Serini: Good or Evil?

[Thecommander236]

She literally tells Lien that a lot more people would survive if the world remained intact. Where are you getting this "sacrifice" thing from? She's the exact opposite of that.



Again, no. She believes the paladins are willing to risk reality as a last resort to kill/prevent Xykon (which also involves risking their lives, fyi). And guess what? That is exactly what O-Chul and Miko tried to do.



Okay, so I'm guessing the bone here is that because Serini is so hostile to the paladins, she must have malicious intentions.

Otherwise, this chunk is not really clear in meaning, since the second half is exactly Serini's mindset.

A destroyed gate is impossible to seal unless you have an epic Divine and Arcane Caster with a specific spell. The only people who hit these requirements are also dead (soul-trapped, but Serini doesn't know that).

(Also, if O-Chul and Lien had been part of the paladin order in the older days, they would most certainly be an exception rather than the norm. But that's a pretty different topic, so I'm not going to toe into that one).

O'Chul knew the first two gates were destroyed. Each member of the Order of the Scribble had divining devices to show if a gate was active or destroyed. Two gates were destroyed and the world was fine.

The risk of the Snarl escaping with a third gate gone was unknown, but deemed to be improbable. It was mostly understood that as long as one gate stood, the world could last a bit longer.

Líen wasn't lying. They CAN'T destroy the last Gate. Everyone knows that. With Xykon in charge, millions will die under his rule. The Paladins don't want that to happen. But she then assumes that destroying the 3rd Gate is the same thing as destroying the last Gate in the minds of the Paladins and the Order of the Stick.

If she saw O'Chul swing his sword at the gate, then she saw the Order of the Stick talk about why they were going to destroy the 4th Gate, but wouldn't destroy the last Gate. She would've seen Roy specifically say they will not destroy the last Gate of she could scry on the Gates.

Even if she didn't see O'Chul swing his sword at the 3rd Gate or Roy destroy the 4th Gate, she has no reason to believe that they would see the act of destroying one Gate (which won't end the world immediately) as the same thing as destroying the last Gate which will murder literally everyone.

She just assumes that PALADINS would take "murder everyone" over "murder most everyone". If the Paladins valued freedom over life, they would be murdering slaves they couldn't save instead of throwing away their lives trying to save them like Ho Thanh did.

Even Paladins would probably take oppressive rule over death to all living things. At least oppressive rule could eventually be fixed.

She's so blinded by her own biases about Paladins that she can't see that Lien LITERALLY agreed with her that the last Gate can't be destroyed under any circumstances. Actually, she did acknowledge it, but she is still trying to wipe their minds instead.

That's some impressive double think right there. The paladins are horrified by the idea that destroying the world is preferable to Xykon winning, but they also don't see Xykon winning as an acceptable answer so she thinks they'll destroy the world instead which they already acknowledged isn't an acceptable solution? The ****?

And hell, she said the Paladins had 4 chances to stop the end of the world. They weren't even involved in the 1st, 2nd, or 4th Gates. Why is she assuming the good guys screwed up 4 times? Even the Order of the Stick messed up, at most, 3 times. The Paladins were only present at 1 Gate. So did she see O'Chul attempt to destroy the 3rd Gate or not? And if she saw that, then what makes her think they were involved with the 4th Gate? Maybe she listened in to the Paladins' conversations, but she just ASSUMES that the Paladins were okay with Roy and company destroying someone else's Gate whereas their own Gate was theirs to destroy.

And also take into account that the Paladins put Roy and company of trial for destroying the 2nd Gate. In fact, I'm surprised the idea of putting O'Chul on trial for trying to Weaken the Fabric of the universe isn't seen as a plot hole. I guess he would argue that he had reason to destroy the 3rd because he knew Xykon was still alive while Elan "knew" Xykon was dead and, therefore, he didn't need to destroy the 2nd Gate. That or the law ruling in favor of destroying the 2nd Gate meant it was okay for him to destroy the 3rd Gate, but they all knew that Eugene and Shojo rigged that trial.

The point is that Serini's "logic" is impossible to follow.

[Ionathus]

The point is that Serini's "logic" is impossible to follow.

No, the point is that not every single character needs to immediately accept "yeah, but we REALLY mean it this time" as a valid excuse when it comes to the continued existence of the entire world.

