What alignment is Oona?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

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.

Nothing at all, because neutral people don't try to hunt sentient beings just to provide a treat for a guest's pet.

GW

[Dion]

Nothing at all, because neutral people don't try to hunt sentient beings just to provide a treat for a guest's pet.

GW

Sure. But that’s not something Oona did.

Look, it’s likely that Oona is evil. Xykon is an undead abomination searching for a magic gate he plans to use to rule the world, Redcloak is a evil cleric searching for a magic gate he plans to use to threaten the gods themselves. Both are pursuing a plan that is likely to destroy the world. And she’s helping them. That’s not neutral behavior.

But she was exercising her pet, patrolling her territory, and hunting. Ignoring the evidence in the comic to pretend that she was doing *just one* of the three things is a silly way of prolonging an argument.

[Keltest]

Sure. But that’s not something Oona did.

... Yes, yes it is. Explicitly. She may have been doing other things at the same time, but that doesnt mean she wasnt doing this specific thing as well.

[hroþila]

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.

I see no particular reason to assume Oona would know that.

[Homentashen]

... Yes, yes it is. Explicitly. She may have been doing other things at the same time, but that doesnt mean she wasnt doing this specific thing as well.

Okay, we're making some progress. You're saying that Oona may have been doing more than one thing at a time when she was hunting the humans down.

The issue people are having with her behavior here is that attacking the humans JUST to get food for MiTD would be an evil act, but, it wouldn't be the case if she was also defending her territory. You are admitting that it's possible that she may have been doing other things at the same time.
I have gone through some effort to prove that this is likely based on the context of the incident.

To be clear: hunting humans down just to feed them to a monster is something I'd consider evil.

Hunting humans down because they are hostiles coming into your territory to harm you or your people, and THEN feeding their bodies to a monster after they are dead is not something I'd consider evil.

[Fyraltari]

Hunting humans down because they are hostiles coming into your territory to harm you or your people

But they're not.

[Homentashen]

But they're not.

Well, as I've already established, there's strong evidence that Oona would have good reason to suspect that humans coming all the way up north to her village have ill intent.

I'd like to hear your take on it, though. If the paladins don't intend to harm the bugbears, and they don't want to do anything that might hurt Oona's allies on Team Evil or their scheme that ends up advancing the conditions of Goblinkind, then what are they possibly coming up all the way to the North Pole to do?

[Fyraltari]

Well, as I've already established, there's strong evidence that Oona would have good reason to suspect that humans coming all the way up north to her village have ill intent.

Said evidence consists only of « they are humans. »
You’ll forgive me if I don’t find that acceptable.

I'd like to hear your take on it, though. If the paladins don't intend to harm the bugbears, and they don't want to do anything that might hurt Oona's allies on Team Evil or their scheme that ends up advancing the conditions of Goblinkind, then what are they possibly coming up all the way to the North Pole to do?

Any number of things. Hell, they might be fleeing the dwarves too. They might be headed for the western continent by the shortest route.

« Shoot first, ask questions later/never » is not a defensible position. If Oona was worried about them having ill intent for her tribe, she should have flown back to her village, take a dozen warriors and come back to ask what they were doing on her territory and then decide what course of action to take.

O-Chul even specifically pointed out that her chosen method of attack prevents any attempt at parley.

So even if we assume further reasons for her behaviour than the one she gave us (and note that she doesn’t bother to confirm the kill, report it to her allies or instruct her warriors to be on the look-out for any further intrusions which would be the first things to do if she thought they were underneath attack) she still defaulted to the most violent option available which isn’t morally defensible either.

[Bunny Commando]

Well, as I've already established, there's strong evidence that Oona would have good reason to suspect that humans coming all the way up north to her village have ill intent.

I'd like to hear your take on it, though. If the paladins don't intend to harm the bugbears, and they don't want to do anything that might hurt Oona's allies on Team Evil or their scheme that ends up advancing the conditions of Goblinkind, then what are they possibly coming up all the way to the North Pole to do?

There's no evidence, just an assumption.
You assume that Oona suspected that, but her own words say otherwise.

[Precure]

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

Elan
Miko's investigation
Mr. Scruffy's kill
etc, etc...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But she was exercising her pet, patrolling her territory, and hunting. Ignoring the evidence in the comic to pretend that she was doing *just one* of the three things is a silly way of prolonging an argument.

Given she was only doing the first of those things according to the comic, I'd say inventing evidence out of thin air is a silly way of creating said argument.

Hunting humans down because they are hostiles coming into your territory to harm you or your people, and THEN feeding their bodies to a monster after they are dead is not something I'd consider evil

It isn't "her territory", it is an empty, unmarked frozen lake. It is a few miles from the north pole, and far enough time passes returning even while flying. She says she was just exercising Lancer. Not patrolling, not keeping the borders safe, not hunting. Exercising a pet. She saw humans, thought they'd be a nice treat for a guest's pet, and decided to murder them. Evil.

