Are these characters LG, CG, LE or CE? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Enlong

2008-09-13, 05:16 PM

I don't play D&D, so I'm not familiar wiht this hole lawful and chaotic-thing. I get it a little bit, but I can't put my finger on what the following characters are:

Thog (He adventured with Elan once, and Elan is the enemy of Thog's leader Nale? CE?)
Sabine
Miko
Xykon
Redcloak
Pompey (He left the Linear Guild, CE?)
Evil Gnome Druid(Same as Pompey)
Vaarsuvius (Well, he's good because he was effected by the goblins Unholy Blight, but Lawful or chaotic?)
Durkon
Thog: Chaotic Evil.
Sabine: Inconclusive Evil (the ambiguity of her being a Demon or Devil is a running gag. I say Lawful but that's me)
Miko: Lawful Good/Neutral (She's done some terrible things, but she believes that what she's doing is good, and she's trying to seve the gods... it's way too metaphysical for me)
Xykon: Chaotic Evil. Full stop.
Redcloak: I'ma say Lawful Evil.
Pompey: Neutral Evil
Leeky: Neutral Evil (Druids have to be Neutral on one axis, he calls himself an "Evil" Gnome druid.)
Vaarsuvius: True Neutral, I think. Keeps in with his character (specifically noting his attitude towards the Dirt Farmer rescue.)
Durkon: LAWFUL Good. (he blesses beer, he's never been seen using an Inflict Wounds spell, etc.)

Lissou

2008-09-13, 05:16 PM

Thog: CE
Sabine: Evil, but whether she's Lawful or Chaotic decides whether she's a devil or a demon... So, maybe Neutral :P
Miko: A paladin needs to be LG
Xykon: CE
Redcloak: LE
Pompey, Leaky: probably NE. Druids have to be Neutral in some way, so Leaky has to be NE as he said he was evil. Pompey's just my view on him.
V: Probably true Neutral. You can be affected by Unholy Blight as long as you're not Evil, so you can still be Neutral. I'm pretty sure V's true Neutral, the other possibility being Neutral Good.
Durkon: he has been acting pretty much like a Lawful God character. But Thir has been acting Chaotic, and Durkon can't have more than one alignment apart. So either Durkon is LG and Thor NG or Durkon is NG and Thor CG. I think it's the former.

Aeriander

2008-09-13, 05:19 PM

Sorry for the ninja. :smallyuk:

Lissou

2008-09-13, 05:20 PM

Sorry for the ninja. :smallyuk:

That's what happens to you when you try to eplain your position carefully :P

But no worries, this way we can see what we all seem to agree on and what we don't.

T-O-E

2008-09-13, 05:21 PM

Thog - Chaotic evil. Although, a case can be made for chaotic neutral as he's too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.
Sabine - Evil, probably chaotic or neutral.
Miko - Depends. Did she fall because of her evil act or because her alignment shifted? If the latter, lawful neutral.
Xykon - Chaotic evil, no doubt about it.
Redcloak - Lawful evil.
Pompey - Uncertain.
Evil Gnome Druid - True Neutral. Maybe neutral evil. EDIT: According to the other posts, neutral evil.
Vaarsuvius - Doesn't unholy blight also affect neutrals? I can't give one, the only thing I know is that hir alignment is not evil.
Durkon - Lawful good.

Durkon: he has been acting pretty much like a Lawful God character. But Thir has been acting Chaotic, and Durkon can't have more than one alignment apart. So either Durkon is LG and Thor NG or Durkon is NG and Thor CG. I think it's the former.

The Giant doesn't really stick to the rules, not completely.
Jokes>Plot>Rules.

Cizak

2008-09-13, 05:23 PM

Thanks Guys :)

If I find more characters that I don't know about, I'll post them here :)

LuisDantas

2008-09-13, 05:34 PM

Vaarsuvius - Doesn't unholy blight also affect neutrals?

Yes, it does.

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

belboz

2008-09-13, 05:41 PM

Sabine - Evil, probably chaotic or neutral.

Definitely chaotic or lawful--she's either a demon or a devil. But as said before, it's a running gag which one, so we've really got to say "unspecified."

Miko - Depends. Did she fall because of her evil act or because her alignment shifted? If the latter, lawful neutral.

This, of course, is the perennial can of worms. Miko was clearly LG for almost all of her life; paladins can't be otherwise. Personally, I'm inclined to think that at the end (that is, at- and post-fall), she was too deeply insane to count as having an alignment in any standard sense.

Xykon - Chaotic evil, no doubt about it.

Evil, at any rate. His capriciousness makes chaotic the most likely, I'll agree.

Vaarsuvius - Doesn't unholy blight also affect neutrals? I can't give one, the only thing I know is that hir alignment is not evil.

I think this either changes over the course of the strip or is simply an inconsistent bit. While Unholy Blight damages neutrals, it does not cause a status change, which suggests that Vaarsuvius is good at the time of that strip. On the other hand, it seems hard to believe that anyone so entirely uninterested in altruism could possibly count as good. So, either good at first, later drifting into neutral, or portrayed as good at some points and neutral at others (my personal guess is the latter; 100% consistency is a bit much to expect).

Danukian

2008-09-13, 05:45 PM

Thog - Chaotic evil. Although, a case can be made for chaotic neutral as he's too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.

NO - Thog is Evil. Being stupid would be a factor if he was being tricked/manipulated - but Thog not only enjoys senseless violence, but he considers murder a reasonable way to eliminate something that stands in the way of him and a good time.

NerfTW

2008-09-13, 06:10 PM

Thog is evil, he openly enjoys killing, and wants to kill without Nale's orders. (boredom driven killing spree)

Miko was lawful good to the very end. The reason she fell is because she made a REALLY terrible judgement call. She didn't suddenly shift to neutral or evil, because in her mind, she felt that Shojo was the evil one.

I'm fairly certain Varsuvius has been stated as True Neutral. If not stated, he has demonstrated that her quest for arcane power drifts a bit out of the "good" side of the spectrum on occasion.

Spiryt

2008-09-13, 06:16 PM

Miko was lawful good to the very end. The reason she fell is because she made a REALLY terrible judgement call. She didn't suddenly shift to neutral or evil, because in her mind, she felt that Shojo was the evil one.

Nah. If people making horrible things beacuse they thought they were alright were really alright... It would be more horrible.

Miko was intelligent, free willed creature, and she was brought into this delusion by herself.
And nothing justified killing defenseless man just like that.

David Argall

2008-09-13, 06:33 PM

Thog - Has to be kept drugged [with ice cream] to prevent random massacres. definitely CE

Thog not only enjoys senseless violence, but he considers murder a reasonable way to eliminate something that stands in the way of him and a good time.
More simply, he considers murder a good time.

Nale? LE seems the best bet.

Sabine CE-Demons are routinely CE. My guess is that she has been sent to tempt Nale to CE

Miko LG-Roy gets LG because he is trying, and Miko was trying [in several ways, yes, but..] way harder.

Xykon CE. His only pleasure is killing people.

Redcloak NE, that's the standard for goblins.

Pompey NE, possibly NN, he gets a job with the druid

Evil Gnome Druid NE He has to have a neutral aspect, and his comment suggest he does not share the standard NN, so NE.

Vaarsuvius CG, standard for elves. She was clearly good when hit by Unholy Blight, which does not sicken neutrals, and was arrogant and wordy then too.

Durkon LG,

Durkon: he has been acting pretty much like a Lawful God character. But Thir has been acting Chaotic, and Durkon can't have more than one alignment apart.
Our writer has said that Thor is LG [presumably to allow Durkon to be his cleric as he hasn't shown much lawful.]

The Extinguisher

2008-09-13, 07:15 PM

I thought he said that Thor was neutral good, or that the cleric thing didn't apply. Because Thor is not lawful.

Anyway, I think V is lawful neutral. Because he certianally isn't good, and he's rather devoted (to power, finding Haley and Roy, tormenting Belkar, etc).

snoopy13a

2008-09-13, 07:21 PM

Thog (He adventured with Elan once, and Elan is the enemy of Thog's leader Nale? CE?) Chaotic Evil
Sabine Either Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil (we don't know if she is a devil or demon)
Miko- Lawful Neutral (can't see how a murderer can be lawful good without atonement)
Xykon - Chaotic Evil
Redcloak - Lawful Evil
Pompey (He left the Linear Guild, CE?)- Neutral Evil?
Evil Gnome Druid(Same as Pompey)- Neutral Evil
Vaarsuvius (Well, he's good because he was effected by the goblins Unholy Blight, but Lawful or chaotic?) - True Neutral
Durkon- Lawful Good

Danukian

2008-09-13, 07:35 PM

Miko- Lawful Neutral (can't see how a murderer can be lawful good without

Unlike Thog, who knowingly commits murder for the fun of it, Miko honestly, though irrationally, believed that she was killing a man that was pretending to insane so he could secret in an evil party of adventurers to destroy the universe - she was remained utterly devoted to her personal code but fell to hubris. If she was right, she would be no more a murderer than Roy. Miko is LG, and fell because she was mislead buy a CE halfling.

Enlong

2008-09-13, 07:43 PM

Nale? LE seems the best bet.
More then just a safe bet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html).

Sabine CE-Demons are routinely CE. My guess is that she has been sent to tempt Nale to CE
Chaotic is Demons, Lawful is Devils. The ambiguity of her nature is a running gag, so it can only be inconclusive.

Vaarsuvius CG, standard for elves. She was clearly good when hit by Unholy Blight, which does not sicken neutrals, and was arrogant and wordy then too.
Doubtful. V is most likely Good as of the Blight comic, but Chaotic? V? More likely Neutral, and Wizards tend toward Lawful anyway: but he's not quite as tactical as, say, Dorukan, but is more tactical then Xykon (though he does share Xykon's usual method for fighting stuff.)

Cestrian

2008-09-13, 07:46 PM

Miko LG-Roy gets LG because he is trying, and Miko was trying [in several ways, yes, but..] way harder.

Not that I actually disagree with you but one of the reasons why Roy was considered good was because when he made a mistake (abandoning Elan) he then recognised it and did everything he could to make sure he didn't do that again (saving him three more times at great personal inconvenience). He was trying to be a good person even after he failed.

Miko didn't ever do that and given that the Deva said that if he hadn't recognised his error and tried to correct it he would be put down as true neutral you could make the argument that so would Miko. I don't believe that argument myself (the incidents in question are very different) but nor do I think it's as black and white as you're making it out.

Spiryt

2008-09-13, 07:47 PM

Unlike Thog, who knowingly commits murder for the fun of it, Miko honestly, though irrationally, believed that she was killing a man that was pretending to insane so he could secret in an evil party of adventurers to destroy the universe - she was remained utterly devoted to her personal code but fell to hubris. If she was right, she would be no more a murderer than Roy. Miko is LG, and fell because she was mislead buy a CE halfling.

See my post before.

It's not like she hadn't other points of view before her, that she was dumb or retarted, and that she hadn't time for reflection.
Rejecting the help of guy who wanted to help her even though she killed his uncle? After the Gods who she had supposedly worshipped shown her that she sined?

Sorry, but if such willful ignorance, delusion, and sheer haughtiness and pride haven't made her evil, they at least made her neutral.

So Lawful Neutral is safest guess, although I would wonder about Neutral - as he was acting very chaotic in the end. No more rules, codes of conduct or something - just stuff that spawned in her own mind.

