Alignments of the stick

[Kurald Galain]

I am not saying Hilgya isn't evil. She most likely is. But it is not proven, as the most evil thing we saw her actually do was trying to kill her husband. In which she didn't even succeed,

"Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?" -- Sideshow Bob

[SowZ]

I am not saying Hilgya isn't evil. She most likely is. But it is not proven, as the most evil thing we saw her actually do was trying to kill her husband. In which she didn't even succeed, if I recall correctly.
It is implied that her husband is not evil, but not proven. Offering someone a foot massage doesn't make you a good person automatically. He must have agreed to that forced marriage, if she didn't lie about that.

Some people are even arguing that Vaarsuvius is not evil, and s/he has tortured sentient beings...

And I guess we all agree that not all members of the Order of the Stick are evil for tolerating Belkar's behaviour?

You may as well let a murderer go from prison because it was possible that they drove to the guys house, broke in, and killed him in self defense. I'm not trying to be snippy, btw, I just think both are silly arguments. Yeah, I'd say V was most definitely evil for a spell there. But his alignment shifted back, I suppose. Intent and current mind set must be very important to the Giant. Which is a legitimate view, it seems.

The party doesn't profit, (at least not intentionally,) from Belkar's evil actions, they don't encourage it, and they wouldn't follow Belkar as a leader.

[SinsI]

Well, we are in the place where people argued still argue that Belkar is not Evil.

Correction: that Belkar is no longer Evil since the removal of Mark of Justice.

It matters little what your inner motivations are - as long as you care about others, you are no longer Evil.

BTW, it makes me wonder how could Miko stay paladin for so long - she was clearly Neutral at best (if not outright Evil), she did nothing that showed her Good side in any way.

[hamishspence]

It matters little what your inner motivations are - as long as you care about others, you are no longer Evil.

A person can care about some "others" but mistreat other "others"- being evil is about what you do (or are, at least, willing to do), not who you do or don't care about.

[Kish]

Correction: that Belkar is no longer Evil since the removal of Mark of Justice.

Re-correction: "That Belkar is not Evil" was correct to begin with.

People have argued that Belkar is not evil from the comic beginning. "Belkar was evil previously but has changed, as shown by X!" is only the form it's taken since Rich finally came out on the board and asked, "What comic are you reading?" to someone who suggested Belkar's alignment was ambiguous.

It matters little what your inner motivations are - as long as you care about others, you are no longer Evil.

Caring about others is not an inner motivation? What a bizarre concept. (Also, you're implying that Belkar cares about the rest of the Order now? And that you have to be a complete sociopath who cares about no one to be evil? No, sorry, you're wrong on all points.)

BTW, it makes me wonder how could Miko stay paladin for so long - she was clearly Neutral at best (if not outright Evil), she did nothing that showed her Good side in any way.

Might be news to the dirt farmers, the King of Nowhere...in general, an equally bizarre concept.

[Emperordaniel]

It matters little what your inner motivations are - as long as you care about others, you are no longer Evil.

I thought one of the themes of this comic was that even Evil people (Tsukiko with her wights, Tarquin with Elan, Belkar with Mr. Scruffy...) can care for others - it's what you do that makes you Evil, not what you care about. Heck, even Redcloak is going along with Xykon to help the goblin people - or that was his original intention, at least.

[SinsI]

I thought one of the themes of this comic was that even Evil people (Tsukiko with her wights, Tarquin with Elan, Belkar with Mr. Scruffy...) can care for others - it's what you do that makes you Evil, not what you care about. Heck, even Redcloak is going along with Xykon to help the goblin people - or that was his original intention, at least.

Caring about others is not an inner motivation? What a bizarre concept. (Also, you're implying that Belkar cares about the rest of the Order now? And that you have to be a complete sociopath who cares about no one to be evil? No, sorry, you're wrong on all points.)

Caring as in "taking their interests and opinions in mind when making decisions", not as "having feelings of affection for them". Before the removal of Mark of Justice, Belkar could care less what others thought of his actions; he was totally selfish = evil; now - he adjusts his behaviour to what he thinks is acceptable for them (as long as they see his hands). It is a perfect sign of a neutral alignment. If he were to put them before himself, being willing to take a loss for the greater total profit for the rest of his party, he would switch to being good.

