What alignment is Oona?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

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.

The difference is that we have seen Therkla object to murdering. Oona has not. By her own words, she needs to be give reasons to NOT murder.

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.

It's not a "poor" reason. It is not a reason at all. It is, by her own words, the reality that the only thing that would keep her from murdering the dwarves was her desire to listen to RC's conversation and or a similar reason to stay her hand.

It is also not an act in vacuum. We already saw her reach the exact same moral position earlier with the paladins: her default action when faced with strangers is to murder them, absent a reason not to. Thus, Evil.

Grey Wolf

[HeroErix]

The difference is that we have seen Therkla object to murdering. Oona has not. By her own words, she needs to be give reasons to NOT murder.

When did she object to murdering someone other than Elan? I would not count that case since she was in love with him and the objection had nothing to do with being good.

It's not a "poor" reason. It is not a reason at all. It is, by her own words, the reality that the only thing that would keep her from murdering the dwarves was a good reason.

It is also not an act in vacuum. We already saw her reach the exact same moral position earlier with the paladins: her default action when faced with strangers is to murder them, absent a reason not to. Thus, Evil.

I am not sure that she would have attacked the dwarves if Redcloak had not asked. I'm sure you won't consider this as helping my position, but the reason she said she attacked the humans was because they were human and she thought MitD would like a human since she misunderstood what he meant about liking O-Chul.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

When did she object to murdering someone other than Elan?

In GDGU.

GW

[HeroErix]

In GDGU.

GW

Unfortunately I have not read that book yet. So I am missing some context. Hopefully I will have a chance to buy it soon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I am not sure that she would have attacked the dwarves if Redcloak had not asked.

Her words are literally, as per your own quote, that she lacked a compelling reason not to attack them.

I'm sure you won't consider this as helping my position, but the reason she said she attacked the humans was because they were human and she thought MitD would like a human since she misunderstood what he meant about liking O-Chul.

Correct, that does not help your position. Designating humans as valid murder targets just because they'd make a good treat for a pet is exactly the same as if someone killed a beggar in an alley as a treat for their cat.

Grey Wolf

[HeroErix]

Her words are literally, as per your own quote, that she lacked a compelling reason not to attack them.

And again, not having a reason not to do something does not mean that that's her reason for doing it. She had no reason not to attack them, and she had one reason in that Redcloak asked. If Redcloak had not asked, then she would have had no reason to attack and she possibly wouldn't have.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And again, not having a reason not to do something does not mean that that's her reason for doing it. She had no reason not to attack them, and she had one reason in that Redcloak asked. If Redcloak had not asked, then she would have had no reason to attack and she possibly wouldn't have.

And again, she says she'd need a reason to not kill them: "Oona is not having compelling reason to not be killing them".

She had no reason to attack them, she was given no reason to attack them, asking politely to attack someone is neither a reason nor amelioration of the moral decision to attack someone, and the bottom line is that Oona would have needed a reason to NOT kill them, by her own words.

When someone needs to be talked out of murdering, rather than enticed to murder, they aren't Neutral, they are Evil.

GW

[HeroErix]

And again, she says she'd need a reason to not kill them: "Oona is not having compelling reason to not be killing them".

She had no reason to attack them, she was given no reason to attack them, asking politely to attack someone is neither a reason nor amelioration of the moral decision to attack someone, and the bottom line is that Oona would have needed a reason to NOT kill them, by her own words.

When someone needs to be talked out of murdering, rather than enticed to murder, they aren't Neutral, they are Evil.

GW

Clearly we do not have the same interpretation of what she means when she says that. I don't see that line as saying that she needs a reason not to kill them and will do so since no one gave her a reason not to.

If someone asks me to help them with a task I may respond with, "Sure, why not?" which is effectively me saying that I had no reason not to help them. That doesn't mean I was going to do so without them asking. If they didn't ask, then I wouldn't help.

Regardless of the politeness she is helping Redcloak because she was asked to which is a reason to do something.

[Ionathus]

When someone needs to be talked out of murdering, rather than enticed to murder, they aren't Neutral, they are Evil.

This one feels pretty clear-cut to me, I agree. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Clearly we do not have the same interpretation of what she means when she says that. I don't see that line as saying that she needs a reason not to kill them and will do so since no one gave her a reason not to.

If someone asks me to help them with a task I may respond with, "Sure, why not?" which is effectively me saying that I had no reason not to help them. That doesn't mean I was going to do so without them asking. If they didn't ask, then I wouldn't help.

Regardless of the politeness she is helping Redcloak because she was asked to which is a reason to do something.

