whats the mitd alignment?

[Gamerlord]

i think it's true neautrel:smallsmile: :smallsmile: :smallsmile: :smallsmile: :smallsmile:

[Setra]

I'd vote Chaotic Evil

Edit: Please don't tell me you think Belkar is Chaotic Neutral

[Kish]

Extremely low Wisdom makes it unknowable.

[Setra]

Extremely low Wisdom makes it unknowable.
I disagree.

At the very least he is chaotic.

[FujinAkari]

Neutral Evil.

He doesn't seem to weigh in on the Lawful - Chaos axis, neither having much regard for structured rules and societies, nor consistently disobeying established rules and doing his own thing. When he is given an order, he seems to try his best to fulfill it (not a chaotic action) but doesn't develop any procedures on how to react to situations (the lawful approach)

However, evil is embodied by someone fully willing to hurt others for their own desires, and this is VERY MUCH the MitD. He doesn't seem to relish in causing pain, but the episode with "Roy-as-Mr. Stiffy" proved that he has absolutely no concern for the welfare of others.

[FoE]

Neutral Stupid. :smalltongue:

[Green and Red]

its actually difficult....

I dont think it fits perfectly into one of the nine alingments, i think it has a lot to do with the persons around it... At the moment it may be somewhat evl, but that is propably xykons/redcloaks influence... it just seems to somewhat adapt the alingment of people around it.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd say neutral being as he hasn't done anything evil (I class killing things to eat as neutral regardless of who they are, and the Mr. Stiffly/Floppsy episode was more to do with him being childish rather then being malliscious due to how he saw them as being like his stuffed Dragon rather then being real people).

[Mordokai]

Neutral Evil.

He doesn't seem to weigh in on the Lawful - Chaos axis, neither having much regard for structured rules and societies, nor consistently disobeying established rules and doing his own thing. When he is given an order, he seems to try his best to fulfill it (not a chaotic action) but doesn't develop any procedures on how to react to situations (the lawful approach)

However, evil is embodied by someone fully willing to hurt others for their own desires, and this is VERY MUCH the MitD. He doesn't seem to relish in causing pain, but the episode with "Roy-as-Mr. Stiffy" proved that he has absolutely no concern for the welfare of others.

Pray tell what MitD did to Roy that classifies as evil. I must have missed it.

I'd say it's neutral. I very much doubt it has INT any higher than 3.

[Johnny Blade]

Well, it seemingly has negative modifiers in both intelligence and wisdom and the psyche of a child, making it just neutral to me.

[#Raptor]

Neutral Stupid. :smalltongue:

True Stupid!
:smallbiggrin:

[The Extinguisher]

He wants to do evil, which is the most important thing.

The inablility to actually do so is irrelevant.

[Kurald Galain]

He wants to do evil, which is the most important thing.

I don't think it actually ever wants to do evil. It just wants to eat stuff occasionally (and mostly, stew) and is otherwise content to stay in place and rest.

So I say he's fully neutral. Start of Darkness shows some other episodes where the MITD could have done evil but showed no inclination whatsoever to do so.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that playing monopoly = capitalism = evil... :smallbiggrin:

[Chronos]

I'm not saying that this is what he is, but the Monster in the Darkness is a lot like the Tarrasque. Insanely powerful, just barely sentient (int 3 is the limit for being able to speak language), and motivated primarily by hunger. So I would say that, like Big T, our favorite umbrella-dweller is true neutral.

[SPoD]

He never did anything Evil to Roy or O-Chul. What he did was fail to understand that they were alive, because they didn't move or talk back. Therefore, he started playing with them as if they were dolls.

Everything else he's ever done can be summed up by being friends with Redcloak/Xykon. He's never expressed an interest in eating children--it was Xykon who suggested it (and we didn't even see if it actually happened anyway). Basically, he'll be friends with anyone who wanders into his field of vision, unless one of his existing friends told him not to. (And why would they want him to not be friends with someone unless that someone was bad?) He clearly has no capacity to tell Good from Evil, only friendly from unfriendly.

We're looking at no drive to commit Evil acts, and I'm not even sure he has committed any Evil acts even by accident. (Remember, attacking someone is not inherently Evil in D&D, and we've never seen him kill anything.) He's the opposite of Belkar; a decent guy who's fallen in with a bad crowd, but is too simple-minded to realize it.

In fact, there's some evidence for Good tendencies to balance out any Evil he may have inadvertantly caused, even: He admires Redcloak for not sending hobgoblins needlessly to their death in #190 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html).

So my opinion is True Neutral, or possibly Chaotic Neutral. If he were a little smarter and capable of determining Good from Evil, I'd say he would probably leave Xykon and be Neutral Good.

EDIT: Upon futher thought, he never even attacked Haley and Belkar; he just stomped his foot when his good friend, the demon roach, told him to.

[DEFCON Clown]

Clueless/Incompetent

[Barbolanero]

Obviously it's Lawful Good, what else could it be. On the other hand, maybe hw might be evil, and when we finally know what it is (if we ever do) we might check it out in the core books just to have a guidance.

[vikinglief]

Everyone is overlooking the single, most important piece of evidence:

Anything that lives under a pink umbrella that has the likeness of a certain japanese feline charater must be evil

EVIL!!! :wink:

Otherwise, I agree with Face of Evil: Neutral Stupid

[FujinAkari]

Pray tell what MitD did to Roy that classifies as evil. I must have missed it.

I'd say it's neutral. I very much doubt it has INT any higher than 3.

He cared more about his own amusement than O-chul and Roy's right to live. Additionally, he was ready and willing to eat Haley and Belkar merely because Xykon told him too. Both of these qualify as evil.

