Class and Level Geekery XV - What's the Damage of a Thrown Pineapple?

[b_jonas]

As for Greg's extra level, is it possible that he's advanced a level from roleplaying XP? Wait, hear me out and laugh at me only after that.

Greg becoming a vampire, choosing to worship Hel, and following Hel's big plan to end the world has served as setting up a very significant plot arc. Enabling an entire book's worth of plot should be a task that's difficult enough for an epic level character. In book 2, Shojo was responsible for the main plot by dragging the Order into Azure city for a fake trial; in book 3 it was Xykon and Redcloak by attacking Azure City, capturing it but losing the chance to acquire a gate, killing Roy and splitting the Order; in book 4 it was Haley meeting her past in Greysky city, and Vaarsuvius by acquiring complete and total ultimate arcane power by a pact with the fiends, rifting apart from her mate, and attacking Xykon (although she won't get XP for any of this); in book 5 the pivotal character was clearly Tarquin who set up an evil empire and the ultimate fate for Elan to topple that empire, although Redcloak can also get some credit for revealing the Dark One's plan. As for book 6, the Giant has told us clearly (after #1015) that Durkon's vampirization is the main plot now, so I think Greg has a similar pivotal role in this book.

The reason that this scene is not the climactic pay-off that everyone seems to be looking for is because this is not the climax of this story. This is the beginning of this story. The point of this scene was to elucidate the stakes for the rest of this plotline and set up the conflict, so complaining that it does not resolve said conflict is completely missing the point.

This is the equivalent of the scene where Tarquin stands on the balcony and tells Elan about how he's schemed to bring three nations under his control and how they're going to have a great duel someday, and Elan looks on in horror at the giant flaming letters. Which, if you'll remember, occurred one-third of the way through the last book, about where we are now. In both cases, the point of the scene was to get the heroes on board with the conflict that would form the main body of the book. Because, as I intimated in the main discussion thread: This "Durkon stuff" is the main plot. If the only plotline that matters to you is what happens with Xykon, then yes, I would expect that the next year or two are going to be rough for you. But there's a long ways to go on this book, and it will have direct and unskippable ramifications on everything that will happen in the final book. The plot of OOTS is saving the world, and the world needs saving in this way right now.

This is something that could be worth a level even with the vampire level adjustment. Either that, or he's just getting free levels as a nemesis, but I personally don't think he clarifies for that.

[Douglas]

This is something that could be worth a level even with the vampire level adjustment. Either that, or he's just getting free levels as a nemesis, but I personally don't think he clarifies for that.

Worth 1 level? Maybe. Worth 9 levels? I really really doubt it.

Greg leveling up after becoming a vampire would require earning enough xp, not just to gain a level, but also to pay for the 8 levels' worth of adjustment he got from the Vampire template. It's not the difference between level 14 and level 15 that's hard to explain, or the difference between level 22 and level 23. The problem is that the actually relevant difference is between level 14 and level 23.

The only reasonable explanations I can think of, which I believe I've already posted here, are "Rich is ignoring that part of the rules" and "Durkon leveled up between casting Holy Word and dying."

[unbeliever536]

The only reasonable explanations I can think of, which I believe I've already posted here, are "Rich is ignoring that part of the rules" and "Durkon leveled up between casting Holy Word and dying."

Advancing Belkar (and Nale) an additional level actually clears up the "where did Belkar's implied Favored Enemy (Undead) come from?" question quite nicely, since it gives him Ranger 15, which provides a new Favored Enemy. Belkar and Durkon leveling up from the first Linear Guild fight* seems fairly reasonable, since we have reason to believe that they were ahead of Roy, and he also leveled up at some point during the Very Long Day. As I recall the only reason our minimum for Belkar is 15 is that it's tied to Durkon's 14 at the time of the Holy Word.

* Durkon's level 15 has to be during the first Linear Guild fight if it has an effect on our estimate of Belkar's level, since Durkon did not have access to 8th level spells when he prepared for Pyramid Day and the Holy Word fight is the second battle of the day.

[Jasdoif]

Greg leveling up after becoming a vampire would require earning enough xp, not just to gain a level, but also to pay for the 8 levels' worth of adjustment he got from the Vampire template.

