No love for Neutral alignments in OOTS

[Mike Havran]

First, Ninja School is kill-or-be-killed. That guy knew the score when he enrolled and probably did it to the guy ahead of him.

Second, I'm more concerned with her activity in the comic than an implied history that I haven't bothered to work out. Kubota was teaching her to be a villain, implying that it didn't come naturally to her.

And third, being a paid ninja for hire is not as Evil as killing for the joy of killing (i.e. Crystal again). Therkla had a job, she did it. She didn't ask questions about who Kubota marked.

Maybe it's a borderline case, but it's how I wrote her reactions.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

[sam79]

First, Ninja School is kill-or-be-killed. That guy knew the score when he enrolled and probably did it to the guy ahead of him.

Second, I'm more concerned with her activity in the comic than an implied history that I haven't bothered to work out. Kubota was teaching her to be a villain, implying that it didn't come naturally to her.

"And besides, these are themes I will explore in the forthcoming Therkla Kickstarter story."

[ETA: When the knives are out for you in Ninja School, it isn't just a metaphor!]

Possibly?

As for Neutral. Yeah. That word is going helluva heavy duty in D+D to try an encompass a whole range of Not Good But Not Evil behaviours and morals.

[SaintRidley]

Rich has implied that paladins fell while commiting the goblin massacres, and that it wasn't obvious to observers. He directly stated that Miko's fall was deliberatly made blindinly obvious to show the supreme disfavor of the gods. Now while Miko could fall from a single evil act (and did), so she could easily still be LG (and I assume that most [NPC] paladins fall this way. I'd even like to assume that the best paladins have a tendancy to "fall up" to neutral good).

Between her on screen actions, which looked like stereotypical LN play, and the visible wrath of the gods, I would tenatively mark her at LN. There really is no way to be certain, and her last scene said that a LG archon (her paladin's warhorse) could travel to meet her, so she isn't that far away. In the standard D&D multiverse* she's certainly in Arcadia (which she probably would be regardless of which side of the G/N line she wound up on).

*I've had the impression that they added a lot more planes and shades of alignments since AD&D. The wiki claims that there are still only 16 (didn't see concordinant opposition on the list), so I'm assuming that the various levels of planes are for different grades of alignment.

I'm really unsure why this was a response to me, when my post had nothing to do with anything you said.

[Burner28]

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.

People with Neutral alignments tend to not go on about it all the time. Lack of talking about it does not equal lack of presence in the comic, but since there's very little to say story-wise that can't ALSO be said with at least one corner alignment, there's not much reason to bring it up.

Interesting and glad to see several alignments of different characters confirmed. Bit surprised to see Kilkil listed under Neutral, though.

[Reddish Mage]

Interesting and glad to see several alignments of different characters confirmed. Bit surprised to see Kilkil listed under Neutral, though.

Kilkil, Therkla, Jenny, Hank and the Oracle and all are examples of neutral characters that hang around Evil people. Some work to further evil goals but do not appear to carry any malice themselves. Its highly significant in OOTS that alignment works this way.

[hamishspence]

Who are the evil people that you're thinking of, whom the Oracle hangs around? Fellow Kobolds, or Tiamat herself?

[sam79]

Kilkil, Therkla, Jenny, Hank and the Oracle and all are examples of neutral characters that hang around Evil people. Some work to further evil goals but do not appear to carry any malice themselves. Its highly significant in OOTS that alignment works this way.

And Vaarsuivius a counter example who helps toward Good goals without being invested in them?

Mostly we've seen the Oracle interact with Good characters; his neutrality appears to be that he uses his powers to "help" any customers who can pay. Apart from Xykon, who's frickin' scary.

ETA:
Ninja'd for my second paragraph. Curse my verbosity!

[Reddish Mage]

And Vaarsuivius a counter example who helps toward Good goals without being invested in them?

Mostly we've seen the Oracle interact with Good characters; his neutrality appears to be that he uses his powers to "help" any customers who can pay. Apart from Xykon, who's frickin' scary.

ETA:
Ninja'd for my second paragraph. Curse my verbosity!

As far as V is concerned. Yes. Until recently, Vaarsuvius was not terribly invested or concerned about morality.

As far as the Oracle is concerned. I was thinking about Mama Black Dragon and Tiamat herself, both of whom the Oracle gives a great deal of respect. Contrast this to the OOTS, whom the Oracle obviously dislikes (albeit with good reasons having nothing to do with alignment).

