Therkla's Alignment [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Johel

2008-08-10, 10:23 AM

Ok, let's eliminate.

She is NOT Chaotic because... well, she is REALLY loyal to Kubota. Ok, since Elan entered her life, thinks have changed but she still hesitate to betray her master. And do not forget this strip which sum it up :
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0562.html
+ what she said in this one :
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0582.html

She is NOT Good. Come on, she was ready to save Elan but abandon the rest of the exploring party back on Orc Island !! Same thing in the 582th comic : she is ready to stab Elan for not wanting to date her. And it's not an impulsive reaction, she seems calm enough !!

So, not Good, not Chaotic, that let us Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and True Neutral.

She does not enjoy her evil acts, so she is NOT Neural Evil
Maybe Lawful Evil but I'm not sure. I mean, to compare, let's take Kubota who is CLEARLY Lawful Evil. I don't think Therkla is that kind of personne.

I think she is Lawful Neutral. After all, being selfish is not being Evil.
For me, it's more the fact of enjoying doing evil stuff who make you evil (thought it's difficult to judge, I admit...).

Elan COULD have made her become True Neutral but with his "wrong" answer, she will remain Kubota's tool.

Yendor

2008-08-10, 10:29 AM

Lawful Evil. She was perfectly willing to let Durkon, Daigo and Lien be killed, and only relented because Elan wanted them saved. She's in service to a clearly Lawful Evil master. She weaseled out of trouble by following Kubota's exact orders, a Lawful act he warmly approved of. And she hid herself when Lien cast Detect Evil, so she's clearly got something to hide.

Morty

2008-08-10, 10:31 AM

2008-08-10, 10:35 AM

She's in service to a clearly Lawful Evil masterWho she didn't hesitate to betray as soon as Elan batted an eyelash at her

Sylian

2008-08-10, 10:44 AM

Lawful or Neutral Evil. Evil is a given... She kills people because her master tells her to.

disorder

2008-08-10, 11:30 AM

I think she is Lawful Neutral. After all, being selfish is not being Evil.
For me, it's more the fact of enjoying doing evil stuff who make you evil (thought it's difficult to judge, I admit...)
No. People who enjoy evil acts for their own sake may be particularly vile, but committing them under your employer's orders is still evil.

I might be able to imagine calling Therkla Lawful Neutral if she only assassinated Kubota's noble rivals -- from what we've seen of Azurian politics, weathering ninja attacks is an accepted part of a noble's job description.

But we saw Therkla help to lead the sea-troll attack on civilian wedding guests, providing a diversion as more trolls slaughtered boats full of civilian fishermen. And apparently this was the latest in a long series of such attacks. Therkla doesn't have to enjoy these acts to be evil; she simply has to do them.

Granted, she's Endearing Evil at times...but that's nothing new; Rich's villains are complex characters, and a lot of them have likable sides.

brilliantlight

2008-08-10, 12:06 PM

I would say she is LE and in love (or at least lust) of Elan. She doesn't have to be lawful 100% of the time to be lawful or kill babies for kicks to be evil. A very lawful person can do unlawful things when desperate enough and a very evil person can do good things from time to time because of loyalty to his family or other things.

Lissou

2008-08-10, 01:05 PM

I'd say Neutral Evil, because she was quite to decide not to follow her master's orders, rather than have a moral dilemma about it from the start. Although Lawful Evil wouldn't completely shock me.

Zordrath

2008-08-10, 02:41 PM

Neutral evil, because she doesn't really seem to care about any laws or order that much, and was willing to abandon her master in favor of Elan. She also did enjoy some of her evil acts, such as killing that ninja at school who had better marks than her.

AceOfFools

2008-08-10, 05:08 PM

Exactly, she doesn't just kill because told to, she kills for personal profit/pride as well. Evil, check.

LE like to belong to part of a larger organization. It gives them meaning (and cleaner consciences). Sound familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0582.html)?

Their alignment is also referred to as the dominator, and linked to a desire to rule the world. She doesn't seem to fit that bit quite as much.

NE are selfish, caring for the system only so far as it can be manipulated for your own gain. Sound familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0563.html)?

CE are selfish in the extreme. They follow only the orders that they enjoy, or out of fear (or greed). They're independent, enjoying the freedom to do whatever want, especially satisfying their sadistic urges. Sound familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/s0563.html)?

Ultimately, I don't think we have enough insight into this character to say for sure exactly where she sits on the law-chaos axis.

She's also going through something of a moral dilemma, considering major changes to her lifestyle. So she may be in the middle of a transition, and thus may blur alignments.

Johel

2008-08-10, 06:39 PM

...
NE are selfish, caring for the system only so far as it can be manipulated for your own gain. Sound familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0563.html)?

CE are selfish in the extreme. They follow only the orders that they enjoy, or out of fear (or greed). They're independent, enjoying the freedom to do whatever want, especially satisfying their sadistic urges. Sound familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/s0563.html)?

...I fail to see your point here. Either it's not the good comic URL or I missed something. The only thing remotely linked to Therkla on 00563 is Shark-Paladin-I-don't-know-her-name asking to speak to Hinjo.

Yes, Therkla is selfish but not evil. For the "She helped Elan but not the others back on Orc Island", Come on !! She barely know them and would have no interest in helping them (except for Elan). It's not evil, it's mere neutral, like "not helping somebody because I don't know him and it's not my problem". Not good, not evil, just neutral.

If she had ask for more torture then watch it for her amusement, then it would have been evil. Just letting people to die is not being evil. It's being a jerk and any Neutral character would have done the same because "It's not my business".

For me, Therkla is Lawful Neutral. She can act good as well as evil but whenever she does it, she is neither prood of it (for good deeds) nor enjoying it (for wrong deeds). Maybe Lawful Evil for the "End justifies the means" side but definitely NOT CE or NE.

EDIT : I just saw the post of Disorder regarding the nature of evil and the example of Seatroll's attack. Well, she might be more evil than I thought regarding this. (targeting boats full of civilians just for the attack to seems random IS evil, okl).
So, Lawful Evil it is, then ?

Jigsaw Forte

2008-08-10, 06:45 PM

I would fully class her as "Lawful Selfish".

Whether you choose to dub that Evil or not is up to you.

Toadie

2008-08-10, 08:12 PM

That could be a potentially good debate, but this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html) strip makes it clear she's evil, as otherwise she wouldn't be afraid of Lien's Detect Evil. Her position on Law/Chaos axis is less clear.
EDIT: Arg, beaten to it.

Not necessarly...

1. She's a ninja - the less known about her the better. Given that she has higher int than :thog: (and she definetly does) she knows the rule.

2. She might not like the fact that some of her companions might see her as not evil.

Her actions to me are not evil. I'd go for True Neutral. Good she is not. Lawful - no as she has loyalty dilemma. Chaotic - no. Her actions follows some rules and are rather explainable.

brilliantlight

2008-08-10, 08:45 PM

She is clearly evil, she is an assassin for crying out loud!! I would say lawful as neither NE or CE would have a dilemma at all. Just because she is lawful doesn't mean she can't have chaotic feelings from time to time. Are you consistent in your actions 100% of the time? A well written character will be inconsistent in his actions from time to time.

blackspeeker

2008-08-10, 09:05 PM

2. She might not like the fact that some of her companions might see her as not evil.

Say what? Her companions weren't there for one and for two only Lien would have known, she is clearly afraid of Elan finding out she is evil, that and being killed by the last of The Sapphire Guard.

David Argall

2008-08-10, 09:15 PM

LE seems the leading candidate. She's an assassin, and an ninja interested in honor, a lawful concept.

Toadie

2008-08-10, 09:18 PM

Are you sure Lien would be the only one to see that? This is a comic after all. You can tell if someone is dead when it's eyes turn into x's(Durkon's notice about Roy), so if the whole Therkla's figure turns red... Provided she is evil. If she's not it's still some truth revealed about her that doesn't go along with ninja nature. The less you know about me the better.

About the companions - it was a wild guess.

krossbow

2008-08-10, 09:28 PM

Just because your evil doesn't mean you can't fall in love. Hell, look at sabine and Nale.

Look, if having feelings for someone makes you good, then Elan's mother and father would never have gotten together, because, he being evil, would have been unable to feel love.

brilliantlight

2008-08-10, 09:31 PM

tribble

2008-08-10, 09:33 PM

She is clearly evil, she is an assassin for crying out loud!!
What? Have you lost your mind? Have you ever heard of Zaknafein? He is Drizzt Do'Urden's daddy, and he is the one who put Drizzt on the path of good. know something else? he was an assassin. Now I agree Therkla is evil, but saying, "Oh she's an assassin, she must be evil" is not a legitimate argument.

Toadie

2008-08-10, 09:36 PM

I would argue here if it was love that gave birth to Elan and Nale.

I believe that Therkla by showing her emotions shows what's she really like. Drops the ninja hoody and speaks out the truth, what she doesn't do in front of, let's say, Kubota.

brilliantlight

2008-08-10, 09:42 PM

What? Have you lost your mind? Have you ever heard of Zaknafein? He is Drizzt Do'Urden's daddy, and he is the one who put Drizzt on the path of good. know something else? he was an assassin. Now I agree Therkla is evil, but saying, "Oh she's an assassin, she must be evil" is not a legitimate argument.

IIRC Zak was sort of resigned evil. He actually did evil things but wished he didn't have to. I would say he was NE leaning neutral. If he had a real way out he probably would have wound up neutral or better.

Fish

2008-08-10, 09:56 PM

Lawful Evil. ... She's in service to a clearly Lawful Evil master.

Elan is in service to a clearly Lawful master. Elan is demonstrating loyalty and fidelity to his girlfriend Haley. OMG, Elan is Lawful.

Look, these threads are pointless. Alignments do not govern absolutely everything a person does in every situation. Alignments are not straitjackets.

Graymayre

2008-08-10, 10:00 PM

Agreed, Therkla is a half orc in love and that can make you do things you do not normally do.

Which part? the fact that she is in love or the fact she is Half-orc? :smallbiggrin:

brilliantlight

2008-08-10, 10:00 PM

Elan is in service to a clearly Lawful master. Elan is demonstrating loyalty and fidelity to his girlfriend Haley. OMG, Elan is Lawful.

Look, these threads are pointless. Alignments do not govern absolutely everything a person does in every situation. Alignments are not straitjackets.

Agreed, you have to look at patterns. Elan has a pattern of being chaotic but loyal to his friends including Roy. Threlka has a pattern of being lawful except when dealing with Elan. Elan is CG and Threlka is LE. Sort of a reverse of Elan's mom and dad.

disorder

2008-08-11, 01:19 AM

Are you consistent in your actions 100% of the time?
Absolutely.

