Tharizdun's alignment - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Tharizdun's alignment

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
caeruleus
Apr 24, 2004 22:23:01 Tharizdun's alignment is listed as NE. However, the listing of deities for the Living Greyhawk Campaign (that is, the listing that can be downloaded from online, not the listing in the LGG) has Tharizdun granting the Chaos domain. Now this makes sense, given that his portfolio includes entropy. But, if that's the case, then why is he NE, rather than CE?
#2
zombiegleemax
Apr 24, 2004 22:35:52 Agree- that certainly opens much in the way of philosophical debate- 'what alignment is madness?'

Yep, in the real world, the neighbour that always 'seemed so nice', buried children in his backyard...that man who lives down the lane and would bend over backwards to help a neighbour, eats meat...the Dali Lama propheses peace, but crams screaming masses of lettuce (which is alive) into his mouth...I want to save the whales, but love to live in a wooden home (dead trees), and etc.

Yep, alignment sure exists in the realm of fantasy...
#3
cwslyclgh
Apr 24, 2004 23:07:35 I do not know why he is NE in 3e... in first edition his alignment was simply given as Evil, even when all the other gods has specific alignments.
#4
caeruleus
Apr 25, 2004 10:44:15 It's hardly a "philosophical" point.

Entropy is disorder. It seems like that would be associated with Chaos. And I've always thought of Tharizdun as rather chaotic. However, that wasn't my main concern.

I had been under the impression that a deity only grants an alignment domain if that deity is of that alignment. I suppose I could have asked why does Tharizdun grant the Chaos domain, but since this made sense to me, I just questioned his alignment.
#5
cwslyclgh
Apr 25, 2004 14:56:18 I believe that SKR (who wrote the deities section for the LGG) said that the chaos domain in a nuetral evil god and some other minor errors (such as some gods not having a domian associated with a facet of thier alignment)... was becasue he wrote it before the Deities and Demigods book solidified rules for such things )or something like that)... he used to have a corrected list of greyhawk god domains on his web site (Seankreynolds.com), but do not know if he still does.
#6
avfanatic
Apr 25, 2004 23:00:52 NE implies that any evil can worship him but CE would seem to be opposed to LE followers.
#7
grodog
Apr 26, 2004 0:00:38
Originally posted by cwslyclgh
SKR [snip] used to have a corrected list of greyhawk god domains on his web site (Seankreynolds.com), but do not know if he still does.

See http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/greyhawkdeities.html
and then the LG update to that list (IIRC) at http://www.living-greyhawk.com/Downloads/Living%20Greyhawk%20Deitires%201.3.pdf
#8
Mortepierre
Apr 26, 2004 3:37:25 Tharizdun, back in the golden days of Gygax's GH, was described as being the god that would unite all factions of Evil. Hence the NE alignment for him. If he was CE, he couldn't bring the devils into the fold. If he was LE, the demons wouldn't obey. NE was thus the only logical choice.

As to why he has Chaos in his portfolio, he is the deity of Decay and Entropy. Law hardly fits. Chaos is perfect (though it creates as much as it destroys .. in theory).

IMOC, I see Tharizdun as the supreme creator. He creates something, then feels the need to destroy it to make space for something new. He participated in the creation of GH. Now, he simply wants to destroy it to create something else. Of course, the other gods don't exactly agree with his plans (apart from Nerull perhaps..).

Is he misunderstood? Aye. Is he Evil? Most certainly!
#9
rilem
Apr 26, 2004 9:01:02 I'm all for it being vague. Tharizdun, in his present form, seems to lack the consciousness necessary to have a specific alignment, beyond projecting some indistinct force of malice.
#10
wolf72
Apr 26, 2004 17:41:18 if any diety deserves a single alignment descriptor it's Tharizdun ...

Just plain Evil works for me.
#11
lincoln_hills
Apr 27, 2004 12:51:17 "Okay, dude, I'll let you in on the secret. Back when Tharizdun was an active NPC, there wasn't a Lawful-to-Chaotic axis in the alignment system. After the DM retired him, we increased the number of alignments - but since he wasn't in play the DM must have forgotten to update his character sheet."
#12
protonik_dup
Apr 27, 2004 14:51:44
Originally posted by Lincoln Hills
"Okay, dude, I'll let you in on the secret. Back when Tharizdun was an active NPC, there wasn't a Lawful-to-Chaotic axis in the alignment system. After the DM retired him, we increased the number of alignments - but since he wasn't in play the DM must have forgotten to update his character sheet."

