OOTS #1261 - The DIscussion Thread

[dancrilis]

That's not how alignment works. You do not cease being chaotic evil because it turns out there were things you could have done which caused more disorder and were more likely to inflict suffering.

I am not saying anything about his alignment - I am asking if you think he is less chaotic, are do you believe that all chaotic people are equally chaotic?

[Peelee]

I am not saying anything about his alignment - I am asking if you think he is less chaotic, are do you believe that all chaotic people are equally chaotic?

Do you mean chaotic in regards to the metaphysical concept of chaos, or do you mean chaotic in regards to alignment? Because the first is irrelevant to Belkar and the second is, actually saying anything about alignment.

[dancrilis]

Do you mean chaotic in regards to the metaphysical concept of chaos, or do you mean chaotic in regards to alignment? Because the first is irrelevant to Belkar and the second is, actually saying anything about alignment.

What I mean by chaotic is largely irrelevant - my question was does Dame_Mechanus 'think Belkar is as evil just less chaotic?' how they define evil and chaotic matters to that question, my definations really don't.

They can answer that question any way they like, yes, no, maybe, I don't know, etc, they can ignore the question entirely I am not owed an answer to questions raised on the internet - but I thought the question itself was fairly clear.


Edit:
On the alignment topic Dame_Mechanus did seem to mention that Xykon is Chaotic and Evil, but that he could be more Chaotic and Evil - which implies he could be less Chaotic and Evil, as such presumedly Belkar could also be less Chaotic and/or Evil then he previously was.

[Peelee]

What I mean by chaotic is largely irrelevant - my question was does Dame_Mechanus 'think Belkar is as evil just less chaotic?' how they define evil and chaotic matters to that question, my definations really don't.

In a comic heavily based on D&D, you are unclear as to what someone means when they define as character as evil and chaotic?

I don't believe I would be able to provide any elucidation if that could not.

[KorvinStarmast]

For those who don't know, CDO is a lot like OCD, except that the letters are in alphabetical order AS THEY SHOULD BE!

Bravo. (But I thought that the CDO was the Command Duty Officer)

[Jason]

Even if you're going on the standard of "he's committing fewer outright evil acts on a daily basis," that doesn't actually even make the first step toward redemption. As Soon said outright, redemption requires (among other things) admitting that you might have been wrong in the past.

I wasn't really talking about redemption, just alignment. Belkar is objectively less evil and chaotic than he once was. He was pretty close to the lower right corner of the alignment graph to begin with. Roy began the process of moving him away from that corner by restraining some of his more evil and choatic acts (as the deva pointed out to him).
Then Belkar formed a connection with an animal.
Then he went through his epiphany and pretended to be a team player.
Then Durkon sacrificed himself for Belkar, and Belkar dimly perceives that this is worthwhile behavior, as shown by his apology.
Eventually he turned into actually being a team player, where he is now. He has been retreating from the lower right corner of the alignment graph for some time now. He is by no means out of the Chaotic Evil zone, but he's much closer to shifting to Chaotic Neutral than he used to be.

Doing fewer acts of any strong alignment eventually shift you more towards Neutral, the middle of the graph. Doing actual good acts, like helping the good guys to try to stop the world from ending and learning to work better with your team shift you towards Neutral or even Good or Lawful even faster.

[bunsen_h]

Doing actual good acts, like helping the good guys to try to stop the world from ending and learning to work better with your team shift you towards Neutral or even Good or Lawful even faster.

Working to save the world isn't likely to be Evil (though I'm sure that circumstances could be found that would make it so), but it can be Neutral rather than Good. Who are you doing it for, and why? If it's just because you and the people you're close to emotionally need a place to live, that's Neutral. If it's partially so that people you don't have that connection with can benefit, that's Good.

[Vikenlugaid]

I think Belkar is still evil, but clearly trying to be less evil, and trying counts a lot in this world.

[dancrilis]

In a comic heavily based on D&D, you are unclear as to what someone means when they define as character as evil and chaotic?

The question was asked and the question was also answered - the answer didn't make sense to me but that is somewhat beside the point.

'That's not how alignment works' combined with 'Is Xykon CE? Absolutely. But you know what would have been even more chaotic and evil? If instead of allying with the bugbears he'd come in spells blazing, razed the houses, murdered everyone, raised them as undead, had them fight each other, and then built a fortress out of the bones of their ancestors'.

If Xykon is capable of being Chaotic Evil and also capable of being more chaotic and evil then surely it is possible for Belkar to be Chaotic Evil and also be less chaotic and evil then he used to be, however Dame_Mechanus mentioned 'it doesn't seem like Belkar's being any less evil'.

So that their take might be 'as evil and less chaotic' seemed (and frankly still seems) reasonable based on their statements.

The statement 'that's not how alignment works' seems at odds with their own take on alignment as per their reference to Xykon.