When it comes right down to it, either The Order or The Sapphire Guard are responsible for 3 out of 4 gate destructions. That's a losing record by anyone's count. Would it be nice if Serini rolled over and immediately trusted the protagonists to keep their Last Gate promise? Sure, that would be really polite and convenient.

But last time I checked, neither "politeness" nor "convenience" are required for a person to be either logically solid, morally upright, or both.

This group has bungled the gate defense three times already. Take away their Protagonist status and they simply don't deserve another chance.

[brian 333]

I follow it just fine. First, you have to go with the things she actually knows and not include speculation about what she might know.

1. She probably knows nothing about gate 1 because she had no reason to look before it was too late.

2. She may or may not know about gate 2, but if she does she has made no mention of it.

3. She obviously knows about the Azure City gate because her statements were too specific.

4. She could have been there, but could not have scryed on gate 4 for the same reason Vaarsuvious could not.

Other than observing or having detailed reports on 3, we have no evidence she knows anything about the other gates, except that they fell.

She obviously knows about the OotS. This may be from many sources, not the least of which is the paladins's unguarded conversation.

When you whittle it down to the bare bones, Serini's position makes sense. Add in a touch of Girard reminding her how Soon wanted ALL knowledge of thd gates erased, and you have a case for Serini believing the paladins and their henchmen orchestrated the whole fiasco.

Serini has not revealed any knowledge of the Mantle, so as far as we know she has no way to know that Xykon winning means the end of the world anyway.

[Dion]

The point is that Serini's "logic" is impossible to follow.

Suppose you give a toddler a glass of juice. They spill it. Four times in a row.

And suppose the toddler asks for more juice, and says “I promise not to spill the juice again, because this time I’ll be extra careful not to roller skate down the stairs with juice unless I’m carrying an umbrella too.”

Are you going to be a old meanie who doesn’t listen to logic and denies the fifth glass of juice?

[Forum Explorer]

Suppose you give a toddler a glass of juice. They spill it. Four times in a row.

And suppose the toddler asks for more juice, and says “I promise not to spill the juice again, because this time I’ll be extra careful not to roller skate down the stairs with juice unless I’m carrying an umbrella too.”

Are you going to be a old meanie who doesn’t listen to logic and denies the fifth glass of juice?

That's a really bad analogy.

[Emanick]

Not optimistic, forgiveness. Giving genuinely repentant people another chance is a pretty classically good thing to do. Sure, you can be pessimistic about them not messing up again, even take steps to mitigate said possible mistake such as ensuring they fight Xykon no where near the Gate. Or for a real world example, only loaning people money that you can afford to never get back.

Forgiveness is Good, yes. But forgiveness doesn't mean continuing to give people with a poor track record additional responsibilities. You can personally forgive somebody in your heart without, say, being as willing to share sensitive information with them as you were before, giving them money that you can't afford to never get back (as you say), or even giving them a fourth chance to investigate the Gates without destroying them.

[Good Coyote]

Kinda sorta, not really what I was getting at. A conversation with people you fully expect to have no memory of said conversation isn't speaking up against anything. From Serini's perspective this conversation is just for kicks or maybe some personal satisfaction.

Point is, she isn't really speaking up against an injustice when no one 'hears' her.

Ahh, thanks, that makes way more sense. A good point. I do think it's fairly representative of the kinds of things that she would say anyway, but you're right that it's not as much "pictured onscreen" with that caveat.

And also take into account that the Paladins put Roy and company of trial for destroying the 2nd Gate. In fact, I'm surprised the idea of putting O'Chul on trial for trying to Weaken the Fabric of the universe isn't seen as a plot hole. I guess he would argue that he had reason to destroy the 3rd because he knew Xykon was still alive while Elan "knew" Xykon was dead and, therefore, he didn't need to destroy the 2nd Gate. That or the law ruling in favor of destroying the 2nd Gate meant it was okay for him to destroy the 3rd Gate, but they all knew that Eugene and Shojo rigged that trial.

Shojo rigged the trial and Shojo also ordered the trial. He ordered it not as the leader of Azure City (which still has law and magistrates to implement it, as V disintegrated a guy to avoid), but as the leader of the Sapphire Guard. After the fall of the Gate, the Guard was dissolved. Otherwise the paladins could not be investigating other Gates now without breaking their oath.

Hinjo could try O-chul if he really wanted to. Attempted vandalism, attempted destruction of royal property, attempted murder (of anyone who could potentially be devoured by the Snarl), even though there is no Azure City law that specifically mentions the Gate (since it was a secret). But he doesn't want to. It's up to his discretion and he's got other things to worry about.

