What alignment is Oona?

[mashlagoo1982]

Oona is currently tracking as some type of Evil alignment for me.

Probably just a tick past neutral.

This is mostly because I also recognize that we don't have much information about her and the current situation. A great deal of assumptions are being made.

As we come to learn more, it is possible she is actually some type of Neutral and the situation demands she adopt certain Evil behaviors to survive.
I mean come on, look at who she is forced to play host for.

[Emanick]

Harpoons have a 30foot rope attached to them, they are also thrown weapons where medium creatures take a penalty to using them, they also impale those hit (if they don't make a reflex save) forcing them to make a heal check to remove it or take damage as they do and limiting movement and movement actions while impaled ... that does not seem to be the weapon that Lien is using.

I have no idea whether Lien's weapon is a spear or a harpoon, but it strikes me as interesting that the first time we see it in action, it behaves more or less as a harpoon would be expected to behave if used as a melee weapon.

I mean, I don't think that's dispositive of anything, I literally just think that it's interesting.

[fuschiawarrior]

I've always understood the dialog in ther first two panels of 1213 as follow:

Redcloak: Please, kill them.
Oona: Who?
Redcloak: They are trying to stop us.
Oona: I didn't ask why I need to kill but who I need to kill.

Which shows Oona's willingness to murder people without reason even before she herself say it. Did reading comprehension failed me?

[Worldsong]

I've always understood the dialog in ther first two panels of 1213 as follow:

Redcloak: Please, kill them.
Oona: Who?
Redcloak: They are trying to stop us.
Oona: I didn't ask why I need to kill but who I need to kill.

Which shows Oona's willingness to murder people without reason even before she herself say it. Did reading comprehension failed me?

Seems kind of unlikely given that Redcloak spoke in plural and there's exactly two people in front of them that he could be referring to.

[Gurgeh]

To return to the spear discussion; the High Priestess of Odin has a spear with a similar head to Lien's.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Oona is the chaotic good protagonist for the entire comic. Duh.
In all seriousness I like Oona as a character a lot, I'm interested to see where they go as a character. To be honest, I'm tempted to put their alignment as just south of chaotic neutral.

[Fyraltari]

I've always understood the dialog in ther first two panels of 1213 as follow:

Redcloak: Please, kill them.
Oona: Who?
Redcloak: They are trying to stop us.
Oona: I didn't ask why I need to kill but who I need to kill.

Which shows Oona's willingness to murder people without reason even before she herself say it. Did reading comprehension failed me?

Seems kind of unlikely given that Redcloak spoke in plural and there's exactly two people in front of them that he could be referring to.

She's not asking Redcloak to point out who needs killing she wants him to explain tobher the identity of these two dwarves he wants dead. The implied question being "why do you want them dead?" Given that she still tries to kill them without an answer this seeos more like curiosity than her trying to make a moral decision based on sufficient information.

[Yanisa]

To return to the spear discussion; the High Priestess of Odin has a spear with a similar head to Lien's.

To end this discussion: Lien herself calls her weapon a spear in #0588. The Geekery thread even call it a longspear, with #0591 as evidence, but I don't see why...

The wiki calls the weapons, in the trap and Roy, depicted in #0036 and #0038 a harpoon, which has a distinct look from Lien's weapon, but there is no in-comic mention these are harpoons.

Oona is the chaotic good protagonist for the entire comic. Duh.

I believe we have reached the point every single alignment has been suggested for Oona. She truly is the batman of this comic.

[Fyraltari]

To end this discussion: Lien herself calls her weapon a spear in #0588.

Ooh, good catch.

[Metastachydium]

To end this discussion: Lien herself calls her weapon a spear in #0588.

How dare you! I was just about to suggest that the high priest also carries a harpoon!

[Worldsong]

I believe we have reached the point every single alignment has been suggested for Oona. She truly is the batman of this comic.

