What alignment is Oona?

[Bunny Commando]

Getting the food necessary to survive is not a bad reason.

Per 1037, Oona didn't try to kill O-Chul and Lien because she wanted to eat them; she states she wanted to feed them to the MitD due to a misinterpretation of the word "like".
There's no evidence that Oona has to provide food to the MitD; since there's a high level Cleric like Redcloak, I seriously doubt food is a concern for Team Evil.

So: killing a sapient because you believe that an animal you like will enjoy such food is quite different than killing a sapient because you need to survive.

What? Oona respects the lives of Greyview, MitD, and Redcloak. Dignity is entirely irrelevant, especially in an arctic wasteland where you have to do certain things in order to survive. Just because her version of respect is different from ours doesn't make it any less valid. Now, I know this is a long shot, but her speech about how beasts must serve their masters could possibly be taken as "If you do not wish to serve your master, find a new one, or become your own master", which is a harsher version of O-Chul's lesson about the value of friends and their influence on you.

It's a really long shot. Oona's words, after the MitD told her Xykon is not his master, are: "No, no, no. No good. Beast must always respect master, is way of things"; per her words, she believes the MitD has to be subservient to someone else and has no right to be free.

[understatement]

What? Oona respects the lives of Greyview, MitD, and Redcloak. Dignity is entirely irrelevant, especially in an arctic wasteland where you have to do certain things in order to survive. Just because her version of respect is different from ours doesn't make it any less valid. Now, I know this is a long shot, but her speech about how beasts must serve their masters could possibly be taken as "If you do not wish to serve your master, find a new one, or become your own master", which is a harsher version of O-Chul's lesson about the value of friends and their influence on you.

Oona (and by extension Greyview) is to show what the Monster shouldn't do - that is to say, simply go along with orders and not question your own sense of agency. That's not a "different version of respect," that's just not respect at all. So yes, that is an incredibly long shot.

I've got a quote somewhere on these forums, but love and compassion are inherently good traits. Compassion requires empathy, which is definitely against the selfish nature of Evil. And you can't have "love for others" as a motive without it starting to turn you away from Evil, which I believe applies to our Miss Oona here, as her clan and that is one of her main motivations for her actions. Yes, Nale and Sabine did love each other and were Evil, but their love for each other was not a motive for either of their goals.

What part of feeding sapients to the MiTD is a motive for her clan?

Also, Laurin has a love for her daughter, which drives her to conquer better land and later seize the rift. Evil? yes. Motivated by other factors as well? Definitely. Still has "love as (one of the) motives?" Yes.

Oona is not Neutral. She's funny, likable, and has a cool design. She cares for her pets. She's a better person than Redcloak, and a much better person than Xykon. No part of that pushes her up to Neutral, in the same way that Thog's love of puppies does not shift him to Neutral for some inexplicable reason.

[Precure]

And Oona still believes that she shrunk a giant, by hitting her...

[DragonclawExia]

Personally, I'm fairly sure Oona is Lawful evil. She's evil, but not Capital E Evil in the same way Redcloak is. She seems somewhat more Lawful proportionally, as she's more concerned about Rules and Obedience than Domination for Power's Sake, but she's definitely still on the lower end of the spectrum.


It's similar to Hilyga, who's Chaotic evil, in that she's more concerned about her personal freedom and survival at any cost over causing wanton destruction for chaos sake but she's still quite evil relative to Elan or Haley, who are Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral. I guess Haley is Good now too because of Elan's influence...but she was pretty Chaotic Neutral in the early strips.

[Dion]

And Oona still believes that she shrunk a giant, by hitting her...

Well, to be fair, she did hit a giant. And then the giant did shrink.

I’ll grant that she’s no Frances Bacon. But she’s pretty isolated and probably doesn’t have access to any splatbooks, so she probably hasn’t had a chance to read up on the powers of a Beastmistress.

Does that make her as dumb as Thog? I don’t know. Is she as dumb as Elan? Maybe. Is that related to her alignment? No.

[Worldsong]

Wait, are we still trying to make a big deal out of someone's reaction to something unexpected being "...Did I do that?"

[Matt4]

The last thing I expected to find on this forum was an almost 10 pages long discussion about a minor character possible alignment

My 2 cents are that she is Lawful Evil, even if she has some redeeming qualities she is still counsciously helping a clearly evil faction.

[DaLucaray]

Two times she attacked humanoids, and two times we heard her explain her reasoning. The first time, it was because she thought MitD would enjoy the treat. The second time it was "I don't see a reason NOT to try to kill these random people". You can argue about the first statement, but Good or Neutral people do not see murder as the default way to interact with someone.

You can try to argue that she's ACTUALLY doing it to protect her tribe, but she very clearly states her intentions both times and that is not it. I'm pulling Occam's Razor here- the simplest solution (she's not lying when she casually explains her reasoning to her allies) is the one we assume.

[goodpeople25]

And Oona still believes that she shrunk a giant, by hitting her...

And Belkar suddenly discovered and then subsequently believed he had the ability to just stand there while bieng hit in the face with a point blank fireball and take no damage whatsoever.

Belkar just happened to know the ability in question and was right in that it was the ability that let that happen.

[Precure]

And Belkar suddenly discovered and then subsequently believed he had the ability to just stand there while bieng hit in the face with a point blank fireball and take no damage whatsoever.

When did this happen?

[Ariko]

When did this happen?

He is referring to Belkar getting and using improved evasion.

[Precure]

Well, then you can say the same thing for every stupid thing Elan and Thog done, including the whole invisibility fiasco.

[Ariko]

Well, then you can say the same thing for every stupid thing Elan and Thog done, including the whole invisibility fiasco.

Agreed, I just wanted to answer in a neutral manner.