For decades now, people have been saying about me, "he's the sort of person who, on the evening of August 10, 2008, will be drinking beer and writing a snarky post on GITP, when he really should be working."

It's been a code that's shaped my life, really.

Kurald Galain

2008-08-11, 02:17 AM

No, she's definitely lawful good, just like Thog and Belkar.

...what?

Gravedjinn

2008-08-11, 08:25 AM

She is Belkars half sisster!!!!!

hehehe.
No really I would say that she is NE....
Most of what she does she doesnt really have a stake in.
She is a half orc assasin so we are for sure stuck with evil.
However with her standard actions through out she has show alot of neutral behaviors of more HER way overideing evil tendency.
I think this last comic shows that with how she went about asking elan for a date.
she tried the nice way first just asking for her chance when that failed she resorted to her evil side.

Haleyintraining

2008-08-11, 09:19 AM

Would that mean she is half-halfling, half orc, or that Belkar is half human, half halfling?

Sylian

2008-08-11, 09:19 AM

"Oh she's an assassin, she must be evil" is not a legitimate argument.
Actually, it is. Murdering innocents is evil. Being a good assassin? Not possible... Now, this is D&D. In D&D, killing evil is justified... if it's an "Always Evil"-race. So, if she assassinates fiends and dragons, she's justified. Now... Do you think all of her victims were evil?

SoC175

2008-08-11, 09:49 AM

Now, this is D&D. In D&D, killing evil is justified... if it's an "Always Evil"-race. So, if she assassinates fiends and dragons, she's justified. Now... Do you think all of her victims were evil?
Even then it is not justified in D&D. Killing someone evil to prevent him from further evil is justified. Killing someone evil just because he is evil or for personal gain is still evil

know something else? he was an assassin.
No, he wasn't an assassin. He was his houses weapon master and a 24th level fighter

Spiryt

2008-08-11, 10:01 AM

Do you think all of her victims were evil?
Also:

Even if they were evil, what SoC175 said is true...

And even if they were evil, how Therkla could know it? Did they do something to her, or did she see something wrong they did, or were she avenging someone? Was it her choice?

No. She was killing beacuse she was told to. In theory, in some cases it could not be necessarily evil, just political fight, rules of which fight all victims played with. But it's ussually not that simple, besides political fights are eviiil anyway.

Sylian

2008-08-11, 10:06 AM

Killing someone evil just because he is evil or for personal gain is still evil
Actually, by RAW, killing something that is "Always Evil" is at worst Neutral, according to the Book of Vile Darkness. So you are free to slay any demons you meet. In the real world, as far as I know, there are no "Always Evil"-races. Killing evil humanoids just because they're evil is evil, yeah. They are redeemable.

Linkavitch

2008-08-11, 10:14 AM

Hmm, I would probably say LN, if that is an alignment, and if it's not, probably NE. Because she doesn't hesitate to kill, but she likes Elan, and was willing to forsake her orders for him. But then again, she was about to stab him. . . Oh, this is hard!

only1doug

2008-08-11, 10:19 AM

I'm not convinced that she isn't chaotic:
Twisting the letter of the rules to justify violating the spirit of it is the very definition of Lawful evil but acting as you choose then trying to justify it to your boss by weasel wording the instructions, that sounds Chaotic to me.

I would interpret 562 as a justification picked up after her impulsive acts had gone against her masters instructions (OK he didn't tell her to kill them but her mission was to delay them and instead she assissted them in their escape).

I don't know, could be Lawful Evil and being tempted toward Neutral Evil by her love of Elan, Could be Neutral Evil and being tempted into Chaotic Evil by her love of Elan, Could be Chaotic Evil and acts Lawful Evil toward her boss to keep her job (and life) and because he has always been a good employer.

Doug

Spiryt

2008-08-11, 10:22 AM

Steven the Lich

2008-08-11, 10:29 AM

Lawful.
Monks cannot be chaotic, nor neutral. I know that Therkla is not a monk, but a ninja, but I think that the two are pretty similar. Ninjas follow a code of honor and such, they serve masters (as Therkla does in this case), etc.
It is dead obvious she is evil. Willing to leave her "obsession's" friends behind to orcs, trying to murder the true king of Azure City (Already sending two ninjas to kill him during the battle), hiding when a paladin is going to detect evil on her.
I deduct that she is Lawful Evil as such.

only1doug

2008-08-11, 10:34 AM

Sylian

2008-08-11, 10:36 AM

Huh... I still think she's Evil, but she definitely have a good chance at redemption. Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic? Hard to tell from what we have gathered thus far.

Spiryt

2008-08-11, 10:37 AM

Huh... I still think she's Evil, but she definitely have a good chance at redemption.

Indeed, in 583, Therkla certainly gained some "good points" no matter how stupid this definition sounds.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-11, 10:37 AM

Actually, by RAW, killing something that is "Always Evil" is at worst Neutral, according to the Book of Vile Darkness. So you are free to slay any demons you meet. In the real world, as far as I know, there are no "Always Evil"-races. Killing evil humanoids just because they're evil is evil, yeah. They are redeemable.

This, of course, is obviously untrue. If it were true, nearly all adventurers would be evil, including all paladins. They kill evil humanoids "just because they're evil" (and by the way, this includes evil humans, evil halflings, evil elves and etc. ... not just evil orcs) all of the time, despite their being theoretically "redeemable" (actually, many are not -- you're not going to redeem a serial killer any more than you're going to redeem a balor).

What evil actually involves is intentionally hurting, oppressing or killing innocents, while good involves making personal sacrifices to help others.

That means, for example, that the Punisher is not evil -- he kills constantly, but he selectively kills only evil people, not unlike most PC adventurers. He's not particularly good, either -- he makes personal sacrifices, but he does it just because he hates criminals and wants to kill them, not specifically to help others. He does have little glimmers of near-good at times, but still, I'd say he's neutral.

By contrast, a wealthy businessperson who knowingly, intentionally and ruthlessly squeezes people into poverty without hesitation if it will lead to greater personal wealth is evil (intentionally hurting and oppressing), despite the fact that no one is being killed!

So it's not just people dying or not dying. If it were, again, all adventurers would be evil. Going and killing the orc band that's been slaughtering villagers? Yeah, evil. They were "redeemable" because they aren't "always evil."

Pff.

Oh, and Therkla is rather obviously lawful evil. She's not 100% lawful, being willing to bend the rules for her love/lust, but she's definitely "strongly expressed lawful." And leading an attack that involves the slaughter of innocents is obviously evil, and then on top of that, we have her making a point of avoiding Detect Evil. I mean, come on -- guns don't get much more smoking than that.

Sylian

2008-08-11, 10:43 AM

Lizard Lord

2008-08-11, 11:15 AM

I think she was lawful or neutral evil. However, any current arguments may be moot as she seems to be heading towards an alignment change. I am thinking she will become true neutral.

She may eventually become good through elans influence, but let us just wait and see for now.

FujinAkari

2008-08-11, 11:19 AM

Read the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. They will tell you that it is in fact evil to kill people just because they are evil. If I killed a serial murderer IRL, that would be an act of "evil", even if the serial murder himself were "evil" by D&D standards. The same applies in D&D, however D&D is more tolerant to killing than the real world. For example, if you kill someone who attacks you, in self-defense, that isn't evil in D&D. If you wipe out a goblin camp that has been raiding towns, that isn't evil either. But... Forgiveness and mercy are parts of being good. The groups you described are at best Neutral, I think.

The BoVD and BoED are optional books which a DM can use if he sees fit. They are NOT errata and can NOT be used to force someone to ignore the Core Rules.

The question is "Can someone be good if they routinely kill creatures just because they are evil within OOTS?" and the answer is a deafening Yes! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html)

Ganurath

2008-08-11, 12:24 PM

Methinks Therkla is Neutral Evil. She knows how to work within the system (Lawful) but chooses her personal desires over her duty (Chaotic.) Due to her concern about Lien casting Detect Evil, her alignment on that axis is obvious.

Sylian

2008-08-11, 12:40 PM

Lizard Lord

2008-08-11, 12:46 PM

...
:smalleek:
I forgot that the Order of the Stick doesn't follow the Alignment system of D&D that good... I mean, the paladin from On the Origins of PC was clearly Evil and yet he was Lawful Good according to the OOTS-world...

Therkla might be Good, then, if she only killed evil creatures.

She works for the guy trying to overthrow the rightful leader of Azure City, and they show her killing someone just to improve her own ranking.

She might be heading into neutral and later good territory, but she was most certainly evil before she met Elan.

slayerx

2008-08-11, 01:08 PM

I go with neutral evil...
Dodging Lein's "detect evil" makes it clear she's evil... if she were neutral she would not need to hide from the detection. With that, you don't really need to bother looking at the rest of her actions to find where she is on the good-to-evil spectrum

As for chaotic-to-lawful... that's a bit more debatable. Frankly i think she hits the middle ground. She has enough strong feelings of loyalty to make her non-chaotic (first to kubato, now Elan), but at the same time that loyalty is mostly out of personal debt and less about having strict feelings about following laws and rules... The moment her loyalty became inconvenient it began to waver. It's a bit hard to tell where she falls.

Though one thing we can always keep in mind, she can always change her aliment through character development

hamishspence

2008-08-11, 01:33 PM

Interestingly, even Living Greyhawk setting on website states that for definitions of whats evil, see BoVD. It may be an add-on, but it is still pretty authorative.

Throw in Fiendish Codex 2 for "how evil" an evil act can be. At the bottom was gratuitously humiliating underlings, at the top was murder for pleasure, and fairly low, was stealing from the needy.

SoC175

2008-08-11, 02:22 PM

This, of course, is obviously untrue. If it were true, nearly all adventurers would be evil, including all paladins. They kill evil humanoids "just because they're evil" (and by the way, this includes evil humans, evil halflings, evil elves and etc. ... not just evil orcs) all of the time,
They better kill them because they're doing evil things to other people (like raiding villages and such). Otherwise yes, it is evil to just plunder the home of an evil goblin tribe who never troubled anyone.