[lio45]

Caring as in "taking their interests and opinions in mind when making decisions", not as "having feelings of affection for them". Before the removal of Mark of Justice, Belkar could care less what others thought of his actions; he was totally selfish = evil; now - he adjusts his behaviour to what he thinks is acceptable for them (as long as they see his hands). It is a perfect sign of a neutral alignment. If he were to put them before himself, being willing to take a loss for the greater total profit for the rest of his party, he would switch to being good.

It's also a perfect sign of an Evil alignment + not being powerful enough to be able to afford NOT adjusting your behavior + enough intelligence to realize it.

[Kish]

It is a perfect sign of a neutral alignment.

I see I was wrong; you're not arguing that you have to be a complete sociopath to be evil. You're arguing that you have to be a complete and extremely-low functioning sociopath, who is unable to not constantly broadcast "I AM EVIL!" to be evil. And, as Emperordaniel pointed out, your argument would indicate that Redcloak, Tsukiko, Nale...actually every character in the comic except Xykon, is Something Nonevil.

In fact, looking at this claim along with what you said about Miko, it appears that your concept of the good vs. evil scale is that it's actually a team player vs. not team player scale.

[theNater]

Caring as in "taking their interests and opinions in mind when making decisions", not as "having feelings of affection for them". Before the removal of Mark of Justice, Belkar could care less what others thought of his actions; he was totally selfish = evil; now - he adjusts his behaviour to what he thinks is acceptable for them (as long as they see his hands). It is a perfect sign of a neutral alignment. If he were to put them before himself, being willing to take a loss for the greater total profit for the rest of his party, he would switch to being good.

I just want to make sure-you do remember that Belkar injured Durkon for laughs after the Mark of Justice was removed, right?

[SowZ]

Correction: that Belkar is no longer Evil since the removal of Mark of Justice.

It matters little what your inner motivations are - as long as you care about others, you are no longer Evil.

BTW, it makes me wonder how could Miko stay paladin for so long - she was clearly Neutral at best (if not outright Evil), she did nothing that showed her Good side in any way.

So the iceman, mafia hitman notrious for possibly more hits than any hitman alive today who would often torture his targets over hours, was not evil because he went to great lengths to protect his family?

You seem to be under the impression that the only way to be evil is to be a mustache twirling disney villain cartoon character. If evil characters could not actually care about others and factor them in when making decisions, you would have very bland and uninteresting characters. And Xykon would be the ONLY evil character in the whole comic. Evil characters can be interesting, occasionally do good things, and sometimes even seem morally ambigous. Like Redcloak or Marv from Sin City, both fall under the definition for Evil that D&D has.

In fact, D&D 3.5 1st party material suggested making villains that care about a few people and have an interesting motivation and gave a few example villains. They were capable of love and sacrifice, btw, and still called evil.

[hamishspence]

Evil characters can be interesting, occasionally do good things, and sometimes even seem morally ambigous. Like Redcloak or Marv from Sin City, both fall under the definition for Evil that D&D has.

In fact, D&D 3.5 1st party material suggested making villains that care about a few people and have an interesting motivation and gave a few example villains. They were capable of love and sacrifice, btw, and still called evil.

There's a pretty good article by The Giant on this subject:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/Xbs...9g3HZBAGE.html

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

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

So, how does one create realistic emotional responses? First, remember that alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket. Not even for NPCs. Evil characters can love, good characters can hate.

Add in the possibility that close to 1/3 of the human population of a D&D world may qualify as Evil-aligned, since "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".

[SinsI]

I see I was wrong; you're not arguing that you have to be a complete sociopath to be evil. You're arguing that you have to be a complete and extremely-low functioning sociopath, who is unable to not constantly broadcast "I AM EVIL!" to be evil. And, as Emperordaniel pointed out, your argument would indicate that Redcloak, Tsukiko, Nale...actually every character in the comic except Xykon, is Something Nonevil.