Dentarthur

2008-09-13, 07:48 PM

I thought it was pretty clear that Sabine is an evil incarnation of illicit sex (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0394.html) -- a succubus, and therefore CE. Is there a type of devil that I'm forgetting about which fits that description?

lordofthe_wog

2008-09-13, 08:03 PM

Didn't Rich write in one published book or another that Sabine is essentially a modified succubus? If so, CE.

Danukian

2008-09-13, 08:04 PM

See my post before.

It's not like she hadn't other points of view before her, that she was dumb or retarted, and that she hadn't time for reflection.
Rejecting the help of guy who wanted to help her even though she killed his uncle? After the Gods who she had supposedly worshipped shown her that she sined?

Sorry, but if such willful ignorance, delusion, and sheer haughtiness and pride haven't made her evil, they at least made her neutral.

So Lawful Neutral is safest guess, although I would wonder about Neutral - as he was acting very chaotic in the end. No more rules, codes of conduct or something - just stuff that spawned in her own mind.

That is Hubris, not ethical neutrality - she knew Belkar was evil, and as the Oracle pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html), she was totally convinced that any one that rallied to aid him was evil - including Hinjo, wither her tried to help her or not, he was still allied with a CE character, which is supposed to be a big no-no for Paladins.

Spiryt

2008-09-13, 08:13 PM

That is Hubris, not ethical neutrality - she knew Belkar was evil, and as the Oracle pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html), she was totally convinced that any one that rallied to aid him was evil - including Hinjo, wither her tried to help her or not, he was still allied with a CE character, which is supposed to be a big no-no for Paladins.

And as I wrote, her total conviction doesn't help her at all, and in fact it is her fault and her evil act.
Complicated, tragical but an evil act. It's Rich who doesn't make evil acts like standard stupid "I serve dark gods, blah blah", but make them logical and psychological, like other people's behaviours. And that's great.

It can be "big no no for Paladin" but killing defensless man is way bigger no no for Paladin, what was quickly confirmed by the Gods themselves. Hinjo stayed blue.

NerfTW

2008-09-13, 08:34 PM

And as I wrote, her total conviction doesn't help her at all, and in fact it is her fault and her evil act.
Complicated, tragical but an evil act. It's Rich who doesn't make evil acts like standard stupid "I serve dark gods, blah blah", but make them logical and psychological, like other people's behaviours. And that's great.

It can be "big no no for Paladin" but killing defensless man is way bigger no no for Paladin, what was quickly confirmed by the Gods themselves. Hinjo stayed blue.

I agree that the act itself was evil, however, my major problem with the whole alignment system is the pigeonholing of characters into one set of actions. It is entirely possible for a good person to do something evil out of poor judgement, just as much as it's possible for an evil character to do something good for thier own reasons.

Don't forget that Roy has, despite being lawful good, has abandoned a teammate to bandits (an evil act that he regreted and repented for), coerced Shojo to allow Belkar, a known murderer to go free, and lied to the order to convince them to help him in a completely selfish quest for starmetal that put all thier lives at risk.

That doesn't make his alignment "evil" or "neutral" now, it simply means he made judgement errors, and regreted them. Miko was held to a higher standard of alignment, and therefore lost her powers for a judgement error, but it doesn't mean her alignment shifted. She didn't have the chance to attone for her crimes, since she died only a day later.

Izad

2008-09-13, 08:45 PM

I agree that the act itself was evil, however, my major problem with the whole alignment system is the pigeonholing of characters into one set of actions. It is entirely possible for a good person to do something evil out of poor judgement, just as much as it's possible for an evil character to do something good for thier own reasons.

Don't forget that Roy has, despite being lawful good, has abandoned a teammate to bandits (an evil act that he regreted and repented for), coerced Shojo to allow Belkar, a known murderer to go free, and lied to the order to convince them to help him in a completely selfish quest for starmetal that put all thier lives at risk.

That doesn't make his alignment "evil" or "neutral" now, it simply means he made judgement errors, and regreted them. Miko was held to a higher standard of alignment, and therefore lost her powers for a judgement error, but it doesn't mean her alignment shifted. She didn't have the chance to attone for her crimes, since she died only a day later.

I couldn't have said this better myself. Miko may have been hidebound and shortsighted, but what she saw as evil she opposed, and what she saw as law she tried to uphold. In her eyes she was LG, what the Sorting Hat of the Afterlife would say is up to individual opinion.

Incidentally, I was digging through my players guide, and it sez here that paladins lose their paladin abilities for:

1) Leaving the LG alignment
2) Willfully commiting an evil act
3) Grossly violating the code of conduct

Regardless of whether Miko changed alignments (I'm of the opinion that she didn't) or whether she commited an evil act (she intended to commit a good one) killing the commander of your order probably counts as "grossly violating the code of conduct."

Spiryt

2008-09-13, 08:53 PM

Don't forget that Roy has, despite being lawful good, has abandoned a teammate to bandits (an evil act that he regreted and repented for), coerced Shojo to allow Belkar, a known murderer to go free, and lied to the order to convince them to help him in a completely selfish quest for starmetal that put all thier lives at risk.

That doesn't make his alignment "evil" or "neutral" now, it simply means he made judgement errors, and regreted them. Miko was held to a higher standard of alignment, and therefore lost her powers for a judgement error, but it doesn't mean her alignment shifted. She didn't have the chance to attone for her crimes, since she died only a day later.

It's indeed problem with D&D alignments - was Roy lawful neutral/evil in his moment of leaving Elan alone? Or maybe your explanation is better?

Anyway, the difference is that Roy certainly commited acts that were at least less than good - they actually cannot anyhow compare to murder.

snoopy13a

2008-09-13, 08:53 PM

I suppose that Miko killing Shojo could also be seen as a chaotic act. An argument could be made that killing Shojo wasn't evil (although I believe it was evil, as Shojo was helpless) but as it violated the laws and traditions of Azure City that it was chaotic. Miko resisting arrest by Hinjo is more disrespect of the law and is another chaotic act.

So, I'm changing Miko from Lawful Neutral to True Neutral. If one argues that killing Shojo wasn't evil, then I suppose her alignment would be Neutral Good due to her extreme chaotic actions(hence causing the loss of her paladin powers).

snoopy13a

2008-09-13, 09:00 PM

Regardless of whether Miko changed alignments (I'm of the opinion that she didn't) or whether she commited an evil act (she intended to commit a good one) killing the commander of your order probably counts as "grossly violating the code of conduct."

Not if he isn't legitmate anymore which both Hinjo and Miko believe. Apparently, in Azure City, no one is above the law so once Shojo was found to have violated it, the paladins no longer have to follow his commands. Although, Miko ignoring Hinjo's advice to arrest Shojo could possibly fall under this.

Surfing HalfOrc

2008-09-13, 09:21 PM

Thog : Chaotic Evil
Nale: Lawful Evil
Sabine: Chaotic Evil (Being Chaotic doesn't preclude employment by others. Sabine is more of an Independant Contractor than a cog in a bureaucracy.)
Miko: Lawful Good. Heavy emphasis on the Lawful, a bit light on the good.
Xykon: Chaotic Evil
Redcloak: Lawful Evil
Pompey : Chaotic Evil
Gnome Druid: Neutral Evil
Vaarsuvius: Neutral, with good tendancies
Durkon: Lawful Good.
Roy: Lawful Good
Elan: Chaotic Good
Haley: Mostly Chaotic Good, with some tendancies towards Chaotic Neutral
Belkar: Pure Chaotic Evil, heading towards Chaotic Evil (Our happily psychotic halfling went a bit too far killing the gnome.)

Prowl

2008-09-13, 09:31 PM

Thog - Chaotic Evil, shouldn't need an explanation
Nale - Neutral Evil, he'll use the law to his own advantage but doesn't particularly care for it otherwise
Sabine - Chaotic Evil, this should not be in question, she calls herself the literal incarnation of illicit sex
Miko - Lawful Good until the end where I believe she transitions into Lawful Neutral
Xykon - Chaotic Evil, follow the bouncing ball
Redcloak - Lawful Evil, he's all about following his evil god's Plan
Pompey - Evil, we don't really have enough information to say whether lawful, neutral, or chaotic
Evil Gnome Druid(Same as Pompey) - Leeky Windstaff is his name, he's Neutral Evil, we know the Neutral because of class alignment restrictions
Vaarsuvius - Neutral Good
Durkon - Lawful Good

Enlong

2008-09-13, 09:37 PM

Nale - Neutral Evil, he'll use the law to his own advantage but doesn't particularly care for it otherwise

Not so. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html)

Sabine - Chaotic Evil, this should not be in question, she calls herself the literal incarnation of illicit sex
Her Law vs Chaos alignment is supposed to be ambiguous. Note that the comc takes the time to show us Haley using Silver and Cold Iron several comics after Sabine makes that comment.
Also, there's some contradictory stuff. She makes that comment, which sort of says Chaotic, and then she turns out to be working on the promise of a 10% finder's fee and literally sells Blackguard levels, which sort of says Lawful to me.
(and maybe the Devils are perverted, too)

Prowl

2008-09-13, 09:44 PM

Not so. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html)

Her Law vs Chaos alignment is supposed to be ambiguous. Note that the comc takes the time to show us Haley using Silver and Cold Iron several comics after Sabine makes that comment.
Also, there's some contradictory stuff. She makes that comment, which sort of says Chaotic, and then she turns out to be working on the promise of a 10% finder's fee and literally sells Blackguard levels, which sort of says Lawful to me.
(and maybe the Devils are perverted, too)

On Nale, I stand corrected.

On Sabine, it may be supposed to be ambiguous to the protagonists, but what she admits to the reader leaves absolutely no room for doubt that she is Chaotic Evil and a succubus.

The Extinguisher

2008-09-13, 09:46 PM

It's fairly obvious she is some kind of succubus. But seeing as she is a very atypical succubus, she might not be chaotic. She seemed very neutral evil to me.

Enlong

2008-09-13, 09:53 PM

Even if she is like a succubus, the joke depends on her alignment being ambiguous. It's entirely possible that she is a homebrewed Devil with similar powers.
For one thing, Sabine relishes combat, whereas succubi avoid combat whenever possible.
Guessing Sabine's alignment is really the same as guessing at V's gender. For the joke to work, it has to be ambiguous, and so it shall remain.

Prowl

2008-09-13, 10:22 PM

Guys, look up the definition of "illicit" in the dictionary, it will perhaps help you wrap your minds around the idea of Sabine being Chaotic.

Enlong

2008-09-13, 10:27 PM

Guys, look up the definition of "illicit" in the dictionary, it will perhaps help you wrap your minds around the idea of Sabine being Chaotic.

Oh, I completely understand the idea of Sabine being Chaotic. I also understand the evidence for her being Lawful, and the fact that we are not meant to know the answer.

snoopy13a

2008-09-13, 10:32 PM

Guys, look up the definition of "illicit" in the dictionary, it will perhaps help you wrap your minds around the idea of Sabine being Chaotic.

Ok, Sabine is CE and Haley not knowing is simply dramatic irony. Makes sense.

Enlong

2008-09-13, 10:37 PM

Lord Seth

2008-09-13, 10:40 PM

Prowl

2008-09-13, 10:41 PM

But you'd think Nale would know her alignment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0255.html). No Cure makes it clear in a bonus strip that Sabine's promiscuity has been an issue before that. Just playing Devil's Demon's Fiend's Advocate here.

