Serini: Good or Evil?

[woweedd]

Honestly, not sure it matters, but...Good person, misreading the situation. She's kinda a jerk, but then, if being a snarky cynical type excluded you from the Good Guy club, Roy would be out long ago. She was Lawful Good, I think we can assume (she was considering multi-classing to Paladin....Huh), but as for now...I think she's a Good person, who's at odds with our protagonists, because, well, she just doesn't have all the information. She makes a pretty good case for the idea that letting Xykon win and take over the world is the better option then destroying the world and having EVERYONE be hosed, at this point where every prior attempt to salvage the situation has failed. However, she is missing quite a few key pieces of information. Namely, A. Xykon (or, rather, Redcloak's) actual plan for the Gates will probably lead to the world being destroyed ANYWAY, B. The Gods could and probably would blow up the planet if it got to that point C. The Order don't intend at all to destroy the Gate, or indeed, get near it and, slightly-smaller-problem D. Despite the diversity of his forces, Xykon's world wouldn't actually be an improvement for anyone, because that guy fundamentally doesn't care about anyone other then himself, and, given the option, would probably just kill every humanoid in his forces and turn them into undead, if Redcloak wouldn't bellyache about it.

[EmperorSarda]

Has sympathy for Evil races that practice slavery.

She lists Kobolds, Orcs and Trolls. None of which we have seen any evidence for practicing slavery.

We don't have enough information - I suggested that when she was taunting and beating her prisoners that she might be evil and I stand by that, however 'might be' is not 'is'.

Her hitting Lein and O'Chul was as damaging as Rafiki hitting Simba with his stick. No damage was done. Her giving them each a wack of her staff does not constitute a beating.

[woweedd]

She lists Kobolds, Orcs and Trolls. None of which we have seen any evidence for practicing slavery.



Her hitting Lein and O'Chul was as damaging as Rafiki hitting Simba with his stick. No damage was done. Her giving them each a wack of her staff does not constitute a beating.

Especially Mr. "Constitution 25" over there,

[Psepha]

Slavers just scream "evil". Remember how we were outraged at Buggy Lou and the Empire of Blood for practicing slavery? The slaves crucified on the hillside and set on fire, for daring to escape? Same thing. That's why Serini is Neutral, it's not a problem for her. No way a Good character would take their side. CG, NG, LG they're all 100% against it.


Their slaves deserve sympathy. Slavers, no.

Who even mentioned slavers though? By that logic, the Empire of Blood practices slavery, and the Empire of Blood contains humans, thus all humans practice slavery = all humans are evil = Roy is evil

And have we even had confirmation that trolls keep slaves? Do orcs?

[Goblin_Priest]

Why not neutral?

[Riftwolf]

My take is Embittered Neutral. She probably started out CG but becoming a pariah probably burnt away what empathy she had.

[ziproot]

I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that Serini is Chaotic. Are only chaotic people allowed to lie? It seems to me that you could make a pretty good argument for being lawful. As she says in #1229, she's tasked herself with protecting the world, and she's willing to do whatever is necessary to do that. Devotion to duty is a quintessentially Lawful trait.

Except

1. She's a rogue
2. She attacked the paladins with tranquilizers while invisible
3. She lied to the paladins about letting them go

Lawful non-Evil characters care about honor. If Serini cared about honor, she would have at least shown herself to the paladins before capturing them.

EDIT: Lawful Evil characters also seem to care about honor.

[brian 333]

A case can be made that Serini is LAWFUL GOOD.

1. In the flashback she claims that she qualifies to multiclass as a paladin. Perhaps this was similar to the Elanicus episode, or perhaps not.

2. She treats beings unlike herself honorably.

3. She uses non-lethal force when lethal force would have been easier. (Example, attracting the attention of the bugbear village to the palladins.)

4. She holds the lives of the many innocent people she does not know to be as valuable as the lives of the few she does know.

5. She considers herself the ultimate judge of what is best for everyone.

A paladin's code could be based on her observed behavior:

A paladin is Good, treats equitably with strangers, practices restraint when using force, affords equal justice to all, and defends those who cannot defend themselves.

I don't believe she is LG, but she has done nothing to make it a less likely option than CG or any other alignment, (though I would rule out Evil for story reasons having nothing to do with observed behavior.)