So it's not just people dying or not dying. If it were, again, all adventurers would be evil. Going and killing the orc band that's been slaughtering villagers? Yeah, evil. They were "redeemable" because they aren't "always evil."
On the other hand: going and killing the orc tribe that lives 50 miles out there in the unapproachable mountain village and never came down to bother anyone just because they're evil and may have some good loot in their village? That's evil.

hamishspence

2008-08-11, 02:31 PM

Unfortunately the only books that Explicitly state this are Vile Darkness and Exalted deeds, which people keep insisting are optional, despite the multiple further books expanding on them (admittedly some are FR books)

ericgrau

2008-08-11, 02:37 PM

Rich has cleary stated before that his characters act with realistic motivation, regardless of alignement. He said that specifically refering to evil-aligned characters, who may genuinely care for their families, etc. Therkla is likely to be evil, or she wouldn't have been afraid of the detect evil earlier. In this situation Therkla's actions may change - with genuine intent - whether or not her alignment soon changes as well. Joining Hinjo is the only way to avoid killing Elan and be safe from her master.

We'll have to wait and see what kind of deal she makes now.

Kish

2008-08-11, 05:16 PM

The question is "Can someone be good if they routinely kill creatures just because they are evil within OOTS?" and the answer is a deafening Yes! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html)
Without Alfryd, hopefully no one will argue that point. However, from OtOoPCs, we know that a paladin can get away on a technicality despite behaving blatantly evil if it's humorously/dramatically appropriate in OotS. At least, I certainly hope few people will question that any paladin in a completely serious campaign should Fall like a stone for "wink wink, nudge nudge, I can't kill my annoying Lawful Good companion and keep my kewl powers so I'll just ask you to set him up to die."

Miko held on as borderline Good for a long time, and Fell at a dramatically appropriate moment, in a humorous webcomic where the gods have been shown to be both distinctly fallible--even childish--and to be the arbiters of when paladins fall. I see at least three reasons neither to use OotS paladin morality as an argument for D&D, nor to use D&D as an argument for OotS paladin morality.

fraud

2008-08-11, 05:41 PM

hm... this is a tough one:smallannoyed:

lets see...she's a ninja and will actually kill people so that's pretty evil but she was willing to help Elan's friends escape the the orcs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html), however she was willing to let them die (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0557.html)and only have Elan live, she views Hinjo as an evil figure (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0562.html)so maybe she believes what she's doing is good, however she is willing to give up her life of evil and join Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0583.html)which means maybe she's just looking for a way of income.:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfuse d:
ugh whatever he alignment is... it's not easy to figure out because she's two-faced

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-11, 05:45 PM

Read the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. They will tell you that it is in fact evil to kill people just because they are evil.

Then essentially all adventuring parties are evil according to those two books ... and especially paladins. But then, those books are tripe for a lot of reasons, this being only one of them.

Kish

2008-08-11, 06:55 PM

Honestly, the way most people seem to play their characters really does nauseate me. What's so hard about only killing sapient beings if they attack you or overtly demonstrate themselves to be evil?

...What is appealing about playing someone you wouldn't want to meet in real life? And that applies whether it's a "kill all the goblins" adventurer or just a werecoyote who acts like a total ass to the staff at the inn his group is staying in. I've seen both, and always been totally bemused.

Sylian

2008-08-11, 07:02 PM

Then essentially all adventuring parties are evil according to those two books ... and especially paladins. But then, those books are tripe for a lot of reasons, this being only one of them.
I am happy that I don't play in your games, then. Any paladin attacking humans on sight because they detected as evil would fall, in my campaigns. :smallwink:

I really hope you don't have the same view on alignment in the real world...

Spiryt

2008-08-11, 07:03 PM

...What is appealing about playing someone you wouldn't want to meet in real life?

Beacuse that's Role playing. You can play shinny paladin or a bastard to whom people are giving their wallets on a long stick. No need to get outraged or nauseated.

About other parts I agree.

Kish

2008-08-11, 07:23 PM

Let me amend that to "someone you'd want to slap." :-p I understand the appeal of playing a villain; it's playing a "hero" who's a colossal jerk that I don't understand.

Spiryt

2008-08-11, 07:28 PM

Let me amend that to "someone you'd want to slap." :-p I understand the appeal of playing a villain; it's playing a "hero" who's a colossal jerk that I don't understand.

Well, I suppose that not good is what is good, but what someone likes.

Toadie

2008-08-11, 09:24 PM

Still True Neutral after today's strip to me.

Kish

2008-08-11, 09:29 PM

You know...

"Just 'cause I can't be your boyfriend doesn't mean you have to kill me."

"...It doesn't?"

Never mind Therkla's alignment; what I mostly notice is her racial Intelligence penalty.

Jayngfet

2008-08-11, 09:29 PM

Chaotic evil, but with some INT, so she's not the uber retarded Lolth/Belkar KILL IT CAUSE IT'S THERE!1!1!!!!1ONE!

Gavin Sage

2008-08-11, 09:47 PM

Neutral Evil.

Being in love and acting selfishly to be with said love, is neutral at best. We don't even know how in love Therkla is, infatuated lust is easily possible. And well Fierna and her father Belial have THAT. At best neutral action will not change alignment.

Thus leaving with working amiably with an evil outsider and killing for money. Give over folks she's evil, no worse then Belkar really. For that matter contrasting Redcloak and Belkar (or Xykon) I'm inclined to neutral on that axis.

Toadie

2008-08-11, 10:24 PM

This will probably reveal itself later on. She didn't have anything againts joining Hinjo, so she will have nothing againts doing good deeds. But what will be her approach - future will show. We can only bet our money.:smallsmile:

hanzo66

2008-08-11, 10:36 PM

Well, from what I can tell, Therkla's loyalty to Kubota is more out of a sense of duty than any true evil purpose, so she'd probably be something of Lawful Evil/Neutral beforehand. She stated that he took her in and such. Likely she would have something of a slightly lawful streak. However her current age would mean that she's quite prone to being overwhelmed by emotions (as her infatuation with Elan shows) which could end up overriding any orders.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 02:45 AM

I am happy that I don't play in your games, then. Any paladin attacking humans on sight because they detected as evil would fall, in my campaigns. :smallwink:

I really hope you don't have the same view on alignment in the real world...

Attacking people who detect as evil on sight isn't quite the same thing as attacking them because they're the heartless brigands who've been murdering innocent and unarmed travelers for their coins.

"But they're not members of an 'always evil' race, so killing them is evil ZOMG!" :smalleek:

... right.

Mastikator

2008-08-12, 03:38 AM

Killing on sight is evil and chaotic. Unless it's like, a zombie or something.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 03:54 AM

Killing on sight is evil and chaotic. Unless it's like, a zombie or something.

"Hail, murderous brigands who just slit an unarmed, innocent person's throat! Well met! ARRRRGH! OH MY GOD, THOSE ARE MY INTESTINES!!!"

So yeah. You chat with them. I'm going to kill them, and if a DM wants to call that evil, I'd rather be chaotic evil by a silly definition and actually do a good job of being heroic (and also not dead) than be lawful stupid.

Mastikator

2008-08-12, 03:57 AM

Killing in self-defense or in defense of innocent currently being attack is VERY different than killing on sight (on detect evil sight that is).

Yeah.

A paladin is supposed to be a warrior of righteousness and honor and all that goodness. "Stab and then forget to ask questions" really is below the moral standard of a paladin. They even have "high horse" as a class feature!!

FujinAkari

2008-08-12, 04:00 AM

Killing in self-defense or in defense of innocent currently being attack is VERY different than killing on sight (on detect evil sight that is).

This confuses me.

Detect Evil is a power granted by the Gods.

If THE GODS THEMSELVES tell me that someone has been judged evil and is beyond redemption... who am I to argue? I am a holy warrior charged to battle and defeat evil, and the Gods have shown me that Person X is unrepentantly evil...

I mean, I can see Kill on Sight as being evil (although in the case of a Justicar, its sort of the definition of the PrC) but a Paladin doing it to someone he has a divine mandate to oppose... erm...

that just seems like bad DMing to me.

*shrug*

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 04:08 AM

Killing in self-defense or in defense of innocent currently being attack is VERY different than killing on sight (on detect evil sight that is).

But the innocent is already dead, and no one is currently under attack. Therefore, by your rigid and restrictive definition, there's nothing to do but try to convince them to mend their evil ways. And then die stupidly and deserve it.

A paladin is supposed to be a warrior of righteousness and honor and all that goodness. "Stab and then forget to ask questions" really is below the moral standard of a paladin. They even have "high horse" as a class feature!!

No, a paladin is a warrior who -- are you ready? This is right out of the 3.5e PHB, top of page 105, describing Alhandra the paladin. She "fights evil without mercy." That's understandable because paladins, as lawful good people, actively pursue justice, which is really the antithesis of mercy. Mercy implies giving someone "a break" -- that the person gets less of a punishment than he or she really deserved. True, strict justice means everyone gets exactly what's deserved. No mercy. No breaks.

Alhandra, because she's a paladin, fights evil ... without mercy. That means that if you are, for example, a murdering brigand, she will deal with you according to your crimes without mercy. You're a cold-blooded murderer. What do you suppose the completely just, perfectly balances the scales, punishment for that is?

Mastikator

2008-08-12, 04:09 AM

Nobody is unrepentantly evil. Not even demons. (why not right? I mean, if angels can fall, so can demons be redeemed)

But even if I give you that for the sake of argument. A paladin is still LAWFUL.
Killing on sight is still chaotic.
So the paladin still falls.

Think about it. A paladin is basically a police who is empowered by the gods for his righteousness and honor to enforce law and good. A police NEVER just shots people. A police must ALWAYS try to find a peaceful solution (unless the police is corrupt). An a paladin is held to an even higher standard, he's almost forced to try to redeem the evil doer.

for example, a murdering brigand, she will deal with you according to your crimes without mercy. You're a cold-blooded murderer. What do you suppose the completely just, perfectly balances the scales, punishment for that is?Okay, so let me get this straight.
Because the evil doer is mercyless and cold-blooded, it's okay for the paladin to be equally mercyless and cold-blooded.

Wasn't there a paladin that was completely mercyless and fell? :miko:

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 04:11 AM

Nobody is unrepentantly evil. Not even demons. (why not right? I mean, if angels can fall, so can demons be redeemed)

But even if I give you that for the sake of argument. A paladin is still LAWFUL.
Killing on sight is still chaotic.
So the paladin still falls.

Think about it. A paladin is basically a police who is empowered by the gods for his righteousness and honor to enforce law and good. A police NEVER just shots people. A police must ALWAYS try to find a peaceful solution (unless the police is corrupt). An a paladin is held to an even higher standard, he's almost forced to try to redeem the evil doer.

No, that's completely wrong. A paladin is nothing like a police officer in this regard. Police officers simply uphold the law, whatever it is. The law itself may even be evil.

Paladins fight evil without mercy. PERIOD.

Mastikator

2008-08-12, 04:21 AM

Okay fine, you convinced me. Paladins are evil.
Happy?
Sorry about that.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 04:26 AM

Okay, so let me get this straight.
Because the evil doer is mercyless and cold-blooded, it's okay for the paladin to be equally mercyless and cold-blooded.

