What alignment is Oona?

[Jason]

Depends on the bar?

Oona was doing some combination of hunting, patrolling, and exercising her mount. Attacking perceived threats to your territory without warnings certainly isn’t a good action, but I’m not keen on the suggestion that anyone who engages in any evil actions must therefore have an evil alignment.

I get what you're saying: that doing a few evil actions doesn't always add up to an evil alignment if there are sufficient good actions to balance things.
In Oona's case, however the good actions have been "enthusiastic upbeat attitude about everything" and "likes animals" while her evil actions have been "willing to murder complete strangers if she doesn't have a reason not to" and "readily accepts undead abominations and high priests of evil dieties as allies." Pretty much just like Thog, in fact.

She's evil, not neutral, though she may be neutral evil.

[Lex]

I get what you're saying: that doing a few evil actions doesn't always add up to an evil alignment if there are sufficient good actions to balance things.
In Oona's case, however the good actions have been "enthusiastic upbeat attitude about everything" and "likes animals" while her evil actions have been "willing to murder complete strangers if she doesn't have a reason not to" and "readily accepts undead abominations and high priests of evil dieties as allies." Pretty much just like Thog, in fact.

She's evil, not neutral, though she may be neutral evil.

Completely agree.

[Homentashen]

In Oona's case, however the good actions have been "enthusiastic upbeat attitude about everything" and "likes animals" while her evil actions have been "willing to murder complete strangers if she doesn't have a reason not to" and "readily accepts undead abominations and high priests of evil dieties as allies." Pretty much just like Thog, in fact.

She's evil, not neutral, though she may be neutral evil.

For the record, I'm only using your quote to tie myself a little to the current conversation. I'm writing a lot here, and I don't want you to think there's an expectation that you respond with as much effort.

I really take issue to the characterization of several characters that Oona has attacked as 'complete strangers'. I agree that she doesn't know them, but I think calling them that completely ignores the wider context of why she used violence in those situations. Most of the enemies one fights in a D&D campaign, or in real life if the situation requires it, are strangers. The lack of familiarity does not count against Oona if the circumstances justify violence otherwise.


There are a few factors I think it's helpful to consider when it comes to Oona attacking other characters:

1) Many sapients in this setting like to attack, oppress, and genocide goblinoids. Redcloak harbors a hatred of many humans after they slaughtered most of his village. Oona's entire tribe settled in the North Pole to escape persecution from dwarves. The unfair treatment of goblins as always-evil free XP is a major plot point to the extent that a villain is literally trying to harness power above the gods to remake the universe in a way that's more equitable for his goblin kin.

The first incident includes her attacking two humans (O'chul and...the bluehair one?) encroaching on her territory. I think it can be reasonably assumed that Oona is distrustful of armed humanoid warriors that come to the North Pole. They are paladins, but if Oona is aware of that, she probably recognizes that paladins are hostile towards goblins.
I've been reading the past several pages of this thread, so I want to clarify this. I am only arguing that, based on the context/facts of that situation, there's strong evidence to suggest that these humans are coming to attack the bugbears for being bugbears and that killing them would protect the village. It is not payback for other violence goblinoids have experienced, but it is a reasonable response to people who are trying to kill you.

The second incident happens when she comes upon her ally using magic to attack a dwarf, then two dwarves when his ally comes to his aid. She watches for a second, assuming the violence to be a style of debate. She helps her ally, attacking the dwarves, once he asks her politely for help and explains that they are trying to stop her ally.
Oona holds back from attacking the dwarves until they are identified are enemies, but I still think it's important to note that they are dwarves, the same type of humanoid that chased the bugbears away, forcing them to settle at the North Pole. Her ally who is attacking the dwarves is the high priest of the goblin god, who has spent the majority of his life fighting and scheming for better conditions for goblinkind. His conquest kicked the humans out of a city and gave the goblins a recognized city-state, and he offered to work out trade deals between Gobbotopia and Oona's village.
I'm arguing here that there's strong evidence from her perspective that the dwarves are enemies who are not supposed to be there. They have ill intent and are working against a powerful person who is trying to improve conditions for goblinkind.

2) The conditions that goblinoids have faced give them a different perspective on allying with the kind of elements we find on Team Evil. There are two arguments I can make that would apply to most of goblinkind.