[InvisibleBison]

Except

1. She's a rogue
2. She attacked the paladins with tranquilizers while invisible
3. She lied to the paladins about letting them go

1. Rogues can be of any alignment.
2. Ambushes are not chaotic.
3. While lying is chaotic, a single chaotic act does not a chaotic character make.

Lawful non-Evil characters care about honor. If Serini cared about honor, she would have at least shown herself to the paladins before capturing them.

Characters who care about honor are Lawful, but not all Lawful characters care about honor. And even so, "honor" isn't a fixed, universal thing. For all we know, attacking people from ambush is how honorable halflings wage war.

[Leliel]

I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that Serini is Chaotic. Are only chaotic people allowed to lie? It seems to me that you could make a pretty good argument for being lawful. As she says in #1229, she's tasked herself with protecting the world, and she's willing to do whatever is necessary to do that. Devotion to duty is a quintessentially Lawful trait.

Mostly because she got along with uber-Chaotic dude Girad Draketooth, and no evidence suggests she's changed from then. She also doesn't seem to have a high opinion of Paladin oaths, though she respects them.

[The Pilgrim]

Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral.

Take Therkla (confirmed as Neutral). She didn't mind that Hinjo was Good and Kubota was Evil. For her, it was just a conflict between two big Lords. She just picked the side of the one Lord she cared about (Kubota), and when she began caring for someone on the other side (Elan) she just wanted to stop them all from killing each other.

[InvisibleBison]

Mostly because she got along with uber-Chaotic dude Girad Draketooth, and no evidence suggests she's changed from then. She also doesn't seem to have a high opinion of Paladin oaths, though she respects them.

Hmm...

I seem to recall Girard being more anti-paladin than anti-lawful. But that might just be because the only lawful character we see him interact with is a paladin (if Serini isn't lawful, of course). I think this does suggest that Serini is more likely to be non-lawful than lawful, though it's far from conclusive and doesn't rule out her being neutral.

Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral.

I think you're misinterpreting her dialogue. She definitely thinks Xykon taking over the world would be bad; it's just that she sees it as being better than the world being destroyed. She's trying to protect as many people as she can, within the limits of her ability to influence the situation. That seems Good to me.

[dancrilis]

Her hitting Lein and O'Chul was as damaging as Rafiki hitting Simba with his stick. No damage was done. Her giving them each a wack of her staff does not constitute a beating.

The arresting officer apprehended the well intentioned trespassers and during questioning she proceeded to hit and poke them (lightly) with a stick.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm not sure why people seem so convinced that Serini is Chaotic. Are only chaotic people allowed to lie? It seems to me that you could make a pretty good argument for being lawful. As she says in #1229, she's tasked herself with protecting the world, and she's willing to do whatever is necessary to do that. Devotion to duty is a quintessentially Lawful trait.

Saving the world isn't a oath that she feels obligated to uphold. It's seeing the world be endangered and deciding to do something about it. And considering she's operating without an organization or any oversight at all, that points more to chaotic than lawful. What's more, she's very much operating on a case by case basis.

Really it looks more like she's picked a goal, preserving the world, and will do anything it takes to achieve that goal. That's more Chaotic than Lawful. Someone who is willing to cross the line in order to do something does not scream lawful to me.

[Dion]

Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral.

That isn’t the choice. Her choice isn’t “should good people or bad people run the world”.

Her choice is “should there be a world or not be a world”.

And, I’d point out that she’s gone to great expense and personal risk in support of that choice.

Now, you might argue that choice is also neutral. After all, the world is probably where she keeps most of her stuff.

But it’s worth remembering the choice she actually has, and not the choice we wish she had.

[Forum Explorer]

That isn’t the choice. Her choice isn’t “should good people or bad people run the world”.

Her choice is “should there be a world or not be a world”.

And, I’d point out that she’s gone to great expense and personal risk in support of that choice.

Now, you might argue that choice is also neutral. After all, the world is probably where she keeps most of her stuff.

But it’s worth remembering the choice she actually has, and not the choice we wish she had.

That's not her choice though. Her choice is 'Do I trust the OotS (and associated allies) to not destroy the world?' Because it isn't like any of the parties involved want the world to be destroyed. She could gamble on the OotS and actively help them against Xykon, but is instead taking the safe bet of letting Xykon win, and that without any fighting there is no reason for the gate to be destroyed at all.