[hajo]

He cared more about his own amusement than O-chul and Roy's right to live.
As was already said, he is just too dumb to recognize them as persons.


Additionally, he was ready and willing to eat Haley and Belkar merely because Xykon told him too. Both of these qualify as evil.
Bad influence, and too dumb to have or recognize any moral.

Neutral / Clueless sums it up nicely.

[Mordokai]

@ /\ What he said.

Children torture animals. I shoted ants with home made guns. I killed grasshoppers with stones in big numbers. While I was kid. Some kids pull cats by tail. Does that make them evil? No, if they end this kind of torture when they grow up. While it's not a good action(I'm still ashamed of myself for what I did) it certainly isn't evil, because kids usually don't know the right thing from wrong. MitD is much like child. Does what is told to do. The child(MitD) isn't evil if parents(Xykon and Redcloak) are giving him bad examples.

[Spiryt]

I shoted ants with home made guns. I killed grasshoppers with stones in big numbers. While I was kid. Some kids pull cats by tail. Does that make them evil? No,....

I would dare to say, that yes, indeed it makes them evil. Some kids that I knew personaly were/are real bastards. Especially 7 - 12 girls. Betrayal, slander, conspiracy - they can do all of those.

I'm obviously half-serious, but :mitd: doesn't seem half as vicious as some kinds to me.

I would say True Neutral as well.

[Mordokai]

Hasn't your mother ever taught you? Gils are ALWAYS evil!

Of course she hasn't, she's a woman :smalltongue:

Ok, perhaps it's evil, but like I said, if they get better as they grow up than everything is forgoten.

[Spiryt]

Ok, perhaps it's evil, but like I said, if they get better as they grow up than everything is forgoten.

I will never forget... It won't go away... I see it when I'm trying to sleep...
AAARGHHH!!!

And back on this (serious?) topic - I found some example of quite compassionate side of :mitd: 190 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html), panel 8.

Of course If I get what he's saying right.

[Grey Watcher]

I vote for Neutral Hungry.

[Chronos]

He cared more about his own amusement than O-chul and Roy's right to live.You're crediting him with much more intelligence than he has. If he even knew that O-Chul was alive, or that Roy could be raised, he probably thought that they were having fun, too. After all, they were at a tea party, and tea parties are fun. And it's not like they were complaining.
Additionally, he was ready and willing to eat Haley and Belkar merely because Xykon told him too.No evidence of that, actually. He said "I think I'm supposed to eat you", but he didn't actually make any sort of effort to. And while he did take action to stop them escaping, he didn't know he was doing so. The roach is certainly evil there, but it doesn't reflect on the Monster.

And even if he had eaten them, a man-eating tiger isn't evil, either.

[memnarch]

Neutral Stupid. :smalltongue:

Quoted for truth!

The MitD seems not to associate with one alignment or another (neutral), however, it most definitely has a negative Int mod (stupid) and so is impossible to tell.

[Weiser_Cain]

Chaotic Evil with a side of goofy

[Ulrichomega]

Chaotic Awesome?

I mean, come on, how many thing do you know that can stomp and cause earthquakes? Huh?

[Querzis]

Killing things to eat isnt evil, even if its humans...and even then we never saw him eat humans. I'm not saying hes too stupid to be evil, Thog is definitly evil regardless of his Int. I'm really saying hes never done anything especially evil and even seems to admire good actions.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html

And by the way, I dont know if he realise if O-chul is alive or not, maybe he doesnt even realize O-chul is not a doll but either way, what the hell is evil about that? Hes actually giving him food, he like him, he invite him to his tea party and its not like he know what happened to O-chul or could do anything to help him.

[brilliantlight]

I think he is neutral as well. He is as stupid as a pile of rocks and does nothing that is shown to be truly evil.

[Green Bean]

Killing things to eat isnt evil, even if its humans...and even then we never saw him eat humans.

Wait, what? :smallconfused:

[Querzis]

Wait, what? :smallconfused:

He tried to eat Haley and Belkar I guess though he would apparently prefer stew but we never saw him actually eat humans...I really dont know what confuse you about that.

[Green Bean]

He tried to eat Haley and Belkar I guess though he would apparently prefer stew but we never saw him actually eat humans...I really dont know what confuse you about that.

No, I mean how is killing and eating people not evil?

[Tempest Fennac]

It's natural for some creatures to kill and eat other creatures due to being carnivours or omnivours. If you go with the idea that humans aren't evil for eating animals, animals (and monsters) aren't evil for eating humans as humans are basically just animals (admittedly, I'm ignoring WotC's ridiculous "animals aren't sentinant" rule due hating specisism). Therefore, killing someone to eat them is neutral. On the other hand, killing someone for fun is evil due to not being essential (along with killing someone because it would be convenient).

[FujinAkari]

A lot of people seem to be posting that "He doesn't know any better!"

So what?

Seriously, so what? Alignment doesn't have an intellegence requirement. Actions are either good or evil, and assisting a lich to occupy a Paladin-run city in an attempt to gain control of an ancient artifact capable of destroying the world is NOT a good action. It is practically the definition of evil.

Yes, he doesn't know that that is what he's doing, but that doesn't change the action itself from being evil.

I don't argue that the MitD could likely be reformed, but at the moment he continues to be evil.

[Mordokai]

Alignment doesn't have an intellegence requirement.

Actually, it does.


Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Basically, anybody with INT 3 or lower isn't capable of deducing the consequences of their actions. As such, they aren't responsible for their actions.

So far, like it was already noticed, nothing shows that MitD has INT and/or WIS higher than 3. That alone would make it neutral.

[Spiryt]

So far, like it was already noticed, nothing shows that MitD has INT and/or WIS higher than 3. That alone would make it neutral.

