What alignment is Oona?

[Jason]

Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not.

That's the sticking point. Oona obviously did not know they were enemies of Redcloak. If she had then she would have told Redcloak "hey I bagged some of those paladins you were warning us about." She doesn't even mention the incident to him - meaning she didn't connect the intruders with her ally Redcloak and his Plan at all.

Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.

Economical but also evil. Actively hunting sentients for food for youself or your animals is evil behavior, not neutral.

[Worldsong]

I'm pretty sure we've had the conversation about whether hunting sapients for the sake of food is automatically Evil before.

Then again that conversation might have ended up being inconclusive.

Although I will say that of all the reasons one might have to attack sapients, 'I want to eat you' still sounds like one of the less objectionable motivations. It certainly beats 'Because I hate you.'

Then again, that's not a very high bar to pass...

[Fyraltari]

I'm pretty sure we've had the conversation about whether hunting sapients for the sake of food is automatically Evil before.

Then again that conversation might have ended up being inconclusive.

Although I will say that of all the reasons one might have to attack sapients, 'I want to eat you' still sounds like one of the less objectionable motivations. It certainly beats 'Because I hate you.'

Then again, that's not a very high bar to pass...

What about "I think my friend would enjoy the taste of you more than that of the food we usually eat"?

[Worldsong]

What about "I think my friend would enjoy the taste of you more than that of the food we usually eat"?

I think my argument for that last time was that Oona bears (some) responsibility for keeping her guests fed and any food she happens to come across which helps fill MitD's stomach means there's more food left for the rest of the tribe (and guests), and given that said tribe lives out on the north pole with only known food source a really dangerous dungeon it's not unlikely that her tribe has to be very careful with ensuring there's enough food to go around.

EDIT: or to put it otherwise, hunting sapients for the sake of survival could arguably extend to survival of the community, including temporary members of the community.

[Fyraltari]

I think my argument for that last time was that Oona bears (some) responsibility for keeping her guests fed and any food she happens to come across which helps fill MitD's stomach means there's more food left for the rest of the tribe (and guests), and given that said tribe lives out on the north pole with only known food source a really dangerous dungeon it's not unlikely that her tribe has to be very careful with ensuring there's enough food to go around.

EDIT: or to put it otherwise, hunting sapients for the sake of survival could arguably extend to survival of the community, including temporary members of the community.

I think she already has that covered, though.

[Worldsong]

I think she already has that covered, though.

True enough. Of course I could argue that Team Evil isn't necessarily a reliable source of food given the uncertainty of the duration of their stay and whether the monsters they'll be clearing out are monsters who provide edible food for the bugbears, but since I don't actually disagree with Oona being Evil that probably wouldn't really be anything but semantics.

One thing I do feel is important to say though is that I believe that alignments are a bit more forgiving when someone has grown up with certain habits which within their culture make sense and they're mostly having trouble adapting to a new environment or scenario where things are different.

Which doesn't mean that what Oona does isn't wrong, but I'd say that if that was the only bad thing she did it wouldn't on its own shift her to Evil because it'd make sense that someone who has grown up with the habit of considering every piece of food vital to the survival of the tribe isn't going to drop that habit the moment Team Evil shows up and makes getting food from Kraagor's Tomb a lot easier.

EDIT: Actually I could imagine a character who'd immediately drop that habit but then we'd be talking about a Good-aligned character who was never very happy about the idea of hunting people even if it was for the sake of sustenance and who is all too happy to use the convenience of Team Evil to convince their tribe that they should forego the hunting of sapients for at least as long as Team Evil is helping out.

[KorvinStarmast]

Economical but also evil.

No. Hunting for your food is not evil.

[Lethologica]

No. Hunting for your food is not evil.

Hunting sapient beings for your food is, generally speaking.

I can vaguely see the outlines of a boundary-value problem where "they will die if I do" intersects with "I will die if I don't." (Also, a perhaps-overlooked question of whether Oona regularly hunts sapient monsters in Monster Hollow.) But hunting sapient beings because (you think) your friend likes the taste does not approach that boundary.

[Worldsong]

Hunting sapient beings for your food is, generally speaking.

I can vaguely see the outlines of a boundary-value problem where "they will die if I do" intersects with "I will die if I don't." (Also, a perhaps-overlooked question of whether Oona regularly hunts sapient monsters in Monster Hollow.) But hunting sapient beings because (you think) your friend likes the taste does not approach that boundary.