LOL...

Great joke, but it has problems, the alignment were originally Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic...

Jason
#13
Greyson
Apr 28, 2004 10:44:33
Originally posted by rilem
I'm all for it being vague. Tharizdun, in his present form, seems to lack the consciousness necessary to have a specific alignment, beyond projecting some indistinct force of malice.

I think that is a great conception of Tharizdun's state of being. Many elements of his personality are indistinct because of his state of slumber and imprisonment. Thus, he communicates in vague, nebulus dreams.
#14
Brom_Blackforge
Apr 28, 2004 13:21:49
Originally posted by cwslyclgh
I do not know why he is NE in 3e... in first edition his alignment was simply given as Evil . . . .

Isn't that what Neutral Evil is? Just Evil?

I don't think it's necessarily a problem for a NE deity to have Chaos as a domain ... although it certainly makes you wonder. I haven't looked; does he also have another domain that might be considered more Lawful, such that the two might balance out? Or has the Chaos domain been edited out?
#15
cwslyclgh
Apr 28, 2004 15:16:41
Isn't that what Neutral Evil is? Just Evil?

nope, neutral evil is neutral evil... if neutral evil = just evil then Incabulos, Nerull etc. should have been labled the same way. Neutral Evil is generaly defined as selfish-evil... not as true Evil.
#16
glennl
Apr 28, 2004 17:31:33 How about he is so Chaotic, he is sometimes NE just for fun! :D By the way, entropy is not nessisarily chaotic it's just that the universe is getting hotter, read Steven Hawkings--Sorry I am a science teacher and that makes me weird. But seriously, I think he's supposed to be like the pre-Olypian Titans, you know pure Chaos and generally seen as evil, but he would be smart enough to want followers and to choose his own alignment thus being NE but granting to his followers the chaos domain to match the desire of his heart.
#17
Brom_Blackforge
Apr 29, 2004 12:07:23
Originally posted by cwslyclgh
nope, neutral evil is neutral evil... if neutral evil = just evil then Incabulos, Nerull etc. should have been labled the same way. Neutral Evil is generaly defined as selfish-evil... not as true Evil.

What I was getting at is that the "neutral" in Neutral Evil indicates that neither Law nor Chaos predominates. (It's "neutral" on the Law-Chaos axis.) That may be selfish or it may not. What it is, though, is Evil unmixed (or mixed equally, such that they balance out) with Law and Chaos. But I don't think that helps answer the question of why Tharizdun is NE but has Chaos as one of his domains.

Maybe Tharizdun is Neutral Evil in the same way that St. Cuthbert is Lawful Neutral. ;)
#18
caeruleus
Apr 29, 2004 17:55:10
Originally posted by glennl
By the way, entropy is not nessisarily chaotic it's just that the universe is getting hotter

That's how physicists use the term today, but I doubt that Tharizdun is a god of entropy in that sense.
#19
glennl
Apr 30, 2004 9:55:33
Originally posted by caeruleus
That's how physicists use the term today, but I doubt that Tharizdun is a god of entropy in that sense.

Yea, us physics teachers are just weird that way. It would be strange to have a diety dedicated to it getting hot. That's the domain of the devils! Sorry yet another bad joke.
#20
orodruin
May 07, 2004 20:47:46
Originally posted by Wolf72
if any diety deserves a single alignment descriptor it's Tharizdun ...

Just plain Evil works for me.

Interestingly, in the original "World of Greyhawk" boxed set, Tharizdun's entry describes him as the greater god of "Eternal Darkness and Decay" and sets his alignment at "evil". Not lawful, chaotic or neutral, just plain evil.
#21
zombiegleemax
May 10, 2004 20:59:12 Having the big T vioalte the alignment rules by being just evil is a good way to wierd out the players as well.

Philosphically speaking, sure he has some chaotic elements to his philososphy, but what could be more ordered and lawfull than a completely decayed system? Everything just one great big never ending realm of cold, darkness and decay. Static and never changing.

