OOTS #629 - The Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 2

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-06, 03:54 PM

Please don't let this situation be solved with Deus Ex Machina. This is one of the most compelling villains we have seen yet. This dragon ranks up there with Xykon and Redcloak in therms of character. She has a motive for her actions that is realistic. I am not saying she is justified in her actions, far from it, but she has a reason for her actions. To kill her off now for some random bit of plot would be a disservice to the story as a whole. We have not seen much of V overall. We don't know V's gender, we no almost nothing about V's past (other than the fact that V studied to be a wizard, which should not really count as it is self evident), no clue as to why V wants ultimate arcane power, why V left home, nothing! This dragon is the perfect antagonist to drive these discoveries. The largest complaint against the dragon so far is that *gasp* she is evil! This comic has been amazing in terms of characterizing evil. Xykon is power hungry, a sociopath, and easily bored. This leads to him trying to rule the world through the Snarl and committing random atrocities to amuse himself. (More like an evil Belkar than anyone else) Redcloak wants to avenge his village's destruction and champions the goblinoid races. Thus he wants to use the snarl to force changes, even if it requires the destruction of existence. Now we have the dragon. She has lost her kid and this drives her to seek vengeance for her child. How can this character not qualify to become a reoccurring villain?

My apologies for the excessive length of this rant.

Morgan Wick

2009-02-06, 03:55 PM

If it weren't for the "right being" clause, I'd think #630 could very well be titled "Four Words".

Still, I smell its namesake coming before #635. Qarr (whom many have mentioned can do little himself) offers to hook V up with a walking deus ex machina who can give V the power to set things right and find Haley.

factotum

2009-02-06, 03:58 PM

The Oracle said that Vaarsuvius will gain ultimate power by saying the right four words to the right being FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. Now, I dunno about you, but gaining power to save your spouse and children doesn't sound like all the wrong reasons.

I'm sure it doesn't sound like the wrong reasons to V, but who spoke that prophecy? The Oracle. Out of V and the black dragon, which one do you suppose the Oracle thinks is more justified in their actions? I'll give you a clue--it ain't the mammal! That being the case, it's entirely possible that the Oracle considers "to destroy the black dragon who is threatening my family" to be all the wrong reasons!

SoC175

2009-02-06, 04:00 PM

And I don't think Kevin's weaponry were lethal or intended to be. If it were, just wire up the mains to the doorknob and fry 'em.

Actually most of his traps would be lethal if they were used in RL and not in a comedy movie.

David Argall

2009-02-06, 04:07 PM

If the dragon's actions were just(ified/ifiable), they wouldn't be evil, now would they?

Isn't "unjust" the very definition of "evil", as "just" is the definition of good?
"Just" and "good" are related, but different concepts.

A ship full of people has sunk and a lot of passengers are drowning. Your lifeboat can only hold one more before it will sink too. You grab the nearest drowning body and sail away, hoping to be able to come back for more before they all drown, but definitely condemning most of those you didn't rescue to a watery grave. That you rescued what you could is good, but it was not at all just. The odds are excellent one of those who died were more worthy and the simply fact that one survives while others die is unjust.

However, that doesn't mean that the dragon doesn't have a point in lawful/balance terms (she is not chaotic evil, doing evil for the joy of doing evil, nor is she neutral evil, doing evil for her own aggrandizement).

And V never acknowledged her underlying issue at all, or showed any remorse, or even begged for her family's life ("They've done you no harm--Take me, instead!").
In the given situation, such would be counterproductive. The dragon is intent on producing the maximum amount of pain. Begging that she not do something confirms that she should do it. Indeed an evil V would beg for precisely that reason. It means V gets out alive.

no one has even touched on the fact that V did not have to kill the dragon child;
Well, I suppose she could have just become dragon chow instead, but no, V had no real alternative.

they were there for the starmetal, which they could have taken easily while the dragon child was still under suggestion of the lizard (since the lizard told the dragon child to tell the party to wait until morning when Durkon could break the Polymorph spell, V could have just as easily told the dragon to tell the party where the starmetal was, and to sit quietly while they took it and left. Being a child
It was classified as a young adult. If we call that a teenager, we have a very rebellious state, one eager to hunt down and kill those adventurers.

and likely having been told not to wander far by its mother, there would have been a fair chance that it would not have been willing to chase them after the spell wore off, especially if they didn't take anything else
Someone is coming to kill you. Running away is quite likely the practical response, but killing your attacker instead has much to say for itself.

the starmetal, which the dragons apparently didn't care that much about anyway).
It is honored with its own room, not mixed with the common treasure. Mama's claim it meant nothing, was just rhetorical, a claim that junior was much more valuable, not a real denial of value.

But no, for some reason we (the party) thought it was a good idea to sit around in a cave with a spell-mazed dragon child, until V could be turned back into a mage capable of disintegrating the dragon child for no particular reason but to steal everything, not just the starmetal.
Self defense ranks rather highly here as a motive. The dragon is treating them as a frisky lunch.

That wasn't particularly "just" either, but... because the dragon is a dragon, and the party is the party, sure, that's just fine.
The dragon wants to kill them, so they kill the dragon. That's a routine standard of justice.

I expect a camera change to another group with 630, to leave us wondering the outcome for many strips more. That would be evil. And perfect.
Our writer does not do cliffhangers. Page turners where we eagerly await the next strip, most definitely, but when we switch scenes, the scene is finished. We leave O-Chul and Haley going to sleep, not in peril of their lives.

To me, this is proof that V's kids are Roy's children from a fling.
As already noted both Roy and the kids are in their 20s. Roy simply isn't old enough. Also..
Origin Roy does not know Vs sex when he hired her.

Morgan Wick

2009-02-06, 04:10 PM

Just read #628 thread. Boards were down when I read #628 originally.

I'm shocked no one thought the "children" (and the "parent" in the title) was/were (a) double entendre(s) indicating the dragon was going to render V sterile. I know I did and the final panel looked to me like the dragon was crushing V's crotch. (Which, beautifully, could be interpreted as crushing nuts OR ovaries!) Instead, at least on the first page, everyone saw the literal kids in this strip coming...

silversaraph

2009-02-06, 04:14 PM

Just posting because of an awesome comic. I was going to say before, but the server wasnt working.

Great comic!

Also, what type of gestation period do elves have? like, 8 years?

Please don't kill the cute children!

Who are almost as old as half the cast, yet in kindergarten.

Kind of like elan.

Quorothorn

2009-02-06, 04:17 PM

hamishspence

2009-02-06, 04:21 PM

no idea- these are not standard elves: Might have long gestation period to go with long childhood.

By contrast, in Races of the Wild, elves finish growing and "filling out" at 25 to human's 20, and have nine month gestation.

Rotipher

2009-02-06, 04:26 PM

Making her minimum CR 22--and making her rather cowardly for not being willing to attack the fleet--even Xykon himself would have found her a formidable opponent: the fleet would have been an easy mark.

Not necessarily. Remember, Mama has chosen to nurture a grudge against V as an individual, not the Order and/or good guys in general. Even if she could be confident of destroying the fleet, she couldn't be sure that V -- her chosen target -- wouldn't somehow escape amidst the chaos of such a large-scale battle.

Kaytara

2009-02-06, 04:26 PM

Mr. Pin

2009-02-06, 04:29 PM

I think that Vaarsuvius' kids will indeed die horribly. This would, obviously, be one of the sadder moments in the history of OotS, but it would also be a great character developing moment for her. I can imagine a myriad of cool ways that V could react, and each one would be greatly improved by dead children, that greatest of plot devices.

Personally, I'm betting on an arcane rampage, starting with the annihilation of a certain Black Dragon and ending with Ultimate Mystic power for all of our favorite androgynous elven wizard!

teratorn

2009-02-06, 04:35 PM

Go dragon! Vengeance and a meal!

Milanius

2009-02-06, 04:36 PM

Love is a Failure
Hate is just another deadly trap
Trust is just a moment an a life which you should command
We've lost you!
Who, knows who?
Pain is faking gain
Profit is no relief
To lie is to justify, another lie you take as truth.
Who, knows who?
We've lost you!
Death is a part of life
As peace is a part of war
I just need to clear my mind to learn both sides
Who, knows who?
We've Lost You!

It is probably a bad thing that I'm rooting for the dragon. Then again, I'm not a very forgiving person. Dragon mom shouldn't be, either.

enarch3t

2009-02-06, 04:37 PM

What's Hypocritical is the MORAL outrage.

So your kid got killed. How many did he kill? Creatures that felt anguish and had no chance against it?

And if killing a child of a dragon is a crime punishable not by merely killing the children of the killers, but by TORTURING them and ensuring that they NEVER get to their afterlife, what's the appropriate response to a critter that tortures to death the children of another creature? Summary banishment to the deepest 18th level of hell for all eternity FOR THE ENTIRE SPECIES???

This dragon has no right to moral outrage.

THAT'S the hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is claiming moral standing or belief that one's own actions don't support.

ABD has just told V. everything that has happened, she's not claiming any moral outrage. Simply outrage. The dragon is clearly not trying to get even, simply eating the children would do that. The dragon is going further making V feel even more pain and suffering than she did. Why? Because she is evil and has the power to do it. The ABD doesn't really have that much to fear from V, V cannot teleport, or plane shift on her own. The ABD clearly outclasses her, and would be a very tough fight for the entire OotS

Telling V just adds to her feelings of helplessness and makes the ABD's revenge that much better, V can do nothing to stop it from happening. Now, this doesn't mean that V can't later unlock Ultimate Arcane power or what-not and track down and kill this ABD, but that's not for a while.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 04:37 PM

Actually most of his traps would be lethal if they were used in RL and not in a comedy movie.

But it wasn't RL, was it. It was a comedy (of a sort).

So, were they lethal tricks IN THE WORLD THEY WERE ENACTED IN?

No.

hamishspence

2009-02-06, 04:40 PM

more scar-for-life than lethal- Harry still has the burn mark on his hand in movie 2.

Zack Norglad

2009-02-06, 04:40 PM

Great comic!
"Other parent"... I loled.

Again, a good issue, still anxious about the next strip.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 04:42 PM

Hypocrisy is claiming moral standing or belief
What? Like
the Dragon's apparent belief definition of which is "do whatever benefits yourself regardless of morality"

that one's own actions don't support.

What? like being pssed off that someone DID
"do whatever benefits yourself regardless of morality"

?

hamishspence

2009-02-06, 04:47 PM

according to Savage Species, most evil creatures don'tt treat other creatures all the same way- being kind and loving to relatives, friends, spouse, etc, cruel and vicious to enemies.

Being angry at the loss of offspring for any reason isn't specifically hypocritical. Treating V's children as means to an end and not as persons might be, however, given the dragon's complaint is that dragons are treated not as persons.

Doug Lampert

2009-02-06, 04:52 PM

Well I'll concede that killing a dragon just because of to color of it's scales isn't exactly the textbook definition of "good" I'll even go so far as to say that it's wrong given just that situation.

However I don't think V killed the first black dragon because just because it was a black dragon. I think the fact that the spell would have worn off eventually and that their lives would have in pretty severe peril once it did might have had something to do with it as well.

Several points that people seem to forget about the first dragon. He breathed acid at the party. He almost ate V, and he did technically eat Haley.
If V killed the first dragon because of the threat it represented rather than because "it's a freeking black dragon, of course adventurers kill it" then that doesn't improve his moral standing at all. It makes it (much) worse.

(A) He's killing something because of something it MIGHT do at some point in the future. How is this better than the dragon claiming she's killing V's children because at some future date they MIGHT kill a dragon and soul binding them because otherwise they MIGHT be resurected and do it anyway. (In fact the resurect is a pretty good bet if the dragon doesn't soul bind.)

Preemptive logic also works both ways.

(B) If we accept that V killed the young dragon because otherwise it would pursue them and try to recover its property then we're down to V invading someone's home and killing them to take their stuff. I'm not sure just how this is better than killing random kids for vengance.

Maybe you could clarify this point? How is a random home invasion robbery killing better than a targeted vengance killing aimed at relatives?

Both strike me as clear cut unambiguous Evil.

(C) The claim that had the order taken the starmetal and fleed at the START of the young dragon's time under the suggestion leaving it with orders to stay where it was it would have abandoned the bulk of the horde, pursued them through the woods (because all dragons can track), caught them (because not only can they track but they can do so while either flying above the trees and unable to see the tracks or while walking at full speed so as to catch horses) is rather dubious.

The young dragon probably could have been escaped easily if they'd been willing to leave the treasure other than the starmetal behind.

(D) V knows the dragon was willing to talk. He knew this when he cast his suggestion on it. There's no evidence at all that the dragon attacked during the bulk of this parley, although there is solid proof that it was itself attacked repeatedly while talking. V ignored this to cast suggestion, his only response to KNOWING he can talk and that the dragon is able to understand him is to use this as a tool to attack.

Could V have negotiated, who knows? Talking is a free action, but V didn't feel it was worth negotiating so we'll never know if that might have worked. Probably it wouldn't have, but TRYING to avoid killing when you have no obvious evidence of a crime would seem better than ignoring any and all nonlethal options.

Could V have gotten away without killing the dragon? Probably he could have easily. The young dragon has no obvious way to track the party.

If V DIDN'T kill the dragon because it was black with non-shiney scales this actually reflects WORSE on V than if he killed it for being black with non-shiney scales. At least black with non-shiney scales is an overwhelming favorite for "deserves to die" or "too dangerous to others to let live". "Defended his home and might pursue robbers" lacks even that justification.

If V's jusification for killing the dragon was actually "fear of justified wrath from someone I refused to negotiate with" then I'd say he may actually be worse than momma dragon. And momma dragon is pretty d*mn bad unless as someone suggested she's just messing with V's mind and doesn't actually plan to kill a bunch of innocents (she's a black dragon, the correct default assumption is that she does in fact plan to kill a bunch of innocents).

Alair

2009-02-06, 04:53 PM

A theory for those who aren't happy with the premise that elven skin and hair come in various shades and interbreeding isn't like mixing paint: V and mate are both female, while the sperm donor that enabled them each to get pregnant was darker skinned. The kids aren't twins, they're one from each mom.

I like this theory.

What's Hypocritical is the MORAL outrage.

So your kid got killed. How many did he kill? Creatures that felt anguish and had no chance against it?

As far as we know, zero.

Now that may not be the most likely scenario, certainly, but if we're playing morals we have to give Dragon Jr. the benefit of the doubt.

Myself, I'm kind of inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless. If both dragons weren't laying pretty low you'd think they would be the talk of the village yet neither the group nor Miko seem to have heard of them.

And if killing a child of a dragon is a crime punishable not by merely killing the children of the killers, but by TORTURING them and ensuring that they NEVER get to their afterlife, what's the appropriate response to a critter that tortures to death the children of another creature?

The dragon's not out to be the better, um, sentient. It's out to give V the exact same pain she's feeling - that's why she's not being merciful and simply killing V. She could only kill V once while V can torture herself for so long as she lives.

Summary banishment to the deepest 18th level of hell for all eternity FOR THE ENTIRE SPECIES???

This dragon has no right to moral outrage.

THAT'S the hypocrisy.

That's revenge. It's not about justice, it's about "You killed my kid so I'll kill your kids". It's evil but it's not hypocritical. It's precisely *because* the dragon knows how much this hurts that she wants to do it back to her son's killer.

lordofthe_wog

2009-02-06, 04:55 PM

Great comic.

I am now in the V is a male camp after seeing the mate.

Really? This one made my think V was female. Probably just because Mr. V (as I will now refer to him) looks like Andil from Anti-Heroes. Who is male.

I think its Andil. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Rotipher

2009-02-06, 05:02 PM

You are saying that Giant couldn't kill the cute kids?

Why not? He's done it before.

Roy's baby brother didn't die of old age, so toddlers certainly aren't invulnerable in Stickworld. Granted, he didn't die on camera either, but we might see that event in a flashback one of these days.

Redcloak's baby sister and the other goblin children were pretty cute too, and had more lines of dialogue than V's twins. They still got hacked up en masse, on-screen, by the Sapphire Guard in SoD.

IIRC, when Surtur chowed down on those villagers quite early in the series, one of the snacks was in the process of asking Mommy what was happening. A joke, but still...

Kids can be victims in this comic.

orrion

2009-02-06, 05:04 PM

I would have liked to see a little more discussion between V and the dragon. Specifically, V pointing out that the Order wasn't looking for treasure or a dragon and that the dragon attacked them first and, oh, ate a party member before V retaliated.

Mrs. dragon already pointed out she didn't care about the useless lump of field-mouse sized starmetal, which is the only thing the Order was there for.

Admittedly, I doubt it would change anything currently. Oh well.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 05:16 PM

As far as we know, zero

Not really, lots. Dragons can't mine gold or gems and don't produce gold coins. They are also Always Evil. So it's a very huge chance that this young adult has killed lots.

And loved it.

Now that may not be the most likely scenario, certainly, but if we're playing morals we have to give Dragon Jr. the benefit of the doubt.

We do? Why?

That's revenge. It's not about justice, it's about "You killed my kid so I'll kill your kids". It's evil but it's not hypocritical. It's precisely *because* the dragon knows how much this hurts that she wants to do it back to her son's killer.

Nope, the actions of killing V's kids to show the pain is evil but not hypocritical. However, you seem to remain blind to some words, so I'll put them on separate lines to help reading. Increase the text size if this helps.

She

Went

Ballistic

Despite

Believing

That

Doing

Whatever

You

Liked

Was

The

Way

The

World

Worked

And I even gave a good example from LW4. You seem not to have read it.

Bad Guy. Has Brother. BG kills LOTS of people. No problems.

Despite brother being a criminal and therefore always in danger, when Brother Dies, Big Bad gets pssd off.

Why?

If he didn't want his brother to die, why not make sure brother had a safe job? Stayed at home. Made cookies for Girl Scouts.

NOT "Help beat people to death and get all stocked up with guns and stuff".

And since he didn't care about other people's families seeing loved ones die, why is he so naffed off?

Because as well as being a Big Bad Guy, he's a hypocrite. He's allowed to kill your brother, but you aren't allowed to kill his.

Momma Dragon? She is allowed to kill people's fathers sons and other members of family, but when SHE has her baby killed, she goes ballistic.

Why?

Is it OK for junior to kill people (everyone has a family) but nobody to kill junior (because he's family)?

Hypocrite.

If you're the bad guy and make out like a bandit (literally), then expect the loss of loved ones as the cost of that lifestyle.

Or get out of it.

That's revenge. It's not about justice, it's about "You killed my kid so I'll kill your kids". It's evil but it's not hypocritical.

No, the act is evil.

Being upset that her thug of a son is dead by coming last in a fight to the death is hypocritical. Your statement there has nothing about having your dragon-sized panties in a bunch.

