Belkar's Alignment

[Prinygod]

Fear of death? Please. At this point we are SO used to undead of all kind that they aren't really fearful anymore. At least not fearful because of the reason that they are undead.
Consider vampires. They are teenage romantic fantasy now.
Because no one is buying the "living after being dead is evil because it is unnatural" anymore. In fact, when modern audience meet the various kind of undead, it is often "Hey, that's another way to become functionally immortal. What is the price this time? Grey skin? I guess I would do that!"

The Giant actually does a decent job painting vampirism in a bad way (what with acutal Durkon being trapped inside the vampire, tortured for all eternity if he isn't freed).
Most examples don't go so far.
Consider Xykon: Why is it Evil being a Lich? I sincerly have no idea. He is immortal, has extra powers and doesn't need to sleep. Imagine all the Good he could do? Nothing inherently evil in being "undead".

No, "undead" these days is just another word for "living, but with extra powers", for various intents on purposes. I would say that today, it is the burden of an author to explain why being an undead is automatically evil in their works.

Yeah if only the comic was based on a prior work with a set of rules and explanations, that we could look at, wouldn't that be nice? Maybe something that said that the ritual to create lich's is so evil that only the truly evil and mad would carry it out. Or that the undead are an antithesis to life, that the act of creating them is so evil that good gods won't even let their clerics do it. I petition rich to dedicate the next hundred comics, to iron out any details not covered in the previous 1000.

[The Pilgrim]

Consider Xykon: Why is it Evil being a Lich? I sincerly have no idea. He is immortal, has extra powers and doesn't need to sleep. Imagine all the Good he could do? Nothing inherently evil in being "undead".

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die. And that is not a subjective valoration from my part, it is something actually and repeatedly stated in the Comic.

Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.

It is not how it is shown to be in this Comic, though.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die.

Indeed. The only real way in which being a lich made him more cruel was by denying him some of the last remaining pleasures of the flesh he was still partaking: he hadn't been able to have sex for some time due to advancing age, but he still enjoyed coffee to the end. But as a lich, he can't have coffee. Or sex.

In many ways, it reminds me of the evolution towards greater evil of Otha in Elenium: we are told of how he started as a moderately cruel and petty individual, and with infinite power, he used it as one imagines a petty, cruel teenager might. But centuries of boredom removed all other pleasures from his life other than inflicting pain on others. For Xykon it wasn't time, but lichdom. But the negative energy wasn't responsible (vampires, after all, still seem quite capable of enjoying other avenues).

Oh, and we can't forget that negative energy is as bad for life as positive energy. It is not evil because it is anathema to living beings, unless we want to label positive energy the same, since they both kill you if you are exposed to them.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die. And that is not a subjective valoration from my part, it is something actually and repeatedly stated in the Comic.

Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.

It is not how it is shown to be in this Comic, though.

I think that is more a result of Xykon, than lichdom the way it is portrayed in the comic. For instance, were I a lich, I could still be on this forum, play violin, play games, do really anything that doesn't require flesh. The tradeoff is, wearing gloves to avoid harming people accidently, and not eating or drinking. Also, not needing to sleep would be amazing and totally make up for it.

[Peelee]

I think that is more a result of Xykon, than lichdom the way it is portrayed in the comic.

It appears not everyone agrees with your analysis.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness, p.60

Show

No. I can't. I might have done some evil things in my life, but I cannot give up on my humanity so easily. Such a path would lead to a irredeemable state of utter depravity, and that is a step farther than I am willing to go.

Pffft! No! I'm just screwing with you. C'mon, let's get undead.

[Kish]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Xykon didn't know the difference between a lich and a leech until proto-Redcloak explained it to him, and Knowledge (Religion) is the kind of cross-class that goes with "no sign of any interest in" for him, so I wouldn't put too much weight on his theorizing, and any is too much.

By the same token, Xykon was a passive participant in his transformation into a lich and Redcloak wasn't in a position to commit any atrocities during the lichdom process except insofar as killing Xykon was one--well, he could have sacrificed his fellow goblin prisoners, but he didn't, or not as part of the lichdom ritual anyway. I see no ambiguity that no "you have to do something unspeakable we're going to wink-wink nudge-nudge about and not spell out" rules are being upheld in OotS.

