How exactly has an evil cleric never resorted to uneeded violance in his entire life? [Archive]

Liwen

2008-12-17, 01:14 AM

My theory. Our little CoL IS Evil. He simply never mudered anyone before, safe for self defense, because his mommy was actually neutral good and told him during all his childhood that killing people is bad. Before encountering Belkar, he was allready shady selffish, greedy and a little bit loyal to Pete, which is even odder than not killing people for a Cleric of a Chaotic Evil god.

Yet, he seemed to enjoy crushing Pete's brain A LOT. So I believe he just discovered that he shouldn't had listened to his mother advice during all those long years. Belkar would be a excellent preacher of Loki and could instruct the next generations of Clerics devoted to the god. One fact restrain him from doing so : Belkar IS a god, so Loki is actually a rival for him.

Zevox

2008-12-17, 02:19 AM

What makes you think he was evil? Nothing he did really gave that indication, at least not before murdering Pete, and that was at least partially due to Belkar's insistence. Yes, Loki is an evil god in OotS, but that doesn't mean all his followers are evil. 3.5 D&D has the "one-step" rule for Clerics and other divine casters, so assuming Loki is Chaotic Evil, his Clerics could easily be Chaotic Neutral.

...and even if he was, as TheSummoner pointed out, you can be evil without being a murderer.

Zevox

Tempest Fennac

2008-12-17, 02:29 AM

I agree with the idea that he's CN. Regarding Hilgya, I know Rich described her as "carelessly self-centered", which suggests CN to me as well (this came up in another thread as a result of me suggesting she was spontaneously casting Cures at one point while suggesting the rules for dieties may be different due to Loki commenting in SoD that his Cleircs could only make Holy Water).

Voyager_I

2008-12-17, 02:34 AM

Having a distaste for bloodshed proves nothing about his alignment. You can enjoy hurting people in plenty of ways that don't involve getting your hands dirty. Frankly, even the vengeful murder of Pete was more non-Good than decidedly Neutral or Evil. He struck me as fairly NE, although he hasn't had an excessive number of opportunities to really express himself.

David Argall

2008-12-17, 02:34 AM

A number of the top Nazi were desk jockies who apparently never directly harmed anybody. Indeed, even in evil circles in general, doing the actual killing is deemed sorta manual labor. The big boy is the one who orders the killing.
So our cleric can be all sorts of evil without having killed anybody.

Boogastreehouse

2008-12-17, 02:38 AM

Whether he's evil or not (and given his behavior so far, I can accept arguments for him being evil or neutral as both being reasonable), he could still have chosen to avoid killing before now.

Even if he's evil, he has already demonstrated over and over again that he has at least one characteristic that might prevent him from engaging in acts of violence; he's a great big coward! I can totally see him being too afraid of getting killed himself to go around trying to kill other people.

Plus, there are good people who are comfortable with violence (Roy, Haley) and good people who aren't (Celia, most normal, non-adventuring citizens). It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that an evil person might find violence distasteful, or scary or too risky to engage in. People like that may even think of themselves as "good," because they have a line that they won't cross, but they could still be evil because of other actions.

Or even other thoughts, in my opinion. Just because you might be afraid to kill someone, doesn't necessarily mean you aren't evil, if you really wish you could kill them, and it's only your fear that's keeping you in line.

factotum

2008-12-17, 02:51 AM

I'd agree with that assessment. Actually killing somebody requires at least a little bit of courage (at least in a D&D setting, where you can't snipe someone from a mile away with little risk of being caught), and the Cleric wasn't overflowing in that. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a coward, though--he was quite happily helping Belkar kill the goons in the basement, and simply being able to keep casting the Sending spell while said goons were hammering on the door suggests a reasonable level of backbone.

TheSummoner

2008-12-17, 02:58 AM

He wasn't a complete coward, but be was more cowardly than what "average" characters we can compare him to and much more cowardly than adventurers.

His main reason for fighting was survival. Even a tiny mouse will try to fight a cat when its cornered and can't escape. Also keep in mind that CoL was mostly support in that fight. Sure, he took out a couple of guild members, but it was Belkar on the front lines doing what he does best.

Tempest Fennac

2008-12-17, 03:12 AM

Regarding him staying to cast the spell, dispite his comment about being able to run away, I doubt he would have gotten very far due to how many Guild members were searching for him, so he would have possibly decided to stay without Haley offering to pay him 3 times as much to cast Sending.

