OOTS #1106 - The Discussion Thread

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think you can add Eugene and Sara Greenhilt to your list of dysfonctionnal relationships with same alignment.

True. Though, um, not quite the same kind of relationship.

Nobody mentioned the Roy-Celia relationship, which is a pretty solid success, so let’s make that two successful relationships with identical alignments.

I have a very good excuse for that: I forgot.

Since most relationships fail, and at least one relationship failed due mostly to alignment related issues, it seems fair to conclude that alignment does play a role in compatibility. It’s just not the only important variable, and certainly far from being the dominant one. (I also think its importance probably varies from person to person. I would be surprised if alignment played as much of a role in Elan’s love life as it did in Roy’s, for instance.)

Alignment was certainly the easiest point to prove (and a good joke for the gag days), but even a cursory look at the personalities of Tarquin and his first wife (does she have a name?) shows all sorts of other issues that would have popped up even if both were NG. I wouldn't put down alignment as the cause of their divorce, except as a descriptor of some of the personality differences which made them incompatible.

Yeah, if the author of the story making a very clear insinuation that Nale didn't exactly live up to his stated alignment is something you "don't find convincing," then absolutely nothing will be convincing to you.

You're wrong, and screw you. If someone were to point to something in the comic which provided solid proof that Nale's assertion of his own LEness was incorrect, I would find that convincing. I don't find someone supporting a poorly-constructed argument convincing, even if that person happens to be writing the comic.
I'm solidly Death-of-the-Author-ey, and you're clearly not. But that's no reason to go around throwing insults like "nothing will be convincing to you".

Hilgya is probably casting spontaneously in strip #77 (sorry, can't post links yet) so it should come as no surprise she can turn undead.

[citation needed]
She was the LG's only divine caster. I'd call that reason enough to prepare some cure spells!

[hroþila]

I must say I've always been mildly amused by the contempt many people here seem to have towards Death of the Author. I imagine it is because this author in particular often discussed his own work with us readers, but still, it is a well-established concept in literary criticism and there's no reason why OotS should be above it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I know, right? Of course, my feelings are a bit more negative, since my personal Death-of-the-Authorness makes it personal whenever people say that I don't believe the author so NOTHING could POSSIBLY change my mind. Which strikes me as one of the greatest insults you can dish out without violating the forum rules.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I must say I've always been mildly amused by the contempt many people here seem to have towards Death of the Author. I imagine it is because this author in particular often discussed his own work with us readers, but still, it is a well-established concept in literary criticism and there's no reason why OotS should be above it.

I've always had contempt for the "Death of Author" 'philosophy' because I strongly believe that an author has a much better position than any reader in establishing facts about their own works. To take the (now classic) example, if Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay, and some random reader says she is wrong, I have no issues whatsoever in taking Rowling's word over that of some random reader.

The root of the issue is expertise. In order, these are the people who I believe are most expert about a given story:

1. The writer
2. The editor
3. The close associates
4. The experts consulted
5. Literature academics that have studied the book

You may notice that "a random reader" doesn't make the list.

The specific issue at hand here, "Nale's actual alignment versus his professed alignment" is further removed from any claim of "Death of the Author" in that Rich has demonstrated that, beyond being the author, he is also far more knowledgeable about D&D mechanics and rules than anyone that has ever tried to contradict him. If random reader says "RAW say X" and Rich Burlew says "RAW says Y", my money is on Y.

The bottom line is that it is literally impossible to judge alignment of any character because we see but a sliver of their lives, and alignment must take all of their actions into consideration. So if the author says "you have seen this character at its must legal and good, but he is normally True Neutral", then I trust the author.

Furthermore, in Nale's specific case, while his objective seem "be in control of everything" (i.e. a Legal viewpoint), his methods are ridiculously chaotic. For example, killing random people just to get his brother in trouble is Chaotic: a Legal Evil guy would set a trap that doesn't involve breaking the rules themselves, but forces the target to break the rules. As Roy's Deva said "using Chaotic methods to achieve Legal objectives screams "Neutral" to me".

Grey Wolf

[Darth Paul]

That's a very good point, Grey Wolf. Well reasoned. I hadn't considered Nale from that point of view.

[Keltest]

I've always had contempt for the "Death of Author" 'philosophy' because I strongly believe that an author has a much better position than any reader in establishing facts about their own works. To take the (now classic) example, if Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay, and some random reader says she is wrong, I have no issues whatsoever in taking Rowling's word over that of some random reader.