Drakron

2009-02-06, 05:18 PM

Also, just because a spell isn't pegged with the "Evil" indicator doesn't mean it's not. For instance, there's a 9th-level spell which, IIRC, is called Memory Modification: no "Evil" label. However, in BoVD, there is a spell called "Mind Rape" that does, get this, the exact same thing as Memory Modification, and it has an Evil tag. Inconsistency thy name is WotC.

No.

Magic can be [evil] by require a evil act to cast the spell or working on such a way that is a evil act.

Modify Memory can get someone [evil] points for doing something but the spell (that is actually a 4th level bard spell) is not by itself evil.

After all "allow the subject to recall with perfect clarity an event it actually experienced" does not really strikes me as [evil] and that is one of the things Modify Memory is capable of doing, "Change the details of an event the subject actually experienced" or "Implant a memory of an event the subject never experienced" could be a [evil] act but that is why we have a DM in the first place.

Mind Rape is likely [evil] because the spell casting either requires a evil act or operates in such a way that ends up being a [evil] act.

OotS always poked the fact many players use the same black/white morality of the alignment system as the play the game as the alignment system was never intended to be so rigid.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 05:22 PM

(A) He's killing something because of something it MIGHT do at some point in the future.

What, like "Maybe he'll eat me and Haley like he did last time" but this time, because it's "in the future", it's evil to consider it may happen again?

So how well can you cast spells and shoot arrows in a dragons gullet?

Heck, while we're on "well maybe something wouldn't have happened", maybe if the dragon had said "I'm hurt because you killed my only son, I hope you're happy. How would you feel if YOUR children died? I could kill them, but I won't because I'm better than you" and then V goes "Oh, sorry. How about I find someone with True Ressurection and save your son? We only were looking for starmetal, we didn't know he was there and just jumped us as soon as he saw us"?

How come momma dragon didn't consider that maybe JUST BECAUSE adventurers killed her husband these ones are just as bad?

Aron Times

2009-02-06, 05:36 PM

Must... Resist... Urge... To... Nitpick...

Mind Rape's casting time is one standard action. Programmed Amnesia's casting time is ten minutes. Other than that, they are identical. In fact, the latter can be considered to be more evil because it requires the caster to restrain the victim for ten minutes, whereas Mind Rape is instantaneous.

Silverraptor

2009-02-06, 05:40 PM

How come momma dragon didn't consider that maybe JUST BECAUSE adventurers killed her husband these ones are just as bad?

Because the black dragon is ALWAYS EVIL. It's just in her nature to get revenge and to make conclusions about adventures.

In the real world, alot of countries think that Americans are people who just kill for no reason. It's just what people want to hear, or had no evidence to counter-act the orignal belief.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 05:52 PM

Because the black dragon is ALWAYS EVIL. It's just in her nature to get revenge and to make conclusions about adventures.

So kill the kids.

Revel in the pain you caused.

Just don't throw your extensive toy collection out of the pram because your kid lost a fight to the death he started.

Or stop being an evil hearted monster.

And why is it you people ALWAYS seem to think that just because wanting revenge from momma is hypocritical that it can't be because momma's evil? Evil can be hypocritical too. It's one of the more common Evil Overlord traits.

So stop saying "she's evil, so this can't be hypocrisy". It can. Evil can be a hypocrite too.

Alair

2009-02-06, 05:59 PM

Not really, lots. Dragons can't mine gold or gems and don't produce gold coins. They are also Always Evil. So it's a very huge chance that this young adult has killed lots.

And loved it.

If anything that was probably Mommy - or possibly even the late Daddy. Jr.'s lived a protected life, especially since his father was killed. If Mommy thinks that having the cave to himself for a few months was an exceptional responsibility for him he probably hasn't raided too many villages.

We do? Why?

You can't use the argument "He was deserving of death" without showing that he has done something to warrant it. And no, just having acidy-breath, big claws, wings, and other being-a-dragon-ities do not qualify.

Nope, the actions of killing V's kids to show the pain is evil but not hypocritical.

... if you don't like to be punched and someone punches you and you punch back, is that hypocritical? No, it's retaliation to a specific act.

It's not about showing pain, it's about *sharing* it.

However, you seem to remain blind to some words, so I'll put them on separate lines to help reading. Increase the text size if this helps.

She

Went

Ballistic

Despite

Believing

That

Doing

Whatever

You

Liked

Was

The

Way

The

World

Worked

... I really have no idea what you're trying to prove. Where do we learn that Mommy believes that "Doing-Whatever-You-Liked-Was-The-Way-The-World-Worked"? This is the same Mommy who tought her son lizard so he could better understand their culture.

And I even gave a good example from LW4. You seem not to have read it.

Bad Guy. Has Brother. BG kills LOTS of people. No problems.

Despite brother being a criminal and therefore always in danger, when Brother Dies, Big Bad gets pssd off.

Why?

If he didn't want his brother to die, why not make sure brother had a safe job? Stayed at home. Made cookies for Girl Scouts.

NOT "Help beat people to death and get all stocked up with guns and stuff".

And since he didn't care about other people's families seeing loved ones die, why is he so naffed off?

Because as well as being a Big Bad Guy, he's a hypocrite. He's allowed to kill your brother, but you aren't allowed to kill his.

Momma Dragon? She is allowed to kill people's fathers sons and other members of family, but when SHE has her baby killed, she goes ballistic.

Why?

Is it OK for junior to kill people (everyone has a family) but nobody to kill junior (because he's family)?

Hypocrite.

... you have not established that Junior or even Mommy was a big bad villain.

If you're the bad guy and make out like a bandit (literally), then expect the loss of loved ones as the cost of that lifestyle.

Or get out of it.

You don't suppose that living a quiet life raising your son in an anonymous cave and apparently not bothering anybody could be reasonably construed as having gotten out of it?

CrimsonAngel

2009-02-06, 06:01 PM

Awwww, the babies are so cute! And I lol'd at the "whens other parent going to be back. Nice touch with the mate getting a pony tail. :smallbiggrin:

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-06, 06:08 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that all of this is probably a hallucination suffered by a trance-deprived V?
And again I have to laugh at the speculations produced by the peanut gallery. Let's see: Qarr announced the hallucination to V, the hallucination then dripped onto V, engaged in a bit of spell casting, smashed V into the ground, and held him pinned while explaining his intentions. Yep, definitely all just a figment of V's imagination.

Confused about the dragon's logic. At what point was it a good idea to leave your PRECIOUS, ONLY CHILD (strange for an ancient dragon) guarding a valuable item when you are entirely aware of the fact that dragons of all ages are adventurer targets?
So you permanently jail yourself instead? C'mon, it's not unreasonable at all to have left jr behind. He did pretty much master the Order, save for V.

The one error the ABD made was this: Mom should have pulled an Ozy, and told V that his kids and mate had been eaten and showed him the hat.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 06:08 PM

You don't suppose that living a quiet life raising your son in an anonymous cave and apparently not bothering anybody could be reasonably construed as having gotten out of it?

Not if your son who you've raised immediately starts to gloat and eat the people who walked in without going "Hang on, this is my mum's house".

Doesn't sound like they've gotten out of it.

And where did they get the pressed gold coins, magical items and cut gems from? Dragons don't have claws that go that small.

PS what I'm trying to prove and you keep ducking in case an idea hits you is that if you and your son are in a dangerous profession and like it there, then death is a likely outcome and going ballistic when someone does to you what you do to others is hypocrisy.

"It's OK for people to be killed. Only the strong survive. Each entity for itself". "Except mine, you can't hurt MINE."

Either it's OK for people to be killed and junior died as a result of losing a fight (and you want to cause pain to the perpetrator, which is probably quite evil) but hey, them's the breaks. The less strong didn't survive.

OR

It's not OK to go killing the sons of lonely widows which makes assaulting a village for a bit of looting tricky and definitely rules out torturing to death someone else's kids. Though you CAN be grief stricken.

Now, if V's children were involved, THEN V couldn't himself be all grief stricken about his kids being killed. After all, they are taken to dangerous dragon caves to gain XP and enjoy the strength of high levels of magery.

But the kids are innocent.

Quorothorn

2009-02-06, 06:09 PM

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 06:11 PM

So you permanently jail yourself instead? C'mon, it's not unreasonable at all to have left jr behind. He did pretty much master the Order, save for V.

Hmm. Can people make up their minds.

Is this a poor little teenager (or black kid outnumbered by marauding KKK members) or is it able to fight and isn't therefore deserving of special treatment that adolescent humans, for example, get?

And Junior brought this down on himself by immediately fighting. No "Oi! Get out!". Munchity crunchity even though the intruders ran away as soon as they saw you.

Silverraptor

2009-02-06, 06:16 PM

So stop saying "she's evil, so this can't be hypocrisy". It can. Evil can be a hypocrite too.

Dude, I'm just repeating what's in the MM. It says black dragons are always evil, so i'm forming my own analysis. There's no need to bite my head off.:smallmad:

Ted The Bug

2009-02-06, 06:17 PM

Thought number one: O SHI-!
Thought number two: Waaaiiit...V's mate might be as powerful as V hemself.
Thought number three: Tel me you like my hat.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-06, 06:22 PM

Dude, I'm just repeating what's in the MM. It says black dragons are always evil, so i'm forming my own analysis. There's no need to bite my head off.:smallmad:

Then what was your point of posting to a thread that talks about whether or not the dragon is a hypocrite or not with something that is irrelevant to that point?

You may have read a lot of things in the MM. How many HD does a minotaur have. However, you haven't put this piece of information in this discussion have you.

So why did you quote me and then say "Huh, she's EVIL, course she does that" and, when I tell you that Evil doesn't mean you aren't able to be a hypocrite and THEN complain afterward "I just said what I read in the MM. Don't bite my head off".

What IS the maximum carrying weight of the european swallow? I mean, if you're going to put anything you like whether it's relevant to the discussion, all we need is the one thread. "Saying stuff" and we're sorted.

Raging Gene Ray

2009-02-06, 06:24 PM

To me, this is proof that V's kids are Roy's children from a fling. Roy may or may not know they exist, but I'm betting on "does not know" for poor Roy.

...the kids are 26, which makes them either as old as or older than Roy.

Are you saying Roy was fertile even as a newborn infant and V had a thing for younger men? Babies...havin' babies! You're creepin' me out, CyberCraw! :smalleek:

Bitzeralisis

2009-02-06, 06:31 PM

Aaand they're all ambiguous. Even the children. >.>

Geno9999

2009-02-06, 06:42 PM

Wait! I got!
V is female (assuming V is straight.)
Why? The Parent (the one at home) lacks of any physical signs of being female (as far as I know, Elves and Humans share a similar build), but fits Rich's OotS style male body build. Therefore, the other parent (V) must be female who wears loose clothing.

Or, you know, the female and male elves look the same in the OotS universe and/or wear loose clothing, so my logic phails.

Alair

2009-02-06, 06:56 PM

Not if your son who you've raised immediately starts to gloat and eat the people who walked in without going "Hang on, this is my mum's house".

He started to eat Hailey after being shot in the eye, who shot said dragon in the eye after he started to try and eat V, who started to try and eat V after V started to try and ensorcil him...

Which goes back and back to the point a group of well-armed adventurers inadvertently invaded the dragon's cave. Laws governing this sort of situation may vary but in most parts of the US at least, you are allowed to use lethal force if you may reasonably assume your life is threatened, and Dragon Jr growing up on stories about how his father was killed by adventurers may have easily assumed that these adventurers were here to do the same to him.

Doesn't sound like they've gotten out of it.

And where did they get the pressed gold coins, magical items and cut gems from? Dragons don't have claws that go that small.

Daddy's legacy? Mommy's keep before she went into retirement? Taken from another dragon? Maybe she's an entrepreneur? Wherever it came from, the hoard could easily predate Jr.

PS what I'm trying to prove and you keep ducking in case an idea hits you is that if you and your son are in a dangerous profession and like it there, then death is a likely outcome and going ballistic when someone does to you what you do to others is hypocrisy.

... for crying out loud, if there were two dragons roaming the area, terrorizing the countryside don't you think people would be *talking* about it? Mommy thinks leaving Jr. alone with the hoard for a few months is-an-exceptional-responsibility-but-I-think-he's-ready-for-it but assaulting the proud kingdom of Moneybagstopia? Well he's been doing that since he was in dragon diapers...

"It's OK for people to be killed. Only the strong survive. Each entity for itself". "Except mine, you can't hurt MINE."

Either it's OK for people to be killed and junior died as a result of losing a fight (and you want to cause pain to the perpetrator, which is probably quite evil) but hey, them's the breaks. The less strong didn't survive.

OR

It's not OK to go killing the sons of lonely widows which makes assaulting a village for a bit of looting tricky and definitely rules out torturing to death someone else's kids. Though you CAN be grief stricken.

Revenge does not equal OK. Is this really so difficult to grasp? One of the primary reasons laws exist is so that people don't go "An eye for an eye"ing each other straight into the Blind Age.

Now, if V's children were involved, THEN V couldn't himself be all grief stricken about his kids being killed. After all, they are taken to dangerous dragon caves to gain XP and enjoy the strength of high levels of magery.

But the kids are innocent.

Not at all. They could grow up to be dangerous dragon-murdering adventurers. That's what humanoids do, isn't it?

Kaytara

2009-02-06, 06:57 PM

Aaand they're all ambiguous. Even the children. >.>

Kids usually are, though. Human ones, I mean. Lacking secondary sexual characteristics and all that.

Silverraptor

2009-02-06, 07:16 PM

Then what was your point of posting to a thread that talks about whether or not the dragon is a hypocrite or not with something that is irrelevant to that point?

You may have read a lot of things in the MM. How many HD does a minotaur have. However, you haven't put this piece of information in this discussion have you.

So why did you quote me and then say "Huh, she's EVIL, course she does that" and, when I tell you that Evil doesn't mean you aren't able to be a hypocrite and THEN complain afterward "I just said what I read in the MM. Don't bite my head off".

What IS the maximum carrying weight of the european swallow? I mean, if you're going to put anything you like whether it's relevant to the discussion, all we need is the one thread. "Saying stuff" and we're sorted.

Hehehehe. *Gasp* I'm sorry. It's just that I find it funny that your taking what I said all so seriously. When I posted that comment, I was just saying what I thought Rich was going to do and why he's doing it. Remeber, he's not creating this world entirely from scratch, he does need to follow a few guide lines and I was just pointing this out. If it upset you at all, then I'm awfully darn sorry. Just because my avatar is Belkar, doesn't mean that I am him in personality. We are entitled to our opinions, so lets just please put this behind us and continue discussion of #629. Again, I'm sorry.:smallfrown:

Saint Nil

2009-02-06, 07:17 PM

Ah, Giant, thank you so much for writing this comic.:smallbiggrin:

Horatio@Bridge

2009-02-06, 07:20 PM

I think the people debating the morality of characters in DnD (or webcomics based on the game) should repeat the MST3K Mantra: "It's just a show, so you should really just relax." The default assumption of the game is that your characters are, at the worse, morally neutral unless you choose to make them evil. It's assumed that whatever adventure you're on is, at least on the surface, not evil, and a DM who says "surprise, you were just committed a horrid, evil act, you horrid evil person!" without giving some sort of warning in the narrative that you're about to do something that violates your ethics (or is running a plotline where you were tricked into it) is a bad DM. The reason that you make this assumption is so that you don't spend hours and hours and hours debating morality and trying to judge the right or wrong of an action, when the whole reason you gave up your Friday night was to roll dice and make fun tactical decisions. Unless the DM specifically makes an effort to let you know that you're on the edge of evil deeds, it is okay and even expected to make the assumption that you are, at the worse, morally neutral. If you were really in the situation, you might be a bit more cautious about what you do, but you're not. You're playing a character, and more to the point you're only playing the interesting portions of that character's life. Of course the character is cautious, and they probably did spend the time thinking about the moral ramifications of their actions, but that happens offscreen. There's no need to bog down the game running through that exercise every stinking adventure.

Now, The Giant is not a bad DM. What the Order did was morally neutral, because they didn't know that anyone owned the starmetal!. They were just told where to find it. The worst thing they did was fail to research their quest more thoroughly, which was stupid, and naive, but not evil. Once they had trespassed on the Dragon's territory, in ignorance, it was too late. It was kill or be killed, and they are not evil to try to avoid the latter outcome. Now, they certainly weren't good. They were going out to claim unclaimed treasure from a dangerous place for their own benefit, which isn't exactly laudable, but it's not blameworthy either. But they inadvertently caused an unfortunate event. And that is the hallmark of an excellent DM. Actions have consequences, and many of those consequences are unpleasant. This is even more the case when you don't take the time to think about what you're doing. The Giant isn't setting up the situation to say "V, you don't think you're evil, but you really are and I'm going to grind your face into it until you believe it's true." He's setting up the situation to say "V, you made a mistake by being young, naive, and a bit stupid, and now you're going to have to live with the consequences." How V responds to that is what is interesting, and that's good character growth. And really good storytelling in general.

Shade

2009-02-06, 07:21 PM

Ooookay.

Although yes, nothing is (ever) decided, this strip pushed me towards the "V's female" group, since the mate had the male build. The kids could be adopted, but I'm guessing not.

V's looking fairly screwed. I'd guess her mate is high-level, because I'm operating on the assumption that there is a way out of this, despite how it seems. If V's mate is a high-level PC class, then he/she can at least slow the dragon down for a few rounds, which is necessary if V's going to do anything.

Qarr is looking like the best hope... he can contact greater demons (probably not the one on the island, since it'd take to long to get V within range to dispel his enchantment), and they can take care of things. Of course, that requires the whole soul-selling, which I'm seriously hoping can be avoided.

Otherwise... he could warn them? Doubt that'd be enough... Maybe Durkon will take this moment to contact V and pass on Haley's Sending? Even then, I don't see that being on time. As far as we know, Qarr's the only one around with Teleport. And V didn't look very hopeful about his mate/other elves in the area being able to take an Ancient Black Dragon...

I really, really don't like this. Please let there be a(nother) way out? :smalleek:

And lastly, the "Four words"? I'm still going with the long-ago hypothesis: "Disintegrate. Gust of Wind." They were said at the right time, to the right person, and for all the wrong reasons. And it's because of them that V ended up going off on his own and all of this happened. Which hasn't led to ultimate arcane power yet, but what's coming up should (one way or another) set V on the right path.

Shadowbane

2009-02-06, 07:23 PM

For those who are horrified at the slaughter of V's children, sadly Rich has made precedent with the Start Of Darkness prequel comic.

I'm thoroughly horrified. T_T I don't feel that V deserves this and I definitely feel that the webcomic should not get this dark.

Not that I don't love every minute of it, admittedly.

Woodsman

2009-02-06, 07:24 PM

I'm going to go say that he will learn the ultimate arcane power like this- high-level spells are not necessarily the most powerful or useful.

Remember the Dancing Lights during the Resistance strips?