[Vikenlugaid]

It,s even more simple. Roy and Durkon are both lawfull but Durkon is more lawfull than Roy.
Xykon and Redcloak are both evil but Xykon is far more Evil.

Old Belkar was more Evil than new Belkar.

[Jason]

Working to save the world isn't likely to be Evil (though I'm sure that circumstances could be found that would make it so), but it can be Neutral rather than Good.

In which case it's still moving you away from Evil on the alignment graph, even if it's not moving you directly towards Good.

Old Belkar was more Evil than new Belkar.

Exactly.
He might still be in the Chaotic Evil zone of the alignment graph, but he's not as far to the lower right as he used to be.

And yes, trying counts for a lot in Stickworld.

[Fyraltari]

Belkar's stopped digging, but I am unconvinced he's actually started to climb out of his hole.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Belkar's stopped digging, but I am unconvinced he's actually started to climb out of his hole.

Exactly. I don't see anything there that makes me think "wow, that's a Good action." Heck, I can only think of one particularly good action he's taken that was deliberately good - and even that was him not exploiting someone further when he was already exploiting her. And that was when he got the Protection from Evil clasp in the first place.

Alignment is not a point system.

[Corian]

Exactly. I don't see anything there that makes me think "wow, that's a Good action." Heck, I can only think of one particularly good action he's taken that was deliberately good - and even that was him not exploiting someone further when he was already exploiting her. And that was when he got the Protection from Evil clasp in the first place.

Alignment is not a point system.

Agreed with both you and Fyraltari. But I'd say there were quite a few moments where I thought "oh, that's a non-evil (neutral) action", which were novel and as such, I think "less evil" is still warranted.

[No good @ names]

I'm glad O'chul was right about Redcloak, but this makes me worried that he will never see reason. And they need Redcloak to cooperate in the end.

Redcloak changed his mind about hobgoblins, it just required it spelled out to him in 100ft high burning self-sacrificing letters.


Either O-Chul or Belkar saves Redcloak and he has a realisation on the error of his ways.

[Thermophille]

Alignment is not a point system.

It's not a Boolean either, with an example being the graph the Deva showed Roy.

Of course, that raises a completely different question: Is your alignment primarily comprised of your current temperament, or the sum of your past actions? The Deva seemed to lean towards the second, but I'm personally token to the first. What do you think?

Belkar is 100% Chaotic Evil either way, obviously, but it's still interesting to consider.

[Jason]

Of course, that raises a completely different question: Is your alignment primarily comprised of your current temperament, or the sum of your past actions? The Deva seemed to lean towards the second, but I'm personally token to the first. What do you think?

For D&D it can be considered both:

For NPCs and newly created PCs who have no real "past actions" in game, alignment indicates current temperament.

For Player Characters or NPCs with in-game histories alignment is the sum of past actions, with the starting point being the alignment at which they entered the game. Actions shift alignment on the alignment graph in proportion to how Good/Evil or Chaotic/Lawful they are, and once a character crosses the line they are considered the new alignment.

[brian 333]

Agreed with both you and Fyraltari. But I'd say there were quite a few moments where I thought "oh, that's a non-evil (neutral) action", which were novel and as such, I think "less evil" is still warranted.

Neutral acts are neutral, and as such do not shift alignment. There may be acts committed 'for Neutrality' which may conflict with this statement, such as a druid saving Evil forest creatures in the name of Balance, but in most cases to shift on the Good vs. Evil azis one must perform Good or Evil acts. Being 'less Evil than you were' makes you Evil.

A mass murderer can't become Good by cutting his murder sprees in half, or by not murdering a hundred innocents a day. To become less Evil, there must be acts of Glloodness involved.

[Thermophille]

For Player Characters or NPCs with in-game histories alignment is the sum of past actions, with the starting point being the alignment at which they entered the game. Actions shift alignment on the alignment graph in proportion to how Good/Evil or Chaotic/Lawful they are, and once a character crosses the line they are considered the new alignment.

By that logic, isn't the amount of time since you performed an action irrelevant? I'd say something you did a week ago is a lot more relevant to your current alignment than something you did 20 years ago.

[Fyraltari]

There may be acts committed 'for Neutrality' which may conflict with this statement, such as a druid saving Evil forest creatures in the name of Balance

This is insane.

By that logic, isn't the amount of time since you performed an action irrelevant? I'd say something you did a week ago is a lot more relevant to your current alignment than something you did 20 years ago.

Only inasmuch as you have changed since then. It's not everyday that you get an occasion to rescue a baby from a burning building.

[Thermophille]

Only inasmuch as you have changed since then. It's not everyday that you get an occasion to rescue a baby from a burning building.

Indeed, but I'm trying to keep it simple, because otherwise we'd have to factor in the age of the person (a year ago for a teenager is a lot longer than for an elf), the rate of personal growth (some people get stuck in a specific mental state for years or decades due to trauma) and all that jazz. These are interesting topics, but not particularly relevant to the question I wanted to ask.