[Evazan]

Thus, neutrality isn't what makes those alignments interesting. It is the other component, unbiased in regards to one axis. Dedication to neutrality or balance always rings false; what rational being would care about it? Maybe lawful neutral characters would, but it still seems like "balance" could be replaced with "good" in that sense. "I favor neither law, nor chaos, nor evil, nor good, because balance is the overriding principle of the universe." Sure, sounds interesting, but that itself is a strict adherence to certain principles. Sounds lawful. "I believe that neither the forces of good nor the forces of evil can be allowed to fully prevail over each other." That's not neutrality, it's just a belief in Good needing a little Evil to exist; it still favors good, because its trying to preserve the universe (and if preserving the universe isn't good, then it's lawful). True neutral should mean complete apathy or completely selfish but not malicious.

I don't know if you've heard of this fellow named Xykon, but he's perfectly happy preserving the universe, so I guess that means he's good. Heck, he's even following a plan that will unite the world under him--he must be lawful! Therefore, Xykon is lawful good. QED.

Or not, and that's proof by contradiction that "trying to preserve the universe" implies neither goodness or lawfulness.

[Draz74]

If she was willing to kill innocent people just because she was ordered to do so or was being paid to do so, isn't that pretty much textbook Lawful Evil?

This? This argument here?

This is an example of how people see alignment as a straightjacket system, without realizing they're doing it.

It's pretty shaky ground to say almost any behavior, and conclude that a character who does it must be X Alignment. Personalities are complex, and nearly any behavior can fit under a number of alignments, depending on the other characteristics, demeanors, deeds, quirks, and behaviors of the character involved.

In fact, I'm not even sure the qualifying phrase "pretty much" is needed in the above statement. Even the most horrific, objectively-depraved crimes can probably be part of any evil alignment.

[F.Harr]

While I agree that Eugene being rude=/=Eugene not being LG, there are other events that make it more likely that Eugene has fallen from grace. Namely, the fact that his reactions to Vaarsuvius' actions while soul-spliced was one of approval. He didn't even think of them as morally appalling, just...totally fine. That definitely puts him lower on the Good end of things than, well, most of the other comics' good guys.

Not to mention the fact that he interfered with the Summoning in the Trial arc (at least a Chaotic act), and collaborated with Shojo in interfering with the trial to a far greater extent than Roy. And his abandonment of the Blood Oath was problematic enough for the Lawful Good afterlife not to let him in, even though they were fine with allowing Roy.

So Eugene is, by this point, at best True Neutral.

So, neutral and chaotic good are considered "lower" than lawful good?

[hamishspence]

So, neutral and chaotic good are considered "lower" than lawful good?

I think the first paragraph was an argument that he's not Good, and the second an argument that he's not Lawful.

The deva points out that he's prevented from getting into Celestia until the Blood Oath is fulfilled - which may imply that, at least at the time of his first evaluation, he was LG, though he might possibly have changed since then.

We may have to wait and see. It's possible that Eugene is one of those The Giant chose not to give an alignment for- but it's also possible that he's still LG.

[F.Harr]

It may become a plot point. I do think Eugene is good, but we don't know what the neutral and chaotic good people get.

[hamishspence]

It may become a plot point. I do think Eugene is good, but we don't know what the neutral and chaotic good people get.

They're probably among the "dozen in-between" planes Roy mentions here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html

Valhalla was a name for Ysgard I think in 2nd ed (CG/CN), and Nirvana is part of the name of Mechanus (LN) in 3rd ed: "Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus".

[Sir_Leorik]

You seem to assume that one is Good (or LG) until proven otherwise. Surely, someone is Neutral by default, unless their behavior indicates that they are of a different alignment.

There are spells in 3.X that allow a Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, etc., to detect Good (as well as Evil, Chaos and Law). Eugene was being interviewed by a Deva, beings who are always Good (Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, depending on their function) in order to determine if he merited entering into Mt. Celestia, the Lawful Good afterlife. The only black marks on Eugene's record (other than not fulfilling his Blood Oath of Vengeance against Xykon) was foul language and editing his own Wikipedia article. All of this is found on the last page of Start of Darkness, one of the two prequel books. If you feel that Eugene wasn't Lawful Good, then maybe you misunderstand how the D&D Alignment system works. Eugene was a distant father to Roy, and he spoiled Julia rotten, but he was a Lawful Good person.

