Serini: Good or Evil?

[sihnfahl]

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?

Because the monitoring system told them that the Gate was destroyed. But while having a major force available, they didn't find and destroy the individual(s) who destroyed the gate after the fact.

Perhaps this analogy with a police force and an organized bank robbery gang? Gang holds up one of the five major banks in a city, takes all the stuff and burns the bank to the ground.

The cops know a bank was robbed and destroyed ... but, instead of finding the robbers, they did effectively squat while the robbers hit three more banks and burn THEM to the ground over the course of several months.

[Kardwill]

But, Roy still attacks people head on. Sneak attack, by definition, is dirty fighting, and dirty fighting is not Lawful.

In the comic you referenced, Roy is planning to ambush the ogres and orders Haley to sneak attack them, before Miko blows his plan up. Not what I'd call "attacking head on". The man is willing to take any advantage he can get in combat to stay alive, as long as it doesn't hurt innocents. That strikes me as "sane" rather than "chaotic"

Hell, in the first few comics, you see him killing sleeping goblins. I don't know if those comics are canon anymore, but it's not easy to fight "dirtier" than that.

EDIT : Slow-motion-ninjaed by Ruck. I didn't see the conversation was 3 days old ^^

[Good Coyote]

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?

Belkar is capable of Good actions, and we have seen him do so, so the idea that he theoretically may be taking this one too does not actually change the discussion at all.

Serini does not just have resources. She has had decades to plan, and has used them for planning.

The one that I originally quoted. "[Existing] was fun." I explained already what I think it implies.

I want to reiterate that I am not arguing Serini is Good. I am not even trying to convince you that she has taken a Good action. I am responding specifically to your statement that such a line of opinion is "misguided."

By which I mean, I am clear at which points I am speculating, which point is an interpretation, etc. All discussion here comes with an assumed asterisk: *pending further information. There's plenty of room for reasonable people to interpret otherwise. That does not make my opinion misguided (ill-conceived or not thought out), nor does it mean I am taking a "starting point [that] she's good" and "contriv[ing] a set of circumstances that make the actions we have seen seem good."

[Dr.Zero]

Hell, in the first few comics, you see him killing sleeping goblins. I don't know if those comics are canon anymore, but it's not easy to fight "dirtier" than that.

EDIT : Slow-motion-ninjaed by Ruck. I didn't see the conversation was 3 days old ^^

Yeah, well, I was going to make that same exact example if I hadn't seen you doing it.
I blame the people who writes their reasonings pages before that I start to (re)read the thread.

[Liquor Box]

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.

I don't agree with your opening assertion. I think you can be evil and never kill anyone. I think there are a variety of terrible actions which fall short of killing, but are still evil. If you think of the most serious sex crimes, often it would be in one's interest to kill the victim to avoid identification, but often that does not happen - but I think we can agree it is still an evil act.

In my opinion kidnapping is in the same category. It may be less evil than killing the paladins, but it is still evil, unless there is a good justification for it (which has been the subject of much argument in a previous thread). One need not make speculative arguments about avoiding further paladins coming.

Belkar is capable of Good actions, and we have seen him do so, so the idea that he theoretically may be taking this one too does not actually change the discussion at all.

True. But I think what several people were saying was that Serini was trying to save the world so she must be good.

If your point is that Belkar trying to save the world and Serini trying to save the world are both good actions to be balanced against any mischief they caused, I think that is a reasonable position (although not the only reasonable one)

Serini does not just have resources. She has had decades to plan, and has used them for planning.

You don't need decades to plan for a plane switch - we have seen characters do it on an impulse. All you need is the means to afford it, and a city or similar to buy it from. Serini and Belkar have both presumably had both since each learned about the threat of the snarl.

The one that I originally quoted. "[Existing] was fun." I explained already what I think it implies.

I disagree that implies anything more than that she is relaxed about the possibility of dieing. I don't think it suggests she has an another option (if anything it counts against it). I could imagine Belkar sayign the same thing, and I don't think it would change anyone's opinion of his alignment.

I want to reiterate that I am not arguing Serini is Good. I am not even trying to convince you that she has taken a Good action. I am responding specifically to your statement that such a line of opinion is "misguided."

Well if she has not taken a good action, then the argument that she is good because she took that action is indeed misguided.

But perhaps you are right, and I overstated things. Perhaps it would have been better for me to simply question whether those who are suggesting Serini is good because she is trying to save the world have a similar opinion about Belkar's efforts to save the world, given both seem to have a personal interest in that outcome.