Redcloak's brother's description of Lich Xykon as having become substantially worse and lost all interests except watching people die is a much better case.

[Peelee]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Xykon didn't know the difference between a lich and a leech until proto-Redcloak explained it to him, and Knowledge (Religion) is the kind of cross-class that goes with "no sign of any interest in" for him, so I wouldn't put too much weight on his theorizing, and any is too much.

By the same token, Xykon was a passive participant in his transformation into a lich and Redcloak wasn't in a position to commit any atrocities during the lichdom process except insofar as killing Xykon was one--well, he could have sacrificed his fellow goblin prisoners, but he didn't, or not as part of the lichdom ritual anyway. I see no ambiguity that no "you have to do something unspeakable we're going to wink-wink nudge-nudge about and not spell out" rules are being upheld in OotS.

Redcloak's brother's description of Lich Xykon as having become substantially worse and lost all interests except watching people die is a much better case.

True. It's always easier to embrace being wrong when the overall point remains, of course.

[Fyraltari]

Eh, I don't really have an issue with distinguishing between supernatural and non-supernatural compulsions like that.

But that's completely arbitrary. Goblins are just as supernatural as vampires, and saying that vampires are compelled to do evil because of how their souls are made is just the same as saying goblins are compelled to do evil because it's in their blood. Same argument, fresh coat of paint.

But with situations like that I'm the type of person who just sort of accepts that the contradiction is there, instead of just trying to read the story in a way that says it's not, even the dialogue doesn't lend itself to that interpretation like going "the story wasn't actually implying the Vampire could turn evil again, even though it did."

I never said that the story wasn't saying the vampire could turn evil again, of course he could, he has the same chance of that happening that of Durkon turning evil, since he is a copy of Durkon. What I am saying is that the story is not saying the vampire will turn evil again.

Well, I do not know if Rich Burlew really makes that distintion or not.

But I do think there is a difference between:
"We want to kill a bunch of people because they look different and that scares us, and in order to justify it we are going to vilify the whole race to mark them as legitimate targets".
and
"We are heroes fighting pure embodiments of all that is Evil".

"Pure embodiments of all that is evil"? Could such pure embodiment have friendships* or be heartbroken over the deaths of their children, like Malack?

Sure, the difference may look slim. But it is the same reason why in the movie industry you can't feature anymore heroic pioneers slaughtering natives alongside the 7th Cavalry, or heroic cops slaughtering dark-skinned gangsters, but you can still feature heroic commandos killing Nazis, or heroic whatever killing mooks who look like nazi ripoffs.

First claiming that Nazi (ripoffs) are embodiment of evil is ridiculous. Second you do realize that the NSDAP or whatever evil organisation the bad guy are in, is not something you are born into? Like you have to actually make a choice to join. Do you not see the difference that makes?

We have, to a point, overcomed the thought that it its okay to kill people of a different culture, that being different equals being Evil. But Heroes still need to triumph over Evil, and one of the best things we have got in our common imaginery as equivalent of pure embodiment of Evil are the Nazis. And at some point, someone said "hey, but Nazis are people, too". And that was when the Zombie Genre took over everything.

This is an extremly simplistic view of pop-culture.

In a fantasy setting, a band of Orcs is just a group competing for resources with the group that has hired you to kill them. Or a nation at war with the one you belong to. Or people who happen to inhabit the grave you are robbing. So in order to rationalize their slaugher better, we give them different physical features like longer fangs, oddly-colored skin and pointy hears, and it's a free ticket to the slaugher buffette. Except at some point people realized fantasy authors were doing exactly the same than early 20th century pulp authors. Equalling being different to being Evil, and with that, legitimating the murder and ransacking of human groups not belonging to yours. But because fantasy authors could no longer use real world ethnicities, they were inventing fantasy ones.