You don't seem to quite grasp the concept of justice. Justice means you get exactly what you deserve. Justice isn't touchy-feely, new-agey, or even necessary PC. It's not for the squeamish, the exceedingly gentle, or the faint of heart. It's certainly not for nonviolence advocates -- if you want to be Ghandi, that's perfectly admirable, but you are not a paladin.

A paladin is a holy warrior whose focus is on a combination of martial prowess and channeling divine power in order to root out and mercilessly punish evil wherever it may hide. A paladin is walking divine punishment to the wicked. I don't think I can emphasize enough how much of the paladin's purpose is truly punitive, and not gently so. Yes, rescuing babies from burning buildings is also what they do, but justice is not mercy, and where it comes to evil, paladins seek to mete out uncompromising justice.

If that's too rough for you, that's fine. It is for a lot of people. It isn't easy to be a paladin.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 04:35 AM

Okay fine, you convinced me. Paladins are evil.
Happy?

Well, you can say that if you want, I suppose. You can, in fact, declare that any attempt to mete out any kind of justice at all is evil, and only utterly lawless societies that cuddle and hug murderers are goodly ones. You can even declare that rescuing a condemned serial killer from execution and setting him free in a populated city to run wild killing more people is a good act because you saved a life. While you're at it, you can argue, against all available evidence, that the grass is pink.

It doesn't make any of that so, of course.

Mastikator

2008-08-12, 04:39 AM

Actually, I figured that redeeming someone rather than simply killing is better and more just because it creates goodness rather than simply removing evil.

And I figured that Paladins should be better than simply removing evil, but actually making the world a better place. But maybe I'm just trying to place them on a pedestal they don't deserve. Maybe my hate for paladins is well placed.
Maybe paladins really are just a bunch of violent selfrighteous warriors to enforce their morality at the tip of a blade. Maybe they aren't really any better than Blackguards after all.

Sylian

2008-08-12, 04:51 AM

Your defination of Paladin sounds more Lawful Neutral/Lawful Evil that Good to me... And the Book of Exalted Deeds agree with me. :smallwink:

A Lawful Good person should knock out that murderer and bring him to justice, which means a fair trial. Or he could try to redeem the murderer on his own. Killing him because he just killed an innocent isn't Good. Good is about respect for life, how is that respect for life? Good is about helping people, how is that helping people? Your defination of a what a paladin should do is similiar to the Holy Crusades... Which were Lawful Evil, I'd say. The end does not justify the means.

SoC175

2008-08-12, 05:46 AM

and where it comes to evil, paladins seek to mete out uncompromising justice.

If that's too rough for you, that's fine. It is for a lot of people. It isn't easy to be a paladin.
So you're paladins are running through villages and "randomly" cut down defenseless commoners because their evil

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 07:07 AM

Your defination of Paladin sounds more Lawful Neutral/Lawful Evil that Good to me... And the Book of Exalted Deeds agree with me. :smallwink:

So what? The Book of Exalted Deeds also holds mercy as a "good" act, when in fact mercy is a chaotic act (giving someone less than he/she deserves). Making it possible for Hitler to escape justice (an act of mercy!), for example, isn't a good act; it's chaotic neutral at best and arguably chaotic evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds is a silly book that fails at logic.

Anyway, the PHB also contradicts it, as I already pointed out.

So you're paladins are running through villages and "randomly" cut down defenseless commoners because their evil

Yes, because at any point, I said anything even remotely like that.

SoC175

2008-08-12, 07:24 AM

So what? The Book of Exalted Deeds also holds mercy as a "good" act, when in fact mercy is a chaotic act (giving someone less than he/she deserves).
Which is one of the reason why I firmly believe that good and chaotic are closely related while evil and law are also related (and LG is trying to brigde this impossible gap and failing and falling more often than all other good alignment)

Making it possible for Hitler to escape justice (an act of mercy!), for example, isn't a good act;
Actually it is. It wouldn't be a just act, however showing mercy even in the face of the most disgusting evil is a good act that strenghtens the cosmic force of good and weakens the cosmic forces of evil even more by adding insult to injury (from their PoV)

"You're beaten, get out of my sight and never return! It's over, you're done"

Yes, because at any point, I said anything even remotely like that.
You said your paladins mercilessly smite evil. Any typical village will have it's fair share of evil commoners, so by your logic your paladins would justified to randomly smite people on the market place just because their creedy NE merchants who oppress/cheat/exploit their suppliers/customers/employees as far as they legally can

Bago!!!

2008-08-12, 07:53 AM

Ahhh.... Good times... good times.

There has to be an actuel reason to smite any, more than just because you THINK that they are evil. Magical spells have a funny way of being tricked by other magical spells.

Mercy is okay, but law and justice are also important to keep in mind. If someone has commited crimes and was beaten, you don't just let them go, no matter how beaten they are. If the villian is expecting the final blow, but instead you cuff him in manacles, then your not only empowering the forces of good, but also of law.

To kill out of a pure whim that could very well be wrong is evil. And not all are so far from redemption. As good, you must give the person a chance, but as lawful you must give them a tight leash.

Mercy is a good act, but it, like every action, may have a consequence. That still makes it good nonetheless.

Sylian

2008-08-12, 10:26 AM

So what? The Book of Exalted Deeds also holds mercy as a "good" act, when in fact mercy is a chaotic act (giving someone less than he/she deserves). Making it possible for Hitler to escape justice (an act of mercy!), for example, isn't a good act; it's chaotic neutral at best and arguably chaotic evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds is a silly book that fails at logic.
Y'know, you say that the Book of Exalted Deeds isn't any proof. I say that it is. It's an official Wizards of the Coast book, based on the nature of Good. Why should it be ignored? Forgiveness and mercy are certainly acts of Good, that is a fact that you cannot deny. Vengeance, hate, spreading fear, those are things that are generally Evil. Compassion, forgiveness, bringing hope, those are things that are generally Good. Mercy isn't Chaotic, mercy is Good. Lawful? Not necessary. Chaotic? Not necessary. Take, for example, a murderer. He attacks a paladin. The paladin defends himself and brings the murderer to the ground, unconscious. Now the paladin could kill the murderer... or show mercy. If he killed the murderer, that would be an act of Evil and he would fall. Now, if he healed him/closed his wounds and took him prisoner, that would be an act of mercy and Good.

If you don't like the Book of Exalted Deeds, give me some reasons why it should be ignored.

SoC175

2008-08-12, 10:42 AM

Mercy is okay, but law and justice are also important to keep in mind. If someone has commited crimes and was beaten, you don't just let them go, no matter how beaten they are. If the villian is expecting the final blow, but instead you cuff him in manacles, then your not only empowering the forces of good, but also of law.
Being good of course doesn't require being stupid. If there is the real risk of the villian recovering and causing further harm it would be stupid to extend your mercy so far as to let him go.

Otherwise mercy is one of the pillar of the pillars of good and it's equally inappropriate to always dish out the worst punishment the current crime could be sentenced to.

hamishspence

2008-08-12, 11:17 AM

Remember Hinjo? offering reduced sentences to criminals if they participate in protecting the city? Mercy, since by the letter of the law, if you do the crime, you do the time, and Hinjo is giving them the chance to NOT do the time. Mercy, but the criminals have to earn this mercy.

It didn't work out so well, but thats what he tried to do. And he is a Paladin.

cheesecake

2008-08-12, 12:41 PM

FWIW. I'd say shes along the lines of lawful Evil.

See has killed for pride. She doesn't seem to mind killing whoever she is ordered to kill(until she fell in lust with Elan)

Even though now she is willing to throw away everything she has for elan, hoping he will love her if she is the same as him. It won't last foreve.r

FujinAkari

2008-08-12, 01:50 PM

Wasn't there a paladin that was completely mercyless and fell? :miko:

Yes, and notice how she struck down people who showed as evil for a good TEN YEARS without falling, and only fell when she attacked someone who wasn't evil? That seems -damn good- evidence that Paladins can attack and kill evil on sight and still be paladins.

Huh.

hamishspence

2008-08-12, 02:14 PM

It could also be evidence that she only uses her Detect evil in combat situations, and even then, made a, very short, offer of surrender, in OOTS case.

Killing fiends isn't automatically good, or enough to make up for Evil acts, otherwise Devils and Demons would be changing to Good alignment during the Blood War. Since they do not, evil acts matter more than Good ones, to alignment.

Killing evil beings has even more limitations than that. Self defense, and defense of others, yes, according to Vile Darkness and Exalted deeds. Otherwise, dubious.

In any case, this is a Therkla situation. Does she murder People? Yes? she's evil, even if she usually does it on orders of her boss. The reason adventurers aren't classed as murderers is they are acting in self defense and defense of others, mostly.

DMG2 and Cityscape tell us about Writs of Outlawry, which allow you, once you've got it, to kill the specified bad guys and keep their stuff. Or, if you catch baddies in wrongdoing, a retroactive writ of outlawry can be applied.

SoC175

2008-08-12, 02:17 PM

Yes, and notice how she struck down people who showed as evil for a good TEN YEARS without falling, and only fell when she attacked someone who wasn't evil? That seems -damn good- evidence that Paladins can attack and kill evil on sight and still be paladins.
Actually it has never been said that she attacked all evil on sight, only that they slew most of the beings she indentified as evil (so there are beings she identified as being evil but not killed them afterwards)

So it's most likely that the now deceased beings already were in a hostile situation whith Miko when she detected them at evil.

DMG2 and Cityscape tell us about Writs of Outlawry, which allow you, once you've got it, to kill the specified bad guys and keep their stuff. Or, if you catch baddies in wrongdoing, a retroactive writ of outlawry can be applied.
Which would make the killing lawful, yet not automatically good. It's easy to imaginge LE societies writting those for poor starving CG children living on the street and stealing bread from the market to prevent starvation

hamishspence

2008-08-12, 02:21 PM

We are told that the reason she made the decision to kill them was because they were evil in strip 228: Unlawful Good, but thats not the same thing as saying that she walks down the street with DE switched on, and immediately attacks anyone detecting as evil. There is a difference there.

hamishspence

2008-08-12, 02:26 PM

the writ of Outlawry is more an in-game reason for adventurers to keep the stuff of things they kill. By most real-world laws, they would have to return anything that is stolen goods. Only outlawry allows you the right to keep the stuff of outlaws, or kill them on sight with no repercussions.

Ruling that paladins can slaughter any tight-fisted, ruthless landlords or similar Evil but Law-Abiding NPCs with no alignment penalties or Falling would be....silly.