[Forum Explorer]

Forgiveness is Good, yes. But forgiveness doesn't mean continuing to give people with a poor track record additional responsibilities. You can personally forgive somebody in your heart without, say, being as willing to share sensitive information with them as you were before, giving them money that you can't afford to never get back (as you say), or even giving them a fourth chance to investigate the Gates without destroying them.

Which is all true. But there's the really obvious, glaring issue, that there is a really obvious solution that doesn't put the Gate at risk at all. I've mentioned it a few times now. Fight Xykon after he's gone through a couple of dungeons outside in the Bugbear village. Unless the Gate is secretly located in Kraagor's statue or something, there should be no risk to the Gate, and it's likely the best chance you have to win.

If you fail? Xykon takes over the world anyways. I can't see any reason to not try this.

[Liquor Box]

It does appear that she's trying to save the world. She'd rather take shorter odds of a world under Xykon than long odds of no world at all. People's mileage obviously varies on whether she's making a smart gamble or not, but I don't think that;s really decisive in settling her alignment.

I do think though, that suggesting her efforts to save the world (whether you agree with her logic or not) show her goodness are misguided though. By seeking to save the world, she is also seeking to save herself. Belkar is also seeking to save the world (and undertaking at least as much personal risk), and he is canonically evil. If Xykon knew that ending the world would end his own existence he'd probably try to save it too. Saving the world, when it also involves saving your own skin either doesn';t change your good/evil status or is at least not conclusive.

When we judge Belkar (and when Roy did get judged after he died) we judge him on his actions with little regard to the saving the world plotline. Applying the same logic to Serini, I've argued that her drugging and capture of the paladins (which I think was not necessary to accomplish her goals) was in itself a moderately evil act (although most disagreed with me). However, I think that from a narrative perspective, it's much more likely that she's neutral or good.

[Good Coyote]

It does appear that she's trying to save the world. She'd rather take shorter odds of a world under Xykon than long odds of no world at all. People's mileage obviously varies on whether she's making a smart gamble or not, but I don't think that;s really decisive in settling her alignment.

I do think though, that suggesting her efforts to save the world (whether you agree with her logic or not) show her goodness are misguided though. By seeking to save the world, she is also seeking to save herself. Belkar is also seeking to save the world (and undertaking at least as much personal risk), and he is canonically evil. If Xykon knew that ending the world would end his own existence he'd probably try to save it too. Saving the world, when it also involves saving your own skin either doesn';t change your good/evil status or is at least not conclusive.

When we judge Belkar (and when Roy did get judged after he died) we judge him on his actions with little regard to the saving the world plotline. Applying the same logic to Serini, I've argued that her drugging and capture of the paladins (which I think was not necessary to accomplish her goals) was in itself a moderately evil act (although most disagreed with me). However, I think that from a narrative perspective, it's much more likely that she's neutral or good.

Serini's situation is pretty different from Belkar's. Now more than before, we can see how deep her resources go. She's also had more time than anyone still living to prepare. If she was in it for self preservation, she'd have Plane Shift on lock via magical item, and rather than "Existing was fun," her flippant remark would more likely have been along the lines of "Next stop, Demiplane of Margaritas on a Beach With Julio Scoundrel."

We've got Julio doing that, we've got Hilgya doing that.

I think the escape from Azure City is a good parallel and it gave us V doing something similar. V fought alongside everyone else, but ultimately chose to use their final magic to escape. In contrast, Haley was left behind because she went back for Roy, and Hinjo had to suffer a minor mutiny in order to get away, because he also wanted to keep risking himself to save others. Meanwhile Belkar did end up trapped since the Mark of Justice wouldn't let him leave Roy behind, but he made no choice to risk* himself for others and actively threw O-chul to the MitD to facilitate his own escape.

Serini's actions fall right along Hinjo and Haley's on this spectrum. (Assuming of course that her remark means what I think it does, and she didn't have an escape plan that fell through, or otherwise isn't in fact choosing to fight to the very last.)

It's not conclusive, no, but nothing is. If we drop everything that isn't conclusive, we have nothing left to discuss.

Edit: * Risk being relative of course. See: the little chat pre-battle with Haley about the difference between an adventure and a battle. Belkar enjoys a violent lifestyle and who lives by the sword, etc., but he's also a sexy shoeless god of war. When he felt actually in danger, bye-bye O-chul.