-Firstly, Goblinoids are oppressed for being goblinoids, regardless of any Evil acts they may have committed. This might make them more sympathetic to other groups that receive a blanket Evil judgement, such as undead beings like Xykon or the creatures under Redcloak's control. A little bit more about this in relation to The Dark One under the spoiler:

Spoiler: TDO Stuff

Show

• The Dark One is considered a Lawful Evil god, but...I looked through the Wiki to learn a little bit more about what he did prior to becoming a god. He united goblinkind and won a campaign against the north, then was assassinated when he went to negotiate for better living conditions for goblins. He became a god when his army slayed a bunch of humans in retaliation for this.
• TDO is considered evil because he fought and won a war against the north, and he was assassinated for trying to negotiate with them. I think that worshipping a deity who is considered Evil for waging war to try to help goblinkind, and who was assassinated for demanding better conditions for goblins, undermines both the concept of Evil and the efficacy of nonviolent conflict resolution. In other words, if you tell me that TDO is evil, that just makes me think that 'evil' doesn't have the same meaning to you that it does to me.

-Secondly, the conditions that goblinoids deal with are life-threatening and they may not have the option to resist people who are trying to help them on moral grounds. Team Evil is incredibly powerful, and they happen to be helping goblins as part of their scheme. It is incredibly beneficial to the goblins to support Team Evil (I realize Xykon abuses some of them for fun, but I think Gobbotopia is still a net positive), it would be a downright suicidal idea to try to oppose them, and the middle ground (that goblins who aren't with Team Evil don't really get) is to be stuck in a village without support in a world that sees you as easy XP.
Oona gets a little bit of Column, A, a little bit of B. On one hand, Team Evil could probably easily kill her entire village if they opposed Xykon, and she's trying to make sure they don't kill too many dungeon creatures while they work there. On the other hand, she gets promises of trade deals from Gobbotopia and allies to help her through the dungeon, allowing her to get tons of raw materials that would be impossible to get without high-level character support.



I'd assume that Oona's alignment is Neutral, most likely true neutral.

• The situations where she has done something violent that people are qualifying as Evil are not so clear-cut. There are numerous threats to goblinkind, and strong indications that the people she attacked were there to attack her people or some one that she cared about.
• Oona is not evil for allying herself with Team Evil. Rather, the persecution of goblinkind on a global, even divine scale in the setting calls into question the relationship between D&D, god-and-power-alignment evil, and actual moral evil. I would say that, while Oona's allies have a clear connection with divinity/unlife that could definitively put them in that class of automatically-evil (and some are actually just evil), she is not evil for being on the friendly side of incredibly powerful people who are incidentally helping her village and all goblinkind.
• I have not seen enough evidence from other actions she has taken to think that she is particuarly oriented toward any corner/edge of the alignment grid.
• This is entirely subjective- I think that she is nice and cute, and I do not want her to be a bad person because I would feel some guilt over how much I like her.

[Worldsong]

I like your post Homentashen, although now I'm curious what your opinion is on the fact that by Oona's own words her motivation for attacking the two paladins was to feed them to MitD. A lot of the people on the side that Oona is Evil have as one of their biggest arguments that you can't just go and feed strangers to friendly monsters.

[Metastachydium]

The first incident includes her attacking two humans (O'chul and [Lien]) encroaching on her territory.

For a very loose definition of ”territory.”

I think it can be reasonably assumed that Oona is distrustful of armed humanoid warriors that come to the North Pole.

As I pointed out before, one of them is not visibly armed, while the other carries something that Oona could have identified as a fishing tool (they were walking above water) without even missing the mark by much (we are talking about Lien, after all).

They are paladins, but if Oona is aware of that, she probably recognizes that paladins are hostile towards goblins.

Even if she knew that paladins of the Sapphire Guard (who are hostile towards goblins for sure) wear blue capes, there's the thing that O-Chul was not wearing one. Also, I'm not sure Oona can determine one's class by glancing at them from a few hundred meters afar.

I've been reading the past several pages of this thread, so I want to clarify this. I am only arguing that, based on the context/facts of that situation, there's strong evidence to suggest that these humans are coming to attack the bugbears for being bugbears and that killing them would protect the village. It is not payback for other violence goblinoids have experienced, but it is a reasonable response to people who are trying to kill you.

There's no evidence Oona was aware of any evidence that would have supported the idea that these two are a hostile invasion (and they could not achieve much against the village on their own anyway). Oona stated her reason for attacking them quite explicitly at a later point: she wanted to serve them as a treat to the Monster (I'd also be glad to see your position on the morality of that, by the way).
Further, as I have mentioned before, I have the impression that she is a little too enthusiastic about the prospect of hurting others in general.

You see, I agree with much of your analysis (basically everything barring those treated on above), and I would not say we have conclusive evidence that she is Evil. I do, however, think that the arguments for considering her Evil are more convincing.