[Shadowknight12]

I don't agree with your opening assertion. I think you can be evil and never kill anyone. I think there are a variety of serious crimes which fall short of killing, but are still evil. If you think of the most serious sex crimes, often it would be in one's interest to kill the victim to avoid identification, but often that does not happen - but I think we can agree it is still an evil act.

In my opinion kidnapping is in the same category. It may be less evil than killing the paladins, but it is still evil, unless there is a good justification for it (which has been the subject of much argument in a previous thread). One need not make speculative arguments about avoiding further paladins coming.

You can absolutely be evil without killing anyone, I just said that as an evil person you wouldn't care if you had to kill people for whatever reason. And Serini, in her defense of the Gate, is actively choosing to go for non-lethal methods rather than murder. And honestly, given how well informed she is about the events of Soon's Gate? She would know the Sapphire Guard is almost gone and that Azure City has been near-decimated. Even if killing the paladins would get more people sent after them, there may not be enough high-level (or even mid-level) characters to send after them.

Sending the paladins back with their memories wiped is not risk-free, and an intelligent-enough advisor to Hinjo might realize what truly happened to them, so killing them might actually be the "safest" bet. But she chose not to.

[Liquor Box]

You can absolutely be evil without killing anyone, I just said that as an evil person you wouldn't care if you had to kill people for whatever reason. And Serini, in her defense of the Gate, is actively choosing to go for non-lethal methods rather than murder. And honestly, given how well informed she is about the events of Soon's Gate? She would know the Sapphire Guard is almost gone and that Azure City has been near-decimated. Even if killing the paladins would get more people sent after them, there may not be enough high-level (or even mid-level) characters to send after them.

Sending the paladins back with their memories wiped is not risk-free, and an intelligent-enough advisor to Hinjo might realize what truly happened to them, so killing them might actually be the "safest" bet. But she chose not to.

But Serinie doesn't have to kill anyone. Like a lot of kidnappers or other such people it may be more convenient for her to do so, but like a lot of those people (who are generally committing evil acts) she has actively chosen not to do so. Like with Serini, leaving their victims alive is not risk free, so killing them might be the criminal's safest bet, but they choose not to.

For the above reason's I'm afraid I'm struggling to accept your suggesting that kidnapping someone and not killing them (even assuming it's safer to do so) is actually good and not evil. That would suggest a lot of serious criminals are actually good.

[Shadowknight12]

But Serinie doesn't have to kill anyone. Like a lot of kidnappers or other criminals it may be more convenient for her to do so, but like a lot of those people (who are generally committing evil acts) she has actively chosen not to do so. Like with Serini, leaving their victims alive is not risk free, so killing them might be the criminal's safest bet, but they choose not to.

For the above reason's I'm afraid I'm struggling to accept your suggesting that kidnapping someone and not killing them (even assuming it's safer to do so) is actually good and not evil. That would suggest a lot of serious criminals are actually good.

You are confusing legality with morality. Not everything that is illegal is also evil. Rogues like Haley and Serini (I'm not touching "criminals" because it may stray too close to the forum rules) may do acts like lying, kidnapping and stealing, which may be good, bad or neutral depending on the context, intent and goal.

[Liquor Box]

You are confusing legality with morality. Not everything that is illegal is also evil. Rogues like Haley and Serini (I'm not touching "criminals" because it may stray too close to the forum rules) may do acts like lying, kidnapping and stealing, which may be good, bad or neutral depending on the context, intent and goal.

No, I don't think I am. I appreciate that there are things that are illegal that may well be immoral. What I am referring to are the sorts of things that I am assuming we can agree are almost always evil, even in a fantasy story context - the worst sorts of sex crimes is the example I gave before. I suggest it would be a strawman to read my post above as criminal meaning "steal, possibly where the context excuses it" instead of "commits a heinous action"

But to restate it. Lots of people commit heinous crimes and make the choice not to follow up with murder despite it being convenient (and minimising risk) to do so. That does not make the heinous thing a good act and not an evil one.

Is kidnapping such an act? Often (although not so extreme as the example I gave), but it does indeed depend on context. Which puts us back to the question of whether circumstances justified Serini's drugging and kidnapping of the paladins. But to say it was actually evidence of her goodness simply because she didn't kill them is a stretch.

If someone drugged you, kidnapped you, hit you and taunted you with false promises of escape, then ultimately gave you roofies and let you go - would that show that they were good because they didn't kill you (despite it being more convenient for them to do so)?