[hroþila]

I think what many people are not getting is that Serini doesn't think destroying any gate was alright as long as there were others standing. In her opinion, destroying any gate at all unacceptably increases the risk of oblivion. For her, this cavalier attitude that there are other gates so it doesn't matter is incredibly reckless and irresponsible. And frankly, she has a point. It's hard to argue with her when that attitude has led to a single gate standing between reality and oblivion. There's no safety net for accidents anymore.

The notion that Serini is willing to sacrifice the world runs contrary to what the comic is explicitly telling us.

[Liquor Box]

Serini's situation is pretty different from Belkar's. Now more than before, we can see how deep her resources go. She's also had more time than anyone still living to prepare. If she was in it for self preservation, she'd have Plane Shift on lock via magical item, and rather than "Existing was fun," her flippant remark would more likely have been along the lines of "Next stop, Demiplane of Margaritas on a Beach With Julio Scoundrel."

We've got Julio doing that, we've got Hilgya doing that.

I think the escape from Azure City is a good parallel and it gave us V doing something similar. V fought alongside everyone else, but ultimately chose to use their final magic to escape. In contrast, Haley was left behind because she went back for Roy, and Hinjo had to suffer a minor mutiny in order to get away, because he also wanted to keep risking himself to save others. Meanwhile Belkar did end up trapped since the Mark of Justice wouldn't let him leave Roy behind, but he made no choice to risk* himself for others and actively threw O-chul to the MitD to facilitate his own escape.

Serini's actions fall right along Hinjo and Haley's on this spectrum. (Assuming of course that her remark means what I think it does, and she didn't have an escape plan that fell through, or otherwise isn't in fact choosing to fight to the very last.)

It's not conclusive, no, but nothing is. If we drop everything that isn't conclusive, we have nothing left to discuss.

Edit: * Risk being relative of course. See: the little chat pre-battle with Haley about the difference between an adventure and a battle. Belkar enjoys a violent lifestyle and who lives by the sword, etc., but he's also a sexy shoeless god of war. When he felt actually in danger, bye-bye O-chul.

So your argument is that Serini is different from Belkar because you think Serini has the opportunity to escape the destruction of the world and hasn't exercised it yet, so is therefore choosing to fight rather than fighting out of necessity.

Beyond not being conclusive, that seems to me to be entirely speculative. We have no evidence whatsoever that she is able to escape and we have no evidence that she isn't just delaying to the last moment before effecting her escape. If plane shift is sufficient protection then Belkar probably has as much access to it as Serini does - as in not personally, but being a high level adventurer with presumably enough resources to pay someone to cast the spell.

I mean, I do agree that if your starting point is "she's good" you can contrive a set of circumstances that make the actions we have seen seem good. But if our starting point were a blank slate, and we were judging her on what we have seen alone, I don't think there's much evidence for that, if any.

[Thecommander236]

To be fair, Lirian was basically 100% responsible for her own Gate being destroyed and Dorukan was like 60% responsible for his being destroyed. Lirian gave Xykon and Redcloak everything he needed to become a Lich and didn't do controlled forest burns meaning her forest went up like paper ribbons when set on fire. Lirian and Dorukan were also incredibly dumb with how they used their spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Next stop, Demiplane of Margaritas on a Beach With Julio Scoundrel."

Which is quite a contrast to "living at the North Pole"

I think what many people are not getting is that Serini doesn't think destroying any gate was alright as long as there were others standing.

I can just see her thought bubble "We went through all that trouble to find and contain the rifts, and then spent our personaly fortunes to make the gates, and to seal them up and protect them. And you, you little {censored}s, destroy them. Get offa my lawn! !" (Or something along those lines)
And another point

The notion that Serini is willing to sacrifice the world runs contrary to what the comic is explicitly telling us.

This too.

[Blue Dragon]

Neutral Good.

[Good Coyote]

So your argument is that Serini is different from Belkar because you think Serini has the opportunity to escape the destruction of the world and hasn't exercised it yet, so is therefore choosing to fight rather than fighting out of necessity.

Beyond not being conclusive, that seems to me to be entirely speculative. We have no evidence whatsoever that she is able to escape and we have no evidence that she isn't just delaying to the last moment before effecting her escape. If plane shift is sufficient protection then Belkar probably has as much access to it as Serini does - as in not personally, but being a high level adventurer with presumably enough resources to pay someone to cast the spell.

