What alignment is Thog?

[Captain van der Decken]

He does evil things, but I don't think he seems to understand what he is doing, Thog just does whatever Nale tells him to do. I'd say he is more neutral than evil, either true neutral or chaotic neutral.

[Blood]

He does evil things, but I don't think he seems to understand what he is doing, Thog just does whatever Nale tells him to do.
Right. Most of the time, Thog is too unintelligent to understand what he's doing. He just does what Nale tells him to do.

However, recently (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html) Elan says (second-to-last panel) that Thog is on the other end of the alignment spectrum, and we know Elan is Chaotic Good. Plus, although Thog is admittedly stupid, and can be gentle when it comes to ice cream / puppies, he does understand that he is killing people, and it is still evil.

I'd say he's Neutral Evil, since he'll listen to what Nale tells him to do but is instinctively evil most of the time.

[Kish]

Chaotic Evil.

[Timberwolf]

Somebody said Happy Evil a while back and I think I agree with that.

However since we're D'n'Ding it, I say Neutral Evil but not irredeemably so (like Nale is). He's so simple but he knows what he's doing is wrong, you need only look at his face hen he pulls out the Celine Dion album, he's looking forward to that bit.

[chibibar]

I would say Clueless Evil :)

[Mr.Burn]

Cute Evil, imo

[Tmabbbb]

Lawful Evil.

[Orzel]

Lawful Evil.

Lawful Evil Barbarian? Say Wha?

[Jefepato]

Thog might not be irredeemable, but he is blatantly Chaotic Evil.

[Balesirion]

Chaotic Evil, he's too random not to be chaotic. And killing people for the fun of it is definitely an evil act. However, with enough work, Thog could probably be easily redeemed to be Chaotic Neutral or maybe even Chaotic Good. It would probably have to be Elan doing it, though.

And Barbarians can't be lawful, their alignment in the Players Handbook is listed as "any non-lawful."

[fangthane]

Yep, Thog's chaotic evil. He's not devoted to evil for its own sake, he just happens to like doing things which are evil. But being carelessly or offhandedly evil as Thog is, is not an excuse under D&D rules. He's still just as evil, but because we know it's an offhanded, childish sort of evil (a two-year-old throwing a tantrum in a grown man's body) we put up with it.

[Hyrael]

Remember when belkar suddenly became non-evil under the effects of a owl's wisdom? I theorize that thog would likewise become good aligned under the effects of a fox's cunning.

[Wrecan]

Chaotic ("Yay! Resisting Arrest is Fun! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html)")
Evil (See treatment of puppy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html))

Now, no one act defines alignment, but I think these two acts are exemplars of Thog's conduct throughout the series.

He may be funny and stupid, but there are no ability prerequisites for alignment. Which is not to say that, like Belkar, his alignment might change if his stats were increased. Maybe if he were smarter, he'd understand what he did is wrong and work to become good. Who knows?

[The Extinguisher]

Bah! Enough with the puppy. It's very obvious that a dwarf being treated like a puppy is going to be miserable, where a puppy being treated the same way would be fine.

[Krytha]

Chaotic dumb

[Aliquid]

He may be funny and stupid, but there are no ability prerequisites for alignment. Actually, there are ability prerequisites. You need an Int above 3 to have an alignment. That's why all animals have an alignment of Neutral.

[SiD]

Chaotic Evil, the opposite of Roy's Lawful Good. Just because he's cute and endearingly stupid doesn't make him any less of a vicious, murderous psychopath.

[zegma]

hes lawfal evil. if elan is chaotic good and thog is on the other side of the alingment specturm, thog has to be lawful evil.

[Gamerofthegame]

He is Joke/Plot.

He ranges from Evil to good to Neutral for the sake of a joke.

[SiD]

hes lawfal evil. if elan is chaotic good and thog is on the other side of the alingment specturm, thog has to be lawful evil.
Elan only says they're from different ends of the alignment spectrum, not opposite. As a Cartesian grid, it has four 'ends'. :smallwink: And TBH I don't read that line as an absolute description of their respective alignments anyway, just a parody of the repeated-ad-nauseam feel-good comedy pairings... you know, rich guy / poor guy, white guy / black guy, geek / jock, nun / cabaret singer, you get the drift.


He is Joke/Plot.
He ranges from Evil to good to Neutral for the sake of a joke.
True dat. While I'm certain his 'official' alignment is CE, on a scene-by-scene basis he can fill in wherever he's needed for the joke/plot to work. Ref: his happy multiple murders while working with Nale; his love of puppies, ice cream and sprinkles; his 'lovable big stoopid green teddy bear' persona while busting out of jail with Elan.

[Blood]

Maybe if he were smarter, he'd understand what he did is wrong and work to become good. Who knows?
Has (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html) happened, actually.

Thog is definitely either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. Earlier, I said Neutral Evil, but considering the links you guys gave and the support, I might say he's CE.

Or I might say he's LG. Bwahahahaha!

Just kidding. Anyway, yeah, probably CE.

[Angela Christine]

I could go with either CE or NE.

He doesn't seem to resent authority the way chaotic people often do, in fact he seems to like being a side-kick and being told what to do. But he isn't slavishly obedient either, and Nale's hold on him is far from total. When Nale changes his plans to get Elan he has to keep rocket skates in the plan to keep Thog happy. Nale and Sabine also seem quite concerned about what would happen if Thog goes into a boredom fueled rampage.

[Flabbicus]

hes lawfal evil. if elan is chaotic good and thog is on the other side of the alingment specturm, thog has to be lawful evil.

Barbarians lose their rage ability if they become lawful, and it was made quite apparent that he still could rage in comic 387 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html).

[Ranillon]

Actually, if you ask me you're all wrong -- Thog doesn't have an alignment. He is an innocent. How can you have a consistent moral or ethical outlook if you don't even understand the basic concepts involved? He acts "evil" because he sees evil people as his friends and emulates them. Put him in with a "good" person (as he is now with Elan) and he acts "good". He'll just mirror the actions of the dominant group.

Thog has no more of an alignment than a hurricane or puppy. The idea doesn't apply in his case (and can't until he loses his innocence).

[Ted_Stryker]

Actually, if you ask me you're all wrong -- Thog doesn't have an alignment. He is an innocent. How can you have a consistent moral or ethical outlook if you don't even understand the basic concepts involved? He acts "evil" because he sees evil people as his friends and emulates them. Put him in with a "good" person (as he is now with Elan) and he acts "good". He'll just mirror the actions of the dominant group.

Thog has no more of an alignment than a hurricane or puppy. The idea doesn't apply in his case (and can't until he loses his innocence).
He chopped the guardian of the earth sigil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0051.html) right good when he was just with Roy.

I vote for CE for Thog's alignment.

[Demented]

He was totally ignoring everything "talky-man" was saying. In fact, he pretty much ignored what the earth fey said as well. It was just another dungeon monster.

Technically, you can't have class levels if you're an innocent. Innocence is reserved for int 2 or less, and you need 3 int or more to have a class. You could always enjoy hit dice advancement....

[rashambo]

I lean towards CE, but given his behavior, I'd say CN, he's just too random.

[TroyXavier]

He's CE. He may only have an Int of 3 (though I'd say more like 6) but he's definitely evil.

[Ranillon]

He chopped the guardian of the earth sigil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0051.html) right good when he was just with Roy.


He doesn't change that fast. Sheesh! He has to identify with the group or person he is with first. That either takes time or the right circumstances. Being sent on a secret mission for those he sees as his friends is hardly the right circumstances.

I've admittedly always had serious problems with D+D simplistic view of morality and ethics vis-a-vis alignment, but come on -- the only way Thog having a set alignment works is if you assume that we all not only have a set alignment at birth, but are immediately conscious of it and what it represents the newborn pops out. I don't think that works.

[Ranillon]

Technically, you can't have class levels if you're an innocent. Innocence is reserved for int 2 or less, and you need 3 int or more to have a class. You could always enjoy hit dice advancement....

I think we are using "innocent" in different ways (unless you are supposing that most if not all young children have a 2 or lower intelligence).

[Grey Knight]

I think we are using "innocent" in different ways (unless you are supposing that most if not all young children have a 2 or lower intelligence).

Probably you're right on the differing definitions, but for that matter I would classify many children - certainly the three-year-old I live with - as Chaotic Neutral, innocence nonwithstanding.


Also, haven't we done the "What's thog's alignment?" thread before, once or twice? Possibly more?

[Felinoid]

Chaotic Chaotic Evil. No, that's not a typo.

[Demented]

Thog's alignment is still not debated nearly as much as V's gender... or Belkar's alignment, Elan's intelligence, or Miko's faithfulness.


I think we are using "innocent" in different ways (unless you are supposing that most if not all young children have a 2 or lower intelligence).
It seems about right to me that an infant would have int 1 and a toddler would have int 2. :p

Though, it doesn't actually state that 2 int results in an inability to understand morality, or that 3 int results in an ability. It just states that animals are neutral and 3 int is the minimum for human-level intelligence. Fie.

[Querzis]

Thog no what he is doing, he love killing people in cold blood and forcing people to listen Celine Dion wich are both incredibly Evil. He like puppy and ice cream with sprinkle...thats supposed to make him good???? You really think all the Evil people in the world eat babies heads and hate animals? Hitler loved dogs, so what? Thog has always acted as a Chaotic (major) Evil (minor) character. I dont understand people who say is alignement change for the plot. I never saw him act good or neutral and I never saw him act lawfull. Just find one time he wasnt Chaotic Evil in the entire comic!

[Ted_Stryker]

He doesn't change that fast. Sheesh! He has to identify with the group or person he is with first. That either takes time or the right circumstances. Being sent on a secret mission for those he sees as his friends is hardly the right circumstances.
How long does it take, then? How long has he been with the Linear Guild?

From the pragmatic standpoint of how he might scan under a Detect Evil spell, I don't think it matters too much that he wasn't the mastermind behind the murders and kidnapping we've seen him do. It's possible to be both dim and evil.

[Amon Star]

:thog: is Chaotic Evil, but he is more Chaotic than Evil. He's loyal to :nale: because of the beneifts to him, as explained in Comic 387. If he's ever is denied these benefits, his rampage would likely include :nale: and the rest of the OotS. He enjoys what he does, you can tell that by his expression a lot of the time. Therefore, he isn't 'innocently' following orders. Even his non-violent likes are selfish. He likes ice-cream because it tastes good and rocket-skates because they're fun, that's fine. But I doubt he cares about puppy's for there own sake, only that they are cute and playful.

[Learnedguy]

One way to define evil is lack of empathy. And Thog certanly lacks empathy in face of the nameless NPC's he kills. But then again, so do the Oots when they kill goblins...

[Pegasos989]

Chaotic neutral. In his views and culture, killing might not be seen the same way as in ours - I have played CG barbarians who have seen nothing wrong in killing as long as it is honorable fight (no cutting throat while opponent sleeps, etc.)...

Then again, I run alignmentless games... If I had to decide that the world has universal truth and alignments, it would be CE.

[Deuce]

.