I dissagre. MitD can be stupid, but no way he can have 3 (or lower) INT. He can use language in the very first place, not to mention that he can deduct the consequences. Mentioned strip 190 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html) is a proof.

[Mordokai]

Temporary plot and/or humor required intelligence boost?

For pretty much any sign of intelligence there are ten that says otherwise, I'm just too lazy to dig them up?

:mitd: "What door?"

[Kurald Galain]

I dissagre. MitD can be stupid, but no way he can have 3 (or lower) INT. He can use language in the very first place, not to mention that he can deduct the consequences. Mentioned strip 190 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html) is a proof.

So you're citing a good deed of the MITD as proof that he's evil. Somehow that doesn't add up.

You will note that the MITD wasn't "assisting a lich to occupy a Paladin-run city" - he was just sitting out there having a tea party and being oblivious to most of the war. Then he ambled in to find some stew.

Languages have an int prerequisite that happens to be lower than the prerequisite for alignment. That's hardly surprising; some real-life birds have a language.

[FujinAkari]

Actually, it does.

Basically, anybody with INT 3 or lower isn't capable of deducing the consequences of their actions. As such, they aren't responsible for their actions.

So far, like it was already noticed, nothing shows that MitD has INT and/or WIS higher than 3. That alone would make it neutral.

You have to have basic intellegence, thats true. I didn't bother to mention that because it only applies to creatures motivated by instinct alone. The MitD can speak, that ALONE proves his int is 3 or higher.

Additionally, he can use tools (the umbrella) is able to deduce logical repercussions of actions, and follow instructions, all things which point to having an intellect beyond that of feral instinct.

So no, this does not apply.


You will note that the MITD wasn't "assisting a lich to occupy a Paladin-run city" - he was just sitting out there having a tea party and being oblivious to most of the war. Then he ambled in to find some stew.

I said he was assisting, I didn't say he was effective.

Are you attempting to claim he was there as support for the Sapphire Guard? He was quite -clearly- there on Xykon's side, that means he is assisting.

[Spiryt]

Well, ability to develop (poor) terryfying speech? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html)

Sorry, but there's no way :mitd: has animal intelligence. The very ability to speak, read, and understand ideas like " world conquest (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0195.html)" says so.

Even without real world psyhological concepts:


Animal Type

An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType)


So you're citing a good deed of the MITD as proof that he's evil. Somehow that doesn't add up.



As what? I think that :mitd: is neutral :smallconfused:

This is the proof that :mitd: is sentient creature.

[Mordokai]

You have to have basic intellegence, thats true. I didn't bother to mention that because it only applies to creatures motivated by instinct alone. The MitD can speak, that ALONE proves his int is 3 or higher.

Additionally, he can use tools (the umbrella) is able to deduce logical repercussions of actions, and follow instructions, all things which point to having an intellect beyond that of feral instinct.

So no, this does not apply.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that you must have an intelligence score for being able to speak a language. That would mean that MitD only needs a single point of INT for that. And re-read the part of Kurald's quote you conviently forgot to include in your post.

While I agree that MitD wouldn't be able to use complicate sentences with INT of 1 it can once again be explain by humor/plot requirements. Using tools - toddlers have, what, 3 INT? And they use certain toys and/or tools quite effectively. The thing isn't trying to put a fine machinery in work, it's holding umbrella in it's hands. How smart do you have to be for that? As for following instructions - one more proof that it's pretty stupid. Smart peoples would ask a logic of certain orders, MitD never does that. You don't have to be smart to follow orders, it's often quite to the contrary. On top of it, MitD botches up pretty much everything it's ever told to do. Smart, yes?

I'm seriously tempted to reply to Kurald's part of post, but he can fight his own battles, so I'll let him do that.

[Spiryt]

Languages have an int prerequisite that happens to be lower than the prerequisite for alignment. That's hardly surprising; some real-life birds have a language.

MitD uses language and can express quite complex thing using it. Birds do just "my tree, my tree", "get away from there" and " look here girl am so big and colorful" stuff.


Smart peoples would ask a logic of certain orders, MitD never does that.

There are peole who obey orders without hestitation too. Granted, those are not very intelligent ones, but they certainly hae human intelligence.

:mitd: is cultural creature. He can play monopoly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html), play with power rangers figures (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html) and fictional creatures can exist in his heart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0415.html).

As a student of sociology I can say that those level of abstract thinking e.c. is the thing that differs humans from the rest of animals.

[Kurald Galain]

Are you attempting to claim he was there as support for the Sapphire Guard? He was quite -clearly- there on Xykon's side, that means he is assisting.

That's a false dichotomy. He was quite -clearly- not doing anything, that means he is not assisting either side.

Also, with respect to using tools, the MITD doesn't realize what an umbrella is for (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0299.html), he's just holding it, because he's been told to.

"Having human intelligence" only means a 3 or higher in D&D, that is not the same as "must absolutely have an alignment". Aside from that, people are now only arguing about whether the MITD even has an alignment, but even if he does, it absolutely does not follow from that that said alignment has to be evil. That would be a non sequitur. No actual evil behavior on the part of the MITD has yet been demonstrated. And no, merely saying "I think I'm supposed to devour you" is not evil in and of itself.

[brilliantlight]

MitD uses language and can express quite complex thing using it. Birds do just "my tree, my tree", "get away from there" and " look here girl am so big and colorful" stuff.



There are peole who obey orders without hestitation too. Granted, those are not very intelligent ones, but they certainly hae human intelligence.

:mitd: is cultural creature. He can play monopoly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html), play with power rangers figures (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html) and fictional creatures can exist in his heart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0415.html).

