The Order of the Stick

Well, regardless, the only narrative reason to keep Hilgya around is to contribute toward furthing Durkon's character development.

Killing Durkon for that slight might be an Evil act, but the thing about Neutral characters is that they can commit the occasional Evil act and still be Neutral, just like they can commit the occasional Good act and still be Neutral.

I find the idea of black market clerics really really funny.

You'd think having the backing of a god would make you the most legit authority there was, but there you have it XD

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you

Are we counting the extended Familicide deaths as murder? If so, V definitely has, just statistically-speaking. The Draketooths are an obvious example, but the panel of a clutch of dragon eggs shattering is a particularly strong example.

Though, something like Familicide may well be too widespread and impersonal to be accurately called "murder", perhaps.

Edited by Enlong on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:25:01 PM

I have a message from another time...

Murder doesn't require the killing to be "personal", especially not mass murder.

Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.

and : Note that Familicide was classified by the deva who interviewed Roy as a dramatic turn towards evil, so the narrative is fully in agreement that it was a Bad Thing for V to do. About the only mitigating factor is that the act was performed under extraordinary emotional duress.

Another consistent element of Rich's approach to D&D morality is that you can seek to atone for evil acts. It doesn't mean you'll succeed, but it does mean that even the worst evildoer has some chance of redemption. It's just not for everyone.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:29:57 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Oh, I wasn't arguing that it wasn't an evil act. Not at all. Only wondering if perhaps the word for the act wasn't different, and that's why it wasn't being considered for the list of "murders V has done"

Like, calling the act "slaughter" does not imply it's less evil, for example.

But I would call it an act of murder. An unthinkably large one.

Edited by Enlong on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:33:32 PM

I have a message from another time...

And V has explicitly one upped Miko on that accounting by acknowledging her error and attempting to make up for it, even if she doesn't think it'll work.

Is killing a bandit who's trying to rob you murder? Is killing goblins serving under a lich murder? Is killing enemies in wartime murder? V's done all of those yet we don't seem to hold them against hir alignment. So which acts can we pick out as explicitly murder as opposed to the sort of killing that adventurers do all the time in the course of their adventuring?

Obviously, Familicide counts. Disintegrating Kubota would as well, given the circumstances. Are there others that we should consider? The juvenile black dragon doesn't count, as it would have resumed trying to kill the party the instant it was released from V's suggestion spell.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:42:54 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I mean, couldn't they have just left the cave, or V commanded him to fly away or something before dismissing it? It seems pretty safe to assume he was evil, but they didn't technically need to kill him to get away.

The exact circumstances of that situation make it hard for me to say one way or another whether I think V actually crossed a line or not.

Edited by LSBK on Aug 9th 2018 at 1:44:01 PM

But it's a recurring pattern. And having thought of murder as a first resort but then decided "this other thing is easier/more satisfying because of how vindictive it is" as a proportion of screentime shown...

Not even getting into the part where the Linear Guild was assembled to be a bunch of opposites. You can just tell that the recruitment was "looking for Chaotic Evil dwarven cleric".

If we're going down the rabbit hole where killing monsters that tried to eliminate your party is evil, nobody could have a Good alignment because subdual damage exists and is only a marginal penalty to hit.

Edited by RainehDaze on Aug 9th 2018 at 7:44:43 PM

Avatar Source

Maybe, but it's not anything that couldn't be thoroughly justified under the Neutral banner. The act was more prudent than selfish. I don't think we're intended to sympathize with the dragon, at least. I certainly don't.

Adventurers doing adventurer things is morally Neutral in D&D. We simply have to accept this or we can't have a rational discussion.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:48:19 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That wasn't intentional at first, just a funny coincidence, after all, the Linear Guild didn't even know about the Order until running into them in the dungeon. Nale only explicitly started going for the evil opposites them after decreeing the Order their personal mortal enemies or whatever.

Edited by LSBK on Aug 9th 2018 at 1:46:19 PM

I can't remember the original kobold in detail, but if we look at the other original members of the guild, they were still created to be opposites. It was their whole point.

It seems really unlikely that Hilgya thus is not Evil because... some reason. "Murder is always an acceptable solution" does not fit if trying to stay out of an evil alignment.

Avatar Source

Durkon: Male, Lawful Good, obsessed with duty and obedience
Hilgya: Female, Chaotic Evil, hates being constricted by obligations

I see it.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2018 at 3:33:10 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

True Neutral: I prefer to stay out of it. But, if you hurt me or mine, I'll hurt you in kind. If you're good to me, I'll be solid to you.