Hail Tharizdun! Buttons and Shrimp!
#22
Argon
May 10, 2004 23:29:39 I don't know maybe I'm the only one who sees things this way but Gods should not be looked at in terms of alignment. Instead one should look at Gods by their portfolios!

It just makes sense too me! that gods are beyond human or mortals terms of what is morally correct or acceptable. But mortals will often define things in this way!

Gods are different lets not label them with alignment's.
#23
Brom_Blackforge
May 11, 2004 13:38:33 I think Argon's point makes sense from a real-world point of view, but my counter-argument would be that D&D is different.

I don't think it's revolutionary (anymore) to say that, in the real world, good and evil are often subjective. It's also not revolutionary to hypothesize that deities are beyond good and evil; this is an idea found in Eastern philosophy dating back thousands of years, if I'm not mistaken.

However, in D&D, Good and Evil are objective forces. That's the only way that spells like Detect Evil are able to work. (I think there's a discussion of this at the beginning of either the Book of Vile Darkness or the Book of Exalted Deeds - or maybe both.) Like Law and Chaos, Good and Evil are forces that act on the D&D multiverse and everything in it - including the deities.

At any rate, I think that's the official rationale for assigning alignments to deities. Of course, like any other rule, if it gets in your way, you're free to amend it or dispense with it at will. It is, after all, a game.
#24
zombiegleemax
May 11, 2004 14:23:48 Has anybody seen T's write-up in Complete Divine? I have a feeling they probably dump the Chaos domain.

In my campaign T has four aspects. Sort of like a split personality due to his imprisonment. The EEG is just one of the aspects.
#25
Brom_Blackforge
May 11, 2004 16:54:07 Anybody see the cult of Tharizdun write-up on the Wizards site? Nothing really germane to the alignment quesiton there, although maybe the next part will have something. The teaser for part 2 says:
Coming in Part 2 of the Cult of Tharizdun

The destruction of all things requires unique and deadly magic secretly forged in the darkness, away from the sensibilities of civilization and law.

"[A]way from . . . law" seems to suggest a chaotic aspect.
#26
wolf72
May 12, 2004 15:57:17
Originally posted by Orodruin
... just plain evil.