As a student of sociology I can say that those level of abstract thinking e.c. is the thing that differs humans from the rest of animals.


He clearly has an int score above 2. I would make it maybe 4 or 5. However he does have a child like intellect and hasn't done anything particularly evil himself.

[Spiryt]

He clearly has an int score above 2. I would make it maybe 4 or 5. However he does have a child like intellect and hasn't done anything particularly evil himself.

Like I said he certainly must have at least 4 inteligence.

And again, I think he's true neutral. He really doesn't seem to have any other alignment. All I'm trying to say, is that he isn't TN beacuse he's animal and he can't be good or evil.

[Callista]

Such a low INT really does make me think Neutral; but, like a toddler, he's definitely chaotic, and obviously has evil tendencies.

It's a lot like Thog... would he behave better with proper "parenting"? Nobody knows.

[Kish]

Actually, it does.



Basically, anybody with INT 3 or lower isn't capable of deducing the consequences of their actions. As such, they aren't responsible for their actions.

That's "lower than 3," not "3 or lower."

[The Extinguisher]

I'm finding most arguments against his intelligence actually seem to point to low wisdom.
He may be childlike, but so is Thog, and he's evil.

He follows orders from an evil lich, he views most things as there for his amusement, and he expresses desire to eat the order, not just because he was orderded to.

He's Neutral Evil. A very childlike Neutral Evil, but still evil.

[Voyager]

Yes, but Thog knows he's hurting people, and enjoys the fact. That's what makes him evil. MitD on the other hand is having a tea party with one guy who's paralized, and another who's dead, and he doesn't understand why they don't want any scones! This is not the behaviour of somebody who's playing a full deck; even children understand what a corpse is when they see it, even if they don't grasp the abstracts of it.

[Mordokai]

That's "lower than 3," not "3 or lower."

Uh, I just love it when semantics comes into play.

OK, I admit, I made a mistake. The point still stands, however.

[bluish_wolf]

Uh, I just love it when semantics comes into play.

OK, I admit, I made a mistake. The point still stands, however.

If you are smart enough to speak, then you are smart enough to have an alignment.

[ShellBullet]

MitD on the other hand is having a tea party with one guy who's paralized, and another who's dead, and he doesn't understand why they don't want any scones! This is not the behaviour of somebody who's playing a full deck; even children understand what a corpse is when they see it, even if they don't grasp the abstracts of it.

I think Mitd knew that Roy was a corpse but he view him as a toy, so in that sense it was no diffrent from child speaking for her doll than Mitd speaking for incapatitied humans...It was just evil, because he didn't have any respect for dead.

[Querzis]

He follows orders from an evil lich

Since most of those orders are «stay there», «shut up» or «eat this» that doesnt really matter much. Hell, even when Xykon order are «guard her» this is what happen:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0374.html


he views most things as there for his amusement

He sure do...so? Elan views most things as there for his amusement too.


and he expresses desire to eat the order, not just because he was orderded to.

That make him hungry, not evil.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html

I'm pretty damn sure hes more concerned about how they will taste then actually killing them. Just explain to me why eating when you are hungry is supposed to be evil? MiTD need to eat lots of meat to stay strong like that!

I'm not saying hes too stupid to be evil, Thog is definitly evil no matter how dumb he is and MiTD is actually smarter then Thog. I'm just saying that he never do any evil act all by himself. Even when hes asked to do something evil, he doesnt do it right. He admire good actions and, if you leave him alone, hes actually really peacefull.

[FujinAkari]

That's a false dichotomy. He was quite -clearly- not doing anything, that means he is not assisting either side.

He wasn't doing anything because Xykon and Redcloak wouldn't let him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0463.html). He quite clearly intended to fight against Azure City.


Yes, but Thog knows he's hurting people, and enjoys the fact. That's what makes him evil. MitD on the other hand is having a tea party with one guy who's paralized, and another who's dead, and he doesn't understand why they don't want any scones! This is not the behaviour of somebody who's playing a full deck; even children understand what a corpse is when they see it, even if they don't grasp the abstracts of it.

There isn't any evidence that the MitD doesn't understand that they're corpses, merely that he doesn't care. The fact that even children know what a corpse looks like supports my argument, not yours, considering the impressive level of abstract thought the MitD has displayed.

In the end, it seems to me that the MitD merely was ok with desecrating the dead for his own amusement, and thats evil.

Even IF I bought your excuse that "he didn't know they were people!" (which I don't) D&D does not allow situational ethics. Even IF the MitD didn't know better, desecrating the dead is STILL evil.

[Kurald Galain]

He wasn't doing anything because Xykon and Redcloak wouldn't let him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0463.html). He quite clearly intended to fight against Azure City.
Yes, that's why when the full frontal charge of ALL THEIR TROOPS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) starts, he runs along merrily to crush the opposition.

Oh, wait a second, he doesn't. Despite orders being given for the charge, he instead hangs back and makes a tea party for himself. Disobeying orders is chaotic, refusing to partake in an evil act is good.

(edit) he does the same in SOD, actually - refusing to partake in evil acts despite direct orders to the contrary. Plus, he doesn't want to
leave his erstwhile employer because he thinks it's rude.

[bluish_wolf]

Yes, that's why when the full frontal charge of ALL THEIR TROOPS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) starts, he runs along merrily to crush the opposition.

Oh, wait a second, he doesn't. Despite orders being given for the charge, he instead hangs back and makes a tea party for himself. Disobeying orders is chaotic, refusing to partake in an evil act is good.


Generally, not doing something is neutral. Chaotic/good acts tend to be more active.

[FujinAkari]

Yes, that's why when the full frontal charge of ALL THEIR TROOPS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) starts, he runs along merrily to crush the opposition.