Sylian

2008-08-12, 02:29 PM

Notice that Belkar said that Miko would have fallen if she had killed him. Notice that when she first encountered them, she didn't kill Belkar even when he suggested evil things. Miko wasn't as bad as she might have seemed... And, also... She always was close to Lawful Neutral, even Roy said so himself.

hamishspence

2008-08-12, 02:41 PM

Belkar is not exactly an authority on alignment. We may never find out whether slaying a helpless evil being is evil or not. We do know that, in OOTS slaying a (relatively) helpless being you believe to be evil and isn't? Welcome to Fallsville.

IF Belkar is right (a big if) it could be helplessness of evil being that matters.

according to Exalted Deeds, killing an evil being just for being evil, in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing, or mitigating factors like self defense, is evil.

Getting back to the subject, we might note Hinjo and company do not kill Therlka or even the imp, even though both have confessed to serious crimes in their hearing. Maybe cos they want to know more. Maybe because killing baddies who surrender is evil (again, by Exalted Deeds)

Executions aren't evil using same ruleset. Once Therkla has been tried, if her crimes merit death, Hinjo could choose to execute her with no Code or alignment problems.

Aquillion

2008-08-12, 02:51 PM

In any case, this is a Therkla situation. Does she murder People? Yes? she's evil, even if she usually does it on orders of her boss. The reason adventurers aren't classed as murderers is they are acting in self defense and defense of others, mostly.We don't know her situation very well, or anything like that. The only person we've actually seen her kill is the valedictorian at her school, which might not have been evil depending on the situation (if they were dueling or the ninja-school set things up so it was 'always' considered a duel, or whatever.) Kabuto -- who she trusted -- might have explained how whoever he ordered her to kill at the moment was evil and needed to die for the defense of others or whatever.

But she clearly thinks she's evil. Of course, in addition to this, alignments can change.

In any case... I wouldn't be surprised if Hinjo insisted on using Detect Evil on her before letting her into his service. It's a perfectly reasonable precaution given her background. Of course, it wouldn't settle everything (a non-evil character could still feel some loyalty towards her old lord, while an evil one might still decide it's in her best interests to be honestly loyal to Hinjo for a while).

FWIW. I'd say shes along the lines of lawful Evil.

See has killed for pride. She doesn't seem to mind killing whoever she is ordered to kill(until she fell in lust with Elan)

Even though now she is willing to throw away everything she has for elan, hoping he will love her if she is the same as him. It won't last foreve.rIf that's the case, why did she tell him the truth about her background? It would have been very easy to lie.

(I doubt she's lawful, though. A lawful character would have at least slightly more pause before betraying their old lord because she fell in love with someone he ordered her to kill; she didn't really show much hesitation at all.)

Another interesting factoid: Durkon should be able to cast Atonement. (The spell exists in the OOTS world; Hinjo referenced it when trying to calm the fallen Miko down.) If she legitimately wants to become good and regrets her past actions, then she could actually change her alignment in that fashion.

hamishspence

2008-08-12, 03:04 PM

Hey, what happened to the bit about Detect evil evidence?

Detect evil is evidence the person has a very nasty personality, but not necessarily evidence of Crimes. classic example is the person who causes as much misery as possible within the law: the Slum Landlord, the Nasty Officer, the Backstabbing Politician, etc.

So, be strict interpretation of the term Murder, killing one of these would be Murder, an Evil act, by PHB, Vile Darkness, FC2, etc (PHB just says it is, Vile Darkness says killing dragons/fiends, is permissible, but not drow/goblins etc without just cause, FC2 gives a value for Murder compared to other evil acts)

Eric

2008-08-12, 03:20 PM

If that's the case, why did she tell him the truth about her background? It would have been very easy to lie.

Love. Or at least infatuation.

Think about it:

Parents hopelessly in love (as opposed to the stereotype half-orc parentage)
Ninja School. When you're looked at as a potential threat or target, how do you get to know and like people?
Ninja (OK, well cool, but as Haley knows, Pirates are better). Who do you meet? Targets.

She hasn't HAD these feelings and she doesn't know how to deal with them. But until she's lived a little as a social being she'll think of this not as her first crush but as her first love.

Kind of cute, a bit of a trope, but well done. Making it a half-orc was a good twist and there needs to be an arc here. Unlikely to be Thog (Cooties!!!) but maybe the chief orc back at the island will do once she's learned that she can be with someone other than Elan (the first crush thing).

Eric

2008-08-12, 03:24 PM

Hey, what happened to the bit about Detect evil evidence?

Sigh.

Push comes to shove: get a being of pure law and good to come down. Let's see any non-epic level spell counter or hide from a heavenly host.

If Shojo had thought it would make any difference, he'd have had kuboto assasinated. That won't work because you can't get away with open acts like that in an ostensibly Lawful city without losing everything (see the Daughter of the Empire books how this can "work"). Now if the paladins can get an Archangel or whatever down to dispense justice, you'll get rid of the sort of nefarious acts that may justify that level of effort. It won't get rid of all the jockeying but you'll see a lot less consorting with demons to kill the lawful ruler. Maybe more putting the ruler in uncomfortable positions until they decide to give the job up.

Aquillion

2008-08-12, 03:28 PM

Hey, what happened to the bit about Detect evil evidence?I removed it 'cause I realized what you were saying. Detect Evil can be collaborating evidence to a crime (if someone is murdered, say, and there are two suspects, Detect Evil results could be one piece of evidence -- although I wouldn't think they'd be enough to convict someone on their own). But yeah, I didn't mean that you can just kill someone the instant they ping evil.

(However... while I hate getting derailed into a Miko discussion again, we don't actually know that she did that. She says she used Detect Evil to determine who to kill, but she might mean she'd, for instance, get sent to a place where there's a monster there, and use Detect Evil to confirm that she'd found it, rather than just Detecting random wildlife and slaughtering anything that pings. She didn't kill the bandits until they attacked her, and she gave the OOTS a chance to surrender even when they pinged. She might have simply used Detect Evil to mean that if it comes to a fight, she doesn't have to be as careful as she would be if the enemy wasn't evil -- like with the bandits; she didn't go out of her way to kill them, but she did so instantly once they attacked, instead of seeking a nonlethal solution. This would explain how she avoided falling for so long, at least.)

Callista

2008-08-12, 05:34 PM

Elan is probably the most Good-aligned member of the Order. And Therkla's in love with him. If she's Evil now, and Elan plays his cards right, she won't be for long.

She's capable of love.
She doesn't seem to enjoy killing.
She's trained as a ninja, but we don't know whether that makes her an assassin or just a spy. (Remember ninja-waitress-girl?)
She seems much more disappointed than angry when she learns about Haley.

If you were to pretend that her current actions are the only things she's ever done, she would be either true neutral or chaotic neutral. We haven't seen her do anything outright evil.

But she could be Evil. She could be non-Evil. We just don't have enough data--specifically, her history--to tell.

We'll know her alignment when one of the paladins switches on his D.E. radar. Whatever it is, though, Therkla seems the sort of character who, at this point, could go either way.

Ganurath

2008-08-12, 05:51 PM

We'll know her alignment when one of the paladins switches on his D.E. radar. Whatever it is, though, Therkla seems the sort of character who, at this point, could go either way.Last time one tried, she made herself disappear. Since it can only register Evil and Not Evil, methinks we can set her securely in the Evil camp.

FujinAkari

2008-08-12, 05:53 PM

Therkla seems the sort of character who, at this point, could go either way.

SO HOT!

((Sorry, couldn't resist :P))

Ganurath

2008-08-12, 05:56 PM

SO HOT!

((Sorry, couldn't resist :P))We just found a solution to the love triangle! Call Haley's Latent Bisexuality!

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 05:57 PM

Which is one of the reason why I firmly believe that good and chaotic are closely related while evil and law are also related (and LG is trying to brigde this impossible gap and failing and falling more often than all other good alignment)

But that's just silly and a little insulting besides. I'm a firm believer in honor and justice myself, although I think a little mercy has its place, and I'm also not a fan of excessive punishment out of proportion to the offense (getting more than you deserve isn't justice either).

And even though I feel that people who dismiss the value of rigid honor and consistent justice and just toss aside the rules in favor of whatever is convenient at the moment unintentionally open up the doors to far more harm than they can even begin to imagine, and even unintentionally do a great deal of lasting evil in the bargain, I would never suggest that they are themselves necessarily evil people! Chaotic good (and here I know I'm making the mistake of trying to use alignments in discussing real morality, but I'm speaking in very general terms of people who try to do good by ignoring rules, honor and justice, so bear with me :smalltongue:) isn't evil, it's just very misguided.

Here's an illustration of what I mean, taken from A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper (chaotic good): So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More (lawful good): Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

And that, of course, illustrates another point: chaotic good encompasses both those who are the first to grant mercy even at the expense of justice and those who are the first to ignore the rules entirely in the pursuit of evil. After all, both proper justice and proper conduct in the pursuit of evil are the purview of rules ... of lawfulness. And despite what headstrong chaotics think, rules and justice exist for a reason ...

Actually it is. It wouldn't be a just act, however showing mercy even in the face of the most disgusting evil is a good act that strenghtens the cosmic force of good and weakens the cosmic forces of evil even more by adding insult to injury (from their PoV)

Actually, it's an act that leads to justice being completely denied (chaotic act) and many more innocent deaths at the hands of an evil madman (probably evil act). As a side benefit, it also sets an encouraging precedent for the forces of injustice and evil, showing them they can get away with it (chaotic evil act). It's definitely mercy, though.

You said your paladins mercilessly smite evil.

I said paladins fight evil without mercy. I didn't say they use Detect Evil and then kill everyone they meet who registers; that was you and other people. If a judge gives you the maximum sentence (say, 20 years) for a crime, or for that matter even just refuses to give you less than the standard sentence, that's punishment without mercy, but it doesn't mean the judge fetches up her gavel, leaps from the bench, and pummels you to death.

Justice demands the punishment fit the crime. A murdering brigand deserves execution. A lawful evil land baron who mercilessly squeezes people into poverty and starvation without conscience or remorse needs to be dealt with somehow if possible, but the situation is much more delicate, and charging in with a bared blade is neither appropriate justice nor even sensible.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 06:16 PM

Forgiveness and mercy are certainly acts of Good, that is a fact that you cannot deny.

Mercy is, once again, chaotic. Whether it's good, evil or neutral depends on the circumstances involved and even the extent of the mercy. Hitler, Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper ... if you catch someone like this, then say, "You know what? The authorities want to put you away for life or execute you, but I think you deserve a break, so I'm just going to let you go," that's definitely mercy (and chaotic), but it is absolutely not good and should probably be classified as evil.

