No love for Neutral alignments in OOTS

[jidasfire]

Hmm, funny. I would have pegged Julio Scoundrel and Ian Starshine as Chaotic Good characters, myself. I would still say they're both closer to good than evil, but perhaps Ian's chaoticness is just too strong, while Julio's love for money and women overrides his conscience.

[hamishspence]

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.

Bards get no penalties for being Lawful beside being unable to advance.

The idea is, I think, that a NG Bard becomes LG, takes a level of Paladin, takes that feat, and regains the ability to keep taking Bard levels.

[Amphiox]

Hmm, funny. I would have pegged Julio Scoundrel and Ian Starshine as Chaotic Good characters, myself. I would still say they're both closer to good than evil, but perhaps Ian's chaoticness is just too strong, while Julio's love for money and women overrides his conscience.

We really only know two things directly about Julio.

One is that he helped Elan on a whim, without requiring anything in return, but also without first learning anything at all about Elan's person, character, or goals.

Second is that when confronted by the legal authority of Azure City (where apparently he was a wanted criminal), he fired on their ramparts without any care or concern for damage or casualties.

We could probably debate the relative goodness or evilness of either of these acts for as long as we wish, but taken together, they do seem to balance out into the neutral zone, more or less.

[hamishspence]

There's also his actions in his Snips, Snails & Dragon Tails comic.

[Tom Lehmann]

The problem with that view is that Alignment in D&D isn't relative. Certain actions are always considered Evil

I'm less interested talking about alignment in D&D in general, than in discussing alignment in D&D as reflected in OOTS.

One central theme in OOTS is a criticism by Rich of absolutism in D&D; of GMs and players who view and use the alignment system as a "straight-jacket" to prejudice entire races or to police other characters.

Rich has also given us a war, in War and XPs. As portrayed, I believe some of the Goblins and Hobgoblins were fighting out of a desire to liberate their lands from future Azurite oppression. Similarly, many Azurites were fighting out of a desire to defend their lands versus invasion. We were shown Azurite casualties going to their lawful good afterlife (or at least waiting in line to see if they would get in). So, clearly, killing in war does not automatically doom one from getting into a good afterlife.

Intent and circumstances matter in OOTS. We've had a Deva say this explicitly. To state that certain acts are absolutely good or evil *in OOTS D&D* just strikes me as false.

[Reddish Mage]

The problem with that view is that Alignment in D&D isn't relative. Certain actions are always considered Evil.

From what I recall, the actions that are "always evil" are highly scattered. Historically they included seemingly random things like poison use in 2nd edition but in 3.5 it seems limited to a very few scattered things like certain necromantic spells.

Of course, I was thinking of core. When you throw in BOVD and BOED you get full blown Kantian ethics (ethics based on universal rules that apply in all situations to all people). Also, ability score damage-dealing poison gets thrown in as evil again.

Since a Paladin joined the party in a 3.5 game I'm currently in, I've been worried about him falling. So to that end, I've been trying to compile a list of actions which the rules consider to be Evil. I know BoVD has a list near the front, but it seems vague and incomplete. Has anyone created a full list of actions which the rules, as written, consider to be Evil? Looks like no-one else has created such a list, so I might as well give a shot at it.

So far, I've got:

Book of Vile Darkness

• Lying (pg 7)- Not necessarily Evil, but Paladins still fall for it.
  
• Cheating (pg 7)
  
• Theft (pg 7)
  
• Betrayal (pg 7) -Does not have to be intentional.
  
• Murder (pg 7) -Killing for a "nefarious purpose", like personal gain, theft, or pleasure.
  
• Vengeance (pg 8)- not necessarily evil, but leads to evil acts.
  
• Worshipping Evil Gods and Demons (pg 8)
  
• Animating or Creating Undead (pg 8) -Even if the undead are commanded to do good, it's still Evil because of negative energy.
  
• Casting Evil Spells (pg 8)
  
• Damning or Harming Souls (pg 8)
  
• Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:
  
  • Allowing Fiends to exist*
  • Selling one's soul to Fiends
  • Summoning a Fiend
  • Helping Fiends
  
  
• Creating Evil Creatures (pg 9)
  
  • Allowing Evil creatures to "remake fallen foes in their image"
  
  
• Using others for Personal Gain (pg 9)
  
  • Sacrificing another for a boon
  
  
• Greed (pg 9)- Although not an Evil Act in and of itself (it's not an act at all, but a motivation), it can easily lead to Evil Acts.
  
• Bullying or Cowing Innocents (pg 9)- Includes use of political and magical power in coercion, as well as physical power.
  