I mean, I do agree that if your starting point is "she's good" you can contrive a set of circumstances that make the actions we have seen seem good. But if our starting point were a blank slate, and we were judging her on what we have seen alone, I don't think there's much evidence for that, if any.

No. Not that she hasn't done it yet. That she does not intend to ever. It is not entirely speculative, it is based on my interpretation of her dialogue that I quoted.

We absolutely have evidence that she could be able to escape if she had dedicated her resources to prepare. There's no reason Julio should be able to do it and not her.

Belkar has not known about the Snarl for decades. He does not have a dungeon made of multidimensional stone and magic items out the wazoo. If it came down to the line, between the perfect easy choice to escape and certain death to keep fighting just a little bit longer, and Belkar chose to stay and fight, then yes, that action would be Good.

This is not an argument that Serini is Good. This is an argument that valuing others' lives above your own is a Good act.

Then, we discuss Good (and Evil, and Neutral) acts and words as evidence of people's alignments. Since no single act is ever conclusive, we would have nothing to discuss, if we threw out every single action that anyone ever took.

[Reathin]

Serini's going to an awful lot of trouble (risky trouble, too, with Team Evil nearby) to keep a bunch of people alive when it would be FAR simpler to just kill them. She could justify that as "these people are a risk to the whole world", but instead takes the high road. That's a far cry from evil to me.

Letting everybody's favorite lich win is undesirable, but far, far FAR better than risking the immortal souls of everyone in the world, including the ones who would be oppressed. That doesn't strike me as evil, that strikes me as dealing with a rough set of choices as best she can. She can't realistically beat Team Evil in a fight, and trying would deprive the Gates of perhaps their final epic level defender.

Not sure I'd compare her to Redcloak in terms of justifications for unpleasant actions. Redcloak sees an unjust behavior (ie. the treatment of goblinoids by the other sapient species, and even the gods themselves) and decides that he is justified in risking the immortal souls of everyone, including the people whose lives he desperately wants to improve. Serini, meanwhile, believes that a bad situation (Xykon's victory and subsequent brutal rule as Dictator for Unlife) is emphatically not enough justification to risk those same souls.

Personally, I'm on Serini's side for the moment, with available information. Millions, if not billions, of people could be deprived of a literal eternity if things go the way they have been for the previous gates. That's bone-chilling, if you ask me. Xykon rarely engages in soul-related mayhem, so any suffering he might inflict is temporary compared to a literal eternity of oblivion.

[halfeye]

Suppose you give a toddler a glass of juice. They spill it. Four times in a row.

And suppose the toddler asks for more juice, and says “I promise not to spill the juice again, because this time I’ll be extra careful not to roller skate down the stairs with juice unless I’m carrying an umbrella too.”

Are you going to be a old meanie who doesn’t listen to logic and denies the fifth glass of juice?

That's a really bad analogy.

It's kind of exaggerated, but I think it's about right, I especially like the bit about carrying the umbrella.

[ziproot]

It's kind of exaggerated, but I think it's about right, I especially like the bit about carrying the umbrella.

How does this analogy fit?

EDIT: I mean, it's not that it's exaggerated. The analogy is an apple and the actual situation is Fruit Pie the Sorcerer.

[TheNecrocomicon]

I hate to be throwing this in here after almost five pages of discussion thread, but isn't debate over a given character's alignment generally verboten for plenty of reasons?

[dancrilis]

I hate to be throwing this in here after almost five pages of discussion thread, but isn't debate over a given character's alignment generally verboten for plenty of reasons?

I believe that is more about if actions are 'morally justified' and as such if a character is evil for taking them or not - this is more an analysis or what we know (next to nothing) and what we can extrapolate from that (even less).

[Good Coyote]

I believe that is more about if actions are 'morally justified' and as such if a character is evil for taking them or not - this is more an analysis or what we know (next to nothing) and what we can extrapolate from that (even less).

Can I get some further explanation on this?

I think I kinda get it, like a discussion about V's Familicide and whether the evil creatures vanquished outweigh the good or something like that?

But I didn't see anything about it in the Forum Rules, so if someone who understands better could clarify for me, just so I know in the future, I'd appreciate that.

[Dr.Zero]

Personally I don't think, like I read here, that "staying to fight" a battle that you know (enough, at the best of your knowledge) you can't win is a Good act, but only a stubborn stupid act.
The classic Stupid Good attitude a lot of players expect to see in action when a paladin is involved in the campaign.