I don't think so, actually. According to the DMG, experience is tied to ECL; if HPoH has all Durkon's cleric levels, he has enough XP to account for those cleric levels and the level adjustment. If HPoH has the same XP as Durkon had, he'd be down eight cleric levels to account for the +8 level adjustment (the type of approach recommended for players somehow acquiring the half-fiend template in a Monster Manual web enhancement).

[Douglas]

I don't think so, actually. According to the Monster Manual, experience is tied to ECL; if HPoH has all Durkon's cleric levels, he has enough XP to account for those cleric levels and the level adjustment. If HPoH has the same XP as Durkon had, he'd be down eight cleric levels to account for the +8 level adjustment (the type of approach recommended for players somehow acquiring the half-fiend template in a Monster Manual web enhancement).

I am not aware of any actual rule in either 3e or 3.5 that says your class level ever decreases for any reason other than either level drain or death and resurrection. I can't find anything in the Monster Manual and DMG that directly addresses what happens to level and/or experience when a template with level adjustment is acquired during play. The only rulebook I've found that does say anything on the subject is Savage Species, which gives an example of a level 5 character becoming a wererat. That example has the character keep her existing 5 class levels and 10,000 xp, and require earning enough xp to - from that point - reach the xp total for her new ECL before leveling up again.

[Jasdoif]

I am not aware of any actual rule in either 3e or 3.5 that says your class level ever decreases for any reason other than either level drain or death and resurrection. I can't find anything in the Monster Manual and DMG that directly addresses what happens to level and/or experience when a template with level adjustment is acquired during play. The only rulebook I've found that does say anything on the subject is Savage Species, which gives an example of a level 5 character becoming a wererat. That example has the character keep her existing 5 class levels and 10,000 xp, and require earning enough xp to - from that point - reach the xp total for her new ECL before leveling up again.

Hmm....That is what Savage Species says, never noticed that before.

Meanwhile, the DMG and Monster Manual both say a character's experience (and how much experience a character needs to gain a level) is based on its ECL, with the Monster Manual going as far as saying a monster character is considered to have XP "needed to be a character of its ECL". True, there's no direct mention of acquiring a level-adjusting template in play...which means there's no exception to the experience-ECL relationship when acquiring a level-adjusting template in play.

As Savage Species is a 3.0 book, I'm...not especially moved by it when compared to two 3.5 core books.

[Douglas]

DMG page 172:

Use ECL instead of character level when referring to Table 3-2: Experience and Level-Dependent Benefits in the Player's Handbook to determine how many experience points a monster character needs to reach its next level.

PHB page 22:

XP: This column on Table 3-2 shows the experience point total needed to attain a given character level - that is, the total of all the character's level in classes.

MM page 290:

Level Adjustment and Effective Character Level: To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels. The monster is considered to have experience points equal to the minimum needed to be a character of its ECL.

The DMG and PHB quotes both talk about how much xp is required to advance to a particular level. They do not mention anything about level, effective or otherwise, having any effect on xp.

The MM quote, if taken strictly literally, would mean Greg's xp is permanently fixed and can never increase. In context, the section is about creating a new monster character, and the only part of it relevant to leveling up is a reiteration of the DMG statement that ECL determines how much xp is required to advance.

I am not aware of any statement in any of these three books that ECL affects xp during play rather than the other way around, or that they are kept in sync by any mechanic other than gains in xp causing advancement in level and loss in level causing reduction in xp, neither of which support your position. Do you have a relevant quote that I missed?

[MesiDoomstalker]

Hmm....That is what Savage Species says, never noticed that before.

Meanwhile, the DMG and Monster Manual both say a character's experience (and how much experience a character needs to gain a level) is based on its ECL, with the Monster Manual going as far as saying a monster character is considered to have XP "needed to be a character of its ECL". True, there's no direct mention of acquiring a level-adjusting template in play...which means there's no exception to the experience-ECL relationship when acquiring a level-adjusting template in play.

As Savage Species is a 3.0 book, I'm...not especially moved by it when compared to two 3.5 core books.

Even if Durkon* went straight to the EXP of ECL 22, that still doesn't explain how he gained a level in such a short period of time for such a high level character.

[Jasdoif]

MM page 290:

Level Adjustment and Effective Character Level: To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels. The monster is considered to have experience points equal to the minimum needed to be a character of its ECL.