He may be funny and stupid, but there are no ability prerequisites for alignment. Which is not to say that, like Belkar, his alignment might change if his stats were increased. Maybe if he were smarter, he'd understand what he did is wrong and work to become good. Who knows?

Or alternately, if he were smarter, he'd be able to cause even more chaos and evil mayhem - and maybe leave Nale to take the rap for it.

[Wrecan]

Or alternately, if he were smarter, he'd be able to cause even more chaos and evil mayhem - and maybe leave Nale to take the rap for it.
Quite true.

[Teristen]

He [:thog: ] enjoys what he does, you can tell that by his expression a lot of the time. Therefore, he isn't 'innocently' following orders. Even his non-violent likes are selfish. He likes ice-cream because it tastes good and rocket-skates because they're fun, that's fine. But I doubt he cares about puppy's for there own sake, only that they are cute and playful.

I agree. I would say Thog is CE because he obviously does things that he enjoys, whether they hurt anyone else, break laws, or not. Yay, he likes cute things, fun things, sweet things, etc. This is how Elan is getting along so well with Thog. He kind of likes the same things. As long as he can keep bluffing his way through the rough spots, Elan and Thog will be great buddies!

[Illiterate Scribe]

I think that psychologically and legally speaking, Thog isn't really intelligent or sane enough to be considered responsible for his own action - his perception is just too narrow for Good or Evil (note caps). This would mean, however, that the wrongs would be attributed to a guardian - in fact, Nale, or whoever he's with, should get increasingly evil as Thog rampages, for not keeping him on a proper leash (a figurative one!).

I'd say, m'lud, that he is either CN (reasons already outlined) or TN (like animals, he isn't developed enough to have an enlightenment).

[SiD]

I've admittedly always had serious problems with D+D simplistic view of morality and ethics vis-a-vis alignment, but come on -- the only way Thog having a set alignment works is if you assume that we all not only have a set alignment at birth, but are immediately conscious of it and what it represents the newborn pops out. I don't think that works.
That only applies if you assume that alignment is a prescriptive system: you have this alignment (arbitrarily assigned to you), and therefore you should act in this way. I've always understood it as a descriptive system: someone who acts in this way fits into this broad category of behavioural descriptions.


I think that psychologically and legally speaking, Thog isn't really intelligent or sane enough to be considered responsible for his own action - his perception is just too narrow for Good or Evil (note caps).
DnD's concept of 'Evil' basically equates to selfishness and willingness to cause others to suffer in order to get what you want, right? Rather than by reference to some external and absolute example - that is, some systems use a dualist religion to classify Good and Evil (if you're with one god, you're Good; if you're with the other, you're Evil), while DnD's system is based on personal outlook and perception.

Thog has clearly demonstrated his willingness to cause suffering for his own enjoyment. Since he has a class, as has been pointed out above, that must mean he's smart enough to be making some conscious decisions about that and to be held responsible for it. Therefore, he has an alignment. Sure, it might be influenced by who's around him and it might change if he hooks up with different company (such that he feels part of the group), but it's still there.

[Terraxos]

Much as I'd love to be able to say Thog's alignment is CN, I really can't agree with that view. He's done too many blatantly evil acts, and he clearly seems to understand what he's doing - indeed, he enjoys it. The only way you could argue that Thog isn't evil, in my view, is to say he has below human-level intelligence and so is too simple-minded to be good or evil. And the evidence from the comic doesn't really support that (even ignoring the fact that the rules forbid it, anyway).

So: assuming Thog has intelligence 3 or above, he is surely Chaotic Evil. (Or possibly some other variant of evil, but he definitely acts pretty Chaotically.)

(This also fits with the idea of him being an 'evil opposite' of Roy, assuming Roy is Lawful Good.)

[Quantum Toast]

I'd say Chaotic Neutral, personally. (Well, actually I'd say Chaotic Happy, but that's not really an option...) He does evil things, but he does good things too - he just seems to go along with whoever he's with.

Elan's "opposite ends of the alignment spectrum" remark could just be due to him assuming that Thog is evil because he's a LG member...

[Amon Star]

One way to define evil is lack of empathy. And Thog certanly lacks empathy in face of the nameless NPC's he kills. But then again, so do the Oots when they kill goblins...

Most of the OotS kills have been enemy soldiers or dangerous beasts that have attacked them. I say most because :belkar: is a member of the OotS.

[Querzis]

He does evil things, but he does good things too - he just seems to go along with whoever he's with.

...Thats supposed to be a good thing? Sorry but no matter how hard I try, I never saw Thog do a good thing. Being happy, polite and honest doesnt make someone good, it just make him happy, polite and honest. And sorry but he is smart enough to know what he is doing and even if Nale wasnt there, he would still go on boredom driven rampage. It seems to me that people dont want Thog to be evil because they like him too much, like Belkar. Sorry but Thog is totally evil and I really like him anyway.

[EddieBird]

He's obviously Chaotic Evil.
A fantasy character doesn't have to have many redeeming qualities to be likeable. Just because hardly anyone would like a real-life person who acted like Thog, doesn't mean we can't enjoy the antics of an imaginary moronic murderer.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

I can entirely see Thog as Chaotic Evil. Being generally cheerful and cute doesn't mean good. Thog is a simplistic critter, but simplistic doesn't necessarily equate with innocence either. He has simple pleasures, such as ice cream with sprinkles, puppies, and killing. He does have a childlike charm, but I've worked with cute children enough (who argue over who owns what toy, who kick each other to get a reaction, who baselessly accuse each other of trying to get them upset on purpose, who try to get the other upset on purpose) to know that childlike doesn't necessary equate to good as well.

Thog's lack of intelligence and childlike demeanor means his evil can be directed by someone more clever such as Nale, to further his own spiteful goals, or Elan, to further his altruistic goals.

[Enlong]

Chaotic Evil.

Chaotic is simple, he's far too crazy to be Neutral, and definately not Lawful.

He's Evil, as he shows no remorse killing people, or doing evil deeds, such as slicing the "poor defenseless flesh" of a certain Earth Sigil guardian (heck, he LAUGHS when it's brought up), or when cleaving a policeworker in half. Sure, he likes puppies, but who doesn't?

[Celisasu]

As I said last time and I continue to say now....Thog is "Happy Evil". He's ridden rocket skates, had lots of icecream with sprinkles, and murdered hundreds. Thog is living the good life. In an evil way.

[Draigo]

i'd say ether CE or NE

[SiD]

Oh yes, forgot to say: I think it's fairly obvious from previous stuff that Thog as we know him from the Linear Guild is basically CE. BUT...

... I think he's either in the process of switching to CG or has already switched.

My basis for this is the title of the jail-break strip: The Cliffport Redemption. Now, I admit I haven't actually watched The Shawshank Redemption or read the novella (which is why it took me a while to get some of the references), so I did some research to confirm the guess I made based on the title.

A superficial reference would be that The Shawshank Redemption is about a wrongly-convicted man who escapes from jail. A more subtle reference would be to Ellis "Red" Redding, a convicted murderer who, through association with the innocent protagonist, learns to hope again (the 'redemption' of the title). There are a number of direct references to Red in Thog's behaviour in the strip: he begins convinced that he will stay in prison, he is persuaded by Elan to think about life outside the prison walls, he is unsure of how he will cope with life after prison and he confesses that prison changed him.

Of course, I could be reading too much into it and the parallels with Andy Dufresne and Ellis Redding may have been intended only for a single-episode joke, but...

[Lilivati]

I don't know that Thog's int is high enough to qualify for an alignment. When he does evil things I don't think it's because he knows they're evil and doesn't care; I think it's because he's not bright enough to comprehend things like right and wrong.

Granted DnD canon requires him to have an alignment, but that's how I feel about it.

[Mathias_Tanavar]

Thog is CE because he is Roy's opposite

[The Extinguisher]

What about YikYik, who's clearly Chaotic Evil, like Belkar?

So the evil opposites thing doesn't really work with alignments...

[Demented]

The opposites aren't exact.
They need to be an evil opposite in some way, but that's it.

YikYik was basically identical to Belkar because Belkar's evil, so his evil opposite would have almost nothing different, save race. And maybe a few ranks in survival.

Once Nale encountered Belkar personally, Belkar's next opposite, YokYok, wasn't strictly evil, nor did he have to be.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I personally thought Elan was neutral good due to him finding law and chaos useless in his internal dialogue and his niceness.

Nale claiming to be LE would imply that Elan was CG though...

[Amon Star]

Oh yes, forgot to say: I think it's fairly obvious from previous stuff that Thog as we know him from the Linear Guild is basically CE. BUT...

... I think he's either in the process of switching to CG or has already switched.

My basis for this is the title of the jail-break strip: The Cliffport Redemption. Now, I admit I haven't actually watched The Shawshank Redemption or read the novella (which is why it took me a while to get some of the references), so I did some research to confirm the guess I made based on the title.

A superficial reference would be that The Shawshank Redemption is about a wrongly-convicted man who escapes from jail. A more subtle reference would be to Ellis "Red" Redding, a convicted murderer who, through association with the innocent protagonist, learns to hope again (the 'redemption' of the title). There are a number of direct references to Red in Thog's behaviour in the strip: he begins convinced that he will stay in prison, he is persuaded by Elan to think about life outside the prison walls, he is unsure of how he will cope with life after prison and he confesses that prison changed him.

Of course, I could be reading too much into it and the parallels with Andy Dufresne and Ellis Redding may have been intended only for a single-episode joke, but...

That is certainly a possibility. :thog: was CE. However, anyone can change. He seems to still be loyal to :nale:, but it is possible that the Charismatic :elan: has had a positive influence on him.

[mockingbyrd7]

Actually, if you ask me you're all wrong -- Thog doesn't have an alignment. He is an innocent. How can you have a consistent moral or ethical outlook if you don't even understand the basic concepts involved? He acts "evil" because he sees evil people as his friends and emulates them. Put him in with a "good" person (as he is now with Elan) and he acts "good". He'll just mirror the actions of the dominant group.

Thog has no more of an alignment than a hurricane or puppy. The idea doesn't apply in his case (and can't until he loses his innocence).

Well, Chaotic Innocent in my opinion, but I agree with you on all of those points.

[Orkimedes]

Now, I am in the :thog: = Chaotic Evil camp at the moment, as I have never seen Thog do one good OR lawful (taking orders from Nale doesn't count, as Nale is his father figure) thing in the history of the comic. If someone could put a link to a good thing Thog has done, it would put this argument to better use.

It would sure help me :biggrin:

[Demented]

He hacked down a little man who said "stoppus badguyus", didn't he?
That's got to be a good action.

[Orkimedes]

:sigh:

Though good, it was done for selfish reasons, so it doesnt count :tongue:

[Demented]

Fair enough. :cool:

[Gurgeh]

I think that the best alignment for Thog is Chaotic Stupid. He's so dim and easily-led that he can be persuaded to do practically anything.