He is asking for her help in killing. To which she answers "Oona is not having compelling reason to not be killing them". This is not "Sure, why not?". This is "I was going to do that unless I was given a reason not to, but thanks for asking politely".

But even if it has been "sure, why not?" (which it wasn't) it would still be the case of someone admitting they have no moral compunction to killing. And again, this is not happening in a vacuum. We've seen her make moral decisions twice when it came to murder, and both times she ended pointing due Evil.

This one feels pretty clear-cut to me, I agree. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

You're welcome, but I wouldn't call a conclusion reached after a page and a half of rambling posts "succinctly". This is why editors are needed, people, so they can take all my chatter and cut it down to the highlights, making me look a lot pithier in the process.

GW

[HeroErix]

He is asking for her help in killing. To which she answers "Oona is not having compelling reason to not be killing them". This is not "Sure, why not?". This is "I was going to do that unless I was given a reason not to, but thanks for asking politely".

As I said, clearly we do not have the same interpretation of what she means when she says that.

I'm just thankful that it's not actually my job to determine if people are good, evil, or whatever. Honestly I am not convinced yet either way about if Oona is neutral or evil. Certainly she is not good, but personally I just don't have enough evidence to judge her character like that. I agree that she has committed evil actions, but my position in this thread has always been that she could still be neutral and acted the way she has. Based on what I have seen of Therkla, I feel comfortable with this position. I don't think any amount of debate in this thread will change my mind on that until Oona has more actions to judge, or I have read GDGU.

[Keltest]

As I said, clearly we do not have the same interpretation of what she means when she says that.

I'm just thankful that it's not actually my job to determine if people are good, evil, or whatever. Honestly I am not convinced yet either way about if Oona is neutral or evil. Certainly she is not good, but personally I just don't have enough evidence to judge her character like that. I agree that she has committed evil actions, but my position in this thread has always been that she could still be neutral and acted the way she has. Based on what I have seen of Therkla, I feel comfortable with this position. I don't think any amount of debate in this thread will change my mind on that until Oona has more actions to judge, or I have read GDGU.

Ok, lets try it this way. What have we seen her do that indicates she is anything other than evil? We have a fair amount of evidence for evil. Wheres the evidence for neutral? Keeping in mind that evil people are perfectly capable of being nice and polite, or having friends/loved ones.

[understatement]

When a character's notable actions on-screen have all been evil, then I think it's completely fair and safe to assume that they possess an Evil alignment unless proven otherwise.

In fact, you need to prove Oona is not Evil, and so far a lot of the reasoning for that has been "well I think I need to see more." How much more? The instances given are clear and indicative, and establish her character from the get-go. She's not likely to be a major character that will receive a story spotlight.

[Homentashen]

"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.

I understand, and I admit that at first face the evidence would suggest that Oona is committing Evil acts. I'm realizing that your comments have challenged me to put a greater standard of evidence on the arguments I'm making (I appreciate this). My only concern is, if you value what the text says over my interpretation of certain parts of the comic, then I don't think we'll have a constructive debate here.

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

No, I do not admit that. I'd like to clarify.
Oona states in 1038 that the bugbears live up on the North Pole to get away from the dwarves. They are trying to avoid the dwarves, so I think that they would consider using signs/fences/etc. to mark their territory and taking effort to make sure that people are aware of their boundaries to be a poor idea. The dwarves (mentioned in 1038) that might have chased them, and any other anti-goblinoids, would have a much easier time finding them to attack them if they used those measures.
It's still my opinion that Oona has a good reason to attack humans who have come up this far. My point: having indicators of an official territory would not make sense here, even though the bugbears want people to avoid their village (again, citing the desire to be away from intruder in 1038).

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

I disagree. I can't be sure if you mean the North Pole is too far from the humans, or that she saw them too far from the village to worry, so I'll address both.
The fact that the humans are so far away is, in my opinion, exactly what makes their presence here so concerning. There could be an argument that the paladins could just be humans conducting normal business unrelated to the bugbears/tomb if there were already humans nearby. Oona can assume, at an absolute minimum, that they have intentionally come to the North Pole.
The distance from the village can't be determined. It takes Oona 5 panels from 1035-1036 to stop menacing at the hole in the ice, fly back on Lancer, and land. I know that the village isn't visible from where Oona attacks the paladins, but the weather is heavy snow and some effect that partially obscures objects/persons in the foreground multiple times form 1031-1036.
In any event, neither of us can tell how far away it is, so I think it's better for both of us to ignore this point.
The part about the patrolling can be rolled into my response to the next quote.

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".

1) You're right-that does not do anything to prove my point. I'm not quite sure what I was going for when I wrote that.
2) This is also true.