....
The MM quote, if taken strictly literally, would mean Greg's xp is permanently fixed and can never increase. In context, the section is about creating a new monster character, and the only part of it relevant to leveling up is a reiteration of the DMG statement that ECL determines how much xp is required to advance.

The section is on the first page of the chapter for improving monsters. I'd think the context is about monster characters advancing. Which, in retrospect, makes the "minimum needed" part make a lot more sense, if it's only done when advancement occurs...which (as the same page says) can be done by adding class levels, hit dice, or a template. And since there's only one way to add a template to a stat block (unlike a character acquiring enough XP to gain a class level, compared to the DM simply adding class levels onto a character), I don't see why a creature gaining a template during play would have a different XP determination than the exact same creature gaining a template prior to play.

(What I really want to know is why experience when acquiring a template wasn't directly mentioned under applying a template. I get that only creatures with class levels have XP in any meaningful way, so the XP being mentioned under the "Monsters and Class Levels" heading makes sense....But they obviously knew acquired templates existed, that level adjustment is meant for characters to be played, and that playable characters have XP; and it's certainly not a straightforward question, as this entire series of posts shows....)

[Douglas]

The section is on the first page of the chapter for improving monsters. I'd think the context is about monster characters advancing.

The first paragraph of the chapter is:

Each of the monster entries in Chapters 1 through 3 describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster. These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template (a half-dragon lammasu, for example) to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels.

That seems pretty clear to me that it means "improving" in the sense of a DM going "I want McSpecial MonsterGuy, who I am creating for the first time right now, to be an improved version of his race."

Which, in retrospect, makes the "minimum needed" part make a lot more sense, if it's only done when advancement occurs...which (as the same page says) can be done by adding class levels, hit dice, or a template. And since there's only one way to add a template to a stat block (unlike a character acquiring enough XP to gain a class level, compared to the DM simply adding class levels onto a character), I don't see why a creature gaining a template during play would have a different XP determination than the exact same creature gaining a template prior to play.

Because the context of the "XP determination" rule in question is that of creating a new creature, and is answering the question of "I have a monster of ECL Y, how much XP does it have?" There's an implicit assumption there that the monster in question does not already have a known XP total.

[5a Violista]

It definitely doesn't happen during the fight. He definitely has time while or before lying down, though, if he is aware of when the Order is going to exit the temple, which could be as simple as a listen check to hear their shouted-to-the-world plans.

I found more evidence that makes casting-while-lying-down highly unlikely:

(1) There are (at minimum, pages 1100-1102) 15 parallel-dwarf-corpse-distances between Brother Sandstone and the dwarves that Hilgya turned (and likely much more than 20; 15 is just where I stopped counting). Since they're roughly in a line with some space between them, and the average dwarf height of 4ft, there's at least 60ft between Brother Sandstone and the four dwarves. 60ft is the range of Bolster Undead. Even if they ran instead of walked (as the panels show), The Order of the Stick would take more than 1 turn just running past the dead dwarves, pushing the time limit that much closer to the 1-min expiration time.
(2) Not to mention, page 1101 last panel shows that the tunnel turns a corner, meaning there's no way Brother Sandstone had line-of-sight with the majority of the dwarves, and Brother Sandstone was at least 20ft away from the corner (which is a move action for him to get back to pretending-to-be-a-corpse, if we go by the most conservative estimates). Not to mention, the farther he gets from the door, the higher the listen penalty is (the most generous and conservative assumptions would give him a +8 penalty to Listen just to have line-of-sight with the dwarves that Hilgya turned).
(3) Even if Brother Sandstone moved to a position where he had line-of-sight, he would have had to use his standard action of a Bolster Undead on 20 (conservative estimate) to 26+ (realistic estimate) vampire spawns in order reach the four that Hilgya turned...and it could easily be argued that casting "Bolster Undead" would merit a +5 "Listener Distracted" Listen penalty. (It could also be argued that the door merit something closer to the +15 "through a stone wall" penalty instead of the +5 "through a door" normal penalty, which assumes a normal door and not a magically-enforced dwarven door, but that might be a little overdoing it). Plus, for every 3-5 dwarf corpses (depending on dwarf corpse packing) he has to pass in order for his Bolster to reach the four that Hilgya turned, there's another +1 Listen penalty and another move action he has to spend before sprinting back towards the door (before the Order opens the door, because if he's too slow, then the pretend-to-be-a-corpse plan is completely ruined).