• Bringing Despair (pg 9)
  
• Tempting Others to do Wrong(pg 9)
  
• Tapping into Evil Power (pg 77)- Regardless of effects or reason for it, it's Evil. Period. This one's really broad, covering any Evil (Ex)traordinary, natural (when there's no tag), (Su)pernatural, (Sp)ell-like, and so on.

Book of Exalted Deeds

• Forcing Anyone to Commit an Evil Act (pg 10)

• Using a Poison that Deals Ability Damage (pg 34) Using Drow knockout-poison is not evil.
  
• Killing a Good Creature to Harvest its Parts or Organs (pg 37)
  
• Committing Murder for Money (pg 73)

Notes:
"In the D&D universe... an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may acheive" (BoED pg 9) -Although the BoED acknowledges that an Evil act might cause greater good, the act remains Evil.

EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?

Haley couldn't be good for instance, and I would think this would make a lot of neutral characters evil, such as Hank and Jenny from Greysky (if any act of theft is an evil act). Also, the Oracle if anything he does counts as "worship" of Tiamat.

Interesting, Therkla's problem with this list is allowing Qarr to exist, as she doesn't have the necessary motivations for murder to be evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm less interested talking about alignment in D&D in general, than in discussing alignment in D&D as reflected in OOTS.

One central theme in OOTS is a criticism by Rich of absolutism in D&D; of GMs and players who view and use the alignment system as a "straight-jacket" to prejudice entire races or to police other characters.

Rich has also given us a war, in War and XPs. As portrayed, I believe some of the Goblins and Hobgoblins were fighting out of a desire to liberate their lands from future Azurite oppression.

The Hobgoblins lived hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from Azure City. While Redcloak wanted to end the Azurite attacks against Goblins, the only reason the Sapphire Guard attacked his village was because of "the Plan". The fact that several Paladins decided to commit war crimes (for which they lost their Paladin status) afterwards, doesn't change the fact that the Sapphire Guard felt they were justified in slaying Redcloak's master to protect the Gates.

Similarly, many Azurites were fighting out of a desire to defend their lands versus invasion.

Given that the choice the Azurites had was defending the city successfully, or fleeing to avoid slavery, they didn't have much choice.

We were shown Azurite casualties going to their lawful good afterlife (or at least waiting in line to see if they would get in). So, clearly, killing in war does not automatically doom one from getting into a good afterlife.

I never said it does. I said that in D&D (and in OotS) there are certain moral absolutes. Alignment isn't a straitjacket, but there are certain actions that are Good and certain actions that are Evil. There are also grey areas, which is what the comic is exploring (as should any D&D campaign run by a decent DM).

Intent and circumstances matter in OOTS. We've had a Deva say this explicitly. To state that certain acts are absolutely good or evil *in OOTS D&D* just strikes me as false.

Circumstance like fighting in a just war and not committing war crimes, vs. fighting in an unjust war and slaughtering civilians? The former is not Evil, the latter is. Yes, intent does matter, but there are limits to how far "good intentions" go. Committing Evil acts for Good reasons is at best Neutral.

[bguy]

Rich has also given us a war, in War and XPs. As portrayed, I believe some of the Goblins and Hobgoblins were fighting out of a desire to liberate their lands from future Azurite oppression.

That may be true for Redcloak, but based on what we saw in strip 422 the hobgoblin grunts seemed to be fighting mainly because they enjoy killing and oppressing. There isn't any indication in the comic that the troops think they are fighting in a noble cause or even to avenge past Azurite actions.

Intent and circumstances matter in OOTS. We've had a Deva say this explicitly. To state that certain acts are absolutely good or evil *in OOTS D&D* just strikes me as false.

Strip 635 shows a choir of damned pedophiles, so even in OOTS D&D it appears that there are certain acts that are absolutely evil.

[Kish]

Yeah, no. Way too many people conflate "OotS rejects the idea of evil races" with "OotS rejects the idea of objective evil." Objective evil exists in D&D and in OotS. Being born a black dragon isn't an objectively evil act. Race-based genocide is. If you think any two of the three preceding sentences contradict each other, you're inserting something that isn't actually there.

[Reddish Mage]

Yeah, no. Way too many people conflate "OotS rejects the idea of evil races" with "OotS rejects the idea of objective evil." Objective evil exists in D&D and in OotS. Being born a black dragon isn't an objectively evil act. Race-based genocide is. If you think any two of the three preceding sentences contradict each other, you're inserting something that isn't actually there.

We have not received confirmation on whether or not black dragons are born evil in the OOTS universe (as they are in Core-D&D), and we don't have absolute confirmation on whether killing black dragons en masse is an evil act.

