Serini: Good or Evil?

[Bobby M]

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.

Yep. Just remembered why I quit logging in.

[Dr.Zero]

Yep. Just remembered why I quit logging in.

Yeah, sorry to bring you the news that "Killing everyone in the world without even asking their opinion" is not exactly any better than... almost anything.

[Ruck]

I don't think we have enough information to definitively declare Serini's alignment, but I do think the argument that she is Evil requires some uncharitable assumptions about her motivations or reading too much into minor actions. (And as other people have said, if she was Evil she would probably be handling the current situation differently.) I guess I'd lean towards Good, but Neutral is also a possibility. Don't think we have enough information at this time to settle on anything, though.

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Lovely job of channeling Eugene Greenhilt's suggestion that al of the dwarves collectively kill themselves so that his inconvenience is lessened.

Yep. Just remembered why I quit logging in.

Yeah, some things don't have much hope of improvement. (If it makes any difference, I liked your "DMside view of the situation")

Don't think we have enough information at this time to settle on anything, though.

When has that stopped anyone from (1) leaping to conclusions and (2) initiating a (usually pointless) argument about alignment?

[Jason]

The way she sees it, if the final gate goes then the Snarl gets loose. Living under Xykon' s rule until he is eventually destroyed is preferable to the Snarl eating everyone's souls. What she doesn't know is that the gods will destroy the world if Xykon captures the gate, so "living under Xykon's rule" is not really a viable choice. Once she understands that the only option left will be"join forces with the Order to try to stop Xykon from capturing the gate."

[Anachronity]

I hate D&D alignment because it's cartoonish to a fault. Clearly she's evil, because she used poison.

More seriously, her intended actions here are purely pragmatic: she feels that a villain controlling a large part of the world is not worse than everyone in the world dying. However, The Giant has clarified that this sort of pragmatism is evil with his comments on Redcloak.

The potential nobility of his goals does not really soften the brutality of the actions he regularly takes in support of them, and the fact that he believes it does is neither here nor there when determining his alignment. This is what people mean when they say that the ends do not justify the means. It is a common tenet of the Evil alignments that yes, they do, while Good alignments tend to believe that doing bad things is bad.

She believes the ends justify the means, and is engaging in an act that is clearly evil in the short term out of interest in a long-term goal. So yeah she's evil in GitPverse

[Rrmcklin]

I hate D&D alignment because it's cartoonish to a fault. Clearly she's evil, because she used poison.

More seriously, her intended actions here are purely pragmatic: she feels that a villain controlling a large part of the world is not worse than everyone in the world dying. However, The Giant has clarified that this sort of pragmatism is evil with his comments on Redcloak.

She believes the ends justify the means, and is engaging in an act that is clearly evil in the short term out of interest in a long-term goal. So yeah she's evil in GitPverse

She's not though, you're conflating her thinking Xykon ruling is preferable to cessation of existence, to her actively wanting and trying to help Xykon rule. But that's not what's happening. If that was what she wanted she'd just go and bring Xykon and co. to the actual gate. I'm sure she'd prefer he'd never find it, but at this moment she's pretty sure those meddling around are more likely to lead him to it and/or destroy it and ruin everything than they are to actually keep him away/destroy him.

[Jason]

More seriously, her intended actions here are purely pragmatic: she feels that a villain controlling a large part of the world is not worse than everyone in the world dying. However, The Giant has clarified that this sort of pragmatism is evil with his comments on Redcloak.

She believes the ends justify the means, and is engaging in an act that is clearly evil in the short term out of interest in a long-term goal. So yeah she's evil in GitPverse

The Giant's comments on Redcloak are that noble goals don't excuse evil methods. Serini is not using evil methods. She is in fact going out of her way to protect the gate without killing people. She simply thinks a few centuries under an evil overlord is preferable to everybody getting their souls eaten and the world being destroyed. And really, it's hard to argue with her logic.
Neutral Good.

[Good Coyote]

You can kinda read it the other way around. Serini believes that the ends (stopping Xykon) do not justify the means (destroying the Gates).

I don't see her actually handing the Gate over on a silver platter yet. She just isn't willing to work with people who she (I think wrongly) perceives as willing to stop Xykon at all costs (ends justifying the means).

[Scottzg]

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.