I think Neutral Good hasn't been done yet. Mostly because it's difficult to call her Good without including some mumbo jumbo about how a strongly Lawful or Chaotic leaning gives her a moral code which justifies the things she does.

[Yanisa]

I think Neutral Good hasn't been done yet. Mostly because it's difficult to call her Good without including some mumbo jumbo about how a strongly Lawful or Chaotic leaning gives her a moral code which justifies the things she does.

Neutral good is basically the middle ground between Oona's lawful good and chaotic good traits. Oona both believes in hierarchy, follows (leads?) and protects her clan, but also wants to help everyone and sometimes gives into chaotic tendencies in order to help people. Too much giving into emotion to be lawful, too orderly to be chaotic. All around a helper of people, thus neutral good.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The Geekery thread even call it a longspear, with #0591 as evidence, but I don't see why...

Length, I think. A spear is about the same height as its wielder. A longspear is, unsurprisingly, longer than a spear. In that comic, it is clear that Lien's weapon is significantly taller than she is.

(Note that these names, together with the third type, shortspear, are, unlike sword types, supposed to be generic enough to cover all sorts of historical variations on the concept of "pointy metal at end of shaft of wood" weapons, - so it could still be a fishing spear of some kind)

GW

[Keltest]

Length, I think. A spear is about the same height as its wielder. A longspear is, unsurprisingly, longer than a spear. In that comic, it is clear that Lien's weapon is significantly taller than she is.

(Note that these names, together with the third type, shortspear, are, unlike sword types, supposed to be generic enough to cover all sorts of historical variations on the concept of "pointy metal at end of shaft of wood" weapons, - so it could still be a fishing spear of some kind)

GW

What makes you think the sword types arent meant to be generic? They certainly arent technical terms by any stretch of the imagination?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What makes you think the sword types arent meant to be generic? They certainly arent technical terms by any stretch of the imagination?

The fact that they use terms intended to be technical, even if they horribly miss the mark. It's not just "short sword", "sword" and "long sword". It is also "great sword" and "bastard sword" and "scimitar" and "rapier", even though they could easily have been folded in to the three size categories for "use in one hand", "use in one, optional two" and "use in two, with reach" "sharp metal with handle" categories that would have made it generic.

GW

[Worldsong]

Neutral good is basically the middle ground between Oona's lawful good and chaotic good traits. Oona both believes in hierarchy, follows (leads?) and protects her clan, but also wants to help everyone and sometimes gives into chaotic tendencies in order to help people. Too much giving into emotion to be lawful, too orderly to be chaotic. All around a helper of people, thus neutral good.

I'm opposed to Chaotic being synonymous with impulsive and emotional but beyond that I'll accept this explanation.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm opposed to Chaotic being synonymous with impulsive and emotional

Yeah, I agree. Chaotic is effectively, to me, "does not see the value of tradition and established procedure". Decisions on courses of actions are made in the moment, based on the facts of the moment, with no dependencies on what has "always been done" or "what worked last time" (you may still go with either, but they have no inherent value when it comes to making the decision). As it affects Oona, a Chaotic individual listens to the guy giving orders not because he is the boss, but because he hasn't led them astray. Compare this to Oona's "everyone needs a boss, and you obey them because they are the boss, and you owe them respect because they are the boss". She is almost prototypical Lawful.

Emotions and impulsiveness doesn't come into this at all - you can be irrationally attached to a hierarchy and impulsively fall back on following tradition in the face of adversity just as much as you are irrationally resistant to taking orders from anyone and impulsively reject tradition just because it is tradition. And likewise, you can rationally and calmly consider every single decision anew (exhausting, but rational).

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

The fact that they use terms intended to be technical, even if they horribly miss the mark. It's not just "short sword", "sword" and "long sword". It is also "great sword" and "bastard sword" and "scimitar" and "rapier", even though they could easily have been folded in to the three size categories for "use in one hand", "use in one, optional two" and "use in two, with reach" "sharp metal with handle" categories that would have made it generic.