The text does not say that Oona is patrolling. I think that she is patrolling because I think that patrolling to keep out intruders would be beneficial to her village.

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.

The language you use to describe her actions doesn't matter to me as long as it is accurate for what you are claiming she does. My concern was that using language with certain legal definitions would be confusing in a debate about character alignment, but I thought about this and I don't think that anymore.

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.

I made an attempt to address this at the beginning.

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.

This is the part that I agree with. This is not specific to Oona, it applies to almost everyone and is a simple application of behavioral economics.

There is a cost associated with attacking the dwarves: there is a risk that the dwarves will harm Oona, and she expends resources in her pursuit of them. Therefore, it is irrational for Oona to attack the dwarves unless it stands to benefit her in some way. In this case, that potential benefit is implied in that Redcloak, the powerful goblin she has been working with, has asked her to attack the dwarves.
The fact that she cannot think of a compelling reason not to attack the dwarves does not stand to benefit her. Cooperating with Redcloak does stand to benefit her.

I was also looking at your examples and didn't like some of them, mainly in that they involved situations outside of a person coming to the defense of another person. The defense is my main concern. While I certainly wouldn't be generous towards a person that I knew was evil or give them a wet smooch on the lips, I would come to their defense if they were being attacked and were asking me to help them.
Oona isn't a stranger who resents Redcloak, though. They are allies, which gives her even more reason to attack his adversaries when asked.

The logic that makes it a Neutral act for Durkon to attack Roy's assailants or Varsuvius to attack Belkar's assailants is that they are allies, and allies look out for each other. Oona's confusion related to bugbear styles of debate is, honestly, silly, but she follows the same line of reasoning when prompted.

[Doug Lampert]

Ok, lets try it this way. What have we seen her do that indicates she is anything other than evil? We have a fair amount of evidence for evil. Wheres the evidence for neutral? Keeping in mind that evil people are perfectly capable of being nice and polite, or having friends/loved ones.

This whole discussion feels to me like Deja Vu to Hilgya, which in turn was Deja Vu to Tarquin, which in turn was Deja Vu to Thog, which in turn was Deja Vu to Belkar.

I'm having Deja Vu about having Deja Vu about this discussion.

It is evident that many readers simply will not admit that a likable character could possibly be Evil no matter how many people they viciously murder/attempt to murder and no matter how much evil they do on screen.

[Keltest]

This whole discussion feels to me like Deja Vu to Hilgya, which in turn was Deja Vu to Tarquin, which in turn was Deja Vu to Thog, which in turn was Deja Vu to Belkar.

I'm having Deja Vu about having Deja Vu about this discussion.

It is evident that many readers simply will not admit that a likable character could possibly be Evil no matter how many people they viciously murder/attempt to murder and no matter how much evil they do on screen.

Its like Deja Vu all over again.

[Homentashen]

Its like Deja Vu all over again.

It certainly doesn't feel good, or even productive, really. Do you think it'd be better to agree to disagree?

[Saint-Just]

No, I do not admit that. I'd like to clarify.
Oona states in 1038 that the bugbears live up on the North Pole to get away from the dwarves. They are trying to avoid the dwarves, so I think that they would consider using signs/fences/etc. to mark their territory and taking effort to make sure that people are aware of their boundaries to be a poor idea. The dwarves (mentioned in 1038) that might have chased them, and any other anti-goblinoids, would have a much easier time finding them to attack them if they used those measures.
It's still my opinion that Oona has a good reason to attack humans who have come up this far. My point: having indicators of an official territory would not make sense here, even though the bugbears want people to avoid their village (again, citing the desire to be away from intruder in 1038).

First: the idea that bugbears don't mark their territory lest they be recognized is incompatible with justification that they have a right to kill those who are trespassing on their territory. Especially in pre-modern times where idea of lawful justification and moral justification was a little bit less separate than today. Additionally it makes little sense from the practical perspective - if they want to not be noticed ever maybe they need to kill those who come close enough to see their village but killing travelers in a large radius outside of it is unnecessary risk - it may as well draw attention to the area of suspicious disappearances.

Second: I am not a great fan of applying D&D alignment to any particularly realistic and/or complex moral problem, and I will not dismiss argument about needs of the many whether the few are outsiders or not. But if we accept that within the comic exists objective morality of the D&D sort then let's face it - if your safety relies on killing unsuspecting strangers then you are Evil with the capital E.

Finally: if you can interpret this situation as Oona patrolling her clan's territory then somebody can interpret this situation as Oona really really wanting to give a treat to Monster-san and going out of her way to find any human she can to capture or kill. Most of the times it reasonable not to include possible interpretations beyond what is plainly shown by words or actions.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

My only concern is, if you value what the text says over my interpretation of certain parts of the comic, then I don't think we'll have a constructive debate here.