[Sandman]

Good?
Bad?

She's the halfling with the crossbow.

[ziproot]

Hmm...

I seem to recall Girard being more anti-paladin than anti-lawful. But that might just be because the only lawful character we see him interact with is a paladin (if Serini isn't lawful, of course). I think this does suggest that Serini is more likely to be non-lawful than lawful, though it's far from conclusive and doesn't rule out her being neutral.



I think you're misinterpreting her dialogue. She definitely thinks Xykon taking over the world would be bad; it's just that she sees it as being better than the world being destroyed. She's trying to protect as many people as she can, within the limits of her ability to influence the situation. That seems Good to me.

The Giant has confirmed Girard to be Chaotic Neutral.

[Good Coyote]

The Giant has confirmed Girard to be Chaotic Neutral.

You can be Chaotic without being anti-Lawful. Elan is Chaotic himself but supports other people's choices to be Lawful.

That said... it's true we only see Girard railing against paladins, but the way he does it seems broader. He attacks honor as a whole, for example. That doesn't mean that he'd see all Lawful people as dangerous hypocrites like paladins though, it seems probable that he saw a lot of them as chumps.

And it does kinda seem like Serini might have liked Girard more than he liked her. Maybe she had the crush first and that led her to not take offense at his alignment aspersions (rather than having a similar alignment first and that leading to the crush).

On the other hand he did end up apparently getting along with her the best out of all the surviving Scribblers, since only she got the alert that Soon had "broken his word." And he also trusted that she would not give Soon the real coordinates. So he didn't see her as a chump either.

Much to thonk about.

I would put Lawful as possible but very surprising for her as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

Serini: Good or Evil?

I think now, after seeing her motivations, a question could be drawn.

You forgot one, so the question is both incomplete (you forgot neutral) and apparently simply a vehicle for your pre determined opinion.

Neutral, probably Neutral Good. She is trying to protect the world the best way she knows how.

As good a guess as True Neutral, but I don't care what her alignment is since I am more interested in her as a character in a story.

You know it's good writting when readers regularly debate the characters status as hero or villain based on complex motivation s and actions, rather than any arbitrary alignment.

*laughed, I did*

Honestly, not sure it matters

It doesn't.

A case can be made that Serini is LAWFUL GOOD.
{snip fun post}

That was an interesting take, thanks for the grin

Given that she doesn't cares if the World is run by Good people or Evil people, I'd pin her as Neutral.

We note the challenge to the frame of the question, and we approve of it.

Good?
Bad?

She's the halfling with the crossbow.

*applause*

[Dion]

That's not her choice though. Her choice is 'Do I trust the OotS (and associated allies) to not destroy the world?'

No, she really doesn’t care.

It makes literally no difference if the OotS destroys the gate intentionally (which has happened only once) or if they’re a bunch of incompetent chuckleheads who get caught up in the chaos of a big battle and destroy it accidentally (which has happened three times).

As far as she is concerned, both situations have the same outcome. The gate is destroyed, the snarl escapes, and the world is destroyed.

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time! There’s no way they’re going to destroy the gate again. Unlike the road runner cartoon, this time they’re really going to pull it off! See? They’ve even painted a hole on the side of the cliff, and put up a sign says ‘tunnel’. Are you seriously trying to tell me that plan is going to fail?”

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time!

It would be a cool thing if Serini killed, or tried to kill, Elan for his "blow it up because I am an idiot" move ... but I am not sure if she has the granular detail that we the readers do on how that came to pass, nor am I sure that she's sufficiently interested in revenge for previous gate blow ups (her distrust of O-Chul and Lien considered)to want to kill him for it. Probably not.
A neat side effect is that it would lead to a Haley Versus Serini rogue battle, which might be colorful ... but there is little reason for Rich to go there as far as I can guess ...

Elan is still in the Order, and the Order is near a gate.
From the perspective you are sharing, she's seeing a pattern that is bad ... Elan near a gate.

Where ya sit determines what ya see

[ziproot]

You can be Chaotic without being anti-Lawful. Elan is Chaotic himself but supports other people's choices to be Lawful.

That said... it's true we only see Girard railing against paladins, but the way he does it seems broader. He attacks honor as a whole, for example. That doesn't mean that he'd see all Lawful people as dangerous hypocrites like paladins though, it seems probable that he saw a lot of them as chumps.

