OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

[Goblin_Priest]

Of course, that raises the question of where Hilgya got the idea in the first place. Sure, she's a tad delusional, but the way she got serious while talking about it indicated (to me) that she had reason to believe it worked that way, and thought it was very important.

This sounds like an understatement to me. More, like, she's totally delusional, and anything she affirms is best treated with the assumption that it has no groundings in reality.

[arimareiji]

So I've been on record about how I think the afterlife sorting system works, but I'd like to take this chance to refine it, as you are correct. Person X claims and alignment in life, person Y claims alignment and a god. Both die. Both get sent to the afterlife they matched their alignment or they specifically desired to start with. That afterlife uses its own sorting system, whatever that may be, to determine whether or not to let you progress (so as two QAD examples, Celestia can probably afford to be picky, but the Abyss probably just takes everyone who shows up at their door regardless because what do they care?). Assuming you do progress into your desired afterlife, if you claimed no god, then you're already set, so X is good. If you did claim a god, you go to that god's part of the afterlife, so Y proceeds one bit further and then is good.

There, that satisfies Roy and Durkon's different experiences, as well as Lee's inbox. And is still pretty neat and tidy, as well as relatively simplified.

Thank you for going back over it, and clarifying.

Not trying to be a smart@**, just really unsure and it seems like you've given the subject some thought: Does the strip where Eugene explains sorting fit in with that? It sorta seems like it, at least on the surface.

I should give it more thought of my own once I'm not in a relative rush to work, but just in case you already thought this one through as well: Afayk, did Durkon and Minrah pop into the area we see in 486:5 above^* (but by then they'd had time to clear the backlog)? Or a different area, because they basically got the express pass to Valhalla's front door (1136:8)^**? (Perhaps expedited by Thor popping in for a chat.)

<sub>* - Too many favorites to count, but "Wait a minute, I had a 22!" is certainly one of them.

** - That, and the close of 1136 followed by "*sigh* Also, those are rebel trees that have turned against their evil kin to join the side of righteousness." in the next strip.</sub>

[Thermophille]

My point isn't that Loki doesn't care about Hel, he obviously does, just that I don't think he came up with that scheme with any particular desire to help Hel. If anything, the bet created a chance, however small, that the lack of power would cause Hel to starve (something Loki directly addresses talking to Thor). Again, this obviously wasn't malicious, but the fact he was willing to create a plan that directly put her into danger shows where his priorities lie.

Of course, that left the bet in Thor's favor, with him (at least to many of the dwarves we know) becoming the patron saint of honor. Considering his direct rivalry with Thor, Loki would be expressly motivated to do something to poke a hole in what Thor was doing, creating a loophole in the system.

On top of that, we have Hilgya, one of the highest level clerics of Loki in the world, straight-up saying that worshipping Loki allows dishonor to be treated as honor, and it seems a very Loki thing to do. In fact, I'd argue that if Loki hadn't already done it, he would have heard Hilgya say it, and concluded that it was an excellent idea for something to start doing.

Basically, the loophole is not only something in character for Loki to do, but is something he would be directly motivated to do anyway. In addition, the arguments against why he would do this (favoritism for Hel, and the idea that no dwarves worship Loki at all) to be either highly unlikely (in the case of favoritism), or poorly founded (if very few Loki souls go to Hel, it's probably because of the loophole).

In retrospect, I didn't explain it very well, since it was over like 5 posts, but that's my position.

[Goblin_Priest]

My point isn't that Loki doesn't care about Hel, he obviously does, just that I don't think he came up with that scheme with any particular desire to help Hel. If anything, the bet created a chance, however small, that the lack of power would cause Hel to starve (something Loki directly addresses talking to Thor). Again, this obviously wasn't malicious, but the fact he was willing to create a plan that directly put her into danger shows where his priorities lie.

Of course, that left the bet in Thor's favor, with him (at least to many of the dwarves we know) becoming the patron saint of honor. Considering his direct rivalry with Thor, Loki would be expressly motivated to do something to poke a hole in what Thor was doing, creating a loophole in the system.

