Cleric of Loki and Roy's future(?) resurrection

[charl]

I couldn't help but start analysing and thinking about the cleric of Loki, and how odd it really is that someone would actually want to worship that particular figure, as he (at least according to what we know about old Norse religion) 1) isn't actually a god to begin with and 2) is a murderer, compulsive liar, con artist, father of the goddess Hel of... Hel (not a typo, but pretty much the same concept as the Christian double-L variant) and the Norse equivalent to the Tarrasque, coward and generally not a particularly inspiring figure. The Aesir and Vanir eventually got so tired of having him around that they chained him to a stone deep underground and placed a viper hanging from ceiling, so that he would have to endure constant poisoning in total darkness for the rest of eternity, or at least until Ragnarok came along.

Then I realized that in DnD terms, Loki would most likely be considered evil. Neutral evil or a very cowardly form of chaotic evil (enjoys slaughter but only causes it when he is absolutely sure he can get away with it).

Now Roy on the other hand is as we all know good. I would argue lawful good. Being dead isn't perhaps that much fun (or, well, maybe it is with the OOTS heaven being what it is) and saving the world in that state is hard to say the least, but would someone of Roy's character really take kindly to being resurrected by the Norse embodiment of trickery and murder?

Of course I know that OOTS or indeed most modern attempts at including Norse gods tend to stray a fair amount from the original source material (putting it nicely), so this Loki probably isn't as evil as the original is made out to be. Judging by earlier Loki clerics in the comic it seems likely that he is more of a chaotic neutral entity. (Also I am over-analysing.)

But still, the question is interesting. So what do you other OOTS fans say? Would Roy accept resurrection from a cleric of an evil deity?

[Mercenary Pen]

Under the right cirumstances, yes. I mean, as long as it was obvious that Roy wasn't subsequently going to be imprisoned, tortured, dominated or anything like that, Roy's need to get back into action would almost force him to accept.

[zyphyr]

Given that Roy is already aware of the fact that said Cleric would be resurrecting him at the behest of Haley and Cecilia, he wouldn't hesitate to accept.

If, on the other hand, it was some random Cleric of Loki who was in no way affiliated with his party he would be likely to reject it.

[Kranden]

I Think Roy would take a resurrection from Redcloak at this point

[Jan Mattys]

I Think Roy would take a resurrection from Redcloak at this point

That made me laugh :smallbiggrin:
...but it's also quite true.

[charl]

Yeah, I suppose he is a practical person deep down.

But in general DnD terms, wouldn't this violate some alignment rule or another?

[Kranden]

It's for the greater good. Roy has always been leaned more to neutral moreso than characters like Hinjo. He is Lawful good in respect to authority and tradition however he also believes in the greater good especially when no real harm will come of it. If a lawful good person cannot put aside minor details like that he might as well be Lawful stupid.

[Dreamthiev]

Yeah, I suppose he is a practical person deep down.

But in general DnD terms, wouldn't this violate some alignment rule or another?

Not really. When you get rezzed you learn the name, alignment, and patron deity of the person casting the spell. From there it's your choice if you take the rez or not. Alignment would only come into it when considering the character's motivation in accepting the rez. In Roy's case he'd be accepting it to battle team evil and save the world so he's in the clear. There's no D&D rule that says accepting a rez from an opposed alignment would cause you problems.

On the other hand, if it was say Durkon who was dead he might be in more of a bind. Not in an alignment issue, but if he accept the rez from a cleric of a deity opposed to his patron deity that might count as "grossly violating the code of conduct required by his god." If that were to happen, he could be stripped of his cleric-powers until he is able to atone.

But for characters who's class-abilities don't depend on divine favor it's pretty much a non-issue. The resurrection info sheet you get when someone tries to rez you is mostly an escape clause, so you can prevent yourself from being rezzed into an unfavorable situation.

[Avilan the Grey]

Yeah, I suppose he is a practical person deep down.

But in general DnD terms, wouldn't this violate some alignment rule or another?

