Re: If Redcloak died, where would he go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Squire Doodad
Odds are if there was a Good Goblin (I dunno, maybe that one dead hobgoblin?) who worshipped TDO but wasn't a Cleric they would be sent to the standard Good afterlife? Or maybe they'd go to TDO's place and fight the battles anyways?
We're nearing the point where we probably need to cite someone's work in order to get an idea.
In my interpretation there's two definitions of "good" in the ootsverse. A "true" good that values the well being of sapient creatures and holds certain virtues and an "our-side" good which lets you kill orcs because it's slightly easier than talking to them.
People like Redcloak and Tarquin have expressed the idea that 'good" is an arbitrary, hypocritical facade, and is just really "our-side" dressed up. I'd expect TDO also holds this view and (from his experience) basically all suffering comes from the "good" gods. Also note that Jirax seemed to think that being evil would mean Xykon would have concern for the goblinoid people.
Both sincere and hypocritical good actual exist in both mortals and gods, and nothing is the universe is entirely above this confusion. (the alignment outsiders (archons, devils, demons, the other six) are below it as they don't get to make real choices.
So we know from the Dwarfs-default-to-Hel thing that the afterlife isn't perfectly fair and the gods can screw with it any way they wish.
As for "good" goblins I'd imagine it depends on what kind of good you were. Those teenager, "good" goblins that helped the OotS in the first book? They're probably in the dark one's latrine.
Re: If Redcloak died, where would he go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quizatzhaderac
In my interpretation there's two definitions of "good" in the ootsverse. A "true" good that values of sapient creatures and holds certain virtues and an "our-side" good which lets you kill orcs because it's slightly easier than talking to them.
I feel like this corresponds to RAW versus rules as interpreted by players who are more interested in shopping than ethical conundrums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quizatzhaderac
People like Redcloak and Tarquin have expressed the idea that 'good" is an arbitrary, hypocritical facade, and is just really "our-side" dressed up. I'd expect TDO also holds this view and (from his experience) basically all suffering comes from the "good" gods. Also note that Jirax seemed to think that being evil would mean Xykon would have concern for the goblinoid people.
Both sincere and hypocritical good actual exist in both mortals and gods, and nothing is the universe is entirely above this confusion. (the alignment outsiders (archons, devils, demons, the other six) are below it as they don't get to make real choices.
So we know from the Dwarfs-default-to-Hel thing that the afterlife isn't perfectly fair and the gods can screw with it any way they wish.
As for "good" goblins I'd imagine it depends on what kind of good you were. Those teenager, "good" goblins that helped the OotS in the first book? They're probably in the dark one's latrine.
I think a lot of people have an "our side vs everyone else" mentality.
Re: If Redcloak died, where would he go?
Re: If Redcloak died, where would he go?
Yeah, considering how strict the paladin code was in 3.5, most of the azure sapphire would have fallen a looong time ago
Re: If Redcloak died, where would he go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Is there anything functionally separating "Neutral with strong Evil tendencies" and "Evil but kind of low-level Evil" other than the words? It seems like a distinction without a difference.
Unless neutral is a single point on the axis from good to evil, most characters within the "neutral zone" will have a bit of a tendency one way or the other. Neutral with Evil tendencies is less evil than Evil tending Neutral.
Neutral with Evil tendencies has Sub-critical Evilness if you will.