The mitd alignment thread

[Gamerlord]

We discuss the mitd's alignment here and ONLY here till it ends up on page 3

[drengnikrafe]

I am going to say that based upon the innocent nature of the MITD, and his squeemishness, he is either Good or Neutral. Based upon his sillyness, he is either Chaotic or Neutral. My best guess is CG.

[GoryCat]

So good is dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb)? Actual innocence like that of a child is surely Neutral, by lacking the judgement necessary to actually take a moral stand. Going by the behavior typefied by the O-Chul/MITD conversation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0549.html), I'd say that the monster is also Chaotic: it (passively-aggressively) defies Xyklon's rules. So, Chaotic Neutral for me.

[bird2234]

Good isn't dumb, but MiTD has never hurt innocents (Miko ain't innocent).
But then again, MiTD has never done anything to protect innocents, so I'm putting my bet on Chaotic Nuetral.

[drengnikrafe]

So good is dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb)? Actual innocence like that of a child is surely Neutral, by lacking the judgement necessary to actually take a moral stand. Going by the behavior typefied by the O-Chul/MITD conversation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0549.html), I'd say that the monster is also Chaotic: it (passively-aggressively) defies Xyklon's rules. So, Chaotic Neutral for me.

I did not mean that good was dumb (although I can see how that could be interpreted). I meant that... umm... think about it. If you have innocence, if you have not yet seen the harsh ways of the world, then you are inherantly good. In fact, it is my belief that most people are born inherantly good, and then can get corrupted (please don't attack me on this, it's beside the point, for the most part). Think about it for a moment, though. Would the MITD consciously, maliciously attack another individual just to inflict damage? Not at all. Would he try to save someone who was in trouble, or at least hope for their success? I believe so ("my money says he gets away and lives happily ever after). I guess I'm up in the air between CN and CG, depending on whether innocence is good or not.

[GoryCat]

Well, I didn't intend my comment to be harsh, just a little sarcastic. Sidestepping the question of whether innocent children are good or neutral, I can at least point you to this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html). The stomping was the roach's idea, but the MITD is both undisturbed by the notion of unprovoked violence and pretty low-key about the results. Basically, he's acting selfishly without acting cynically, which is morally neutral in the same way as the angel in this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) says that she can justify Roy's being ethically neutral. For her, the deciding evidence for Roy's being Lawful was that he tried to be so, however ambiguously he succeeded. Adapting that criterion, the MITD doesn't seem to give a damn one way or the other: it's just all about him. That's why I say his innocence is of the neutral sort.

[Red XIV]

So good is dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb)?
I think you were looking for dumb is good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbIsGood).

[GoryCat]

I think you were looking for dumb is good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbIsGood).

That one does have the description I wanted, yes. I actually had in mind the line from Spaceballs, though, in which Dark Helmet uses "is" sort of as an equals sign. It doesn't matter; thank you.

[Borris]

I'd go with Unaligned. I doubt the CitD ever gave ethical arguments much consideration.

[drengnikrafe]

Well, I didn't intend my comment to be harsh, just a little sarcastic. Sidestepping the question of whether innocent children are good or neutral, I can at least point you to this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html). The stomping was the roach's idea, but the MITD is both undisturbed by the notion of unprovoked violence and pretty low-key about the results. Basically, he's acting selfishly without acting cynically, which is morally neutral in the same way as the angel in this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) says that she can justify Roy's being ethically neutral. For her, the deciding evidence for Roy's being Lawful was that he tried to be so, however ambiguously he succeeded. Adapting that criterion, the MITD doesn't seem to give a damn one way or the other: it's just all about him. That's why I say his innocence is of the neutral sort.

Well, now that you've given your examples (I never followed the MitD very closely, I just kind of remember things he did, sometimes), I must say that I can see more neutrality then good. I preseve my thought of "CN or CG", but now I lean more towards CN.

[Lissou]

I'm going to say... Chaotic Neutral?

He seems to do a mix of evil things without really thinking about them (scrapping babies off his plate, threatening to kill the order because they won't let him play) while having good feelings too (wanting O-Chul to be saved, being generally nice...)

Chaotic because I think he fits in the line of other chaotic characters, such as Thog and Elan.

[NerfTW]

He's evil. He repeatedly wants to eat people, regardless of thier alignment. Just because he won't eat babies (evil can have a limit) doesn't mean he's good or neutral. Mind you, all of the eating people strips are from SoD or the bonus strips, so it isn't obvious, but he's definitely EVIL.