I think that's how its alignment should read.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 caeruleus Apr 24, 2004 22:23:01	Tharizdun's alignment is listed as NE. However, the listing of deities for the Living Greyhawk Campaign (that is, the listing that can be downloaded from online, not the listing in the LGG) has Tharizdun granting the Chaos domain. Now this makes sense, given that his portfolio includes entropy. But, if that's the case, then why is he NE, rather than CE?
#2 zombiegleemax Apr 24, 2004 22:35:52	Agree- that certainly opens much in the way of philosophical debate- 'what alignment is madness?' Yep, in the real world, the neighbour that always 'seemed so nice', buried children in his backyard...that man who lives down the lane and would bend over backwards to help a neighbour, eats meat...the Dali Lama propheses peace, but crams screaming masses of lettuce (which is alive) into his mouth...I want to save the whales, but love to live in a wooden home (dead trees), and etc. Yep, alignment sure exists in the realm of fantasy...
#3 cwslyclgh Apr 24, 2004 23:07:35	I do not know why he is NE in 3e... in first edition his alignment was simply given as Evil, even when all the other gods has specific alignments.
#4 caeruleus Apr 25, 2004 10:44:15	It's hardly a "philosophical" point. Entropy is disorder. It seems like that would be associated with Chaos. And I've always thought of Tharizdun as rather chaotic. However, that wasn't my main concern. I had been under the impression that a deity only grants an alignment domain if that deity is of that alignment. I suppose I could have asked why does Tharizdun grant the Chaos domain, but since this made sense to me, I just questioned his alignment.
#5 cwslyclgh Apr 25, 2004 14:56:18	I believe that SKR (who wrote the deities section for the LGG) said that the chaos domain in a nuetral evil god and some other minor errors (such as some gods not having a domian associated with a facet of thier alignment)... was becasue he wrote it before the Deities and Demigods book solidified rules for such things )or something like that)... he used to have a corrected list of greyhawk god domains on his web site (Seankreynolds.com), but do not know if he still does.
#6 avfanatic Apr 25, 2004 23:00:52	NE implies that any evil can worship him but CE would seem to be opposed to LE followers.
#7 grodog Apr 26, 2004 0:00:38	Originally posted by cwslyclgh SKR [snip] used to have a corrected list of greyhawk god domains on his web site (Seankreynolds.com), but do not know if he still does. See http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/greyhawkdeities.html and then the LG update to that list (IIRC) at http://www.living-greyhawk.com/Downloads/Living%20Greyhawk%20Deitires%201.3.pdf
#8 Mortepierre Apr 26, 2004 3:37:25	Tharizdun, back in the golden days of Gygax's GH, was described as being the god that would unite all factions of Evil. Hence the NE alignment for him. If he was CE, he couldn't bring the devils into the fold. If he was LE, the demons wouldn't obey. NE was thus the only logical choice. As to why he has Chaos in his portfolio, he is the deity of Decay and Entropy. Law hardly fits. Chaos is perfect (though it creates as much as it destroys .. in theory). IMOC, I see Tharizdun as the supreme creator. He creates something, then feels the need to destroy it to make space for something new. He participated in the creation of GH. Now, he simply wants to destroy it to create something else. Of course, the other gods don't exactly agree with his plans (apart from Nerull perhaps..). Is he misunderstood? Aye. Is he Evil? Most certainly!
#9 rilem Apr 26, 2004 9:01:02	I'm all for it being vague. Tharizdun, in his present form, seems to lack the consciousness necessary to have a specific alignment, beyond projecting some indistinct force of malice.
#10 wolf72 Apr 26, 2004 17:41:18	if any diety deserves a single alignment descriptor it's Tharizdun ... Just plain Evil works for me.
#11 lincoln_hills Apr 27, 2004 12:51:17	"Okay, dude, I'll let you in on the secret. Back when Tharizdun was an active NPC, there wasn't a Lawful-to-Chaotic axis in the alignment system. After the DM retired him, we increased the number of alignments - but since he wasn't in play the DM must have forgotten to update his character sheet."
#12 protonik_dup Apr 27, 2004 14:51:44	Originally posted by Lincoln Hills "Okay, dude, I'll let you in on the secret. Back when Tharizdun was an active NPC, there wasn't a Lawful-to-Chaotic axis in the alignment system. After the DM retired him, we increased the number of alignments - but since he wasn't in play the DM must have forgotten to update his character sheet." LOL... Great joke, but it has problems, the alignment were originally Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic... Jason
#13 Greyson Apr 28, 2004 10:44:33	Originally posted by rilem I'm all for it being vague. Tharizdun, in his present form, seems to lack the consciousness necessary to have a specific alignment, beyond projecting some indistinct force of malice. I think that is a great conception of Tharizdun's state of being. Many elements of his personality are indistinct because of his state of slumber and imprisonment. Thus, he communicates in vague, nebulus dreams.
#14 Brom_Blackforge Apr 28, 2004 13:21:49	Originally posted by cwslyclgh I do not know why he is NE in 3e... in first edition his alignment was simply given as Evil . . . . Isn't that what Neutral Evil is? Just Evil? I don't think it's necessarily a problem for a NE deity to have Chaos as a domain ... although it certainly makes you wonder. I haven't looked; does he also have another domain that might be considered more Lawful, such that the two might balance out? Or has the Chaos domain been edited out?