[Shadowknight12]

If someone drugged you, kidnapped you, hit you and taunted you with false promises of escape, then ultimately gave you roofies and let you go - would that show that they were good because they didn't kill you (despite it being more convenient for them to do so)?

If it would have been more convenient for them to kill me? Yes, I would assume so. They sure went through a lot of trouble to leave me alive and it may possibly come back to bite them in the future, so I would assume some sort of moral compunction against killing me.

[Liquor Box]

If it would have been more convenient for them to kill me? Yes, I would assume so. They sure went through a lot of trouble to leave me alive and it may possibly come back to bite them in the future, so I would assume some sort of moral compunction against killing me.

It may be that we need to agree to disagree on that point then. To me the idea that someone is actually doing a good thing if they commit a heinous act that would otherwise be widely accepted as evil but forgo the convenient option of killing their victim is pretty hard to swallow. I mean if a moral compunction against killing is all you need to be able to do whatever else you want...

[Shadowknight12]

It may be that we need to agree to disagree on that point then. To me the idea that someone is actually doing a good thing if they commit a crime that would otherwise be widely accepted as evil but forgo the convenient option of killing their victim is pretty hard to swallow.

I am not claiming Serini is Good, just open to the possibility. I am willing to believe she's Neutral as well. As I said in my first post in this thread, I am 50/50 on whether she's one or the other, but I don't believe her to be Evil at all.

I think her ultimate goal is definitely Good-aligned (preventing the destruction of the world and guarding the last Gate), she has empathy towards monster races and she values saving innocents (she counters Lien's assertion about innocents not surviving with "a lot more will though"), which leads me to believe she does have overall good intentions. She might be too jaded and practical to be truly Good, but we'll see.

[Liquor Box]

I am not claiming Serini is Good, just open to the possibility. I am willing to believe she's Neutral as well. As I said in my first post in this thread, I am 50/50 on whether she's one or the other, but I don't believe her to be Evil at all.

I think her ultimate goal is definitely Good-aligned (preventing the destruction of the world and guarding the last Gate), she has empathy towards monster races and she values saving innocents (she counters Lien's assertion about innocents not surviving with "a lot more will though"), which leads me to believe she does have overall good intentions. She might be too jaded and practical to be truly Good, but we'll see.

Yes apologies, you only went so far as to suggest she wasn't evil. Then what we will have to agree to disagree about is that doing something that would otherwise be widely accepted as evil, but then refraining from killing your victim renders the act was not evil.

The second part of your post is more compelling than the "but she didn't kill the ones she kidnapped" argument, but most of those points probably apply to Belkar as well. Whether those later points outwiegh her kidnapping of the order, YMMV.

I do agree that she will probably ultimately turn out to be something other than evil from a narrative perspective, but based on her actions so far alone, i'm not convinced.

[Jason]

It is the motivation and context behind this "kidnapping" (and "kidnapping" is not really the right word for dealing with trespassers) that makes the act non-evil. A typical kidnapping is done for some kind of selfish gain - money, sex, or just the kick of exerting power over someone. Serini is protecting the existence of the world and the souls of everyone on it. She is only drugging and imprisoning the paladins because they are a threat to the world's existence, and she has every intention of letting them go once they are no longer a threat.
This is a world where the easiest and most typical response to threats, for both good and evil alignments, is to kill them outright, so Serini is showing an unusual respect for life in going so out of her way to take them alive and release them safely afterwards.
In other words in this context her actions are not evil. Quite the opposite.

[Ionathus]

Is kidnapping such an act? Often (although not so extreme as the example I gave), but it does indeed depend on context. Which puts us back to the question of whether circumstances justified Serini's drugging and kidnapping of the paladins. But to say it was actually evidence of her goodness simply because she didn't kill them is a stretch.

I agree -- nothing Serini has done (outside of choosing to defend the Gate at great personal risk rather than Plane Shifting) is actually evidence of being Good. However, I do think it's evidence of being Not Evil. Even if evil people sometimes don't kill inconvenient trespassers, the majority do. It is a tendency of evil people to be ruthless and to take the most convenient & efficient option when dealing with complications like this.

You have a good point that killing them might draw attention & more paladins from the Azurites. However, I don't feel that fully justifies the amount of work she's undertaking to subdue and mind-wipe everybody. It would still be quicker and easier to kill them. The fact that she didn't take the quickest and easiest option should be taken as evidence (probably not full proof) in favor of non-Evil alignment.