On top of that, we have Hilgya, one of the highest level clerics of Loki in the world, straight-up saying that worshipping Loki allows dishonor to be treated as honor, and it seems a very Loki thing to do. In fact, I'd argue that if Loki hadn't already done it, he would have heard Hilgya say it, and concluded that it was an excellent idea for something to start doing.

Basically, the loophole is not only something in character for Loki to do, but is something he would be directly motivated to do anyway. In addition, the arguments against why he would do this (favoritism for Hel, and the idea that no dwarves worship Loki at all) to be either highly unlikely (in the case of favoritism), or poorly founded (if very few Loki souls go to Hel, it's probably because of the loophole).

In retrospect, I didn't explain it very well, since it was over like 5 posts, but that's my position.

I just don't see how you can ram that "loophole" into a bet, though.

"Hel gets all the dwarves that die dishonorably. Good with you, Hel? Yup, and you, Thor? Yup. Oh, except those that die dishonorably but that worshipped me, I still get those, right guys?"

None of what we saw regarding the bet ever involved something explicitely in Loki's favor, or had clauses specific to him. It was always portrayed as a wager between Hel and Thor. Not between Hel, Thor, Loki, and whoever else wanted to join in.

We have constantly seen Hilgya completely warp reality to further her own fantasy. Pretty much every single thing she says is shown to be a completely distorted account of what actually transpired.

So with all we've seen of her, I really don't see why your base assumption, regarding her twisted and non-sensical argument, is that it would actually be legitimate. If Mr. Big Schmuk, president of the local Flat Earth Society, starts a big rant about how the earth is flat, your base assumption shouldn't be "well he's the president of the local branch, he must know what he's saying!", but more "this is a clown that's spewing clownery".

[Good Coyote]

We have constantly seen Hilgya completely warp reality to further her own fantasy. Pretty much every single thing she says is shown to be a completely distorted account of what actually transpired.

This isn't entirely true though. At the same point where she gave this speech about the loophole, she says that she realized she was wrong about her husband and that he was as trapped as she was, that he apparently had some kind of brain damage, and she should never have focused on him as her enemy at all.

If we take the panels as accurate (which is the reason we always had evidence of her husband not actually oppressing her), then her family really did force her into a crossbow wedding. She also accurately describes the revenge that she took on them (whether the whole clan deserved it or not is a separate issue).

That doesn't prove she's right, but she does not always warp reality to further the fantasy. Only sometimes.

[dancrilis]

... or poorly founded (if very few Loki souls go to Hel, it's probably because of the loophole).

I find it more likely that very few 'Loki' souls go to Hel because very few Dwarves worship Loki - and those who did still went to her anyway so the potential loophole didn't work for them.

Also the agreement is that Hel gets the souls that died without honour.
Loki: They died dishonourable deaths which is perfectly honourable for a follower of mine.
Hel: Then you concede that they died dishonourable deaths.

[Thermophille]

Loki: They died dishonourable deaths which is perfectly honourable for a follower of mine.
Hel: Then you concede that they died dishonourable deaths.

To quote Hilgya:
"Well, I was just laying out the path my god had laid out for me! Nothing more honorable for a cleric than living your god's truth, right?"

The question of whether this is actually a valid argument is up for debate, but considering some of the arguments Thor has used to get souls from Hel, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

[Fyraltari]

Abyss probably just takes everyone who shows up at their door regardless because what do they care?

Since Good, Evil, Law and Chaos aren't just moral judgements of people but actual tangible metaphysical substances, it's possible that Good or Lawful people just aren't suitable for the Abyss's design. Their energies couldn't be digested if you will. Else why would Lee even require an inbox? Just connect the chute to the Pit or whatever the equivalent of the mountain is, no need for a busy archfiend to go over each soul.

You make an excellent point! He clearly did have a few. And of those few, they had already gone to Hel, and he didn't even care about debating whether he should have gotten them.

I'd say that is pretty damning to Hilgya's theory.