I don't know about DnD terms, but it also depends on what Loki we are talking about. In the oldest texts (or rather the oldest oral traditions) it is the Loki you mention that we hear about. However in almost all myths, stories and traditions, Loki is simply a trickster. Not only are these myths always "prequels" since Loki is obviously free and unbound, but his role is to lie, cheat and cause mayhem in a much less severe way than in the older tradition that ends with him being tied down (these oldest traditions are so old that they mention earthquakes when he tries to break his chains, which means they probably originates from before the religion actually reached Scandinavia*). Basically, in the Norse myths Loki is mostly a rascal, a rogue and a coward, not the Big Bad Evil Overlord.

*There have been findings that supports that the Aesir religion originated somewhere far south-southeast. Elements of the main Hindu gods are very similar to the Norse ones, especially Tor. If they from the beginning was the same religion, or if they both were inspired by a third is of course impossible to say. Pre Greko-roman Turkey had gods that closely resembled Odin and Tor, too.

[Theodoriph]

I couldn't help but start analysing and thinking about the cleric of Loki, and how odd it really is that someone would actually want to worship that particular figure, as he (at least according to what we know about old Norse religion) 1) isn't actually a god to begin with and 2) is a murderer, compulsive liar, con artist, father of the goddess Hel of... Hel (not a typo, but pretty much the same concept as the Christian double-L variant) and the Norse equivalent to the Tarrasque, coward and generally not a particularly inspiring figure. The Aesir and Vanir eventually got so tired of having him around that they chained him to a stone deep underground and placed a viper hanging from ceiling, so that he would have to endure constant poisoning in total darkness for the rest of eternity, or at least until Ragnarok came along.

Then I realized that in DnD terms, Loki would most likely be considered evil. Neutral evil or a very cowardly form of chaotic evil (enjoys slaughter but only causes it when he is absolutely sure he can get away with it).

Now Roy on the other hand is as we all know good. I would argue lawful good. Being dead isn't perhaps that much fun (or, well, maybe it is with the OOTS heaven being what it is) and saving the world in that state is hard to say the least, but would someone of Roy's character really take kindly to being resurrected by the Norse embodiment of trickery and murder?

Of course I know that OOTS or indeed most modern attempts at including Norse gods tend to stray a fair amount from the original source material (putting it nicely), so this Loki probably isn't as evil as the original is made out to be. Judging by earlier Loki clerics in the comic it seems likely that he is more of a chaotic neutral entity. (Also I am over-analysing.)

But still, the question is interesting. So what do you other OOTS fans say? Would Roy accept resurrection from a cleric of an evil deity?



As per the Norse myths I read, Loki is a god.

Wiki says he is a god or giant. Apparently there's some question on the matter.

"The 13th century Icelandic Poetic Edda and Prose Edda, two of the very few sources of information regarding the figure, inconsistently place him among the Æsir, as his blood-brotherhood makes him a member of Odin's family."

[Lichtouch]

Loki isn't a particularily vile figure. He's the Olidammara of Norse Mythology. He's God of trickery and fire, but he did many things to help the Gods. He tricked the Dwarves into creating the Odin's Spear, Freyr's Ship and Sif's new hair. He's aids in the creation of the Hammer of Thor, and aids Thor in the recovery of his hammer when it was stolen. He was even the mother (don't ask) of Odin's horse.

Of course, there are plenty of wrong-doings that he did but he also did many right things - some of which he did, simply because he wanted to or because of the laughter he would get out of it (thor dressing up as a woman in order to retrieve his hammer). In this vein, I think of the death of Baldr as probably his finest - and last - trick that he had played on the Gods. He's probably the epitome of Chaotic Neutral.

[B. Dandelion]

I Think Roy would take a resurrection from Redcloak at this point

I have been wondering if that's an outside possibility myself...
Not really. When you get rezzed you learn the name, alignment, and patron deity of the person casting the spell.