Now RAW D&D is something else. Chromatic dragons have the same evil alignment tendency as devils and undead. If we take position that morality in D&D is absolute and follows a litany of rules as to what are "good" and "evil" acts as Sir_Lorik implies, killing "always" evil creatures en masse is not among the listed acts.

[hamishspence]

EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?

I compiled a more detailed list- with other sourcebooks- a while back:

Compilation of alignment-related statements.

[Sir_Leorik]

We have not received confirmation on whether or not black dragons are born evil in the OOTS universe (as they are in Core-D&D), and we don't have absolute confirmation on whether killing black dragons en masse is an evil act.

Now RAW D&D is something else. Chromatic dragons have the same evil alignment tendency as devils and undead. If we take position that morality in D&D is absolute and follows a litany of rules as to what are "good" and "evil" acts as Sir_Lorik implies, killing "always" evil creatures en masse is not among the listed acts.

Except that isn't true. Demons, Devils, Yugoloths, Obyriths, Demodands, and other creatures with the Evil subtype are inherently Evil, yet they are capable (under almost unique circumstances) of becoming Neutral, or even Good. Vampires have their Alignments shift to Evil, yet that didn't stop Jander Sunstar, Dante Lysin and Erasmus van Richten from fighting to not become Evil.

Chromatic Dragons are not inherently Evil the way Fiends and Vampires are. They have a strong tendency to be Evil, either as a result of Tiamat's influence, or their upbringing, but they aren't born Evil. Aboleths, Beholders, and Neogi are all born with all or some of the memories of their parent(s), hence their Evil Alignment. Illithids, via ceremorphosis become Evil. But these creatures are Abberant beings, from the Far Realms, where morality is Blue and Orange, not Black and White. They view themselves as beyond Good and Evil, in a Lovecraftian sense, which lets them commit Evil acts without a care. But even in that case, I'd argue that trying to exterminate all the Mind Flayers in existence with a single spell is at best a Neutral act. (It's also pointless in 3.X: Mind Flayers are destined to evolve from Humans and conquer the Multiverse at the end of time, then travel back in time to escape the heat death of the Multiverse. You literally can't beat them because they already won in the future and already were defeated in the past.)

[Gnoman]

EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?

No. Even if you take that list as a guideline, (which isn't exactly guaranteed even in the game, as both VD and ED are poorly written and often discarded), evil acts don't automatically make you Evil aligned. In the case of Haley (since we see her more than any of the other characters you mentioned), she's clearly in the Order for more than just pay and loot, even if she is willing to trick the other characters out of their share and outright steal it (note that this behavior is only seen very early on. Either the Giant's vision of her character has shifted slightly since those early strips, or this is a sign of major character development. Probably the latter.) Not only that, but she willingly, even eagerly, led a resistance group in the occupied Azure City, which carried NO potential for cash (and, in fact, cost her a lot of money) but posed great risk to her well-being. Note also that she's stated herself that she's "Good-ish", which suggests that she's possibly just barely over the line between Good and Neutral.

[hamishspence]

No. Even if you take that list as a guideline, (which isn't exactly guaranteed even in the game, as both VD and ED are poorly written and often discarded), evil acts don't automatically make you Evil aligned.

True- though I personally think that both provide a good starting point.

"Harming or destroying souls" is something BoVD at least portrays as a guarantee that a person is evil.

[F.Harr]

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.

I don't know about that. All of that seems good to me. Not necessarily lawful.

O.K., this is WAY too inside baseball for me. Have fun, guys.

[Trixie]

One post which asserts both that Eugene Greenhilt is good and that Haley is not. Poor Haley.

Yeah, someone who has 'thief', 'murderer' and 'no scruples whatsoever, includes stealing from children and own party members' is very paragon of goodness, am I right?

All Eugene did was rude to his son, but he still did more in cause of good than all non-Roy OotS members combined.

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

A) Shojo was explicitly named as good. B) He "abandoned" his oath to focus on his family. Both strongly point at him as good.

You know, it's funny how forums always deny character they don't like being good (even ones like Girard or Eugene, who were said so multiple times) while claiming characters no one would associate with in RL, characters whose whole life is one big string of crimes are somehow "good" because they like them.

[hamishspence]

All Eugene did was rude to his son, but he still did more in cause of good than all non-Roy OotS members combined.

Examples? We see very little of Eugene's activities- and also very little of the members of the Order, outside of the main strip.