Also, I still think you're misconstruing this as a kidnapping.

Serini is effectively "in charge" up here. She's appointed herself to defend the gate. She is "The Law" in her own mind, and I think you'd be hard pressed to claim there's some other nation-state in charge up here in the wilderness*.

People get captured for trespassing all the time, especially in fantasy. Faramir does the same thing to Frodo & Sam in LotR, and that's definitely not portrayed as Evil. Serini's on her home turf here, and the paladins are trespassing. Would that hold up in a court of law? Probably not. But this isn't about whether her actions would be legal in the real world, it's about whether her actions are moral in the context of the story. And I don't see any proof that her behavior is morally reprehensible. It's rude, it's dismissive, it's arrogant, it's stubborn. But character flaws don't make you Evil.

*The bugbears may have counted once upon a time, but since they've allied with Team Evil, they're now more of an invading army with regards to the gate.

[Jason]

People get captured for trespassing all the time, especially in fantasy. Faramir does the same thing to Frodo & Sam in LotR, and that's definitely not portrayed as Evil.

Frodo and Sam were trespassing in Gondor, breaking a law that no one is authorized to enter the territory of Ithilien without the leave of the Steward of Gondor on pain of death. Capturing and interrogating Frodo and Sam, and then letting them go was in fact illegal, but Faramir had some discretion as commander of the forces of Gondor in Ithilien and the legal representative of the Steward of Gondor on the scene.

[Ionathus]

Frodo and Sam were trespassing in Gondor, breaking a law that no one is authorized to enter the territory of Ithilien without the leave of the Steward of Gondor on pain of death. Capturing and interrogating Frodo and Sam, and then letting them go was in fact illegal, but Faramir had some discretion as commander of the forces of Gondor in Ithilien and the legal representative of the Steward of Gondor on the scene.

Thanks for the context: I was going by the movies, as I only read the books long ago. Faramir might be a bad example as it sounds a little too official to be a good comparison.

[Good Coyote]

True. But I think what several people were saying was that Serini was trying to save the world so she must be good.

I haven't seen a lot of this myself. What I've seen is a lot of people replying to more nuanced positions as though this was what the person was claiming, and giving the impression that they had not read very carefully. But I understand that either way, you respond to your impression and I respond to mine.

If your point is that Belkar trying to save the world and Serini trying to save the world are both good actions to be balanced against any mischief they caused, I think that is a reasonable position (although not the only reasonable one)

Sort of. I agree that it is possible for someone to do something that leads to the prolonging of the world and have it technically not count for Good points somehow. For example, Hilgya helped but I would agree it was not in a way that bumped her up in the polls. There is less evidence that Belkar is taking a clear heroic action than there is for Serini. But it's not impossible, and it's irrelevant to the situation with Serini whether there is or not.

You don't need decades to plan for a plane switch - we have seen characters do it on an impulse. All you need is the means to afford it, and a city or similar to buy it from. Serini and Belkar have both presumably had both since each learned about the threat of the snarl.

So, again, you're just arguing that Belkar is heroic too. (Or even more heroic than Serini?) Not that Serini is not doing something heroic. These don't cancel out.

You also seem to be supporting part of my point, which is that Serini definitely could have done this if she chose to.

On the topic of Belkar doing something heroic (everything here is irrelevant to Serini): we don't actually know in OotS-world whether it's always easy to buy a spell. V struggled with a booster pack joke. In an actual world, some spells are more rare, some spells are out of stock. Some people are hogging all the good ones. Magic items are even less simple. Hilgya could do it immediately because she can cast the spell herself, and didn't even have to find it, just asked Loki. Julio could do it immediately because that's just the kind of guy he is. He wasn't planning for the Snarl specifically, but he's a planning kind of character. (Like Serini.)

Belkar only got into this "thinking ahead" stuff fairly recently, and has also only more recently learned about the Snarl. In the time after that, he's been trapped in the Azure City Resistance, suffering beneath a Mark of Justice, and... heading off on his own to get a broach of Protection From Evil. It's possible (though we don't know for sure) that Belkar actually has lined up an escape route. Although getting a magic item is more expensive and rare than a spell, it's true that he was in a big city. I'm more inclined to think "either he did or he forgot or he didnt have an option to." But it is a distinct possibility that he was fully capable and chose to pass it up because he only had enough time for the Protection from Evil broach and killing Durkula was more important.