Chaotic Neutral: Hurt me, and I may mess you up and/or kill you. Or, make you wear pink and call you Cloe-choo-choo until you convince me not to. Or, until I forgot or forgive — whichever comes first. It depends. What were we talking about, again (because having second, third, fourth, roast beef and "did I leave the stove on" thoughts almost simultaneously can mean being a little unfocused and contradictory, sometimes)?

Edited by Euodiachloris on Aug 9th 2018 at 9:08:06 AM

That's an oversimplification, and the misconception often leads players to play Chaotic Neutral as Chaotic Stupid. For an example of an OOTS canon CN character, look at Girard Draketooth. He's not "lolrandom". Instead, he's deeply paranoid of authority and tries to isolate himself from the world. This mentality is similar to real life "preppers".

To be Chaotic in ethical alignment, you need only value the freedom of the individual over the strictures of organized society. To be morally Neutral, you need only care primarily for you and yours, being unwilling to sacrifice more than nominally for the greater good but also unwilling to harm others without reason.

(There's another form of Neutral that is much rarer, one that concerns itself with the balance between good and evil and seeks to maintain it. A Chaotic Neutral with that outlook is extremely uncommon, but is possible, I guess.)

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2018 at 4:08:58 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Or, alternately, Neutrality involves being devoted to ensure that neither Good nor Evil (which exist as definite forces) have the upper hand.

The point is: when you value your own thoughts and feelings over the morality others, you come across rather random. Even when meaning well (and trying to free them of their boring, lock-in mindsets), you do weird-as-hell things. From other people's points of view. Because you don't take theirs into account the vast majority of the time. What you think of as freedom counts more than what they think of it.

Chaotic Evil is All About Me AND Screw the Other Guy rather more consistently. As well as deliberately throwing other people under the bus because it feels better to be more powerful. Still pretty random... because "don't care what others think" and "don't you dare pen me in" is shared.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Aug 9th 2018 at 9:12:17 AM

Again, this is only one way to play Chaotic alignments. You can be highly mentally disciplined and still be Chaotic; you can have a rigid code of conduct and still be Chaotic. The important part is that you believe in the individual's rights above the society's. So while you may be strict as hell, you recognize (and demand) that each person choose their own way of living.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2018 at 4:14:48 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Heh. So how Neutral you believe Girard to be depends on how justified you find his left over spell bomb that he left for Soon to be.

Soon as in the character. That sentence can be confusing. Couldn't find a better way to phrase it. I do agree he's pretty much neutral though.

One Strip! One Strip!

Sure, you can be. However, the moment you start having a consistent code (even if part of the code is "update every 18 months")... you start reaching towards more True Neutral.

Or, you know... be Githzerai: Lawful, yet dealing every second with Limbo and having to be adaptable or die.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Aug 9th 2018 at 9:17:54 AM

Again, this is just not how it works. You can be consistent and still be Chaotic. Nothing requires that you roll dice to determine how you behave. Haley isn't "random", she just doesn't like being put in a box. Elan is random, but he's also a ditz. Girard is (was) quite predictable once you learned his motives.

You don't get kicked out of the Chaotic afterlife for eating the same breakfast every day. You get kicked out if you start conforming without questioning, if you begin to value society over the individual, if you start imposing rules on your associates without asking for their consent, if you start respecting the law for its own sake rather than because you happen to agree with it.

In a weird way, Girard's little society was almost Lawful in its structure even as it was set up in opposition to the rules of society. It's not like its members were offered a choice about whether to participate.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2018 at 4:28:31 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

No. Eating the same breakfast for years? Sure. Fine. Especially if you can only find muesli and the bacon sucks.

But choosing to do that every day, years at a time for decades without going a few months of e.g. not having breakfast or going for brunch or trying a Northern bread-and-cheese/meat festival or something more prunes-and-yoghurt simply because the choice is there (and why not)? Not. Chaotic.

It's not a case of changing a diet every day because LOL. But trying something just to try it, whenever you see it and happen to think it sounds like a good time. You can always go back to muesli, if that's your choice. Freedom to choose sawdust (or toast and Marmite or porridge or rice-and-miso or kedgeree)!

Edited by Euodiachloris on Aug 9th 2018 at 9:36:46 AM

Chaotic isn't doing things just because they're there to be done. That's an absurd way to look at it.

Accepting that law is important, that the needs of society and obligations will come before individual freedom, is not the thematic opposite of just trying new things.

By your logic, lawful characters aren't allowed to ever do anything new.

Avatar Source