What good alignment is Thor?

[Peelee]

Thor is good, but he's both Lawful and Chaotic, like a Schrodinger's Thor. Depending on te observer, he's lawful or chaotic.

I really think we're missing out on an untapped source of clean, renewable energy by not harnessing a generator to Schrödinger's eternally spinning grave.

[Schroeswald]

I really think we're missing out on an untapped source of clean, renewable energy by not harnessing a generator to Schrödinger's eternally spinning grave.

And then Hel won't be so crazy because she can be powered by something besides souls!

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm really not sure if every course of action needs to have an alignment applied to it.

They don't, but for some reason D&D 3.5e centric philosophy demands it.

That's the point of the Deal - that it circumvents the "sorting process" - sending "those who died dishonorably" to Hel, regardless of where they would have gone if their lives as a whole had been judged.

Ding. We have a winner. With that in mind, it would be fair to characterize Hel, Loki, and Thor as all having contributed to choas by being parties to that bet. It disrupts the previously estalished order.

And yes, that's generally the issue with the alignment system. Even with Good and Evil there can be grey areas and with Lawful and Chaotic it quickly turns into a real mess.

A reasonable person would think so. This is an internet forum discussion.

Thor is good, but he's both Lawful and Chaotic, like a Schrodinger's Thor. Depending on te observer, he's lawful or chaotic. And no, that's not Neutral. That's non-deterministic alignment

I like this take. I'd buy you a beer if I could.

[Dion]

I believe wager itself is lawful, since treating everyone exactly the same at death (regardless of how they lived their life) is pretty much textbook law and order.

The fact that Hel supports the wager makes me think Hel is lawful.

The fact that Thor opposes the wager makes me think Thor is chaotic.

The fact that Loki made the wager makes me think Loki is very, very tricky.

[woweedd]

I believe wager itself is lawful, since treating everyone exactly the same at death (regardless of how they lived their life) is pretty much textbook law and order.

The fact that Hel supports the wager makes me think Hel is lawful.

The fact that Thor opposes the wager makes me think Thor is chaotic.

The fact that Loki made the wager makes me think Loki is very, very tricky.

I'd define it as Lawful EVIL, though, since it seems blatantly unfair. This would gel nicely with my perception of those three as, in order, Netural Evil, Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Evil, respectively. Loki made the bet, partly to serve Evil, partly because he wanted to teach Hel a lesson and doesn't mind sacrificing lives to do it. Hel supports the wager because it gives her power, and Netural Evil pepole will pretty much support whatever puts them on top, and Thor opposes it on both counts.

[deuterio12]

I'd define it as Lawful EVIL, though, since it seems blatantly unfair. This would gel nicely with my perception of those three as, in order, Netural Evil, Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Evil, respectively. Loki made the bet, partly to serve Evil, partly because he wanted to teach Hel a lesson and doesn't mind sacrificing lives to do it.

Sacrificed lives? What sacrificed lives? The wager only matters after you die, and just decides which god gets to munch in your delicious soul.

That's all that it boils down to, gods squabling over who gets more tasty food.

And before you go "but we see the souls in the afterlife", notice we don't see any souls from the previous worlds, or not much in older souls either (just Roy's grandfather at best, not that far ago). The afterlife isn't eternal, it's just a place to keep the souls fresh until the respective god feels like having a snack.

[hamishspence]

It matters to the soul though, whether the process of "slowly powering the Outer Planes over time" is painful, or pleasant:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html

The afterlife isn't eternal, it's just a place to keep the souls fresh until the respective god feels like having a snack.

Evil gods, and archfiends, might "snack on souls like popcorn" (Complete Divine). Good and Neutral ones, not.



The Giant's posts on the subject:

I am saying that is specifically what the afterlife does. It makes you into a cookie-cutter clone of everyone of the same alignment. It may take centuries to do so, but all the people at the top of the mountain? Completely indistinguishable from one another. Arguably, that is the purpose of the D&D afterlife—to turn flawed mortal souls into perfect alignment-batteries, through various methodologies. In the Nine Hells, they torture you until you forget everything else. In Celestia, you meditate until you renounce all worldly concerns. In Valhalla, you party until you can't remember your own name. In Limbo, the chaos drives you mad. In Mechanus, you sit in grey cubicle stamping paperwork until you are bored into oblivion. And so on and so forth.