GW

None of those terms are technical, actually. Across history, every single one of them has had wildly different usage depending on what the most popular contemporary designs were. Scimitar is probably the closest one to being a technical term, but even that is pretty loose. Scholars and blacksmiths use things like the Oakeshott typology when speaking technically specifically because of how wildly non-technical all those terms are. The fact of the matter is, having technical classifications for swords at all is a very modern invention.

[Metastachydium]

Yeah, I agree. Chaotic is effectively, to me, "does not see the value of tradition and established procedure". Decisions on courses of actions are made in the moment, based on the facts of the moment, with no dependencies on what has "always been done" or "what worked last time" (you may still go with either, but they have no inherent value when it comes to making the decision). As it affects Oona, a Chaotic individual listens to the guy giving orders not because he is the boss, but because he hasn't led them astray. Compare this to Oona's "everyone needs a boss, and you obey them because they are the boss, and you owe them respect because they are the boss". She is almost prototypical Lawful.

Emotions and impulsiveness doesn't come into this at all - you can be irrationally attached to a hierarchy and impulsively fall back on following tradition in the face of adversity just as much as you are irrationally resistant to taking orders from anyone and impulsively reject tradition just because it is tradition. And likewise, you can rationally and calmly consider every single decision anew (exhausting, but rational).

Grey Wolf

What I don't agree with is the reading of Lawful positing that Lawful means rigid and either stupidly obedient or driven by an obsessive need to control the behaviour of others. As far as I am concerned, a preference for an established chain of command because it is efficient is Lawful; a preference for rules that actually work and make certain situations safe and predictable is Lawful, even if one does not like bad rules just because they are rules; a preference for a set of established methodologies for dealing with certain types of situation because they make handling such situation easier without the need to play trial-and-error and, as such, they are useful is Lawful; and respecting traditions because – among other things – they are based around the knowledge accumulated by past generations is Lawful. Lawful should not mean „orders are orders and I'm too dumb to think for myself as a proper Chaotic person does,” nor should it be synonimous with incapable of adaptation.
For this reason, I absolutely hated Dvalin. While the plot needed him to be a nuisance and a problem, he was a nuisance and a problem not because he is Lawful, but because he is incredibly stupid. Enabling election fraud when the perpetrator makes it abundantly clear that they are about to engage in fraudulent activity is anything but Lawful, and he never gave his word to some random vampires that he will consult them before making big decisions.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

None of those terms are technical, actually. [...] The fact of the matter is, having technical classifications for swords at all is a very modern invention.

A rapier is a type of longsword used for about a century and a half around Southern Europe, whose difference in use versus a longsword is minute and in no real way reflected by D&D combat rules, making it redundant with the generic one-handed sword. That's what I mean by technical.

But given that "technical classifications" is, according to you, "a very modern invention" then I have absolutely no interest in what you have to say about this, because this will devolve into silly arguments about meaning of words, and I don't have the time or interest to play language games.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

A rapier is a type of longsword used for about a century and a half around Southern Europe, whose difference in use versus a longsword is minute and in no real way reflected by D&D combat rules, making it redundant with the generic one-handed sword. That's what I mean by technical.

But given that "technical classifications" is, according to you, "a very modern invention" then I have absolutely no interest in what you have to say about this, because this will devolve into silly arguments about meaning of words, and I don't have the time or interest to play language games.

Grey Wolf

The fact that you lead with "a rapier is a type of longsword" kind of defeats your point that those are technical classifications, no? Also, while you are correct in that a medieval rapier was used vastly differently from a modern fencing rapier, it would not be used remotely the same way as an era-equivalent knightly battle longsword of any flavor.