I also think that his personality has been seriously revised by the Giant as the comic has progressed. In the early strips he was quite clearly CE, and fit the 'evil thug' stereotype to the core - but as the comic moved on, and as Thog became used more and more as comic relief and less and less as a genuine villain, the way he behaves has been changed considerably. In the early comics he gloats over killing the sylph and seems quite intent on killing Roy, while at Cliffport he shows no real rancour towards Elan and is really quite friendly to him, despite the fact that Nale hates him and had given Thog many orders to hurt him, etc.

The way Thog ends up will mostly depend on Nale, I think - whether he decides to pursue his grudge and fight Elan or chooses to throw his lot in with the OotS against Xykon (presumably in exchange for getting away scot-free with his earlier actions). Thog is a character to watch, if only because he'll make you laugh.

[Querzis]

I think that the best alignment for Thog is Chaotic Stupid. He's so dim and easily-led that he can be persuaded to do practically anything.

I also think that his personality has been seriously revised by the Giant as the comic has progressed. In the early strips he was quite clearly CE, and fit the 'evil thug' stereotype to the core - but as the comic moved on, and as Thog became used more and more as comic relief and less and less as a genuine villain, the way he behaves has been changed considerably. In the early comics he gloats over killing the sylph and seems quite intent on killing Roy, while at Cliffport he shows no real rancour towards Elan and is really quite friendly to him, despite the fact that Nale hates him and had given Thog many orders to hurt him, etc.

The way Thog ends up will mostly depend on Nale, I think - whether he decides to pursue his grudge and fight Elan or chooses to throw his lot in with the OotS against Xykon (presumably in exchange for getting away scot-free with his earlier actions). Thog is a character to watch, if only because he'll make you laugh.

Thog dont hurt not-nale because not-nale and Thog are gonna save Nale together.

Thog is just too stupid to realize Elan want to kill Nale (Elan did some good bluff check). Thog enjoys killing people and he killed quite a lot of people already (most of them in cold blood). Beside stop saying its Nale fault, even Nale is afraid of Thog boredom driven-rampage. Thog dont need Nale to be evil.

[dragoncmd]

As I've said before, either neutral or chaotic neutral. Being evil requires a concious decision for an evil act, thats morality your are aware of.

That alone excludes the possibility of any non-neutral act from thog.

[Amon Star]

As I've said before, either neutral or chaotic neutral. Being evil requires a concious decision for an evil act, thats morality your are aware of.

No it doesn't, at least not in D&D. You can be Evil yet consider yourself to be good. A classic example from the Forgotten Realms setting is the Eldreth Veluuthra. They believe that humans are vermin and should be wiped out, but believe that this is best for the world. They're Evil and there god has turned his back on them, but they think they're good and he's just misguided.

[Duke of URL]

NE leaning TN. (Or vice-versa)

Screw that. After further evaluation, he's clearly CE.

[krossbow]

Definitely CE. He Enjoys killing, and he understands fully what Killing entails; he just doesn't care. It's fun, and it doesn't matter two wits to him how much pain others feel.

[Ikkitosen]

Thog is Church of England (which is what we used to call Chaotic Evil back in the 2E days. Same initials, see?).

[Elina]

mmmm, i think thog is chaotic neutral. He can walk around with Nale or Elan, he knows the difference between them but he´s so stupid, only think in puppies and other silly things. :thog:

[Wiione]

Chaotic Evil

[Setra]

Chaotic Evil

Though I hope to see his alignment shift to CN sometime.

[Aliquid]

Thog dont hurt not-nale because not-nale and Thog are gonna save Nale together.

Thog is just too stupid to realize Elan want to kill Nale (Elan did some good bluff check). Thog enjoys killing people and he killed quite a lot of people already (most of them in cold blood). Beside stop saying its Nale fault, even Nale is afraid of Thog boredom driven-rampage. Thog dont need Nale to be evil.Yes thog enjoys killing people, but it is Nale that tells thog which people to kill.

I doubt that Thog would decide on his own to kill a passive and innocent bystander in a town. If he was bored and wanted to kill people, he would probably kill anyone who annoyed him. Granted this is still innapropriate behaviour, since someone who annoyed him might still be innocent and good.

I'm not arguing that he isn't evil, I'm just saying that Nale plays a part in the level of evil involved in Thogs behaviour. For example, if Roy earned Thogs trust and travelled with him, I am sure the Roy could convince Thog to only kill evil creatures. The only trick would be to make sure there is a good supply of evil creatures so Thog doesn't get bored.

i.e. the world would be a less frightening place if Nale didn't tell Thog who to kill.

[quinnte]

I agree with the OP on Chaotic Neutral, only because I don't fully agree that he is smart enough to understand the weight of "killing out of boredom". Assuming he has only known fighting his whole life, you have to also assume that fighting is what brings him joy. You can't call him evil because he takes joy in doing what he knows best. If his skills were in baking, and he baked cakes out of boredom, could that be evil? I just don't think it's in his mind to evaluate the consequences of his actions. To be evil, you must consciously choose something you know to be a wrong and evil act. He merely chooses to fight regardless of right/wrong, honorable/dishonorable, etc. because he does not comprehend things properly. The only logical explanation is that he is chaotic neutral out of a lack of understanding. That's why he can fight a group of "enemies" one minute, then turn right around and want to hug them. I believe if he could be brought to understand killing is wrong he would be chaotic good.

Edit:
In the book "Of Mice and Men", Lenny was a simple-minded man who was inherently good. He loved to pet soft things, and unfortunately that always led to him killing small animals like mice and rabbits. Further in the story he ended up killing a woman after she panicked while he was petting her hair. Was he evil? Did he knowingly break her neck out of a joy of watching her die? no.
Just like this, Thog does not take joy in KILLING, he takes joy in FIGHTING. Death is simply an unfortunate result of his superior skills. If his first victim happened to be a very skilled fighter, he wouldn't opt to slaughter unarmed innocents, he would take joy in the exciting fight. Nale simply made use of Thog's love for him and for fighting and had him kill all those people.

[Aliquid]

To be evil, you must consciously choose something you know to be a wrong and evil act.I just want to focus on this part of your statement.

Theoretically I agree. But in D&D it doesn't quite work that way (at least the way I read the rules). For example a Zombie is evil, even though it doesn't know it is wrong to eat people's brains :smalltongue:

In D&D the rules often support something being evil, simply so a player can cast "protection from evil" on it or "detect evil" etc. So evil really means something that is dangerous....

[quinnte]

I just want to focus on this part of your statement.

Theoretically I agree. But in D&D it doesn't quite work that way (at least the way I read the rules). For example a Zombie is evil, even though it doesn't know it is wrong to eat people's brains :smalltongue:

In D&D the rules often support something being evil, simply so a player can cast "protection from evil" on it or "detect evil" etc. So evil really means something that is dangerous....

well in that case, everyone in d&d would show up under a detect evil spell. Zombies are evil because they exist only to kill. Unless controlled by a greater will (summoned by a PC) their only instinct is to kill. Thog is only evil because he loves Nale and wants to please him.

[Jewel Thief]

Thog looks very evily happy when he's about to hurt/kill/ensnare something.

[CGM3]

Thog is Church of England (which is what we used to call Chaotic Evil back in the 2E days. Same initials, see?).

The Archbishop of Canterbury will get you for that! :smallfurious:

[SmartAlec]

Chaotic Evil! I've already gone over this in the #386 discussion.

Though I'd also like to add that the occasional glimmer of Neutral behaviour on Thog's part doesn't make him less CE. Roy's acted selfishly on occasion, moments of weakness, but that doesn't make him any less Lawful Good.

[quinnte]

No it doesn't, at least not in D&D. You can be Evil yet consider yourself to be good. A classic example from the Forgotten Realms setting is the Eldreth Veluuthra. They believe that humans are vermin and should be wiped out, but believe that this is best for the world. They're Evil and there god has turned his back on them, but they think they're good and he's just misguided.

That just proves that they should be considered Neutral. If they can't fully appreciate what they are doing is wrong, they can't be considered evil. If they were evil, they would be evil indiscriminately. In this situation they could only be considered evil by Humans.
If an elf and a human both cast "detect evil" on an Eldreth Veluuthra, would they both see evil intentions? If so, where are the evil intentions toward the elf? According to you their acts are motivated by a will to better the world. Is that an act of evil or love? Their ACTIONS may be evil in the eyes of humans, and most others, but they and their intentions are not. Just as I would love to rid the world of roaches. To the roach population I would be the Antichrist, but to pretty much all humans I would be a saint.

[SmartAlec]

Don't forget that in the world of DnD, 'Evil' and 'Good' can't be considered subjective. It is very objective. Evil and Good are the names for two very powerful forces and philosophies. Your alignment, and following that alignment, will ultimately benefit powerful gods and other spiritual entities, and it'll decide where you end up when you die.

To put it another way, it doesn't really matter if Thog's fully aware of the carnage or destruction he's causing, he's still doing evil and he'll still end up going to the Abyss for it. In the DnD world, actions really do mean just as much as intentions.

[Aliquid]

well in that case, everyone in d&d would show up under a detect evil spell. Zombies are evil because they exist only to kill. Unless controlled by a greater will (summoned by a PC) their only instinct is to kill. Thog is only evil because he loves Nale and wants to please him.Not exactly. Thog would still kill without Nale. Thog loves killing and goes on rampages when bored. If Thog was bored and walked into an ice-cream store, and the nice lady behind the counter said "sorry we are out of sprinkles", he would chop her head off in a rage. In D&D, that's evil.

The brutality of Thogs behaviour is worse because of Nale, but he is still evil for D&D

[Snake-Aes]

Evil doesn't mean "hates other beings". Not that alone at least
Evil also means "lacks respect for sentient beings".

Both qualify, and Thog surely fits the second. It doesn't matter if he breaks the door or your face, except that breaking your face would make him upset at the blood in his fist.
And, really, whoever that doesn't think that acting SOLELY BY IMPULSE isn't chaotic needs treatment.

Psicanalisis brings the concept of "Ego, Id, Super Ego". Id is your impulse, the beast inside you that urges you into satisfying your bodily needs and desire of pleasure and confort. Super Ego is your "conscience", bringing you your own limitations on what you can and you cannot do morally.
Thog doesn't have"Ego, Id, Super Ego", Thog has "Ego, Id, Super Id".

He's Evil. He's chaotic.

[horacegoesskiing]

CN I'd say.
He's like Lennie from "of mice and man" but sadly his George is Nale.

[Setra]

Hey I'm bored, I think I'll kill you all now.

That seems pretty evil to me, if someone decided to kill you sheerly because they were bored, how would that make YOU feel?

[Morrsleib]

CE clearly. he's act is evil, he kills when he is bored, that's evil. he doing exactly what he want to chaotic. but, i don't think :thog: know it hurts anybody to kill them, i don't think he wants to hurt anybody, but he's not understanding that not all find it fun to got his head cutted of. if someone tolled him he would change to chaotic good.

but as many have said. in D&D actions is more important than intentions.

[Querzis]

That just proves that they should be considered Neutral. If they can't fully appreciate what they are doing is wrong, they can't be considered evil. If they were evil, they would be evil indiscriminately.