[Homentashen]

I like your post Homentashen, although now I'm curious what your opinion is on the fact that by Oona's own words her motivation for attacking the two paladins was to feed them to MitD. A lot of the people on the side that Oona is Evil have as one of their biggest arguments that you can't just go and feed strangers to friendly monsters.

There can certainly be more than one motivation to attack the paladins. I think that Oona would have attacked the paladins because there were numerous indications that they were hostile invaders, even if she didn't intend to feed them to the MiTD afterwards. I also don't think it's particularly wrong to feed the bodies of defeated enemies to a pet-maybe a little gross, but not morally wrong.

I think that Oona only mentions this to the MiTD because she likes animal companions and wants to be nice to them. I also noticed in 1214 that Redcloak mentions that the dwarves they're attacking might be able to tell them where the paladin is. I'd suspect that Oona is withholding the information about these two paladins because either:
-She honestly doesn't know what a paladin is/looks like,
-It didn't register to her as important because she regularly patrols the territory, and/or
-She's holding something back because she doesn't like or is indifferent to Team Evil.
Any combination of these would indicate a level of indifference that I think is just more evidence of a Neutral alignment.

[Metastachydium]

I think that Oona only mentions this to the MiTD because she likes animal companions and wants to be nice to them. I also noticed in 1214 that Redcloak mentions that the dwarves they're attacking might be able to tell them where the paladin is. I'd suspect that Oona is withholding the information about these two paladins because either:
-She honestly doesn't know what a paladin is/looks like,
-It didn't register to her as important because she regularly patrols the territory, and/or
-She's holding something back because she doesn't like or is indifferent to Team Evil.
Any combination of these would indicate a level of indifference that I think is just more evidence of a Neutral alignment.

I don't think there's anything inherently Neutral about not recognizing paladins from a distance or patrolling regularly. As for the third possibility, she told the Monster about the humans with Redcloak in the same room, and she seemed somewhat displeased that he was not paying attention and that Xykon was absent.

[Homentashen]

I don't think there's anything inherently Neutral about not recognizing paladins from a distance or patrolling regularly. As for the third possibility, she told the Monster about the humans with Redcloak in the same room, and she seemed somewhat displeased that he was not paying attention and that Xykon was absent.

I'm not saying it's a neutral act, I'm saying it implies a lack of Ill intent. If she regularly patrols, it means that she has a valid reason to be out there, as opposed to patrolling specifically to attack good-doers/get humans to feed the monster. I think that when she was displeased, it was more because she was impatient and wanted to get to dungeoneering faster ("Time for doing! Less talky-talking with the Dark One!").

I didn't see your previous post, and was intending to reply to it. I can't format quotes so well over mobile, but I'll refer to points you made.

You put 'territory' in quotes, implying that the bugbears don't have such a strong claim over it. That may be so, but they settled there specifically to get away from anti-goblinoids, and it's not close to any other settlements. Some one would have to specifically be going to the bugbear village to be in that area.

I concede that only one is armed, and the other with a fishing spear, but I don't think that minimizes them as a threat. They are still wearing armor, and there are many people in this setting who are accomplished spell-casters, dangerous without any weapon. Also: Oona conceals her weapons, so it makes sense that she would still suspect that O'chul has a weapon, and it just doesn't make sense to walk around in a D&D setting unarmed (what are you thinking, O'chul?)

Paladins in this setting wear recognizable armor in a blue color scheme, which I'm sure Oona could recognize from a distance. But, the point about the paladins is just to establish that Oona has a good reason to be hostile towards paladins (paladins are generally considered to be good people unless proven otherwise). If she can't recognize them as such, then that just means she treats them as if they were regular humans.

'Invasion' was your wording, and not something that I'd agree with. I don't think she suspects an invasion, just two outsiders coming to the village with some level of ill intent. The fact that they wouldn't be successful isn't, in my opinion, a good argument, as they may have limited information about the village (and who's to say people don't make bad judgement calls?).

[Metastachydium]

I'm not saying it's a neutral act, I'm saying it implies a lack of Ill intent. If she regularly patrols, it means that she has a valid reason to be out there, as opposed to patrolling specifically to attack good-doers/get humans to feed the monster.

I strongly hope that I did not seem to imply that she was there to kill someone and eat 'em, because, frankly, that would have been a ludicrous claim (she had no reason to expect the arrival of these two at that exact moment). What I mean is that for me, ”strangers! Let's feed them to my ally's pet” is something that would qualify as ill intent.