Then we have the Undead, who are just unnatural constructs of pure negative energy, pure embodiments of Evil. They have no society, no history, no culture, and not really free-will. They are just pure evil energy focused on exterminating all Life. They are the perfect obstacle we need for our Heroes to display their heroicity.

Except that second paragraph is how "always evil monsters" have always been characterized. That the name of the monster changed from Orc to vampire is making anything better. Like seriously, the idea to present orcs as just another griou in competition for resources or another nation at war, is a recent development, one generally born of the author's will to point out the problems with stating that an entire group is always evil.

You may arge that it all boils down to the same concept anyway. And you may be right. Boiled water is, after all, still water. But it's water without all the germs. Or most of them, at least.

Oh sure because, it wasn't the core of the concept that was the problem it was all the little details. You haven't boiled anything away you've just change the dressing.

Okai,
There are a few thing, I ll like to clarify.
I m not advocating for killing of innocents being; and i agree with the general Theme, that Killing Evil beings just for being Evil is wrong.
But, like every Hard rule, it has some exception, or grey areas. And i can think of two of them.

The first one is when there is ABSOLUTE POWER IMBALANCE.
Suppose there are two side, a side can obliterate the other, with little or no risk to itself. Suppose that the stronger side is known to have, in the past, done exactly that. Now suppose that the weaker side gets, by random chance a fleeting strategic opportunity that if used, could halt or cripple, or even destroy the stronger side. To do so they should attack first, unprovoked. Would that be always evil to do so?

Well yes. All they'd be doing would be to perpetuate the conflict.

I have made the example of the peasants and the dragon Egg, but i can think of several others.
A goblin village lives peacefully, in a concealed location inside a human kingdom. They reasonable assume that, should they ever be discovered, they will be exterminated. One day a human child stumbles upon them. They try to keep it prisoner, but it proves difficoult, the child constantly tries to escape, and almost do so. When it becomes clear that they cannot keep it imprisoned forever, they reluctantly decide to kill him. Would you call them Evil?

Why yes, I would call the child-killers evil. And dumb they could have proven their good will by bringing the child back to their parents. That kind of actions tend to make people have a higher opinion of you, after all.

Anothet Example: a goblin priest, whose village has being destroyed by humans, discover that his race is destined to be forever oppressed by humans, by divine decree. He could try to settle down a life a peacefuk life but he must accept that at every m oment this life could be destroyed. So, when he gets the opportunity to change this situation, to fix this unbalance ofbpower, hebtakes it, even knowing that it will need the savrifice of many innocents, and the risk of world d estruction, He takes it. Is he evil?

Why, yes, Redcloak is Evil. How is that a question?

The second exception is Necromancy.
The dnd universe is balanced. You have good wizard and you have evil wizard, you have paladins and you have blackguards, eccetera eccetera. But there is an inbalance to the rule, and it's Necromancy.
Not only does Necromancy generates vreature who are by default hostile to living beings,that does not have a definite life cicle and that cannot be insered in any natural life cycle: it also generate creatures who are way more powerful than their original template, and in certain situation, even of the starting Necromancer. Case in point human Xykon and RedCloak: they were fairly powerful, but far from invincible, and they were defeated by Lirian. But when RedCloack used the ritualnof Lichdo on the Sorcerer, it created an almost unstoppable abomination, who crushed two epic characters.
Fittingly, the only time it was defeated it was by using a sort of unconventional "good" necromancy, by an army of ghost Martyrs. Necromancy perverts not just the natural order, but also the games mechanic.
Its a disruptive power, who cannot be allowed to freely roam.
And a Vampire is not only an undead, but also a natural necromancer. A super-necromancer actually: one that can, given the right circumstances, create an Undead way more powerful than himself.

Given this rational consideration, can you call someone who advocate for the destruction of Necromancers - and, to be clear, that is not my personal position - Evil? For sure, that is not Good: but Evil?

Spoiler: Start Of Darkness

Show

We know that it is entirely possible for a child of what? five-six year of age to spontaneously cast necromantic spells

Would you call evil, killing everyone who fits into that category.