Great, then nobody in the whole world is evil. Hitler just wanted to get rid of the Jews, the ku klux klan just want to get rid of black people, the cannibal just want to eat, the sociopath just want to get rid of humanity etc. Your definitions of evil are funny. Thog killed hundred of innocent people out of fun, that doesnt mean he cant become good with the help of the OOTS, that doesnt make him less loveable but that surely make him incredibly evil.

[Aliquid]

if someone decided to kill you sheerly because they were bored, how would that make YOU feel?Dead.

It would make me feel dead.

[Querzis]

CN I'd say.
He's like Lennie from "of mice and man" but sadly his George is Nale.

Lennie understood what he did was wrong and it was an accident. He wasnt trying to kill her, he just wanted to touch her hair. Beside if he is Lennie from mice and men, that just prove he is evil because even lennie knew what he did was wrong and never wanted to kill or hurt anybody. I never heard lennie say: «Oh little mice, Lennie delay boredom driven rampage only for you».

[Green Bean]

That just proves that they should be considered Neutral. If they can't fully appreciate what they are doing is wrong, they can't be considered evil. If they were evil, they would be evil indiscriminately. In this situation they could only be considered evil by Humans.
If an elf and a human both cast "detect evil" on an Eldreth Veluuthra, would they both see evil intentions? If so, where are the evil intentions toward the elf? According to you their acts are motivated by a will to better the world. Is that an act of evil or love? Their ACTIONS may be evil in the eyes of humans, and most others, but they and their intentions are not. Just as I would love to rid the world of roaches. To the roach population I would be the Antichrist, but to pretty much all humans I would be a saint.

So as long as a paladin thinks that they're doing the right thing, they can do whatever the want?

[nothingclever]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/nothingclever/faf.jpg
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/nothingclever/faf.jpg)

[Jorkens]

FWIW:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So yeah, I think evil nails it.

[Chadhulhu]

CE, pure chaotic evil. we ran into this in a campaign my friend ran. I played a chaotic evil ninja, I played the psychotic killer(collected heads in a bag sorta thing) and another player was a sociopath ce.
I gotta say, it was fun playing evil for a change.

[jakeyizle]

When Nale formed the LG, he went for opposites, since Roy is LG, Thog has to be CE.

And to the post below me, touche.

[Kish]

When Nale formed the LG, he went for opposites, since Roy is LG, Thog has to be CE.
Don't get me wrong, Thog is CE. However...

Yikyik was not Lawful Good.

[quinnte]

Not exactly. Thog would still kill without Nale. Thog loves killing and goes on rampages when bored. If Thog was bored and walked into an ice-cream store, and the nice lady behind the counter said "sorry we are out of sprinkles", he would chop her head off in a rage. In D&D, that's evil.

The brutality of Thogs behaviour is worse because of Nale, but he is still evil for D&D

You say he "would" kill without Nale and he "would" kill the store clerk, but those are both based on your opinion of Thog and the fact that you believe he has a love for killing. As I have stated before I believe he has a love for fighting, not killing. He may have a reckless disregard for safety, but not a callous passion for ending life.

[zeratul]

Hes CE adorable CE but CE

[Flabbicus]

Don't get me wrong, Thog is CE. However...

Yikyik was not Lawful Good.

Yes, but that just made the conflict between the two all the more entertaining. I doubt that YokYok was Chaotic Evil, seemed more Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral, he wasn't really shown enough for me to determine it.

[Aliquid]

You say he "would" kill without Nale and he "would" kill the store clerk, but those are both based on your opinion of Thog and the fact that you believe he has a love for killing. As I have stated before I believe he has a love for fighting, not killing. He may have a reckless disregard for safety, but not a callous passion for ending life.It doesn't matter. I am perfectly willing to accept that he might simply have a love for fighting, not killing. His fighting style still ends in people's death, and he feels no guilt for those deaths.

He has clearly stated that he could go on a bordom driven rampage. If he went on a bordom driven rampage in a peaceful village... it is quite likely that innocent people would die as a result.

[Norenche]

Chaotic Happy Evil

[quinnte]

Great, then nobody in the whole world is evil. Hitler just wanted to get rid of the Jews, the ku klux klan just want to get rid of black people, the cannibal just want to eat, the sociopath just want to get rid of humanity etc. Your definitions of evil are funny. Thog killed hundred of innocent people out of fun, that doesnt mean he cant become good with the help of the OOTS, that doesnt make him less loveable but that surely make him incredibly evil.

Whenever I wrote my statements, I wasn't thinking of Hitler or the KKK. Their motivation is of hate, not ignorance. The picture in my mind was more of a toddler that gets hold of a gun and accidentally shoots his brother in the face, then plays in the blood out of curiosity. Is he a psychopath? Maybe, but his ignorance of the situation does not allow for a proper diagnosis.

Also, I've seen alot of posts stating that his alignment is based solely on his actions. This suggests that alignment itself rests solely on what you do, not who you are. If D&D characters are given an ever-fluctuating alignment that can be ignored or broken at any given moment (as in Neverwinter Nights and other games), then the entire concept of alignment for PC's is moot, as is this thread. My understanding of alignment is that it is the central core of your personality and cannot be changed except by severe emotional trauma or perhaps long stretches of time.
Imagine a paladin who becomes a werewolf. Werewolves are inherently Chaotic Evil because their sole intention is to end life and feed. During the day, however he reverts back to the Lawful Good paladin and mourns those that he has killed.
So what is his alignment? LG or CE?
If you base it on his actions, he is both which is impossible in D&D. If you use the correct definition as I and those I have played with have always used, he is still LG, and is merely afflicted with a disease.
Thog's actions do not make his alignment CE, his intentions, attitude and ignorance make it CN.

[krossbow]

Chaotic evil. Sheesh, this is worse than the belkar is good arguments.

[zeratul]

Whenever I wrote my statements, I wasn't thinking of Hitler or the KKK. Their motivation is of hate, not ignorance. The picture in my mind was more of a toddler that gets hold of a gun and accidentally shoots his brother in the face, then plays in the blood out of curiosity. Is he a psychopath? Maybe, but his ignorance of the situation does not allow for a proper diagnosis.

Also, I've seen alot of posts stating that his alignment is based solely on his actions. This suggests that alignment itself rests solely on what you do, not who you are. If D&D characters are given an ever-fluctuating alignment that can be ignored or broken at any given moment (as in Neverwinter Nights and other games), then the entire concept of alignment for PC's is moot, as is this thread. My understanding of alignment is that it is the central core of your personality and cannot be changed except by severe emotional trauma or perhaps long stretches of time.
Imagine a paladin who becomes a werewolf. Werewolves are inherently Chaotic Evil because their sole intention is to end life and feed. During the day, however he reverts back to the Lawful Good paladin and mourns those that he has killed.
So what is his alignment? LG or CE?
If you base it on his actions, he is both which is impossible in D&D. If you use the correct definition as I and those I have played with have always used, he is still LG, and is merely afflicted with a disease.
Thog's actions do not make his alignment CE, his intentions, attitude and ignorance make it CN.

I still think he's CE but i can sort of agree with this. If you give a monkey a gun you cant expect it not to shoot people

[quinnte]

So as long as a paladin thinks that they're doing the right thing, they can do whatever the want?

Perhaps my example was a bad one, considering that it's possible their intentions are based on hate rather that misinformation. If they want to rid the world of humans because of a hatred, then yes they are evil, but if their attitude is more along the lines of "putting the dog to sleep for its own good and that of the community" then they would be neutral. It's not your actions that are important, but your intentions as far as alignment is concerned.

And to be more specific to your question, yes. If a paladin killed a good man thinking he was evil, then yes the paladin is good. Whoever it was that tricked the paladin or misguided him is the evil one. By definition, however, paladins cannot "do whatever they want". Their will is not their own, but that of their god. They can only be held accountable for their actions, not their motivations, and it is their motivations that determine their alignment.

[krossbow]

Imagine a paladin who becomes a werewolf.



You do know that paladins become immune to disease, right?

[fangthane]

Description of "evil" per the SRD:
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Description of Thog, per me:
Thog enjoys hurting, oppressing, and killing others. He has no compassion for others (except friends) and kills without qualms if doing so is convenient or fun. He pursues evil for its own sake only so far as killing for sport or out of boredom, except when it's out of duty to Nale.

I'm reading about a 90% correlation of 'Thog' and 'Evil' - perhaps the confusion is that people don't think he's chaotic enough?

[Green Bean]

Perhaps my example was a bad one, considering that it's possible their intentions are based on hate rather that misinformation. If they want to rid the world of humans because of a hatred, then yes they are evil, but if their attitude is more along the lines of "putting the dog to sleep for its own good and that of the community" then they would be neutral. It's not your actions that are important, but your intentions as far as alignment is concerned.

But if it truly was entirely about intentions, and they want to kill all humans for the overall good of the community and the world etc, etc, etc, then wouldn't they count as good?

[quinnte]

You do know that paladins become immune to disease, right?

lol. touche.

[quinnte]

But if it truly was entirely about intentions, and they want to kill all humans for the overall good of the community and the world etc, etc, etc, then wouldn't they count as good?

Very good point, and honestly I don't have an answer. I suppose that in reality alignment is subject to perspective. They would see themselves as good, others would see them as evil. I stated them as neutral I saw them as having a more judicial standpoint rather than a biased one.

As long as people are looking up things in the rulebook, does it ever say what the definition of "alignment" is specifically? Perhaps that could solve the debate.

[jakeyizle]

Whenever I wrote my statements, I wasn't thinking of Hitler or the KKK. Their motivation is of hate, not ignorance. The picture in my mind was more of a toddler that gets hold of a gun and accidentally shoots his brother in the face, then plays in the blood out of curiosity. Is he a psychopath? Maybe, but his ignorance of the situation does not allow for a proper diagnosis.

Also, I've seen alot of posts stating that his alignment is based solely on his actions. This suggests that alignment itself rests solely on what you do, not who you are. If D&D characters are given an ever-fluctuating alignment that can be ignored or broken at any given moment (as in Neverwinter Nights and other games), then the entire concept of alignment for PC's is moot, as is this thread. My understanding of alignment is that it is the central core of your personality and cannot be changed except by severe emotional trauma or perhaps long stretches of time.
Imagine a paladin who becomes a werewolf. Werewolves are inherently Chaotic Evil because their sole intention is to end life and feed. During the day, however he reverts back to the Lawful Good paladin and mourns those that he has killed.
So what is his alignment? LG or CE?
If you base it on his actions, he is both which is impossible in D&D. If you use the correct definition as I and those I have played with have always used, he is still LG, and is merely afflicted with a disease.
Thog's actions do not make his alignment CE, his intentions, attitude and ignorance make it CN.

Barbarians can't be lawful.

[Tussy the Druid]

That is certainly a possibility. :thog: was CE. However, anyone can change. He seems to still be loyal to :nale:, but it is possible that the Charismatic :elan: has had a positive influence on him.

Elan had a positive influence on him. That's why he beat Haley into submission.