No, all that says is that of all the dwarves claimed by Hel very few are Loki's. All that can be infered from that is that Loki worship only makes up a tiny fraction of the dwarven's spiritual scenery. Thor's own loophole isn't foolproof, if Loki has one too I wouodn't expect it to be either.

Uh, okay? Loki's just saying that, if not for the whole 'stop the Snarl forever', he'd be voting to end the world, and rooting for Hel pulling off one of the greatest schemes in history. That's entirely within his character as a dastardly trickster who doesn't care one way or the other about mass suffering.

The guy expresses hatred over the entire world and wishes it wasn't against his own current interest for an entire race of people to be unjustly tortured so that his daughter could backstab his own mentally-impared father and, down the line, flood the future Northern Continent with undeath. And now that there's a chance for his situation to improve he is willing to let his daughter starve to death, but should he get neither of his desired outcomes, he's planning on blaming the whole thing on his brother for the crime of having dared to try to limit the damage he's caused. And you say, this guy only has "a little malice" in him? Out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that he's just as evil as he's chaotic?

[Thermophille]

No, all that says is that of all the dwarves claimed by Hel very few are Loki's. All that can be infered from that is that Loki worship only makes up a tiny fraction of the dwarven's spiritual scenery. Thor's own loophole isn't foolproof, if Loki has one too I wouodn't expect it to be either.

The guy expresses hatred over the entire world and wishes it wasn't against his own current interest for an entire race of people to be unjustly tortured so that his daughter could backstab his own mentally-impared father and, down the line, flood the future Northern Continent with undeath. And now that there's a chance for his situation to improve he is willing to let his daughter starve to death, but should he get neither of his desired outcomes, he's planning on blaming the whole thing on his brother for the crime of having dared to try to limit the damage he's caused. And you say, this guy only has "a little malice" in him? Out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that he's just as evil as he's chaotic?

On the first point, all that information says is that a tiny fraction of the dwarven souls that go to Hel are Loki's. We know that Loki worship is not common among dwarves, but how many of those go to Hel is unknown. Though the fact that any at all went to Hel ('hardly any' still means more than one) does mean that if the loophole exists it isn't foolproof, and I totally agree with that.


As for your second point that Loki is as evil as he is chaotic, I'd say it's definitely a matter of opinion, but I'll break it down and try to give my position on each point.

First, Loki expresses hatred over the entire world. Considering that he uses the word 'chiched', I assume he's referencing what he alluded to earlier, namely that he's sick of doing fantasy worlds over and over. This isn't terribly evil, just an expression of frustration. I can imagine myself saying something similar in Loki's position.

You use a lot of rhetoric in your next point about backstabbing and undeath and such, but Loki doesn't really care about that. In Stickverse and D&D in general, being ambivalent to suffering is Neutral, not horrible like it would be in real life. Evil creatures and individuals actively seek to inflict suffering, or at least derive pleasure from it when it occurs. Is it a good basis for the moral compass of a universe? No, but it's what we're using.

For letting Hel starve to death, he's balancing that against stopping the Snarl, a god-killing abomination capable of ending the universe. It's a tough decision, but I don't think siding in favor of saving the universe is a particularly alignment-centric decision.

Blaming Thor? Definitely immature, but Loki isn't exactly the god of maturity.

What would it take to convince me that he's just as evil as he is chaotic? Well, he's pretty darn chaotic, so a fair bit actually. Convincing me that he's normal evil is lower, and you definitely make a good argument to that point, but I respectfully disagree. I think his actions are far more Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil.

Though, that entire thing isn't terribly relevant to the main point I was trying to make, namely that I think the evidence in the comic strongly supports that the loophole in the bet exists, even if it's not nearly as much of a magic bullet as Hilgya seems to think it is.

[Rrmcklin]

Uh, okay? Loki's just saying that, if not for the whole 'stop the Snarl forever', he'd be voting to end the world, and rooting for Hel pulling off one of the greatest schemes in history. That's entirely within his character as a dastardly trickster who doesn't care one way or the other about mass suffering.

I mean, that description still sounds pretty evil. Being indifferent and a willing party to massive unwarranted suffering isn't much better than actively reveling in it.

