Stats for the Stats God! The Deities of OOTS

[Peelee]

Meh. Again, Greg does explicitly state that the plan being revealed ahead of time is not ideal and the Exarch pontificates at length about how they are using trickery and deceit.


Noipe. That is your personal reading that is entirely dependent on everyone else accepting that your premise is correct. The difference between the dwarven Council of Clans and two non-dwarven randos sent by a third party is not semantic, but rather factual. You are the one ready to die on the hill that Dvalin is somehow made so Lawful by his followers that he ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW, ITS LETTER OR ITS SPIRIT.

Ah, I see the disconnects here. The comic explains the importance of plans not being revealed in advance, and your definition of "Lawful" is neither the D&D nor the OotS definition of "Lawful".

[Precure]

For me, "I will follow this obviously mind-controlled council's decision, even though I swore an oath to follow the will of the council" is neither LG nor LN but simply Lawful Stupid. So, I don't see this plot as relevant to Dvalin's alignment at all.

[Metastachydium]

Ah, I see the disconnects here. The comic explains the importance of plans not being revealed in advance,

Too bad the very same strip makes it clear that only people like Elan, Tarquin and Julio really care about that and that it's very far from a hard and fast rule.

and your definition of "Lawful" is neither the D&D

?

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

(…)

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

(…)

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

(…)

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Please do point out where this contradicts the notion that "willfully ignoring the law is not Lawful".

nor the OotS definition of "Lawful".

Ditto.

[Peelee]

Too bad the very same strip makes it clear that only people like Elan, Tarquin and Julio really care about that and that it's very far from a hard and fast rule.

Ah, the "If Hel doesn't explicitly say it then she doesn't do it" idea. Despite that she helped create these rules for the world. Gotcha.

Please do point out where this contradicts the notion that "willfully ignoring the law is not Lawful".

Ignoring that poor characterization of my argument, bolding mine, in your own quote blocks.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

I am unsure but it seems as if you think that Lawful means all puppies daisies and sunshine. It does not, and there are downsides to being Lawful. Dvalin is displaying virtually all of the downsides of being Lawful, in that he swore to obey the council in life and in godhood that likely became an absolute unbreakable mandate.

Ditto.

Bolding mine, in the post you yourself linked to.

Those codes are not "personal," they are external. Thor's code is Thor's code, and if Durkon breaks it, Thor (or the church) punishes him. It's no different than following the laws of a nation, though it can get interesting when the two disagree. I was talking about truly personal, internally generated codes. Those are a different "shade" of Lawful than those who follow externally generated codes like a nation's laws or a religious order's ethics.



Again, Kubota is operating within an existing legal framework. He is warping it, because he's Lawful Evil, but he's not inventing the laws on his own. He's gaming them for his own benefit. So he does not count as someone whose claim to Lawfulness rests solely on a personal code.


I don't think they need to, no. Look at Elan: as Chaotic as they come, but he obeys the law most of the time. The real issue is, how does a character respond when what they believe and what the government is doing don't agree?

Dvalin's need to obey the council is not "personal", it is external (ie enforced through the worship and belief that he cannot do otherwise). It is a different shade of "Lawful" than the very narrow definition that you are trying to enforce on it. It is an existing framework that is being warped and being gamed (not even by him!). That doesn't mean he can just toss it all out. That's Chaotic. And when what he believes (even if he knows about it, lets say), and what his oath mandates don't agree? Chaotic would be going with what he believes above all. Lawful would be sticking to the oath in any event (which, again, I think isn't even a choice for him, but if you want to argue about how he must be tricked for it to work, then this is why you're still wrong). The Law, in this case, is his being bound to vote as the council tells him to. I'm not the one saying he is ignoring it. I'm saying that he would not ignore it no matter what, in any circumstance. I have no idea how you could possibly have gotten "I am saying ignoring the law is Lawful" from that. Which means that as much as I'd love to continue playing "Peelee explains the things that you yourself link to", I sincerely doubt this will resolve with either of us convincing the other.

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh, hey, this is a good opportunity for me to revisit an old post of mine.

For reference, #999 is the comic that lists the members of the Northern Pantheon and their votes (except for Hel, who is covered in the next one).

It's interesting how the division between gods and mythological giants doesn't seem to exist at all here; not only are the giants divine, but the gods normally depicted as being human-sized are gigantic. (Of course, this world presumably contains mortal giants.)

Incidentally, it's not too hard to see a one to one correspondence between the Northern Gods and the core Cleric domains:

Spoiler: I like matching up sets of things. It is fun.

