What Was Girard Draketooth's Issue With the 12?

[Riftwolf]

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html

I don't know if this is relevant as I'm not sure what the argument is about now, but Thors speech in the Outer Planes splash panel suggests that spirits are drawn to the Outer Planes based on ideas and thoughts. So the afterlives would exist with zero Godly influence beyond the initial creation, and presumably Gods can feed off Outer Planes energy if they sign up to the ideas of that Plane. Individual afterlives are more desirable to Gods as they're more efficient, they have more control over the content and they don't have to share. But without the Outer Planes as the foundation, the whole thing would collapse (as every God would create their own followers, the Pantheons would quarrel about their power going to create beings with no chance of return investment, and the harmony required to build a world without a new Snarl would be ruined) This does leave the cosmology open for non-religious people, who don't buy into a specific afterlife but still go somewhere that the Gods can nom on 'em.

[Precure]

The Draketooth kidnapping scheme is the kind of thing that's only ancillary to the plot and it would make very little narrative sense for the story as presented to us (including the panels that show many victims of the Draketooths being killed by Familicide as told by V) to not be the truth. Sure, it's not 100% confirmed that what Orrin did was standard practice among the Draketooths to the exclusion of all other possibilities, but it's clearly the most parsimonious assumption.

But also:

Draketooth clan looks like a pretty small group of people.

Unlike Orrin's case, Draketooth women doesn't need to kidnap someone's child when they just can do one night stands with random people.

[Doug Lampert]

That's a bit of an oversimplification - 0e D&D (Basic to Immortal sets) had Chaos as usually evil and Law as usually good, but it allowed for exceptions, with some Chaotic monsters being specifically called out as Good and some Lawful ones, as Evil.

As far as I can tell, the only edition where standard red to green slaadi are Chaotic Evil, is 4e, which basically merged all 3 Neutral alignments into "Unaligned", merged NG with CG, and merged LE with NE.

Basic was NOT the original game. The original game was D&D and came in three little booklets called Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures, and had NO Good or Evil alignment till introduced in later suplements.

[hamishspence]

The original game was D&D and came in three little booklets called Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures, and had NO Good or Evil alignment till introduced in later suplements.

Slaadi didn't exist in that edition though, as far as I know - they were introduced in AD&D's Fiend Folio in 1981, after the "9 alignments system" had come into being.

Did those three little booklets have "chaos as evil" as was suggested regarding "the basic D&D"?

With regards to Slaad they were originally demonic as the basic d&d had chaos as evil

[urbanwolf]

But also:

Draketooth clan looks like a pretty small group of people.

Unlike Orrin's case, Draketooth women doesn't need to kidnap someone's child when they just can do one night stands with random people.

That is still someone's child.
Alternately they could also have cousin marriage the you get to have two parents.

Do you think they got something similar to rumspringa where they got to leave the clan and explore the world for a while? Do they choose to stay or are they forced?

[hamishspence]

That is still someone's child.

If you're a man, and you sire a child in a "one-night-stand" and you never find out that you have sired a child, have you really been wronged when the mother never meets you again to tell you she got pregnant?

IMO, no, such a "one-night-stand" father would not be what V meant when V talked about parents "wronged by a Draketooth" - it would have to be parents who stayed together till after the baby was born, for the non-Draketooth parent to meaningfully be wronged.

[woweedd]

Honestly, I tend to assume that the baby-stealing thing was post-Girard, because, if it wasn't, that is...I don't know how one can remain not evil while stealing infants.

[KorvinStarmast]

Did those three little booklets have "chaos as evil" as was suggested regarding "the basic D&D"?

The clearest hint at that had to do with clerics.

On the alignment table (p. 9, Men and Magic) the Law one was Patriarch and the Chaos one was Evil High Priest.
There were no neutral clerics, originally. (Druids didn't show up until supplement 3.)
One was either a cleric or an anti-cleric. There was no middle ground.