Dude... he EXPLICITLY STATES (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0463.html) that they wouldn't allow him to help in the battle. You can't claim that he just didn't want to when he directly refutes that claim.

[Kurald Galain]

Dude... he EXPLICITLY STATES (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0463.html) that they wouldn't allow him to help in the battle. You can't claim that he just didn't want to when he directly refutes that claim.

Dudette... do you see Redcloak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) making any exceptions to his direct order?

Do we perhaps have reason (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0096.html) to believe (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html) that the MITD frequently doesn't know what he's talking about? If his words contradict Redcloaks, which one is more likely to get it right?

And, I once more refer you to SOD.


Generally, not doing something is neutral. Chaotic/good acts tend to be more active.
Ah, good point. Come to think of it, the MITD does seem to have lawful-ish tendencies considering he often obeys people without thinking.

[Yubari]

The statement in question is:

:mitd: Yes, Mr. Dragon, it WAS awfully rude of them to not let me in their stupid old battle.

This doesn't automatically mean he had any interest in joining the battle --just that he's feeling excluded and singled out.

[FujinAkari]

Dudette... do you see Redcloak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) making any exceptions to his direct order?

No, but considering the fact that the MitD says he wasn't allowed to fight, obviously he did.


Do we perhaps have reason (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0096.html) to believe (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html) that the MITD frequently doesn't know what he's talking about? If his words contradict Redcloaks, which one is more likely to get it right?

The MitD has NEVER shown an inability to comprehend language, which is what you are asserting. Yes, he has issues with perception, and likely a horrible wisdom score, and doesn't seem to pick up on subtlety, but claiming that he mistook "All troops attack!" for "You don't get to come" flies against every facet of his character.

He goes from complaining that everyone gets a new mount to attack with, to complaining that he doesn't get to attack, so clearly -something else- happened.


And, I once more refer you to SOD.

I see absolutely nothing in SOD that shows the MitD saying "No! I won't attack the castle! That would be evil and wrong and I am a champion of justice!"

Instead, I see the MitD complaining that he isn't sure how to go about attacking, and then he gets distracted. His failure to attack does not seem to be even remotely fueled by insubordination, and is merely based in his inability to remember what he is supposed to do.

[Kish]

Uh, I just love it when semantics comes into play.
:smallsigh: And I love it when people wave off being wrong with "semantics."

One way, rolling four 1s during character creation can make your character unable to have an alignment. The other way, every PC and sapient (sane) creature has an alignment. That is not a "semantic" difference, as applied generally or as applied to the creature in the dark.

[osyluth]

I disagree.

At the very least he is chaotic.

You are very right.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html
2nd panel.

[Kish]

You are very right.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html
2nd panel.
Whatever the creature in the dark may or may not be, I'm pretty sure he isn't Belkar.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

If you want to get really technical, MitD is evil because he associates with evil people, just like Belkar was at first a blotch on Roy's record.

But because this is an ethical discussion MitD has had no inclination towards evil acts, just apathy. On the good/evil axis he can't be judged because he's performed neither good nor evil acts, which makes him neutral. Also he seems more lawful than chaotic, because he always follows orders. He may want to break orders, but he never does, probably becasue its against his alignment. So I'd say
Lawful Neutral

He doesn't seem stupid by his use of big words, but that doesn't mean he gets an alignment either. OotS may follow D&D, but that allows houserules, and one such might be the lack of a concentrated alignment for MitD.

[Mordokai]

:smallsigh: And I love it when people wave off being wrong with "semantics."

One way, rolling four 1s during character creation can make your character unable to have an alignment. The other way, every PC and sapient (sane) creature has an alignment. That is not a "semantic" difference, as applied generally or as applied to the creature in the dark.

That semantics was mainly due to mistake made by me. I agreed with you, if you haven't noticed. I'm just kind of allergic when someone literally hangs on everything, be it semantics or anything else. That didn't happen in your case since you actually had a point there. But I just couldn't help myself.

You could say I typed that in affect. If you misunderstood it or if I haven't writen it clearly enought, I appologize.

[Kish]

That semantics was mainly due to mistake made by me. I agreed with you, if you haven't noticed. I'm just kind of allergic when someone literally hangs on everything, be it semantics or anything else. That didn't happen in your case since you actually had a point there. But I just couldn't help myself.

You could say I typed that in affect. If you misunderstood it or if I haven't writen it clearly enought, I appologize.
I'm sorry about that. I misunderstood--I've had bad experiences with the term "semantics" in the past. :smalltongue:

[Lupy]

I say true nuetral, because he may well be a child! What do we know about his species? Nothing! I bet he thinks of Xykon and Redcloak as his family... And kids obey their parents. He also looks at the battle for Azure City as a game, and plays Tea Party with Dolls. He also likes Power Rangers and Transformers. Additionaally the Demon roaches appear to be teens, he may look at them as older siblings. I think that doing what family members tell you to because they are your family is Lawful, but his apperent anger is Chaotic. He also respects good, but when Xykon says too he is willing to do evil... Good+Evil=Neutral; Lawful+Chaotic=Neutral; Neutral+Neutral=...Neutral!

Trogdor rests his case. :smallamused:

[brilliantlight]

You may be right. He certainly acts like a child. I think the "desecrating the dead" is more he doesn't realize that Roy is dead.

[FujinAkari]

You may be right. He certainly acts like a child. I think the "desecrating the dead" is more he doesn't realize that Roy is dead.

1) Irrelevant. Desecrating the Dead is an evil act, regardless of circumstance.

2) There is no evidence that he doesn't realize Roy is dead, more that he doesn't care.

[LtNOWIS]

1) Irrelevant. Desecrating the Dead is an evil act, regardless of circumstance.