Show

Deity	Domain
Odin, God of Magic	Magic
Tyr, God of War	War
Loki, God of Fire	Fire
Hel, Goddess of Death	Death
Sif, Goddess of Earth	Earth
Sunna, Goddess of the Sun	Sun
Frigg, Goddess of Wisdom	Knowledge
Njord, God of the Sea	Water
Feyr, God of Prosperity	Luck
Thor, God of Storms	Air
Heimdall, God of the Watch	Protection
Freya, Goddess of Fertility	Plant
Skadi, Goddess of the Hunt	Animal
Vafthrudnir, God of Secrets	Trickery
Hoder, God of Winter	Destruction
Fenrir, God of Monsters	Strength
Balder, God of Beauty	Healing
Mani, God of the Moon	Travel

Granted, those last few were largely by elimination. Of course, each deity presumably has at least three domains, but maybe each of them is in charge of one of them.

The list spoilered above is based mostly on titles; a deity of X had better grant the X domain, or the Y domain if Y is synonymous with X. I see Heimdall's and Freyr's statements as pretty solidly confirming my suspicions, while Hoder's are my main justification for that one beyond process of elimination.

In D&D terms, "chaotic" alignment means being in favor of personal liberties, freedom, and so forth; it has nothing to do with erratic or crazy behavior. Thor acting like a drunken idiot means he has low wisdom; it does not mean anything in particular about his alignment.

... Most people prefer not to be punished on a regular basis. So those prone to crazy, erratic behavior tend to dislike strong controlling authority that punishes crazy, erratic behavior. (Well, unless it's their own authority over others, for the Evil crowd. "Freedom just is another word for power, and power over others diminishes their freedom/power, so it's inherently a zero-sum game, and I play to win, because I'm not a chump.") The lolrandom crowd is gonna mostly come down on the freedom side of your classic "freedom versus security" dealamabob. Why else would that be called "chaotic"?

The relevant text here is "On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility".

The alignments have been described a lot of different ways over the editions, always with a lack of clear and definitive statements of a form like "A character is [alignment] if and only if [conditions]". How much weight should be given to each part is open to interpretation. So the claim that Chaotic alignment equals valuing freedom is debatable. But even given that premise, the desire for freedom correlates with other things, as discussed above. That's... why they're included with the description of Chaos.

So your claim that Chaotic alignment "has nothing to do with" erratic or crazy behavior rather fails to make sense, especially given what's written in the alignment section of the rules.

Speaking solely for myself, I do not think that being forced to do things reflects on alignment. For example, I do not think Loki is chaotic because he lies, I think he is chaotic because of actions he willingly takes.

Well, first off, I doubt that Dvalin and Loki were mistakenly mischaracterized to a "Thor hates trees" degree here. Loki probably developed a reputation as consistently dishonest by being very dishonest. If Dvalin has a reputation of always doing what the council says, that's probably due to him reliably doing what the council says. We can imagine that deities' most memetic traits often become exaggerated over time... which, um, seems both very worrying and like it could explain a lot? But that's different from those traits being invented out of whole cloth.

Secondly, in cases like these, I doubt that deities' followers regard them as being forced to do anything by anyone but themselves. And because the perceptions of those followers are what makes the deities how they are, that's probably how it is. That is to say, Loki isn't made to lie even if he doesn't choose to, he's made to be a pathological liar who always chooses to lie.

"Free will" can mean a lot of things. One of the things it can mean is our preferences deciding our actions, which is ordinary and unremarkable. A different thing it can mean is our preferences not having causes. And, not to put too fine a point on it, free will in that sense is rather obviously not a real thing? Like, gods' personality traits being shaped by forces outside of their control isn't some weird thing that makes them different from mortals.

[Metastachydium]

Ah, the "If Hel doesn't explicitly say it then she doesn't do it" idea. Despite that she helped create these rules for the world. Gotcha.

?

Ignoring that poor characterization of my argument, bolding mine, in your own quote blocks.

I am unsure but it seems as if you think that Lawful means all puppies daisies and sunshine. It does not, and there are downsides to being Lawful. Dvalin is displaying virtually all of the downsides of being Lawful, in that he swore to obey the council in life and in godhood that likely became an absolute unbreakable mandate.

The bit with daisies is appreciated, but the rest… It's a non-argument, really. If Dvalin is Lawful and he knowingly violates the oath because he "has to obey it" only makes sense on the odd chance that as Kish put it, it's a divide by zero meltdown event. Close-mindedness and reactionary adherence to tradition are not explanations that help your point, since not tolerating crystal clear fraud is not a "progressive innovation"; it should be the default. "Lack of adaptability" is the only saving grace of your position, and only if it makes Dvalin freeze up in the worst possible moment (and we never get around to seeing if that happens), but how it makes that point somehow "canonically more valid" than any other position is beyond me.