Spoiler: Men and Magic page 34

Show

Note: There are Anti-Clerics (listed below) who have similar powers to Clerics. Those Clerical spells underlined on the table for Cleric Spells have a reverse effect, all others functioning as noted. The chief exception is the Raise Dead spell which becomes:

The Finger of Death: Instead of raising the dead, this spell creates a "death ray" which will kill any creature unless a saving throw is made (where applicable). Range: 12". (A Cleric-type may use this spell in a life-or-death situation, but misuse will immediately turn him into an Anti-Cleric.)

Anti-Clerics: Evil Acolyte, Evil Adept, Shaman, Evil Priest, Evil Curate, Evil Bishop, Evil Lama, Evil High Priest.

The spells in question that would be cast with reverse effects were: Cure Light Wounds, Purify Food and Water, Detect Evil, Protectin/Evil, Light, Bless, Cure Disease, Continual Light, Cure Serious Wounds, Protection/Evil, 10'r, Dispel Evil.
And note this:

Spoiler: About Evil Clerics

Show

A full explanation of each spell follows. Note that under lined Clerical spells are reversed by evil Clerics. Also, note the Clerics versus Undead Monsters table, indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the undead; however, evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost.

Repeated for emphasis: evil clerics could not turn undead and did not get a reverse ability.
Never once saw anyone play a cleric who wasn't just a regular cleric.
Plenty of NPC clerics, though, who contaminated water, caused darkness, and pointed finger of death at us.

[hamishspence]

Examples: On the alignment table (p. 9, Men and Magic) the Law one was Patriarch and the Chaos one was Evil High Priest.

It would appear then that the answer is yes - Good and Evil did exist in the booklets, as alternate names for Law and Chaos - via powerful Chaotic clerics being portrayed as "Evil High Priests".

[Lacuna Caster]

Girard's problem with the 12 gods might of been that he worshipped (or was raised to follow) the Southern gods.

As for kidnapping his heirs, but being neutral it could be a for the greater good kind of deal. You can do evil acts and still be good so doing evil acts and still being neutral is possible.

To work out as good-aligned your good acts would have to outweigh your evil acts considerably, and there are questions regarding psychological consistency depending on what motivates you to do both. It's certainly *possible* that Girard was doing good deeds somewhere off-panel but there's no specific evidence for it, or that he was ever raised to worship the Twelve.

If you're a man, and you sire a child in a "one-night-stand" and you never find out that you have sired a child, have you really been wronged when the mother never meets you again to tell you she got pregnant?

It's an interesting ethical question, though. You could argue that parents have some kind of intrinsic claim to a vested interest in their biological offspring, even if you never meet them.

[urbanwolf]

If you're a man, and you sire a child in a "one-night-stand" and you never find out that you have sired a child, have you really been wronged when the mother never meets you again to tell you she got pregnant?

IMO, no, such a "one-night-stand" father would not be what V meant when V talked about parents "wronged by a Draketooth" - it would have to be parents who stayed together till after the baby was born, for the non-Draketooth parent to meaningfully be wronged.

The man is wronged out of his choice, but also he is dead now because of V. The child is also wronged by never knowing the father, and also any blood oaths(or other blood related thing like diabetes) he is suddenly beholden too.

[hamishspence]

I'd have to disagree, at least in the context of D&D, that the child is being wronged by not being able to find out who their father is.

The man is wronged out of his choice

IMO, if you agree to engage in an unprotected one night stand, part of the risk is that you will sire a child and never know it - and you accept that risk when you agree to it.


Which raises the question - in D&D, can a paladin, or an Exalted Good, character, have a one night stand at all without losing powers for "an evil act"?

Tricky. BOED does suggest that any such act of intimacy needs to include mutual respect - but I could see it as being possible.

[Lacuna Caster]

The man is wronged out of his choice, but also he is dead now because of V. The child is also wronged by never knowing the father, and also any blood oaths(or other blood related thing like diabetes) he is suddenly beholden too.

IMO, if you agree to engage in an unprotected one night stand, part of the risk is that you will sire a child and never know it - and you accept that risk when you agree to it.

I assume this also means that the mother forfeits any claim upon the father for support and protection of the child, then? After all, she knew the risks.