You could dismiss all of Belkar's recent development and say that he was only motivated out of bloodthirst, or he picked spite over his own life or something like that.. But personally I would see that as a heroic choice. Maybe I'm too much like Hinjo, but there it is.

I disagree that implies anything more than that she is relaxed about the possibility of dieing. I don't think it suggests she has an another option (if anything it counts against it). I could imagine Belkar sayign the same thing, and I don't think it would change anyone's opinion of his alignment.

You are certainly free to interpret differently, but I'm not sure that you are, because I absolutely agree that it means she does not have another option! She does not have another option because she has not lined one up. This suggests she chose over several decades (or even just the few years since Xykon showed up and became a real threat) to devote all of her resources to defending everyone's survival, rather than taking some of those resources to ensure her own.

Belkar could indeed say the same thing, in that he doesn't have an escape (we presume). Roy could as well, it reminds me a lot of his "so this is it. this is what us losing looks like." speech. Which was met by a rejoinder from Belkar that he still had time to Plane Shift to Celia and ride it out if he wanted to - which Roy rejected, which was Good.

Well if she has not taken a good action, then the argument that she is good because she took that action is indeed misguided.

But perhaps you are right, and I overstated things. Perhaps it would have been better for me to simply question whether those who are suggesting Serini is good because she is trying to save the world have a similar opinion about Belkar's efforts to save the world, given both seem to have a personal interest in that outcome.

Yes. For both Serini and Belkar, it is something I put on the table and consider alongside all other info that we get.

For neither one can we say for absolutely sure (yet) what decisions they made and whether they will stick by those decisions when it comes down to it or have ever changed their minds. But I can see what I think is the most probable shape of the story, pending further revelations.

I did think that Serini's likelihood of making a heroic choice was higher than Belkar's, given her extreme amount of resources and greater time and savviness. (For example, at one point I thought "what if she planned to escape with Girard's people, who almost certainly had an escape plan imo, but now doesn't have that option?" but now I think that she is portrayed as far too worldwise to be relying on somebody else if self-preservation by that route was really important to her.) But tbh you've swayed me in Belkar's favor here.

Of course, since we know Belkar is also a slaver and mass murderer, then even if we go ahead and put a noble choice on the table, it doesn't mean as much on my impression of his alignment. There are many other things to balance against.

For Serini, I do the same thing. I put it on the table along with everything else we know. Since we know fewer other things, it has a greater weight on my impression of her alignment. (Which is Good or Neutral, by the way.) But I am still doing the same thing in both Serini's and Belkar's cases.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I'm gonna throw my hat into the ring (Is that even a saying??) and say bang on Neutral. But I agree with her lol. Better a world ruled by Xykon than say.. no world at all.

[brian 333]

What both posters on the previous page have overlooked is that Serini has a stated intent in keeping the paladins alive: to send them back to their masters with misinformation. Therefore, not killing them cannot be used as evidence of any alignment position, (except, arguably, not LG.)

[Jason]

What both posters on the previous page have overlooked is that Serini has a stated intent in keeping the paladins alive: to send them back to their masters with misinformation. Therefore, not killing them cannot be used as evidence of any alignment position, (except, arguably, not LG.)

And what will be her excuse for knocking out the Order instead of killing them?

[Shadowknight12]

What both posters on the previous page have overlooked is that Serini has a stated intent in keeping the paladins alive: to send them back to their masters with misinformation. Therefore, not killing them cannot be used as evidence of any alignment position, (except, arguably, not LG.)

If that refers to me, I actually did not overlook it, I included it in my calculations here:

And honestly, given how well informed she is about the events of Soon's Gate? She would know the Sapphire Guard is almost gone and that Azure City has been near-decimated. Even if killing the paladins would get more people sent after them, there may not be enough high-level (or even mid-level) characters to send after them.

Sending the paladins back with their memories wiped is not risk-free, and an intelligent-enough advisor to Hinjo might realize what truly happened to them, so killing them might actually be the "safest" bet. But she chose not to.

Sending back paladins with misinformation is not a foolproof strategy, nor is it necessarily the best strategy to guarantee zero return visitors, given the current state of Azure City.

[Liquor Box]

It is the motivation and context behind this "kidnapping" (and "kidnapping" is not really the right word for dealing with trespassers) that makes the act non-evil. A typical kidnapping is done for some kind of selfish gain - money, sex, or just the kick of exerting power over someone. Serini is protecting the existence of the world and the souls of everyone on it. She is only drugging and imprisoning the paladins because they are a threat to the world's existence, and she has every intention of letting them go once they are no longer a threat.
This is a world where the easiest and most typical response to threats, for both good and evil alignments, is to kill them outright, so Serini is showing an unusual respect for life in going so out of her way to take them alive and release them safely afterwards.
In other words in this context her actions are not evil. Quite the opposite.