"Dancing Lights? Isn't that a 0th-level spell?"

simisker

2009-02-06, 07:29 PM

Hi, all! Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm really enjoying the latest developments; kudos to Rich!

Aaaanyway, having trawled through this thread, I've noticed that no-one seems to have asked the same question I found myself asking:

"At which point in any of the recent strips did the reader receive confirmation - from V or anywhere else - that [s]he actually *has* children?"

The closest we get, that I can see, is the gradual expression of V's anger from panel 4 to panel 6 of #629 as the dragon details its vengeance.

Just an observation. Apologies if this has been asked to death in another thread; I came straight to this one before I'd formulated my question :)

EDIT: I should clarify, because I've just read the "children" thread, that there's been no confirmation - that I can see - of the children pictured in today's strip being linked to V. It's not as if the dragon gave V a chance to speak, as it was in full Bond-villain flow...

Silverraptor

2009-02-06, 07:32 PM

Even though Quar is our best hope. He may still have that dimension anchor on him so he's not going anywhere. It may have worn off by now, but I find that unlikely.

Red Barbarian

2009-02-06, 07:33 PM

I have this feeling V's mate is like a epic level monk or some'n...

Alair

2009-02-06, 07:35 PM

Hi, all! Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm really enjoying the latest developments; kudos to Rich!

Aaaanyway, having trawled through this thread, I've noticed that no-one seems to have asked the same question I found myself asking:

"At which point in any of the recent strips did the reader receive confirmation - from V or anywhere else - that [s]he actually *has* children?"

The closest we get, that I can see, is the gradual expression of V's anger from panel 4 to panel 6 of #629 as the dragon details its vengeance.

Just an observation. Apologies if this has been asked to death in another thread; I came straight to this one before I'd formulated my question :)

Well, the shocked look on V's face when the dragon announces her intentions, the fury and the "You monstrous fiend!" when the dragon describes V's home and her children's daily routine, V's helpless agonized fury when the dragon teleports away...

The general lack of any confusion or a "I don't have any kids" also fits into the mix too.

Silverraptor

2009-02-06, 07:35 PM

simisker

2009-02-06, 07:44 PM

Well, the shocked look on V's face when the dragon announces her intentions, the fury and the "You monstrous fiend!" when the dragon describes V's home and her children's daily routine, V's helpless agonized fury when the dragon teleports away...

The general lack of any confusion or a "I don't have any kids" also fits into the mix too.
True, but as I mention in my edit above, while there is the possibility of V having children, there's no link to V's offspring and the ones we see in the scene set in the first two panels. And as also mentioned, V wasn't given enough time to even get a "but..." in.

V's reaction may well therefore be genuine, assuming [s]he has children *somewhere*, but hey... maybe theirs is the tan cottage with the green shutters...

EDIT: though taking a wider viewpoint, I'm not entirely sure where one can go with a "whoops, I slowly ate the wrong children... and why don't you recognise my hat?" development :D

Kish

2009-02-06, 08:06 PM

The default assumption of the game is
I always get this sinking feeling when I read things like that.

[...]when the whole reason you gave up your Friday night was to roll dice and make fun tactical decisions.

...and there it is.

Look, if you prefer your roleplaying games with minimal to no roleplaying, that's fine. For you. But please don't tell an entire message board full of people that that's what they're supposed to be about and how everyone there plays them, hey? I don't know the proportions, but at least some people gave up their Friday nights to play complex people with motivations inspired by a well-considered backstory.

Now, The Giant is not a bad DM.

He's the Order's author, not their DM. I think we generally agree on the rest of this paragraph, though. However, for me, at least, it makes the story better, not worse, that Vaarsuvius could have tried to talk to the younger dragon. Maybe it would have accomplished nothing, maybe it would have avoided this whole situation. S/he will likely never know, and neither will we.

dragongirl13

2009-02-06, 08:34 PM

Oh. Oh, holy crap. Holy crap. Oh, holy crap. :smalleek:

Those kids are so cute... :smallfrown:

If that dragon eats those little elf kids, I will cry. Seriously, I will cry. And I do not get sentimental that often.

Holy crap.

Lerky

2009-02-06, 08:40 PM

Stormoverkrynn

2009-02-06, 08:44 PM

Good Comic ...that being said.

I am willing to bet that V's mate is also rather powerful. The children and "other parent" are not gonna go down without a fight. And who knows maybe another dragon of good will show up. Black Dragons are among the most evil of dragons. So the actions of this dragon are not a surprise. This may show how mortal V really is. I agree that is the dragon succeeds we will see V walk the path of evil for V will not care about much of anything after that. And if the dragon is stopped we might see V have a reality check and he may find out how truely mortal V actually is. Right now V is alittle reckless. For V right now it is lose/lose.

Horatio@Bridge

2009-02-06, 08:55 PM

Kish, I believe you've gotten a message from my post that I didn't intend to convey. My point wasn't that RPGs are tactical and that role-playing should be discouraged, but rather that any game is going to have some default assumptions going into it. You just don't have time to flesh out every waking breath of your characters, because you've got to figure out every waking breath of your own life. These default assumptions are a short-hand to help keep the game running smoothly without taking the bulk of game time establishing facts like "our characters make sure to eat 3 square meals and carry adequate water" and "my priest character spends time praying every day, even though we never role-play it." It's important that the DM doesn't allow these default assumptions to be established, and then 15 sessions into the game say "you're all starving because you haven't eaten for 15 sessions" or "your priest loses his spells because your deity is upset you haven't been praying." Similarly, if your group has a default assumption that "we're the good guys," then it is unfair of the DM to suddenly say "no, actually, every action you ever performed is evil, and I've never said anything up to this point to indicate that this is how you're perceived." If you're going to monkey with the default assumptions of your players, you've got to communicate up front what the expectations are. It is fine to insist that your characters keep track of their provisions, and it's okay to ask your priest player to roleplay their prayers, just like it's fine to say that killing monsters for their stuff is evil. It is not okay to do all these things half-way through a campaign, with no warning, and then tell your characters/players what evil, arrogant, stupid jerks they've been, and that they deserve whatever the NPCs do to them. There's good roleplaying, and there's jerking your players around. I'm all for the former.

Note that the Giant is not doing this to V. Yes, V earned a powerful enemy by his casual attitude, and the Dragon laid on the guilt pretty thick. But that's not the same thing as saying that V is evil. The Dragon lacks the impartiality and the moral authority to make that sort of accusation, so her outrage, while significant and justified, is not moral outrage, and her judgment is not moral judgment. But it's still a powerful and moving scene. The lesson here isn't "killing dragons and taking their stuff is evil and wrong," but rather "you should have thought more about what you're doing."

Wadoka

2009-02-06, 09:20 PM

...one thing would have made this strip better.

...Vaarsuvius - instead of screaming "AAAAARGH!" - should have screamed "KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!"

* * *

...lotta wannabe Paladins in this thread. Specifically, the Miko, Galadh, Knights-of-Solamnia-before-Sturm's-redemption sort.

I subscribe to Belgarath's take on the subject. "Good and evil? I prefer 'Us and Them'".

I also subscribe to Hubert's take on the subject of dragons. "I am the dragon. You are not the dragon. Were there any other questions?"

Raging Gene Ray

2009-02-06, 09:47 PM

I think this proves V is female (in my own opinion) the "mate" had a male template so if anyone has any reason to challenge this with their own thoughts, please speak up. I want to be proven wrong:smallamused:

Okay, sure, the mate has a male template, but if he IS a male, he's the kind of male who has no problem with wearing a frilly apron. That is to say, either gay...or just secure in his masculinity...which really proves nothing.

So, V could still be either a gay male with adopted kids or a heterosexual female.

Oh, and the mate could also be a female who likes to wear armor around the house.

LordSintax

2009-02-06, 09:50 PM

Cracklord

2009-02-06, 09:54 PM

God damn it!
<Parent>

Aaaarggghhh.

Sutremaine

2009-02-06, 09:56 PM

V looks more like she's got a really bad headache in the last panel. It's probably just an agonised howl of rage and helplessness, but maybe some other player is going to enter the game?

Silverraptor

2009-02-06, 09:58 PM

ziratha

2009-02-06, 10:00 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that V is about to say those four wrong words to the wrong being for the wrong reason?

Marzie

2009-02-06, 10:06 PM

Well, I just felt my heart climb up into my throat. Excellent, excellent comic. I can't wait for the next one.:smalleek:

Horatio@Bridge

2009-02-06, 10:10 PM

...lotta wannabe Paladins in this thread. Specifically, the Miko, Galadh, Knights-of-Solamnia-before-Sturm's-redemption sort.

Ok, look. None of us are arguing that it's okay to walk into someone's house and kill them for their stuff. But that's not the default assumption in this sort of game. The default assumption is that there are lost treasures out there, that no-one owns, waiting to be retrieved by those brave enough to seek them out. The people who go get those items are no more evil than Indiana Jones going after the idol at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Was he doing something good and noble? Heck no! But his actions certainly weren't evil. The people who owned that idol were gone and dead, survived only by their nefarious traps! And his actions did become good and noble once he was racing to stop the Nazis from using the long-lost holy artifacts to bring about the end of the world.

The default assumption of these sorts of games/movies/what-have-you is that the heroes are, at the worse, amoral, but that they are certainly not immoral. Usually the justification for this is never spelled out onscreen, but you're supposed to suspend disbelief and assume that there's some justification for the heroes' actions that lets them be the good guys despite doing some questionable things. Yes, this falls apart if you think about it too much, but again, MST3K Mantra: "This is just a show, and you should really just relax."

heroe_de_leyenda

2009-02-06, 10:11 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that V is about to say those four wrong words to the wrong being for the wrong reason?

I was thinking just that but... Is saving your own children considered "all the wrong reasons"?

Trebuchet

2009-02-06, 10:15 PM

What kind of a good-aligned sentient being would leave his/her/its family to go adventuring - or any other reason, for that matter? It's very selfish at the very least.

Soldiers serving overseas? The Manhattan Project? Workers on an oil rig? Someone trying to establish a home in a new country?

Vaarsuvius has been shown to have a selfish streak, but the behavior in question is not inherently selfish, just possibly selfish in this case. For such long-lived people, maybe a few years away isn't that unusual. V's mate didn't seem resentful (at least in front of the children).

Aris Katsaris

2009-02-06, 10:18 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that V is about to say those four wrong words to the wrong being for the wrong reason?

You're misremembering. It's about the four right words to the right being for all the wrong reasons.

And he did say the four right words to the right being for all the wrong reason back when he killed Kubata.

I don't see how he can ever say anything more right to anyone more deserving for an even worse reasoning.

Aris Katsaris

2009-02-06, 10:27 PM

so...what are the chances of them living?:smallfrown:

I think this proves V is female (in my own opinion) the "mate" had a male template so if anyone has any reason to challenge this with their own thoughts, please speak up. I want to be proven wrong:smallamused:

That's highly amusing to me, because in a different forum (Enworld) I've seen people say that V's mate is very obviously female.

And the mate seems to me to have pretty much the same template as V vself.

Elfey

2009-02-06, 10:28 PM

I think now V's Mate and kinder are going to be killed and soul bound. Yeah, it's dark as all heck, but it gives V a deeper and more personal mission. A dang noble one that will force V to gain depth beyond simply seeking power.

Kish

2009-02-06, 10:28 PM

nice to see things taking a darker turn...

and for all those of you whining about what the dragon intends to do to V's kids.... hello? evil dragon? black dragons typically evilEST of dragons? anyone?
All other considerations aside, *whispers* you're thinking of greens.

...So next comic, we'll discover that the young adult dragon's girlfriend has plans for Vaarsuvius' family that will make his mother look like a kindly lady.

Zeebiedeebie

2009-02-06, 10:49 PM

I doubt the kids and "other parent" are going down any time soon. Rich would have introduced them before they were attacked, so that we could get attached to them and learn about their personality. That way it would be much more sad to see them go.

Azrooh

2009-02-06, 10:57 PM

All I can say is...
V just got owned.

DanReiv

2009-02-06, 11:09 PM

"Both age 26"

Maybe they're twins, so cute these two :smallwink:

I like the whole gay couple/adoption idea too.

And females at that. They've polymorphed into male elfs for reproduction and carried their childs at the same time...

or maybe I should just go to bed :smallbiggrin:

kyrin

2009-02-06, 11:13 PM

I'm pretty sure I'll still keep reading the comic if Children and Parent die, but I hope Rich has decided against it, for multiple reasons:

As a parent... well, if you can't understand that, I can't help you understand it. In fact, I'm not sure we're the same species.

As a DM, I'm agin it because a DM that uses a character's backstory to pummel the player soon finds that his players (the ones that stick around) produce very skimpy backstories. Not a good thing. Also, D&D is about having fun, and when a DM kills a PCs family, it ain't fun. I think Rich is a better DM than that.

As a reader, I hope he doesn't do it because... well, because it's cliche as hell. I think Rich is a better writer than that.

"But why wouldn't a villain strike against a hero's family?" I think I'll start another thread to answer that.

JIM
aka kryin

elonin

2009-02-06, 11:29 PM

I'm guessing that somehow fate will intervene to save the kids. Who knows maybe the other parent is also a wizard. BTW all elves are female...

Nightfall

2009-02-06, 11:38 PM

I don't believe the Children are in any danger, relatively speaking. It goes against all classical archetypes of fiction to have a child die. It was even against FCC regulations for decades, up until the last ten years or so when television and movies became darker and pushed the envelope.

That said, I don't believe the Giant would have introduced us to Parent and Children, only to kack them off in the next strip. SOMETHING will happen to prevent it. What that SOMETHING may be, only Rich knows. (Though it's possible Parent might be a casualty, attempting to save the Children. That would be a natural reaction, faced with danger.)

I understand where Dragon Mom is coming from, in her desire for revenge. Goddess knows, if anyone/thing threatened my children, I'd be out for blood, Rede notwithstanding. :smallfurious: The fact that she monologued to V every detail of her planned revenge goes along with the alignment. Still, it would be very hard for me to believe the Giant hasn't got an eleventh-hour rescue of sorts up his sleeve. I'll keep my opinions on that to myself, but I think I have an idea what might happen. :smallsmile:

jidasfire

2009-02-06, 11:58 PM

The kids and spouse are probably not going to die. This plot seems to be pushing V towards working with Qarr towards some diabolical design, and because V has never been evil (or stupid) enough to deal with devils, it will take extreme measures to force that. While I personally don't think it's a good idea and if a DM pulled that on me (i.e. turn evil or I will destroy your character's family) there's a strong chance I'd walk, perhaps in the long run it could be beneficial.

What I don't get is why so many people think it would be great for V's character to have their family murdered. Once again, the dragon, for all its style and such, is a side villain, not a major one. You could argue if you wish that life doesn't care about such things, but this is a story and not real life. Having V's family pointlessly slain to teach some metagame lesson about D&D (which is based on all sorts of flawed premises, but I won't get into that) would not give him/her motivation, it would leave the character an anguished wreck. Maybe some fans like seeing sympathetic heroes have one dream dashed after another, to see their "reactions," but I do not. The heroes can't win every time, true, but there are some losses that can't be recovered from, and I think this would be one. While many other characters have grown stronger in Roy's distressingly long absence, Vaarsuvius has been systematically broken, and I despair of what will happen next.

By the way, the spouse and kids will never be given definite genders. Debating it is pointless.

TheLoneCleric

2009-02-07, 12:02 AM

Ronjun

2009-02-07, 12:05 AM

Sigh... I long for the funny comics of old. I wonder when is the funny coming back? The story is growing more and more grim, and while entertaining, it's hardly humorous anymore. Does this mean OotS is heading towards a great white, readying the plot to jump it? Hopefully not...

As for the whole situation, Qarr might have some levels of something, being that he summoned that great demon even though Imps no longer have the summon SA.

Also, while the dragon knows where the elves live, who's to say that they are home precisely when he arrives. I mean, maybe they have, you know, a life or something? Maybe they are at the Elven kindergarten, and mommy's grocery shopping... who knows.

Regarding V's mate, I don't think that if the ABD studied them as claimed, she could've missed something like class levels, especially of the magic kind (she should've seen V's mate preparing/requesting spells). Maybe a sorcerer could've hid that, since they don't prepare spells.

DigoDragon

2009-02-07, 12:06 AM

I love that dragon. <3
As for eating the children... hey why not? A little tragedy is good for extra RP Exp. :smallwink: Though have you actually eating a "Kid Cuisine"? They're so full of sodium. Definitely not good for ya...

Scarlet Knight

2009-02-07, 12:34 AM

Mama Dragon described V's house. She knows.

Unless V lives in an elven development...there all the houses look the same.

Dragon: "Blast! I know it's around here somewhere. Excuse, me! Do you know where Rainbow Lane is?"
Elf: "Aaah ! A dragon! Run!"
Dragon: "Stupid 'dragon fear'. Now I'll never get directions..."

IronSoldier820

2009-02-07, 12:37 AM

Well, I re-read through the archives a week ago out of boredom and noted V's prophesy. The one about the right 4 words at the right time for all the wrong reasons. And...I think considering how far we are into the story line, and also just how major this is for V, we'll probably be nearing his prophesy pretty soon.

I'm thinking that it'd be...more tactical to spread out the prophesies over a long period of time. I mean, the first one was already fulfilled with Belkar I think (killing the Oracle). Belkar also had a second prophesy of dying within a game year, but I think we kinda all expected that for the little bastard. Then Roy's prophesy was a bust. And Haley's speech came back, so three down.

This just leaves Elan's, V's, and Belkar's. Elan's happy ending...I'd guess would be shared with Haley, and would be somewhere near the end of the story altogether.

I'm imagining the fates in pairs in regards to the prophecies. I'm seeing Haley and Elan getting a happy ending, Roy and Durkon getting a happy ending even though it involves some death and tragedy, and V and Belkar getting a tragic ending.

I've noticed that the Giant likes to tie in a lot of minor plot points with ones that end up being major later on, like when V whispered Protection from Arrows atop the wall at Azure City - only later to deflect a deadly incoming arrow with that same spell. And considering how V has yet to use Power Word: Kill, even though he spent many times grieving over how the one word used up 7 pages, I'm expecting it to be a major factor later in.

So if I had to guess...Belkar becomes the antihero. V goes mad with power and vengeance, seeking out the dragon, and begins to go legitimately insane. He begins to suspect the involvement of all his previous comrades in the dragon's scheme, and hunts them down for interrogation. Specifically, he suspects Belkar. And in addition, after he joins up with Qarr, Qarr hints to V of someone who can bring back his children. And of all the major necromancers in the story, I'd say Qarr recommends Xykon to V.

After an uneasy truce with Xykon, V becomes Xykon's wild cannon (replacement for Miko). In the midst of an epic battle between Xykon and Roy, V and Belkar come face to face. Belkar disrupts many of V's spell and begins to let his ego shine, and when Belkar taunts V saying something along the lines of "running out of spells?" V responds with a "No. Power Word Kill."