If you were capable of taking a perfect snapshot of someone's temperament at a specific moment (weighing their heart against a feather as it were), how much of that person's alingment would that cover, when compared to using acts that person had committed in the past.

[Jason]

By that logic, isn't the amount of time since you performed an action irrelevant? I'd say something you did a week ago is a lot more relevant to your current alignment than something you did 20 years ago.

Inaction can be seen as the same as taking multiple Neutral-aligned actions, pulling a character towards the center of the alignment graph along either of the good/evil or chaotic/lawful axes.

A person who did a murder and then never does anything else significantly evil or good in the intervening 20 years has been slowly drawn towards the center of the alignment graph, while probably not crossing entirely out of evil. If they then do something significantly good they may well immediately go into one of the good zones of the graph.

In that case the current action will have had more influence on their alignment than something done 20 years ago, yes.

[Fyraltari]

Inaction can be seen as the same as taking multiple Neutral-aligned actions, pulling a character towards the center of the alignment graph along either of the good/evil or chaotic/lawful axes.

Neutral-aligned actions push you towards the center of the alignment chart? Dang, with all the air he's breathed, Tarquin must be pretty close to True Neutral, by now.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Neutral-aligned actions push you towards the center of the alignment chart? Dang, with all the air he's breathed, Tarquin must be pretty close to True Neutral, by now.

Little did you know that People Sitting in Chairs is actually an LE action. It's why Roy always sits on stools. Any time you see him sitting on a chair it's actually an illusion cantrip cast by V that everyone was polite enough not to point out.

[Corian]

Alignment is not a point system.

It's not a Boolean either, with an example being the graph the Deva showed Roy.

Of course, that raises a completely different question: Is your alignment primarily comprised of your current temperament, or the sum of your past actions?

Eh... In our D&D inspired setting: It depends what culture(s) your DM chose as an inspiration for your fantasy setting.

The current temperament would be consistent with the notion of contrition, while the latter is closer to, say, the use of scales in afterlife of some ancient religions (also mentioned in-comic.)

And I agree the Deva spoke for the former, probably aligned with authorial intent.

Moral philosophy has been through many more theories. (I recommend Charles Taylor' Sources of the Self for a history.)

[Jason]

Neutral-aligned actions push you towards the center of the alignment chart? Dang, with all the air he's breathed, Tarquin must be pretty close to True Neutral, by now.

If he had managed to just walk around breathing for twenty years without doing anything significantly evil then yeah, he would have slowly gotten closer and closer to True Neutral.

[Corian]

Neutral-aligned actions push you towards the center of the alignment chart? Dang, with all the air he's breathed, Tarquin must be pretty close to True Neutral, by now.

What I read as "less evil" is about placing people on a continuum. Assuming no good act, someone who acted mostly neutral and did one major evil deed (say murder) in a long life is less evil than someone who enjoys murdering someone every day. Just saying that within each box of the alignment chart there is space for variation. And so yes, "stopping digging" as you said most eloquently means others (like Xykon) will crowd Belkar out of the very edge of the box (if only by stretching the box), hence (geometrically) somewhat closer to the center. I am not saying that qualifies him as not-evil (crossing into another alignment box) that is indeed another story.

ETA: and we get into the question of disposition again. Belkar aside, was that hypothetical person's one major evil act near the beginning or the end of their life? Many would agree the dying disposition matters. Now assume it's early. Would you judge the person more harshly if they had died soon after the deed rather than much later? This is the question of dilution, as I said in another post it depends on the moral theory implicit in the setting. We know trying is important, the Deva also said that Roy's regret (contrition) mattered, we do not have such a clear in-comic message about dilution in the sense I outlined. It could go either way and be logically consistent with what we do know, but I think thematically Belkar's trajectory towards less evil matters. (I also expect a selfless act before the end to tie the bow.)

[Larsaan]

One big issue with ignoring disposition and only counting actions towards alignment changes is that it means people who have been sentenced to incarceration are literally incapable of turning away from Evil during their sentence. Not a whole lot of Good deeds to be done within the confines of a prison cell, after all.

[Thermophille]

One big issue with ignoring disposition and only counting actions towards alignment changes is that it means people who have been sentenced to incarceration are literally incapable of turning away from Evil during their sentence. Not a whole lot of Good deeds to be done within the confines of a prison cell, after all.

On the contrary, the inability to do anything means that everyone who's been in prison long enough is automatically Neutral!

[Fyraltari]

One big issue with ignoring disposition and only counting actions towards alignment changes is that it means people who have been sentenced to incarceration are literally incapable of turning away from Evil during their sentence. Not a whole lot of Good deeds to be done within the confines of a prison cell, after all.

Community service is a thing.