No love for Neutral alignments in OOTS

[Blas_de_Lezo]

The "Girard's family went rogue after he died" theory is certainly a better argument for it being possible for Girard to be nonevil than any of the "all the victims of the Draketooths' kidnapping scheme just had to suffer for the Greater Good" arguments.

Why do you make up things?

We only know about ONE kidnapper: Odrin Draketooth. That doesn't change the alignment of Girard. We don't know about the rest, it could have different ways you may think of. For example: what if the majority of the Draketooths were only girls that looked for get pregnant in a night and then dissappear? Their one-night-stand wouldn't even know anything... (and be happy about it).

[Cronos988]

While it is certainly true that it doesn't really matter that much if people agree about her alignment, I think that it's also true that many people would have enjoyed reading such a post. I can easily buy Therkla being Neutral, at least at the end, but it would have been interesting to see what you were to say about it.

I think the problem with such an argument is that the discussion here offers no standard to judge any arguments for or against a given alignment, because, IMHO, we aren't properly taking the structure of the D&D, and by extension OOTS-World and the role of alignment in it into account.

Alignment is obviously a simplification of complex character traits into a simple 2-word system. At that, it is a pretty signicant simplification. Such simplifications cannot be debated on their own points, as that just leads to arguments without substance that eventually devolve into a morality discussion.

Instead, simplifications can only be debated if their purpose is taken into account. By itself, simplifications, like alignment, are completely meaningless. The only acquire meaning when they are used to group the objects being simpified, in this case characters, into a system. And in D&D, that system is the "teams" of the various gods and afterlifes. See, since D&D has actual objective beings of good, evil, lawful etc., the use of alignment is to determine who, all things considered, belongs into which "team". For any other purposes, e.g. actually describing a person or predicting the actions of said person, the system is utterly useless or at least very ill-fitted.

If we, therefore, want to know wether a certain alignment is "accurate" we need to know the overall goals of the "team" associated with that alignment to decide if the character would be considered to be a member of that team. It's no use to say "X is selfish, and selfishness is evil, so X is evil". There could be any number of additional character traits that caused X not to advance the cause of the evil forces in the world, and would therefore make X not evil.

In the case of Therkla, the question would be whether Therkla has done the right actions, with the right motives and under the right circumstances to have either evil or good treat her as a "member". Hatefull killing would be an evil act within D&D, but what if hate was mixed with some kind of pre-emptive self-dedence motive (the ninja school)? If it takes too much to push Therkla to do an evil act (even though it is possible and even happens), she just isn't a member of the evil side of the universe, and that makes her neutral.

[Kish]

The problem here is that the dogmatic paladin fan-boys think that going against paladins is being not-good.

Why do you make up things?

Good thing every claim you ever make is well and logically supported. I especially like the quotes you posted from all Girard's detractors declaring that there's never a good reason to go against paladins--and the way the rest of your post is all about something we've seen, not anything you're making up at all.

[Coat]

While it is certainly true that it doesn't really matter that much if people agree about her alignment, I think that it's also true that many people would have enjoyed reading such a post. I can easily buy Therkla being Neutral, at least at the end, but it would have been interesting to see what you were to say about it.

I'll heartily second this. The Giant's posts are always interesting.
But then maybe that's because he deletes the dull ones before he posts them...

For the record, I absolutely read Crystal the way the Giant describes her - just about smart enough to know that she has no chance to survive without Buzzock thinking for her, and no real attachment to any philosophy otherwise.

... I don't have a hard time believing that at all. Shojo paints the Azure nobility as a hive of reprehensible, slimy, backstabbing (literally) politicians. And the people in that community that Kubota was most likely to want killed off are the ones who were at the top of the power structure, or those who were most ruthless (and therefore likely to get him killed off). And Shojo's senility act shut down the first category. So I imagine most of the targets Therkla killed over the years weren't "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination.

I'll second this. A ninja working in a corrupt aristocracy might have very little to do with the innocent.

In fact, it's entirely possible that prior to missions against Hinjo (and possibly Shoba) Therkla may actually have not seen any action at all. Sending an assassin against a rival or their family is inviting one in return. Either the assassins are generally incompetent, or you very quickly have little aristocracy left. You've got to have the assassins, or you're immediately a target. But actually using them is a very risky proposition.

It's quite possible that prior to the events in the book, Therkla had little to do other than train, relax, and potentially rescue puppies.

Also, she's a half-orc trained from infancy in a school for killing. Her definition of evil could be quite different to your average human commoner - and surely whether the actor considers their acts to be evil is a fairly significant factor. If you've been brought up in an environment where death is always close, and life is cheap, your perspective on how evil it is to end someone else's may be rather skewed.

Finally, not all mercenaries are the same. A mercenary might accept a contract to kill a (probably somewhat corrupt) aristocrat, but not his wife or children. A mercenary might swag golden candlesticks and slit the throats of guardsmen on the way through the house, or make an effort to avoid any collateral damage. A mercenary might always work for the highest bidder, or stick loyally to a contract even if better paid options arise.

I think there's a lot of options there from Chaotic Almost-good to Lawful Definitely-evil. Doubtless, Kubota was trying to shift Therkla into Evil, and probably LE, but she reads as TN to me.

[Grey Watcher]

While it is certainly true that it doesn't really matter that much if people agree about her alignment, I think that it's also true that many people would have enjoyed reading such a post. I can easily buy Therkla being Neutral, at least at the end, but it would have been interesting to see what you were to say about it.

True, but I think that it'll be even more awesome to wait for the Kickstarter reward story about Therkla and see what new light that sheds on her motives, personality, and alignment.

I guess I've always understood that mere selfishness doesn't qualify a person for D&D Evil. If displayed regularly enough, it might be enough to knock a person out of Goodness, but Evil, to me, has always seemed to require a willingness (in extreme cases, an eagerness) to harm others. Yes, Therkla does kill as part of her work, but it's clearly not her first instinct (note that she waited until just before the graduation ceremony to assassinate the valedictorian, rather than doing so the minute he got ahead of her in the class rankings). If she'd met Elan a decade later, maybe Kubota's influence would have made her outright Evil, but she wasn't there yet.