[hamishspence]

If a mother specifically doesn't want any father to find out about their child's existence, then they won't be claiming support from such a father in the first place. That would reveal the child's existence to them.



But these hypotheticals don't really have much to do with Girard and his reasons for badmouthing the 12 Gods - can we get back to the topic?

[Lacuna Caster]

If a mother specifically doesn't want any father to find out about their child's existence, then they won't be claiming support from such a father in the first place. That would reveal the child's existence to them.

Obviously. I am pointing out it would be ethically incoherent to assert that a child who might or might not be sired is simultaneously none of the father's business and a potential source of crushing debt and social stigma, to be decided retroactively at a later date and at the sole discretion of the mother.

[hamishspence]

That's not an OOTS topic though.

I think we've digressed long enough - if you want to talk about it more, post a new thread in the General section.

[hroþila]

I wouldn't be surprised if only men went a-kidnapping for some reason (perhaps something to do with draconic inheritance and the Y chromosome, if such a thing even exists in the OotS universe). Otherwise just sending out Draketooth women on one-night stands might have been easier and much safer - I imagine they needed to keep their own numbers under control in that pyramid, so they wouldn't want to make as many children as humanly possible anyway. Baseless speculation is fun.

[tanonev]

To work out as good-aligned your good acts would have to outweigh your evil acts considerably, and there are questions regarding psychological consistency depending on what motivates you to do both. It's certainly *possible* that Girard was doing good deeds somewhere off-panel but there's no specific evidence for it, or that he was ever raised to worship the Twelve.

Yes, but the post you're quoting was only claiming that Girard needed to balance out to Neutral overall, not Good overall, and "giving up his personal freedom to spend the rest of his life guarding a gate to prevent the world from being destroyed" would generally be considered a Good act. And yes, adding up a bunch of Good and Evil acts to see where a character ends up is a little silly, but (1) it is what the rules say to do and (2) there aren't any clearly better alternatives if you're forced to determine the overall alignment of a character (which incidentally also works out poorly in real life).

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO, if you agree to engage in an unprotected one night stand, part of the risk is that you will sire a child and never know it - and you accept that risk when you agree to it.

That goes a ways beyond what the D&D game is built to handle. There are other role playing games that handle stuff like that better.

Which raises the question - in D&D, can a paladin, or an Exalted Good, character, have a one night stand at all without losing powers for "an evil act"?

Sure, as long as they respect their partner in the morning.
A smoke afterwards isn't required, but some will appreciate it.

[Rrmcklin]

Girard's problem with the 12 gods might of been that he worshipped (or was raised to follow) the Southern gods.

As for kidnapping his heirs, but being neutral it could be a for the greater good kind of deal. You can do evil acts and still be good so doing evil acts and still being neutral is possible.

I have to point out the 12 gods are the Southern gods. I think you meant the Western gods, though I don't see any specific indications that Girard or his family were particularly devout.

Anyway, regardless of Girard's actual alignment, that he was fool and terrible person doesn't seem to something we're supposed to doubt. Roy's and Haley's reaction to his behavior and mindset speak for themselves, even without all of the family stuff he was probably (though not definitively) involved in anyway.

I also have to say I feel like "Girard got along with Serini so he must share her mindset on monsters" is a weak argument. Serini liked Girard but she's called him out herself during the discussion with the paladins, when she specifically notes she's not as extreme as him.

Similarly, while Girard's heritage might have made him generally sympathetic to "monster" races in general, that's hardly a given.

[woweedd]

Yes, but the post you're quoting was only claiming that Girard needed to balance out to Neutral overall, not Good overall, and "giving up his personal freedom to spend the rest of his life guarding a gate to prevent the world from being destroyed" would generally be considered a Good act. And yes, adding up a bunch of Good and Evil acts to see where a character ends up is a little silly, but (1) it is what the rules say to do and (2) there aren't any clearly better alternatives if you're forced to determine the overall alignment of a character (which incidentally also works out poorly in real life).