I'm not convinced. Personally, i feel like it's worse to make the decision for everyone than it is to force everyone to make a horrible decision.

I'd rather not have to confront that choice for myself though, so it's complicated.

I think a Good person could take either position and be totally justified, assuming it's intention that is what matters.

[Anachronity]

She's not though, you're conflating her thinking Xykon ruling is preferable to cessation of existence, to her actively wanting and trying to help Xykon rule. But that's not what's happening. If that was what she wanted she'd just go and bring Xykon and co. to the actual gate. I'm sure she'd prefer he'd never find it, but at this moment she's pretty sure those meddling around are more likely to lead him to it and/or destroy it and ruin everything than they are to actually keep him away/destroy him.

The Giant's comments on Redcloak are that noble goals don't excuse evil methods. Serini is not using evil methods. She is in fact going out of her way to protect the gate without killing people. She simply thinks a few centuries under an evil overlord is preferable to everybody getting their souls eaten and the world being destroyed. And really, it's hard to argue with her logic.
Neutral Good.

What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

The most I could see for her by that logic is maybe neutral because she's defending the gate from everyone she believes might destroy it, regardless of their intentions for doing so. Like a construct might guard a relic.

[Ruck]

What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

I agree with the people you quoted, and I think maybe the part of The Giant's answer that might be relevant here is that Redcloak's self-justifications are not necessarily his actual motivations. Goals and intentions do matter; perhaps not as much as actions, but they matter. (As far as actions go, I'll reiterate that an Evil or probably even a Neutral character would be much more cavalier about simply killing someone they thought might be a threat to all existence.)

[agustin1987]

I'm not getting an evil vibe off of Sereni . She knows the Paladins were in contact with someone who was coming to meet them in two days. They didn't make the meeting, so the amnesia potion isn't going to fool the paladin's bosses/allies that they found nothing there. The block of missing time will be a giveaway to something happening. Therefore, if you're evil there's no downside to killing the Paladins.

[Dr.Zero]

Lovely job of channeling Eugene Greenhilt's suggestion that al of the dwarves collectively kill themselves so that his inconvenience is lessened.

This is the second comment which shows some kind of indignation about the "who can't deal with X can kill themselves", when we are casually talking about total global multi genocide.
I can't stop to find this kind of reactions funny, since it assumes that giving to people the possibility to decide is some kind of evil when compared to killing them uncaring of their opinion.

(Edit: on a side note, dwarves would come out definitely better being killed in a honorable rebellion against the lich tyrant than being killed without asking... and going to Hel)

[KorvinStarmast]

I hate D&D alignment because it's cartoonish to a fault. Clearly she's evil, because she used poison.

The problem is, among other things, the desire to take a single act and use that as The Determinent of alignment; sort of the reverse Halo Effect. And this can be traced to the root of how Paladin's were originally built "any {something} act immediately and irrevocably end the Paladin and they revert to a Fighting Man" - and yet in the DMG for 1e the atonement possibility was raised. I'll not take this further, but how alignment is implemented in such a mechanistic way makes it clunky, at best, as a game tool. As a means for doing a critique or analysis of fiction, it's useless.

You can kinda read it the other way around. Serini believes that the ends (stopping Xykon) do not justify the means (destroying the Gates).

Because they are out of spare gates. I think she'd be less adamant about this were some of the other gates still standing.

This is the second comment which shows some kind of indignation..

No indignation involved. "If you don't like it you can go and kill yourself" is a pretty lousy solution set to a problem.

(Edit: on a side note, dwarves would come out definitely better being killed in a honorable rebellion against the lich tyrant than being killed without asking... and going to Hel)

Which highlights the cultural+deity based screw job that they got in this version of OoTSworld.

[Dr.Zero]

No indignation involved. "If you don't like it you can go and kill yourself" is a pretty lousy solution set to a problem.

And, again, being one possibly outcome "everyone dies, no question asked"...

[Good Coyote]

What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

The most I could see for her by that logic is maybe neutral because she's defending the gate from everyone she believes might destroy it, regardless of their intentions for doing so. Like a construct might guard a relic.

This seems to contradict the deva's comments on Roy, if a person's intentions and motivations are never supposed to matter.