I guess, I think of the difference between Neutral and Evil like this: if two people are up for a promotion at their job, the Neutral one will work hard to outperform the other, whether at the job or just at sucking up to superiors. The Evil one will work hard to spread rumors that the other is a drug addict who beats their kids. The Evil one is perfectly fine with ruining his co-worker's life just to get that promotion.

(Disclaimer: the above speaks specifically to D&D notions of Good and Evil.)

[Sylian]

One thing that I find slightly strange about Therkla is that she avoided the Detect Evil in this strip. Now, why would she do that? Well, I see one reasonable option: She believed that she might detect as Evil, either because she thought she might be Evil, or because she thought she might carry some item that would make her detect as Evil.

That is quite interesting. Perhaps the Giant had pegged her as Evil at that point in time, or perhaps he had pegged her as Neutral but unsure of her own alignment. Perhaps she was Evil at that time, and later changed to Neutral. I suspect that the PDF will provide some insight, though it might muddle the issue even more, heh.

[Sir_Leorik]

I think the problem with such an argument is that the discussion here offers no standard to judge any arguments for or against a given alignment, because, IMHO, we aren't properly taking the structure of the D&D, and by extension OOTS-World and the role of alignment in it into account.

Alignment is obviously a simplification of complex character traits into a simple 2-word system. At that, it is a pretty signicant simplification. Such simplifications cannot be debated on their own points, as that just leads to arguments without substance that eventually devolve into a morality discussion.

Yes, and a lot of people find it hard to distinguish been a Character's personality traits and that Character's Alignment. You can have a selfish or greedy Lawful Good Dwarf, who covets gold, but would never stoop to stealing, lying or cheating. Instead he works long hours at his forge or mine, not really spending much time with his wife and child. Tarquin is proof that a Lawful Evil tyrant can love his sons, even if he is disappointed in one and has the opposite Alignment of the other.

Julio Scroundel is a larger-than-life sky pirate, who loots ancient treasures, seduces debutantes (and robs their father's after giving the young women a night to remember) and of course always gets away from the cops. (Any rumors to the contrary about that stint he did in Nowhere is a lie!) Ian Starshine is a paranoid thief, who saw Greysky City grind many Good people down to nothing, including his wife. All evidence points to Ian having a loving relationship with his wife and Haley, before Haley's mom was murdered. Unlike Julio, who could never settle down in one place, with a single woman, Ian was happily married, before the tragic loss of his wife.

Xykon and Cedric are both Chaotic Evil master villains, but while Xykon doesn't care about strategy or tactics, unliving each day only for his own wretched enjoyment, Cedrik has long term goals. Cedrik may rely on his inherently Chaotic nature to guide him on when to implement parts of the IFCC's plans, but he is involved making those plans with Lee and Nero as a team. How much of this is a result of going to school with Devils, how much is a result of Nero's influence and how much is a result of Cedrik possibly being different from other Demons, is unrevealed, but the point is that he's very different from Xykon, while still acting in a Chaotic fashion.

Instead, simplifications can only be debated if their purpose is taken into account. By itself, simplifications, like alignment, are completely meaningless. The only acquire meaning when they are used to group the objects being simpified, in this case characters, into a system. And in D&D, that system is the "teams" of the various gods and afterlifes. See, since D&D has actual objective beings of good, evil, lawful etc., the use of alignment is to determine who, all things considered, belongs into which "team". For any other purposes, e.g. actually describing a person or predicting the actions of said person, the system is utterly useless or at least very ill-fitted.

Originally, in (O)D&D, AD&D and the Basic set and it's iterations, Alignment was actually closer to the way Michael Moorcock treated it in the "Elric" stories. (O)D&D and Basic had three Alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, cribbed off of Moorcock's conflict between Law and Chaos. That framework was expanded in AD&D to include Good v. Evil, resulting in the famous Nine Alignments used in every subsequent edition of D&D except 4th. (D&D Next is slated to restore the Nine Alignments.) In AD&D every Character knew a special Alignment Language, a code or cant that could be used to let others know that he was Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral, and that was forbidden to be taught to those of other Alignments.

Paladins were intended to be special exemplars of Lawful Good, based in part on tales of Charlemagne's Paladins (especially Roland). Paladins had very difficult Ability Score qualifications (especially a requirement of a 17 Charisma) because they were intended to be rare and special. A Paladin wasn't just a holy knight (that's what AD&D Clerics were), he was supposed to be a role model for others about how to live a Lawful Good life. They were under strict restrictions regarding wealth, had to tithe from their income (including treasure found) and had to be very careful about their words and deeds. (Then Unearthed Arcana came out and they got tossed under a bus in favor of Cavaliers. )

If we, therefore, want to know wether a certain alignment is "accurate" we need to know the overall goals of the "team" associated with that alignment to decide if the character would be considered to be a member of that team. It's no use to say "X is selfish, and selfishness is evil, so X is evil". There could be any number of additional character traits that caused X not to advance the cause of the evil forces in the world, and would therefore make X not evil.

In AD&D that would be the right question to ask: what is the goal of my Alignment? What cause does it advance? That hasn't been a relevant question in subsequent editions of the game. In 2E and 3.X, Alignment is not necessarily a team sport. (Even in AD&D there were indications this wasn't true, especially in the "Dragonlance" campaign, where one of the axioms of the campaign was "Evil always turns on itself".)

A better question would be: how does my character's Alignment guide, interact or conflict with my Character's Personality traits and my Character's goals? There are no easy answers to that question, though if all of your Character's personality or goals are completely in conflict with his Alignment you might be better off choosing a different Alignment for your Character.