Also, while justice opposes mercy, it isn't exactly the same thing as vengeance at all, and it has nothing to do with hate, so bringing up vengeance and hate in this context is just a strawman. Vengeance implies an emotional, angry impulse to "get at" someone and perhaps do something completely out of proportion. Justice is a rational, unemotional effort to balance the scales by applying a penalty exactly proportional to the crime.

If you don't like the Book of Exalted Deeds, give me some reasons why it should be ignored.

I'll give you two:

First, it's simply wrong, and holding it up as somehow above scrutiny amounts to an appeal to authority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) I feel I've explained why it's wrong, so I don't need to go any further with that.

Second, it actually directly contradicts the PHB, which describes Alhandra, a lawful good paladin, as someone who fights evil "without mercy." Since the Book of Exalted Deeds implies that you need to be merciful to be good, while the PHB specifically states that Alhandra is merciless, yet also lawful good and a paladin, they cannot both be correct. But then, referring to these books alone for your understanding of morality was a mistake to begin with, as I explained in my first of these two points.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 06:23 PM

(I doubt she's lawful, though. A lawful character would have at least slightly more pause before betraying their old lord because she fell in love with someone he ordered her to kill; she didn't really show much hesitation at all.)

Oh, I very much question that. Love, intense infatuation, or even just raw lust will make people go against their guiding principles and/or act without thinking more quickly than nearly anything else in the world. Remember, is was the face of Helen of Troy that launched a thousand ships. :smallwink:

Another interesting factoid

A factoid (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factoid)is actually never interesting or significant and rarely true at all.

In your defense, it's one of today's most misused words.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 06:32 PM

She's capable of love.

Just a quick quibble on this:

While I'm not going to say Therkla is irredeemable, being capable of love doesn't automatically make you good or even prevent you from being evil. Perfect example: the main characters in the movie Natural Born Killers. Both are very much in love with and devoted to one another. Both are also incredibly evil.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-12, 07:02 PM

Um, just one more small thing:

In the case of the murdering brigand(s), I should point out that the paladin's actions might vary depending on the exact circumstances. For example, if the encounter occurs within the borders of a legitimate (non-evil) authority, and said authority hasn't already ordered the brigands killed on sight or delivered dead or alive, the paladin should act as a good police officer, doing all she can to capture and deliver the brigand(s) for proper justice. In most medieval fantasy societies, that justice will probably be something like hanging anyway, but the point is that proper, just procedure is followed. As well, the brigand(s) may well cry, "They're gonna hang me! Please, mercy!" ... the paladin will be unmoved by this.

If the encounter occurs in a lawless region (dungeon, wilds, whatever) or within the borders of an authority the paladin knows to be evil (paladins may not knowingly associate with evil), the paladin should then resort to meting out her own justice on the spot. Note that even then, she will not kill the villain(s) slowly and painfully, nor will she resort to torture to extract information about more brigands. Instead, punishment will come with a single, swift blow.

ZerglingOne

2008-08-12, 07:47 PM

Therkla was Lawful Evil at first. This is because she was faithful to her lord. BUT! For those of you who say she isn't evil, refer to Meanwhile, His Teammate Was in Rhodes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html) in which Therkla hides to avoid having detect evil cast on her. With recent developments however, she's definitely taken on the freespiritedness of the Chaotic Neutral alignment. Amazing what 18 charisma and being a bard can do (change people from hostile to friendly).

Dark Matter

2008-08-12, 08:23 PM

We simply don't have enough information.

Her behavior with Elan might be the true exception to how she behaves normally... in fact it probably is. Your behavior towards your family, friends, and (would be) lovers often doesn't have much impact on your alignment.

Callista

2008-08-12, 08:34 PM

Just a quick quibble on this:

While I'm not going to say Therkla is irredeemable, being capable of love doesn't automatically make you good or even prevent you from being evil. Perfect example: the main characters in the movie Natural Born Killers. Both are very much in love with and devoted to one another. Both are also incredibly evil.No, I didn't say it made her non-evil. Evil people can and do love. It's just that being able to love is like opening a great big door to Good--even if you're currently Evil--because love, as an emotion that honestly wants the best for someone else, is a pretty good motivation for other Good-aligned things. Love somebody honestly (and not just because it makes you feel good), and pretty soon you may begin to think differently about other people in general... that Elan is strongly Good makes it an even bigger "weakness"!

AceOfFools

2008-08-12, 08:39 PM

Re: Kiara LeSabre
You go on at great length about Justice as good. It's not.

Justice in punishment fitting the crime, is a lawful concept.

The 3.5 Inevitibles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/inevitable.htm) are literally built to bring punishment for particular transgression, and are the embodiment of law.

Similarly and consequentially, mercy is a good trait.

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) lists altruism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism) as the first implication of a good alignment. Altruism implies putting the concerns of others above concern for the self, and so forgiveness is an altruistic act. Mercy in judgment is a form of forgiveness, particularly undeserved and often unasked for forgiveness.

To use one of your examples, saving a serial killer from the chopping block is a good act, preserving life at your own expense. Releasing the criminal, on the other hand, is the opposite of that, endangering life to make your life easier by not having to keep this killer restrained, fed, and reasonably comfortable. It's also pretty stupid, but taken to extremes no alignment is particularly palatable, or (with the exception of LN) entirely workable as a society.

Pursuing this further really is beyond the scope of this thread as there is no evidence how Therkla acts re justice vs. mercy; she is a former assassin and a spy, not an agent of justice, good, or any sort of law. You're welcome to start another thread about alignment, but please either restrict it to alignment as it relates to OotS or move it to the gaming section.

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-13, 12:13 AM

Re: Kiara LeSabre
You go on at great length about Justice as good. It's not.

As a matter of fact, I never said that justice is good, and I encourage you to go back and try to find me saying that because you won't be able to, and then you'll understand better what I was actually saying.

I discussed paladins specifically within the context of good as well as justice (as opposed to justice only) because paladins (3.5e PHB paladins, at least) are lawful good, not just lawful whatever. What I did say about justice is that it is the antithesis of mercy, which is chaotic. Justice, therefore ...

is a lawful concept.

Correct.

Similarly and consequentially, mercy is a good trait.

No. Wrong, and I already explained why in great detail earlier. Mercy is chaotic and may be (and often is) good, just as justice may be (and often is) good, but neither is automatically good.

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) lists altruism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism) as the first implication of a good alignment.

Right.

Altruism implies putting the concerns of others above concern for the self

Right.

and so forgiveness is an altruistic act.

Wrong. There are very good reasons not to be forgiving and merciful that have nothing to do with the self and everything to do with protecting the public welfare (an altruistic act) as well as teaching an evildoer a valuable lesson that may alter his or her behavior (where the necessary punishment isn't execution, of course) and setting an example for other evildoers that may deter them (and therefore, again, protect the public welfare).

Conversely, mercy can show evildoers that their actions don't have proportional consequences -- that they're really only going to get a "slap on the wrist" -- encouraging them to more acts of evil. This is true in much the same way that not punishing children consistently for bad behavior teaches them that their actions don't have consequences, causing them to grow up to be exactly the evildoers society now has to contend with.

The above example is also set for others who see that their actions won't have consequences proportional to their misdeeds; they therefore correctly conclude that in this permissive society, crime really does pay.

While none of this means that mercy is evil, it does illustrate nicely, I feel, the argument a justice-seeking lawful good character would present to a highly merciful chaotic good character.

To use one of your examples, saving a serial killer from the chopping block is a good act, preserving life at your own expense.

Well, no, it's more along the lines of chaotic stupid. It could be argued as chaotic good if you're truly doing it because you want to preserve all life, even the lives of irredeemable mass-murderers, but of course you're setting yourself up for rightful imprisonment and/or possible execution for your actions, and regardless of your intentions, you're also placing not only yourself but also the public in terrible danger with your perhaps well-meaning but terribly naive, reckless and irresponsible actions.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

And ... honestly, arguing this point with me (and even misquoting me), then asking me to stop discussing it after you've had your say is a little unreasonable.

busterswd

2008-08-13, 01:01 AM

Justice is not implictly lawful, nor is mercy implicitly chaotic. In the examples you list, the laws all involve retribution or punishment. It's just as possible for laws to protect people by preventing that sort of eye for an eye behavior.

Hypothetical situation: someone kills the parents and siblings of a victim. With justice, the victim would have the right to go to the offenders parents and siblings and kill them. You would be hard pressed to find a law that supports that.

Extreme and maybe not the best example, but there are also laws passed that protect people from true justice.

The "good" viewpoint of mercy is the belief that all people have the potential to be good, and that while people are not infallible, almost everyone is redeemable.

The "good" viewpoint of justice is that it is better to protect potential innocents then to foolishly hope a proven criminal won't just commit more crimes.

They're both valid.

Kai Maera

2008-08-13, 01:38 AM

Before this thread gets deleted (HINT) I just wanted to chime in something:

Justice is relative. To some, Justice is bringing a criminal to an authority, to others it is killing the criminal on sight, so as to prevent any more bad.

Paladins are believers in the kind of justice that comes directly from their source of belief: As we all know, there are several kinds of paladins, and several ways to play each type -- Miko DID get away with a lot, but that was part of her gods' idea of justice.

As for the lawful-chaotic axis, it's too nebulous for people to fight over and actually reach a conclusion, because justice is relative. Don't even bother, seriously, that's more of a self-perception sort of thing anyway because chaotic people still follow their own codes, which may lay right along the line of the law, and no one would be the wiser.

There are but two constants: Therkla is not currently good and Kiara posts way too many times in a row.

akumadaimyo

2008-08-13, 02:02 AM

akumadaimyo

2008-08-13, 02:03 AM

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-13, 02:07 AM

There are but two constants: Therkla is not currently good and Kiara posts way too many times in a row.

Sorry about that. :smallredface: I was trying to answer everyone, and then I thought of one more thing I wanted to add, and then I wanted to break up those huge blocks of text ...

Before I knew it, even I was looking at all of my posting with a little dismay. :smalltongue: But I think I'm done now (there's no point in just repeating myself, and I've already stated my case), and I think it was a good discussion whether we agreed or not, so why fret? :smallsmile:

FujinAkari

2008-08-13, 02:07 AM

Doesn't matter because Rich doesn't pay any attention to rules. It's fun to see people running around with their heads cut off like chickens though. Seriously who cares. RICH DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF D&D IN HIS STRIP! He's said it himself. He does it to drive people crazy who don't pay attention to his little posts like that.