#15 cwslyclgh Apr 28, 2004 15:16:41	Isn't that what Neutral Evil is? Just Evil? nope, neutral evil is neutral evil... if neutral evil = just evil then Incabulos, Nerull etc. should have been labled the same way. Neutral Evil is generaly defined as selfish-evil... not as true Evil.
#16 glennl Apr 28, 2004 17:31:33	How about he is so Chaotic, he is sometimes NE just for fun! :D By the way, entropy is not nessisarily chaotic it's just that the universe is getting hotter, read Steven Hawkings--Sorry I am a science teacher and that makes me weird. But seriously, I think he's supposed to be like the pre-Olypian Titans, you know pure Chaos and generally seen as evil, but he would be smart enough to want followers and to choose his own alignment thus being NE but granting to his followers the chaos domain to match the desire of his heart.
#17 Brom_Blackforge Apr 29, 2004 12:07:23	Originally posted by cwslyclgh nope, neutral evil is neutral evil... if neutral evil = just evil then Incabulos, Nerull etc. should have been labled the same way. Neutral Evil is generaly defined as selfish-evil... not as true Evil. What I was getting at is that the "neutral" in Neutral Evil indicates that neither Law nor Chaos predominates. (It's "neutral" on the Law-Chaos axis.) That may be selfish or it may not. What it is, though, is Evil unmixed (or mixed equally, such that they balance out) with Law and Chaos. But I don't think that helps answer the question of why Tharizdun is NE but has Chaos as one of his domains. Maybe Tharizdun is Neutral Evil in the same way that St. Cuthbert is Lawful Neutral. ;)
#18 caeruleus Apr 29, 2004 17:55:10	Originally posted by glennl By the way, entropy is not nessisarily chaotic it's just that the universe is getting hotter That's how physicists use the term today, but I doubt that Tharizdun is a god of entropy in that sense.
#19 glennl Apr 30, 2004 9:55:33	Originally posted by caeruleus *That's how physicists use the term today, but I doubt that Tharizdun is a god of entropy in that* sense.** Yea, us physics teachers are just weird that way. It would be strange to have a diety dedicated to it getting hot. That's the domain of the devils! Sorry yet another bad joke.
#20 orodruin May 07, 2004 20:47:46	Originally posted by Wolf72 if any diety deserves a single alignment descriptor it's Tharizdun ... Just plain Evil works for me. Interestingly, in the original "World of Greyhawk" boxed set, Tharizdun's entry describes him as the greater god of "Eternal Darkness and Decay" and sets his alignment at "evil". Not lawful, chaotic or neutral, just plain evil.
#21 zombiegleemax May 10, 2004 20:59:12	Having the big T vioalte the alignment rules by being just evil is a good way to wierd out the players as well. Philosphically speaking, sure he has some chaotic elements to his philososphy, but what could be more ordered and lawfull than a completely decayed system? Everything just one great big never ending realm of cold, darkness and decay. Static and never changing. Hail Tharizdun! Buttons and Shrimp!
#22 Argon May 10, 2004 23:29:39	I don't know maybe I'm the only one who sees things this way but Gods should not be looked at in terms of alignment. Instead one should look at Gods by their portfolios! It just makes sense too me! that gods are beyond human or mortals terms of what is morally correct or acceptable. But mortals will often define things in this way! Gods are different lets not label them with alignment's.
#23 Brom_Blackforge May 11, 2004 13:38:33	I think Argon's point makes sense from a real-world point of view, but my counter-argument would be that D&D is different. I don't think it's revolutionary (anymore) to say that, in the real world, good and evil are often subjective. It's also not revolutionary to hypothesize that deities are beyond good and evil; this is an idea found in Eastern philosophy dating back thousands of years, if I'm not mistaken. However, in D&D, Good and Evil are objective forces. That's the only way that spells like Detect Evil are able to work. (I think there's a discussion of this at the beginning of either the Book of Vile Darkness or the Book of Exalted Deeds - or maybe both.) Like Law and Chaos, Good and Evil are forces that act on the D&D multiverse and everything in it - including the deities. At any rate, I think that's the official rationale for assigning alignments to deities. Of course, like any other rule, if it gets in your way, you're free to amend it or dispense with it at will. It is, after all, a game.
#24 zombiegleemax May 11, 2004 14:23:48	Has anybody seen T's write-up in Complete Divine? I have a feeling they probably dump the Chaos domain. In my campaign T has four aspects. Sort of like a split personality due to his imprisonment. The EEG is just one of the aspects.
#25 Brom_Blackforge May 11, 2004 16:54:07	Anybody see the cult of Tharizdun write-up on the Wizards site? Nothing really germane to the alignment quesiton there, although maybe the next part will have something. The teaser for part 2 says: Coming in Part 2 of the Cult of Tharizdun The destruction of all things requires unique and deadly magic secretly forged in the darkness, away from the sensibilities of civilization and law. "[A]way from . . . law" seems to suggest a chaotic aspect.
#26 wolf72 May 12, 2004 15:57:17	Originally posted by Orodruin ... just plain evil. I think that's how its alignment should read.