Durkon, in particular, I could see as having done a great deal of good in his career. Encouraging the Wooden Forest bandits to give up banditry, was an in-strip example of the kind of thing I'd expect him to have made a career out of- acts of kindness.

[137beth]

We have not received confirmation on whether or not black dragons are born evil in the OOTS universe (as they are in Core-D&D), and we don't have absolute confirmation on whether killing black dragons en masse is an evil act.

Now RAW D&D is something else. Chromatic dragons have the same evil alignment tendency as devils and undead. If we take position that morality in D&D is absolute and follows a litany of rules as to what are "good" and "evil" acts as Sir_Lorik implies, killing "always" evil creatures en masse is not among the listed acts.

No, by RAW D&D, Chromatic Dragons are not inherently evil. And then we have worlds like Eberron (which are RAW D&D) where they are not even usually evil.

[Kish]

...Not that it actually matters, since the morality of judging entire races rather than individuals is unambiguous in D&D...

(And yes, I've seen the "Oh, but the race isn't a race" argument. It's elegant in its simplicity; no refutation other than the one it gives itself is necessary or appropriate.)

[Gift Jeraff]

Now let's discuss what alignment Blackwing might be.

[Kish]

Let's see, a member of a by-default True Neutral species, fulfilling a role that would generally cause him to match the alignment of a True Neutral character, who seems to have no real interests except the welfare of that character.

...I'm thinking Lawful Evil. Or possibly Chaotic Good.

[Deepbluediver]

One post which asserts both that Eugene Greenhilt is good and that Haley is not. Poor Haley.

To that end, Haley did spend a lot of time as a thief before signing up to joining up with the OotS. Plus, even that was for a goal that was at least partially selfish. She might have a lot of bad karma to work off.

Eugene, by comparison, might well have a dickish-personality, but if he used his arcane powers to battle the forces of evil could still rate a "better than average" on the alignment-meter. Sort of like Miko.


Good is not necessarily friendly, and by the same token evil is not necessarily Belkar or Xykon (see how many people refused to believe Malek was evil under the "but he's so suave and charming" argument, and defended him with "maybe he only wants to genocide the evil people").

Its not how everyone would attribute alignment, and it relies on some speculation of various character's motives and their actions before we saw them in the story, but its plausible to me.

Eugene's alignment might be locked in place now that he's dead, but I would say that Haley is trying (and probably succeeding at least to a small degree) at pulling herself up from nuetral to "good".

That's my take on it anyhow.

[Bogardan_Mage]

But even in that case, I'd argue that trying to exterminate all the Mind Flayers in existence with a single spell is at best a Neutral act. (It's also pointless in 3.X: Mind Flayers are destined to evolve from Humans and conquer the Multiverse at the end of time, then travel back in time to escape the heat death of the Multiverse. You literally can't beat them because they already won in the future and already were defeated in the past.)

Hmm. Given that, would Familicide kill any of the future Mind Flayers' human ancestors in the present? Grandfather paradox!

[Tragak]

Hmm. Given that, would Familicide kill any of the future Mind Flayers' human ancestors in the present? Grandfather paradox!

Not enough ancestors. The Mind Flayers in the present are descended from those who came to the past from the future, and those would have to have been descended from the humans who survived in the present for the family trees to continue into the future as Mind Flayers. Paradox resolved You, sir, have been Doctored.

[LadyEowyn]

Haley was "Chaotic Good-ish" for the first 2-3 books (she did good things, like helping the dirt farmers without expecting anything in return, not to mention being on a quest to save the world, but was willing to consider selling Samantha into slavery). She's been pretty firmly in Chaotic Good territory over books 4 and 5, ever since she started leading the Azure City resistance at no benefit and much cost to herself, and then devoting herself to getting Roy resurrected when she could have just ditched the party and gone adventuring on her own instead of having to deal with Celia and Belkar and get drawn into a fight with the Thieves' Guild that she'd been running away from.

[Porthos]

Haley was "Chaotic Good-ish" for the first 2-3 books (she did good things, like helping the dirt farmers without expecting anything in return, not to mention being on a quest to save the world, but was willing to consider selling Samantha into slavery). She's been pretty firmly in Chaotic Good territory over books 4 and 5, ever since she started leading the Azure City resistance at no benefit and much cost to herself, and then devoting herself to getting Roy resurrected when she could have just ditched the party and gone adventuring on her own instead of having to deal with Celia and Belkar and get drawn into a fight with the Thieves' Guild that she'd been running away from.

Yes, I'd say that Haley is the classic example of a character that has an alignment shift over the course of their adventures. If you compare the Haley of the early strips and the latter ones, I think there is a clear enough difference. Her swivel point might have been when she left a pair of valuable gems just lying on the ground and instead grabbed Belkar when she was off to get Roy's corpse.