But again, doing Necromancy is a choice, someone with Necromantic powers can very well abstain from using them. So yes I would call hunting and killing anyone with necromantic powers evil. Simply outlaw the use of Necromancy and punish those who practice it voluntarily. Yes a vampire who goes around making more vampires deserves to be stopped for killing people and trapping their souls, but their spawns are not responsible for their progenitor's action and should not be judged based on them.

If your answer is still yes, please reflect on this: a few vampire has escaped. Some of them where Thralls of Greg, which now has been destroyed. The order has no way to know if they are still committed to Hel's plan, or even Evil. If they hunt and destroy them, are they committing an evil act?

Here's an easy to know if they are committed to Hel's plan: are they carrying it out?
Killing the vampires trying to rig the Elder's vote? Not Evil.
Killing any hypothetical vampire just fleeing the scene? Evil. And a waste of time when they have a world to save.

Also of the three wampires we know are still undead, I doubt any were thralls since they were much more articulate than Thrall!Durkon* was and one fled the fight before Durkon#2 dropped the anti-life shell.

See, "negative energy", what does that even mean?

Rowling actually did a pretty good job: The Horcrux business was evil because the recipe required MURDER. Not some nonsense like negative energy.
All your electric devices run on negative energy. It's called electrons, which run through the cables. Now is that all automatically evil?

Fine, I don't speak for everyone. But I still don't think many people think "oh, living after dying is EVIL because now I have grey skin". If they do, they use some weird reasoning I can't comprehend, or are backward traditionalists for whom "messing with nature" is inherently evil because it's "unnatural". Which, as Kish pointed out, is utter nonsense as well.

Exactly. Vampires in El Goonish Shive being all evil is not a problem because it's stated a few times that the only way to become a vampire is by choice. They chose to become an abomination who would need to regularly kill people and would be physiologically incapable of empathy and they knew that.

Seriously though, either your charcater has free will and can make meaningful choices, and therefore has the capacity to not be evil or they aren't and therefore is not sapient and calling them evil makes no sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.

Do you consider Janus Hassildor from Oblivion or Serana from Skyrim or the Millenial King to be products of bad storytelling?
EDIT/ Or like 60% of Discworld's vampires for that matter.
You are entitled to your own tastes, but I, for onz, like it better when characters are allowed to be individuals with their own motives and contradictions rahter than reduced to a member of a group that the "hero" has a license to kill-on-sight.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Xykon didn't know the difference between a lich and a leech until proto-Redcloak explained it to him, and Knowledge (Religion) is the kind of cross-class that goes with "no sign of any interest in" for him, so I wouldn't put too much weight on his theorizing, and any is too much.

By the same token, Xykon was a passive participant in his transformation into a lich and Redcloak wasn't in a position to commit any atrocities during the lichdom process except insofar as killing Xykon was one--well, he could have sacrificed his fellow goblin prisoners, but he didn't, or not as part of the lichdom ritual anyway. I see no ambiguity that no "you have to do something unspeakable we're going to wink-wink nudge-nudge about and not spell out" rules are being upheld in OotS.

Redcloak's brother's description of Lich Xykon as having become substantially worse and lost all interests except watching people die is a much better case.

Spoiler

Show

I agree. I'd take Xykon claim of having ripped his own flesh rather than admit weakness as more authoritative. It is true that someone willing to go to such lengths rather than die probably has a few issues.

*He did promise to erect a statue of Tarquin after his passing and Laurin was furious over his death, contrast that with, say, Jubota's treatment of Therkla. Contrast also how Malack feels over the deaths of his spawns against of Durkon* felt over those of his: one cared, one didn't.

[Rrmcklin]

But that's completely arbitrary. Goblins are just as supernatural as vampires, and saying that vampires are compelled to do evil because of how their souls are made is just the same as saying goblins are compelled to do evil because it's in their blood. Same argument, fresh coat of paint.

Okay, first thing Fyraltari, is have to point out is that a lot of things you're "quoting" me on, were actually said by an entirely different person. In fact, everything besides that first sentence was said by someone else, please fix it.

That aside, no, Goblins and Vampires are not both supernatural in this world. They're both fictional creatures in our world, but that is not the same thing.

