SOD SPOILERS: The Dark One's Allies

[Alex Warlorn]

It's shown in Start of Darkness that Loki, Tiamat, and Rat defend Dark One's existence among the patheon when he first arrives.
I don't know about Rat and Tiamat in The Giant's campaign world. But Loki has been shown to destroy villages for his own amusement. This implies the philophy of Evil: That it's an every being for itself world, or to be more precise, the inferior exist for the pureposes of the superior. With this in mind, why would Loki defend Dark One in the first place? For that matter, why would he warn his worst rival about not taunting a beast that could get his rival worse than killed?

[factotum]

When the Gods remade the world after the Snarl destroyed the first one, they were specifically trying to avoid the same sort of disagreements that had resulted in the creation of the beast in the first place. It's therefore not unreasonable to assume that Loki and Thor's differences were put aside for the duration--no doubt it was business as usual once they were sure the Snarl was safely imprisoned. (Also, Loki might have been looking out for his own skin, since he might think that taunting the Snarl would just make it more dangerous).

Incidentally, the one we saw destroying a village for his own amusement was Surtur, not Loki; Surtur is actually the leader of the Fire Giants, not a God.

As for why the Evil gods defended the right of the Dark One to be a god? Who knows? Maybe the Good gods outnumbered them (chances are the Elven gods are all goody-goody two-shoes) so they felt a little more Evil might help balance things out.

[Alex Warlorn]

'You will drink the blood of innocents and like it.' -- Goblin Priest to his son. And it's been said that the Dark One is a patheon of one.

Except the Dark One has never done anything evil. He acts more like St. Cuthbert. A deity who believes in bringing forth justice though the most ruthless means possible.

So with their ONLY deity like that, why do goblins still embrace the philophy of Evil instead of having shifted to a more benign philophy?

[Kish]

'You will drink the blood of innocents and like it.' -- Goblin Priest to his son. And it's been said that the Dark One is a patheon of one.

Except the Dark One has never done anything evil.
SoD spoilers.

Except that, as Redcloak's brother pointed out, he apparently doesn't care how many of his people are pointlessly slaughtered by Xykon in pursuit of his Plan.

Except that he's prepared to accept the obliteration of the entire world and everyone in it, goblinoids included, down to their souls, and treat it as a win just because the group that comprises his precious worshipers could be a PC race in the next world.

Except that he makes no pretense of caring what happens to intelligent nonhumanoid monsters, only humanoids, even when Redcloak is non-objectively describing his goals (remember, Redcloak says no humanoids will get the shaft in the next world). Except that therefore it is pretty certain that, in the World 3.0 he envisions, there would be no shortage of cannon-fodder races for his PC-race goblin clerics to slaughter for XP--with his general attitude being "we got ours."

I reject judging the morality of entire races rather than individuals as strongly as anybody, and the Dark One is still evil. He just has actual reasons for being evil, instead of--as the average adventurer would likely describe it--being evil because he's the god of an evil race.

[SPoD]

Except the Dark One has never done anything evil.

Just because we don't see the Dark One doing anything evil in the 15 or so pages he appears in Start of Darkness doesn't mean he has never performed an evil act. The Plan that he's set Redcloak on is certainly Evil enough, regardless of his personal actions. If it works, it's extortion, and if it fails, it's the irrevocable murder of every living thing on the planet.

Also, don't forget that it is possible that he only became Evil upon becoming a god and learning all of the ways his people were screwed over.

[Alfryd]

It's shown in Start of Darkness that Loki, Tiamat, and Rat defend Dark One's existence among the patheon when he first arrives.
Uh... not quite. Loki and Tiamat defend tDO initially. We don't have a strict guarantee that Rat is also Evil, since he's only described as an ally later on, though he does seem on first-name terms with Tiamat.


Except the Dark One has never done anything evil. He acts more like St. Cuthbert. A deity who believes in bringing forth justice though the most ruthless means possible.
An interesting perspective, but that can still, in practice, be a moderately Evil proposition. Plus, tDO was created a God after a year of unceasing violence and bloodshed, which probably tainted his disposition.


SoD spoilers...
ARE COMPLETELY UNNECESARY WITHIN A THREAD THAT ALREADY SAYS 'SOD SPOILERS!'

Except that, as Redcloak's brother pointed out, he apparently doesn't care how many of his people are pointlessly slaughtered by Xykon in pursuit of his Plan.
:miko: "The Gods don't actively interfere with these events, so they must approve wholeheartedly."

Except that he's prepared to accept the obliteration of the entire world and everyone in it, goblinoids included, down to their souls, and treat it as a win just because the group that comprises his precious worshipers could be a PC race in the next world.
Everyone has the right to risk their life in order to defend it, their property, their rights, or their freedom. Whether you're allowed to risk someone's else's life for the sake of their life, property, rights or freedom is a dicier issue, but there you are.
Besides, as I understand it, the whole 'end of the world' thing ain't exactly Plan A. And the Evil of annihalating an entire generation of sentient beings has to be weighed against the Evil of countless further generations condemned to death and misery if the situation persists, generations, moreover, belonging to species which make up the majority of sentient mortals. 'Suck it hard, bitch' is not an option.