By this point, both Xykon and Redcloak are defeated. With the heroes momentarily distracted by Belkar's imminent death, V is able to make an escape with Xykon's phylactery. With the hobgoblin army in disarray at the death of it's leader, V and Xykon retreat and are pursued immediately. With Xykon lacking time to regenerate a fully working body and V's physical body near decimation, V becomes Xykon's host. However, V is not completely overpowered by Xykon's presence, but instead, the two combine their arcane knowledge and power to form the most powerful arcane being the world has ever witnessed.

Making their last stand in Azure City, the rift at this point has reached enormous size. During the battle, the god-mage that V has become single-handedly holds off the Order of the Stick as well as the Azurites who join them in an attempt to regain their ancestral home. After V strikes down Durkon, the Snarl attacks and brings V to near death. With all his arcane power, V retaliates and pushes the Snarl back into his prison. But with only a few minutes remaining before The Snarl is to escape again, V decides to enter the prison, giving the Azurite mages and diviners a chance to seal the rift. Sealed inside, V is never seen again. Durkon's body is laid to rest in his family's ancestral tomb, and Elan sings the entire tale and becomes a legendary bard. Famous and reunited in peace with Haley, Elan receives his happy ending.

I had t0o much time on my hands and ended up speculating so much as to where this could go that I ended up with a freaking wall of text. Ended up spending so much time on it I didn't have the heart to delete, so just left it in the Spoiler.

WereSock

2009-02-07, 12:47 AM

First post here :smallsmile:
Just my thoughts on the identity of Parent.

V's mate could be Aarindarius, which would be a nasty shock for the dragon. Parent's hair is roughly the same lightness to Aarindarius', similar length and both are androgynous (Aarindarius' gender is not mentioned and has the same body type as V). Also, in Origin of the PC's it says "Aarindarius felt the elf had become too isolated from the world in their (literal) ivory tower". It's unlikely that V got out enough to meet other elves, and it being "their" tower could hint at their relationship... or it could just be the master/apprentice thing. Anyways, just something I thought made sense. Only thing is, at one point V is shown at 19 with Aarindarius, who looks fully mature. That'd make them at least about 100 years older than V. Don't know if it becomes less of an issue as they get older, as elves live for ages... but yeh.

I also like the idea of V and parent being the same gender, but it never being mentioned *what* gender. I could imagine Belkar's head exploding after that :smalltongue:

The Adder

2009-02-07, 12:55 AM

Well don't take offense or anything but I don't think V's mate is high level or anything. The fact that V has a hopeless look on his face kind of gives it away for me anyway. But your entitled to your own opinion.

Theoretically, if V's mate were high-leveled anything non-magical, of course he'd look hopeless. The way V sees the world if magic can't fix it, NOTHING CAN!

I've likely been ninja'd.

Lunaya

2009-02-07, 01:00 AM

Anyone anticipating a little dragon-slaying on the part of V's mate? What's to stop hir from having class levels? I vote Druid. :smallamused:

Quorothorn

2009-02-07, 01:12 AM

:smallsigh: Oh dear. Spiteful dragon eh? Sounds like a reason to go all genocidal on the Draconic Race. You see Spite is a game thats about escalation. Yes. She gets to run away...but her kin shall suffer. Maybe you'll make them hate enough to track her down for brining Elven doom upon them all. The souls of the children...for the souls of a race.
(Emphasis added.)
Precisely: I could hardly agree more. An eye for an eye...makes the whole world blind. Then you get up to head for an head, and everyone's dead. (I rhymed! :smallwink:)

Quorothorn

2009-02-07, 01:14 AM

taltamir

2009-02-07, 01:19 AM

I think V is female and the other parent a male...

anyways, good thing he has a conveniently injured and dimensional anchored imp who knows teleport but can't do so until he dismisses the spell and who is interesting in trading..

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0624.html

Bad thing that even if he teleports there with the imp, he is low on high level spells.

ooh... http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0626.html
Foreshadowing?

Sequinox

2009-02-07, 01:56 AM

Sweet.... New comic... Sorta sad, though. (Poor V... :smalleek:)

keybounce

2009-02-07, 02:24 AM

For everyone wondering if the dragon has the right house or the right children, remember that the dragon described the location, and enough paint color details to differentiate it from the other houses in the area.

How do we know it's a sufficient description? The dragon has been there twice, invisible, and looked around. The dragon knows how to differentiate that house from the others around it.

No, unless V's mate has repainted, and a neighbor has also repainted, then this is V's house.

factotum

2009-02-07, 02:44 AM

You're misremembering. It's about the four right words to the right being for all the wrong reasons.

And he did say the four right words to the right being for all the wrong reason back when he killed Kubata.

I don't see how he can ever say anything more right to anyone more deserving for an even worse reasoning.

Not this again. He was casting spells, not saying anything to anybody; furthermore, by the time he got to the "Gust of Wind" part, Kubota was a disintegrated pile of dust, not a "being" of any sort!

In any case, as I said a couple of pages ago, it's entirely likely that it's "the wrong reasons" from the point of view of Tiamat and the Oracle (since they spoke the prophecy), not from V's point of view. Getting ultimate arcane power in order to destroy a black dragon could easily be considered the wrong reasons from the point of view of the Mother of Chromatic Dragons, wouldn't you say?

Nevrmore

2009-02-07, 03:06 AM

Selene

2009-02-07, 03:23 AM

I want to see Parent and Children whip out the weapons and shout "bring it on!" :smalltongue:

Nevrmore

2009-02-07, 03:25 AM

I want to see Parent and Children whip out the weapons and shout "bring it on!" :smalltongue:
And then get devoured.

Swordguy

2009-02-07, 04:29 AM

As much as I hate speculating on the prophecies, I think that these are going to be the correct four words:

Imp! Stop the Dragon!

I mean, really...where else does he/she/it have to turn right now?

LuisDantas

2009-02-07, 05:33 AM

Here are a few random thoughts:

1. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would think the dragon is still justified at this point, or that her actions aren't pure evil. :smalleek: Killing someone who had nothing to do with what was done to you as an act of revenge? Sounds like pure terrorism to me. "Yes, you were born in this village, O enemy, so I'm going to kill all the people there, who of course have nothing to do with your actions." The Giant's showing this dragon to be evil -- not a relativistic "oh, they have a different perspective" b.s. -- but evil, in the sense of, "I do things that can't remotely be justified, because I enjoy it, and because I'm strong enough not to be prevented."

Really? It is certainly evil, but it does make quite some sense too.

See, if the Dragon kills Vaarsuvius without offering any danger to hir loved ones, then it is simply "business as usual": V is an adventurer who runs risks while adventuring. By menacing hir place of origin and loved ones, the Dragon ups the stakes and just might send the message that adventuring endangers one's family. Of course, it might just as easily motivate the elves into raising arms against black dragons in general, but that is simply not easy to do.

Then again, there is that matter of the young dragon attacking the OOtS originally. But that might well be something the mother dragon doesn't know about or even aproved of. Her personality is more fleshed out and sympathetic than one would expect of a run-of-the-mill Ancient Black Dragon.

2. And that being the case, IMO V was right to kill the first dragon as well.

Nope, that is just wrong. The situation makes it very clear that if V found a way out of hir troubles without hurting the dragon (and V probably could) hir offspring would probably be safe now.

Just because the young adult dragon wasn't murdering and torturing at that moment doesn't mean that he was a sweet and gentle flower-picker beset by big mean adventurers who just hated him because he's a dragon -- it suggests that he's just like good ol' mom and probably already had more horrors to his 'record' than a WWII war criminal.

Gosh, I hope you're kidding now. "He might be a rotten criminal, so I am justified at slaying him"?!? Surely you jest...

As for being like mom: mom is far more benign than one should expect a black dragon to be. And she made her motivations very clear, quite against the grain of your argument.

LuisDantas

2009-02-07, 05:44 AM

But no, for some reason we (the party) thought it was a good idea to sit around in a cave with a spell-mazed dragon child, until V could be turned back into a mage capable of disintegrating the dragon child for no particular reason but to steal everything, not just the starmetal.

The party did have a very good reason to sit around and do nothing: V ordered them so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0185.html) while carrying a dragon-sized stick.

Puppeteer

2009-02-07, 05:56 AM

Personally I'm torn between seeing or well... reading about the kids and mate being killed in a most horrific way or watching V teleporting thanks to Qaar only to discover, as somebody else said in this very thread, that the female dragon pulled a trap on V, leaving a note on the doorstep reading "I won't do it, I'm better than you".

For the first option, the death of all his family, it is simply because...well... nobody ever shows it in the first place. When there are kids involved, especially kids of that age, everybody expects a deus ex machina to pop up of any kind, as long as they don't die because they are tiny and cute, and unfortunately life ain't like that.
I still remember how shocked I was when I watched and read Elfen Leid, and japanese proved not to be afraid showing little kids being torn to pieces, with cut bones, flesh and blood spurting everywhere.
So much different from our western culture, and something that I don't remember seeing anywhere else.

The hollywoodian style to protect the innocent and never to let a kid die, even if a bloody nuclear warhead falls onto the head of a young character (Spielberg style), is starting to grind my gears a little.

The second option would be great anyway, psychologically and charactelly in line with what we have seen so far, the big monologue of the mother dragon and a further burden on the shoulders of an already proven V for the inability to save the soldiers at the battle of Azure City.

motub

2009-02-07, 06:12 AM

The party did have a very good reason to sit around and do nothing: V ordered them so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0185.html) while carrying a dragon-sized stick.
And that's my very point-- V's choice was to force everyone's actions so that it would almost inevitably lead to the death of the sub-adult dragon, which was

1. Not the purpose for which they had come (they came to retrieve the starmetal, not kill a dragon, so "kill a dragon" is now a complete diversion from the main goal);

2. Unnecessary, since they had incapacitated the sub-adult dragon, who furthermore remained incapacitated for a period of hours during which time the party did not complete their main purpose in being there, but instead did nothing but sit around... waiting (to re-enable their ability to kill it).

Justification of home invasion, we can argue about. Justification of lethal force in defense of your home, we can argue about.

But invading someone's home to steal their stuff, tying the homeowner up and then not stealing their stuff, but waiting around for hours with them tied up so that you can take receipt of the gun that you then use to kill said tied-up homeowner (who was still under suggestion of the lizard, even at the point V disintegrated it), and then stealing their stuff, is kinda sorta.... wrong.

And V's choice to use the mazed dragon as a "stick" against the rest of the party was the architect of the whole disaster (I consider a party action resulting in the unjust and unnecessary killing of a 'wronged party'-- since it was a home invasion and assault-- a disaster, even though it was "successful" on the face of it, in that they did eventually get the starmetal).

Kaytara

2009-02-07, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by kingworks
What kind of a good-aligned sentient being would leave his/her/its family to go adventuring - or any other reason, for that matter? It's very selfish at the very least.

You're forgetting how obscenely long-lived elves are. Check the comic. V's mate is sure V will be returning "one of these years". As in "one of these days".

Vaarsuvius has been adventuring for how long? About two years in the Order plus some time before that - not too long, though, because the impression we get is that V sought out the Iron Mage challenge soon after arriving in human lands.
So we're talking about a few years, at most. That's like several weeks or a couple of months to an elf.

kusje

2009-02-07, 06:21 AM

What kind of a good-aligned sentient being would leave his/her/its family to go adventuring - or any other reason, for that matter? It's very selfish at the very least.

I know of plenty of people who have to travel abroad to work while their family stays behind.

In fact, this is the situation that dozens of domestic workers from East Asia are in.

pentagram

2009-02-07, 06:44 AM

As for the "ultimate arcane power"-quest. No matter what connections Qarr happens to have, I doubt he is in any position to grant anyone ultimate anything and the Oracle wasn't answering the question of what V would need to do to "start down the road to evilness".

Aris Katsaris

2009-02-07, 07:17 AM

Not this again.

Indeed, not such a nitpicky denial again.

Getting ultimate arcane power in order to destroy a black dragon could easily be considered the wrong reasons from the point of view of the Mother of Chromatic Dragons, wouldn't you say?

All you're saying is that you want to forget entirely that clause because you can always reinterpret it to mean someone else's perspective. How lame is that?

The killing of Kubota keeps getting referred back to as a crossroads for V. The comic spent PAGES explaining in detail not only why they were the right words to the right person, but why V was doing it for the wrong reasons. It spent PAGES on that.

But people are unwilling to accept the comic for itself, because they seem to expect the four words and the ultimate power to come in the very same strip.

Well no, it doesn't need to happen that way. Haley's gifthorse didn't come in the same strip with the return of her speech either.

Kaytara

2009-02-07, 07:30 AM

All you're saying is that you want to forget entirely that clause because you can always reinterpret it to mean someone else's perspective. How lame is that?

The reinterpreting thing is somewhat valid, though. Take Elan's prophecy. Elan strikes us as the kind of person who doesn't have a malicious bone in his body. If it were up to him, all the heroes would be rewarded and the villains redeemed, not executed. That is the kind of "happy ending" he was likely rooting for.

The Oracle said "Yes - for you at least." If we take one possible way that prophecy could be fulfilled - that, say, Elan and Haley survive and the world is saved but everyone else in the Order suffers a horrible fate - then that would make it more bittersweet territory, rather than happy. Not what Elan had in mind.

So by limiting the fulfillment of the prophecy to Elan, the Oracle was already using a different interpretation of the term than the one Elan used in his question.

motub

2009-02-07, 07:36 AM

About the "ultimate arcane power" quest... I'm starting to wonder precisely what "ultimate arcane power" actually means (I've just realized that I don't really know), and if it doesn't in fact require that V become evil (since you couldn't be considered to have "ultimate" power of any sort if you were "shut off" from "half" the available power sources by the concept that they were "evil' and you were "good" or "neutral").

In which case, then "Disintegrate. Gust of Wind" could well be the beginning of the quest, as the first consciously "evil"/selfish (ab)use of magic on V's part, given that, again, it doesn't make much difference if you possess untold/"ultimate" magical prowess/ability if you never use it, just as it doesn't matter that you could lift 1000 pounds if you never do.

So those four words (which one could pick nits about, but at the same time, it could well be the case that if you have to pick nits about it, you've already lost the argument), given that they signify the willingness to embrace power (which implies the possibility of abuse, which this really was), could very much have been the beginning of V's journey to "ultimate arcane power" (which, again, means what? The ability to do destroy the known world/universe with hir magic? The ability to cast any known spell? The ability to cast any known spell and never run out of magical "mana"? Exemption from the stupid rules like 7 pages for one Power Word, or the necessity to wait/rest to scribe/cast another? What is V actually after?), since no one ever said (afaik) that upon the moment V said the "four words, etc", something would just immediately go "ploink" and V would then have "ultimate arcane power" (whatever that means).

And now, of course, the gloves are well and truly off, but I think at this point that it's more a case of "the other shoe dropping", rather than "this is an opportunity for the Oracle's statement to come true".

But it could go either way; as Rich is quite subtle, and that could mean that those four words, dropped in the middle of another event entirely (not overwhelmingly related to V at the outset) could have been a great catch by the eagle eyes who spotted it, or that it's a red herring and the real event will be much more "obvious" (but come out of left field).

docstrange

2009-02-07, 07:39 AM

Something tells me V is not quite out of options... something tells me that V will do what he didn't do in Azure City: fight against hopeless odds, when his magic is expended.

Shatteredtower

2009-02-07, 07:45 AM

Mr. Pendell, I don't think you're being fair in your criticisms. I think you've given the dragon far too much credit.

Spell resistance and good saving throws notwithstanding, what's so smart about letting the high level wizard that mentally enslaved and murdered your son lash out at you with two 7th level spells?

I get the impression that the dragon doesn't really care whether or not V eventually avenges and rescues the children, nor even whether she lives or dies. It's just the hurting in equal measure that counts.

On another subject, I find the changes in expression displayed at the end of the strip quite striking. Anger, calm, startlement, and then... frustration? It's as though something only dawned on V after the dragon left.

Shatteredtower

2009-02-07, 07:58 AM

I don't believe the Children are in any danger, relatively speaking. It goes against all classical archetypes of fiction to have a child die.

One of the Giant's inspirations is J. Michael Straczynski, specifically for Babylon 5. Mr. Straczynski originally had a policy against including children, cute robots, or adorable aliens on his show, a bit of rebellion against standard offenses foisted upon television science fiction over the years.

He eventually amended that policy: such creatures could appear on the show, but only if they came to a bad end within the episode. The spinoffs were much more kind, but children given major roles in episodes all died within those episodes.

Don't be too sure that the Giant won't follow that lead. We've already seen scores of goblin children killed, and Roy's death was fair warning that no one gets plot armour (or character shields, as he's called it). Whether they live or die will be determined entirely by what he determines is right for the story he's telling.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-07, 08:20 AM

I know of plenty of people who have to travel abroad to work while their family stays behind.

In fact, this is the situation that dozens of domestic workers from East Asia are in.

How many of them are supernatural beings with mystical powers including acid breath and rending claws? Oh, and are about 10 tons and flies...

Vitriolic Tonic

2009-02-07, 08:29 AM

Let us not forget that the dragon knows full well that Qarr is there, and given her knowledge of arcane lore, she is likely to know what imps can do.

She's been exceedingly cautious thus far in her every action, (with the exception of revealing her plan to Vaarsuvius, but it wouldn't have been very satisfying revenge-wise if she hadn't) and was probably listening to the conversation that V was having with Qarr beforehand, so why wouldn't she have taken the possibility of V striking up a deal in an act of desperation into account?

Even if things do end up going that way, one would think that the dragon has some sort of contingency plan prepared for it.

OperationTREX

2009-02-07, 08:32 AM

Go Dragon Go! Show this lizardman just how delicious elves are! Eat the kids! Eat the parent!

LeslieR

2009-02-07, 08:42 AM

The Mama-Dragon is awesome. Undeniably evil, but still awesome. That's the beauty of fiction, since no one is ever Actually harmed evil and awesome cane co-exist perfectly well in one character.. just look at Xykon.

Here's how I see things going down.

V: Quarr?

Quarr: Oooh, are we ready to ask for some infernal favors now?

V: I need your help.

[Cut to V's Mate's house where V's Mate and children are having tea with the Ancient Black Dragon]

V's Mate: I must say you've been a delightful guest, though I thought I was certain that Black Dragons were evil.

ABD: Actually...

Fiend #1: Plane-Shift... Unholy Crap, it's the Dragon!

Fiend #2: Quick, grab everyone!

V's Mate: Gah!

Fiend #1: Got 'em!

Fiend #2: Plane-Shift!

ABD: *sips tea* ...I am exactly as evil as elves are predictable.

[Cut back to the island]

Quarr: Okay, they're away from the dragon now and un-harmed.

V: Where are they?

Quarr: Oh, quite safe.. in the lower planes.