[Thermophille]

I mean, that description still sounds pretty evil. Being indifferent and a willing party to massive unwarranted suffering isn't much better than actively reveling in it.

Well, there's a reason I don't use the alignment system in games I run.

[dancrilis]

I mean, that description still sounds pretty evil. Being indifferent and a willing party to massive unwarranted suffering isn't much better than actively reveling in it.

In DnD there are literal evil gods of murder/tryanny/etc who have neutral clerics who presumedly know and follow their dogma - depending on your table Evil can range from 'active sadist' to 'selfish' to 'makes distasteful jokes at times', but I believe that the official stance would be closer to the first then the second or third option.

If you stand back and let your adventuring buddies kill, torture and pillage all around them you are probably not keeping that 'good' alignment but you might well keep the 'neutral' one.

[Blue Dragon]

they are going to take a serious beating now, aren't they?

No, but this can be the dramatic catharsis that stablishes that this will be the climatic scene, as stated by Elan in "Group Decision", altough there is still plot points to wrap up before the ending, so I am still looking forward for every single of a few dozens more strips before it.

[Peelee]

Thank you for going back over it, and clarifying.

Not trying to be a smart@**, just really unsure and it seems like you've given the subject some thought: Does the strip where Eugene explains sorting fit in with that? It sorta seems like it, at least on the surface.

My theory fits in with everything he says, IMO.

On top of that, we have Hilgya, one of the highest level clerics of Loki in the world

What does her level have to do with her knowledge base? Durkon is high level and thinks that Thor hates trees, even despite Thor directly telling him otherwise. Clerics, even high level ones, can still be wrong.

Since Good, Evil, Law and Chaos aren't just moral judgements of people but actual tangible metaphysical substances, it's possible that Good or Lawful people just aren't suitable for the Abyss's design. Their energies couldn't be digested if you will. Else why would Lee even require an inbox? Just connect the chute to the Pit or whatever the equivalent of the mountain is, no need for a busy archfiend to go over each soul.

Lee is Lawful. The Abyss is Chaotic. And while some people cannot meditate and be more and more enlightened to the point of fading into the plane as god food, I'd imagine anyone could be tortured into becoming god food in the Abyss. I did put some thought into those examples, and while I doubt there are terribly many people who claim Chaotic Evil who would otherwise be a little too Neutral or Lawful to start with, I also doubt the Abyss is terribly picky, going by the nature of the Abyss.

Though, that entire thing isn't terribly relevant to the main point I was trying to make, namely that I think the evidence in the comic strongly supports that the loophole in the bet exists

Does it? The only evidence in the comic for such a loophole is Hilgya's theory, and Hilgya has a credibility problem; we have seen that she characterizes things significantly differently than they actually are. This is evidence, but it is remarkably self-serving and fairly weak, considering the source. Conversely, we have evidence that the loophole does not exist by Loki openly admitting there are some of his people in Hel, and that he further doesn't even care enough to try to get them out.

I, for one, would not at all say that the evidence in the comic strongly supports that the Loki Loophole exists, and that instead it is likely a preponderance of the evidence supports the idea that it is complete hogwash.

[hamishspence]

In DnD there are literal evil gods of murder/tryanny/etc who have neutral clerics who presumedly know and follow their dogma - depending on your table Evil can range from 'active sadist' to 'selfish' to 'makes distasteful jokes at times', but I believe that the official stance would be closer to the first then the second or third option.

If you stand back and let your adventuring buddies kill, torture and pillage all around them you are probably not keeping that 'good' alignment but you might well keep the 'neutral' one.

There's a certain amount of overlap - an person who is regularly committing petty evil deeds and avoiding good deeds, can be evil-aligned, and yet much less "deserving of death" from the point of view of the average character, than a Neutral character who is complicit in their buddies's crimes even if they don't directly participate.



The neutral member of the "bandit gang" who never tortures but never stops their buddies from torturing, ends up executed along with the rest, for banditry, and nobody thinks this is unjust.


Whereas the "petty evildoer" ends up regarded as a contributing member of society.

