What alignment is Oona?

[Worldsong]

My statement covers that - or to put it a different way: Chaos doesn't need to follow your expectations, it does what it wants.

Edit: Although prison camps and the like would likely suit LN also.

I'm aware Chaotic can be rather unpredictable. I generally align myself with Chaotic Good.

Prison camps are just a bit further out of the realm of the expected than I'm used to even with Chaotic.

[dancrilis]

I'm aware Chaotic can be rather unpredictable. I generally align myself with Chaotic Good.

Prison camps are just a bit further out of the realm of the expected than I'm used to even with Chaotic.

I believe that Gygax mentioned CG slavers at some point as possible.

I think the alignment system can to an extent be broken down as follows to an extent under Gygax (someone better informed may disagree).
Good: When push to to shove they want to help people.
Evil: When push to to shove they want to hurt people.
Chaotic: They do what they want.
Lawful: They follow the system.
Neutral: They do whatever is easiest.

This is by no means absolute and depends on firmly on the DM - but effectively enslaving 'savage creature X' to work in your mines while you uplift them to civilisation could well be any of the Goods, where enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you don't want to work in your mines could be neutral (it might even help savage creature X - who knows), and enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you like the idea of someone else suffering on your behalf is Evil.

[Worldsong]

I believe that Gygax mentioned CG slavers at some point as possible.

I think the alignment system can to an extent be broken down as follows to an extent under Gygax (someone better informed may disagree).
Good: When push to to shove they want to help people.
Evil: When push to to shove they want to hurt people.
Chaotic: They do what they want.
Lawful: They follow the system.
Neutral: They do whatever is easiest.

This is by no means absolute and depends on firmly on the DM - but effectively enslaving 'savage creature X' to work in your mines while you uplift them to civilisation could well be any of the Goods, where enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you don't want to work in your mines could be neutral (it might even help savage creature X - who knows), and enslaving 'savage creature X' to work your mines because you like the idea of someone else suffering on your behalf is Evil.

I always thought it a bit strange that Chaotic would be described as 'Do whatever you want'. I mean it's definitely one aspect of Chaotic and one which tends to define a lot of Chaotic characters, but if that was the only aspect you might as well call it Hedonism.

EDIT: My personal description of Chaotic is closer to "Go with whatever works." which includes "Do fun stuff when it works."

[dancrilis]

I always thought it a bit strange that Chaotic would be described as 'Do whatever you want'. I mean it's definitely one aspect of Chaotic and one which tends to define a lot of Chaotic characters, but if that was the only aspect you might as well call it Hedonism.

EDIT: My personal description of Chaotic is closer to "Go with whatever works." which includes "Do fun stuff when it works."

Do whatever works I would see as more neutral - a neutral characer would be fine in a tight legal system if it worked for them (not running it just accepting it) a 'this is fine' mentality, a chaotic character would feel uncomfortable within it.

But we will ignore my take on it and focus on yours:
Chaotic: Do whataver works.
Slaadi: Kidnap people and hold them in camps until their spawn hatch - because it works.

[Worldsong]

Do whatever works I would see as more neutral - a neutral characer would be fine in a tight legal system if it worked for them (not running it just accepting it) a 'this is fine' mentality, a chaotic character would feel uncomfortable within it.

But we will ignore my take on it and focus on yours:
Chaotic: Do whataver works.
Slaadi: Kidnap people and hold them in camps until their spawn hatch - because it works.

I'd say that an intelligent Chaotic person would work within the system for as long as the benefits of compliance outweigh the benefits of independent action. Of course they wouldn't necessarily be happy with it...

But yeah, I guess it works out that way.

[Dr.Zero]

I'd say that an intelligent Chaotic person would work within the system for as long as the benefits of compliance outweigh the benefits of independent action. Of course they wouldn't necessarily be happy with it...

Here I dissent. Chaotics (should) hate to be told what to do.
If a thing works for them, but it is imposed (ie: by the system) on them, they should go out of their way to avoid doing that.
Then, of course, if the system is incredibly more powerful, they can bend the knee out of fear, but that must be a fear great enough to beat their natural tendency to be "free". That is very different from the common "I'm chaotic, I do what is more convenient for me."