Trespassers? They were observing the canyon from telescope distance, and its an area that a bugbear tribe shares with Serini. What from the comic makes you think watching this diversely populated canyon from a distance is trespassing. Serini hasn't even claimed that herself.

I could accept Serini's kidnapping of the paladins as justified if she actually had reasonable grounds to believe they were a threat, and if kidnapping them was the only way (or the least intrusive way to deal with them. If the paladins had seen Serini before she saw them, would them drugging, kidnapping and tying her up (and bopping her a few times) ok? Because I think there's just as good of an argument that Srini is a threat to the gate as the paladins.

I agree -- nothing Serini has done (outside of choosing to defend the Gate at great personal risk rather than Plane Shifting) is actually evidence of being Good. However, I do think it's evidence of being Not Evil. Even if evil people sometimes don't kill inconvenient trespassers, the majority do. It is a tendency of evil people to be ruthless and to take the most convenient & efficient option when dealing with complications like this.

I'm going to need a source your assertion that the majority of evil people kill innocent trespassers.

I could probably find a source that most kidnappers do not kill their victims if you like?

You have a good point that killing them might draw attention & more paladins from the Azurites. However, I don't feel that fully justifies the amount of work she's undertaking to subdue and mind-wipe everybody. It would still be quicker and easier to kill them. The fact that she didn't take the quickest and easiest option should be taken as evidence (probably not full proof) in favor of non-Evil alignment.

That wasn't actually my point. That was something ShadowKnight said. I tend to agree that it's not an obvious reason not to kill them. A more obvious reason is whatever reason most kidnappers have for not killing their vicitms.

Also, I still think you're misconstruing this as a kidnapping.

I'd be happy to discuss. The definition is "the action of abducting someone and holding them captive" Abduct means to "take someone by force or deception without lawful authority".

Serini is effectively "in charge" up here. She's appointed herself to defend the gate. She is "The Law" in her own mind, and I think you'd be hard pressed to claim there's some other nation-state in charge up here in the wilderness*.

Well, whoever leads the Bugbear tribe is probably closer to being in charge - their authority is at least recognised by someone other than themselves.

But even if not, that doesn't make her in charge. if you go into the wilderness and say "it's mine" that doesn't make it so

{quote]People get captured for trespassing all the time, especially in fantasy. Faramir does the same thing to Frodo & Sam in LotR, and that's definitely not portrayed as Evil. Serini's on her home turf here, and the paladins are trespassing. Would that hold up in a court of law? Probably not. But this isn't about whether her actions would be legal in the real world, it's about whether her actions are moral in the context of the story. And I don't see any proof that her behavior is morally reprehensible. It's rude, it's dismissive, it's arrogant, it's stubborn. But character flaws don't make you Evil. [/quote]

Not trespassing - even if she does own the canyon, observing it from a distance would not be trespassing.

I think you have the onus wrong here. Kidnapping someone is evil (although not so evil as murdering them) on its face. Someone would need to show justification for the kidnapping for it not to be evil (or proof that it was not morally reprehensible as you put it).

*The bugbears may have counted once upon a time, but since they've allied with Team Evil, they're now more of an invading army with regards to the gate.

How do you figure this? The bugbears allied with someone so thereafter their home is no longer their home so now they're invaders? That's even more of a stretch then "she says she's in charge, so she is".

I haven't seen a lot of this myself. What I've seen is a lot of people replying to more nuanced positions as though this was what the person was claiming, and giving the impression that they had not read very carefully. But I understand that either way, you respond to your impression and I respond to mine.

Maybe you are right, and I didn't read carefully enough.

Sort of. I agree that it is possible for someone to do something that leads to the prolonging of the world and have it technically not count for Good points somehow. For example, Hilgya helped but I would agree it was not in a way that bumped her up in the polls. There is less evidence that Belkar is taking a clear heroic action than there is for Serini. But it's not impossible, and it's irrelevant to the situation with Serini whether there is or not.

So, again, you're just arguing that Belkar is heroic too. (Or even more heroic than Serini?) Not that Serini is not doing something heroic. These don't cancel out.

