MitD X: If I told you, you wouldn't believe me

[Crusher]

I'm going to nominate a different title, and with that change my vote

From MitD XI: You May Not Know Exactly What You Are- But I Do

To MitD XI: Learning Is Happening

I re-read that strip after you linked it. I had forgotten about the "I kinda think I'm not supposed to go along with something that's wrong, just to get food." line

Its just funny, because I can't imagine Red Cloak would willingly keep around a naturally Good aligned creature for decades, yet that's an unequivocally "Good" thing to say. Of course, doesn't mean MitD *is* Good, nor that he's a race that's naturally "Good". O'Chul may have just been filling his head with "Good" thoughts.

I don't really have anywhere I'm going with this. Just perplexing.

[Ruck]

Hmm, I liked the idea of "MITD is totally a thing I overheard some guy say," but with the "XI" in the middle it's just awkward. Might change my vote but I dunno to what yet.

[Synesthesy]

MitD XI: one pick should be the right one at this point!

[Quartz]

MITD XI: totally a thing I overheard some guy say.

[Darth Paul]

I re-read that strip after you linked it. I had forgotten about the "I kinda think I'm not supposed to go along with something that's wrong, just to get food." line

Its just funny, because I can't imagine Red Cloak would willingly keep around a naturally Good aligned creature for decades, yet that's an unequivocally "Good" thing to say. Of course, doesn't mean MitD *is* Good, nor that he's a race that's naturally "Good". O'Chul may have just been filling his head with "Good" thoughts.

I don't really have anywhere I'm going with this. Just perplexing.

But alignment isn't natural in the Stick-verse, it's acquired.

MitD's dad wasn't around except as a distant memory IIRC, and there was nobody to put any thoughts one way or the other into the Monster's head. He starts out as Neutral, motivated pretty much by food and pleasure-seeking. Then Xykon tries to groom him to be scary and eat adventurers. Given the lack of any real pressures which push him in an Evil direction, though, I think Monster-san stays pretty much Neutral until, as you say, O-Chul shows up and starts filling his head with Good ideas- as well as being the first to ever take a real interest in his growth as a person.

[Doug Lampert]

But alignment isn't natural in the Stick-verse, it's acquired.

MitD's dad wasn't around except as a distant memory IIRC, and there was nobody to put any thoughts one way or the other into the Monster's head. He starts out as Neutral, motivated pretty much by food and pleasure-seeking. Then Xykon tries to groom him to be scary and eat adventurers. Given the lack of any real pressures which push him in an Evil direction, though, I think Monster-san stays pretty much Neutral until, as you say, O-Chul shows up and starts filling his head with Good ideas- as well as being the first to ever take a real interest in his growth as a person.

Rich treats alignment by the book. Which includes that it's only inborn for "always" races and even they can change.

[SavageWombat]

Nod, get Treat, because it needs to be immortalizes somewhere.

[Emanick]

Rich treats alignment by the book. Which includes that it's only inborn for "always" races and even they can change.

Where does it say that? Not saying you're wrong, just that I can't recall reading that anywhere, and I'm interested.

Before reading OOTS, my headcanon was that most Usually Evil races had some innate evil tendencies (though not as strong as Always Evil ones), and if that's canonically incorrect, I would love to know.

[GM_3826]

Where does it say that? Not saying you're wrong, just that I can't recall reading that anywhere, and I'm interested.

Before reading OOTS, my headcanon was that most Usually Evil races had some innate evil tendencies (though not as strong as Always Evil ones), and if that's canonically incorrect, I would love to know.

At least in 5th edition, this is the case; Usually Evil races are born with naturally evil tendencies so that they are loyal to their creator god. Usually Good races, meanwhile, have no inborn alignment tendencies; Good values free will. Their tendency to be of a certain alignment is entirely cultural and stems from having one creator god who they worship. Humans have no real alignment tendencies since they don't really have any one deity who they worship above all else. I can't say the same thing for 3rd edition, meanwhile, which is what this comic is based off of. It's quite possible that the question was never answered there.