[Goblin_Priest]

What I don't agree with is the reading of Lawful positing that Lawful means rigid and either stupidly obedient or driven by an obsessive need to control the behaviour of others. As far as I am concerned, a preference for an established chain of command because it is efficient is Lawful; a preference for rules that actually work and make certain situations safe and predictable is Lawful, even if one does not like bad rules just because they are rules; a preference for a set of established methodologies for dealing with certain types of situation because they make handling such situation easier without the need to play trial-and-error and, as such, they are useful is Lawful; and respecting traditions because – among other things – they are based around the knowledge accumulated by past generations is Lawful. Lawful should not mean „orders are orders and I'm too dumb to think for myself as a proper Chaotic person does,” nor should it be synonimous with incapable of adaptation.
For this reason, I absolutely hated Dvalin. While the plot needed him to be a nuisance and a problem, he was a nuisance and a problem not because he is Lawful, but because he is incredibly stupid. Enabling election fraud when the perpetrator makes it abundantly clear that they are about to engage in fraudulent activity is anything but Lawful, and he never gave his word to some random vampires that he will consult them before making big decisions.

The law is as it is. While there is some room for interpreting judicial intent, it's generally not up to the executive powers to decide on that.

Dvalin considers himself a mere spokesperson, and executant, the representative of the dwarven council.

Who is he to decide what is a legitimate decision and what is not, if he cares for the rules as they are written? In his eyes, they are legitimate when the rules are obeyed, and illegitemate if not, and that is all that matters. At best he could feel discomfort when the spirit of the rules are broken, but he is bound by the rules as written.

Is that "stupid"? I don't really think so. It is unreasonably narrow-minded, but a lot of people are stuck up on rules. Especially people who aren't... what's the term, neurotypical? Some forms of autism are just unable to pick up on nuance and context, for the world to make sense to them, the rules are the rules, they are universal, and unconditional. Maybe Dvalin's just a deified autist?

And autism aside, who is he to draw the line, and where to draw it? Most reasonable people would put "voters being mind-controlled invalidates the votes", but if that mind control was really against their nature, they'd get to resist it better. Besides, if we compare to real world analogues... if a politician takes a bribe, does that invalidate their vote? Maybe in some places, but certainly not everywhere. Their vote isn't cast with the right intentions in mind, but it also doesn't mean that they wouldn't have voted the same way otherwise. Plus the whole "people get the representatives they deserve" idea that could be going on. Dvalin might just shrug it off, and say "well if they didn't want vampires to decide their fate, it was up to them to make sure vampires couldn't decide their fate", and deflect any responsibility in voting their damnation upon the dwarves themselves. And if he goes against their vote, where does he draw the line? What freedom/power does the council have if Dvalin can ignore them if he wills it? Additional edit: of course, if the law had provisions about election fraud, then that would give him all of the legitimacy to act upon these provisions. But it's quite likely that the law, in this case, simply lacked a clause for "what to do if vampires decide to dominate the voting council". While fraud is certain that they probably should have thought of, medieval laws were not totally fool-proof, and even modern ones rarely are. On top, vampires seem to be very rare in the setting. So it's quite plausible that dwarven law simply did not have any articles Dvalin could use to justify opposing the council's will.

RL is actually littered with people voting or speaking against their own believes for a number of reasons. Members of parliament following the "party line" on matters they disagree with, to avoid getting booted from the caucus and ostracized from their peers, or union spokespersons defending employees they sincerely believe are worthy of getting the boot are just a few examples if it. More radical and typically left-wing parties can sometimes have spokespersons instead of leaders, which generally have about zero agency in what they are to say, being constantly reprimanded when they present personal opinions that deviate from resolutions taken in the general assemblies.

In a world where ideas can manifest as deities, Dvalin doesn't really shock me in the least.

[Metastachydium]

The law is as it is. While there is some room for interpreting judicial intent, it's generally not up to the executive powers to decide on that.

Dvalin considers himself a mere spokesperson, and executant, the representative of the dwarven council.

Who is he to decide what is a legitimate decision and what is not, if he cares for the rules as they are written? In his eyes, they are legitimate when the rules are obeyed, and illegitemate if not, and that is all that matters. At best he could feel discomfort when the spirit of the rules are broken, but he is bound by the rules as written.
Is that "stupid"? I don't really think so.

