afterlife theories

[tribble]

So lawful good people get a mountain paradise, chaotic good ones get a paradise that sounds like a tropical one if Belkar is to be believed, evil characters probably go to hell.
So where does that leave neutral characters?

[krossbow]

Eh, they probably go to someplace like the neutral planet from futurama.


"If i don't make it, tell my wife... hello"

[Kool-Aid]

So lawful good people get a mountain paradise, chaotic good ones get a paradise that sounds like a tropical one if Belkar is to be believed, evil characters probably go to hell.
So where does that leave neutral characters?

I would imagine it would depend on how many goo deeds and how many evil they've done, if they're relatively good they got to chaotic good if evil they go to lawful evil (where I imagine they play stab chess, it's like regular ches but you stab the loser.) If that's true they probably go to sort of a purgatory (which may or may not be a resteraunt with crappy service) where they await judgement.

[brilliantlight]

My guess is it would be the standard AD&D planes. Belkar would go to the Abyss as he is CE. Haley and Elan would probably go to Aborea as they are CG. Durkon would go to heaven as Roy did. V would wind up in Mechanus being LN.

[Linkavitch]

Or, everyone gets to be reincarnated after a certain amount of tme in (heaven, tropical heaven, hell, bad restaraunt) whatever, as a character with the opposite alignment and stuff. But wait a sec, where does that leave V?

[AlexanderRM]

I would imagine it would depend on how many goo deeds and how many evil they've done, if they're relatively good they got to chaotic good if evil they go to lawful evil (where I imagine they play stab chess, it's like regular ches but you stab the loser.) If that's true they probably go to sort of a purgatory (which may or may not be a resteraunt with crappy service) where they await judgement.

You know, I've never quite under stood why everyone HAS to be either eternally damned, or be in heaven for eternity. That makes no sense.
If we base it on the D&D cosmology, I think we have mechanus, limbo, and the outlands for neutral characters, or similar places. Since the mountain is surrounded by clouds (rather than holy water) it's probably a safe bet that it won't be EXACTLY the same, though.

[David Argall]

V would wind up in Mechanus being LN.
The evidence before us is that V is CG. She is an elf. He is shown to be good by #11. Her character had been established before this, and he has not made any changes since.

[Lira]

The evidence before us is that V is CG. She is an elf. He is shown to be good by #11. Her character had been established before this, and he has not made any changes since.I really doubt V's CG, I think (s)he's more likely to be TN, but I suppose that's a matter to be debated in another topic.

[Morty]

The evidence before us is that V is CG. She is an elf. He is shown to be good by #11. Her character had been established before this, and he has not made any changes since.

Well, let's see:
-S/he's unwilling to help the dirt farmers when there's more important stuff to do. Not Evil maybe, but not Good in the slightest
-Cheers at Miko's supposed death. Being happy because someone died isn't a very Good thing to do.
-S/he's willing to see things from Belkar's perspective once in a while.
-S/he's more focused on overcoming whatever blocks his/her magic than on helping defenseless people on the boats and otherwise relping the survivors from Azure City.
-Unholy Blight works on Neutral characters as well.
It's not enough to make V evil, but certainly enough for me to strongly doubt that s/he is good. His/her position on Law/Chaos axis is debatable, but I'd bet on True Neutral.

[DreadSpoon]

Foreward: This isn't meant to either glorify nor denounce any particular religious view. In particular, I am neither advocating nor decrying Christianity or its views. I'm trying to approach the topic from a purely historical and sociological perspective for the sake of this discussion, and leaving my personal beliefs out of it.

Both Evil and Neutral characters must go to an afterlife that they actually enjoy, in a D&D-style setting. Quite simply, in such a world -- unlike in real life -- every characters knows that the gods exist and what the afterlives entail. If Evil characters went to a place of eternal suffering or Neutral characters went to some kind of Purgatory-like place, nobody would even consider being Evil or Neutral.

Likewise, Good characters cannot go to an ultimate paradise solely for being Good, because then Good characters have no reason to live. They could die at any moment and know for a fact that they'll be rewarded with Heaven.

I vaguely recall a Forgotten Realms book (Trial of Cyric the Mad, I think?) that covered that very topic in detail. A Good mortal took over the job of the God of Death and decided to start rewarding anyone Good who died with Heaven and anyone Evil who died with Hell. Suffice to say, it ended up not working out.

It is hard to apply our modern sense of morality to a medieval fantasy setting (more fantasy than medieval, really) with gods who walk the earth and have direct interaction with mortals. The Christian/Judaic/Islamic/Hindu beliefs that most modern Western morality derives from simply do not directly translate to a world where there is no singular Good force/being/pantheon that decides what is Right and what is Wrong.

Medieval fantasy is usually much more closely based on the ideals of morality that derive from actual medieval and pre-medieval religions, such as the Norse gods, Roman/Greek gods, and so on that we see paralleled in the OOTSverse. In such religions, the Good are not rewarded while the Evil are punished. Instead, the rewards of the afterlife are given to those who prove themselves worthy to the rather whimsical deities of the pantheons. The Norse did not believe that faithfulness, kindness, truthfulness, or other such modern Virtues were what got you into Valhalla. The Greeks and Romans believed largely in just making the gods happy -- often through sacrifice (which usually just meant giving a portion of one's wealth to the church). Hence one reason (of many) why Christianity took hold in the late Roman Empire -- it only required acceptance of a savior to get into the good afterlife, and hence made Heaven accessible to everyone instead of just the lucky few.