So, in sum: he needs to make 1 (or more, to Bolster the other spawn) standard actions and 2-4+ move actions and succeed at a Listen Check with a DC that's anywhere between 15 and 28+ just to get back to pretending to be a corpse in time, putting the whole plan at risk, if he wants to Bolster for one minute the four spawns that Hilgya turned most likely (if you don't treat conversations as free actions and if you treat the beat panels as the Order waiting) well over a minute later.

An argument could be made that one of the other dwarves was actually a vampire with cleric levels and that vampire was Bolstering off-screen or while lying down, but Brother Sandstone doing it just doesn't make sense, given the distances involved.

[Quartz]

Surely the simplest explanation for Durkon now being level 15 is that Durkon was nearly at level 15 and the post-vampirisation activities pushed him past?

Remember that a 15th level character is CR 15 for a party of four 15th level characters, and thus a much higher CR for a single character. +4, I think. So Durkon's fight against Roy was CR 18 or 19. He'd get plenty of XP from that. Then there's Durkon's off-panel fight against the dwarven priests.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Surely the simplest explanation for Durkon now being level 15 is that Durkon was nearly at level 15 and the post-vampirisation activities pushed him past?

Remember that a 15th level character is CR 15 for a party of four 15th level characters, and thus a much higher CR for a single character. +4, I think. So Durkon's fight against Roy was CR 18 or 19. He'd get plenty of XP from that. Then there's Durkon's off-panel fight against the dwarven priests.

Greg wasn't a ~15th level character post-vampirization. The moment Durkon was taken over by a vampire he had an effective level of +8 due to the vampire template. So his one-on-one with Roy was a 20-something character versus a 15th level fighter. He gained vanishingly little experience from that, if any. And the priests where likely not as high level as Roy.

And if Douglas' interpretation of the rules is correct (and I'm inclined to believe they are), that means Greg needs enough XP to level up to ~23. Even if Durkon was 1 XP away from his next level up, Greg can't have crossed over the threshold.

GW

[Hecuba]

And the priests where likely not as high level as Roy.

The Priests might provide an some XP, but I doubt its enough.

While I doubt that the majority of the Creed of Stone would be high enough level, some of them might: Norkrud only engaged, after all, after learning that Sandstone had already spent all of his high level slots for the day.

Additionally, the High Priest of Thor did technically participate in the fight between Durkon and Roy right at the end. If we peg the high priests as having similar level to Red Cloak - 17+ - then it becomes a fight between a lvl 22 character and 1 level 15 character and 1 level 17 character. Which is marginally more meaningful. If we peg Brother Sandstone as also having similar level to the high priests, then he could have gotten some there as well.

But that still likely won't be enough to get a single level. And even if it were, it would require the presumption of the free XP from template shenanigans (which I don't think works, otherwise I expect there'd be a stupid TO loop involving repeatedly acquiring and being cured of lycanthropy for free XP - and no such loop comes to mind).

It seems overwhelmingly more likely that Durkon leveled in the Pyramid before dying: the Holy Word fight and the fight at the temple steps seem much better candidates.

[b_jonas]

Worth 1 level? Maybe. Worth 9 levels? I really really doubt it.

Greg leveling up after becoming a vampire would require earning enough xp, not just to gain a level, but also to pay for the 8 levels' worth of adjustment he got from the Vampire template. It's not the difference between level 14 and level 15 that's hard to explain, or the difference between level 22 and level 23. The problem is that the actually relevant difference is between level 14 and level 23.

So later posts explain geekery is unsure on what the rules are. I can't really help there. If what Douglas says here is really how the leveling rules work in 3.5, then my suggestion wouldn't work. I assumed that Greg only had had to collect enough experience for what would be one level of jump for a level 22 dwarf.

[Jasdoif]

That seems pretty clear to me that it means "improving" in the sense of a DM going "I want McSpecial MonsterGuy, who I am creating for the first time right now, to be an improved version of his race."

That would be far easier to accept if acquired templates, which "can be added to creatures to anytime", weren't covered in the same chapter (the Template section starts on the very next page, even). Or if they were called out differently than inherited templates in some mechanical fashion.

