OOTS #1261 - The DIscussion Thread

[Jason]

You serious?

Yes. Not in the sense that I think we'll all wake up tomorrow with scientists announcing that everyone really does have one of the nine D&D alignments, but with the idea that we may someday discover that a person's morality is in some way objectively measurable.

[Thermophille]

Yes. Not in the sense that I think we'll all wake up tomorrow with scientists announcing that everyone really does have one of the nine D&D alignments, but with the idea that we may someday discover that a person's morality is in some way objectively measurable.

I think that's something for the philosophers, not the scientists.

Granted, philosophers have been trying to objectively measure morality for millennia with little success, but I'd argue that's due to human limitation rather than a literal impossibility to objectively measure morality within a framework.

[danielxcutter]

Laypersons always suffer when corrupt leaders lead them into dead ends. It's no excuse, but it's what happens.

The Kingpriest consolidated power by corrupting the Good religion then using its resources to make war on the other religions and the Magic-users. His goal was to eliminate all competition for social and political control.

The Evil and Neutral gods were having their worshippers eliminated, and they demanded punishment. Certainly, the gods could have stripped some magic-users of power, (the remaining Good clerics were not part of the powerful elite,) but that would still have left the Good clerics as the most powerful bloc in Krynn, most of the evil ones having been burned at the stake or murdered in the arena.

So, the gods removed every cleric from the world and for an age were prohibited from granting clerical powers to mortals, then they stoned the Kingpriest with a good-sized rock.

Then Takhisis tried to cheat...

If I recall correctly, Dragonlance’s handling of alignment is even more hamfisted than the average setting, and most settings have enough ham in their fists to feed Sigil for generations in that regard.

[Dame_Mechanus]

If I recall correctly, Dragonlance’s handling of alignment is even more hamfisted than the average setting, and most settings have enough ham in their fists to feed Sigil for generations in that regard.

"My 'I Am Lawful Good No Matter What My Actions Might Indicate' shirt is prompting a large number of questions already answered by my shirt."

[dancrilis]

... I'd argue that's due to human limitation rather than a literal impossibility to objectively measure morality within a framework.

You can measure morality in a framework today - just pick a framework and it is easy.

Here for instance.
Framework:
1: People who see a photo of a particular cloud and think it looks like a anthill are morally evil.
2: People who see a photo of a particular cloud and think it looks like a car are morally good.
3. All other people are neither morally evil nor morally good.


Getting anyone else (let alone everyone else) to agree with your framework might be a lot harder.

[Dame_Mechanus]

This is the problem of assuming that logic is somehow the antithesis of emotion and it's purely rational. Logic is a system of reasoning that follows from premises. If you accept as your premises that Dancrilis' moral framework is correct and evil people should have hot sauce flung into their face, it is absolutely logical to go down the street showing people a picture of a cloud and spraying them with sriracha if they say it looks like an anthill.

I'm also reminded obliquely of this Wondermark strip. Just because you agree on the concept doesn't mean you agree on the conclusion, and it doesn't mean your supposition is correct.

[Eric the White]

Would it have worked on Miko? On Gin-Jun?

I dont know Gin-Jun (I think he's the How the Paladin got his Scar guy?) But Miko, it would depend on how much I had in my head on her background. They seem to imply that shes a shoot first and ask questions later sort, and if as the DM I had that in my headcanon for her I might very well have. I'm not the sort to have a paladin fall just because they walked past the collection plate at church, they would need to have a regular habit of doing bad things, which as far as we could see here she did. Plus not terribly lawful even, she regularly ignored her superiors orders and did as she pleased. She seemed to define both lawful and good as "what I want to do" and she did ultimately fall. She's really a pretty good example of what I meant when I said everyone thinks of themselves as good.

That is the thing in DnD - their are people who think they are Evil and try to be more Evil.

The Alignment system work fine if you understand that - yes there are crazy people who think they are evil and aren't or think they are lawful but are actually chaotic etc, but in general Evil people know they are Evil and Good people know they are Good.

That applies as much to OOTS as it does to Dragonlance.

If you think that Evil people normally think they are Good then you are not operating under conventional DnD where Evil Gods grant powers to Evil Clerics who seek to exalt evil and where Evil wizards cast Evil spells which they know are aligned with cosmic Evil.

Saying that insert person from the real world thought they would good but they were actually evil is largely meaningless in a DnD context (there are crazy people who don't know what they are) - in DnD (assuming they were actually evil) they would likely have known it and either not cared or enjoyed it.