It can be really, really hard for us modern folks to see things that way. To most of us, murder is just wrong. Rape is pure evil. Stealing is unacceptable. etc. The bad must be punished and the good must be rewarded, because that's just the right thing to do. To feel that you will be punished to an eternity of suffering just because you pissed off a deity or failed to adhere to some arbitrary code (which, yes, many atheists and other non-Christians will often accuse Christianity of) will just feel wrong to most of us.

One setting I'm familiar with defines that word of the Nobles to be just and pure, and that's that. There are no gods (of any variety). The temples do not preach the laws of some divine being to the peasants: they preach the glory of the Royal Crown. Rather Egyptian, I suppose. To speak against the King is not just treason, it is blasphemy. A LOT of players come into that setting and immediately want to play a "rebel" who believes that men should have free will and not blindly follow someone who is just another man. They bring these entirely modern-democracy ideas to a world that has no place for it. In a world where 99.99999% of the people believe that King is equal to God, 95% of the PCs end up believing that the King is just a tyrant who should be overthrown so that the PCs don't have to do what they're told. It's unfortunate, it's horrifically bad role-playing, and it's a fact of life that any such game setting will have to deal with because the players are always going to be modern-day people that grew up under modern-day religions and social environments.

[Zolem]

Both Evil and Neutral characters must go to an afterlife that they actually enjoy, in a D&D-style setting. Quite simply, in such a world -- unlike in real life -- every characters knows that the gods exist and what the afterlives entail. If Evil characters went to a place of eternal suffering or Neutral characters went to some kind of Purgatory-like place, nobody would even consider being Evil or Neutral.


Actualy, the Neutral places aren't shown as places of pergatory, but just diferent sort of paradises from the Good Aligned planes. Machenus shows the workings and wonders of the multiverse, Limbo shows everything and anything that can exist. the True Neutral afterlife is a world much like our own, but with multiplicitive visitors from other planes, so you could meet and greet with anyone and anything.

Also, in the Fiendish Codex II, it states that people are often under the impression that even if they are evil in life, that they would be rewarded with positions of power in the afterlife, as Hell seems to be all about evil, so why not reward truly evil ;eaders that could be of use to them? As such, it states that while this does happen, with some mortals promoted streight to devil, most are just self deluded.

Also up for consideration is people who don't consider themselves evil, but are. They might think that the ends justifies the means, that morals are arbotrary (whish they are to some degree), or that their way is just right.

[xyzzy]

The evidence before us is that V is CG. She is an elf. He is shown to be good by #11. Her character had been established before this, and he has not made any changes since.

That's what she said!

...I'm sorry, I couldn't resist, the pronoun-mixing was just too tempting!

Based on Vaarsuvius' actions recently relating to locating Haley, I'd think Vaarsuvius is slowly shifting toward CN --- I can't imagine a good character could keep up that singular focus on something that isn't necessarily going to do anything this long when they could be much more useful helping out with the folks on Hinjo's junk. Maybe too long on Hinjo's junk has confused Vaarsuvius: a gender-confused elf on anyone's junk too long would probably get really messed up. :smallbiggrin:

[silvadel]

How is it CN to go to the lengths of endurance to try to save someone? I hardly think most chaotics would have the discipline to work themselves to death that way. I think it is showing just how lawful V is. LN with good tendencies is my guess at V's alignment.

[brilliantlight]

How is it CN to go to the lengths of endurance to try to save someone? I hardly think most chaotics would have the discipline to work themselves to death that way. I think it is showing just how lawful V is. LN with good tendencies is my guess at V's alignment.


Agreed, chaotics don't have that kind of focus but lawfuls do.

[WarriorTribble]

I'd disagree, think of all the protagonists in childrens TV shows for example. In the ones oriented for boys the main character is usually brash, headstrong, overly hasty, and not the brightest bulb in the group, but is still capable of focusing on one goal. I do think a lawful person could make better use of his time while focusing on that one thing however.

[dps]

I tend to agree that V is likely True Neutral, but it's certainly not certain. All we can say for sure is that the elf is not of an evil alignment.

[FujinAkari]

The OOTS boardgame verifies the fact that V is Neutral, not Good. #11 just proves that V isn't Evil.

[Graymayre]

My guess is it would be the standard AD&D planes. Belkar would go to the Abyss as he is CE.

The Abyss, in fact, is not a plane of punishment (atleast in the 3.5 edition).

If Belkar were to be sent there after death, a more likely scenario would be that he may be come a slave or warrior for some demonic army (or be trapped in one of the more inhospitable layers of that plane).

If Rich is looking for a "hell" that Belkar can be put in, the best option would be the Tarterian depths of Carceri

It is a plane that can best be described by this quote of it:

"It is said that a prisoner of Carceri may only escape when she has become stronger than whatever imprisoned her there. That's a difficult task on a plane whose very nature breeds despair, betrayal, and self-hatred."

That sounds like the only punishment Belkar would understand.

[Knaight]

You know, I've never quite under stood why everyone HAS to be either eternally damned, or be in heaven for eternity. That makes no sense.

Christianity is a pretty big religion, as is Judaism. Islam would go in there, but hell is temporary, after you have paid for your sins, up to heaven. Its like prison reform, but more effective.