I'm not really sure what to tell you. You keep acting as if Goblins are a proper analogy to Vampires here, when as I said before the likes of the Fiends would probably be a better one. If you don't like the implications that mortal creatures like Goblins and Dragons genuinely are different non-mortal creatures like Vampires and Fiends, okay, but at this point that's an issue you have with the writer, not me.

[Fyraltari]

Okay, first thing Fyraltari, is have to point out is that a lot of things you're "quoting" me on, were actually said by an entirely different person. In fact, everything besides that first sentence was said by someone else, please fix it.

My apology, I messed up my Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V.

That aside, no, Goblins and Vampires are both not supernatural in this world. They're both fictional creatures in our world, but that is not the same thing.

There is no difference between "natural" fictional and "supernatural" fictional. Goblins are supernatural, they are a creature of legends, just like vampires are. Making one supernatural and the other not in their fictional world is an arbitrary decision from the author and does not justify having the story treat one like persons and the others not.

I'm not really sure what to tell you. You keep acting as if Goblins are a proper analogy to Vampires here, when as I said before the likes of the Fiends would probably be a better one.

What would it change? Besides using another coat of paint? I'm using goblins as a example because the comic chose to focus on goblins, put the point applies equally to every free-willed "always evil" creature.

In which case, I don't know if you'd have something to say about the being made of evil either, but there you go. If you dislike the implication that Vampires and Fiends are legitimately are different from mortal creatures like Goblins and Dragons, okay, but at this point that's an issue you have with the writer, not me.

seeing as I have used quotes from the author on how it is wrong to label entire species as evil, and the comic shows a LG vampire as well as both a vampire (Malack) and a fiend (Sabine) expressing genuine love for someone (Malck's spawn/Nale), I don't think so, no.

[Mightymosy]

Well, except for the fact that, as an human, Xykon was a rotten evil guy who could still enjoy the little things in life. After being turned into a Lich, Xykon became an abomination whose only source of amusement is watching things die. And that is not a subjective valoration from my part, it is something actually and repeatedly stated in the Comic.

Sure, bad roleplaying and bad storytelling may lead people to think that becoming an undead means just aplying a template to your creature type that gives you kool powers.

It is not how it is shown to be in this Comic, though.

There is no reason he needed to become more Evil by becoming a skeleton - especially not if positive and negative energy both harm life, as Grey Wolf said.

Imagine Elan becoming a Lich: Would he become Evil? He could use the newfound powers for a lot more shenanigans, but would that make him Evil?

So someone can't taste coffee. So what?
I could imagine, given the immortality and powers of a Lich, to travel the world an help people, you know, to fight the boredom of eternal life ;-)
Unless the spell "Make a Lich" automatically makes you want to be evil......is that so?

[Rrmcklin]

My apology, I messed up my Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V.

Thank you.

There is no difference between "natural" fictional and "supernatural" fictional. Goblins are supernatural, they are a creature of legends, just like vampires are. Making one supernatural and the other not in their fictional world is an arbitrary decision from the author and does not justify having the story treat one like persons and the others not.

If you want to call it arbitrary fine, but just acknowledge that is what happened.

What would it change? Besides using another coat of paint? I'm using goblins as a example because the comic chose to focus on goblins, put the point applies equally to every free-willed "always evil" creature.

As far as I'm aware, Goblins aren't even described as "always evil" even in D&D. Vampires are, though.

seeing as I have used quotes from the author on how it is wrong to label entire species as evil, and the comic shows a LG vampire as well as both a vampire (Malack) and a fiend (Sabine) expressing genuine love for someone (Malck's spawn/Nale), I don't think so, no.

1) The comic has shown us a "LG vampire" that was created under incredibly specific circumstances, and also according the author might very well be the first time something like that has happened. Also, the character in question wasn't sure if it would even stick.
2) Why are you acting as if characters being capable of genuine love and friendship as mark against them being entirely evil? The author has also spoken out against acting as if genuinely evil creatures can't actually have good or positive traits.