The root of the issue is expertise. In order, these are the people who I believe are most expert about a given story:

1. The writer
2. The editor
3. The close associates
4. The experts consulted
5. Literature academics that have studied the book

You may notice that "a random reader" doesn't make the list.

The specific issue at hand here, "Nale's actual alignment versus his professed alignment" is further removed from any claim of "Death of the Author" in that Rich has demonstrated that, beyond being the author, he is also far more knowledgeable about D&D mechanics and rules than anyone that has ever tried to contradict him. If random reader says "RAW say X" and Rich Burlew says "RAW says Y", my money is on Y.

The bottom line is that it is literally impossible to judge alignment of any character because we see but a sliver of their lives, and alignment must take all of their actions into consideration. So if the author says "you have seen this character at its must legal and good, but he is normally True Neutral", then I trust the author.

Furthermore, in Nale's specific case, while his objective seem "be in control of everything" (i.e. a Legal viewpoint), his methods are ridiculously chaotic. For example, killing random people just to get his brother in trouble is Chaotic: a Legal Evil guy would set a trap that doesn't involve breaking the rules themselves, but forces the target to break the rules. As Roy's Deva said "using Chaotic methods to achieve Legal objectives screams "Neutral" to me".

Grey Wolf

Theres just... so much wrong with all these claims, where do I begin?

For starters, Rich has by his own admission a very flimsy grasp of 3.5 RAW. There have been several occasions where a character breaks them. Tsukiko's wight creation spell, Mass Death Ward needing researching at all, and other similar scenarios. He just plain doesn't care about rules accuracy, and he only uses them now because that's how the comic started and consistency is important.

Secondly, for a character's alignment to not match what we see in screen time, that would require them to be acting out of character for their entire on screen appearance. If Rich were to come out and say that Elan goes out and kicks puppies in between panels because he really likes the sound of their squeals, I'm calling BS no matter who is speaking.

Thirdly, you seem to have a fundamental, if common, misconception that the Lawful alignment cares one whit about the literal laws of any given land. It doesn't. A Lawful person will consent to following laws only if they consider the authority generating them to be legitimate, and Nale considers nobody to have legitimate authority over him, for various reasons.

Fourthly, Nale DID use the law system of Cliffport against the Order, by framing Elan for the massacre he had committed. That was sort of the entire crux of his plan. He even chose Cliffport because they don't allow magical evidence gathering methods.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

For starters, Rich has by his own admission a very flimsy grasp of 3.5 RAW.

[citation needed]

There have been several occasions where a character breaks them. Tsukiko's wight creation spell, Mass Death Ward needing researching at all, and other similar scenarios. He just plain doesn't care about rules accuracy, and he only uses them now because that's how the comic started and consistency is important.

"Doesn't care about being 100% rule accurate" does not mean "Rich doesn't know the rules". He knows them, and chooses when not to follow them. In Tsukiko's explicit case, he admitted the mistake. This is NOT that situation. Rich has not said "ups, I don't know how the alignment rules works, so I'm ignoring them". Instead, he has several posts explicitly explaining how alignment works, and he does not agree with you.

Secondly, for a character's alignment to not match what we see in screen time, that would require them to be acting out of character for their entire on screen appearance. If Rich were to come out and say that Elan goes out and kicks puppies in between panels because he really likes the sound of their squeals, I'm calling BS no matter who is speaking.

Being on the edge between two alignments is not "acting out of character". The thesis here is that while Nale thinks he is Legal, he is actually just across the border into Neutral territory, and the author not denying it. Nothing I have said so far would mean that Nale is "out of character" when his intentions are Legal and his actions Chaotic. Neither is Nale lying to himself about who he is - that's practically his character in a nutshell. The possibility that he happens to lie to himself about his alignment (on top of his actual abilities, position in the world and how central he is to the narrative) is, if anything, MORE in character than that he is NOT lying to himself.

Thirdly, you seem to have a fundamental, if common, misconception that the Lawful alignment cares one whit about the literal laws of any given land. It doesn't. A Lawful person will consent to following laws only if they consider the authority generating them to be legitimate, and Nale considers nobody to have legitimate authority over him, for various reasons.

This is utterly irrelevant. Durkon obeyed the laws of Bleedingham despite disagreeing with their legal system. So if you are claiming an absolute "every legal character won't consent follow laws if they disagree with the authority" then you are objectively wrong. If you claim that some do and some don't, you have no position to stand with until such time as you demonstrate that Nale disagreed with the authorities of Cliffport regarding "who people are allowed to kill because it furthers their needs". If you think he automatically disagrees with all authorities that are not Nale, then that means he is Chaotic.