[David Argall]

-Unholy Blight works on Neutral characters as well.


The sicken effect is only for good characters. A neutral V would merely be wounded, and would be able to cast spells or whatever. V, however, is overwhelmed, which classifies V as Good, not Neutral.

[Morty]

The sicken effect is only for good characters. A neutral V would merely be wounded, and would be able to cast spells or whatever. V, however, is overwhelmed, which classifies V as Good, not Neutral.

It might be that the amount of damage from the Blight overwhelmed V. And even if it didn't it's one evidence for V being good. I gave four pieces of evidence for V not being good.

[Querzis]

The sicken effect is only for good characters. A neutral V would merely be wounded, and would be able to cast spells or whatever. V, however, is overwhelmed, which classifies V as Good, not Neutral.

David, if you want to prove anything, dont use any strip before at least 30. There was no real plot at first, Rich never intended to do such a great story with those joke strip.

And even if you somehow still believe for some really odd reason that V is good, how can you believe hes chaotic for no other reason then elves are usually chaotic good? Halfling are usually good too, is that supposed to change Belkar alignement?

Anyway, there is room for debate, I can understand people who believe V is LN but I'm sure hes TN. I dont see what the hell is supposed to be chaotic about him though.

Either way, this is a comic about D&D so obviously the afterlife is going to be the D&D planes. Either way, since we actually know Roy is currently in Celestia, Rich logically use all the other planes as well. Since most of the people dont know them, here is the link the wiki articles:

Mechanus (LN, the plane of robots)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanus

Arcadia (LN/LG, most dwarves are there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

Celestia (LG, where Roy is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Celestia

Bytopia (LG/NG, most gnomes are there)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytopia

Elysium (NG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

Beastlands (NG/CG, if you like furries and animal, this plane is for you. Celestial animals, like Argent and Windstrikers, come from there.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastlands

Arborea (CG, where Shojo most likely is and hes most likely a bacchae)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arborea_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

Ysgard (CG/CN, they dont say much about it but if I remember the book well, this is the plane where I would like to go)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ysgard

The Limbo (CN, this is where you become insane though some chaotic character love it anyway)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

Pandemonium (CN/CE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemonium_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

The Abyss (CE, this is where Belkar and Xykon will be sent to become lowly manes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyss_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

Carceri (CE/NE, the prison plane)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carceri

Hades or the Gray Waste (NE, if you stay there for too long, you'll become evil.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Waste

Gehenna (NE/LE, hope you like volcano)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

The Nine hells (LE, The devils come from here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baator

Acheron (LE/LN, fight and get slaughtered for eternity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheron_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29

And last but not the least: the Outlands (TN)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlands

The Manuals of the planes is a really great book by the way and, even if you dont play D&D, the descriptions of the planes would still interest any fellow nerds as far as I'm concerned.

[brilliantlight]

The Abyss, in fact, is not a plane of punishment (atleast in the 3.5 edition).

If Belkar were to be sent there after death, a more likely scenario would be that he may be come a slave or warrior for some demonic army (or be trapped in one of the more inhospitable layers of that plane).

If Rich is looking for a "hell" that Belkar can be put in, the best option would be the Tarterian depths of Carceri

It is a plane that can best be described by this quote of it:

"It is said that a prisoner of Carceri may only escape when she has become stronger than whatever imprisoned her there. That's a difficult task on a plane whose very nature breeds despair, betrayal, and self-hatred."

That sounds like the only punishment Belkar would understand.


You are also punished in the Abyss, you are just not imprisoned. It is full of demons that get kicks torturing you and the environment is always nasty in one way or another such as too hot, too cold, acidic etc.

[Querzis]

You are also punished in the Abyss, you are just not imprisoned. It is full of demons that get kicks torturing you and the environment is always nasty in one way or another such as too hot, too cold, acidic etc.

Well the first and most important punishement Belkar would get is that he would lose all his levels and become nothing more then a weak manes. That will really piss him off. Then the «getting tortured in many ways» happens.

[Zolem]

You know, I've never quite under stood why everyone HAS to be either eternally damned, or be in heaven for eternity. That makes no sense.


Which is why it doens't exist in Christianity. WE have this lovly thing called Purgatory where you go if you weren't good, but not evil, and you pray there and meditate untill you are purified and allowed into Heaven. Only the truly wicked with no remorse are ever sent to Hell, and even then Jesus attemts to rescue them.

[FujinAkari]

The sicken effect is only for good characters. A neutral V would merely be wounded, and would be able to cast spells or whatever. V, however, is overwhelmed, which classifies V as Good, not Neutral.

Being sickened would not cause V to lose the ability to cast spell, it would merely cause him to take a -2 penalty to his skill checks. Therefore, his "being overwhelmed by pure evil" and being unable to cast is obviously not a sicked effect.

Your arguement is flawed. And as pointed out before, the OOTS boardgame -specifically- and -explicitly- defines V as Neutral.

[Zolem]

Your arguement is flawed. And as pointed out before, the OOTS boardgame -specifically- and -explicitly- defines V as Neutral.