The Haley of the early strips would never had done that.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Not enough ancestors. The Mind Flayers in the present are descended from those who came to the past from the future, and those would have to have been descended from the humans who survived in the present for the family trees to continue into the future as Mind Flayers. Paradox resolved You, sir, have been Doctored.

That's not a resolution, that's an illustration. The human ancestors of the future Mind Flayers share the bloodline of the Mind Flayers in the present so they're killed, but the humans killed in the present can't be the ancestors of the Mind Flayers, the survivors must be. So the survivors die and the ones who die don't. That's the very definition of the Grandfather Paradox!

[Tragak]

That's not a resolution, that's an illustration. The human ancestors of the future Mind Flayers share the bloodline of the Mind Flayers in the present so they're killed, but the humans killed in the present can't be the ancestors of the Mind Flayers, the survivors must be. So the survivors die and the ones who die don't. That's the very definition of the Grandfather Paradox!

Challenge Accepted:
Families 1-3 die.
Families 4-10 live.
Families 4-10 continue reproducing long enough to create Mind Flayers
Mind Flayers travel from the future to the past
Mind Flayers keep reproducing into the present
When Familicide hits, Families 1-3 die before they can create Mind Flayers
Since our Mind Flayers only came from Families 4-10, none of them die
Time Lord grammar sneers at your limited notions of causality!

OOOOH, you meant duplicating Familicide against Mind Flayers specifically instead of extrapolating the Black Dragon-cide that already happened.

Uh...

The Next Round: Hundreds of the Guardians of Time show up and one of them screams out, "THIS IS AN UNSANCTIONED VIOLATION OF SPACE-TIME."

[Reddish Mage]

Except that isn't true. Demons, Devils, Yugoloths, Obyriths, Demodands, and other creatures with the Evil subtype are inherently Evil, yet they are capable (under almost unique circumstances) of becoming Neutral, or even Good. Vampires have their Alignments shift to Evil, yet that didn't stop Jander Sunstar, Dante Lysin and Erasmus van Richten from fighting to not become Evil.

Chromatic Dragons are not inherently Evil the way Fiends and Vampires are. They have a strong tendency to be Evil, either as a result of Tiamat's influence, or their upbringing, but they aren't born Evil. Aboleths, Beholders, and Neogi are all born with all or some of the memories of their parent(s), hence their Evil Alignment. Illithids, via ceremorphosis become Evil. But these creatures are Abberant beings, from the Far Realms, where morality is Blue and Orange, not Black and White. They view themselves as beyond Good and Evil, in a Lovecraftian sense, which lets them commit Evil acts without a care. But even in that case, I'd argue that trying to exterminate all the Mind Flayers in existence with a single spell is at best a Neutral act. (It's also pointless in 3.X: Mind Flayers are destined to evolve from Humans and conquer the Multiverse at the end of time, then travel back in time to escape the heat death of the Multiverse. You literally can't beat them because they already won in the future and already were defeated in the past.)

Hmm I have to dispute a number of these points:

1. Dragons are born with their alignment:
Your thinking about aberrations, undead and fiends shows you have a lot of knowledge of details about D&D origins. All I have it the words of the Monster Manual which says this about "Always" alignments, which dragons are listed with.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The
creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or
come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals
to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique
or rare exceptions.

So, unless there is something that says otherwise about dragons, Dragons (being "always" of an alignment) are born with it, straight up. Its genetic, since Always alignment is genetic (at least in Core). I don't know where you get that it comes from upbringing or Tiamat's influence, perhaps from a supplement? Those explanations come with "usually" and "often" alignments.

Spoiler

Show

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences,
or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin.

Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by
nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals
have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

2. Illithids are impossible to destroy, since they already will conquer the future and then will have returned to be defeated in the past.

I've seen enough time-traveling fiction to know that just because its a logical contradiction according to any temporal logic I've had the pleasure of studying doesn't mean it can't happen in fiction! I will tell you, however, the complexities involved will make you crawl into a corner and become a tax accountant.

[Deepbluediver]

I've seen enough time-traveling fiction to know that just because its a logical contradiction according to any temporal logic I've had the pleasure of studying doesn't mean it can't happen in fiction! I will tell you, however, the complexities involved will make you crawl into a corner and become a tax accountant.

That's why I hate time-travel, in pretty much any game or setting I've ever seen it attempted in. There's only one story I can think of where I liked the way it was used, and that's because it was pretty much entirely out of the character's control, so they couldn't create paradoxes.