If anything, I suspect that you are the one with the fundamental misconception of the Lawful alignment. Again, based on what Rich has said on the subject, and as I have established above, I trust his analysis far more than I trust yours.

Fourthly, Nale DID use the law system of Cliffport against the Order, by framing Elan for the massacre he had committed. That was sort of the entire crux of his plan. He even chose Cliffport because they don't allow magical evidence gathering methods.

Again: irrelevant. His plan required the wholesale massacre of innocent civilians in opposition to the local laws. Yes, ultimately he was aiming to have the authorities detain Elan, but I don't see how that makes the plan Legal. It flaunts the laws for his own Evil plans, where Legal Evil individuals bend them to their needs.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

[citation needed]

I could point to the myriad cases where Rich gets the rules wrong because he didn't bother double checking them rather than because he needed them to work differently, but I suspect that would be an exercise in futility.

"Doesn't care about being 100% rule accurate" does not mean "Rich doesn't know the rules". He knows them, and chooses when not to follow them. In Tsukiko's explicit case, he admitted the mistake. This is NOT that situation. Rich has not said "ups, I don't know how the alignment rules works, so I'm ignoring them". Instead, he has several posts explicitly explaining how alignment works, and he does not agree with you.

Doesn't matter. Rich makes mistakes. The idea that he needs to cop to every single one in order for it to be a mistake is absurd. Furthermore, Rich is no more an authority on alignment than you or I am, and the fact that he has written a webcomic doesn't change that.

Being on the edge between two alignments is not "acting out of character". The thesis here is that while Nale thinks he is Legal, he is actually just across the border into Neutral territory, and the author not denying it. Nothing I have said so far would mean that Nale is "out of character" when his intentions are Legal and his actions Chaotic. Neither is Nale lying to himself about who he is - that's practically his character in a nutshell. The possibility that he happens to lie to himself about his alignment (on top of his actual abilities, position in the world and how central he is to the narrative) is, if anything, MORE in character than that he is NOT lying to himself.

The idea that Nale is mistaken about his alignment is plausible. The idea that the author could say he behaves radically differently off screen and it would just be true and make sense is not. Your specific example was a Lawful Good character actually being true neutral because of actions off screen. Lets look at some actual characters, shall we? If Durkon were to act entirely out of self interest with little regard for any particular guiding philosophy in life you would say that is out of character for him, no? So why does that become not out of character if Rich says it happens off screen?

This is utterly irrelevant. Durkon obeyed the laws of Bleedingham despite disagreeing with their legal system. So if you are claiming an absolute "every legal character won't consent follow laws if they disagree with the authority" then you are objectively wrong. If you claim that some do and some don't, you have no position to stand with until such time as you demonstrate that Nale disagreed with the authorities of Cliffport regarding "who people are allowed to kill because it furthers their needs". If you think he automatically disagrees with all authorities that are not Nale, then that means he is Chaotic.

Roy doesn't consent to follow laws when he disagrees with authority, and indeed doing so is one of his defining moments. Disagreeing with the party leader over killing orcs, defying the laws of Azure City to break out of jail, just... everything about the Empire of Blood, Roy clearly doesn't actually hold the written law of any given land in any particular regard. Heck, even a being of pure law and good finds no issue with "it was an illegitimate authority" being used as an explanation for breaking out of jail.

More generally, the go-to example for this being not the case is a paladin in an evil city breaking the laws to free slaves.

Again: irrelevant. His plan required the wholesale massacre of innocent civilians in opposition to the local laws. Yes, ultimately he was aiming to have the authorities detain Elan, but I don't see how that makes the plan Legal. It flaunts the laws for his own Evil plans, where Legal Evil individuals bend them to their needs.

Grey Wolf

Legal Evil is not an alignment. Lawful Evil is, and the lawful alignment only believes in the need for order and structure. At a societal level this comes about via laws, but on an individual level this typically manifests as a code.

And Rich agrees with me, since I know you wont take me at my word. And before you say it, I don't consider him any more of an authority, but you appear to, so I am invoking him.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I could point to the myriad cases where Rich gets the rules wrong because he didn't bother double checking them rather than because he needed them to work differently, but I suspect that would be an exercise in futility.

A myriad, you say? Well, I do not believe you could. Specifically, I want at least three examples of Rich admitting to being wrong when talking about alignment. But you can't provide that, because no such admitting exists. Also, interesting back peddling there. You claimed that Rich had, and I quote, "a very flimsy grasp of 3.5 RAW". I'm not asking for a myriad anything - just find a single post where he admits to having "a very flimsy grasp of 3.5 RAW"

Doesn't matter. Rich makes mistakes. The idea that he needs to cop to every single one in order for it to be a mistake is absurd.