Yes, that's why I mostly stopped posting after I established my position back in page 1, post 12. I don't believe there is anything to debate regarding Oona's alignment, because I think it is quite clearly LE. I'm here mostly to correct assertions made about the canon, rather than engage in extra-canonical speculation.

No, I do not admit that. I'd like to clarify.
Oona states in 1038 that the bugbears live up on the North Pole to get away from the dwarves.

No, she didn't? I suspect, instead, you are referring to the throwaway comment in 1039 that the dwarves won't pursue them this close to the tomb. This is not quite the same as your assertion that they are there to "get away" from the dwarves, but it is close enough I suspect it is what you are referring to.

They are trying to avoid the dwarves, so I think that they would consider using signs/fences/etc. to mark their territory and taking effort to make sure that people are aware of their boundaries to be a poor idea. The dwarves (mentioned in 1038) that might have chased them, and any other anti-goblinoids, would have a much easier time finding them to attack them if they used those measures.[...]My point: having indicators of an official territory would not make sense here, even though the bugbears want people to avoid their village (again, citing the desire to be away from intruder in 1038).

Which would all be reasonable for people Evil enough that they don't have a moral problem with murdering people who have no idea they just walked into that territory. But murdering anyone within radius X of your village, without marking that radius nor giving warning to those about to cross the boundary is nevertheless Evil.

To see how a Good character deals with a similar situation, I recommend HTPGHS, in GDGU.

It's still my opinion that Oona has a good reason to attack humans who have come up this far.

So long as you understand that said opinion is in direct contradiction with Oona's statement of her actual reasons for attacking the paladins.

I disagree. I can't be sure if you mean the North Pole is too far from the humans, or that she saw them too far from the village to worry, so I'll address both.

I mean that the comic outright states that they are "a few miles" from the North Pole. Thus the link, indicating I'm quoting the comic.

The fact that the humans are so far away is, in my opinion, exactly what makes their presence here so concerning. There could be an argument that the paladins could just be humans conducting normal business unrelated to the bugbears/tomb if there were already humans nearby. Oona can assume, at an absolute minimum, that they have intentionally come to the North Pole.

Whether they are there on business, or lost, or on their way somewhere elese, or in any other way concerning or not, does not give Oona the moral right to attempt to murder them. Only Evil people attack first and feed the resulting corpses to their pets. Neutral would at the most give an unfriendly warning shot. Good people would try to be accommodating first.

The distance from the village can't be determined. It takes Oona 5 panels from 1035-1036 to stop menacing at the hole in the ice, fly back on Lancer, and land. I know that the village isn't visible from where Oona attacks the paladins, but the weather is heavy snow and some effect that partially obscures objects/persons in the foreground multiple times form 1031-1036.

Yes, it can. It's a few miles from where O-Chul says that it is a few miles from. That's how that kind of information is communicated in comic form. And then that distance is reinforced by having a panel of Oona just flying, again communicating this wasn't next to the village, but instead quite a ways away.

In any event, neither of us can tell how far away it is, so I think it's better for both of us to ignore this point.

No, I think the canon is quite clear on this, it is not for me or you to determine, just accept that O-Chul is not lying or wrong. And therefore this is very relevant, since it is absurd for her territory to extend that far in the first place.

The text does not say that Oona is patrolling. I think that she is patrolling because I think that patrolling to keep out intruders would be beneficial to her village.

The text not only doesn't say she was patrolling, the text says she was exercising her pet. There is no reason to assume she is lying or hiding the real reason she went miles out of her village with her pet. We can take her at her word.

Grey Wolf

[Jason]

If you don't clearly mark your territory, and then you kill from ambush any person who enters your territory, that would be evil.

The neutral course of action is to post some kind of warning, and then give anyone who ignores the warning one chance to turn around and leave when they see you are prepared to enforce your border.

The good course of action is to post warnings, and then if some one ignores it talk to the intruders and see if they have a reasonable justification for violating your territory, if they look like they would be open to a discussion.

Oona picked #1, and that's assuming that she does consider this her territory and regularly patrols it, which has not been established in the comic (her stated reason for being out was to exercise her mount, not patrol her territory).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If you don't clearly mark your territory, and then you kill from ambush any person who enters your territory, that would be evil.

The neutral course of action is to post some kind of warning, and then give anyone who ignores the warning one chance to turn around and leave when they see you are prepared to enforce your border.

The good course of action is to post warnings, and then if some one ignores it talk to the intruders and see if they have a reasonable justification for violating your territory, if they look like they would be open to a discussion.