In the case of Therkla, the question would be whether Therkla has done the right actions, with the right motives and under the right circumstances to have either evil or good treat her as a "member". Hatefull killing would be an evil act within D&D, but what if hate was mixed with some kind of pre-emptive self-dedence motive (the ninja school)? If it takes too much to push Therkla to do an evil act (even though it is possible and even happens), she just isn't a member of the evil side of the universe, and that makes her neutral.

Therkla had two conflicting goals: loyally serving Daimyo Kubota's interests, and realizing her school girl crush on Elan. The former entailed assassinating Lord Hinjo (which Elan was trying to prevent), having monsters charmed by Qarr attack the fleet (which Elan was defending), murdering Elan's teammates and friends (which would bum Elan out) and murdering Elan (ditto). So long as he held out hope Haley was alive, Elan was never going to ever become Therkla's boyfriend (not ever, ever!), but he was definitely willing to be her friend and ally. But that would involve her betraying the trust of her mentor and father-figure, who showed no prejudice to her for her Orcish heritage (unlike other Azurites) and saw her as the daughter he never had. As she said, she wanted to have it both ways, but neither Kubota nor Elan would compromise. And since Kubota was a ruthless nobleman who killed those in his way, while Elan is one of the noblest souls in this comic, Kubota tried to kill Therkla, and Elan tried and failed to save her. She didn't want to have to choose sides in a situation where that wasn't really an option, but that doesn't make her desire for Balance any less important than Elan's quest to bring Kubota to justice or Kubota's lust for power.

By contrast, the Oracle, Enor and Gannji are all mercenaries. The Oracle has the best set-up of the three, able to maintain a measure of anonymity thanks to the memory charm, and living in an out-of-the-way tower guarded by monsters, plus a Knight and a Knave. Enor and Gannji need to put their lives at risk to make a living, which is why they will not stick their necks out unless there is a profit to be made.

For the record, I absolutely read Crystal the way the Giant describes her - just about smart enough to know that she has no chance to survive without Buzzock thinking for her, and no real attachment to any philosophy otherwise.

I always saw Crystal as a Chaotic Evil loose cannon held in check by the calculating Bozzok. The scene where she lops off Haley's hair, or the bonus scenes in DStP where she murders Grubwriggler, seem to indicate a Chaotic Evil nature. On the other hand, she didn't kill people she wasn't authorized to kill, and both Haley and Grubwriggler were on that list. She didn't kill people for fun the way Xykon or Belkar have, but she really enjoyed doing her job a little too much.

I guess I've always understood that mere selfishness doesn't qualify a person for D&D Evil. If displayed regularly enough, it might be enough to knock a person out of Goodness, but Evil, to me, has always seemed to require a willingness (in extreme cases, an eagerness) to harm others.

Selfishness by itself is not enough to make someone Neutral or Evil in D&D. If a person gives a pittance to the occasional beggar, but spends lots of money on luxury goods, that doesn't mean that they can't be Lawful Good, at least not in 3.X. (In earlier editions that wouldn't be allowed, certainly not for a Paladin.) Prior to 3.X, the Thief class could not be Lawful Good (though there were exceptions like Dr. Rudolph van Richten, who used the Read Languages, Climb Walls, Find/Remove Traps, Detect Noise, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows abilities of a Thief to hunt and slay Vampires). The ostensible reason was that Thieves felt "the world and everything in it" owed them a living. In 3.X and 4E Rogues can be Lawful Good, and Complete Scoundrel even gives suggestions for how to play a Lawful Good Rogue PC who catches thieves or works as a spy for a Lawful Good monarch.

I guess, I think of the difference between Neutral and Evil like this: if two people are up for a promotion at their job, the Neutral one will work hard to outperform the other, whether at the job or just at sucking up to superiors. The Evil one will work hard to spread rumors that the other is a drug addict who beats their kids. The Evil one is perfectly fine with ruining his co-worker's life just to get that promotion.

(Disclaimer: the above speaks specifically to D&D notions of Good and Evil.)

That's really the difference between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil Characters. A Lawful Neutral Character might desire the promotion not only for an increase in pay and status in the company, but out of loyalty to the employer. If she's put in five years at the job, she might feel entitled to the promotion, but she might feel an equal pride in the company and a desire to work harder to prove her worth. A True Neutral Character passed over for promotion might realize she has no loyalty to her employer, and might slack off at work or look for a new job. A Neutral Evil Character might look for a good opportunity to murder the rival, especially if she works at a company that employs people who commit murder for hire. (However she's not likely to do so in plain sight of a crowd of people, like at a graduation. )

One thing that I find slightly strange about Therkla is that she avoided the Detect Evil in this strip. Now, why would she do that? Well, I see one reasonable option: She believed that she might detect as Evil, either because she thought she might be Evil, or because she thought she might carry some item that would make her detect as Evil.

That is quite interesting. Perhaps the Giant had pegged her as Evil at that point in time, or perhaps he had pegged her as Neutral but unsure of her own alignment. Perhaps she was Evil at that time, and later changed to Neutral. I suspect that the PDF will provide some insight, though it might muddle the issue even more, heh.

That is a big question, which contradicts the Giant's assertion that Therkla was always True Neutral. I'm not saying she wasn't True Neutal at the time, but her actions in that tunnel don't make sense if she knew her own Alignment wasn't Evil. Maybe she thought being around Qarr had tainted her aura? The same way Roy wearing Xykon's crown temporarily tainted his?

[denthor]

The Giant
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.

After reading this post I only have one question


Who and which comic(s) does Jenny appear?

[Sir_Leorik]

After reading this post I only have one question


Who and which comic(s) does Jenny appear?

Jenny is the Rogue/Bard/Sorcerer in the Greysky City Thieves' Guild. She first appeared in a cameo in On the Origin of PCs, one of the prequel books, and she makes her first appearance in the comic when the Thieves' Guild invades Ol' Blind Pete's home to kill Haley, Celia, Belkar and the Cleric of Loki. She survives the fight and has an "encounter" with Belkar later on.