Also, she doesn't know that these humans are hostile - and in fact they weren't - so jumping to that kind of conclusion and then going straight to murder is Evil.

Well, as I've already established, there's strong evidence that Oona would have good reason to suspect that humans coming all the way up north to her village have ill intent.

No, you haven't. You've simply declared it so. To justify murder. With no actual evidence. Which we generally call "prejudice" which, when applied to a group you do not belong to, is racism. And as Rich is quite clear, racism is evil. Even when the one doing it is an elf, and the one on the receiving end is a goblin defector. And so it is when it's a bugbear and a pair of humans that have done her no harm.

Grey Wolf

[hroþila]

If any of you don't want Oona to be Evil, honestly I think you'd be better off arguing that this was an Evil act by an otherwise Neutral character (I could see a highly territorial society automatically killing all perceived intruders without that making them Evil as individuals, for example), rather than denying that she attempted to kill two sentient beings for sport and to feed them to her very much not starving friend as a treat, which most people would regard as Evil.

[HeroErix]

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.

In the second incident, she didn't attack simply because there was no reason not to. She attacked because Redcloak asked her to. I think V would also attack people if Roy asked V to do so and V had no reason not to. That doesn't make V or Oona good or evil. V is a neutral character helping a good character. Oona could be a neutral character helping an evil character.

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.

I see no particular reason to assume Oona would know that.

Agreed.

[theNater]

In the second incident, she didn't attack simply because there was no reason not to. She attacked because Redcloak asked her to. I think V would also attack people if Roy asked V to do so and V had no reason not to. That doesn't make V or Oona good or evil. V is a neutral character helping a good character. Oona could be a neutral character helping an evil character.

Helping a Good character and helping an Evil character are not morally equivalent behaviors.

[Homentashen]

Given she was only doing the first of those things according to the comic, I'd say inventing evidence out of thin air is a silly way of creating said argument.



It isn't "her territory", it is an empty, unmarked frozen lake. It is a few miles from the north pole, and far enough time passes returning even while flying. She says she was just exercising Lancer. Not patrolling, not keeping the borders safe, not hunting. Exercising a pet. She saw humans, thought they'd be a nice treat for a guest's pet, and decided to murder them. Evil.

Also, she doesn't know that these humans are hostile - and in fact they weren't - so jumping to that kind of conclusion and then going straight to murder is Evil.



No, you haven't. You've simply declared it so. To justify murder. With no actual evidence. Which we generally call "prejudice" which, when applied to a group you do not belong to, is racism. And as Rich is quite clear, racism is evil. Even when the one doing it is an elf, and the one on the receiving end is a goblin defector. And so it is when it's a bugbear and a pair of humans that have done her no harm.

Grey Wolf

I have.
In the past posts I've made in this thread, I argued that the persecution that goblinoids face that led them to settle here on the North Pole would serve to justify the attack on the paladins. While I agreed that the frozen lake isn't technically their territory, I think it's a completely reasonable assumption that an armored human who is there and traveling towards the bugbear village would have ill intent. The fact that these humans show up just when Oona has been working with the goblin high priest to help them with a scheme to improve the lot of Goblinkind only supports this.
The bugbears probably don't have a recognized territory because they went to Kraagor's Tomb to escape violence.

I've also extended this argument to state that since there is a reasonable concern that humanoids will come to the North to attack the bugbears or their temporary allies on Team Evil, it's also reasonable to assume that Oona would take action to prevent this, such as by patrolling this area.
Dion, and even Keltest, who disagrees with me on the core premise of Oona's alignment, agree that Oona can accomplish multiple goals with the same action of taking Lancer out flying. So, if she was patrolling, exercising Lancer, and hunting, then we can say that hunting the humans is adjacent to killing them to defend the village, and judge the action on the morality of attacking humans coming to the North Pole. You can refer to the argument I've made above.

I also noticed you keep on referring to killing people around the area of this isolated bugbear village is murder. Murder is a legal construct referring to the unlawful, premeditated killing of another person. More importantly, it's language used to demonize characters who are committing violence in a world where violent conflict resolution is startlingly common.

I've noticed that a few people are replying to my posts saying that I haven't bothered to prove things that I say I've established. You may not see it because I made many of these arguments on the previous page, and didn't bother to repeat them when I kept arguing the same points.

[Keltest]

Look, you need to understand something. "Can" does not mean "is". You say she can be doing something else, which is technically accurate, but absent any evidence that she actually is trying to accomplish multiple things, what she "can" be doing is pretty meaningless. She "can" have multiple motives, but she doesnt.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I have.
In the past posts I've made in this thread, I argued that the persecution that goblinoids face that led them to settle here on the North Pole would serve to justify the attack on the paladins. While I agreed that the frozen lake isn't technically their territory, I think it's a completely reasonable assumption that an armored human who is there and traveling towards the bugbear village would have ill intent. The fact that these humans show up just when Oona has been working with the goblin high priest to help them with a scheme to improve the lot of Goblinkind only supports this.