A senseless sacrifice is just that: senseless.

[Good Coyote]

Personally I don't think, like I read here, that "staying to fight" a battle that you know (enough, at the best of your knowledge) you can't win is a Good act, but only a stubborn stupid act.
The classic Stupid Good attitude a lot of players expect to see in action when a paladin is involved in the campaign.

A senseless sacrifice is just that: senseless.

An act can be Good without requiring that everyone Good take it.

That said, I've never said a fight that's impossible to win. I said "to fight a little longer even though it would certainly cause your death." Like in the pre-battle talk with Haley, when it comes to actual war, even people on the winning side will die. For example, Kraagor's sacrifice.

When your goal is "saving lives" there can even be degrees of success. You can save more people, even when you can't save all of the people.

[dancrilis]

Can I get some further explanation on this?

I think I kinda get it, like a discussion about V's Familicide and whether the evil creatures vanquished outweigh the good or something like that?

But I didn't see anything about it in the Forum Rules, so if someone who understands better could clarify for me, just so I know in the future, I'd appreciate that.

Possibly a better question for a moderator rather then to the public but the following quotes may cover it:

Sheriff of Moddingham: A while back the OotS subforum suffered a rash of "Is X morally justified?" threads. Soon, there was such a thread about everything you can imagine, parodies of such threads, and a thread about whether starting such a thread is morally justified (the inevitable meta-humor thread). These were promptly locked as somewhat spammy and threatening to overwhelm the subforum.

These were locked to prevent the forum from being overrun by endless morality disputes and parodies thereof. Like the more recent round, no one is receiving Infractions (or even Warnings) over these. It's more a matter of good forum administration than rule enforcement. We haven't added any rules, but then again, we're not willing to have a bunch of morally justified threads taking up the whole OotS subforum again.

As one of those threads notes:
"At this time, we have a moratorium on threads whose sole discussion point is whether a certain character was "morally justified" in taking a certain action in the comic."

No one's going to get Warnings or Infractions over it unless they seem to be purposefully trolling or something. Just avoid starting threads on that because they're likely to be locked, as are threads that become about it.

Roland is right, but I wanted to give some additional explanation as to what constitutes a "morally justified" thread.

"Alignment" is a feature of a game system with a reasonably strict set of guidelines; "moral justification" is a feature of the real world with no such clarity. If your discussion of a character's alignment veers so far afield from the game definitions that only real-world judgments and examples are being used, then you're not discussing alignment anymore, you're discussing morality. And in-depth discussions of personal real-world morality almost always tread into the no-politics/no-religion end of the pool.

Likewise, if everyone on your thread agrees that a character would have a listed alignment of Evil before a ten-page debate begins on his actions, then you are not discussing his alignment anymore. If you are attacking or defending a fictional character for being who they are, you are engaging in a "morally justified" debate, not a discussion of their alignment.

The locked thread regarding Tarquin began from the premise that Tarquin was Evil and then went on to discuss whether or not his evil actions were acceptable. It sought to argue that Tarquin shouldn't be admired by readers because he had committed evil acts, which is essentially one poster telling other posters that they should follow his own personal moral compass. It then followed with various posters defending Tarquin's actions, often through real-world benchmarks, even while acknowledging that he had "Evil" written on his character sheet. Thus, it was not substantially a debate about his alignment, but about whether having such an alignment was a positive or negative thing in either a character or a leader. In other words, whether being Lawful Evil was morally justified.

Hopefully, that makes things a bit clearer. As far as announcing it as a specific rule, we mostly see it as falling under the heading of no-politics/no-religion, or, in some cases, of telling other posters what to do (in this case, what to believe), both of which are already established rules. However, maybe we'll tweak the wording in the Rules of Posting to make it more clear. As Roland said, though, we are not currently infracting people for straying into this territory on account of it being a borderline case. If we enshrine it in the rules, we will begin doing so.

[Good Coyote]

Possibly a better question for a moderator rather then to the public but the following quotes may cover it:

Very true, but yes, thanks for pointing me to those quotes.

[Riftwolf]

I think what many people are not getting is that Serini doesn't think destroying any gate was alright as long as there were others standing. In her opinion, destroying any gate at all unacceptably increases the risk of oblivion. For her, this cavalier attitude that there are other gates so it doesn't matter is incredibly reckless and irresponsible. And frankly, she has a point. It's hard to argue with her when that attitude has led to a single gate standing between reality and oblivion. There's no safety net for accidents anymore.

