Haely is Now Chaotic Neutral

[Admiral_Kelly]

Haley, by allowing Belkar to kill that gnome without any consequence (throwing the chocolate away meant nothing; Belkar stole the chocolate bar from the gnome he killed; that would be like returning stolen money to a bank as punishment for the robbers) she is compromising her moral standpoints allowing them to slide because it conveniences her. She does not need Belkar tagging along with her; an 'out of desperation' argument means nothing.

Discuss.

[bluish_wolf]

The only reason she was chaotic good was because of Elan's influence, so it's no wonder that she's back to being chaotic neutral.

[Narthon the Bold]

Last I checked, Haley isn't a paladin and is allowed to associate with evil people. If she actually tries to do anything to Belkar, he will kill her. She can not beat him in a fight, ever. So, she has to stay around him to avoid dieing.

[reignofevil]

And what would you have had her do?
Please keep in mind by killing belkar she puts both herself, and the universe in danger. Because if belkar doesnt get killed with the first sneak attack, she is as good as dead. And if she dies, Belkar drags roy's body to every city until he finds someone who can remove his mark. And the universe would be destroyed as well. And if she kills belkar, she may have needed him down the line and died because of not having him. Thus dooming the universe. So please give us your magic solution.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

OK, I'll bite...

Tell me, what could she actually do about it?

Ditch Belkar, thus dooming him to the MoJ? That's of course assuming he would actually leave. I'm pretty sure Haley couldn't make him exit beyond the 1 mile zone.

Take him on in a fight? Even with Celia's help, it's pretty obvious who would end up on top. But at least she would DIE Chaotic Good.

Have Celia fly Haley above Belkar, and shoot at him until they whittle him down? How does killing your team mate jibe with being Chaotic Good?

Give Belkar Roy's rotting corpse, and hope Belkar "goes forth, and makes good decisions?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!1111oneoneele ven

What would YOU do? Teamed with a psychotic killer, who has shown he will kill his allies as well as the enemy, who knows he needs the dead body you're carting around. I can't think of a single snarky comment that would get Belkar to toe the line.

[Querzis]

She was never that good compared to Elan or Roy in the first place. I agree with Bluish_wolf, I think its mainly their influence that made her goodish. Now that she spent 4 months with Belkar killing hobgobelins, its no surprise that shes Chaotic Neutral again.

I'm more wondering about whats gonna happen when shes finally reunited with Elan again. She already said that every good people around her left her because she wasnt good enough.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0311.html

I wonder if the same thing is gonna happen with Elan.

Edit: What would I do? Make him pay for the gnome resurection with his share of treasure. Attach him with rope in his sleep (haley got lots of rank in use rope). Tell him that if he ever kill someone defenseless again, I'll activate the MoJ (its not like Belkar got a sense motive worth a damn.) And, of course, there is still the option of showing him whos the boss. We are talking about Belkar here, a simple charm person spell from Celia would be more then enough, you guys really overestimate him.

And yes even killing him in a fight (which unlike you people think, would be really easy. Sneak attack hurt as hell even for Belkar), would be more good. The fact is that he killed a defenseless bystander and that Haley is smart enough to know he'll do it again with every other defenseless bystander he see so you definitly cant call yourself good if you let him get away with that. Belkar is a greater threat to anyone then any evil monster Haley might be able to make him kill.

[reignofevil]

Nah Elan was always good. I dont think he has it in him to be Evil, or Neutral, Just Chaotic.

[Caractacus]

Then it's a very quick slide.

She was risking her life saving slaves from the hobgoblins. ANY normal thief (not a Good one - they are pretty rare, I should imagine) would have just buggered off from Azure City as soon as her friends were gone. Why risk your life for no gain?

The element of alignment discussions that sometimes bothers me on this board is the assumption that one's actions have to be in accord with one's alignment at all times. That is so not so. [Unless you have a really strict class restriction, and I am not talking about those.]

If you are Chaotic but actually do a friend a favour, you can't assume that s/he is one his/her way to Lawfulness for fulfilling the promise. Certainly not if later in the day, something else is done that is Chaotic. The person's alignment does not oscillate violently back and forth during the day according to one's most recent action. It drifts one way or the other over time according to one's prevailing overall tendencies. That is how I understand it.

Naturally, MAJOR single actions carried out deliberately make a greater difference and a lot more quickly. If HALEY had killed the gnome, now THAT would REALLY be pushing her far down the path to Neutral (and possibly beyond, depending on how much compensation the DM awarded for the rescuing of the slaves).

At least, this is how I see it.

[Admiral_Kelly]

What you guys do not get is that Haley refuses to do anything about it. She only threw away the chocolate bar after being pandered by Cesilia - and as stated in my first post that is NOT a substantial punishment. She has no indication that she cares to keep Belkar in check; only condemns his behavior.

[wowy319]

Okay, I'm going to be blunt and say it first thing: Saying Haley does not need belkar with her is complete and utter crap. Belkar is one of the strongest characters in OoTS, and it has been made clear that he'd likely join the villains were it not for his mark of Justice, or haley being in posession of Roy's corpse, making him an incredibly deadly threat to Haley and the others. Haley would have died back in the battle against tsukiko were it not for Belkar. She's being good by keeping him from joining Xykon.

But never mind that, Haley definitely doesn't need belkar on her side. She must be CN for trying to keep society safe.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Letting Belkar kill the gnome was a major enough offense for an alignment change. Note I say 'Chaotic Neutral' not 'Chaotic Evil'.

And I want someone to show exactly why Belkar is needed for all of this. He is one pint-sized halfling who does more harm than good. He will stab anyone in the back the moment it suits him. He will-

Wait, why am I going on about this? 'Haley needs Belkar' is a statement with complete lack of intelligence (except perhaps from a literary perspective).

[Yendor]

She was risking her life saving slaves from the hobgoblins. ANY normal thief (not a Good one - they are pretty rare, I should imagine) would have just buggered off from Azure City as soon as her friends were gone. Why risk your life for no gain?

Not only that, she expended most of her personal wealth (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0531.html) in helping the Resistance, which is very firmly Good behaviour.

[Theodoriph]

Chaotic good people aren't required to oppose evil or to stop someone from being evil.

Nothing Belkar does in Haley's presence affects her alignment in anyway. If Haley were a paladin, it would be different, but she's not. She could watch him slaughter a thousand children and it wouldn't reflect on her at all.

[Remirach]

The thing about Haley is that I sympathize with her situation more than I do with her attitude. She can't win, really, but the action with the chocolate bar was just plain petulant and childish, and while it's true she can't do much about Belkar's behavior, her statement is plain and clear that she has no intention of doing anything about even TRYING to stop him because she shouldn't HAVE to.

She's still CG, but I think her current attitude is more CNish.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Okay, so how many gnomes does Belkar need to kill in Haley's presence (and just for fun, theyll all have candy bars for Haley to throw away to show she does not condone his behavior) before we can say her alignment has shifted?

[NikkTheTrick]

What you guys do not get is that Haley refuses to do anything about it. She only threw away the chocolate bar after being pandered by Cesilia - and as stated in my first post that is NOT a substantial punishment. She has no indication that she cares to keep Belkar in check; only condemns his behavior.
She is not a Paladin. She is not a law enforcement agent. It is not her duty to punish the evil.

Before complaining about punishment being unsuitable, please provide a least of suitable punishments.

Killing Belkar is not acceptable: he is her teammate, after all. He trusts her, at least to some degree. Killing is bad, at least as far as "civilized" species are concerned (Goblins, monsters are experience fodder). She objected to killing of evil prisoners.

Telling him to go away? Riiight, he'll follow that order:smalltongue:

So, pleae, provide an example of punishment Haley should have inflicted upon Belkar.

That is not even mentioning the fact that Belkar still packs a lot of punch, is somewhat under their control and is a useful instrument in their mission, which happens to be saving the world. Allowing a few innocent people die to save the whole world seems to me as an OK behavior for a CG character.


And to those who are saying that Haley was good only because of Elan: She was fighting in resistance for almost four freaking months! She faced risk death, as well as fate far worse than that, daily. Fighting to save innocent people. That to me looks like a very good behavior.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Okay - for everyone saying 'she's not a paladin' shut-up. I am well aware of the paladin code. However, just because a code for paladins exist does not mean sins of omission do not apply for non-paladins.

For instance; if your roommate is a serial killer and you do nothing about it what does that make you?

[Theodoriph]

Okay, so how many gnomes does Belkar need to kill in Haley's presence (and just for fun, theyll all have candy bars for Haley to throw away to show she does not condone his behavior) before we can say her alignment has shifted?

He could kill every gnome in existence in front of her and it still wouldn't change her alignment. She is not required by her alignment or her class to oppose him in his quest to rid the world of gnomery. Nor is she morally required to do so.

[Remirach]

Why was Haley picked as Roy's second-in-command if she's going to refuse to take on all the responsibilities Roy accepted as well?

[Theodoriph]

Why was Haley picked as Roy's second-in-command if she's going to refuse to take on all the responsibilities Roy accepted as well?

OOTPCS: The other party members elected her to that position so she wouldn't loot their possessions in the night

[Remirach]

OOTPCS: The other party members elected her to that position so she wouldn't loot their possessions in the night
Ooh, I see.


He could kill every gnome in existence in front of her and it still wouldn't change her alignment. She is not required by her alignment or her class to oppose him in his quest to rid the world of gnomery. Nor is she morally required to do so.
And people jumped all over me for saying the alignment system is screwy because lawful seems more intrinsically good than chaotic. Shouldn't EVERY good person have the moral requirement to oppose genocide?

[V Junior]

Rarrg.

Listen CAREFULLY, Admiral_Kelly. This is important.

1: Haley is NOT a paladin. She does NOT lose class features because of other people's behaviour.
2: Haley has been fighting for Good under her OWN free will for the past FOUR MONTHS. It's not Elan's influence.
3: Haley DID NOT expect Belkar to kill the gnome. She could not have stopped him.
4: Haley DID NOT have a viable way to punish Belkar, other then taking away the chocolate bar. What most people have already said proves my point well.
5: Haley GAVE AWAY pretty much all of her money to help the Resistance. If she were Neutral, would she not have kept her gold for herself?

I think you get the picture. Haley is STILL 'Chaotic Good-ish' (accordingto Wikapedia, Haley is Chaotic Good-ish).

[memnarch]

Okay - for everyone saying 'she's not a paladin' shut-up. I am well aware of the paladin code. However, just because a code for paladins exist does not mean sins of omission do not apply for non-paladins.

For instance; if your roommate is a serial killer and you do nothing about it what does that make you?

There's a bit of a difference between doing nothing and being able to do nothing. Haley needs someone at the, moment, who is a fighter type and can give her opportunities for sneak attacks. Celia is kind of stupid, not to mention she doesn't like fighting.

Not to mention she also said 'I'm "leader" in name only, so I refuse to be held accountable for his actions' (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0540.html)

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Admiral Kelly, you are straying into trolling territory. Reread some of your posts, and you'll see what I mean:


Admiral Kelly: Okay - for everyone saying 'she's not a paladin' shut-up.

You started this conversation, deal with the answers in an adult manner. "Shut up" is what kids say on a playground. Only Paladins lose their powers/class/alignment if their team mates screw up, and last I looked, Haley wasn't a paladin.


Okay, so how many gnomes does Belkar need to kill in Haley's presence (and just for fun, theyll all have candy bars for Haley to throw away to show she does not condone his behavior) before we can say her alignment has shifted?

Again, how could Haley have stopped him? Belkar attacked so fast, no one could have prevented it from happening. But will Haley be on guard for Belkar's actions in the future? I'd think so.

Belkar has killed a lot of people, and talks a big game about killing more, but until Solk, everyone Belkar killed were encountered in some sort of hostile situation.


Wait, why am I going on about this? 'Haley needs Belkar' is a statement with complete lack of intelligence (except perhaps from a literary perspective).

That's a really condensending thing to say when you're trying to have a debate. :smallannoyed:

Haley doesn't need Belkar, but she can't really get rid of him either. I covered that point way back up at the top. If Haley tells Belkar to "Get Out!" how is she going to enforce it? Belkar will just shadow her until he gets a chance to kill her, or he will cross the one mile threshold, activating the MoJ. Which do you think Belkar will do?

[Theodoriph]

Ooh, I see.


And people jumped all over me for saying the alignment system is screwy because lawful seems more intrinsically good than chaotic. Shouldn't EVERY good person have the moral requirement to oppose genocide?


Good is about so much more than simply opposing evil though. That's what most people tend to forget. Opposing evil is fairly irrelevant. There are 30 million Canadians and 300 million Americans who are not in Africa right now fighting against dictatorial governments, or in Tibet or Afghanistan or other problem areas...does that make them all neutral or evil people? Obviously not. Using those standards everyone in the modern world would be neutral or evil.

The simple fact is you don't need to oppose evil to be good. You can be a saint without doing so.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Being Good-aligned requires you to be consistently good; not fall back on your morals out of convenience. For a Good-Aligned character, certain acts of evil committed automatically change your alignment to Evil regardless of past ones. Allowing such an act to pass by results in a change to Neutral.

Again, I restate:
a) Non-paladins are not exempt from sins of omission. See my example of man who has a serial-killer roommate. Not calling the police is evil.
b) Haley has shown no interest in righting this wrong or stopping it from happening again. Whether or not she can is irrelevant because of this.

Hence Chaotic Neutral; unless you want to make an argument that murder of the innocent is not a major act of evil.

[Moriarty]

youre still avoiding the very first argument in this thread:

what could haley do about belkar?

here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0540.html) she points out, that she doesn't know hot to punish him, and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) is said by the deva that killing him is not an option

[Theodoriph]

Being Good-aligned requires you to be consistently good; not fall back on your morals out of convenience. For a Good-Aligned character, certain acts of evil committed automatically change your alignment to Evil regardless of past ones. Allowing such an act to pass by results in a change to Neutral.

Again, I restate:
a) Non-paladins are not exempt from sins of omission. See my example of man who has a serial-killer roommate. Not calling the police is evil.
b) Haley has shown no interest in righting this wrong or stopping it from happening again. Whether or not she can is irrelevant because of this.

Hence Chaotic Neutral; unless you want to make an argument that murder of the innocent is not a major act of evil.


First, not calling the police can't definitely be called an evil act, a neutral act or a good act. It is however, likely a chaotic act.

Similarly, calling the police on your roomate can't definitely be called an evil act, a neutral act, or a good act. It is however, definitely a lawful act.

You really don't seem to understand the alignment system. You should read the player's handbook again.

[Zifna]

It's pretty obvious that she would have stopped him from killing the gnome if she'd had enough advance warning. She gets really upset at Belkar and starts yelling at him. Then, Celia (Lawful Good, remember) decides to take this opportunity to snipe at Haley for getting mad at Belkar, claiming that she's just as bad as he is.

Celia distracts Haley from her interrogation and remonstration of Belkar and makes it clear that she will not be an ally. It is after Celia has made it clear that she is more interested in sniping at Haley than fixing the problem that Celia starts being angry at Haley for not "doing anything."

Is Celia now Lawful Neutral? Celia hasn't done anything, just insulted the person who was trying to.




So, you moralistic Celias-of-the-forums, let's say Haley kills Belkar. This seems pretty Miko of her--"I have decided you are bad and personally distributed my own version of justice!"--but let's pretend she does it and killing Belkar is not in and of itself an evil action.

Haley now is faced with all the challenges she was originally face with, but short a fair amount of power. She finds herself stymied by guards she could have gotten by with an extra combat-capable partner. She is killed, Roy is not resurrected, and Elan, V and Durkon find themselves unable to stop the freedom of the Snarl on their own. The world is destroyed.

But hey, at least Belkar was punished, right?





>:P

Being Good doesn't mean you need to be a policeman--that's being Lawful. She's said before--that's not a role she feels comfortable or capable in. She's referenced several times how much she wants Roy to get back so he can do the things she finds so difficult--a lot of the policeman stuff particularly. She's expressed her disapproval of Belkar, just as Celia has, and it seems likely she'd do something about it if it didn't look like it would be overall harmful to the Greater Good.

She's Chaotic Good. Either shut up, or go personally tackle a thief next time you see one. Don't call 911 like a Neutral Good character!

[Attilargh]

a) Non-paladins are not exempt from sins of omission. See my example of man who has a serial-killer roommate. Not calling the police is evil.
b) Haley has shown no interest in righting this wrong or stopping it from happening again. Whether or not she can is irrelevant because of this.

Hence Chaotic Neutral; unless you want to make an argument that murder of the innocent is not a major act of evil.
Wait. Are you saying that not phoning the cops even when the serial killer roommate is standing right next to you with two bloody knives is "a major evil act"?

[Querzis]

He could kill every gnome in existence in front of her and it still wouldn't change her alignment. She is not required by her alignment or her class to oppose him in his quest to rid the world of gnomery. Nor is she morally required to do so.

Yes I totally agree, even if Belkar would kill children in front of her it woudnt make her evil, being neutral is usually all about not doing evil but not trying to stop it.


...oh wait, you are saying shes still CG no matter what Belkar does? Are you freaking kidding? Being good is ALL about helping those in needs and opposing evil (which most of the time is the same thing). You are saying good is about something else then those two things? Like what? Fighting on the human side of a war instead of the hobgobelin side? Seriously, its just really annoying how people point out the four months she spent in AC as proof of her goodness. What did you expected her to do? Join team Evil? She already said she was afraid of leaving the city so the fact that she helped the Resistance as nothing to do with her being good or evil, it just has something to do with her being human instead of hobgobelin!

And yes, the fact that politicians do pretty much nothing to help other country unless there is money involved does make pretty much every politicians neutral...I didnt really need you to point it out to know that though. Good politicians are considered 'soft' while evil politicians are considered 'extremist' and you'll notice that, as stupid as it is, extremist are elected a lot more often then soft politicians.

[Theodoriph]

Wait. Are you saying that not phoning the cops even when the serial killer roommate is standing right next to you with two bloody knives is "a major evil act"?

Heh. You have to love contrived situations.



I mean if everyone were subject to hash sins of omission, Hinjo wouldn't be a paladin right now. Actually...taking it to the extreme that he is, Paladins wouldn't exist as a class and good wouldn't exist as an alignment :smallsmile: Which is why he should really re-read and relearn what the different alignments represent.

[Remirach]

Good is about so much more than simply opposing evil though. That's what most people tend to forget. Opposing evil is fairly irrelevant. There are 30 million Canadians and 300 million Americans who are not in Africa right now fighting against dictatorial governments, or in Tibet or Afghanistan or other problem areas...does that make them all neutral or evil people? Obviously not. Using those standards everyone in the modern world would be neutral or evil.

The simple fact is you don't need to oppose evil to be good. You can be a saint without doing so.

Can't we be opposing evil in own neighborhoods? Isn't at least calling the police when we witness a violent crime opposing evil? Or voting against bills that allow torture? I agree it makes sense that "opposing evil" should be only PART of what it means to be "good," but I think also that "shooting people in the face" should also only be PART of what it means to "oppose evil." EDIT: Well actually you weren't saying that. But I mean, we oppose the evil we reasonably can with the means available to us.

Belkar ISN'T actually on a mission of genocide (as far as I know??), but if he were actually intending to kill every gnome he came across I think Haley'd be on very shaky grounds to do NOTHING about it when she's RIGHT THERE. I mean at the least she could shove Roy's corpse in a bag of holding and hope it sets off his Mark.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Actually, I think she CAN handle it if she applies herself. For instance; have Cesilia fly Roy's corpse away until the Mark of Justice kicks in. Or steal his daggers (Slight of Hand anyone?) and stab him if he does anything in protest. Or turn him into the police when they reach the next town or city; but there is no indication she will do this (if she does then her alignment goes back to -or remains if she is secretly planning this- Chaotic Good).

If the player's handbook says that stopping Evil is a Lawful act then 'Law' is really just an aspect of Good. Perhaps there should be only one axis but I digress.

@Attilargh: No; because in liking this to the serial killer example the serial killer would not pose a threat to you personally. Phoning the police while his back is turned (figuratively speaking) and then going out for a walk would be the proper solution.

[NikkTheTrick]

Okay - for everyone saying 'she's not a paladin' shut-up.
How mature:smallwink:

Being Good-aligned requires you to be consistently good;
I dunno... Perhaps FOUR FREAKING MONTHS OF SAVING PEOPLE WHEN SHE DID NOT HAVE TO DO SO might count? Don't ya think. Sorry for the caps, but that is a point that has been stated many times already and for some reason you did not seem to notice it.

not fall back on your morals out of convenience.
Define convenience. She has the whole freaking world to save. Not punishing an evildoer is a small price to pay for getting desperately needed help to save millions upon millions.
Also, falling back on one's morals is a chaotic act, not an evil one.

For a Good-Aligned character, certain acts of evil committed automatically change your alignment to Evil regardless of past ones. Allowing such an act to pass by results in a change to Neutral.
True for "certain acts of evil". For example, it would be leading a massacre, etc. To change an alignment to neutral, one would need to actually commit a pretty significant evil act. For example, killing an innocent. Letting an evil act slide is neither. Only Paladins are prohibited from associating with evil characters. And even then, that would make them lose paladinhood, not alignment. And yes, I will keep restating the point untill you offer someting way more substantial to counter it than "shut up".

a) Non-paladins are not exempt from sins of omission. See my example of man who has a serial-killer roommate. Not calling the police is evil.
No. it is chaotic. Further that is not the situation Haley is in. Her situation is closer to the following: your roommate is a serial killer, but your city gets attacked and you need him to fight by your side to defend it and its inhabitants (he will do it for chance to shoot attackers). I would not consider letting him fight by your side to be evil at all. Arguably, chaotic, but Haley is chaotic.

b) Haley has shown no interest in righting this wrong or stopping it from happening again. Whether or not she can is irrelevant because of this.
HOw do you know she has no interest righting the wrong? We do not have evidence either way, but judging from her shoch at the event, if she could will the murder undone, she would do so without hesitation.