...precisely because of this little factoid. If you've read SoD you probably can see where I'm going with this. Neither Xykon nor Redcloak use their real names, something tMitD alludes to when O-Chul tries to puzzle out how to address his new friend. In both cases the adoption of a new alias was symbolic, but for opposite reasons. Xykon picked a "badass" sounding name to pursue a career as an evil sorcerer. Redcloak picked a "demeaning" moniker because he needed something simple and easy to remember. Xykon gained a new identity; Redcloak lost his old one. He's probably the only person who remembers his real name (ditto Xykon and his), somebody else knowing it (or worse, using it) could be... unsettling. Trouble is I can't really think of any good reason why this scenario should come to pass besides the idea that it'd be, you know, neat.

As to the OP: basically what others have said, he's looking down on Haley and Celia right now and knows the circumstances under which he'd be raised, so I think he'd accept the rez even from a possibly evil cleric of a known evil deity. I mean, if he'd had any objections he could have voiced them already -- not that it would do any good as far as influencing the girls, but he could have made his wishes known to the audience.

[hamishspence]

Norse legends can look a little odd. I seem to remeber Loki as Thor's brother, and adventuring alongside him, and Loki as Wotan's brother and Father of Monsters. Maybe some authors Disneyfied him by splitting the concept in two?

[Laurentio II]

He was even the mother (don't ask) of Odin's horse.
And of a giant wolf, of a half mummified woman, and of a titanic snake. Yes, Loki get a lot of weird things every time he gets laid.

[DBear]

In standard Norse myth, Loki was merely a trickster. It wasn't until Christians hijacked Norse myth that Loki became Nordic Satan.

[Laurentio II]

In standard Norse myth, Loki was merely a trickster. It wasn't until Christians hijacked Norse myth that Loki became Nordic Satan.
Sadly, the most correct modern interpretation of Loki is from "The Mask 2"... and this is horrible.

[Avilan the Grey]

As per the Norse myths I read, Loki is a god.

Wiki says he is a god or giant. Apparently there's some question on the matter.

The point here, I think, is that there really is no difference in Power Level between gods and giants. Yes, Tor is stronger than all giants, but that is him, as an individual (plus magical items), not because he is a god.

[RMS Oceanic]

As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules about it being against any code of conduct to accept a resurrection spell from an alternatively aligned caster. It may just not be in the soul's - or his party or deity's - best interests.

[charl]

I don't know about DnD terms, but it also depends on what Loki we are talking about. In the oldest texts (or rather the oldest oral traditions) it is the Loki you mention that we hear about. However in almost all myths, stories and traditions, Loki is simply a trickster. Not only are these myths always "prequels" since Loki is obviously free and unbound, but his role is to lie, cheat and cause mayhem in a much less severe way than in the older tradition that ends with him being tied down (these oldest traditions are so old that they mention earthquakes when he tries to break his chains, which means they probably originates from before the religion actually reached Scandinavia*). Basically, in the Norse myths Loki is mostly a rascal, a rogue and a coward, not the Big Bad Evil Overlord.

*There have been findings that supports that the Aesir religion originated somewhere far south-southeast. Elements of the main Hindu gods are very similar to the Norse ones, especially Tor. If they from the beginning was the same religion, or if they both were inspired by a third is of course impossible to say. Pre Greko-roman Turkey had gods that closely resembled Odin and Tor, too.

We have to look at religion in its context. For the old Norse Loki's conduct would probably have been considered much worse than it does to us.

Aesir religion is a misnomer. It completely disregards the Vanirs, who seem to have been a huge part of the religion. The most correct academic term is old Norse religion.

And you can find elements of all the gods, and close resemblances, just about all over the world. It seems to be a general human thing. There are some theories about how this means that all religions share a common ancestor, or that they are all derived from the same archetypes (in a Jungian sense), or that all polytheist religions rely on three different main gods that symbolise fertility, warfare and mysticism/leadership respectively (a model that old Norse religion is one of the few polytheist religions to not fit into without stretching your definitions).