In fact, looking at this claim along with what you said about Miko, it appears that your concept of the good vs. evil scale is that it's actually a team player vs. not team player scale.

Redcloak: towards goblins - Neutral. Before he stained his hands in SOD he was Good. Towards Humans - evil, before SOD was Neutral.
Tsukiko: completely Evil - everything is for herself, the "love" she feels towards undead is the love of a stalker - it is only about herself.
Xykon: evil, could care less about others.
Nale: evil to the core. Does what he wants and doesn't care what it does to the others.
Tarquin: smart Evil. Does what he wants and doesn't care what it does to the others.

For all of the above, casual observer would be able to properly name their alignments.

Belkar now: Restricts his actions to the limits acceptable to others.

Any casual observer (that has no long history or wasn't spoiled by the Order) would see that Belkar acts Neutral (or even Good).

I just want to make sure-you do remember that Belkar injured Durkon for laughs after the Mark of Justice was removed, right?

And V injured Belkar many times with his Explosive Runes. Is he Evil now?

Belkar didn't seriously try to kill Durkon - playing a more-or-less innocent joke is not evil but chaotic.

[hamishspence]

Belkar bullies the other gladiators in the Empire of Blood. There's also his treatment of Yukyuk, and several other things.

"Moderating his behaviour just enough to not get kicked out of the party" is a far cry from "acting Neutral".

[Kurald Galain]

Redcloak: towards goblins - Neutral. Before he stained his hands in SOD he was Good. Towards Humans - evil, before SOD was Neutral.

That doesn't work. SOD clearly spells out that all goblins are evil because they were created by the gods to be evil.

Spoiler

Show

And as such, they are created to be cannon fodder for low-level good characters, and are understandably pissed off about that.

[SowZ]

That doesn't work. SOD clearly spells out that all goblins are evil because they were created by the gods to be evil.

Spoiler

Show

And as such, they are created to be cannon fodder for low-level good characters, and are understandably pissed off about that.

Uhh, it doesn't clearly spell that out at all. It even gives examples of goblins that are probably good, or at the very least a neutral leaning that way.

Spoiler

Show

One Eye is definitely not evil. Maybe he was in his youth, but I wouldn't say so. If One Eye was ever evil, so are most heroes at the start of revenge stories. William Wallace in Braveheart is evil by those standards.

In fact, SOD implies that without Xykon's influence, the last surviving member of the Dark One's clergy may have joined a peaceful goblin village, living without hurting their human neighbors, focusing on family life and self-sustainability. With Redcloak defending that Goblin village, it is possible, (though maybe not likely,) that Goblins would have become recognized without the conquering of AC. Azure City would have no reason to continue hunting them, for example, since they would feel like they succeeded in destroying the Crimson Mantle.

I see little evidence that Goblins are almost always evil. Yes, they conquered Azure City. Yes, they enslaved the people they conquered. This is what basically 95% of ancient cultures would do to advance their peoples best interest. Even the primary human populace in OOTS uses slaves. Yes, these are absolutely evil acts. But does it mean most humans are evil? Most goblins living in Gobbtoppia are probably evil, yes. But that can be attributed to the environment the gods placed them in.

Just like more humans raised in Tarquins nations are probably evil than good, because of their surroundings. Goblins probably have more innate aggression and so are still more likely to be evil, sure. But they can definitely be good. And I'd be willing to bet a lot of goblins are neutral. There is no real reason to believe that most of the goblins in Redcloaks village were evil.

Saying that Goblins raid and kill humans is not a good argument. Most goblins don't do that. For one, there are more goblins than humans. It is mathematically impossible for any sort of significant percentage of goblins to have ever killed a single member of a civilized race. That would be like saying most Norse killed Englishman. Some did, sure.

Redcloak: towards goblins - Neutral. Before he stained his hands in SOD he was Good. Towards Humans - evil, before SOD was Neutral.
Tsukiko: completely Evil - everything is for herself, the "love" she feels towards undead is the love of a stalker - it is only about herself.
Xykon: evil, could care less about others.
Nale: evil to the core. Does what he wants and doesn't care what it does to the others.
Tarquin: smart Evil. Does what he wants and doesn't care what it does to the others.