I mainly think of him as Chaotic. That's only what he strictly follows. And since he's obviously not good and probably not netural.... CE.

[SmartAlec]

Yes, but that just made the conflict between the two all the more entertaining. I doubt that YokYok was Chaotic Evil, seemed more Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral, he wasn't really shown enough for me to determine it.

Funnily enough, from his blabberings about killing Belkar being 'righteous justice' and his florid paladinesque prose, I would have pegged Yokyok as Lawful Good.

[SmartAlec]

Thog's actions do not make his alignment CE, his intentions, attitude and ignorance make it CN.

I'm not sure if it's quite 'right' to divorce actions, intentions and attitude into three seperate things that are completely independent of one another. They can't be isolated to that degree, actions result from intentions and attitude is coloured by the result of actions, which then can create new intentions.

Thog's Intentions:
- For everyone to go out for ice cream.

Thog's Actions:
- To beat a woman senseless with a door.

Thog's Attitude:
- Nothing wrong with that. I want us to go for ice cream and she's in the way.

Because Thog is a simple creature, he doesn't seem to have any real concepts of honour, of authority, of law even. He just does what he does to benefit him and those in his little world. But he's not ignorant. He sees that the quickest, simplest way for everyone to be freed up to go out for ice cream is to beat that woman senseless with a door, and he's fine with that.

That's not ignorance. Practically every beast, no matter how instinctive and unintelligent, recognises pain for what it is. He just doesn't particularly care.

Roy's done some selfish things - abandoning Elan to bandits, for example, that sure wasn't Lawful Good. In time, though, he came to realise that he was acting against his own alignment and it needled at him until he started acting like himself again. Thog's position is a total mirror image of that event - Thog is trying to SAVE Nale (in his mind) and that might cause him to act non-evil, but now that he's found Nale again his core self, that of a Chaotic Evil thug, is reasserting itself.

[Enforcer84]

Thog is definately, Amusing Evil


Group Hug!

Hold Person.

[Angela Christine]

When Nale formed the LG, he went for opposites, since Roy is LG, Thog has to be CE.


No, when Nale RE-formed the LG he deliberately went for opposites. When he originally formed the Guild, when he acquired Thog, he didn't know Elan, Roy, or the rest of the OotS existed. The fact that the twins belonged to equal but mostly opposite groups was just luck, or narrative causality, or something.

[Setra]

No, when Nale RE-formed the LG he deliberately went for opposites. When he originally formed the Guild, when he acquired Thog, he didn't know Elan, Roy, or the rest of the OotS existed. The fact that the twins belonged to equal but mostly opposite groups was just luck, or narrative causality, or something.
The reformed LG has, from what I can tell, every character as an opposite alignment. Except Pompey, but that's only because it's hard to really tell V's alignment.

[Demented]

Nale likely went by what he was told, thus not having a perfect picture of them, but a reasonable one nonetheless.

[Hel65]

Anyone who's hobbies include "mass murder" must be CE.

[Snake-Aes]

The problem with :thog: is that ignorance is no excuse, as he DOES have a human-like intelligence(minimum intelligence of a character with classes: 4).So, looking at it innocently or lacking the knowledge that he makes people suffer doesn't work
at all. He might not know that people suffer from what he does, but that falls under "lacks respect for other sentient beings", and surely qualifies for murder and opressing.

In D&D, at least this is my point of view, your way of thinking DOES fit your actions. Isn't it told to the DM, after all, that if the character doesn't play his alignment, he should be punished(usually by loss of XP: Mental conflict, or alignment change)?

[Mr Teufel]

a) this thread got Godwinned on post #89.

b) Yeah, Thog's Chaotic Evil. It's just that the depth of his Evil is defined by the depth of his Int stat, which are shallow waters indeed. This also makes him very easy to convert to Chaotic Neutral, with the right influence. I doubt he could progress further much than that, because the depth of his Good would also be defined by his Int stat. And the fact that as well as low Int, I'd say there's no evidence of anything much rattling around in his Wisdom stat, either.

We like him, everyone in the strip seems to find him approachable, so maybe he's got a good Charisma?

[quinnte]

It doesn't matter. I am perfectly willing to accept that he might simply have a love for fighting, not killing. His fighting style still ends in people's death, and he feels no guilt for those deaths.

He has clearly stated that he could go on a bordom driven rampage. If he went on a bordom driven rampage in a peaceful village... it is quite likely that innocent people would die as a result.

Yes, but he could just as likely go on a rampage in a evil bandit camp. My point is that he has not clearly shown a tendency for evil as opposed to good, merely a desire for "fun" which could be found in both evil and good actions. The problem has been that he seeks fun around Nale, who steers him toward evil. It was at Nale's request that he kill the Harry Potter character, and Nale's plan to slaughter Cliffport citizens. Nale, not Thog, is evil. Going on a "boredom driven rampage" is only evil if those he kills are good. The act itself is not evil. It's Chaotic, but nobody is disputing the fact that he is.

[quinnte]

Anyone who's hobbies include "mass murder" must be CE.

then every PC would be considered evil, cause all they do is kill.

[quinnte]

Barbarians can't be lawful.

that's why i said paladin.

[Green Bean]

Yes, but he could just as likely go on a rampage in a evil bandit camp. My point is that he has not clearly shown a tendency for evil as opposed to good, merely a desire for "fun" which could be found in both evil and good actions. The problem has been that he seeks fun around Nale, who steers him toward evil. It was at Nale's request that he kill the Harry Potter character, and Nale's plan to slaughter Cliffport citizens. Nale, not Thog, is evil. Going on a "boredom driven rampage" is only evil if those he kills are good. The act itself is not evil. It's Chaotic, but nobody is disputing the fact that he is.

So murderous rampages are chaotic?

thog is evil, because either thog knows what he's doing is wrong, and does it anyway (evil), or he doesn't think what he's doing is wrong, which means he has a disregard for other people's lives (also evil)

[quinnte]

I'm not sure if it's quite 'right' to divorce actions, intentions and attitude into three seperate things that are completely independent of one another. They can't be isolated to that degree, actions result from intentions and attitude is coloured by the result of actions, which then can create new intentions.

Thog's Intentions:
- For everyone to go out for ice cream.

Thog's Actions:
- To beat a woman senseless with a door.

Thog's Attitude:
- Nothing wrong with that. I want us to go for ice cream and she's in the way.

Because Thog is a simple creature, he doesn't seem to have any real concepts of honour, of authority, of law even. He just does what he does to benefit him and those in his little world. But he's not ignorant. He sees that the quickest, simplest way for everyone to be freed up to go out for ice cream is to beat that woman senseless with a door, and he's fine with that.

That's not ignorance. Practically every beast, no matter how instinctive and unintelligent, recognises pain for what it is. He just doesn't particularly care.

Roy's done some selfish things - abandoning Elan to bandits, for example, that sure wasn't Lawful Good. In time, though, he came to realise that he was acting against his own alignment and it needled at him until he started acting like himself again. Thog's position is a total mirror image of that event - Thog is trying to SAVE Nale (in his mind) and that might cause him to act non-evil, but now that he's found Nale again his core self, that of a Chaotic Evil thug, is reasserting itself.

You have very good points and make a persuasive argument, but your key point is where we disagree. You say it is not possible for him to be ignorant of good and evil, and I think it is. Just as it is possible (as you seem to agree) that he can be ignorant of rules and law. Yes he sees that the quickest way is to beat a woman down (which serves his needs above others -- a neutral attitude) but had she not been in the way, he would not go out of his way to beat her on his way out (an evil attitude showing a desire to harm).
And when I mention "attitude" and "intentions" I don't mean his motivations and reactions to specific situations; I mean his governing feelings that guide his actions: his core personality. He needs are, above the affection he feels for certain characters, selfish. Being selfish is not evil; it is neutral because your selfishness may result in actions of good or evil, and it leaves you unconcerned with either.

[Green Bean]

Being selfish is not evil; it is neutral because your selfishness may result in actions of good or evil, and it leaves you unconcerned with either.

Agreed. However, repeatedly hitting a woman with a door as a result of said selfishness is most likely evil.

[quinnte]

So murderous rampages are chaotic?

thog is evil, because either thog knows what he's doing is wrong, and does it anyway (evil), or he doesn't think what he's doing is wrong, which means he has a disregard for other people's lives (also evil)

I agree that if he understands good and evil and chooses evil, then yes he is evil. My point is that he can't choose either because he doesn't understand them. That is what makes him neutral. Being neutral does not mean that you understand both and choose neither. It means you don't have strong feelings toward good or evil, and that can be brought on purposefully or through ignorance.
And no, "murderous rampages" are not chaotic. They are not restricted to any alignment. If a Lawful Good PC embarks on a "murderous rampage" through a zombie infested area. It would also be considered a lawful-good act, because his deity would command the act as preceding all other needs and zombies are unquestionably evil.
However, if a rogue goes on a "murderous rampage" through a village of kobolds (who meant no harm and kept to themselves) it would be considered an evil act. Likewise, if he had no need to do so ("I just wanted to practice my backstabbing") it would be considered a Chaotic act.

So as you can see, it is not the act itself which determines Law/Chaos or Good/Evil; it is the motivations behind the act that matter.

[Setra]

The only reason people even speculate Thog's Allignment is because he is lovable.

Otherwise almost everyone would agree he is evil. Love of Puppies and Ice Cream does not a good (or Neutral) person make.

Thog kills because he enjoys the act, I have never seen a good person enjoy the act of murder, nor a Neutral. He doesn't think that any of you who defend him have the right to live, and would kill you all too, even though you defend him.

Thog is Evil.

[quinnte]

Agreed. However, repeatedly hitting a woman with a door as a result of said selfishness is most likely evil.

True, but an act of violence does not necessarily mean evil. Violence might be his only option for conflict resolution given his intelligence. Can you really expect a buffoon to talk his way out of a problem? If smashing things has proven itself to him to work in the past, that will most likely be his first and only course of action.

[quinnte]

The only reason people even speculate Thog's Allignment is because he is lovable.

Otherwise almost everyone would agree he is evil. Love of Puppies and Ice Cream does not a good (or Neutral) person make.

Thog kills because he enjoys the act, I have never seen a good person enjoy the act of murder, nor a Neutral. He doesn't think that any of you who defend him have the right to live, and would kill you all too, even though you defend him.

Thog is Evil.

Yes, but it's that lovable nature that makes us question where his heart really is. It's easy to say "he's evil because look what he did", but do you put a dog to sleep when it takes a crap on the rug?
No: you teach it that what it did was wrong. If nobody teaches you right from wrong, or you can't understand it, you can't be considered "evil". Just as people choose to do things because "it's the right thing to do", evil has to be chosen.
As the story goes, Adam and Eve felt nothing toward living naked and free. It was not until they ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" that they felt shame and regret. Thog does not live with regret because he does not comprehend what he does is "wrong". Good and bad are relative to his immediate needs which as I've stated before is neutral, not evil.