Souls go to the afterlife and eventually dissolve into the substance of the Outer Plane to which they are remanded, end of story. You don't have to like it or think it's fair, but it's how it works—because like my story, D&D needs the afterlife to not be Awesome Happy Fun Times Forever or else there's no logical underpinning for why the heroes should want to save the world from destruction.

[Aquillion]

It feels like some of these questions about "are the gods' fundamental structures for handling mortal souls good or evil" (as it relates to the dwarf soul agreement) are getting into theodicy-style arguments that have no real satisfactory answers in an adventure-world, outside of maybe "there are evil gods and the overall considerations resulting that force good gods to accept what they can get, which are often imperfect agreements like this one."

The reality is that the world has to have underlying problems or there's no story. Which, in turn, means that by definition any agreement Thor could reach with Hel has to have serious problems for the dwarves affected by it.

[woweedd]

Sacrificed lives? What sacrificed lives? The wager only matters after you die, and just decides which god gets to munch in your delicious soul.

That's all that it boils down to, gods squabling over who gets more tasty food.

And before you go "but we see the souls in the afterlife", notice we don't see any souls from the previous worlds, or not much in older souls either (just Roy's grandfather at best, not that far ago). The afterlife isn't eternal, it's just a place to keep the souls fresh until the respective god feels like having a snack.

Matters to the souls. doesn't it? And Thor, and, hell, even Loki, do seem to care about mortals as more then a food source, whether or not they'll eat them in the end.

[KorvinStarmast]

Quoting the giant:

In Valhalla, you party until you can't remember your own name.

When I was in my mid 20's, that's a description of heaven, or a really vigorous weekend in Vegas.

Now, not so much.

[deuterio12]

Matters to the souls. doesn't it? And Thor, and, hell, even Loki, do seem to care about mortals as more then a food source, whether or not they'll eat them in the end.

Dunno about that, Thor's definition of fun is randomly rain storms upon his food, and a whole village worth of food being devoured by Surtur is lower in his priorities than taking a phone call. Not sure about you, but if I need to decide between letting a meal burn and got to waste or picking up a random call, I'll always try to save the meal, and I certainly don't use perfectly fine food for blind target practice either. That's how little Thor cares about most mortals unless he can use them to get a direct edge over another god like it's happening now.

And Loki, as pointed out by plenty of other people, was the one coming up with the bet about who got more tasty food.

Thor and Loki only showing care about delicious souls when it's a quite personal matter for them, aka if they let Hel get away with her plan, Hel will become their new boss, and that doesn't look like it would be nice to Thor and Loki personally, besides now senile Odin is technically the boss of the pantheon but is, well, too senile to really boss anybody around thus letting Thor and Loki play as they please.

So yeah, I'll believe Thor cares about souls beyond being food when I see him move a finger to help said souls whitout the hungry god having anything personal to profit from it.

[woweedd]

Dunno about that, Thor's definition of fun is randomly rain storms upon his food, and a whole village worth of food being devoured by Surtur is lower in his priorities than taking a phone call. Not sure about you, but if I need to decide between letting a meal burn and got to waste or picking up a random call, I'll always try to save the meal, and I certainly don't use perfectly fine food for blind target practice either. That's how little Thor cares about most mortals unless he can use them to get a direct edge over another god like it's happening now.

And Loki, as pointed out by plenty of other people, was the one coming up with the bet about who got more tasty food.

Thor and Loki only showing care about delicious souls when it's a quite personal matter for them, aka if they let Hel get away with her plan, Hel will become their new boss, and that doesn't look like it would be nice to Thor and Loki personally, besides now senile Odin is technically the boss of the pantheon but is, well, too senile to really boss anybody around thus letting Thor and Loki play as they please.

So yeah, I'll believe Thor cares about souls beyond being food when I see him move a finger to help said souls whitout the hungry god having anything personal to profit from it.