V: WHAT!!?

Quarr: Hey, I kept my part of the deal, and while your soul will make a fine morsel in the next life you can consider your family an 'insurance policy' on your behavior in this one.

V: Grrr-arrgh!

Quarr: Awww, wizard getting a bit cranky? How about some nice power-leveling to cheer you up? I'll just go find you some nice innocent villages to fireball.

V: Damn you.

Quarr: Been there, done that, too small for the T-shirt.

motub

2009-02-07, 08:51 AM

Been there, done that, too small for the T-shirt.
You can sleep happy tonight knowing you made at least one person LOL today :smallsmile: . Beautiful! As was the rest of the spoiler. I (almost) hope that's exactly what happens, as I enjoyed it so much :smallsmile: .

Shatteredtower

2009-02-07, 09:14 AM

Well played, LeslieR. Thanks for spoilering that. :smallsmile:

In regard to an earlier set of posts here, I'm the one that compared the younger dragon's situation to the Home Alone movies. Allow me to add a little bit of context to that.

The breath weapon for a young adult black dragon does 10d4 hp of acid damage, allowing a Reflex save for half damage -- or none for characters with evasion (Haley, Belkar, or Miko).

Explosive runes does 6d6 hp of force damage to everything in the blast radius, allowing a Reflex save for half (or none for those with evasion) to all but the reader of the runes. Vaarsuvius has been shown to use this spell on five separate occasions, four of them amounting to what constitutes malicious pranks. Only once is it used as a lethal measure, and even that is played for laughs.

The difference in damage, both average and maximum, between these two effects is 4 hp, assuming a failed saving throw. Before you argue that the dragon's attack wasn't played for laughs, I'd ask you to consider the way Durkon is being displayed in that first panel: in a classic Schulz "POW!" pose.

It's also worth mentioning that the dragon's death set up a morbid Vaarsuvius punchline. Might not be as funny to some now, though.

Scarlet Knight

2009-02-07, 09:25 AM

Go Dragon Go! Show this lizardman just how delicious elves are! Eat the kids! Eat the parent!

*Note to self* - remember to pick up steaks, veal chops on the way home....

Trizap

2009-02-07, 10:39 AM

......maybe the parent and children will survive, but somehow V will THINK they're dead and turn evil, when actually they are alive somewhere, somehow.

amuletts

2009-02-07, 11:28 AM

Oh Giant I knew you would somehow find a way to avoid revealing Vs gender. 'translated from elvish' lol indeed!
Ah, poor V. S/he's not having a good day is s/he?

teratorn

2009-02-07, 12:31 PM

Go Dragon Go! Show this lizardman just how delicious elves are! Eat the kids! Eat the parent!

The dragon seems to like its elven meat raw. Do you think she'll use some seasoning? Nutmeg maybe?

factotum

2009-02-07, 12:44 PM

The killing of Kubota keeps getting referred back to as a crossroads for V. The comic spent PAGES explaining in detail not only why they were the right words to the right person, but why V was doing it for the wrong reasons. It spent PAGES on that.

But people are unwilling to accept the comic for itself, because they seem to expect the four words and the ultimate power to come in the very same strip.

Excuse me, but I'm not an idiot--I don't expect V's arcane power to blossom the second he says the four words. I just don't see how you can say that casting a spell is literally saying words to people. As for Kubota's killing being a crossroads for V, we're in the same territory we were when everyone was convinced that Belkar convincing Roy to jump onto the zombie dragon's back was the fulfilment of HIS prophecy, and that didn't exactly turn out that way, did it?

kusje

2009-02-07, 12:49 PM

How many of them are supernatural beings with mystical powers including acid breath and rending claws? Oh, and are about 10 tons and flies...

I have no idea what you're talking about. The poster I replied to was talking about V.

Kajamakuji

2009-02-07, 12:53 PM

Holy man you guys set up a discussion page fast. Ok so I skimmed the first three pages then sorta lost interest in reading everything or I'd be here all day.
However some points I feel should be brought up.

1) Lots of people were all blah de blah dragon junior attacked them so hes bad. Has no one considered the fact his father was murdered and skinned by adventurers having some sort of effect on the kid?

2) Dragons are monstrous. Sure they are capable of feeling love and care for one another, but they dont really conform to human (or elven) standards. For their society this could be perfectly acceptable. Simply because some view it as evil doesnt make it so.

3) V is a ****. When confronted with the thing shows absolutely no remorse.

4) Being cute or a child does not make you exempt to harm. By dragon standards the junior dragon was and there doesnt seem to be a big crusade for him.

5) Lastly this is a bit reaching. But whos to even say V's children are innocent. Parents dont automatically decide their childrens alignment, whos to say that these kids both arent chaotic evil time bombs just waiting to grow up and inflict harm.

So blah blah, yeah I had my go at the soap box. Carry on you crazy posters. Excellent comic Rich. Im rooting for the dragon

Laughing Dragon

2009-02-07, 01:01 PM

This is my first post ... so be gentle (if you want).

The spoiler by LeslieR is excellent, and just convoluted enough to work. With all the trance deprevation that V has put V's self through since the "invisibility incident" V is in no condition to make rational decisions; much less be concerned with alignment restrictions as far as "proper" behavior is concerned.

At this point, the only things going through V's mind are scenerios that will allow V to save V's lifemate and/or the (possibly adopted) children. Tiredness and/or desperation will allow ANY event that might increase success to plug into that scenerio, and (possibly quite literally) the devil take the hindmost.

While this question may reveal my age I fear that I must ask anyway ... Is it still possible to read spells from one's tomes in a destructive manner (which is to say, cast them as if they are scrolls)? If that can still occur, then V still has a lot of oprions; although any such action would illustrate just HOW desperate V is (since each spell could only be cast once and would thereafter have to be retranscribed to be available for subsequent memorization)!

motub

2009-02-07, 01:06 PM

we're in the same territory we were when everyone was convinced that Belkar convincing Roy to jump onto the zombie dragon's back was the fulfilment of HIS prophecy, and that didn't exactly turn out that way, did it?
Ummm.... Belkar's question was "Do I get to cause the death of (note: not "kill", but "cause the death of") any of the following: Miko, Miko's stupid horse, Roy, Vaarsuvius, or you?". The Oracle's reply was "Yes."

The Oracle never specified how many of the named persons' deaths would be due to Belkar, so it's quite possible that he was responsible for both the death of Roy (passively, because it is very true that Roy could not have been killed in that action if Belkar had not made the action possible by providing Roy with the Ring of Jumping) and the Oracle (actively).

And since no actual total of those beings was specified, it could well be that Belkar could (theoretically) still cause the death of Varsuuvius (somehow, if Vaarsuvius was killed at some point in the future). He cannot cause the death of Miko (as she was killed by her own action), and I don't think even he can kill/cause the death of Windstriker.

Still, two out of four (with the fifth still "undecided") isn't a half-bad score (and is better than he expected, after all).

aarondirebear

2009-02-07, 01:09 PM

OK, Giant you CAN'T kill the cute little kids. Yes, I feel sorry for the dragon. Yes, I could understand going through a lot of effort to bring her son back.

But, no cute kid killing.

But, why do V's kids have darker skin tone than either of their parents? And, although they have two different hair colors, neither matches V?

I mean, Elven genetics may not match human DNA. Maybe dark skin is a recessive for them instead of the other way around and maybe red hair sometimes darkens to a mature purple . . . but this isn't quite adding up.

It also doesn't quite add up that the dragon made a big mistake and is attacking the wrong family. The feel isn't quite right.

I'd like to point out that Black Dragons are EVIL. VERY Evil.
They eat children for breakfast.
Are you saying that we should be putting limits on how evil a villain can be?
You're basically pleading to the giant "No! Please don't let the evil villain commit a reprehensible evil act!!!". Whats the name of that trope again?

-skimmer-

2009-02-07, 01:12 PM

hmm....as we all know, V cant use teleport, but what if she will use that uber comunication spell what she invented earlier? That could give them chance...

(maybe somebody already though of that before, i dunno...)

jebmak

2009-02-07, 01:31 PM

F*** the BS justifications the b****h just spewed.

F*** her and everything she stands for.

She's off her rocker if she actually believes that garbage coming out of her mouth.

SCRUBBED

'Just because -insert random reason- you think it's okay to kill my loved ones.'

UGH! I don't know if her mate was just playing cards when some adventurers broke down his cave door and saw treasure and dragon and decided to get ride of the dragon. And at this point, I don't care!

I don't know if the order stick ran back inside the darkness thought "(Dragon+Treasure)- Treasure = Us Much Richer" and ran back at him or wether the dragon just broke off their escape rout, and AGAIN I can't bring myself to care! Not anymore!

She's going to murder three people whose only crime (who don't know her and never knew her son) is being genetically related to her son's killer, and falling in love with her son's killer, then VIOLATED THEIR SOULS, and make sure they die the slowest most horrible death she can think of.

Kill the b-tch. Given her the same justice given to the Pharaoh of Egypt with her having declared her own punishment and have her soul bound somewhere so SHE'S the one never to be reunited with her loved ones in the afterlife... Then again that would deny her exactly what she deserves... -justice- for her own actions!!!

Kill her and make sure she stays dead!

When forced to chose between the lives your enemies and your loved ones, there is no choice.

Hopefully V will be able to get a 'only if they live' clause of his/her own inescapable contract with the imp. The possible loss of one soul in exchange for two or three... it's mathematics.

Kill the b-tch. Her species and type didn't make her a monster, her own actions did!

The Voice of Mod: Flames and/or insults based on religion (or lack thereof) are not tolerated on this message board.

That is pretty much exactly how I feel about V. I hope that she can somehow trade her soul for her family, and we never have to see her again, except for one scene showing that she will be suffering for a long time (eternity is too long and horrible, so I won't say that).

KoboldKiller

2009-02-07, 01:35 PM

In comic #331, all the Oracle says when asked by Elan if the story will have a happy ending is " yes-FOR YOU AT LEAST. This implies that 1 or more of the characters will NOT have a happy ending. So V's kids might be killed slowly and have their souls stolen.

jidasfire

2009-02-07, 01:45 PM

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 02:07 PM

Its more a case of recognizing that V's actions with the young adult dragon might have skirted the edge a bit, and that, unpleasant as the old dragons actions are, its possible to understand why she's doing it.

a case of the sins of the fathers visited on the children- seen as a bad act now, but in the past, some people thought it justified.

the sample quote in Exemplars of Evil: Sympathetic Villain:

"They killed my children. Can you blame me for wanting to kill theirs?"

Yes, the dragon's a villain, and one can root for V's mate and hope the dragon is thwarted.

But one can also understand that the dragon is not a Cardboard Villain, but being portrayed in a more realistic fashion.

Nightfall

2009-02-07, 02:08 PM

I think V's four words will be directed to the imp.
"I accept your offer." To an evil being like Dragon Mom, her Goddess, her Oracle, even Qarr, the "wrong reasons" would be unselfish ones...gaining ultimate arcane power to save those you loved, rather than to become world dictator.

I wanted to keep this to myself and see if I turned out to be right, but then, you'd never have believed me afterwards if I was right and said "I knew it!" :smallwink:

wootage

2009-02-07, 02:32 PM

Even if things do end up going that way, one would think that the dragon has some sort of contingency plan prepared for it.

Same plan as it just used, I guess. Anti-magic field and melee.

Draxonicar

2009-02-07, 02:47 PM

AAHH nightfall, stop stealing my thoughts

Kish

2009-02-07, 03:15 PM

Clearly, no one has anything to say to me or my arguments, but why is it the same set of people who come down on V for killing villains, and using modern day real world morality to do it,

I may have missed your earlier arguments, but you're saying Vaarsuvius was right to kill the young black dragon because of modern day real-world morality? I didn't think anyone who was arguing for that being right was doing so without incorporating "because black dragons are always evil," which is certainly no part of modern day real-world morality.

DanReiv

2009-02-07, 03:30 PM

I'm not sure Quarr can be of any help. As far as we know he can only cast teleport, not greater, and it's safe to assume he has no knowledge whatsoever of V's cottage.

Even if he could, what then ?

On the other hand the dragon been there twice already, and still use a GT to get there. She doesn't want to take any risk, or it's simply too far for a simple teleport.

I mean, she's right there first image next strip. (or not :smallbiggrin: )

Damn cliffhanger.

Koretsu

2009-02-07, 03:31 PM

Maybe I'm crazy, but haven't I read somewhere that elves start out with darker skin tones and grow paler as they age?

Rice

2009-02-07, 03:47 PM

I'd be willing to bet that because V is so upset about what happened in Azure city that he/she will do anything in his/her power to defeat the dragon. I could easily see V forcing Quarr into teleporting there and even resorting to a melee weapon if he/she can't overcome the Antimagic Field. Also, I can't see the Giant killing off two children in one fell swoop, but we may be led to believe that they are dead. For now, we must wait for answers...

Aris Katsaris

2009-02-07, 03:58 PM

Excuse me, but I'm not an idiot--I don't expect V's arcane power to blossom the second he says the four words. I just don't see how you can say that casting a spell is literally saying words to people.

Well it's certainly saying words, and they're certainly directed at people, so I'd say it's saying words to people.

What I don't see is how can you can possibly consider "saving the lives and souls of my children" to be "for all the wrong reasons".

As for Kubota's killing being a crossroads for V, we're in the same territory we were when everyone was convinced that Belkar convincing Roy to jump onto the zombie dragon's back was the fulfilment of HIS prophecy, and that didn't exactly turn out that way, did it?

Actually it did turn out that way, given how the Oracle spent a lot of time explaining to Belkar that it IS a legitimate fulfilment of the prophecy. Belkar himself wasn't satisfied with it, but I would have been. The comic itself offered an even more direct fulfilment of the prophecy ofcourse, so the whole point was moot.

So let's examine which is a more DIRECT "right thing for wrong reasons". The thing I suggest A, or the thing you suggest B:
A) Destroying a villain, because Elan had tied him up and I didn't want to endure the tedium of a trial.
B) Bargaining with a demon in order to save the lives and souls of my children.

According to you "bargaining with a demon" is more DIRECTLY a "right thing" than "destroying a villain".
And according to you "in order to save the lives and souls of my children" is more DIRECTLY "all the wrong reasons" than "because Elan had tied him up".

I think your logic is backwards. You're arguing that to bargain with a demon is a right thing, and to save one's children is a wrong reason. THAT'S BACKWARDS. In order to excuse it you provide even MORE indirect reasoning than is needed, e.g. "well, perhaps, it was the perspective of Tiamat that was being used - she may object to saving mammal children, and she may have no problem with demons"

Yeah, am really not buying it. If you're going to reverse the concepts of right and wrong by arguing that we ought be using the perspective of "right and wrong" that an Evil goddess *might* potentially have, then the whole prophecy is utterly unfair and meaningless since we have no possibility of knowing what right and wrong even means in this context. We have no way of knowing what Tiamat's perspective of right and wrong is.

So by disposing of those clauses we're only left with "By saying 4 words to someone". That is the only part of the prophecy your moral relativism has left standing.

gamephil

2009-02-07, 04:13 PM

This one actually runs into a problem for me: V and V's family are being potentially penalized for questionable actions take while V was still acting in "funny comic strip" mode. If everyone in a game or comic strip, or for that matter any form of story, are accepted to be goofing off, it is improper to then later punish them for the actions taken at that time. It's a frequent problem when a medium's tone changes. See the Marvel Civil War or DC's Identity Crisis for other examples.

Still, I did like this strip in spite of that, showing that Rich is better than many of the writers currently at the referenced comic book companies.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 04:17 PM

yes- in this case it would be the wrong four words for all the right reasons :smallsmile:

one could argue that concern for family is less good than concern for the safety of the world. If V endangers everyone else to save his kids, the reason may be closer to "all the wrong reasons"

I doubt it though- I expect the Four words not to arrive for a while yet.

McMurphy

2009-02-07, 04:54 PM

Excuse me for not being capable to scan the whole thread, probably others too (english's not my native tongue), so it might be asked already: How many high-level spells has exmomdragon left in her backpack to finish her tit for tat?

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 04:59 PM

Going by Greater Teleport, she casts as 15th level sorcerer, Cha 16 (probably +1 for her 4 actual sorcerer levels)

Meaning shes got a lot of spells. Not that it matters, a dragon doesn't rely wholly on spells anyway.

so far though, with only Antimagic field and Greater teleport cast, she has plenty left over- can cast 2 7th level spells per day, more lower level ones.

Nightson

2009-02-07, 05:14 PM

Actually it did turn out that way, given how the Oracle spent a lot of time explaining to Belkar that it IS a legitimate fulfilment of the prophecy. Belkar himself wasn't satisfied with it, but I would have been. The comic itself offered an even more direct fulfilment of the prophecy ofcourse, so the whole point was moot.

But it wasn't a fulfillment of the prophecy, the point was that everyone Belkar had asked if he'd kill was dead, except the oracle, and none of them by his hand. The oracle was trying to save his own skin.

hamishspence

2009-02-07, 05:19 PM

And V (and the horse wasn't so much dead as unavailable)

linkhyrule5

2009-02-07, 05:40 PM

Just a thought: Soul Bind requires a black sapphire worth 1000 gp per hit die right?

"Hey mom, I gained a die at training today!"

Goodbye sapphire, binding attempt fails.

Vreejack

2009-02-07, 05:41 PM

keldorn

2009-02-07, 06:11 PM

I'm glad to see that other people are jumping onto my bandwagon that stopping or avenging yourself on a dragon would be all "the wrong reasons" to the person who raised that condition for the four words. Although Rich started this comic as a joke, he's been writing it for years and it has changed in that time and is now wantign to write something that much more sophisticated as a work of fiction/art. (I'm listening to the end of something which also changed hugely in its intentions and took 25 years to write. Let's hope Rich doesn't take that long with the comic.) However it should be noted that this storyline was planned a long time back as the mother dragon was mentioned twice in the young dragon thread.

However, what I really wanted to mention here was the really big thing we learned in this comic. The world is round. The kids should be home from kindergarden but V has only just memorised spells at the start of the day.

Bilbo27

2009-02-07, 06:51 PM

refresh----refresh-----refresh, dang where is the next comic, I gotta see it!!

David Argall

2009-02-07, 06:57 PM

And that's my very point-- V's choice was to force everyone's actions so that it would almost inevitably lead to the death of the sub-adult dragon,
Now why would we think that is V's goal? Why would she want to take great risks to kill a dragon he didn't know existed until that day? That makes sense if his options essentially are kill the dragon or die. To take a treasure they have yet to see and have no idea of the size of? One they have not mentioned?
Note in this respect that V has not been described as particularly greedy. Definitely not in the Haley or Belkar range. We are justified as seeing her as distinctly disinterested in wealth. Gold is merely a path to magical power and of no concern of itself.
We are also unaware of any objections by the good members of the party to the killing of the dragon.