I think that when she was displeased, it was more because she was impatient and wanted to get to dungeoneering faster ("Time for doing! Less talky-talking with the Dark One!").

All I'm saying is that she did not mind Team Evil knowing that she encountered humans.

I didn't see your previous post, and was intending to reply to it. I can't format quotes so well over mobile, but I'll refer to points you made.

You put 'territory' in quotes, implying that the bugbears don't have such a strong claim over it. That may be so, but they settled there specifically to get away from anti-goblinoids, and it's not close to any other settlements. Some one would have to specifically be going to the bugbear village to be in that area.

Well, no. The bugbears are there for two reasons: it is far away from Dwarven Lands for their enemies not to find them; and Kraagor's Tomb is nearby.
I have difficulty assuming they expect anyone to know that their village exists, and all visitors to the North Pole that we know of (the Scribblers, Team Evil, the paladins and the Order) went there for the Tomb (or the Rift that is now hidden in it) rather than for the village.

I concede that only one is armed, and the other with a fishing spear, but I don't think that minimizes them as a threat. They are still wearing armor, and there are many people in this setting who are accomplished spell-casters, dangerous without any weapon. Also: Oona conceals her weapons, so it makes sense that she would still suspect that O'chul has a weapon, and it just doesn't make sense to walk around in a D&D setting unarmed (what are you thinking, O'chul?)
Paladins in this setting wear recognizable armor in a blue color scheme, which I'm sure Oona could recognize from a distance. But, the point about the paladins is just to establish that Oona has a good reason to be hostile towards paladins (paladins are generally considered to be good people unless proven otherwise). If she can't recognize them as such, then that just means she treats them as if they were regular humans.

That Stickverse characters can pocket much any weapon smaller than a greatsword is a good point, but some visibly unarmed characters are indeed unarmed. We have seen such things before. As for the armour, the only visible pieces of armour the paladins have on them at that point are their shoulder pads (covered by their cloaks) and their armoured boots (covered by the snow). They wore no armour visible to Oona who attacked them from up and behind, and, again, O-Chul's clothing did not follow the Guard's colour scheme.

'Invasion' was your wording, and not something that I'd agree with. I don't think she suspects an invasion, just two outsiders coming to the village with some level of ill intent. The fact that they wouldn't be successful isn't, in my opinion, a good argument, as they may have limited information about the village (and who's to say people don't make bad judgement calls?).

Disagreed. If they had come specifically for the village (and thus had had actual information on it) they would have known its inhabitants regularly delve into the tomb and won't go down easy. Therefore, the fact that there were only two of them should have either revealed to Oona the fact that they had no idea the village was theren (as was the case) or it would have meant that they are so dangerous that the two of them can easily take the whole village on their own (which Oona quickly learned not to be a case: they proved not to be a credible threat to her alone).

[Keltest]

I really dont understand why people keep trying to ascribe motives to Oona other than her stated ones. We dont have to speculate, we know what she was thinking. She wasnt defending her territory, or participating in a clandestine war, or anything of that sort. She was trying to capture a human because she thought it might make a tasty treat for a monster she knew, because she happened upon it while exercising her pet. Thats the extent of it. Any resemblance to any other situation where a bugbear tries to fight a paladin is entirely unrelated to Oona.

[Bunny Commando]

There can certainly be more than one motivation to attack the paladins. I think that Oona would have attacked the paladins because there were numerous indications that they were hostile invaders, even if she didn't intend to feed them to the MiTD afterwards. I also don't think it's particularly wrong to feed the bodies of defeated enemies to a pet-maybe a little gross, but not morally wrong.

But the evidence provided by the comic shows that killing O'Chul and Lien with the intent of feeding them to the MitD was the only motivation she had.
One should also consider 1213 where she says she's willing to kill someone just because she doesn't have a reason not to; Durkon was no threat to her and to her village, since he clearly stated his peaceful intentions and didn't show any kind of ill intent.
Every time Oona used lethal force she was never threatened, never in self-defense; she has shown disregard for the lives of others, which is consistent with someone of Evil alignment.

Also: what Keltest said. There's no reason to suspect that Oona is hiding something, she clearly stated her motives.

[Homentashen]

But the evidence provided by the comic shows that killing O'Chul and Lien with the intent of feeding them to the MitD was the only motivation she had.
One should also consider 1213 where she says she's willing to kill someone just because she doesn't have a reason not to; Durkon was no threat to her and to her village, since he clearly stated his peaceful intentions and didn't show any kind of ill intent.
Every time Oona used lethal force she was never threatened, never in self-defense; she has shown disregard for the lives of others, which is consistent with someone of Evil alignment.