Care to cite any data to back up this opinion? Rich seems quite observant to the rules, even if he makes fun of them.

Saying he "doesn't pay any attention to the rules" seems somewhere between a deliberate exaggeration and outright dishonesty...

only1doug

2008-08-13, 05:01 AM

Doesn't matter because Rich doesn't pay any attention to rules. It's fun to see people running around with their heads cut off like chickens though. Seriously who cares. RICH DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF D&D IN HIS STRIP! He's said it himself. He does it to drive people crazy who don't pay attention to his little posts like that.

I'd disagree with your wording.

Rich knows the rules and (mostly) follows them, Rich freely breaks the rules if they are going to get in the way of Plot or Funny but still tries to leave a consistant feeling world.

Aquillion

2008-08-13, 06:40 AM

I think it has less to do with Rich and more to do with the fact that we have fun discussing things like this (or at least, some of us do.) Sure, Therkla's alignment is actually Plotful Plot, but what's the fun in just saying that (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys)?

(Although it does seem likely that her alignment will come up in the comic in one form or another, given that it was already referenced with the Detect Evil bit.)

only1doug

2008-08-13, 07:07 AM

I've actually changed my mind a little bit on her Alignment, I've come to believe she is probably chaotic neutral rather than chaotic evil (sorry i still don't see her as lawful, she hasn't yet acted in a lawful fashion in the comics, backstory of allegiance does not an alignment make).

I think that she believes herself to be evil, she may be wrong (note: saving the PCs may have caused an alignment shift from evil to neutral)

hamishspence

2008-08-13, 11:36 AM

A point to remember is, while Mercy is good by BoED definition, that does not make Lack of Mercy evil.

A suggestion of what happens when a dubious trait such as Cruel is paired with a class it wouldn't normally fit (Paladin) was that a Cruel paladin would be merciless, in handing out punishments, but said punishments would not be evil ones.

Eric

2008-08-13, 12:11 PM

Callista

2008-08-13, 12:23 PM

I'm not so sure about CE. I would say either NE or CN...

Here's the thing: If her alignment changed, it changed in the Chaotic Good direction, because choosing to leave your evil boss to join up with a guy you love, even when said guy doesn't return your affection, is both chaotic and good. (Actually, just leaving your evil boss qualifies as that.)

She seems to have some reluctance about leaving her boss--it took a while for her to do it--so I am guessing she was originally somewhere between Lawful and Chaotic, making her neutral on that axis. If we are assuming an initially Evil Therkla, then that would make her NE as the story starts.

She either left because she didn't want to kill Elan; or else she left because she wanted to be with Elan. The first is a Good decision, the second, a chaotic decision. I'm guessing it's elements of both.

So if her alignment changed, it changed away from evil and away from Law, skipping to CN from NE. If it didn't, she's still NE and drifting away from both Law and Evil as time goes on, unless some other event changes things again.

She seems to be the type whose alignment changes rather often; the easily influenced sort. That would mean that it probably hovers around CN most of the time, especially if nobody's influencing her at the time. Kind of like Thog.

akumadaimyo

2008-08-13, 01:21 PM

Care to cite any data to back up this opinion? Rich seems quite observant to the rules, even if he makes fun of them.

Saying he "doesn't pay any attention to the rules" seems somewhere between a deliberate exaggeration and outright dishonesty...

Wrong. He does indeed say this when he was talking about 4th edition. He doesn't really care about the rules when it comes to story. He's not actually running a damn game so to fuss over it is meaningless.

Texas Jedi

2008-08-13, 01:39 PM

Actually, the joke is that in the very first comic he converted the party to 3.5 rules.

I assume that people have asked him in person and through other correspondences if he will be doing the same joke when 4.0 came around. He said that he wouldn't because the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 were just wording and some rule fixing. The jump from 3.5 to 4.0 is much more drastic and would change the basic tenents of the comic. So he decided to reject 4.0 rules in favor of the more out of date 3.5 for the sake of the comic.

He is not ignoring rules at all he is ignoring a straight by the books interpretation of either 3.5 or 4.0 rules. He is using a mix of both. Heck he even throws old DnD and ADnD rules in for laughs.

FujinAkari

2008-08-13, 01:59 PM

Wrong. He does indeed say this when he was talking about 4th edition. He doesn't really care about the rules when it comes to story. He's not actually running a damn game so to fuss over it is meaningless.

You seem to be talking about this:

However, this does NOT mean that I will stop making jokes about the fact that the characters exist within a world that operates like a roleplaying game. Nor will I limit myself to either jokes about 3.5 Edition or 4th Edition. I’ll go where the humor takes me, and if that happens to create gross inconsistencies, then so be it. As an added benefit, I expect it will drive the fans who try to figure out exactly what is occurring in each strip from a strict D&D rules perspective absolutely nuts. If it really bothers anyone, simply imagine that the OOTS world follows someone’s homebrewed hybridization of 3.5 and 4th Editions, using bits and pieces from whichever ruleset they think works better.

Trouble is, this says the exact opposite of what you are claiming. The giant DOES care about the rules and even makes it a point of stating that he will continue to make jokes about the fact that the characters exist in a world that operates like a roleplaying game.

While you are correct that he doesn't let the rules of a particular edition limit the story, and that he allows humor to override a strict interpretation of the rules, stating that he simply doesn't follow the rules is outright misinformation.

Sylian

2008-08-13, 02:09 PM

Kiara, read this:

"When will a lawful good character take a life? A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his nation. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime. Otherwise, a lawful good character avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does this character necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain. He never knowingly kills an innocent being.

A lawful good character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie. He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent. He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure. He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others. A lawful good character will never use poison. He will help those in need and he prefers to work with others. He responds well to higher authority, is trustful of organizations, and will always follow the law. He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend (though he will attempt to bring an immoral or law-breaking friend to justice, in order to rehabilitate that person). Lawful good characters respect the concepts of self-discipline and honor."

Also, on the entry of Neutral Good, mercy and forgiveness are mentioned.
http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-13, 06:08 PM

Kiara, read this:

"When will a lawful good character take a life? *snip for brevity*

Pretty much that goes back to appeals to authority. (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm)

I agree with some of the text, disagree with some of the text, and also consider much of it far too specific to encompass all of those who are both lawful and good. However, above all else, the text itself is simply irrelevant.

"P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true." is simply not a valid argument.

Kish

2008-08-13, 07:22 PM

"P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true." is simply not a valid argument.
That's an oversimplification. "P makes claim X, where X refers solely and entirely to a world defined by P. Therefore, X is true." is a valid argument.

Aquillion

2008-08-13, 08:35 PM

That's an oversimplification. "P makes claim X, where X refers solely and entirely to a world defined by P. Therefore, X is true." is a valid argument.More specifically, we're not talking about anyone claiming anything. We're talking about them defining the terms. If you don't accept their definition, you're not playing D&D by RAW (not to say that you should play it by RAW or anything, it's just that if you discard that then it comes down to 'alignments are up to the interpretation of the DM and the group', which, while true, doesn't make for much fun discussion.)

Kiara LeSabre

2008-08-13, 10:03 PM

More specifically, we're not talking about anyone claiming anything. We're talking about them defining the terms. If you don't accept their definition, you're not playing D&D by RAW (not to say that you should play it by RAW or anything, it's just that if you discard that then it comes down to 'alignments are up to the interpretation of the DM and the group', which, while true, doesn't make for much fun discussion.)

I can't play the alignments RAW because the rules in different books actually contradict one another, as I pointed out earlier.

Besides, I'm not nearly as concerned with RAW as I am with what makes real philosophical sense (to the extent that we can do that with alignments). The authors of D&D books, bless their little hearts, are not necessarily particularly qualified.

So yes, for me, it comes down to ignoring the pseudo-intellectual efforts of the authors of books like the Book of Exalted Deeds, whose notion that "mercy = good" is not only a blatant fallacy but is also a direct contradiction of earlier D&D statements on the very same subject.

Arcadius798

2008-08-13, 10:09 PM

let's say lawful neutral, she does things that are generally considered uh, illegal, but she has a personal sense of honor, so i'm gonna stick with that

Callista

2008-08-13, 10:11 PM

What, and you can't see a Lawful character being merciful? This is a good strategy, in the long run, because mercy, carried out properly, could make your target a functional member of your society again, improving not just their lives but your whole social order, indirectly. For example, rather than jailing a pickpocket, you take him on as an apprentice and teach him a trade.

That's mercy; it's a Lawful flavor of mercy. You don't just have one less pickpocket; if you succeed, you now have an upstanding citizen. Mercy does not always (or usually) mean letting someone get off with something completely, especially if there's a reason to think he'll do it again. There has to be a reason to what you're doing, especially in the Lawful mind; otherwise mercy doesn't benefit him at all--he'll just figure he can get away with it again.

Sylian

2008-08-14, 02:50 AM

The first quote was from Rick Swan. The Complete Paladin's Handbook. Wizards of the Coast: 1994.

The second quote was from Carl Parlagreco. "Another View of the Nine-Point Alignment Scheme." The Dragon (#26). June 1979: 23. and Wujcik, Erick. Ninjas and Superspies. Palladium Books: 1994.

If you're going to apply real life religion and philosophy, nearly all religions I know of see mercy and forgiveness as virtues, not flaws.

Also, Hinjo is Lawful Good, right? And he showed mercy to Therkla. Would he have been justified to kill her right there? Would he have been able to kill her and keep his Lawful Good alignment?

hamishspence

2008-08-14, 05:51 AM

You need to realize that Mercy = Good does not equate to Lack of Mercy = Evil.

PHB 2 has paladin traits such as "Mercy for those that deserve mercy" and for the Merciless "there is no mercy, there is only judgement."

It also says that Does Not mean that paladin simply slaughters all those he sees as weak or faithless, but it does mean the paladin does not respect them.

Sylian

2008-08-14, 07:16 AM

hamish is correct. A Good character does not need to do every Good thing to be considered Good, just as an Evil character does not have to torture, rape, kill etc. to be considered Evil. An imp that manipulates others to do Evil is Evil, yet he doesn't kill, torture etc. Same for a Paladin. It's ideal to show mercy.

hamishspence

2008-08-14, 07:20 AM

Yes; even in PHB we have a LG dwarf who is not ALL good: Tordek "He may steal if he can justify it to himself" And the example was of LG characters having moral flaws so do not start insisting Stealing is not evil, since that was the PHB example.

Then there are 4th ed examples: "a Good character can be a little surly, or even do something not exactly Good once in a while" Races and Classes.