As for where the old Norse religion originated from, well the Russian planes are another favourite among scientists doing this kind of research. And earthquakes do occur in Scandinavia, more so in the past, and the story is from an Icelandic manuscript (written 200 years after the old Norse religion was replaced by Christianity, by Christian scholars. The Eddas are not reliable sources for actual facts about old Norse religious habits at all), and that island is notorious for its tectonic activity.

As for Loki's actual status within the pantheon, he is born of giants and manages to talk Thor into adopting him as his surrogate "blood brother". Once again this is based on the Eddas. It seems certain that he wasn't worshipped however (archaeologists have thus far only dug up ceremonial places with altars and sculptures dedicated to three different gods: Odin, Thor and Freyr). The use of the word god on wikipedia is an adoption of academic terminology, rather than a "mythologically correct" term.

That isn't important however. Really none of this is. I just want to show of some of my education (I've studied this at a university level). :D

What IS important for this discussion is whether a person following a generally good conviction in DnD terms would accept being resurrected by divine power supplied by a murderous evil deity.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Loki isn't evil. He just does things for the lulz.

[tribble]

Loki isn't a particularily vile figure. He's the Olidammara of Norse Mythology. He's God of trickery and fire, but he did many things to help the Gods. He tricked the Dwarves into creating the Odin's Spear, Freyr's Ship and Sif's new hair. He's aids in the creation of the Hammer of Thor, and aids Thor in the recovery of his hammer when it was stolen. He was even the mother (don't ask) of Odin's horse.

Of course, there are plenty of wrong-doings that he did but he also did many right things - some of which he did, simply because he wanted to or because of the laughter he would get out of it (thor dressing up as a woman in order to retrieve his hammer). In this vein, I think of the death of Baldr as probably his finest - and last - trick that he had played on the Gods. He's probably the epitome of Chaotic Neutral.
Actually, he did not "help" with the forging of Mjolnir, he harassed Sindri the Dwarf/Dark Elf (it gets a bit fuzzy) while he was making it, causing the handle to be too short. Thor didn't have much trouble because of that, though.
I just thought of an interesting idea. what if Loki didn't know that the Mistletoe would kill Baldur? like he just thought it would give him an "owie" (:smalltongue:)

[Selrahc]

As for Loki's actual status within the pantheon, he is born of giants and manages to talk Thor into adopting him as his surrogate "blood brother".

You mean Odin's blood brother surely?

[Nostri]

Loki's interesting in that he did both the wily rascal trickster thing and the evil demented b*stard thing. The major turning point from what I've read was when a woman came to the god's halls and eventually revealed herself to be Greed personified. She then got killed by someone (can't remember who but I think it was Thor) and then they took her out back and burned her. however he heart didn't burn so they just buried it. Later Loki, deciding it would be an entertaining trick ate her heart and was consumed by it. Which is when the evil nastiness started happening.

[Tass]

You can't say "Loki is/isn't a god in norse mythologi". There are no "gods" in the mythology. There are only varying higher powers, from the lesser like trolls and dwarves to higher aesir, vanir and giants.

In addition the races occasionally mix, so not all belongs entirely to one. (Mimir, Skadi, Njord etc.)

Unlike christianity it is not black and white.

[Mina Kobold]

Hi Charl. I'm from Denmark, Skandinavia so I know pretty much about this. 1. The giants of old Norse was not the same as a giant normallky is a Norse giant was troll-like and about 2-3 meters tall and named Jætte here, a normal giant is very tall and named kæmpe here. 2. Loki was Odins blood-brother was evil and tricky and did try to stop the dwarves making Sifs hair, Odins ring, and Mjolnir. 3. no there ain't earthquakes here we are on the middle of a tectonic thingy earthquakes are impossible. 4. Getting rezzed aren't a agligned action but the reason is, so its a good action in this chase. 5. why aren't you on ABR anymore.

[Sabin Marcus]

We have to look at religion in its context.