The question is whether Neutral characters should respect the lives of other sapients to the point of significant, possibly terminal, personal inconvenience.

Given that I'm pretty certain that mercenaries generally fall in the Neutral range rather than the Evil range on the vertical axis I'd say the answer to that question is no.

It also helps that mercenaries and cannibals share the trait that they'll kill for the sake of personal sustenance, with the main difference being that mercenaries kill for money which they then use to buy resources needed for survival whereas the cannibal skips that part and turns the person they kill into the resources they need for survival.

Also as I argued above, Oona is responsible for keeping her tribe fed and filling MitD's stomach does help with that since, as a guest, it's reasonable to assume any food he eats come from the same storage as what the tribe survives on.

That she'd try to get MitD something which she thinks he likes is more another sign of her being friendly towards her guests.

EDIT: of course for both mercenaries and cannibals there's the clause that they actually need to be relying on their homicidal habits for their survival... Although I'm not sure how that interacts with the possibility for a mercenary to simply get another job.

[Jason]

No. Hunting for your food is not evil.

If you are sentient and you are aware that the beings you are hunting are also sentient, and you have alternatives to hunting sentients, then yes, it is evil for you to hunt sentient beings for food.

If you don't have alternatives and/or the person is willing to die in order to feed you or is already dead it might be considered neutral behavior to eat someone. It's still not good behavior.

Because treating people as a consumable or disposable resource is (generally, at least) evil.

Trying to kill people for the express purpose of feeding them to your pets when there are alternatives is definitely evil behavior.

[Lethologica]

The question is whether Neutral characters should respect the lives of other sapients to the point of significant, possibly terminal, personal inconvenience.

Er, yes, that is the boundary-value problem. But there is no indication that this is a matter of significant or terminal personal inconvenience.

If you don't have alternatives and/or the person is willing to die in order to feed you or is already dead it might be considered neutral behavior to eat someone. It's still not good behavior.

Because treating people as a consumable or disposable resource is evil.

I disagree with lumping the bolded part in with the rest. See for example the ritual cannibalism in Digger. If the death has nothing to do with the consumption, then the issue is not the treatment of people, but the treatment of bodies.

[Jason]

I disagree with lumping the bolded part in with the rest. See for example the ritual cannibalism in Digger. If the death has nothing to do with the consumption, then the issue is not the treatment of people, but the treatment of bodies.

Ritual cannibalism specifically is not about treating a person like any other consumable. Whether it would be considered evil or not would depend largely on the purpose of the ritual.

If you are trying to steal the strength or powers of your defeated enemies that is probably evil. If it is intended to honor a worthy adversary or friend then it probably isn't evil.

[Worldsong]

Er, yes, that is the boundary-value problem. But there is no indication that this is a matter of significant or terminal personal inconvenience.

They live out in the frozen wastes and the only source of food we know of is a dungeon which contains creatures of such power that Xykon gets XP from exploring the dungeon. I'd say the established details of the setting imply that for these bugbears life is a struggle and starvation isn't unheard of. In which case every piece of food would be important.

[Lethologica]

They live out in the frozen wastes and the only source of food we know of is a dungeon which contains creatures of such power that Xykon gets XP from exploring the dungeon. I'd say the established details of the setting imply that for these bugbears life is a struggle and starvation isn't unheard of. In which case every piece of food would be important.

Look, per the comic we're talking the difference between special and not-special dinner, not the difference between dinner and no dinner. I don't care whether it could be the case that Oona Neutrally hunts sapient beings for survival, because that's not what this is.

Ritual cannibalism specifically is not about treating a person like any other consumable. Whether it would be considered evil or not would depend largely on the purpose of the ritual.

If you are trying to steal the strength or powers of your defeated enemies that is probably evil. If it is intended to honor a worthy adversary or friend then it probably isn't evil.

Yes, but the point is a little broader than that. The morality of the ritual depends on mucky stuff like who it's intended to honor or intimidate because it's not about the death of the person anymore, only the treatment of a corpse. There's no one there to treat well or poorly anymore. And that also applies to other cases of eating a person who has died for unrelated reasons.