Nale also thought she might be offended by the idea of him trying to sleep with Haley, so familiarity aside, he's not an authority on all the details of his succubus ally.

dps

2008-09-13, 10:41 PM

Not that I actually disagree with you but one of the reasons why Roy was considered good was because when he made a mistake (abandoning Elan) he then recognised it and did everything he could to make sure he didn't do that again (saving him three more times at great personal inconvenience). He was trying to be a good person even after he failed.

Miko didn't ever do that and given that the Deva said that if he hadn't recognised his error and tried to correct it he would be put down as true neutral you could make the argument that so would Miko. I don't believe that argument myself (the incidents in question are very different) but nor do I think it's as black and white as you're making it out.

Difference is, I think that Roy really knew in his heart when he abandoned Elan that it was wrong (though he didn't consciously acknowledge it till later), whereas Miko truly thought that she was right.

Enlong

2008-09-13, 10:50 PM

Nale also thought she might be offended by the idea of him trying to sleep with Haley, so familiarity aside, he's not an authority on all the details of his succubus ally.

He just knew that she was mad, and that was the first explanation he could think of. He already knows that she sleeps around a lot (see No Cure).
In addition, I'm not convinced that she's a succubus. In Rich's words, she "relishes physical combat a lot more then we expect from succubi-types". And her Fiendish overlords strike me as Lawful. But definately lawful Evil (vacations instead of cash? it's a scam!)

FatJose

2008-09-13, 11:19 PM

Thing with Miko is that she was raised in a monastery. She was a monk first and her upbringing made her deeply rooted in the Lawful alignment. Now, with that mojo going on, she becomes a paladin but, Alignment is based more on action than thought. Which is why Roy didnt go to NG After-Life. His mindset is that off a struggling LG. Still, he tries.

Lawful Good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
-D&D PHB 3.5

Miko, is LG by action. She follows orders and vanquishes evil. But she has always been Lawful Neutral at heart and it shows. She doesn't care about saving people, but she enjoys destroying evil and enforcing and following every law in the book. It's just happenstance that she saves any one.

What made her go crazy wasn't just that she believed everyone was evil. She ranted about the Law being meaningless. She became a vigilante. But actions come first, so the gods waited for her to make it official. When she struck down Shojo for breaking the law (and possible evilness), even though he was old and unarmed, she lost her Lawful and Good alignments.

I say True Neutral (She was also trying to redeem herself but not the way your supposed to. She still thought she could prove everyone else wrong.)

Lissou

2008-09-13, 11:26 PM

I originally thought Xykon was Chaotic Evil, but as TV Tropes notes on their Neutral Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeutralEvil) page, he has been shown planning uncharacteristic of a Chaotic Evil person. The best example is his conversation with Redcloak at the end of Start of Darkness, where he shows he can plan pretty darn well if he wants to.

Thog is a tricky one. I think I'd classify him under Neutral Evil, because in spite of his normal "Chaotic" nature he at least shows a good amount of loyalty to Nale.

I'm still pondering if Miko went over to Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral when she fell.

Being able to plan and being Lawful are two different things.
Shojo was obviously able to plan ahead. Yet, he just as bviously wasn't Lawful.

snoopy13a

2008-09-13, 11:34 PM

I originally thought Xykon was Chaotic Evil, but as TV Tropes notes on their Neutral Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeutralEvil) page, he has been shown planning uncharacteristic of a Chaotic Evil person. The best example is his conversation with Redcloak at the end of Start of Darkness, where he shows he can plan pretty darn well if he wants to.

Thog is a tricky one. I think I'd classify him under Neutral Evil, because in spite of his normal "Chaotic" nature he at least shows a good amount of loyalty to Nale.

I'm still pondering if Miko went over to Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral when she fell.

Planning doesn't make one lawful nor does it preclude one from being chaotic.

Haley who is chaotic good(ish) led a resistance group and planned several missions. Robin Hood, the stereotype for chaotic good, leads the Merry Men. Even Elan plans how to get to Azure City (granted his plan isn't that great but the planning is there).

Warren Dew

2008-09-13, 11:44 PM

Thog - CE
Sabine - CE; Nale may block her infidelity out of his mind, but we don't have to
Miko - LG; see below
Xykon - CE
Redcloak - I think LE; followers of the Dark One seem a lot more organized than average goblins
Pompey - NE or possibly CE
Evil Gnome Druid - NE
Vaarsuvius - NG in my opinion, though CG might explain the poor cooperation with teammates
Durkon - LG

Miko's alignment has been analyzed to death. The reasons for her being other than LG almost always boil down to "I don't like her." It's similar to people who argued that Belkar was nonevil basically because they liked him. It's not sound logic.

Miko - Depends. Did she fall because of her evil act or because her alignment shifted? If the latter, lawful neutral.

Interesting point. Despite the analysis to death, I don't remember anyone arguing a gradual alignment shift to neutral.

For this to have happened, Miko would have had to have been shifting toward neutral for some time. There are two ways to do this: do as many evil acts as good acts, or do neither evil nor good acts.

Miko's alignment can't have gradually shifted to neutral due to evil acts, because she would have fallen at the first evil act. Since she didn't fall until she killed Shojo, she hadn't done any previous evil acts, so she could not have been shifting toward neutral due to evil acts. The "do as many evil acts as good acts" theory is out.

The "do neither evil nor good acts" theory is out, too, because we see her doing many good acts. Aside from being kind to small furry animals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html) the first time we really see her do anything, she takes every opportunity to do good, for example rescuing people from burning buildings (while Haley, whom we also believe to be good, is saving her beloved loot instead) and helping out the dirt farmer's wife.

I don't think she can have fallen due to alignment shift.

And as I wrote, her total conviction doesn't help her at all, and in fact it is her fault and her evil act.

This is the standard argument. Even if true, though, it's not enough. One evil act is enough to lose paladin status, but it's not sufficient for an alignment shift. Miko's still lawful good; she's just not a paladin any more.

snoopy13a

2008-09-13, 11:57 PM

This is the standard argument. Even if true, though, it's not enough. One evil act is enough to lose paladin status, but it's not sufficient for an alignment shift.

Roy's act in abandoning a friend to an unknown fate would have bumped him to True Neutral. That's not even an evil action, simply a selfish neutral one. Thus, murder is certainly strong enough to cause an alignment shift, perhaps even all the way to evil.

There's also Miko's abandoning the law to go vigilantee to consider. A shift from lawful to neutral is certainly possible as well.

FujinAkari

2008-09-14, 12:08 AM

Roy's act in abandoning a friend to an unknown fate would have bumped him to True Neutral. That's not even an evil action, simply a selfish neutral one. Thus, murder is certainly strong enough to cause an alignment shift, perhaps even all the way to evil.

I would argue that abandoning a hired underling to his fate is a startlingly chaotic act, not a neutral one. The implication, for me, is that a single act cannot shift your alignment two steps, and I'm not positive that I agree with you that Miko could have even shifted one.

As I read the strip, the -reason- Roy almost shifted alignment was because he committed a blatent chaotic act for absolutely no reason. There was no justification for it. Miko had justifications from here to The Dwarven Lands... so I don't know that a comparison is valid.

Lord Seth

2008-09-14, 12:28 AM

Well I always thought Miko was pretty much always an inch or so away from an alignment shift, killing Shojo was what finally broke the camel's back.

It's a tricky call which way she went, though. Her problem was always that she was Lawful Good with a MAJOR emphasis on the Lawful, so one would think that an alignment shift for her would be to Lawful Neutral. On the other hand, the action that caused her fall was an anti-Lawful action.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 12:41 AM

With Miko it was not as much a matter of no longer being Lawful (which she apparently believed herself to be at the time) or of being "less Good" (there was simply not much change in her intent at that point) as of being overtaken by her own hubris.

Her fall was (IMNSHO rather clearly) not due to any true changes in herself, but instead because she commited an act that was both damaging and irreversible.

Me, I would chalk it up to the imperfections and limitations of the alignment system myself.

But if one insists in following it, shall we try and assume that Miko had indeed shifted into Lawful Neutral (or even Lawful Evil, which I myself find more sensible) some time ago (perhaps even before we met her for the first time) and the Twelve Gods just didn't bother to punish her because she hadn't caused significant damage yet? I am sure it doesn't follow the letter of the rules, but I don't think that's particularly important.

Come to think of it, behavior-wise Miko is very much like Redcloak.

David Argall

2008-09-14, 01:11 AM

More then just a safe bet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html).
It does pretty much ice it. Of course, Nale is not overly concerned with the truth, but we really don't have any reason to think he lied here.

Chaotic is Demons, Lawful is Devils. The ambiguity of her nature is a running gag, so it can only be inconclusive.
As noted, it is really only Haley who is confused here. Of course Haley does almost all the fighting vs evil females. So she is the only one who is apt to be confused, but whereas everybody is confused about V, we only see Haley confused about Sabine. So the joke seems more likely to be how many players just can't remember if it is iron or silver vs demons.

V is most likely Good as of the Blight comic, but Chaotic? V? More likely Neutral, and Wizards tend toward Lawful anyway:
The text is "overall" and "slight", which makes the approximate figures 40% L, 30% N, and 30% C. Elves are about 70% CG, and most of the rest are NG, CN or NN, so the majority vote here is CG.

but he's not quite as tactical as, say, Dorukan, but is more tactical then Xykon (though he does share Xykon's usual method for fighting stuff.)
Now for the most part, these tactical points are almost useless for detecting alignment. However our current fight does bring out, again, that V does not take orders well, which suggests chaotic.

Warren Dew

2008-09-14, 01:19 AM

But if one insists in following it, shall we try and assume that Miko had indeed shifted into Lawful Neutral (or even Lawful Evil, which I myself find more sensible) some time ago (perhaps even before we met her for the first time) and the Twelve Gods just didn't bother to punish her because she hadn't caused significant damage yet? I am sure it doesn't follow the letter of the rules, but I don't think that's particularly important.

Strict alignment limitations are pretty much the whole point of the Paladin class. If you're going to ignore them, you might as well accept the "I like Belkar therefore he must be good" type arguments.

Come to think of it, behavior-wise Miko is very much like Redcloak.

How so? Miko is self confident to a fault; Redcloak is often indecisive. Miko acts directly, Redcloak prefers using minions. Miko does things - one or two things, anyway - that she shouldn't largely because of lack of information; Redcloak's whole life is going in a direction it shouldn't largely because he hypocritically ignores information that he has.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 07:11 AM

Strict alignment limitations are pretty much the whole point of the Paladin class. If you're going to ignore them, you might as well accept the "I like Belkar therefore he must be good" type arguments.

I probably would, if I found strict adherence to gamebook rules to be as serious a matter as defining "good" and "evil" clearly, which I don't.

Instead I think that the Paladin class, as written, it at best tricky, while Belkar does not leave much room for doubt about whether he's "good" or "evil" (faulty as the alignment system is).

More flexible interpretation of the Paladin rules is possibly unavoidable for verosimilitude and good roleplaying (or in this case, storytelling), while Belkar is simply a clear-cut case of satire by means of an evil character.

How so? Miko is self confident to a fault; Redcloak is often indecisive. Miko acts directly, Redcloak prefers using minions. Miko does things - one or two things, anyway - that she shouldn't largely because of lack of information; Redcloak's whole life is going in a direction it shouldn't largely because he hypocritically ignores information that he has.

Once upon a time I would agree with you. But Redcloak has a moment of enlightment when that Hobgoblin died to save him.