True Neutral or Lawful Neutral, because I've laways felt that V was Lawful Neutral. Where people are coming up with Chaotic I have no freaking idea. Look at her actions. She's meticulously detailed, and when Haley shot the riddle guy, V pointed out how much she hated it by referencing the Gordian Knot and basicly saying that she hates free-form thinking. She tries to logicaly solve problems, and is interested in the aquisition of knowledge to further her own power. She's not evil, but she's certanly not good either, willing to ignore the suffering of the dirt farmers, the Azurites, and the Orc-captives because they didn't directly benefit her.

[SoC175]

You are also punished in the Abyss, you are just not imprisoned. It is full of demons that get kicks torturing you and the environment is always nasty in one way or another such as too hot, too cold, acidic etc.
But the punishment is only a side effect and not the objective.

The Abyss merely collects most CE souls and then they'e supposed to be rewared with being able to continue doing what they liked during live (aka being CE to each other).

This of course entails hurting each other, so it can be seen as a punishment if you're too weak to be one of the guys doing the hurting and thus are one of the guys being hurt.

If you're strong enough to deal pain instead of being dealed pain, then you're not punished at all.

Many evil mortals have climbed to the hights of power in the Abyss, the likes of Orcus, Baphoment and their ilk certainly don't feel punished

[Lira]

The sicken effect is only for good characters. A neutral V would merely be wounded, and would be able to cast spells or whatever. V, however, is overwhelmed, which classifies V as Good, not Neutral.David, if you want to prove anything, dont use any strip before at least 30. There was no real plot at first, Rich never intended to do such a great story with those joke strip.I agree with Querzis. I believe Rich changed his mind about V's alignment as the strip progressed. [This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6043)] topic supports my "Rich changed his mind" theory. In the topic, the topic starter claimed that Rich told everyone that all members of the OOTS are good except for Belkar (who is evil). Then Rich posts saying that's not true and he never said that. Someone else posts after, providing a quote of where Rich said that. The Giant posts again saying:
Huh. Well, I guess I did say it.

Lucky for me, my comments on the message board aren't canon and I'm allowed to change my mind later.

Nyah nyah. :PNow, who would he have changed his mind about? Belkar's still evil. Haley, Durkon, Roy and Elan are still good. V's alignment has not been stated yet... so the logical conclusion is that he changed his mind about V and made V not good.

[The Extinguisher]

Sure, you were an evil wizard who spent his life slaughtering innocents and spreading destruction and evil, but what have you done for Asmodeus lately?

[David Argall]

Therefore, his "being overwhelmed by pure evil" and being unable to cast is obviously not a sicked effect.
It is not sickened by pure D&D rules, but as we have now been reminded, it is sickened by OOTS D&D rules. We see it is clearly established by the writer's statement that V was Good in strip 11. So the claim has to be that her alignment has changed and we don't have any evidence that he is any different.


as pointed out before, the OOTS boardgame -specifically- and -explicitly- defines V as Neutral.
Game & strip are different things. While my knowledge of the game is limited, I would suspect there are items/situations/... where being good/evil is an advantage/handicap. That in turn means that a neutral character is an obvious part of the game, and V is the obvious candidate to make neutral, whatever the strip alignment.



I believe Rich changed his mind about V's alignment as the strip progressed. [This] topic supports my "Rich changed his mind" theory. In the topic, the topic starter claimed that Rich told everyone that all members of the OOTS are good except for Belkar (who is evil). Then Rich posts saying that's not true and he never said that. Someone else posts after, providing a quote of where Rich said that. The Giant posts again saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Giant
Huh. Well, I guess I did say it.

Lucky for me, my comments on the message board aren't canon and I'm allowed to change my mind later.

Nyah nyah. :P

Now, who would he have changed his mind about?
Nobody.
Recall V's sex here. It is presumed by many that V started male, but was switched to indefinite. Our writer never admits this, and is at pains to counter any suggestion of a clear result.
The same is true of several other points. Our author has a habit, indeed a duty, to keep us in the dark/confused/or wrong about a number of points. He does not post merely to correct our errors, but sometimes to create errors. [Not to mention that he is human, and he may not realize, much less mean, exactly what he said until we point it out.]
So drawing conclusions from "hints" is dangerous. Saying he might have changed his mind does not mean he has.



if you want to prove anything, dont use any strip before at least 30. There was no real plot at first, Rich never intended to do such a great story with those joke strip.
As noted before, our writer very obviously was thinking long term long before 30. The belt of sex change shows us this, as does the plot exposition in 13. And we have our writer on record as having done a lot of planning before he even started the comic. This is just not a case of "You know, these comics have done great. Why not make an extended story with these characters?" The story came first.

And even if you somehow still believe for some really odd reason that V is good, how can you believe hes chaotic for no other reason then elves are usually chaotic good? Halfling are usually good too, is that supposed to change Belkar alignement?[/QUOTE]
Halflings are usually neutral. See the MM. However, the point would be that we are left in no doubt that Belkar is evil. We of course did have those determined to not believe, but just as 11 shows us the rest are good, it shows us Belkar is evil. We are told this, but we are not told that V is anything other than good.



I gave four pieces of evidence for V not being good.
Well, let's look at the others.


-S/he's unwilling to help the dirt farmers when there's more important stuff to do. Not Evil maybe, but not Good in the slightest
Being willing to be deflected from the main good for the sake of some trivial good can be classified as Stupid Good. Saving one child while letting hundreds die is good only in the mind of those who just don't understand that you can't do two things at once. V shows a desire to help. That is sufficient here.