Military Man

2008-08-14, 06:56 PM

Therkla's Alignment is Lawful Evil, she turns on Qarr, yes but just because a person is evil doesn't mean they can't do a good thing, or a chaotic doesn't always mean they always are untrustworthy. And after see surrendered to Hinjo see refused to give any information about her employer, a "changed'' person would have spilled the beans right away.

Short version, she is Lawfully Evil or possibly Neutral Evil.

only1doug

2008-08-15, 02:49 AM

Even a chaotic character can be loyal to a previous employer, it was therkla's loyalty that kept her working for him rather than any code.

Short Version: Chaotic, possibly neutral.

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 06:12 AM

Loyalty to those you do not respect: that is signature of Lawfulness in Fiendish Codex 2. Following rules, to your own detriment. Swearing fealty. Etc.

They aren't the whole of Law, but are worth considering. In effect, when a Chaotic character really loses respect for boss, is more likely to dump them than Lawful character.

Nevrmore

2008-08-15, 06:30 AM

Why do people keep citing that she threatened to kill/harm Elan if he didn't go out with her? The strip after that clearly shows that she had pulled her weapons out to defend Elan from the invisible demon behind him.

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 06:40 AM

Not sure. Therklas surprise at the notion of not being enemies with Elan after being rejected suggests she sees herself as opposed to him. But her attack on Qaar suggests that her opposition is not a homicidal one.

EDIT: Therkla has quit Kubota's Service, yet is still loyal enough to refuse to testify against him. Hmm.

only1doug

2008-08-15, 06:42 AM

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 06:47 AM

She doesn't. Which is why her loyalty to him is not proof of strong lawful tendencies. Though her willingness to place Kubota's needs over her own, even after quitting his service, might be slightly better evidence.

If Qaar is her superior in Kubota's service (and I'm not sure if he is) then it looks like she not only doesn't respect Qaar, but won't follow his orders either. So, less lawful than she would be if she didn't respect him, but followed orders anyway.

TheNifty

2008-08-15, 11:51 AM

Why are people saying she's CE? she hasn't yet done anything particularly chaotic or evil. I'm thinking either TN or LN. The strip where she justified her actions to Kobuto with sophistry was classic LN, and her defending Elan even after being rejected by him is clearly not evil.

Prowl

2008-08-15, 11:57 AM

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 12:43 PM

I think the problem is people keep assuming evil beings have to keep behaving in an evil fashion all the time.

Savage Species had a paragraph saying that isn't the case, the evil can be nice to friends, family, those they love or are infatuated with (therkla) and may behave in more Good fashion toward them (being self-sacrificing, risking themself, etc.)

Exemplars of Evil and Champions of ruin covered the wide variety of villains in more detail. Suffice to say someone can be evil yet believe themselves to be good, or behave in a good fashion much of the time, but have their evil acts utterly wipe out the good they do.

Ron Miel

2008-08-15, 12:58 PM

I predict a trial, where a paladin will detect evil on her, and she will come up 'not evil'

only1doug

2008-08-15, 01:12 PM

If your answer to the question of Therkla's alignment is anything other than "Lawful Evil" or something close to it, you don't understand the alignment system. I really don't see how you interpret an obedient and loyal contract killer to be anything but, no matter how sympathetic a figure she may be.

Remember, Miko was Lawful Good at least up to the moment of losing her paladinhood, even though she was quite an unpleasant and unsympathetic character for some time before that.

I really haven't seen Therkla being obedient and loyal (loyal to the person of her boss maybe, but not to his orders), every time we have seen Therkla she has disobeyed her orders. As for Killer... well we haven't seen her kill anyone yet.

I originally thought that she was probably Evil, now i just think that she believes herself to be Evil but may actually be Neutral (or maybe even good but my money is on Neutral)

So no, i have seen no evidence that Therkla is Lawful Evil, instead we have witnessed her behaving in a Chaotic Good fashion.

King of Nowhere

2008-08-15, 01:31 PM

Since she kills innocents for an evil master, I don't see how she can be not evil. for law-chaos is less clear, but the only lawful action I see from her are due to loialty to Kubota. Most caotic people are loial to those they care for, so she could be caotic, but she could have displaied a much more chaotic behaviour, so I'm going to NE.
She may be going to change alignment, maybe. She don't seem beyond redemption.
She said that she sticks with Kubota because he was the only one to give her a place, because she was refused by the normal society because of her orcish blood.
it looks like all members of a "usually evil" race are widely distrusted and treated as bad people. It makes sense; even in the real world people are distrusted because of the color of their skin, or their beliefs, and they're humans like us. In a world where some races are labeled in a monster manual as evil, this would be much worse.
From this and SoD, I believe many members of these races, who weren't evil in their hearts, are driven to evil by the bad behaviour of those who consider them evil without give them a chance. I believe it is also the case of Therkla.

By the way, for all those quoting definitions and manuals: alignments started as a gaming concept, by they have real etic meanining. NOBODY can pretend to know the ultimate truth in ethic. NOBODY can say "this is good, and this is evil", and pretend to impose his beliefs to other people (except the most clear cases). Nobody can define an alignment, and say his is the correct definition of good or evil. Quoting from a manual aren't better than the opinion of everyone else.

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 01:33 PM

Salutarian...NO MORE! That said, is only example we have seen. Being given kill missions and do not them recently, yes, however as head of Kubota's ninjas it would be a big surprise if she hadn't done evil deeds before we meet her. Suppose she might, despite being pro assassin, not have the prestige class.

Victor Thorian

2008-08-15, 01:33 PM

Lawful Neutral.

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 01:37 PM

They have no meaning in real world (Would not recommend extrapolating from D&D to there) They do have meaning in the D&D setting. When your character WILL fall for doing an evil act (permanently in 2nd and 3rd ed) it does help to be informed what, in game, constitutes Evil. And thats what manuals do.

Concerning prejudice against the Usually evil, Roy appears to be one of the few exceptions in OOTS universe, who feels that killing people for anything other than a good reason, is wrong. See Origin of PCs.

Ron Miel

2008-08-15, 01:45 PM

As for Killer... well we haven't seen her kill anyone yet.

Didn't she kill her rival in Ninja School to become valedictorian?

(or am I thinking of another character)

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 02:02 PM

Yes, which is what I quoted. If she was of nonevil Lawful alignment, and if she has committed no other major evil acts than that murder (unless offscreen events suggest it was manslaughter or self-defense) then she might not be destined for Nine Hells.

By Fiendish Codex 2 rules (which I'm not sure if Rich knows about or would use) any Lawful character with enough unatoned for Evil deeds goes to nine Hells regardless of alignment. Hmm.

David Argall

2008-08-15, 02:35 PM

I really haven't seen Therkla being obedient and loyal (loyal to the person of her boss maybe, but not to his orders), every time we have seen Therkla she has disobeyed her orders.
We have seen her disobeying orders only where Elan was concerned. Orders to arrange an ambush of the party by the orcs with presumably fatal results were carried out, until they clashed with Elan.
Orders to attack Hinjo were carried out by subordinates she sent after him.

QUOTE=only1doug;4716699]As for Killer... well we haven't seen her kill anyone yet.[/QUOTE]
She killed the valvictorian of her ninja class. Also, she has been on Kubota's payroll for 7 years, and the presumption is that she has killed a number of times during that period.

QUOTE=only1doug;4716699]i have seen no evidence that Therkla is Lawful Evil, instead we have witnessed her behaving in a Chaotic Good fashion. [/QUOTE]
It would seem you have refused to see. LE is quite obviously the default alignment for her. Now whether she still has that alignment is another story. The idea of the bad guy reformed by the good girl is very common, and so it is possible we have Elan reforming Therkla here. But so far, all we have is a lass that thinks a night in the hay is more important than her alignment.

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 02:41 PM

Yup. In both 2nd and 3rd ed, a couple of minor CG acts are not enough to immediately move someone out of LE alignment, more acts are needed.

And ordering people to carry out evil acts is evil- whether as evil is another question entirely.

What about order people, to order people, to carry out evil acts? i'd say, still evil. But if thats how Kubota did it, he could be asked under ZoT "Did you order ninjas to kill Hinjo?" and say "no" truthfully, and hope no-one thinks to ask the question "Did you order someone ELSE to order ninjas to kill hinjo?"

Ron Miel

2008-08-15, 03:52 PM

A thought about Japanese/Azurite culture - or at least the version of it that occurs in fantasy/ adventure settings. This may or may not reflect the real historical Japan. I don't know.

Warriors followed the code of bushido. The entire culture was very heavy on duty and service to a master. They swore loyalty unto death to a master, and followed his bidding. A good man might swear allegiance to a wicked master. And the whole warrior ethic would demand total obedience. Any commands given, the warrior was required to obey. Faithful service to an evil master was considered to be particularly honourable, and to break your oath would be unspeakable. So, she could assassinate innocent people on her master's orders, yet still be a good person by the standards of her own culture.

See Usagi Yojimbo book 4 for an excellent story about a good man bound by duty to an evil lord.

hamishspence

2008-08-15, 03:58 PM

Conforming the the standards of your culture was only Good in 2nd ed, because it had the clause the "good values" may differ from culture to culture and still be valid. and even then, it didn't usually take it that far.

With 3rd ed, cultural differences could not be that extreme. it tended to standardize what constituted Good and Evil. Which went through things like Exalted deeds, Vile Darkness, Champions of ruin, etc.

Even way back in 1st ed, it stated that a paladin who follows Evil orders from his legal superior Falls.

Fiendish codex 2 had a very special role for those who followed orders regardless of how Evil they were. They become Nargazons rather than going stright to lemure.

Kish

2008-08-15, 04:02 PM

A thought about Japanese/Azurite culture - or at least the version of it that occurs in fantasy/ adventure settings. This may or may not reflect the real historical Japan. I don't know.
In addition to what hamishspence said, I'm afraid you lost me at your first sentence. There is not only one version of pseudo-Japanese culture across all fantasy/adventure settings.

only1doug

2008-08-16, 08:55 AM

<snip>
It would seem you have refused to see. LE is quite obviously the default alignment for her. Now whether she still has that alignment is another story. The idea of the bad guy reformed by the good girl is very common, and so it is possible we have Elan reforming Therkla here. But so far, all we have is a lass that thinks a night in the hay is more important than her alignment.

not so much that i refuse to see as that the events that haven't occurred on-screen, they are backstory. backstory isn't a component of a current alignment.

my opinion won't change because you say backstory proves xxx, Events within the comic are the indication of alignment, those events have indicated to me that her alignment is (probably) Chaotic Neutral.

Telling people they are clearly wrong because they disagree with you and stating your opinions as if they were facts isn't a very convincing tactic David.

(PS: add some [ to the start of those quote boxes)