[bguy]

In fact, it's entirely possible that prior to missions against Hinjo (and possibly Shoba) Therkla may actually have not seen any action at all. Sending an assassin against a rival or their family is inviting one in return. Either the assassins are generally incompetent, or you very quickly have little aristocracy left. You've got to have the assassins, or you're immediately a target. But actually using them is a very risky proposition.

Kubota didn't seem particularily risk adverse though seeing as how he was willing to try and assassinate his liege in the middle of a war. (To say nothing of him continuing to try and assassinate Hinjo afterwards and going in person to the attack on House Kato.) He also seemed pretty tolerant of her repeated failures against Hinjo which implies that she had served him ably in the past. (If she didn't have a history of good service, he probably would have dismissed her as hopelessly incompetent for repeatedly failing against Hinjo.) As such it is pretty hard for me to believe that she hadn't already killed people for Kubota.

Also, she's a half-orc trained from infancy in a school for killing. Her definition of evil could be quite different to your average human commoner - and surely whether the actor considers their acts to be evil is a fairly significant factor. If you've been brought up in an environment where death is always close, and life is cheap, your perspective on how evil it is to end someone else's may be rather skewed.

That would explain why she is evil, but it wouldn't make her actions any less evil. Remember in OoTS Good and Evil are objective universal forces, so it doesn't matter whether you realize what you are doing is evil or not. (Otherwise Miko wouldn't have fallen for killing Shojo. She thought she was doing a good thing, but was still punished because her action was objectively evil in the Stickverse regardless of her personal belief.)

Finally, not all mercenaries are the same. A mercenary might accept a contract to kill a (probably somewhat corrupt) aristocrat, but not his wife or children. A mercenary might swag golden candlesticks and slit the throats of guardsmen on the way through the house, or make an effort to avoid any collateral damage. A mercenary might always work for the highest bidder, or stick loyally to a contract even if better paid options arise.

I agree with this. I have no problem with the idea of a mercenary having scruples or even being good aligned. (Think Rick Blaine in Casablanca. He served as a mercenary in Ethiopia and Spain, but was only willing to work for the anti-fascist forces.) I just don't see any evidence in the comic that Therkla had such scruples. She was perfectly fine with trying to assassinate her king who she knew was a Lawful Good paladin. She was also fine with allowing Lien (another paladin), Durkon (a good aligned cleric), and Daigo (a war hero) to all be murdered. Whether or not she ever actually personally killed an innocent person, she was willing to do so, and that seems inconsistent with a Neutral alignment.

To steer clear of "morally justified" territory lets just look at the SRD's definition of moral neutrality. "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." From what we saw in the comic Therkla didn't have compunctions against killing the innocent (until the very last hour of her life when she finally developed such compunctions.) So again for the vast majority of her appearances in the comic her actions and attitudes were inconsistent with her having a Neutral moral alignment.

[Throknor]

With the OotS, he [The Oracle] is most antagonistic towards their one Evil member, so again I'm not sure we can draw conclusions about the Oracle's alignment from who he respects/is snarky to.

He was snarky towards someone who was destined to kill him painfully, and the group around a guy who dangled him from a window. Even someone as Good as Elan gets mad at those who threaten him, so T.O.'s snark has nothing to do with alignment.

What if the majority of the Draketooths were only girls that looked for get pregnant in a night and then dissappear? Their one-night-stand wouldn't even know anything... (and be happy about it).

Well, Familicide would still have killed them, so I doubt they'd still be happy about it.

But unless they were resorting to in-breeding, mating outside the clan had to be done. The only way to preserve their secret was to lie and kidnap. Anyone who disagreed might not have been allowed to leave - at least not with his/her memories intact. After all, what's the point of having a secret clan if there's a link wandering around the world that can reveal all of your secrets.

One thing that I find slightly strange about Therkla is that she avoided the Detect Evil in this strip. Now, why would she do that? Well, I see one reasonable option: She believed that she might detect as Evil, either because she thought she might be Evil, or because she thought she might carry some item that would make her detect as Evil.

That is quite interesting. Perhaps the Giant had pegged her as Evil at that point in time, or perhaps he had pegged her as Neutral but unsure of her own alignment. Perhaps she was Evil at that time, and later changed to Neutral. I suspect that the PDF will provide some insight, though it might muddle the issue even more, heh.

Or she didn't know how Detect Evil works, or thought it sensed more than it can. She'd probably been warned either in assassin school or by Kubato himself that someone might do that and she should avoid it, with whomever telling her assuming she was in fact evil.

[Amphiox]

We do not know the alignment of Serini. Or Kraagor.

Serini talked about multi-classing to Paladin.

If she was serious, that means she has to be Lawful Good.

Even if it was a joke, the joke works better if her alignment was at least partly overlapping with Lawful Good, ie Lawful X or X Good. And if it was a joke, then such a joke is more a Chaotic-type behavior than a Lawful one. Hence, Chaotic Good.

And keep in mind that there is NO indication one way or another, in the text, that it was even a joke at all.

[Amphiox]

Making blanket judgments about the Draketooth's all being evil because of the kidnapping scheme also cheapens the impact of V's use of Familicide. All of a sudden the majority of his victims become Chaotic Evil Black Dragons and Chaotic Evil Draketooths.

[Kish]

Making blanket judgments about the Draketooth's all being evil because of the kidnapping scheme also cheapens the impact of V's use of Familicide. All of a sudden the majority of his victims become Chaotic Evil Black Dragons and Chaotic Evil Draketooths.

Ugh.

I think what hugely cheapens the vileness of the Familicide, is to suggest it would have been legitimate had it only been targeted on members of an "evil race." And frankly--even if I didn't believe that it would be unambiguously an atrocity had no black dragon ever reproduced with a human in the OotS universe, I wouldn't consider this argument to be valid. "This group which is clearly evil from their actions should be regarded as nonevil because of a meta-consideration"=no. Mass kidnapping=evil. Genocide=evil. The D&D books' position on such actions is really not nearly as ambiguous as some people claim it is.