For all of the above, casual observer would be able to properly name their alignments.

Belkar now: Restricts his actions to the limits acceptable to others.

Any casual observer (that has no long history or wasn't spoiled by the Order) would see that Belkar acts Neutral (or even Good).



And V injured Belkar many times with his Explosive Runes. Is he Evil now?

Belkar didn't seriously try to kill Durkon - playing a more-or-less innocent joke is not evil but chaotic.

Yeah, but being 'Neutral' towards goblins doesn't mean he isn't evil. You aren't evil in some contexts and good in others in D&D. Maybe in real life you could make that argument, and it may be a good one, but even with that argument Belkar is evil more often than not. Yes, he wouldn't kill a baby in front of ten guards. But that doesn't mean he isn't evil in that context. If it does, the only evil people that have ever lived are completely psychotic.

Nale does care about Sabine. And Sabine cares about Nale. You'd have an even tougher time arguing that Thog doesn't care about his party.

Going back to Miko, yes, it was surprising that she registered as good. But I think you've missed a good part of the point of her character in that regard. In the same way, it can be surprising what characters register as evil.

If Goblins all register Evil, than the alignment system means nothing at all and is only a little based on your actions, since it means the gods arbitrarily assign your alignment so right and wrong/morality correspond even less than they already do with Good and Evil alignments. (Though I suppose this would explain why Miko was 'Good.') Miko was probably Good because she was loyal, dedicated to her cause/improving the world, and self-sacrificing. I, personally, would still call her Lawful Neutral with those things in mind. But I can see where she could be called Jerky-Good.

[The Pilgrim]

I am not saying Hilgya isn't evil. She most likely is. But it is not proven, as the most evil thing we saw her actually do was trying to kill her husband.

Ehm, what about murdering the Fire Silph?

I mean, Hilgya was already stablished as Evil before her romance with Durkon and the exposition of her past life.

Someone sort-of did, but with coffee...

Once again, Reality proves his ability to go well beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

[SowZ]

Ehm, what about murdering the Fire Silph?

I mean, Hilgya was already stablished as Evil before her romance with Durkon and the exposition of her past life.



Once again, Reality proves his ability to go well beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Yeah, that is one person she attempted to murder many times when in all likelihood it was unjustified and one person she absolutely murdered and it was definitely unjustified. These two events are about all we know about her moral decisions and they happened over a long period of time, showing a complete disregard for, (and even enjoyment in ending it, she always smiles when we see her in the process of killing someone.) Plus, you know, advancing the agenda of a CE god.

[dps]

Caring as in "taking their interests and opinions in mind when making decisions", not as "having feelings of affection for them". Before the removal of Mark of Justice, Belkar could care less what others thought of his actions; he was totally selfish = evil; now - he adjusts his behaviour to what he thinks is acceptable for them (as long as they see his hands). It is a perfect sign of a neutral alignment. If he were to put them before himself, being willing to take a loss for the greater total profit for the rest of his party, he would switch to being good.

Belkar didn't start taking other people's opinions into consideration because he started actually caring about others or their opinions--he did it because he learned that taking their opinions into consideration helps him manipulate them into letting him get what HE wants.

He's still just as selfish, just more clever about it.

[SowZ]

Belkar didn't start taking other people's opinions into consideration because he started actually caring about others or their opinions--he did it because he learned that taking their opinions into consideration helps him manipulate them into letting him get what HE wants.

He's still just as selfish, just more clever about it.

Yeah, some people think Chaotic Evil has to mean Chaotic Stupid, (which Belkar has been for most of his life, to be fair.)

[Kish]

Considering he's had people arguing that he's actually Chaotic Neutral all his life, I think that kind of fairness is overrated.

[theNater]

And V injured Belkar many times with his Explosive Runes. Is he Evil now?

You said, in reference to Belkar, that "he adjusts his behaviour to what he thinks is acceptable for them (as long as they see his hands). It is a perfect sign of a neutral alignment." Belkar has not done so, he is fully aware that injuring other party members is not acceptable, as he was there both time Roy chewed Vaarsuvius out for the Explosive Runes. By the criteria you put forward in that post, Belkar is not neutral.