Let me put it to you this way, do you remember what the Deva that handled Roy's case said about trying? That it was easy for her, as a being of both pure Good and Law to be, well, good and lawful all the time, but that Roy is mortal and that can't be expected of him?

Well replace "Deva" with "Fiend" and "good" with "evil" and that's what we're working with. Goblins, like Humans, are mortal creatures, they can't be expected to be entirely good/evil/lawful/chaotic all the time, and it's wrong for the world to act like they are. But Vampires and Fiends do not work that way.

Again, if you think the existence of creatures like Fiends and Vampires hurts the Giant's own point that he uses Goblins to illustrate, that's perfectly fine. But if you think it's a contradiction accept it's a contradiction, instead of just acting as if I'm not describing things that are actually present in the story.

[The Pilgrim]

For Xykon it wasn't time, but lichdom. But the negative energy wasn't responsible (vampires, after all, still seem quite capable of enjoying other avenues)

Do they, though? Because the sole mature vampire we have been presented in this Comic was Malack, and behind his pretense of civility, his whole plan was to transform the entire Western Continent into a food factory. He was happy to play the ascet who was above mundane desires, but at the end of the day he was just indulging in the sole pleasure he enjoyed: Drinking the life out of living beings.

All other vampires we have meet are confused newborns who haven't yet processed the souls of their hosts.

I admit that my view on vampires is basically influenced by White Wolf's portrayal, which can basically be resumed as: You can fool yourself all you can, but deep down you are just a Beast who just wants to suck blood. And it is only a matter of time until your mask of humanity falls down and the Beast takes control.

So far, Rich Burlew's take on vampirism seems to belong to the same school of thought: Vampires are just social predators who only want to suck the lifeforce of people, and everything else is just a hidding mask.

[Peelee]

Oh, and we can't forget that negative energy is as bad for life as positive energy. It is not evil because it is anathema to living beings, unless we want to label positive energy the same, since they both kill you if you are exposed to them.

Grey Wolf

There is no reason he needed to become more Evil by becoming a skeleton - especially not if positive and negative energy both harm life, as Grey Wolf said.

Yeah, but with the positive energy it's really a "too much of a good thing," isn't it? Like, water and alcohol are neither inherently good or bad, but water is necessary for life, and both will kill you in too great amounts. Positive Energy plane is just as deadly as Negative Energy Plane, but they do feed different things on the Material Plane.

[Rrmcklin]

Could someone please provide the quote in which the giant described the campaign he ran in which the villains were two super evil villains who also happened to be best friends, and his party failed because they assumed something like that wasn't possible?

I don't know where to get those quotes, and it would help illustrate a point.

[Fyraltari]

Thank you.

No need.

If you want to call it arbitrary fine, but just acknowledge that is what happened.

Vampires are described as free-willed by the comic and again, we were shown a good one.

As far as I'm aware, Goblins aren't even described as "always evil" even in D&D. Vampires are, though.

Black Dragons are.
Didn't stop V from pointing out that some of their victims could be non-evil.

1) The comic has shown us a "LG vampire" that was created under incredibly specific circumstances, and also according the author might very well be the first time something like that has happened.

So, The possibility exists which means it can't be discarded.

Also, the character in question wasn't sure if it would even stick.

And the character in question has no way to know one ay or the other.

2) Why are you equating being able to have genuine friendship and love with not being evil. The author has also spoken out against acting as if genuinely evil creatures can't actually have good or positive traits.

I am not. Did I say that Malack or Sabine were not Evil? However these proves an ability to care for others and therefore a potential to be good.

Let me put it to you this way, do you remember what the Deva that handled Roy's case said about trying? That it was easy for her, as a being of both pure Good and Law to be, well, good and lawful all the time, but that Roy is mortal and that can't be expected of him?

Well replace "Deva" with "Fiend" and "good" with "evil" and that's what we're working with. Goblins, like Humans, are mortal creatures, they can't be expected to be entirely good/evil/lawful/chaotic all the time, and it's wrong for the world to act like they are. But Vampires and Fiends do not work that way.