Not to mention that all these flaws are only Lawful insofar as a Lawful being has this limitations because of they exhibit (and I quote) "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability", they "tell the truth, keep [their] word" or "ac[t] as law, tradition or a personal code directs [them]". That they must obey illegitimate authority, break their word and ignore the law because they swore an oath to some effect is a big leap of logic. If the issue was "the actual Council will almost certainly choose death" (which no one ever implies) or "the world will get eaten if the Moot's resolution is delayed by several days" (which, again, no one treats as the main concern), you'd be correct. That's inflexibility, close-mindedness and obtuse adherence of tradition causing serious issues. Knowingly violating an oath because one swore that oath? No, sorry, that's a different species (or phylum, even) altogether.

Bolding mine, in the post you yourself linked to.

Dvalin's need to obey the council is not "personal", it is external (ie enforced through the worship and belief that he cannot do otherwise). It is a different shade of "Lawful" than the very narrow definition that you are trying to enforce on it. It is an existing framework that is being warped and being gamed (not even by him!). That doesn't mean he can just toss it all out. That's Chaotic. And when what he believes (even if he knows about it, lets say), and [B]what his oath mandates[B] don't agree? Chaotic would be going with what he believes above all. Lawful would be sticking to the oath in any event (which, again, I think isn't even a choice for him, but if you want to argue about how he must be tricked for it to work, then this is why you're still wrong). The Law, in this case, is his being bound to vote as the council tells him to. I'm not the one saying he is ignoring it. I'm saying that he would not ignore it no matter what, in any circumstance. I have no idea how you could possibly have gotten "I am saying ignoring the law is Lawful" from that. Which means that as much as I'd love to continue playing "Peelee explains the things that you yourself link to", I sincerely doubt this will resolve with either of us convincing the other.

For the umpteenth time, the existing framework involves
1. an oath that Dvalin will obey the will of the dwarven Council of Clans;
2. the Exarch and Sandy, or Hel, for that matter are not the dwarven Council of Clans;
3. therefore, what they write on a bunch of stolen ballots, to stick with my analogy from before, is not the will of the Council;
4. and as such, if Dvalin is aware that what is transmitted to him is this bundle of false votes that do not reflect the will of the Council, he does not honour his oath by acknowledging this result;
5. but rather knowingly violates it.

If you wish to continue chasing your tail and insist on your circular "Dvalin must obey whatever he gets, no matter what he knows because he must obey it" nonsense that pretends the oath's actual terms corresponding to the facts on the ground doesn't matter at all: okay, that's your choice. But I'd take it as a personal favour if you stopped smugly pretending you are "explaining me" some "self-evident things" when you are really just randomly declaring that things somehow prove your point and definitively refute all positions that don't conform to this theory, even though that takes massive leaps in logic and accepting, frankly, dubious premises.

[Tzardok]

The sad thing about this argument is that you are both on the same side regarding the original issue, you just got to blows about a hypothetical.

[dancrilis]

... but how it makes that point somehow "canonically more valid" than any other position is beyond me.

In relation to the Dvalin damns the dwarves to Hel plan.

Hel treats her plan is sound, not-Durkon treats the plan as sound, the Order treats the plan as sound, Thor and Loki treat the plan as sound - and none of the high priests (including the high priest of Dvalin) indicate that the plan is anything other then sound.

Would Dvalin have actually done it?
Who knows, the Giant could justify him doing are not doing it in any number of ways if he wanted to write that story.

But the way the story is written is that we are led to believe that Dvalin would have done so - as such that does seem 'canonically more valid' then other possibilities (at least to me).

[Jasdoif]

In relation to the Dvalin damns the dwarves to Hel plan.

Hel treats her plan is sound, not-Durkon treats the plan as sound, the Order treats the plan as sound, Thor and Loki treat the plan as sound - and none of the high priests (including the high priest of Dvalin) indicate that the plan is anything other then sound.

Would Dvalin have actually done it?
Who knows, the Giant could justify him doing are not doing it in any number of ways if he wanted to write that story.

But the way the story is written is that we are led to believe that Dvalin would have done so - as such that does seem 'canonically more valid' then other possibilities (at least to me).

The most effective way a break like that would work would be for comedic effect; I'm thinking specifically of the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Armageddon Game", where the clue leading to an investigation into the "death" of Miles O'Brien is that falsified footage shows him drinking coffee in the afternoon, which his wife Keiko insists he never does...and in the last four lines of dialog in the episode, after he's been recovered and things have been figured out; it's revealed that he does, in fact, drink coffee in the afternoon. It's played for laughs in her reaction (Rosalind Chao can do a lot with her face and two words).

That, however, works because that affects the framing of the conflict rather than being an integral part of the conflict itself (so the stakes weren't undercut); and because the antagonists were out of the picture so the character implications are limited to Keiko's unfamiliarity with her husband's current coffee habits, which is minor in scope (unlike the fate of the world) and easy to adjust (unlike the perceived intelligence of deities).