And I totally disagree that not unmaking an evil deed when one is not able to is evil. Wether one is good or evil is determined by what they do with means they have. If she could not stop the murder (due t not expecting it) and could not undo it, that does not automatically makes her lose alignment.

Hence Chaotic Neutral; unless you want to make an argument that murder of the innocent is not a major act of evil.
It is a major evil act. Therefore, Belkar would lose his good alignment is he performed it.
But I thought we were talking about Haley...

[FujinAkari]

What you guys do not get is that Haley refuses to do anything about it. She only threw away the chocolate bar after being pandered by Cesilia - and as stated in my first post that is NOT a substantial punishment. She has no indication that she cares to keep Belkar in check; only condemns his behavior.

Admiral Kelly needs to brush up on his understanding of alignment.

Alignment is about your actions, not about your reactions. There is absolutely nothing in the good alignment descriptor that says anything about stopping others, merely about how you act, and Haley acts Chaotic Good.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that Haley's alignment could shift if she let Belkar do enough evil without consequence, it is far from a certainty. You'll notice that Roy's interview gave him a chance to defend himself from his association, it wasn't an automatic thing. It is intellectually dishonest to proclaim that Haley operates under different rules.

[blackspeeker]

Okay - for everyone saying 'she's not a paladin' shut-up.

For instance; if your roommate is a serial killer and you do nothing about it what does that make you?

Well she isn't. I honestly don't feel she should be held accountabiliabuddyable for Belkar's or anyone else's actions. So an alignment shift isn't necessary, even though I always thought she was chaotic neutral with good tendencies, thats what "Chaotic Good-ish" meant to me.

But for the sake of argument lets say she is accountabilabuddyable, chaotic good, and can do something about it, what good would come of it? I honestly can't think of any, because it would be likely to slow their travels to cliffport, where they would find clerics and wizards hopefully a high enough level to raise roy and get into contact with V, Durkon, Elan, etc... and then be able to move on to fighting Xykon more effectively, time is of the essence, punishing Belkar could slow them down, mainly because the only punishment I think would be effective on Belkar is corporal punishment, and cutting off a hand makes him less useful in a fight, as well as cutting off a foot, and that would also make him a slower traveller, I guess she could chain him but then she loses a valuable ally in battle and possibly in the future.

I think the best she can do when they make camp for the night is to give him a very stern talking to and maybe inform him every time he kills a presumed innocent celia will shock him at will, other than that there is nothing, short of killng him that will do.

[DiscipleofBob]

Being Good-aligned requires you to be consistently good; not fall back on your morals out of convenience. For a Good-Aligned character, certain acts of evil committed automatically change your alignment to Evil regardless of past ones. Allowing such an act to pass by results in a change to Neutral.

Wrong. A good person does not need to be consistently good with their actions. If Haley were to walk by a beggar, it would be a good action to give generously or at least somewhat to him. Most likely, however, Haley would just walk on by, possibly giving the beggar a lecture about taking levels in rogue if she feels like it. She could steal what little the beggar had, but probably wouldn't, as the beggar wouldn't have anything worth stealing anyway.



Again, I restate:
a) Non-paladins are not exempt from sins of omission. See my example of man who has a serial-killer roommate. Not calling the police is evil.

Wrong. Calling the police is a LAWFUL action, not a GOOD action. A good person would be morally obligated to do something about the manner, (except in the case that he/she agreed with the person, such as if the serial killer was only killing wrongdoers, criminals, something like that) but not necessarily calling the police. They might warn the next victim, stop the killer themselves, whatever. However, this comes not from the fact that "Oh, murder is illegal and therefore wrong. The proper authorities must deal with it." This comes from "What this guy's doing is wrong. If I can, I should do something about it."

However, a good person could just run away and not look back. This is a neutral action, but it doesn't make them "not good." Running away because of fear does not make you any less good or any more evil of a person.



b) Haley has shown no interest in righting this wrong or stopping it from happening again. Whether or not she can is irrelevant because of this.


Again, wrong. Read comic 539. Haley yells at Belkar and expresses immediate and strong disapproval. Belkar shows his motive was not simply a random murder, but so he wouldn't have to pull the cart on himself. Haley has no reason to suspect Belkar will murder every random NPC they come across. Not even Belkar is that stupid.

Hell, read comic 540. If that doesn't completely sum up this entire debate and blow your argument out of the water, I don't know what will. Let's look at this shall we:

Panel 1: Celia takes your point-of-view in that Belkar has done something abhorrently evil and must be punished accordingly. Specifically going to jail. I'd like to point out, though I'm sure this will be debated, that this is a LAWFUL point of view, not a GOOD action. A lawful person expects a specific and appropriate punishment for such an action, a good person doesn't have to care about the punishment, just has to try to prevent this in the future. In the current situation, this is difficult, but all the second person (ie. Haley) could do is watch Belkar in the future and don't let him near any more helpful NPC's. Haley proves the point that there ARE no local authorities, therefore no law to punish Belkar. Moving on...

Panel 3: Celia points out that Haley is "in charge" and therefore "must take responsibility." Haley points out that she does not see herself as a leader of any sort, she just takes responsibility for her own actions. Taking responsibility for her own actions: GOOD. Not taking responsibility for Belkar's actions: NOT EVIL. A good person does not have to shoulder the entire world. That is what we call STUPID GOOD, someone who tries to take on all the responsibilities and challenges of the world despite lacking the capabilities to do so.

Panel 4: Haley points out that Belkar doesn't listen to her. It's therefore pointless to lecture him or try to make him behave. She points out in the last panel that she keeps Belkar around for the same reason she keeps Celia around: she needs all the help she can get.

Now, Haley could try some sort of punishment on Belkar, but what are her options: Killing Belkar? A possibility with Celia's help, but it'd use up some of her precious resources like magical arrows that she'll need to fend off later threats, and more importantly, killing Belkar would be an EVIL action. She could incapacitate him or tie him up in the cart, but that would be stupid for two reasons: 1. Like she said, she needs all the help she can get, and Belkar's kind of useless bound, gagged, or unconscious. 2. Belkar would likely try to get revenge, and Haley has to sleep at some point.



Hence Chaotic Neutral; unless you want to make an argument that murder of the innocent is not a major act of evil.

Haley did not murder anyone. Belkar did. Associating with an evil person does not make someone good anymore than associating with a good person makes someone good.

Haley does NOT have to take responsibility for Belkar's actions, nor does she have to dole out some punishment. That's a LAWFUL standpoint, not a GOOD one.

Haley is CHAOTIC because she makes a living breaking the law and respects very few actual authorities or laws, except for the ones she doesn't mind following or that suit her purpose. She is GOOD because she looks out for the well-being of others and is actively trying to save the world despite it going against her financial interests (spending most of her personal fortune to help a resistance that mostly hates her). She is INTELLIGENT because she does not fanatically try to punish anyone of an evil alignment regardless of the consequences. There is no intelligent alternative to Haley's actions.

If not fully punishing Belkar for every transgression he's made, Roy would not be good. Just take a look at the conversation between him and the Deva. By your standards, Miko Miyazaki was the only GOOD person in the comic, and she lost her paladin status.

So please, I would refrain from judging others based on your own self-righteous standards of what you "think" should be done.

[Theodoriph]

Yes I totally agree, even if Belkar would kill children in front of her it woudnt make her evil, being neutral is usually all about not doing evil but not trying to stop it.


...oh wait, you are saying shes still CG no matter what Belkar does? Are you freaking kidding? Being good is ALL about helping those in needs and opposing evil (which most of the time is the same thing). You are saying good is about something else then those two things? Like what? Fighting on the human side of a war instead of the hobgobelin side? Seriously, its just really annoying how people point out the four months she spent in AC as proof of her goodness. What did you expected her to do? Join team Evil? She already said she was afraid of leaving the city so the fact that she helped the Resistance as nothing to do with her being good or evil, it just has something to do with her being human instead of hobgobelin!

And yes, the fact that politicians do pretty much nothing to help other country unless there is money involved does make pretty much every politicians neutral...I didnt really need you to point it out to know that though. Good politicians are considered 'soft' while evil politicians are considered 'extremist' and you'll notice that, as stupid as it is, extremist are elected a lot more often then soft politicians.

Most of your point was well of topic. I don't think you understood at all what I was talking about with regards to the country thing. I certainly never mentioned politicians or anything about her leading the resistance :P Unless you're weren't actually addressing me with those :)


Anyways:

"Yes I totally agree, even if Belkar would kill children in front of her it woudnt make her evil, being neutral is usually all about not doing evil but not trying to stop it."

It wouldn't even be Neutral. Not punishing Belkar could easily fit within the Chaotic Good template. You have to remember Chaotic Good people are still chaotic.

"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include reclessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.




I think the problem many of you are having is that you're using your real-world experience to try to judge her. And that doesn't really work. Her world is a different world. In her world there are Gods and goddesses who definitely punish and reward people for their deeds. Belkar will get what's coming to him when he dies for good, and everyone knows that. Similarly anyone he kills who is innocent and good will have a happy afterlife. So the need to act now and to punish him is lessened. That's what gives DnD some of the moral leeway that we may not have in real life. A guarantee that people will be punished or rewarded for their actions in the next life.

[Voyager]

I would remind people we're coming in on the whole Haley vs Belkar thing about four months after the fact. It is quite possible that she has already tried numerous time to slow down Belkar's homicidal tendancies and failed, rather completely.

The analogy that springs to mind it that of the lone adventurer fleeing before the black wyrm ravaging the country-side. Such behaviour does not, necessarily, indicate that one is evil or in any way condones the wyrm's behaviour, merely that one does not believe oneself capable of dealing with such a wyrm. One can be craven, without being evil, even if it ussually helps.

Harry Voyager

[Admiral_Kelly]

Am I to understand that it is okay to let your friends murder others so long as you yourself are a good person (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralDissonance)?

[Theodoriph]

Am I to understand that it is okay to let your friends murder others so long as you yourself are a good person (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralDissonance)?

When have Haley's actions not lined up with her rhetoric? Did you actually bother to read the site you linked to?

[slayerx]

And I want someone to show exactly why Belkar is needed for all of this. He is one pint-sized halfling who does more harm than good. He will stab anyone in the back the moment it suits him. He will-

Wait, why am I going on about this? 'Haley needs Belkar' is a statement with complete lack of intelligence (except perhaps from a literary perspective).
well, since it hasn't been addressed much...
Haley points out that she would not have Belkar or Celia if she did not think she needs all the help she can get.

Haley needs to travel 1000 miles to do what she needs to do and has no idea what she may run into along the way. Tell, What would happen if she were to run into a group of Monsters that were too strong for her to solo? afterall, she is a rouge, NOT a fighter. She could run, but they can always give chase and catch her... what then? she's as good as dead... and if not, the next thing she runs into will finish off what ever hit points she's got left. Having Belkar along makes the chances of her running into something she can't handle all the more slimmer... He is a fighter-type and is more capable in direct combat, and also can provide Haley flanking bonus's and give her chances to use "sneak attack" (where he real damaging abilities are)... High level characters do have a tendency to run into high level encounters (despite the fact that low level NPC's can travel the same lands just fine... it's a DnD thing)... And Haley will need to make more money for the spells she needs and her journey, and the fastest way tends to be to fight powerful monsters

Not to mention is that Haley is for some reason avoiding greysky city which they will have to pass nearby to continue north to cliffport. She's wary of it and they could be good reason, and even if they avoiding going through the city, they could still run into serious trouble by being near it... trouble that she may need a serious fighter for.

And let's not forget that sleep outside can always been dangerous due to potential monster attacks... unless Haley doesn't mind going without sleep for the next few weeks, she's gonna need someone to help keep watch at night... and the more people she has, the less time they need to waste making sure everyone is well rested

Maybe you can tell us why you are so certain that Haley won't need all the help she can get on a month long journey, when we have no idea what kind of **** might happen...

[NikkTheTrick]

Am I to understand that it is okay to let your friends murder others so long as you yourself are a good person (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralDissonance)?
For a Chaotic Good person in Haley's situation, yes.

And it is not moral dissonance: everyone understands that Belkar's actions are wrong. But, given the situation, letting them slide is better. Regardless of how evil he is, Belkar can be used for the good purpose.

[mago]

i belive the deva that Examined roys case said that unless you where a paladin or was trying to exert authority (such as being a leader, taking that responsibility) then what your companions do is on their soul. haley spesificaly said that se, at this point, WASN'T :belkar:'s leader. not on her soul- especialy when she could'nt prevent it

[zuzak]

Actually, I think she CAN handle it if she applies herself. For instance; have Cesilia fly Roy's corpse away until the Mark of Justice kicks in. Or steal his daggers (Slight of Hand anyone?) and stab him if he does anything in protest. Or turn him into the police when they reach the next town or city; but there is no indication she will do this (if she does then her alignment goes back to -or remains if she is secretly planning this- Chaotic Good).

All of these solutions leave Belkar incapable of helping Haley, and, as she said, she needs all the help she can get.

[Admiral_Kelly]

The Moral Dissonance lies in that Haely is out to bring back Xxykon and save the world to stop evil. Meanwhile, she openly allows a murderous psychopath along with her. This could be applied to the rest of the Order as well.

Here is another thought; if Haely is 'so desperate', why did she not bring along a couple of the Azureites along with her? It would have been an easy enough task to get out of the city that way. Not to mention reigning Belkar in would have been much better with a couple of fighters at her side.

[Theodoriph]

Haley's is trying to gather enough treasure to free her father as per the main comic and origin of the PCs.

1) Sneaking out a bunch of Azurites (especially loud and clunky fighters and paladins) would have been infinitely more difficult.
2) They couldn't have done anything anyway. Belkar could probably kill 3 or 4 of them in a round.
3) The resistance members would have no reason to go with her. They want to save their city.

[NikkTheTrick]

The Moral Dissonance lies in that Haely is out to bring back Xxykon and save the world to stop evil. Meanwhile, she lets a psychopath follow her group in tow.
I suggest you follow the link you have provided and read up on it. Because that is not what we have here.

Haley is well aware of Belkar's actions. However, his power is worth it.

Here is another though; if Haely is 'so desperate', why did she not bring along a couple of the Azureites along with her? It would have been an easy enough task to get out of the city that way.
Fighters would be more harm then good to Haley. Resistance members are low level. That means that:
1. They are useless in combat.
2. They have lower ranks in hide, so they would hurt the group overall.
3. They would have issues of their own, which would make the whole thing more complicated.

Not to mention reigning Belkar in would have been much better with a couple of fighters at her side.
You mean fighters that would die within the first 6 seconds of combat? Compared to Haley and Belkar, Asurites can provide nothing except being cheap cannon fodder. To put it bluntly, Belkar is worth 100 resistance grunts.

[mago]

also, remember that there are not just two axes, but nine alignments. people tend to forget that. for example, the principle of JUST PUNISHMENT is a lawful good thing. NOT a CG one. she might try to mend it (but how, really? there is no family they can give any monny or belongings too and no cleric to raise him) but a punishment would only hinder them

[slayerx]

Actually, I think she CAN handle it if she applies herself. For instance; have Cesilia fly Roy's corpse away until the Mark of Justice kicks in. Or steal his daggers (Slight of Hand anyone?) and stab him if he does anything in protest. Or turn him into the police when they reach the next town or city; but there is no indication she will do this (if she does then her alignment goes back to -or remains if she is secretly planning this- Chaotic Good).


Celia flying away with the corpse: If this is a method to kill Nelkar, this will nto work since Celia already said she will not have a hand in killing him as that would make her as bad as he is... If this is just a method of punishment, there are numerous problems... first, Celia would likely need to stay 1 mile away (i doubt the MOJ stays activated), which makes communication between her and haley impossible... second, once Belkar is healthy again, he will NOT be happy... they will have to keep Belkar weakened at that makes him nothing more then dead weight and useless to Haley on her long and possibly dangerous journey...

Take away his daggars: Slight of hand ain't certain to work and Belkar will not be happy if he realizes Haley is plotting against him... we also must recall that Belkar has shown numerous times to be pretty good an improvising ways to hurt people without his weapons... not to mention Haley now has to make sure that her are Celia are always watching him which could be a problem when it's time to get some sleep...

Turn him into local police: first off, so far we have been told that the nearest cities are Greysky and cliffport, and that's a LONG way away... if there were closer cities they would go there to try and find the services they needs... Second of all, Belkar is a high level character and local law enforcement tend to be low level... even if Belkar can't kill them, i doubt they could handle them; hell he could probably knock them all out using non-lethal damage... and with this betrayal, the first thing he would do when he relaizes he's still in the city is run away and hide and wait for Haley to leave the city... the moment she does is when he inflicts his revenge

All in all, nothing really works well... Hell, the whole reason Roy kept Belakr around was because he had no practical way to deal with him... Killing belkar was not an aliment ideal option as Deva agreed; him personally punishing Belkar was dangerous as you don't want to piss off a psycotic halfling unless you are CERTAIN you can handle it (like he can later when he has a power would to instantly force him into submission); and Roy does not trust local prisons to be strong enough to hold the little bugger...

really the only real option for ending Belkar's evil is to kill him... but Celia has already said she will not do it, and it will be tough for Haley to it alone... not to mention, Haley believes she really will need all the help she can get

[David Argall]

Letting Belkar kill the gnome
What "letting" are we talking about. Belkar acts with complete surprise, an act he does not consult Haley about and when she has no time to react. There is no letting here, unless you want to say Celia was also "letting" him.

Now we could argue that Haley was guilty of criminal negligence. She knew Belkar was highly dangerous and she didn't take steps to make sure he didn't suddenly lash out for no obvious reason. [Belkar does routinely have a reason for his killings, which makes him a shade better than Xykon, but it's rather a narrow difference given the reasons can be quite trivial.] But Haley does have the defense that she could not foresee that he was quite that dangerous. He had spent several months without unjustified attacks, and it would be easy to forget he is not limited by the moj out here away from the city. And criminal negligence isn't all that criminal from our alignment view. Alignment deals with intent, and negligence is intent poorly carried out. We need to prove intent so extreme that we question whether the intent ever existed before we start talking of alignment change.


And I want someone to show exactly why Belkar is needed for all of this. He is one pint-sized halfling who does more harm than good. He will stab anyone in the back the moment it suits him. He will-
-kill a whole lot of monsters if they try to attack. In particular, he is a melee man, which is vital support for an archer and a sorcerer, and more than doubles their effectiveness.


Wait, why am I going on about this? 'Haley needs Belkar' is a statement with complete lack of intelligence (except perhaps from a literary perspective).
Well, the 1st "person" saying this is Haley, who is our expert on the scene. She's the adventurer, who has been risking her life in such situations for some time. She has, most likely, been living in the area and knows the risks ahead far better than we do.

And her judgement of needing all the help she can get seems entirely reasonable. By module standards, she should face challenges that test 4 players of her level. We can argue this down a little, but even with Belkar, she only has about 2 1/2. Dumping Belkar would make it an overwhelming challenge.
Moving to the OOTS world, we are talking of a thousand mile journey with unknown perils. And what we have seen makes it questionable she can go much more than 10 miles without an encounter.
The idea she needs Belkar's help seems extremely reasonable. It is the idea that just because we don't know if a monster is waiting we can casually assume there is none that looks foolish.




Haley did not murder anyone. Belkar did. Associating with an evil person does not make someone good anymore than associating with a good person makes someone good.
"Birds of a feather flock together." A Spanish version is "Tell me who you are with and I'll tell you who you are." While Haley is not under the high degree of restrictions as a paladin, the same principles apply, and she gets docked for hanging out with Belkar.
But as with Roy, she can have defenses for this. In her current situation, the main one is that there really isn't much of an alternative. Belkar is too useful, and too dangerous, to destroy. [While the deva was not willing to approve killing Belkar in his sleep, that should be judged partly due to being lawful. Haley is not restricted by law and should have few moral objections to slicing up Belkar as he sleeps. If he is worth killing, he is worth killing as he sleeps. But the problem remains pulling the killing off, and that Belkar is too useful until they reach Cliffport, at which time Belkar is back under the Mark and the need to kill him at all is sharply less, if it even still exists.]
However, Haley being chaotic does not mean she can just stand by and let Belkar kill innocents at his whim. If she wants to call herself good or goodish, she has to do what she can to stop that. Here, that does not mean any punishment about the gnome, but it does mean she will have to look for measures that prevent that happening again.

[Doran]

Basically it's the perfect solution fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy). The current situation with Belkar has its disadvantages, but the other ways are likely to be worse.

[Admiral_Kelly]

...
This is not a perfect solution argument - though thanks for providing that link; I was looking for the name of that fallacy. I argue differently; having Belkar as a member of the party is worse than the disadvantages of having him. Haley has to keep him on a leash, he is unreliable, and most importantly he kills innocents. Looking back on things, Belkar never really contributed anything absolutely vital towards keeping the party's goals; why do they keep him around so much!?

[curtis]

Admiral_Kelly, pick one of these options:

1: Stop posting.
2: Make a list of your reasons so we can counter them.

The serial killer is totally invalid; try this:

A friend aquaintance of yours has killed someone. You do not have a phone, you are miles from anywhere, he is stronger than you, you need him if you encounter some wild beasts, and to stop someone from taking over/destroying the world. What would YOU do?

[plainsfox]

I'm not sold on how the "No Belkar" situation outweighs the "Belkar" situation here. What DOES Belkar do? After 545 strips, the only thing that Belkar can do it seems is pick fights and kill the participants in them. This is the LAST thing Haley needs right now. Thus far, a low level sorceress is 100x more useful than Belkar ever will be. A Paladin was 100x better as a tracker than he ever could be.


Please explain to me in really simple language on how Belkar is useful in this situation. Note that Utility in a fight is not important when they don't need to get into a fight. Also note that Belkar is an epically BAD ranger.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Why do they keep him around? Because when he's not killing the innocent, he's killing the enemy! IN DROVES! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html)

And that has proven to be rather important to this story.