[Keltest]

Here I dissent. Chaotics (should) hate to be told what to do.
If a thing works for them, but it is imposed (ie: by the system) on them, they should go out of their way to avoid doing that.
Then, of course, if the system is incredibly more powerful, they can bend the knee out of fear, but that must be a fear great enough to beat their natural tendency to be "free". That is very different from the common "I'm chaotic, I do what is more convenient for me."

Agreed. A chaotic person actively wants to assert their independence and control over their destiny. They may be willing to do so, but they really dont like surrendering that control.

[Worldsong]

I did say that the Chaotic person wouldn't be happy about surrendering control. It's just that I disagree with the notion that the Chaotic person has to behave self-destructively if going along with the flow is more convenient for the moment.

EDIT: to clarify, I don't think that Chaotic people don't resist being controlled, whether it's by an individual or the system. And it is a pitfall for Chaotic people that their desire to decide for themself causes them to be obstinate when compliance would actually be more effective.

I just don't think it's un-Chaotic to accept that, because of circumstances, it would be better to just swallow your pride and go along with the flow. Especially since you'd still retain control of how long you remain compliant, ready to resume doing your own thing the moment compliance is no longer required to achieve your own goals.

EDIT2: I guess more than "Go with what works" the description of "Choose your own path" would be more appropriate for Chaotic. Which brings it closer to "Do what you want" but gets rid of the implication that the Chaotic alignment has self-gratification as a primary aspect.

[Lemarc]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Well, Slaad are a pretty early monster. I think they were a submission to an early magazine, quite possibly in the time when in D&D Chaos equaled Evil, and found their way into the Fiend Folio and thereby into D&D canon. That's kind of my point: the alignment of a monster is an afterthought, an instruction to the DM of how he or she should handle them. Slaad do horrible things but they're Chaotic Neutral, which means that except those horrible things they aren't inclined to evil.

[Worldsong]

Well, Slaad are a pretty early monster. I think they were a submission to an early magazine, quite possibly in the time when in D&D Chaos equaled Evil, and found their way into the Fiend Folio and thereby into D&D canon. That's kind of my point: the alignment of a monster is an afterthought, an instruction to the DM of how he or she should handle them. Slaad do horrible things but they're Chaotic Neutral, which means that except those horrible things they aren't inclined to evil.

I blame Gygax. Again.

[Keltest]

I blame Gygax. Again.

Gygax wasnt involved with the Fiend Folio that im aware of. Most of the contributions came from the other side of the pond as he was on.

[Worldsong]

Gygax wasnt involved with the Fiend Folio that im aware of. Most of the contributions came from the other side of the pond as he was on.

Yeah but he helped establish the idea that Lawful is Good and Chaotic is Evil.

[Jason]

Yeah but he helped establish the idea that Lawful is Good and Chaotic is Evil.

Chaotic was the evil alignment in the earliest version of the game. And it was always the case in the parallel BX/BECMI games (which only had Lawfu, Neutral, and Chaotic alignments). I blame Michael Morcock and to a lesser extent Poul Anderson (Three Hearts and Three Lions) for that - Gygax got the idea from them.

The alignment system wasn't fully developed when the AD&D Monster Manual came out in '77 either. There are no monsters that are Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral in the Monster Manual because those alignments weren't codified as part of the system until the PHB came out the next year.

[hamishspence]

One of the earliest BECMI books (the Eric Holmes version of Basic D&D) made it clear that Lawful did not automatically mean Good, and Chaotic did not automatically mean Evil). Though it's true that the later ones moved away from that a bit.

[Ghosty]

I'd go with Neutral Evil. Or whatever the evil version of Beastlands is. Where naughty dogs go.

I love this. Concise and pithy. Stealing it.

A shade more Lawful than Beastlands. Let's see, opposite side from Beastlands of the Thor's Alignment Showcase is "Resistance Is Futile." https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html

Which perfectly gets Greyview, but I'm not sure about Oona.

Gehenna, maybe Acheron?

[hamishspence]

Yes, that's Gehenna. Where barghests (shapeshifting goblin-wolf fiends) make their home.

[Ghosty]

I'll admit, I'm having some more difficulty processing that the supposed embodiment of Chaotic Neutral would have prison camps used for a procreation cycle which involves chestburster spawn.

Read some of Charles Stross's books (the inventor of Slaads and Githyanki). It'll make more sense then.