Any health issues aside, there are two reasons to condemn eating corpses of sapient creatures. One is that it violates our cultural practices for the treatment of dead bodies - which is a contingent moral issue but not an inherent moral one. The other is that it might encourage us to produce dead bodies for the eating - that is, this act which has null moral value in itself might lead to acts which are actually bad. But that does not make the first act bad.

[Worldsong]

Look, per the comic we're talking the difference between special and not-special dinner, not the difference between dinner and no dinner. I don't care whether it could be the case that Oona Neutrally hunts sapient beings for survival, because that's not what this is.

Not really, just because Oona says "I was trying to get you some human paladins because you said you liked them" doesn't mean she doesn't simultaneously want to feed MitD because each full stomach means there's more to go around. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Lethologica]

Not really, just because Oona says "I was trying to get you some human paladins because you said you liked them" doesn't mean she doesn't simultaneously want to feed MitD because each full stomach means there's more to go around. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It is trivially true that each full stomach means there's more to go around. That has null moral value. There is no indication that Oona attaches any of the existential urgency to the issue that you are using to justify the act.

[Worldsong]

It is trivially true that each full stomach means there's more to go around. That has null moral value. There is no indication that Oona attaches any of the existential urgency to the issue that you are using to justify the act.

Given that she's consistently portrayed as upbeat it's not very surprising she wouldn't start despairing or panic. Especially since if I'm right she's used to this and isn't going to throw a fit about it.

Besides I'm not talking about a "Either I feed MitD these paladins or we're in deep trouble", I'm talking about a perspective which covers a larger period of time and where there's just no real reason not to prioritize keeping everyone fed as much as possible.

Also I disagree with full stomachs being trivial. In a scenario where food is an uncertainty a full stomach is vital, especially since a full stomach also means that someone can be productive and useful.

[Lethologica]

Given that she's consistently portrayed as upbeat it's not very surprising she wouldn't start despairing or panic. Especially since if I'm right she's used to this and isn't going to throw a fit about it.

You're saying "the reason no indications doesn't mean I'm wrong is..." And if that's what persuades you, fine, but I'm not interested. There's no indications that you're right.

Besides I'm not talking about a "Either I feed MitD these paladins or we're in deep trouble", I'm talking about a perspective which covers a larger period of time and where there's just no real reason not to prioritize keeping everyone fed as much as possible.

This is a lot of squishy euphemistic terminology that doesn't actually address when the need is or is not urgent enough to justify killing sapients. Which is a real reason not to do something! There is no circumstance in which there is 'just no real reason' not to kill sapients!

Also I disagree with full stomachs being trivial. In a scenario where food is an uncertainty a full stomach is vital, especially since a full stomach also means that someone can be productive and useful.

The triviality is not the fullness of the stomach, but the more to go around. "The more brought in, the more there is" - well, obviously.

That any stomachs were about to be not full is precisely what you have been unable to show.

[Dr.Zero]

But why intelligence should be a factor to decide if a living organism can be killed and eaten?
This is highly discriminatory!
Oona is, actually, a champion of equality who overthrows this anthropocentric vision of the world!
Probably CG (against tradition, for the rights of the ones ignored by society).

[Worldsong]

You're saying "the reason no indications doesn't mean I'm wrong is..." And if that's what persuades you, fine, but I'm not interested. There's no indications that you're right.

Other than the fact that the setting supports the idea that scarcity is common and that so far as I'm concerned scarcity is about the only argument you need for cannibalism to shift from Evil to Neutral.

They live out in the frozen wastes because the dwarves chased them out of more favourable environments, we've been told that monster races in general have it rough, and even with the Dark One it's said that bugbears are left out in the cold (in this case literally).

If these things don't indicate that these bugbears live in unfavourable conditions where scarcity is a real issue then I don't think we're going to be able to agree on this. Quite frankly when you have a village living out on the north pole I'd say you'd have to prove that scarcity isn't an issue because even in fantasy settings the frozen wastes are depicted as being a place where only the strong survive because life be a struggle.

This is a lot of squishy euphemistic terminology that doesn't actually address when the need is or is not urgent enough to justify killing sapients. Which is a real reason not to do something! There is no circumstance in which there is 'just no real reason' not to kill sapients!

That sounds like a Good alignment point of view. Neutral isn't Good and there's lots of circumstances where Neutral characters will kill which wouldn't turn them Evil. And not just instances of "It's for the sake of justice."