[Sir_Leorik]

Making blanket judgments about the Draketooth's all being evil because of the kidnapping scheme also cheapens the impact of V's use of Familicide. All of a sudden the majority of his victims become Chaotic Evil Black Dragons and Chaotic Evil Draketooths.

We need to steer clear of making arguments about whether a character's actions were or were not morally justified, or this thread will get locked. Let's just say that several posters have expressed very strong opinions about Orrin Draketooth's actions in the past (not to mention familicide) and get back to discussing how the Lawful, True and Chaotic Neutral Alignments are represented in the strip, okay?

[LadyEowyn]

Serini talked about multi-classing to Paladin.

If she was serious, that means she has to be Lawful Good.

Even if it was a joke, the joke works better if her alignment was at least partly overlapping with Lawful Good, ie Lawful X or X Good. And if it was a joke, then such a joke is more a Chaotic-type behavior than a Lawful one. Hence, Chaotic Good.

And keep in mind that there is NO indication one way or another, in the text, that it was even a joke at all.

Serini was a rogue (which I think is a class that can't be Lawful). That's why the "multiclassing to paladin" thing was a joke, because it's impossible to be a Paladin Rogue.

Or rather, it wasn't a deliberate joke on Serini's part, it was an indication of her being a little Elan-ish.

[Cifer]

Regarding Girard, I don't see much support for him being [whatever]-Good. We know he saved the world. Well... anyone who's not off their rocker would presumably like to continue existing. We also know he continued to watch over the gate, but that's not because he wanted to make a sacrifice, but because he needed to do so - otherwise, the fascist paladin would have screwed everything up for sure!
The only thing we know about him is that he doesn't think highly of moral codes and honour, which pegs him as non-lawful. He may have been good, may have been neutral. Excepting that Soon wouldn't have been allowed to associate with him (something that the Twelve Gods may have made an exception to considering the world was hanging in the balance), he may have been evil too. I don't know and I don't think his actions on page have given enough indication for anyone to.


----


As for Therkla, I saw her as a very sympathetic character - right up until I stopped to think about her actual actions (which shows the Giant knows his storytelling, btw).
She's Kubota's assassin and protege. Presumably her last seven years have been spent assassinating various folks from different ends of the alignment spectrum, including some whose murder was not justified, merely expedient. Strike one for evil.
She tried to murder Hinjo, whom we know to be a just ruler who Kubota wanted out of the way solely because he likes to be in charge himself, with Therkla being pretty much fine with that reasoning. Strike two for evil.
She's got nothing against Lien and friends being sacrificed. In fact, she instigated the whole thing. Strike three for evil.

On the good side, she tried to save Elan. But is that actually on the good side? Is it still altruistic (which I find to be a much more concise word than "good") when you save someone not because, well, they're people and people are worth saving, but because you have a very personal interest in them? I'd say that action was mainly motivated by self-interest - and for obvious reasons, people from all parts of the alignment range can act on that motivation.
That leaves her trying to save the Katos. This is her one truly good act, for she could simply have escaped, returned to Kubota and be done with it, without Elan knowing she had anything to do with (or even knew about) the Katos' deaths. At this point she was at a crossroads where she chose the right path while knowing that the other one would be a lot easier on her.

So... is one good action enough to qualify for neutral alignment after a life of "I was just following orders"-evil? Perhaps she was a pretty cool girl off-page, but from what was written about her, she had at best started her journey from the deep end of the alignment pool when said journey was cut short.

Serini was a rogue (which I think is a class that can't be Lawful). That's why the "multiclassing to paladin" thing was a joke, because it's impossible to be a Paladin Rogue.

Or rather, it wasn't a deliberate joke on Serini's part, it was an indication of her being a little Elan-ish.

That's actually not the case - rogues can be Lawful, though those tend to go towards a "For Queen and Fatherland" agent direction. However, a paladn's Code of Conduct class feature specifies that they have to "act with honour", with lying and cheating being mentioned as no-gos. So... it would be a rather unique combination, but it would technically be allowed.

[konradknox]

What's Haley's alignment?

[Math_Mage]

ITs a great narrative, except for the part but the point is weakened in that you just say "her past actions" and "initial appearance" is definitely evil (without the in-comic support). She does dodge the detect evil, which suggests maybe Therkla doesn't know what her own alignment is.

I don't particularly want to rehash the evidence of Therkla's murky past and early actions--that's been done to death. I only cited the avoidance of Detect Evil because that's the only unique contribution I have to that discussion. It's pretty clear that Therkla had a Neutral+ initial nature, and it's been poisoned by her environment and particularly by Kubota's explicit villain training. Whether you identify that as a very, very morally dubious Neutral or Evil Lite is up to you. We agree on everything else, far as I can tell--Therkla was on the path to outright villainhood until Elan brought out the good in her, reaching a Neutral+ moral position by the end of her arc.

The insistence that Therkla is evil or that Girard is neutral or evil is based on taking certain acts very gravely. This is against the grain of everything the Giant said about how he interprets alignment.

There is no evidence that the Giant ever viewed Evil alignment as that clear-cut (you do X, therefore, YOU ARE NOW EVIL!). I it is possible Rich sees an Evil alignment (for the OOTS story) as more about having an internal disposition towards evil, something that can develop as a character commits evil acts, but doesn't necessarily develop even if the character commits some evil actions.

You should probably avoid attributing simpleminded analysis to people who disagree with you. It is not the case that they would definitely agree with you if only they saw the bigger picture on alignment.

[Sir_Leorik]

What's Haley's alignment?

Chaotic Good.

[Kish]

We need to steer clear of making arguments about whether a character's actions were or were not morally justified, or this thread will get locked. Let's just say that several posters have expressed very strong opinions about Orrin Draketooth's actions in the past (not to mention familicide) and get back to discussing how the Lawful, True and Chaotic Neutral Alignments are represented in the strip, okay?