Kish

2008-09-14, 07:28 AM

I would say rather that Redcloak and Miko could clearly see each other's flaws, and neither would admit his/her own.

King of Nowhere

2008-09-14, 08:06 AM

Actually, Thog could be considered too dumb to understand even the basis of ethic, but that would make him true neutral, and shift his status from a barbarian NPC to a sort of trained animal. I know that the rules say he's got a human intelligence, but I believe there are monkeys smarter than Thog.
On the other hand, saying he's CN makes no sense, since you say that he's neutral because he don't understand what he's doing, but by claiming him chaotic you imply that he understand.
So I'm for "Thog is true neutral because he's too dumb to be considered a sentient being".

About V, hir behaviour with other people is chaotic: he has some friends he trust and respect and follows (Haley, Roy), but don't give a damn about other people. He will follow the lead of those he trust (he follow Roy's orders), but he will rebel if someone else tries to tell him what to do, no matter under what autority. And (s)he showed many times that he don't give a damn about what other people think of him, or believe what he should do.
That may not be enough to make hir chaotic, but it is a chaotic trait, and maybe the only trait in hir we can give clearly an alignment.

Setra

2008-09-14, 08:36 AM

Roy's act in abandoning a friend to an unknown fate would have bumped him to True Neutral. That's not even an evil action, simply a selfish neutral one. Thus, murder is certainly strong enough to cause an alignment shift, perhaps even all the way to evil.
This is not entirely correct.

That alone would not have bumped him to True Neutral.

There is also the matter of him in general "using chaotic means to fulfill Lawful obligations" as well as a few other small things, not just one thing, came a little close to switching his Lawful to Neutral.

As for the Good part, well for the most part his main faults were the incident you mentioned, and... associating with Belkar. I'd imagine the latter is worse than the former. Even then they commented "I don't think there's any doubt that you're a good man". That one act didn't really come close to switching his alignment to Neutral (On the Good/Evil axis).

I believe that the one Evil Act would not bump Miko down to Lawful Neutral, however, had she lived on, I could very well have seen her fall down to that alignment. But then she died.

FatJose

2008-09-14, 09:50 AM

Isn't Windstriker in the same plane as Roy right now? The Lawful Good Plane? So if she can't go there, she definitely had an alignment change. When Roy died and got into heaven, even though the dead paladins were processed elsewhere, we saw Bandaladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0493.html) with his personal archon running up that mountain with Roy.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 09:57 AM

Come to think of it, when did we last see Windstriker?

The wording of #464 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) is a bit ambiguous to me. Doesn't look like Miko and Windstriker are at all certain to end up in the same afterlife.

Also, how did you find out Bandaladin's name? I don't think he's named in the webcomic. Did you read it at War and XPs?

FatJose

2008-09-14, 10:45 AM

Doesn't look like Miko and Windstriker are at all certain to end up in the same afterlife.

Also, how did you find out Bandaladin's name? I don't think he's named in the webcomic. Did you read it at War and XPs?

Well, I never named him. That's his...I guess forum-made name. But what Soon says implies that Windstriker will "visit" her often. I would think if they ended up in the same place they would simply be together always. I'm doubtful that mounts simply get assigned new owners.

Ron Miel

2008-09-14, 11:01 AM

That Guy With A Halberd: Chaotic Neutral. No dispute.

Enlong

2008-09-14, 11:12 AM

Well, I never named him. That's his...I guess forum-made name. But what Soon says implies that Windstriker will "visit" her often. I would think if they ended up in the same place they would simply be together always. I'm doubtful that mounts simply get assigned new owners.

Why not? Lots of 5th-level paladins choose a horse as their mount. Windstriker had a life before he was assigned to Miko, I'm sure.

acirruscloud

2008-09-14, 11:20 AM

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 11:52 AM

The good alignment is about putting others before you. Sacrificing for the greater good.

The evil alignment is about putting your own interests above others'. Taking what you can, because you can.

I don't see how people could really think Miko stopped being Good. She was arrogant to a fault, but she did everything believing it was for the greater good.

So does Redcloak, you'll notice. Miko is delusional (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html) and deluding herself further (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html). It is called hubris. It's the attitude of people who prefer to twist their own logic rather than accept their failures (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html).

Even if she was wrong, she still wasn't out to help herself at others' expenses.

In her mind, that is true. But her acts were pretty much self-serving since #406 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) at least.

Yes, her focus lay in the "smiting evil" camp, but that's because it's what she's most qualified for: smiting evil to stop them from harming innocents.

That's actually part of what being good is all about: choosing to do things because they are constructive, and not just because they are convenient or easy to do.

If you can show me an example where her actions were motivated by selfish wants, or even apathy, I'd be impressed.

What do you think of the links above?

FatJose

2008-09-14, 11:58 AM

Why not? Lots of 5th-level paladins choose a horse as their mount. Windstriker had a life before he was assigned to Miko, I'm sure.

I doubt that. I mean, Paladin is said to be a calling. You are born to be a paladin and its your own fault if you simply ignore that calling or never realize it. At the same time, even though mechanically you choose your mount, your steed is special as well. I find it kinda..."unholy" and cheap that celestial mounts would be Hand-Me-Downs. I don't think a creature that is so fine-tuned to your own soul could simply be reassigned to the next guy in line.

Also, I'm retracting my opinion of True Neutral...I'm definitely leaning towards Neutral Good. Miko's act was trying to stop some "alleged" despot permanently, which was done by completely breaking the code. I think had she continued on her path, she would have been True Neutral had she not been stopped, incarcerated and given some time to mull things over in her head.

Lets not forget that from her first appearance she has had an unhealthy blood lust. She immediately jumped at the chance to slay the Order without ever meeting them and was hesitant to follow the capture order. Of course, that may be because it was the "cat's idea."

snoopy13a

2008-09-14, 12:13 PM

The good alignment is about putting others before you. Sacrificing for the greater good.

The evil alignment is about putting your own interests above others'. Taking what you can, because you can.

I don't see how people could really think Miko stopped being Good. She was arrogant to a fault, but she did everything believing it was for the greater good. Even if she was wrong, she still wasn't out to help herself at others' expenses. Yes, her focus lay in the "smiting evil" camp, but that's because it's what she's most qualified for: smiting evil to stop them from harming innocents.

If you can show me an example where her actions were motivated by selfish wants, or even apathy, I'd be impressed.

Selfishness and apathy are neutral under the DnD alignment system. You have to actively exploit or hurt others to be evil. The greedy but honest and fair-dealing merchant is neutral not evil.

From: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

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

Her evil act is murder.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 12:20 PM

Paladin is said to be a calling. You are born to be a paladin and its your own fault if you simply ignore that calling or never realize it. At the same time, even though mechanically you choose your mount, your steed is special as well. I find it kinda..."unholy" and cheap that celestial mounts would be Hand-Me-Downs. I don't think a creature that is so fine-tuned to your own soul could simply be reassigned to the next guy in line.

An alternate reading is that a Paladin Mount may be reassigned to someone with the right kind of compatibility, as a line of succession of sorts. There is ample precedent for this kind of thing among holy orders.

Warren Dew

2008-09-14, 12:28 PM

I probably would, if I found strict adherence to gamebook rules to be as serious a matter as defining "good" and "evil" clearly, which I don't.

I'd argue that strict adherence to the gamebook rules or something similar is pretty much the only way to define good and evil "clearly". If you want to use a real world meaning of good and evil, then you end up with difficulty distinguishing, because everyone uses different definitions.

In my own game, I don't have alignments, but I don't even pretend that there's a clear definition of good and evil. I prefer a game where the player characters have to wrestle with moral dilemmas now and then. That's a tangent, though; it's clear that OoTS uses D&D style alignments, rather than real world definitions of good and evil.

I don't think D&D style paladins work well without D&D style artificial alignments.

Once upon a time I would agree with you. But Redcloak has a moment of enlightment when that Hobgoblin died to save him.

I don't see a change. Granted he now treats hobgoblins just like he once treated goblins, but all that means is that he uses the same hypocritical justifications for killing them en masse that he did with goblins, rather than not bothering with justifications. They still die.

Isn't Windstriker in the same plane as Roy right now?

Someone mentioned that there's a special location for paladins?

Even if there isn't, one can be in the Lawful Good afterlife and still not be as high up on the mountain as others. You wouldn't be able to visit them, but they could visit you. Me, I think Miko would spend all her time in the Debate Hall Where You're Always Right (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html). It seems a perfect place for her.

In her mind, that is true. But her acts were pretty much self-serving since #406 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) at least.

By this logic, O'Chul was self serving when he tried to destroy the gate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html). He and Miko tried to do the same thing based on the same information; the only difference is that Miko succeeded.

Now, the reader may think it would have been better for Miko not to destroy the gate, because the reader may think that Soon's ghost would soon take care of the problem anyway. However, such a reader would also think that it would have been better for O'Chul not to destroy the gate, since Soon's ghost would still have taken care of the issue. Both paladins are still in the same position and make the same decision.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 12:56 PM

I don't see a change. Granted he now treats hobgoblins just like he once treated goblins, but all that means is that he uses the same hypocritical justifications for killing them en masse that he did with goblins, rather than not bothering with justifications. They still die.

That's certainly not my reading of the last panel of the penultimate row of http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html]#451, nor of the fourth panel of #456 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html). YMMV, of course.

By this logic, O'Chul was self serving when he tried to destroy the gate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html). He and Miko tried to do the same thing based on the same information; the only difference is that Miko succeeded.

I fail to see how that could be the case. O-Chul was far wiser than Miko and did not attempt to neglect information that displeased him.

If you're talking about destroying the gate, there is a clear contrast: O-Chul was following advice coming from apropriate sources, while Miko was following her own delusions of grandeur (and, granted, the hint from O-Chul's stance). Still, she failed to learn the obvious lesson and neglected to listen to Soon's ghost before acting. It was a very clear vanity act, really.

Now, the reader may think it would have been better for Miko not to destroy the gate, because the reader may think that Soon's ghost would soon take care of the problem anyway. However, such a reader would also think that it would have been better for O'Chul not to destroy the gate, since Soon's ghost would still have taken care of the issue. Both paladins are still in the same position and make the same decision.

Not so, because the situation in #448 was very different from that of #462. Having blundered so badly and so recently, Miko really ought to show more caution and restraint. But she did not, because it was more confortable to nurture her own messianic delusion...

Warren Dew

2008-09-14, 01:20 PM

That's certainly not my reading of the last panel of the penultimate row of http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html]#451, nor of the fourth panel of #456 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html). YMMV, of course.

Have you read Start of Darkness? To me, both these cases are just a switch from "treating hobgoblins like Xykon always treated goblins" to "treating hobgoblins like Redcloak always treated goblins". That's just a switch from being honest about being evil to being evil but hypocritical about it.

Or possibly you think Redcloak was really acting in the goblins' best interests back when they all ended up getting killed following him? In Start of Darkness, that's pretty clearly demonstrated as untrue by the contrast between goblins getting killed under Redcloak's approach, and goblins being happy in Right Eye's village until Redcloak comes back.

I fail to see how that could be the case. O-Chul was far wiser than Miko and did not attempt to neglect information that displeased him.

The wisdom is a matter of opinion, but can you give examples of the information? To me it seems that the information in the strip that shows that Miko is acting incorrectly is information that the reader knows and Miko isn't privy to, like the order of the stick's previous good activities and Shojo's exposition of why he really wanted the order in Azure City. She doesn't ignore any more valid information than O-Chul; she's simply ignorant of it.