I like the Laundry Archives stories, though he's written others. Some of the Laundry stories come with a slew of D&D references and in-jokes.

[Lethologica]

Read some of Charles Stross's books (the inventor of Slaads and Githyanki). It'll make more sense then.

Oh. That really does explain it.

[Lemarc]

Yeah but he helped establish the idea that Lawful is Good and Chaotic is Evil.

It's older than that, as Jason says. Those books are the source. And they don't present it as a moral thing - Chaos is a force in Moorcock, one the hero happens to be aligned with. Fundamental powers - and I vaguely remember one book where Law got the upper hand and things were terrible.

Honestly Gygax as the inventor of the nine part alignment system is, perhaps, closer to your own viewpoint than you think. He explicitly states his concept of each ideology in the first version of the DMG - that book is entirely his writing as far as I know. On Chaotic Goods:

Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.

...which actually now that I've read it is maybe not such a stunning endorsement. But at least it's no better than the lawful good description.

[Riftwolf]

Slaad as embodiments of Chaos always felt a bit wrong to me. There's way too many rules around their breeding cycle, and those rules are needlessly strict. Chaos Beasts are much better at filling the hole Slaadi occupy.

[Lemarc]

Slaad as embodiments of Chaos always felt a bit wrong to me. There's way too many rules around their breeding cycle, and those rules are needlessly strict. Chaos Beasts are much better at filling the hole Slaadi occupy.

I agree. Ever since I read Scrap Princess' version of slaad here, I've found the classic versions insufferably stuffy and orderly. They're an OK monster I suppose but it feels like they only got into their Chaotic Neutral outsider spot because they were the first Chaotic Neutral extraplanar monsters to come along - I never use them as written any more.

[Riftwolf]

... Scrap Princess' version of slaad here.....

Now *those* are some CN outsiders.

[Mariele]

Eh, I'll say she's on the nastier side of Lawful Neutral. Most of her actions seems to be based around thinking of the group and following a hierarchy. I'm also not that miffed about someone killing humans when it seems like most every monster portrayed in this comic is sentient and reasonably intelligent, even if just for jokes. Making friends with and going along with the people that are not just letting your community feast (Monster Hollow is very dangerous, after all) but might improve trade relations later, even if they're a nasty bunch and want to do Evil things, seems reasonable enough for a Neutral character.

[Conradine]

Quote Originally Posted by Conradine View Post
She loves and respect her animal servants,
Belkar.

likes to fight but do not show sadism or extreme bloodlust,
Hilgya.

quite polite, serves her community although she works by herself...
Jirix, Malack.

she reminds me of Therkla. I would go for True Neutral.
Let's try Evil.

Many good traits in the same characters do not mellow it into some kind of Neutral?

[understatement]

Many good traits in the same characters do not mellow it into some kind of Neutral?

Why would they? None of these traits are inherently good; they just make a good person better.

[goodpeople25]

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.

Interesting way of agreeing that her response was evil. Or is it not evil because she wasn't successful at making sure they were dead?

[mjasghar]

Just because she helps her community doesn’t make her good
There’s a close corollary in the Forgotten Realms -Malar
Read up on him and his priests and you’ll see something very similar to Oona, especially in the later editions where they have been trying to show how evil priests can be ‘tolerated’ due to the need to appease powerful evil gods and in areas threatened by evil non human races

[Fyraltari]

Why would they? None of these traits are inherently good; they just make a good person better.

Errr, isn’t « makes a person better » what « this trait is inherently good » means?

[understatement]

Errr, isn’t « makes a person better » what « this trait is inherently good » means?

Yeah, but there's also traits that, while are found in good people very often (loving other people, being brave, caring for pets or children), don't make an evil person somehow convert into neutral/good.

I can't pin down what is a "inherently good trait", but the closest I can come up with is "compassion and respect for the lives and dignities of other people," which Oona, Belkar, Hilgya, Jirix, and Malack definitely don't possess.

[a_flemish_guy]

I'd definitly peg her as lawfull due to to her relationship with the dark one
she isn't personally invested in him (good for festivals) but when the high priest of the dark one comes about then you have to help him with whatever he has planned, that's just how things work

if she were neutral or chaotic then I'd expect more negotiation over rewards and how much aid he would be truly getting