Now I could see the comic's ending strip having a panel with Hel, Thor and Loki all screaming "WHAT?!?!" at Dvalin...if three sets of timing work out so the rifts are secured, the paused council resumes, and Last-Vampire-Standing has managed to dominate the council again; just for Dvalin to reveal that the Council has voted "yes" but he was always going to vote "no" after he got the result anyway. It's not the kind of thing I would bet on while the stakes are still on the table, though.

[Metastachydium]

In relation to the Dvalin damns the dwarves to Hel plan.

Hel treats her plan is sound, not-Durkon treats the plan as sound,

Greg is unhappy that the Exarch prematurely spills the beans, however.

the Order treats the plan as sound,

And it's not like they can just notify Dvalin.

Thor and Loki treat the plan as sound

That's a better point already, but if Loki is a known lier and Thor is Chaotic with an agenda…

and none of the high priests (including the high priest of Dvalin) indicate that the plan is anything other then sound.

Well, they can't leave Zenith Peak and explicitly can't talk to anyone on the outside.

Would Dvalin have actually done it?
Who knows, the Giant could justify him doing are not doing it in any number of ways if he wanted to write that story.

Certainly! I never dismissed that possibility as valid. But in that case, I'd argue that Dvalin cannot be Lawful because his being considerd most likley Lawful hinges on his honouring the oath which he would knowingly violate if he had been aware of the vote being rigged and would have accepted the result anyhow. That wouls, in fact, make it more feasible for me that he is TN or NE and simply a slacker who prefers to delegate decisionmaking to his unwilling underlings (i.e. the Whiterock elder's grumblings make good points).

But the way the story is written is that we are led to believe that Dvalin would have done so - as such that does seem 'canonically more valid' then other possibilities (at least to me).

I'm not convinced, but yes, that is a perfectly valid and intuitive reading. Nonetheless, as far as I'm concerned, it calls into question Dvalin's being Lawful.

The sad thing about this argument is that you are both on the same side regarding the original issue, you just got to blows about a hypothetical.

[EVIL Flower grin.] Welcome to the forum!

The most effective way a break like that would work would be for comedic effect; I'm thinking specifically of the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Armageddon Game", where the clue leading to an investigation into the "death" of Miles O'Brien is that falsified footage shows him drinking coffee in the afternoon, which his wife Keiko insists he never does...and in the last four lines of dialog in the episode, after he's been recovered and things have been figured out; it's revealed that he does, in fact, drink coffee in the afternoon. It's played for laughs in her reaction (Rosalind Chao can do a lot with her face and two words).

That, however, works because that affects the framing of the conflict rather than being an integral part of the conflict itself (so the stakes weren't undercut); and because the antagonists were out of the picture so the character implications are limited to Keiko's unfamiliarity with her husband's current coffee habits, which is minor in scope (unlike the fate of the world) and easy to adjust (unlike the perceived intelligence of deities).


Now I could see the comic's ending strip having a panel with Hel, Thor and Loki all screaming "WHAT?!?!" at Dvalin...if three sets of timing work out so the rifts are secured, the paused council resumes, and Last-Vampire-Standing has managed to dominate the council again; just for Dvalin to reveal that the Council has voted "yes" but he was always going to vote "no" after he got the result anyway. It's not the kind of thing I would bet on while the stakes are still on the table, though.

Heh. Much, much screaming would have ensued on the boards and I couldn't have blamed anyone for that.

[woweedd]

Meanwhile, my position is that Dvalin is probably bound to obey whatever gets passed to him as "this is the result of the Council's vote" by something...

But it's sure not by any reasonable reading of "I swore to follow the will of the Council." This isn't rules-lawyering unless suggesting that words mean things is rules-lawyering. Nor is it parsing, just reading.

I think the distinction would be entirely lost on Dvalin. I think most likely, what binds him to swallow the results of the vote that get passed to him without thought is that the concept "maybe procedure being followed leads to something that wasn't what you intended" makes his brain do a division by zero error...

...because he's Lawful Neutral.

I tend to suspect Lawful Good myself, but, yeah, for sure a Lawful Good with a bit more emphasis on the Law then is usual. As I said, probably international as it forms a good contrast to Durkon, who also places a bit more emphasis on the Law half of his alignment then, say, Roy. I do tend to suspect Davlin would reject the vote (or, at least, call a re-do) if he knew some of the Council were mind-controlled, but...He doesn't know that, so...Kinda moot. If Davlin had bothered to double-check if there was mind-control after being handed the results, the plan would have been sunk, but, well, as the comic has said before, a frequent flaw in the Lawful is a tendency to accept the rules as presented at face-value instead of checking for deception. Unwise, but not non-Good.