-Cheers at Miko's supposed death. Being happy because someone died isn't a very Good thing to do.
But where do we see evidence that any of the others feel different?


-S/he's willing to see things from Belkar's perspective once in a while.
You can't be good if you can't see things from the perspective of others.
In the case in question, we might note that Haley does not reject cutting Nale's throat on the grounds it would be evil, but on grounds of it not being effective. Now Haley does reject one idea as unacceptably evil, but so does V.


-S/he's more focused on overcoming whatever blocks his/her magic than on helping defenseless people on the boats and otherwise relping the survivors from Azure City.
If she can contact Haley, and thus Roy, he can get this attempt to save the world back on the rails. So save a few people who don't really need the help? Or save the world? Sounds like an easy case for the greater mission. Now we can argue the details here, but the fact is that we need to argue the details. Her refusal to help does not of itself mean he is not good.

[The Extinguisher]

I may be wrong, but I thought the author clearly said that Durkon was the only one sickened. He is the only one who is visibily different from the rest.

Which means he's the only definite good character, as of that strip.

[AlexanderRM]

Which is why it doens't exist in Christianity. WE have this lovly thing called Purgatory where you go if you weren't good, but not evil, and you pray there and meditate untill you are purified and allowed into Heaven. Only the truly wicked with no remorse are ever sent to Hell, and even then Jesus attemts to rescue them.
Yeah, but nobody pays attention to that. I've heard of that a few times, but as often as not it's only temporary, where you have to prove that you're good enough to go to heaven (hence the fact that the name is based around the word "Purge").

And on the note of Vs' alignment- David Argalls' points make it sound as if V is CG, or possibly NG (Or "good" in fourth edition rules). Since V also shows lawfulness (such as the unhealthy devotion to finding Haley), that sounds more like NG to me.

[FujinAkari]

We see it is clearly established by the writer's statement that V was Good in strip 11.

We also have it clearly established that the writer's words should not be considered canon. I love how you take evidence WHICH RICH HIMSELF SPECIFIES TO IGNORE and use it to bolster your claim.


So the claim has to be that her alignment has changed and we don't have any evidence that he is any different.

Other than Rich explicitly saying that his statements about the alignment is no longer accurate?


Game & strip are different things. While my knowledge of the game is limited, I would suspect there are items/situations/... where being good/evil is an advantage/handicap. That in turn means that a neutral character is an obvious part of the game, and V is the obvious candidate to make neutral, whatever the strip alignment.

Your ignorance of the game is showing. Alignment has absolutely no effect other than flavor and this statement of you -desperately- trying to wave away canon because it destroys your argument, despite admittedly having no basis for your justification, only proves how weak your argument is.


So drawing conclusions from "hints" is dangerous. Saying he might have changed his mind does not mean he has.

This is sounding dangerously like your "I don't have to prove I'm right, I just have to prove that God himself has not smote the Rock Of Ages with an emblazoned message that I am incorrect."

You have a tendency to do this. You base your argument on the flimsiest of evidence (including, again, evidence which is known to be unreliable. Yes, I know I keep saying it, but its just SO telling...) and then demand an unreasonable level of certainty from anyone disagreeing with you.


As noted before, our writer very obviously was thinking long term long before 30. The belt of sex change shows us this, as does the plot exposition in 13. And we have our writer on record as having done a lot of planning before he even started the comic. This is just not a case of "You know, these comics have done great. Why not make an extended story with these characters?" The story came first.

Yes indeed. And yet when the author releases an official product which lists V as neutral, or when the author states that he never said that everyone except Belkar was good, THOSE comments somehow don't count... only the author's (explicitly unreliable! ... ok, I'll stop) comments which actually support you seem to count.

No David, thats a bad argument. You can't pick and choose which canon to accept. You have to go by all of it, and as specified V's reaction isn't consistent with being sickened (Durkon's is, notice how he's actually sick?)


We are told this, but we are not told that V is anything other than good.

We also aren't told he is good. Again, look at Durkon. He is having a much more adverse reaction than everyone else. He can't talk and looks stunned. Logic dictates that -this- is sickened, since the spell does not allow more than two negative effects (hp loss and sickened status)

[Lupy]

Whoa. This is like the Pro-Miko thread 2. David versus Fujin.

Fujin Akari has you beat here though David, up until about the Chimera and prophecy, the story was nonexistant, everything before that is overridden. Besides that, a newer source trumps everything but Word-of-Giant.

[AlexanderRM]

We also have it clearly established that the writer's words should not be considered canon. I love how you take evidence WHICH RICH HIMSELF SPECIFIES TO IGNORE and use it to bolster your claim.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're using a statement that what rich says on the forums is not canon as a reason why an official comic is not canon?




Yes indeed. And yet when the author releases an official product which lists V as neutral, or when the author states that he never said that everyone except Belkar was good, THOSE comments somehow don't count... only the author's (explicitly unreliable! ... ok, I'll stop) comments which actually support you seem to count.

This is mildly confusing, but I'm just going to go with the statement about what rich says on the forums to mean "anything but the comic". You can have your own interpretation of that, but if that's the case, there's no point in arguing.
You know, I wonder if Vs' alignment is deliberately ambiguous, just like Vs' gender. It would have to have been decided after the game came out, but it's still a possibility...