[Kish]

At least in 5th edition, this is the case; Usually Evil races are born with naturally evil tendencies so that they are loyal to their creator god.

I am very glad to say that Rich is considerably more likely to close the forum and move to Paraguay than to ever incorporate that particular bit of 5ed crap into OotS.

[Jasdoif]

Rich treats alignment by the book. Which includes that it's only inborn for "always" races and even they can change.

Where does it say that? Not saying you're wrong, just that I can't recall reading that anywhere, and I'm interested.

The glossary entry for "alignment" in the Monster Manual.

[Emanick]

I am very glad to say that Rich is considerably more likely to close the forum and move to Paraguay than to ever incorporate that particular bit of 5ed crap into OotS.

And a good thing, too. I hear Paraguay is lovely this time of year.

The glossary entry for "alignment" in the Monster Manual.

Thanks! I wish I hadn't loaned out my 3.5 Monster Manual; it'd be great to be able to check up on that.

[D.One]

How's the vote until now? Do we have a chosen one (for the new title, I mean)?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

How's the vote until now? Do we have a chosen one (for the new title, I mean)?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...postcount=1415

GW

[Doug Lampert]

Where does it say that? Not saying you're wrong, just that I can't recall reading that anywhere, and I'm interested.

Before reading OOTS, my headcanon was that most Usually Evil races had some innate evil tendencies (though not as strong as Always Evil ones), and if that's canonically incorrect, I would love to know.

Monster Manual for both 3.0 and 3.5 under "how to read an entry" has a description for what the various alignment frequency terms mean. There is also information under things like type descriptions (it's explicit that a creature of the "Evil" subtype detects as Evil even if the particular creature is not evil. This implies that some Evil subtype creatures are not actually evil, else the rule is meaningless).

Usually Evil races can have an inborn tendency, but it's the Always ones that are born with an alignment, and it's explicit that they can change (but rarely do so).

[Joerg]

I vote for "MitD XI: Learning is Happening". But the probable winner "a good man" is a very close runner-up for me, so I'm OK with that, too.

[Shining Wrath]

I think Rich has been pretty clear that in OotSverse alignment is learned, except for creatures that aren't normally "born", like fiends and angels.
Even then, I think we can see Sabine forming relationships with Nale and V that are at least somewhat positive.

Having said that, I think Xykon and Redcloak seem to take MitD's evil alignment for granted. Therefore, there's some sort of expectation that members of a certain creature type have, or tend strongly toward, a certain alignment.

Combining the two, I think that X&R aren't thinking this through; MitD would likely have had an evil alignment had his upbringing been normal, but instead MitD wound up living alone in a forest and learning to speak Common somehow, and so his alignment was quite a bit more malleable than it would have been had he grown up surrounded by members of his own presumably-normally-evil kind. In other words, he was ripe for evangelism by O Chul because he hadn't actually been socialized into any particular alignment prior to O Chul's arrival.

Xykon tried to get MitD to eat children, but Xykon's not the sort to spend a lot of time training anyone to do or be anything. Redcloak could have done it - as a LE cleric, persuading / compelling people to follow a particular god or alignment would normally be right down his alley. It appears that he either doesn't care, or hasn't taken the time to think about what might happen if MitD switched sides. I think he's blinded by having read the Monster Manual entry on MitD and isn't even considering that there might be exceptions.

Elan would know the rules of the OotSverse. In this one particular case, Elan might be smarter than Redcloak.

[Peelee]

I think Rich has been pretty clear that in OotSverse alignment is learned, except for creatures that aren't normally "born", like fiends and angels.
Even then, I think we can see Sabine forming relationships with Nale and V that are at least somewhat positive.

Time for my old go-to:

Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through.

Note how he never says, "I made the villains less evil." He says "the villains liked each other." Having relationships in itself does not speak any way whatsoever about alignment. Nale and Sabine's relationship specifically was far from what I would call even somewhat positive.