To my quite-possibly-flawed understanding of the "no Morally Justified arguments" rule, it isn't meant to in any way discourage us from making arguments along the lines of, "What Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly evil, as per Paragraph X from the Player's Handbook, Paragraph Y from the Book of Exalted Deeds, and Paragraph Z from the Book of Vile Darkness," but rather arguments like, "I don't care about D&D rules, what Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly WRONG and he should be punted through the fourth wall and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in Alcatraz."

Rogues have no alignment restrictions. It is entirely possible for there to be a rogue/paladin multiclass--although a paladin who takes levels of any other class after being a paladin is unable to add paladin levels thereafter. (Similarly, once Miko took her first paladin level she could never have taken another monk level.)

[Sir_Leorik]

To my quite-possibly-flawed understanding of the "no Morally Justified arguments" rule, it isn't meant to in any way discourage us from making arguments along the lines of, "What Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly evil, as per Paragraph X from the Player's Handbook, Paragraph Y from the Book of Exalted Deeds, and Paragraph Z from the Book of Vile Darkness," but rather arguments like, "I don't care about D&D rules, what Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly WRONG and he should be punted through the fourth wall and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in Alcatraz.

Fair enough. The question about why Therkla hid from Lien's detect evil ability is fair game for sure.

Rogues have no alignment restrictions. It is entirely possible for there to be a rogue/paladin multiclass--although a paladin who takes levels of any other class after being a paladin is unable to add paladin levels thereafter. (Similarly, once Miko took her first paladin level she could never have taken another monk level.)

Complete Scoundrel had some feats allowing Paladins or Monks (and Monk/Paladins) to freely multiclass with another class. One of those feats was kinda bizarre, since it allowed Paladins (who must be Lawful Good) to freely multiclass as Bards (who can't be Lawful), and the prerequisites required the Character to have both Bardic Music and Smite Evil. Really weird feat; I think someone at WotC was too busy developing 4E to properly edit Complete Scoundrel.

[Tom Lehmann]

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)

In time of war is the traditional one in Western European Philosophy. In times of war, a General must -- to defeat an enemy or defend a homeland -- send innocent men to their deaths by ordering them into combat.

if you're killing innocent people willfully, without being coerced to do so, on a regular basis, and are somehow not Evil [...] If that's not Evil, what is?

Do you believe all Generals are evil? Are all soldiers evil?

I agree that killing innocent people is evil. But, war makes a mockery of strict moral codes. If an alignment system can't handle war -- a constant of human existence -- then it ain't much of an alignment system, imo.

[denthor]

Serini was a rogue (which I think is a class that can't be Lawful). That's why the "multiclassing to paladin" thing was a joke, because it's impossible to be a Paladin Rogue.

Or rather, it wasn't a deliberate joke on Serini's part, it was an indication of her being a little Elan-ish.

There is a prestigue group in 3.5 edition of D&D that you must be a Paladin to join but they can start as anything.

You can start as any class and switch to Paladin you must just be of Lawful Good alignment and have the training.

But in general you are correct starting as rogue you do not nomally qualify.

[Emanick]

In time of war is the traditional one in Western European Philosophy. In times of war, a General must -- to defeat an enemy or defend a homeland -- send innocent men to their deaths by ordering them into combat.


Do you believe all Generals are evil? Are all soldiers evil?

I agree that killing innocent people is evil. But, war makes a mockery of strict moral codes. If an alignment system can't handle war -- a constant of human existence -- then it ain't much of an alignment system, imo.

I knew I'd be glad that I put that "unless there are significant extenuating circumstances" clause in there. I tend to agree that yes, war is just such an extenuating circumstance.

In a sense, war is akin to self-defense or the defense of another person against non-innocents. You're presumably fighting in battles because you believe that you're serving a righteous cause, or because you're afraid of the consequences of not serving in the military. If you're consciously fighting for what you believe to be an unrighteous cause, and you're not being coerced into doing what you're doing, then I would actually consider your actions Evil, because you're committing justice that can't be morally justified.

So yeah, IMO fighting in a war is not automatically evil, but it can be under certain circumstances. It sounds like we probably agree on that.

[Edhelras]

Compared to how I myself view the alignments in DnD, it seems to me that many people often underestimate how "evil" - or rather "non-good" - a Neutral (on the Good-Evil) axis) can be.

According to how I myself see it, and read the instructions in the PHB, there really good alignments are just that - they're really good. I mean, they involve for instance a willingness to self-sacrifice that I think many of us would be really reluctant to provide. The Good heroes are really that - theyr're Good and Heroes.

The Neutral alignment, I think, is really Neutral in that it either displays a quite narrow, but neutral, array of actions on the Good-Evil axis, or alternatively that it allows quite a wide spectrum, only that the Good acts aren't performed for the sake of goodness, and the Evil acts aren't purely for the sake of evil, and the Good and the Evil tends to balance and neutralize each other in the long run. But the basic thing is that Neutral allows you to sink quite deep into performing not only non-good, but even Evil, acts.

Then again, I'm one of those adhering to the advice from the PHB, that the Evil alignments usually are meant for the monsters and the adversaries of the PCs. Gamewise, that allows for easy administration of battles and plotlines; most of the time, you're able as a player to assume that you are actually the good guy (so noone is really served by your character commiting suicide, and you yourself as a player going off to play video games or whatever), and your enemies are generally really bad guys who "deserve" to be killed. Sure, interesting role-play ensues when even the Bad Guys have a personality and personal motives, and encounters can be solved in other ways than combat. But much of the time in DnD, the game is really about setups for combat encounters, and in such situations it serves us well to have the fronts clearly delineated. After all, what adventurers DO is most of the time killing other creatures.

So, in my personal view (and I think the PHB and the game mechanics support this), the Evil alignments are really, really Evil (although they don't need to be Stupid Evil or Cliched Evil), mostly illustrated by how far they're willing to go, and how often they go there, for what scanty reasons.
And the Neutral alignments are really not Evil, like Evil is, just as they're really, really not Good (only except that they often tend to be part of the Heroes' party, and thus be advancing the cause of Goodness, albeit often for their own reasons or simply because intellect dictates it to be their best chance of selv-preservation).
But the scope of the Neutral alignemnt can be very great indeed, including performing acts that you correctly would say that makes them definitely non-Good. Because, they aren't - they're Neutral.