We thus merely have a case of self defense.

1. Not the purpose for which they had come (they came to retrieve the starmetal, not kill a dragon, so "kill a dragon" is now a complete diversion from the main goal);

They also did not come to fight bandits or hags or big green baddies.

2. Unnecessary, since they had incapacitated the sub-adult dragon, who furthermore remained incapacitated for a period of hours during which time the party did not complete their main purpose in being there, but instead did nothing but sit around... waiting (to re-enable their ability to kill it).
The temporary incapacity of the dragon does not change his long term objective to eat them. Nor does it make their actions more than self defense.

And we have to consider the literary needs. It just reads better if the party sits around. The reader wants to finish dealing with the dragon, even if in a real situation, one would take care of other matters in the meantime.
[Not to mention we have the question of just what control V actually had over the dragon. Exploring for the starmetal might end the spell.]

Justification of home invasion, we can argue about. Justification of lethal force in defense of your home, we can argue about.

But invading someone's home to steal their stuff, tying the homeowner up and then not stealing their stuff, but waiting around for hours with them tied up so that you can take receipt of the gun that you then use to kill said tied-up homeowner (who was still under suggestion of the lizard, even at the point V disintegrated it), and then stealing their stuff, is kinda sorta.... wrong.
But all this is is an elaboration, denying the point that the party was not aware of any home, nor were they invading that game, and the dragon was not trying to defend home or itself, it was after a snack.

And V's choice to use the mazed dragon as a "stick" against the rest of the party was the architect of the whole disaster
Was there in fact a good alternative? The party has proven rather careless in taking care of the matter. So making sure they restore V is a good tactic.

you're saying Vaarsuvius was right to kill the young black dragon because of modern day real-world morality? I didn't think anyone who was arguing for that being right was doing so without incorporating "because black dragons are always evil," which is certainly no part of modern day real-world morality.

There is no reason not to use both arguments. They reach the same conclusion, that V & the party were justified in their behavior.

But people are unwilling to accept the comic for itself, because they seem to expect the four words and the ultimate power to come in the very same strip.

Well no, it doesn't need to happen that way. Haley's gifthorse didn't come in the same strip with the return of her speech either.
Haley's gifthorse did happen the same day tho, and it has been at least the better part of a week with V. And no, nobody has insisted it must be the same strip. We have merely pointed out that the larger the gap, the more the idea looks bad.

Quistar

2009-02-07, 07:51 PM

Things don't look good indeed. This might well be the straw that breaks the camel's back, V's fall into darkness etc.

Maybe(hopefully) his mate is some kind of retired fighter-type, though V's reaction at the end doesn't suggest any kind of hope.

Looks like V's kids are adopted or something, or they play out in the sun a lot.

Regarding the kids, I think that is a subtle hint that something is causing them to be cast in shadow...like the presence of an invisible shadow dragon? Hm, wait, think it's a black dragon...well, we'll see. But that would explain it. If the kids are shaded, you can see that one has hair color like V's, the other like "Other Parent."

Got some thoughts on the cliffhanger. I apologize if others have posted the following already, I just came home after a long drive from out of town, and I doubt I'll be awake long enough to finish every post.

I would guess that Q has other favors to call among the devils in Hell....after all, he had one with that pit fiend that had no poker face! :smallamused: And if he calls one or more that can do greater teleport (as many devils can) then they can quickly get to V's family and fight off the dragon. Devils have a lot of immunities and SR, which could tip the battle back in V's favor.

Of course, I fully expect there to be a price involved...a serious one (this is an imp after all, he doesn't do favors without getting more than he's giving!). Now that he's got V by the short and curlies (V's gender V notwithstanding), Q has An Offer V Can't Refuse.

In reference to this strip (appropriately titled "For the Future")

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html

I bet the four words (considering V's choice of vocabulary) will be...

"You have a deal." (or something to that effect)

Evil, Rich. Totally Evil. Can't wait to see what happens next!

b5200

2009-02-07, 07:54 PM

If the dragon does kill off V's offspring is there any chance of him multi-classing to dragonborn?

Narkis

2009-02-07, 08:04 PM

Qarr hints to V of someone who can bring back his children. And of all the major necromancers in the story, I'd say Qarr recommends Xykon to V.

While the rest of the post is quite far-fetched, I think you may have something with that.

Wild speculation:
V might need someone to resurrect his family, after the dragon has presumably destroyed their bodies. And the only one we know that can cast True Resurrection is Redcloak. Redcloak, on the other hand, needs a powerful arcane spellcaster to fulfill his mission, yet that spellcaster needn't be Xykon. So it's possible that we'll see an alliance of convenience between Redcloak and V.

kusje

2009-02-07, 09:48 PM

Now why would we think that is V's goal? Why would she want to take great risks to kill a dragon he didn't know existed until that day? That makes sense if his options essentially are kill the dragon or die. To take a treasure they have yet to see and have no idea of the size of? One they have not mentioned?
Note in this respect that V has not been described as particularly greedy. Definitely not in the Haley or Belkar range. We are justified as seeing her as distinctly disinterested in wealth. Gold is merely a path to magical power and of no concern of itself.
We are also unaware of any objections by the good members of the party to the killing of the dragon.

We thus merely have a case of self defense.

What risk did he take killing the dragon? Said dragon was under the suggestion spell.

Also, they did know about the treasure and went looking in search of it the moment the dragon was dead.

The temporary incapacity of the dragon does not change his long term objective to eat them. Nor does it make their actions more than self defense.

And we have to consider the literary needs. It just reads better if the party sits around. The reader wants to finish dealing with the dragon, even if in a real situation, one would take care of other matters in the meantime.
[Not to mention we have the question of just what control V actually had over the dragon. Exploring for the starmetal might end the spell.]

So don't explore for the starmetal. Get out of the cave and head home. You can't tie someone up, steal from him and then kill him because he'll come after you for his stuff back. That isn't self defence and I hardly think the dragon would have gone after them if they hadn't taken anything and just disappeared quietly.

But all this is is an elaboration, denying the point that the party was not aware of any home, nor were they invading that game, and the dragon was not trying to defend home or itself, it was after a snack.

So what do you think would have happened if the party knew it was someone's home? They probably have tried to steal from him anyway.

And how did you come to decide that the dragon wasn't defending its itself and the hoard?

kusje

2009-02-07, 09:49 PM

While the rest of the post is quite far-fetched, I think you may have something with that.

Wild speculation:
V might need someone to resurrect his family, after the dragon has presumably destroyed their bodies. And the only one we know that can cast True Resurrection is Redcloak. Redcloak, on the other hand, needs a powerful arcane spellcaster to fulfill his mission, yet that spellcaster needn't be Xykon. So it's possible that we'll see an alliance of convenience between Redcloak and V.

Um... Soul bind?

archon_huskie

2009-02-07, 10:39 PM

Ultimate means final, while penultimate means before final.

If V wants Ultimate Arcane Power, then V wants Final Arcane Power.

Final like Redcloak's plan to destory the world.

Carnivorous_Bea

2009-02-07, 10:55 PM

What risk did he take killing the dragon? Said dragon was under the suggestion spell.

Also, they did know about the treasure and went looking in search of it the moment the dragon was dead.

So don't explore for the starmetal. Get out of the cave and head home. You can't tie someone up, steal from him and then kill him because he'll come after you for his stuff back. That isn't self defence and I hardly think the dragon would have gone after them if they hadn't taken anything and just disappeared quietly.

So what do you think would have happened if the party knew it was someone's home? They probably have tried to steal from him anyway.

And how did you come to decide that the dragon wasn't defending its itself and the hoard?

And how did you come to decide that the dragon, who stated that humans are tasty, was an innocent, perfect, wonderful creature rather than what he probably was (especially judging by his mom) -- a ravening, murderous monster that likely has torture, murder, and death to his record already, and will do more of these things if he's allowed to live?

Fine, he's not doing anything right then (other than declaring the intruders to be delicious snack food). Well, Jack the Ripper didn't kill people 24/7 either, but that doesn't mean that he was innocent in between crimes.

Not to mention that he definitely would have come after them for daring to steal something out from under him. These are inferior beings, dragons have always been portrayed in D&D as extremely proud, and do you think he'd let that humiliation pass without hunting them to the ends of the earth?

Thinking of the villages razed, the maidens devoured, the woe and misery that dragon would have spread during his life -- and probably already had -- one could posit that V was quite justified on throwing a Disintegrate on him.

Grod_The_Giant

2009-02-07, 11:32 PM

...oh %$^&... :eek:

Quorothorn

2009-02-07, 11:38 PM

What risk did he take killing the dragon? Said dragon was under the suggestion spell.

I would just like to point out that when V actually killed the dragon, it was no longer Suggested. Look at the dialogue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html).

Ghastly Epigram

2009-02-07, 11:43 PM

Just a quick thought on the four words thing...perhaps "for all the wrong reasons" does not mean morally or ethically wrong as one might expect, but say, for reasons other than gaining ultimate arcane power. That would make them, in a sense, the wrong reasons.

kusje

2009-02-07, 11:51 PM

And how did you come to decide that the dragon, who stated that humans are tasty, was an innocent, perfect, wonderful creature rather than what he probably was (especially judging by his mom) -- a ravening, murderous monster that likely has torture, murder, and death to his record already, and will do more of these things if he's allowed to live?

Fine, he's not doing anything right then (other than declaring the intruders to be delicious snack food). Well, Jack the Ripper didn't kill people 24/7 either, but that doesn't mean that he was innocent in between crimes.

Not to mention that he definitely would have come after them for daring to steal something out from under him. These are inferior beings, dragons have always been portrayed in D&D as extremely proud, and do you think he'd let that humiliation pass without hunting them to the ends of the earth?

Thinking of the villages razed, the maidens devoured, the woe and misery that dragon would have spread during his life -- and probably already had -- one could posit that V was quite justified on throwing a Disintegrate on him.

Dragon junior seems rather sheltered to me. He might not have had the opportunity to leave the cave yet. I'm not saying that he IS a perfect and innocent creature, I'm saying that the OOTS have not seen him do anything evil yet. In essence, he might not be evil and even if he were, his alignment might change in the future. (While black dragons are born evil, do we judge and punish them based on their alignment or their actions?) Since when do we judge people based on their parents? Have negative/positive opinions about them? Sure... but to punish them for the sins of their parents?

Furthermore, we have only seen mother dragon's present state of mind. The death of a child might easily have pushed her towards the side of evil.

I don't think dragon junior would have chased the OOTS if they didn't take anything. While he might have been pissed, he might value the safety of his hoard more than going after a few adventurers who didn't take anything from him.

Even if V might have preemptively saved dozens of villages, was that really his motivation? Or was his motivation a lot more selfish?

kusje

2009-02-07, 11:58 PM

I would just like to point out that when V actually killed the dragon, it was no longer Suggested. Look at the dialogue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html).

Where? There were 2 spells that killed the dragon and at least one was casted when the dragon was still under the suggestion spell (I don't play DnD- Does casting 2 disintegrates take 2 rounds?)

In any case, notice that the dragon was incapacitated by the first disintegrate which was casted while he was still under the suggestion spell.

Quorothorn

2009-02-08, 12:03 AM

Where? There were 2 spells that killed the dragon and at least one was casted when the dragon was still under the suggestion spell (I don't play DnD- Does casting 2 disintegrates take 2 rounds?)

In any case, notice that the dragon was incapacitated by the first disintegrate which was casted while he was still under the suggestion spell.

Yep, you're right in your guess, casting two spells takes two rounds (barring special circumstances). The first shot was during the last turn of the Suggestion's effect; for the second shot, the dragon was active again.

It's just something I've seen popping up in these discussion that I thought I'd correct: it honestly doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the overall argument. *Shrugs.*

allenw

2009-02-08, 12:04 AM

Well it's certainly saying words, and they're certainly directed at people, so I'd say it's saying words to people.

What I don't see is how can you can possibly consider "saving the lives and souls of my children" to be "for all the wrong reasons".

I agree that for the purposes of this comic, casting spells = saying words to people.
On your other point, though: it would be "all the wrong reasons" if the family is saved without V's help (e.g., mate is uber-high-level), or if the dragon is not actually intending to kill the family immediately (messing with V's head, or trying to demonstrate moral superiority, or in league with Qarr) or does not actually exist (hallucination, all-senses illusion, Nightmare-type spell).

Raven Blackwell

2009-02-08, 12:31 AM

I really doubt it, Qarr's small fry, the dragon's a more valuable ally, and V's soul by itself probably isn't valuable enough to pull whatever strings would need to be pulled to get in an Ancient Black Dragon's way.

However there is a possible motive for the lower planes getting involved. Recall: way back when Nale was impersonating Elan before the Battle of Azure city he learned about the nature of the Snarl and it's threat to reality. He then told Sabine who turned around and plane shifted to the Lower Planes to inform her superiors. Now, the forces of Evil (tm) may be evil, but they want to corrupt the whole multiverse, not have it and everything in it- including them- wiped from existence. V has shown an obsessive desire to prevent this from happening, so much so he/she abandoned her fellow Order members who seemed to be straying from that objective. Thus a far thinking Evil Power (tm) may be willing to empower V to save his/her family, then direct him/her to save the world- and then to conquer it in It's name with the power of the gates being controlled by V and an evil cleric rather than Xlyon and Redcloak. Heck cut a deal for the goblin race and Redcloak might be willing dump Xylon for V.....

As a raving egotist V certainly fits the mold of a potential LE tyrant with his/her's belief in his/her superiority of all other beings and likely believes a world absolutely ruled by him/her would be better than the current one as he/she is in his/her not so humble opinion smarter and wiser than anyone else. From such seeds a true horror could be made.....

Raven Blackwell

2009-02-08, 12:41 AM

Second, shouldn't Roy be taking the blame for this one, or the group as a whole? If they hadn't gone on the side quest to retrieve the starmetal (Not V's idea if I recall) then the encounter never would have happened. You can't blame V for defending himself from a dangerous opponent, especially when the rest of the party had just as much a hand in the whole thing.

The dragon likely asked "Who killed my child" to the Oracle. Oracle responds "Vaarsuvius"- because V is the one who killed the dragon with a Disintegrate spell. The dragon didn't ask who helped though. After it all it has seen Elan and Durgan and felt no real need to torment them-or even to seem to see any difference between then and the other high level adventures with the fleet- so it is likely ignorant of of their part in her child's death. That or they are just further down the list than V. ;>

Tricky

2009-02-08, 12:54 AM

From a reader's perspective, a word of advice for Mr. Burlew.

Tie together some of your loose ends before adding in more lines of plot to follow. You may feel that you are making for a richer world, but what's happening for the reader is that plots are neglected for so long that the reader hardly cares at all when you get back to them.

Too many fantasy writers get so involved in their own world creation that they wander off, spawning new idea after new idea, and their resulting story loses all coherence.

I fear that this is where OOTS is heading. It's starting to feel like one of the later Robert Jordan works.

Kaytara

2009-02-08, 03:22 AM

Tricky, I think that's more the case with authors who don't plan ahead and just toss whatever they feel like into the plot.

We know for a fact that Rich has the entire story planned out to a certain extent. Perhaps not in minute detail, but he's not about to toss in a "cool" sideplot if there's no reason to do so.

As it is, the repercussions of your actions catching up with you at the most inopportune moment is a very realistic twist.

As for what happened in the cave...
Guys, you keep saying that Vaarsuvius cast the first Disintegrate while the dragon was still hypnotized.
What if that's not the case (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html)?

The dragon was standing still on all fours with its mouth closed.
But in the panel where V casts Disintegrate for the first time, it is already taking a step towards him with its teeth bared for attack!

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-08, 04:31 AM

Clearly, no one has anything to say to me or my arguments, but why is it the same set of people who come down on V for killing villains, and using modern day real world morality to do it, are also now clamoring for V's innocent kids to be brutally murdered and have their souls ripped out? What sort of backwards logic is that?

The difference is this:
V killed Kubota because she couldn't be bothered to waste her time dispensing justice. She decided her time was more important than a fair trial. Now killing Kubota in response to his crimes wouldn't necessarily be wrong. However V blatantly said that she didn't know who Kubota was or what he did. She saw he was tied up, heard about a trial, and killed him so that she wouldn't have to be bothered. (She knew so little about the situation that she couldn't have been a witness anyways) So in essance, V killed Kubota because she valued her time more than justice.

The dragon could not go to any court. No nation would defend the rights of a black dragon. So she reverted to the most basic form of justice, an eye for an eye. She would take V's family in the same manner that V took her family. So basically the dragon is fighting for her version of justice.

The reason we hate V and love the dragon is that V is being arrogant and subverting the heroic qualities that an adventurer is supposed to uphold while the dragon is questing for justice denied to her and is shattering V's delusion of superiority in the process.

FoE

2009-02-08, 04:37 AM

On the other hand, those kids are innocents. They had no part in the young dragon's death. But now they're going to die painfully because the mother dragon won't content herself with simply killing Vaarsuvius? That's evil. And while I applaud that sort of thing, I'm not going to say that the dragon is in the right. She may be entitled to vengeance against V, but she's dragging innocents into this conflict.

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-08, 04:39 AM

Yes its evil. But so are black dragons. The dragon mother is simply using her own morality here.

motub

2009-02-08, 04:42 AM

The dragon was standing still on all fours with its mouth closed.
But in the panel where V casts Disintegrate for the first time, it is already taking a step towards him with its teeth bared for attack!
You're right. But now it's legitimately self-defense, up to and including the original acid breath blast (which was likely an effort to prevent/dissuade the intruders from progressing further; since the dragon was a sub-adult, even if its breath was its "best weapon", it would be likely to know/have heard that invading adventurers come armored, and it's relatively weak dragon breath would not be that likely to decimate them... hence the darkness to get the surprise, which might give it a "lucky break").

If you hear someone unknown/unexpected wandering around your house in the middle of the night, and you have a baseball bat under your bed for just such emergencies, you are fairly likely to attempt to creep up on them and whack them one, and "no one" (meaning "the authorities") is going to "blame" you-- self defense.

What happened then? The dragon broke off its attack to talk to Lizard Varsuuvius, even while Haley continued to attack it. It did not resume attacking until V assaulted it several times; it didn't even eat Belkar, just knocked him off without even turning its head.

It is within the realm of possibility that V could have reached some kind of accommodation with the dragon (since they were having a nice chat), but rather than making any such attempt, V "punched" the dragon with the Suggestion spell (actually, sucker punched), and stated hir intentions to keep doing so until the dragon "fell over" as it were.

So the dragon ate hir to shut hir up. Self-defense.

Haley then shot the dragon in the eye to make it let go of V, which you can understand, whereupon the dragon ate her (it didn't, apparently, have any other effective weapons, since everyone still standing-- including Haley-- had avoided the initial acid breath) to stop her doing that.... the blather about "dining on meatier fare" was just that-- blather. The dragon does have a reputation to uphold, after all. And displaying confidence enough to be witty when you're outnumbered and possibly outgunned is a weapon in and of itself.