No David, thats a bad argument. You can't pick and choose which canon to accept. You have to go by all of it, and as specified V's reaction isn't consistent with being sickened (Durkon's is, notice how he's actually sick?)[/QUOTE]
And notice how the other three definitely good characters are not? I'd guess that sickened is a result of being a cleric. Someone remind me when not having levels in cleric made one neutral? I'm pretty sure V had just about the same reaction as Roy, Haley, and Elan.

[Kish]

I'm more mystified by the other half of the claim the Vaarsuvius is Chaotic Good, myself.

[The Extinguisher]

And notice how the other three definitely good characters are not? I'd guess that sickened is a result of being a cleric. Someone remind me when not having levels in cleric made one neutral? I'm pretty sure V had just about the same reaction as Roy, Haley, and Elan.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm


A successful Will save reduces damage to half and negates the sickened effect

Emphasis mine.

[FujinAkari]

Unless I'm mistaken, you're using a statement that what rich says on the forums is not canon as a reason why an official comic is not canon?

You are quite mistaken.

There is nothing in the comic which says V is good. All we see is that V, Roy, Haley, and Elan are taken damage, while Durkon is taking damage and getting hit by a status effect, and Belkar is uneffected. This shows that Durkon is Good, Belkar is evil, and the rest are either neutral or good.

I am saying that Rich's statement that Belkar is the only non-good OOTSter shouldn't be considered valid, as Rich himself states that it isn't canon.


You know, I wonder if Vs' alignment is deliberately ambiguous, just like Vs' gender. It would have to have been decided after the game came out, but it's still a possibility...

Not likely... else why would he define it as Neutral when he made the Boardgame?


And notice how the other three definitely good characters are not? I'd guess that sickened is a result of being a cleric. Someone remind me when not having levels in cleric made one neutral? I'm pretty sure V had just about the same reaction as Roy, Haley, and Elan.

As Axel pointed out, the spell allows the characters to make their will save and avoid the sickened effect. I'm not saying the comic proves V is neutral, I'm saying that David is wrong for claiming that it proves he is Good. Then the Giant later confirms neutral in the boardgame and many of V's later actions.

[Querzis]

I'm more mystified by the other half of the claim the Vaarsuvius is Chaotic Good, myself.

Yeah I know. You have to be optimist and forgiving to think V is good but, hey, I understand why a V fans could think that. After all, hes definitly not a bad guy either. But the chaotic part just stun me. What the hell does V ever did thats supposed to be chaotic? Of course, he didnt do much thing I would consider Lawfull either but at least, with his speech patterns and his methodical actions, I can understand people who think he might be lawfull.

But chaotic? Just what the hell?

Anyway, this is so ridiculous. Even if we dont bring in the «Rich changed his mind» the «it was in strip 11» or the «Rich said V was neutral in the board game», there is no evidence V was even sickened in the first place. And then there is the entire comic where V is shown as quite merciless and cruel sometimes as well as caring about nothing else then his friends. But it doesnt matter, this is David Argall. Even if V would flat out say hes TN, it still woudnt change anything, hes just gonna ignore it by saying that its not because V think hes TN that he is. So please Fujin, ignore him. Always just ignore him because everytimes it just end up with ten pages of pointless debates where he says the same things again and again with any kind of proof. I know its hard Fujin but just dont pay attention to him.

So, the original subject of the thread was the different afterlife and I hope we can agree that Rich probably use the D&D planes since Roy is clearly in Celestia right now. If someone think I'm wrong, then please reply. As long as you dont talk about the characters alignement, I'll be happy to argue with you.

[David Argall]

up until about the Chimera and prophecy, the story was nonexistant, everything before that is overridden.
So why is 15 the start of the story, and 13, which gives the plot for the next 100 strips, is not? Why doesn't #9, which foreshadows events over 200 strips away, show there is a story going on already?



We also have it clearly established that the writer's words should not be considered canon. I love how you take evidence WHICH RICH HIMSELF SPECIFIES TO IGNORE and use it to bolster your claim.
There is no specification to ignore anything. Rather, there is merely an admission that no statement in the forum can be considered absolute canon. It is subject to later "correction".
Our writer denied he had said something, was shown he had, and acknowledged that, also giving a hint that the earlier information might be no longer correct.

Your theory pretty much says that our writer lied to us. Not mistaken or confused, but a direct lie.

Our author said " in strip #11, everyone but Belkar was sickened by an Unholy Blight spell cast by an evil goblin cleric. Therefore, everyone in the party is of Good alignment except Belkar."
Simple statement.

We assume with good reason he was merely mistaken in saying he had not said it, but the statement about 11 was made with malice and foresight, so to speak. Our writer knew he had assigned V an alignment, and reported to us that it was Good. So that was either true, or he lied. V's alignment may have changed since that date, but as of 11, and possibly after some of the other events used to "prove" V is not good, you may only say V was not good if you say our author was lying to us.

Quote:
So the claim has to be that her alignment has changed and we don't have any evidence that he is any different.


Other than Rich explicitly saying that his statements about the alignment is no longer accurate?
Again, this is a misquote. He does not say they are at all incorrect, merely that he will not be held to them.

Quote:
So drawing conclusions from "hints" is dangerous. Saying he might have changed his mind does not mean he has.


This is sounding dangerously like your "I don't have to prove I'm right, I just have to prove that God himself has not smote the Rock Of Ages with an emblazoned message that I am incorrect."
Well, since that would be proving a negative, I don't have to prove that either.