Spoilers for SoD:

Spoiler

Show

Go read the advice Eugene Greenhilt gave to Right-Eye in the tavern scene; please tell me that Eugene wasn't genuinely trying to give Right-Eye, a Goblin working for Eugene's hated enemy, good advice? Advice, I might add, that led to the best years of Right-Eye's life, before Xykon came calling. While True Neutral characters can definitely give good advice, I got the impression Eugene was acting more like a mentor or father figure to Right-Eye. While he was a bit oblivious and rude at first, Eugene did not cast a single spell until Right-Eye threatened him with his ax. And even so Eugene felt bad enough for Right-Eye to try and convince him to break away from Xykon and start a family.

[Sir_Leorik]

Well, I don't know what to say except that I have no idea where you're getting that from. I literally have never written Crystal do anything Lawful, ever, other than take orders from a guy who only gives her orders she wants to do anyway (i.e. kill people). The closest there has ever been to an order Crystal didn't already want to do was, "Don't kill this person yet." And even then, I see her following it more because she knows Bozzok is smarter than her and probably has an awesome scheme, even though she reeeeeally wants to do it now. Being able to delay gratification slightly does not make you Lawful; it may make you not-as-Chaotic-as-you-could-be. Heck, if Bozzok died, Crystal would probably drift to full-bore Chaotic Evil in about a week, tops.

I find that interesting, because I assumed Crystal was already Chaotic Evil, with Bozzok holding her leash and keeping her from slaughtering anyone she wanted to. It makes sense to me that Bozzok is Neutral Evil rather than Lawful Evil; he's organized and demands loyalty, but unlike Redcloak or Tarquin he never actually rewards loyalty or looks after the welfare of his followers. When Haley skipped town in OtOoPCs the Thieves' Guild was full of thieves like Hank, embezzling from the Guild because Bozzok took far more than his fair share of the loot.

It's possible that I misread Crystal's stupidity as a sign of her also being Chaotic, but she was so gleeful when Bozzok gave her the orders to kill Haley that she was skipping through town and singing! That's something the Joker or Deadpool would do!

[hamishspence]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

[Flame of Anor]

And Vaarsuivius a counter example who helps toward Good goals without being invested in them?

I think V does care about the goals to an extent, but is--or at least was, until recently--mostly interested in V's own power and, secondarily, V's personal attachments (like Inkyrius, Haley, etc.). But it's been a while now since V hit V's nadir and realized it was V's selfishness that caused it. I'm pretty sure V is on the way back up toward Good, though it may be a while.

[Sir_Leorik]

If she was willing to kill innocent people just because she was ordered to do so or was being paid to do so, isn't that pretty much textbook Lawful Evil?

Who says Therkla was willing to kill innocent people? Who says she was even willing to kill any of Daimyo Kubota's enemies other than Lord Hinjo? I seem to remember her trying desperately to convince Daimyo Kubota not to order the murder of the Katos, as well as her assisting Elan, Durkon, Daigo and Lien to escape from Chief Grukgruk's angry tribe of Orcs (twice!).

[Tock Zipporah]

Thanks a lot for this. But one character I don't understand is Therkla. How could she be a right hand to a guy like Kubota for all those years, kill a colleague on ninja university just to get ahead, plan an assasination of a paladin and a legitimate leader and genuinely liking it, and yet keep a True Neutral alignment? Or did she become TN during her last evening?

You can commit evil acts and still be Neutral. Some people might argue that the difference between True Neutral and Neutral Evil is that a TN assassin works for the money, it's just a job, and they don't really consider the "right or wrong" aspect of it, just as long as they get paid; whereas a NE might enjoy killing, go out of their way to make a victim suffer, and prefer killing innocents.

And if you counter by saying "But killing is wrong!" keep in mind that just about every Good-aligned character we've ever seen has killed people. Paladins kill sentient goblins because their boss tells them to. Miko tried to kill Roy and the rest of the OotS just because Shojo sent her after them. Hinjo tried to kill Redcloak at the docks, even though some people might argue that as an enforcer of law he should be trying to capture the enemy leader to put on trial for war crimes. It's all subjective.

If she was willing to kill innocent people just because she was ordered to do so or was being paid to do so, isn't that pretty much textbook Lawful Evil?

And to further the points I made above, what's the difference between an assassin killing innocent people just because she was being paid, and a paladin killing innocent orcs just because he was being paid (a case brought up in On the Origin of PCs, where a paladin wanted to murder orcs who weren't hurting anyone and said explicitly he didn't even need to worry about alignment penalties for it).

This? This argument here?

This is an example of how people see alignment as a straightjacket system, without realizing they're doing it.