I guess I just think that people are applying a bit of double standard. When the argument was about Belkar most people were pretty vehement that saving the world didn't make him not evil. Yet when Serini does it, it's seen as indicating she's not evil. In my opinion, the reasons for saying the two things are different don't add up.

If you think that Belkar and Serini are both acting heoricly and adding points to their good column, then that's a consistent positon, and a pretty reasonable one.

[Jason]

Trespassers? They were observing the canyon from telescope distance, and its an area that a bugbear tribe shares with Serini. What from the comic makes you think watching this diversely populated canyon from a distance is trespassing. Serini hasn't even claimed that herself.

I could accept Serini's kidnapping of the paladins as justified if she actually had reasonable grounds to believe they were a threat, and if kidnapping them was the only way (or the least intrusive way to deal with them. If the paladins had seen Serini before she saw them, would them drugging, kidnapping and tying her up (and bopping her a few times) ok? Because I think there's just as good of an argument that Srini is a threat to the gate as the paladins.

She correctly identified them as paladins of the Sapphire Guard, and in fact they were there to try to interfere with Xykon's attempt to find the gate. The fact that they were being cautious first doesn't change that. Serini correctly identified who they were and what they were doing before she decided to attack them.

Knocking them out, imprisoning them, and then doping them with an amnesia potion and sending them on their way is in fact not the least complicated way of dealing with them - far from it. It is one of the least intrusive way that spares their lives while eliminating them as a threat, however. Going out of your way to spare the life of a threat is a good-aligned action.

Contrast with Oona, who attacked them and tried to kill them just because they were humans and never had any idea why they were there or who they were.

There is a good argument to be made that Serini is taking the wrong actions in her attempt to protect the gate, and that she is in fact further endangering it by attacking the paladins and the Order. That is not, however, an argument that she is evil-aligned.

But even if not, that doesn't make her in charge. if you go into the wilderness and say "it's mine" that doesn't make it so

Actually yes, that is how someone legally claims previously-unclaimed wilderness territory. Move in and build permanent structures, then defend your staked-out territory from trespassers.

You could argue that it was claimed by the bugbears first, but we don't know for certain if they moved into the area after Serini did. In fact it seems likely that the bugbears moved in because they saw Monster Hollow as a resource, so they probably did arrive second.

I think you have the onus wrong here. Kidnapping someone is evil (although not so evil as murdering them) on its face. Someone would need to show justification for the kidnapping for it not to be evil (or proof that it was not morally reprehensible as you put it).

Kidnapping for ransom or to abuse the victim is of course evil, but that is not what Serini is doing here. Labelling it "kidnapping" presupposes that it is an evil act. It puts the cart before the horse.

I guess I just think that people are applying a bit of double standard. When the argument was about Belkar most people were pretty vehement that saving the world didn't make him not evil. Yet when Serini does it, it's seen as indicating she's not evil. In my opinion, the reasons for saying the two things are different don't add up.

Coercion is the difference. When Belkar was being forced (with the alternative being imprisonment) to come along on the quest to save the world it wasn't earning him any brownie points. Serini has devoted herself and her fortune to protecting the gate for decades, and with no expectation of any reward or recognition for doing so. That is not an evil action.

If you think that Belkar and Serini are both acting heoricly and adding points to their good column, then that's a consistent positon, and a pretty reasonable one.

And now that he is no longer being coerced, but is coming along and being helpful of his own free will Belkar is in fact moving towards good.

[brian 333]

And what will be her excuse for knocking out the Order instead of killing them?

They are a part of the paladins' group. She knows they have been in communication. If the paladins return without their henchman, they will instantly turn around and go looking for them.

Not killing the paladins so she can use them is not proof of Good motives. Or Evil. Or Chaotic. Or even Lawful.

I could even make a case that the misinformation is being used for the Greater Good, so unless you subscribe to the 'LG never lie' philosophy, you can't even exclude that alignment as a possibility.

[dancrilis]

I could accept Serini's kidnapping of the paladins as justified if she actually had reasonable grounds to believe they were a threat,

Soon (and by extension the Sapphire Guard) agreed to a monitoring device on the gates and further agreed there would be no spying, no just checking in visits, no nothing.

The commander of the Sapphire Guard breached that leading directly to the loss of one gate (arguable two), and the next commander of the Sapphire Guard signed off on his paladins preforming a just 'checking in visit' on her gate - justifing it by effectively saying that it didn't apply because he had failed to protect his own gate.