Absurd or not, when he is wrong and he gets called out on being wrong, he admits to it. But he did not admit to being wrong about Nale. He was coy about the fact that Nale doesn't seem to be all that Lawful. Ignoring his words when he has effectively weighted into the topic and not given an answer or -worse- concluding that he is wrong is, sincerely, a ridiculous, baseless position to put yourself in.

Furthermore, Rich is no more an authority on alignment than you or I am, and the fact that he has written a webcomic doesn't change that.

No, what makes him an authority is everything he has written on the topic, and said writings being consistently judged as of much better quality than anything you have written on the topic. Said expertise is further bolstered by his career in WotC, and what he has written into the webcomic. You cannot present anywhere near as good credentials for your expertise.

The idea that Nale is mistaken about his alignment is plausible. The idea that the author could say he behaves radically differently off screen and it would just be true and make sense is not.

Don't you just love the smell of unsupported assertions in the morning? By the same logic, anything you say I can ignore out of hand. In fact, I think in this case I will.

Your specific example was a Lawful Good character actually being true neutral because of actions off screen. Lets look at some actual characters, shall we? If Durkon were to act entirely out of self interest with little regard for any particular guiding philosophy in life you would say that is out of character for him, no? So why does that become not out of character if Rich says it happens off screen?

Strawman. We are not talking about a main character, but a secondary antagonist with barely any screen presence. Every single soldier in the Azure army was seen defending civilization and following orders. Do you really assert that that means every single one was Lawful Good? Because I find such assertion ludicrous in its face.

Also, interesting you went with Durkon on this. The character that is so passive there are good arguments done by random posters that he should be considered Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Good. Who abandoned a woman he impregnated because of his sense of honor. That is who you go to bolster your position that "if they call themselves XY, they are XY". In short: if Rich were to be coy about whether Durkon was in fact, not that G for an LG, I would also strongly consider that a hint that he is in fact LN, just like I think Nale probably is NE despite his protestations.

Roy doesn't consent to follow laws when he disagrees with authority, and indeed doing so is one of his defining moments. Disagreeing with the party leader over killing orcs, defying the laws of Azure City to break out of jail, just... everything about the Empire of Blood, Roy clearly doesn't actually hold the written law of any given land in any particular regard. Heck, even a being of pure law and good finds no issue with "it was an illegitimate authority" being used as an explanation for breaking out of jail.

Yes. So? This still doesn't tell me what your position is. Your thesis requires every Lawful character to ignore the laws they disagree with. Presenting Roy, poster child for "using chaotic methods to further lawful ends" is effectively agreeing with me on this.

More generally, the go-to example for this being not the case is a paladin in an evil city breaking the laws to free slaves.

Again, not seeing your point. Nale does not seem to have a higher code of conduct he follows. He does what he wants, when he wants, to further his objectives. He is not subject to any rules he doesn't impose on himself, and even then he doesn't seem to have any of those either.

Legal Evil is not an alignment. Lawful Evil is, and the lawful alignment only believes in the need for order and structure. At a societal level this comes about via laws, but on an individual level this typically manifests as a code.

So what is Nale's code? Where does he express it? Because this is the guy whose team's motto is (paraphrased) "taking excessive revenge for imagined slights". That's not a Lawful code of conduct.

And Rich agrees with me, since I know you wont take me at my word. And before you say it, I don't consider him any more of an authority, but you appear to, so I am invoking him.

Yes, I am aware of Paladin codes of Conduct. Nale is not a Paladin.

Grey Wolf

[goodpeople25]

I could point to the myriad cases where Rich gets the rules wrong because he didn't bother double checking them rather than because he needed them to work differently, but I suspect that would be an exercise in futility.

Doesn't matter. Rich makes mistakes. The idea that he needs to cop to every single one in order for it to be a mistake is absurd. Furthermore, Rich is no more an authority on alignment than you or I am, and the fact that he has written a webcomic doesn't change that.

How the hell is not double checking rules or making mistakes an indicator of a very flimsy grasp or understanding of RAW? Let alone how the freak that equals self admittance of that. (Also myriad? Really?)

If you want/mean to bring up that Rich makes mistakes, perhaps in regards to the scenario put forth that Grey_Wolf_c or someone else would trust the author over others on RAW matters fine. (And some exaggeration I expect) But the idea that Rich has "a very flimsy grasp of 3.5 RAW" is something I strongly disagree with (going from both my own experiences and your given examples) and frankly it seems a bit out of the blue.