Because the context of the "XP determination" rule in question is that of creating a new creature, and is answering the question of "I have a monster of ECL Y, how much XP does it have?" There's an implicit assumption there that the monster in question does not already have a known XP total.

That seems an odd assumption to assume is there. "This creature's ECL changed outside the standard leveling process, how much XP does it have now" seems an equally valid question to ask, and one that doesn't involve an unstated "the XP doesn't change if you already glanced at the number" uncertainty principle clause. Again, acquired templates are meant to be added to creatures at any time, and aren't treated specially in the paragraph talking about ECL and XP. (I will admit to being amused at the idea of a type of Inevitable that hunt down and punish acquired-template-bearing monsters that are overleveled for the XP they've gained, but that's...not especially relevant.)

And if Douglas' interpretation of the rules is correct (and I'm inclined to believe they are), that means Greg needs enough XP to level up to ~23. Even if Durkon was 1 XP away from his next level up, Greg can't have crossed over the threshold.

And in my interpretation, HPoH would be set to the minimum XP needed to be ECL 22 when he arose, regardless of how close Durkon was to 15. Getting 22,000XP is certainly easier to imagine than getting 148,001XP; but still well out of "simple explanation" territory.

[Ephemera]

I hesitate to delve in these matters because it treads pretty close to assuming that RAW isn’t in effect. But I’m not entirely certain that Greg is just Durkon with a template applied as far as XP goes.

It seems just as likely, if there were a player involved, that the DM has taken control of the character. That part doesn’t matter, of course, except that I think you could make some case that Greg is his own person with his own XP, and that he’s 8 levels (or ECLs) higher than Durkon. If and when Durkon is rezzed, he’s almost certainly coming back where he was (minus appropriate penalty), regardless of how much XP Greg does or doesn’t gain in the meantime.

I guess what I’m saying is that whatever the rule is for PC’s acquiring templates, it’s not apparent to me that it actually pertains in this instance...

[unbeliever536]

I hesitate to delve in these matters because it treads pretty close to assuming that RAW isn’t in effect. But I’m not entirely certain that Greg is just Durkon with a template applied as far as XP goes.

It seems just as likely, if there were a player involved, that the DM has taken control of the character. That part doesn’t matter, of course, except that I think you could make some case that Greg is his own person with his own XP, and that he’s 8 levels (or ECLs) higher than Durkon. If and when Durkon is rezzed, he’s almost certainly coming back where he was (minus appropriate penalty), regardless of how much XP Greg does or doesn’t gain in the meantime.

I guess what I’m saying is that whatever the rule is for PC’s acquiring templates, it’s not apparent to me that it actually pertains in this instance...

Why shouldn't Durkon gain experience for the damage he's dealt to Greg's plan?

[Gift Jeraff]

Perhaps we should change Malack being a "lizardfolk" to "lizard-snake-thing"?

[knag]

In #1113, Hilgya seems to think if she dies with honor (through the Loki Loophole) she would end up in Valhalla, in Ysgard the plane of Chaotic Good/Chaotic Neutral. This to me shows that the accepted view of her alignment as non-lawful Evil is not right, a view which has become more problematic since her undead turning.

Since she believes as a faithful cleric of Loki she would end up in Ysgard, this tells me that:
1) Loki resides in Ysgard, and therefore Loki is not Evil
2) She believes herself to be Chaotic Neutral (or Good).

Her current alignment listing is based on two facts, as far as I can tell, that Loki is Chaotic, so she must be non-lawful, and the the Linear Guild are "Evil Opposites" of the OOTS. Certainly the former is true, but we have more specific information since she created anarchic water, and I think that too much has been read into the latter term, blinding us to the facts of her actions.

The fact that she can turn undead and create anarchic water, given the assumption of RAW, means that both she and Loki are Neutral, and that she personally is Chaotic Neutral. She should in my opinion be listed as Chaotic Neutral.

[Ephemera]

In #1113, Hilgya seems to think if she dies with honor (through the Loki Loophole) she would end up in Valhalla, in Ysgard the plane of Chaotic Good/Chaotic Neutral. This to me shows that the accepted view of her alignment as non-lawful Evil is not right, a view which has become more problematic since her undead turning.