Then that would make Fiends and Devas not free-willed, which granted the comic never said they were. Unlike vampires.

Again, if you think the existence of creatures like Fiends and Vampires hurts the Giant's point about not Goblins, that's perfectly fine. But if you think it's a contradiction accept it's a contradiction, instead of just acting as if I'm not describing things that are actually present in the story.

I am not, because, as I tire of repeating, the comic does not show vampires as being incapable of not being evil despite how much evidence you want to ignore. If Devas and fiends cannot help than follow their alignment, then that is a contradiction, but seeing as the Giant describd the Directors as being "a less chaotic than usual demon, a less lawful than usual devil and a less neutral* than usual daemon" and as I have linked to upthread D&D has at least one example of a Good fiend, I'm not sure there is a contradiction there either.

*Whatever that means.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Do they, though?

Ponchula.

Yeah, but with the positive energy it's really a "too much of a good thing," isn't it? Like, water and alcohol are neither inherently good or bad, but water is necessary for life, and both will kill you in too great amounts. Positive Energy plane is just as deadly as Negative Energy Plane, but they do feed different things on the Material Plane.

I'm not sure what your point is? Other than the names, what makes you think that one is more Good than the other? As far as I am aware, the positive and negative energy planes are closer to the elemental planes than they are to the morality planes. There is no reason to label one evil, anymore than one would label the elemental plane of fire evil, no matte rhow much more useful water is to life than fire.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

As far as I'm aware, Goblins aren't even described as "always evil" even in D&D.

Black dragons are.

"Good-dominant" and "Evil-dominant" are existent planar traits. Elysium has one; Hades has one. The positive and negative material planes have neither of them.

[Rrmcklin]

Black dragons are.

"Good-dominant" and "Evil-dominant" are existent planar traits. Elysium has one; Hades has one. The positive and negative material planes have neither of them.

Good to know.

[Peelee]

I'm not sure what your point is? Other than the names, what makes you think that one is more Good than the other? As far as I am aware, the positive and negative energy planes are closer to the elemental planes than they are to the morality planes. There is no reason to label one evil, anymore than one would label the elemental plane of fire evil, no matte rhow much more useful water is to life than fire.

Grey Wolf

Not saying one is more Good than another, but if there's a creature powered by the elemental plane of water and another powered by the elemental plane of alcohol, I'm going to have different expectations of them, is all.

[Fyraltari]

Not saying one is more Good than another, but if there's a creature powered by the elemental plane of water and another powered by the elemental plane of alcohol, I'm going to have different expectations of them, is all.

Is it a good time to mention that Discworld (briefly) has a Oh God of hangovers?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is it a good time to mention that Discworld (briefly) has a Oh God of hangovers?

Nothing brief about it. Also, I think we've thoroughly sold him on Hogfather. We don't want to overdo it.

Not saying one is more Good than another, but if there's a creature powered by the elemental plane of water and another powered by the elemental plane of alcohol, I'm going to have different expectations of them, is all.

Water is just alcoholic hydrogen.
I like to make chemists cry
Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

One last thing regarding Vampires, while I have no actual issues with good Vampires being a thing, I find the way people go back to what Durkon did as "proof" as sort of missing the point.

Durkula had no idea what was going on there, and he basically stopped being his own person. He didn't choose to be good, basically brainwashed him.

When I think of an actual point about "good vampires" I'd imagine something like is what happening with Belkar - a creature that for whatever reason becoming more open to empathy, developing a conscience however slowly, and over time improving, with the benefit of being functionally eternal.

That would strike me as a meaningful case on the undead. While what Durkon did certainly was meaningful and touching, if I'm supposed to have taken some lesson about not judging vampires from it, it failed spectacularly (though I don't think that actually was what we were supposed).

[Peelee]

Is it a good time to mention that Discworld (briefly) has a Oh God of hangovers?

Look, I'm getting to it, ok! Right after the misdemeanor book.

Water is just hydrogen alcohol.

Grey Wolf

Look, man, Hydrogen is mischeivous. Ask any chemist. When they're done crying, hopefully.