Stroms serve a purpose, naturally-speaking. It's his job. And, as for the Surtur thing...I'll plead the "one of the earliest strips, and like many of same, doesn't really factor into my understanding of my character, given that it is inconsistent with his other actions". Plus, it's fairly obviously a D&D rules joke*, from the days when that was the comic's only purpose, so...Yeah, I kinda discount. Plus, Thor's language towards Durkon and Minrah does make it sound like he cares about them as something other then food sources, or his reminiscing about his sorrow at how many followers he's lost. That doesn't sound like someone who lost a meal: It sounds like he gives some amount of a ****. And it should be noted: I don't think Loki cares about mortals as in compassion: He cares about them as cat videos: He watches them for lols, and doesn't want them to die simply because he'd have nothing else to do. He's still evil, so his definition of "humor" is one we'd find horrifying, but he cares about us as "eh, they're amusing: I won't kill them long as they don't get in my way".
*Namely, "Hm, Clerics have to telepathically ask their God for spells every time they prepare: I bet that doesn't always happen at convenient times for the God".

[Worldsong]

Dunno about that, Thor's definition of fun is randomly rain storms upon his food, and a whole village worth of food being devoured by Surtur is lower in his priorities than taking a phone call. Not sure about you, but if I need to decide between letting a meal burn and got to waste or picking up a random call, I'll always try to save the meal, and I certainly don't use perfectly fine food for blind target practice either. That's how little Thor cares about most mortals unless he can use them to get a direct edge over another god like it's happening now.

And Loki, as pointed out by plenty of other people, was the one coming up with the bet about who got more tasty food.

Thor and Loki only showing care about delicious souls when it's a quite personal matter for them, aka if they let Hel get away with her plan, Hel will become their new boss, and that doesn't look like it would be nice to Thor and Loki personally, besides now senile Odin is technically the boss of the pantheon but is, well, too senile to really boss anybody around thus letting Thor and Loki play as they please.

So yeah, I'll believe Thor cares about souls beyond being food when I see him move a finger to help said souls whitout the hungry god having anything personal to profit from it.

That's a good way to make sure you never have to reconsider your stance, because you can interpret almost anything Thor does that is beneficial for the mortals as being beneficial for himself and other gods, either in the short or the long run.

The only thing which you couldn't explain away was if he sacrificed himself permanently for the mortals, and "I'll believe your good intentions when you die for me" is an absurd standard to set for someone to prove themselves to be good people.

Also as has been pointed out the example of Surtr was one of the earliest strips and it's been stated SO MANY TIMES that Rich didn't have a long-term plan in the first 100 strips or so and that what happens in those strips shouldn't be used as argument for anything regarding the canon of the world.

And the example with Surtr was #40, so most definitely an example of an early installment joke which doesn't represent the actual canon.

I'm starting to think I should add a statement to my signature. Something like "If your argument is based off of the start of the comic you're relying on Early Installment Weirdness to prove you're right. Don't do that."

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm starting to think I should add a statement to my signature. Something like "If your argument is based off of the start of the comic you're relying on Early Installment Weirdness to prove you're right. Don't do that."

While I agree with you, that won't stop the haters from hating.

[deuterio12]

That's a good way to make sure you never have to reconsider your stance, because you can interpret almost anything Thor does that is beneficial for the mortals as being beneficial for himself and other gods, either in the short or the long run.

The only thing which you couldn't explain away was if he sacrificed himself permanently for the mortals, and "I'll believe your good intentions when you die for me" is an absurd standard to set for someone to prove themselves to be good people.

It's your absurd standard, not mine.

All I'm asking is a scenario where Thor helps mortals and doesn't gain anything himself. Thor doesn't even need to sacrifice anything besides a few moments of his time.

Also as has been pointed out the example of Surtr was one of the earliest strips and it's been stated SO MANY TIMES that Rich didn't have a long-term plan in the first 100 strips or so and that what happens in those strips shouldn't be used as argument for anything regarding the canon of the world.

And the example with Surtr was #40, so most definitely an example of an early installment joke which doesn't represent the actual canon.

Now that's just another of your absurd standards, because with that you can invalidate any and all arguments because they were stuff that happened earlier. "Oh, Thor accepting bets about the fate of millions of mortal snacks while drunk was all the way back in strip 1083, that was just an early installment joke and clearly not cannon."

Thor ruining countless mortal lives on whims has always been a key point of the comic.

[zimmerwald1915]

The only thing which you couldn't explain away was if he sacrificed himself permanently for the mortals, and "I'll believe your good intentions when you die for me" is an absurd standard to set for someone to prove themselves to be good people.

We demand it of fictional characters all the time. Redemption Equals Death for a reason.