Also: what Keltest said. There's no reason to suspect that Oona is hiding something, she clearly stated her motives.

I think you're getting the timeline mixed up. The comic you linked shows Oona climbing onto a roof to attack a giant-sized Minrah who already attacked Redcloak multiple times. For clarity, the bugbear in 1205 has a short-horned mask, so it's probably a different bugbear. Oona walked by and started watching at some point between the first bugbear walking away and a giant dwarf smacking RC in the face.

Oona and Redcloak are temporary allies. Even if Oona was there to see Redcloak cast Implosion, I think she would have just assumed that the dwarf did something to warrant being attacked and killed by nature of being her friend's enemy. In fact, protecting Redcloak's plan would also explain the behavior with the paladins, if you don't believe there's reason to perceive them as a threat there.

Speaking of which: They are allies, but you may notice Oona treats Redcloak a bit condescendingly, teasing him with noogies and interrupting his spell prep. She also corrects him on the name of the Tomb...and from the interaction with MiTD, you can tell she doesn't have much love for Xykon (bone man + the horrible death comment) and tries to teach the monster to have greater respect for their owner. Oona respects Team Evil, but it seems like she finds their ways a bit frivolous, and themselves lacking in solid communication. She teaches them her way of speaking/communicating because she thinks it's better.

The point I'm trying to make is, when Oona says she'll attack them because she has no reason not to and she asked nicely, it's not entirely true. She heard Redcloak's reason, but she didn't appreciate that he didn't answer the question. Nonetheless, she rewards him for being polite, while explaining exactly why she decided to help him, weighing his politeness against his rudeness and the circumstances. I think this might also help to explain the talk about the two humans to MiTD. Oona may have intended to tell Redcloak, but did not repeat herself when he was preparing because she found it disrespectful. This explains why she interrupts him a little more; she rushes him because he's not paying attention to the small talk.

I don't quite agree with Keltest. Oona speaks very clearly, but I think it's reasonable that she would do something as simple as attacking some one who's a threat to her or her allies/clan without having to affirm this verbally.
To question this line of thought: if Oona didn't say anything about a special dinner, and just mentioned that she attacked some humans while out with her pet, would it make a difference?
In the second scenario, if she simply said "Of course!" and ran for Giant Minrah, would that justify the actions to you because she didn't give a petty reason?
If this argument is that she must be evil because she always says just what she means, and she gave some bad justifications for her actions, well, I think you're just assuming the worst.

[Bunny Commando]

I think you're getting the timeline mixed up. The comic you linked shows Oona climbing onto a roof to attack a giant-sized Minrah who already attacked Redcloak multiple times. For clarity, the bugbear in 1205 has a short-horned mask, so it's probably a different bugbear. Oona walked by and started watching at some point between the first bugbear walking away and a giant dwarf smacking RC in the face.

Oona and Redcloak are temporary allies. Even if Oona was there to see Redcloak cast Implosion, I think she would have just assumed that the dwarf did something to warrant being attacked and killed by nature of being her friend's enemy. In fact, protecting Redcloak's plan would also explain the behavior with the paladins, if you don't believe there's reason to perceive them as a threat there.

In 1213 Oona says "But Oona is not having compelling reason to not be killing them". If Oona wanted to protect her ally and believed Redcloak was in the right to attack Durkon she could've phrased her motives quite differently; instead she says she's willing to kill someone just because she sees no reason to not kill them.

While it may be possibile that Oona didn't hear or see Durkon trying to reason with Redcloak she admits Minrah has a point so I do believe it's a reasonable assumption that she has listened enough to form an opinion and decided that Minrah and Durkon were not a threat, otherwise she would've attacked them immediately. The comic has shown twice that she's willing to attack people she knows nothing about for futile reasons.

[Keltest]

I don't quite agree with Keltest. Oona speaks very clearly, but I think it's reasonable that she would do something as simple as attacking some one who's a threat to her or her allies/clan without having to affirm this verbally.
To question this line of thought: if Oona didn't say anything about a special dinner, and just mentioned that she attacked some humans while out with her pet, would it make a difference?
In the second scenario, if she simply said "Of course!" and ran for Giant Minrah, would that justify the actions to you because she didn't give a petty reason?
If this argument is that she must be evil because she always says just what she means, and she gave some bad justifications for her actions, well, I think you're just assuming the worst.