I'm not sure the Redcloak comments apply to Serini at all though, because it seems from her point of view, that's exactly what she's criticizing other people for: being willing to go to drastic lengths (the means, destroying the Gates) to achieve their ends (stopping Xykon).

[Dion]

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

I recognize you’re trying to tell a joke, but this is not funny.

At all.

Please do not joke about suicide.

[Forum Explorer]

What she actually wants doesn't matter. The logic behind her actions doesn't matter. That's what I'm getting from The Giant's answer on Redcloak at least.

The most I could see for her by that logic is maybe neutral because she's defending the gate from everyone she believes might destroy it, regardless of their intentions for doing so. Like a construct might guard a relic.

No, Redcloak is pretty different. He might have noble goals, but that's all he has. I mean, we see him reject a peaceful solution simply because he wanted an even better result. He's fully willing to have every goblin in the world die so that in the next world the goblins will be even more equal.

[pnewman]

She's Lawful Good.

When you're Lawful "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

She's fighting, at great personal risk, to save as many of the many as she possibly can.

That's Lawful Good.

[ziproot]

The quote you put for Lawful to me makes more sense as Good. You could still I guess say Serini is Lawful Good but you would have to provide the "code" that Serini follows (and your own personal code doesn't count; following your own code makes you Chaotic).

[hamishspence]

You could still I guess say Serini is Lawful Good but you would have to provide the "code" that Serini follows (and your own personal code doesn't count; following your own code makes you Chaotic).

Only if you don't punish yourself when you break your own personal code.

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[ziproot]

Only if you don't punish yourself when you break your own personal code.

Thank you for correcting me. If I understand correctly, that means that if you choose a personal code as a "rulebook", then you have to follow it at all times, or else be punished, at least for "you shall follow the law" on the Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil commandments.

EDIT: As for the "following your own code is harder", I agree with that as well. If you follow an external code, then that code can be changed. If you follow your own code, you are stuck with it. Changing the rules on your own code makes you more Chaotic.

[hamishspence]

At the very least "turning yourself in" or "doing some kind of penance" is necessary to avoid a "tick" in the "Not Lawful" column. The DM might not change your alignment for one incident, especially a minor one, but enough of them, and they should change the player's alignment.

[Riftwolf]

I'd like to point out that Serini only attacked the paladins once they announced they wanted to search for the gate to protect it. If the paladins/orders priority was stopping Xykon, then Serini's been stalling him for (days? Weeks?) without him even figuring out the door trick. The paladins don't need to defend the gate to stop Xykon, or vice versa.
Serini might not be nice anymore, and her experience has embittered her (especially to those willing to rip the seams on the universes trousers 'for the greater good'), but I wouldnt peg her as evil.

[ziproot]

What I got from the end of Utterly Dwarfed was that Team Evil was about to run out of gates. Then they would realize that they were tricked. The Paladins then began discussing what to do. They were still talking hypotheticals and hadn't even agreed on a course of action when they were ambushed. Serini was running out of time, and instead of just talking to the Paladins, she ambushed them, refused to show herself, and took advantage of the Paladin behavior, lying to them several times. As Elan said to another Neutral aligned character, a plan involving lying to a paladin is not a good plan.

If the Paladins said something like "prepare to enter one of the gates" or started to head towards one, and/or Serini showed herself and talked to them in a situation where neither of them were in chains , the situation would be different. Instead, the Paladins were coming up with a plan to deal with Team Evil with help from the Order once they figured out the shell game, and Serini blew it. She refused to show herself in battle, lied to Paladins, and ignored the Order's sending call. Not Evil, but definitely not Lawful.

[hamishspence]

Lawful characters can lie, or twist the truth into a pretzel. Durkon has no problem deceiving Miko:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html

[ziproot]

I know lawful characters can lie. I'm a lawful character and I lie. But that's different. Durkon lied to protect his friends. Serini lied to advance her own personal goals, and shot both paladins in the back.

[InvisibleBison]

Serini lied to advance her own personal goals, and shot both paladins in the back.

And how are either of those incompatible with being lawful?

[ziproot]

And how are either of those incompatible with being lawful?

Because Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral characters don't cheat in a fight (and that is why you don't see many Lawful rogues):

http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html#adventuring
http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html#adventuring

Lawful Evil characters might cheat but I'm assuming Serini is Evil.

http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html#adventuring

Here is an example of not cheating in battle: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html