Oona picked #1, and that's assuming that she does consider this her territory and regularly patrols it, which has not been established in the comic (her stated reason for being out was to exercise her mount, not patrol her territory).

Ionathus, for the record? This is what I consider succinct. I wish I was capable of posting like this.

GW

[Homentashen]

Ionathus, for the record? This is what I consider succinct. I wish I was capable of posting like this.

GW

It was my mistake in not reading your post fully to see the links that led me to make a mistake in my argument (about the distance), contributing to an argument that went on longer than necessary. Honestly, the way you tore apart my last few posts really burned me, but I think I grew from the experience.

I concede that the evidence that Oona has committed Evil acts (first face, in-comic) is greater than the evidence that her actions were Neutral. She's most likely some variety of Evil, probably Neutral Evil.
It would please me if the story went on to show that she was morals-Neutral and could perhaps be redeemed, but I think it was that warmth I felt for this character that kept me arguing a weak point.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It was my mistake in not reading your post fully to see the links that led me to make a mistake in my argument (about the distance), contributing to an argument that went on longer than necessary. Honestly, the way you tore apart my last few posts really burned me, but I think I grew from the experience.

Sorry about that. No hard feelings on my part, I assure you.

It would please me if the story went on to show that she was morals-Neutral and could perhaps be redeemed

I'll be honest, she's too minor a character and the story too late in its tracks for that to be a realistic possibility, but if neither were the case, wouldn't it make for a better redemption arc if she did start Evil?

(Beyond lack of time and lack of prominence, I am of the opinion that Rich is not intending to write a redemption story at all - no, not even Belkar - but that is quite strictly my own personal & not particularly humble opinion)

Grey Wolf

[The_Weirdo]

She works off of a "state of nature" premise that is pretty much based on some rather shaky views on survival of the fittest. That seems to be both cultural (to wit, she seems to care about her tribe) and due to the location where her tribe ended up. So, Chaotic Evil, but of a kind that is accepted and well-adjusted in her (like-minded) community and (unforgiving) environment. The main issue that makes her Evil is that animals - "Neutral Hungry" - don't know any better, whereas she and her tribe are capable of knowing better.

[Conradine]

This whole discussion feels to me like Deja Vu to Hilgya, which in turn was Deja Vu to Tarquin, which in turn was Deja Vu to Thog, which in turn was Deja Vu to Belkar.

Hilgya repeatedly tried to murder her husband in cold blood.
Tarquin is a sadistic psychotic monster.
Thog is an unhinged mass murderer.

If Oona is evil, she's not even close in evilness to these people.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hilgya repeatedly tried to murder her husband in cold blood.
Tarquin is a sadistic psychotic monster.
Thog is an unhinged mass murderer.

If Oona is evil, she's not even close in evilness to these people.

Hilgya tried to murder her husband in cold blood.
Tarquin is a sadistic psychotic monster.
Thog is an unhinged mass murderer.
Oona tried to feed sentient beings to a guest's pet as a treat.

Fits right in. Especially once someone starts to add "reasons why those aren't so bad" justifications.

GW

[Worldsong]

Hilgya tried to murder her husband in cold blood.
Tarquin is a sadistic psychotic monster.
Thog is an unhinged mass murderer.
Oona tried to feed sentient beings to a guest's pet as a treat.

Fits right in. Especially once someone starts to add "reasons why those aren't so bad" justifications.

GW

Hey, Hilgya doesn't belong in that list, she was fighting back against a slave ring! That's Good-aligned if anything!

[Metastachydium]

Hey, Hilgya doesn't belong in that list, she was fighting back against a slave ring! That's Good-aligned if anything!

Neither does Tarquin, the beacon of stability in a sea of political turmoil, who – despite his shortcomings – strived to live up to his responsibilities as a parent.

[understatement]

Neither does Tarquin, the beacon of stability in a sea of political turmoil, who – despite his shortcomings – strived to live up to his responsibilities as a parent.

And all Thog wanted was ice cream and puppies! You wouldn't blame a person for mass murdering when they want ice cream and puppies, would you?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hey, Hilgya doesn't belong in that list, she was fighting back against a slave ring! That's Good-aligned if anything!

Neither does Tarquin, the beacon of stability in a sea of political turmoil, who – despite his shortcomings – strived to live up to his responsibilities as a parent.

And all Thog wanted was ice cream and puppies! You wouldn't blame a person for mass murdering when they want ice cream and puppies, would you?

They are just trying to defend characters they like against unfair accusations. You wouldn't hold standing up for truth against a forumite, would you?

You are all rotters and I hate you.

Grey Wolf