[Thermophille]

Source?

Does it? The only evidence in the comic for such a loophole is Hilgya's theory, and Hilgya has a credibility problem; we have seen that she characterizes things significantly differently than they actually are. This is evidence, but it is remarkably self-serving and fairly weak, considering the source. Conversely, we have evidence that the loophole does not exist by Loki openly admitting there are some of his people in Hel, and that he further doesn't even care enough to try to get them out.

I, for one, would not at all say that the evidence in the comic strongly supports that the Loki Loophole exists, and that instead it is likely a preponderance of the evidence supports the idea that it is complete hogwash.

For Hilgya being one of Loki's highest level clerics, I would cite this strip. Hilgya is Durkon's rival, and should be around the same level, so... 15th? That's on the same level as the high priests. Hence, one of the highest level clerics of Loki.

The way I see it, there are two things that, if true, mean the loophole exists, regardless of Hilgya's credibility. First, would Loki do it, and second, would it work. I think I established in an earlier post why I think Loki would absolutely try to establish a loophole; that's his thing. As for whether it would work, I think that the fact that Thor seems to have successfully argued a soul away from Hel due to fighting an inanimate plant, I think an argument like Hilgya described could totally work.

Besides, I don't think Hilgya's credibility is as bad as some people seem to think it is. She was absolutely irrational with regards to Durkon, but I know people in real life who have been (nearly) as irrational when it comes to past relationships, and are otherwise fairly reasonable. Relationships, especially when they get particularly messy, are one of the things that most often cause people to abandon reason to justify their own actions.

[Fyraltari]

The neutral member of the "bandit gang" who never tortures but never stops their buddies from torturing, ends up executed along with the rest, for banditry, and nobody thinks this is unjust.

I am reminded of the scene in A Song of Ice and Fire here one of the murders of the Lannister hostages defends himself sying he only watched while his accomplices did the killing so Robb has him hanged last so he can watch while his accomplices do the dying first.

while some people cannot meditate and be more and more enlightened to the point of fading into the plane as god food, I'd imagine anyone could be tortured into becoming god food in the Abyss.

Why?

[TRH]

Does it? The only evidence in the comic for such a loophole is Hilgya's theory, and Hilgya has a credibility problem; we have seen that she characterizes things significantly differently than they actually are. This is evidence, but it is remarkably self-serving and fairly weak, considering the source. Conversely, we have evidence that the loophole does not exist by Loki openly admitting there are some of his people in Hel, and that he further doesn't even care enough to try to get them out.

I, for one, would not at all say that the evidence in the comic strongly supports that the Loki Loophole exists, and that instead it is likely a preponderance of the evidence supports the idea that it is complete hogwash.

I don't have that much stake in this argument either way, but why do you keep saying that the presence of Loki worshippers in Hel's inbox is evidence that he has no basis for disputing Dwarven souls with her? Thor also has souls in Hel, so by your logic the only evidence we have that he has any sort of loophole is that we see Thor disputing souls...but the thing is, he seems to be responsible for disputing all Dwarven souls, not just those of his followers, as evidenced by him sending a bunch off to "their respective god's domain."

That being the case, how do we get back to "if God X doesn't personally lawyer up against Hel, God X has no legitimate claim on any Dwarven souls?"

[Peelee]

I don't have that much stake in this argument either way, but why do you keep saying that the presence of Loki worshippers in Hel's inbox is evidence that he has no basis for disputing Dwarven souls with her? Thor also has souls in Hel, so by your logic the only evidence we have that he has any sort of loophole is that we see Thor disputing souls...but the thing is, he seems to be responsible for disputing all Dwarven souls, not just those of his followers, as evidenced by him sending a bunch off to "their respective god's domain."

That being the case, how do we get back to "if God X doesn't personally lawyer up against Hel, God X has no legitimate claim on any Dwarven souls?"

Because that's the entire crux of Hilgya's argument: that acting dishonorable as devotion to your dishonorable god counts as honorable regarding the Hel deal.

