Eugene, Roy & Football (SOD spoiler!)

[hamishspence]

this is the principle reason why villagers would even bother to support their local clerical population in the first place- they want to make sure they're not going to Hell. (Or whatever their least-favoured afterlife destination might be, though generally Hell would be high on that list.)

More likely they'd support their local clerical population because clerics cast spells like Purify Food etc.

Or simply because they're a part of the local culture.

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.

[Jasdoif]

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.

There's an item that better fills that role, anyway.

[Kish]

Is "all villagers regularly have a cleric check their alignments for free" a Tippyverse thing, or is this bit of goofiness further than even Tippy went?

[Fyraltari]

"Thorp" will be the main villain's lieutenant in my next game.

I approve of your approach to worldbuilding.

[hamishspence]

It might be that the reason Detect Evil is so little used in D&D fiction is that, in older editions, it was much less reliable - it detected evil intent, more than alignment.

A Chaotic Evil wizard having a drink in the pub didn't ping - because they weren't actively scheming to do something evil in that moment.

Only the vilest, pinged as Evil all the time.

That was how the 2e DMG had it, at least.

[Peelee]

More likely they'd support their local clerical population because clerics cast spells like Purify Food etc.

Or simply because they're a part of the local culture.

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.

"I haven't had my alignment checked for months, Cleric Bob is clearly doing it wrong. Judy pinged as good. Judy! Can you believe it, after the last time I talked to her down by the market? And it only had me ring up as True Neutral, so that spell is obviously on the fritz."

[Lacuna Caster]

There's an item that better fills that role, anyway.

If by 'better' you mean 'vastly too expensive to ever mass-produce for the peasantry', yes, the phylactery of faithfulness is better. Having the clergy just sweep the congregation with DE once a week seems a lot more efficient.

"I haven't had my alignment checked for months, Cleric Bob is clearly doing it wrong. Judy pinged as good. Judy! Can you believe it, after the last time I talked to her down by the market? And it only had me ring up as True Neutral, so that spell is obviously on the fritz."

Yeah, and there are people who will deny the earth is round, but Cleric Bob can still send to Judy after she dies and ask her how she's doing.

More likely they'd support their local clerical population because clerics cast spells like Purify Food etc.

Or simply because they're a part of the local culture.

"Cleric helps ensure we avoid the afterlife we don't want by regularly checking our alignment" has never been part of D&D worldbuilding details as far as I am aware.

Sure, fine, I'm just pointing out that in any reasonable simulation of what actual humans would do here, getting semi-regular alignment checkups would be pretty high on that list. (Peasants can grow their own food and draw their own water, and I'm sure CLW would be a nice perk, but they can't verify whether they're going to heaven themselves.)

In any case, it's certainly something that Eugene or other high-level adventurers could trivially afford. Blood oath aside, there's no reason why he'd be in some state of doubt or confusion as to what afterlife he could expect.

[Ruck]

Is "all villagers regularly have a cleric check their alignments for free" a Tippyverse thing, or is this bit of goofiness further than even Tippy went?

What is a Tippyverse?

[hamishspence]

What is a Tippyverse?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...n/TheMagocracy

The Tippyverse is a hypothetical setting that came into being when the implications of the large scale, long distance teleportation was considered. The premise is based on the use of the 9th level spell "Teleportation Circle" which allows for quick and efficient trade between cities, safe travel that does not risk being attacked by monsters and devastating military strikes. This leads to the centralisation of population in major cities, and the all but abandonment of other areas (as it was deemed impossible to effectively defend settlements against mass strikes from enemy nations using Teleportation magic). To solve the problems of providing the necessary food and water, magical "Create Food and Water" traps were created to feed the populations of these cities. Other magical traps (such as "Wish" traps that create 25,000gp every time they are activated) are created to smooth the running of these cities. High-level Wizards have control, as they're the ones with the capability to create these items, and have enough power to ensure they stay at the top.

[Jasdoif]

If by 'better' you mean 'vastly too expensive to ever mass-produce for the peasantry', yes, the phylactery of faithfulness is better.

I was thinking more like a phylactery of faithfulness might be able to prevent a change in alignment, while the detect series would only reveal that such a change had already occurred.

[Lacuna Caster]

What is a Tippyverse?

We sorta got into this discussion before at the tail end of the earlier 'sapphire guard questions' thread, though the Tippyverse per se is largely focused on the economic and military logistics and my commentary was mostly focused on corresponding impacts on social morality. I also think my assumptions are much more conservative.

[Kish]

What is a Tippyverse?