Also, he wants to eat the heroes who are trying to stop Xykon in his first appearance. There is no possible way for a good or neutral being to say "Hey, I'm going to team with this lich trying to take over the world and eat the good guys". It's ludicrous.

[Nerdanel]

My first and best guess is Chaotic Neutral. My second guess is True Neutral. I don't think I need a third guess.

[Linkavitch]

Good isn't dumb, but MiTD has never hurt innocents (Miko ain't innocent).
But then again, MiTD has never done anything to protect innocents, so I'm putting my bet on Chaotic Nuetral.


So good is dumb? Actual innocence like that of a child is surely Neutral, by lacking the judgement necessary to actually take a moral stand. Going by the behavior typefied by the O-Chul/MITD conversation, I'd say that the monster is also Chaotic: it (passively-aggressively) defies Xyklon's rules. So, Chaotic Neutral for me.

I, too go with CN.

[snoopy13a]

He's evil. He repeatedly wants to eat people, regardless of thier alignment. Just because he won't eat babies (evil can have a limit) doesn't mean he's good or neutral. Mind you, all of the eating people strips are from SoD or the bonus strips, so it isn't obvious, but he's definitely EVIL.

Also, he wants to eat the heroes who are trying to stop Xykon in his first appearance. There is no possible way for a good or neutral being to say "Hey, I'm going to team with this lich trying to take over the world and eat the good guys". It's ludicrous.

In the beginning of the strip when the order is raiding the dungeon he does appear to be evil. Over time, he seems less evil and more child-like. It is possible that he has shifted from an evil alignment towards a neutral alignment.

[Evil DM Mark3]

CN or NN with the [Evil] sub-type.

It can happen, there are even rules for it.

[Warren Dew]

I am going to say that based upon the innocent nature of the MITD, and his squeemishness, he is either Good or Neutral.

His "squeamishness" didn't seem to prevent him from enjoying watching Roy getting shot with javelins, cut up with circular saws, doubly poisoned, dropped into a spiked pit, then having fire ants feast on his body in strip 37.

I think his apparent caring for O Chul stems mostly from O Chul's history as a rag doll for the monster.

[Innis Cabal]

Lawful Hungry

[Shadow_Elf]

The MitD is nice to O-Chul. And he was being nice to Roy, even though he was... ummm... dead. I don't believe that causing the Earth Quake was inherantly evil, but it was certainly Chaotic. And he just generally immature most of the time. So, my vote goes towards Chaotic Neutral. (unfortunately this means that he ceases to exist in 4e)

[Rei_Jin]

I'd actually go with unaligned, or true neutral. In the same way that a child does what those who protect it ask, the MitD is simply doing what is modelled for it. It is used to evil because it doesn't know anything else, and I would have to say that it is at the moment incapable of making a moral decision. If you've read all the prequels, you'll see what I mean. It's got the intelligence of a child, and the interests of one. It doesn't seem to understand the consequences of its actions, which is what is used to define responsibility for oneself.

[Chronos]

He's evil. He repeatedly wants to eat people, regardless of thier alignment. Just because he won't eat babies (evil can have a limit) doesn't mean he's good or neutral. Mind you, all of the eating people strips are from SoD or the bonus strips, so it isn't obvious, but he's definitely EVIL.The one thing we know for certain about Monster-san's alignment is that he's not evil. We know this because O-Chul tells us so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0550.html), and paladins can detect evil.

Personally, I'm going to throw in my mark with the "true neutral" crowd. He tolerates evil in Xykon and Redcloak, but never seems inclined to actually do any himself. And he shows both lawful and chaotic behaviors, about equally. This is also consistent with his simplistic mental state.

[MyrddinDerwydd]

Just for my 2 pence, I would lean toward the chaotic, rather than true, neutral side of the argument. He may grow out of the childish chaotic ways, but at the moment he seems pretty ambivalent.

[Prowl]

MitD is Chaotic Stupid (the counterpart to the traditional Lawful Stupid).

[Max_Sinister]

I'd also guess CN or TN (and if non-traditional alignments apply, also Chaotic Stupid and Chaotic Hungry).

[TreesOfDeath]

Choatic Neutral. It doesn't yet seem capable of any other aligement

[Nychta]

I would agree with Chaotic Stupid, but if we have to have traditional alignments, true neutral, just with low intelligence, wisdom, and maturity.