So, let's pretend this loophole works, and say a Dwarven cleric of Loki dies dishonorably. They would not go to Hel, based off the argument that acting dishonorably was, in fact, honorable. Hel would not have any souls that belonged to Loki.

Let's now say a Dwarven cleric of Loki dies honorably. That is an automatic "do not go to Hel" deal, at which point they would go to Loki and Hell would again not have any souls that belonged to Loki.

Thus, the only way for Hel to have souls that belong to Loki is by them dying dishonorably and getting sent to Hel anyway, just like with worshippers of Thor or any other god. That being the case, Loki could still go and try to appeal under the grounds that Hilgya laid out. We have seen that he does not - even the very god that this entire idea is based on does not pursue it. Ergo, by all evidence that we can see (which, admittedly, is not much and is far from ironclad), Hilgya's theory is likely worth its weight in gold.

Also, Hel has no inbox. I suspect that was a joke on Lee being Lawful.

[TRH]

Because that's the entire crux of Hilgya's argument: that acting dishonorable as devotion to your dishonorable god counts as honorable regarding the Hel deal.

So, let's say a Dwarven cleric of Loki dies dishonorably. They would not go to Hel, based off the argument that acting dishonorably was, in fact, honorable. Hel would not have any souls that belonged to Loki.

Let's now say a Dwarven cleric of Loki dies honorably. That is an automatic "do not go to Hel" deal, at which point they would go to Loki and Hell would again not have any souls that belonged to Loki.

Thus, the only way for Hel to have souls that belong to Loki is by them dying dishonorably and getting sent to Hel anyway, just like with worshippers of Thor or any other god. That being the case, Loki could still go and try to appeal under the grounds that Hilgya laid out. We have seen that he does not - even the very god that this entire idea is based on does not pursue it. Ergo, by all evidence that we can see (which, admittedly, is not much and is far from ironclad), Hilgya's theory is likely worth its weight in gold.

Also, Hel has no inbox. I suspect that was a joke on Lee being Lawful.

The inbox was me not wanting to get repetitive with word choice, don't mind me.

As for the argument, it might be specific to clerics of Loki, since acting according to their god's philosophy is literally part of their stated duties. So for them, the dishonor is honor and honor is honor double-bind may apply, but not for non-clerical Loki worshippers. And it would also be in-character for Hilgya to not realize or not care that what works for her would not work for most dwarves.

[Peelee]

The inbox was me not wanting to get repetitive with word choice, don't mind me.

I getcha, my bad.

As for the argument, it might be specific to clerics of Loki, since acting according to their god's philosophy is literally part of their stated duties.

Is it? Hilgya never claimed that, who did?

And it would also be in-character for Hilgya to not realize or not care that what works for her would not work for most dwarves.

It would also be in-character for Hilgya to make a completely self-serving statement as authoritative regardless of whether it was correct or not. And again, she has credibility issues, which does not help her case.

[Wraithfighter]

Two things:

1: I think we're getting into the weeds a fair bit here when it comes to something that... doesn't really matter all that much, at least as far as the main story goes. The gods have enough souls to survive and persist on is what matters really, not the exact rules by which it works. This isn't a campaign setting, this is a setting, and the precise rules for it all only really matter if they affect the story that's going on (well, until it becomes a Narrative Universe, at which point things get more complicated, but we're not there yet). It's okay for the rules to be a bit weird and ambiguous.

2: This got me thinking...

I don't have that much stake in this argument either way, but why do you keep saying that the presence of Loki worshippers in Hel's inbox is evidence that he has no basis for disputing Dwarven souls with her? Thor also has souls in Hel, so by your logic the only evidence we have that he has any sort of loophole is that we see Thor disputing souls...but the thing is, he seems to be responsible for disputing all Dwarven souls, not just those of his followers, as evidenced by him sending a bunch off to "their respective god's domain."

The strip right after that has an important line from Loki that I think people need to consider when it comes to how the Hel rules operate with Loki: "Hardly any of these are mine anyway".