2) There is no evidence that he doesn't realize Roy is dead, more that he doesn't care.

1)I don't think you can back that up. If there were extenuating circumstances, like if you're starving to death and cannibalism is the only option, than I personally don't think it's evil. You may feel it is, but I don't think it's in the rules.

2)See all the examples of him being dumb as a rock.


It's natural for some creatures to kill and eat other creatures due to being carnivours or omnivours. If you go with the idea that humans aren't evil for eating animals, animals (and monsters) aren't evil for eating humans as humans are basically just animals (admittedly, I'm ignoring WotC's ridiculous "animals aren't sentinant" rule due hating specisism). Therefore, killing someone to eat them is neutral. On the other hand, killing someone for fun is evil due to not being essential (along with killing someone because it would be convenient).
Er, I think a lot of people would agree that it's wrong to kill and eat any sentient creature. (Unless you get it's permission.) I know I'd be reluctant to eat dolphin or monkey.

[Chronos]

1) Irrelevant. Desecrating the Dead is an evil act, regardless of circumstance.Actually, I would be more inclined to say that it's a Chaotic act, so long as the desecration doesn't involve infusing the corpse with unholy energies, or anything like that. In some cultures, proper funeral customs consist of leaving the body for the vultures, or burning the body on a pyre, or throwing it out to sea. But in other cultures, those acts would be considered desecration. For all we know, in the Monster's society, it's considered appropriate to have a tea party with the body of a dead friend. Or maybe he's acting improperly by not immediately devouring the corpses. Or maybe the Monster in the Darkness (and things like him) doesn't regard dead bodies as having any significance at all, once the soul has left them.

[TheOOB]

As alignment is objective and not subjective, it doesn't matter that he isn't smart/wise enough to understand the morality of his actions, his willingness to hurt and/or kill people for no good reason makes him evil. He is also chaotic due to the fact that he puts very little thought into his actions and does think on the long term(not all chaotic people are like that, but those are chaotic traits).

So he is chaotic evil, maybe neutral evil.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd have to agree wih the idea that he didn't realise Roy was dead or that O Chuul was paralysed due to how he was talking to them as if he expected a responce (I'd also have to agree with the idea that, if he was desecrating the corpses, he wasn't doing it in a malicious way). How are you defining the term "sentinet", LtNOWIS? I was using the term to describe any creature which is aware and capable of thinking (which I think is everything except microorganisms, but I may be wrong when I assume they don't think and aren't aware).

[Kurald Galain]

As alignment is objective and not subjective,

Alignment is subjective (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), and intent matters at least as much as result.

[FujinAkari]

1)I don't think you can back that up. If there were extenuating circumstances, like if you're starving to death and cannibalism is the only option, than I personally don't think it's evil. You may feel it is, but I don't think it's in the rules.

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

You'll notice it doesn't say -anything- about "unless you don't have any other choice." or "unless you don't know better. Hurting, Oppressing, and Killing is simply defined as evil. The MitD was oppressing O-chul (how else can you read taking a paralyzed person and forcing them to act as a doll?) and therefore is evil at least in that instance.


Alignment is subjective (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), and intent matters at least as much as result.

Good-Evil is objective (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) A single evil act very nearly cost Roy his Good Alignment, and only because Roy -recognized and repented- the evil act in real time was he allowed to remain good.

The MitD has neither recognized or ever seemingly felt remorse for his occasional tendencies, so I would have to classify him as evil.

Additionally, the quote provided doesn't say what you want it too. It says that -every time- Roy acts Chaoticially, it is in pursuit of Lawful Ends. As a result, his chaotic actions can be viewed as being bad at being Lawful Good, but still striving to be lawful good.

It is -not- saying that "Oh, well you didn't know better, its ok." which is what the MitD defense would have to be.

[Spiryt]

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

You'll notice it doesn't say -anything- about "unless you don't have any other choice." or "unless you don't know better. Hurting, Oppressing, and Killing is simply defined as evil. The MitD was oppressing O-chul (how else can you read taking a paralyzed person and forcing them to act as a doll?) and therefore is evil at least in that instance.



This is kinda terryfying vision - you don't know you are doing evil things and still you are evil.... Kinda Miko like.


MitD doesn't know that he is hurting O - Chul. He is just having tea with him.

Even though it's morbid, it's beacuse he's stupid, not beacuse he's evil.

[Chronos]

OK, so explain how it's possible that Shambling Mounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shamblingMound.htm) are neutral. They have an intelligence of 7 and a wis of 10, so they're surely at least as mentally capable as the Monster in the Dark. But they still eat people.

[FujinAkari]

OK, so explain how it's possible that Shambling Mounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shamblingMound.htm) are neutral. They have an intelligence of 7 and a wis of 10, so they're surely at least as mentally capable as the Monster in the Dark. But they still eat people.

They aren't doing anything that makes them evil?

Killing for sustenence isn't an evil act, killing for fun / convenience is. Just like oppressing for fun (O-Chul) is evil.

[Kurald Galain]

This is kinda terryfying vision - you don't know you are doing evil things and still you are evil.... Kinda Miko like.
Actually, no. Miko was Lawful Good up until the very point she killed Shojo, and arguably she was still good after that.

And no, this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) says precisely that circumstances and so forth matter. If "morality was objective", then Roy would have "become neutral" immediately upon abandoning Elan, regardless of what he did afterwards.

[FujinAkari]

And no, this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) says precisely that circumstances and so forth matter. If "morality was objective", then Roy would have "become neutral" immediately upon abandoning Elan, regardless of what he did afterwards.

Atonement exists for a reason.