A setting with certain assumptions which Lacuna has invoked in the past. It's where the idea that a wizard who ever makes a mistake is not a wizard comes from. High-level magic is built into the setting and used constantly; everyone gets around with teleportation, for example. Anyone who isn't "Tier 1" either doesn't exist, or is a de facto slave of the wizard overlords.

D&D for people who prefer *words elided due to no-politics rule* theorycrafting to D&D.

[hamishspence]

Keith Baker's Dragonshards articles had a discussion of the question "Given that 3.5 paladins have at will detect evil, why haven't they used it over thousands of years to reshape society to eliminate its evil members"

http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-44-good-and-evil/

Detect evil exists. In 3.5, paladins can use it at will. Stop and think about that for a moment. If evil was a tangible thing that could be positively identified – and if everyone who was identified as evil was unquestionably a monster with no redeeming features, while everyone who’s good is noble and pure – how would evil still exist? Over the course of two thousand years, wouldn’t we turn to paladins and alignment-detecting magic to help us identify and weed out the bad apples until we had a healthy tree? Consider our own history of witch-hunts, inquisitions, and the like. If we had an absolute yardstick and if we knew the people who failed the test were truly vile, what would happen over the course of centuries?

The answer - evil people can be useful:


the personal alignment tells you how they conduct their personal affairs, but nothing about the big picture.

People know these things. If a paladin walks into a tavern and scans ten people, he may find that three of them are evil. This doesn’t require any immediate action on his part, and while disappointing it isn’t a surprise. In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda looks at Luke and says “There is much anger in him.” Luke hadn’t done anything bad; but what Yoda could sense was his potential to do evil. That’s what the paladin gets from detect evil. He doesn’t know where you lie on the spectrum. He doesn’t know your motivations. He knows that you lack empathy for others and may be selfish or narcissistic; that you are capable of hurting others without remorse; but he doesn’t know if you have or ever will. This is a key point with the Church of the Silver Flame. They are devoted to fighting supernatural evil: demons, undead, lycanthropy, etc. These are the things to fight with sword and spell. HUMAN evil is something that should be fought with compassion, charity, and guidance. Per Flame creed, you defeat mortal evil by guiding people to the light, not by killing them.

So – once you accept this version of alignment, you can find many jobs in society that are actually better suited to evil people. A repo man who has too much sympathy or empathy for his targets is going to have a difficult time doing his job. A tax collector may be the same way. An evil politican who’s willing to play the game of corruption in order to get things done may actually be the best hope of a city – providing that his motivation is towards the greater good. Knowing someone’s alignment is a piece of a puzzle – but it doesn’t tell you everything and it doesn’t end the story.

[Kish]

I don't believe Rich's world has the same concept of "evil" that Eberron does.

(The concept that peasants should be assumed to have constant alignment checks by default remains goofy, of course.)

[Jasdoif]

I don't believe Rich's world has the same concept of "evil" that Eberron does.

Not with respect to mortals, anyway...I think the intentionally loose definitions could handily explain the gods' alignments.

[Lacuna Caster]

A setting with certain assumptions which Lacuna has invoked in the past.

...No, I haven't really been relying on assumptions related to permanent circles of teleportation and create food/water traps very much. I have been assuming that persons and institutions who obviously have access to rapid transport spells would be using those spells to achieve rapid transport when there is no discernible downside to doing so, but that's barely even Tippyverse-adjacent as inferences go.

People know these things. If a paladin walks into a tavern and scans ten people, he may find that three of them are evil. This doesn’t require any immediate action on his part, and while disappointing it isn’t a surprise. In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda looks at Luke and says “There is much anger in him.” Luke hadn’t done anything bad; but what Yoda could sense was his potential to do evil. That’s what the paladin gets from detect evil. He doesn’t know where you lie on the spectrum. He doesn’t know your motivations. He knows that you lack empathy for others and may be selfish or narcissistic; that you are capable of hurting others without remorse; but he doesn’t know if you have or ever will. This is a key point with the Church of the Silver Flame. They are devoted to fighting supernatural evil: demons, undead, lycanthropy, etc. These are the things to fight with sword and spell. HUMAN evil is something that should be fought with compassion, charity, and guidance. Per Flame creed, you defeat mortal evil by guiding people to the light, not by killing them.