[plainsfox]

And how useful was it the last time they had to kill things in droves? Azure City still fell. Besides, this is a sneak/evade situation. Belkar *might* have the sneak part down. He does not have the evade part down. Their goal right now is to find the rest of the order not "Kill everything and anything that can feel pain."

[DiscipleofBob]

I'm not sold on how the "No Belkar" situation outweighs the "Belkar" situation here. What DOES Belkar do? After 545 strips, the only thing that Belkar can do it seems is pick fights and kill the participants in them. This is the LAST thing Haley needs right now. Thus far, a low level sorceress is 100x more useful than Belkar ever will be. A Paladin was 100x better as a tracker than he ever could be.


Please explain to me in really simple language on how Belkar is useful in this situation. Note that Utility in a fight is not important when they don't need to get into a fight. Also note that Belkar is an epically BAD ranger.

Because I'm sure Diplomacy, Charm Person and a few spell-like abilities can handle any possible threat you're likely to find in the wilderness miles away from the nearest city. Especially in a world where the random encounter table is a fact, not a possibility. I'd absolutely love to see what Haley and a low-level outsider could do to a few "level-appropriate" encounters.

Belkar's a horrible ranger, but a great fighter.

[FujinAkari]

And how useful was it the last time they had to kill things in droves? Azure City still fell. Besides, this is a sneak/evade situation. Belkar *might* have the sneak part down. He does not have the evade part down. Their goal right now is to find the rest of the order not "Kill everything and anything that can feel pain."

Look what happened IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the gnome incident. If Belkar hadn't been there, Haley and Celia would have been captured / killed at the checkpoint.

[mockingbyrd7]

Actually, I think she CAN handle it if she applies herself... .. steal his daggers (Sleight of Hand anyone?) and stab him if he does anything in protest.

Woah. Dude.

So you're telling me that if Belkar kills an innocent gnome and doesn't do anything about it (1. Because she can't 2. Because she needs him) then she's a full step towards Evil in a system where you can only take two steps...
But confiscating his weapons and stabbing a now-unarmed individual is Good? Not to mention that she isn't a melee fighter, and two daggers wouldn't kill him. Not even close. Then Belkar would probably massacre her, and the universe would be in that much more danger. Also, Belkar would have no parole officer, and he'd be footloose and fancy-free to kill whoever he damn pleases, and could get the MoJ removed.

Also, you ask why they keep him around?

Two reasons:
ONE. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)
TWO. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html)

[blackspeeker]

Why do they keep him around? Because when he's not killing the innocent, he's killing the enemy! IN DROVES! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html)

And that has proven to be rather important to this story.

Not to be contrary for the sake of it, but, couldn't any of the PC's have done that? They are a much higher level than the hobgoblins on the front line at that point.

[Jade_Tarem]

Letting Belkar kill the gnome was a major enough offense for an alignment change. Note I say 'Chaotic Neutral' not 'Chaotic Evil'.

And I want someone to show exactly why Belkar is needed for all of this. He is one pint-sized halfling who does more harm than good. He will stab anyone in the back the moment it suits him. He will-

Wait, why am I going on about this? 'Haley needs Belkar' is a statement with complete lack of intelligence (except perhaps from a literary perspective).

I chose to respond to this becuase it seems to underline the chief arguments of those stating that they know what Haley's alignment is. These arguments boil down to:

1. Haley can do something about Belkar's violent and evil actions.
2. Haley didn't do anything.
3. Haley doesn't need Belkar, so because Haley didn't do anything to stop him, she is now chaotic neutral.

Have you ever tried to stop a party member in DnD from doing something? Even if they're weaker than you, combat-wise, it can be insanely difficult. You see, in DnD, combat is TURN BASED, meaning that if you haven't got a readied action, you can't do jack about anything until it's your turn.

In other words, Haley "letting" Belkar kill the gnome was as simple as her being caught by surprise. The gnome dropped in one round, so there was nothing she could do during or after the battle.

A brief note on Belkar's usefulness: Belkar is a Ranger/Barbarian TWF character. He has a small size but what we can assume to be high dexterity and constitution (and even strength) because he has been known to one-shot enemy spellcasters and even ogres. While a TWF build usually isn't optimal, you don't ignore what a character with a d12 Hit Die, full Base Attack Bonus, and two swords can do for you if your other firepower is Sneak Attack and Celia's limited casting.

The argument has been used that Belkar isn't worth keeping around because combat is ALL he is good for. While it's true that Belkar is entirely a combat character, the statement that such a character couldn't possibly be useful is just... a little stupid. You aren't the DM, you don't know what's coming up around the next bend, such things are almost impossible to predict and plan for (which is why it's called a RANDOM encounter) outside of having the necsessary combat ability to deal with it.

However, we'll go ahead and assume that he isn't necsessary for the forseeable future

And now I ask, (as others have) what, specifically, Haley is supposed to do? She's going to... ditch Belkar, right? Leave him behind, darting away with Roy's body and Celia, leaving him to die in the woods. Whoops, wait a minute, that won't work - Belkar is a barbarian, and moves at the same speed she does, so she can't outrun him while carrying Roy's body.

Ok, so that's out... how's about she sneaks away in the night, then? That may work, but now she's down to two party members (one a slightly underpowered NPC) and doesn't know what else she may run into on the way to where she's going. This is, of course, assuming that you are entirely correct in saying that Belkar's firepower is negligable (probably not true) and also assumes that she can successfully sneak away in the night while carrying a cart.

Oh, it also assumes that abandoning a party member (who will quickly become paralyzed in the wilderness), even a destestable one, wouldn't also make her CN.

Well, she could try to take Belkar out in combat. She has Celia, maybe she can do it. Celia grabs her, and they fly around, peppering him with arrows and spells until he drops and dies. Oh, well that solves everything, then. She's successfully murdered a party member, assuming the plan works, and that Belkar's ring of jumping doesn't even the match up.

Ah, here we go, the ultimate solution - she uses her rogue abilites to coup de grace him in his sleep. Easy, and there's really no way it could go wrong. And then she'd be chaotic good. Becuase that's what a good character would do.

[Admiral_Kelly]

A friend aquaintance of yours has killed someone. You do not have a phone, you are miles from anywhere, he is stronger than you, you need him if you encounter some wild beasts, and to stop someone from taking over/destroying the world. What would YOU do?I'd shoot him while his back is turned and take my chances. Much better than allowing him to commit murder again. Or, failing that, turn him in to the local authorities in the next opportunity. Haley is not doing that, is she?

[memnarch]

I'd shoot him while his back is turned and take my chances. Much better than allowing him to commit murder again. Or, failing that, turn him in to the local authorities in the next opportunity. Haley is not doing that, is she?

read panel seven (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) for why jail won't work. Not to mention the next opportunity likely won't come for a while and the current local authorities would offer him a job killing.

Also, turn based battles, plus no extra damage from getting hit in vital spots, means Haley pretty much would have time to shoot 2-3 arrows before Belkar jumps her. Not to mention, that sounds like cutting his throat while he sleeps. (see above link)

[Caractacus]

...
This is not a perfect solution argument - though thanks for providing that link; I was looking for the name of that fallacy. I argue differently; having Belkar as a member of the party is worse than the disadvantages of having him. Haley has to keep him on a leash, he is unreliable, and most importantly he kills innocents. Looking back on things, Belkar never really contributed anything absolutely vital towards keeping the party's goals; why do they keep him around so much!?

We know you argue differently - you restate the same points and ask the same questions.

For the answer to your first point and last question, see David Argall's post and slayerx's post. Now we have to move forward from there.

For a response to your assertion in the middle ('never contributed'), see David Argall's post. I think no one here would argue that a Chaotic Neutral Ranger Halfling of the same statistics as Belkar would be a MASSIVE improvement for the party. But they don't have one of those. They have Belkar. The point now is actually not 'what has he done?' - that is changing the question to get onto firmer (or at least different) ground. What is important now is 'What can he do?'

But regarding what can be done about Belkar? For answers to the suggestions, see posts by David Argall, slayerx, zuzak and Discipleofbob.

So where does the argument go from here? I was hoping you'd respond to my earlier post about how quickly alignment changes for various actions and how the compensating activities work for those hovering on either side (or living in) the Neutral zone.



Plainsfox

"[...]the only thing that Belkar can do it seems is pick fights and kill the participants in them. This is the LAST thing Haley needs right now."

???? You are absolutely right, if she can't stop him getting them killed because he attacks people at the wrong moment; however, Belkar is bright enough to know that he enjoys killing, not being killed. He won't start on people when he has to think of his own safety. The evil little sod was just getting something out of his system: after all, he hadn't killed a sentient being for AGES, poor little thing... On the other hand, if they are attacked, what would be the FIRST THING that Haley would need RIGHT THEN?

"Thus far, a low level sorceress is 100x more useful than Belkar ever will be. A Paladin was 100x better as a tracker than he ever could be."

It's a shame that they don't really have access to any of these. What is 'low level' by the way? Because if it's under, say five, then the encounters that Haley is likely to get will put her in the firing line instantly (Haley is NOT a fighter-type) and a 4th or under Sorceress will last how long in encounters at Haley's level? In MY worlds, the encounters would be tailored to current group strength, but I am kind, and also Rich is sort of fond of showing up the 'interesting' results of some processes and rules...


"Please explain to me in really simple language on how Belkar is useful in this situation."

Read. David. Argall's. Post.

The. Middle. Bit.


"Note that Utility in a fight is not important when they don't need to get into a fight."

Funny how in D&D you end up in heaps of fights you didn't need. Funny how you need a fighter-type then. Wandering monsters, random encounters, spiteful DM - call the process what you will, but I bet she can't go a thousand miles (or whatever) without wishing she had more armour, muscle, hit points and attacks per round.

Naturally, if Belkar precipitates a really nasty fight that she fails to prevent, she could abandon him then.

[plainsfox]

David Argyll fails to explain how a negative can be a positive. Belkar's only use is that of a killing machine. That would be GRAVY should they be able to restrain him somehow.....but it seems they CAN'T. Yes. Belkar is a positive and helpful addition to the party.

[Gensuru]

Gee it´s always nice to remind me of the traits that make me look down on paladins. Now what do we have here? self-rightous crap, short-time-thinking, a claim on truth itself...

Does anyone care to give me the describtion of chaotic good as written by the gods in stone? I do not mean the paper part from the rulebooks i mean the extremely precise one that allows no variation. Just because you are chaotic and have no problem helping a person in need doesn´t mean you have to be on a damn crusade to extinguish all evil. That´s the PALADIN´S job (LAWFUL good if some have fogotten). What were Haley´s words again? "Big bald fighter: responsible for the groups actions. Sexy redhead: responsible for her own actions (and even that´s new)" something like that i believe. So anyone here who wishes to show me the definite proof that he is the holy messiah to tell us how "good" is defined in every singel detail? Does anyone else get annoyed to hell by people who think their moral is the only right one? So tell me: in order to be "good" is it enough to help farmers in need without wanting a reward (or getting a resistance against a city of hobgoblins organized where you could just as easily use your roube skills to simply run away) or do you have to devote your life to the eternal struggle against evil? Am i the only one that actually thinks that there are several types and levels of "good"?


Now to another nice point: there is a nice trick some might want to look up. It´s called: long-term-thinking i believe (forgive any translation probles seeing that english is not my nativ language). Does anyone remember why Roy got Belkar out of prison? Out of a whim? Hardly. He got him out to use him in the fight against the evil guys and having his trial AFTER they completed their mission. Now Roy always looked like a competent man to me. Would he have gotten Belkar out if he assumed he´d be useless? Also since it was the leader´s order should Haley go against Roy´s decision and get rid of Belkar? Where is the loyality in that? If Haley was that willing to get out of Roy´s shadow and do things on her own she´d have dumped the corpse long ago. As far as i remember she still did not pay the money to free her father. So instead of running off to hel her own father she remained loyal to a dead man. Anyways let´s get back to the point: Belkar is usefull (and be his use "killing machine" only it IS a use) so why not use him? Three gates have been destroyed and so far they were unable to beat the villains. Their greatest ally the sapphire guard has been erased, the group separated and their leader killed. The villains on the other hand have a huge army and a base. Currently the hero´s power is near zero so using any weapon you have looks rather natural to me. Of course anyone without the (to me) rather basic ability to see the BIGGER picture would still kill Belkar despite the rather obvious fact that the Order of the Stick hardly has any real options left but to use any means possible. So yes go ahead and kill the warrior that was able to take out quite an impressive number of hobgoblins all on his own instead of using him to SAVE THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE. Oh wait i forgot...killing one single evil person is much more important than saving the millions that would be erased should the multiverse (or universe if you prefer that term) be completely erased.

[Timberboar]

I'd shoot him while his back is turned and take my chances.

Wait, and you're the one quoting moral dissonance at US?

[bluish_wolf]

Wait, and you're the one quoting moral dissonance at US?

What? Thieves Rogues backstab sneak attack people. It's in the rules.

[slayerx]

I'm not sold on how the "No Belkar" situation outweighs the "Belkar" situation here. What DOES Belkar do? After 545 strips, the only thing that Belkar can do it seems is pick fights and kill the participants in them. This is the LAST thing Haley needs right now. Thus far, a low level sorceress is 100x more useful than Belkar ever will be. A Paladin was 100x better as a tracker than he ever could be.

Please explain to me in really simple language on how Belkar is useful in this situation. Note that Utility in a fight is not important when they don't need to get into a fight. Also note that Belkar is an epically BAD ranger.

When they don't need to get into a fight? a Stealth/evade situation?
This is NOT the kind of situation they are in...

Haley and Celia are traveling 1000 miles with a loaded cart... You can not be stealthy with a cart (hell she pretty much has to stick to roads) and running away becomes much harder when you have a cart... Avoiding encounters is practically out of the question... Haley's either got to run or stand her ground; and mules are only about as fast as humans (good luck if she runs into something with atleast 40ft movement speed)...

She has no idea what she will face and knows that running will not always be an option as any enemy can always give chase... this is a long distance travel situation where she will probably run into all kinds of encounters... what she will need most right now is someone who can fight the enemies in melee while she keeps her distance and/or benefits from flanking and sneak attacks due to the fighter keeping the enemy busy... a fighter is exactly what she is gonna need on this journey of hers

Seriously, it's not like she knows that their are fresh high level PC's just around the corner for her to higher on instead of him... and even then, she could use all the help she can get...

And as for "what has Belkar done", well let's look at their last two encounters... if not for Belkar's killing of the hobgoblin, they would have ended up having much more trouble at that gate... and before that, we have the battle against Tsukiko... Take Belkar out and try to see how that battle would have gone... likely, Haley might be dead as she was alone tring to fight of Wights, Tsukiko and a dominated Paladin


I'd shoot him while his back is turned and take my chances. Much better than allowing him to commit murder again. Or, failing that, turn him in to the local authorities in the next opportunity. Haley is not doing that, is she?
you forget that said aquaintance can not be killed in a signle shot from the back and that a battle was garunteed to happen... also, the local authorities are likely too weak to handle the serial killer and would just get slaughtered by him... Not to mention the current local authorities are all evil and would sooner give him a medal than punish him and would probably kill you instead...

oh, and let's not forget that you have no idea what's on the road ahead... for all you know theirs an encounter that's appropriate for 4 lv12 PC's just waiting to ambush a mule-drawn cart coming down the road... care to eplain how you'd deal with something like that as a rouge with only a low level caster at your side?

[NikkTheTrick]

...
This is not a perfect solution argument - though thanks for providing that link; I was looking for the name of that fallacy. I argue differently; having Belkar as a member of the party is worse than the disadvantages of having him. Haley has to keep him on a leash, he is unreliable, and most importantly he kills innocents. Looking back on things, Belkar never really contributed anything absolutely vital towards keeping the party's goals; why do they keep him around so much!?
He is a strong melee fighter. While he indeed contributes little other than combat strength, there is a LOT of combat going on in OotS. he is especially important in Haley's situation: she needs at least one competent melee fighter with her.

I'd shoot him while his back is turned and take my chances. Much better than allowing him to commit murder again. Or, failing that, turn him in to the local authorities in the next opportunity. Haley is not doing that, is she?
So, you would kill him without trial.

And pretty much doom yourself and that innocent sorceror near you to die in the next serous encounter.

And also doom the rest of the world since remains of the only one who knows anything about gates, an information critical for saving the world, be gone.

One might argue, that it is also a good way of action, I'd rather stick to using the psycopath for good goal.

As for jail, Belkar already broke out on 2 occasions. And how will Haley get him convicted without an evidence? Will authorities trust word of a thief?

EDIT: P.S. Roy travelled with Bekar a lot. He was Belkar's official leader who hired him (as opposed to Haley ending up with Belkar due to whim of fate). And Roy stood on Divine Trial. After being with Belkar for more time than Haley did. While being his commander. And guess what! He is still Lawful Good!

The Divine Judgement says that being Belkar's commander by choice is not enough to make one not Good on OotS world. Being Belkar's companion out of need isn't either.

[Trizap]

yea, Ad. Kelly, your alignment is really starting to shift from Neutral Poster to
Chaotic Troll :smalltongue:

but still, she is CHAOTIC good, and even though both alignments are good, there is a vast difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good.

Lawful Good is where the person dedicates their entire life to upholding law and good, to keeping the peace. a Lawful Good person is one who would
takes the responsibilities of the group actions, willingly be arrested and go to court to honorably defend their case and would fight fairly, and would always tell the truth and always stand by their morals and beliefs

Chaotic Good is someone on their own, often fighting against lawful people as well as evil people, not fighting fairly, committing amoral acts and even breaking the law but often doing this for good reason, a person who will annoy a paladin to no end since they are breaking the law yet at the same time if they kill the person, it would be an evil act, a chaotic good guy will lie, and resort to any measure for good purposes.

so yea, I think Haley is the perfect picture of Chaotic Good since letting Belkar live and kill people is amoral and dangerous but she recognizes a few small sacrifices is needed for the entire world to be saved therefore this amoral, dangerous act hasn't changed her alignment

meeting over, thank you, come again.

[tanonx]

I think this whole thing would be better served if everyone just asked Kelly what SHOULd have happened. From there the dispute would probably be 'do we NEED Belkar' alongside 'Is it right to betray trust and murder bad people in their sleep' (possibly) and 'Could Haley survive carrying Roy's body in a cart and taking on whatever (many) encounters she couldn't sneak by with a cart on a thousand mile trip as a rogue'.

I really don't see how pertinant any other argument really is, as I wouldn't be risking the fate of the entire cosmos (including those happy afterlives) on halving my already scarce military power because it sent someone to said afterlives. One can't be forced into loosing one's alignment, and I consider the question of universe or few dozen to not even BE a question.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Oh, this is kind of minor, but the OP misspelled Haley in the title. :smallamused:

[Kish]

I don't think Haley's changed to Chaotic Neutral from making jokes about Belkar's evil instead of trying to punish it, but some of these arguments bother me.



So, you would kill him without trial.

Somehow, I don't think "he hasn't had a trial" would figure in Haley's objections to killing Belkar under any circumstances.


And pretty much doom yourself and that innocent sorceror near you to die in the next serous encounter.

Really, now. Haley lived for a long time before she met Belkar. She is far from helpless or unable to get to Cliffport without Belkar's help. That's without factoring in either "Celia can fly" or "Belkar can very easily be a fatal liability."



And also doom the rest of the world since remains of the only one who knows anything about gates, an information critical for saving the world, be gone.

Beg pardon? If Belkar still remembers there are gates, he's doing well.

[tanonx]

Beg pardon? If Belkar still remembers there are gates, he's doing well.

Think he ment Roy. They wouldn't be worried about Belkar's remains, would they?

At any rate, while I have the tab open, I think I've repurposed the link from earlier...

The really Good thing to do here would be to stab Belkar to death while he sleeps. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralDissonance)

While it would be the 'best' thing to do if not for the crippling of Haley's stealth, and thus most of her class features, it still sounds pretty funny.

[slayerx]

So, you would kill him without trial.
Trials are for LAWFUL people... killing with a trial would be a chaotic thing; just ask Miko =p



Really, now. Haley lived for a long time before she met Belkar. She is far from helpless or unable to get to Cliffport without Belkar's help. That's without factoring in either "Celia can fly" or "Belkar can very easily be a fatal liability."

Haley did not have to travel around with a large cart over very long distances before... the cart hinders her abilities to move stealthily, and thus she has more trouble avoiding enemies... the cart also makes harder for her to runaway as she must stick to roads where the cart can go and she could not hide when she was out of sight... enemies would be more likely to find her... Essenatilly, the two skills that she may have used to survive before, stealth and running, are no longer options

And so far, Belkar has been with OoTS for months now... he has yet to show himself as being a fatal liability; atleast when compared to how helpful his added brute force has been... hell his low intelligence even prevents him from realizing some evil options for him... traveling with OoST has become so common place that he would sooner just follow the team than realize he has other more evil options

[NikkTheTrick]

Somehow, I don't think "he hasn't has a trial" would figure in Haley's objections to killing Belkar under any circumstances.
No, but murdering a teammate would. There is a difference between killing in battle and killing an unarmed companion in sleep.

Not that Haley likes the law, but killing someone of "civilized" species in cold blood does not seem like something Haley would enjoy. Just look at cases where she objected to Belkar's ideas about killing bound evil enemies.

Really, now. Haley lived for a long time before she met Belkar. She is far from helpless or unable to get to Cliffport without Belkar's help. That's without factoring in either "Celia can fly" or "Belkar can very easily be a fatal liability."
Haley did not live for that time in an adventuring group. Sure she is far from helpless, but neither are the monsters she would encounter given her level. And it is very hard to find another teammate of such level. As Elan told her, "Haley, you don't DO melee combat". She is a lot less effective without a melee fighter at her side.

Beg pardon? If Belkar still remembers there are gates, he's doing well.
He does not need to remember anything. As long as he kills whoever needs to be killed while OotS is protecting the gates, he's doing fine. Who cares for what purpose he does that?! He's a simple man and sounds of falling bodies is good enough reward for him.