The rules as written spoken (as far as we know, they are not commited to paper) force him to abide by the will of the elders. These rules say nothing about obeying three random vampires.
So, yeah. It is really-really stupid.

And autism aside, who is he to draw the line, and where to draw it? Most reasonable people would put "voters being mind-controlled invalidates the votes", but if that mind control was really against their nature, they'd get to resist it better.

We know they would have never said yes were it not for the domination.

Besides, if we compare to real world analogues... if a politician takes a bribe, does that invalidate their vote? Maybe in some places, but certainly not everywhere.

Wrong analogy. What you are looking for is „terrorists take over the chamber of the parliament and force its members to pass a law according to which you must [for instance] hang every left-handed person you meet by their bowels. You know they were forced to pass the law.”

What freedom/power does the council have if Dvalin can ignore them if he wills it?

Dvalin cannot ignore the council, but Sandy and the Exarch are not exactly the council.

So it's quite plausible that dwarven law simply did not have any articles Dvalin could use to justify opposing the council's will.

Dwarven law prohibits dominating members of the council. That is why the vampires had to do that in the antechamber and could not dominate those already inside.

[Worldsong]

Is that "stupid"? I don't really think so. It is unreasonably narrow-minded, but a lot of people are stuck up on rules. Especially people who aren't... what's the term, neurotypical? Some forms of autism are just unable to pick up on nuance and context, for the world to make sense to them, the rules are the rules, they are universal, and unconditional. Maybe Dvalin's just a deified autist?

Not saying that every autist is the same but I'm autistic myself and I actually have a very strong dislike for people who are irrationally attached to the rules. At least, any rules other than the laws of physics. You're allowed to be attached to those.

Of course I just hate irrationality in general but when Lawful people behave irrationally it's even worse because personal experience has me feeling like Lawful people often try to put Chaotic down as irrational so they're not only being irrational but they're also being bleeding hypocrites.

[DaLucaray]

Not saying that every autist is the same but I'm autistic myself and I actually have a very strong dislike for people who are irrationally attached to the rules. At least, any rules other than the laws of physics. You're allowed to be attached to those.

Of course I just hate irrationality in general but when Lawful people behave irrationally it's even worse because personal experience has me feeling like Lawful people often try to put Chaotic down as irrational so they're not only being irrational but they're also being bleeding hypocrites.

Neurotypical people tend to think autistic people follow more rules than them, but I dont think that’s true. We follow different rules- neurotypicals dont notice their rules because everyone around them follows it and they consider it to be default.

We have “please dont sit in my favorite chair”, they have “make eye contact with me when we’re talking”. Both rules! But most people follow the second one so you only notice it when they’re broken.

[Friv]

Neurotypical people tend to think autistic people follow more rules than them, but I dont think that’s true. We follow different rules- neurotypicals dont notice their rules because everyone around them follows it and they consider it to be default.

We have “please dont sit in my favorite chair”, they have “make eye contact with me when we’re talking”. Both rules! But most people follow the second one so you only notice it when they’re broken.

I think there is also a big strain of "when you have to try to learn the rules that a bunch of other people think are instinctive, it can be extremely frustrating when those people then turn around and behave as though half of the rules are optional and the other half aren't and they won't tell you which rules are which." When you get in huge amounts of social trouble for not following Rule A, but then a whole bunch of people ignore Rule B and no one seems to mind, it can feel extremely unfair to be the one being penalized just for not knowing which of the rules you've painstakingly learned don't have to matter today.

From the neurotypical perspective, this might make sense, because you've got an instinctive grasp on "the things everyone just does" which means that you can feel when you can alter those things without consciously making the choice. It's like arranging adjectives in English - none of us were ever actually taught how to do it, but we all know it feels wrong to say The Green Big Dragon instead of the Big Green Dragon, but we also just kind of instinctively know when we can use a noun as a verb and everyone gets it. Someone learning English as a second language has to actually learn that, and people are going to say either "oh, they don't know the rules, what a bad speaker they are" or "oh, they're so stilted when they speak, why are they so hung up on precise grammar."