OK, this is when everything started going to heck in a handcart; naturally, everybody still standing went after the dragon to get it to spit Haley out. V succeeded, with a non-lethal spell, which was, indeed, brilliant, and tells the dragon to vomit Haley out (on Belkar, just to be mean :smallsmile:).

So we know the dragon is well and truly under the influence, and is not capable of harming the party on its own account, unless V tells it to, which she did then give conditions under which that would be OK by her (???!!!).

But instead of telling the dragon to tell the party (i.e., Roy) where the starmetal was, and not to attack while they took it and left, V wasted the entire length of the spell duration having the dragon threaten the rest of the party (I mean, Elan playing "Eye Spy" with Roy? When there's only one "thing" in the room that your eye could spy? Please. Is there a more eloquent depiction of "wasting time" than that?). Furthermore, even though V knew (or at least strongly suspected, which for an advanced magic user such as hirself, is quite close enough to "knew") that the dragon would no longer respond to hir as an elf once s/he had polymorphed back to hir true form, s/he neglected to demand that the dragon tell the party where the starmetal was while it actually recognized hir. Am I supposed to believe that this highly intelligent Elf suddenly had a "brain fart" and just "didn't think of it"?

Suuuuure. V was clearly more interested in "cleverly" outwitting the dragon than achieving the party goal (get the starmetal, get out alive). So, since s/he had now royally screwed up and turned probable success into probable failure-- because, let's face it, if the dragon is left alive and you're still there when it comes to, danged right it's going to try and eat you, and the party has already proved that they can't likely defeat it by force of arms--- the grand gesture of disintegration (which, interestingly, she had used the "wasted time" to prepare) was the only "viable" option left. Of course. The convoluted, complicated, and only achievable by V solution was the only one left. Even if there were other possibilities that involved less risk (I'm sorry, I can't get over that "sitting around" next to a spell-mazed dragon for frickin' hours as a crazy risk to take), less bloodshed, and more focus on the party's well-being and goals than V's self-aggrandizement.

What I wonder is why no one said anything? Maybe if they had complained (rather loudly) about how dopey this was (or even how boring this was), V might have done something different (like told the dragon to tell the party where the starmetal was so that the party could thereafter get the heck out of Dodge). Naturally, V would not have had time to complete study for the Disintegrate spell, but with enough of a head start, there's a good chance that they might not have needed it. Oh, but maybe they weren't "allowed" to disturb hir while s/he was memorizing the spell. Right.

... but if s/he had that much confidence in her Suggestion, to feel secure going into memorization trance for-- what is it, 8 hours?-- then really, s/he could definitely have said, "Tell Roy where the starmetal is. Do not attack him or any of the party while he retrieves it, remain here motionless for 6 hours after we leave, and do not attempt to follow us after that time," and expected it to work.

The first rule of self-defense is "Get away from the attacker" (or in short, "RUN!"), not "hang around until you have the means to, and no other choice but to, decimate the attacker to ashes". I feel that what mama is really upset about is not so much that her child was killed, but that it wasn't killed in a fair fight (because anybody powerful enough to disintegrate her child certainly could have disabled it instead, which was indeed the case, since V did indeed disable it for quite a long time before ultimately killing it).

And the party is not some kind of police force, killing to "avenge" possible past crimes against unknown victims, or to "prevent" possible future crimes against unknown potential victims. They killed it because under the ruleset, it was legitimate to do so (because it's 'evil') and because V had left hirself no other choice but to do so (painted hirself into a corner, basically). But it could have been avoided, and likely with less trouble than they in fact took to kill it.

@Face of Evil: Yes. We've established that the ABD is in fact evil. That would be why it does things in an evil way.

But the fact that one is evil and expresses oneself via evil means, does not automatically equal "wrong". Just as V said or will say "the right words for the wrong reasons", the dragon is doing "the wrong (evil) thing for the right reasons".

"Real life" is tricky that way :smallsmile: .

FoE

2009-02-08, 04:43 AM

Yes its evil. But so are black dragons. The dragon mother is simply using her own morality here.

@Face of Evil: Yes. We've established that the ABD is in fact evil. That would be why it does things in an evil way.

But the fact that one is evil and expresses oneself via evil means, does not automatically equal "wrong". Just as V said or will say "the right words for the wrong reasons", the dragon is doing "the wrong (evil) thing for the right reasons".

I'm sure V's family will appreciate the distinction while they're being eaten alive.

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-08, 05:02 AM

I'm sure V's family will appreciate the distinction while they're being eaten alive.

I am not arguing that it is okay for the dragon to kill V's family. Its just that some people don't understand why the dragon is acting in this manner. She is not trying to say "Kids should not be killed." If she was she would be a massive hypocrite as many have alleged on this board. Instead she is saying "V, you shouldn't have killed mykid because it made me feel severe emotional pain as a mother, and because you did kill my son I am going to hurt you in the same way your hurt me." V's family is not meant to appreciate any distinction whatsoever. The entire message is aimed at V, her family is just a tool to deliver this message.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 06:45 AM

The difference is this:
V killed Kubota because she couldn't be bothered to waste her time dispensing justice. She decided her time was more important than a fair trial. Now killing Kubota in response to his crimes wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

a) Didn't see the need to wait for an uncertain justice to fail
b) Moustache twirling villain already said they'd get off in a trial
c) Decided that SAVING THE WORLD was more important than taking an UNFAIR TRIAL.
d) Did kill Kabuta for crimes comitted. If Kabuta weren't a criminal worthy of death, Elan wouldn't have tied them up
{Scrubbed}

kusje

2009-02-08, 07:48 AM

a) Didn't see the need to wait for an uncertain justice to fail
b) Moustache twirling villain already said they'd get off in a trial
c) Decided that SAVING THE WORLD was more important than taking an UNFAIR TRIAL.
d) Did kill Kabuta for crimes comitted. If Kabuta weren't a criminal worthy of death, Elan wouldn't have tied them up
{Scrubbed}.

Wow, can't we have a civil discussion without it being personal? :smallmad:

a) He knew nothing about the justice being "uncertain". All he knew was that it would take weeks and be boring.
b) He didn't overhear that. He landed on the deck after Kubota said that.
c) Just because someone is on a quest to "save the world" doesn't mean anyone impeding him should die. What about a salesman blocking his way? Would V be right if he killed him?
d) He knew nothing of those crimes. Also, are you suggesting that Elan will only tie up people who deserve to die?

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 07:53 AM

The order as a whole have tied up numerous characters. Some deserved to die, arguably, some didn't. In none of these scenes, does the Order kill the tied up being (though we don't see what happens to the goblins who guide the order to the Dungeon of Dorukan in DCF bonus strips)

Point is- when has Elan tied anyone up on his own? its a new occurance, before, there was always help from the rest of the order.

At least, in the strips we have available. He could have tied people up in other strips, but that kind of surmise does not count as evidence.

KoboldKiller

2009-02-08, 08:43 AM

heroe_de_leyenda

2009-02-08, 09:49 AM

aarondirebear

2009-02-08, 10:41 AM

I am in the long shot crowd that the kids are adopted and V is still a lady... or those simply aren't her kids/family.

Elves could all be androgynous like that, could have confused the dragon.:smalltongue:

Dragon: [Convoluted mess in which the dragon THINKS that she's asking where the children of V are located]
Oracle: Wait, are you SURE that you want to word your question that way?
Dragon: Yes you insolent worm, just answer!
Oracle: Wouldn't it be simpler just to, say, ask "where does the family of Varsuvius the wizard live?"
Dragon: [Snarls]
Oracle: [location of a random elven town, and random elven house that TECHNICALLY matches a literal answer to her question.

Qov

2009-02-08, 10:43 AM

Tie together some of your loose ends before adding in more lines of plot to follow.

Blink. This is the phase of the story at which all the threads, including little random ones we didn't even know we were supposed to care about, are being tied together.

V's "mate" has been a loose end forever, with readers begging to know about him or her. We're reaching the end of Haley's alienation from her guild, and Belkar's curse has been lifted. Probably more things like the "young adult dragon" that we mistook for random throw-away gags will emerge to have significance, but don't mistake those for new plotlines.

I'm very happy with the pacing, if perhaps a wee bit disappointed to see the story narrowing, just because that means the end is in sight and I'll miss it when it's over. If the story arcs are too broad for you to follow, I recommend you get the books, or just read back through the archives now and again while waiting for the next comic.

The Blackbird

2009-02-08, 12:12 PM

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 12:18 PM

Crusader

2009-02-08, 12:39 PM

V's kids are toasted.

'Other Parent' though? Pushing it >.<

Roland St. Jude

2009-02-08, 12:52 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here.

David Argall

2009-02-08, 12:54 PM

What risk did he take killing the dragon? Said dragon was under the suggestion spell.
The accent is on the word "was". When V killed the dragon, it was in the process of emerging from the spell, and it would have attacked within a few rounds.

Also, they did know about the treasure and went looking in search of it the moment the dragon was dead.
They suspected treasure of course. Dragons are supposed to have treasure. They did not know how much treasure of what type or where. In particular, they did not know the starmetal was there.

So don't explore for the starmetal. Get out of the cave and head home. You can't tie someone up, steal from him and then kill him because he'll come after you for his stuff back. That isn't self defence and I hardly think the dragon would have gone after them if they hadn't taken anything and just disappeared quietly.
This makes no sense in general, and less for heros. Abandon your search because somebody threatens you? You do that in the city because you can call on the law to defend you, so you can come back the next day and safely continue your search. Here there is no police to call on, and you must defend yourself.
The party did not know the location of the starmetal. The cave was apparently a good bet, but there is a large area outside the cave to search, so even if we give the dragon the right to order the party out of the cave, the party has the full right [and intent] to stay in the general area, where the dragon will have no trouble finding them and attacking.

So what do you think would have happened if the party knew it was someone's home? They probably have tried to steal from him anyway.
Maybe, maybe not. They didn't know and can't be condemned for speculations on what they might have done.

And how did you come to decide that the dragon wasn't defending its itself and the hoard?
The dragon made no attempt to order them to leave.
The cave was not marked with any sort of "keep out" sign.
Darkness is reasonably designed as a way to keep the party from escaping by confusing them about where the exit was. [As a young adult, he had barely started his magic studies and had very few, and weak, spells.]
The dragon is pictured standing on Elan. Since Elan spends most fights at the rear of the party, the only way this happens is if the dragon has attacked the party.
The dragon refers to Haley and V as food, not intruders.
The dragon says it has been given permission to eat any who try to leave, meaning he deems that a desirable goal. Note too this marks the dragon as evil.

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 01:21 PM

strictly, there are nonevil dragons that "enjoy the flesh of intelligent humanoids" the CN Fang Dragons, in particular, that also "play with their food in a cruel way."

LeslieR

2009-02-08, 01:31 PM

a) Didn't see the need to wait for an uncertain justice to fail
b) Moustache twirling villain already said they'd get off in a trial
c) Decided that SAVING THE WORLD was more important than taking an UNFAIR TRIAL.
d) Did kill Kabuta for crimes comitted. If Kabuta weren't a criminal worthy of death, Elan wouldn't have tied them up
{Scrubbed}

Actually, V had been spending the majority of their time in the 'Serious Business' of magical research and paid zero attention to the politics of the refugee fleet. V had no idea who Kabuta was, nor did they care, they simply assumed that if he was tied up he must have been in some way involved in the recent unpleasantness and that if he was tied up it meant he would inevitably be the subject of a long and drawn out trial the refugee fleet would drop everything to tend to that.

V arbitrarily executed Kabuta because they didn't want to have the tedium of a trial intrude upon their plans, without even bothering to ponder whether or not actual Justice would be or could be served to one such as Kabuta in a 'fair' trial. Justice was the furthest thing from V's mind, their only concern was that their convenience was threatened.

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-08, 02:13 PM

Point of fact, as V had been spending their entire time below deck doing research, s/he would not have played a role in the trial at all. S/he was not on trial, was not a witness to anything of note, was not involved in the legal process. In all honesty the trial would have focused everyone's attention away from V and given him/her more time to research. Killing Kubota was pointless.

Jabberwocky

2009-02-08, 02:30 PM

Well, much respect to the Giant. Every time I start thinking that the story's getting flat he comes up with some backstory that gives the main story much meaning and many tragic and darker tones. That was with Miko, now with Mother Dragon. Who to side with? The kids are cute, all right. But wasn't the dragon kid cute too? At least to his mother? Two parents locked deadly over death of their children. Will the Dragon Lady, a mother already, kill the children of another parent? A tragedy of Greek proportions is looming and Medeia's name comes to my head...

kusje

2009-02-08, 02:32 PM

The accent is on the word "was". When V killed the dragon, it was in the process of emerging from the spell, and it would have attacked within a few rounds.

That still doesn't explain how V took a risk to kill it. Where is the risk involved?

They suspected treasure of course. Dragons are supposed to have treasure. They did not know how much treasure of what type or where. In particular, they did not know the starmetal was there.

Not knowing the amount of treasure or what type of treasure doesn't chance things. I also believe that they had suspected the starmetal was there. (Which is why they tried to question the dragon about it)

This makes no sense in general, and less for heros. Abandon your search because somebody threatens you? You do that in the city because you can call on the law to defend you, so you can come back the next day and safely continue your search. Here there is no police to call on, and you must defend yourself.
The party did not know the location of the starmetal. The cave was apparently a good bet, but there is a large area outside the cave to search, so even if we give the dragon the right to order the party out of the cave, the party has the full right [and intent] to stay in the general area, where the dragon will have no trouble finding them and attacking.

Why do heros get to act and be judged under a separate code? And no, they shouldn't abandon their search just because they were threatened. But they should have abandoned it because they found out what they are looking for belongs to someone else.

While the starmetal didn't belong to anyone initially (falling from the sky), that changed once the dragon lay its claim on it. Finders keepers. If Roy had found the starmetal lying on the ground in the forest and someone took it away from him, that person is a thief.

Maybe, maybe not. They didn't know and can't be condemned for speculations on what they might have done.

King Giants.

Also you condemn the dragon based on speculation on what it might do if they just left it alone and went off. You condemn the dragon based on speculation that it might have killed in the past. You condemn the dragon based on people it might kill in the future.

HandofShadows

2009-02-08, 03:25 PM

Also you condemn the dragon based on speculation on what it might do if they just left it alone and went off. You condemn the dragon based on speculation that it might have killed in the past. You condemn the dragon based on people it might kill in the future.

Hey, I have a clue for you the real world concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" does not apply to the world of OOTS unless you are in a human city that uses that philosophy and you are a creature that can have variable alignments. The dragon is out in the woods (no law) and is ALWAYS EVIL. Period. That by definition means it HAS killed people in the past (where do you think all that treasure came from? It was donated?) and it has stated that it intends to eat two children slowly while they are still alive and bind their souls (which from the sound of it, is worse than murder). The dragon is a monster, not of because of what it looks like, but because of what it wants and plans to do.

Sequinox

2009-02-08, 03:54 PM

"Parent" and "Other-Parent"? Are you kidding me?

The V-androgyny joke has officially been stretched so thin that it couldn't even shade you from the sun anymore.

The only good thing about this comic was the punchline. V's anguish was quite funny.

I thought the 'parent' 'other parent' joke was hilarious... And the androginity of Parent helps my theory that some elves are genderless! (Yeah, okay, so it seems like a stretch, but anything's possible!)

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 03:57 PM

Yes its evil. But so are black dragons. The dragon mother is simply using her own morality here.

But some here seem to be saying it's OK what the dragon is doing. Dooing Evil is GOOD now?

Others seem to be arguing that there's a possibility that mum and jr have given up the evil life (and hence the attacks by OotS was evil) but now you say she's evil MERELY BECAUSE SHE'S A BLACK DRAGON!

factotum

2009-02-08, 03:58 PM

What I don't see is how can you can possibly consider "saving the lives and souls of my children" to be "for all the wrong reasons".

Well, obviously I DON'T think that, and neither does V think that, but I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the Oracle here--you know, the being that ACTUALLY SAID THAT PHRASE??? He is a servant of Tiamat, and I seriously doubt that he considers "killing a black dragon" to be a "right reason" no matter what the justification.

So let's examine which is a more DIRECT "right thing for wrong reasons". The thing I suggest A, or the thing you suggest B:
A) Destroying a villain, because Elan had tied him up and I didn't want to endure the tedium of a trial.
B) Bargaining with a demon in order to save the lives and souls of my children.

According to you "bargaining with a demon" is more DIRECTLY a "right thing" than "destroying a villain".
And according to you "in order to save the lives and souls of my children" is more DIRECTLY "all the wrong reasons" than "because Elan had tied him up".

I love the way you keep putting things into my mouth I've never actually said--makes it darn difficult to argue with you, since you'd apparently rather argue with yourself. Anyway, my entire argument against "Disintegrate. Gust of Wind." being the four words is that I don't believe that casting a spell COUNTS as saying four words, and neither do I believe that Kubota was still an intact being that the latter three words could have been said to. You disagree with that viewpoint, that's fine. However, I'm making no assumptions or moral judgements on the matter at all, and I'm therefore mystified why you're inserting phrases like "moral relativism" into your replies. So, if you can stop building straw men for a minute and argue against the things I'm actually saying, I'm sure this will all go much better for both of us. OK?

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 03:59 PM

Wow, can't we have a civil discussion without it being personal? :smallmad:

a) He knew nothing about the justice being "uncertain". All he knew was that it would take weeks and be boring.
b) He didn't overhear that. He landed on the deck after Kubota said that.
c) Just because someone is on a quest to "save the world" doesn't mean anyone impeding him should die. What about a salesman blocking his way? Would V be right if he killed him?
d) He knew nothing of those crimes. Also, are you suggesting that Elan will only tie up people who deserve to die?

a) He did. Prove that he wasn't there within hearing distance of the gloating.
b) And overland flight means that several rounds he'd be within hearing distance
c) No. Mind you that's not what V did either, so why bring it up
e) Didn't need to. He's an 180IQ being. Are you?

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 04:06 PM

added to which, its rare in fiction for out-and-out Good Guys to kill prisoners awaiting trial- even ones likely to get off thanks to their power and influence.

V's actions concerning Kubota put V in a similar bracket to The Punisher, Tim Burton's Batman (less so toward end of Batman Returns), or even Dexter.

Claiming that every killing by these guys is a Good/Neutral act is a bit of a stretch.

An unfair trial? And that's a CHAOS thingy not a EVIL thingy.

And the Punisher isn't Evil either.

And that isn't what is being claimed. Stop with the strawmen.

PS WTF is the scubbing to do with it? Can ANYONE ON THIS EARTH think like someone who is

a) 150 years old (or whatever)
b) Has an IQ in excess of 210

?

Then don't be surprised at seeing conclusions apparently jumped.