If you're talking about destroying the gate, there is a clear contrast: O-Chul was following advice coming from apropriate sources

He ignores the advice when it comes from a good caster, but then follows it when it comes from an evil lich. I'm not sure that qualifies as "appropriate sources" for a paladin.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 01:25 PM

Or possibly you think Redcloak was really acting in the goblins' best interests back when they all ended up getting killed following him?

He seems to think so, much as Miko sees herself as an agent of a Higher Will. That's why both register as Lawful Evil to me.

He ignores the advice when it comes from a good caster, but then follows it when it comes from an evil lich. I'm not sure that qualifies as "appropriate sources" for a paladin.

Huh? He did not ignore the caster's advice. He acted on it. That Xykon killed the caster and taunted O-Chul does not make it any less true.

Sir_Norbert

2008-09-14, 01:45 PM

He seems to think so, much as Miko sees herself as an agent of a Higher Will. That's why both register as Lawful Evil to me.
The difference is:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Redcloak kills --anyone and everyone-- without qualms if it's going to help the plan. Miko kills only people she believes are themselves endangering innocent lives. Big difference there.

David Argall

2008-09-14, 01:48 PM

she did everything believing it was for the greater good.

So does Redcloak, you'll notice. Miko is delusional (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html) and deluding herself further (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html). It is called hubris. It's the attitude of people who prefer to twist their own logic rather than accept their failures (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html).
It can be noted here that being delusional is a defense. You are not guilty of many crimes if you do them while in a state of delusion. This can be overstated. If you drink too much, you are still guilty of crimes done while drunk, but if some jokester spikes your drink, you have a good chance of walking.
Now with Miko, we can argue pretty strongly that she deluded herself and is thus still guilty. However, the basic point remains that being delusional is not a charge against Miko, but rather an explanation or a defense.

But her acts were pretty much self-serving since #406 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) at least.
This seems to use a rather specialized definition of self serving. She declines escape and riches, and instead goes deliberately to her death. While we can still say she did what she wanted to do, we are then saying that the overwhelming majority of us are self serving and taking all sting from the term.

That's actually part of what being good is all about: choosing to do things because they are constructive, and not just because they are convenient or easy to do.
Note that your statement is correct because you say "just because". Convenience or ease of doing is not a flaw. Indeed, it is an advantage, one we make use of constantly. That it is convenient for Miko to kill people [who need killing] means we get a necessary job done with minimum fuss. That gives us time and material for other needs.

If you're talking about destroying the gate, there is a clear contrast: O-Chul was following advice coming from apropriate sources, while Miko was following her own delusions of grandeur (and, granted, the hint from O-Chul's stance).
That "appropriate source" is an underling, someone O-Chul might listen to, but could reject out of hand. O-Chul does not consult her for advice on how to run the battle, and it would appear she is only reminding him of something he already knew.

Still, she failed to learn the obvious lesson and neglected to listen to Soon's ghost before acting. It was a very clear vanity act, really.
It seems entirely unclear. You speak of her neglecting to listen, but we have no good reason to think she heard him speaking, nor any solid reason to deem that he would advise her otherwise.

the situation in #448 was very different from that of #462.
How?

Having blundered so badly and so recently, Miko really ought to show more caution and restraint. But she did not, because it was more confortable to nurture her own messianic delusion...

She is copying O-Chul's attempted action. The idea that she has any different motives is simply reading one's own bias into the text.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 02:08 PM

The difference is:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Redcloak kills --anyone and everyone-- without qualms if it's going to help the plan. Miko kills only people she believes are themselves endangering innocent lives. Big difference there.

I honestly see no difference at all. Redcloak also believes himself to be working for the greater good, by means of stopping opression to goblinkind. Much as Miko is just as self-righteous as Redcloak. And they're both deluded to a point (Miko far more so than Redcloak, at least after her fall).

Raging Gene Ray

2008-09-14, 02:19 PM

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Her evil act is murder.

Right! O-Chul would never stoop to murder out of convenience. Remember when he was going to be chucked in a vat of acid? He could have kicked the hobgoblin in there and distracted the shark, but he chose instead to plead with him and heroically endure another shark bite just so the grunt could have a chance of redemption and some time in the indefinite future!

If one good thing can be said about Miko, it's that she held humans and goblins to the same standard.

LuisDantas

2008-09-14, 02:21 PM

Now with Miko, we can argue pretty strongly that she deluded herself and is thus still guilty. However, the basic point remains that being delusional is not a charge against Miko, but rather an explanation or a defense.

An explanation of how she became Lawful Evil after spending a long time as Lawful "goodish", yes.

This seems to use a rather specialized definition of self serving. She declines escape and riches, and instead goes deliberately to her death. While we can still say she did what she wanted to do, we are then saying that the overwhelming majority of us are self serving and taking all sting from the term.

Painting oneself as a tool of the gods is utterly self-serving in my book. Moreso even to a Paladin, who knows full well that she is not supposed to decide such things carelessly.

She's a delusional, borderline insane evil creature. But evil nonetheless.

If Thog, who obviously has even less notion of the consequences of his acts, is considered evil, then we must accept that so is Miko immediately before and after her fall. Of course, I don't think Thog is actually intelligent enough to be either good or evil.

Note that your statement is correct because you say "just because". Convenience or ease of doing is not a flaw. Indeed, it is an advantage, one we make use of constantly. That it is convenient for Miko to kill people [who need killing] means we get a necessary job done with minimum fuss. That gives us time and material for other needs.

Missed my point, but let's call it off.

That "appropriate source" is an underling, someone O-Chul might listen to, but could reject out of hand. O-Chul does not consult her for advice on how to run the battle, and it would appear she is only reminding him of something he already knew.

Possible, albeit unclear. But besides the matter.

Destroying the Gate they have sworn to protect is not something to be done lightly. O-Chul had adequate justification and confirmation, while Miko, in sharp contrast, had been warned not to trust her own instincts so much and chose to fault again instead.

It seems entirely unclear. You speak of her neglecting to listen, but we have no good reason to think she heard him speaking, nor any solid reason to deem that he would advise her otherwise.

Actually, we SEE him advising against destroying the portal. In that same page, even.

How?

#448 had Xykon overwhelming the azurites and O-Chul properly guided. #462 was far less definite.

She is copying O-Chul's attempted action. The idea that she has any different motives is simply reading one's own bias into the text.

There's no point in attempting to ignore what we know about Miko, more so when she herself knows it full well to and was punished for that reason.

FatJose

2008-09-14, 02:32 PM

If one good thing can be said about Miko, it's that she held humans and goblins to the same standard.

Wasn't the original Bandit King stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Some bandit mentioned that was what they were doing before the daughter took over by force. So, the Bandit King would be possibly Chaotic Neutral. Very unlikely he was Good but still. Miko orders the BK and his daughter to help her find the Order. Sam attacks and Miko kills her with ease.

Then something happens that kinda spoiled Miko for me. She, knowing that was the man's daughter, calmly tells him to do her bidding. He fights her for obvious reasons and is promptly killed. A lot of what Miko did before her fall, and what her attitude towards life seemed to be, showed that she was on the edge for some time.

Danukian

2008-09-14, 05:47 PM

AIt's Rich who doesn't make evil acts like standard stupid "I serve dark gods, blah blah", but make them logical and psychological, like other people's behaviours. And that's great.

LOL! What Evil character isn't a parody of a standard fantasy cliche?

Xykon: Evil Lich out to destroy the universe
Red Cloak:"I serve dark gods, blah blah":smallwink:
Nale: Evil Twin
Sabine: Evil illicit sex incarnate
Kobuta: Scheming political Machiavellian type villain.

Anyways - my point was that Miko has been LG since day one, she thought she was saving the world when she fell, due to hubris. This one EVIL act at the end of her arc did not stop her from being LG, anymore than Roy abandoning Elan did, or Durkon's affair with a married Dwarf that abandoned her duties, or Belkar's affection and care for Mr. Scruffy makes him Good - the Alignment system is not based on a single act, it is based on overall actions throughout that Character Level.

hamishspence

2008-09-14, 05:54 PM

Your afterlife destination, as of late 3.5, isn't necessarily tied to your alignment, but to actions you have not atoned for: to the point that a paldin who commits two murders just before dying would go to Nine Hells, even if alignment did not change, by Fiendish Codex 2 rules.

However, Miko only committed 1 (and tried to murder Hinjo as well)

FujinAkari

2008-09-14, 06:30 PM

Painting oneself as a tool of the gods is utterly self-serving in my book.

So then Durkon is also self-serving? Because I'm pretty sure he believes himself to be granted powers by Thor in the furtherance of Thor's will...

If Thog, who obviously has even less notion of the consequences of his acts, is considered evil, then we must accept that so is Miko immediately before and after her fall.

Does not follow. Thog commits senselessly evil acts, whereas Miko commits actions for misidentified reasons. Thog cannot be called anything but evil, considering his delight in destruction and murder, whereas Miko never does anything for her own pleasure, but merely to "save half a million azureites."

The two simply don't compare.

Destroying the Gate they have sworn to protect is not something to be done lightly. O-Chul had adequate justification and confirmation, while Miko, in sharp contrast, had been warned not to trust her own instincts so much and chose to fault again instead.

Allowing the world to be destroyed by your own negligence is also not something to be done lightly. When Miko walked in, she saw Redcloak destroying Spectral Paladins by the dozens and Soon looking weakened... considering that a round is only 6 seconds, she knew she didn't exactly have time to dilly dally about and acted on the information at hand.

Yeah, it would have been better if she hadn't, but its hard to fault her for not acting on information which she didn't have yet.

Actually, we SEE him advising against destroying the portal. In that same page, even.

Said advise occurs after she begins the attack, which is much too late for her to actually stop it. Once an attack is rolled, it can't be undone.

#448 had Xykon overwhelming the azurites and O-Chul properly guided. #462 was far less definite.

Given time to do a complex analysis, yeah. Miko didn't have that time. Redcloak was "slaying" the ghost-matyrs by the dozens and Xykon was holding his own when she entered the room. Expecting her to check back every other instant when the fate of the world hangs in the balance is unreasonable.

Warren Dew

2008-09-14, 06:50 PM

Huh? He did not ignore the caster's advice. He acted on it. That Xykon killed the caster and taunted O-Chul does not make it any less true.

The caster gives her advice in frame 9 of 448 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html). If O-Chul is acting on her advice, he should be out of the frame on the way to the throne by frame 10, or at the latest frame 11 if he is slow on the uptake.

Instead, he stands there staring blankly at Xykon while Xykon tells him to take the advice twice and doesn't even start moving until the next page. I suppose it's possible that he's just not very smart at all, and it takes him an unreasonably long time to absorb what the caster said, but that's not my take on it; by the time he takes the advice, it's pretty obvious that Xykon is setting him up for something and he took the bait.

I honestly see no difference at all. Redcloak also believes himself to be working for the greater good, by means of stopping opression to goblinkind. Much as Miko is just as self-righteous as Redcloak.

There are two key differences.

First, Redcloak's cause is fundamentally evil, while Miko's is fundamentally good: Redcloak wants to set himself and/or Xykon up as world dictator, or possibly just destroy the world and kill everyone in it, while Miko is trying to prevent that destruction, or at least trying to save all those people that would die or be enslaved under Redcloak's plan.