Saving the world from destruction isn't really Good, i'd think. After all, even a purely selfish person has good reason not to want the world destroyed: It's where they keep all their stuff! It's not exactly a selfless act. Neutral, at best. And I wouldn't it would counterbalance a bunch of kidnappings, not that that's even how alignment works. Basically, if Girard is the one who did the whole kidnapping scheme, I personally would class that as enough to tip him into Evil, which is why I tend to assume it started after his death.

[mjasghar]

Girard's problem with the 12 gods might of been that he worshipped (or was raised to follow) the Southern gods.

As for kidnapping his heirs, but being neutral it could be a for the greater good kind of deal. You can do evil acts and still be good so doing evil acts and still being neutral is possible.

You mean like Miko? Evil actions done willingly make you Evil regardless of the ends.
As an example genociding every goblinoid including newborns would solve the issue of the Crimson Mantle. So does that qualify as a Greater Good?

[woweedd]

You mean like Miko? Evil actions done willingly make you Evil regardless of the ends.
As an example genociding every goblinoid including newborns would solve the issue of the Crimson Mantle. So does that qualify as a Greater Good?

I get your point, but I will note Miko wasn't Evil, even after she fell. Paladins can't do ANY Evil act without falling, and killing Shojo counted (bisecting an unarmed old man who poses no threat to you and has not actually done anything bad enough to warrant it...Yeah).

[Precure]

I also have to say I feel like "Girard got along with Serini so he must share her mindset on monsters" is a weak argument. Serini liked Girard but she's called him out herself during the discussion with the paladins, when she specifically notes she's not as extreme as him.

Similarly, while Girard's heritage might have made him generally sympathetic to "monster" races in general, that's hardly a given.

But the point is, there is no reason to assume that he was racist or pro-genocide.

[Ionathus]

Do you think they got something similar to rumspringa where they got to leave the clan and explore the world for a while? Do they choose to stay or are they forced?

Interesting question. On one hand, I can see the Draketooths being so anti-authority that they're unwilling to force rebellious children to stay. On the other, their behavior and tactics (plus Haley's assessment of paranoia that says "family is the only thing you can trust") make me wonder if it didn't have a more cult-style vibe, and anyone who voiced second thoughts was pressured into staying. Probably more the latter than the former, even if they technically allowed people to leave.

Which raises the question - in D&D, can a paladin, or an Exalted Good, character, have a one night stand at all without losing powers for "an evil act"?

Tricky. BOED does suggest that any such act of intimacy needs to include mutual respect - but I could see it as being possible.

I'm not sure if you intended this, but your logic seems to imply casual sex between consenting adults is inherently evil.

[hamishspence]

I'm not sure if you intended this, but your logic seems to imply casual sex between consenting adults is inherently evil.

The exact quote from BOED:

There is nothing inherently evil about human (or humanoid) sexuality, and being a good character doesn’t necessarily mean remaining a virgin. Certain religions and cultures in the D&D universe encourage or at least condone some people taking vows of chastity, but these are similar to vows of poverty or abstinence, rooted in the belief that giving up the enjoyment of a good and natural thing can have positive spiritual benefits, not derived from an attitude that sex is evil.

However, a good character is bound to realize that sexuality is laden with traditions of exploitation and abuse, an area of interpersonal relationships where power dynamics are often manifested in unfortunate—really, evil—ways. A good character is not opposed to sex in principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships such as prostitution, the use of slaves for sex, or sexual contact with children or others without the power to enter freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect.

[woweedd]

The exact quote from BOED:

I don't how a one-night stand excludes mutual respect.

[hamishspence]

And I did say that it was possible that it could be done "with mutual respect".

BOED does suggest that any such act of intimacy needs to include mutual respect - but I could see it as being possible.

[Precure]

Um, children or others without the power to enter freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect basically says " no rape." It has nothing to do with sexual partners' actual respect of each other.

[hamishspence]

I got the impression that both apply - the relationship must be of mutual respect, and that's why anybody incapable of entering into such a one, is off-limits by definition.

Anything that can be described as an "exploitative" relationship, is also off-limits.