EDIT: I've read the messages above. Yes, I did mean Roy. With Haley gone, his body is lost. No resurrection - no Roy. And no knowledge of the gates...

[Sixscimitars]

Blah blah Haley's got too little time or military strength to afford randomly punishing vital allies blah blah low-level sorcerer basically useless here blah blah local authorities would take that as job qualification blah blah Belkar's power is vital to the group blah blah acceptable loses blah.
Sorry, I'm not mocking you, but I agree with everyone else. It would be stupid to kill one of the most powerful members of her ludicrously diminished military, and any greater punishment than the one given would render Belkar essentially useless, the whole point of tolerating him in the first place. Also, somehow, the evil of not being instantly prepared to throw herself in Belkar's path when Belkar randomly chose to stab someone with no warning or provocation somehow overrode all the good of spending four straight months rescuing helpless slaves from hobgoblins and spending a fortune to do so when there was no benefit in doing so.

[Callista]

Well, she did just commit a strongly CN act, letting Belkar go without punishment. But that doesn't automatically say her alignment just shifted. I mean, she's done a lot of good; one passive act doesn't automatically cancel that out. Look at her basic personality--she's somebody who cares about individual people. That's CG. Until her personality changes so that she cares about herself more than others, she can't be called CN.

She could have done worse; she's still Belkar's self-appointed watchdog, despite that he could probably kill her pretty easily. If I were her player, I'd be considering which side to go to--slide to CN, or redouble my efforts and stay CG--but I wouldn't be changing her alignment just yet. Alignment's a trend, a part of a personality; and that doesn't change just like that. Haley's always had her temptations--she's greedy; she's a bit vain; she's not perfect--but realistically she's always managed to overcome them whenever somebody else really needed help. Once she stops doing that, I'll call her CN; but before that she's still too Good aligned to fit the bill.

[Theodoriph]

Once again, it's not CN for her to let Belkar go without punishment.

Lawful people judge others. Chaotic people don't. They believe in freedom of expression.

[LibraryOgre]

It's fairly obvious that Haley cannot control Belkar... heck, Belkar was only controlled by the combined might of the rest of the party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) at some points.

However, as others have pointed out, this really only leaves her with three options... ditch Roy's corpse, keep Belkar with her, murder Belkar.

The first option Haley deems sub-optimal. Roy is her friend, and she feels that his experience would be useful in the coming battle with Xykon. In a sense, given the magical/medical capabilities of this world, not bringing his corpse to a priest capable of raising it from the dead is the equivalent of not bringing a friend to the hospital when they are injured, if you have the means to do so.

That leaves options that have to do with actions vis a vis Belkar.

That Belkar is an unrepentant mass-murderer isn't doubted. He's shown it time and again that he will happily kill members of the party for his own gain, and he largely sides with them out of a combination of force and the ability to cause harm to things and get away with it (no one objects when he cuts up hobgoblins, zombies, or ogres). Recently, he's stayed "good" out of force de jure, but that has its limits... it extends no further than the borders of a city.

So, she could kill him. He is a murderer, and an almost definite repeat offender. However, as pointed out, she'd have to kill him quickly... it would require a coup de gras, or perhaps a surprise round and some good rolls. This is a VERY risky proposition for Haley. By their presumptive levels (9-11), she would have 5-7d6 of sneak attack dice, and one iterative attack; if she can get a surprise attack, she can do about 63-84 points of damage, if every attack hits, she beats him on initiative on the real round, and she has no strength bonus or magical weapon.
By comparison, Belkar will have 46-53 HP... assuming he has only one level of barbarian, is of equal level to Haley, and has no Constitution bonus; the last is especially unlikely. Even 1 point of Constitution bonus means that the minimum goes up to 55; since Belkar obviously didn't put many points into Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, it's pretty safe to bet that he has a +2 or +3, which would make it a 64 or 73, at minimum. If he's got a couple or three levels in barbarian, instead of just one, he's going to be even tougher.
A coup de gras is the safest bet. Belkar is a powerful combatant, and if she winds up having to fight him without sneak attacks, the battle will quickly go in his favor. However, she is then committing the same murder she's convicting him of. While some may see it as execution, she clearly does not. She's not a Paladin, but, more importantly, she's not an assassin. It's one thing to kill an acknowledged enemy from cover, but I don't see her stabbing someone in their sleep. Furthermore, since Belkar is a ranger, he has Good Fortitude saves, and the Endurance feat, meaning he can (and likely does) sleep in armor. While her sneak attack means that he's unlikely to make the saving throw, he's got that 5% chance to do so... if he wakes up, the fight is on, and he will be ready for it.
Furthermore, her other ally, Ceilia, seems to have a very tightly interpreted set of morals herself, and has expressed distaste for the idea of killing Belkar. Doing so would possibly cost Haley her other ally, leaving her alone with two corpses and some annoyed faerie dust.

The last is to keep Belkar with her. If she does this, she sees it as gaining a protector (for whatever purposes) until she reaches Cliffport. At Cliffport, Belkar's threat to others is neutralized, and she anticipates being able to resurrect Roy, who CAN control Belkar (via the MoJ and main strength). Furthermore, the further away from Azure City they get, the greater the odds that her other friends will scry them out and teleport to them, providing another check on Belkar (as Durkon and Vaarsuvius can also match Belkar).

For her, the only good option is to let him live and be useful, but repugnant, to her. It gains her an ally (of a sorts) in achieving her goals, and avoids either abandoning the one who is her friend OR forcing a confrontation that she's unsure if she can win, and requires her to turn assassin.

[Remirach]

Once again, it's not CN for her to let Belkar go without punishment.

Lawful people judge others. Chaotic people don't. They believe in freedom of expression.
Belkar: I'm not committing murder, I'm just freely expressing my disdain for all forms of life that aren't myself!

Haley: See? Perfectly reasonable.

[Theodoriph]

Belkar: I'm not committing murder, I'm just freely expressing my disdain for all forms of life that aren't myself!

Haley: See? Perfectly reasonable.



You're only responsible for your own actions and you answer to no one. Being free from authority and from being responsible for others (re: irresponsibility) are the joys of playing a chaotic character.

[Remirach]

You're only responsibly for your own actions and you answer to no one. Being free from responsibility is one of the joys of playing a chaotic character.

Keep in mind I was replying to this:


Once again, it's not CN for her to let Belkar go without punishment.

Lawful people judge others. Chaotic people don't. They believe in freedom of expression.
Which doesn't just say she isn't RESPONSIBLE for Belkar but that she doesn't even judge him because she believes in "freedom of expression" -- implying that murder of anyone you feel like is just you "freely expressing" yourself.

[Sixscimitars]

Once again, it's not CN for her to let Belkar go without punishment.

Lawful people judge others. Chaotic people don't. They believe in freedom of expression.

YOU'RE TAKING IT TOO FAR!
Seriously, the reason that Haley chose not to punish Belkar more extensively is that there was no possible benefit or favorable alternative in it, not because she respects his rights to slaughter innocents. She can either try killing him(nigh suicidal, as even if he doesn't kill her, the next monster would), punish him more severely(also suicidal, as it risks crippling him and increases the already relatively high possibility of him killing her in her sleep), or going along with it, because he's stronger in this situation, utterly merciless, insane, has a hair trigger, and is currently a vital ally, since they lack a fair portion of the party and need all the help they can get.
Really, now, even paladins run away from unstoppable threats or figure out a pragmatic solution, they don't automatically catapult themselves at the enemy simply because they're Lawful Good.

[Theodoriph]

Keep in mind I was replying to this:


Which doesn't just say she isn't RESPONSIBLE for Belkar but that she doesn't even judge him because she believes in "freedom of expression" -- implying that murder of anyone you feel like is just you "freely expressing" yourself.

Ah...well if you disagree with the player's handbook, complain to Wizards :smallsmile: But that is the description given for chaotic...so Haley could be exactly like that and still be CG.



And no Sixscimitars, I'm not taking it too far. I could play a CG character who resent authority and limitations, but respects and is kind to everyone, helps them every so often, is concerned about them but does absolutely nothing when some evil comes to claim them...and I would still be CG.

[Remirach]

Ah...well if you disagree with the player's handbook, complain to Wizards :smallsmile: But that is the description given for chaotic...so Haley could be exactly like that and still be CG.


"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
But that's PURE chaos and not chaotic GOOD. If you're going to state a preference on the GOOD/EVIL axis, then you do indeed "judge" (i.e., "define") certain behaviors as good or evil, and Belkar's actions here clearly WERE evil -- and Haley obviously agreed! "Personal freedom" is the ideal, but one's right to swing a fist ends where someone else's face begins. Then you're impinging on someone ELSE's "personal freedom."

[Kaolix]

The alignment system only applies to your own actions. (Unless you're a paladin)
Haley has not committed an evil act, nor a lawful one (the two opposites of her alignment). She has expressed moral outrage (and nothing more) against an outright evil act. This is, at worst, a true neutral act. It is not chaotic, nor is it lawful, it is not good, nor is it evil, it is not even really an action, but a non action.

To use a somewhat cliched example, take Gandhi. Pretty sure he'd be considering good, lawful, neutral or chaotic good I'm not gonna bother mentioning, but definately good. His actions mostly consisted of peaceful protest. So, isn't that "expressing moral outrage" again? The same thing Haley did?

There are a large number of blatantly or arguably chaotic good responses to Belkar's actions; she could kill him, she could abandon him, she could tie him up and drag him behind the cart, she could express her moral outrage at him verbally but non-violently(as she did), she could wait until his trial and provide eyewitness testimony (remember, he IS a prisoner awaiting trial already) although that is a probably a more lawful option (though chaotic good characters can commit lawful good acts if you want, they're chaotic, they do what they feel is best, sometimes that includes acting lawfully.).

The point is, ALL of these actions are *arguably* 'Chaotic Good' choices, but none of them are 'THE Chaotic Good' choice. There is not always only one option corresponding to each alignment, Haley did not fail to be chaotic good, she merely chose a particular way to BE chaotic good (taking responsibility for one's own actions)

[David Argall]

David Argyll
The Argylls of Scotland [who have money] would want you to know there is no relationship with the Argalls of Cornwall [who don't]. If you can prove the reverse, please forward the information. We Argalls would be happy to have it.


fails to explain how a negative can be a positive.
Multiplying by -1 is one way.

Belkar is a negative if they meet more gnomes.
Belkar is a positive if they meet a few hill giants or any of a large variety of critters they might well meet.
[Party meets 1 hill giant at 120. It tosses a rock and Celia catches it. Down she goes. If the girls are flying at any altitude, they die from falling damage. So we say they are walking. Giant moves forward 30. Haley shoots hits 3 times for about 28 damage.
Giant moves 60 and Haley gives it another 27.
We let Haley have the init, which she likely would, and gives it another 18 because she finally gets that 1 or 2 on the die. Giant now arrives and gives her 19.
Haley can't shoot since the giant has reach and so she does 5 damage from her sword. giant hits her for 38.
Haley hits for 10 and giant whacks her for another 38. As a 6HD rogue, Haley is not heavy on hp and goes down.
Haley can likely do better than this, but this is just a CR7 challenge. And Haley has trouble surviving. She can meet several giants. 2 and she has to leave Celia as dead and may not be able to escape the rocks.

Now we make it two hill giants and add in Belkar. 2 rocks means Celia goes down again, and Haley takes 14. Belkar doesn't move and Haley hits one for 28.
Next round Belkar moves to 30 and readies. Giants move to 30 away and Belkar hits one for 10 and Haley puts another 27 into it.
We let the giants go first and hit Belkar for 72 hp. He then hits the wounded giant for 60 and it goes down. Haley tosses 28 into the other one.
Belkar is hit for another 36 and is hurting, but he rages and hits the giant for 60 or so, while Haley finishes it with 18 more from arrows. The party is badly hurt and really wishes it had a cleric, or even a ranger who could cast spells, but they rather clearly win the tougher fight.

Belkar is just worth a huge amount if they have to fight.]


Belkar's only use is that of a killing machine. That would be GRAVY should they be able to restrain him somehow.....but it seems they CAN'T. Yes. Belkar is a positive and helpful addition to the party.
Restraining Belkar completely is out of their ability, but they can definitely lower the risk. Celia flies at 90, allowing her to represent the party far out of Belkar's reach. At the least, that gives Belkar's victim a couple of rounds to run. Most of the time, Belkar is not going to bother trying. They can add to this by having Belkar ride the cart. If they are determined to keep him quiet, promising to flash Belkar after each encounter in which he behaves should keep problems to a minimum. [We boys may be lewd louts, but it's not that hard to lead us around by the nose and make us like it.]
So yes, Belkar is highly useful to the party unless the number of gnomes is quite high.



Look what happened IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the gnome incident. If Belkar hadn't been there, Haley and Celia would have been captured / killed at the checkpoint.
Well, not likely. Haley took out 20 and deemed it a pretty clear thing. Given the advantage of choosing her ground and surprise, she should be able to handle 30. The main problem would be the same as with Belkar, that the enemy would get a dangerous clue to finding the resistance.



Not to be contrary for the sake of it, but, couldn't any of the PC's have done that? They are a much higher level than the hobgoblins on the front line at that point.
For killing hobgoblins, Belkar is supreme. As a two-weapon fighter, he gets about 6 attacks a round, and each kills a hobgoblin. Roy can do more damage a round, but most of it is wasted in overkill and so he can only manage 3 a round. Now when they start facing ogres and giants, Roy does better, but against the small stuff, Belkar's extra swings win out.

Now back to what Haley should do, I'd suggest she should stuff the gnome on the wagon and tell Belkar he is paying for the Raise. They still have that +5 air freshener.

[Sixscimitars]

Ah...well if you disagree with the player's handbook, complain to Wizards :smallsmile: But that is the description given for chaotic...so Haley could be exactly like that and still be CG.



And no Sixscimitars, I'm not taking it too far. I could play a CG character who resent authority and limitations, but respects and is kind to everyone, helps them every so often, is concerned about them but does absolutely nothing when some evil comes to claim them...and I would still be CG.

Actually, I say you were. If one qualifies first-degree murder as freedom of expression, then you would be right. Sadly, nobody does. I'm saying she didn't refuse to punish him because of his rights, she refused to punish him because there wasn't much she could do to him.

[Theodoriph]

But that's PURE chaos and not chaotic GOOD. If you're going to state a preference on the GOOD/EVIL axis, then you do indeed "judge" (i.e., "define") certain behaviors as good or evil, and Belkar's actions here clearly WERE evil -- and Haley obviously agreed!


I hope this forum allows spaces:

.....................G
.....................|
.....................|
.....................|
.....................|
....C ----------N-----------L
.....................|
.....................|
.....................|
.....................|
.....................E

Now you see...being CG, Haley could in theory be completely extreme on the chaos law axis, but only partway up the good axis. Or she could be all the way up on the good axis, and only part of the way along the chaos axis. Or somewhere in between. Personally, I don't see how any of what she has done violates her given range of behaviors.

You have to remember, there was nothing she could have done to save the gnome. It was dead regardless. What's left is deciding what to do after the fact. Punishment is more of a Law-Chaos thing than a Good-Evil thing according to the PHB, while hunting down evildoers because they did evil deeds is more of a lawful thing, than a chaotic thing.

Chaotic people just don't make very good judges, juries and executioners. Ironically enogh, a lawful evil character might kill Belkar for what he did, depending on the circumstances.

[Rayzin]

Its Haley, not Haely, sorry that just bugs me.

[Theodoriph]

Actually, I say you were. If one qualifies first-degree murder as freedom of expression, then you would be right. Sadly, nobody does. I'm saying she didn't refuse to punish him because of his rights, she refused to punish him because there wasn't much she could do to him.

Congratulations...you've realized that in real life...very few truly chaotic people actually exist.

Chaos is bad for survival. Humans evolved to work within the bounds of law. If you couldn't count on your members of your pack to do certain things, to obey certain laws and to behave in certain ways, you couldn't function as a group.

We naturally gravitated towards acting in accordance with a set of rules.

Having said that, the dungeons and dragons world is a fantasy world where being completely chaotic is apparently possible as per the rulebook. And when that's possible, views that seem foreign to us are possible.

That and you must remember, Gods exist in D&D and they are active. The afterlife is known to exist...both the good and the bad.

So it would really be easy for someone to treat others well, but in response to an evil act, claim that it's not their place to judge someone else's expression...and to leave that up to the gods. I mean...that's not even all that chaotic...people do that in our world...and we're much less certain about the nature of the divine than the D&D world is.

[DarknessLord]

Alright, good is NEVER about punishing people, ever. That’s law, good is about helping people and protecting the weak. Good isn’t even about opposing evil, it just so happens that evil people hurt and kill people, and so good should stop them. Once the evil person has been stopped, the good thing to do is to find a way to stop the pattern of doing more evil, ideally through redemption, and just killing them should be the last resort.

Belkar has been showing signs of the possibility of redemption (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) (even if Haley doesn’t know about this chart, I’m sure some other people can drum up some more evidence) plus all he did as part of the resistance was, even if for the wrong reasons, good. Haley didn’t foresee Belker’s random attack, and he one rounded the gnome, there was nothing she could do to fulfill her obligation as good to save the gnome, she then lectured him in an attempt to stop future events like that from happening, and you can bet that she’ll be on guard for future events like this, with all that, she’s fulfilled her obligation as good. Plus Haley knows that the group, once reunited, can keep Belkar, in line and doing more good then evil, not to mention, a few potential lives that should be savable with careful planning, in exchange for a better chance of saving an almost guaranteed multi-verse of lives, is a very good bet, one that a farsighted non-lawful stupid LG could even make (saving Belker’s punishment for later, or letting him pay off his debt to society BY helping save the world). Haley wouldn’t shift any closer to neutral at all in my book, heck, if she decided to use one of her bags of holding to bring the gnome body in for a resurrection, she’d move further from neutral.

Now, I say we move on to arguing that Haley is now NG because she punished Belker by taking his chocolate.

[Remirach]

I thought Chaos and Law were supposed to be two opposite extremes attempting to approach the same end through different means.

What I'm reading here suggests that NO version of Chaos (good or otherwise) is terribly concerned with punishment, fairness, or even justice...

I'd always thought that the traditional method of alignment would grant us that the Knights of the Round Table were mostly Lawful Good... while the Outlaws of Sherwood Forest were Chaotic Good.

They were both about justice, but the Knights were imposing the lawful justice of the King while the Outlaws were reclaiming rightful justice seized by usurpers and tyrants.

The way Chaos is being defined here, it very much seems as though the Outlaws should have been Lawful Good themselves. After all, if the authority is unjust, it IS no true authority and should be resisted. And the Outlaws sought to address wrongs done by evildoers.

But "Chaotic Good" people in this definition aren't inclined to "judge" anything because that would infringe on the "personal freedom" aspect... which doesn't strike me as particularly "good" and makes me wonder (again) what the use is of an alignment "grid" and not just a linear scale when the champions of the world and the righters of wrongs are almost all necessarily lawful.


So it would really be easy for someone to treat others well, but in response to an evil act, claim that it's not their place to judge someone else's expression...and to leave that up to the gods. I mean...that's not even completely chaotic...people do that in our world...and we're much less certain about the nature of the divine than the D&D world is.
I wouldn't call it Chaotic. I'd call it wishy-washy.

[Sixscimitars]

Haley isn't Chaotic like that. Slaad are Chaotic like that, but Haley just disrespects authority-she isn't "purely Chaotic". Besides, that doesn't disprove or support my point, which I will now make as obvious as possible:
Haley. Did. Not. Refuse. Because. She. Thinks. Belkar. Is. Allowed. To. Murder. People. She. Refused. Because. She. Had. No. Other. Rational. Options.
I'm saying Haley's motivation was different from what you gave. We both agree that it still keeps her at her alignment, though-you because she's Chaotic, and sitting back is the norm for Chaotic people, and I, because I think she was being rational and intelligent.

[Theodoriph]

Well then Six, you've been misunderstanding me the whole time.


You see, I could care less how Haley actually behaves. My only concern is demonstrating that her actions (whether rational or completely chaotic) fall close enough to the bounds of her given alignment that she would not drop to CN because of them.

I personally believe what she did falls within the bounds of CG, and there are likely many ways to argue it. I simply picked one. None of them really concern me. My point is simply that she isn't CN and that the OP is wrong.

[Theodoriph]

I thought Chaos and Law were supposed to be two opposite extremes attempting to approach the same end through different means.

What I'm reading here suggests that NO version of Chaos (good or otherwise) is terribly concerned with punishment, fairness, or even justice...

This is one of the problems I feel the descriptions of the aligment system has. In short, they describe the lawful good character as being committed to his cause and being willing to act on its behalf, while decribing chaotic good people as being kind and benevolent. I'm not sure if the descriptions accurately reflect what they should.

That being said...it all really depends on how far along the individual axes you are. The outlaws robbing from the rich to give to the poor are likely fairly high up on the good axis and closer to the neutral on the chaos axis. After all, being organized into a "band of outlaws" means that they have to have some rules that they all follow, some regulations and perhaps even a leader...so they can't be too chaotic.

The knights of the round table would be high up on the good axis and high up on the lawful axis (though after many of the original knights left...a lot of their replacements weren't good).



The way Chaos is being defined here, it very much seems as though the Outlaws should have been Lawful Good themselves. After all, if the authority is unjust, it IS no true authority and should be resisted. And the Outlaws sought to address wrongs done by evildoers.

I've heard this question a number of times. Personally, I believe both are possible. Depending on the unjust authority. If they're decidedly evil...I could see someone high up on the good axis, but not as far along on the law axis acting against them. I could also see a CG character who is high on the chaotic axis fighting their repression.

Some people also believe that a LG person merely has to follow their own code as opposed to the actual law of the land...much like an LE person...the difference being said code is Good as opposed to evil. The DM can interpret it however he wishes...though both make for interesting roleplay opportunities. It does kind of blur the line between CG and LG though.