The whole point is that we arent assuming anything, because she makes her reasoning explicit. I legitimately dont understand this line of thought. She's trying to hurt and kill people for bad reasons and doesnt feel bad about it. Thats practically the definition of evil. What is there to assume? Certainly if she hadnt made them explicit, it would give the speculation about her motives some small amount of merit, but that wouldnt count as definitive proof against being evil either, it just wouldnt be as strong a proof for it.

[Precure]

To play the devil's advocate, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is one of the pillars of Rich Burlew's writing, especially if we're talking about characters like Elan. So, even with all those hints and proofs regarding her being "stupid evil," I wouldn't be surprised if she's revealed as being simply "chaotic stupid" or neutral after all.

[Homentashen]

The whole point is that we arent assuming anything, because she makes her reasoning explicit. I legitimately dont understand this line of thought. She's trying to hurt and kill people for bad reasons and doesnt feel bad about it. Thats practically the definition of evil. What is there to assume? Certainly if she hadnt made them explicit, it would give the speculation about her motives some small amount of merit, but that wouldnt count as definitive proof against being evil either, it just wouldnt be as strong a proof for it.

If you think that those words are strictly what she meant, then I'll pick apart the language until I can determine exactly what that is.

The comment Oona makes about the humans in 1037 is, "Oh! Almost got special dinner for you! Saw it while exercising Lancer, but it fell in drink. Two humans, since you said you had one back in city and liked it best of all."
She attempted to catch the humans because she remembered that the MiTD said that they liked humans. This doesn't mean that she would only attack them because the monster wanted it. I've already established that there's several reasons to believe that the paladins are making some effort to harm the bugbear clan or Redcloak's work that would explain the use of violence.

Oona responds to Redcloak's claim that the dwarves are trying to seize the gate, saying, "Hmm. Oona is noticing that is not answer to Oona's question. But Oona is not having compelling reason to NOT be killing them, and little bald man in red cape did say please. Good manners are being rewarded!"
The fact that she can't see a reason she would want to avoid killing these people isn't the reason she attacks. She attacks because Redcloak asked her politely. I have established in previous posts that Redcloak has the highest authority in her faith and has worked hard to further the welfare of goblinkind, which are non-evil reasons to abide by his requests.

I really appreciate Precure's addition, and I think I can even incorporate it into the argument without characterizing Oona as stupid. Certainly, we all do things in stressful moments that are against our better judgement: say the wrong things, make a wrong turn, kill the ruler of your city-state in the middle of a goblin invasion, etc. Too much deliberation about her motives might not be useful because Oona doesn't necessarily have the same opportunity to stop and think about her actions before she initiates a violent engagement. If a simple "humans hate us, there are humans coming to the village/hollow, attack them" or "goblin priest is good, says these dwarves need to be attacked" makes sense, then I don't think it's fair to expect Oona to think beyond that.

[Ionathus]

To play the devil's advocate, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is one of the pillars of Rich Burlew's writing, especially if we're talking about characters like Elan. So, even with all those hints and proofs regarding her being "stupid evil," I wouldn't be surprised if she's revealed as being simply "chaotic stupid" or neutral after all.

I don't at all see where you read that in Rich's writing.

Certainly not as a "pillar" of his writing style, which would mean it's one of his most deeply-held and strongly-expressed beliefs.

"We thought the monster/person/negative space wedgie was evil, but it was actually just dumb and misunderstood!" has not really come up all that often. Merely having empathy for the characters you're writing, and making them complex or multilayered even as antagonists, does not automatically make it an example of Hanlon's Razor.

[Friv]

Oona responds to Redcloak's claim that the dwarves are trying to seize the gate, saying, "Hmm. Oona is noticing that is not answer to Oona's question. But Oona is not having compelling reason to NOT be killing them, and little bald man in red cape did say please. Good manners are being rewarded!"

The fact that she can't see a reason she would want to avoid killing these people isn't the reason she attacks. She attacks because Redcloak asked her politely. I have established in previous posts that Redcloak has the highest authority in her faith and has worked hard to further the welfare of goblinkind, which are non-evil reasons to abide by his requests.

Of course, Oona was also perfectly happy to stand by and watch two dwarves beat the snot out of Redcloak because she was faintly curious about the conversation, which sort of spikes your "Redcloak has the highest authority so she supports him" argument.

[Homentashen]

Of course, Oona was also perfectly happy to stand by and watch two dwarves beat the snot out of Redcloak because she was faintly curious about the conversation, which sort of spikes your "Redcloak has the highest authority so she supports him" argument.