"Argued" does not mean "proved". It is not a completely reasonable assumption because that's not what Oona said. She did not say "I saw a couple of troops from the paladins that pushed us to the artic, and attacked them, and tried to bring one to feed to you as a bonus". There is no evidence any of your assumptions are true, or even relevant. The text is quite clear: she was out exercising her pet, saw an isolated target she could feed to another pet, and attacked it. Everything else you've added as headcanon, and expect me to share in your belief and/or assumptions. But I don't. And neither, crucially, does the text.

The bugbears probably don't have a recognized territory because they went to Kraagor's Tomb to escape violence.

So you admit that she didn't have a moral standing to murder people walking through unclaimed territory, then?

I've also extended this argument to state that since there is a reasonable concern that humanoids will come to the North to attack the bugbears or their temporary allies on Team Evil, it's also reasonable to assume that Oona would take action to prevent this, such as by patrolling this area.

No, it is not reasonable. It was too far away, and she did not say she was patrolling. Therefore this is reaching, not reasonable.

Dion, and even Keltest, who disagrees with me on the core premise of Oona's alignment, agree that Oona can accomplish multiple goals with the same action of taking Lancer out flying. So, if she was patrolling, exercising Lancer, and hunting, then we can say that hunting the humans is adjacent to killing them to defend the village, and judge the action on the morality of attacking humans coming to the North Pole. You can refer to the argument I've made above.

1) That's a fallacy. You can present 10000 people that agree with you, it doesn't change that the text does not. 2), as Keltest points out, "can" does not mean "is". Oona did not say "I was out patrolling the outer reaches of our territory", Oona said "I was out exercising Lancer".

I also noticed you keep on referring to killing people around the area of this isolated bugbear village is murder. Murder is a legal construct referring to the unlawful, premeditated killing of another person. More importantly, it's language used to demonize characters who are committing violence in a world where violent conflict resolution is startlingly common.

I call it murder because an unprovoked surprise attack on a sentient creature with the intent to kill is murder. That's how language works. I could type "unprovoked surprise attack on a sentient creature with the intent to kill" every time, or I could shorten it to "murder" which has the same meaning and takes only 6 letters.

Beyond that, just because it's a violent world doesn't somehow give a pass on murdering people who happened to be walking miles away from your village. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I've noticed that a few people are replying to my posts saying that I haven't bothered to prove things that I say I've established. You may not see it because I made many of these arguments on the previous page, and didn't bother to repeat them when I kept arguing the same points.

No, I say you haven't proved them because you haven't proved them. Declaring your own assumptions to be reasonable when they are not doesn't make them so, and they certainly doesn't make them canon.

Grey Wolf

[Jason]

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.

It seems to me that your argument boils down to "goblinoids are oppressed, therefore what would be considered evil behavior for any member of a pc race should instead be considered neutral behavior for them."

[Saint-Just]

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.

It is reasonable to suspect that Miko may have suffered a change in alignment (presumably to LN), since Soon's speech implies she is not admissible to Celestia. However because afterlives are more numerous than alignments she may ended up merely Lg and bound to Arcadia which is technically not enough to count as "alignment change".

It seems to me that your argument boils down to "goblinoids are oppressed, therefore what would be considered evil behavior for any member of a pc race should instead be considered neutral behavior for them."

While I disagree with Homentashen their argument as I understand it is more among the lines of "bugbears have a 99% justified assumption that the world is out to get them and so Oona commits regrettable but understandable mistake".

[HeroErix]

Helping a Good character and helping an Evil character are not morally equivalent behaviors.

If a neutral character can do one, then why not the other?

[Fyraltari]

Helping a Good character and helping an Evil character are not morally equivalent behaviors.

If a neutral character can do one, then why not the other?

V knows Roy to be a honorable man who does not use violence as a matter of convenience but as a last resort. If Roy asked them to attack people they would do so, not because they don’t have a reason not to, but because they trust Roy’s judgement and will ask the reasons why later.

Oona... does not know Redcloak to be this and does not seem to care about his reasons for wanting the dwarfish duo dead. She has no reason to want them alive so they might as well die.

Those behaviours aren’t similar.

[HeroErix]

V knows Roy to be a honorable man who does not use violence as a matter of convenience but as a last resort. If Roy asked them to attack people they would do so, not because they don’t have a reason not to, but because they trust Roy’s judgement and will ask the reasons why later.

Oona... does not know Redcloak to be this and does not seem to care about his reasons for wanting the dwarfish duo dead. She has no reason to want them alive so they might as well die.