And it does kinda seem like Serini might have liked Girard more than he liked her. Maybe she had the crush first and that led her to not take offense at his alignment aspersions (rather than having a similar alignment first and that leading to the crush).

On the other hand he did end up apparently getting along with her the best out of all the surviving Scribblers, since only she got the alert that Soon had "broken his word." And he also trusted that she would not give Soon the real coordinates. So he didn't see her as a chump either.

Much to thonk about.

I would put Lawful as possible but very surprising for her as well.

Oh, sorry. I was thinking you were implying Girard wasn't chaotic. Silly me.

No, she really doesn’t care.

It makes literally no difference if the OotS destroys the gate intentionally (which has happened only once) or if they’re a bunch of incompetent chuckleheads who get caught up in the chaos of a big battle and destroy it accidentally (which has happened three times).

As far as she is concerned, both situations have the same outcome. The gate is destroyed, the snarl escapes, and the world is destroyed.

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time! There’s no way they’re going to destroy the gate again. Unlike the road runner cartoon, this time they’re really going to pull it off! See? They’ve even painted a hole on the side of the cliff, and put up a sign says ‘tunnel’. Are you seriously trying to tell me that plan is going to fail?”

Soon's gate was not destroyed by the Order. Lirian's gate was destroyed before the Order existed. So I'm counting ... 1? The Order intentionally destroyed one and accidentally destroyed another. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

EDIT: By 1 I mean 1 accidental destruction. They destroyed 2 gates all together.

EDIT 2: Merged posts.

[InvisibleBison]

Saving the world isn't a oath that she feels obligated to uphold. It's seeing the world be endangered and deciding to do something about it.

Serini doesn't say "The world's in danger and only I can save it". She says "My job is to protect the world". A job isn't a one-time thing; it's an ongoing commitment. She's been living at Kraagor's Tomb doing her job long before any actual threats to the world showed up.

And considering she's operating without an organization or any oversight at all, that points more to chaotic than lawful.

Organizations are slightly predisposed towards being lawful, but there's no requirement that lawful characters be part of an organization.

What's more, she's very much operating on a case by case basis.

Why do you say that?

Really it looks more like she's picked a goal, preserving the world, and will do anything it takes to achieve that goal. That's more Chaotic than Lawful. Someone who is willing to cross the line in order to do something does not scream lawful to me.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. You could also say that she's adopted a principle that she allows to guide all of her actions, and she's willing to do whatever it takes to abide by that principle, which is extremely lawful behavior.

[Scottzg]

You know it's good writting when readers regularly debate the characters status as hero or villain based on complex motivations and actions, rather than any arbitrary alignment.

Yeah! I'm not sure about her alignment yet (i don't think she's evil), but she's an awesome character. I'm excited to see what her role in the story will be.

[Forum Explorer]

No, she really doesn’t care.

It makes literally no difference if the OotS destroys the gate intentionally (which has happened only once) or if they’re a bunch of incompetent chuckleheads who get caught up in the chaos of a big battle and destroy it accidentally (which has happened three times).

As far as she is concerned, both situations have the same outcome. The gate is destroyed, the snarl escapes, and the world is destroyed.

Now, you might argue “oh, but the stupid incompetent chuckleheads who destroyed the gate three times already are in a totally different situation this time! There’s no way they’re going to destroy the gate again. Unlike the road runner cartoon, this time they’re really going to pull it off! See? They’ve even painted a hole on the side of the cliff, and put up a sign says ‘tunnel’. Are you seriously trying to tell me that plan is going to fail?”

That still comes down to trust. She simply doesn't trust the OotS to not destroy the last gate, either accidently or on purpose. She could trust them and work together with them to try and achieve the best result (IE, Xykon is destroyed and the gate is preserved), but thinks that it isn't worth the risk.

Serini doesn't say "The world's in danger and only I can save it". She says "My job is to protect the world". A job isn't a one-time thing; it's an ongoing commitment. She's been living at Kraagor's Tomb doing her job long before any actual threats to the world showed up.



Organizations are slightly predisposed towards being lawful, but there's no requirement that lawful characters be part of an organization.



Why do you say that?



That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. You could also say that she's adopted a principle that she allows to guide all of her actions, and she's willing to do whatever it takes to abide by that principle, which is extremely lawful behavior.