She explains that she did not interrupt because bugbears often use violence during their arguments, and she considered this fight to be a type of debate on those grounds. She started to attack the dwarves once Redcloak asked her to intervene. He still is the high priest of The Dark One, which is the highest authority for his god on the planet, and she supports him, as she has done for the time that Team Evil has been there, so I still think that argument holds water.

[Keltest]

She explains that she did not interrupt because bugbears often use violence during their arguments, and she considered this fight to be a type of debate on those grounds. She started to attack the dwarves once Redcloak asked her to intervene. He still is the high priest of The Dark One, which is the highest authority for his god on the planet, and she supports him, as she has done for the time that Team Evil has been there, so I still think that argument holds water.

Im not sure "she considers violence to be a normal and accepted part of resolving all differences" is as strong an argument against her being evil as you think it is.

[Homentashen]

Im not sure "she considers violence to be a normal and accepted part of resolving all differences" is as strong an argument against her being evil as you think it is.

Well, I've known people who fight to settle an argument if they can't find another way. I definitely don't approve of that, but I'd consider that sort of behavior reckless, not evil. Consent is a huge part of this-two bugbears agreeing to resolve a conflict by fighting while arguing is only hurtful to the people who agree to being harmed during the fight.

I think this kinda creates an interesting situation with your argument, though. This cultural practice is why Oona doesn't immediately intervene, and you've argued that Oona tends to say exactly what she means. Then, she decides to fight because Redcloak told her to.
You've argued that Oona's actions are evil because she is hurting people for flimsy reasons. Is avoiding the fight a neutral act because she's avoiding violence, or an evil act because she has an evil reason for it?
I assume that when you say Oona is hurting people, you refer to both incidents, and therefore this one.
So, does this mean that the sequence of refusing to fight and then fighting is a neutral act, followed by an evil act, or an evil act followed up by an evil act that happens to be the exact opposite activity?

[Keltest]

Well, I've known people who fight to settle an argument if they can't find another way. I definitely don't approve of that, but I'd consider that sort of behavior reckless, not evil. Consent is a huge part of this-two bugbears agreeing to resolve a conflict by fighting while arguing is only hurtful to the people who agree to being harmed during the fight.

I think this kinda creates an interesting situation with your argument, though. This cultural practice is why Oona doesn't immediately intervene, and you've argued that Oona tends to say exactly what she means. Then, she decides to fight because Redcloak told her to.
You've argued that Oona's actions are evil because she is hurting people for flimsy reasons. Is avoiding the fight a neutral act because she's avoiding violence, or an evil act because she has an evil reason for it?
I assume that when you say Oona is hurting people, you refer to both incidents, and therefore this one.
So, does this mean that the sequence of refusing to fight and then fighting is a neutral act, followed by an evil act, or an evil act followed up by an evil act that happens to be the exact opposite activity?

To the extent it has an alignment, standing by assessing a fight you dont understand would be neutral, or more probably unaligned. She then joined on for bad reasons, which was evil.

[Worldsong]

I really appreciate Precure's addition, and I think I can even incorporate it into the argument without characterizing Oona as stupid. Certainly, we all do things in stressful moments that are against our better judgement: say the wrong things, make a wrong turn, kill the ruler of your city-state in the middle of a goblin invasion, etc.

Given that the last one forced an alignment change you might not want to use it to argue that bad decisions made during stressful moments don't count against your alignment.

Although it's still hilarious.

[elros]

I think Oona is evil because Xykon is blatantly evil, and she willingly allies with him. She is not like Roy trying to influence Belkar, or even MitD being clueless; Oona willingly works with them without question.

[Gurgeh]

Given that the last one forced an alignment change you might not want to use it to argue that bad decisions made during stressful moments don't count against your alignment.

Although it's still hilarious.

Unless Rich has weighed in to explicitly say so, we do not have any evidence that Miko's fall was an alignment change. A paladin's code of conduct is narrower than simply being lawful good.

[Homentashen]

Unless Rich has weighed in to explicitly say so, we do not have any evidence that Miko's fall was an alignment change. A paladin's code of conduct is narrower than simply being lawful good.

Yes, this is true. Slaying Lord Hinjo was a huge mistake, but Miko didn't stop trying to be a good paladin. She just failed at it in a very major way. It's the same way that Roy's alignment didn't change when he made lapses in judgement along the way, and he even got into LG heaven on the grounds that he was still trying to be Lawful Good.