[SilverCacaobean]

Yeah, if the author of the story making a very clear insinuation that Nale didn't exactly live up to his stated alignment is something you "don't find convincing," then absolutely nothing will be convincing to you.

You're wrong, and screw you. If someone were to point to something in the comic which provided solid proof that Nale's assertion of his own LEness was incorrect, I would find that convincing. I don't find someone supporting a poorly-constructed argument convincing, even if that person happens to be writing the comic.
I'm solidly Death-of-the-Author-ey, and you're clearly not. But that's no reason to go around throwing insults like "nothing will be convincing to you".

I don't know about you, but where I'm from "screw you" is a far greater insult than "nothing will be convincing to you". So much so that it's inappropriate and disproportionate to respond to the latter with the former unless you're trying to escalate the situation.

Oh, and I also sense that this is going to be another 50+ page thread... this time about death of the author. I'll just say what I think about that and get out of here before it's too late. I agree with GW's points and while I think that Death of the Author can lead to interesting analysis (especially of older works where we can judge their social norms) I also think that story telling is a form of communication and deliberately ignoring what the writer is trying to say is counterproductive.

[brian 333]

I think the whole Alignment thing is blown out of proportion. It is not a rod with which DMs can beat players into compliance, but a measure by which players can guide their characters' motivations and choices which are presumed to be different from the players'. The Alignment spectrum and its associated penalties was created as a tool to guide role-playing, both by the player, (my character is evil, so he decides to steal that baby's candy,) and the DM, (stealing the baby's candy is a random act having nothing to do with the adventure or the personal goals of the character, and thus deserves a very mild alignment shift toward Chaos. )

Good people often do evil thinking, (hoping,) it will result in a good outcome. Evil people often do good for evil reasons too. There is usually a great deal of justification by the perpetrators to give evil acts a veneer of necessity and a great deal of self promotion by 'philanthropists' who point to their good deeds to excuse their bad behaviors.

People are by far the very worst judges of their own character. Rationalization is the first key in the rewriting of an autobiography. One simply edits the why of an act and voila, evil acts become self sacrifice for a greater cause. But mental gymnastics aside, in the absolute system D&D uses, actions create consequences and the reasons matter far less than the act itself.

Outside of D&D characters people very seldom see themselves as evil. Saruman, from another fantasy adventure series, convinced himself that he could usurp Sauron and end the heretofore endless wars between orcs and men. He thought he could achieve a good end, but he had to play the game to achieve it. You and I know he was being deceived by Sauron, but it is clear in his second to last meeting with Gandalf that he still saw himself as a champion of the West, even though he was well on his way down the road to evil.

Real world examples abound. The dying words of Jim Jones are those of a man who believed he was saving people from Satan as he participated in one of the largest mass murders ever to occur outside of wartime. Ted Bundy and Son Of Sam only killed those they believed deserved it. Every rapist ever said at one point or another that his victims wanted his attention, deserved it, or needed him to show them what a real man can do.

So, whether Nale's alignment reveal was accurate or whether it was a case of self deception, Nale is the worst person to ask about it because as we have repeatedly seen, Nale is a master of rationalization.

And although it's been said already, Lawful alignment doesn't mean "obedient to local law." Paladins are not required to submit to laws passed by a local council of wights, for example, and if they were then the entire Lawful Evil alignment could not exist because it's key tenants are that might makes right and laws are useful tools when properly manipulated to serve ones own ends.

So, let's look at Nale's actions:

Organized and named a group of adventurers for the specific purpose of defeating his brother's team. (Why bother naming a team put together for such a singular purpose? Why so closely mirror the composition of the target team?)

Created a complex and intricate plan which used the legal establishment of a city to disable and defame his brother when he could have just killed him. (Trying to turn his brother to Team Evil against his will.)

Created a complex and intricate plan which he nursed for years to destroy Malack, even to the extent of practice runs against Malack's offspring to perfect his plans. (Most of that time Malack thought little, if at all, about Nale, which means Nale continued to plot for years even though Malack did nothing to reinforce the initial grievance.)

Nale's actions show an organized personality with certain belief in his personal superiority and contempt for any one or any thing else. While Nale may not be completely Lawful, he is at most Neutral with Lawful tendencies. He isn't anywhere characterized in comic as Chaotic.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Tarquin and his first wife (does she have a name?)

First, I'm not sure if we have definitive information that Elan's Mom was Tarquin's first wife.

Second, while no official name has yet been given, there was a forum trend of referring to her as Lena for a time (since it's an anagram based on AELN).

