimes (murder) committed when held by secular authority for religious crimes commited (damaging the fabric of reality - of which he had been found innocent of) - as Shojo had previously established at trail a seperate of church and state then the state could have been out of line to hold prisoners on behalf of the church - so Roy could have used that to argue for a reduction of sentance to manslaughter (particularly given that Belkar was actually found innocent of the earlier charges against him).

But we would need to know a lot more about the legal practice of Azure city to be sure.

I'm inclined to think that Hinjo has the most insight of anyone we're likely to hear from about what is lawful in Azure City, since he is the lord of Azure City, and in the same strip we see that he is able to act as a magistrate and sentence Belkar.

The only better person to hear from is a magistrate, who would have spent more time studying law, since they don't have to balance with all of Hinjo's other duties. Failing that, Hinjo is the greatest authority.

But I agree, Diplomacy played a large role. It was Hinjo's discretion in what to do in order to handle Belkar's crime balanced against the injustice.


Well then, we are agreed on your point. I suggest that if you had just made your point straight up, instead of leading up to it, I would simply have agreed.

Here is the original post where I did so (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628735-Serini-Good-or-Evil&p=24983665#post24983665).