In an example Raistlin was mentioned above - those books were inspired by an actual game that was played, it is entirely possible that the Raistlin player had 'evil' marked on the sheet from the start (I have not been able to find a copy of the sheet so it may be lost to time).

Well technically he started as neutral. Him turning "evil" and then ultimately not being evil is a major plot point. As for your first point, at least in my campaigns the only things that really think of themselves as evil are sapient undead and outsiders like devils and demons. Team is a good example. As a DM I'd keep Xykon firmly in the camp of evil and it probably wouldn't change, if he really did have a change of heart he'd pretty much need to kill himself out of shame. Redcloak is similarly going to be classified as evil but he thinks he's good. The MitD is good no matter what the source material says about him.

[KorvinStarmast]

She's really a pretty good example of what I meant when I said everyone thinks of themselves as good.

And she was right up until she killed Shojo. Then the Twelve god's revoked her status because she had crossed the line and ventured out of that classification.

[Eric the White]

And she was right up until she killed Shojo. Then the Twelve god's revoked her status because she had crossed the line and ventured out of that classification.

I disagree. Its hard for me to convert OOTS to the framwork I use when I DM because if I had had a paladin that killed because they did a detect evil and it came up positive that would be fine, because as a DM the paladins looking at Redcloaks village would have gotten a negative result. However if they killed a goblin because "most goblins are evil", I'd have stripped them of their paladin class levels on the spot. Likewise if they tried to kill some uppity halfling without the benefit of a trial, when that trial is easily available etc.

[Peelee]

And she was right up until she killed Shojo. Then the Twelve god's revoked her status because she had crossed the line and ventured out of that classification.

Had she? One doesn't need to be non-Good to fall. Simply wrongfully committing an Evil act of enough to fall. While that same criteria is not necessarily enough to make one no longer Good.

[arimareiji]

Yes. Not in the sense that I think we'll all wake up tomorrow with scientists announcing that everyone really does have one of the nine D&D alignments, but with the idea that we may someday discover that a person's morality is in some way objectively measurable.

Be careful what you wish for. Scientists are indeed mapping out brain pathways in which specific types of thoughts are processed leading to various types of decisions, they can measure the activity of various centers under specific conditions or in the resting state, and they can even potentiate or depress specific regions with neuronavigated stimulation for specific conditions. (It's one of the most effective treatments for a different^* specific condition, actually.)

But even this crude, turn-up/down-a-handful-of-thousands-of-dials-and-see-what-colors-appear-on-a-panel-covered-by-frosted-glass experimentation has given us ample reason to believe that disposition, decision-making, and the weight given to hundreds of underlying factors are too fluid and situational to predict. (Let alone to quantify into a huge array of formulas from which morality can be derived, with one silly example being ∆BA47.146=-0.32ln(L)*(0.16G+3.87C). Not even if you know the exact wiring and chemical modulation of a brain at any given moment... and the former continues rewiring itself as needed through life (though it slows down), while the latter is both very fluid and more than a bit Heisenbergian.)

If you don't believe me, I don't blame you - I'm just some Internet rando. But you might find the second link in particular enlightening, and it's one of the less-complex ones I've seen.

_{* - I don't want to run the slightest risk of giving proto-medical advice, so I chose an article completely unrelated to the condition I'm talking about.}

[hamishspence]

if I had had a paladin that killed because they did a detect evil and it came up positive that would be fine, because as a DM the paladins looking at Redcloaks village would have gotten a negative result.

There are plenty of occasions where a character might detect as Evil without actually being Evil. In OOTS, Roy detects as Evil without being evil thanks to wearing Xykon's old crown round his neck.

And there's also the "Evil, but fairly harmless" character type - Eberron Campaign Setting talks about these when discussing alignment - and how such characters "don't deserve to be attacked by adventurers".

[Dame_Mechanus]

Had she? One doesn't need to be non-Good to fall. Simply wrongfully committing an Evil act of enough to fall. While that same criteria is not necessarily enough to make one no longer Good.

I feel like it's intentionally ambiguous; I think a strong case could be made that Miko was long walking the line through her actions toward being Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Good. Roy even calls her out for it: "Sure, you fight Evil, but when was the last time you showed a "concern for the dignity of sentient beings"?" And let's not forget that Roy was specifically told that he qualified as Lawful Good by the most absolute authority possible.

If you wanted to be very impish you could point out that there was no sign of her in the waiting queue for all the Southern God followers after the battle...