This was all the Good-Evil axis. As for Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis, I think it's more open to interpretation. However, sometimes it comes down to someone thinking that "I'm Lawful because I'm constantly and unchangingly abiding by the One Law: That there is no Law other than what I, at any given moment, think is the right thing to do". Otherwise called the Chaotic alignment, of course.
What is more disputable, I think, is to weigh the different levels of authority a Lawful person might subject himself to. I think a Lawful person won't always need to bow to the "King of the Land", but - as actually Rich mentioned regarding Crystal's loyalty to Bozzok: Being the loyal and unquestioning servant of just about any authority figure posited above you doesn't make you Lawful. The "authority" and "law" that you follow should have some greater expanse than that in the society that you live, or else it looses its meaning as an opposite of "Chaos" .
Furthermore, I do think that a Lawful creature should have some measure of predictability and consequent behaviour. If a Lawfful character behaved "this way" in a previous situation, you should generally expect to see much of the same in a similar situation later on. Not always, but in the long run. And again, it seems of little meaning to me to say that "I'm Lawful - because you know that you NEVER can predict how I will act".
As for Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis, I think this really gives the player a lot of opportunity to pick his actions according to what he seems is best at the time. Much of the time, that would be adhering to the lawful authorities, and from a character-building perspective: Try to develop a set of choices/acts that "are" your character, without being cliched or stereotyped.

I must admit I WAS kinda surprised that Therkla was depicted as True Neutral, but on the other hand - what alignment would suit her better? She's quite a multi-faceted and interesting person, perhaps more suited to books of "real" literature (like, the classical Russian novels) than to the world we associate with DnD. I don't think an Evil person would have such qualms about doing Evil acts as Therkla has. And her mix of loyalty and resistance towards Kubota is exactly what one might see in a Neutral character - who can't simply rely on "he's my master - I must obey", but feels that she has to do some thinking for herself as well.
I agree that more info on Therkla's backstory would be interesting - for instance: How did she handle assassinations on Kubota's orders, previously? Did she allow them a chance to escape, in some instances? Did she evaluate for herself whether the target was really worthy of assassination? Did she cherish the act (or was she just proud to be proficient at what she did for a living?)?

[Reddish Mage]

I don't particularly want to rehash the evidence of Therkla's murky past and early actions--that's been done to death. I only cited the avoidance of Detect Evil because that's the only unique contribution I have to that discussion. It's pretty clear that Therkla had a Neutral+ initial nature, and it's been poisoned by her environment and particularly by Kubota's explicit villain training. Whether you identify that as a very, very morally dubious Neutral or Evil Lite is up to you. We agree on everything else, far as I can tell--Therkla was on the path to outright villainhood until Elan brought out the good in her, reaching a Neutral+ moral position by the end of her arc.


You should probably avoid attributing simpleminded analysis to people who disagree with you. It is not the case that they would definitely agree with you if only they saw the bigger picture on alignment.

I don't think your analysis is simple minded, its just that I think that it is irrelevant to the concern I have, which is what Rich's intentions are and (if we ever get can agree with enough clarity on the former) the impact they make towards any ultimate purpose given to the narrative. I think you are on solid grounds for making the point that there seems to be a redemptive theme to the story arc involving Therkla.

I do think that if you are arguing for a "one true reading" of the text that is a fundamentally wrong assumption. Looking for textual narratives like the "redemptive arc" to impose on the text is all well and fine but insisting that is the valid way of reading the text is wrong. There are multiple ways to read a text, and both the author's point of view and the point of view of finding overarching narrative structure is interesting for different reasons.

[Sir_Leorik]

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.

In time of war is the traditional one in Western European Philosophy. In times of war, a General must -- to defeat an enemy or defend a homeland -- send innocent men to their deaths by ordering them into combat.

Do you believe all Generals are evil? Are all soldiers evil?

I agree that killing innocent people is evil. But, war makes a mockery of strict moral codes. If an alignment system can't handle war -- a constant of human existence -- then it ain't much of an alignment system, imo.

I knew I'd be glad that I put that "unless there are significant extenuating circumstances" clause in there. I tend to agree that yes, war is just such an extenuating circumstance.

In a sense, war is akin to self-defense or the defense of another person against non-innocents. You're presumably fighting in battles because you believe that you're serving a righteous cause, or because you're afraid of the consequences of not serving in the military. If you're consciously fighting for what you believe to be an unrighteous cause, and you're not being coerced into doing what you're doing, then I would actually consider your actions Evil, because you're committing justice that can't be morally justified.

So yeah, IMO fighting in a war is not automatically evil, but it can be under certain circumstances. It sounds like we probably agree on that.

I would add a major caveat to this matter: this presumes that the war is a "just war" which is fought honorably. A "just war" is hard to define (and I don't know whether the Book of Exalted Deeds discusses the matter or not), but there are several examples of wars being fought in D&D campaigns. The War of the Lance is a "just war" from the POV of anyone opposing Takhisis and the Dragon Highlords; the Dragonarmies committed acts of unprovoked aggression, ethnic cleansing, targeted civilian populations with WMDs (aka Chromatic Dragons) and numerous other war crimes. Before the war even broke out, Dragon Highlord Ariakas masterminded the abduction of the Good Dragons' eggs and used them to create the Draconians; that alone could be considered a war crime. So I do not view any of the soldiers fighting the Dragonarmies as committing murder if they kill a Draconian, Goblin or Human soldier fighting under the banner of Takhisis, even if they were drafted into her service against their will. However that should only apply to soldiers; civilians and non-combat support personnel (such as the team of Draconian engineers with their own series of novels!) should not be considered targets. And once the Everman was killed and Takhisis banished, it should be considered an Evil act to attack a Draconian or Goblin on sight.