This is the single most true statement in this thread, and yet no one is sticking to it. I like a good survey of ancient myth as much as the next guy, but I think it'd be more worthwhile to dig out a copy of Deities & Demigods than old humanities notes.

Also, there's really no reason for Roy to reject a rez from a Cleric of Loki, especially since he's scrying on the party at the moment.

[werik]

In regards to whether the choice of accepting the resurrection is moral or not, I would have to say that there is no problem. It has been mentioned that the D&D rules have no problem with this and that's completely true, but I don't believe that there is a more general problem of morality either. The cleric here is going to be doing a good act by resurrecting Roy. Considering that his motivation is greed, the act is at worse completely neutral. Refusing the resurrection would be completely pointless and wouldn't serve Roy's, the party's, or the world's interests. It wouldn't make the cleric become good or fulfill any other purpose. This is not an issue of pragmatism vs. principal, because no principles are being compromised.

The exception for Durkon may be true only as far as his specific code as a cleric of Thor goes, but there shouldn't be a problem for anybody else in the Order.

[David Argall]

In the oldest texts (or rather the oldest oral traditions)
Keep in mind that these were written down centuries after composition by people hostile to the concepts, or more interested in a good story than textual accuracy. Also keep in mind that PHD stands for 'piled higher and deeper'. Decades of study do not make one immune to rank speculation, particularly when the actual evidence is scanty. The desire to play Sherlock Holmes is strong in all of us, and the jump from 'clever idea that is not known to be false' to 'established fact' is easily achieved by anybody, particularly when it is one's own clever idea.

Any comments on the point need a great many "possibly", "maybe", and "could be" added in.

[Dalenthas]

We have to look not at ancient mythology, but rather what has been established in the comic. Loki and Thor do fight on occasion, but it seems more llike sibling rivalry than anything else (it probably didn't help when Thor shacked up with Loki's wife). Indeed, Sutur seems to have taken the "northern god of EEVIL" role. So, while there's a good chance that the cleric is either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral, I doubt that Roy would have a problem being rezzed by him. Add in the fact that he's a traitor to the (very corrupt) church in Greysky, and he might actually be one of the most Good people in the damned city (what with Haley having left a while ago, and her parents very far away, to say the least)....

[Tass]

Hi Charl. I'm from Denmark, Skandinavia so I know pretty much about this. 1. The giants of old Norse was not the same as a giant normallky is a Norse giant was troll-like and about 2-3 meters tall and named Jætte here, a normal giant is very tall and named kæmpe here. 2. Loki was Odins blood-brother was evil and tricky and did try to stop the dwarves making Sifs hair, Odins ring, and Mjolnir. 3. no there ain't earthquakes here we are on the middle of a tectonic thingy earthquakes are impossible. 4. Getting rezzed aren't a agligned action but the reason is, so its a good action in this chase. 5. why aren't you on ABR anymore.

Yeah Keveak is rigth. The giants of norse mythology is named giants in english for lack of a better word. Some of the were indeed gigantic, but not all. For a better word try Jætte, Jaette or Jätte.

A traditional fantasy giant would as Keveak says be a Kæmpe, which does mean huge.

Hejsa, så kan se sgu lære det. Hvor er du fra? Godt at se at jeg ikke er den eneste dansker.


Also keep in mind that PHD stands for 'piled higher and deeper'.

Piled higher and deeper, indeed. Wonder how many people gets the refference? Great comic though.

Your actual point is good in moderation, but remember it also leads to people denying believing in perpetual energy and crystal healing and denying evolution or holocaust.

[LuisDantas]

About the OP questioning:

The way I see it, being ressurrected by someone you might disapprove is akin to having your life saved by a rotten criminal: it is only a problem if you end up owing him something that you'd rather not.

I don't see how that would apply here; Roy would not be offering allegiance to Loki or to his Cleric, only money.

Even if you consider that enriching Loki and his followers is a bad thing, letting Xykon and the Snarl go on unopposed is clearly far worse.