Underground

2008-12-17, 03:53 AM

Evil simply isnt forced to be murderer.

Just like good isnt forced to give all money to the poor, and spend life in a church helping the needy.

Trazoi

2008-12-17, 04:29 AM

3.5 D&D has the "one-step" rule for Clerics and other divine casters
However I'm not certain that OotS is following the one-step rule of Clerics, due to Durkon and Thor. Durkon seems pretty solidly Lawful Good, maybe tending towards Lawful Neutral at times but definitely very lawful. Thor however seems to be a extremely Chaotic god - either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral.

So it's possible that clerics can be whatever alignment they like, in which case the CoL could technically be anything.

King of Nowhere

2008-12-17, 11:35 AM

Whether he's evil or not (and given his behavior so far, I can accept arguments for him being evil or neutral as both being reasonable), he could still have chosen to avoid killing before now.

Evil simply isnt forced to be murderer.

Just like good isnt forced to give all money to the poor, and spend life in a church helping the needy.

Those two sums up my toughts well.

However I'm not certain that OotS is following the one-step rule of Clerics, due to Durkon and Thor. Durkon seems pretty solidly Lawful Good, maybe tending towards Lawful Neutral at times but definitely very lawful. Thor however seems to be a extremely Chaotic god - either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral.

So it's possible that clerics can be whatever alignment they like, in which case the CoL could technically be anything.

My opinion about that: it is the deity that has to accept the cleric and give him/her spells and powers. The rule suggest that a deity accept clerics only one step near his alignment. Thor is chaotic, so he don't mind breacking the rule to accept a lawful cleric.

Terrace

2008-12-17, 12:19 PM

factotum

2008-12-17, 12:39 PM

Of course...haven't you heard of Godwin's Law? :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik

2008-12-17, 02:57 PM

It was only a matter of time before someone mentioned the Nazis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

However I'm not certain that OotS is following the one-step rule of Clerics, due to Durkon and Thor. Durkon seems pretty solidly Lawful Good, maybe tending towards Lawful Neutral at times but definitely very lawful. Thor however seems to be a extremely Chaotic god - either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral.

So it's possible that clerics can be whatever alignment they like, in which case the CoL could technically be anything.

I was about to chime in with this - Thor is indeed pretty Chaotic. Rule of Funny or not, it does seem to defeat the One-step Rule.

Maybe he's NG and does some lawful stuff on the side? :smallwink:

My opinion about that: it is the deity that has to accept the cleric and give him/her spells and powers. The rule suggest that a deity accept clerics only one step near his alignment. Thor is chaotic, so he don't mind breacking the rule to accept a lawful cleric.

The thing about Chaotic deities is that they would find lawful clerics (and paladins) too stuffy to really get their message across. In fact, both times Durkon tried to convert people to Thor-worship he failed miserably.

Zevox

2008-12-17, 03:01 PM

I was about to chime in with this - Thor is indeed pretty Chaotic. Rule of Funny or not, it does seem to defeat the One-step Rule.

Maybe he's NG and does some lawful stuff on the side? :smallwink:
Nah. He's a god - if he wants to be Lawful, who's really going to tell him he isn't (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html)? :smalltongue:

Zevox

Optimystik

2008-12-17, 03:39 PM

Nah. He's a god - if he wants to be Lawful, who's really going to tell him he isn't (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html)? :smalltongue:

More accurately, if he wants Lawful FOLLOWERS, whose going to tell him he can't? But yeah, he's definitely Chaotic.

hamishspence

2008-12-17, 03:41 PM

CG Thor in Deities and demigods is described as, among many other things, a god of dwarves. Which tend towards LG. So idea of the Norse deities being more relaxed about the alignment of their devotees does have merit.

ericgrau

2008-12-17, 04:38 PM

He's just chicken.

Scarlet Knight

2008-12-17, 04:40 PM

COL? You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.

Then again, maybe it just seems that way because in Greysky, every is obese on evil...

Arachu

2008-12-17, 05:03 PM

What if a CN god needs an LG cleric to enforce his interests? It's hard to imagine a neutral character to hunt undead with as much enthusiasm as Durkon (see issue #16).

As for Col (and Loki, actually), what if he's evil in the 'manipulation and deceit' way rather than the 'fire and death' way? Evil does not mean you kill and spread anarchy, it means you harbor ill will toward others. I mean, yeah, define 'others', but still...