It's pretty shaky ground to say almost any behavior, and conclude that a character who does it must be X Alignment. Personalities are complex, and nearly any behavior can fit under a number of alignments, depending on the other characteristics, demeanors, deeds, quirks, and behaviors of the character involved.

In fact, I'm not even sure the qualifying phrase "pretty much" is needed in the above statement. Even the most horrific, objectively-depraved crimes can probably be part of any evil alignment.

Draz makes a very good point here. There is no way to say "anyone who does X must be alignment Y." People of ANY alignment kill other sentient creatures when it suits their purposes. There are, of course, some EXTREME cases where it's blatantly wrong to kill (i.e. striking down your defenseless liege). Barring such extreme cases, however, there is a TON of grey area in between, grey area where paladins and other good-aligned people murder sentient creatures all the time.

Here's an example: the Ogres. They were raiding, robbing, and kidnapping... but as far as Miko and the Order knew, the Ogres hadn't actually killed anyone. Yet instead of arresting them and bringing them in for trial, Miko proceeded to blatantly murder the entire tribe "just because they're evil." Is this really that different from what Therkla does?

[Sir_Leorik]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

O-chul and the Mitd? Elan bringing out the best in Haley? Sir Francois and Lord Hinjo keeping Elan's more Chaotic impulses in check? The problem is that other than the MitD, Haley and Elan's Alignment's didn't actually change, they simply expressed them in other ways. They were both already Chaotic Good, and never stopped being Chaotic Good, but Haley veered a bit closer to Neutrality due to her greed. Elan (and to a lesser extent Roy and Durkon) had a positive effect on Haley; she's still greedy, but she's not robbing banks and jewel vaults anymore.

[Gift Jeraff]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

I'm guessing Nale's natural inclination is to NE, but was LE in the past due to Tarquin's influence.

[Psyren]

Onstage, unless I'm forgetting something (which I well might be), she never disobeys an order. Never acts as if disobeying an order is an option she has any more than she has the option of flapping her arms and flying to the moon. Never does anything she isn't ordered to do, unless jumping in when she wasn't specifically addressed to say things like, "There is no 'I' in Thieves Guild!" or "Our thieves are only allowed to steal from the people our thieves are allowed to steal from!" counts. By contrast, Elan's, ah, "initiative" nearly got Sir Francois killed multiple times, Haley is conspicuously going against her father right now, and Redcloak's brother only obeyed Xykon in the presence of immediate threats to his life and the lives of his loved ones.

The Giant explained this pretty clearly though from what I read. She never disobeys an order simply because all the orders we've seen her get are exactly what she wants to do. The one time she hesitates at following one is CdGing Haley and, again, that fits the Giant's overarching philosophy of hers that "Bozzok knows best." Following his orders doesn't make her lawful any more than following Roy's orders does for Belkar or Elan.

And the counterpoint to your position - using the Giant's example of "if Haley became head of the GCTG, would Crystal follow her leadership?" I would be even more surprised than you are now if she were to do so. So I definitely agree that Crystal is NE, if not outright CE.

[Emanick]

You can commit evil acts and still be Neutral. Some people might argue that the difference between True Neutral and Neutral Evil is that a TN assassin works for the money, it's just a job, and they don't really consider the "right or wrong" aspect of it, just as long as they get paid; whereas a NE might enjoy killing, go out of their way to make a victim suffer, and prefer killing innocents.

And if you counter by saying "But killing is wrong!" keep in mind that just about every Good-aligned character we've ever seen has killed people. Paladins kill sentient goblins because their boss tells them to. Miko tried to kill Roy and the rest of the OotS just because Shojo sent her after them. Hinjo tried to kill Redcloak at the docks, even though some people might argue that as an enforcer of law he should be trying to capture the enemy leader to put on trial for war crimes. It's all subjective.



And to further the points I made above, what's the difference between an assassin killing innocent people just because she was being paid, and a paladin killing innocent orcs just because he was being paid (a case brought up in On the Origin of PCs, where a paladin wanted to murder orcs who weren't hurting anyone and said explicitly he didn't even need to worry about alignment penalties for it).



Draz makes a very good point here. There is no way to say "anyone who does X must be alignment Y." People of ANY alignment kill other sentient creatures when it suits their purposes. There are, of course, some EXTREME cases where it's blatantly wrong to kill (i.e. striking down your defenseless liege). Barring such extreme cases, however, there is a TON of grey area in between, grey area where paladins and other good-aligned people murder sentient creatures all the time.