Since she believes as a faithful cleric of Loki she would end up in Ysgard, this tells me that:
1) Loki resides in Ysgard, and therefore Loki is not Evil
2) She believes herself to be Chaotic Neutral (or Good).

The rest of what she's saying, though, is that OOtS Dwarves aren't like humans (who wind up in the plane corresponding with their alignment. I think that's sufficient evidence to conclude that OOtS dwarves don't go to a plane that corresponds to their alignment, but rather go to Hel's domain if they die a dishonorable death and to Valhalla otherwise, in spite of said Dwarves presumably having a variety of alignments. Hence, I don't think we can conclude anything in particular about her alignment based on what plane she expects to go to.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In #1113, Hilgya seems to think if she dies with honor (through the Loki Loophole) she would end up in Valhalla, in Ysgard the plane of Chaotic Good/Chaotic Neutral. This to me shows that the accepted view of her alignment as non-lawful Evil is not right, a view which has become more problematic since her undead turning.

Since she believes as a faithful cleric of Loki she would end up in Ysgard, this tells me that:
1) Loki resides in Ysgard, and therefore Loki is not Evil
2) She believes herself to be Chaotic Neutral (or Good).

Her current alignment listing is based on two facts, as far as I can tell, that Loki is Chaotic, so she must be non-lawful, and the the Linear Guild are "Evil Opposites" of the OOTS. Certainly the former is true, but we have more specific information since she created anarchic water, and I think that too much has been read into the latter term, blinding us to the facts of her actions.

The fact that she can turn undead and create anarchic water, given the assumption of RAW, means that both she and Loki are Neutral, and that she personally is Chaotic Neutral. She should in my opinion be listed as Chaotic Neutral.

You are basing this on the idea that a soul must go to the plane that matches their alignment. #1113 actually says that that is not the case for dwarves. It seems all they can do is either go to Hel, or go to Valhalla. Alignment does not come into it at all.

As far as I know, her current alignment is based on the fact that in Dorukan's dungeon she was Evil as per WoG, and we assume continuity until such time as we see evidence against it.

GW

[Jasdoif]

You are basing this on the idea that a soul must go to the plane that matches their alignment. #1113 actually says that that is not the case for dwarves. It seems all they can do is either go to Hel, or go to Valhalla. Alignment does not come into it at all.

#737 says dwarves that die with honor go to the Outer Plane that matches their alignment, though.

I'm not entirely convinced Valhalla is part of Ysgard, either; I understand in earlier editions Valhalla was one of Ysgard's layers, but the DMG for 3.5 doesn't list it among Ysgard's layers (and the only location reference for Valhalla in 3.x I've stumbled across is in Deities and Demigods' alternate Norse-based cosmology, which doesn't map one-to-one with the Great Wheel).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

#737 says dwarves that die with honor go to the Outer Plane that matches their alignment, though.

Good point. Still, unless the bottle-service upper floor is in a different plane from the general Valhalla, we are still looking at a contradiction. It is difficult to say who, then, is wrong about it, whether Durkon or Hilgya. I'd suspect Hilgya, whose approach to reality is very much coloured through her own preconceptions and assumptions, but on the other hand, Durkon has not exactly invested heavily in Knowledge(Religion).

Grey Wolf

[Aquillion]

Good point. Still, unless the bottle-service upper floor is in a different plane from the general Valhalla, we are still looking at a contradiction. It is difficult to say who, then, is wrong about it, whether Durkon or Hilgya. I'd suspect Hilgya, whose approach to reality is very much coloured through her own preconceptions and assumptions, but on the other hand, Durkon has not exactly invested heavily in Knowledge(Religion).

I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction. Hilgya says "you have to be honorable or you end up with Hel" - she doesn't say you don't end up in the plane for your alignment, just that honorableness is required first. That's what pisses her off.

I think that unless we get something that says otherwise, this more or less establishes that her alignment is CN (or at least that she thinks of herself as CN.) She thinks she'll go to a CN / CG afterlife, and if she were CG she couldn't worship Loki.* Hence, she's CN.