To explain: The concept of a character making up for past mistakes is a very real and active part of the game. Saying it doesn't matter what Roy does after he commits an evil act is to ignore 30 years of D&D history.

[Daimbert]

They aren't doing anything that makes them evil?

Killing for sustenence isn't an evil act, killing for fun / convenience is. Just like oppressing for fun (O-Chul) is evil.

There's no evidence that the MitD kills for fun OR convenience. He seems to only be willing to kill and eat the OotS because he wants to make Xykon happy. The fact that Xykon is evil doesn't seem to register with him at all.

As for eating people, so far all that's been established is that the MitD is not human. Thus it isn't so much of an evil act to eat things that don't belong to its species. And since the MitD is ALWAYS hungry and will eat ANYTHING, the sustenence ALWAYS comes into play.

There's also no evidence that the MitD is oppressing anyone "for fun". Oppressing implies doing something negative; the MitD seems to think that they are enjoying it.

As for the whole intent thing, think of this: imagine that someone casts a spell on someone to turn them into a toy. You play with the toy, not knowing that they're under the spell. Are you evil? The MitD has shown no indication that he can separate the motionless humans from toys, and treats them as such. Having a tea party with toys is hardly evil.

And, finally, so far all that has been established is that the MitD is child-like, and therefore his alignment should be considered the same as it is for children ... a point that seems to be being ignored in this thread.

[Kurald Galain]

Saying it doesn't matter what Roy does after he commits an evil act is to ignore 30 years of D&D history.

The assertion that "30 years of D&D history" agrees with you is simply too ridiculous for words.

Also, that's not an evil act either. It is a refusal to do a good deed - doing nothing is, by definition, neutral. It's still not what a lawful good guy is supposed to do, but it is far from evil. Evil is the kind of guy who wanders into the barbarian's guild and slaughters three members for the heck of it.

[SPoD]

Exactly; the entire argument for the creature's supposed Evil nature is "oppressing" O-Chul and "desecrating" Roy--when there's no evidence that he did either, intentionally or not.

If you come across a man in a cage, and you don't have the key to open it, are you oppressing him by not letting them out? Of course not. You don't have the means to free him. The MITD is incapable of dispelling O-Chul's paralysis, so he cannot be oppressing him. If anything, he is entertaining him as best he can in a bad situation.

Likewise, I have trouble understanding how giving tea to a corpse is more desecrating than, say, shooting an arrow through it in order to pin it to a wall, or carting it around with you because of a magic curse's loophole. "Desecration" implies a cultural understanding of the proper burial/cremation rituals and a willful disobedience of them. The MITD clearly lacks any such cultural understanding. Again, it's a miracle the MITD didn't EAT Roy's corpse.

And as far as the argument that he's Evil because he stood on the sidelines while his friends did Evil things, by that line of reasoning, Belkar is Lawful Good. After all, he stood by while his friends did Lawful Good things, without stopping them, and he participated in the defense of a Good city from the forces of Evil. And the author has stated incontrovertably that Belkar is Chaotic Evil because it is intent that matters more than results. The MITD has never shown Evil intent, only a vague (and non-urgent) desire to fulfill its base needs: hunger and boredom. Therefore, we can assume that regardless of what any of us think, Rich views the MITD as being non-Evil, because he's never shown the MITD committing any overtly evil act, ever, when it would be trivially easy to do so.

[FujinAkari]

The assertion that "30 years of D&D history" agrees with you is simply too ridiculous for words.

I'm not the one claiming that redemption doesn't happen in D&D :P

Ultimately, I guess it just matters how you read the character. I see the MitD as someone who doesn't care about the rights of others, only for his own petty pleasures. I think he was quite aware that Roy and O-chul were people and just didn't bother trying to help them. I think this because he speaks intellegently, and has never shown a history of mistaking one thing for another. While he HAS failed to notice things, or thought things were related when they weren't (Xykon's three brothers), he hasn't ever seen a donut and thought it was a tire.

After debating it though, I can't -prove- that, just like you can't prove he -didn't- realize that people were people. I see the MitD as evil just as I see Miko as good - by the skill of his/her teeth. The MitD is knocking a neutral's door, while I think you see him as knocking at Evil's :P

[SPoD]

Ultimately, I guess it just matters how you read the character. I see the MitD as someone who doesn't care about the rights of others, only for his own petty pleasures. I think he was quite aware that Roy and O-chul were people and just didn't bother trying to help them.

And I (and many other people, I'm guessing) see him as childlike and morally ignorant--unaware (or simply uninterested) in ethical issues of right and wrong. He wants to help his friends simply because they're his friends, and he doesn't spend any time judging them for their actions. He wants to participate in attacking because that's what his friends are doing at the moment, and like a little kid who hangs around his older brother, he wants to be involved. He is a follower, someone who lets other people tell him what to do even though he is demonstrably more powerful than they are. If Xykon suddenly turned Lawful Good and opened an orphanage, the MITD would want to be involved with that, too, and would whine the same way if he wasn't allowed. When he's not allowed to participate in the task du jour, he makes his own entertainment as best he can--playing with whoever is around. Playing with O-Chul then is the same as playing with Miko, only Miko was capable of different games than O-Chul.

Contrast with Thog, who needs to be tricked into doing non-Evil things by Elan and immediately reverts to Evil actions when given a chance.


I think this because he speaks intellegently, and has never shown a history of mistaking one thing for another. While he HAS failed to notice things, or thought things were related when they weren't (Xykon's three brothers), he hasn't ever seen a donut and thought it was a tire.

I think you're splitting the hair pretty thin here. If we simply say, "The Monster in the Darkness has a history of not understanding what he is looking at," it is a true statement that covers many situations from the comic. The exact nature of how he doesn't understand what he's looking at will be different with different circumstances.


After debating it though, I can't -prove- that, just like you can't prove he -didn't- realize that people were people. I see the MitD as evil just as I see Miko as good - by the skill of his/her teeth. The MitD is knocking a neutral's door, while I think you see him as knocking at Evil's :P

The only problem I see is that him being Evil doesn't explain situations like his approval of Redcloak not throwing away the lives of his men (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html) or his first reaction to return a dropped purse without opening it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0375.html), while being Neutral who hangs around with Evil people does.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not the one claiming that redemption doesn't happen in D&D :P

Neither am I, that's just a straw man argument you put up.

[Superglucose]

If you want to get really technical, MitD is evil because he associates with evil people, just like Belkar was at first a blotch on Roy's record.

Except that Belkar was a blotch on Roy's record that would've made Roy NEUTRAL, not evil.


1) Irrelevant. Desecrating the Dead is an evil act, regardless of circumstance.

Desecrating the dead is not an evil act. A dead body in D&D is nothing more than a lump of matter. It's disgusting, yes. Disturbing, yes, but so is eating a monster's dung. Does that make it evil?

Secondly, he's not desecrating anything. He's attempting to give enjoyment and satisfaction to what he thinks is a perfectly alive, and normal (if quiet) human being. Before you say "it dudnt matter what he sees or thinks hes still evil" he's trying to BRING HAPPINESS TO ROY. He expects that Roy enjoys a tea party, and that if Roy didn't, why wouldn't Roy just leave? If you can give me good evidence that shows that MitD trying to make someone happy is inherently evil, go for it! But until then, saying "it was an evil act, therefore he's evil!" is flawed, especially when various points in the comic have stated explicitly otherwise. To quote the comic itself: Using chaotic means to fulfill lawful obligations strikes me as fairly neutral, and much in the same way using evil means ('desecrating a corpse' to use your weak argument) to accomplish good ends (entertaining Roy and O'Chul) strikes me as fairly neutral, not evil as you would claim.



2) There is no evidence that he doesn't realize Roy is dead, more that he doesn't care.
So apathy=evil now? Apathy is much closer to neutral. But again, other than your weak 'desecration' argument which is bunk on multiple levels, explain to me exactly how MitD was being evil?

And as for the 'oppressing o'chul' argument, what? O'chul was already oppressed, by Xykon. And from that point, MitD was enjoying himself by trying to fulfill O'chul's needs for food and drink. Hardly evil.

As for me, I would say that MitD is TN, leaning towards NG. He's trying to make people happy, which strikes me as good more than anything else, even if the people he's trying to make happy happen to be evil.

[recluso]

374... touch lightest game with Miko.

I have the feeling that, the MitD is fighting some inner fight, between his lawful-evil side (willing to obey Xykon) and his chaotic-good side (The playful child who want to entertain people and not hurt them). The good side wins by 'accidentally' losing his prey. However you interprete the last panel, the MitD somewhat regrets what he did.

I have the impression that, with his "tea party" the MitD even rescued Roy and O-Chul from the undead resurrecting goblin priests, so a chaotic good act (not fully aware of that of course).

475 panel 7... Given how insanely strong MitD is, he has learned to hit even lighter and even adds 'please'. While they can't just simple walk away, it's possible to talk with him.

476 panel 12 and 477. Again I have the impression MitD can't bring him to hurting Haley and Belkar and loses them 'accidentally' again.
His late ground stomp alone is almost enough... but he didn't intend that.

I still believe his mindset is really so childish and simple that he believes his words towards O Chul and Roy and that, only when it actually comes to devouring other beings he starts to fake some accidental failure.

[FujinAkari]

Neither am I, that's just a straw man argument you put up.

Uh... no?


And no, this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) says precisely that circumstances and so forth matter. If "morality was objective", then Roy would have "become neutral" immediately upon abandoning Elan, regardless of what he did afterwards.

Right here, you say that if Morality is Objective (which the Deva confirms it is, by saying that that action would have caused Roy to become neutral without exception, if Roy hasn't realized the error of his ways) then Roy shouldn't have been able to realize his own error. Unless I am grossly misreading what you are saying, you are saying that Roy shouldn't have been allowed to redeem himself.

[Icewalker]

Hrm...interesting. MitD's alignment...

I'd go with Neutral. He certainly isn't evil, as he doesn't understand how to be nor does he particularly enjoy horribleness (although he does enjoy eating people, it isn't because they are people). He could be seen as chaotic as well, being somewhat frivolous, but I'd say Neutral both ways.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Except that Belkar was a blotch on Roy's record that would've made Roy NEUTRAL, not evil.

But Roy was LG to start with, while we have no idea of MitD alignment, thus the discussion. I just meant that technically the MitD's alignment goes down just by association.

But because his intent is different it makes it a non-technical situation.

[Daimbert]

But Roy was LG to start with, while we have no idea of MitD alignment, thus the discussion. I just meant that technically the MitD's alignment goes down just by association.


Except that the more likely scenario is that associating with evil risks you losing a GOOD alignment, not a neutral one. There's no reason why Neutral characters cannot associated with evil people, since they are quite assuredly not totally Good in the first place. If Neutral characters were only allowed to do Good acts in order to remain Neutral, then wouldn't they be Good and not Neutral?

So the MitD seems to be the epitome of Neutral; he'll happily do Good or Evil or Neutral things in order to make his friends happy.

[Raging_Pacifist]

Definitely true neutral.

[xyzchyx]

I would peg him (it?) as chaotic neutral.

[Raging_Pacifist]

I would peg him (it?) as chaotic neutral.

Neutral yes. Chaotic no. When given orders it follows them to the best of its abilities.