So – once you accept this version of alignment, you can find many jobs in society that are actually better suited to evil people. A repo man who has too much sympathy or empathy for his targets is going to have a difficult time doing his job. A tax collector may be the same way. An evil politican who’s willing to play the game of corruption in order to get things done may actually be the best hope of a city – providing that his motivation is towards the greater good. Knowing someone’s alignment is a piece of a puzzle – but it doesn’t tell you everything and it doesn’t end the story.[/I]

The point about human evil being potentially redeemable is tenable, but I don't think, by default, you ping evil if you haven't actually done anything bad yet (and keeping the impulse in check is arguably good.) I also don't really buy arguments about 'necessary evils' in society. More-or-less by definition, anyone who can prove that their work is of net benefit to society and is at least primarily motivated as such would count as a 'good' person.

[hamishspence]

More-or-less by definition, anyone who can prove that their work is of net benefit to society and is at least primarily motivated as such would count as a 'good' person.

If they show a pattern of Evil acts, and lack the corresponding pattern of Good acts, then they might be Evil even if the acts themselves might qualify as both "Evil" and "beneficial".

While a person who does evil acts "for the greater good" can be Neutral (Heroes of Horror) - IMO they'd need to show a consistent pattern of Good behaviour, that goes beyond merely the motive for performing the Evil acts.

[Peelee]

Yeah, and there are people who will deny the earth is round, but Cleric Bob can still send to Judy after she dies and ask her how she's doing.

If evidence convinced people, well, we wouldn't have those flat earthers you've mentioned. Not to speak of other, larger groups in the news lately. Humans will be humans.

[hamishspence]

I don't think, by default, you ping evil if you haven't actually done anything bad yet (and keeping the impulse in check is arguably good.)

The

"alignment can be personality rather than deeds, it is possible to be Evil (or Good) without having done anything Evil or Good"

take is necessary for handling victims of alignment-changing magic (which does exist - Helm of Opposite Alignment is the most notable example).

Also certain "born that alignment" monsters, of which Dragons are the most notable example.

There are two major strains to alignment - deeds and personality - and both matter.



"Evil deeds but not personality" - the ultra-altruistic Evildoer whose deeds outweigh their altruism.

"Evil personality but not deeds" - certain monsters and victims of certain magics.

[Ruck]

To steer back a little to the original subjects of this thread...

Again, I'm in broad agreement that leading a 22-year-old-5-year-old into situations of deadly peril within monster-infested dungeons and wilderness areas was a very morally questionable thing to do... if we were taking the proceedings seriously. But taking the proceedings seriously would imply that rescuing Elan entailed such a high degree of risk that Roy was reasonably entitled to make a call to move on.

In practice, the idea that Roy was abandoning Elan to some grisly fate of death or enslavement is pretty undermined by Elan being... completely fine and dandy until Haley shows up, and the general looney-toons logic of the ensuing battle. It's assigning a moral gravity to the proceedings that just isn't sustained by the tone of the narrative, and there's only around a 50-strip gap between here and Elan recklessly endangering scores of hapless goblinoids and his teammates, which, if not explicitly done out of malice, would be hard to otherwise explain.

The thing is, Roy doesn't know any of that when he makes the decision. Even his reasoning that the mission was too dangerous to undertake is, as others (Kish, I think) have pointed out, undercut by his subsequent decision to press on with his initial mission alone, presumably a very dangerous decision. And it reads to me like an ex post facto rationalization for abandoning Elan, rather than his primary driving desire (which is that he finds Elan annoying and is glad to be rid of him; he makes that obvious).

I am aware that the Deva takes the incident seriously later on, but.... that is what I am arguing is kinda wonky. To the extent that Roy was mildly at fault here, he made up for it pretty quickly and has done enough to put up with Elan's general... Elan-ness... that I think it's mostly a nonissue (aside, perhaps, from the general undertone of emotional abuse in their relationship.) And we shouldn't automatically think things just because the text tells us to.

Well, hold on, I don't "automatically think things just because the text tells us to." For one, I agree with the conclusion about Roy abandoning Elan. But specific to your point that Roy abandoning Elan was in the "gag-a-day" days before the strip was supposed to be taken seriously at all, I think the Deva citing that moment shows that that is not the case. We're supposed to indicate that as a moment of Roy's character, and how he's grown and changed in the meantime. (The Deva did not, say, make mention of coup de grâce-ing sleeping goblins, nor presumably blowing up a bunch of goblins in Dorkuan's Dungeon.)

The difference is that we have concrete evidence for Miko performing various good deeds (and hints at others), and I would say we've never seen Miko being consciously cruel in terms of her abrasive remarks. We have essentially no evidence for good deeds in Eugene's case, and the author has bent over so hard to make Eugene unlikeable and caustic that it would be incongruous to have some flashback where he, say, gives half his paycheck to orphans with diseases.