Except that he makes no pretense of caring what happens to intelligent nonhumanoid monsters, only humanoids, even when Redcloak is non-objectively describing his goals (remember, Redcloak says no humanoids will get the shaft in the next world). Except that therefore it is pretty certain that, in the World 3.0 he envisions, there would be no shortage of cannon-fodder races for his PC-race goblin clerics to slaughter for XP--with his general attitude being "we got ours."
I'm sorry, but I see no compelling evidence for this.

You could well say that Redcloak is being overly naive in assuming that tDO will truly use his unlimited, unchecked power solely for the noblest and most equitable of ends, but the Gods really have had it coming.

[Dark Matter]

It's shown in Start of Darkness that Loki, Tiamat, and Rat defend Dark One's existence among the patheon when he first arrives.Hmm... are these three all of the same Alignment?

[Paladin29]

well, if Rich wants to give them the same theological meaning, i doubt that Loki can be equivalent to Tiamat. Tiamat is a true evil goddess in babylonian religion, she wants to conquer the world with her army of sea monsters and only Marduk can defeat her. On the other hand Loki is a liar and a thief, but he is not a genocidal maniac (Chaotic neutral perhaps). My lack of knowledge in chinesse theology prevents me to make any judgements about Rat.

[monty]

well, if Rich wants to give them the same theological meaning, i doubt that Loki can be equivalent to Tiamat. Tiamat is a true evil goddess in babylonian religion, she wants to conquer the world with her army of sea monsters and only Marduk can defeat her. On the other hand Loki is a liar and a thief, but he is not a genocidal maniac (Chaotic neutral perhaps). My lack of knowledge in chinesse theology prevents me to make any judgements about Rat.

I would have to call Loki definitely evil. (spoilered just in case)
Besides fathering the monsters Fenrir, Jormungand, and Hel with a giantess, he tricks Hod into killing Balder, and then refuses to cry for him when doing so would bring him back to life. Then, at Ragnarok, he fights against all the other gods (specifically Heimdall). There's probably more, but those are the only ones I can remember.
I'd definitely have to call that evil.

[Dark Matter]

Didn't they have D&D write ups at some point?

[AKA_Bait]

Didn't they have D&D write ups at some point?

In Deities and Demigod's I think. Doesn't matter for the Comic since Rich will certianly be using them in whatever way he likes regardless of any WotC publication.

[Alfryd]

Most likely.

In norse mythology Loki starts off as a wily, mischievious, but likable trickster, but often talks his way into situations which he can only extricate himself from by embarressing or dishonourable methods. This leads the other Gods to either mistrust or abuse him, either for amusement or as punishment. This in turn, leads him to become resentful, bitter, and finally evil. So he essentially shifts from CN to CE.

Rat is just a sign of the chinese zodiac, he doesn't have any corresponding deity in real-world mythology. It would seem odd, though, to have an Evil deity worshipped by an organisation of paladins.

[pendell]

I would have to call Loki definitely evil. (spoilered just in case)
Besides fathering the monsters Fenrir, Jormungand, and Hel with a giantess, he tricks Hod into killing Balder, and then refuses to cry for him when doing so would bring him back to life. Then, at Ragnarok, he fights against all the other gods (specifically Heimdall). There's probably more, but those are the only ones I can remember.
I'd definitely have to call that evil.

Why exactly are we spoilering scenes from a myth that is thousands of years old?

Puzzled,

Brian P.

[NerfTW]

Why exactly are we spoilering scenes from a myth that is thousands of years old?

Puzzled,

Brian P.

Some people may be WAY behind on thier NetFlix queue. :smallwink:

[monty]

Why exactly are we spoilering scenes from a myth that is thousands of years old?

Puzzled,

Brian P.

I said "just in case." Perhaps somebody is studying mythology (as I have) and doesn't want the ending ruined. Just like reading a modern book.

[David Argall]

Why exactly are we spoilering scenes from a myth that is thousands of years old?



To be technical, they are only hundreds of years old, at least in the form we have them. It is possible that pretty much the same tale was told in the days of the Roman Empire, but where we can make comparisons, there can be some drastic changes.

[Dark Matter]

It would seem odd, though, to have an Evil deity worshipped by an organisation of paladins.I would assume he's not worshiped by them any more than Loki is worshipped by Durkon. Loki is in the same group or family, and that's all.

It's just that non of those three Gods hit me as being especially lawful. If, say, all three were NE, then that lends support for the idea that The Dark One is NE, which in turn means his clerics are some flavor of evil because of the one step rule.

[Kish]

It's just that non of those three Gods hit me as being especially lawful.

Why not? The only one who we've been seen acting any particular way on the Law/Chaos axis is Loki. It would be nice and symmetrical if it turned out that Loki is Chaotic Evil, Rat Neutral Evil, and Tiamat Lawful Evil.

[Alfryd]

I would assume he's not worshiped by them any more than Loki is worshipped by Durkon. Loki is in the same group or family, and that's all.
Yes, except that the prayers of the paladins and clerics devoted to the 12 Gods include, well, 12 Gods. And all 12 seem to act as a single consortium when it comes to, for example, stripping away Paladin abilities.