Here's an example: the Ogres. They were raiding, robbing, and kidnapping... but as far as Miko and the Order knew, the Ogres hadn't actually killed anyone. Yet instead of arresting them and bringing them in for trial, Miko proceeded to blatantly murder the entire tribe "just because they're evil." Is this really that different from what Therkla does?

I think the argument is that there are few things more evil than killing innocent people. In general, unless there are significant extenuating circumstances (and I can't think of any), if you're killing innocent people willfully, without being coerced to do so, on a regular basis, and are somehow not Evil under an alignment system, then that alignment system is broken. If that's not Evil, what is?

Kidnapping, robbing and raiding takes away that "innocence" status. Think of a hostage situation. There's a pretty solid argument for not calling a police officer who uses lethal force to subdue gangster kidnappers Evil. Miko even gave the kidnappers a chance to surrender.

You could say that this is a grey area, and I could accept that. But kidnappers and raiders are not on the same moral level as people who have done nothing to significantly harm anyone. I think that can be stated pretty fairly.

Paladin or not, killing someone on orders without evidence that they are far from innocent is generally Evil, IMO. If your superiors are trustworthy and have done their homework, that can be considered compelling evidence. If not, you're probably risking a Good, or even a Neutral (depending on circumstances) alignment.

[hamishspence]

Kidnapping, robbing and raiding takes away that "innocence" status. Think of a hostage situation. There's a pretty solid argument for not calling a police officer who uses lethal force to subdue gangster kidnappers Evil. Miko even gave the kidnappers a chance to surrender.

You could say that this is a grey area, and I could accept that. But kidnappers and raiders are not on the same moral level as people who have done nothing to significantly harm anyone. I think that can be stated pretty fairly.

Paladin or not, killing someone on orders without evidence that they are far from innocent is generally Evil, IMO. If your superiors are trustworthy and have done their homework, that can be considered compelling evidence. If not, you're probably risking a Good, or even a Neutral (depending on circumstances) alignment.

Sounds about right. One of the things I liked about BoED, is that it went out of its way to state, at least once, that an Evil alignment is not, on its own, good enough reason for waging war on, for example, orcs- they have to be doing something to justify it on top of their alignment itself.

[bguy]

Who says Therkla was willing to kill innocent people? Who says she was even willing to kill any of Daimyo Kubota's enemies other than Lord Hinjo? I seem to remember her trying desperately to convince Daimyo Kubota not to order the murder of the Katos, as well as her assisting Elan, Durkon, Daigo and Lien to escape from Chief Grukgruk's angry tribe of Orcs (twice!).

Well in strip 509 Kubota says that she has been his most trusted assassin for seven years. That strongly suggests that she was willing to kill whoever he told her to kill and in fact has done so in the past. (Now maybe Kubota only had her targetting rival evil aristocrats and crime bosses and the like and never had her target any innocent people, though given what we know of the man that seems unlikely.)

As for Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, Therkla was perfectly fine in strip 557 with letting them all be killed. She had to be talked out of it by Elan and only spared their lives to make Elan happy not because she had any moral objections to letting them be murdered on her command.

You can commit evil acts and still be Neutral. Some people might argue that the difference between True Neutral and Neutral Evil is that a TN assassin works for the money, it's just a job, and they don't really consider the "right or wrong" aspect of it, just as long as they get paid; whereas a NE might enjoy killing, go out of their way to make a victim suffer, and prefer killing innocents.

I think too many people are conflating evil with psycopathy here. Yes, some evil people do enjoy killing and making others suffer, but you can be just as evil killing only for profit or convenience or for what you believe is "the greater good." What matters is that you are willing to kill innocent people not whether you enjoy it or not.

And if you counter by saying "But killing is wrong!" keep in mind that just about every Good-aligned character we've ever seen has killed people. Paladins kill sentient goblins because their boss tells them to. Miko tried to kill Roy and the rest of the OotS just because Shojo sent her after them. Hinjo tried to kill Redcloak at the docks, even though some people might argue that as an enforcer of law he should be trying to capture the enemy leader to put on trial for war crimes. It's all subjective.

I would agree that there are instances where killing can be justified. That is why I've specified the killing of innocents as being what makes Therkla evil. She's not killing in justified self-defense or while defending her country from an invasion. She's killing solely for profit.

And to further the points I made above, what's the difference between an assassin killing innocent people just because she was being paid, and a paladin killing innocent orcs just because he was being paid (a case brought up in On the Origin of PCs, where a paladin wanted to murder orcs who weren't hurting anyone and said explicitly he didn't even need to worry about alignment penalties for it).