Of course, that's a chump argument. The real reason she wasn't shown there was because her narrative role was over and her afterlife wasn't important, and moreover her alignment had never actually been important. Whether you think murdering her liege lord kicked her over the category from LG to LN or if it was just such a viciously awful act that she lost her status as a Paladin doesn't really matter, because the end result is the same. Miko believed more strongly in rules than she believed in compassion or mercy, and she followed that road right to the end, never sought any kind of redemption and indeed believed that losing her blessing from the Twelve Gods was entirely a result of not following her duty strongly enough.

Her alignment at the time of her death is not the point. And, as is relevant to this discussion, the story isn't reliant on her alignment changing or not changing; it's reliant on the actions she took.

[Peelee]

If you wanted to be very impish you could point out that there was no sign of her in the waiting queue for all the Southern God followers after the battle...

While I agree with everything else you said in that post, that would also be explained by the fact that that'd the line for Celestia, which Soon already said Miko would not be going to. Based solely on the brief descriptors given, I'd say she probably would fit in best with There's only one right path.

[Dame_Mechanus]

While I agree with everything else you said in that post, that would also be explained by the fact that that'd the line for Celestia, which Soon already said Miko would not be going to. Based solely on the brief descriptors given, I'd say she probably would fit in best with There's only one right path.

Does he? Barring something specific I missed, he never mentions Miko's actual destination at all. He states that her spirit will be escorted by the spirits who defended the Gate, but he says that before she gets excited about the prospect that she gets to be a Paladin again. We do see several non-Paladins in the waiting line for the Southern followers, to boot.

The biggest tell seems to be implying that Windstriker will see her "as much as he is able," which strongly implies to me that she's going to be somewhere other than where he normally would be, but that could also be read as just an acknowledgement that he may have other duties or roles within the plane (or be someone else's Paladin mount).

Obviously you're on the same page with me about the reading here and the fact that we don't know whether her alignment did actually shift or not, so there's no point in restating all of that. It just seems to me that all Soon really told Miko about her ultimate fate is that she doesn't get to be a Paladin in death. Whether her alignment shifted or not, she did not seek or achieve true redemption for her misdeeds. That matters more than whether her alignment had "Neutral" or "Good" after "Lawful," to the narrative and to her.

[Peelee]

Does he? Barring something specific I missed, he never mentions Miko's actual destination at all. He states that her spirit will be escorted by the spirits who defended the Gate, but he says that before she gets excited about the prospect that she gets to be a Paladin again. We do see several non-Paladins in the waiting line for the Southern followers, to boot.

The biggest tell seems to be implying that Windstriker will see her "as much as he is able," which strongly implies to me that she's going to be somewhere other than where he normally would be, but that could also be read as just an acknowledgement that he may have other duties or roles within the plane (or be someone else's Paladin mount).

Obviously you're on the same page with me about the reading here and the fact that we don't know whether her alignment did actually shift or not, so there's no point in restating all of that. It just seems to me that all Soon really told Miko about her ultimate fate is that she doesn't get to be a Paladin in death. Whether her alignment shifted or not, she did not seek or achieve true redemption for her misdeeds. That matters more than whether her alignment had "Neutral" or "Good" after "Lawful," to the narrative and to her.

He says Windstriker will be able to visit her as much as able, which to me implies a different plane. Of course, that's just Soon's opinion, he's not a gatekeeper of the planes, but it seems to line up with her actions.

[Fyraltari]

He says Windstriker will be able to visit her as much as able, which to me implies a different plane. Of course, that's just Soon's opinion, he's not a gatekeeper of the planes, but it seems to line up with her actions.

Horace visits Sara, Eric and Roy and yet they all live on the same plane.

[danielxcutter]

It does at least imply that she's not going to an outright Evil plane.

[dancrilis]

He says Windstriker will be able to visit her as much as able, which to me implies a different plane. Of course, that's just Soon's opinion, he's not a gatekeeper of the planes, but it seems to line up with her actions.

Well The Giant does seem to agree that Windstriker can visit her as much as he is able (as allowed by any new master) and does imply planer movement.

Windstriker is not a dead soul, he is a living Celestial creature; he is not bound by the same rules. He needs a pass because he is in the service of the Twelve Gods and will likely be assigned to another paladin at some point, from whom he must get permission before going on a trip. If he were unemployed, he would be free to go to whatever plane he could find a way to travel to.

The wider discussion there makes it clearer that planer travel is being discussed as part of that, but I don't want to be dragging and dropping, or cutting up multiple long quotes to show that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Had she? One doesn't need to be non-Good to fall. Simply wrongfully committing an Evil act of enough to fall. While that same criteria is not necessarily enough to make one no longer Good.