They are in breach of the agreement as such she is justified in seeking to enforce the agreement - whether they are a threat or not is effectively seperate.

[Ailurus]

Soon (and by extension the Sapphire Guard) agreed to a monitoring device on the gates and further agreed there would be no spying, no just checking in visits, no nothing.

The commander of the Sapphire Guard breached that leading directly to the loss of one gate (arguable two), and the next commander of the Sapphire Guard signed off on his paladins preforming a just 'checking in visit' on her gate - justifing it by effectively saying that it didn't apply because he had failed to protect his own gate.

They are in breach of the agreement as such she is justified in seeking to enforce the agreement - whether they are a threat or not is effectively seperate.

You mean Serini breached the agreement.

Yes, Shojo sent paladins out to Lirian's gate after it was burned down to try to ID the threat. And he was planning on sending OOTS out to the other gates to check on them. But that is the exact same thing Serini did - after Lirian and Dorukan's gates fell, she was in some way actively spying on at least Soon's gate (and possibly Girard's gate though we don't have evidence one way or another), otherwise she wouldn't have known that O'chul's sword broke the gate. The only differences are:

1) Shojo was planning on investigating active gates (using OOTS), while Serini actually did it

2) Serini was party to the agreement, while Shojo inherited the agreement (which was made before he was born in all likelihood) from his dad, who inherited it from his friend (and that holds for every living member of the Sapphire Guard as well)

Trying to say "well, the paladins broke the agreement, so they're a threat to the gates" is meaningless unless you're also willing to use that same reasoning to declare Serini herself as a threat to the gates, because she did the same exact thing.

[dancrilis]

You mean Serini breached the agreement.

No - but I will get back to this.

Yes, Shojo sent paladins out to Lirian's gate after it was burned down to try to ID the threat.

He knew it was destroyed and had no idea what happened to Lirian so setup a 'just checking in call' same with Dorukan - I think that is fair, after all the agreement was not to interfere with the defence of the Gates and with the Gates destroyed the agreement was void for them.

And he was planning on sending OOTS out to the other gates to check on them.

This is in breach of the agreement.

But that is the exact same thing Serini did

We have no idea what Serini did.

One theory is that the divination device for monitoring the Gates destruction also provides some video and audio data on how the Gates were destroyed (neither of which would likely dramatically increase the price of the monitoring device), if that is that case it would cover her displayed knowledge fully without her needing to break the agreement.

You mean Serini breached the agreement.

Getting back to this - whether or not Serini breached the agreement without anyone noticing does not give cause for others to break the agreement unprovoked, in fact if the Paladins had went unnoticed (as she might have done) she would not have detained them.

[halfeye]

I think I should revise my statement, Serini is probably not Evil, whether she's Good or Neutral is undetermined.

[Thecommander236]

That's a really bad analogy.

Especially when it's 4 different toddlers spilling 4 different glasses.

Lirian and Dorukan doomed their own gates. Draketooth screwed himself over by not trusting anyone not related via magic blood. Hell, Serini is technically responsible for the gates being destroyed because she was the idiot that suggested they all rely on different methods to protect the gates. Instead of combining their strengths to keep the Gates together, they weakened them because each of their disciplines have a hard counter.

Then she made them all promise to not help each other when the other Gates went down. The Draketooth clan saw Gates 1, 2, and 3 go down and did nothing. Serini kept in contact with Draketooth, but apparently didn't bother to coordinate with the family after 2 Gates went down within a year?

How is any of this helpful? Now she's just thinks Xykon can rule for a few years until someone takes him down. What about SEALING the holes in reality? She just going to travel around and seal them herself? Or is she just hoping Xykon and Redcloak will seal them because the 1st Gate went down 20 years ago and no one has done jack or **** about it.

The Snarl was active during Serini's time. It killed Kraagor, so why isn't she doing anything to help resecure the Gates? Protecting this one Gate from Paladins and letting Xykon take over isn't going to save literally anyone.

Because the monitoring system told them that the Gate was destroyed. But while having a major force available, they didn't find and destroy the individual(s) who destroyed the gate after the fact.

Perhaps this analogy with a police force and an organized bank robbery gang? Gang holds up one of the five major banks in a city, takes all the stuff and burns the bank to the ground.

The cops know a bank was robbed and destroyed ... but, instead of finding the robbers, they did effectively squat while the robbers hit three more banks and burn THEM to the ground over the course of several months.

She's one of the cops! She didn't do anything either. Neither did Draketooth's clan!