Not really. A job can very much be a one-time thing. In this case she could view it as her job, because it was her mistake (letting Xykon get her diary, writing said diary in the first place) that let Xykon find the gates in the first place.

True, but someone operating without an organization is less likely to be Lawful.


Because she isn't trying to defeat Xykon. Xykon is currently after a gate, and has destroyed a gate in the past.


I'd disagree, but this is where arguments about Lawful and Chaotic always get messy. See, I see the difference between these two to be all about the means. Lawful and Chaotic characters can have the same goals or the same end. Or basically they want the same thing in the end to happen. The Lawful character though is strict about what means are acceptable to achieve said goal, while the Chaotic character is not.

[Bobby M]

I dug out my account that's been mothballed for nearly a decade to vote evil.

Now, I admit I view alignment differently than the Giant, but if she were a player at my table, I'd have shifted her alignment one step down the axis for this. In my view of what she has actually done, and not her justifications is to actively work to aid evil in conquest against the heroes.

I also disagree with her logic that Xykon's rule, which in no way guarantees the world survives, is better than the gods unmaking the world. The gods unmaking the world isn't great, but it isn't oblivion, as souls will go to their final destinations just a little sooner. What is at stake isn't existence but the amount of suffering caused. Xykon is a sadist who easily gets bored. Given unlimited power and time, he will continue to escalate the suffering he inflicts in both scale and intensity into hellish proportions.

The worst thing about her choice is that there is clearly another option that doesn't risk the gate. Help the heroes stop Xykon AWAY from the gate. Call in help, provide information, provide equipment or items, or even help herself, she could help tilt the odds away from a terrible fate without compromising the integrity of the gate, but chooses what she feels is the easier path, which to me is clearly evil.

Edit: Trying to clean up typos.

[Dr.Zero]

I dug out my account that's been mothballed for nearly a decade to vote evil.

Now, I admit I view alignment differently than the Giant, but if she were a player at my table, I'd have shifted her alignment one step down the axis for this. In my view of what she has actually done, and not her justifications is to actively work to aid evil in conquest against the heroes.

I also disagree with her logic that Xykon's rule, which in no way guarantees the world survives, is better than the gods unmaking the world. The gods unmaking the world isn't great, but it isn't oblivion, as souls will go to their final destinations just a little sooner. What is at stake isn't existence but the amount of suffering caused. Xykon is a sadist who easily gets bored. Given unlimited power and time, he will continue to escalate the suffering he inflicts in both scale and intensity into hellish proportions.

The worst thing about her choice is that there is clearly another option that doesn't risk the gate. Help the heroes stop Xykon AWAY from the gate. Call in help, provide information, provide equipment or items, or even help herself, she could help tilt the odds away from a terrible fate without compromising the integrity of the gate, but chooses what she feels is the easier path, which to me is clearly evil.

Edit: Trying to clean up typos.

Like I pointed out in another thread (I think the strip discussion thread), people who will find unacceptable to live under X can simply kill themselves (plenty of ways: poison, heroic rebellion for dwarves to avoid Hel, etc), obtaining -for themselves- exactly the same result of the Gods unmaking the world. (For dwarves something better)

Who, instead, will prefer to live, will be able to do so.

So Serini's action brings to a stricter better outcome.

She is definitely LG (Logical-Good).

[Bobby M]

Like I pointed out in another thread (I think the strip discussion thread), people who will find unacceptable to live under X can simply kill themselves (plenty of ways: poison, heroic rebellion for dwarves to avoid Hel, etc), obtaining -for themselves- exactly the same result of the Gods unmaking the world. (For dwarves something better)

Who, instead, will prefer to live, will be able to do so.

So Serini's action brings to a stricter better outcome.

She is definitely LG (Logical-Good).

Again, strong disagreement. There is a major, and hopefully obvious distinction, between an instant and painless transition to your afterlife alongside all of your loved ones and individual suicide. And I apologize, but I am not going to have a conversation about the merits of suicide here or anywhere else.

[Dr.Zero]

Again, strong disagreement. There is a major, and hopefully obvious distinction, between an instant and painless transition to your afterlife alongside all of your loved ones and individual suicide. And I apologize, but I am not going to have a conversation about the merits of suicide here or anywhere else.

Which is a fun reaction, since your initial assumption was that the "suicide" of the whole world (even of the ones who could disagree) would be a great option.