There isn't any difference. In both cases killing innocents is an incredibly evil action.

There is no way to say "anyone who does X must be alignment Y." People of ANY alignment kill other sentient creatures when it suits their purposes. There are, of course, some EXTREME cases where it's blatantly wrong to kill (i.e. striking down your defenseless liege). Barring such extreme cases, however, there is a TON of grey area in between, grey area where paladins and other good-aligned people murder sentient creatures all the time.

And again I don't think Therkla was evil simply because she was willing to kill. Rather I think she was evil because she was willing to kill innocents. (Even without knowing who she murdered in the previous 7 years where she worked for Kubota, we know she was willing to kill Hinjo, Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, none of whom had done anything to Therkla that would justify her using lethal force on them.) Being willing to kill innocent people for profit is just not something that a Good or even a Neutral person would do. It's an incredibly evil action. Which is not to say that Therkla could never redeem herself or change her alignment. I am perfectly willing to consider that by the end she might have shifted to a Neutral alignment. But that shift was marked by her being no longer willing to kill innocents.

[Sir_Leorik]

Well in strip 509 Kubota says that she has been his most trusted assassin for seven years. That strongly suggests that she was willing to kill whoever he told her to kill and in fact has done so in the past. (Now maybe Kubota only had her targetting rival evil aristocrats and crime bosses and the like and never had her target any innocent people, though given what we know of the man that seems unlikely.)

We don't know who she assassinated prior to the sacking of Azure City by the Hobgoblin army. The Giant hasn't even bothered to flesh out that story, so there's no evidence one way or the other.

As for Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, Therkla was perfectly fine in strip 557 with letting them all be killed. She had to be talked out of it by Elan and only spared their lives to make Elan happy not because she had any moral objections to letting them be murdered on her command.

No moral objections, but willing to be persuaded? Sounds pretty Neutral to me.

[The Pilgrim]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

I suppose you imply Mr Scuffry and Belkar.

However the first case that came to my mind was Shojo and Miko. The very moment Miko lost his respect for Shojo, it went all south for her.

[Tock Zipporah]

Well in strip 509 Kubota says that she has been his most trusted assassin for seven years. That strongly suggests that she was willing to kill whoever he told her to kill and in fact has done so in the past. (Now maybe Kubota only had her targetting rival evil aristocrats and crime bosses and the like and never had her target any innocent people, though given what we know of the man that seems unlikely.)

As for Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, Therkla was perfectly fine in strip 557 with letting them all be killed. She had to be talked out of it by Elan and only spared their lives to make Elan happy not because she had any moral objections to letting them be murdered on her command.



I think too many people are conflating evil with psycopathy here. Yes, some evil people do enjoy killing and making others suffer, but you can be just as evil killing only for profit or convenience or for what you believe is "the greater good." What matters is that you are willing to kill innocent people not whether you enjoy it or not.



I would agree that there are instances where killing can be justified. That is why I've specified the killing of innocents as being what makes Therkla evil. She's not killing in justified self-defense or while defending her country from an invasion. She's killing solely for profit.



There isn't any difference. In both cases killing innocents is an incredibly evil action.



And again I don't think Therkla was evil simply because she was willing to kill. Rather I think she was evil because she was willing to kill innocents. (Even without knowing who she murdered in the previous 7 years where she worked for Kubota, we know she was willing to kill Hinjo, Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, none of whom had done anything to Therkla that would justify her using lethal force on them.) Being willing to kill innocent people for profit is just not something that a Good or even a Neutral person would do. It's an incredibly evil action. Which is not to say that Therkla could never redeem herself or change her alignment. I am perfectly willing to consider that by the end she might have shifted to a Neutral alignment. But that shift was marked by her being no longer willing to kill innocents.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think killing innocents makes you automatically an evil alignment. Killing innocents is an evil ACT, yes, but Neutral characters can commit some evil acts and still be Neutral. They can also commit Good acts without being Good. Therkla committed evil acts (killing innocents, working for an evil corrupt politician) and good acts (saving lives, protecting those she cared about, stopping the assassins that attacked Kazumi and Daigo). Some good and some evil = Neutral.

[hamishspence]

I suppose you imply Mr Scuffry and Belkar.

However the first case that came to my mind was Shojo and Miko. The very moment Miko lost his respect for Shojo, it went all south for her.

No implication- just leaving it completely up to people what they answer.

Hadn't thought at all about those two.