Stats for the Stats God! The Deities of OOTS

[Tzardok]

This thread aims to collect or at least guess those traits of the deities in OOTS that are needed to take them as a cleric's deity. It is meant to be a companion to the Class and Level Geekery thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?639009-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XIX-Nobody-Cares-about-that-Stuff-Anymore), even though it probably can't reach their rigorous exactness. Still, participation is welcome. If there is anything I missed, anything that can proove or disproove one of my guesses or anything else, don't hesitate to post.

Edit: This is a curated thread.

Northern Gods

Thor, God of Storms
Alignment: Good (to grant the Good domain), probably Chaotic (based on his general behavior (knocking up fertility goddesses (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html), playing drunken darts with lightning (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html), breaking the rules how a spell is supposed to work (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html), and so on)).
Clerical alignments: takes lawful clerics (at least amongst dwarves)
Known granted domains: Good (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html), unnamed homebrew domain (grants access to Thor's Lightning, Call Lightning and Control Winds)
Possible other domains granted: Chaos (if Chaotic), Strength
Favoured Weapon: Battle hammer (not explicitely stated, but he wields a hammer (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html) in most of his appearances, those of his clerics who walk around armed wield one, and his hidden artifact is battle hammer).

Loki, God of Fire
Alignment: Chaotic Evil (is listed amongst the evil gods in SoD)
Known granted domains: Chaos (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1117.html), Evil, Fire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html)
Possible other domains granted: Trickery
Favoured Weapon: Unknown, probably Longsword (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html)
Special: grants Turn Undead (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1107.html)

Odin, God of Magic, Head of the Pantheon
Alignment: Unknown
Domains: Unknown, possibly Knowledge, Magic
Favoured Weapon: Probably spear (Odin's highpriest wields one (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0997.html))

Hel, Goddess of Death
Alignment: Evil
Domains: Evil, probably Death

Surtur, Lord of Fire Giants
Alignment: Evil (based on behaviour (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html)), probably Lawful (if he reflects the most common alignment of fire giants)

Thrym, Lord of Frost Giants
Alignment: Unknown, probably Chaotic Evil (if he reflects the most common alignment of frost giants)
Known domains granted: One of Cold, Water and Winter (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1059.html)

Dvalin, First King of the Dwarves
Alignment: Lawful (based on his strict adherence to his oath (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html))

Fenrir, God of Monsters
Alignment: Evil (based on his love for murder (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html))

Other Northern Gods
Sif, Goddess of the Earth; Tyr, God of War; Balder, God of Beauty; Heimdall, God of the Watch; Freya, Goddess of Fertility; Freyr, God of Prosperity; Sunna, Goddess of the Sun; Frigg, Goddess of Wisdom; Njord, God of the Sea; Mani, God of the Moon; Skadi, Goddess off the Hunt; Hoder, God of Winter; Vafthrudnir, God of Secrets; Sigrun, Queen of Valkyries; Bragi, Demigod of Poetry; Iounn, Demigoddess of Youth; Hermod, Demigod of Messengers

Southern Gods

The Twelve Gods (Pantheon)
Members: Dragon (Head of the Pantheon), Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog, Pig, Rat, Ox, Tiger, Hare
Alignment: True Neutral (https://www.patreon.com/posts/answer-post-6-68125768)
Clerical Alignment: Any; cleric treats own alignment as if it were theirs for purposes of wether he falls from grace (https://www.patreon.com/posts/answer-post-6-68125768)
Known granted domain: Law (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)
Possible other domains granted: Animal, Chaos, Evil, Good, possibly all in the PHB
Favoured Weapon: Unknown, possibly any

Western Gods
Nergal, God of Death
Alignment: Most likely one of Lawful evil or Neutral Evil (has a lawful evil highpriest (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=17331234&postcount=286) and an unholy will, (https://forums.giantitp.com/showpost.php?p=15715919&postcount=61) has also been called evil (https://www.patreon.com/posts/answers-post-8-93833361))
Known granted domains: Death, Destruction (https://forums.giantitp.com/showpost.php?p=15715919&postcount=61), Evil
Favoured Weapon: Unknown

Tiamat, Goddess of Evil Dragons
There's next to nothing concrete in the comic about her, but as she's the one deity in OOTS that resembles her "canonical" D&D depiction the most, I'm going to assume that they have identical qualities (https://dnd.arkalseif.info/deities/tiamat/index.html).

Marduk, Head of the Pantheon (exact portfolio unknown)
Alignment: Likely to be Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral (has a paladin (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0739.html))

Other known Western Gods
Adad, God of Thunder; Ereshkigal, Goddess of the Underworld; Ishtar, propably Goddess of Love

Others
The Dark One, God of Goblinoids
Alignment: Lawful evil
Known granted domains: Destruction (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0480.html), Evil (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1212.html), Law (SoD)
Possible other domains granted: War (his afterlife is described as a giant army)
Favoured Weapon: Unknown, possibly battleaxe (none of his clerics that have appeared wield weapons, but he's depicted with an axe (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1143.html))

Banjo, God of Puppets, and Giggles, God of Slapstick
Alignment: Chaotic puppet


The Eastern Gods (all titles are guesswork)
Zeus, God of the Sky, Head of the Pantheon; Ares, God of War; Apollo, God of Art; Aphrodite, Goddess of Beauty; Demeter, Goddess of Agriculture; Hades, God of Death; Poseidon, God of the Sea; Pan, God of Beasts

[Metastachydium]

Nergal
Alignment: Most likely one of Lawful neutral, Lawful evil or Neutral Evil (has a lawful evil highpriest)
Known granted domains: Death, Destruction (https://forums.giantitp.com/showpost.php?p=15715919&postcount=61)

I'd venture a guess that the phrase "unholy will" in the post linked, coming from the author himself, might be sufficient to rule out LN.


Banjo and Giggles
Alignment: Chaotic puppet

[Enters rage ki frenzy.]

[137beth]

Great work!

Here's a minor correction:

Odin
Alignment: Unkown
Domains: Unkown
I think those should both be Unknown.

[Tzardok]

I'd venture a guess that the phrase "unholy will" in the post linked, coming from the author himself, might be sufficient to rule out LN.

Good argument. Included.

Great work!

Here's a minor correction:

I think those should both be Unknown.

Fixed. Hopefully everywhere.

[Jasdoif]

Adad was name-dropped (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0952.html), a Western god associated with weather.


Cross thread post....
Not sure how to make it curated, or wether it's worth it, but it can be found here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654832-Stats-for-the-Stats-God!-The-Deities-of-OOTS)Given the clear topic and informational structure of the thread I don't think you need to do anything...or at the very least, neither ThePhantasm nor I were ever required to declare anything for the Index of the Giant's Comments threads in the decade that "curated threads" have been around.


If you'd prefer it to be unambigious, adding a sentence like


This is a curated thread.

to the opening post seems to be the convention.

[Kish]

Seven instances of "propably" should be "probably."

[Metastachydium]

Speaking of Adad, we also know Ishtar's a thing, she's hostile towards Nergal (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) and has likely something to do with love and relationships (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0739.html).

[Fyraltari]

I think we could add Fenrir as having an evil alignment what with his disregard of his own creations (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1232.html), his desire to kill everyone and piss on their graves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) and his high priest feeding on human children and limping elves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1179.html).

[Tzardok]

I think we could add Fenrir as having an evil alignment what with his disregard of his own creations (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1232.html), his desire to kill everyone and piss on their graves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) and his high priest feeding on human children and limping elves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1179.html).

Included. Thank you.

[ZhonLord]

To quote Malack about Nergal: "neither gods of death nor their clerics are NECESSARILY evil. If anything, Neutrality suits them better." (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)

It's true that Nergal has an evil high priest, but I doubt he'd care if his servants are good or evil so long as they respect death. Malack's "thousand sacrifices a day" seems more like his personal plan than something Nergal asked him to do, unless there's something I haven't read in the supplemental books.

[Peelee]

To quote Malack about Nergal: "neither gods of death nor their clerics are NECESSARILY evil. If anything, Neutrality suits them better." (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html)

Malack, a cleric of a death god, is Evil, despite his own belief of neutrality suiting him better.

Yeah, im not going to put a whole lot of stock in what he says there.

[Kish]

Indeed, the whole point of his saying that, is to dishonestly imply, "I and my god are both Lawful Neutral."

When the main part of it is established as untrue (Malack was thoroughly evil), why would the rest have any credibility?

[hroþila]

I actually agree with what Malack is saying despite the blatant attempt at manipulation, but the thing is, he didn't even say that Nergal himself is Neutral. So in the absence of any actual evidence of Nergal not being Evil, I'm just going to assume that the god who, in the opinion of his high priest*, would feel honoured by obscene amounts of human sacrifice is probably Evil.

*or a very high-ranking priest at any rate

[Peelee]

I actually agree with what Malack is saying despite the blatant attempt at manipulation, but the thing is, he didn't even say that Nergal himself is Neutral. So in the absence of any actual evidence of Nergal not being Evil, I'm just going to assume that the god who, in the opinion of his high priest*, would feel honoured by obscene amounts of human sacrifice is probably Evil.

*or a very high-ranking priest at any rate

Oh, dont get me wrong, i feel the same way. Hell, my last character was a devoutly religious rogue assassin who multiclassed into cleric (not by design, healer left and my character story worked perfectly into going cleric). Wee Jas, neutral death god.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I actually agree with what Malack is saying despite the blatant attempt at manipulation, but the thing is, he didn't even say that Nergal himself is Neutral. So in the absence of any actual evidence of Nergal not being Evil, I'm just going to assume that the god who, in the opinion of his high priest*, would feel honoured by obscene amounts of human sacrifice is probably Evil.

*or a very high-ranking priest at any rate

It is clearly a technically true statement intended to deceive. Sure, the Northern and Easter Western gods of death are Evil, but there is no requirement for every Death god to be Evil; if the Southern gods have portfolios, the one who's in charge of death (Rat? Rooster? Snake? I'd guess Snake - very associated to Death, snakes - but I'd love for Rooster to be a banshee-like announcer of death) won't be Evil, since we have WoG confirming they are all TN.

GW

[Kurald Galain]

Thor
Alignment: Good (to grant the Good domain), probably Chaotic (based on his general behavior (knocking up fertility goddesses (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html), playing drunken darts with lightning (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html)

In D&D terms, "chaotic" alignment means being in favor of personal liberties, freedom, and so forth; it has nothing to do with erratic or crazy behavior. Thor acting like a drunken idiot means he has low wisdom; it does not mean anything in particular about his alignment.

[Fyraltari]

Oh, the is Nergal evil argument again?
Count me on the "we don't have enough to be sure" camp.


It Sure, the Northern and Easter gods of death are Evil,
We have no idea how evil Hades was, though?

[Peelee]

Oh, the is Nergal evil argument again?
Count me on the "we don't have enough to be sure" camp.

Call it a shot in the dark but I feel comfortable saying "the deity who would apparently be ok with ongoing mass human/lizardfolk sacrifice" probably doesnt fit the bill for Neutral.

[Fyraltari]

Call it a shot in the dark but I feel comfortable saying "the deity who would apparently be ok with ongoing mass human/lizardfolk sacrifice" probably doesnt fit the bill for Neutral.

I guess Thor hates trees then.

[Tzardok]

In D&D terms, "chaotic" alignment means being in favor of personal liberties, freedom, and so forth; it has nothing to do with erratic or crazy behavior. Thor acting like a drunken idiot means he has low wisdom; it does not mean anything in particular about his alignment.

And Thor's "erratic" behaviour is how he expresses his own desires for freedom. Additionally, him breaking the rules just because he finds the result cool (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html), and him grumbling about the laws governing a god's behaviour (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1146.html) make it IMO pretty clear he's chaotic.

[Peelee]

I guess Thor hates trees then.

I feel like theres a small difference between trees and systemic decimation of an entire sapient populace.

That's just me, though. Your mileage may vary.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In D&D terms, "chaotic" alignment means being in favor of personal liberties, freedom, and so forth; it has nothing to do with erratic or crazy behavior. Thor acting like a drunken idiot means he has low wisdom; it does not mean anything in particular about his alignment.

OK, but that still leaves his willingness to abandon a rule given even half-way believable excuse (or indeed mostly unbelievable ones (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1137.html)) and disdain for "dumb rules (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1146.html)" meant to keep the world from being unmade. His "you do you (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1135.html)" personal philosophy. His "it feels weird to give you orders (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1136.html)".

In addition to that, we have "erratic or crazy behaviour" mirroring that of Elan (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0302.html), which indicates that erratic and crazy behaviour is associated to Chaotic individuals in OotS, even if not in the D&D rules.


We have no idea how evil Hades was, though?
I meant Western. Fixed.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

I feel like theres a small difference between trees and systemic decimation of an entire sapient populace.

That's just me, though. Your mileage may vary.

The point is it's very easy in-universe for clerics to be severely confuse what their god wants with what they want.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The point is it's very easy in-universe for clerics to be severely confuse what their god wants with what they want.

And the counterpoint is that there is a difference between being slightly annoyed by your worshippers deciding to wage holy war on non-sentient plant life, versus allowing your priest to plan a sentient being blood farm to be sacrificed to your glory (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html) at a rate of a thousand beings per day. Confused or not, the moment Malack started planning his little rein of terror, any good or neutral god should've dumped his tail.

GW

[Fyraltari]

And the counterpoint is that there is a difference between being slightly annoyed by your worshippers deciding to wage holy war on non-sentient plant life, versus allowing your priest to plan a sentient being blood farm. Confused or not, the moment Malack started planning his little rein of terror, any good or neutral god should've dumped his tail.

GW

Malack's plan would come into play in an estimated 30 years. From Nergal's perspective, the World has been on "will explode any moment now" for 60 years. Why waste a perfectly functional priest now for something that's very unlikely to happen when you can waste him then?

[Peelee]

The point is it's very easy in-universe for clerics to be severely confuse what their god wants with what they want.

And my point is that it's very easy to differentiate between attacking roots breaking a wall in your cave home and a freaking continental holocaust. There's some daylight between these two things, i think enough daylight for an entire damned alignment separation.

[dancrilis]

Call it a shot in the dark but I feel comfortable saying "the deity who would apparently be ok with ongoing mass human/lizardfolk sacrifice" probably doesnt fit the bill for Neutral.

I think this might be holding neutral to standards that neutral doesn't have.

Neutral gods can have evil clerics and those evil clerics can be as evil as they like providing they don't engage in behaviour that 'grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm#Ex)'.

Neutral gods are not good.

Nergal might have any number of good clerics out there engaged in good works - he just may not care about either the good or the evil providing the worship keeps flowing in.

[Fyraltari]

And my point is that it's very easy to differentiate between attacking roots breaking a wall in your cave home and a freaking continental holocaust. There's some daylight between these two things, i think enough daylight for an entire damned alignment separation.

But the the literal holocaust is only theoretical so far. And we know that clerics and Paladins can get away with a lot as long as it's theoretical (and with much even if it's practical).

[Kurald Galain]

In addition to that, we have "erratic or crazy behaviour" mirroring that of Elan (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0302.html),

Ah yes, Elan, who is very much known for his high wisdom score...

I mean, if Haley were to start acting like a drunken lunatic all the time, then you might have a point about all chaotic characters acting like drunken lunatics :smallamused:

[Peelee]

I think this might be holding neutral to standards that neutral doesn't have.

Neutral gods can have evil clerics and those evil clerics can be as evil as they like providing they don't engage in behaviour that 'grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm#Ex)'.

Neutral gods are not good.

Nergal might have any number of good clerics out there engaged in good works - he just may not care about either the good or the evil providing the worship keeps flowing in.
I am fully aware of all of this. I, however, do not think Neutral is as welcoming of genocide as you apparenrly do.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Malack's plan would come into play in an estimated 30 years. From Nergal's perspective, the World has been on "will explode any moment now" for 60 years. Why waste a perfectly functional priest now for something that's very unlikely to happen when you can waste him then?

Because planning an industrial abattoir for sentient beings is not that morally far removed from actually doing it.


Ah yes, Elan, who is very much known for his high wisdom score...

I mean, if Haley were to start acting like a drunken lunatic all the time, then you might have a point about all chaotic characters acting like drunken lunatics :smallamused:
I assume therefore you concede everything else I said, thus agreeing that Thor is in fact Chaotic.

GW

[dancrilis]

I am fully aware of all of this. I, however, do not think Neutral is as welcoming of genocide as you apparenrly do.

I would not say welcoming more somewhat apathetic (also I am dubious as to if Malack's plans would be a genocide, but that is likelya seperate discussion), and many deities (including good ones) in the lands of the order of the stick seem pretty apathetic about the widespread deaths of people.

Seperately if we take a look at the following:

...Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral...

Human sacrifice is not some odd thing for neutral characters to engage in it has been in D&D since at least 1976 (when the above was published).

[hroþila]

Malack's plan would come into play in an estimated 30 years. From Nergal's perspective, the World has been on "will explode any moment now" for 60 years. Why waste a perfectly functional priest now for something that's very unlikely to happen when you can waste him then?
But the point is not so much why Nergal would tolerate this for now, but rather why Malack would think this would please Nergal in the first place. Yes, worshippers can absolutely believe false things about a god without that necessarily changing that god, but personally I think a wacky (but absolutely extreme) misunderstanding of Nergal's doctrine and preferences is less likely in this case than just Nergal being Evil.

[Peelee]

But the point is not so much why Nergal would tolerate this for now, but rather why Malack would think this would please Nergal in the first place. Yes, worshippers can absolutely believe false things about a god without that necessarily changing that god, but personally I think a wacky (but absolutely extreme) misunderstanding of Nergal's doctrine and preferences is less likely in this case than just Nergal being Evil.

Exactly. It's pretty harmless to believe Thor hates trees if you're wrong. It's outright ****ing lunacy to believe a Neutral god would be pleased with a mass execution chamber for a never-ending stream of human and lizardfolk sacrifices if you're wrong.

[Tzardok]

It is clearly a technically true statement intended to deceive. Sure, the Northern and Easter Western gods of death are Evil, but there is no requirement for every Death god to be Evil; if the Southern gods have portfolios, the one who's in charge of death (Rat? Rooster? Snake? I'd guess Snake - very associated to Death, snakes - but I'd love for Rooster to be a banshee-like announcer of death) won't be Evil, since we have WoG confirming they are all TN.

GW

Apropos Southern Gods and portfolios: I vaguely remember Dragon being stated or implied to be the leader of the Twelve Gods, but I can't remember where. Does anybody know if that is right?

[hroþila]

Apropos Southern Gods and portfolios: I vaguely remember Dragon being stated or implied to be the leader of the Twelve Gods, but I can't remember where. Does anybody know if that is right?
In #273 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html), the pantheons are introduced in a way that implies Dragon is analogous to Odin, Marduk and Zeus, who are known to be the leaders of their respective pantheons. In #274 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html), Odin, Marduk and Dragon are shown making a plan, and they're described as "the chief deities" of their pantheons. In SoD, Redcloak explicitly calls Dragon "the leader of the Southern Gods".

[Tzardok]

In #273 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html), the pantheons are introduced in a way that implies Dragon is analogous to Odin, Marduk and Zeus, who are known to be the leaders of their respective pantheons. In #274 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html), Odin, Marduk and Dragon are shown making a plan, and they're described as "the chief deities" of their pantheons. In SoD, Redcloak explicitly calls Dragon "the leader of the Southern Gods".

Thanks for that! :smallsmile:

Added titles for as many deities as I could, plus a section with the dead Eastern Gods that were mentioned by name.

[littlebum2002]

I am fully aware of all of this. I, however, do not think Neutral is as welcoming of genocide as you apparenrly do.

But as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no genocide. Malack is talking bout a genocide he plans to commit decades in the future. For all we know Nergal plans on smiting him the second the genocide begins. A Good deity might be inclined to smite a follow just for thinking of such a thing, but I could definitely see a Neutral deity refusing to smite a very loyal and productive priest for just thinking an Evil thought.


But the point is not so much why Nergal would tolerate this for now, but rather why Malack would think this would please Nergal in the first place. Yes, worshippers can absolutely believe false things about a god without that necessarily changing that god, but personally I think a wacky (but absolutely extreme) misunderstanding of Nergal's doctrine and preferences is less likely in this case than just Nergal being Evil.

Nergal is a deity of Death. It's reasonable for a cleric to think "wow killing a lot of people sure would please a deity of death" even if the deity in question is actually Neutral and prefers natural deaths over mass genocide.

[Peelee]

But as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no genocide.
And, as has been pointed out just as often in direct response, that is irrelevant because Malack believing this would be perfectly acceptable if it is not would be a gross misunderstanding of his deity's dogma, far outstripping trivila misunderstandings like "Thor hates trees".

Repeating "but it hasn't happened" hasnt been an effective argument so far, and it will continue to not be an effective argument in the future.

Nergal is a deity of Death. It's reasonable for a cleric to think "wow killing a lot of people sure would please a deity of death" even if the deity in question is actually Neutral and prefers natural deaths over mass genocide.
No, it is wildly unreasonable. There's Neutral, there's Evil, and there's Evil measured in kilanazis. Malack's plan is the third one, in honor of his deity. If his deity is Neutral, then this plan is the farthest thingy from reasonable the comic has ever depicted.

[Metastachydium]

Repeating "but it hasn't happened" hasnt been an effective argument so far, and it will continue to not be an effective argument in the future.

One might add that a mechanism for systematically killing lots of sapients on a semi-regular basis already is in place, and Malack explicitly references it as a precursor of his "more efficient" method, namely the arena (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html) used for bloodsport and the Empire's standard regime of daily executions (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html).


♣

An unrelated line of thought: I think we can safely assume that Marduk is neither Chaotic, nor Evil.
–Variant Paladins for alignment other than LG exist in 3.5e, but they were never shown to be a thing in the Stickverse (in fact, Sir Francois refers to the paladin code in Origin) – and Marduk has at least one Paladin to his name (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0739.html).
–Further, Wrecan is a Crusader, wjich happens to be another class with alignment restriction; he is beyond any doubt Good and hard to read as anything other than Lawful, at least for me. He is likewise affiliated with the Church of Marduk (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0993.html).
–Lastly, when the first world was destroyed, Marduk cried at its funeral (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1139.html). The way Thor frames it seems to indicate it was a genuine act of mourning for all those who/that were destroyed, which demonstrates concern for the welfare of others, a Good trait by definition.

Subsequently, I will hereby formally propose that Marduk be designated as "probably LG or NG".

[Kish]

–Further, Wrecan is a Crusader, wjich happens to be another class with alignment restriction;
I'd just like to clarify this part for the benefit of people without the Tome of Battle memorized. If Wrecan is specifically a member of the crusader class rather than a crusader in the same way Miko was a samurai, that class imposes: Cannot be True Neutral.

That's it.

[dancrilis]

No, it is wildly unreasonable. There's Neutral, there's Evil, and there's Evil measured in kilanazis. Malack's plan is the third one, in honor of his deity. If his deity is Neutral, then this plan is the farthest thingy from reasonable the comic has ever depicted.

Just to check can you give me an example from the each of the following:.
A Lawful cleric of an Neutral god (whose code of conduct you don't know) who has a plan is so lawful that you feel the deity would not be able to tolerate having them as a cleric.
A Chaotic cleric of an Neutral god (whose code of conduct you don't know) who has a plan is so chaotic that you feel the deity would not be able to tolerate having them as a cleric.
A Good cleric of an Neutral god (whose code of conduct you don't know) who has a plan is so good that you feel the deity would not be able to tolerate having them as a cleric.

[Peelee]

Just to check can you give me an example from the each of the following:.
A Lawful cleric of an Neutral god (whose code of conduct you don't know) who has a plan is so lawful that you feel the deity would not be able to tolerate having them as a cleric.
A Chaotic cleric of an Neutral god (whose code of conduct you don't know) who has a plan is so chaotic that you feel the deity would not be able to tolerate having them as a cleric.
A Good cleric of an Neutral god (whose code of conduct you don't know) who has a plan is so good that you feel the deity would not be able to tolerate having them as a cleric.

Nope. Im not terribly creative. But you give me, for example, a cleric who wants to sacrifice hundreds to thousands per day in an ongoing holocaust specifically to honor his god, and I'm gonna go ahead and say that's an Evil god. And if you tell me that god is Neutral, well, I'm not going to think very much of your idea of Neutral. Easy as that.

[Lumix19]

Nope. Im not terribly creative. But you give me, for example, a cleric who wants to sacrifice hundreds to thousands per day in an ongoing holocaust specifically to honor his god, and I'm gonna go ahead and say that's an Evil god. And if you tell me that god is Neutral, well, I'm not going to think very much of your idea of Neutral. Easy as that.

I'm in two minds about this. Obviously in D&D a LN can have both LG and LE followers, so theoretically they are bestowing powers on those who heal puppies 20 hours a day as well as those who plot mass murders.

But the scale Malack is plotting is in a different league altogether.

I suppose this is one of the flaws of the alignment system. At the end of the day, you run the risk of making Neutral just "Good/Evil Lite" if not carefully considered.

[hroþila]

Regardless, it's inverting the terms again. I can definitely see a Neutral god thinking "eh, it's just a long-term plan, they haven't actually done anything yet, I'll ditch them when/if the time comes". But I can't see a cleric of a Neutral god with a passing understanding of their deity going all "You know what my Neutral god would absolutely love? Industrialized mass murder in their name".

[Tzardok]

Variant Paladins for alignment other than LG exist in 3.5e, but they were never shown to be a thing in the Stickverse (in fact, Sir Francois refers to the paladin code in Origin) – and Marduk has at least one Paladin to his name (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0739.html).

This sounds like a good explanation to me.


–Lastly, when the first world was destroyed, Marduk cried at its funeral (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1139.html). The way Thor frames it seems to indicate it was a genuine act of mourning for all those who/that were destroyed, which demonstrates concern for the welfare of others, a Good trait by definition.


This on the other hand I'm iffy about. Neutral is allowed to care about people, and a god investing a lot of time and effort into handcrafting people is likely to care about them even if neutral.

I'll therefore go with "Likely to be Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral".

Regarding the Nergal's alignment argument: I can buy a cleric being mistaken to such a large extent about their god's intentions. Heretical believes and knight templars are a thing. I find it more difficult to believe for the god's actual high priest to be divergent without actual misdirection on the part of the god. Either way, that Rich described Nergal's will as "unholy" is to me a pretty clear indicator of his alignment.

[Kish]

I'll therefore go with "Likely to be Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral.
Where does Lawful Neutral come into it, now?

[Tzardok]

I'm assuming (like Metastachydium did) that like with clerics a paladin may usually only be one step removed from the deity's alignment. Lawful Neutral is one step removed from Lawful Good. If we don't follow that assumption, we can't make any guesses about Marduk's alignment.
Unlike Metastachydium, I don't think Marduk crying about his dead creations is a sign of him being Good, so I added Lawful Neutral as a possibility.

[ZhonLord]

I would call Hel Lawful Evil, specifically. Her methodology of having plans within plans as well as backup contingencies is an extremely Orderly behavior, and she expressly taught her clerics to do the same - as evidenced by Durkula's own statements. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1084.html)

[Kish]

I'm assuming (like Metastachydium did) that like with clerics a paladin may usually only be one step removed from the deity's alignment.

That is not the case by default. And if for some reason (no hint of such from Rich that I'm aware of) it was the case in OotS, the entire Sapphire Guard wouldn't work since, as previously discussed at some length, the Twelve Gods are all True Neutral.

[Tzardok]

The Twelve Gods have been established as having Clerical Alignment: Any. Assuming that Clerical Alignment also counts for paladins has no effect on wether the Twelve Gods can have paladins or not.

[Fyraltari]

Western Gods
Nergal, God of Death
Alignment: Most likely one of Lawful evil or Neutral Evil (has a lawful evil highpriest and an "unholy will" (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=17331234&postcount=286))

Rich described Nergal's will as "unholy" is to me a pretty clear indicator of his alignment.

I'm confused, the words "unholy will" do not appear anywhere in the post you linked:


This is a baffling assertion. Malack had free will. He was an Evil person, in the same way that Redcloak is an Evil person. If he was slavishly loyal to Nergal, that was because he was a cleric, not because he was a vampire. He chose to be devoted to something larger than himself when he could have just rampaged around the continent draining people. Everything he did, every action you saw him take, was his own decision. Nothing about the metaphysics of how vampirism works changes anything. Even in the scenarios you would have preferred, if Nergal gave him a direct order, he still would have been obligated to follow it as a high-level Lawful priest. The end result is all the same. You're inserting your own biases and assumptions, mostly culled from a 20-year-old television show, into the situation.

Nergal is not Hel. It is a mistake to think that two different characters—even two gods with the same portfolio—have the same history, disposition, and goals. Do not confuse how Hel is interacting with her cleric (who just happens to be a vampire) with how another god interacts with his cleric (who happens to be a vampire).
Did you mean to link to another post or am I missing something obvious?

[Tzardok]

I'm confused, the words "unholy will" do not appear anywhere in the post you linked:


Did you mean to link to another post or am I missing something obvious?

It's this one (https://forums.giantitp.com/showpost.php?p=15715919&postcount=61). Sorry.

[Kish]

The Twelve Gods have been established as having Clerical Alignment: Any. Assuming that Clerical Alignment also counts for paladins has no effect on wether the Twelve Gods can have paladins or not.
...okay, so how about you address my mentioning that "assuming that Cleric Alignment also counts for paladins" is invalid?

The relevance of the Twelve Gods mention is that the only way I can see to get to "a paladin must have a Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, or Neutral Good god," would be going "we know Rich is weird in a restrictive way about deity alignments for all divine spellcasters"; the opposite is established instead.

[Tzardok]

...okay, so how about you address my mentioning that "assuming that Cleric Alignment also counts for paladins" is invalid?


Well, we know he has a paladin. What kind of alignment would you think a typical god for a paladin has? How much can a god diverge from Lawful Good before you think "no, I can't justify that god being revered by a paladin"? Some people would say "Only Lawful Good gods can have paladins". Other would say "Any Good god can have a paladin". Some would say "Any non-Evil god can have a paladin". To me, "same as clerics (i.e. one step removed in most cases)" feels like a good compromise when we have no details saying otherwise. (Ignore that it's also the answer I would give if you asked me that question. :smalltongue:)

Besides, I don't see the Twelve Gods as proof for "Rich being weird with alignment restrictions". It has been part of 3.x from the beginning that "one step removed" is only a general rule for clerical alignments, not an absolute one. St. Cuthbert in the Player's Handbook refuses to take Lawful Evil clerics despite being Lawful Neutral. Mystra (Neutral Good) in the Forgotten Realms takes Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil clerics in addition to Lawful Good, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good ones out of respect for her dead, Lawful Neutral precedessor. The three True Neutral deities of the draconic pantheon all have different resctrictions: Io takes Any, Astilabor has the normal "One step removed" rule and Chronepsis takes only True Neutral clerics. And so on.

[Kish]

My answer is: irrelevant because paladins aren't deity-dependent. But if you must tie them to deities, prioritizing Lawful Neutral above Chaotic Good is a throwback to "Chaotic means Evil and Lawful means Good" of pre-3ed days: paladins are far more Good than Lawful, Falling if they cease to be Lawful or if they ever commit a single Evil act.

[Tzardok]

Nobody "must" tie paladins to deities to accept that a paladin who choses to worship a deity won't worship a deity of any alignment. Surely you agree that the fact that a paladin worships Marduk means that Marduk is likely not Chaotic Evil.

Nor do I think prefering Lawful Neutral over Chaotic Good means drawing on "Chaos is evil" imagery. It simply is because I can imagine a paladin who worships a Lawful Neutral deity like St. Cuthbert, God of Law and Punishment, or Helm, God of Guardians, more easily than one of Alobal Lorfiril, God of Alcohol and Parties, to take an extreme example. Especially as the Paladin code includes a bunch of pretty Lawful tenets, like always keeping your word, acting with honor, showing respect to authority and not lying.

[Metastachydium]

Also, as Kotor's designation and what we've seen in the case of the Guard suggests that paladins are or can be part of the clergy, and at least one broad subset of them is directly empowered by deities. It stands to reason to assume that such paladins operate in the same way clerics of their respective churches operate.

[littlebum2002]

And, as has been pointed out just as often in direct response, that is irrelevant because Malack believing this would be perfectly acceptable if it is not would be a gross misunderstanding of his deity's dogma, far outstripping trivila misunderstandings like "Thor hates trees".

Repeating "but it hasn't happened" hasnt been an effective argument so far, and it will continue to not be an effective argument in the future.

I think the problem is there are 2 conversations going on here: Whether or not it would be reasonable for Malack to think a Neutral deity would be OK with mass slaughter, and whether or not a Neutral deity would have smote (smited? smitten?) Malack for planning such a mass slaughter. My argument was regarding the latter conversation, not the former. I was just saying I don't think a Neutral deity would smite a follower just for planning a mass slaughter.


No, it is wildly unreasonable. There's Neutral, there's Evil, and there's Evil measured in kilanazis. Malack's plan is the third one, in honor of his deity. If his deity is Neutral, then this plan is the farthest thingy from reasonable the comic has ever depicted.

You think it's unreasonable to suggest that an Evil person might think that others think the same way they do? Malack likes killing people. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to claim that he might possibly think others like killing people just as much as he does. ESPECIALLY when that person in question is a literal deity of Death who profits enormously from said killings.

All I am saying is "Malack doesn't have the basic empathy necessary to understand that a neutral person might not enjoy killing as much as he does" and you think that's the most unreasonable claim ever made about this comic?

[Peelee]

I think the problem is there are 2 conversations going on here: Whether or not it would be reasonable for Malack to think a Neutral deity would be OK with mass slaughter, and whether or not a Neutral deity would have smote (smited? smitten?) Malack for planning such a mass slaughter. My argument was regarding the latter conversation, not the former. I don't think a Neutral deity would smite a follower just for planning a mass slaughter.
Oh, fully agreed. I dont care about the latter at all.

You think it's unreasonable to suggest that an Evil person might think that others think the same way they do?
So here's the problem. You're reframing the issue. You may not even realize you're doing it, but you are. Sure, its reasonable to suggest an Evil lerson might think others think the same way they do. But that's generalizing both the evil people and the others. Its like me saying that in a room of 25 people, there's a 50/50 chance two people share the same birthday, which is significantly different than saying that if you are in a room eith 24 other people there is a 50/50 chance you you will share a birtbday with one of them. Going specific drastically changes things.

First off, Malack hides his vampirism, and directly obfuscates whether his god, and in fact he himself, are Evil to Durkon. But not only that, this isnt Evil-person-to-other-person we're talking about here. This is high-priest-to-deity. Sure, an Evil person may assume others think the way he does. But a high goddamn priest, who has served his deity for centuries? It's reasonable for him to be confused on the acceptance of industrialized mass-murder with that relationship?

No, man. Not gonna accept that.

[dancrilis]

Nope. Im not terribly creative. But you give me, for example, a cleric who wants to sacrifice hundreds to thousands per day in an ongoing holocaust specifically to honor his god, and I'm gonna go ahead and say that's an Evil god. And if you tell me that god is Neutral, well, I'm not going to think very much of your idea of Neutral. Easy as that.

Fair enough - I think you might be treating Neutral as more good aligned then evil aligned where neutral could be considered to be equally aligned with both (or unaligned with either).

In relation to neutral Vaarsuvius commited deliberate genocide and accidental mass murder - and never changed alignment (that we know of), Gannji and Enor were fine working with a the Empire of Blood as long as it profited them.

After Nergal's followers die they break down in his plane and forget themselves - whether then died comfortable in their beds or in a chamber doesn't matter to much in the long term, he has likely seen a lot of death in his time not to be overly phased by one priests plans.


I'm assuming (like Metastachydium did) that like with clerics a paladin may usually only be one step removed from the deity's alignment. Lawful Neutral is one step removed from Lawful Good. If we don't follow that assumption, we can't make any guesses about Marduk's alignment.

Sure we can - Marduk has paladins therefore he is likely not evil as otherwise they would not be able to associate with him.

What we don't know if he could be neutral of chaotic.

So an alignment of 'Not Evil' seems fair to me.



Regarding the Nergal's alignment argument: I can buy a cleric being mistaken to such a large extent about their god's intentions. Heretical believes and knight templars are a thing. I find it more difficult to believe for the god's actual high priest to be divergent without actual misdirection on the part of the god. Either way, that Rich described Nergal's will as "unholy" is to me a pretty clear indicator of his alignment.

This is high-priest-to-deity. Sure, an Evil person may assume others think the way he does. But a high goddamn priest, who has served his deity for centuries?

I don't recall it even been said or hinted at that Malack is Nergal's High Priest (not that I think it would matter overly even if he was).

[Peelee]

I don't recall it even been said or hinted at that Malack is Nergal's High Priest
Other than when Malack said he was (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0719.html), you mean?

That aside, i think we'll just disagree. For the record, if there was a Good analogue to a perpetual holocaust dedicated to a god, then I think a Neutral deity would similarly be a poor fit for a cleric doing such in their name.

[dancrilis]

Other than when Malack said he was (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0719.html), you mean?

Yip, I had forgotten about that, having reread it I read that more as him being the high priest of the empress, rather then the guy who would get called to the godsmoot.

In potential support of this I think based on timing (and not-Durkon knowing about it) that the Godsmoot may have been called prior to his destruction - and the destuction of the fourth gate - and so he would have been on his way there rather then indulging Tarquin if he was the High Priest.



That aside, i think we'll just disagree. For the record, if there was a Good analogue to a perpetual holocaust dedicated to a god, then I think a Neutral deity would similarly be a poor fit for a cleric doing such in their name.

Fair enough - I was thinking of trying to create such a scenario best I could come up before I got bored was a good cleric of a neutral deity setting up an automatic adoption system embedded into law where good people would automatically adopt the children of deceased dwarven mothers so that the children are not dragged to Hel with them if they die at the same time (and dishonourably), thereby saving an untold amount of innocent souls from eternal torment - but I don't really like it (and don't think the metaphysics work that well for it either).

[Tzardok]

I would call Hel Lawful Evil, specifically. Her methodology of having plans within plans as well as backup contingencies is an extremely Orderly behavior, and she expressly taught her clerics to do the same - as evidenced by Durkula's own statements. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1084.html)

I personally don't think so. We have ample evidence of Chaotic beings being able to do longterm, multilayered planing (many official adventures are based on the intricate schemes of demon lords, for example, and Lord Shojo is a pretty effective Chaotic Good schemer), and most sources on yugoloths (most of them from 2e, because 3.x doesn't give a hoot about them) make them out as the most consumate and tricky schemers of all fiends. It would be something different if she were to, I dunno, keep her plans in numbered and organized folders with checklists or something like that.

I feel like she's Neutral Evil, but I lack the ability to put this feeling into words or substantiate it in any way, so I didn't include it.

[hamishspence]

Manual of the Planes's version was NE - that might be it.

I think in some editions, Niflheim (Hel's divine domain according to MotP) is sited in Hades on the Great Wheel, too.

[Tzardok]

Those are correct and they may have influenced me.

[hroþila]

Yip, I had forgotten about that, having reread it I read that more as him being the high priest of the empress, rather then the guy who would get called to the godsmoot.

In potential support of this I think based on timing (and not-Durkon knowing about it) that the Godsmoot may have been called prior to his destruction - and the destuction of the fourth gate - and so he would have been on his way there rather then indulging Tarquin if he was the High Priest.
I'm agnostic on whether Malack was the high priest of Nergal's whole church rather than just the high priest of the Empire of Blood (at any rate, he was a high-ranking priest, so I don't think it matters much in this context). That said, the Godsmoot was called with just three days' notice (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0987.html), i.e. when Girard's Gate was destroyed. Durkon knew about it because Hel told him before it was called. It wouldn't have taken divine or superhuman foresight to know that a new Godsmoot was likely because Girard's Gate was being fought over when Durkon died (I would imagine that, at a previous Godsmoot, the gods had agreed that another Godsmoot would automatically be called the moment only one gate was standing).

[Metastachydium]

Manual of the Planes's version was NE - that might be it.

I think in some editions, Niflheim (Hel's divine domain according to MotP) is sited in Hades on the Great Wheel, too.


Those are correct and they may have influenced me.

There's also a visual cue to this effect. The entry pool to where Hel's domain is (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1177.html) shares a colour with that belonging to the "Nothing Matters" plane (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html), which is generally understood to be the Stickverse equivalent of Hades.

[Tzardok]

Good find. It should of course be noted that living in a plane doesn't mean you share its alignment. In the canonical Great Wheel, Sutur and Thrym both dwell in Ysgard as neighbours of the Norse gods, and Hades himself was Lawful Neutral in 2e and still lived in the deepest parts of the plane that shares his name.

[Metastachydium]

Good find. It should of course be noted that living in a plane doesn't mean you share its alignment. In the canonical Great Wheel, Sutur and Thrym both dwell in Ysgard as neighbours of the Norse gods, and Hades himself was Lawful Neutral in 2e and still lived in the deepest parts of the plane that shares his name.

Granted, but it's there.


♣

An unrelated remark: Big Purple is depicted as wielding an axe in the main comic as well (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1143.html) when Thor reminisces about their spat early on.

[Tzardok]

Link included. Thank you.

[ZhonLord]

I personally don't think so. We have ample evidence of Chaotic beings being able to do longterm, multilayered planing (many official adventures are based on the intricate schemes of demon lords, for example, and Lord Shojo is a pretty effective Chaotic Good schemer), and most sources on yugoloths (most of them from 2e, because 3.x doesn't give a hoot about them) make them out as the most consumate and tricky schemers of all fiends. It would be something different if she were to, I dunno, keep her plans in numbered and organized folders with checklists or something like that.

I feel like she's Neutral Evil, but I lack the ability to put this feeling into words or substantiate it in any way, so I didn't include it.

Fair enough I suppose.

[littlebum2002]

So here's the problem. You're reframing the issue. You may not even realize you're doing it, but you are. Sure, its reasonable to suggest an Evil lerson might think others think the same way they do. But that's generalizing both the evil people and the others. Its like me saying that in a room of 25 people, there's a 50/50 chance two people share the same birthday, which is significantly different than saying that if you are in a room eith 24 other people there is a 50/50 chance you you will share a birtbday with one of them. Going specific drastically changes things.

First off, Malack hides his vampirism, and directly obfuscates whether his god, and in fact he himself, are Evil to Durkon. But not only that, this isnt Evil-person-to-other-person we're talking about here. This is high-priest-to-deity. Sure, an Evil person may assume others think the way he does. But a high goddamn priest, who has served his deity for centuries? It's reasonable for him to be confused on the acceptance of industrialized mass-murder with that relationship?

No, man. Not gonna accept that.

You're making a good point, I forgot Malack was the High Priest. I do need to point out, however, that Redcloak is the High Priest of his deity and hasn't the slightest idea what his deity wants, other than that which was told to him when he donned the cloak. But yes I agree, the evidence is certainly pointing toward him being Evil.

[Peelee]

Redcloak is the High Priest of his deity and hasn't the slightest idea what his deity wants

This is the problem with needleds embellishment, it weakens your point far more than you would otherwise expect. Redcloak mnows exactly what his deity wants - word of author is thst the message via Jirix is exactly what Redcloak understood it to be. But that aside, even if he took that wrong, presumably Redcloak still has some idea that, say, enacting a mass culling of all goblins that arent purple in the hopes of purifying the goblinoid races would not be something TDO would really be in favor of, deapite TDO being a purple goblin deity. For example.

[Metastachydium]

Something that might not be indicative of much: in the course of the fight with the giants, V is assaulted by a dire bat summoned by Thrym's cler (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1056.html)gy. The bat does not display the usual cosmetic changes that set apart normal and Celestial/Fiendish animals. As far as I can see, this tells us one of two things: Thrym either has druids in his employ (not impossible, since reportedly, we find some of those even among the High Priests (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0993.html)); or he grants the Animal domain and one of the clerics used SNA4 to summon two bats one of which we've never seen (possibly because it was sent off in another direction to scout or something).

[Tzardok]

Blackwing calls it an "Evil Demon Bat". Odds are pretty good that it's meant to be Fiendish.

[Metastachydium]

Blackwing calls it an "Evil Demon Bat". Odds are pretty good that it's meant to be Fiendish.

Yeah. V also adds it probably came from the pit of Tartarus. Damn. I liked my version better (and shouldn't rely on my memory when the strips are available).

Edit: Wait! Doesn't that mean we have a possible name drop for Thrym's home plane?

[Tzardok]

Not necessarily. Thrym's homeplane in canon Great Wheel is Ysgard (Valhalla). His clerics still can summon chaotic evil fiendish creatures from, well, Abyss, Tartarus etc.

Besides that, is that something people want? Homeplanes of deities? If yes, I can add them where we know them.

[137beth]

So, maybe I'm missing something, and it's been a few years since I reread Book V, but when was Nergal called the high priest of Nergal? We know he's a cleric of Nergal, but is he the high priest?

[Peelee]

So, maybe I'm missing something, and it's been a few years since I reread Book V, but when was Nergal called the high priest of Nergal? We know he's a cleric of Nergal, but is he the high priest?
Well this is a little awkward...


I don't recall it even been said or hinted at that Malack is Nergal's High PriestOther than when Malack said he was (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0719.html), you mean?

[JT]

Well this is a little awkward...

Malack responds to Elan's question about whether Malack is high priest for the Imperial Blood chick by saying that Nale (mistaken identity) of course knows that he, Malack, is both high priest and personal advisor to the Empress.

Nowhere did Elan/Nale ask or imply that he was asking about where in the church hierarchy Malack was. So the response by Malack should -- I believe -- be parsed as saying that he is "(high priest and personal spiritual advisor) to the Empress" and not as saying that he is "high priest (of Nerghal) and personal spiritual advisor to the Empress."

At the least, there is ambiguity, and the quote neither supports, nor refutes, the claim that Malack is the high priest of his church.

[Peelee]

Malack responds to Elan's question about whether Malack is high priest for the Imperial Blood chick by saying that Nale (mistaken identity) of course knows that he, Malack, is both high priest and personal advisor to the Empress.

Nowhere did Elan/Nale ask or imply that he was asking about where in the church hierarchy Malack was. So the response by Malack should -- I believe -- be parsed as saying that he is "(high priest and personal spiritual advisor) to the Empress" and not as saying that he is "high priest (of Nerghal) and personal spiritual advisor to the Empress."

At the least, there is ambiguity, and the quote neither supports, nor refutes, the claim that Malack is the high priest of his church.

All fair points. And yet, in the absense of anyone else laying claim to the title of Nergal's high priest, I'm gonna go ahead and assign that role to the one person who did claim to be high priest. :smalltongue:

[hroþila]

Sure, it might well be that Malack was only the high priest of the Empire of Blood and not the high priest of the Church of Nergal. It is arguably the more parsimonious reading of the text. Similarly, the high priest of the Twelve Gods in Azure City was almost definitely the head of the Azurite church and not the sole representative of all the Twelve Gods at a godsmoot. Terminology doesn't need (and usually isn't) exclusive.

I just don't think it matters much in this context. Malack is still a high-level, high-ranking, ostensibly intelligent cleric of Nergal who I trust not to get his god so hilariously wrong on something as fundamental as this.

[ZhonLord]

Would King Dvalin be lawful good for caring about the dwarves despite being bound to obey their votes, or Lawful Neutral for holding to protocol and vote above even whether the decision is good for his subjects?

[Tzardok]

Difficult to say. One could even make an argument for "Lawful Evil, but loyal to dwarfkind". Unlikely, but possible.

Edit: For what it's worth, if I had to guess I'd choose Lawful Neutral.

[Kish]

Lawful Neutral.

If he was Lawful Good, it would have occurred to him that he doesn't actually need to get confirmation that his people don't want him to condemn them to horrific eternal slavery.

[Jasdoif]

If he was Lawful Good, it would have occurred to him that he doesn't actually need to get confirmation that his people don't want him to condemn them to horrific eternal slavery.Or for an alternate take: he's decided that sparing them from horrific eternal slavery is not his obligation; relaying the result of a vote, regardless of the consequences, is. A glorified mouthpiece does not have a moral stance to call "good".

[Peelee]

Lawful Neutral.

If he was Lawful Good, it would have occurred to him that he doesn't actually need to get confirmation that his people don't want him to condemn them to horrific eternal slavery.

Unless the belief that deified him also forces him to always check with them no matter what. Loki cant not lie if he wants ro, unless it's to Thor. I doubt that the rules work differently for Dvalin.

[Jasdoif]

Unless the belief that deified him also forces him to always check with them no matter what. Loki cant not lie if he wants ro, unless it's to Thor. I doubt that the rules work differently for Dvalin.I'm a little confused....Are you suggesting that Dvalin is lying, Loki-esque, when he says he doesn't want to condemn his people to Hel and/or that he's obligated to "obey the will of the council"? Or are you suggesting that Dvalin's alignment doesn't reflect Dvalin's alignment?

[Tzardok]

No, Peelee is suggesting that even a Lawful Good Dvalin may be incapable of not obeying his oath, just like Loki is incapable of being honest, as this aspect got hard-coded into their divine make-up.

I personally disagree with the notion that Dvalin obeying his oath must mean he's not Good. Keeping your word is a large part of what makes a Lawful person Lawful, and him choosing to honor it doesn't mean he's not Good (or too stupid to guess what his people want), just that he's more Lawful than Good. Similiar to how devils will twist their word, but never outright break a contract, a Lawful being's word is in sacrosanct, and him choosing to disregard his oath "just this once" "because it's important (read: inconvenient) right now" would mean he's failing to uphold his alignment.

[dancrilis]

I'm a little confused....Are you suggesting that Dvalin is lying, Loki-esque, when he says he doesn't want to condemn his people to Hel and/or that he's obligated to "obey the will of the council"? Or are you suggesting that Dvalin's alignment doesn't reflect Dvalin's alignment?

I believe the point is that gods regardless of alignment have rules to follow even when they don't want to - and so Dvalin following a rule tells us little to nothing about his alignment.

On a related but seperate matter a Lawful Good person can break their word in the service of Good without shifting to Neutral Good and similiarly a Lawful Good person can keep their word in the service of Law without Shifting to Lawful Neutral - so personal opinion is that we lack enough knowledge of Dvalin to rule on Lawful Good.

[ZhonLord]

No, Peelee is suggesting that even a Lawful Good Dvalin may be incapable of not obeying his oath, just like Loki is incapable of being honest, as this aspect got hard-coded into their divine make-up.

I personally disagree with the notion that Dvalin obeying his oath must mean he's not Good.

Indeed. Obeying the oath or not is strictly a matter of the lawful side, as far as I'm concerned. The question here is good or neutral to pair with that lawfulness.

[Jasdoif]

I'm a little confused....Are you suggesting that Dvalin is lying, Loki-esque, when he says he doesn't want to condemn his people to Hel and/or that he's obligated to "obey the will of the council"? Or are you suggesting that Dvalin's alignment doesn't reflect Dvalin's alignment?No, Peelee is suggesting that even a Lawful Good Dvalin may be incapable of not obeying his oath, just like Loki is incapable of being honest, as this aspect got hard-coded into their divine make-up.It's not "no", actually...."He could be Lawful Good because he's incapable of being Lawful Good" is the "suggesting that Dvalin's alignment doesn't reflect Dvalin's alignment" that I mentioned.

[Tzardok]

You'll have to explain that for me, because "He's incapable of not upholding his oath" isn't the same as "He could be Lawful Good because he's incapable of being Lawful Good".

[Jasdoif]

You'll have to explain that for me, because "He's incapable of not upholding his oath" isn't the same as "He could be Lawful Good because he's incapable of being Lawful Good".Following oaths is Lawful. If the oath requires him to do Good, he does Good because he's incapable of not upholding the oath. If the oath requires him to do Evil, he does Evil because he's incapable of not upholding the oath. There is not a case where he can make a moral decision of his own when the oath is involved, so he cannot be Good or Evil when the oath comes up.

Now, if you would like to make a case where the oath doesn't represent the overwhelming majority of his potential influence over existence, despite that gods are restricted in directly impacting the world after its created (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1146.html) and how the oath being to "the council" puts a high probability that he rose to divinity in the current world; and that belief imposing restrictions on his freedom to act is incredibly specific and only applies to this one oath and not others...I'm all ears (well, eyes). But I feel like cherry-picking exemptions when you're talking about an entire grove is missing the forest for the trees.

[Kish]

Unless the belief that deified him also forces him to always check with them no matter what. Loki cant not lie if he wants ro, unless it's to Thor. I doubt that the rules work differently for Dvalin.
I believe that would be functionally identical to "the belief that deified him made him Lawful Neutral regardless of what alignment he was in life."

Either way, God of Procedure Must Be Followed Without Regard For Compassion or Sanity: Not Lawful Good.

[Tzardok]

Following oaths is Lawful. If the oath requires him to do Good, he does Good because he's incapable of not upholding the oath. If the oath requires him to do Evil, he does Evil because he's incapable of not upholding the oath. There is not a case where he can make a moral decision of his own when the oath is involved, so he cannot be Good or Evil when the oath comes up.

Now, if you would like to make a case where the oath doesn't represent the overwhelming majority of his potential influence over existence, despite that gods are restricted in directly impacting the world after its created (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1146.html) and how the oath being to "the council" puts a high probability that he rose to divinity in the current world; and that belief imposing restrictions on his freedom to act is incredibly specific and only applies to this one oath and not others...I'm all ears (well, eyes). But I feel like cherry-picking exemptions when you're talking about an entire grove is missing the forest for the trees.

I mean, do we know how many oaths he has to follow? We don't see a lot of him, nor do we know how he acts in matters that don't "affect all the clans". Because of that, we can't know wether he's generally commanding his clerics (which, you know, is the majority of influence he has over creation; voting in convocations is a pretty minor part of what he does) to do good, grant succor, whatever, or wether he neutrally commands them to create laws, act as impartial judges or whatever, or (to return to the unlikely Lawful Evil option) commands them to spread a message of dwarven superiority or to advise the clans to annect more and more land or whatever.

This single act (keeping an oath when inconvenient) only shows that he's Lawful and may be incapable of breaking his oath(s). It doesn't give us any other information.


I believe that would be functionally identical to "the belief that deified him made him Lawful Neutral regardless of what alignment he was in life."

Either way, God of Procedure Must Be Followed Without Regard For Compassion or Sanity: Not Lawful Good.

I think you underestimate the importance of promises for Law. Let me give you an example for why I believe he could still be Lawful Good.

You will proably agree with me when I say the common depiction of the Knights of the Round Table are Lawful Good. Well, do you know the story of Gawain and the Green Knight? The story goes that one New Year's Eve the Knights were celebrating and had already drunk a lot, when a strange knight in green entered. He mocked the king and the knights, accusing them of cowardice. Finally he offered them a bet: one of them would do his best strike against the green knight, and one year later that one would go to the green knight and allow him to return the strike. Enraged, Sir Gawain accepted and beheaded the Green Knight.

The Green Knight picked up his head, reminded Gawain of his promise, and left.

The next parts of the story are less important for this, so I will skip them. Just know that after a few adventures searching for the Green Knight, Gawain found him, kneeled down, and allowed him to strike at his neck. And if the Green Knight hadn't shown him mercy, Gawain would be dead. For no gain at all. He had important duties. He had sworn to protect the nation at his king's side. Surely the older and broader oath would be more important than a foolish promise done while being roaring drunk?

No. It's not. To the Lawful, every promise is sacred. Even Lawful Evil does not break oaths. It may try to argue on why what they do is what was promised and not what you thought was promised, it may weasel its way through loopholes, it may come for revenge afterwards, but if pinned down, it does as promised. And that's just lawful people. Imagine how much more this is in effect for outsiders of Law, like gods.

Edit: I think that has been enough from me. So consider this post my jury argument for "We don't know wether Dvalin is Good, Neutral or Evil".

[Jasdoif]

I mean, do we know how many oaths he has to follow? We don't see a lot of him, nor do we know how he acts in matters that don't "affect all the clans". Because of that, we can't know wether he's generally commanding his clerics (which, you know, is the majority of influence he has over creation; voting in convocations is a pretty minor part of what he does) to do good, grant succor, whatever, or wether he neutrally commands them to create laws, act as impartial judges or whatever, or (to return to the unlikely Lawful Evil option) commands them to spread a message of dwarven superiority or to advise the clans to annect more and more land or whatever.

This single act (keeping an oath when inconvenient) only shows that he's Lawful and may be incapable of breaking his oath(s). It doesn't give us any other information.It would be accurate to say he's certainly Lawful, and far more likely Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good but with only a moderate degree of certainty due to conflicts between the limited amount yet abundant scope of the evidence available.

In other words: if we were accepting the implication that this oath was sufficient to make Dvalin Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral (as I, and I believe Kish, did when we posted), it would be the latter; but from an in-universe-analysis stance that's a hefty assumption. (Out of universe you'd need to consider the narrative impact of what the Giant was trying to convey with Dvalin...which I believe was that Dvalin's inclination towards following duty blindly was what opened the way for the dwarves' downfall, drawing many Durkon parallels.)

[Tzardok]

Durkon was in the moments when he followed duty blindly still Lawful Good, right?

[Jasdoif]

Durkon was in the moments when he followed duty blindly still Lawful Good, right?I'm sure you could find someone who'd argue from #84 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html) in isolation to say he's "not actually" Lawful Good :smalltongue:

More seriously: Yes, he's still Lawful Good; the difference is that we know way more things about Durkon, and a lot of his duties are things he had the agency for specifically choosing.

[Kish]

I think you underestimate the importance of promises for Law. Let me give you an example for why I believe he could still be Lawful Good.

You will proably agree with me when I say the common depiction of the Knights of the Round Table are Lawful Good.

Hate to cut your long post off so early, but my answer there is, "Haha, no, are you kidding?" I recognize that the original stories have been extensively bowlderized to bring them in line with moral standards which hinge on them being good, and I totally approve of that being done for modern reading. But let's look at the specific example you've chosen.

Gawain, in the version of the story you're referencing, was drunk and angry that someone mocked him and his (also drunk) friends and called them cowards, so he tried to murder him. Lawful Good? You're not even getting me to agree to Neutral for that kind of behavior; that he agreed to be hit with an axe himself and stuck to it makes him Lawful Evil, not the Neutral Evil he would have been had he ducked out on his side of the deal.

Similarly, if someone says "I swore to follow the will of the Council on issues affecting all the clans," and then find themself looking at "the clan leaders have voted to send all their members to be tortured for eternity," possible responses include:

"This is obviously faked somehow, I'mma throw it out." (On the one hand, this defeats the purpose of the vote; on the other hand it happens to be absolutely factually correct in this matter.)

"Confirming that this is the actual will of the Council is above my pay grade. Vote: Swallowed without chewing. Letter of my oath: Fulfilled. All living dwarves: sent to Hel." (If this is Lawful Neutral it fits perfectly; if it's Lawful Evil it fits; if it's Lawful Good it's a concept of Good that's distorted beyond recognition. This is also the outcome that leads to the oath actually being broken, as the results of the vote are not the Council's will, but the will of the vampires dominating the Council.)

"This is obviously faked somehow; conduct an investigation to find out if the council really voted to send all dwarves to eternal damnation, and if so, why." (This is the answer that someone who doesn't care about anything but the letter of the oath but does actually care whether he is breaking his oath unknowingly, rather than being perfectly content to call a preposterous vote result "the will of the clans" as long as that means he doesn't have to think, would have to give.)

"Okay, this is the vote of the Council. But is it what the actual clans want? I can't send all the dwarves to eternal damnation on the say-so of a couple dozen dwarves. Conduct a bigger poll." (This doesn't follow the letter of the oath. And if all that matters is that procedure is being followed, then that means it can be thrown out easily--in other words, a Lawful Neutral character would not say this. But a Lawful Good king has to care about all his subjects, not just the .0000001%. Or "Good" is meaningless there.)

[hroþila]

Eh, I dunno. Gawain didn't try to murder the Green Knight, he accepted the game that the Green Knight himself had proposed. And Gawain wasn't angry - Arthur was. Gawain was just like "it wouldn't be proper for the king to do this, let me do it because I suck and it won't matter so much if I die". The only emotion he showed in that scene was "yo that was so cool". I wouldn't call Gawain Evil for any of this.

[Kish]

Sure. There are, as I said, absolutely versions of the stories that make all the knights look better and ones that make them look worse; Tzardok described a version in which Gawain is a petty thug (but not a petty thug who breaks his word) and assumed I'd automatically agree to this being archetypally Lawful Good because "Knights of the Round Table."

[Peelee]

I'm a little confused....Are you suggesting that Dvalin is lying, Loki-esque, when he says he doesn't want to condemn his people to Hel and/or that he's obligated to "obey the will of the council"? Or are you suggesting that Dvalin's alignment doesn't reflect Dvalin's alignment?

He wants to not condemn his people, but he is obligated to obey the will of the council.

As a great philosopher once said, she's a rainbow please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste you can't always get what you want.

[JT]

...
Similarly, if someone says "I swore to follow the will of the Council on issues affecting all the clans," and then find themself looking at "the clan leaders have voted to send all their members to be tortured for eternity," possible responses include:
...

Note that we do not know what Dvalin would do after receiving the decision of the Council. We might think we know (and Hel is certainly assuming that She knows). We may believe that, like Loki, Dvalin is constrained by His followers' beliefs.

But we do not know what He would do.

[Jasdoif]

Unless the belief that deified him also forces him to always check with them no matter what. Loki cant not lie if he wants ro, unless it's to Thor. I doubt that the rules work differently for Dvalin.I'm a little confused....Are you suggesting that Dvalin is lying, Loki-esque, when he says he doesn't want to condemn his people to Hel and/or that he's obligated to "obey the will of the council"? Or are you suggesting that Dvalin's alignment doesn't reflect Dvalin's alignment?He wants to not condemn his people, but he is obligated to obey the will of the council.Right; he'll condemn his people to fulfill his obligation, that's what makes it Lawful-but-not-Good.

If you're trying to say that Dvalin may be incapable of not behaving in a Lawful Neutral manner, then he is still as Lawful Neutral as he is. If you're trying to say that Dvalin's alignment may be a result of his deification changing his fundamental nature, then Dvalin's alignment is a result of his fundamental nature either way. If you're trying to say Dvalin shouldn't be held responsible for being Lawful Neutral when he no longer has full control of his own decisions due to his worshippers' belief, then he's Lawful Neutral no matter how much he's able to wish he wasn't.

[Peelee]

Right; he'll condemn his people to fulfill his obligation, that's what makes it Lawful-but-not-Good.

If you're trying to say that Dvalin may be incapable of not behaving in a Lawful Neutral manner, then he is still as Lawful Neutral as he is. If you're trying to say that Dvalin's alignment may be a result of his deification changing his fundamental nature, then Dvalin's alignment is a result of his fundamental nature either way. If you're trying to say Dvalin shouldn't be held responsible for being Lawful Neutral when he no longer has full control of his own decisions due to his worshippers' belief, then he's Lawful Neutral no matter how much he's able to wish he wasn't.
I'm sorry, I was perhaps too unclear in the beginning. I was responding to the following assertion:
If he was Lawful Good, it would have occurred to him that he doesn't actually need to get confirmation that his people don't want him to condemn them to horrific eternal slavery.
Regardless of what his alignment is, it is irrelevant whether this may or may not have occurred to him if he is incapable of actually putting it into action. If he is bound by the will of the council in godsmoot votes, then he is bound by the will of the council in godsmoot votes. Following from this, while gods and demigods do seem to have free will, this would appear to be an exception to the free will (assuming it is true), much as how regardless of how Loki may want to not lie, he is unable to. Speaking solely for myself, I do not think that being forced to do things reflects on alignment. For example, I do not think Loki is chaotic because he lies, I think he is chaotic because of actions he willingly takes.

IIRC, Lawful Good is the most common alignment for D&D dwarves, so it is more likely than not that Dvalin is Lawful good (and if I'm wrong then my opinion will change accordingly - ie if its just Lawful then barring more info I can't assume anything on the Good-Evil axis)

[Jasdoif]

Following from this, while gods and demigods do seem to have free will, this would appear to be an exception to the free will (assuming it is true), much as how regardless of how Loki may want to not lie, he is unable to. Speaking solely for myself, I do not think that being forced to do things reflects on alignment.Doing things absolutely does reflect on alignment.

This is of course a rather strange case: usually "forced to do things" means coercion, where there's the value judgement of whatever's threatened being more important than the reasons to refrain from what's being forced; while here, we're talking about the mindset itself being altered to exclude the option. For the first similar situation that comes to mind, Revan wasn't evil when Knights of the Old Republic first starts..

[Precure]

By choosing option 1 he may be condemning his people to Hel, but option 2 might led to annihilation of ther souls.

[hroþila]

Sure. There are, as I said, absolutely versions of the stories that make all the knights look better and ones that make them look worse; Tzardok described a version in which Gawain is a petty thug (but not a petty thug who breaks his word) and assumed I'd automatically agree to this being archetypally Lawful Good because "Knights of the Round Table."
Tzardok referred specifically to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, as in the 14th-century English poem, which is the same version I'm talking about. Are there older attestations of this story in particular? I'm not aware of any, but at any rate, they're not the version Tzardok described.

[Tzardok]

I have never read the original Version of the story. I only read about it and recounted from memory.

[Metastachydium]

Okay, two things.

1. The arguments, back and forth, on Dvalin seem to have their Hegel, so to say, upside down. You see, much of what's said would appear to hinge on the regrettably common notion that being Lawful is somehow tantamount to either being a drone incapable of thinking for oneself or some manner of obsessive/compulsive behaviour rather than denoting the sum of certain preferences and choices.

Let's take a look at the Lawful people of the Stickverse! We have, among others
–Roy (angel-certified LG) and Wrecan (almost certainly LG), who during the Godsmoot both game the system through sticking close to the letter of the Law while playing loose with its spirit – which is the exact same thing their opposite number, the LE Greg does; which is to say: sticking to the letter and ignoring the spirit is neither Good nor Evil, inherently, and a Lawful character can choose which aspect to focus on regardless of the other component of their alignment;

–Kilkil is LN; if his brand of Lawful is about blindly following the law because he is too dumb or otherwise incapable not to do so, he is a walking contradiction: his serving the Vectors doesn't make sense since he knowingly aids them in performing illegal activities (some of which should amount to treason from a strictly EoB perspective); which is to say: it seems much more likely that he is not a mindless drone acting compulsively, but rather
a. a person who values what is orderly, efficient and predictable and therefore chooses to serve in a function that allows him to make the internal workings of the EoB more orderly, efficient and predictable, as well as the overall project of the Vectors which can be conceived as conducive to a continent-wide stability;
b. a person who's not, in the meantime, concerned with Good or Evil, but in a way that doesn't demonstrably stem from his being Lawful; and
c. an NPC-classed kobold living in a violent part of a violent world who, as such, likely understands the value of having stronger allies and therefore is more likely to respect strength and more receptive to might-based hierarchies, insofar as his services are rewarded through saftey and protection;

–the CCPD is likewise canonically LN; this, however, does not prevent them for a moment from recognizing merit and placing it above nominal seniority when it benefits their organization (v. the trust the Chief invests in the Rookie due to the latter's relative competence, as well as the Rookie taking charge of the operation to deal with the Linears after the Chief's untimely demise).

Law is a lot more complex and a lot less inherently dumb than people seem to give it credit for. That a Lawful character is barred from acting with a sufficient degree of flexibility (as befits the situation at hand) by simple virtue of being Lawful is, very simply put, just false in most cases. Stickverse!gods might sometimes be bound by some instance of Law in an extreme manner, but that's a Stickverse!god problem, rather than a Law problem. Now, what does this tell us about our poor metaphorical Hegel?

The way I see it, we could as well easily reverse the assumptions made by several posters. If Dvalin is some extreme brand of LN, a lawgiver concerned with order, trust and codified justice, it would make more rather than less sense for him to keep all parties involved, Good and Evil alike, from cheating, and therefore he could be conceived as more rather than less likely to psotpone the Council's vote or monitor it closely so as to be sure it is not tampered with and procedure is followed as it was conceived.

Meanwhile, a naive LG Dvalin might feel similarly bound by his oath, but qua a Good deity he might
–feel that his making a decision in his worshippers' stead is needlessly tyrannical;
–not comprehend Evil (as it sometimes happens to Good) and believe that
a. the Clan Elders are responsible and Good authority figures, just as he is; and
b. people in general and dwarves in particular are more Lawful and Good than to rig the vote or allow the vote to be rigged.

I'm not saying, mind, that this is definitively more likely to be correct than the conclusions others drew, nor do I have a strong opinion on whether Dvalin is Good, Neutral or Evil. I'm mostly just treating on Law here, with the added benefit of trying to demonstrate that the data we have is insufficient to determine Dvalin's exact alignment until such time as more data become available or the author makes an authoritative statement.

2. On Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I'll bite, Kish: let us peel away our modern filters and sensibilities. Once that is done, the situation becomes crystal clear: Gawain is not a petty thug out to drunkenly avenge a personal slight. Rather, what we have is the Green Knight acting in aggravated violation of hospitality, a sacrosanct custom. See, hospitality is a compact between host and guest. When the Green Knight barges in on the King and his knights armed and armoured, flinging insults and issuing challenges, some of the former aimed at the sovereign himself, this compact breaks down and Gawain (or someone else with a comparable station) as the King's loyal knight and retainer is honour-bound to address the affront against his peers and, more importantly, his liege on their behalf. His doing so, and at his own peril, mind, was, in accordance with the customs of his society deemed virtuous and therefore, in its context, is to be seen as a Good act. You are the one viewing it through a modern lens and passing a judgement accordingly.

[hroþila]

Also, the insult was basically "I thought you guys were famous for being super brave, are you too chicken**** to accept my challenge", so in that context accepting the challenge sounds like an appropriate, perfectly courteous response even when seen through a modern lens (I think in the modern vernacular this is usually called '****ing around and finding out')

[Kish]

I have never read the original Version of the story. I only read about it and recounted from memory.
Okay, well, I go by what you describe. Whether a version you read or a version you effectively edited (adding things like Gawain being enraged).

Either way--saying "these characters are archetypally Lawful Good because they are so you must agree that similar behavior to theirs is Lawful Good" is an utterly pointless way to try to convince me of anything. If you describe (e.g.) Neutral Evil behavior, and then stick the name of the person I most respect in all the world on it, I'm not going to say "then that must have been Good behavior"--I'm going to say, "No they didn't!" Behavior isn't Lawful Good because "a Lawful Good person did it"; rather, a character is Lawful Good if they behave in a Lawful Good way.

Does Dvalin behave in a Lawful Good way if he swallows a preposterous voting result without question and condemns millions of dwarves to eternal damnation on the say-so of a couple dozen? Literally no one has argued for "yes"--some people, you included, have instead said the question should be a different one, one which renders the alignment system nonfunctional.

[dancrilis]

Does Dvalin behave in a Lawful Good way if he swallows a preposterous voting result without question and condemns millions of dwarves to eternal damnation on the say-so of a couple dozen?

What if now after the Dwarves know of the stakes and have time to consider and debate (as they get a new table) they decide that yes they should sacrifice themselves to save the souls of the other races from potential destruction - would you still think Dvalin would be behaving in a non-Good way if he honours that sacrifice?

Is it more Good to be more authoritarian (throwing out the democratic process that he has pledged himself towards) - I can see an arguement for more Lawful over Chaos (but even then breaking your promise doesn't exactly scream Lawful), but for Good over Evil it seems fairly neutral.

[Tzardok]

Literally no one has argued for "yes"--some people, you included, have instead said the question should be a different one, one which renders the alignment system nonfunctional.

That is not what I've been arguing for. My point is: holding an oath to be sacrosanct is a sign of being very Lawful, but doesn't tell us anything about the moral axis. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
That's why I keep bringing up the unlikely Lawful Evil hypothesis and all these other hypotheticals: because his behaviour is consistent with a Lawful Good character who's more Lawful than Good, with a Lawful Evil character who's more Lawful than Evil, and with a Lawful Neutral character who's more Lawful than Neutral.

[Metastachydium]

Okay, well, I go by what you describe. Whether a version you read or a version you effectively edited (adding things like Gawain being enraged).

Either way--saying "these characters are archetypally Lawful Good because they are so you must agree that similar behavior to theirs is Lawful Good" is an utterly pointless way to try to convince me of anything. If you describe (e.g.) Neutral Evil behavior, and then stick the name of the person I most respect in all the world on it, I'm not going to say "then that must have been Good behavior"--I'm going to say, "No they didn't!" Behavior isn't Lawful Good because "a Lawful Good person did it"; rather, a character is Lawful Good if they behave in a Lawful Good way.

Well, I happen to be familiar with the original, and if there's a version that only exists in the head of some poster, it's yours. As we have explained above, Gawain's conduct in Camelot is only that of "petty thug" if you willfully ignore virtually all the details, and his conduct afterwards (rejecting the advances of the Lady; keeping his bargain with the Lord in all ways, except for not bringing up the sash (which, mind, is a case of conflicting oaths: he swears not to mention it to the Lord); offering his neck to the Green Knight and suffering the knight's toying with him twice; apologizing in shame about the deception in the end (which the knight dismisses as nonsense (fittingly, since he cheated in the same way, and it was done to preserve a life both times)); and seeking absolution from his King and Order for breaking one of two conflicting oaths anyway upon his return) paints him as the very image of LG. Sorry.


Does Dvalin behave in a Lawful Good way if he swallows a preposterous voting result without question and condemns millions of dwarves to eternal damnation on the say-so of a couple dozen? Literally no one has argued for "yes"--some people, you included, have instead said the question should be a different one, one which renders the alignment system nonfunctional.

Like I explained at length in a previous post, that's a valid (if singularly uncharitable) interpretation, but due to deficient data, it is very far from being the only valid one. Heck, since we know jack, an argument can be made that Dvalin might be a slimy sort of NE: he's only ever shown to care about this one oath, and for all we know, he might only do so because it's a big part of why he's recognized as a demigod. His not wanting to see all his worshippers (actual and potential) sent to Hel makes sense, since he needs them more than full gods and letting the vote happen (under the assumption that those stuffy Lawful dwarves will conduct it properly without his attention) is very comfortable for him: he gets to stay on the good side of his backers, but he has no reason to suspect that any of them are stupid enough to say "yeah, let's all die a dishonourable death". Dvalin is Neutral Evil! It's a fact now!

[Crusher]

I guess Thor hates trees then.

The true avatar of senseless evil: a lawnmower.

[Metastachydium]

The true avatar of senseless evil: a lawnmower.

Wisdom hath been spoken!

[woweedd]

I'd personally bet on Davlin being Lawful Good, but, yeah, Lawful Neutral, I can see an argument for. It is, at the very least, a dumb move if not an Evil move to honor your oath at this point.

[Metastachydium]

I'd personally bet on Davlin being Lawful Good, but, yeah, Lawful Neutral, I can see an argument for. It is, at the very least, a dumb move if not an Evil move to honor your oath at this point.

[Sighs.] Lawful is still =/= dumb.

[woweedd]

[Sighs.] Lawful is still =/= dumb.
No, but choosing to follow your oath to the grave of LITERALLY EVERYONE is...Not Good.

[Peelee]

No, but choosing to follow your oath to the grave of LITERALLY EVERYONE is...Not Good.

I agree. But in Dvalin's case, it may not be a choice.

[Kish]

I agree. But in Dvalin's case, it may not be a choice.
I remember, in one of these discussion threads, speculating that Hel may be the terrible person she is in part or in whole because the Northern mortals know the goddess of death is a vicious sadist.

Thinking about it now, I think that is probably not the case, because she seemed at best pretty self-centered and obnoxious when Loki pushed her and Thor into the bet. But. Hypothetically. Suppose she was True Neutral or Lawful Neutral in some previous version. Or...Suppose that, in some future world, the Northern mortals believe that death is a kind and benevolent force and its deity definitionally gentle and loving, and Hel perforce becomes Lawful Good.

Either way, this Hel is evil.

And I would say that whatever alignment Dvalin was when he was a mortal, the version of Dvalin who was prepared to send all dwarves to Hel if the result of a Council vote said to is Lawful Neutral.

("What alignment are dwarves?" is also kind of a tricky one. 3.5ed D&D traditionally states that dwarves are Lawful Good, and then describes them as greedy, violent, xenophobic, reactionary racists. So yeah.)

[Metastachydium]

No, but choosing to follow your oath to the grave of LITERALLY EVERYONE is...Not Good.


I agree. But in Dvalin's case, it may not be a choice.

Again, we don't know that he does that. The context allows for many different readings of what Dvalin insisting on the vote means (I drew up scenarios where it would imply he's LG or NE (such is the nature of data deficiency!) myself), and the validity of each reading varies based on whether Dvalin knows/suspects the vote is going to be interfered with.

1. If he knows and still lets it happen, I would argue he is probably NOT Lawful at all: he swore an oath to consult the council of dwarven elders before making decisions of such a magnitude. Such an oath does NOT require Lawful!Dvalin to accept or even acknowledge the result if he has reason to suspect he actually consulted a bunch of vampire weirdos instead of the Council.

2. Now, if he believes the vote will not be tampered with, a NaiveGood!Dvalin has every reason to also believe that the elders won't ask for dishonourable death upon all dwarves, including themselves, so he is NOT following any oath to the grave of literally everyone, but rather has the cake and eats it. There is no contradiction.

[Tzardok]

The oath wasn't just to consult the council in matters that affect all clans, it's to obey the council's will in such matters.

[Metastachydium]

Well, yes, but that still doesn't miraculously make the Exarch and Sandy the council of dwarven elders, nor does it mean that Dvalin doesn't trust the council to do the Good Thing, so my points stand.

[dancrilis]

The oath wasn't just to consult the council in matters that affect all clans, it's to obey the council's will in such matters.

If Dvalin wanted he could likely fairly claim that those who cast a vote under the effects of domination magic were not expressing their will and so he may have discounted such in favour of merely those who voted without such interference when weighing what the will of the council was - we will likely never know.

[Peelee]

Again, we don't know that he does that.
That would indeed be why i have used non-commital wording every time i comment on it, yes.

[Tzardok]

Well, yes, but that still doesn't miraculously make the Exarch and Sandy the council of dwarven elders, nor does it mean that Dvalin doesn't trust the council to do the Good Thing, so my points stand.

Just wanted everything to be accurate. I'm Lawful that way. :smalltongue:

[Metastachydium]

That would indeed be why i have used non-commital wording every time i comment on it, yes.

About that… See, I don't think there is a scenario where Dvalin is both Lawful and knows that his obeying the council's decision causes everyone to die. He's either
a. aware that the vote will be tampered with, in which case the Lawful thing is to ignore the result (if for no other reason, simply because the oath doesn't apply anymore); or
b. not aware of Hel's intended interference, in which case his abiding by the oath is not guaranteed and not even likely to get the world destroyed.

I don't think analyzing a scenario (i.e. "Dvalin is aware that he is killing everyone, but does so anyway because of the oath") that I deem to be based on false premises can meaningfully further the discussion at hand.


Just wanted everything to be accurate. I'm Lawful that way. :smalltongue:

Now, that I have respect for!

[Peelee]

About that… See, I don't think there is a scenario where Dvalin is both Lawful and knows that his obeying the council's decision causes everyone to die. He's either
a. aware that the vote will be tampered with, in which case the Lawful thing is to ignore the result (if for no other reason, simply because the oath doesn't apply anymore); or
b. not aware of Hel's intended interference, in which case his abiding by the oath is not guaranteed and not even likely to get the world destroyed.

I don't think analyzing a scenario (i.e. "Dvalin is aware that he is killing everyone, but does so anyway because of the oath") that I deem to be based on false premises can meaningfully further the discussion at hand.

OK, again, it may be that Dvalin literally can't not abide by the council's vote. Let's say he knows full well it's being tampered with. Doesn't matter. If he must abide by the vote, then he must abide by the vote. Alignment is irrelevant to this if it's the case. What he wants to do would be irrelevant to what he is able to do. For an example, see Loki wanting to tell Hel about the Dark One but being literally unable to. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1177.html)

Gods don't work on "have absolutely unfettered free will" just like mortals do. Gods can be constrained by what their people believe about them. Dvalin may be literally unable to not abide by the vote of the council. If this is the case, it doesn't matter what his alignment is. It doesn't matter if he knows its rigged. He would have to abide by the results regardless of anything because that's how this world works.

[Metastachydium]

OK, again, it may be that Dvalin literally can't not abide by the council's vote. Let's say he knows full well it's being tampered with. Doesn't matter. If he must abide by the vote, then he must abide by the vote. Alignment is irrelevant to this if it's the case. What he wants to do would be irrelevant to what he is able to do. For an example, see Loki wanting to tell Hel about the Dark One but being literally unable to. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1177.html)

Gods don't work on "have absolutely unfettered free will" just like mortals do. Gods can be constrained by what their people believe about them. Dvalin may be literally unable to not abide by the vote of the council. If this is the case, it doesn't matter what his alignment is. It doesn't matter if he knows its rigged. He would have to abide by the results regardless of anything because that's how this world works.

I know how Stickverse!gods work. And it is perfectly irrelevant for our purposes. Why? Let's take a look:


I must (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1016.html) consult the dwarven Council of Clans before coming to any decision. (…) I swore an oath to obey the will of the Council on issues affecting all the clans.

Emphases mine. Dvalin never swore to heed the advice of two vampire randos; if he knows that the result is not the will of the duly appointed dwarves, he has no obligation to acknowledge it, and that his followers believe that he is to obey the dwarven Council of Clans doesn't affect that in any way, because what he wouldn't obey in this scenario is not that.

[Jasdoif]

What he wants to do would be irrelevant to what he is able to do. For an example, see Loki wanting to tell Hel about the Dark One but being literally unable to. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1177.html)Which doesn't change that Loki didn't tell Hel about the Dark One, nor obviate the consequences of him not telling Hel about the Dark One (most obviously, Hel not knowing what Loki knows about the Dark One).


To get back to the topic: if you're trying to say that actions shouldn't be factors of alignment in and of themselves, okay; but unless you're creating an alignment system with the specific intent of showing "actions speak louder than words" by contradiction, I don't think excluding the medium in which motivations interact is going to result in anything worthwhile. Similarly, if you're trying to say that the alignment system is ill-suited for minds that are more (overtly) susceptible to ambient external influences than ours are, okay; but that only exceeds side-note-level relevance if it's followed through to not applying alignment to them, and an argument with such a foundational target needs to be made directly.

[Peelee]

I know how Stickverse!gods work. And it is perfectly irrelevant for our purposes. Why? Let's take a look:



Emphases mine. Dvalin never swore to heed the advice of two vampire randos; if he knows that the result is not the will of the duly appointed dwarves, he has no obligation to acknowledge it, and that his followers believe that he is to obey the dwarven Council of Clans doesn't affect that in any way, because what he wouldn't obey in this scenario is not that.

It sounds like you're trying to say the equivalent of "no officer, i wasn't driving, I was travelling, this is not a commercial vehicle." Doesn't matter if there are vampires around. Doesn't matter if Dvalin knows it. If he is bound by the dwarf's beliefs that he must obey the will of the council, then he must obey the will of the council. If he's bound by that, then it really is that simple.

[Metastachydium]

It sounds like you're trying to say the equivalent of "no officer, i wasn't driving, I was travelling." Doesn't matter if there are vampires around. Doesn't matter if Dvalin knows it. If he is bound by the dwarf's beliefs that he must obey the will of the council, then he must obey the will of the council. If he's bound by that, then it really is that simple.

He must obey the will of the Council. The Exarch and Sandy are not the Council. And your analogy doesn't work. What you have is the officer watching the owner of the car duct-taped all unconscious into the driver's seat and an obvious carjacker with their hands on the wheel. Or a contract where a signatory party agrees to pay for Product X on delivery and the other shows up with a box of mouldy carrots demanding to be paid.

[dancrilis]

Doesn't matter if there are vampires around. Doesn't matter if Dvalin knows it. If he is bound by the dwarf's beliefs that he must obey the will of the council, then he must obey the will of the council. If he's bound by that, then it really is that simple.

I think the point that is being made against this (unless I am reading wrong) is that if a person who is CE becomes a deity and they are worshipped as a LG deity then if they are bound by their worshippers to be only Lawful and Good then their alignment would be LG as a deity, regardless of potential personal desires (if they are even allowed those).
As such the arguement is that if Dvalin is so tightly bound then he would be LN as his essence is bound to follow Law regardless of morality.

I don't personally adhere to this - I just don't think we have enough on Dvalin (or how he would have acted in the event that the vampire plot had finished the council vote) to say anything really about his alignment other then he seems fairly lawful.

[Kish]

It sounds like you're trying to say the equivalent of "no officer, i wasn't driving, I was travelling, this is not a commercial vehicle."
Really? Because it sounds much more to me like, "No officer, I wasn't driving, the guy who was in the driver's seat was."

He didn't swear to obey any vote result that got passed to him regardless of whether it was the will of the council or the result of tampering: he swore to obey the will of the council.

That will, as expressed by the only council members who had a will of their own at the time, being, "No! Clan Cobalt votes No!" "Clan Stonebrow votes No, too!" "Oh gods, they're both right. Hold your votes! Nobody vote!" and "What have we done?"

[Peelee]

He must obey the will of the Council. The Exarch and Sandy are not the Council. And your analogy doesn't work. What you have is the officer watching the owner of the car duct-taped all unconscious into the driver's seat and an obvious carjacker with their hands on the wheel. Or a contract where a signatory party agrees to pay for Product X on delivery and the other shows up with a box of mouldy carrots demanding to be paid.

Yeah, and a citizen traveling in their car isnt in a commercial vehicle. Hel thinks it will work. All the non-dominated dwarves who are part of the council think it will work. You do not think it will work.

Yeah, im gonna go ahead and say hes probably bound to whatever the council votes on. Since everything in the comic points in that direction and nothing at all indicates otherwise.

Really? Because it sounds much more to me like, "No officer, I wasn't driving, the guy who was in the driver's seat was."
See above. Im not the one saying "well if ee look at the exact words being used and parse them in a very soecific way...".

Dude obeys the will of the council. The council is telling him their will. I aint the one trying to get all rules-lawyery on this.

[Metastachydium]

Really? Because it sounds much more to me like, "No officer, I wasn't driving, the guy who was in the driver's seat was."

He didn't swear to obey any vote result that got passed to him regardless of whether it was the will of the council or the result of tampering: he swore to obey the will of the council.

That will, as expressed by the only council members who had a will of their own at the time, being, "No! Clan Cobalt votes No!" "Clan Stonebrow votes No, too!" "Oh gods, they're both right. Hold your votes! Nobody vote!" and "What have we done?"

Precisely.


Yeah, and a citizen traveling in their car isnt in a commercial vehicle.

Sorry, still no. This is not a terminological issue. The Exarch and Sandy are not dwarven clan elders. It's as simple as that. If you walk into the chamber of a legislative body with a gun and press all the voting buttons in plain view of the cameras, the "result" of the "vote" will mean jack.


Hel thinks it will work. All the non-dominated dwarves who are part of the council think it will work. You do not think it will work.

Yeah, im gonna go ahead and say hes probably bound to whatever the council votes on. Since everything in the comic points in that direction and nothing at all indicates otherwise.

You are forgetting a crucial detail: we don't know if Dvalin knows


Dude obeys the will of the council. The council is telling him their will. I aint the one trying to get all rules-lawyery on this.

Dude obeys the will of the council. A thir party tells him their (i.e. the third party's) will. If Dvalin, for whatever reason, doesn't realize the vote's been hijacked, he will obey it so far as we can tell. We have no idea if Dvalin realizes that much and how that (would) affect his decision making if he does. Sorry.

(Edit: Also, ignoring both the letter and the spirit of a law is not Lawful, so I fail to see what your theory can tell us about Dvalin's alignment.)

[Peelee]

You are forgetting a crucial detail: we don't know if Dvalin knows

I thought i has been very clear on this but apparently i have bem mistaken. Let me be perfectly clear.

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF DVALIN KNOWS.

All that matters is that he is absolutely bound to do what the cpuncil tells him (which may or may not be the case, but i suspect is). If he is, then the council votes and he abides by the vote. Every character who knows how it works in comic acts like that is how it works. We actually see the process of it working like that. Your insistence that it does not, despite all the characters who know how it works acting otherwise. I do not know why you hold to such insistence, but it is clear i will not be able to dissuade you (granted, i should have come to this conclusion long ago when the comic itself failed to dissuade you).

[woweedd]

I thought i has been very clear on this but apparently i have bem mistaken. Let me be perfectly clear.

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF DVALIN KNOWS.

All that matters is that he is absolutely bound to do what the cpuncil tells him (which may or may not be the case, but i suspect is). If he is, then the council votes and he abides by the vote. Every character who knows how it works in comic acts like that is how it works. We actually see the process of it working like that. Your insistence that it does not, despite all the characters who know how it works acting otherwise. I do not know why you hold to such insistence, but it is clear i will not be able to dissuade you (granted, i should have come to this conclusion long ago when the comic itself failed to dissuade you).

I mean, if he's forced to follow the will of the council, as he understands it, above all else...That would make him Lawful Neutral, right? Like, regardless of why he is, he still is. I imagine he would declare the dominated vote invalid if he knew about it, but he doesn't: As the comic notes, "The Gods can only see and hear each other". And it's not utterly implausible for the Council to vote the other way un-dominated: Dwarves are, by the nature of the very oath that led to this nature, a culture of pathological self-sacrifice: They may very well consider their entire race being dammed to Hel a fair price for saving the souls of every other sapient being on the planet. Overall, i'd bet on Davlin being Lawful Good, given that he does seem to be remembered as a good king by the Dwarves, if perhaps putting a bit too much emphasis on the Law bit (hey, a lot like Durkon used to be, wonder if that's part of the theme here...), but I could see an argument for Lawful Neutral. Choosing to uphold his oath under the circumstances is certainly a Lawful act and certainly not a Good one. Doesn't make him non-Good, mind, just more connected to the Lawful half (and also, perhaps, not the sharpest).

[Metastachydium]

I thought i has been very clear on this but apparently i have bem mistaken. Let me be perfectly clear.

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF DVALIN KNOWS.

All that matters is that he is absolutely bound to do what the cpuncil tells him (which may or may not be the case, but i suspect is). If he is, then the council votes and he abides by the vote. Every character who knows how it works in comic acts like that is how it works. We actually see the process of it working like that. Your insistence that it does not, despite all the characters who know how it works acting otherwise.

Whether if Dvalin is aware of the intended fraud or not influences his final vote or not NEVER comes up explicitly NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIMES YOU REPEAT THAT IT IS SELF-EVIDENT TO YOU. What we are shown is perfectly consistent with the reading that Hel's plan relies on Dvalin being deceived. That Roy is absolutely convinced that the vote cannot result in the world getting undone until after the Exarch whom the gods do not hear stupidly reveals what Hel's plan is to Greg's mild displeasure points in the same way. The rest is your personal headcanon, and "it doesn't matter if Dvalin knows because it doesn't matter if Dvalin knows" is an obtuse circular reasoning anyhow.


I do not know why you hold to such insistence, but it is clear i will not be able to dissuade you (granted, i should have come to this conclusion long ago when the comic itself failed to dissuade you).

So, all in all: stop confusing the comic with your personal reading of the comic. That may help with understanding how people seeing the same things can reach different conclusions.

[Kish]

Meanwhile, my position is that Dvalin is probably bound to obey whatever gets passed to him as "this is the result of the Council's vote" by something...

But it's sure not by any reasonable reading of "I swore to follow the will of the Council." This isn't rules-lawyering unless suggesting that words mean things is rules-lawyering. Nor is it parsing, just reading.

I think the distinction would be entirely lost on Dvalin. I think most likely, what binds him to swallow the results of the vote that get passed to him without thought is that the concept "maybe procedure being followed leads to something that wasn't what you intended" makes his brain do a division by zero error...

...because he's Lawful Neutral.

[hroþila]

As the comic notes, "The Gods can only see and hear each other"
In bed At the Godsmoot. There's no particular reason why Dvalin shouldn't be aware of what's being done quite openly in Firmament, even if he can only hear his own priest during the Council of Clans itself as part of the Zot! spell (assuming it's exactly the same one used at the Godsmoot).

That element of the story never quite worked for me personally. I don't think it's particularly Lawful to stick to a vote you positively know to have been manipulated, not when you swore to obey the will of the council, and I personally think it's implausible for Dvalin not to realize that the will of some councilors has been annulled here. I dunno, like it's a bit too silly to hang such an important plot element on it. But this is extremely subjective, especially since silliness has always been such an integral part of this comic.

(I do think it's probably the case that Dvalin would accept the result of the vote even if he knew some councilors had been dominated, because he's probably supposed to be the kind of inflexible bureaucratic Lawful that sticks to procedure no matter what, much like the councilors who make a note to fully investigate the allegations that some of them are being dominated after the meeting despite how obvious and urgent the matter is. To me that does suggest Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Good or Lawful Evil, because it's like... pure Lawfulness with little room for anything else)

[Peelee]

Whether if Dvalin is aware of the intended fraud or not influences his final vote or not NEVER comes up explicitly NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIMES YOU REPEAT THAT IT IS SELF-EVIDENT TO YOU. What we are shown is perfectly consistent with the reading that Hel's plan relies on Dvalin being deceived. That Roy is absolutely convinced that the vote cannot result in the world getting undone until after the Exarch whom the gods do not hear stupidly reveals what Hel's plan is to Greg's mild displeasure points in the same way. The rest is your personal headcanon, and "it doesn't matter if Dvalin knows because it doesn't matter if Dvalin knows" is an obtuse circular reasoning anyhow.



So, all in all: stop confusing the comic with your personal reading of the comic. That may help with understanding how people seeing the same things can reach different conclusions.

So here's the thing. Nobody ever says or implies that they plan to deceive Dvalin. This reading is "consistent" with the narrative only in that it is not ever discussed, and thus not ever dismissed. Conversely, we are directly told that Dvalin will do whatever the council tells him, and yet you wamt to die on the hill of a critical reading into the semantics of the exact verbiage used to claim a technicality. But this isn't a term of art. This is the author telling us "hey here's how this works so you can see the danger". Its a plain and simple way of communicating what is going to happen - ie that Dvalin will do what the council tells him to do. It doesn't matter that they're dominated by vampires. It doesn't matter that they're being told what to do. And, presumably, it doesn't matter if Dvalin even knows about it.

Imean, if you want to talk about personal headcanons and the webcomic, your entire argument had zero foundation beyond that nobody has said it isn't the case. Mine rests on "what if we just believe what Dvalin tells us and what Hel and the dwarven councilors fully believe to be the case?"

[Metastachydium]

So here's the thing. Nobody ever says or implies that they plan to deceive Dvalin.

Meh. Again, Greg does explicitly state that the plan being revealed ahead of time is not ideal and the Exarch pontificates at length about how they are using trickery and deceit.


This reading is "consistent" with the narrative only in that it is not ever discussed, and thus not ever dismissed. Conversely, we are directly told that Dvalin will do whatever the council tells him, and yet you wamt to die on the hill of a critical reading into the semantics of the exact verbiage used to claim a technicality. But this isn't a term of art. This is the author telling us "hey here's how this works so you can see the danger". Its a plain and simple way of communicating what is going to happen - ie that Dvalin will do what the council tells him to do. It doesn't matter that they're dominated by vampires. It doesn't matter that they're being told what to do. And, presumably, it doesn't matter if Dvalin even knows about it.

Noipe. That is your personal reading that is entirely dependent on everyone else accepting that your premise is correct. The difference between the dwarven Council of Clans and two non-dwarven randos sent by a third party is not semantic, but rather factual. You are the one ready to die on the hill that Dvalin is somehow made so Lawful by his followers that he ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW, ITS LETTER OR ITS SPIRIT.

Another quick analogy: this is an election fraud, so let's talk about election frauds. You fill out enough illegally acquired legitimate ballots yourself and destroy enough real ballots, and it would seem that your candidate won, because, say, 72% of all ballots that end up counted have your candidate's name on them. Do it on the counter of a police station in clear view of a camera, and you're busted. It's as simple as that.


Imean, if you want to talk about personal headcanons and the webcomic, your entire argument had zero foundation beyond that nobody has said it isn't the case. Mine rests on "what if we just believe what Dvalin tells us and what Hel and the dwarven councilors fully believe to be the case?"

What Dvalin tells us is not what you claim he tells us; what Hel and the dwarven councillors tell us only confirms that the risk is real and doesn't clearly indicate the why. You invented one possible reason and declared it the One True Canon Answer. It's not. It's plausible (you are the one insisting all possibilities other than your pet theory are invalid, mind you), but it's in your head. Sorry.


In bed At the Godsmoot. There's no particular reason why Dvalin shouldn't be aware of what's being done quite openly in Firmament, even if he can only hear his own priest during the Council of Clans itself as part of the Zot! spell (assuming it's exactly the same one used at the Godsmoot).

That's the point, really. There's no particular reason why he can't be aware, but there's no particular reason why he must be aware either. In fact, if we take a look at the only comparable vote, the full Moot, it is entirely plausible that the voting is "automated" and Dvalin only hears a bunch of Yes and No answers.


That element of the story never quite worked for me personally. I don't think it's particularly Lawful to stick to a vote you positively know to have been manipulated, not when you swore to obey the will of the council, and I personally think it's implausible for Dvalin not to realize that the will of some councilors has been annulled here. I dunno, like it's a bit too silly to hang such an important plot element on it. But this is extremely subjective, especially since silliness has always been such an integral part of this comic.

Yeah. I can relate. My main issue, though, was that the solution ended up quite inorganic: the whole thing was defused by using a loophole that we only learned about after the thing was over. It felt awkward.

More pertinently, yes, there is literally nothing Lawful about ignoring the law (in letter and spirit), so if Dvalin had to accept a result even if he knew it to be a product of brazen and clear fraud as Peelee believes he had to, that's not a terribly good argument for him being Lawful. Quite on the contrary, in fact.

[Tzardok]

I'd really like to see the stipulations of the Council of Clans right now. Who knows, maybe they have a section in there regarding councillors being mindcontrolled. Would surely give some clarity to this discussion. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

That Roy is absolutely convinced that the vote cannot result in the world getting undone until after the Exarch whom the gods do not hear stupidly reveals what Hel's plan is to Greg's mild displeasure points in the same way.
I would also say that this is because "follow procedure even if it leads to your violating your oath" makes no sense to Roy. Because he's Lawful Good and Dvalin's...I've said it so many times by now. And it's one strip's final-panel punchline that Roy expects rational behavior from Lawful people, whereas Haley doesn't (and might have gone straight to "I'm sure he'll find some dumb reason to vote Yes.").

(Edited to add in response to Meta's latest post that Lawful means "ordered," not "obeys the law." "Is procedure being followed? Yes? I need know no more" is a quintessentially Lawful Neutral perspective.)

[Metastachydium]

I would also say that this is because "follow procedure even if it leads to your violating your oath" makes no sense to Roy. Because he's Lawful Good and Dvalin's...I've said it so many times by now. And it's one strip's final-panel punchline that Roy expects rational behavior from Lawful people, whereas Haley doesn't (and might have gone straight to "I'm sure he'll find some dumb reason to vote Yes.").

I hear you, but "I'm only really doing this because I swore an oath, so I'll go do it but violate that oath" still doesn't sound very Lawful to me.

[Peelee]

Meh. Again, Greg does explicitly state that the plan being revealed ahead of time is not ideal and the Exarch pontificates at length about how they are using trickery and deceit.


Noipe. That is your personal reading that is entirely dependent on everyone else accepting that your premise is correct. The difference between the dwarven Council of Clans and two non-dwarven randos sent by a third party is not semantic, but rather factual. You are the one ready to die on the hill that Dvalin is somehow made so Lawful by his followers that he ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW, ITS LETTER OR ITS SPIRIT.

Ah, I see the disconnects here. The comic explains the importance of plans not being revealed in advance (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html), and your definition of "Lawful" is neither the D&D nor the OotS definition (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?286395-Vigilantism-and-the-Lawful-Alignment-in-OotS/page2&p=15364378#post15364378) of "Lawful".

[Precure]

For me, "I will follow this obviously mind-controlled council's decision, even though I swore an oath to follow the will of the council" is neither LG nor LN but simply Lawful Stupid. So, I don't see this plot as relevant to Dvalin's alignment at all.

[Metastachydium]

Ah, I see the disconnects here. The comic explains the importance of plans not being revealed in advance (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html),

Too bad the very same strip makes it clear that only people like Elan, Tarquin and Julio really care about that and that it's very far from a hard and fast rule.


and your definition of "Lawful" is neither the D&D

?

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

(…)

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

(…)

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

(…)

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.


Please do point out where this contradicts the notion that "willfully ignoring the law is not Lawful".


nor the OotS definition (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?286395-Vigilantism-and-the-Lawful-Alignment-in-OotS/page2&p=15364378#post15364378) of "Lawful".

Ditto.

[Peelee]

Too bad the very same strip makes it clear that only people like Elan, Tarquin and Julio really care about that and that it's very far from a hard and fast rule.
Ah, the "If Hel doesn't explicitly say it then she doesn't do it" idea. Despite that she helped create these rules for the world. Gotcha.

Please do point out where this contradicts the notion that "willfully ignoring the law is not Lawful".
Ignoring that poor characterization of my argument, bolding mine, in your own quote blocks.


“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.
I am unsure but it seems as if you think that Lawful means all puppies daisies and sunshine. It does not, and there are downsides to being Lawful. Dvalin is displaying virtually all of the downsides of being Lawful, in that he swore to obey the council in life and in godhood that likely became an absolute unbreakable mandate.

Ditto.
Bolding mine, in the post you yourself linked to.

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



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


I don't think they need to, no. Look at Elan: as Chaotic as they come, but he obeys the law most of the time. The real issue is, how does a character respond when what they believe and what the government is doing don't agree?
Dvalin's need to obey the council is not "personal", it is external (ie enforced through the worship and belief that he cannot do otherwise). It is a different shade of "Lawful" than the very narrow definition that you are trying to enforce on it. It is an existing framework that is being warped and being gamed (not even by him!). That doesn't mean he can just toss it all out. That's Chaotic. And when what he believes (even if he knows about it, lets say), and what his oath mandates don't agree? Chaotic would be going with what he believes above all. Lawful would be sticking to the oath in any event (which, again, I think isn't even a choice for him, but if you want to argue about how he must be tricked for it to work, then this is why you're still wrong). The Law, in this case, is his being bound to vote as the council tells him to. I'm not the one saying he is ignoring it. I'm saying that he would not ignore it no matter what, in any circumstance. I have no idea how you could possibly have gotten "I am saying ignoring the law is Lawful" from that. Which means that as much as I'd love to continue playing "Peelee explains the things that you yourself link to", I sincerely doubt this will resolve with either of us convincing the other.

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh, hey, this is a good opportunity for me to revisit an old post of mine.


For reference, #999 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) is the comic that lists the members of the Northern Pantheon and their votes (except for Hel, who is covered in the next one).

It's interesting how the division between gods and mythological giants doesn't seem to exist at all here; not only are the giants divine, but the gods normally depicted as being human-sized are gigantic. (Of course, this world presumably contains mortal giants.)

Incidentally, it's not too hard to see a one to one correspondence between the Northern Gods and the core Cleric domains:




Deity

Domain



Odin, God of Magic
Magic


Tyr, God of War
War


Loki, God of Fire
Fire


Hel, Goddess of Death
Death


Sif, Goddess of Earth
Earth


Sunna, Goddess of the Sun
Sun


Frigg, Goddess of Wisdom
Knowledge


Njord, God of the Sea
Water


Feyr, God of Prosperity
Luck


Thor, God of Storms
Air


Heimdall, God of the Watch
Protection


Freya, Goddess of Fertility
Plant


Skadi, Goddess of the Hunt
Animal


Vafthrudnir, God of Secrets
Trickery


Hoder, God of Winter
Destruction


Fenrir, God of Monsters
Strength


Balder, God of Beauty
Healing


Mani, God of the Moon
Travel



Granted, those last few were largely by elimination. Of course, each deity presumably has at least three domains, but maybe each of them is in charge of one of them.
The list spoilered above is based mostly on titles; a deity of X had better grant the X domain, or the Y domain if Y is synonymous with X. I see Heimdall's and Freyr's statements as pretty solidly confirming my suspicions, while Hoder's are my main justification for that one beyond process of elimination.


In D&D terms, "chaotic" alignment means being in favor of personal liberties, freedom, and so forth; it has nothing to do with erratic or crazy behavior. Thor acting like a drunken idiot means he has low wisdom; it does not mean anything in particular about his alignment.
... Most people prefer not to be punished on a regular basis. So those prone to crazy, erratic behavior tend to dislike strong controlling authority that punishes crazy, erratic behavior. (Well, unless it's their own authority over others, for the Evil crowd. "Freedom just is another word for power, and power over others diminishes their freedom/power, so it's inherently a zero-sum game, and I play to win, because I'm not a chump.") The lolrandom crowd is gonna mostly come down on the freedom side of your classic "freedom versus security" dealamabob. Why else would that be called "chaotic"?

The relevant text here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) is "On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility".

The alignments have been described a lot of different ways over the editions, always with a lack of clear and definitive statements of a form like "A character is [alignment] if and only if [conditions]". How much weight should be given to each part is open to interpretation. So the claim that Chaotic alignment equals valuing freedom is debatable. But even given that premise, the desire for freedom correlates with other things, as discussed above. That's... why they're included with the description of Chaos.

So your claim that Chaotic alignment "has nothing to do with" erratic or crazy behavior rather fails to make sense, especially given what's written in the alignment section of the rules.


Speaking solely for myself, I do not think that being forced to do things reflects on alignment. For example, I do not think Loki is chaotic because he lies, I think he is chaotic because of actions he willingly takes.
Well, first off, I doubt that Dvalin and Loki were mistakenly mischaracterized to a "Thor hates trees" degree here. Loki probably developed a reputation as consistently dishonest by being very dishonest. If Dvalin has a reputation of always doing what the council says, that's probably due to him reliably doing what the council says. We can imagine that deities' most memetic traits often become exaggerated over time... which, um, seems both very worrying and like it could explain a lot? But that's different from those traits being invented out of whole cloth.

Secondly, in cases like these, I doubt that deities' followers regard them as being forced to do anything by anyone but themselves. And because the perceptions of those followers are what makes the deities how they are, that's probably how it is. That is to say, Loki isn't made to lie even if he doesn't choose to, he's made to be a pathological liar who always chooses to lie.

"Free will" can mean a lot of things. One of the things it can mean is our preferences deciding our actions, which is ordinary and unremarkable. A different thing it can mean is our preferences not having causes. And, not to put too fine a point on it, free will in that sense is rather obviously not a real thing? Like, gods' personality traits being shaped by forces outside of their control isn't some weird thing that makes them different from mortals.

[Metastachydium]

Ah, the "If Hel doesn't explicitly say it then she doesn't do it" idea. Despite that she helped create these rules for the world. Gotcha.

?


Ignoring that poor characterization of my argument, bolding mine, in your own quote blocks.

I am unsure but it seems as if you think that Lawful means all puppies daisies and sunshine. It does not, and there are downsides to being Lawful. Dvalin is displaying virtually all of the downsides of being Lawful, in that he swore to obey the council in life and in godhood that likely became an absolute unbreakable mandate.


The bit with daisies is appreciated, but the rest… It's a non-argument, really. If Dvalin is Lawful and he knowingly violates the oath because he "has to obey it" only makes sense on the odd chance that as Kish put it, it's a divide by zero meltdown event. Close-mindedness and reactionary adherence to tradition are not explanations that help your point, since not tolerating crystal clear fraud is not a "progressive innovation"; it should be the default. "Lack of adaptability" is the only saving grace of your position, and only if it makes Dvalin freeze up in the worst possible moment (and we never get around to seeing if that happens), but how it makes that point somehow "canonically more valid" than any other position is beyond me.

Not to mention that all these flaws are only Lawful insofar as a Lawful being has this limitations because of they exhibit (and I quote) "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability", they "tell the truth, keep [their] word" or "ac[t] as law, tradition or a personal code directs [them]". That they must obey illegitimate authority, break their word and ignore the law because they swore an oath to some effect is a big leap of logic. If the issue was "the actual Council will almost certainly choose death" (which no one ever implies) or "the world will get eaten if the Moot's resolution is delayed by several days" (which, again, no one treats as the main concern), you'd be correct. That's inflexibility, close-mindedness and obtuse adherence of tradition causing serious issues. Knowingly violating an oath because one swore that oath? No, sorry, that's a different species (or phylum, even) altogether.


Bolding mine, in the post you yourself linked to.

Dvalin's need to obey the council is not "personal", it is external (ie enforced through the worship and belief that he cannot do otherwise). It is a different shade of "Lawful" than the very narrow definition that you are trying to enforce on it. It is an existing framework that is being warped and being gamed (not even by him!). That doesn't mean he can just toss it all out. That's Chaotic. And when what he believes (even if he knows about it, lets say), and what his oath mandates[B] don't agree? Chaotic would be going with what he believes above all. Lawful would be [B]sticking to the oath in any event (which, again, I think isn't even a choice for him, but if you want to argue about how he must be tricked for it to work, then this is why you're still wrong). The Law, in this case, is his being bound to vote as the council tells him to. I'm not the one saying he is ignoring it. I'm saying that he would not ignore it no matter what, in any circumstance. I have no idea how you could possibly have gotten "I am saying ignoring the law is Lawful" from that. Which means that as much as I'd love to continue playing "Peelee explains the things that you yourself link to", I sincerely doubt this will resolve with either of us convincing the other.

For the umpteenth time, the existing framework involves
1. an oath that Dvalin will obey the will of the dwarven Council of Clans;
2. the Exarch and Sandy, or Hel, for that matter are not the dwarven Council of Clans;
3. therefore, what they write on a bunch of stolen ballots, to stick with my analogy from before, is not the will of the Council;
4. and as such, if Dvalin is aware that what is transmitted to him is this bundle of false votes that do not reflect the will of the Council, he does not honour his oath by acknowledging this result;
5. but rather knowingly violates it.

If you wish to continue chasing your tail and insist on your circular "Dvalin must obey whatever he gets, no matter what he knows because he must obey it" nonsense that pretends the oath's actual terms corresponding to the facts on the ground doesn't matter at all: okay, that's your choice. But I'd take it as a personal favour if you stopped smugly pretending you are "explaining me" some "self-evident things" when you are really just randomly declaring that things somehow prove your point and definitively refute all positions that don't conform to this theory, even though that takes massive leaps in logic and accepting, frankly, dubious premises.

[Tzardok]

The sad thing about this argument is that you are both on the same side regarding the original issue, you just got to blows about a hypothetical. :smallfrown:

[dancrilis]

... but how it makes that point somehow "canonically more valid" than any other position is beyond me.


In relation to the Dvalin damns the dwarves to Hel plan.

Hel treats her plan is sound, not-Durkon treats the plan as sound, the Order treats the plan as sound, Thor and Loki treat the plan as sound - and none of the high priests (including the high priest of Dvalin) indicate that the plan is anything other then sound.

Would Dvalin have actually done it?
Who knows, the Giant could justify him doing are not doing it in any number of ways if he wanted to write that story.

But the way the story is written is that we are led to believe that Dvalin would have done so - as such that does seem 'canonically more valid' then other possibilities (at least to me).

[Jasdoif]

In relation to the Dvalin damns the dwarves to Hel plan.

Hel treats her plan is sound, not-Durkon treats the plan as sound, the Order treats the plan as sound, Thor and Loki treat the plan as sound - and none of the high priests (including the high priest of Dvalin) indicate that the plan is anything other then sound.

Would Dvalin have actually done it?
Who knows, the Giant could justify him doing are not doing it in any number of ways if he wanted to write that story.

But the way the story is written is that we are led to believe that Dvalin would have done so - as such that does seem 'canonically more valid' then other possibilities (at least to me).The most effective way a break like that would work would be for comedic effect; I'm thinking specifically of the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Armageddon Game", where the clue leading to an investigation into the "death" of Miles O'Brien is that falsified footage shows him drinking coffee in the afternoon, which his wife Keiko insists he never does...and in the last four lines of dialog in the episode, after he's been recovered and things have been figured out; it's revealed that he does, in fact, drink coffee in the afternoon. It's played for laughs in her reaction (Rosalind Chao can do a lot with her face and two words).

That, however, works because that affects the framing of the conflict rather than being an integral part of the conflict itself (so the stakes weren't undercut); and because the antagonists were out of the picture so the character implications are limited to Keiko's unfamiliarity with her husband's current coffee habits, which is minor in scope (unlike the fate of the world) and easy to adjust (unlike the perceived intelligence of deities).


Now I could see the comic's ending strip having a panel with Hel, Thor and Loki all screaming "WHAT?!?!" at Dvalin...if three sets of timing work out so the rifts are secured, the paused council resumes, and Last-Vampire-Standing (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1175.html) has managed to dominate the council again; just for Dvalin to reveal that the Council has voted "yes" but he was always going to vote "no" after he got the result anyway. It's not the kind of thing I would bet on while the stakes are still on the table, though.

[Metastachydium]

In relation to the Dvalin damns the dwarves to Hel plan.

Hel treats her plan is sound, not-Durkon treats the plan as sound,

Greg is unhappy that the Exarch prematurely spills the beans, however.


the Order treats the plan as sound,

And it's not like they can just notify Dvalin.


Thor and Loki treat the plan as sound

That's a better point already, but if Loki is a known lier and Thor is Chaotic with an agenda…


and none of the high priests (including the high priest of Dvalin) indicate that the plan is anything other then sound.

Well, they can't leave Zenith Peak and explicitly can't talk to anyone on the outside.



Would Dvalin have actually done it?
Who knows, the Giant could justify him doing are not doing it in any number of ways if he wanted to write that story.

Certainly! I never dismissed that possibility as valid. But in that case, I'd argue that Dvalin cannot be Lawful because his being considerd most likley Lawful hinges on his honouring the oath which he would knowingly violate if he had been aware of the vote being rigged and would have accepted the result anyhow. That wouls, in fact, make it more feasible for me that he is TN or NE and simply a slacker who prefers to delegate decisionmaking to his unwilling underlings (i.e. the Whiterock elder's grumblings make good points).


But the way the story is written is that we are led to believe that Dvalin would have done so - as such that does seem 'canonically more valid' then other possibilities (at least to me).

I'm not convinced, but yes, that is a perfectly valid and intuitive reading. Nonetheless, as far as I'm concerned, it calls into question Dvalin's being Lawful.


The sad thing about this argument is that you are both on the same side regarding the original issue, you just got to blows about a hypothetical. :smallfrown:

[EVIL Flower grin.] Welcome to the forum!


The most effective way a break like that would work would be for comedic effect; I'm thinking specifically of the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Armageddon Game", where the clue leading to an investigation into the "death" of Miles O'Brien is that falsified footage shows him drinking coffee in the afternoon, which his wife Keiko insists he never does...and in the last four lines of dialog in the episode, after he's been recovered and things have been figured out; it's revealed that he does, in fact, drink coffee in the afternoon. It's played for laughs in her reaction (Rosalind Chao can do a lot with her face and two words).

That, however, works because that affects the framing of the conflict rather than being an integral part of the conflict itself (so the stakes weren't undercut); and because the antagonists were out of the picture so the character implications are limited to Keiko's unfamiliarity with her husband's current coffee habits, which is minor in scope (unlike the fate of the world) and easy to adjust (unlike the perceived intelligence of deities).


Now I could see the comic's ending strip having a panel with Hel, Thor and Loki all screaming "WHAT?!?!" at Dvalin...if three sets of timing work out so the rifts are secured, the paused council resumes, and Last-Vampire-Standing (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1175.html) has managed to dominate the council again; just for Dvalin to reveal that the Council has voted "yes" but he was always going to vote "no" after he got the result anyway. It's not the kind of thing I would bet on while the stakes are still on the table, though.

Heh. Much, much screaming would have ensued on the boards and I couldn't have blamed anyone for that.

[woweedd]

Meanwhile, my position is that Dvalin is probably bound to obey whatever gets passed to him as "this is the result of the Council's vote" by something...

But it's sure not by any reasonable reading of "I swore to follow the will of the Council." This isn't rules-lawyering unless suggesting that words mean things is rules-lawyering. Nor is it parsing, just reading.

I think the distinction would be entirely lost on Dvalin. I think most likely, what binds him to swallow the results of the vote that get passed to him without thought is that the concept "maybe procedure being followed leads to something that wasn't what you intended" makes his brain do a division by zero error...

...because he's Lawful Neutral.

I tend to suspect Lawful Good myself, but, yeah, for sure a Lawful Good with a bit more emphasis on the Law then is usual. As I said, probably international as it forms a good contrast to Durkon, who also places a bit more emphasis on the Law half of his alignment then, say, Roy. I do tend to suspect Davlin would reject the vote (or, at least, call a re-do) if he knew some of the Council were mind-controlled, but...He doesn't know that, so...Kinda moot. If Davlin had bothered to double-check if there was mind-control after being handed the results, the plan would have been sunk, but, well, as the comic has said before, a frequent flaw in the Lawful is a tendency to accept the rules as presented at face-value instead of checking for deception. Unwise, but not non-Good.