Yeah, I think that's correct.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I assumed that the illusion school of magic provided countermeasures to Scrying. Was I wrong?

As per usual it depends on exactly which spell you're talking about, but generally defensive magics are in Abjuration.

[Kish]

I would put down the "this is a gag-a-day strip in which nothing should be taken seriously" curtain somewhere in the Dungeon of Dorukan. Kind of vague exactly where--but definitely once it blows up, those days are over.

[understatement]

I think the deva defines Good in the comic, from a Celestial POV, as simply fighting Evil without payment, encouragement, or reward.

Eugene can easily fit into that folder while being a complete jerkass.

[Ruck]

I think the deva defines Good in the comic, from a Celestial POV, as simply fighting Evil without payment, encouragement, or reward.

Eugene can easily fit into that folder while being a complete jerkass.

Sure, but as I've said, of all the slices of Eugene's life (and afterlife) the Giant has given us, he hasn't shown us that even once. And rather than stories of heroic adventure like we get with Horace, we get stories of Eugene's awards, accolades, and magazine covers.

[Fyraltari]

To be fair, Eugene got to high level and died a few times, so I'm sure he had exciting adventures but, like early V, he only cares insofar as those allowed him to get better at magic so he doesn't bring them up. Also, we hear a bit of Horace's adventures through Sara and Roy praising him, and they don't want to praise Eugene.

[Ruck]

I will certainly concede that Eugene had adventures.

[Mightymosy]

To steer back a little to the original subjects of this thread...



The thing is, Roy doesn't know any of that when he makes the decision. Even his reasoning that the mission was too dangerous to undertake is, as others (Kish, I think) have pointed out, undercut by his subsequent decision to press on with his initial mission alone, presumably a very dangerous decision. And it reads to me like an ex post facto rationalization for abandoning Elan, rather than his primary driving desire (which is that he finds Elan annoying and is glad to be rid of him; he makes that obvious).



Well, hold on, I don't "automatically think things just because the text tells us to." For one, I agree with the conclusion about Roy abandoning Elan. But specific to your point that Roy abandoning Elan was in the "gag-a-day" days before the strip was supposed to be taken seriously at all, I think the Deva citing that moment shows that that is not the case. We're supposed to indicate that as a moment of Roy's character, and how he's grown and changed in the meantime. (The Deva did not, say, make mention of coup de grâce-ing sleeping goblins, nor presumably blowing up a bunch of goblins in Dorkuan's Dungeon.)



Yeah, I think that's correct.

Original subjects....let's see.......oh, nothing about Eugene or soccer. I had high hopes when reading the initial sentence :-(

Well, whatever.

I just read the strips again in which Roy talks with his mom.
I think her words about Eugene are pretty interesting.
She says he is all to busy being unhappy for being happy for his son.
What is her point of criticism on Eugene? I mean after all we heard here in this thread, you'd expect his wife to say something about him being an abusive father or how he neglects his children (hey, at least when Eric shows up there should be something, right?).
Instead, she DEFENDS him. The fault she sees in him is that he doesn't bring things to an end. She thinks he waits for Celestia because the cosmic forces force him to finish what he started.

[factotum]

The other deva simply said "I can't let you in" once the Oath had come up and the evaluation appeared to stop there. The Oath's not a mitigating circumstance, it's an aggravating circumstance.

But...it's exactly the same Oath in both cases? How can it be a mitigating circumstance for Roy, and an aggravating one for Eugene? I'm with Grey_Wolf on this one, the linked strip indicates that Eugene went through his entire evaluation with the Deva and only the Blood Oath kept him out of Celestia. Ergo, he was Lawful Good at the time of his death.

I think the main issue here is that people are judging Eugene's entire character based on interactions with Roy, and we know they have an antagonistic relationship. Lawful Good doesn't mean you have to be nice to everyone--see also Miko. (And yes, up until the moment she Fell Miko *had* to be LG--in fact, she had to be more LG than most people are, because the requirements to remain a Paladin are stricter than the ones just to be LG).

[Fyraltari]

Because Roy died trying to fulfill his Oath, which makes it kosher as far as Celestia is concerned, when Eugene gave up on his. Roy’s deva says as much when Eugene complains that Roy is let in.

[snowblizz]

(The Deva did not, say, make mention of coup de grâce-ing sleeping goblins, nor presumably blowing up a bunch of goblins in Dorkuan's Dungeon.)

Neither which are actually evil acts in the D&D cosmology.

Though Rich has said that all the monster from the Dungeon of Dorukan got out before the explosion. Emergency Monster Exits probably.