Loki has some souls in Hel's domain, absolutely... but not many. Maybe that's because Loki worship is extremely uncommon among the Dwarves, but I think its more likely that his scheme does work, that dwarves that are loyal and devoted to him to get the Get Out Of Hel Free pass, it just doesn't work 100% of the time. If you die of disease in bed, then you still go to Hel, even if you worship Loki. But if you're killed by a trap guarding a bank vault that you're trying to rob, hell yeah Loki will bail you out.

[Schroeswald]

It’s been over a year since we last got into a fight about Hilgya, it feels like the good ol days again.

[Peelee]

Loki has some souls in Hel's domain, absolutely... but not many. Maybe that's because Loki worship is extremely uncommon among the Dwarves, but I think its more likely that his scheme does work, that dwarves that are loyal and devoted to him to get the Get Out Of Hel Free pass, it just doesn't work 100% of the time.

Why? What reason, aside from a self-serving statement from Hilgya, gives you any reason to believe that it works?

Also, the strip right after Hilgya explains her theory has her state that not only did she get the idea from humans (not dwarves), but also that she was already acting dishonorably well before she even thought it up. Her idea is literally justification after the fact, which is even more self-serving, coming from a person who has a history of erroneous justifications so that she can do whatever she wants to.

You can believe it all day long, but you haven't made any argument for me to believe it. The sole peg Hilgya stands on is "I want it to work". I ain't buying it.

[Rrmcklin]

In DnD there are literal evil gods of murder/tryanny/etc who have neutral clerics who presumedly know and follow their dogma - depending on your table Evil can range from 'active sadist' to 'selfish' to 'makes distasteful jokes at times', but I believe that the official stance would be closer to the first then the second or third option.

If you stand back and let your adventuring buddies kill, torture and pillage all around them you are probably not keeping that 'good' alignment but you might well keep the 'neutral' one.

This isn't DnD though, it's a comic that uses that as a base and follows its rules and conventions until it doesn't. And given the themes of the story (that the also some time explicitly comments on when people go "but in DnD this would be okay!") I see no reason to take it as a given that such things and mind set aren't regarded as evil here.

[Thermophille]

You can believe it all day long, but you haven't made any argument for me to believe it. The sole peg Hilgya stands on is "I want it to work". I ain't buying it.

That's an entirely valid perspective. My point is that Loki would do it, and it could (theoretically) work, if they are sufficiently devoted to Loki's principles with regards to how they died.

Though, Hilgya is high enough level to cast Commune, and with the amount of surety she gives what she says, it's not unlikely that she cleared it with Loki before she decided to start saving dwarves. Or maybe she's just that delusional, I can't say for sure.

[Doug Lampert]

This isn't DnD though, it's a comic that uses that as a base and follows its rules and conventions until it doesn't. And given the themes of the story (that the also some time explicitly comments on when people go "but in DnD this would be okay!") I see no reason to take it as a given that such things and mind set aren't regarded as evil here.

Also:
D&D 3.0 and 3.5 both are very clear in the PHB definitions of the various alignments that callous indifference to the welfare of others is EVIL. You need not have a malicious thought in your entire life to be solidly evil in D&D land.

~1/3 of the entire human population of the world is EVIL, it need not be a slavering monster, because slavering monsters are necessarily rare since mass murder being common in a race that lives in groups quickly results in the entire race being rare.

[Peelee]

My point is that Loki would do it

Would he? As a god of trickery, would it not also be possible that he would just screw over his dwarven clerics (whose number is likely very small and thus not really noticeable)? After all, Hilgya notes that as a cleric of Loki, she's used to not being trusted, yet she completely trusts Loki. Also, edge cases or arguable cases (which this would surely be) clearly go for debate instead of a straight bypass like Durkon and Minrah got, and Loki has shown he's not interested in that - unsurprising from someone who might be dishonorable to those to trusted their non-Hel-destined afterlives to him.

Though, Hilgya is high enough level to cast Commune, and with the amount of surety she gives what she says, it's not unlikely that she cleared it with Loki before she decided to start saving dwarves.

Given Durkon and Redcloaks' talk of their gods not talking to them, I highly suspect Commune works differently in Stickworld than it does in stock D&D.

[Devils_Advocate]

In Stickverse and D&D in general, being ambivalent to suffering is Neutral, not horrible like it would be in real life. Evil creatures and individuals actively seek to inflict suffering, or at least derive pleasure from it when it occurs. Is it a good basis for the moral compass of a universe? No, but it's what we're using.

If one really wants to understand what D&D says about alignment, one should start by throwing out the assumption that what it says is consistent even within a single edition. And this is very much a case in point. The Player's Handbook says "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient". Pursuing evil as an end in itself is presented as only one possibility, not a necessity for evil characters.

And then, in the Monster Manual, virtually everything with an evil alignment is actively described as mean, actively seeking to inflict suffering on others. Not only that, but neutral monsters are frequently characterized as indifferent to the well-being of others and willing to kill when convenient. Outsiders who are meant to embody lawful neutral and chaotic neutral alignments are not agreeable types, with formians being expansionist slavers and slaadi caring only about themselves.

Why the difference? Well, presumably because player characters are "supposed to" be agreeable to prevent interparty conflict and to expand the space of workable quests, whereas monsters are "supposed to" fight the player characters. So it makes sense to say that selfish PCs are the exception, and it makes sense to say that usually-non-hostile monsters are the exception. But doing that by saying that only evil characters are selfish and that only good monsters care about anyone else creates an inconsistent standard of what neutral alignment is. Characters and monsters are supposed to be the same thing, not two separate things, and alignment is supposed to be one classification system, not two. We can try to reconcile everything ("Maybe those neutral aggressors still have some compunctions against killing the innocent, but not so much so that they never do it?"), but the result isn't likely to be a good system for categorizing characters or to reflect any particular designer intent, so why bother?

I, for one, say let indifference to the well-being of others be neutral. That's the option that lets most creatures keep their listed alignments. That's the option that makes evil the opposite of good. (Evil can't be lack of good when there are two non-good options!) And that's the option that makes neutrality a non-thing (lack of caring either way) as one would expect. But let's be perfectly clear: Being perfectly indifferent to the welfare of others requires an almost inhuman lack of malice in some regards. Never seeking revenge for any wrong against you, no matter how horrible, except strictly to the extent that it nets you some practical advantage? Never even needing to forgive because holding grudges is completely against your nature? That's a high bar. Not that a generally-indifferent neutral character can't experience both love and hate on a personal level. I just suspect that a lot of "indifferent" characters become substantially less indifferent when they're on the receiving end of "nothing personal", and can more accurately be described as only negatively caring about others' welfare as an end in itself, rather than never caring at all. Really consistently never caring one way or the other is strange and alien. Which is interesting! Play that up if you run a Neutral being that way.

So, all that said, does the Order of the Stick use "Player's Handbook alignment" or "Monster Manual alignment"? The answer is neither. Remember, this is a game world of Dungeons & Dragons as it's played. And as such, it uses a standard of "your alignment is whatever is on your character sheet or in your stat block, and it stays the same so long you fit some version of that alignment at least kinda well". That even comes up in Roy's afterlife interview! He essentially gets told "Well, you're really more Neutral Good if we're being honest, but luckily for you the DM isn't a stickler about alignment, and it seems like you've been trying hard enough to stay true to your listed alignment that we can let you squeak by. (It's not like you've just been flagrantly disregarding it entirely.) But watch yourself, okay? Repeating lapses that have been brought to your attention is no slip-up, hint hint."

[Thermophille]

Would he? As a god of trickery, would it not also be possible that he would just screw over his dwarven clerics.

I get the feeling that Loki has a sense of camaraderie for those who share his outlook ("But her faith in my teachings is so pure!". See also his line about Hel being a hustler). Sort of an 'honor among thieves' sort of thing. I think he'd at least want to give an option for any dwarves that truly followed the spirit of his teachings (rather than a 'I prayed to Loki, so he should save me'). Y'know, people like Hilgya.

Obviously, there's never going to be a lot of people like that in the dwarven community, but I think Loki would want to help out those who truly share his mindset.