[Goblin_Priest]

The rules as written spoken (as far as we know, they are not commited to paper) force him to abide by the will of the elders. These rules say nothing about obeying three random vampires.
So, yeah. It is really-really stupid.



We know they would have never said yes were it not for the domination.



Wrong analogy. What you are looking for is „terrorists take over the chamber of the parliament and force its members to pass a law according to which you must [for instance] hang every left-handed person you meet by their bowels. You know they were forced to pass the law.”



Dvalin cannot ignore the council, but Sandy and the Exarch are not exactly the council.



Dwarven law prohibits dominating members of the council. That is why the vampires had to do that in the antechamber and could not dominate those already inside.

In the quoted strip, the non-dominated elders who speak first *all* lean towards voting "yes". The dominated ones voting en bloc for the same thing is what makes them change position. Also, they don't seem very bothered that some of them are dominated.

Dvalin honestly seems less dumb to me than the elders themselves do.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1168.html

The problem isn't so much Dvalin listening to the council, but rather the council being filled by a bunch of bufoons who 1) didn't take measures to protect their members from voting under the influence, and 2) showed total disregard when it did take place. Surely there's a quorum law that could have been used to abort the meeting instead of letting it get hijacked by the vampires.

Not saying that every autist is the same but I'm autistic myself and I actually have a very strong dislike for people who are irrationally attached to the rules. At least, any rules other than the laws of physics. You're allowed to be attached to those.

Of course I just hate irrationality in general but when Lawful people behave irrationally it's even worse because personal experience has me feeling like Lawful people often try to put Chaotic down as irrational so they're not only being irrational but they're also being bleeding hypocrites.

I don't think I have, or if I did it was not intended, to imply that all autists are the same. They are not. It's a very poorly defined label, overall. I did specify "some forms of".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The rules as written spoken (as far as we know, they are not commited to paper) force him to abide by the will of the elders.

No, it doesn't. It forces him to obey the will of the council, not the elders. Will that is expressed via simple majority vote. The idea that such vote must be free of coercion is something you've added, not something in the canon.

We can speculate why. For example, it seems likely that this is the remnants of what was presumably the politicians/nobles actually running the realm (before they moved to a parliamentary system). Some of those head of clans were likely LE and worked to ensure that engaging in bribery, blackmail and other forms of coercion was exempted from the rules, because they engaged or intended to engage in them at points. Dvalin, by the very nature of the council and his deification, therefore doesn't see a problem with a will that has been manipulated away from the actual desires of the majority of the individuals of the council. Fairness is a G concept, and nothing indicates that Dvalin is anything other than strongly Lawful, and likely merely weak Neutral in the G-E scale, and thus cares not for fairness, only for procedure.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

We can speculate why. For example, it seems likely that this is the remnants of what was presumably the politicians/nobles actually running the realm (before they moved to a parliamentary system). Some of those head of clans were likely LE and worked to ensure that engaging in bribery, blackmail and other forms of coercion was exempted from the rules, because they engaged or intended to engage in them at points.

Standard reminder that this is suggested in-text by Gontor*.

merely weak Neutral in the G-E scale, and thus cares not for fairness, only for procedure.

Grey Wolf

What's the difference between weak and strong neutral?

[Worldsong]

Neurotypical people tend to think autistic people follow more rules than them, but I dont think that’s true. We follow different rules- neurotypicals dont notice their rules because everyone around them follows it and they consider it to be default.

We have “please dont sit in my favorite chair”, they have “make eye contact with me when we’re talking”. Both rules! But most people follow the second one so you only notice it when they’re broken.

Oh yeah definitely. Stay away from my favourite chair.

I don't think I have, or if I did it was not intended, to imply that all autists are the same. They are not. It's a very poorly defined label, overall. I did specify "some forms of".

I figured as much, I just wanted to make it clear.