I said "just in case." Perhaps somebody is studying mythology (as I have) and doesn't want the ending ruined. Just like reading a modern book.
There's a statute of limitations on this ****, man. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051205l.jpg)

[Paladin29]

well, it looks like i read too much marvel comics :smallwink: , the norse mithology are not my strong point. On the other hand the saphire guard invoke the name of the twelve gods, it imply that Rat is good or neutral, a LG paladin will never worship an evil god.

[Jensik]

Don't know if this has been brought up yet but I'm pretty sure Rat and Loki are much closer to Chaotic Neutral then they are Evil. I've always heard them described as tricksters, not necessarily malicious.

Taimat on the other hand has an entry in Complete Divine, and is freakin Evil.

[monty]

Don't know if this has been brought up yet but I'm pretty sure Rat and Loki are much closer to Chaotic Neutral then they are Evil. I've always heard them described as tricksters, not necessarily malicious.

Again, I'm pretty sure that fighting AGAINST the gods, who are trying to prevent the end of the world, is pretty strongly evil. I haven't looked at Deities and Demigods recently, but if real-world mythology is any indication, Loki is definitely evil, at least toward the end.

There, no spoiler. Happy?

[*Templar*]

Yes, except that the prayers of the paladins and clerics devoted to the 12 Gods include, well, 12 Gods. And all 12 seem to act as a single consortium when it comes to, for example, stripping away Paladin abilities.


Maybe the paladins don't know Rat (or whatever other members of the 12 Gods pantheon) is evil. We've seen characters in OotS laboring under misconceptions of their deities before; Durkon would probably be a bit disillusioned if he knew what Thor was like. Granted, Thor is, it seems, merely considerably less responsible than Durkon believes him to be rather than actually evil when he's believed to be good, but the point still stands. It would certainly fit Rat as a "trickster," as someone else suggested, if he can manage to deceive humans about his real alignment.

It's true that in the OotS-verse, people and deities self-identify as evil. However, in the real world, virtually nobody chooses evil that they acknowledge as evil for its own sake. Either they reject or rationalize away the relevant moral standards altogether or they mistake evil for good.

[The Extinguisher]

More to the point, we have Roy, lawful good, who is a follower of the complete northern pantheon as opposed to one specific god. And that includes Loki, so it's not hard to think that paladins worship the whole southern pantheon and not a specific god.

[Alfryd]

Maybe the paladins don't know Rat (or whatever other members of the 12 Gods pantheon) is evil. We've seen characters in OotS laboring under misconceptions of their deities before; Durkon would probably be a bit disillusioned if he knew what Thor was like.
Actually, Rich is on record as stating that his Thor is Lawful Good, based on the marvel superhero, (despite giving every appearance thus far of being died-in-the-wool CG.)
Roy does indeed 'follow' an entire pantheon of Gods, but as he's already remarked, he's neither especially religious nor derives divine spellcasting powers from his association with such deities. I would be frankly astonished if something similar to the one-step rule for clerics didn't apply to Paladins with regard their patron deity/ies (if any.) In fact, I imagine it would be even stricter.
Still, there's no ironclad confirmation for this. It's possible that the 12 Gods simple 'average out' at LG, NG, or LN, with Rat Chaotic Neutral, or something of the sort.

[The Extinguisher]

Wait, where did Rich say Thor was Lawful Good?

I recall him saying that he was based loosely of the Marvel version more than anything, and I also recall him saying the one-step rule was stupid. But I can't recall anything about Lawfulness.

[Alfryd]

Wait, where did Rich say Thor was Lawful Good?

I recall him saying that he was based loosely of the Marvel version more than anything, and I also recall him saying the one-step rule was stupid. But I can't recall anything about Lawfulness.
I'll take your word for it. I'm working on 2nd-hand info here, so my recollection may well be faulty.

[Dark Matter]

Actually, Rich is on record as stating that his Thor is Lawful Good, based on the marvel superhero, (despite giving every appearance thus far of being died-in-the-wool CG.)I've never read what Rich said, but the claims I've seen are for NG.


It's possible that the 12 Gods simple 'average out' at LG, NG, or LN, with Rat Chaotic Neutral, or something of the sort.Considering we're talking about the entire group of gods, it'd be odd if they didn't have an Evil one in there somewhere. The South has evil people, presumably these people still worship the 12 or one part of them. And they need a Neutral one in there for any Southern Druids (which granted we haven't seen).

Note there's 12 of them but only 9 alinements. They could "average" at NG quite nicely with 2 each of the Goods and 1 each of the others.

My expectation is that none of the good gods supported the Dark One. Ditto any of the Neutral (N, LN, CN) gods, and given the numbers, the majority of the Evil gods didn't support him either.

[*Templar*]

Actually, Rich is on record as stating that his Thor is Lawful Good, based on the marvel superhero, (despite giving every appearance thus far of being died-in-the-wool CG.)

I never asserted or implied that Thor isn't LG, I just said he's not all that Durkon imagines him to be.

[pendell]

There, no spoiler. Happy?

Yes, thank you.

Happy now,

Brian P.