The notion that Serini is willing to sacrifice the world runs contrary to what the comic is explicitly telling us.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Remember that Serini is acting on incomplete information, like everyone in this comic. She doesn't know Redcloaks plan, or even regard him as a great threat compared to Xykon (understandable, as Redcloak didn't maim her), so her plan (let Xykon be an evil tyrant for a few decades before some better chuckleheads topple him) makes sense to her. We know all the reasons it'll fail, but then we've been following the band of morons who popped the shirt of the universe down to its last button and think the Order are somehow the heroes of the tale.

[Shadowknight12]

If Serini was truly Evil-aligned, she would not waste time with non-lethal methods when lethal ones would suffice. She would kill and soul-trap when it would be advantageous to do so, or use mind-control potions (like love potion variants) in combination with the amnesia potion to ensure her captives follow her orders and report back the lies she wants them to believe.

I think Serini is either Good or Neutral aligned, though I am still 50/50 on which of the two she is.

[Liquor Box]

No. Not that she hasn't done it yet. That she does not intend to ever. It is not entirely speculative, it is based on my interpretation of her dialogue that I quoted.

We absolutely have evidence that she could be able to escape if she had dedicated her resources to prepare. There's no reason Julio should be able to do it and not her.

Belkar has not known about the Snarl for decades. He does not have a dungeon made of multidimensional stone and magic items out the wazoo. If it came down to the line, between the perfect easy choice to escape and certain death to keep fighting just a little bit longer, and Belkar chose to stay and fight, then yes, that action would be Good.

This is not an argument that Serini is Good. This is an argument that valuing others' lives above your own is a Good act.

Then, we discuss Good (and Evil, and Neutral) acts and words as evidence of people's alignments. Since no single act is ever conclusive, we would have nothing to discuss, if we threw out every single action that anyone ever took.

On your point that valuing others' life above your own being usually good, I agree. But I don't yet see any evidence (or even any hint) that Serini does this.

Your argument seems to be that because of her wealth she is able to afford plane shift, but from that perspecitve so does Belkar. Plane shift costs 1125gp, which is a small amount of money for someone of Belkar's level - he could trade his boots of jumping for the spell. So this does not create a distinction between her and Belkar.

You suggested that you were interpreting some text in the comic as supporting what you were saying - which piece of text was it?

If Serini was truly Evil-aligned, she would not waste time with non-lethal methods when lethal ones would suffice. She would kill and soul-trap when it would be advantageous to do so, or use mind-control potions (like love potion variants) in combination with the amnesia potion to ensure her captives follow her orders and report back the lies she wants them to believe.

I think Serini is either Good or Neutral aligned, though I am still 50/50 on which of the two she is.

Really? You think kidnappers who do not kill their victims tend to be good aligned? Even Xykon imprisoned O-Chul when he could conveniently have killed him (or soul trapped him or whatever).I appreciate that he also taunted him and harmed him (more seriously than Serini's bops on the head), but even had he merely kept him prisoner I don't think we'd be calling it non-evil.

To be sure that kidnapping is a lessor evil than killing, but it is still generally an evil act nonetheless.

There may be exceptions, like if kidnapping someone is necessary for some greater good, but I don't think that's true in Serini's case.

[Shadowknight12]

Really? You think kidnappers who do not kill their victims tend to be good aligned? Even Xykon imprisoned O-Chul when he could conveniently have killed him (or soul trapped him or whatever).I appreciate that he also taunted him and harmed him (more seriously than Serini's bops on the head), but even had he merely kept him prisoner I don't think we'd be calling it non-evil.

To be sure that kidnapping is a lessor evil than killing, but it is still generally an evil act nonetheless.

There may be exceptions, like if kidnapping someone is necessary for some greater good, but I don't think that's true in Serini's case.

Evil usually has no moral compunctions against killing, only practical or sentimental ones, and I don't think Serini spared the paladins out of sentimentality, so if she was truly evil, she would've spared them only out of practicality, because killing them would have made matters worse. That's an argument that could be made, she could know the Sapphire Guard would simply send more after O-Chul and Lien. However, she has no way of guaranteeing that the Sapphire Guard would have listened and not just sent more paladins to double-check, maybe with spellcasters in tow.