Is there any reason she couldn't be CN, anyway? Any problems with that? Because if we accept that, there's no contradictions at all. And if we're going to get into "maybe characters are wrong about their concrete statements regarding their own alignment or the setting metaphysics" (without any specific reason to doubt them, that is), then the whole geekery thread is going to fall apart, since huge parts of it depend on trusting those statements. So I'd say we should list her as CN until / unless we have something that directly contradicts that (or which gives us a reason to think she was wrong about her afterlife, or that afterlives do actually work differently than described.)


* Unless Loki is CN, I know. My reading of the discussion over how much Loki hates undead was that it established that he's an evil god that grants turning, since IIRC we have cites for him being evil.

[Reboot]

Is there any reason she couldn't be CN, anyway? Any problems with that? Because if we accept that, there's no contradictions at all.

One - there's an offhand remark by Rich in the book commentary for the Cliffport LG fight that she was evil, while comparing her to Leaky.

Of course, that was some time (and a kid) ago. And it's not as if the Giant has never retconned alignments (hai V). But still there.

[5a Violista]

Of course, if she was confirmed to be evil in the past and evidence suggests she's neutral now, "She changed alignments during the time off-screen" is a valid possibility.

I personally find her changing alignment offscreen to be somewhat unsatisfying, unless we get some sort of flashback/acknowledgement/etc in the near future. Her statement on this page doesn't give the vibe of "I used to not qualify for Valhalla due to my alignment but I changed it" but instead suggests that she always expected her plan to work out for her, even in the past when she was Word-of-God-confirmed Evil.

So, I suspect something else is at play - either dwarves end up with either Hel or in Valhalla, or the fact that she's a cleric lets her hang out in the same afterlife as Loki regardless of alignment, or she's been retconned to have been evil-leaning Neutral, or that she was evil but not Evil, or...any other similar possibility.

[Aeson]

One - there's an offhand remark by Rich in the book commentary for the Cliffport LG fight that she was evil, while comparing her to Leaky.

She attempted to murder her husband, and her stated reason for showing up at the Temple of Thor is to help someone murder Durkon Thundershield. I will grant that she does not appear to have voluntarily wed her husband and that she has understandable reasons to be upset with Durkon, but I don't think that murder is justifiable in either case.

Now, her stated reason for being outside the Temple of Thor might be exaggeration, much like "I'm going to kill him" or "I'm going to rake him over the coals," and therefore not be admissible as evidence for an Evil alignment. However, her attempted murder of her husband is far less excusable given what we're actually shown of how he treated her (as opposed to how she claims he treated her). Being unhappily married is grounds for a divorce, or perhaps 'merely' separation in a culture which does not recognize divorce or which only recognizes divorce under specific circumstances, but even assuming an extremely divorce-intolerant culture I find it difficult to rationalize resorting to murder to end the marriage as consistent with a non-Evil alignment, especially when the spouse is as inoffensive - and potentially unaware of his partner's unhappiness - as Hilgya's husband appeared to be from what little we were shown of him. Hilgya's attempt to murder her husband looks a lot more like a way to avoid social stigma resulting from a divorce or to retain some material advantage (either for herself or for her clan) which would be lost if the marriage were to end in a divorce than like the only way she can get out of a relationship that she cannot stand.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction. Hilgya says "you have to be honorable or you end up with Hel" - she doesn't say you don't end up in the plane for your alignment, just that honorableness is required first. That's what pisses her off.

The contradiction remains: she says that she (as CE or CN) would end up in Valhalla with all the dwarves that are LG. That cannot be the case if Durkon is right, and dwarves do go to the plane or their alignment.

GW

[hamishspence]

The contradiction remains: she says that she (as CE or CN) would end up in Valhalla with all the dwarves that are LG. That cannot be the case if Durkon is right, and dwarves do go to the plane or their alignment.

GW

Valhalla is not the LG plane though - it's the CN (with very mild Good tendencies) plane.

I could see Durkon being slated for Valhalla, not because of his alignment, but because of his deity - if Thor is "CG but allows LG clerics" - then, per Complete Divine, as an extremely devoted follower of a deity, "deity's realm afterlife" overrides "afterlife appropriate for alignment".

In the intro to Blood Runs In The Family, Durkon explains why he wants to go to Valhalla despite not being CG - it gives him a chance to "cut loose and have fun" - that living the ultra-LG live, doesn't give.

It's possible that most LG dwarves who "hope for Valhalla" are fervent worshippers of deities that choose to reside there regardless of their actual alignments.