And you have yet to challenge the actual argument. Saying I am a jerk is not an answer.



when the author releases an official product which lists V as neutral,
See 475 for a view on how binding other products are on the strip.



or when the author states that he never said that everyone except Belkar was good, THOSE comments somehow don't count...
Well of course not. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, he acknowledged that statement was in error.



You can't pick and choose which canon to accept. You have to go by all of it, and as specified V's reaction isn't consistent with being sickened (Durkon's is, notice how he's actually sick?)
Once again, we have the admitted author statement "everyone but Belkar was sickened".
And we have the reactions of Haley, Elan, and Roy, who also have reactions like V's. We also have the statement of the evil cleric that they are pure.



I thought the author clearly said that Durkon was the only one sickened. He is the only one who is visibily different from the rest.
" in strip #11, everyone but Belkar was sickened by an Unholy Blight spell cast by an evil goblin cleric. Therefore, everyone in the party is of Good alignment except Belkar."
All of the good members of the party react as if the spell hampers them in some serious way. Durkon merely does not say anything. A distinction between them is highly artificial.

[FujinAkari]

And your response is to CONTINUE to base your argument on a statement which Rich has explicitly stated is not reliable.

You lose the argument David, your argument has a foundation less substantive than clouds, and when challenged you -continue- to cling to your nonargument. Since you can't expand upon what I already defeated, there is no reason to continue.

Thank you for your point of view.

[AlexanderRM]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm


Emphasis mine.
So, wait, the cleric was the only one who failed his will save? With a good will progression and wisdom as his most important ability, that's some really bad luck he's having. Either that or the other characters are having really good luck.
OR, it could be that the Giant doesn't care about the exact rules.





I am saying that Rich's statement that Belkar is the only non-good OOTSter shouldn't be considered valid, as Rich himself states that it isn't canon.

Not likely... else why would he define it as Neutral when he made the Boardgame?

It's amazing how you not only say that a statement by the author is invalid while basing your argument around a board game, but also whine at David for doing a similar thing with two author statements.


But, anyway, this is going to wind up with nothing actually gained, as is off-topic anyway.

[FujinAkari]

So, wait, the cleric was the only one who failed his will save? With a good will progression and wisdom as his most important ability, that's some really bad luck he's having. Either that or the other characters are having really good luck.
OR, it could be that the Giant doesn't care about the exact rules.

Random numbers are random :).

Actually, it has been pretty clearly shown that when Rich drew that strip he -did- plan for all the non-Belkar characters to be good and later changed his mind. (actually, one could argue even Belkar's initial characterization was meant to be good... notice how unusual he acts in the Early Comics (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0008.html)) I am unsure whether he went back and editted in the swirl above Durkon's head in order to make V's neutrality be consistent with this strip or if that was always there, but my point was that the strip -itself- is not as clear as David was claiming, and the only thing that makes it clear is a forum statement which Rich has since declared unreliable.


It's amazing how you not only say that a statement by the author is invalid while basing your argument around a board game, but also whine at David for doing a similar thing with two author statements.

Actually, Rich is the one who says that the statement David is citing is invalid, not me. I tend to think of all of his statements on the forums constitute canon, albeit the lowest degree of canon. However, when Rich expressly denies having said a statement, and then when shown that he did indeed say it replies "Oh... well I can change my mind, pbbbt!" I no longer consider that statement ironclad.

Effectively, my interpretation of canon is this: The actual comic > Book Commentary > Additional Products (Board Game & Dragon Comics) > Forum Clairifications. David's argument is based upon the lowest form of canon and is further weakened by picking a post which Rich has explicitly stated to be unreliable, yet when I point this out to him, his response is to entrench, and dig deeper into his argument, despite its premise being flawed.

My argument is based on the comic itself (V shows many Neutral acts, while very few good... other than his concern for his friends, I can't ever think of any decidedly good things he does, other than actions the entire group does. He doesn't want to save the dirt farmers, can't be bothered to help fight the sea trolls, refuses to stop his research to save Lien, and frequently allows his allies to be exploded by explosive rune spells.) In short, he has developed into a Neutral Character.

This argument is supported by the boardgame, wherein Rich explicitly defines him as a Neutral Character.

As I said above, David's argument isn't -bad-, its just dated. V likely -was- conceived as a Good Character, but it is clear that that initial conception has since changed, and the -only- substantive evidence David has to support his claim is a post which Rich has since specified to ignore.

[brilliantlight]

But the punishment is only a side effect and not the objective.

The Abyss merely collects most CE souls and then they'e supposed to be rewared with being able to continue doing what they liked during live (aka being CE to each other).

This of course entails hurting each other, so it can be seen as a punishment if you're too weak to be one of the guys doing the hurting and thus are one of the guys being hurt.

If you're strong enough to deal pain instead of being dealed pain, then you're not punished at all.

Many evil mortals have climbed to the hights of power in the Abyss, the likes of Orcus, Baphoment and their ilk certainly don't feel punished

They certainly aren't happy either. Demogorgan is insane and one of his two heads wants to find a way to seperate from his other one. Jubilex hates everything and revels only in destruction. Orcus hates everything even the undead and is full of nothing but revulsion and loathing at all times. Yeeneghu and Grraz'zt are the only two which MAY (Because it doesn't say they do) not hate everything else according to the BOVD.