The book really just gives the extreme possibilities when describing law, chaos, good and evil and then you have to figure out where exactly your character stands (I doubt anyone actually plays the extremes...they're all pretty unpleasant). Though I suppose now with the vow of poverty and sainthood, playing an extremely good character is a bit more bearable :smalltongue:

[Dark Matter]

RE: Killing Belkar and other options.
She could put Roy's body in a bag of holding. That messes up Belkar right there, maybe bad enough that she wouldn't need to kill him.

Of course that's an option she hasn't thought of in that context, presumably because of INT limitations.

The interesting question IMHO is what will she do when she *doesn't* need Belkar. Sooner or later Roy will be back, and the authorities won't be Team Evil. Belkar IMHO is functioning on a limited lifespan because of all the crap he pulls like this... and that's been confirmed by the Oracle. Perfect justice isn't available but that's not the same as Haley doing nothing about Belkar forever.

[Dacia Brabant]

He could kill every gnome in existence in front of her and it still wouldn't change her alignment. She is not required by her alignment or her class to oppose him in his quest to rid the world of gnomery. Nor is she morally required to do so.

Apropos of nothing perhaps, but can you see any of the iconics of the D&D canon who are Chaotic Good behaving this way? Elminster, Drizz't and the Seven Sisters aren't exactly the sort to stand around picking their noses and whining that "I only take responsibility for my own actions" while watching mass murderers go on about their business.

Or how about the thematic basis within medieval/chivalric-style literature for the alignment in D&D in the first place, the "benevolent individualist" archetype of the sort exemplified in Ivanhoe? Can you see Robin Hood putzing around Nottinghamshire with an unrepentant sociopath as one of his "Merry Men"?

Somehow, I see that archetype, when applied to a hero (re: a Chaotic Good mid-high level Player Character in a save-the-world campaign) as being more of the sort to, you know, oppose bullies, oppressors and murderers, punishing them as befitting her own morality and individual sense of justice, and doing so on behalf of the weak, the poor and the oppressed when society has failed them. Chaotic Good is called "Beneficent" for a reason.

As for the entire strain of argument along the lines of "Haley has no choice, she can't stop Belkar even if she wanted to, she needs him to survive, etc." well that simply isn't relevant to discussions of morality. Unless you're a Machiavellian (pretty much the opposite of Chaotic Good), decisions to act upon or react to circumstances based on a moral framework (which corresponds to the Good/Evil alignment axis) are made irrespective of whether the actions will bring about the desired results. Yes, prudence should kick in to try to produce the most desirable result, but for a moral person the action is still derived from what they think is right.

If Haley's made her decision here based entirely upon efficacy in this situation, as many here seem to be arguing, then it is a morally neutral decision. In D&D terms, that's called Neutral with respect to Good/Evil.

[NikkTheTrick]

RE: Killing Belkar and other options.
She could put Roy's body in a bag of holding. That messes up Belkar right there, maybe bad enough that she wouldn't need to kill him.

Of course that's an option she hasn't thought of in that context, presumably because of INT limitations.
Which would be immediately noticed by Belkar. Since Roy implied that Belkar would be gradually getting worse, there is a *very* good chance that he will still retain his combat abilities at about the same level. That means a combat between Belkar and Haley at close range without Haley surprise attack. Haley does not do melee...

Now, let us imagine Haley manages to win the battle. Even if she does, she would have to beat Belkar hard. She does not have many means of inflicting non-lethal damage. That means a very good chance of Belkar not making it past the battle.

Now, let is suppose she actually manages to beat him into between 0 and -10 HP and stabilize him. What happens next? Belkar would be getting worse and worse. She would either have to take Roy's body out of the bag or have Belkar die a slow and painful death, which is not too Good in my books. And the moment she takes Roy's body out... Belkar will make sure there will be no Haley to put it back in...

So, please tell me how can Haley pull of Roy-to-the-bag trick without killing Belkar or having herself killed.

And, once again, Haley needs non-messed up Belkar as melee fighter. So, I'd say it is not Haley's INT limitation we see here.

[SandroTheMaster]

Meh, this thread gets bigger as I read. Well, how it looks like it only loops at the "belkar is evil and she is good, so kill belkar" argument, I will just say right way.

Haley is not the goody-goody two shoes. And she isn't stupid good. She is good and she has an inteligence bonus. The higher the inteligence, the more cynical a character is (look at Varsuvius, sure he is true neutral, but he's also very cynical and just because you're true neutral doesn't mean you're cynical). So, going in and with a short-sighted stroke of righteous justice kill the evil murderous halfling who's been, while not the most enjoyable, a companion neverthless, is surely the smart thing to do it seems! Damn, this guy is a real life Lawful Good who thinks that all spectrum of good is just a whim from his vision of right, that there's a small window for neutral (the one Haley is on) and a whole world of evil. If you litter the streets you're in the same page as the cross-dimensional obliterators.

If a chaotic neutral character in my group whined so much about an evil character he's stuck with murdering someone I'd make him recall his alignment. An chaotic neutral character wouldn't aprove the murder, not one so random. But, depending on the levels of cynism, he'd make an counter argument with the absurd initial excuse from the halfing, he would agree to the need of a mule, he would carry on, and would remember himself to leave some dried branches surrounding his bedroll the next time he sleeps. Damn, he wouldn't even bother to explain himself to Celia unless she starts to carry on her threat of leaving, and would likely looks for arguments to why she HAS to stick around than to why she shouldn't LEAVE. She's lawful good, easily manipulated emotionally to stick around or "I'll die in this wasteland". Haley's smart enough to know that. But she isn't neutral, so she came with excuses for her actions (or lack of action, in the case) to keep Celia around.

Come-on, this is just a redo of the "Belkar's chaotic neutral" discussion. Man, I think Balkar had to kill this gnome without reason just so Rich could yell, AGAIN, that Belkar's chaotic evil to these people. So what does Haley needs to do to prove that she's chaotic good? Sure she was stuck in Azure City, but she hadn't the obligation to personally head a slave-freeing raid (Belkar was in just for the action). Does she need to take a kid out of the way of a Prismassaurus stampade to prove you she's good? Come on! Just because Belkar on very rare ocasions shows redeeming qualities it doesn't make him less evil enough to be neutral, nor Haley's ocasional condenming actions make's her neutral. It's this sort of popular demand that usually forces the writers into Flanderizing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization) characters. Thankfully Rich is far from reaching this extreme.

[Remirach]

Meh, this thread gets bigger as I read. Well, how it looks like it only loops at the "belkar is evil and she is good, so kill belkar" argument, I will just say right way.

So you looked at the thread for, what, three seconds before determining you were of better intellectual fiber than the rest of us?


Haley is not the goody-goody two shoes.
*GASP!* NO!!
And she isn't stupid good. She is good and she has an inteligence bonus. The higher the inteligence, the more cynical a character is (look at Varsuvius, sure he is true neutral, but he's also very cynical and just because you're true neutral doesn't mean you're cynical).

Oh yes that makes perfect sense for any alignment system whatsoever and isn't at all controversial or even self-contradicting.


So, going in and with a short-sighted stroke of righteous justice kill the evil murderous halfling who's been, while not the most enjoyable, a companion neverthless, is surely the smart thing to do it seems!

Almost no one has been suggesting this as the best possible scenario, or even the most RIGHTEOUS scenario. Unfortunately, not everyone buys into your GOOD = DUMB scenario.


Come-on, this is just a redo of the "Belkar's chaotic neutral" discussion.

In what even remotely similar way but that the "Chaotic neutral" alignment is involved? Belkar is EVIL. Haley is ambiguous.


Man, I think Balkar had to kill this gnome without reason just so Rich could yell, AGAIN, that Belkar's chaotic evil to these people. So what does Haley needs to do to prove that she's chaotic good?

She's fine by me, but it wouldn't have hurt her cause to try a little bit more severely to punish Belkar or take steps to prevent him from future actions along the same lines!

[NikkTheTrick]

If Haley's made her decision here based entirely upon efficacy in this situation, as many here seem to be arguing, then it is a morally neutral decision. In D&D terms, that's called Neutral with respect to Good/Evil.
No. It is a good decision since the goal is good.

As for morality, killing a teammate is against her morale. Perhaps Drizzt has different set of morals, but I would expect Chaotic Good characters to be quite different from each other. I would argue it is more moral to let evil act slide in order to save people.

And letting an evil act slide is not machiavellian. Machiavellian behavior presumes outright evil acts. Practical decisions cannot be called machiavellian.

Also, Haley is a rouge. Given nature of the class, she could be expected to deal with a lot of evil people. And to use a lot of trickery. Using an evil character for good purposes sounds perfectly within morals of a Chaotic Good rouge. And one would expect morals of a rouge to be very practical.

[David Argall]

Unless you're a Machiavellian (pretty much the opposite of Chaotic Good), decisions to act upon or react to circumstances based on a moral framework (which corresponds to the Good/Evil alignment axis) are made irrespective of whether the actions will bring about the desired results.
No, the alternatives amount to indirect ways to achieve the desired results. They amount to sets of rules that will, with varying accuracy, guide the user to actions that produce the desired results. This produces a variety of undesired results when the rules don't fit, and being human made, none will fit perfectly. However, the rules are much simplier and easier to use. ["Thou shall not kill", even with a few exceptions, is much easier to follow than "Compute the moral value of X (which contains a large number of factors of varying importance, many of which are are effectively unknowable) and compare to Y (which contains even more factors of varying importance and difficulty in determining). Only if X exceeds Y can you kill." The formula is more precise despite its imprecision, but it can take impossibly long times to get the right answer.]


Yes, prudence should kick in to try to produce the most desirable result,
Which is an acknowledgement that the moral framework is in fact secondary, to be used because it is simplier and is right fairly often. But it is only a tool to that end, not the actual guideline.


If Haley's made her decision here based entirely upon efficacy in this situation, as many here seem to be arguing, then it is a morally neutral decision. In D&D terms, that's called Neutral with respect to Good/Evil.
It is not possible to base a decision entirely on efficacy. Efficacy is measuring your success in reaching a goal. That is neutral in regards to those goals, but it is those goals that make you good or evil. If we say that Haley has good goals, and is using efficient means of reaching them, we are calling her good. If she had evil goal and efficient means, she would be evil. In neither case would she be neutral.

[Gensuru]

Has anyone ever seen Chaotic good characters (rouges speficifaly) seen falling because of one single act a lawful good character doesn´t like? Last time i checked Haley was a Chaotic Good rouge...not a lawful good paladin that would fall if he did so much as sneezing at the wrong person. Let me give you an example...Elminster is chaotic good. Now what was it his pupil Vangerhadast complained about? As far as i recall it was Elminster´s habit of sticking his nose into any matter he found interesing. Elminster manipulated entire kingdoms without or against their will. Now usually that kind of think a paladin would consider evil right? I mean you can´t just go around and force or trick others into doing what you want right? Seeing that Elminster is still good why should Haley not be? It´s not like she signed a contract to play police.

Then who ever had the idea that chaotic characters had to be pasive? That´s crap. Just because you do what you feel like doing instead of doing what the rules say you you are not tied to being passive. A chaotic neutral character might save a village if he feels like doing it. And be his reason "i like those guys". He might as well be pissed at the people of that village and help to destroy it. A chaotic good character will also do what he feels like doing. The difference is that he generaly feels like doing something good.


Now Haley could not have done anything to prevent Belkar from killing that gnome (simply because Belkar did surprise Haley with his action). What is she supposed to do? Keep giving him some talk "evil belkar...go into your corner bad dog" like a Paladin? Ops there we have it...LAWFUL good. Should she kill him? She traveled with him for like 9 months right? So yeah if any GOOD person can approve of just killing a comrade you have been traveling with for almost a year...well let´s just say i´d not be surprised if you generaly have problems finding new party members once you have the reputation of simply murdering anyone who does not match your "perfect" morals. Good old Miko..."You did not help the old woman to cross the street now you must die!". So Belkar killed a gnome...so what? We don´t even know if the gnome wasn´t evil do we? He was travling towards a city that has been under hobgiblin control for about 4 months.


In terms of punishment i really don´t see any point in punishing Belkar right now. He´ll still be around once they reach the next city. Being tied to Roy´s corpse he is unlikely to go anywhere. Of course if you are as whiney as Celia is you might feel the need to do something incredibly stupid and try to punish Belkar under the risk of setting him free by losing. Odd i always thought intelligence was allowed among good-doing people so tell me: is it that hard to calculate Haley´s chances against a Belkar in a one on one compared to any action she might take against him in a city? Out in the wilds he can kill her. Inside a city he can´t. Why be stupid and risk Belkar being free when you can just as easily wait? Instant punishment won´t bring the gnome back. Before you guys keep calling for instant punishment for Belkar i have one suggestion for you: Go out and take a good look at the real world. Preferably with open eyes. Unless my hope in a human´s ability to see simple truths right in front of him is greatly misplaced you might find out that the world is not all black and white. Neither is it all rules. To illustrate my point: Paladins generaly opress their beliefs on everyone else. They decide what´s good and right and everyone else has to follow or it´s "smite evil!". Last time i checked tyranny and opression was still on the list of evil deeds. A Paladin would hand a woman over to trial for stealing even if her reason to do so was to feed her starving children. He will do so even if the sentence for her crime is death (or results in death). In effect he will have murdered not only the woman but also the innocent children and nobody gives a damn about this. But when Haley decides it´s pointless to try and lecture BELKAR of all people it´s "EVILDOER! you are no longer chaotic good!" I am...disappointed to say the least.

[hamishspence]

Machievallianism is really a matter of "do what works" a ruler (republician council, or single prince) should do what preserves the state, whether good or evil. It is a morally neutral pragmatism, that sees both good and evil behaviour through one lens: what works. The prince tells us a prince really should have all the virtues, but he should be willing to shed them when situation demands it, and not carry them to extremes: not be so generous as to impoverish himself and the exchequer, not be honest with enemies, not be so peace-loving as to let his country be overrun.

as for Haley's acts, exalted CG rogues are as compelled as LG paladins to act on evil acts to prevent them happening again, or fixe damage done. It is the methods that differ, not the overall goal of "help good, oppose evil"

Now none of the Order, with the possible exception of Durkon, are anywhere near Exalted. Some are good (roy, elan, durkon, maybe haley) but not as strong as Exalted tends to expect.

Haley is an evolving character, from the rather mercenary thief who joined the party, to the heroic resistance leader. Failure to censure Belkar is evil, but not terribly so. If she continues to let him get away with evil acts, I could see an alignment shift, but one evil act, an act of omission, does not an evil character make.

[curtis]

Has anyone ever seen Chaotic good characters (rouges speficifaly) seen falling because of one single act a lawful good character doesn´t like? Last time i checked Haley was a Chaotic Good rouge...not a lawful good paladin that would fall if he did so much as sneezing at the wrong person. Let me give you an example...Elminster is chaotic good. Now what was it his pupil Vangerhadast complained about? As far as i recall it was Elminster´s habit of sticking his nose into any matter he found interesing. Elminster manipulated entire kingdoms without or against their will. Now usually that kind of think a paladin would consider evil right? I mean you can´t just go around and force or trick others into doing what you want right? Seeing that Elminster is still good why should Haley not be? It´s not like she signed a contract to play police.

Then who ever had the idea that chaotic characters had to be pasive? That´s crap. Just because you do what you feel like doing instead of doing what the rules say you you are not tied to being passive. A chaotic neutral character might save a village if he feels like doing it. And be his reason "i like those guys". He might as well be pissed at the people of that village and help to destroy it. A chaotic good character will also do what he feels like doing. The difference is that he generaly feels like doing something good.


Now Haley could not have done anything to prevent Belkar from killing that gnome (simply because Belkar did surprise Haley with his action). What is she supposed to do? Keep giving him some talk "evil belkar...go into your corner bad dog" like a Paladin? Ops there we have it...LAWFUL good. Should she kill him? She traveled with him for like 9 months right? So yeah if any GOOD person can approve of just killing a comrade you have been traveling with for almost a year...well let´s just say i´d not be surprised if you generaly have problems finding new party members once you have the reputation of simply murdering anyone who does not match your "perfect" morals. Good old Miko..."You did not help the old woman to cross the street now you must die!". So Belkar killed a gnome...so what? We don´t even know if the gnome wasn´t evil do we? He was travling towards a city that has been under hobgiblin control for about 4 months.


In terms of punishment i really don´t see any point in punishing Belkar right now. He´ll still be around once they reach the next city. Being tied to Roy´s corpse he is unlikely to go anywhere. Of course if you are as whiney as Celia is you might feel the need to do something incredibly stupid and try to punish Belkar under the risk of setting him free by losing. Odd i always thought intelligence was allowed among good-doing people so tell me: is it that hard to calculate Haley´s chances against a Belkar in a one on one compared to any action she might take against him in a city? Out in the wilds he can kill her. Inside a city he can´t. Why be stupid and risk Belkar being free when you can just as easily wait? Instant punishment won´t bring the gnome back. Before you guys keep calling for instant punishment for Belkar i have one suggestion for you: Go out and take a good look at the real world. Preferably with open eyes. Unless my hope in a human´s ability to see simple truths right in front of him is greatly misplaced you might find out that the world is not all black and white. Neither is it all rules. To illustrate my point: Paladins generaly opress their beliefs on everyone else. They decide what´s good and right and everyone else has to follow or it´s "smite evil!". Last time i checked tyranny and opression was still on the list of evil deeds. A Paladin would hand a woman over to trial for stealing even if her reason to do so was to feed her starving children. He will do so even if the sentence for her crime is death (or results in death). In effect he will have murdered not only the woman but also the innocent children and nobody gives a damn about this. But when Haley decides it´s pointless to try and lecture BELKAR of all people it´s "EVILDOER! you are no longer chaotic good!" I am...disappointed to say the least.

Hear hear, brother/sister.

Also, about the RE:

1. It's spelt H-A-L-E-Y, not Haely.
2. If you wanted a discussion, it should be called Is Haley/Haely Now Chaotic Neutral?

[Milandros]

OK, the rules work the same for everyone. So let's reverse it.

Belkar is obviously Chaotic Neutral.

He associates with Haley, who is good
[Haley associates with Belkar, who is evil]

He doesn't stop the order from helping people
[Haley didn't stop Belkar from murdering the gnome]

He didn't immediately attack Haley and kill her, or stab her in her sleep after she committed good acts like saving a large number of slaves and then setting them free, he only protested about it as he wanted his own slaves.
[Haley didn't attack Belkar immediately or murder him in his sleep after he committed the evil act of robbing and murdering the gnome, she only protested loudly about it as she thought it was an evil and wrong thing to do]


And so on. One neutral act does not make a character neutral. Any more than Redcloak's sudden concern for the hobgoblins being massacred suddenly makes him LG, despite what he's doing to O'Chul.

Plus, as has been said many times already, what is she to do? Kill him? Possibly, but murdering Belkar in his sleep is hardly a good act either. Hand him over to the local authorities - Xykon and Redcloak? For murdering a gnome? Welcome to Team Evil! Travel with him until they get to their destination, then inform the city guard that Belkar murdered a gnome a thousand miles away in the foreign Azure City after it had been conquered, pleae arrest and punish him? Well, she might be able to do that, but I doubt she'd get a particularly interested reaction. Assuming they do actually arrest and hold him, Belkar goes to jail, gets out of jail and is now a free agent with no restraint, just the overpowering need to hunt you down to get Roy's body back.
Roy himself decided to act as Belkar's jailer, due to his LG nature. Even Roy - who is more good than Haley - hasn't slit Belkar's throat in the night.

A good analogy might be two Allied pilots, shot down in WW2 occupied France. They work with the French Resistance for a while, then try to get home. One of the murders a local French farmer to take his food and transport. Should the other:
Yell "What the hell do you think you're doing, you bastard?" then put up with it as he has no better option?
Stab the other while he sleeps?
Turn himover to the "local authorities" - i.e. the Nazi's [Oh damnit, I just invoked Godwin's law] - for punishment?
Or just leave him and try to get home by himself? When it's obviously going to be a lot, lot harder to do so?

[hamishspence]

thing is: Chaotic good people can disapprove of evil acts as much as Lawful good people. In fact, unlike LG people they will react more strongly to evil acts peformed by "the system" They just take different routes to dealing with it, which generally do not include: let it pass.

D&D defines death penalty as not evil. However a lot of people would say excessive severity in a legal system delegitimises it: when ruler becomes tyrant, they should be overthrown. Or the legal system changed.

If haley had exalted feats, a lot of DMs would deactivate them until she deals with Belkar in some way, or gets gnome resurrected. But generally they probably would not move her all the way into neutral.

A non-exalted Good character probably would not change alignment unless acts continued to happen and they continued to ignore them. But, it should be considered a warning sign: good people aren't supposed to just let evil acts happen right in front of them.

However it is hard to think of fair things for her to do. Killing him without provocation would be a Evil act. In fact killing him at all, no matter how good the reason, significantly weakens their chances of survival, even if they could do it without getting killed themselves. leaving him would have same effect. Maybe she and Celia should be extra intimidating to discourage him from attacking anything other than actual adversaries. Not sure if it would work, but might be better than doing nothing. Belkar did say, way back, that he could be coerced into obeying the moral code of the others.

[T-O-E]

One single neutral-esque act cannot change decade's of chaotic good alignment.

[hamishspence]

dunno about the decades of CG alignment: Haley in OtOoPCs didn't come off as CG, more CN: not heroic, not a long term adventurer, not doing things for the benefit of others, being an actual thief, sounds pretty CN to me.

I would say it has been the past year or so of adventuring, plus 4 months as rebel against Xykon, when she has actually put her life on the line for others, that has been shifting her toward CG.

And even then, she has had Belkar trying to influence her the other way (suggesting to her to agree with him about selling Samantha into slavery. "So close" as he said.)

[happyturtle]

The only thing in this comic that has ever been able to restrain Belkar's evil nature is the Mark of Justice. Haley can't activate it. Nor does she have a high level cleric or paladin handy to cast a new one. However, she is travelling towards a city for the express purpose of bringing Roy back from the dead, and at that time, Roy can assume responsibility for Belkar's actions via his control of the Mark of Justice or even have a new one cast which would limit his behaviour even further (no doing damage to anyone unless they've attacked you or one of your team members, for example.)

The ideal thing for Haley to do is to turn Belkar in to the authorities, and the nearest authority who has any ability to control Belkar is Roy. (I think we can safely rule out the Cliffport prison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html) as able to restrain a raging barbarian.) So the best option for Haley at present, since she's unwilling to slit Belkar's throat in his sleep, is to get Roy raised. Which she's trying to do. So what's the problem?

[Jade_Tarem]

So people here are disagreeing and going round and round on the same point (bar those who are confused about the alignment non-system, which is open ended to the point of uselessness, which interestingly enough makes this argument rather moot) - whether or not it is a *good* thing, the correct thing, to sabatoge or kill Belkar somehow.

Haley is clever enough to accomplish it. A direct confrontation is hardly a requirement. It really only takes a coup de grace in the night, or even just stuffing Roy's body in the bag of holding and sneaking away. (That's right, battling the forces of evil doesn't sound so sexy when it means murdering a party member in their sleep, does it?) without too much trouble. The sticking point people have is whether or not it's right or even feasable, which is largely a matter of personal opinion - save within the bounds of the law, of which there likely is none in the area they're travelling in.

But let's be honest, here.

1. Haley is greedy, true, but her primay goal in life (so far as we have been shown, Haley is the character with the least development) is to rescue her father, which will take an enormous sum of gold. While she plans to be compensated by her father (supposedly) the fact remains that it's a lot of effort to go through to collect that much money and spend it on ransom.

2. Haley has turned down quest rewards from helpless villagers.

3. Haley supported not soulbinding the Linear Guild, because although it was expedient the arcane energies involved were too evil for her to be comfortable with.

4. Haley's character is "opposite" to Sabine the Evil Succubus.

5. Haley volunteered to trek through several miles of enemy territory to retrieve Roy's body.

6. Haley routinely risked her life (or so the comic implies) to rescue slaves and such, and then armed, housed, and fed said former slaves, even protecting them from *gasp* Belkar when he wanted to abuse them.

These are the examples I could think of off the top of my head. Your alignment doesn't change with a single action or even a few days of abberrant behavior (except in Baldur's Gate II) unless it's something drastic (See also: Roy abandoning a party member, a course of action frequently touted on this thread as the "good" solution) and so Haley's recent pragmatism, while possibly moving her in the general direction of CN, probably has not bumped her from the good axis area.

To be honest, I think the Giant just had Celia tag along with Haley to poke fun at the moral dissonance in DnD, which someone has already brought up (to the point of providing a link to Television Tropes and Idioms), but no one cared. I don't think he was trying to show us that Haley is becoming some kind of anti-hero or dark PC.

Edit: And it just occured to me that this wheels-within-wheels moral debate is what makes everyone hate the Book of Exalted deeds, where there are no right answers, only fallen characters. *dun dun DUN*

[Fythza]

I think the OP has abandoned this topic, in the face of such blinding rhetoric. Oh, and glad to part of the forums now, instead of lurking (since back in the early 200's I think)

[Matuse]

It's rather sad how many people completely misunderstand the alignment system. There's one overriding issue of import that nobody I've seen has noticed:

ALIGNMENT REQUIRES NO ACTION OF ANY KIND.

You can be deeply Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, whatever, and never take a single action based on it. It is -all- about belief. Your state of mind is the one and only deciding factor.

A peasant who has constant fantasies about poisoning the village well and watching all his neighbors die in agony -but who never does it- is just as evil as the warlord who raises his armies and plunders and burns all the countries in the area.

Belkar's actions do not and cannot reflect on Haley. That would be ridiculous.


Good is about so much more than simply opposing evil though. That's what most people tend to forget. Opposing evil is fairly irrelevant. There are 30 million Canadians and 300 million Americans who are not in Africa right now fighting against dictatorial governments, or in Tibet or Afghanistan or other problem areas...does that make them all neutral or evil people? Obviously not. Using those standards everyone in the modern world would be neutral or evil.

Yes, nearly everyone in the modern world is neutral or evil. Much as you might like to think of yourself as good, you're probably neutral or evil too. Neutral is by far the most heavily populated alignment for one basic reason: It covers the people who just don't care. Most people don't care. Most people are neutral.

Whether you go to Africa/Tibet/Wherever doesn't decide whether or not you are good or evil. It's whether you care about those people/places. Most Americans/Canadians/EveryoneElseInTheWorldians only care to the extent that the events in those locations might affect their pocketbook. A profoundly neutral state of mind.

[Theodoriph]

Actually, most people do care about world issies. They just don't do anything about them.

Either way, you're wrong. Actions do matter, a great deal (I'm not saying thoughts don't matter...just that you're wrong in your assertion that they're all that matter). As an example, a paladin falls if he ever knowingly commits an evil act, not if he ever knowingly contemplates commiting and evil act. Commiting an evil acts goes beyond the thought process and actually entails carrying it out. And 'tis only when you carry said deed out, that you fall.

So apparently, whatever god the paladin prays to doesn't consider thinking about doing evil enough.

So while state of mind may play a role, it doesn't work in all cases.

[zuzak]

But if a paladin plans plans and has every intent to kill his master, but some unforseen factor prevents him from doing so, isn't he just as evil as if the unforseen had not happened? Or does this unforseen factor, which the paladin had no influence over, change the paladin significantly?

Also, I don't think he means thinking about doing an action as planning on doing it. Its not, "Is killing him justified in this situation," but, "I'd kill him if it weren't for..." that makes someone evil.

On world issues, I think most people are neutral because they would help if it was convienent, but won't go out of their way to do so.

Edit: BTW, I think this thread has compleatly abandoned the topic. Does anyone still think that Haley is CN?

[Jayabalard]

Okay, so how many gnomes does Belkar need to kill in Haley's presence (and just for fun, theyll all have candy bars for Haley to throw away to show she does not condone his behavior) before we can say her alignment has shifted?It doesn't matter how many Belkar kills, it has no effect on Haley's alignment. She's not Belkar's keeper; she's Belkar's uneasy ally of convenience.

She doesn't help him kill the gnome; there's nothing she could have done to prevent it; she immediately condemns his actions; she isn't in a position of strength where she can enforce her morality on Belkar or force him to leave (since he has to follow Roy's corpse).

[Theodoriph]

But if a paladin plans plans and has every intent to kill his master, but some unforseen factor prevents him from doing so, isn't he just as evil as if the unforseen had not happened? Or does this unforseen factor, which the paladin had no influence over, change the paladin significantly?

The poster simply said fantasizing, not actually planning on doing the deed itself. So for instance, "I wish my mother would drop dead" or "I want to dance in the blood of babies." He doesn't have do or plan any of it, just think it.

Now if we're talking about falling via the commission of evil, the paladin actually has to commit the evil deed as per the rulebook, thinking, planning etc. are not enough, though perhaps the DM might argue that if begins carrying out his plan (re: sets up the crossbow trap) and it fails (re: the guy ducked), that still constitutes an evil act since the guy would have died if he hadn't of ducked.

If he gets stopped at an earlier phase (re: going out to buy the crossbow trap) and it fails (re: walking down the stairs, he finds his master dead of a heart attack), that might not be an evil act.

So as a DM, I guess I'd rule when and where his plan failed. That being said, fantasizing about killing his master would definitely not be enough.


On world issues, I think most people are neutral because they would help if it was convienent, but won't go out of their way to do so.

According to his belief, "state of mind" is all that's needed and since they want the situation to improve (re: who doesn't want and fantasize about world peace and a healthy environment for our children?) and want to help, they'd be considered good.

[NikkTheTrick]

Yes, nearly everyone in the modern world is neutral or evil. Much as you might like to think of yourself as good, you're probably neutral or evil too. Neutral is by far the most heavily populated alignment for one basic reason: It covers the people who just don't care. Most people don't care. Most people are neutral.
I tend to think about alignment grid as a 3-dimensional Gaussian.

With X axis being good-evil, Y axis being lawful-chaotic and Z axis being percentage that hold the belief. I'd say most people should be neutral. One standard deviation (68%) would be quite good approximation. 16% should be Good and 16% should be Evil. Same with Law and Chaos: 68% Neutral, 16% Lawful and 16% Chaotic. That would leave us with CG, LG, LE and CE represented by relatively small number (as I think it should be). Most people either don't care or behave both ways. If I was to implement the alignment system IRL, I'd make it so that there is the same number of Good and Evil (ditto for Lawful and Chaotic).


Now if we're talking about falling via the commission of evil, the paladin actually has to commit the evil deed as per the rulebook, thinking, planning etc. are not enough, though perhaps the DM might argue that if begins carrying out his plan (re: sets up the crossbow trap) and it fails (re: the guy ducked), that still constitutes an evil act since the guy would have died if he hadn't of ducked.

If he gets stopped at an earlier phase (re: going out to buy the crossbow trap) and it fails (re: walking down the stairs, he finds his master dead of a heart attack), that might not be an evil act.

So as a DM, I guess I'd rule when and where his plan failed. That being said, fantasizing about killing his master would definitely not be enough.
I would consider it an evil act as long as Paladin puts effort to make it happen and does not stop on his own will. If he sets up a trat but at the last moment "what am I doing?!" moment occurs in his mind and he saves his lord from his own trap (in any way,: deactivate it, warn him, etc.) I would not consider it an evil act.

If he buys crossbow for this exact purpose but is somehow stopped (any way: killed by a dragon on his way for a store for example) I'd consider the act evil since he was performing it and did not stop willingly.

That said, thought to commit evil act is not evil untill one actually proceeds to carry it out.

Same thing for good acts. Someone dying in a failed attempt to save people should be considered as good as someone who succeded in saving them.

[teratorn]

-kill a whole lot of monsters if they try to attack. In particular, he is a melee man, which is vital support for an archer and a sorcerer, and more than doubles their effectiveness.


I understand your points, but this is something than can be argued about. She will need Belkar if her plan is to get gp for the spell by attacking monsters, but she's a good rogue, she can find other ways. If Belkar were not there, Haley could just stuff Roy in a bag, no need for a cart. Celia is also probably strong enough to fly with her (big butt and everything).

I think Haley is keeping Belkar mostly because it is what Roy would want. This time she couldn't stop him, and trying to punish Belkar after the deed would only make the situation worse. She isn't strong enough to intimidate him like Roy used to do, but thanks to the MoJ the amount of evil acts will be somewhat limited, she won't find that many innocents before reaching Cliffport (and there he can't kill people).

Being CG she will try to stop him if she can, I expect that the next time they find a traveler Haley (and Celia) will be more proactive.

[David Argall]

this is something than can be argued about. She will need Belkar if her plan is to get gp for the spell by attacking monsters, but she's a good rogue, she can find other ways. If Belkar were not there, Haley could just stuff Roy in a bag, no need for a cart. Celia is also probably strong enough to fly with her (big butt and everything).
All of this is possible, but any and all of these tactics are only possibly going to be successful. For example if they fly, Celia is apparently very low hp and so if they do meet a foe that can touch them, they are very likely in for a long and fatal fall. That they don't need the cart assumes they don't have to cart along any large amount of supplies for that thousand mile journey. [If Haley still has her 7 bags of holding, they weigh a minimum of 190 lbs, which is a heavy load for her unless she has 18 STR. Add in bow, arrows and other supplies she can't go looking in the bags for during combat, and she has more than she can carry.]

Haley is our expert on the scene. She knows far better than we do what lies ahead, and that means we need good cause to reject her opinion. That we think an alternate idea might work better is not sufficient. We would need to know she is almost certainly wrong, and we can't do that.

[curtis]

I understand your points, but this is something than can be argued about. She will need Belkar if her plan is to get gp for the spell by attacking monsters, but she's a good rogue, she can find other ways. If Belkar were not there, Haley could just stuff Roy in a bag, no need for a cart. Celia is also probably strong enough to fly with her (big butt and everything).

What you're also missing is that even if Celia could fly with all that weight, she would have to rest on the ground at some point, meaning that monsters COULD attack them.


Originally posted by V
I believe that is why they've been dubbed "Random Encounters" rather than "Statistically Probable Encounters".

[Jetrauben]

Ultimately I think this boils down to how posters feel about Haley's reaction, not how the rules say chaotic neutral vs chaotic good works.

Haley may (or may not, I think there's an argument that Belkar has long since lost all usefulness) be justified in continuing to travel with Belkar. To say that Belkar is necessary to save the world is almost certainly an act of complete and utter hyperbole. A walking meat grinder is not a unique thing, and there are plenty of individuals- including at least two already introduced- who could easily provide everything Belkar is currently providing and then some.

While he may be necessary in a meta-story sense, being a member of the original cast, Belkar is not necessary from the point of view of someone within the story. He only truly continues to live because he fills the "humorous sociopath" role in the story. Hell, if worst comes to worst, I think anyone in the world would be utterly justified in killing the little freak while he sleeps and not losing their Good alignment- in such a case eliminating someone who is essentially just as bad as the worst real-world serial killers is a greater-good situation. Roy chooses to spare Belkar out of team loyalty-an idealistic principle of comraderie between one's teammates-, but I think it's apparent that that isn't the absolute judgment of whether an act is Good or not. Were Roy here, in any case, this random murder would have probably spelled the complete end of his tolerance, and Belkar would probably have died within moments.

This said, Haley isn't Roy, and as others have pointed out there's a distinct limit to what she can do. She isn't Belkar's match in direct melee combat. Celia could help in a fight (and despite what everyone says here about her being stupid or annoying I actually sympathize with Celia enough to think she would help in a fight) but she's not a warrior and has little chance of contributing much in a combat situation, no matter how versatile she is outside of combat.

The problem isn't that we expect Haley to be superhuman. It's the seemingly casual dismissal of Belkar's actions. Yes, she yells at Belkar, but Belkar just took a completely innocent life without provocation and for no reason other than he wanted to get some killing done. That's a horrifying thing to see, and Haley's subdued reaction, while the best she can probably do, calls into question her respect for others' lives (after all, you or I would probably be one of those random 'flavor' NPCs) and is far, far less than Belkar deserves. The situation calls out for a far more righteously angry response than Haley can reasonably exhibit in her weakened position. But Belkar isn't going to get punished in Haley's current position, can't be punished, and probably never will, despite having richly earned it.

In short, it's Belkar's seeming immunity as the funny sociopath that really hurts, and the fact that he can and will drag Haley, a far more likable character, through hell just to amuse himself while she can do nothing. I don't think most people here can seriously argue that Haley doesn't care about others' lives normally. She's a reasonably caring individual. But the situation completely constrains her in a way that's infuriating to see. It's Belkar who's really the jailer- not Haley- because he can and will do anything he wants, and Haley's all but admitted it.

I am also in agreement with those who say this is the problem with extreme party differences in alignment- there's simply no rational reason for these people to stay together. Haley logically should abandon Belkar, or kill him, or turn him in to justice. But she can't, because ultimately she's not an independent character in a sandbox world, but a character in a plotted comic, as is Belkar. The party has to stick together purely because the plot demands they do.

All she can do, because we all know it's unlikely for meta-story and in-story reasons for her to abandon him as she normally would do rapidly, is stay with him, let him literally get away with murder, and more than likely, never, ever deliver him to what he deserves. And that's upsetting, so posters blame her.

[Khanderas]

Belkar is a weapon, simple as that.
Oh he talks and has opinions, but there are plenty of swords that does that.
Just point and click and he will happily and gleefully kill whatever for some Xp.

Dropping Belkar would be detrimental to the mission, saving the universe, much as throwing away a sword when in enemy territory because a sword can at best (alignmentwise some argue), be used by not being used at all.


I am also in agreement with those who say this is the problem with extreme party differences in alignment- there's simply no rational reason for these people to stay together. Haley logically should abandon Belkar, or kill him, or turn him in to justice. But she can't, because ultimately she's not an independent character in a sandbox world, but a character in a plotted comic, as is Belkar. The party has to stick together purely because the plot demands they do.
Just because she is Good, dont mean she does not see what a useful weapon Belkar is. Especially considering her options. A fey, no dicernable classlevels. Opponents, goblinoid army with high ranking clerics and an epic lich with a plan to destroy the world.
In her shoes, I would pick up 20 Belkars and still call myself Good.

[Matuse]

Either way, you're wrong. Actions do matter, a great deal (I'm not saying thoughts don't matter...just that you're wrong in your assertion that they're all that matter). As an example, a paladin falls if he ever knowingly commits an evil act, not if he ever knowingly contemplates commiting and evil act. Commiting an evil acts goes beyond the thought process and actually entails carrying it out. And 'tis only when you carry said deed out, that you fall.

I'm 100% not wrong. You're simply confusing the paladin's code with the lawful good alignment in general, and the two are -not- the same thing.


The poster simply said fantasizing, not actually planning on doing the deed itself. So for instance, "I wish my mother would drop dead" or "I want to dance in the blood of babies." He doesn't have do or plan any of it, just think it.

Which is absolutely correct. Occasionally having an evil thought does not suddenly change your alignment. Alignment is a reflection of GENERAL ATTITUDE. Exceptional behavior is just that...an exception.

The specific example I cited was someone who is constantly having mass murder fantasies, but he's too much of a coward to actually carry them out. Courage is not a reflection of any alignment axis, so whether or not he actually carries out his acts has no bearing on his alignment any more than whether he prefers venison or beef.

The paladin's code, being not the same thing as LG alignment, DOES specify that the paladin needs to be courageous. So cowardice is a fall-worthy action. While it has a great deal to do with his class standing, it has nothing to do with his alignment.


If he buys crossbow for this exact purpose but is somehow stopped (any way: killed by a dragon on his way for a store for example) I'd consider the act evil since he was performing it and did not stop willingly.

Remind me to never be in a game where you are the DM...buying a crossbow is an evil act now? No...shooting an innocent with that crossbow is the evil act. Until the shot takes place, who is to say what the xbow is going to be used for?

[NikkTheTrick]

Remind me to never be in a game where you are the DM...buying a crossbow is an evil act now?
If the only purpose of buying that crossbow is to commit an evil act - yes it is. Read my whole post.

Until the shot takes place, who is to say what the xbow is going to be used for?
True, no common man will know that you bought that crossbow to kill your lord. Which also means whoever sold the crossbow and taught how to make the trap that would eventually do that evil act should not have the act counted against them even if there was no way the act could have been committed without them.

However, one being good or evil is determined by Divine Judgement, which knows what was going on. Someone who died while doing actual effort to commit an evil act should have evil counted towards them.

[FujinAkari]

If the only purpose of buying that crossbow is to commit an evil act - yes it is. Read my whole post.

This seems to have absolutely nothing to do with OOTS, since we know for absolute fact that the Deva (who decides final alignment) does not know why characters do things.

Your point isn't wrong, I just don't think it is relevant to this thread.

[zuzak]

The specific example I cited was someone who is constantly having mass murder fantasies, but he's too much of a coward to actually carry them out. Courage is not a reflection of any alignment axis, so whether or not he actually carries out his acts has no bearing on his alignment any more than whether he prefers venison or beef.


Remind me to never be in a game where you are the DM...buying a crossbow is an evil act now? No...shooting an innocent with that crossbow is the evil act. Until the shot takes place, who is to say what the xbow is going to be used for?

Wait, this seems to contradict itself. Is intending to kill your master evil? If so, buying the crossbow with the intent of killing your master with it is as evil an act as setting a trap with the crossbow to kill your master.

Edit: To clarify a little, it doesn't matter what part of your plan is stopped, its that you had a plan in the first place.

[NENAD]

Then it's a very quick slide.

She was risking her life saving slaves from the hobgoblins. ANY normal thief (not a Good one - they are pretty rare, I should imagine) would have just buggered off from Azure City as soon as her friends were gone. Why risk your life for no gain?


Haley's objective is no longer wealth. Her objective is the defeat of the Hobgoblins and reunion with her friends. Leaving Azure City is directly contrary to both of those.

That being said, one neutral act doesn't make her neutral. She's still a generally good person. Still, traveling with Belkar and tolerating his slaughters long enough could tip the scale eventually.

[FujinAkari]

Haley's objective is no longer wealth. Her objective is the defeat of the Hobgoblins and reunion with her friends. Leaving Azure City is directly contrary to both of those.

Where does Haley say that she isn't interested in accumulating wealth anymore? Additionally, how in the world is leaving Azure City in order to contact her friends directly contrary to the goal of contacting her friends?

[NENAD]

She left Azure City specifically because it gave her a better chance of contacting her friends.

She hasn't been interested in wealth except as a means to freeing her father for quite some time now, and if she was interested in wealth alone, she would've stopped buying over-expensive smuggled ammo a long time ago and ditched the rebellion.

[FujinAkari]

She left Azure City specifically because it gave her a better chance of contacting her friends.

I know. Thats why I don't understand why you said "leaving Azure City is directly contrary to her goal of meeting her friends." :P


She hasn't been interested in wealth except as a means to freeing her father for quite some time now, and if she was interested in wealth alone, she would've stopped buying over-expensive smuggled ammo a long time ago and ditched the rebellion.

I see no indication that she is no longer interested in wealth, merely that she has a HIGHER goal now. If she had decided to abandon her father, I imagine she would have said something when "praying to Roy" about it.

[Wraith_Lord]

Haley, by allowing Belkar to kill that gnome without any consequence (throwing the chocolate away meant nothing; Belkar stole the chocolate bar from the gnome he killed; that would be like returning stolen money to a bank as punishment for the robbers) she is compromising her moral standpoints allowing them to slide because it conveniences her. She does not need Belkar tagging along with her; an 'out of desperation' argument means nothing.

Discuss.

At the risk of ending the debate... Haley's alignment is Chaotic Selfish...

[Eric]

The thing about Haley is that I sympathize with her situation more than I do with her attitude. She can't win, really, but the action with the chocolate bar was just plain petulant and childish, and while it's true she can't do much about Belkar's behavior, her statement is plain and clear that she has no intention of doing anything about even TRYING to stop him because she shouldn't HAVE to.

She's still CG, but I think her current attitude is more CNish.

Heaving the choccy bar wasn't petty against Belkar. It was a graphic demonstration for that over-goody Ms Celia that there wasn't anything she could do.

Celia was insisting that Haley DO something when Haley said "what can I do?" Celia didn't have any ideas and refused to kill or hurt Belkar herself, since this would be as bad as what Belkar did. So Celia told Haley she must do something. So Haley threw away the chocolate to show how silly the idea of punishing someone who feels no remorse over their actions without giving them pain is stupid.

[Eric]

What? Thieves Rogues backstab sneak attack people. It's in the rules.

And is a CN or CE act.

So why was she doing this? So she wouldn't BE CN/CE?

Yeah...

[Eric]

I think this whole thing would be better served if everyone just asked Kelly what SHOULd have happened.

It hasn't worked so far (hence Chaotic Troll mod).

[Dallas-Dakota]

If you could spell her name right, maybe then I would take you serious. I´m surprised nobody has pointed it out, or made you correct it yet.

[hamishspence]

sneak attack isn't automatically CN/CE. A paladin prestige class (shadowbane inquisitor) gets it. It is the circumstances that define whether sneak attacking is wrong or not. Even Exalted LG rogues are allowed to sneak attack.

Sneak attacking an ally is dubious, which is what the objection is.

[Eric]

I tend to think about alignment grid as a 3-dimensional Gaussian.

With X axis being good-evil, Y axis being lawful-chaotic and Z axis being percentage that hold the belief.

No, I'd say it was four-fold axis. Law/Chaos, Good, Evil, Neutral.

If there is more good intention than evil, you're good. And vice versa.

If you respect laws more than disrespect, you're lawful.

If you don't care more than care, you're neutral.

The *result* is a 2-dimensional X/Y axis of good/evil and law/chaos.

[Eric]

Wait, this seems to contradict itself. Is intending to kill your master evil? If so, buying the crossbow with the intent of killing your master with it is as evil an act as setting a trap with the crossbow to kill your master.

Edit: To clarify a little, it doesn't matter what part of your plan is stopped, its that you had a plan in the first place.

But you have, up until the point at which you complete the actions to decide it was a bad idea.

so you have not changed alignment until you've decided to do it and done it. Before then, it is officially "undetermined".

[hamishspence]

FC 2 tells us that "evil thoughts" is not enough to give somebody LE alignment. it needs an actual act, even if only a small one.

on the other hand, one plan is in action, the fact that it is foiled before completion doesn't affect the fact that person was TRYING to commit an evil act. And as we all know by OOTS, its the trying thats important :smallsmile:

So, while the person is mulling it over, he could be undecided, it that sense, only when fully resolved, should he begin the shift (should be tiny at first, since trying is not the same as succeeding) FC 2 only has listing for actual acts, not attempts, so DM has to decide how serious it is.

In Shadow Puppets by orson scott card, we see same argument. One person says stopping the person saves them from being a murderer, so they haven't had a chance to be evil. The other says trying was enough "if you aim to kill, pull trigger, and gun misfires, you're still a murderer in the eyes of God" ( quote from book, do not take this as attempt to bring religion into this)

So, what do you think? i'd say mulling is 0 pts evil, resolving to do it is evil but too small to be relavent, trying but failing due to intervention or misadventure is a little (not much) less serious than actual act. Attempted murder gets smaller sentences than murder, so in D&D should be a smaller act (not zero though)

[Laurentio]

Uh! A flaming topic around a non-determinable issue!
Can I join? I read at least two-every-three replies, so I hope to do this right. Let's start...

FIRST: Intentions
Beklar killed the gnome just in spite of Haley (my opinion), because she justified his hob's killing instead of being annoyed by it. BAD

Haley didn't punish Belkar at first because she knows that he would kick her into oblivious. NEUTRAL. Anyway, she is for sure pissed for the random killing, and feeling sorry for the gnome. Some GOOD.

Celia did nothing on her own, because wants Haley (supposed leader) to deal with a criminal. LAWFUL, almost GOOD. But she won't raise a finger for fear. NEUTRAL.

I believe in intention, and seems to me that Haley is acting chaotically (ignoring a crime, even if killing a gnome in Xylon country probably is NOT a crime), and on the bourderline between good and neutrality.

SECOND: Shades of Good
Is there a Fall for no paladin? No. Because no actual authority judge their acting other than the character (or player, or master at extreme) himself. So a major Good guy can commit a single act of evil, and still being good. How good is Haley?
Probably, as she was at the start of her adventure. In a period when she frowned on random killing, but was non eager to prevent them. And never at her own cost. I consider "Azurite rebelling leadership" a shift toward good much more that the "gnome killing" a shift toward evil. Again, my opinion.

THIRD: The Word of God
As OotS world is a place where there is a Word of God (both fictional Gods and The Giant itself), I would take it in consideration.
In a Lawful Good evaluation, "good" is defined on "trying to stay good" more than "actually doing good deeds". Haley is not bound to save the world while taking the burden of resurrection her former (because dead) leader and trying to avoid Belkar join Team Evil. She doesn't HAVE to do. Nor she need to prove her to be good. But she is trying. Hard.

And that all (and more that how much I would read in your place).

Laurentio

[hamishspence]

Agree mostly with them above: its a shift, but a small one, acts of ommission are less serious than active acts, and haley is trying, and one failure shouldn't move her all the way into CN.

and to those who compare Roy/elan abandoning to Haley/belkar abandoning, if she did it, I would reply that Belkar is not helpless in enemy hands. The offence would be more a case of letting a known danger loose where it might harm people.

Try a parallel: you have a killer dog that will viciously attack strangers 50+% of the time. You need it to survive. It probably won't attack you because its accustomed to you. Is releasing it and hiding from it evil? Yes, if you think knowingly endangering others is evil.

Is trying to kill it evil? Yes, if you know it will kill you (again, endangering surroundings) Added to which, you're on a mission, though personal safety should not justify evil acts, not even if you know more people will e saved if you can get through.

Most logical step would be to give Celia request to scout and try and keep any civilians she sees away from Belkar. Or she can return and guide them around civilians.

Basically, if Haley is genuinely wanting to minimise danger to others (proven to exist by seeing what Belkar did) she should try and keep belkar away from others, if she cannot control him much. Or maybe bribe him by promising extra share of treasure if he doesn't attack civilians.

[NikkTheTrick]

and to those who compare Roy/elan abandoning to Haley/belkar abandoning, if she did it, I would reply that Belkar is not helpless in enemy hands.


With MoJ Belkar is even more helpless in enemy hands. Either if he gets into a city or 1 mile away from Roy's corpse.

[AmberVael]

Deep in the murky depths of the fora, the great old ones, the masters of chaos and strife sleep, waiting to wake. The mortals above know not of them, and their lives and days pass and move on, the inevitable wheel of fate ever turning. Yet the dreaming masters can be caused to awaken- the unknowing actions of the ignorant masses above stirring their unholy forms from slumber. When they awaken, they bring turmoil and dissent among the people, pitting all against each other. Fire and tempers burn brighter as the horror of the great old ones rise from their eternal sleep...

And yea, it came to pass that one mortal awoke a great old one- Al-Ign'ment, and the horror was unleashed on the fora. The masses were caught up in the power of this old one, the master of moral questioning and definitions, and in their confusion they turned on one another, tearing down the boundaries of sanity and descending into madness. The great old one looked down on the work and with his powers strengthened it, provoking the war until none knew reason any longer... lo, the thread was torn asunder and taken from its rightful course, warped and twisted into a mockery of its former self.

Still the horror lurks among us- it has not yet fallen back into sleep, and none have raised a hand to oppose it. The innocent are tossed into the unholy, ephemeral winds and changed, and the helpless are trampled in its path. The great old one watches all...

[zuzak]

But you have, up until the point at which you complete the actions to decide it was a bad idea.

so you have not changed alignment until you've decided to do it and done it. Before then, it is officially "undetermined".

At what point is your action "complete?" Is it when you've set the trap? Is it when the trap is triggered? Is it after the trap is triggered? Not removing the trap and letting it kill someone does not require an action. What if the trap is set, but you suddenly get the idea to poisen the bolt right before it goes off, but it still kills the guy? Your actions aren't complete, but you still killed him.

[Warpfire]

Deep in the murky depths of the fora, the great old ones, the masters of chaos and strife sleep, waiting to wake. The mortals above know not of them, and their lives and days pass and move on, the inevitable wheel of fate ever turning. Yet the dreaming masters can be caused to awaken- the unknowing actions of the ignorant masses above stirring their unholy forms from slumber. When they awaken, they bring turmoil and dissent among the people, pitting all against each other. Fire and tempers burn brighter as the horror of the great old ones rise from their eternal sleep...

And yea, it came to pass that one mortal awoke a great old one- Al-Ign'ment, and the horror was unleashed on the fora. The masses were caught up in the power of this old one, the master of moral questioning and definitions, and in their confusion they turned on one another, tearing down the boundaries of sanity and descending into madness. The great old one looked down on the work and with his powers strengthened it, provoking the war until none knew reason any longer... lo, the thread was torn asunder and taken from its rightful course, warped and twisted into a mockery of its former self.

Still the horror lurks among us- it has not yet fallen back into sleep, and none have raised a hand to oppose it. The innocent are tossed into the unholy, ephemeral winds and changed, and the helpless are trampled in its path. The great old one watches all...

Comparing alignment threads to ancient Lovecraftian horrors is an insult to the good name of ancient Lovecraftian horrors everywhere.

Also, this entire thread is pointless because Haley is quite clearly Lawful Evil.

[SandroTheMaster]

So you looked at the thread for, what, three seconds before determining you were of better intellectual fiber than the rest of us?

Man, or you're thick or you're not even trying in this first counter-argument. I said it got bigger as I read. In order to perceive so I had to at least read a WHOLE DAMN PAGE, that's 30 posts. And I read 2 and a half before noticing the neverending cycle this thing was on, so I went to give my answer, or my 2 cents. And just after it there seemed to come some diferent thinking on the matter.



Oh yes that makes perfect sense for any alignment system whatsoever and isn't at all controversial or even self-contradicting.

Did you read what I had writen? I said the inteligence affects the actions the same way alignment does. As well as the other mental attributes. The higher the inteligence, the more a character is pending into cynism. Vaarsuvius, Haley and Roy are the ones with inteligence bonus in the team, not coincidently, each has a share of good cynism on them. What did you think I said, that inteligence makes evil or something?




Almost no one has been suggesting this as the best possible scenario, or even the most RIGHTEOUS scenario. Unfortunately, not everyone buys into your GOOD = DUMB scenario.

I'm not saying good=dumb. I'm saying she isn't Stupid Good. Each axis has a stupid interpretation. The Lawful stupid is Miko. The Stupid good is the one who has no idea what he's doing and tries to help everyone, not surprisingly getting everyone, and HIMSELF, killed afterwards (unless he's a hero in a fiction series of old or a new one with a thick writer), think of Elan without the rest of the group to help him. It's impressive he didn't killed himself the time he was alone with Thog (and Thog is partially the reason for this). The Chaotic stupid is the one that blatantly breaks the law in front of law enforcement for no better reason than to protest. Or, if evil, for some fun. Chaotic stupid tends to keep most of his life in jail or being lifted from jail by friends. The Stupid Evil is the one that enters in a bloodrage of killing in the middle of a very fortified city. He incidentally gets killed, like the Stupid good, only faster. Bear in mind that these are only examples of these stupid interpretations, so don't generalize them. I know it's very possible for a good character to be smart (yet, ironically or coincidentally, you decide, most good characters chooses inteligence as dump stat, including most protagonists of fiction and games...).



In what even remotely similar way but that the "Chaotic neutral" alignment is involved? Belkar is EVIL. Haley is ambiguous.

Just read Milandros post. If that isn't enough for you, then hear this. There were lots of people rabbidly defending Belkar being CN because of the very occasional pseudo-good actions or reactions he had, or some quasi-neutral moments. Despite the mountain of downright evil actions he done upon time over and over again. Here it's the same, and even worse because Haley is forced to live with the situation she's in. Of course, unlike Belkar, she doesn't have a mountain load of alignment related actions to back her up, but still it largely overwhelms this little pseudo-evil reaction.




She's fine by me, but it wouldn't have hurt her cause to try a little bit more severely to punish Belkar or take steps to prevent him from future actions along the same lines!

Who said she isn't taking steps to prevent him of doing it again. The very next gnome traveler (or whatever) they find will certainly not get anywhere NEAR Belkar if Haley can try to avoid it. And she knows she's not good at punishing and putting people in line, nor it's her nature. It's something for Roy or Vaarsuvius to do, and they do it well (explosive runes anyone?)

As for the recent posts. Alignment is a general nature of a character. But of course no-one but the character himself can say what's his nature is. If the character plans to kill an inocent (bear in mind that someone good isn't necessarily inocent nor an inocent necessarily non-evil) and is good, or he needs VERY GOOD reasons to do so, or he's playing the alignment deceitfully. If he the DM perceives what the char is up to, he might advise him to reconsider his action or his alignment. Certain factors are trickier though. If a character kills someone relatively inocent out of vengeance, but remain his good intentions for everything else, it may pose a problem for the GM. Just some thoughts, though. But I think this kind of discussion would suit best another thread.

[Eric]

At what point is your action "complete?" Is it when you've set the trap? Is it when the trap is triggered? Is it after the trap is triggered? Not removing the trap and letting it kill someone does not require an action. What if the trap is set, but you suddenly get the idea to poisen the bolt right before it goes off, but it still kills the guy? Your actions aren't complete, but you still killed him.

That would have to be decided on the concrete actions and result.

If the trap was left, you went off for a bagel, came to your senses, came hurrynig back to remove the trap but were too late, were you

a) remorseful
b) happy

that the object of the original plan had died?


If (a) then you're still Good, with consequences. If (b) then you are Evil, which generally comes with consequences, though they may only manifest too late to avoid them.

[Underground]

Last I checked, Haley isn't a paladin and is allowed to associate with evil people. If she actually tries to do anything to Belkar, he will kill her. She can not beat him in a fight, ever. So, she has to stay around him to avoid dieing. Actually thats not true. Its right, she has little chance in a straight fight. But as Belkar is mainly Ranger and doesnt have the Barbarian feats against Sneak attacks, a single backstab of Haley would change the odds very largely for her.

[Underground]

Chaotic good people aren't required to oppose evil or to stop someone from being evil.

Nothing Belkar does in Haley's presence affects her alignment in anyway. If Haley were a paladin, it would be different, but she's not. She could watch him slaughter a thousand children and it wouldn't reflect on her at all. Thats not true, and thats not what happened. What happened was that Belkar killed an innocent with a single stroke, with no chance for Haley to do anything against it beforehand. Now people claim that she should "do something about it", while she herself didnt saw it coming and had no chance to react in time.

But if she would allow Belkar to go on a rampage on innocents, that would be different. Then she could actually do something about it - shout at him, negotiate with him, threaten him, even attack him.

The thing she refuses, however, is to take responsibility for Belkars actions or to select a punishment for him, because she doesnt have control over the situation.

[Underground]

She can't win, really, but the action with the chocolate bar was just plain petulant and childish Its not childish. Especially its no punishment. She doesnt intend to punish Belkar, she wants to get rid of the argument that he should be punished. Its a demonstration what she is able to do in respect to punishment, at the moment.

[Underground]

Meh this thread is pointless. It only shows how stubborn some people are about their misintepretations of the alignment rules. Remembers me of the materialistic and dull bible interpretations of some fellow christians.

[Remirach]

Man, or you're thick or you're not even trying in this first counter-argument.
Tired. Very tired. I don't even remember making this reply, to be honest. Perhaps I'll get back to it, although I doubt by this point it'd be worth the effort.

Edit...Hell with it. Fine, let's go, let it never be said I back down from stupid fights on the internet (Special Olympics comparisons notwithstanding)


I said it got bigger as I read. In order to perceive so I had to at least read a WHOLE DAMN PAGE, that's 30 posts. And I read 2 and a half before noticing the neverending cycle this thing was on, so I went to give my answer, or my 2 cents. And just after it there seemed to come some diferent thinking on the matter.
Your "meh, it's just looping anyway" post struck the tone that you'd seen enough and were going to swoop in and enlighten everyone. And "a whole damn page" of 30 posts isn't all that many if they aren't all novel-lengthed, so again, complaining about it strikes the tone that perhaps you have something of a short attention span and might have missed some of the nuances.


Did you read what I had writen? I said the inteligence affects the actions the same way alignment does. As well as the other mental attributes. The higher the inteligence, the more a character is pending into cynism. Vaarsuvius, Haley and Roy are the ones with inteligence bonus in the team, not coincidently, each has a share of good cynism on them. What did you think I said, that inteligence makes evil or something?
Just because I didn't agree with what you wrote doesn't mean I didn't read it. Cynicism doesn't mean "evil," but it precludes idealism (you can't be an idealistic cynic). A lot of good characters are idealists, does that mean they must not have high intelligence scores? Because that is what intelligence being tied to cynicism must lead to.

And Roy honestly doesn't strike me as cynical. His father does. Miko did as well.


I'm not saying good=dumb. I'm saying she isn't Stupid Good. Each axis has a stupid interpretation. The Lawful stupid is Miko.

Miko really WASN'T lawful stupid, at least not by the interpretation I understand (and the one that's on TV tropes). Look at how she handled the ogres -- she actually played into the idea that a Paladin should be Lawful Stupid in order to lull them into a trap. That's ANYTHING but stupid.


There were lots of people rabbidly defending Belkar being CN because of the very occasional pseudo-good actions or reactions he had, or some quasi-neutral moments. Despite the mountain of downright evil actions he done upon time over and over again. Here it's the same, and even worse because Haley is forced to live with the situation she's in.
But Haley has always been chaotic good... ish. Not totally and unambiguously chaotic good. You don't have go through the archives with a fine-tipped comb to find examples of her being... less than good. While Belkar, you REALLY have to stretch.


Of course, unlike Belkar, she doesn't have a mountain load of alignment related actions to back her up, but still it largely overwhelms this little pseudo-evil reaction.
Which reaction? The one of tossing the candy bar (lame, but non-alignment impacting) or refusing outright to do ANYTHING about Belkar's random homicidal impulses?

Haley and Belkar being CN is NOT the same debate. Really, I don't think either of them is, but the "Haley as CN" theory has much more going for it.


Who said she isn't taking steps to prevent him of doing it again.

This remains to be seen. And she has SAID she plans nothing in particular.


The very next gnome traveler (or whatever) they find will certainly not get anywhere NEAR Belkar if Haley can try to avoid it.

Not an unreasonable assumption, but an assumption just the same.


And she knows she's not good at punishing and putting people in line, nor it's her nature.

Does she? You have a cite?


It's something for Roy or Vaarsuvius to do, and they do it well (explosive runes anyone?)
Roy keeps people in line. V? Vaarsuvius gets vengeance. She'd just kill Belkar and be done with it.


Its not childish. Especially its no punishment. She doesnt intend to punish Belkar, she wants to get rid of the argument that he should be punished. Its a demonstration what she is able to do in respect to punishment, at the moment.
It didn't require "demonstration."

[Mauve Shirt]

It didn't require "demonstration."

Yes it did, she needed to get Celia off her back.

I agree with the people who say she couldn't do anything since she'd lose to Belkar in a fight, plus she needs all the help she can get, etc. And that this one act of "evil" is good enough to change alignment.

[JonahFalcon]

Ditch Belkar, thus dooming him to the MoJ? That's of course assuming he would actually leave. I'm pretty sure Haley couldn't make him exit beyond the 1 mile zone.

She could put Roy in the Bag of Holding. :smallamused:

[NikkTheTrick]

She could put Roy in the Bag of Holding. :smallamused:

As I've said many times before (if only people would read the thread before posting...), doing so would be equivalent to attacking Belkar since I doubt he would appreciate that much. The only difference is that as opposed to Haley attacking Belkar, putting oy in the bag will let Belkar make the first strike.

[JonahFalcon]

As I've said many times before (if only people would read the thread before posting...), doing so would be equivalent to attacking Belkar since I doubt he would appreciate that much. The only difference is that as opposed to Haley attacking Belkar, putting oy in the bag will let Belkar make the first strike.

I was joking.

[Remirach]

Yes it did, she needed to get Celia off her back.

I remain unconvinced it was necessary to "prove" she couldn't do crap about Belkar. They were talking about that very fact, and Celia was faltering. I suppose it depends on your view of Celia, but as I read it, the sylph was (rightly) horrified at Belkar's actions and Haley, rather than taking even a SLIGHTLY sympathetic tack (with a person who'd just witnessed a totally unnecessary and cold-blooded murder), immediately presumed the other woman as the "enemy" and threw the candy bar in what was more or less a temper tantrum to "get that stupid so-and-so to shut the hell up."

Which delayed them even more because the stupid so-and-so had to retrieve the candy bar rather than let any innocent animals eat it and become sick.

[Eric]

I remain unconvinced it was necessary to "prove" she couldn't do crap about Belkar. They were talking about that very fact, and Celia was faltering. I suppose it depends on your view of Celia, but as I read it, the sylph was (rightly) horrified at Belkar's actions and Haley, rather than taking even a SLIGHTLY sympathetic tack (with a person who'd just witnessed a totally unnecessary and cold-blooded murder), immediately presumed the other woman as the "enemy" and threw the candy bar in what was more or less a temper tantrum to "get that stupid so-and-so to shut the hell up."

Which delayed them even more because the stupid so-and-so had to retrieve the candy bar rather than let any innocent animals eat it and become sick.

Sheesh. Why didn't Celia fly up and kill Belkar with spells. After all, Belkar has no access to healing now, so even if she can't kill him in one day, she can fly off, rest and find Belkar again and wear him out.

So why didn't Celia kill him? Because that would make HER as bad as HIM. He's CE.

So, to stop her becoming CN, you're saying she should have undertaken actions that would make her CE???

Or, if there would be no change in alignment for this killing of Belkar, why doesn't Celia do it? SHE'S the one with the panties in a knot, yet she doesn't want to do anything about it. THAT'S CN at least, just right there. Unless you're going to say that one single CN action from Celia doesn't change her alignment, which kind of nukes the whole thread.

[Remirach]

Sheesh.

[snip]

I'm presuming you haven't paid particular attention to my arguments ONLY, because there have been a lot of arguments in this thread and some have argued Haley should have done something else.

I'm saying she couldn't have done anything against BELKAR, but throwing the candy bar was cheap, stupid, and useless -- the only thing she could have hoped to affect was Celia, and the overall affect on her only served to delay them more, so it was counter-productive in the the end.

[NikkTheTrick]

I remain unconvinced it was necessary to "prove" she couldn't do crap about Belkar. They were talking about that very fact, and Celia was faltering.
But throwing away the candy bar is a lot more eficient demontration of that. Plus, that stops Belkar eating it in front of Haley. I would find someone eating candy of someone they murdered in front of me to be quite disgusting.

I suppose it depends on your view of Celia, but as I read it, the sylph was (rightly) horrified at Belkar's actions and Haley, rather than taking even a SLIGHTLY sympathetic tack (with a person who'd just witnessed a totally unnecessary and cold-blooded murder), immediately presumed the other woman as the "enemy" and threw the candy bar in what was more or less a temper tantrum to "get that stupid so-and-so to shut the hell up."
Oh, tack was not sympathetic enough! How bad, how sad! Welcome to the warzone!

In the last 4 months, Haley witnessed essentially massacre of AC soldiers (AC battle after Hobgoblins got inside the city), Rich knows what was done to civilian population in the first hours of occupation, enslavement of survivors, most likely executions of those, "resistance" cells that are more happy fighting each other than Team Evil... Now, she has a spoiled brat who is horrified of death of an enemy combatant (the one Belkar stabbed).

Celia needs to be properly conditioned if she is to be of any help.

Which delayed them even more because the stupid so-and-so had to retrieve the candy bar rather than let any innocent animals eat it and become sick.
Haley could not have forseen that due to sheer stupidity of the action.

[Fostire]

Sheesh. Why didn't Celia fly up and kill Belkar with spells. After all, Belkar has no access to healing now, so even if she can't kill him in one day, she can fly off, rest and find Belkar again and wear him out.

So why didn't Celia kill him? Because that would make HER as bad as HIM. He's CE.
That's right. Killing an evil person doesn't make you good... unless you are a paladin.

Anyway, i don't think Haley was good in the first place as she seriously considered selling a person to slavery. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html) But then again that's just my opinion.

[Remirach]

But throwing away the candy bar is a lot more eficient demontration of that.

It's not "efficient" if it delays them. Celia and Haley were TALKING while still being ON THE MOVE. After the candy bar incident, the whole party had to be drawn to a halt.


Plus, that stops Belkar eating it in front of Haley. I would find someone eating candy of someone they murdered in front of me to be quite disgusting.
Well, depends on the candy, maybe? Twizzlers are right out.


Oh, tack was not sympathetic enough! How bad, how sad! Welcome to the warzone!
The warzone Celia signed herself up for, in order to help her boyfriend out -- and the one she has no other obligation whatsoever to fight through. This isn't her battle, it isn't even her plane of existence. Sympathy might not be a bad idea just out of a basic concern that Roy's girlfriend might find the cruelty and apathy too much to handle and thus bail out on the lot of them. Even if she's a pacifist, her sorcerer spells HAVE come in handy at least once.


In the last 4 months, Haley witnessed essentially massacre of AC soldiers (AC battle after Hobgoblins got inside the city), Rich knows what was done to civilian population in the first hours of occupation, enslavement of survivors, most likely executions of those, "resistance" cells that are more happy fighting each other than Team Evil... Now, she has a spoiled brat who is horrified of death of an enemy combatant (the one Belkar stabbed).
Oh, sure, she's a "spoiled brat" who gave up her comfortable life and dropped out of school to take on a dangerous travel route with a pair of amoral adventurers who've endured... WHATEVER. Don't get me wrong. I'm phrasing this from Celia's POV. They've endured hell, but how could she know that? Why should that affect her? Why should she be penalized for not reacting as if she knew about it? And while the hobgoblin Belkar killed was an enemy combatant, Solt was a total innocent.


Celia needs to be properly conditioned if she is to be of any help.
Somehow I'm not thinking the candy bar incident is helpful "conditioning."


Haley could not have forseen that due to sheer stupidity of the action.
Well, okay, yeah, I'll grant you that. Still, it was a petty and pointless reaction that would have accomplished at BEST nothing but to piss Belkar off.

[NikkTheTrick]

It's not "efficient" if it delays them. Celia and Haley were TALKING while still being ON THE MOVE. After the candy bar incident, the whole party had to be drawn to a halt.
The talk was still distracting. And I already commented on party grinding to a halt.

Well, depends on the candy, maybe? Twizzlers are right out.
Depends indeed, but I would find eating food faken from someone murdered to be disgusting (unless faced with starvation).

Well, okay, yeah, I'll grant you that. Still, it was a petty and pointless reaction that would have accomplished at BEST nothing but to piss Belkar off.
It would show Celia that:
- Haley is not agreeing with Belkar.
- That there is indeed little to be done. Celia disagreed with murdering Belkar. So, Haley showed her what other options they have left.
- Pissing belkar off to little extent is not problematic.

Sure, not a big accomplishments, but they come at no costs that Haley could forsee.

[LerkySuntreader]

I thought she always was CN. She may npt exactly follow her own whims but she is an individualist first and last (in strip #104 and #29 she takes gold that she won't share with the rest of the party). She values her own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom (unless she knows them well). She avoids authority, resents restrictons, but she does seem to follow traditons, mainly that her father was a theif so she became a rouge. She does not intentonally disrupt organizations. And she is sometimes predictable or unpredictable.

[NikkTheTrick]

I thought she always was CN. She may npt exactly follow her own whims but she is an individualist first and last (in strip #104 and #29 she takes gold that she won't share with the rest of the party). She values her own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom (unless she knows them well). She avoids authority, resents restrictons, but she does seem to follow traditons, mainly that her father was a theif so she became a rouge. She does not intentonally disrupt organizations. And she is sometimes predictable or unpredictable.
And for the last 4 months, she had been risking her life and spent enormous amount of gold for no personal gain, fighting against evil.

[Matuse]

Killing an evil person doesn't make you good... unless you are a paladin.

No, not even then. A paladin who enters a village, detects evil, and proceeds to massacre all the people who ping against it would not just lose their paladinhood on the spot, but be at serious risk of divine lightning bolts enacting a more final punishment.

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean they aren't also an innocent. Not even paladins can simply kill people for no reason. The aformentioned murderous coward peasant doesn't deserve death...he's no threat to anyone, despite his attitude.

[Remirach]

The talk was still distracting.
It wasn't notably slowing their pace forward.


Depends indeed, but I would find eating food faken from someone murdered to be disgusting (unless faced with starvation).
Yeah, I just figure food that's more... evocative would be even grosser. Imagine, say, bashing someone's head in and then eating their leftover bowl of spaghetti.


It would show Celia that:
- Haley is not agreeing with Belkar.
- That there is indeed little to be done. Celia disagreed with murdering Belkar. So, Haley showed her what other options they have left.
Both of those results may have happened had Haley continued to SPEAK with Celia about the situation. We can't really say for sure, now that the deed's been done.


- Pissing belkar off to little extent is not problematic.
True, he didn't even seem all that angry with Haley, just annoyed that the next gnome probably wouldn't even HAVE candy. Damn it all!


Sure, not a big accomplishments, but they come at no costs that Haley could forsee.
If I were convinced she'd done it out of such logical reasoning, I wouldn't be holding it against her (and I honestly don't resent her for it all THAT much, I'm just being forced to constantly defend my statements about it so it's starting to seem like I equate the chocolate-tossing incident with Xykon's slaughter of the Sapphire Guard or something). But it came across like there was much more of an element of spite and pettiness to the action, it was basically her way of telling Celia to shut the hell up already, and if she wanted to impart info to Celia there was always the "keep talking" action.

But perhaps you are right and Celia would have just not listened to reason and this got her attention more effectively. I'm not utterly convinced of this and since the deed's been done it can't really be proven otherwise. So I think perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this issue because the only thing we're effectively differing on now is something that hinges on a "what-if."

[zuzak]

No, not even then. A paladin who enters a village, detects evil, and proceeds to massacre all the people who ping against it would not just lose their paladinhood on the spot, but be at serious risk of divine lightning bolts enacting a more final punishment.

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean they aren't also an innocent. Not even paladins can simply kill people for no reason. The aformentioned murderous coward peasant doesn't deserve death...he's no threat to anyone, despite his attitude.

I think he was being sarcastic...

Also, I think this thead's argument ended a few pages ago.

[David Argall]

Anyway, i don't think Haley was good in the first place as she seriously considered selling a person to slavery. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html)
And just how was that inferior to the alternatives?
The alternatives seem to amount to killing her, or letting her go, free to cause evil in the future. [The one the party choose amounted to flipping a coin.]
Now if we sell her into slavery, we have compensation for some of her crimes. [We might well be under a duty to hunt down some of her other victims and pay them off, but her victims do get some benefit that they would not get from killing her.] And we can safely say she prefers slavery to being killed.
We of course have to worry if her owner can properly control her, but that is his problem, and his willingness to pay gold argues that he can do so.

It seems then that slavery is superior for each and every party involved compared to her being killed.

Allowing her to just walk away with no punishment for her crimes seems sharply inferior [for everybody but Samantha]. We have several attempted murders and a number of other crimes mentioned or taking place in the little time we see her. And given her reaction to Miko, we would expect a long list of crimes in her future as well.

So what's a solution superior to selling her into slavery?

No, you may not just say slavery is evil. You have to show why an alternative is less evil.

[Fostire]

What i was trying to say with my post was that Haley didnt even consider the moral dillemas involved in slavery, so long as she got good money for it. And that doesnt sound as the type of thing a good guy might do. Judging by her actions on that comic alone i would place Haley as chaotic neutral

[Laurentio]

[Celia talking] It wasn't notably slowing their pace forward.
There is more in life that simply walking toward one's goal. I would indulge in poking out my ears with a flaming telephone pole, as alternative of having to listen Celia trying to explain me how bad I'm for not doing a dirty job she needs to be done, but God help her if she want to raise a finger.
Probably I could do a better use of the before-cited flaming pole, but not a in un-rated webcomics. And Celia flies.

Anyway, as you previously stated, throwing away the candy bar was a tantrum, and having Celia bashing the back of your brain is annoying enough to justify it. Yes, it brought to a stop because Celia had to recover the candy for the noble cause of saving some fluffier fluffiness fluffy (whose life is, as you can easily understand, more important in the long term of preventing the end of the world. Can you spell "Stupid Good"?).
But honestly, it's always easy to say "You should have known that!", AFTER. In Haley pants (Goddess...), I would have not supposed that Celia could be THAT dense.

Meta-game consideration: Celia annoying talking was not slowing the march. But in a table-top roleplaying game (like OotS is supposed to be, and characters know), losing time is not a problem: you arrive at the place X whent the master allows you to arrive.
On the other side, there is a limit at the amount of bull-pies that you can resist before doing something rush, or stupid. From a NPC, top.


What i was trying to say with my post was that Haley didnt even consider the moral dillemas involved in slavery, so long as she got good money for it. And that doesnt sound as the type of thing a good guy might do. Judging by her actions on that comic alone i would place Haley as chaotic neutral
Haley is greed and all. But saying that she didn't consider a moral dilemma in a three seconds event, is a little stretched. If people is going to be valued on the first through and not on what they actual are going to do, I'm to be put in jail for the rest of my life, and two more.
Roy, a lawful good guy and all, through several time of killing his friends, and once abandoned one. Is he evil?

Laurentio

[FujinAkari]

Meta-game consideration: Celia annoying talking was not slowing the march. But in a table-top roleplaying game (like OotS is supposed to be, and characters know), losing time is not a problem: you arrive at the place X whent the master allows you to arrive.

Rich has explicitly stated that OOTS is not intended to represent an actual gaming session. There are no players behind the characters, and the world is exactly that, a persistent world. The characters operate within the constrains of the D&D ruleset, but there is no "table" to take into consideration.

This is why no character has ever referred to the great "GM" anywhere in the Strip's history.

[Laurentio]

Rich has explicitly stated that OOTS is not intended to represent an actual gaming session. There are no players behind the characters, and the world is exactly that, a persistent world. The characters operate within the constrains of the D&D ruleset, but there is no "table" to take into consideration.
But still, night cames when "no one has more action to do", and random encounters happens "once on a single travel (no matter the length)". And I could report a lot more, but these are the more "travel related".
Ok, there is no one playing. But it's a Table-top Role Playing Game all along. Character themselves know it.

Laurentio

[Eric]

What i was trying to say with my post was that Haley didnt even consider the moral dillemas involved in slavery, so long as she got good money for it. And that doesnt sound as the type of thing a good guy might do. Judging by her actions on that comic alone i would place Haley as chaotic neutral

She did consider it.

[Spolier] OotPCs: Now if selling Samantha into slavery won her 25000gp she could free her dad who wasn't a skanky sorceress bitch. Which ends up with the most good for people?[/Spoiler]

[SandroTheMaster]

Ow, my head hurts. Well, first on the innocent argument. No Matuse wasn't sarcastic. That may sound strange, but innocent is not the same as Non-Evil. And Good is not the same as innocent. Now, it has several reasons, but the most obvious is the debate about nature vs action. If someone wouldn't mind killing everyone who he doesn't like if he could do so, and didn't just because he simply can't, believe it or not. That person is innocent... That is hard to swallow, but it's the most straightforward example. Now, the "Good not innocent" debate is easier. Even without reading the Start of Darkness we know AC paladins killed goblins on the thousands, including woman and children. Goblins are a menace to mankind, certainly, getting rid of them is a good act (at least from a paladin's point of view), but these paladins are certainly NOT innocent.

Now, on the table of Haley having to do something... That's why I called her action "pseudo-evil". Just look at it. Killing someone for no satisfactory reason: Evil. Being only mildly disgusted because your companions killed someone for no satisfactory reason: Evil? Errrr... It doesn't seem even neutral, but is still far from evil. Why would Haley need to punish Belkar? She doesn't like him, but she's a thief herself. She also did thing not-so-nice in the eyes of human laws. Enforcing punishment, CERTAINLY not something she'd be looking up to do nor would know exactly how to nor she wants to get rid of a somewhat useful ally. She could sell him to slavery, but that won't be that useful in a more than a few ways. She wouldn't even throw the candy away if wasn't for Celia pestering her about it just to show her it's pointless, but Celia, although we're not certain she approved or not taking the candy away, was too concerned about "defenseless" animals to see anything into it. I wouldn't call her Stupid Good (except for the animal saving part), only that she's studying Laws way too much to see past the situation. She's just really Lawful.

Now, I know Haley is Goodish. But still, her good-doings overwhelms her non-good doings. The reaction I talked about was not minding as much as people seem to want her to about Belkar's actions. But still, it's only pseudo-evil. A neutral reaction that looks evil but really isn't. It is just cynical behavior. I'm still trying to see how she is idealistic. She's just following her nature, but not lecturing anyone.

Now, how the hell does Roy NOT strike you as cynical at times? All his actions that made the Bureaucratic Deva raise an eye brawl was out of his Cynicism. Of course he doesn't look as cynical compared to his father (but, lets face it, his father has way more intelligence than Roy does), but he still it. And yes, I sincerely think idealistic people are short on intelligence. They're refusing themselves to see the world in a broader scale and are deluding themselves with what they think is right. Most Nazis were idealistic, you know. Also, just a hint here, Hitler wasn't idealistic, he was a political genius, Nazism was just a political weapon, if he was idealistic of Nazism he wouldn't consider himself worth of being leader of the nation (of course, he did need to make up some Aryan background to chill out his idealistic allies). He became sort of idealist only close to the end of the war, when, not coincidentally, he also became delusional. Now, overused WW2 references aside, Miko wasn't cynic. At the beginning she was even sort of grounded and rational, but as soon the world started to look different than she thought it was she stopped believing the world and became delusional. Really, if she was cynical at least she would try to understand how the world really is.

Oh, just as a side note she just said she had nothing in mind about punishing Belkar, leaving it to Karma or whatever. That doesn't mean that she won't take measures to stop Belkar from killing the next traveler they find. Unless she was Elan and believed in the inner goodness of Belkar and that Belkar wouldn't do something so mean the next time. (But, facing it, Elan would have died at Belkar's hand as soon as the MoJ stopped watching him over this if he and Haley were in switched places). Saying she won't do nothing is saying she's downright evil or actually stupid.

[Remirach]

There is more in life that simply walking toward one's goal. I would indulge in poking out my ears with a flaming telephone pole, as alternative of having to listen Celia trying to explain me how bad I'm for not doing a dirty job she needs to be done, but God help her if she want to raise a finger.
Celia doesn't say Haley should be doing a dirty job. Haley turns around and suggests that if Celia wants something done she should just go and kill Belkar herself, but Celia didn't actually ask Haley to kill Belkar. She was rather unspecific as to what should be done, in fact it seemed she didn't KNOW what should be done, only that something SHOULD be done and shouldn't Haley be the person doing it, in that case? Haley (rightly) perceives that nothing practical can be done BUT to kill him, but I don't think Celia had gotten to that point yet. That's why I think Haley should have continued to talk to her to make her understand, the situation is just not workable and nothing can be done.

Celia doesn't say Haley is BAD, either. She annoyingly continues to assert that something should be done, but she's not saying anything negative about Haley. Haley is over-defensive and takes offense at Celia's first remark about traveling with a criminal when Celia didn't even MEAN to offend her and clarifies that she's distressed to be traveling with a MURDERER.


Anyway, as you previously stated, throwing away the candy bar was a tantrum, and having Celia bashing the back of your brain is annoying enough to justify it.
Oh, I think it's enough to make it understandable, but not the correct action to take.

[Remirach]

Now, how the hell does Roy NOT strike you as cynical at times?
At times but not in general.


All his actions that made the Bureaucratic Deva raise an eye brawl was out of his Cynicism. Of course he doesn't look as cynical compared to his father (but, lets face it, his father has way more intelligence than Roy does), but he still it. And yes, I sincerely think idealistic people are short on intelligence. They're refusing themselves to see the world in a broader scale and are deluding themselves with what they think is right. Most Nazis were idealistic, you know.
The only thing "idealistic" about Nazism was the idea that it could win. An idealist might hope for world peace -- that people might one day all set aside their differences and live in harmony, and that this ideal is POSSIBLE because they have basically positive (idealistic) views of people and the world in general. The Nazis thought some races were inherently inferior (negative) and evil and had to be annihilated in order for peace and prosperity to be possible for those that better deserved it.

Roy doesn't strike me as cynical because he is more of the first type -- even to the extent that he looks odd compared to most of the more casually racist people in OOTS, including his father. He's not blindly naive, but he's not jaded or unhopeful, either.

Miko struck me as a cynic because she doesn't believe people with evil in them can have good in them, too -- or even that they might do evil things for a purportedly good purpose. Once you're evil, you're totally evil and she doesn't believe in redemption. Not believing in redemption is the epitome of cynicism, and she outright says it in the preface to SoD. Not a surprise she didn't' get it herself, then...

[ZekeArgo]

Woot, Godwin's Law invoked. Alignment threat shutdown procedures imminent.

[Remirach]

Woot, Godwin's Law invoked. Alignment threat shutdown procedures imminent.

But I wanna hear more about the idealistic Nazis...

http://www.geocities.com/tyoria/nazikitten.txt

[Mauve Shirt]

This thread is STILL going on? God damn.

[Mugen Nightgale]

Look I didnt read the whole thing.. but I saw a lot of people using the "sin" word. Lets just remind that Haley is not a christian grrl that follows the 10 commandments, she probably follows some kind of north god of thiefs. I see a lot of people here trying to preach about the morals of a modern christian world. But u guys forget that the oost live in a different world with different believes and philosophy. Haley is a chaotic good, a clever one.. she understands that Belkar is one of the tools Roy used to make a greater good. Its pointless to risk the whole campaign world just to punish Belkar.

If Haley were CN the whole scene would change like:

Belkar: *stabs* Dibs on the chocolate
Celia: OMG he killed the gnome! Do something about it!
Haley: why? That's just bad luck for the gnome crossing paths with a psycho like Belkar. I don't see why I have to risk my neck trying to punish Belkar.



Something like it. But it's clear in the comic that Haley doesn't like any of Belkar's actions, but what she can do? Sadly, she needs him for a greater good.

[NikkTheTrick]

But I wanna hear more about the idealistic Nazis...
Idelistic does not mean "good". Idealistic, at least in context it is being used, means ignoring all evidence, believe a certain thing. And nazis did have certain... beliefs... that they kept untill the end despite what was actually going on. Faith in those beliefs was rewarded appropreately during the Nuremberd trials.

[Remirach]

Idelistic does not mean "good".
No, but you BELIEVE in good. You believe it's real. Cynical people can do good, too. They are just more likely to think they (and possibly "their" kind) are the ONLY people doing good in a harsh, evil world where people are evil by nature. Idealists are more likely to see good in everyday things, and to see people as good by default.


Idealistic, at least in context it is being used, means ignoring all evidence, believe a certain thing.
"In the context it's being used," idealism and cynicism are both almost totally unrecognizable, idealism gives you folk like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html) which is why it gets a bad rap. Good is dumb, indeed, except that good tends to WIN in stories like this, often for those very same idealistic reasons. That people will choose good over evil in the end. That every person is capable of finding redemption. And so on..