[Kish]

I must say I've always been mildly amused by the contempt many people here seem to have towards Death of the Author. I imagine it is because this author in particular often discussed his own work with us readers, but still, it is a well-established concept in literary criticism and there's no reason why OotS should be above it.

Or maybe it's because those specific people just don't give much weight to the concept, particularly in its common bowlderization as "nothing the author says matters."

"A well-established concept" is not the same as "a rule."

[Fyraltari]

First, I'm not sure if we have definitive information that Elan's Mom was Tarquin's first wife.

We do, actually.

Second, while no official name has yet been given, there was a forum trend of referring to her as Lena for a time (since it's an anagram based on AELN).

I am pretty sure that her lack of name is the joke at this point.

[Kish]

I remember forumites humorously suggesting a third sibling for Elan and Nale named Lena. I don't remember anyone calling their mother that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Or maybe it's because those specific people just don't give much weight to the concept, particularly in its common bowlderization as "nothing the author says matters."

I thought the common bowlderization was "Nothing the author says outside the main text is to be given more weight than what anyone else says about the text".

At any rate, that is the definition I gather lies behind GreatWyrmGold's "I don't believe the author" - i.e. not because nothing Rich says ever matters, but because GWG already has an opinion based on his own reading, and does not believe Rich's words on the matter are any more authoritative than his.

GW

[Jasdoif]

Oh, and I also sense that this is going to be another 50+ page thread... this time about death of the author.

Nah; when this come up in 1066 the thread only ended up at 25 pages.

Or maybe it's because those specific people just don't give much weight to the concept, particularly in its common bowlderization as "nothing the author says matters."

If nothing else, what an author was intending to convey is an excellent starting point for how well the author's approach conveyed it.

That aside, "Death of the Author" does seem to be used to cover a wide range of expression, from "the work should be able to stand on its own, so let's view it that way" to "Anyone disagreeing with me is inherently wrong, including the author"; reducing its usefulness.

[KorvinStarmast]

For starters, Rich has by his own admission a very flimsy grasp of 3.5 RAW.

Rich knows the rules very well, and as any good DM does he uses the rules to serve his campaign (OoTSverse) and the story. He's like Dave Brubeck, famous jazz musician. Brubeck was very good at improvisation, because he is so very good at music and jazz he knows how to "break it" and make it work.

[goodpeople25]

I've seen a few mentions of Lena in regards to Elan's mom in my searching so far. Maybe it was a thing? Not sure, don't know if it ever reached the discussion threads, at least one seemed an isolated comment, and what I could find in the OotS Fourm was no earlier than mid-2014.

[Manty5]

I checked this thread and maybe I missed it, but it doesn't seem that anyone has stated this theory:

Hilgya had a change of heart after Durkon's lecture, and went back to her husband. Her husband got the divorce annulled because she was with the child of another man, so now she can't follow Durkon's advice because of the child, leaving her without any way out... I assume when your profession is "adventurer", it's hard to take care of little ones and still bring in the cash. A variation of this is that she never went back to her husband because she knew that would have been the result anyway.

In this case "murder" would be a euphemism for "give him a piece of her mind for being so sanctimonious" as well as a few well-earned smacks with the mace. Taking moral responsibility for her part in the child's creation would not occur to her.

I'd will note that she's been taking actual responsibility and not dropping the kid off at the local temple or orphanage and would argue this constitutes character growth since the last time we saw her. I think she's going to be a more interesting character than she was. Here's hoping she doesn't have a redshirt under that armor.

[Fyraltari]

Created a complex and intricate plan which used the legal establishment of a city to disable and defame his brother when he could have just killed him. (Trying to turn his brother to Team Evil against his will.)

Sorry, but you've lost me. Even if you don't mean having Elan join Xykon & Co, I don't see when Nle try to turn Elan Evil. Humiliate him, kill him and his allies, yes.

Created a complex and intricate plan which he nursed for years to destroy Malack, even to the extent of practice runs against Malack's offspring to perfect his plans. (Most of that time Malack thought little, if at all, about Nale, which means Nale continued to plot for years even though Malack did nothing to reinforce the initial grievance.)

I don't remember plotting against Malack that much. He killed his children as a test run when he rebelled against dad of the year but apparenty he put that objective on indefinite hold after he ran from the western continent and only came back because he knew of the Draketooth and not of Kraagor. His killing of Malack seemed more like an opportunity grab to me. You can even see him communicate his idea to Z on the spot : "My most hated ennemies", "Not a cloud in the sky". Plus you can't say Malack thought little of Nale : he did put a large bounty on his head. Theonly reason he did not chase after him (100% my guess) is that "business first" policy of the Vector Legion.