[Emanick]

Time for my old go-to:

Note how he never says, "I made the villains less evil." He says "the villains liked each other." Having relationships in itself does not speak any way whatsoever about alignment. Nale and Sabine's relationship specifically was far from what I would call even somewhat positive.

I'm guessing by "somewhat positive" Shining Wrath means something along the lines of "they genuinely cared about each other." Sabine certainly cared for Nale. That's not enough to make for a good relationship, certainly, but it's more than you'd expect for a literal demon.

Either way, I'd say having a relationship that involves caring for another person's existence does make you "less evil," although it certainly doesn't mean you're not Evil with a capital E. It might just make you Mussolini-level rather than Hitler-level. But that's still an improvement.

[Peelee]

I'm guessing by "somewhat positive" Shining Wrath means something along the lines of "they genuinely cared about each other." Sabine certainly cared for Nale. That's not enough to make for a good relationship, certainly, but it's more than you'd expect for a literal demon.

Either way, I'd say having a relationship that involves caring for another person's existence does make you "less evil," although it certainly doesn't mean you're not Evil with a capital E. It might just make you Mussolini-level rather than Hitler-level. But that's still an improvement.

I could be wrong, of course, but it seemed framed in the context of alignment, so that's good I read it. Apologies to Shining Wraith if I totally misread that.

Also, even Hitler had a dog. Evil can love and still be full-on, kill-all-humans Evil.

[Emanick]

I could be wrong, of course, but it seemed framed in the context of alignment, so that's good I read it. Apologies to Shining Wraith if I totally misread that.

Also, even Hitler had a dog. Evil can love and still be full-on, kill-all-humans Evil.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that Hitler himself was incapable of love, merely that, if you accept the premise that there are different "levels" of Evil and that some are "more" Evil than others, a level capable of love is less dramatically Evil than one that is otherwise similar but incapable of it. One good quality is better than zero, in other words.

I did mean that in the context of alignment (and I took Shining Wrath to be speaking in that context, too), but I suppose I'd hold the same position if we were talking about real life. A being who expresses love or empathy is inherently more depraved than one who is similar but does not.

Does this matter, or is it just semantics? I dunno. If you are not a smart man, I'm sure as heck not.

[Darth Paul]

Having relationships in itself does not speak any way whatsoever about alignment. Nale and Sabine's relationship specifically was far from what I would call even somewhat positive.

Well, but they had great sex. I mean, like, really great.

Then again, Elan and Haley probably have it even better, without needing to perform blood sacrifices as foreplay. After all, Good People Have Good Sex.

Troperiffic!!!

[Emanick]

Well, but they had great sex. I mean, like, really great.

Then again, Elan and Haley probably have it even better, without needing to perform blood sacrifices as foreplay. After all, Good People Have Good Sex.

Troperiffic!!!

I can't believe there's a trope for that.

[godsflunky]

I can't believe there's a trope for that.

There's a quote for everything.

[D.One]

There's a quote for everything.

By universal laws of drama, long before anything existed, there was already a trope about that.

[Shining Wrath]

I could be wrong, of course, but it seemed framed in the context of alignment, so that's good I read it. Apologies to Shining Wraith if I totally misread that.

Also, even Hitler had a dog. Evil can love and still be full-on, kill-all-humans Evil.

I think that some of Sabine's interactions, both with Nale and with V, were non-evil. In other words, if you view Good-Evil as a continuum, rather than as a set of 3 discrete values [G, N, E], Sabine was not at Pure Evil, even though she was a fiend. If the scale runs from -10 to +10, she was sitting at -9 or -8.5. The IFCC directors, OTOH, are probably at -10 on the evil alignment, and are trying to mute their respective CLN aspects. That's why they won't lift a finger to help V unless helping V definitely advances their plans.

[Peelee]

I think that some of Sabine's interactions, both with Nale and with V, were non-evil. In other words, if you view Good-Evil as a continuum, rather than as a set of 3 discrete values [G, N, E], Sabine was not at Pure Evil, even though she was a fiend.