[Aliquid]

"he's evil because look what he did", but do you put a dog to sleep when it takes a crap on the rug?
No: you teach it that what it did was wrong. If nobody teaches you right from wrong, or you can't understand it, you can't be considered "evil".Once again, talking about morals and ethics, I agree. Based on the D&D explanations of alignments I disagree.

In D&D he still is evil, but I wouldn't be suprised if someone could teach him to be "good", or at least neutral.

[pendell]

Thinking about Thog's alignment ...

Well, he's obviously evil.

But I wonder whether a better measure wouldn't be Ravenloft's scale rather than stock D&D's.

IIRC, doing an evil act in Ravenloft results in a Powers check. Fail that check often enough, and you start dropping down 'levels'. The topmost level is 'pure' and one falls down from that through "good" to "corrupt" and finally -- after about 12 or 15 levels -- to Diabolic. Sliding down is very, very easy and working your way back up the scale into 'good' territory (only the top three levels are 'good', and a character who has once slipped below that can only reach the bottom of those three levels, ever, regardless of whatever else they do) becomes progressively more difficult the deeper one sinks into the morass of evil.

More than that ... at each level there is a percentage chance that the player loses control of his/her character and the character becomes an evil NPC.

Looked at from this scale ... I think that Thag and Belkar are both evil, but in the 'shallow' end of evil. Only a few levels down from the 'good' section. Thus, though they are recognizably evil they retain elements of goodness (sense of humor, loyalty to comrades) that makes one believe that they COULD climb out of that evil into the light. They are still good enough that one could conceive of them as PCs in a predominantly good party.

And probably, from a storytelling POV, they will stay there. If they do manage the climb .. it'll be hard for them to stay funny. Likewise, if Thog or Belkar ever did the things that would push them down the scale, they would become stock villains, cardboard cutouts. In game terms, the players would lose control of their characters, and they would become NPC villains. Again, that's of no interest. If Belkar were ever to do something unequivocally evil -- say, butcher an infant on-screen in the strip, then eat it's entrails -- well, not only would he stop being funny, but he couldn't stay in the OOTS. The others would throw him out. Even if he concealed the deed, the changes in his character would be such that they wouldn't want him around any more. Nor would we.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Amon Star]

That just proves that they should be considered Neutral. If they can't fully appreciate what they are doing is wrong, they can't be considered evil. If they were evil, they would be evil indiscriminately. In this situation they could only be considered evil by Humans.
If an elf and a human both cast "detect evil" on an Eldreth Veluuthra, would they both see evil intentions? If so, where are the evil intentions toward the elf? According to you their acts are motivated by a will to better the world. Is that an act of evil or love? Their ACTIONS may be evil in the eyes of humans, and most others, but they and their intentions are not. Just as I would love to rid the world of roaches. To the roach population I would be the Antichrist, but to pretty much all humans I would be a saint.

Evil doesn't mean you slaughter evrything for a laugh. You CAN do that if you are evil, but don't have to. Also, Detect Evil doesn't detect evil intentions, but the fact that someone is so void of compassion, mercy, etc, that they are evil. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. Another example, orcs believe that they were denigned a chance for land by the other races in the dawn of the world, so all other races must die. Orcs are evil, no one argues that.


CN I'd say.
He's like Lennie from "of mice and man" but sadly his George is Nale.

Lennie didn't like hurting people.

[SmartAlec]

You have very good points and make a persuasive argument, but your key point is where we disagree. You say it is not possible for him to be ignorant of good and evil, and I think it is. Just as it is possible (as you seem to agree) that he can be ignorant of rules and law. Yes he sees that the quickest way is to beat a woman down (which serves his needs above others -- a neutral attitude) but had she not been in the way, he would not go out of his way to beat her on his way out (an evil attitude showing a desire to harm).
And when I mention "attitude" and "intentions" I don't mean his motivations and reactions to specific situations; I mean his governing feelings that guide his actions: his core personality. He needs are, above the affection he feels for certain characters, selfish. Being selfish is not evil; it is neutral because your selfishness may result in actions of good or evil, and it leaves you unconcerned with either.

There's clearly some disagreement of what's Evil and what's Neutral here. You say that putting one's needs (and wants, because I don't think we can call a wish to have a puppy or for an ice cream party is a 'need') above law, morality and the wellbeing of others is 'Neutral'. I say that's 'Chaotic Evil'.

[Angela Christine]

You don't have to make a conscious decision to be evil, or to be good. If you are smart enough you can look at the facts, weigh the pros and cons, examine the afterlife choices (which is much easier in most D&D settings than in RL) and decide to be good or evil. If you aren't smart enough to do all that, then you are stuck blindly following your nature, your innate tendencies. Culture, upbringing, peers and experiences help shape that nature, but they don't excuse it.

Some people will jump down onto the subway tracks to save a stranger's life without taking time to think about it. Some people will shove a slow old lady out of their way in a crowd without thinking about it. They aren't deciding to do good or evil, because there isn't enough time in those moments to make an informed decision, they are simply acting on impulse. Those impulsive actions reveal their inner nature, their character, their alignment.

People like Thog always act on impulse. Their impulsive actions reveal their alignment just as much as the impulsive actions of a smarter person. There is no deception, no inner struggle, Thog is simply dealing with each moment according to his inner nature.


Thog isn't deliberately evil, but he is evil.





It's funny, but I've never seen someone arguing that an obviously Good character is too stupid to be deliberately Good, and therefore must be neutral. "Oh, that Elan, he seems like a good guy but that's just because he hangs out with Lawful Good Roy, on his own he would be too stupid to be anything but neutral." If people don't have to take the consequences of thoughtless Evil, than they shouldn't get the credit for thoughtless Good either.

[zeratul]

they need a new alignment for thog Chaotic Stupid

[War]

You don't have to be good to be nice to your friends, as their continued existence benefits you (even if it's only emotionally). You don't have to be evil to fight against your enemies, as long as it's clear that they intend to cause you problems. Morality comes out in how you treat people you don't know.

Thog enjoys killing, maiming, enslaving, and playing Celine Dion. He is not indifferent to the suffering of others, and he can't be unaware of it, because he seeks it out. It is arguable that he might not fully understand what that suffering means, and that he's susceptible to "encouragement" from Nale. Those would make him convertible, but still evil for now, and we don't even know that they're the case.

I also must refuse the idea that one must choose to be evil. Now, in real life, I don't believe that any person is simple enough to be categorized into Good or Evil. But this is a fictional world where we work on the premise that those things exist, so. That approach simply bothers me as flat-out bad writing, because no sane person willingly sees themselves as evil (except maybe in gothy teenage rebellion); everyone is always justified, or at least rationalized, in their own minds. Either evil doesn't exist, or it encompasses good intentions.

[Sebastian Bux]

Chaotic Neutral

Tons of great points made by many here, but since I'm jumping in on page five I'll just give why I feel it's CN.

Thog commits evil acts, but I don't feel his intentions are evil. Because he has such a low INT score, it's reasonable to assume that Thog will follow along with pretty much whichever idea seems fun at the time. I think that if Thog were possessed of a means to understand his actions he would not commit such blatenly evil acts.

Because he can be made to do a good action, I think it's more accurate to call him Neutral. I don't think there's much doubt (at least for me) that he's Chaotic.

Sebastian

P.S. I think there's also some pretty good arguments out here for Neutral Evil.

[Jorkens]

Going on a "boredom driven rampage" is only evil if those he kills are good. The act itself is not evil.
Surely it is? I mean, going and killing a load of random strangers of indeterminate alignment [1] because you're bored is an evil act. The fact that you happened to decide to do it in the middle of a crowd of evil people doesn't mean that you're not "hurting oppressing and killing others" for your own ends (rather than for the greater good).

[1] and fwiw, I'm not sure that killing an evil creature is always a good act in itself even if you know they're evil. There are greater and lesser evils, and I don't think that even in a society where life is comparatively cheap, not all of them deserve instant death.

[Jorkens]

Yes he sees that the quickest way is to beat a woman down (which serves his needs above others -- a neutral attitude) but had she not been in the way, he would not go out of his way to beat her on his way out (an evil attitude showing a desire to harm).
Sorry, what part of

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
was giving you trouble?

[Xira]

I think one thing that alot of you are missing is that you are inhernatly making assumptions about yourself, humanity, and good and evil without realizeing it.

What is the diffrence between a mouse and a man? If I get bored and kill an ant, am I evil? If I get bored and wipe out an anthill in the neighbor's yard, am I evil?

If my intention dosen't matter, as it does not in a D&D world, then what _DOES_ matter in a D&D world?

The intelligence of the creature I kill?

It's alingment?

It's intention?

Some combination?

If a paladin attempts to kill me because he belives I am evil am I evil to kill him too? If a paladn attempts to kill me becuase I _AM_ evil is killing him an evil action?

D&D choaks on any kind of moral complexity. The rules were written in a very simple manner to cover a very non-simple subject.

Let's enjoy a thought journey from ants to hitler.

Is killing an ant an evil act? What if I do it because I need something to eat? What if I do it because the ant is on my property? Is the ant evil for being my property? How is the ant supposed to know? Is that ant true neutral for not being able to know?

How smart does that ant have to be before killing it becomes evil, or it can become evil? Int 3? What's int 3? Does a human with lower than 3 int become true neutral AND KILLING THAT HUMAN BECOMES A NON EVIL ACT?

Given the wealth of science in recent years showing that animals are..alot smarter than they were in 1972, which animals is killing then evil? Whales? Dolphins? What if we kill the dolphin so we can eat it because we are starveing? If we AREN'T starveing and we kill the dolphin to feed someone else who isn't starveing, are we evil? How many fishermen the world over are evil by this definition? IS KILLING THESE FISHERMEN AN EVIL ACT?

Saying "Well human's aren't animals" is just aother form of raceism. (I will post a link here tommorow showing that apes have the IQ of a 12 year old child).

What then seperates a human from an animal? Potential? How about a human who has no potential? Someone with Down's for instance? Their 'potential' is less than a great ape's, prossibly less than a particularly smart bird's. So why not use them for human experimentation? For that matter, why not just outlaw them and kill them all?

If you are going to kill them all, then where do you draw the line? Jews? Well, jews ARE prone to lots of nasty genetic diseases. Clearing them out, like Hitler wanted to do, would provide a net benefit to the world, given enough time. Same goes for anyone with an IQ under 200. Given enough time. An argument could be made however that given enough time we will find a way to raise IQs to 200 using science, this was however not always obvious.

All morality is a matter of degree. Where you draw your lines depends on how you were raised and instinct.

[pendell]

(I will post a link here tommorow showing that apes have the IQ of a 12 year old child).


12 year old children can compose symphonies, create paintings (here's one example (http://www.artakiane.com/home.htm) ), speak in multiple languages, program computers, repair and build computers, start fires, perform CPR, start charities.

I am unaware of any other primate -- by the way, which species did you have in mind ? -- that can do these things.

Moving this back to gaming ... I can instantly think of two or three 12-year-olds who could sit down at my table with a bag of dice and role-play creditably. I don't think even a chimpanzee -- the most intelligent of our primate cousins -- would do well at that.