Nale's actions show an organized personality with certain belief in his personal superiority and contempt for any one or any thing else. While Nale may not be completely Lawful, he is at most Neutral with Lawful tendencies. He isn't anywhere characterized in comic as Chaotic.

Agreed.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'd will note that she's been taking actual responsibility and not dropping the kid off at the local temple or orphanage and would argue this constitutes character growth since the last time we saw her. I think she's going to be a more interesting character than she was. Here's hoping she doesn't have a redshirt under that armor.

IIRC*, Rich is on record as saying that characters in his story die as a consequence of the choices they make. While I suppose this could include "Hilgya's choice to start thinking of the needs of someone other than herself" leading to sacrificing her life for that of her child... I am hoping it won't come to that, mostly because, in general, Rich tends to kill a character because of the bad choices they made.

On the other hand, I expect Belkar's untimely demise will be due to a good choice on his part, so YMMV.

GW

*Disclaimer: Until Jasdoif finds the relevant quote, this is from vague memory, and there could be subtle details I've forgotten that could render this whole post completely invalid.

[hamishspence]

IIRC*, Rich is on record as saying that characters in his story die as a consequence of the choices they make.

This is the quote you're thinking of:

Choices, not actions. Choices can include inaction, as well as a given viewpoint or a lifestyle. If you live a life of crime, and then die from disease while in jail, then your choices led to your death for our purposes. Accurate foresight into the possible consequences of one's choices is not required; indeed, most commonly, it is absent because if the character was capable of seeing and understanding the true possibilities then they probably wouldn't make that choice. It also does not absolve responsibility from the person who does the killing; that's not the point. The point is, characters don't die from someone jumping out of an alleyway and murdering them for shock value. A character's death is the culmination of their story, and should be handled as such.

Malack dies because his settled comfortable life leads him to both underestimate his enemies and ignore his own vulnerabilities. Roy dies because he is given the chance to back out of a battle that is clearly over his head and he refuses. Durkon dies because he trusted Malack to not mess with his spell research. Zz'dtri dies like he lived, as Nale's loyal follower and without much story of his own. Shojo dies because of a lifetime of lies and deceptions, the most important of which was telling a random orphan girl that she was Special and Chosen. Nale dies because he doesn't recognize the privilege he has been living under his entire life. Crystal dies the first time because she can't help but continue to threaten Haley even as they have a truce, and the second time because she can't help being a sadistic killer. Bozzok dies because he chose not to consider his follower's well-being at all. Tsukikko dies because she can't avoid gloating, and because she trusts the undead. Therkla dies because she won't pick a side.

Character deaths are a function of that character's traits, not random. Their deaths flow logically from their flaws. That's all it means.

with the proviso later in the same thread:

I used the word "flaw" in my previous quote once or twice, but in some characters' cases it's only a flaw because it happened to be what got them killed. "Traits" is a better word, really.

*Disclaimer: Until Jasdoif finds the relevant quote, this is from vague memory, and there could be subtle details I've forgotten that could render this whole post completely invalid.

The previous 3 quotes on the subject, Jasdoif provided, in the same thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...3&postcount=19

[Sylian]

Who abandoned a woman he impregnated because of his sense of honor.

To be fair, Durkon didn't know that she would become pregnant (although perhaps he should have anticipated the risk). He had intercourse with a woman who he thought was single, and once he found out that she was married he told her to go back to her husband (who she, granted, did not wish to be married to). This seems very consistent with Lawful Good to me.

As for Nale: If he had never stated his alignment, I probably would have pegged him as Neutral Evil (and with Rich's comment, it seems quite likely that Nale is Neutral Evil or possibly even Chaotic Evil). Unlike Malack, Tarquin, or even Redcloak, Nale doesn't strike me as very Lawful. It would be interesting to see him as a ruler (perhaps in an alternative universe of sorts) and see how he compares with Tarquin.

[SilverCacaobean]

To be fair, Durkon didn't know that she would become pregnant (although perhaps he should have anticipated the risk). He had intercourse with a woman who he thought was single, and once he found out that she was married he told her to go back to her husband (who she, granted, did not wish to be married to). This seems very consistent with Lawful Good to me.

Lawful, yes, but I'm not seeing any good there.