However, if you're unwilling to admit there's a difference in their goals, it's still the case that Redcloak, in addition to killing enemies, squanders thousands of lives of people whom he himself sees as good, while Miko kills no one but herself and enemies.

Destroying the Gate they have sworn to protect is not something to be done lightly. O-Chul had adequate justification and confirmation, while Miko, in sharp contrast, had been warned not to trust her own instincts so much and chose to fault again instead.

The only warning Miko got from a trustworthy source was that killing Shojo was the wrong thing to do. As is demonstrated by this thread, it's unclear even to the readers, who have much more informatio than Miko does, whether that's because the act was evil, chaotic, or merely against the paladin hierarchy. It's perfectly reasonable for Miko to believe that performing a major "right" act would be a good way to atone for performing a major "wrong" one, and that destroying the gate was such a "right" act. She may even have been correct in that respect.

Actually, we SEE him advising against destroying the portal. In that same page, even.

The emphasis should be, "we see him ...". That we see him does not mean that Miko sees him. The first frame of 464 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html), where she greets him as if he is newly arrived, strongly suggests that she did not see him in 462.

For that matter, Soon does not object even in 462 until after Miko has started the attack; by that time it's almost certainly too late. It's also far from clear that Soon's analysis of the situation is correct; his belief that he can win the battle alone seems likely to be a product of hubris greater than Miko's. Even if he were able to destroy both Xykon and Redcloak - questionable in my opinion - later events show that Team Evil would have ended up in control of the throne room before anyone who would obey Soon could get there; the first one to enter would likely have been Tsukiko, and her response to Soon telling her to destroy the phylactery would have been to keep it safe and use it to set herself up in place of Redcloak as Xykon's second.

Start of DarknessThe Dark One might possibly have gotten a hobgoblin to pick up the red cloak, depending on whether he sees himself as a god of hobgoblins also or just of goblins, in which case the new "Redcloak" might have ended up in possession of the phylactery instead of Tsukiko. However, he would still need a powerful arcane caster for the plan, and allowing Xykon to grow back would be the easiest way to do it.

Then something happens that kinda spoiled Miko for me. She, knowing that was the man's daughter, calmly tells him to do her bidding. He fights her for obvious reasons and is promptly killed.

It was a request, not an order; in fact she specifically uses the word "request". This despite the bandit king's having already agreed to help her earlier in the strip; perhaps Miko realizes that given what passed, he might have changed his mind, and she may be giving him another opportunity to back out. Instead, he chooses to attack her. While his attack is understandable, it's still unjustified, and she doesn't really have any alternative to defending herself.

FatJose

2008-09-14, 10:21 PM

So then Durkon is also self-serving? Because I'm pretty sure he believes himself to be granted powers by Thor in the furtherance of Thor's will...

Durkon doesn't believe himself to be Thor's greatest champion. Miko, on the other hand, thought she was the star of the show. She believed anything and everything she did was the will of the gods. Even when she lost her powers she believed it was done to help her quest against evil somehow.

Enlong

2008-09-15, 01:49 AM

The caster gives her advice in frame 9 of 448 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html). If O-Chul is acting on her advice, he should be out of the frame on the way to the throne by frame 10, or at the latest frame 11 if he is slow on the uptake.

Instead, he stands there staring blankly at Xykon while Xykon tells him to take the advice twice and doesn't even start moving until the next page. I suppose it's possible that he's just not very smart at all, and it takes him an unreasonably long time to absorb what the caster said, but that's not my take on it; by the time he takes the advice, it's pretty obvious that Xykon is setting him up for something and he took the bait.

Yeah, he stood there for two whole panels.
The first of which being Xykon killing the caster in mid-sentance, which reasonably would make O-chul freeze in shock, if only for a moment, and the second panel being a three word line (not even a line, more of a quip) from Xykon, which is (judging by the action in the foreground) one action's worth of time, at best.

David Argall

2008-09-15, 02:07 AM

An explanation of how she became Lawful Evil after spending a long time as Lawful "goodish", yes.
You are missing, or ignoring, the point. If you say Miko was delusional, you are saying she is, in some degree, not guilty of any crimes and thus definitely not evil.

Painting oneself as a tool of the gods is utterly self-serving in my book. Moreso even to a Paladin, who knows full well that she is not supposed to decide such things carelessly.
Again, your status as an expert is not established. What you think is of little importance. And paladins often do consider themselves servants of the gods. It's a routine statement of fact.

She's a delusional, borderline insane evil creature. But evil nonetheless.
Evidence please.

If Thog, who obviously has even less notion of the consequences of his acts, is considered evil, then we must accept that so is Miko immediately before and after her fall.
Thog consistently and happily does evil deeds in large number. Miko has a very short list of crimes, most of them "justified" by duty.

Missed my point, but let's call it off.
So what was your point? [The suggestion to call it off in discussions like this is routinely suspect. If one actually wants to call it off, one can do so by just not replying. One does not need the agreement of the other party. It seems to often be an attempt to get in a last tag and then ask for peace.]

Possible, albeit unclear. But besides the matter.

Destroying the Gate they have sworn to protect is not something to be done lightly. O-Chul had adequate justification and confirmation, while Miko, in sharp contrast, had been warned not to trust her own instincts so much and chose to fault again instead.
You continue to just assert things. O-Chul and Miko both had to make a quick decision. O-Chul did not have adequate confirmation. He was the man on the spot and if he had been wrong, he could not have pled that he was poorly advised. He got the advice of an underling, and could not consider it binding on him.

It is quite possible O-Chul had less justification than Miko did. We know that Soon was coming to the rescue, which makes any attempt to destroy the Gate suspect. So did O-Chul know this? if so, he was behaving badly.
Hinjo says the secret was known only to the royal family, but Hinjo is a paladin, with a very limited ability to keep a secret beyond not talking about it. He has no talent for knowing how well a secret is kept.
We also have people with a need to know, and these people appear to have had a way to learn as well. We don't know the details, but the presumption is that many paladins besides Soon were standing ghost guard duty. That being the case, these paladins would have known of Soon, and passed the word on to other paladins, inculding O-Chul. So we have a reasonable case that P-Chul knew about Soon, and his decision to destroy the gate was wrong.

Actually, we SEE him advising against destroying the portal. In that same page, even.
As noted, WE see him. But we see no sign that Miko did.

#448 had Xykon overwhelming the azurites and O-Chul properly guided. #462 was far less definite.
Miko still had a decision that had to be made and carried out quickly. There was no alternative of looking for guidance. By the time she found any, it would be too late [one way or the other]. Any such attempt would have simply been deciding not to act, a definitely wrong choice from Miko's, or any paladin's, view.
That 462 was less definite, if it was, is simply not important.

There's no point in attempting to ignore what we know about Miko, more so when she herself knows it full well to and was punished for that reason.
And just what is it that we "know"? And how?

Wasn't the original Bandit King stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Some bandit mentioned that was what they were doing before the daughter took over by force. So, the Bandit King would be possibly Chaotic Neutral.
NCPB p. "174" comments "Samantha was unequivicably evil...Her father wasn't much better."

Miko orders the BK and his daughter to help her find the Order. Sam attacks and Miko kills her with ease.
As others have pointed out, there was no order. Miko merely requested their aid.

Then something happens that kinda spoiled Miko for me.
Are you sure you are not revising your memory to reflect later knowledge? At this point in the story, Miko was a very shadowy figure who was merely a threat to the party. Those writing about it at the time, or about Miko until several strips past her introduction found no problem with the situation, until they decided they didn't like Miko, at which point the charges started.

She, knowing that was the man's daughter, calmly tells him to do her bidding. He fights her for obvious reasons and is promptly killed.
Again, there is no order, and he attacks her, making it simple self-defense.

Miko thought she was the star of the show.
Miko had good reason to. She was the highest level paladin by several levels.

She believed anything and everything she did was the will of the gods. Even when she lost her powers she believed it was done to help her quest against evil somehow.
The short response seems to be "So?"

FatJose

2008-09-15, 05:30 AM

Are you sure you are not revising your memory to reflect later knowledge? At this point in the story, Miko was a very shadowy figure who was merely a threat to the party. Those writing about it at the time, or about Miko until several strips past her introduction found no problem with the situation, until they decided they didn't like Miko, at which point the charges started.

While my phrasing is definitely off. That scene left me like the scene from Goblins concerning Kore. For anyone who doesn't read the comic. He kinda flat out shot a kid in the face. (WARNING: Dramatization) The scene was supposed to make it clear he's evil. At the time I didn't know what this assassin was but I thought of them as that. An assassin. If you're a paladin and you carry yourself as a ruthless killer, there is something wrong with that. I mean, evil or not, she REALLY liked killing. Maybe that's my personal moral compass talking, but you don't murder people in front of their parents. It's not like she couldn't use her monk skills. Monks are supposed to revere life enough to at least "try" nonlethal defense methods.

Also, I really liked the Miko character as she developed. Believe it or not, I didn't go "WHOOOO!!!! YEAH!!! Ding Dong, witch!!!" when she was halved.
In fact, I'm still hoping she makes a posthumous appearance at some point in the Dead Roy plot line.

"p. "174" comments "Samantha was unequivicably evil...Her father wasn't much better."

Hmm, well that's just conflicting information. Unless, the father was some kinda...Evil...Robin Hood? HE stole from the rich, gave to the poor...and then stabbed them and took the gold.

The short response seems to be "So?"

No, I don't mean like any paladin should. She literally thought she was their champion..for no reason besides simply being a better fighter than everyone else, not saying much since technically any of the Order could whomp her if it wasn't for railroad plots. As much as she believed everything Shojo said was a lie at the end, she never questioned him telling her she had a great destiny. She killed Shojo because she believed she was above Azure City and she tried to kill Hinjo after he was only trying to talk her down. Which shows much restraint and respect for life and his compatriots. I mean, he and his uncle were close but he knew Miko needed help. Not "EVIL!!!" *slash slash* Though ether way, he'd be on the losing side by the end. I doubt he knew that of course. Always the chance for the underdog to win. Especially when it comes to the theatrical.

LuisDantas

2008-09-15, 05:49 AM

Since there is little point in repeating the same things over and over, I will attempt not to.

A few specific notes below.

You are missing, or ignoring, the point. If you say Miko was delusional, you are saying she is, in some degree, not guilty of any crimes and thus definitely not evil.

That's not a point at all. She is acting on purpose and creating bad consequences. Being delusional is, if anything, an aggravant.

Again, your status as an expert is not established. What you think is of little importance.

Gee, David. One would think that I could perhaps think and communicate my thoughts like, you know, people do in a public forum. Or so I have been told.

Really, buddy, cool down already, will'ya? It is rude to speak like that. And a bit silly too.

LuisDantas

2008-09-15, 05:56 AM

However, if you're unwilling to admit there's a difference in their goals, it's still the case that Redcloak, in addition to killing enemies, squanders thousands of lives of people whom he himself sees as good, while Miko kills no one but herself and enemies.

Everyone kills "no one but themselves and enemies", and those who stand in the way. That is a rather poor criterium for telling good from evil.

LuisDantas

2008-09-15, 06:04 AM

So then Durkon is also self-serving? Because I'm pretty sure he believes himself to be granted powers by Thor in the furtherance of Thor's will...

Actually, yes. By choosing to be a cleric of Thor he is being self-serving, much as, say, Elan and Roy are by choosing their respective classes. That's par of course. And one of the main reasons why clerics take vows and have duties, which Durkon, far as we can tell, doesn't rationalize away from him.