So what basis you would state that an ape has the IQ of a 12-year-old child?

Looking forward to your link .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Snake-Aes]

hum, when shall I interrupt half of this discussion and say that "IQ" is a kind of measure that is nearly abandoned exactly because it doesn't really cover much of a mind's intellect and expression?

[Green Bean]

P.S. I think there's also some pretty good arguments out here for Neutral Evil.

You...are joking, right?

[SmartAlec]

The reformed LG has, from what I can tell, every character as an opposite alignment. Except Pompey, but that's only because it's hard to really tell V's alignment.

I dunno, V and Pomp seem to represent a Lawful Neutral/Chaotic Neutral pair. Works for me.

[Querzis]

I dunno, V and Pomp seem to represent a Lawful Neutral/Chaotic Neutral pair. Works for me.

I'm pretty sure they are both true neutral. Its not like there is an opposite for true neutral anyway.

By the way yes, IQ doesnt represent all the aspect of one mind but it represent the D&D definition of intelligence which is more then enough. It just doesnt represent wisdom or charisma.

And I really hope the guy who said that there was some good argument for Neutral Evil was joking. Even if I find it silly, I can at least understand people who say he is chaotic neutral but Thog is almost chaos incarnate! No way that guy is Neutral Evil.

[Ganjuu-kun]

I don't really think Thog is smart enough to have an allignment. I think he thinks what he's doing is good, because Nale has been nice to him.

[Green Bean]

Thog is above int 3, so he's smart enough to have a class, and an alignment. He's willing to kill people when he's bored, and has no concept of value of another's life. He displays no pity or mercy, and willingly works for a homocidal maniac and an demonic/diabolic incarnation of illicit sex.

So I'm thinking Lawful Good :amused:

[chibibar]

of course it all depends on whoes perspective of good. Some society people believe you should chop off the hand when you steal. Some think it is bad some think it is good. If you follow the law and chop people's hand because they steal then you are LG :) right?

Miko is an example. It is ok to kill anything that is "evil" in her eyes.

[Alex Star]

Neutral Stupid

[Duke of URL]

Its not like there is an opposite for true neutral anyway.


Actually there is: true neutral.

Or, more precisely, true neutral (actively seeking balance) vs. true neutral (completely ambivalent).

[Grizzt]

grizzt thinks thog is chaotic evil. thog cant be lawful and roy is lawful good so thog is chaotic evil.

Actually Thog is CE because his actions determine his alignment, not his intentions.
If I want to rescue an evil friend of mine by killing good people I am evil

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

He's not evil or good, he's just plain stupid. Most of the time he's not smart enough to realize what he's doing. I'm not sure ifyou can tell if he's lawful or chaotic, since all he does is do what other people tell him to do.

[SmartAlec]

I'm pretty sure they are both true neutral.

I'm not too sure. It's Vaarsuvius's continued loyalty to 'Sir Greenhilt' and the OOTS vs. Pompey's casual dismissal of his employment that cinches the LN/CN for me.

[Querzis]

I'm not too sure. It's Vaarsuvius's continued loyalty to 'Sir Greenhilt' and the OOTS vs. Pompey's casual dismissal of his employment that cinches the LN/CN for me.

Law and chaos have nothing to do with loyalty. Lawfull mean you are most of the time orderly, reasonnable, humble, you consider yourself as a part of your society, you love conformity and you follow the moral code of your society or family. Lawfull people are also often racist, opressive, cynical and arrogant. Chaotic mean you are most of the time proud, spontanous, adaptable, free, open minded, you love innovation and you follow your own moral code. Chaotic people are often mad, agressive, egoist and uncontrolable.

Beside, saying that lawfull people are loyal and not chaotic people isnt true at all. Its just that most of the time, Lawfull people are gonna be loyal to their boss and to the law while chaotic people are gonna be loyal to their friend.

Maybe Pompey is chaotic neutral or something else, we dont know him enough to be sure about that. But V is pretty much true neutral. And Thog is really chaotic. I wont argue about 'Thog is evil' anymore because it seems some people think stupity can excuse everything but Thog is really chaotic.

[Charity322]

I think the Giant needs a new thread in the FAQ stating Belkar and Thog's alignments. He's said that both are CE and still people argue about it.

Mind you it probably still wouldn't stop people ...

[Taelas]

Whenever I wrote my statements, I wasn't thinking of Hitler or the KKK. Their motivation is of hate, not ignorance. The picture in my mind was more of a toddler that gets hold of a gun and accidentally shoots his brother in the face, then plays in the blood out of curiosity. Is he a psychopath? Maybe, but his ignorance of the situation does not allow for a proper diagnosis.
Your comparison is beyond flawed--Thog is child-like. He is stupid. There is absolutely no basis for the assumption that he is incapable of moral decisions such as a toddler.


Also, I've seen alot of posts stating that his alignment is based solely on his actions. This suggests that alignment itself rests solely on what you do, not who you are. If D&D characters are given an ever-fluctuating alignment that can be ignored or broken at any given moment (as in Neverwinter Nights and other games), then the entire concept of alignment for PC's is moot, as is this thread. My understanding of alignment is that it is the central core of your personality and cannot be changed except by severe emotional trauma or perhaps long stretches of time.
Oh, but it is. However, always keep this in mind:
Actions define your alignment, your alignment does not define your actions.
It's not a straight-jacket.

A good roleplayer will usually play a consitent alignment, yet people are known to change (over time, as you mentioned), so alignment is not static. It can change, due to any number of reasons. But there must be some reason.


Imagine a paladin who becomes a werewolf. Werewolves are inherently Chaotic Evil because their sole intention is to end life and feed. During the day, however he reverts back to the Lawful Good paladin and mourns those that he has killed.
So what is his alignment? LG or CE?
If you base it on his actions, he is both which is impossible in D&D. If you use the correct definition as I and those I have played with have always used, he is still LG, and is merely afflicted with a disease.
Silly choice...
Paladins are immune to magical diseases (above 3rd level).

Still, by RAW, all werewolves are CE. Your "correct definition" is... well, not correct.

A CE person can regret their actions just as much as anyone else. He will attempt to be Good. He will strive for Goodness. Yet if he doesn't learn to control himself, he can't--for every full moon, he'll do Evil things all over again. It's a constant battle for control (and great stuff for stories).


Thog's actions do not make his alignment CE, his intentions, attitude and ignorance make it CN.

Thog isn't ignorant--at least not when it comes to matters of morality. He just doesn't care.

Actions do define alignment. They are not the only things to do so, but I sincerely doubt there is anything to Thog but evil, killing, and a love for puppies (and a creepy devotion to Nale).

[SmartAlec]

Beside, saying that lawfull people are loyal and not chaotic people isnt true at all.

Didn't say that at all - I merely said that V's loyalty and P's lack of it were what cinched the LN/CN thing, not that all LN people are loyal and all CN people aren't. There's plenty else about them that suggests LN/CN, too.

[Shott]

Thog = CE.

[Jefepato]

Maybe Pompey is chaotic neutral or something else, we dont know him enough to be sure about that.

Pompey himself said he was evil, in his first appearance ever. And he was happy about it, so I really doubt he was lying.

[dan4ster]

Chaotic Awesome...Just like :belkar:

[Nay]

Idaknow, for me, Thog qualifies as CN.

What people dont see is, thog does not enjoy killing, he enjoys fighting.
Chopping around with a big axe is fun, when steel meets steel (or anything, really) hes happy.

That people die from this is to be considered an accident on the part of nature.
Thog would be just as jolly if he could beat people with a rubber-axe.
His intention is clearly not to kill, but to fight.
If the fight leads to death, can he be held responsible?
Can a child be held responsible for hugging a hamster to death?

Thog is half Orc, fighting and wielding big weapons is in his blood.
The killing is really just a side effect of which he can, but doesnt have to be, aware.

Belkar otoh takes pleasure in gutting foes (read: people) and standing knee-deep in blood and entrails. He wears their skulls as helmets or eats nachos out of them for gods sake.
THATS what makes someone CE, killing things on purpose and for personal satisfaction.
Thog doesnt do such things.

Thog just wanna have fun.

[teratorn]

So what basis you would state that an ape has the IQ of a 12-year-old child?

Well, this is a bit off-topic to say the least, but from what I know it is more about 2 year old, based on non-verbal tests, the so called Piaget tasks of invisible displacement.

Basically if you show to a very young child a candy or a toy, hide it inside a container, go with the container behind a big box and give the child the container, now empty, the child will keep looking inside the container. By 18 to 24 months they understand the object was hidden in the big box, and if you use several boxes they go to the one where you put the toy. Apes understand that to. Dogs and monkeys don't. Dolphins seem to fail also. Gray parrots seem to get it right.

There is a variant, called double displacement, where you go behind one box, open the container to show the toy is still there, go behind a second box, hide the toy, show the container empty, then let the child chose the box. Children about 2 years old and apes fail that one. Somewhat older children get that right.

But this a somewhat controversial subject and I'm impressed how this came up during a discussion about Thog.

Here's a reference, although only the abstract is avaliable for free
Call J. (2001). Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and children (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 115:159–171. Link. (http://content.apa.org/journals/com/115/2/159)

[Setra]

This is just my opinion but, Children are born evil.

Thus, any statement involving Thog being childlike, just proves even moreso to me that he is evil.

I once heard about a 5 year old killing his baby brother, another time a 7 year old killed two kittens, and not just killed well... I don't like to think about it.

If a child is not taught what is right and wrong, he remains evil, just like Thog.

[Kalessin]

Thog is puppy evil. He isn't lawful so he can be a barbarian, and he is evil to join the LG. :smallwink:

[Taelas]

Idaknow, for me, Thog qualifies as CN.

What people dont see is, thog does not enjoy killing, he enjoys fighting.
Chopping around with a big axe is fun, when steel meets steel (or anything, really) hes happy.

That people die from this is to be considered an accident on the part of nature.
Thog would be just as jolly if he could beat people with a rubber-axe.
His intention is clearly not to kill, but to fight.
If the fight leads to death, can he be held responsible?
Can a child be held responsible for hugging a hamster to death?

Thog is half Orc, fighting and wielding big weapons is in his blood.
The killing is really just a side effect of which he can, but doesnt have to be, aware.

Belkar otoh takes pleasure in gutting foes (read: people) and standing knee-deep in blood and entrails. He wears their skulls as helmets or eats nachos out of them for gods sake.
THATS what makes someone CE, killing things on purpose and for personal satisfaction.
Thog doesnt do such things.

Thog just wanna have fun.
Thog takes pleasure in killing people. Sorry.

[Luvlein]

Now I'm waiting for a thread claiming Xykon is not evil, stating he is kind to Redcloak, or whatnot.

[zeratul]

i think that he's CE ( action wise) but i think his intentions are good and he's really just trying to help his friends and doesn't know what he's doing is wrong

[Nay]

Thog takes pleasure in killing people. Sorry.

maybe if overlooked (or simply forgotten) it, but what strip makes you think that?