Those behaviours aren’t similar.

Perhaps V and Roy were a poor example. What about Therkla and Kubota? Sure they also had a much more complicated relationship in the background, but my point is that you don't have to be evil in order to follow the orders of an evil character.

[understatement]

Oona's reasons of (attempting to) kill the dwarves are literally spelled out in the comic: "because why not." How that doesn't indicate an Evil alignment is a mystery to me.

[HeroErix]

Oona's reasons of (attempting to) kill the dwarves are literally spelled out in the comic: "because why not." How that doesn't indicate an Evil alignment is a mystery to me.

The full quote is, "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!"

Emphasis mine. The reason to be killing them is that she was asked to. Her saying out loud that she has no reason not to does not mean that she's doing it just because.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Oona's reasons of (attempting to) kill the dwarves are literally spelled out in the comic: "because why not." How that doesn't indicate an Evil alignment is a mystery to me.

Technically, it also had the secondary reason "because the Evil priest of my religion politely asked for help". How a polite entreaty to commit an Evil act is somehow makes the choice to commit and Evil act less Evil is likewise a mystery to me. I could accept "committed Evil act under duress and/or threat" a valid amelioration, but "Kill that guy" "No, that's Evil" "Please?" "oh, ok, if you said please, I'm sure it won't be quite as Evil"... yeah, no.

Emphasis mine. The reason to be killing them is that she was asked to. Her saying out loud that she has no reason not to does not mean that she's doing it just because.

She literally says she has no reason other than politeness. Murdering someone for no reason other than manners is in fact no reason at all and puts a significant question on her understanding of what manners are.

In fact, it is quite clear that to Oona, the natural state of anyone she doesn't know is dead - consistent with her "I saw two humans, thought they'd make for a nice treat for a pet" in the prior scene, and that she needs to be given a good reason to refrain from murder. That is, in fact, Evil.

Grey Wolf

[understatement]

The full quote is, "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!"

Emphasis mine. The reason to be killing them is that she was asked to. Her saying out loud that she has no reason not to does not mean that she's doing it just because.

This is weirdly inconsistent. For the bolded part, you're saying that's her reason since she said it out loud, and then you go on to say just because she said something else out (before the bolded part) out loud doesn't mean it's her reason.

ETA: Also, what Grey_Wolf said. Redcloak's not pointing a gun at her and making her go kill them, and there's no hint of duress anywhere.

[HeroErix]

This is weirdly inconsistent. For the bolded part, you're saying that's her reason since she said it out loud, and then you go on to say just because she said something else out (before the bolded part) out loud doesn't mean it's her reason.

I don't see how saying that you don't have a reason not to do something could be considered a reason that you are doing something.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't see how saying that you don't have a reason not to do something could be considered a reason that you are doing something.

Good and Neutral people accept that others have a right to exist due to being sentient beings. Oona's declaration that she needs a compelling reason to NOT kill is what makes her lack of reason Evil.

GW

[understatement]

I don't see how saying that you don't have a reason not to do something could be considered a reason that you are doing something.

...what? So the conclusion to be reached here is that if Oona said she doesn't see "why not," then it's not a valid reason, while the reason she does give -- "he was being polite!" -- somehow holds despite the fact that killing because "he asked nicely" is still a solidly Evil action.

The not-reason is still a reason -- as in, it's her reasoning on why the dwarves shouldn't be left alive. And the fact that this is reaching pedantic splitting is not really supportive of her secretly being Neutral the whole time she killed/hunted sentients because she could.

[HeroErix]

Technically, it also had the secondary reason "because the Evil priest of my religion politely asked for help". How a polite entreaty to commit an Evil act is somehow makes the choice to commit and Evil act less Evil is likewise a mystery to me. I could accept "committed Evil act under duress and/or threat" a valid amelioration, but "Kill that guy" "No, that's Evil" "Please?" "oh, ok, if you said please, I'm sure it won't be quite as Evil"... yeah, no.



She literally says she has no reason other than politeness. Murdering someone for no reason other than manners is in fact no reason at all and puts a significant question on her understanding of what manners are.

In fact, it is quite clear that to Oona, the natural state of anyone she doesn't know is dead - consistent with her "I saw two humans, thought they'd make for a nice treat for a pet" in the prior scene, and that she needs to be given a good reason to refrain from murder. That is, in fact, Evil.

Grey Wolf

Again I'd like to use Therkla as an example. She was ordered to kill Hinjo. I would not try to deny that killing Hinjo would be an evil act, but I do not agree that commiting and evil act become someone asks you too makes you inherently evil. And I do not think you could claim that she followed Kubota's orders out of fear.

ETA: I would certainly agree that the fact that she would kill them for such a poor reason as being politely asked to would rule her out from being good, but I don't think it rules out her being neutral.