[Schroeswald]

We demand it of fictional characters all the time. Redemption Equals Death for a reason.

No. That should not be a rule in any work of fiction, redemption equaling death is fine, but expecting someone who does not do completely good things to die for others to be good is ridiculous, dumb, and undermines both the idea of redemption and a happy ending.

[zimmerwald1915]

No. That should not be a rule in any work of fiction, redemption equaling death is fine, but expecting someone who does not do completely good things to die for others to be good is ridiculous, dumb, and undermines both the idea of redemption and a happy ending.

Good riddance.

[woweedd]

Good riddance.

Are you against the idea of redemption or the idea of happy endings?

[Schroeswald]

Good riddance.

Maybe it’s just me, but I like narratives with redemption and happy endings, I’m not saying they have to exist, but some of my favorite movies and shows have happy endings and/or redemptions, and several I like don’t (though due to probability not nearly as much).

[Aquillion]

The most recent comic almost reads like a reply to this thread with regards to chaotic people following the rules when it suits them.

[Worldsong]

It's your absurd standard, not mine.

All I'm asking is a scenario where Thor helps mortals and doesn't gain anything himself. Thor doesn't even need to sacrifice anything besides a few moments of his time.

No, it's most likely yours. You see, whenever people set up conditions like that what they usually want is a way to seem reasonable while sticking to their preconceived notions.

While it's entirely possible that you're more reasonable than that, and I will apologize if I turn out to have been wrong, it's too common a thing for it to just be dismissed out of hand.

It would help if you could provide an example of a scenario which would convince you that Thor really cares which is realistic, likely to happen within the comic, and won't include him permanently sacrificing himself.

The first two requirements are there so the answer won't be something that won't ever happen, the third because as established demanding that someone sacrifices to prove themselves good is ridiculous.

This is most likely a difficult task because, as stated, Thor benefits from nearly literally everything that benefits the mortals. And important life lesson: just because something benefits both yourself and someone else doesn't mean you can't also be doing it because of Good motivations. Selfishness does not automatically trump every other motivation.

Now that's just another of your absurd standards, because with that you can invalidate any and all arguments because they were stuff that happened earlier. "Oh, Thor accepting bets about the fate of millions of mortal snacks while drunk was all the way back in strip 1083, that was just an early installment joke and clearly not cannon."

Thor ruining countless mortal lives on whims has always been a key point of the comic.

I didn't have one absurd standard and this isn't another, so my total is still zero.

And no, I can't invalidate every single part of the comic. I can just invalidate everything you pull from the first 100 because literally every person of any relevance is in agreement (including Rich himself), that the first 100 pages shouldn't be taken seriously. I specifically stated the first 100 so you can't even argue that I tried to invalidate every part of the comic I dislike. Seriously, can you at least make your accusations somewhat sensible? This just looks like throwing everything back at me without thinking it through.

Also, allow me to laugh for a little bit. Yes, Thor ruining people's lives has definitely been a core part of the comic. That certainly explains the fact that he doesn't appear all that often, and that every time he does appear outside of the first 100 comics he's either being helpful or his behaviour is more kinda stupid than nefarious.

And I see we've got another fellow who thinks that being tricked into a bad agreement while drunk makes you a bad person. I do love that line of reasoning because it's so silly. Mind-altering substances leading to bad decisions? Nuts to that, it's clearly showing your TRUE SELF. Unless you're one of those people who believes that motivations don't matter and only actions decide your alignment.

We demand it of fictional characters all the time. Redemption Equals Death for a reason.

Important life lesson. You might want to write this one down.

Just because something is done a lot doesn't make it a good idea.

Redemption Equals Death is a good trope for drama and to drive the point home in the skull of every reader/viewer, to ensure that only the must hardheaded could still argue that at the end that person was evil.

However it's extreme, it could be called rather unfair and it most definitely should not be treated as the minimum requirement for a formerly evil person to be acknowledged as good.

The most recent comic almost reads like a reply to this thread with regards to chaotic people following the rules when it suits them.

It is very satisfying to read.

Of course it's a tad depressing to deal with the belief that to be Chaotic you must self-destructively oppose rules at every opportunity. It makes it sound like for them Chaotic is for stupid and insane people.

Going to be even more depressing when someone argues that because Loki is willing to enforce the rules when it works in his favour he can't be Chaotic.