But neither of them is so utterly self-serving as to do as they please by means of repeating to themselves that some god must want them to.

That is a very serious line, and one that M*** crossed. She was supposed to be jailed, remember, and decided that the gods did not want her to obbey using the tiniest of flaws on her cell as an excuse.

Does not follow. Thog commits senselessly evil acts, whereas Miko commits actions for misidentified reasons. Thog cannot be called anything but evil, considering his delight in destruction and murder, whereas Miko never does anything for her own pleasure, but merely to "save half a million azureites."

The two simply don't compare.

Actually, I agree with this last sentence. Not with the previous ones, mind you.

Kish

2008-09-15, 06:15 AM

Hmm, well that's just conflicting information. Unless, the father was some kinda...Evil...Robin Hood? HE stole from the rich, gave to the poor...and then stabbed them and took the gold.
He obviously thought preying on the "wealthy and the universally despised" made him a good person; that doesn't mean Rich agreed.

acirruscloud

2008-09-15, 06:16 AM

Gee, David. One would think that I could perhaps think and communicate my thoughts like, you know, people do in a public forum. Or so I have been told.

Really, buddy, cool down already, will'ya? It is rude to speak like that. And a bit silly too.

He has a point, though. Unless you're backing things up (say, by quoting alignment rules), the discussion isn't furthered by what you assert.

For example, here's what the 4E Player's Guide has to say about the good alignments:

If you’re a good character, you believe it is right to
aid and protect those in need. You’re not required
to sacrifice yourself to help others or to completely
ignore your own needs, but you might be asked to
place others’ needs above your own . . . in some cases,
even if that means putting yourself in harm’s way. In
many ways, that’s the essence of being a heroic adventurer:
The people of the town can’t defend themselves
from the marauding goblins, so you descend into the
dungeon—at significant personal risk—to put an end to
the goblin raids.

...

Lawful good characters believe just as
strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they
put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful
to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The
exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining
champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking
or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil
in the world.

Read it. Alignment is clearly stated to be a matter of belief and the motivation behind your actions. Miko's actions and, more importantly, the intent behind them clearly fall under the rules states above. She's Good. End of story.

LuisDantas

2008-09-15, 06:20 AM

For what it is worth, let me state clearly that I feel I have nothing to back down from.

AND that I find "End of story" statements silly in many circunstances.

acirruscloud

2008-09-15, 06:54 AM

So you stand by your prior assessment without addressing the alignment text quoted? I find claiming to be correct without debunking the evidence presented to be silly in most circumstances.

FatJose

2008-09-15, 10:01 AM

So you stand by your prior assessment without addressing the alignment text quoted? I find claiming to be correct without debunking the evidence presented to be silly in most circumstances.

This isn't 4E. Also, those two descriptions were exactly the same, just different wording plus an extra bit about LG being "gooder" than good. Also, we are discussing what alignment she ended up as. We know she's LG for most of the story but when she killed Shojo she either

A. Shifted Lawful Neutral. The Law Enforcer who has no compassion or malice. She saw Shojo guilty of treason. For most countries that is a death sentence. But a paladin is not Lawful Neutral, they are Lawful Good. A LN follows the law as it's written, a LG follows the intent.

B. Shifted Neutral Good. Someone who will use the law if it helps but isn't so tethered to it. The main reason this is even an option is because you cant jump more than one step in the alignment scale. Her act that made her unlawful was violating the code, which Hinjo was trying to remind her of before she executed Shojo. The speech itself, denouncing Azure City, its laws, and the ineffectiveness of the paladins. Killing Shojo which was an evil act.

C. She violated the laws with the above but didn't lose her alignment, she lost her powers instead. The reason for this is that Soon never said, "You can't return to paladin-hood because your a NG." Rather, she never atoned. This implies she lost her powers for breaking the code and/or committing an evil act.

acirruscloud

2008-09-15, 10:10 AM

C. She violated the laws with the above but didn't lose her alignment, she lost her powers instead. The reason for this is that Soon never said, "You can't return to paladin-hood because your a NG." Rather, she never atoned. This implies she lost her powers for breaking the code and/or committing an evil act.

This.

And I quoted 4E because it was easier for me to copy/paste since I have those PDFs but not the 3.5 PDFs. The alignment descriptions have not changed significantly. They were explicitly stated to be about motivation and intent in Third Edition too.

FatJose

2008-09-15, 10:27 AM

This.

And I quoted 4E because it was easier for me to copy/paste since I have those PDFs but not the 3.5 PDFs. The alignment descriptions have not changed significantly. They were explicitly stated to be about motivation and intent in Third Edition too.

Yes, intent to follow the law to it's letter is LN, intent to do good in an orderly fashion is LG and intent to do good with no regard to the laws is CG (but you can't jump 2 steps)

It's like in that Lethal Weapon movie. Danny Glover, very Lawful Good type, was facing off against this jerk foreign guy who was an ambassador or something. And the guy gloats that Glover can't kill him or arrest him because of Diplomatic Immunity (Which is a really big problem in the world. People who work in the UN have actually gotten away with horrible crimes thanks to DI.) So, Danny Glover shoots the guy in the face, delivering the great one liner, "It's been revoked!" Now, I don't think he was saying the truth there, I don't remember, but he followed the intent. He broke a law because he knew it was a broken and more would die if he didn't do something. Now, if he was a paladin, should he have lost his powers or shift alignment AND lose his powers? Would you consider that a Chaotic act for not following the law or is it a chaotic act with mitigating circumstances?

In the end, I think we're making judgments based on what we would do as DMs. I would think either path is possible.

Warren Dew

2008-09-15, 10:32 AM

Dacia Brabant

2008-09-15, 11:04 AM

Excuse me for interrupting the daily argument over Miko's alignment, but I have to respond to this:

Actually, Thog could be considered too dumb to understand even the basis of ethic, but that would make him true neutral, and shift his status from a barbarian NPC to a sort of trained animal. I know that the rules say he's got a human intelligence, but I believe there are monkeys smarter than Thog.
On the other hand, saying he's CN makes no sense, since you say that he's neutral because he don't understand what he's doing, but by claiming him chaotic you imply that he understand.
So I'm for "Thog is true neutral because he's too dumb to be considered a sentient being".

Are you kidding? Thog is pure evil, way more evil than Nale, Redcloak or even Xykon. On what basis do I say this? See the last panel of this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html) and judge for yourself.

:smallbiggrin:

FujinAkari

2008-09-15, 12:27 PM

At the time I didn't know what this assassin was but I thought of them as that. An assassin. If you're a paladin and you carry yourself as a ruthless killer, there is something wrong with that. I mean, evil or not, she REALLY liked killing.

This seems untrue. Miko herself calls the events a tragedy, and there is really no evidence that she took any pleasure from the executions.

Maybe that's my personal moral compass talking, but you don't murder people in front of their parents.

So you won't resist if I try and kill you, as long as my mom is there?

It's not like she couldn't use her monk skills. Monks are supposed to revere life enough to at least "try" nonlethal defense methods.

This seems the moralistic equivalent of requiring a cop to first attempt to taze someone who is actively shooting at them. By all self-defense protocol, the need to find a non-lethal solution is expended at the point were one's own life is in jeopardy.

Gee, David. One would think that I could perhaps think and communicate my thoughts like, you know, people do in a public forum. Or so I have been told.

Really, buddy, cool down already, will'ya? It is rude to speak like that. And a bit silly too.

Luis... this is a debate. David is quite correct to point out that your personal opinion has no credibility in a debate, it is only the factual evidence which you bring to the table and, thus far, you seem to have very little supporting your argument other than your opinion. What little you do have seems actively debunked...

Everyone kills "no one but themselves and enemies", and those who stand in the way. That is a rather poor criterium for telling good from evil.

Incorrect. When one person is an active and continual threat to society as a whole, and another actively removes threats to societies as a whole... that seems an excellent criterion. Evil is defined as hurting, oppressing, and killing others, which Redcloak does in spades (human slaves anyone?) While Miko has occasionally killed, she always does it for morally justified reasons (even Shojo, tho her reasons were obviously invalid.)

That is a very serious line, and one that M*** crossed. She was supposed to be jailed, remember, and decided that the gods did not want her to obbey using the tiniest of flaws on her cell as an excuse.

I still find it hard to blame someone for being delusional. Its like blaming Sabine for being slutty.

For what it is worth, let me state clearly that I feel I have nothing to back down from.

I'll agree with this one! You've presented pretty much no evidence other than your own opinion, leaving you no definite stand to have to renege from :P

hamishspence

2008-09-15, 01:37 PM

Madness does not equal Not-evil, in D&D. See multiple sources: Exemplars of Evil, Champions of Ruin, Book of Vile Darkness. While Heroes of Horror suggests that you could make a case that the completely mad are Not-Evil, Miko does to appear to be Completely mad, only partially so. From gods to mortals, the mad in D&D can be evil: Cyric, Tharizdun, Halaster Blackcloak, etc.

FatJose

2008-09-15, 02:10 PM

This seems untrue. Miko herself calls the events a tragedy, and there is really no evidence that she took any pleasure from the executions.

True, but it's hard to get the impression that she actually believed that when the line is set-up as a punchline.

So you won't resist if I try and kill you, as long as my mom is there?

I'd resist, but I wouldn't cut you in half...which makes a pretty sticky situation. Also, I wouldn't then expect a normal conversation with your mother. I wouldn't ask her for something to drink after the tiring task of killing in self-defense let alone ask her to be my guide for unknown amount of time. Maybe it's because Miko's a tactless orphan, but that was just cold, callus. Even though she was not evil, everything Rich did with Miko antagonized her.

This seems the moralistic equivalent of requiring a cop to first attempt to taze someone who is actively shooting at them. By all self-defense protocol, the need to find a non-lethal solution is expended at the point were one's own life is in jeopardy.

She casted hold person and was not buffed in anyway. No armor, no AC boosting spells active. Also, a complete idiot. Miko's a monk. Stunning fist to the face. Over. A cop isn't supposed to kill a fleeing suspect, which is why they are trained to aim for the leg. And if someone tries to grab a cop or tie them with rope "hold person" the cop is supposed to go with their OTHER means of stopping someone. They have a batman belt of tools. Those belts are like 20 pounds minimum. You got mace, handcuffs, a club (closest thing to a monk's punch I guess) and all are more easy to reach for than the gun that is set up on the belt to purposely take time to draw so that a cop can't just go gun crazy. Give someone time to see, "oh, that cop is going for his gun. I better give up." Good cops give warning! LAWFUL GOOD cops give warning.

Incorrect. When one person is an active and continual threat to society as a whole, and another actively removes threats to societies as a whole... that seems an excellent criterion. Evil is defined as hurting, oppressing, and killing others, which Redcloak does in spades (human slaves anyone?) While Miko has occasionally killed, she always does it for morally justified reasons (even Shojo, tho her reasons were obviously invalid.)

You don't murder the unarmed and you definitely don't kill someone who's just been placed under arrest.

hamishspence

2008-09-15, 02:24 PM

Paladins are a mix of cop, military, and special agent: miko might be compared better to Jack Bauer than Dirty Harry.

Jubal_Barca

2008-09-15, 02:43 PM

I say Thog is Chaotic Neutral. He's not malicious and self centred enough to be true evil.

It would help if we had a sliding scale instead of a 3 category system.