I don't disagree with non-evil interactions, but this also assumes that literally every action has a Good, Evil, or Neutral component to it. For instance, eating a potato seems like it should be non-aligned, not just Neutral, because it's just eating a potato. Even if one were to ascribe alignment to every possible action, a being of pure Evil does not necessarily have to travel to the Semi-Elemental Plane of Sapient Potatoes in order to eat a potato; they do not need to insert Evil into every possible action or interaction they have.

In other words, I think Sabine can be a being of pure Evil and still be able to have a civil chat with V; they don't need to be mutually exclusive. And if we view Evil as a scale (like, let's say a color line from red to blue, with Red being Evil and Blue being Good), I don't see much purpose in trying to determine if she's brick red or fire engine red.

[Jasdoif]

I don't disagree with non-evil interactions, but this also assumes that literally every action has a Good, Evil, or Neutral component to it. For instance, eating a potato seems like it should be non-aligned, not just Neutral, because it's just eating a potato. Even if one were to ascribe alignment to every possible action, a being of pure Evil does not necessarily have to travel to the Semi-Elemental Plane of Sapient Potatoes in order to eat a potato; they do not need to insert Evil into every possible action or interaction they have.

First, I've been there; the Lake of Sour Cream and Algae that Tastes Suspiciously Like Chives is quite a sight, but a little too much gallows humor for my taste.

Anyway, I think it's more useful to consider that actions are not equal in alignment-weight; that a morally insignificant action doesn't noticeably impact a being's alignment nor serve as an indicator of such. It's a lot like how a 1000gp withdrawal and a 1cp deposit don't cancel each other out, even though there's one withdrawal and one deposit.

[Shining Wrath]

I think we're getting a little far afield with Sabine, here: she was an example of how a creature supposedly pure evil by nature might not be pure evil. If I'm wrong about Sabine, I think my main points hold.

1. Xykon and Redcloak expect MitD to be evil because of his species
2. The Giant doesn't believe that creatures are born good or born evil
3. Xykon and Redcloak therefore don't understand how alignment works in OotSverse, or have been too busy to wonder what MitD's alignment might be, or both

It seems likely that at some point MitD will switch sides, or at a minimum refuse to obey an order from Team Evil. X&R will presumably find this surprising.

[Darth Paul]

I think we're getting a little far afield with Sabine, here: she was an example of how a creature supposedly pure evil by nature might not be pure evil. If I'm wrong about Sabine, I think my main points hold.

1. Xykon and Redcloak expect MitD to be evil because of his species
2. The Giant doesn't believe that creatures are born good or born evil
3. Xykon and Redcloak therefore don't understand how alignment works in OotSverse, or have been too busy to wonder what MitD's alignment might be, or both

It seems likely that at some point MitD will switch sides, or at a minimum refuse to obey an order from Team Evil. X&R will presumably find this surprising.

Not only do I think you are right about Sabine (and I think her interaction with V in giving advice on how to foil Tarquin shows that she was quite capable of Good acts... still, it could be debatable whether that in and of itself moves her up the chart from the Evil end, I for one think it does)... (deep breath)

But I agree that whatever MitD turns out to be, he is of a listed Evil species. What X and R don't even bother to consider (through rampant disinterest on Xykon's part, and because Redcloak is busy not only following The Plan, but also trying to keep X baffled about his ultimate intentions) is that the book alignment is not the one M wound up with. (Which is a long-winded way for me to agree with you again, in similar words.)

Xykon fed him babies because that's what evil monsters eat. M being not-evil, he just tossed them out when nobody was looking. Not yet being positively Good, he didn't care that the kids end up in garbage pails that way.
Redcloak is convinced that MitD is just an idiot, so he pays almost no attention to him and hasn't appreciated his growing intelligence and savvy. This cost him at Gerard's Gate when the Monster outmaneuvered him.

Neither of them has a true appreciation of what MitD is becoming. O-Chul is the only one ever to engage the Monster in conversation, rather than just order him around. He's the only one who's had any true influence on his spiritual growth whatsoever.