[zimmerwald1915]

Just because something is done a lot doesn't make it a good idea.

On the contrary. People aren't stupid, and usually take the actions that they judge to be in their own interests, in the context in which they find themselves. It follows that, in a given context, an action being popular is at least prima facie evidence that that action is incentivized by that context.

Whether that action conforms to an abstract morality divorced from context is another matter entirely, and the one I believe you're actually talking about. It's also not a terribly useful framing sice, even in those exceptional historical moments when context changes, it does not change according to the will of moral planners but through a working-out of its preexisting tensions and towards one of a few more or less predetermined ends.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

On the contrary. People aren't stupid, and usually take the actions that they judge to be in their own interests, in the context in which they find themselves.

Counterpoint: drinking. Drinking and driving. Smoking. And countless others.

People are frequently wrong in their judgement of what is against their own interest.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

Counterpoint: drinking. Drinking and driving. Smoking. And countless others.

People are frequently wrong in their judgement of what is against their own interest.

Grey Wolf

None of these things is wholly bereft of benefits; smoking and drinking can feel good, and driving drunk can get you where you want to go quickly. Their bad consequences are not foregone conclusions either, but risks of various magnitudes.

It's also worth noting that since we're talking about popularity, we have to talk about risk evaluation over populations and not by individuals. Smoking became a lot less popular, for instance, once the outright lies surrounding the magnitude of the risks associated with it were exposed. And not just because of changing generational mores, though those certainly played a part. Existing smokers did quit in significant numbers, and there was a spate of class action lawsuits.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

None of these things is wholly bereft of benefits; smoking and drinking can feel good, and driving drunk can get you where you want to go quickly. Their bad consequences are not foregone conclusions either, but risks of various magnitudes.

Nothing is wholly bereft of benefit. It still doesn't make it a good idea. Your assertion "People aren't stupid, and usually take the actions that they judge to be in their own interests, in the context in which they find themselves" is still meeting the reality that just because an individual judges an action to be in their best interest, there are countless cases in which it is plainly obvious it is not in their best, or better, or even good interest, and even more cases in which it might not be obvious, but certainly can be identified as against their best interest both at the time and/or in foresight.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

On the contrary. People aren't stupid, and usually take the actions that they judge to be in their own interests, in the context in which they find themselves. It follows that, in a given context, an action being popular is at least prima facie evidence that that action is incentivized by that context.

Whether that action conforms to an abstract morality divorced from context is another matter entirely, and the one I believe you're actually talking about. It's also not a terribly useful framing sice, even in those exceptional historical moments when context changes, it does not change according to the will of moral planners but through a working-out of its preexisting tensions and towards one of a few more or less predetermined ends.

I was going to argue this, but I get the feeling Grey Wolf is doing a better job than I would. The only thing I can really say is that I agree with him that there's too many examples of things which are popular but which by and large can hardly be considered good. Especially if the main argument for them being good is short term benefits at great expense in the long run.

EDIT: also even if we agree with the idea that people on average aren't stupid (which in itself is worth a debate) group mentality is a horrible thing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

EDIT: also even if we agree with the idea that people on average aren't stupid (which in itself is worth a debate) group mentality is a horrible thing.

I won't touch the assertion "people aren't stupid" with a ten-foot pole, but I do like Rowling's observation that it takes a truly intelligent individual to make the worst, most huge of mistakes. You don't have to be stupid to make stupid choices.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

I won't touch the assertion "people aren't stupid" with a ten-foot pole, but I do like Rowling's observation that it takes a truly intelligent individual to make the worst, most huge of mistakes. You don't have to be stupid to make stupid choices.

Grey Wolf

Oh, yeah, that too. Sometimes being smart just means you know how to make a disaster as big and catastrophic as possible.

[woweedd]

I won't touch the assertion "people aren't stupid" with a ten-foot pole, but I do like Rowling's observation that it takes a truly intelligent individual to make the worst, most huge of mistakes. You don't have to be stupid to make stupid choices.

Grey Wolf

Exact quote: "Being, forgive me, rather wiser then most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly greater". Indeed, in my personal experience, sometimes, being smart doesn't mean you make good decisions: It just makes you better at justifying bad decisions...Including to yourself, sometimes. WISDOM is the stat for self-awareness, ya know.