[JustAnotherSoul]

Along with GW, I find the 'Death of the Author' viewpoint strange. Especially the viewpoint as espoused by some here quite peculiar. Barthes was talking about literary critics ascribing more importance to the person of the Author than the text itself with respect to the meaning of the text:

Once the Author is gone, the claim to "decipher" a text becomes quite useless. To give an Author to a text is to impose upon that text a stop clause, to furnish it with a final signification, to close the writing. This conception perfectly suits criticism, which can then take as its major task the discovery of the Author (or his hypostases: society, history, the psyche, freedom) beneath the work: once the Author is discovered, the text is "explained:' the critic has conquered; hence it is scarcely surprising not only that, historically, the reign of the Author should also have been that of the Critic, but that criticism (even "new criticism") should be overthrown along with the Author. In a multiple writing, indeed, everything is to be distinguished, but nothing deciphered; structure can be followed, "threaded" (like a stocking that has run) in all its recurrences and all its stages, but there is no underlying ground; the space of the writing is to be traversed, not penetrated: writing ceaselessly posits meaning but always in order to evaporate it: it proceeds to a systematic exemption of meaning.

Which doesn't mean that the author is wrong about what he intended. Your interpretation may not be consistent, but that's Barthes point: The value of the text is in the interplay of cultures and ideas which the author gestures to, and we as the reader in our own experience interpret. I mean, it's not quite conducive to discussion to hold that well...

structure can be followed, ... but there is no underlying ground; writing ceaselessly posits meaning but always in order to evaporate it

If you deny the solidity of the meaning of the story which you are trying to discuss, then the most you can say is that "we have different experiences of this writing" and at that point someone saying 'nothing will convince you' is not only not insulting, but is true beyond doubt. When everything is relative to the reader, then no argument is possible. You can't argue that I had a different experience of the text than I did and I can't argue that you had a different experience of the text than you did.

Of course, I may have misinterpreted Barthes and he may have been saying something stronger... and well then... I agree more Death of the Author as understood here than I thought

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To be fair, Durkon didn't know that she would become pregnant (although perhaps he should have anticipated the risk). He had intercourse with a woman who he thought was single, and once he found out that she was married he told her to go back to her husband (who she, granted, did not wish to be married to). This seems very consistent with Lawful Good to me.

To be clear, I don't have an opinion on this. As I said, I have seen good arguments that ignoring the possibility of pregnancy is not something a Good character does, but while I see that it is a good argument, I'm not convinced by it. In any case, I would say that sending her back to her husband is neither Good nor Evil nor GE-Neutral, but Lawful. "Them's the rules, you follow them".

The previous 3 quotes on the subject, Jasdoif provided, in the same thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...3&postcount=19

Thanks, hamishpence. I believe the exact quote matches my recollection well enough that I don't need to to change my position.

Grey Wolf

[SilverCacaobean]

To be clear, I don't have an opinion on this. As I said, I have seen good arguments that ignoring the possibility of pregnancy is not something a Good character does, but while I see that it is a good argument, I'm not convinced by it. In any case, I would say that sending her back to her husband is neither Good nor Evil nor GE-Neutral, but Lawful. "Them's the rules, you follow them".

It's not just the pregnancy. Don't forget that Durkon knew nothing about Ivan except what Hylgia told him. So, she told him was that he was abusive and he told her to go back to him.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm going to say I find it unlikely that a guy who co-authored several WotC published 3.5 D&D books doesn't know the 3.5 rules well. Very, very, very unlikely.

As in, it's more likely that Rich Burlew is the father of Hilgya's child than it is that Rich Burlew doesn't know the rules. And yes, I know what an editing mess the 3.5 rule books are.

https://www.amazon.com/Dungeonscape-...ds=rich+burlew
https://www.amazon.com/Artifacts-Dun...ds=rich+burlew
https://www.amazon.com/Eberron-Explo...ds=rich+burlew
https://www.amazon.com/Monster-Manua...ds=rich+burlew

Now, not caring about the rules because story is more important? I think that happens fairly often. For example, when the MitD knocks Miko and her mount through the walls of a castle, cartoon-style, while trying to hit as lightly as he can, and hits with sufficient force that they fly completely out of sight of the castle (miles away) - well, that's rule of funny and showing how insanely strong MitD is. Rich didn't calculate whether or not the combination of the damage from being blasted through a stone wall and falling damage would kill Miko or her mount; nor did he calculate what the necessary strength score for MitD would be to accomplish that. He obeyed Rule of Funny and told the story he wanted to tell, and the D&D 3.5 rules didn't really enter into the scene. The denizens of the MitD threads calculate this at great length, being nerds (a term I use with great affection), but I very much doubt Mr. Burlew has done so.