[Precure]

Agreed, I just wanted to answer in a neutral manner.

Yeah, it wasn't an answer directed to you.

[Conradine]

If a dwarven patrol caught a bugbear , like, anywere, I seriously doubt they would do anything different than killing him.
A paladin patrol? No doubt at all, it would be katanas.

[Fyraltari]

If a dwarven patrol caught a bugbear , like, anywere, I seriously doubt they would do anything different than killing him.

Based on?

A paladin patrol? No doubt at all, it would be katanas.

O-Chul, Lien, Hinjo and Thahn want a word.

[Edreyn]

I'd say she is Chaotic Neutral. She doesn't behave as cruel, egoistic or cynical, just wild and respecting only rules she chose herself.

[understatement]

If a dwarven patrol caught a bugbear , like, anywere, I seriously doubt they would do anything different than killing him.
A paladin patrol? No doubt at all, it would be katanas.

Just because the (hypothetical) reversed situation's actions are bad doesn't mean the original situation's actions are good either.

[Dion]

If a dwarven patrol caught a bugbear , like, anywere, I seriously doubt they would do anything different than killing him.

Heck, Dwarves once caught a troll in their territory and dropped a roof on the poor guy! And apparently that was about as lawful good as you can get!

[Mariele]

The last thing I expected to find on this forum was an almost 10 pages long discussion about a minor character possible alignment

Really? Because that's, like, the first thing you should have expected.

[Conradine]

Just because the (hypothetical) reversed situation's actions are bad doesn't mean the original situation's actions are good either.

Not good but not evil. It's war, perpetual war.

As Haley explained:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html

[Metastachydium]

Not good but not evil. It's war, perpetual war.

As Haley explained:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html

On a strip which questions the validity of this explanation immediately after it's pronounced.

[Keltest]

On a strip which questions the validity of this explanation immediately after it's pronounced.

Questions it really badly. The hobgoblins are an imminent life or death threat. The gnome was not. Were supposed to be sympathizing with Haley in that scene for putting up with a sociopathic murderer, and somebody who is making no effort to contribute while demanding higher standards from everybody else.

Having said that, i question the assumption that the dwarves would simply kill any bugbear that entered their territory. So far as we know, they arent at war with the bugbears, even if they dont like them.

[Metastachydium]

Questions it really badly. The hobgoblins are an imminent life or death threat. The gnome was not. Were supposed to be sympathizing with Haley in that scene for putting up with a sociopathic murderer, and somebody who is making no effort to contribute while demanding higher standards from everybody else.

To be fair, Celia objects on the grounds that the hobgoblin Belkar killed was not an imminent life-or-death threat, and even Belkar agrees he did not need to kill him.

Having said that, i question the assumption that the dwarves would simply kill any bugbear that entered their territory. So far as we know, they arent at war with the bugbears, even if they dont like them.

I suppose they would probably attack them (or take some manner of hostile action against them at any rate) were the bugbears to venture into dwarven territory. The idea that dwarves would kill bugbears wherever they find them might indeed be a stretch, however.

[Dion]

Having said that, i question the assumption that the dwarves would simply kill any bugbear that entered their territory. So far as we know, they arent at war with the bugbears, even if they dont like them.

Sigdi was shown to be part of a team tasked with dealing with intruders into dwarven territory.

Granted, the dwarves put a much more civilized face on it and called each other sergeant and saluted and stuff. They certainly didn’t wear animal skins on their faces.

But it would be wise not to confuse “civilized” with “good”.

[Keltest]

Sigdi was shown to be part of a team tasked with dealing with intruders into dwarven territory.

Granted, the dwarves put a much more civilized face on it and called each other sergeant and saluted and stuff. They certainly didn’t wear animal skins on their faces.

But it would be wise not to confuse “civilized” with “good”.

Sure, but "dealing with" does not mean "unilaterally killing with no warning." If i were to go up to, say, a private area of a public bar, the guards wouldnt just club me on the spot for getting too close, they would warn me away first, and wait until i persisted in trying to get where i wasnt allowed before they use force. The only monster we see her fighting was a troll that, IIRC, had already killed a bunch of miners and established explicit hostile intent.

[Dion]

If i were to go up to, say, a private area of a public bar, the guards wouldnt just club me on the spot for getting too close, they would warn me away first, and wait until i persisted in trying to get where i wasnt allowed before they use force.

Depends on the bar?

Oona was doing some combination of hunting, patrolling, and exercising her mount. Attacking perceived threats to your territory without warnings certainly isn’t a good action, but I’m not keen on the suggestion that anyone who engages in any evil actions must therefore have an evil alignment.

[Keltest]

Depends on the bar?

Oona was doing some combination of hunting, patrolling, and exercising her mount. Attacking perceived threats to your territory without warnings certainly isn’t a good action, but I’m not keen on the suggestion that anyone who engages in any evil actions must therefore have an evil alignment.

Any bar that deliberately sends people to the hospital without warning is getting closed down.

And why not? "Engages in evil actions" is practically the textbook definition of having an evil alignment. What has she done that makes you think she's the "mix of extremes" flavor of neutral?

[Worldsong]

On a strip which questions the validity of this explanation immediately after it's pronounced.

I always figured that the critique was "You have to be careful with this line of reasoning since it can be used by nasty people to justify their hostile attitude", not "This line of reasoning is always incorrect."

[Metastachydium]

I always figured that the critique was "You have to be careful with this line of reasoning since it can be used by nasty people to justify their hostile attitude", not "This line of reasoning is always incorrect."

Yeah, that's there, but I have difficulty accepting that „you can kill unarmed customs officers as long as they work for an (Evil) enemy government” is the intended morale/message of the script, though.