As I said before, most data I've received on this subject state that mercenaries default to Neutral and those guys essentially commit violence and kill for money.

Also, Lizardfolk are rated as Usually Neutral but they're commonly known for eating people. Of course within their own tribe it's for cultural and ritualistic purposes but even softskins are potential food sources and in the previous discussion of cannibalism I believe the end result was that Good-aligned tribes are known to steer away from it but other than that it's just there and there's no indication of it being unique to Evil-aligned tribes.

Which is not to say that you can just kill people left and right and say "I'm actually Neutral", but it does mean that Neutral characters don't respect the sanctity of life the way Good characters do.

The triviality is not the fullness of the stomach, but the more to go around. "The more brought in, the more there is" - well, obviously.

That any stomachs were about to be not full is precisely what you have been unable to show.

Personally I believe I have a convincing case that scarcity is a common enough issue for these bugbears that cannibalism is a pragmatic approach.

That said I'm guessing you just have stronger objections to cannibalism than I do regardless of circumstances so I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.

[Keltest]

Its not the eating people thing thats a problem in and of itself, its the "killing them to eat because they taste different." thing thats an issue. Whether there was a scarcity issue at some point in the past, they clearly have enough food to go around now, which means that continuing to rely on eating intelligent creatures when you could otherwise not do so is evil.

[Dr.Zero]

Its not the eating people thing thats a problem in and of itself, its the "killing them to eat because they taste different." thing thats an issue. Whether there was a scarcity issue at some point in the past, they clearly have enough food to go around now, which means that continuing to rely on eating intelligent creatures when you could otherwise not do so is evil.

I like trouts and salmons, potato and melons. So I eat these things instead of others, usually (but not too much, you know, to have vitamins and nutrients all around the spectrum). Does this, in itself, make me evil? Or more evil than one who eats random food?

About intelligente creatures, I restate what I said before. :P

[Precure]

I had to maintain that Oona is most likely stupid evil. You can argue many things to justify her acting evil and stupid, but still, it is the most conclusive answer to understand the rationale behind her actions.

[Dr.Zero]

I had to maintain that Oona is most likely stupid evil. You can argue many things to justify her acting evil and stupid, but still, it is the most conclusive answer to understand the rationale behind her actions.

On the evil, jokes aside, I give for granted she is Evil (because I doubt the author would give her a different label, not because what she does is worse than what known neutral people did, but this is a different problem, debated for ages since the times of Therkla and the dynamic duo of bounty hunters).

On the stupid, I don't even see this "acting stupid", so yeah, if you see things other people -specifically at least me- don't , obviously there isn't a lot to discuss about.

[mjasghar]

With regards to mercenaries: generally they are serving in the positions of national or local military, or as guards (personal or caravan).
In such circumstances, when they kill it is in ‘acceptable’ circumstances such as war or defending property or life. Their role in fantasy societies is to be professional military in an era where such militaries are limited due to low tax bases.
Mercenaries who willingly accept tasks to kill unarmed civilians etc are doing evil actions.

[Precure]

On the stupid, I don't even see this "acting stupid", so yeah, if you see things other people -specifically at least me- don't , obviously there isn't a lot to discuss about.

Can't tell the difference between someone liking a food and someone's love for a certain people.
Decided to fight someone she agreed with and had no reason to fight just because someone said please.
Honestly and truly believed that she suddenly gained the magical powers to shrink people by hitting them.

[Metastachydium]

Can't tell the difference between someone liking a food and someone's love for a certain people.

As others mentioned before, we are talking about a „powerful, horrific monster” who eats much anything and that in large quantities. Xykon and Redcloak thought feeding him human(oid)s is appropriate, and he genuinely wanted to devour the Order up to a point.

Decided to fight someone she agreed with and had no reason to fight just because someone said please.

All she said was „[g]iant woman is bringing interesting point to the table.” She never said she agrees with this „interesting point.”
Also, when one has no reason not to help one's ally and attack his enemies, attacking the enemies of one's allies is not a stupid move.

Honestly and truly believed that she suddenly gained the magical powers to shrink people by hitting them.

This is a better argument than the rest, but bear in mind that she does not know much about magic, perhaps mostly because her tribe does not have much of it.

[Lethologica]

Other than the fact that the setting supports the idea that scarcity is common and that so far as I'm concerned scarcity is about the only argument you need for cannibalism to shift from Evil to Neutral.

They live out in the frozen wastes because the dwarves chased them out of more favourable environments, we've been told that monster races in general have it rough, and even with the Dark One it's said that bugbears are left out in the cold (in this case literally).

If these things don't indicate that these bugbears live in unfavourable conditions where scarcity is a real issue then I don't think we're going to be able to agree on this. Quite frankly when you have a village living out on the north pole I'd say you'd have to prove that scarcity isn't an issue because even in fantasy settings the frozen wastes are depicted as being a place where only the strong survive because life be a struggle.

The circumstances make scarcity a regular possibility, and could make hunting sapients an accepted Neutral option when those times come to pass. But the possibility is not what makes hunting sapients Neutral. It can't be this routine, "I'll hunt up some people, keep the storage stocked, make sure everyone gets fed as much as possible because life is hard and you never know when the prey will disappear" kind of 'scarcity' you want to use for justification. That's not 'lacking the commitment to make sacrifices to help or protect others,' it's 'killing without qualms if doing so is convenient.'

So you have indications of something that does not justify your position. You do not have indications of something that does.

That sounds like a Good alignment point of view. Neutral isn't Good and there's lots of circumstances where Neutral characters will kill which wouldn't turn them Evil. And not just instances of "It's for the sake of justice."

"Neutral characters will consider more reasons to kill valid than Good ones" is not the same as "There are Neutral characters who will see no real reason not to kill people, generally speaking."

As I said before, most data I've received on this subject state that mercenaries default to Neutral and those guys essentially commit violence and kill for money.

Bizarre invocation of unseen 'data' aside, mercenaries should be all over the alignment map depending on what they fight for and how, just like every other professional fighter and fighting force. Committing violence on a battlefield has all kinds of circumstantial moral variation above and beyond that which can be found in hunting, and the kinds of situations that are assumed to regularly pertain in a given setting affect the presumed default alignment of mercenaries.

Also, Lizardfolk are rated as Usually Neutral but they're commonly known for eating people. Of course within their own tribe it's for cultural and ritualistic purposes but even softskins are potential food sources and in the previous discussion of cannibalism I believe the end result was that Good-aligned tribes are known to steer away from it but other than that it's just there and there's no indication of it being unique to Evil-aligned tribes.

Which is not to say that you can just kill people left and right and say "I'm actually Neutral", but it does mean that Neutral characters don't respect the sanctity of life the way Good characters do.
[...]
Personally I believe I have a convincing case that scarcity is a common enough issue for these bugbears that cannibalism is a pragmatic approach.

That said I'm guessing you just have stronger objections to cannibalism than I do regardless of circumstances so I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this.

It's not the eating part I'm against, as my conversation with Jason should make clear enough. I have little beef with the idea of eating dead people. What I'm against is routinely hunting live people, a much more specific and harmful act. That's why I've been using the term 'killing sapients' instead of 'cannibalism'. It would be a good idea to pay attention to the words people use when guessing about why they disagree with you.

It would also help with your collection of evidence for your position - you would think to clarify, for example, whether Neutral lizardfolk tribes are killing people to eat them, or simply not wasting meat once a kill has happened for whatever other reasons.

[Dion]

I believe sneak attacks on strangers simply because you believe they’re in your territory is an evil act, regardless of what you plan to do with the bodies.

I also believe melee attacks on strangers at the request of your friend and guest, especially when your friend and guest is in mortal combat with those strangers on the edge of your village, is a neutral act

I also believe that performing an evil act doesn’t mean your alignment is necessarily evil. Neutral people can and do perform a wide variety of good and evil acts.

But she’s definitely not getting into celestia.

[Dr.Zero]

As others mentioned before, we are talking about a „powerful, horrific monster” who eats much anything and that in large quantities. Xykon and Redcloak thought feeding him human(oid)s is appropriate, and he genuinely wanted to devour the Order up to a point.

Do you know what I find funny?

That I try to immerse myself in the context, with the aforementioned horrific monster -ally of an uber evil and sadistic lich and a human hater goblin- who says with a deep, scary, creepy voice that it once really liked a paladin, and I find the idea of someone wondering: "But you mean you liked him as a friend?" to be the one really naive, at Elan level of naivety.