The same would hold true for the Greyhawk Wars, where the nations of the Flanaess rallied together to fight Iuz the Old, or the Second Unhuman War, where the Scro and their Goblin, Ogre and Orc allies attacked Human and Elven colonies throughout multiple Crystal Spheres in a coordinated invasion. But what about wars fought over border disputes or religious wars? What about the Dawn War, where neither the Gods nor the Primordials were really "just" in their motives. The Blood War can not be considered a just war by any stretch of the imagination, especially in 4E, where it was started when Asmodeus stole part of the shard of Evil that Tharizdun had tossed into the Elemental Chaos to create the Abyss, which he used to create his Ruby Rod. The Demon Princes have a compulsion to recover the shard and fulfill the Chaotic Evil destiny of the Abyss; Asmodeus wants to get the rest of the shard and become more powerful.

Finally, what about Rrakkma Bands, the Githzerai tradition of forming war parties to hunt down and kill Illithids? That's pretty gruesome, but considering how the Mind Flayers reproduce, what they did to the precursors of the Githyanki and Githzerai, and the threat the Mind Flayers pose to all of the surface races, maybe Rrakkma is a Neutral act, as per the D&D rules?

[Emanick]

I would add a major caveat to this matter: this presumes that the war is a "just war" which is fought honorably. A "just war" is hard to define (and I don't know whether the Book of Exalted Deeds discusses the matter or not), but there are several examples of wars being fought in D&D campaigns. The War of the Lance is a "just war" from the POV of anyone opposing Takhisis and the Dragon Highlords; the Dragonarmies committed acts of unprovoked aggression, ethnic cleansing, targeted civilian populations with WMDs (aka Chromatic Dragons) and numerous other war crimes. Before the war even broke out, Dragon Highlord Ariakas masterminded the abduction of the Good Dragons' eggs and used them to create the Draconians; that alone could be considered a war crime. So I do not view any of the soldiers fighting the Dragonarmies as committing murder if they kill a Draconian, Goblin or Human soldier fighting under the banner of Takhisis, even if they were drafted into her service against their will. However that should only apply to soldiers; civilians and non-combat support personnel (such as the team of Draconian engineers with their own series of novels!) should not be considered targets. And once the Everman was killed and Takhisis banished, it should be considered an Evil act to attack a Draconian or Goblin on sight.

The same would hold true for the Greyhawk Wars, where the nations of the Flanaess rallied together to fight Iuz the Old, or the Second Unhuman War, where the Scro and their Goblin, Ogre and Orc allies attacked Human and Elven colonies throughout multiple Crystal Spheres in a coordinated invasion. But what about wars fought over border disputes or religious wars? What about the Dawn War, where neither the Gods nor the Primordials were really "just" in their motives. The Blood War can not be considered a just war by any stretch of the imagination, especially in 4E, where it was started when Asmodeus stole part of the shard of Evil that Tharizdun had tossed into the Elemental Chaos to create the Abyss, which he used to create his Ruby Rod. The Demon Princes have a compulsion to recover the shard and fulfill the Chaotic Evil destiny of the Abyss; Asmodeus wants to get the rest of the shard and become more powerful.

Finally, what about Rrakkma Bands, the Githzerai tradition of forming war parties to hunt down and kill Illithids? That's pretty gruesome, but considering how the Mind Flayers reproduce, what they did to the precursors of the Githyanki and Githzerai, and the threat the Mind Flayers pose to all of the surface races, maybe Rrakkma is a Neutral act, as per the D&D rules?

Great take, and I definitely agree for the most part. I see the morality of choosing to fight in a war more on an individual level than on a mass level - what matters for individual alignment is that a character believes he/she is fighting for a genuinely righteous cause ("righteous" being defined as Good, I suppose, although I'm not sure that's is the best definition; I'm open to a better one), more than the overall morality of a war. On the ground, there can be a huge difference between the perceived intent of the war and the actual intent, so it's hard for me to say that the latter matters just as much as the former for alignment purposes. You can't be morally culpable for something you're unaware of.

tl;dr: I agree that there are just wars and unjust wars, and that it's Evil to willfully fight in the latter, but IMO what matters more for individual alignment is whether the wars are perceived as just by the combatants (by an objective moral standard, of course), not their actual justice. It's perfectly possible for a Good character to fight in an unjust conflict without changing alignment if s/he has no idea what's really going on.

[Sir_Leorik]

Great take, and I definitely agree for the most part. I see the morality of choosing to fight in a war more on an individual level than on a mass level - what matters for individual alignment is that a character believes he/she is fighting for a genuinely righteous cause ("righteous" being defined as Good, I suppose, although I'm not sure that's is the best definition; I'm open to a better one), more than the overall morality of a war. On the ground, there can be a huge difference between the perceived intent of the war and the actual intent, so it's hard for me to say that the latter matters just as much as the former for alignment purposes. You can't be morally culpable for something you're unaware of.

tl;dr: I agree that there are just wars and unjust wars, and that it's Evil to willfully fight in the latter, but IMO what matters more for individual alignment is whether the wars are perceived as just by the combatants (by an objective moral standard, of course), not their actual justice. It's perfectly possible for a Good character to fight in an unjust conflict without changing alignment if s/he has no idea what's really going on.

The problem with that view is that Alignment in D&D isn't relative. Certain actions are always considered Evil. Waging war over a disputed border isn't necessarily Evil, but it's probably not something a Paladin or Lawful Good king should view as a first resort. It also depends on what the orders a soldier is being asked to carry out. Some orders are Evil, others are not. The Dragon Highlord Verminaard ordered his soldiers to burn Solace to the ground because it was the hometown of the Companions of the Lance, and Iuz the Old and Ivid the Undying launched wars in order to sacrifice lives to fuel fiendish rituals. A soldier who is trying to kill an enemy soldier wielding a weapon on the battlefield is not committing an Evil act, but a soldier who obeys an order to torch an orphanage full of baby Kender, Gully Dwarves and pandas might need to revise his Alignment.