[FrankNorman]

A question or two here about Belkar's future place-of-residence...

From the WikiPedia artitle on D&D's "Abyss":
The petitioners (souls of the dead who have been sent to the layer for the afterlife) of the Abyss are called manes, and they are the lowest caste of the Tanar'ri. They have pale white skin, sharp teeth and claws, and maggots are reported to crawl through their flesh. Manes that survive for many years may be promoted to greater forms of demon. Extremely clever, lucky ones that survive for millennia may even eventually become Demon Lords. The Demon Lord Orcus is one such demon lord who began as a mane.

Ick.

Question: How do you pronounce "manes"? Is like "mains" or "may-nes"?

Second question: I see the "Manes that survive for... " etc. Okay, that implies that some of them do NOT "survive" - in fact that the long-lasting ones are the exception. So what happens to the non-surviving ones? They get eaten? Go somewhere else? Become one with the "plane" itself?

[Sir_Norbert]

"Manes" is a Latin word, so, following the standard rules for pronunciation of Latin loanwords in English, it would be "may-neez".

EDIT: I've been wondering what, if anything, the correct singular of the word is, and found this: http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/Manes

[SoC175]

They certainly aren't happy either. [...] Orcus hates everything even the undead and is full of nothing but revulsion and loathing at all times.
The question is if they ever were "happy" before. I don't think so, because otherwise they wouldn't have been so mean. So I believe that Orcus already hated everything while being a mortal (Demogorgon and Juiblex never were mortals AFAIK) and since he did such a "good" job hating everyone he was ultimately rewared with becoming a cosmic power that hates everyone

So the Abyss didn't make him any unhappier, it just gave him ultimate cosmic power to live out his already exisiting unhappyness

[tribble]

Heh, The existence of this thread shows how much I know about D&D, I assumed that GMs made up the appearence of most planes themselves.:elan:moment!

[David Argall]

What the hell does V ever did thats supposed to be chaotic? Of course, he didnt do much thing I would consider Lawfull either but at least, with his speech patterns and his methodical actions, I can understand people who think he might be lawfull.

But chaotic? Just what the hell?
He's an elf. The default alignment is CG. You acknowledge she has done much that ranks as lawful, so the default rules.


Anyway, this is so ridiculous. Even if we dont bring in the «Rich changed his mind» the «it was in strip 11» or the «Rich said V was neutral in the board game», there is no evidence V was even sickened in the first place.
?? This is the dog bite defense ["My dog was provoked, my dog acted in self defense, my dog was unable to bite due to age, My dog was in my house. I don't have a dog."] When you say our writer changed his mind, you are saying V was shown as sickened. Quite simply, you contradict yourself.


And then there is the entire comic where V is shown as quite merciless and cruel sometimes as well as caring about nothing else then his friends.
You might mention which one. If you refer to her defending Belkar from Miko, we can note the rest of the party shared the same attitude.


this is David Argall. So please Fujin, ignore him.

And this is argument against the person, a classic fallacy.



your response is to CONTINUE to base your argument on a statement which Rich has explicitly stated is not reliable.
Please show where he has said that. On the face of it, he has said quite the opposite, acknowledging the denial was in fact the invalid statement.


You lose the argument David,
Since you can't expand upon what I already defeated, there is no reason to continue.
This seems to be the Vietnam tactic. Declare victory and run home.


Actually, it has been pretty clearly shown that when Rich drew that strip he -did- plan for all the non-Belkar characters to be good and later changed his mind.
So you are acknowledging you have been in error for several postings.


(actually, one could argue even Belkar's initial characterization was meant to be good... notice how unusual he acts in the Early Comics)
From the first, he is shown as angry and hostile, distinctly consistent with being next shown as evil.



I am unsure whether he went back and editted in the swirl above Durkon's head in order to make V's neutrality be consistent with this strip or if that was always there,
That you have to suggest editing of a degree undocumented in this strip should show how speculative your position is.



my point was that the strip -itself- is not as clear as David was claiming, and the only thing that makes it clear is a forum statement which Rich has since declared unreliable.
Again, what statement was that? The writer said that V was good, and then forgot he said so. Caught on that point, he merely hinted that V might not be Good now. He in no way can be said to have denied that V was Good in the past.


Actually, Rich is the one who says that the statement David is citing is invalid, not me. I tend to think of all of his statements on the forums constitute canon, albeit the lowest degree of canon. However, when Rich expressly denies having said a statement, and then when shown that he did indeed say it replies "Oh... well I can change my mind, pbbbt!" I no longer consider that statement ironclad.
But this is quite different from saying V was neutral in #11.


can't be bothered to help fight the sea trolls,
See 507.


frequently allows his allies to be exploded by explosive rune spells.
Frequently? Just about all these cases are of Belkar, and are with the knowledge of the LG Durkon. While we can argue Durkon does not show enthusiasm for the idea, he does show support, not anything that can be deemed opposition.


This argument is supported by the boardgame, wherein Rich explicitly defines him as a Neutral Character.
And the game is simply a different product. It does not rank as canon.


V likely -was- conceived as a Good Character,
Which is a rejection of all your previous analysis of strip 11.

[FujinAkari]

Which is a rejection of all your previous analysis of strip 11.

Yes, because I update my argument as more evidence is brought forward. You might want to try it sometime ^_^