[Behold_the_Void]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/../comics/oots0361.html)

Yeah. Thog's pretty stupid, but he's intelligent enough to understand the mechanics of dipping 2 levels of fighter for bonus feats. That means in my book he's intelligent enough to understand how hideously wrong that is.

[Jorkens]

Idaknow, for me, Thog qualifies as CN.

What people dont see is, thog does not enjoy killing, he enjoys fighting.
Chopping around with a big axe is fun, when steel meets steel (or anything, really) hes happy.

That people die from this is to be considered an accident on the part of nature.
In other words, he puts his enjoyment in swinging an axe around above other people's right to life. Which is evil.


Belkar otoh takes pleasure in gutting foes (read: people) and standing knee-deep in blood and entrails. He wears their skulls as helmets or eats nachos out of them for gods sake.
THATS what makes someone CE, killing things on purpose and for personal satisfaction.
Erm, no it isn't. Look at the definition again. 'Hurting, opressing and killing others' is evil.

[Mr Teufel]

Yeah. Thog's pretty stupid, but he's intelligent enough to understand the mechanics of dipping 2 levels of fighter for bonus feats. That means in my book he's intelligent enough to understand how hideously wrong that is.


I think level-related choices show the player's intelligence, not the characters. Even if the characters are aware of levels for humourous effect.

[Flabbicus]

i think that he's CE ( action wise) but i think his intentions are good and he's really just trying to help his friends and doesn't know what he's doing is wrong

Now that's what people should be debating, whether he knows he's evil or not. And not saying that he isn't evil because he's smart enough to tell the difference.

[vbushido]

I vote Chaotic Evil per the Rules of D&D. This is not a value judgment about humanity or philosophical or based on whether he likes puppies. This is a Dungeon Master who knows that this strip is based on a game that has very clearly defined alignments.

PHB pg. 106:
Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer" A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, or lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. IF he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depends.

Several jokes and references pop to mind...

-----
Cats are Murphy's way of saying "Nice furniture!"

[MReav]

I would say that thog is chaotic evil, because creatures with Intelligences higher than 3 are capable of making moral decisions in DnD. Hell, there are even creatures that don't have intelligences or intelligences higher than 3 that are still evil. Also, other monsters have some seriously low intellect (ogres for instance) that are evil. He may have the intellect of a child, but I get the idea that thog would be evil even if he didn't hang around Nale. He said in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html that Nale lets him smash stuff, implying that he would want to smash stuff (and I believe people would count as "stuff" in thog's mind) regardless of Nale's presence. Nale just gives him an excuse that isn't "boredom driven rampage".

And I would argue against the idea that Pompey is CN. For one thing, in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0254.html, he flat out says "I'm an evil half-elf", to the comment he's just another new evil elven subrace. He's somewhere between CE and NE, but I vote NE, due to his schemey opportunism, and lack of impulsiveness.

[Angela Christine]

A CE person can regret their actions just as much as anyone else. He will attempt to be Good. He will strive for Goodness. Yet if he doesn't learn to control himself, he can't--for every full moon, he'll do Evil things all over again. It's a constant battle for control (and great stuff for stories).

Less dramatically, an abusive person can display similar behavior. They get mad and beat their kid or spouse. Then they feel bad about, and apologise or buy presents to make up for it, and promise never to do it again -- and when they say that they may think that they mean it. Time passes, they get mad again, and they whole cycle repeats. They may "feel bad" about their evil acts, but unless they actually DO something to change they are going to keep repeating the cycle.

For a werewolf that could mean actively questing for a magical cure to their condition. For more mundane evils there generally aren't magic cures.



Idaknow, for me, Thog qualifies as CN.

What people dont see is, thog does not enjoy killing, he enjoys fighting.
Chopping around with a big axe is fun, when steel meets steel (or anything, really) hes happy.

That people die from this is to be considered an accident on the part of nature.

That would only work the first time, or the first few times since he is physically powerful but mentally weak and it might take more than one example for him to make the connection. Once he comes down from having fun and notices all the death, destruction and unhappiness he has caused he should make the connection that hitting people with an axe causes bad things. He's smart enough to make that connection.

When I was four or five years old I was playing outside and found a nice long wriggly worm. I'd heard the false rumor that if you cut an earthworm in half you get two live worms (you may get one live worm, if you're lucky, but not two). So I cut the worm in half, and then cut the halves in half, and so on, until I had sixteen chunks of earthworm. Then I noticed that I did not have sixteen live earthworms, just one very dead earthworm. I started crying and took my handful of worm chunks to my Mom, but she couldn't fix it. :smallfrown: It was traumatic enough that I still remember it nearly 30 years later.

Anyway, me as a little kid was smart enough to figure out that breaking the worm into bits lead to death, and that death was not a good thing. I was a bright little kid :smallbiggrin: but I don't think that bit of reasoning is beyond Thog's current abilities.


Thog sees the messes he makes, and he doesn't care. If he wasn't evil he would be unhappy about what he'd done, and try not to do it again. Thog is evil.

[Haruki-kun]

I'm not sure if I have the "rules properly" but I understand Barbarians can only be Chaotic, right?

I'd say he is Chaotic Neutral.

[r23r5]

Thog is Chaotic Neutral, no doubt , he broke out of jail so he's obviously chaotic, and he helped elan so he's most likely neutral:thog:

[SmartAlec]

Let's look at the tote board! So far on this thread, the count stands at:

Chaotic Neutral: 13 votes

True Neutral: 3 votes

Neutral Evil: 3 votes

Chaotic Evil: 43 votes

Lawful Evil: 2 votes (seriously!)

And the 'joke' Alignments:

Clueless Evil

Cute Evil

Chaotic Dumb

Chaotic Happy

Happy Evil

Chaotic Innocent

Chaotic Stupid (mentioned twice)

Church of England

Chaotic Happy Evil

Neutral Stupid

Chaotic Awesome

[MrCab]

Maybe Thog was Chaotic Evil for a while, as noted by killing the pixie way back when. But he's definitely been acting good-er since being stuck with Elan in prison. If nothing else, remember, "Prison change Thog quickly" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html)

[Golt]

If We're talking strictly Dn'D rules then he's CE. But since the "strictly rules" approach never really was my thing I'll say he's CN. He's just too stupid to understand the difference between good and evil. He may have *just* enough intelligence to know that he is actually killing people, but since his wisdom is probably also *just* high enough for him not to be taken for the last specimen of a dying species and taken under protection by some druids, i doubt he understands the consequences of his acts.

[Taelas]

maybe if overlooked (or simply forgotten) it, but what strip makes you think that?
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html

[Taelas]

If We're talking strictly Dn'D rules then he's CE. But since the "strictly rules" approach never really was my thing I'll say he's CN. He's just too stupid to understand the difference between good and evil. He may have *just* enough intelligence to know that he is actually killing people, but since his wisdom is probably also *just* high enough for him not to be taken for the last specimen of a dying species and taken under protection by some druids, i doubt he understands the consequences of his acts.
Thog is stupid, yes, that much is obvious. There has been absolutely no basis for this assumption that he's too stupid to know the difference between good and evil, however. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist.

[Golt]

It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist.

However, it does take a non-sociopath.

New alignment: Happy Sociopathic


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html
It's rather disputable whether this means Thog likes killing people, or he just likes fighting

[Taelas]

Sociopaths are more often than not of an Evil alignment. I have yet to hear of anyone who was not.

If he liked fighting and wasn't evil, he'd avoid killing them.

[Golt]

1)Sociopaths are more often than not of an Evil alignment. I have yet to hear of anyone who was not.

2)If he liked fighting and wasn't evil, he'd avoid killing them.

1)I didn't say sociopaths don't act evil. It's just that sociopath is a person who:
a)has no regards for social norms (EEEVIIIL)
b)doesn't see the difference between good and evil (is unable to make moral judgments over his/ hers/other peoples actions)
In the second case even when the person's acts are evil can we say the person is TRULY EVIL? No. And if such person was extremely stupid and was a half-orc walking around with an axe?

2)IF he'd understand full consequences of his behavior.

[Taelas]

1)I didn't say sociopaths don't act evil. It's just that sociopath is a person who:
a)has no regards for social norms (EEEVIIIL)
b)doesn't see the difference between good and evil (is unable to make moral judgments over his/ hers/other peoples actions)
In the second case even when the person's acts are evil can we say the person is TRULY EVIL? No. And if such person was extremely stupid and was a half-orc walking around with an axe?
Sigh. A sociopath doesn't care about other people. It's not that he can't see the difference--he'd probably object if someone treated him badly--it's that he doesn't care as long as it's not himself. Some sociopaths pretend to be normal and care, where in reality they do not. They couldn't do so if they couldn't distinguish between good and evil. While this is not inherently evil (it's neutral), it can very easily lead to evil. "I don't care about that guy or what happens to him, so I'll stab him for his wallet since I need money," or perhaps, "I like fighting, and I don't care if people die when I swing my axe into their soft, defenseless flesh."


2)IF he'd understand full consequences of his behavior.
Point out to me where you get the idea that he doesn't. He certainly understands torture (the Celine Dion example, for instance).

[Golt]

I was about to keep discussing but

the Celine Dion example, for instance
you got me here
:smallwink:

[Gurgeh]

By D&D rules, Thog is almost certainly evil. By common sense and the generally-accepted meaning of the word, he probably isn't. Where this leaves his alignment in OoTS is anyone's guess.

[Snake-Aes]

Guys, there's no "he's too stupid to have an alignment". One of the pre -requisites to have a class level is to have humanlike intelligence, and an alignment.

If thog has at least one class level, he DOES qualify for an alignment.
Strictly by the rules, that doesn't work.
And I do believe he understand what he does, look at his evil grin when he pulled the Celine Dion disc

[Talya]

Thog's chaotic nature (or lack thereof) is not clearly determined in the comic; "resisting arrest" is an indicator, but a lawful evil character might do the same. (Thog is NOT lawful.) CE or NE definitely. I prefer calling him "Lovable Evil."

[Mr Teufel]

I necro this thread to point to an interesting fact: Thog is arguably changing alignment away from evil, and Miko is arguably changing alignment towards evil.

Congratulations to Mr Berlow!

[Setra]

I necro this thread to point to an interesting fact: Thog is arguably changing alignment away from evil, and Miko is arguably changing alignment towards evil.

Congratulations to Mr Berlow!

Arguably, really so much speculation, we don't even know what she is going to do next. If she suddenly breaks down crying she won't seem so evil, but if she tries to kill Hinjo then it is quite clear she has snapped, but at this point it's really hard to tell. All ya really know is she just did something very bad.

Also, everyone wants Thog to be Good, but he will be evil, and probably remain so until perhaps Nale is out of the picture.

[Vorkuta]

Thog reminds me of Lenny, in "Of Mice and Men".

[Green Bean]

I necro this thread to point to an interesting fact: Thog is arguably changing alignment away from evil, and Miko is arguably changing alignment towards evil.

Congratulations to Mr Berlow!

You know, thread necromancy has an [Evil] descriptor :smalltongue:

[Mr Teufel]

Mwuhahahahahahahahaha!:smallbiggrin: