What alignment is Oona?

[Keltest]

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.

I guess that depends on how much she had spoken to him previously. Anybody who spends 10 minutes with the MITD and pays any amount of attention knows he's a marshmallow. Xykon could not for the unlife of him get the MITD to be intimidating. But absent that context, its a reasonable assumption.

[WanderingMist]

Exactly.

Good response to intruders: "Hi guys, my name's Oona, pleased to meet you. Hey, did you miss those signs saying this is bugbear territory? I know, I know, it's an ice flow - the signs keep faling over. Why don't you tell me what or who you're looking for and we'll try to help you while I walk you out of our borders?"

Neutral respone to intruders: [sound of crossbow being cocked] "Get off my lawn. I'm going to count to three."

Evil response: What Oona did. Ambush them without warning and feed anything left over to your pet monster.

She was out hunting for food. She wasn't purposefully out looking for humans to kill. She believed MitD liked humans as food, and she happened to see an opportunity to try and get him some.

An Evil response would be to make sure they were dead once they fell into the water.

Anyway, my guess for her is on the borderline between Neutral and 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.

The alternative you are talking about is "deadly cave full of horrible monsters that can easily kill the one hunting them". The only other foods they have are the bitter fruit of eternal despair and certain berries. Evil is going out of your way to hunt sapients for food. Neutral is going after them if they just happen to show up and are less likely to kill you than other food sources.

[Keltest]

She was out hunting for food. She wasn't purposefully out looking for humans to kill. She believed MitD liked humans as food, and she happened to see an opportunity to try and get him some.

An Evil response would be to make sure they were dead once they fell into the water.

Anyway, my guess for her is on the borderline between Neutral and Evil.

Evil doesnt mean "brutally lusts for blood at every expense." It just means youre willing to hurt or see hurt people for bad or no reason.

[Tvtyrant]

She was out hunting for food. She wasn't purposefully out looking for humans to kill. She believed MitD liked humans as food, and she happened to see an opportunity to try and get him some.

An Evil response would be to make sure they were dead once they fell into the water.

Anyway, my guess for her is on the borderline between Neutral and Evil.


The alternative you are talking about is "deadly cave full of horrible monsters that can easily kill the one hunting them". The only other foods they have are the bitter fruit of eternal despair and certain berries. Evil is going out of your way to hunt sapients for food. Neutral is going after them if they just happen to show up and are less likely to kill you than other food sources.

Like if I went to the grocery store and happened to murder someone unprovoked you would consider me neutral?

[Dr.Zero]

Bah, I keep finding all this anthropocentrism irritating.
For me Oona, attacking O'Chul, has done nothing different from a primitive human hunting an elk.
Or a lion attacking a human.
Different specie + usable as food + (for someone) tastes good + in my territory = fair game.

[Worldsong]

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've already admitted to Fyraltari that the arrival of Team Evil most likely means that currently the scarcity is less of an issue because Team Evil can make farming food from the dungeon a whole lot safer and reliable. However that wouldn't make an entire culture built around scarcity disappear so while ideally Oona would accept that during Team Evil's stay she doesn't have to hunt people to keep the food supplies topped off it doesn't make her Evil that she doesn't immediately make the switch.

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

You mean the part where she hit someone in the face, that person spontaneously shrinks an entire size category, and her first response is "Wait, did I do that?"

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.

Okay, that's actually a pretty good point.

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.

I mean... I already find the first one Neutral. So I think we have a bigger disagreement here.

At least if the 'life is hard' is backed up by 'Scarcity is actually a thing which realistically happens.'

"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."

Agreed.

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.

Well given that my data comes from personal experience with DnD, asking around a bit and looking up examples of Neutral alignments on the internet it'd be a bit difficult to get a nice collection of it. Suffice to say that my experiences with DnD support the notion that while mercenaries can be all around the alignment chart the default alignment for mercenaries tends to be Any Neutral.

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.

Or maybe I read what you say and just happen to interpret it in a different way than you intend it. How about you don't assume I'm not paying attention.

Bit of a rude comment here.

However to answer your question, lizardfolk do both.

Bah, I keep finding all this anthropocentrism irritating.
For me Oona, attacking O'Chul, has done nothing different from a primitive human hunting an elk.
Or a lion attacking a human.
Different specie + usable as food + (for someone) tastes good + in my territory = fair game.

Okay I actually like just how blunt you are.

[Jason]

I think it's either sad or funny that so many people appear willing to defend ambushing, killing, and eating (or feeding to her pets) humans (canonically Lawful Good humans, in fact) as not an evil act just because Oona is kind of friendly and funny.

To sum up:

"She was defending her territory." Her statement is that she was out exercising a mount, not patrolling her territory. There are no obvious markers that this territory belongs to anyone.

"Paladins are enemies of her people and her new allies." She didn't identify them as paladins and didn't say "I was trying to defend us." It was "sorry I didn't get you some humans to eat." She didn't even mention the incident to the leaders of her new allies.

"But meat is really scarce where she lives." Well, except for the giant valley of doors full of monsters, which obviously must all be eating something too, not just each other.

"But what about ritual canabalsim?" Well, it sure didnt look like any ritual, and Oona already said she's not really the religious type.

"If she were really evil, she would have dived into the icy water to make sure they were dead." The basic arctic survival skill of "don't get into freezing cold water if you can avoid it," comes to mind.

[Worldsong]

"But meat is really scarce where she lives." Well, except for the giant valley of doors full of monsters, which obviously must all be eating something too, not just each other.

Somehow I don't think there's just a patch of vegetables right behind the door which the bugbears can just get to whenever they want.

Also I'm not defending this because of Oona. I just in general tend to defend hunting sapients.

[Bunny Commando]

Somehow I don't think there's just a patch of vegetables right behind the door which the bugbears can just get to whenever they want.

Also I'm not defending this because of Oona. I just in general tend to defend hunting sapients.

It's not just about hunting.
In 1037 Oona says she wanted to feed O-Chul and Lien to the MitD; there's no evidence she and her tribe would eat them as well.
In 1213 she says she doesn't have a compelling reason not to kill Durkon and Minrah. There's no evidence she would eat them, they are no threat to her tribe - it was Redcloak that first resorted to violence - and they are just trying to run away.

A Neutral person has compunctions against killing innocent people - and there's no evidence Oona thinks Durkon, Minrah, O-Chul and Lien are guilty of anything; an Evil person, OTOH, has no compassion for others and kills without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Oona is certainly friendly, funny and charming. Yet she has showed a willingness to kill others just because she couldn't think of a reason not to kill - no compassion, kills without qualms.

[Lethologica]

Or maybe I read what you say and just happen to interpret it in a different way than you intend it. How about you don't assume I'm not paying attention.

Bit of a rude comment here.

However to answer your question, lizardfolk do both.

Tit for tat.

That said, I went ahead and found what appears to be the 5e MM entry for lizardfolk, and based on that, I'm going to concede.

Lizardfolk have no notion of traditional morality, and they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien. Truly neutral creatures, they kill when it is expedient and do whatever it takes to survive.

Lizardfolk rarely stray beyond their claimed hunting grounds. Any creature that enters their territory is fair game to be stalked, killed, and devoured. They make no distinction between humanoids, beasts, and monsters.

Lizardfolk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.

Once lizardfolk forge ties with outsiders, they are steadfast and fierce allies.

[Vulsutyr]

I'm throwing my vote in for Lawful Neutral. Not because I think eating humanoids is a Neutral act, but because I would guess that Oona doesn't think of non-goblinoid humanoids as on the same level of moral importance, in the same way I wouldn't fault a hunter/gatherer tribesman for eating a monkey.

[Lemarc]

My personal theory is that neurotypical people actually misunderstand what is being said about 95% of the time.

Like, neurotypicals literally never seem to know what is going on. They constantly ignore the evidence of their eyes and their ears and just pretend to understand whats happening and pretend that theyÂ’re understood by others, just to make social interactions less difficult.

Oona doesnÂ’t hide her constant social confusion like most neurotypicals do. That doesnÂ’t make her stupid. It makes her socially awkward, and it probably makes her relationships with other people very difficult. And it probably explains why she decided to be a beast master instead of a bard.

That's a fascinating hypothesis. I oppose it - I think most communication is mostly accurate, excluding language, cultural, and neurological barriers - but it interests me because of its symmetry. You could accuse me, a neurotypical person, of deluding myself when I think I understand others and make myself understood (and certainly I've experienced my share of major misunderstandings). I could accuse you of the proverbial "sour grapes". But it's impossible on that basis for us to ever really convince each other; we would be arguing about each other's minds, of which neither of us can ever know the opposite's. Obviously that's the case for a lot of arguments, but it's such a stark example that it's enamoured me. I'll think about this and apply my conclusions to more wishy-washy situations.

I feel obliged to say though that we have another means at hand in the case of neurotypicals vs. autists. Autism is quite common and therefore has been studied pretty extensively; there's a large body of data at hand. If neurotypicals perform significantly better than high-functioning autists in scientific tests on extracting meaning from communication, that would tend to disprove your idea. I myself don't have any such info though.

[Dr.Zero]

Okay I actually like just how blunt you are.

Thanks, I'm (kinda) proud to be the Belkar of the forum (at least for being apparently the most cynical, I'm still working about setting things on fire).

[Dr.Zero]

I guess that depends on how much she had spoken to him previously. Anybody who spends 10 minutes with the MITD and pays any amount of attention knows he's a marshmallow. Xykon could not for the unlife of him get the MITD to be intimidating. But absent that context, its a reasonable assumption.

I think there is a conceptual error in this, because of the fact that you live on this side of the 4th wall.
Being childish (like in "innocent", too), silly, naive doesn't mean being not dangerous and befriending the "snacks".

Xykon and RC know that MitD is not intimidating, is a "child", they've known it for years, still they think it would eat children.

Even more, MitD, being childish and naive as it as always been, was indeed completely fine and eager to devour the OOTS, as others have pointed out. Non only once (in DCF), when Xykon and RC were there, but twice, the second time when he was alone with Belkie and Haley.

You know it has changed because you've seen what happened with O'Chul.
But everyone else in universe has not that knowledge.

And being childish and naive -marshmallow- is a distinctive trait MitD had even when it was eager to devour humans (and halflings).

[Metastachydium]

I think there is a conceptual error in this, because of the fact that you live on this side of the 4th wall.
Being childish (like in "innocent", too), silly, naive doesn't mean being not dangerous and befriending the "snacks".

Xykon and RC know that MitD is not intimidating, is a "child", they've known it for years, still they think it would eat children.

Even more, MitD, being childish and naive as it as always been, was indeed completely fine and eager to devour the OOTS, as others have pointed out. Non only once (in DCF), when Xykon and RC were there, but twice, the second time when he was alone with Belkie and Haley.

You know it has changed because you've seen what happened with O'Chul.
But everyone else in universe has not that knowledge.

And being childish and naive -marshmallow- is a distinctive trait MitD had even when it was eager to devour humans (and halflings).

Exactly. I don't suppose I have to remind anyone that one of the other two naive and childlike major characters in the story is called Thog.
Also, the Monster can, in fact, be intimidating if that's what the situation calls for.

[hamishspence]

Even more, MitD, being childish and naive as it as always been, was indeed completely fine and eager to devour the OOTS, as others have pointed out. Non only once (in DCF), when Xykon and RC were there, but twice, the second time when he was alone with Belkie and Haley.

Not exactly eager - rather conflicted in fact, between "Am I supposed to" "Do I have to wait for Xykon first" "Would revealing myself to do so, be against orders" and "I am still hungry".

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html

[Dr.Zero]

Not exactly eager - rather conflicted in fact, between "Am I supposed to" "Do I have to wait for Xykon first" "Would revealing myself to do so, be against orders" and "I am still hungry".

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html

Yes, but "I'm hungry, I'd devour them if it wasn't because I'm not sure of how Xykon is going to react" is something I think is eager enough, at least when the point we are debating is "does it see humans as acceptable food?"

[hamishspence]

True. The monster's shown themselves to be unwilling to eat babies - but not adults.

Kinda like people who'll eat beef but not veal, maybe?

[Dr.Zero]

True. The monster's shown themselves to be unwilling to eat babies - but not adults.

Kinda like people who'll eat beef but not veal, maybe?

I suppose so.
A gif from The Simpsons to show MitD's attitude.



(Even if the "out of the way" ends up with "and toward my esophagus!")

[Worldsong]

It's not just about hunting.
In 1037 Oona says she wanted to feed O-Chul and Lien to the MitD; there's no evidence she and her tribe would eat them as well.
In 1213 she says she doesn't have a compelling reason not to kill Durkon and Minrah. There's no evidence she would eat them, they are no threat to her tribe - it was Redcloak that first resorted to violence - and they are just trying to run away.

A Neutral person has compunctions against killing innocent people - and there's no evidence Oona thinks Durkon, Minrah, O-Chul and Lien are guilty of anything; an Evil person, OTOH, has no compassion for others and kills without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Oona is certainly friendly, funny and charming. Yet she has showed a willingness to kill others just because she couldn't think of a reason not to kill - no compassion, kills without qualms.

I believe that Oona is Lawful Evil. What I've specifically been focusing on is the fact that her hunting O-Chul and Lien would in itself not prove her to be Evil, given that it's behaviour shared by lizardfolk who are put down as Usually Neutral.

Tit for tat.

That said, I went ahead and found what appears to be the 5e MM entry for lizardfolk, and based on that, I'm going to concede.

Huh. Didn't realize I was coming across as rude.

Oh well, at least we've found an answer to the question.

[Bunny Commando]

I believe that Oona is Lawful Evil. What I've specifically been focusing on is the fact that her hunting O-Chul and Lien would in itself not prove her to be Evil, given that it's behaviour shared by lizardfolk who are put down as Usually Neutral.

Fair enough.

[Keltest]

A Lizardfolk's neutrality is described as a total inability to understand morality in the first place though, not a judgement on the action of hunting sapient beings. Its almost certainly the way it is just to avoid having an Unaligned PC race.

[Jason]

I'm throwing my vote in for Lawful Neutral. Not because I think eating humanoids is a Neutral act, but because I would guess that Oona doesn't think of non-goblinoid humanoids as on the same level of moral importance, in the same way I wouldn't fault a hunter/gatherer tribesman for eating a monkey.

Isn't that the same excuse the paladins who slaughtered Redcloak's village were using for killing the goblin kids? "Goblins aren't on the same level of moral importance as humans."

[Worldsong]

A Lizardfolk's neutrality is described as a total inability to understand morality in the first place though, not a judgement on the action of hunting sapient beings. Its almost certainly the way it is just to avoid having an Unaligned PC race.

That kind of sounds like you're trying to shove lizardfolk in the same category as animals. I don't think their Intelligence score is low enough for that, and I'd posit that another valid way to read that excerpt is that notions such as Good and Evil just are completely absent from their own culture, not that they're incapable of comprehending them.

EDIT: Also from what I remember the mindset "I don't care about Good and Evil, I just do my own thing" is a pretty standard one for Neutral characters, even if their actions can still push them to Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic if they consistently keep behaving in a certain manner.

[Keltest]

That kind of sounds like you're trying to shove lizardfolk in the same category as animals. I don't think their Intelligence score is low enough for that, and I'd posit that another valid way to read that excerpt is that notions such as Good and Evil just are completely absent from their own culture, not that they're incapable of comprehending them.

EDIT: Also from what I remember the mindset "I don't care about Good and Evil, I just do my own thing" is a pretty standard one for Neutral characters, even if their actions can still push them to Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic if they consistently keep behaving in a certain manner.

Im not sure i see the difference between "good and evil doesnt exist for them" and "they dont understand the idea of good or evil."

[Worldsong]

Im not sure i see the difference between "good and evil doesnt exist for them" and "they dont understand the idea of good or evil."

What I mean is that I don't think we can dismiss their actions based on the idea that Good and Evil are concepts beyond their understanding when they're fully sapient. More likely Good and Evil just don't have a place in their culture but they could understand the concepts if an outsider explained them.

If said outsider could get them interested in listening to philosophical rambling.

Although even after the explanation they'd just say "Doesn't matter to me, doing my own thing."

[Keltest]

What I mean is that I don't think we can dismiss their actions based on the idea that Good and Evil are concepts beyond their understanding when they're fully sapient. More likely Good and Evil just don't have a place in their culture but they could understand the concepts if an outsider explained them.

If said outsider could get them interested in listening to philosophical rambling.

Although even after the explanation they'd just say "Doesn't matter to me, doing my own thing."

That doesnt mean it wouldnt apply to them though, it just means they dont care about the labels. Heck, most evil groups and individuals reject the labels to some degree or other, since very few people see themselves as the villain of their own story.

[Metastachydium]

What I mean is that I don't think we can dismiss their actions based on the idea that Good and Evil are concepts beyond their understanding when they're fully sapient. More likely Good and Evil just don't have a place in their culture but they could understand the concepts if an outsider explained them.

If said outsider could get them interested in listening to philosophical rambling.

Although even after the explanation they'd just say "Doesn't matter to me, doing my own thing."

It doesn't have to be beyond their understanding for them not to be capable of understanding it; it may be, so to say, beside it. Lethologica's MM entry says they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien, i.e. they do not understand these concepts, but not because they are too stupid to do so, but rather due to the fact that their mindset is so fundamentally different that this notion of morality does not mke sense to them.

[Worldsong]

That doesnt mean it wouldnt apply to them though, it just means they dont care about the lables. Heck, most evil groups and individuals reject the labels to some degree or other, since very few people see themselves as the villain of their own story.

Yes, but what I'm arguing is that I believe the labels apply to them regardless of whether an outsider explains to them the ideas of Good and Evil because they're fully sapient. That their own culture completely ignores traditional morality doesn't mean morality ignores them as well.

Also I'm rather hesitant to agree to a line of reasoning which would set a precedent that creatures can be fully sapient, fully self-aware, fully sane, and yet immune to morality.

It doesn't have to be beyond their understanding for them not to be capable of understanding it; it may be, so to say, beside it. Lethologica's MM entry says they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien, i.e. they do not understand these concepts, but not because they are too stupid to do so, but rather due to the fact that their mindset is so fundamentally different that this notion of morality does not mke sense to them.

I don't think Blue and Orange Morality means you can't be judged based on your actions though.

[Keltest]

Yes, but what I'm arguing is that I believe the labels apply to them regardless of whether an outsider explains to them the ideas of Good and Evil because they're fully sapient. That their own culture completely ignores traditional morality doesn't mean morality ignores them as well.

Also I'm rather hesitant to agree to a line of reasoning which would set a precedent that creatures can be fully sapient, fully self-aware, fully sane, and yet immune to morality.



I don't think Blue and Orange Morality means you can't be judged based on your actions though.

You were just arguing though that we cant make a moral judgement on the lizardfolk's behavior because theyre true neutral, and that it was therefore judged to be non-evil.