Plus, anyone notice that the bard in the group that was breaking into the room (you know, the bard Belkar made out with?) mentioned that "Bozzok promised that cleric's head to Loki's high priest"? What if CoL pissed off the wrong person (like the high priest, for example)? What if he's really good, and this offended the priest (though obviously not Loki, as he can still cast)?

Though it is possible that said priest wants his head for helping Old Blind Pete...

Hm, either way, it wouldn't make sense to me if he were outright evil :smallannoyed:

Well, in the words of the demon-roach: :roach: Backstory-riffic!

Zevox

2008-12-17, 05:16 PM

What if a CN god needs an LG cleric to enforce his interests? It's hard to imagine a neutral character to hunt undead with as much enthusiasm as Durkon (see issue #16).
Sure it is. Just make them one of those nature-worshiper types who see the Undead as an abomination.

Zevox

Querzis

2008-12-17, 05:23 PM

It was only a matter of time before someone mentioned the Nazis...

Godwin was only against overused and stupid comparison with nazi, not valid one. And sorry but that was a perfectly valid comparison.

You know, before you had people in forum who did nothing more then compare things to hitler and never added anything to the discussion. Now you have people who do nothing more then say «godwins law» and still add absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Assassin89

2008-12-17, 05:26 PM

I am pretty sure that the Cleric of Loki spent most of his time in the temple and therefore did not need to fight.

Ridureyu

2008-12-17, 05:53 PM

In the cleric's defense, Pete's skull seems pretty fun to smash.

Captain Six

2008-12-17, 06:32 PM

I play D&D but I've never played a Cleric yet so correct me if I'm wrong. Evil clerics can't cast cure spells, both Clerics of Loki have so far so they are at most neutral.

Zevox

2008-12-17, 06:35 PM

I play D&D but I've never played a Cleric yet so correct me if I'm wrong. Evil clerics can't cast cure spells, both Clerics of Loki have so far so they are at most neutral.
You're wrong. Any Cleric can cast any Cleric spell. Evil Clerics simply can't spontaneously convert any spell into a cure spell - they have to prepare them instead (and instead can spontaneously convert any spell into an inflict spell).

Zevox

Captain Six

2008-12-17, 08:29 PM

My mistake, I thought Cure spells were good aligned. A trip to the SRD has informed me otherwise.

Mollusk

2008-12-18, 12:15 AM

A number of the top Nazi were desk jockies who apparently never directly harmed anybody... So our cleric can be all sorts of evil without having killed anybody.

That's spot on. Thinking about those highly educated and intelligent Germans who felt pissed off about the state of Germany after the first world war, then joined the Nazi party, it seems that allowing something to happen despite knowing something was bad would be more Evil than directly-homicidal-evil. Maybe "Cleric of Loki" is more of the insidious evil type whose day job consists of spreading apathy and discouraging constructive attempts for change.

In a place like Greysky, wouldn't dominant institutions like the Church of Loki need ministers to preach evil to the masses in some way?

Underground

2008-12-18, 07:30 AM

My opinion about that: it is the deity that has to accept the cleric and give him/her spells and powers. The rule suggest that a deity accept clerics only one step near his alignment. Thor is chaotic, so he don't mind breacking the rule to accept a lawful cleric. And I would assume that Thor is pretty used to the fact that his dwarven clerics are all quite lawful.

Of course...haven't you heard of Godwin's Law? :smallbiggrin: You obviously "have heard of" Godwin's Law, but never actually bothered to find out what it actually is ?

There are two forms:

- As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

That is how Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) knows it. The other, that you seem to be trying to use, is:

- If, in a discussion, a user compares others with the nazis, he automatically loses the argument.

And this hasnt happened. Nobody here has compared anyone else here with the Nazis.

You seem to have mixed both up. Just stating the nazis alone does not automatically make you lose an argument. Godwin's law in its original, Wikipedia form is just a general statement about discussions, nothing that actually affects discussions. It simply states that the extreme crimes the nazis committed has linked them deeply into our culture as the ultimate example of evil, therefore it is bound to pop up a lot whenever evil things are discussed.

Especially the first form doesnt state that an argument ends if nazis are mentioned, or that you dont have to answer to a posting if nazis are mentioned.

Greep

2008-12-18, 07:38 AM

And I would assume that Thor is pretty used to the fact that his dwarven clerics are all quite lawful.

You obviously "have heard of" Godwin's Law, but never actually bothered to find out what it actually is ?