[Fyraltari]

Nothing brief about it. Also, I think we've thoroughly sold him on Hogfather. We don't want to overdo it.

Yeah, you're right.

Spoiler: Hogfather

Show

Well the Good Mood fairy vanished at the end, and I don't recall anything implying he hasn't so I wouldn't be so sure.

Water is just alcoholic hydrogen.
I like to make chemists cry
Grey Wolf

Some people just want to see the world undergo an exothermic water-producing chemical reaction.

One last thing regarding Vampires, while I have no actual issues with good Vampires being a thing, I find the way people go back to what Durkon did as "proof" as sort of missing the point.

Durkula had no idea what was going on there, and he basically stopped being his own person. He didn't choose to be good, basically brainwashed him.

If you call being given a life story in the right order rather than piece by piece in complete chaos, as he was going to do anyway brainwashing sure. I don't really see any ethical problems in someone who's identity was already based on being Durkon getting a more accurate copy, myself. In any case, he chose to let Belkar kill him for the sake of the world, that's Good.

When I think of an actual point about "good vampires" I'd imagine something like is what happening with Belkar - a creature that for whatever reason becoming more open to empathy, developing a conscience however slowly, and over time improving, with the benefit of being functionally eternal.

And there are no reason to assume that's impossible. As I said Malack had shown a potential to care for other people so he could have gone there in time just like any other evil character.

That would strike me as a meaningful case on the undead. While what Durkon did certainly was meaningful and touching, if I'm supposed to have taken some lesson about not judging vampires from it, it failed spectacularly (though I don't think that actually was what we were supposed).

Nobody said that was supposed to be a lesson about judging vampires, what are you talking about? What I am saying is that the comic doesn't contradict itself.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yeah, you're right.

Spoiler: Hogfather

Show

Well the Good Mood fairy vanished at the end, and I don't recall anything implying he hasn't so I wouldn't be so sure.

Spoiler

Show

It is implied that Violet's belief in him might be enough to keep him around.

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

I'm not sure how close Fyraltari's position is to mine, but mine is that the story suggests that it is, indeed, always morally correct to destroy a vampire, and this undermines Rich's earlier impassioned words on how opposed he is to the idea of it being okay to kill an orc or a black dragon, in a way I don't think he understands.

Refuting this with anything along the lines of "but orcs and black dragons don't exist by possessing other people" would fall as flat for me as the previous arguments some people have made along the lines of "but look, hatchling black dragons aren't actually babies in any meaningful moral sense, it sez so in the book":

There are no evil possessing spirits. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.

I mean-- on the one hand we don't have the provable existence of souls or an afterlife in the real world, either. But vampires operate by imprisoning a soul and preventing it from reaching its afterlife. So, yeah, some things aren't going to have good real-world parallels, which can happen when you write a fantasy story.

Perhaps more toward a point you'd be interested in-- didn't Rich say something like there could hypothetically be a Good vampire, but there wasn't in this story because that's not what this story needed? All the vampires we've seen in the comic have been openly engaged in evil, so they're evil.

[Rrmcklin]

Fyraltari, as you are clearly set on ignoring and or misinterpreting any points you dislike instead of engaging with them fairly, I'm done engaging with you. It's clearly pointless.

I mean-- on the one hand we don't have the provable existence of souls or an afterlife in the real world, either. But vampires operate by imprisoning a soul and preventing it from reaching its afterlife. So, yeah, some things aren't going

Perhaps more toward a point you'd be interested in-- didn't Rich say something like there could hypothetically be a Good vampire, but there wasn't in this story because that's not what this story needed? All the vampires we've seen in the comic have been openly engaged in evil, so they're evil.

Yes, it was something like "maybe there are hypothetical vampires doing good out there. Don't care, that's not this story" or something.

[Fyraltari]

Fyraltari, as you are clearly set on ignoring and or misinterpreting any points you dislike, I'm done engaging with you. It's clearly pointless.

When have I misinterpreted you? What point have I ignored?

[Pablo360]

So is nobody going to point out that all the comparisons between vampires and goblins/dragons are fundamentally flawed because vampires aren't actually a species?