Was the act killing Shojo not Lawful then, and on that basis sufficient for the Twelve Gods to revoke her status?
(With the caveat of Rich not generally feeling bound by D&D rules as given)

[Jasdoif]

Was the act killing Shojo not Lawful then, and on that basis sufficient for the Twelve Gods to revoke her status?
(With the caveat of Rich not generally feeling bound by D&D rules as given)

No need for the caveat.

Likewise, if a paladin has a strict code of honor, they can easily view that as more important than secular laws. They might agree to obey laws when possible, just because it's a nice thing to do, but in the end, their calling to serve the Power of Good may cause them to break those laws in an emergency (an emergency like a pint-size psychopath on the loose). If they continue to follow their core belief of "lawfulness"—their honor code—then the single breaking of a secular law will not cause them to change alignment. It is a nonlawful act, yes, but one does NOT change alignment from one nonlawful act. Only a consistent pattern of behavior will shift alignment, and contrary to popular belief, only a true switch to a nonlawful alignment will cause a paladin to fall. One evil act, and you fall; one nonlawful act, and you don't.

[Vikenlugaid]

For these reasons, in total, trying to place Belkar in a quadrant within the general area of CE is kind of pointless. He's not re-examining why he does anything, he's not having some major moral realization. His alignment hasn't changed in any meaningful fashion, and he's still a vicious little murderer who has absolutely no compunctions about using lethal force for his amusement. He's just decided that he likes a cat and it's to his benefit to have some allies in the world instead of treating everyone as a knife repository. The most Good act he's performed, arguably, was in not extorting a gnomish craftswoman too much.

Mmm nope.

Belkar started pretending to have a change of heart, just for practical motivation, but then Durkon sacrificed himself to safe him and he actually got a change of heart. He hasn't become Good magically, but is obvious that he feels bad about his past self (he talked bad about him), feels some kind of guilty... And he even told Durkon that evil people who "doesn't want to be good cause they would feel pain because of the bad things they did in the past" are cowards, strongly inplying that he wants to be good and he is feeling that pain.

I think is pretty obvious that new Belkar (after Durkon's death) is far less evil than old Belkar.

[Dame_Mechanus]

He says Windstriker will be able to visit her as much as able, which to me implies a different plane. Of course, that's just Soon's opinion, he's not a gatekeeper of the planes, but it seems to line up with her actions.

Yeah, to me that seemed less like "different plane" and more like "Windstriker still has work to do." Reading it as "different plane" is, of course, also valid - it isn't specified and is tangential to the point even to Miko, who is mostly afraid she won't get to see a friend because she doesn't get to be a Paladin again in death.

Also I occasionally forget how many follow-up strips were all basically "no, your fan theories about Miko are not going to play out."

[KorvinStarmast]

I think they describe themselves as "in the right" because society has instilled in them the idea that being morally justified is desirable, but that's a learned way of thinking. I think if they grew up in a society where you can stand up and say "I enjoy hurting people just to watch them suffer" with few or no repercussions, they would not bother putting up the pretense, inwardly or outwardly.

That would be Amos, in The Expanse.

If I recall correctly, Dragonlance’s handling of alignment is even more hamfisted than the average setting, and most settings have enough ham in their fists to feed Sigil for generations in that regard.

But at least they stuck with three. Sometimes the KISS Principle has value. If only they'd had it be L/N/C it might even have worked.

No need for the caveat.

Thank you, oh most righteous banana.

[arimareiji]

No need for the caveat.

Thank you for knowing where to find the appropriate quote, and sharing. (^_^)b

But now I'm imagining Windstriker wearing a wizard hat a la Elanicalicus and poring over a set of spellbooks, trying to learn how to cast spells for planar travel. (^_~)°

[bunsen_h]

He says Windstriker will be able to visit her as much as able, which to me implies a different plane. Of course, that's just Soon's opinion, he's not a gatekeeper of the planes, but it seems to line up with her actions.

After putting up with Miko, Windstriker is probably owed some time in the Pasture of Truly Excellent Grass, the Stable of Infinite Fillies in Heat, and the Hall of Wonderful Currying.

[Dame_Mechanus]

But now I'm imagining Windstriker wearing a wizard hat a la Elanicalicus and poring over a set of spellbooks, trying to learn how to cast spells for planar travel. (^_~)°

"So... Windstriker, have you mastered planar travel yet?"
"Neigh."

[arimareiji]

"So... Windstriker, have you mastered planar travel yet?"
"Neigh."

But at least he selected Conjuration as his mane school, that was para-mount.

[F.Harr]

An inspiration to many!