So, Keltest, while you didn't think her reasoning was so nice, you admit that just abstaining from violence would be a neutral/unaligned act in that context of Oona's actions. So, I rely back on the argument I made above where I pick apart the language where Oona justifies her reasoning for each incident. To clarify, her reasoning for each incident was as follows:
-She did not say that feeding them to the MiTD was the reason to attack the humans. She DID tell the MiTD that she attempted to get dinner for them, but I've explained that there are other reasons that she might want to attack the humans.
-She did not see a reason not to attack the dwarves, AND she was told to attack them by an ally who was actively being assaulted by the dwarves.

That is where we're at, I think. If we're not making any progress with the current discussion, I think a good exercise would be to imagine a Neutral response to each situation and how that differs from the alleged Evil response.

[Keltest]

Yes, this is true. Slaying Lord Hinjo was a huge mistake, but Miko didn't stop trying to be a good paladin. She just failed at it in a very major way. It's the same way that Roy's alignment didn't change when he made lapses in judgement along the way, and he even got into LG heaven on the grounds that he was still trying to be Lawful Good.

So, Keltest, while you didn't think her reasoning was so nice, you admit that just abstaining from violence would be a neutral/unaligned act in that context of Oona's actions. So, I rely back on the argument I made above where I pick apart the language where Oona justifies her reasoning for each incident. To clarify, her reasoning for each incident was as follows:
-She did not say that feeding them to the MiTD was the reason to attack the humans. She DID tell the MiTD that she attempted to get dinner for them, but I've explained that there are other reasons that she might want to attack the humans.
-She did not see a reason not to attack the dwarves, AND she was told to attack them by an ally who was actively being assaulted by the dwarves.

That is where we're at, I think. If we're not making any progress with the current discussion, I think a good exercise would be to imagine a Neutral response to each situation and how that differs from the alleged Evil response.

I think you've misunderstood her stated reasoning for the first action. She did state that her reason to attack them was to get the snack. That was her explicit goal in going after them, and it's what she said she failed at when they escaped. No other goals are brought up or implied.

As for the second incident, attacking somebody because you can't think of a reason to not do so is evil. Neutral and good people both have built in reasons to not attack random people for no reason.

[hroþila]

I think Oona is evil because Xykon is blatantly evil, and she willingly allies with him. She is not like Roy trying to influence Belkar, or even MitD being clueless; Oona willingly works with them without question.

I think this is an unfounded assumption, even though I believe that Oona is probably Evil. It's unlikely that Xykon has done anything blatantly Evil since Oona met him, and she clearly isn't working with them "without question" either, since it's implied that she's working with them to oversee them and make sure their plan doesn't ruin her village's main source of resources. Which suggests there was some questioning involved.

[Keltest]

I think this is an unfounded assumption, even though I believe that Oona is probably Evil. It's unlikely that Xykon has done anything blatantly Evil since Oona met him, and she clearly isn't working with them "without question" either, since it's implied that she's working with them to oversee them and make sure their plan doesn't ruin her village's main source of resources. Which suggests there was some questioning involved.

Xykon is a lich. Becoming a lich requires an act of "unspeakable evil". They are one of the few creatures with free will who can still be safely assumed to be an alignment simply because of what creature they are.

[Homentashen]

I think you've misunderstood her stated reasoning for the first action. She did state that her reason to attack them was to get the snack. That was her explicit goal in going after them, and it's what she said she failed at when they escaped. No other goals are brought up or implied.

As for the second incident, attacking somebody because you can't think of a reason to not do so is evil. Neutral and good people both have built in reasons to not attack random people for no reason.

For the first incident, I'll try to justify my reasoning behind interpreting her statement in this way. It's not just that her language doesn't exclude the possibility of another reason for the attack. She's talking to a young monster about procuring yummy food for them. It makes sense to me that she would discuss the angle that she imagines is most appealing to the monster to the exclusion of other potential motives. Since it's the fact that she says it that you think confirms the evil, I think I'm curious to know just what you'd expect a Neutral character to say to MiTD in the same situation.

For the second incident, I'm assuming you mean that a neutral or good person would have mentioned a reason not to attack before mentioning their reason for attacking. I would apply the same argument I applied to the paladins to the dwarves in this situation-the evidence points to them being intruders trying to thwart her ally, in fact, they're actively attacking Redcloak. What's the purpose in keeping them alive? Could you even say?
I also think that, if, for example, Roy Greenhilt was being attacked by some human warriors and taking heavy damage, and he asked Durkon, a Lawful Good character, for assistance, that the thought that "sapient life is inherently valuable" would not go through his head while he's smacking them with a hammer. People just don't consider the inherent value of their enemies' life when they're going to initiate lethal combat against them.