However, as you point out, Vaarsuvius has engaged in such behavior without being Evil. So, in fact, whether one engages in such behavior is not a good way to determine a character's alignment.

Now, if you actually want to talk about Belkar's alignment instead of his teamwork, I recommend you review the gladiator strips. During those Belkar stole food from people who had little food, and made an effort to ensure that he'd have an opportunity to kill a random other gladiator. Neither of those are "more-or-less innocent jokes", and both occurred after the removal of the Mark of Justice.

[Kurald Galain]

Uhh, it doesn't clearly spell that out at all. It even gives examples of goblins that are probably good, or at the very least a neutral leaning that way.

Yes, it does. All of the goblins, all of them, are "evil" in the D&D alignment sense of the word, because that's how they are defined. Pretty much none of them are "evil" in the real-life ethical sense of the word. That is The Giant's point! He is exposing the flaws in the common justification of D&D players that it's okay to slaughter certain races (like goblins) because the monster manual says they're evil.

[hamishspence]

The Monster Manual says they are "usually Neutral Evil"- which is to say- 50+% are NE, some are other alignments.

As far as I can tell, the Giant has never said that "a being can be morally OK and yet still have an Evil alignment because the MM says so" - not even to castigate it.

[coineineagh]

Ehm, what about murdering the Fire Silph?

If I saw it correctly, Nale walked ahead, and the Fire Sylph was murdered by him. Unless she died from Hilgya's fiery gaze attack..

[SowZ]

Yes, it does. All of the goblins, all of them, are "evil" in the D&D alignment sense of the word, because that's how they are defined. Pretty much none of them are "evil" in the real-life ethical sense of the word. That is The Giant's point! He is exposing the flaws in the common justification of D&D players that it's okay to slaughter certain races (like goblins) because the monster manual says they're evil.

Goblins aren't evil in D&D and I've seen nothing to indicate the Giant houseruled that they are. Lizardfolk have the same MM alignment as Goblins, (so they were probably made as fodder, too.) Same with Kobolds, yet we saw a good Kobold. Where does it say all Goblins are evil?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Goblins aren't evil in D&D and I've seen nothing to indicate the Giant houseruled that they are. Lizardfolk have the same MM alignment as Goblins, (so they were probably made as fodder, too.) Same with Kobolds, yet we saw a good Kobold. Where does it say all Goblins are evil?

Actually, lizardfolk are "usually neutral"!

[SowZ]

Actually, lizardfolk are "usually neutral"!

You're right. Replace 'Lizardfolk' with Blue Half-Dragon. In fact, by the template block, Half-Blue Dragons should be 'always' Lawful-Evil, though other sources indicate this may not be the case.

[SinsI]

Now, if you actually want to talk about Belkar's alignment instead of his teamwork, I recommend you review the gladiator strips. During those Belkar stole food from people who had little food, and made an effort to ensure that he'd have an opportunity to kill a random other gladiator. Neither of those are "more-or-less innocent jokes", and both occurred after the removal of the Mark of Justice.

His alignment modifications, based on gladiatorial episodes:
Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.
Evil act, but for Good reasons ("Anything that makes the prison experience more miserable should serve to reduce crime")

Good: Had second thoughts on "Hey, am I really allowed to kill that guy?"
Good: Sent a dinosaur to save two helpless partners

Overall, his behaviour in the Arena brought him closer to Good than to Evil.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Neutral: Played a bully with criminals.
Evil act, but for Good reasons ("Anything that makes the prison experience more miserable should serve to reduce crime")

That was nothing more than a bull**** justification. Belkar doesn't give a damn about reducing crime. - Evil.

Good: Had second thoughts on "Hey, am I really allowed to kill that guy?"

That was. "Can I actually kill this guy without being punished for it? After my epiphany I've realized that being punished for stuff sucks." - Smart evil as opposed to stupid evil.

Good: Sent a dinosaur to save two helpless partners

One, very minor, momentary good urge.