There are two forms:

- As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

That is how Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) knows it. The other, that you seem to be trying to use, is:

- If, in a discussion, a user compares others with the nazis, he automatically loses the argument.

And this hasnt happened. Nobody here has compared anyone else here with the Nazis.

You seem to have mixed both up. Just stating the nazis alone does not automatically make you lose an argument. Godwin's law in its original, Wikipedia form is just a general statement about discussions, nothing that actually affects discussions. It simply states that the extreme crimes the nazis committed has linked them deeply into our culture as the ultimate example of evil, therefore it is bound to pop up a lot whenever evil things are discussed.

Especially the first form doesnt state that an argument ends if nazis are mentioned, or that you dont have to answer to a posting if nazis are mentioned.

Where did he imply any of this? o.O All he did was agree that yeah mention of nazis was inevitable (regular wikipedia form you thought he didn't use)

Totally Guy

2008-12-18, 07:48 AM

Loki may be an evil god but really he's not so bad. I mean he's reasonable and kind of cool about things.

"Dude, don't taunt the god killing abomination"

He's a classic example of the way evil can feel friendship, SoD spoiler:he allied with the dark one when the good gods wouldn't

He's a friendly rival to Thor really, I can't see any real malice in the relationship.

So this Cleric was perhaps evil but also he was not so bad, reasonable and just a tad bit cool.

Assassin89

2008-12-18, 04:22 PM

*Stabs all references to Godwin's Law*

Just because someone works for an evil organization does not mean that person is evil. That particular employee could be doing something mundane because they have a life outside of the organization.

Boogastreehouse

2008-12-18, 05:04 PM

Just because someone works for an evil organization does not mean that person is evil. That particular employee could be doing something mundane because they have a life outside of the organization.

Tell that to the independent contractors who were killed while working on the second Death Star, but first listen to what this roofer has to say on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6lzEhoXads

Adderfield

2008-12-21, 12:19 PM

The simplest answer is that just because he's devoted to an "evil" god doesn't necessarily make him evil. And even if he is evil he's not necessarily violent, and even if he has a capacity for evil violence he may still be loathe to resort to it. (and in fact we've got quite a bit of evidence that he is squeamish if not an outright physical coward). A couple people have already mentioned this.

Also, keep in mind we have no idea what his personal definition of "self-defense" is. If he worships a chaotic and/or evil aligned God, his definition could be wildly different than one any Lawful character would recognize, let alone agree with. It could easily be a much looser definition than ours, and in fact probably is.

Maybe Pete knows his old friend so well that, if CoL were to skip town, Pete would know where the CoL is most likely to skip town to. CoL could be "defending himself" by silencing Pete before he can give that info to Bozzok, or the Church. That wouldn't fly in our courts of law as self-defense, but it might be good enough for a Chaotic priest's conscience.

Rotipher

2008-12-29, 08:59 PM

Given the way the Northern gods have been seen behaving in their various cameos, I very much doubt if they're keeping track of precisely how well their individual clerics stick within the one-step rule. (The Twelve Gods are, but that's a different pantheon and culture.) Heck, even if the HPoL were to commune with Loki and alert his deity as to how the cleric in question was acting squeamish, he'll probably just get the ansaphone. :smallwink:

yanmaodao

2008-12-30, 02:17 AM

You seem to have mixed both up. Just stating the nazis alone does not automatically make you lose an argument. Godwin's law in its original, Wikipedia form is just a general statement about discussions, nothing that actually affects discussions. It simply states that the extreme crimes the nazis committed has linked them deeply into our culture as the ultimate example of evil, therefore it is bound to pop up a lot whenever evil things are discussed.

Especially the first form doesnt state that an argument ends if nazis are mentioned, or that you dont have to answer to a posting if nazis are mentioned.

While I would certainly agree that the Nazi analogy used in this thread was valid and reasonable (no one's argument was being compared to Nazi ideology, after all), there's a reason Nazi allusions in general are hair-triggered to be relegated to rhetorical ghetto. Godwin's Law in its initial form, you're right, didn't explicitly pass judgment. I think was stated something like this: "As a discussion thread gets longer, the probability of Nazis being brought up approaches one", or some pseudo-mathematical formulation like that.

However, I don't believe it was ever as happy-neutral and toothless as you're portraying it. There was always an implied subtext; Godwin himself argued against overuse of Hitler/Nazi analogies, and there's a reason Usenet immediately interpreted the "Law" the way it did.