Say 2 coordinates 1-11 (with good-evil first)

1-5 Good (1 goodest)
6 Neutral
7-11 Evil (11 evillest)

1-5 Lawful (1 lawfullest)
6 Neutral
7-11 Chaotic (11 chaoticest)

So 6-6 is true Neutral, 1-11 total chaotic good, and so on.

hamishspence

2008-09-15, 02:48 PM

or just: Strongly Good, mildly Lawful, etc:

Roy: Moderate Good, mild lawful
Miko: Strongly Lawful, moderate to mild Good (initially)
Belkar: Strongly Evil: moderate Chaotic
Xykon: Strongly Evil, strongly Chaotic.
Thog: Strongly Chaotic, moderate Evil

And so on.

FujinAkari

2008-09-15, 02:50 PM

True, but it's hard to get the impression that she actually believed that when the line is set-up as a punchline.

That is you reading intent into her words when the comic doesn't indicate one way or the other. We can note that Miko doesn't seem to have a very good sense of humor, and has routinely been referenced as someone who doesn't understand sarcasm, so claiming her words here were sarcastic seems a stretch.

Maybe it's because Miko's a tactless orphan, but that was just cold, callus. Even though she was not evil, everything Rich did with Miko antagonized her.

No one is arguing that Miko wasn't an antagonist, we're arguing that Luis' statement (that Miko was evil long before she fell) is incorrect. You seem to agree, stating that Miko's actions here, while heartless, were not evil.

She casted hold person and was not buffed in anyway. No armor, no AC boosting spells active. Also, a complete idiot. Miko's a monk. Stunning fist to the face. Over.

Stunning Fist has a chance to fail. When dealing with effectively "save or die" spells, your priority is to use the -most- effective countermeasure. Miko was very aware that Sam was more likely to be stopped by three slices than by one stunning fist.

A cop isn't supposed to kill a fleeing suspect, which is why they are trained to aim for the leg.

Having dated a Police Officer, I can say that this is untrue. Cops are trained that, if the situation warrents lethal force, they are to shoot to kill. If a fleeing suspect presents enough of a danger to society to warrent the use of their sidearm, a cop runs a very high risk of coming under return fire if they attempt a leg-shot. Typically, police officers will simply pursue low-risk offenders (use of tazers or bean-bag cannons to disable them) or will employ lethal force against high-risk offenders (after warning them to stop, of course.)

Good cops give warning! LAWFUL GOOD cops give warning.

Go out and start shooting at a cop, see if he warns you to stop before returning fire.

You don't murder the unarmed and you definitely don't kill someone who's just been placed under arrest.

No one is arguing that Miko shouldn't have fallen, although it is interesting to note that Miko found herself in the same (percieved) situation as Mace Windu did in Episode 3. Very few people would argue that Mace Windu was wrong to want to strike down The Emperor, despite the Emperor being largely helpless until Anakin's intervention.

Sir_Norbert

2008-09-15, 02:51 PM

I'd resist, but I wouldn't cut you in half...
Really.... what about if you were carrying a sword, you'd been trained to use it, and Fujin was a magic user who would overcome you in half a second if you didn't strike first? Can you imagine yourself in that situation?

hamishspence

2008-09-15, 02:53 PM

A better comparison is to Miko and Belkar in shojo's throne room: Evil, helpless victim, plenty of provocation, yet Belkar at least suggests Miko would fall for striking him down. Or Miko to Shojo. Miko's words are almost word for word what Mace said about the Emperor: "too dangerous to stand trial"

Miko didn't fall for Samantha, or even her father, because self-defence was an issue. If she would have fallen for killing Belkar, that suggests that, if Mace was a paladin, he'd have fallen if Anakin hadn't stopped him, because he thought the Emperor was helpless. the fact that he wasn't, is not an issue.

David Argall

2008-09-15, 03:26 PM

True, but it's hard to get the impression that she actually believed that when the line is set-up as a punchline.
But it remains what she said, and we have no evidence elsewhere that she enjoyed killing. It was simply a job to do.

I'd resist, but I wouldn't cut you in half...which makes a pretty sticky situation.
or more precisely means we can't use this as a major complaint against Miko. Instead of saying Miko was definitely wrong, we are limited to her being a little excessive or making a mistake in a tricky situation...

She casted hold person and was not buffed in anyway. No armor, no AC boosting spells active. Also, a complete idiot. Miko's a monk. Stunning fist to the face. Over.
You are talking tactics, and we simply don't know the facts of the case or the rules of the world well enough to make any valid claims on that basis. Here, we can note that while the Fort save vs stunning fist may well be difficult for Samantha, it is entirely possible. By contrast, she hit for enough damage to kill [-10] and so we can assume any hit would take Samantha out. A 75[?]% chance is pretty good, but not when the alternative is 100%, and not when your life is at stake.

A cop isn't supposed to kill a fleeing suspect,
Neither of the two are fleeing, and and cops are allowed to use lethal force on fleeing suspects. They are of course discouraged from doing so, but it is really no different from resisting arrest, and so it happens without fault to the cop.

which is why they are trained to aim for the leg.
Cops gave up on that generations ago, if they ever paid attention to it. In police shootings more bullets miss than hit. Trying to shoot for a particular body part pretty much just increases your chance to miss entirely without much reducing the number of suspects dead.

And if someone tries to grab a cop or tie them with rope "hold person" the cop is supposed to go with their OTHER means of stopping someone.
When they are effective and appropriate. And as said, that is not always the case.

You don't murder the unarmed and you definitely don't kill someone who's just been placed under arrest.
True enough, but we can find all sorts of cases of cops killing unarmed suspects, and those just placed under arrested, and continuing as cops.
The prime reason in the case of arrested suspects is resisting arrest, and by Miko's "logic", that is what Shojo was doing. Any attempt to take him to jail/trial would have been futile, and allowed him to continue his treason. So he had to pay for his crime right away. This was evil because Shojo was innocent [and Miko was making extreme leaps in logic], not because she didn't dot the i or cross the t. The fact he was armed or unarmed, under arrest or not really didn't make any difference.

Madness does not equal Not-evil, in D&D.
True, and false. It also does not equal Not-good. It can help us explain someone's actions, but of itself, it does not assign the label. The statement "Miko is delusional, therefore she is evil/not good." is wrong.
Now what delusional does do is make invalid certain types of evidence. The acts done under a delusion largely do not count against you. So if we say Miko is delusional, we are left with little or no evidence that Miko is evil.

acirruscloud

2008-09-15, 04:35 PM

I'd just like to add that modern America's views for or against the use of lethal force in law enforcement have little bearing on what would be correct behavior in a medieval society.

Draz74

2008-09-15, 06:15 PM

Vaarsuvius: Neutral, with good tendancies

Agreed, until recently. I think (s)he's slipping deeper into the not-particularly-Good-in-any-way realm.

Kish

2008-09-15, 06:23 PM

Miko didn't fall for Samantha, or even her father, because self-defence was an issue. If she would have fallen for killing Belkar, that suggests that, if Mace was a paladin, he'd have fallen if Anakin hadn't stopped him, because he thought the Emperor was helpless. the fact that he wasn't, is not an issue.
I would venture that the fact that Luke balked at striking down the "helpless old man" in the same exact situation as Mace Windu, in Return of the Jedi, (only with twenty years more evidence of exactly how bad the Emperor was) because he believed he would fall to the Dark Side if he did it suggests that, as the Star Wars equivalent of a paladin, Mace was indeed in great danger of falling.

Stunning Fist has a chance to fail. When dealing with effectively "save or die" spells, your priority is to use the -most- effective countermeasure. Miko was very aware that Sam was more likely to be stopped by three slices than by one stunning fist.
This also presumes Miko had as much information as we do. She didn't. Her information consisted of, "Spellcaster I found tied up and wounded. Declared 'You'll serve me or you'll die!' before casting a spell at me which is second or third level depending on her class. Is totally confident she can take the strange warrior with no trouble, which might be youthful overconfidence or might mean I should exercise more prudence here than she is."

David Argall

2008-09-15, 07:28 PM

A better comparison is to Miko and Belkar in shojo's throne room: Evil, helpless victim, plenty of provocation, yet Belkar at least suggests Miko would fall for striking him down.
Belkar is not exactly your expert on morals. In fact, his intellect in that incident is compared unfavorably to a table. So we can pretty much ignore his opinion. Now what grounds do we have to judge the incident?

Executing Belkar is clearly unlawful. The court is right there and is presumed to be working properly [unlike the Shojo case, where Miko charged that the courts were invalid]. So the lawful should turn Belkar over to them for trial.
But evil? Why? Belkar is a vile monster whose death ought to be grounds for a celebration by everybody who would have been in his reach. Killing him when he is helpless just sounds like a good idea to avoid fuss. You really want to wait until he has some weapons and those assigned to execute him will be risking their lives?

Essentially you only kill when you need to. When somebody is helpless, there is a default assumption that you don't need to because they are helpless. But a default assumption can be overturned, and often is. When you know he is not going to stay helpless, it doesn't matter if he is now or not. Either way you are engaging in self defense of some sort [or are not, but that too is not changed by the absence or presence of defenses].

Or Miko to Shojo. Miko's words are almost word for word what Mace said about the Emperor: "too dangerous to stand trial"
Now we are talking of a far different setting, and one I am at best only casually familiar with, but as I understand it, the failure to off the Emperor meant massive wars and assorted evil deeds. So this would be an argument in favor of Miko.

dps

2008-09-15, 08:10 PM

Now we are talking of a far different setting, and one I am at best only casually familiar with, but as I understand it, the failure to off the Emperor meant massive wars and assorted evil deeds. So this would be an argument in favor of Miko.

Actually, the failed attempt to kill Papaltine (who wasn't Emporer yet) lead to a lot of evil deeds. It's not 100% clear to me that it would have been impossible to bring him to trial.

However, I don't think Mace Windu was in danger of turning to the Dark Side had he succeeded. The Emporer tried to goad Luke into attempting to kill him in anger, but it would have been the anger, not the killing that could have lead Luke to the Dark Side. Mace, on the other hand, wasn't acting out of anger, but out of a calculated decision of what was best for the greater good.

EDIT: Note that the setting and the situation, as well as the rules governing paladins and Jedi, are quite different.

FatJose

2008-09-15, 11:59 PM

Actually, the failed attempt to kill Papaltine (who wasn't Emperor yet) lead to a lot of evil deeds. It's not 100% clear to me that it would have been impossible to bring him to trial.

However, I don't think Mace Windu was in danger of turning to the Dark Side had he succeeded. The Emperor tried to goad Luke into attempting to kill him in anger, but it would have been the anger, not the killing that could have lead Luke to the Dark Side. Mace, on the other hand, wasn't acting out of anger, but out of a calculated decision of what was best for the greater good.

EDIT: Note that the setting and the situation, as well as the rules governing paladins and Jedi, are quite different.

Not by much, Jedi are just Sorceror and or Wizard/Pally hybrids. They even have their own version of blackguards.

In canon Mace is supposed to be the bad ass rebel of the Jedi Order. He uses a deadly light saber style that is so aggressive that one can slowly slip into the dark side by using it for a prolonged period. Also, let's not forget that 4 good Jedi, and close friends of Mace died in that battle with the emperor. (Which is BS. Those characters in all other media were portrayed as the hero Jedi they were. But in the movie bad choreography made them look like old folk in bathrobes playing pinata.)

Good and Evil, Light side Dark side
Potato, Potato (err...you know what I mean.)