Arthur Conan Doyle had just such a character: Sherlock Holmes. Dr Watson was very intelligent but on a human scale. He was there so that WHY Holmes got to the deduction could be explained. The man himself didn't need to. He was superhumanly intelligent. And so he could deduce things that we would NEVER see any human reach.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 04:08 PM

Thats a very good point except maybe d), I doubt everyone Elan ties up is worthy of death.

How many people did Elan tie up?

All of them either died (Sam and Pop) or committed massive atrocities (Linear Guild) on release.

At least out of the ones I can bring readily to mind.

And how many gloated about how they'll get away with it anyway and they would continue to make trouble?

That would take us to the single digits. As in ONE finger.

hamishspence

2009-02-08, 04:33 PM

Kubota was saying that to Elan: V didn't even hear most of it "I heard him say something about the trial taking weeks. Not if my index finger has anything to say about it"

Killing someone because they "might" escape justice at trial- when there are several witnesses now, and there weren't before- dubious

And the ones we know of that died did so because they provoked a fight with Miko.

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-08, 04:37 PM

But some here seem to be saying it's OK what the dragon is doing. Dooing Evil is GOOD now?

No. It is not good. It is UNDERSTANDABLE. I am not saying the kids should be eaten because it is any form of justice. I am saying that the kids should be eaten to further V's character development, fill out more of his/her backstory, and move the story along.

The other reason I am in favor of the dragon succeding is that failure against someone as powerful as V would likely result in her demise and I personally find the angry vengeful mother dragon a much more compelling character than two toddlers who have appeared for a single panel and whose main on screen accomplishment has been a macaroni drawing!

Vaarsuvius4181

2009-02-08, 04:50 PM

No. It is not good. It is UNDERSTANDABLE. I am not saying the kids should be eaten because it is any form of justice. I am saying that the kids should be eaten to further V's character development, fill out more of his/her backstory, and move the story along.

The other reason I am in favor of the dragon succeding is that failure against someone as powerful as V would likely result in her demise and I personally find the angry vengeful mother dragon a much more compelling character than two toddlers who have appeared for a single panel and whose main on screen accomplishment has been a macaroni drawing!

Hmm... true, but i think V would make a pretty cool comeback, and thus leveling up, thus becoming more powerful, thus advancing the story anyway

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 05:47 PM

No. It is not good. It is UNDERSTANDABLE.

No, it's only understandable if you consider it to be necessarily evil.

All that is understandable is that this is a story-related believable plot twist. No deus ex machina.

The only understandable thing about it is that there is no story related reason why it is a DM-based railroad. The *logic* is understandable. Not the action.

Because if we take this to the logical conclusion then the torturing to death of an innocent party merely to satiate your own twisted sense of justice should or could be rewarded with the extermination of the entire species. And their body parts to be used for Nativity Play accoutrements.

And how does that help the dragon?

Mind you, most evil-as-portrayed is like this. Inherently self-defeating because they are basing their belief on an illogical premise that the ONLY law is "do what thou wilt" and anyone who can get away with it deserves to.

But, as with this dragon, then getting your dragon-Huge-sized panties in a bunch because your thug of a kid lost the fight is illogical an hypocrisy of the first order: there was no moral reason for outrage. Her son proved insufficient to the task of surviving. And so the world turns as it should. Her son died because he didn't deserve to live.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-08, 05:50 PM

Kubota was saying that to Elan: V didn't even hear most of it "I heard him say something about the trial taking weeks. Not if my index finger has anything to say about it"

So V DID hear the conversation. Thanks for saying, some people here seem to think that V didn't hear ANYTHING.

Now, as a precis of the conversation that moustache gave, was there ANYTHING missing? V didn't have any need to quote the words since both Elan and the recently departed were there and heard them just as well.

So he DID hear gloating about how the trial wouldn't work.

Aris Katsaris

2009-02-08, 06:09 PM

Well, obviously I DON'T think that, and neither does V think that, but I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the Oracle here--you know, the being that ACTUALLY SAID THAT PHRASE???

Well I'll just pass by the futility of trying to put yourself in the shoes of a character as eccentric as the Oracle (when one does that one again ends up basically dismissing the clause for all intends and purposes, as anything might be possible) and simply note that nothing indicates the Oracle is evil and twisted enough to consider saving a person's children to be for all the wrong reasons.

He is a servant of Tiamat, and I seriously doubt that he considers "killing a black dragon" to be a "right reason" no matter what the justification.

"killing a black dragon" wouldn't be a reason, right or wrong. Saving V's children (or their souls) would be V's reason. And at peril of invoking Godwin's law, even NAZIS wouldn't claim saving one's children to be "for all the wrong reasons", so I very much doubt the Oracle would.

Anyway, my entire argument against "Disintegrate. Gust of Wind." being the four words is that I don't believe that casting a spell COUNTS as saying four words,

Okay. Personally I think it self-evidently is saying words.

However, I'm making no assumptions or moral judgements on the matter at all, and I'm therefore mystified why you're inserting phrases like "moral relativism" into your replies.

Because you seem to think that all interpretations of the words "right" and "wrong" are equally valid. I'm all for accepting moral fluidity across the Order-Chaos axis, but if the Giant ends up using a downright EVIL interpretation of the words "right" and "wrong" (the interpretation you're suggesting), and the readers are meant to accept it as a valid fulfilment of the prophecy, then I believe he'll be cheating his readers.

You seem to think he wouldn't be.

Kish

2009-02-08, 06:55 PM

Okay. Personally I think it self-evidently is saying words.

For my part, I agree that Vaarsuvius' reasons will be wrong in a way that makes sense to the audience, or at least to Vaarsuvius. However, if it were to turn out to be "Disintegrate, Gust of Wind," I would call shenanigans if only for the fact that one of those words--"Disintegrate"--was said in the direction of a being, the other three were said in the direction of a pile of dust, and none of them were actually said to another person.

Alair

2009-02-08, 07:02 PM

kusje

2009-02-08, 07:49 PM

kusje

2009-02-08, 07:58 PM

a) He did. Prove that he wasn't there within hearing distance of the gloating.
b) And overland flight means that several rounds he'd be within hearing distance
c) No. Mind you that's not what V did either, so why bring it up
e) Didn't need to. He's an 180IQ being. Are you?

a) Sure he heard part of the gloating. But he didn't arrive early enough to hear the whole part where Kub said he'd frame the Ninja. That is all V said to have heard so I think the onus is on you to prove he heard more than he said he did.

e) Nope I am not. But I'm smart enough to know that having an IQ of 180 doesn't allow people to make logical leaps without the required information.

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-08, 08:01 PM

No, it's only understandable if you consider it to be necessarily evil.

All that is understandable is that this is a story-related believable plot twist. No deus ex machina.

The only understandable thing about it is that there is no story related reason why it is a DM-based railroad. The *logic* is understandable. Not the action.

Because if we take this to the logical conclusion then the torturing to death of an innocent party merely to satiate your own twisted sense of justice should or could be rewarded with the extermination of the entire species. And their body parts to be used for Nativity Play accoutrements.

And how does that help the dragon?

Mind you, most evil-as-portrayed is like this. Inherently self-defeating because they are basing their belief on an illogical premise that the ONLY law is "do what thou wilt" and anyone who can get away with it deserves to.

But, as with this dragon, then getting your dragon-Huge-sized panties in a bunch because your thug of a kid lost the fight is illogical an hypocrisy of the first order: there was no moral reason for outrage. Her son proved insufficient to the task of surviving. And so the world turns as it should. Her son died because he didn't deserve to live.

Look, I get the feeling that neither of us are really listening to each other. All I am trying to say, is that when you look at this situation through the morality (or lack thereof) of an evil creature, such as a black dragon, the response makes sense. That's what I meant by understandable. It doesn't account for the innocent parties or other alternatives because the dragon doesn't care about those things.

Also of note, the dragon may not care about others of her kind, which is plausible for an evil creature. She also may not believe that V or those associated with her are capable of exterminating even one subspecies of dragon, which is very likely for creatures as arrogant as dragons.

Even if the extermination of dragons happened on the prime, the ancient black is in another plane of existence. She won't be affected.

There is a reason for a dragon to care, even with the morality of might makes right. If she viewed her son as a more valuable form of property (eg. her hoard contained her star metal, her other treasures, and her son) then she could justify her actions easily. In this case she wouldn't care as much for the dragon that her son was, as much as the place he filled in her family.

Kish

2009-02-08, 08:49 PM

If instead of casting spells V had said four random words to Kubota, shooting him in the heart with an arrow right after the first and killing him instantly, would you be calling shenanigans on the technicality that only the first word was said to him and the other three were said to his corpse?

Kubota's dust, Kubota's body, I don't see the need to treat them any differently.
Ahem.

None of them were actually said to, rather than at, another person.

Beyond that...*shrug* Either you'll be surprised or I will, and that's all there is to it.

Zea mays

2009-02-08, 10:20 PM

Great comic!
Two small thoughts that I have (in my limited lurking capacity) not yet seen discussed.

1) If hair color is in-fact indicative of kinship in elves, could 'parent' be a relative (nephew/ niece/ third cousin twice removed, etc) of Lirian?

2) I seem to recall that Hinjo was not at all convinced by Elan's version of Kubota's demise and sent divers down to investigate. Could they have seen or found some trace of the dragon?

*returns to lurk mode*

Lira

2009-02-08, 10:24 PM

1) If hair color is in-fact indicative of kinship in elves, could 'parent' be a relative (nephew/ niece/ third cousin twice removed, etc) of Lirian?Lirian had blond hair, not green hair.

See last panel:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-08, 11:50 PM

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the kid's hair matches the parent's shirt color, and their shirt color matches the parent's hair color?

David Argall

2009-02-09, 12:10 AM

V had no idea who Kabuta was, nor did they care, they simply assumed that if he was tied up he must have been in some way involved in the recent unpleasantness and that if he was tied up it meant he would inevitably be the subject of a long and drawn out trial the refugee fleet would drop everything to tend to that.
Reread 596. V knew that Kubota was guilty of death penalty level crime. He did not know if this was rape, murder, treason... But he knew that Kubota was guilty of major crime. That was all he needed to know. The rest was details.

V arbitrarily executed Kabuta because they didn't want to have the tedium of a trial intrude upon their plans, without even bothering to ponder whether or not actual Justice would be or could be served to one such as Kabuta in a 'fair' trial.
If the court would have found Kubota guilty, killing him now saves time. If they would have left him off, it would not have been justice or good.

Justice was the furthest thing from V's mind, their only concern was that their convenience was threatened.
Rather obviously, V had other concerns.

That still doesn't explain how V took a risk to kill it. Where is the risk involved?
As you have argued, flight was clearly safer. Safe no, but safer than the alternatives.

Not knowing the amount of treasure or what type of treasure doesn't chance things. I also believe that they had suspected the starmetal was there.
They of course suspected it. But they had no way of knowing it.

Why do heros get to act and be judged under a separate code?
They aren't. They too check with the law when they are in town. In the country, there are no cops to talk to, and they must defend their own rights.

And no, they shouldn't abandon their search just because they were threatened. But they should have abandoned it because they found out what they are looking for belongs to someone else.
But they had not discovered this. They only found this out after the dragon was dust.

e) Nope I am not. But I'm smart enough to know that having an IQ of 180 doesn't allow people to make logical leaps without the required information.
But V did have the required information.
Due to living by dramatic conventions, Elan would have only tied up someone like this if he deserved to be killed.
Elan had done so to the man he is talking to.
So this man may be killed without worry.

you condemn the dragon based on speculation on what it might do if they just left it alone and went off. You condemn the dragon based on speculation that it might have killed in the past. You condemn the dragon based on people it might kill in the future.
Things that are more likely than not are not considered speculation.

If instead of casting spells V had said four random words to Kubota, shooting him in the heart with an arrow right after the first and killing him instantly, would you be calling shenanigans on the technicality that only the first word was said to him and the other three were said to his corpse?
I would challenge their validity in either case, but a major difference here is that "Gust of Wind" is not spoken to Kubota. Using arrows, you might say "No" "You evil jerk" to get four words. But V's 4 "words" amount to "Die" & "Magic force, remove that pile of dust." Using arrows, that would be "Die", & "Guards, dump the body over the side." So we see that "Gust of wind" is not spoken to Kubota.

DeadmanXI

2009-02-09, 12:24 AM

Okay, for posterity, my theory on what happens next:

V's mate is an equal or higher level character to him/her self, and will successfully defend the children, possibly dying doing so. Not an unreasonable idea, and no deus ex machina needed to keep cute kids from dying. Also we get to see a badass Dragon/High-Level Character fight.

V will obviously not know this immediately though he/she might well discover it relatively quickly with magic, in the meantime, however, V mght well do something rash and ill-advised.

If anyone's already posted something similar, my apologies, I haven't read the whole thread.

motub

2009-02-09, 01:18 AM

Elan would have only tied up someone like this if he deserved to be killed.
????? On what basis does anyone "deserve to be killed" in the first place, and how, precisely is Elan tying the person up proof of this (other than in V's mind)?

Elan had tied him up because he "deserved" to be brought to trial for his crimes (Kubuto was a citizen of Azure City, which presumably exists under the rule of law for civilians like himself).

The trial would have been meant to determine if he "deserved to die", not some vigilante magic-user who was inconvenienced by the necessity to actually try him.

Ghastly Epigram

2009-02-09, 01:26 AM

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the kid's hair matches the parent's shirt color, and their shirt color matches the parent's hair color?

Oh man, I do not know if that is a coincidence or not, but it is hilarious! :smallbiggrin: Nice Spot check.

Qov

2009-02-09, 02:29 AM

Okay, for posterity...

I don't believe that V's mate is a magic user. The way s/he says "when your other parent finishes mastering the ways of magic," suggests to me that magic is a that-parent thing while this-parent focuses on something else.

And I'm starting to think of V as a male. S/he was always female to me before. Curious.

Selene

2009-02-09, 02:38 AM

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the kid's hair matches the parent's shirt color, and their shirt color matches the parent's hair color?

:smallconfused: They're four different shades of green on my monitor...

Scion_of_Darkness

2009-02-09, 02:48 AM

:smallconfused: They're four different shades of green on my monitor...

Well if you look closely the red head's hair is from V's cloak or cape and the green head's hair is closer to the spouse's boots. But how is that really any better?

factotum

2009-02-09, 03:18 AM

Because you seem to think that all interpretations of the words "right" and "wrong" are equally valid. I'm all for accepting moral fluidity across the Order-Chaos axis, but if the Giant ends up using a downright EVIL interpretation of the words "right" and "wrong" (the interpretation you're suggesting), and the readers are meant to accept it as a valid fulfilment of the prophecy, then I believe he'll be cheating his readers.

You seem to think he wouldn't be.

Because I do think that. The Oracle is probably evil, and his mentor Tiamat certainly is (she appeared in the group of evil gods who wanted to help out the Dark One in Start of Darkness)--why is it so hard to believe that their idea of what constitutes right and wrong is different from ours, or from V's?

Jabberwocky

2009-02-09, 05:30 AM

Hey, I have a clue for you the real world concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" does not apply to the world of OOTS unless you are in a human city that uses that philosophy and you are a creature that can have variable alignments. The dragon is out in the woods (no law) and is ALWAYS EVIL. Period. That by definition means it HAS killed people in the past (where do you think all that treasure came from? It was donated?) and it has stated that it intends to eat two children slowly while they are still alive and bind their souls (which from the sound of it, is worse than murder). The dragon is a monster, not of because of what it looks like, but because of what it wants and plans to do.

Ahh, something we Eberronners don't like to hear ;-) I'm going to use the Giant's idea in my campaign and I'll make sure it'll spin the characters' moral compass several times. Things are much more fun when the degree of evil depends on the point of view. Like, when a character stops suddenly and thinks: "Look at the blood on my hands. How come I've comitted so much evil while serving the right cause? How's that possible? What have I become? Haven't I lost myself somewhere on the way?" Doing good is much harder when realising (and sometimes facing) the consequences of one's acts, perfectly justifiable, but causing pain and bitterness nonetheless...
;-)

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 05:51 AM

a) Sure he heard part of the gloating. But he didn't arrive early enough to hear the whole part where Kub said he'd frame the Ninja.

"I'll frame the ninja" doesn't seem to be much of a crime, though, does it.

ninja==bad and all.

And prove that was all that was heard. We KNOW that he heard some of it. Unlike before when he didn't apparently hear ANY of it. And why spend five frames reenacting the whole speech when

a) Elan was there
b) We were there
c) Kabuto was there

what would be the purpose? Just to "prove" to you that V heard it all?

V subsequently acted as if he were GOOD.

There's no proof that V's evil and the only "proof" here is the supposition that keeps changing and is now that he heard an insignificant part of the conversation and the appearance of a book with BoVD and its internally inconsistent ramblings about what is Evil. Which would never work. Ask Cohen the Barbarian.

And none of that is proof of anything that would override the visible actions taken since then.

Fraxinus

2009-02-09, 06:01 AM

I think it would be about time to reveal whether Vaarsuvius is actually a bloody male or a bloody female, at last!! Come on, what kids could possibly call their mother/father "parent"... with all those absurdly vague terms??? Yes, sure, they're elves, the veil shouldn't be dropped and all that.. but it's all becoming really preposterous, in my humble opinion. Indeed I understand that Varsie's gender is a sort of myth not to be unravelled but... I find this choice eventually debatable, even exaggerated. Anyway, anyway... this new plot twist is quite appreciable, no doubt about that.

Henk

2009-02-09, 06:37 AM

The Oracle's prophecy is about to come true..... tadaaaaa

Though I wouldn't have minded seeing those little stupid kiddos being eaten........

kusje

2009-02-09, 08:23 AM

"
And prove that was all that was heard. We KNOW that he heard some of it. Unlike before when he didn't apparently hear ANY of it. And why spend five frames reenacting the whole speech when

a) Elan was there
b) We were there
c) Kabuto was there

what would be the purpose? Just to "prove" to you that V heard it all?

V subsequently acted as if he were GOOD.

There's no proof that V's evil and the only "proof" here is the supposition that keeps changing and is now that he heard an insignificant part of the conversation and the appearance of a book with BoVD and its internally inconsistent ramblings about what is Evil. Which would never work. Ask Cohen the Barbarian.

And none of that is proof of anything that would override the visible actions taken since then.

Find me where I said he didn't hear ANY of it. My argument (right from the start) has been that he heard too little of it to warrant him killing Kub.

enarch3t

2009-02-09, 08:34 AM

Find me where I said he didn't hear ANY of it. My argument (right from the start) has been that he heard too little of it to warrant him killing Kub.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html

V admits she has no idea why Elan has him tied up and simply killed him because she assumed Kubato or whomever, was a major villain.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 08:46 AM

V admits she has no idea why Elan has him tied up and simply killed him because she assumed Kubato or whomever, was a major villain.

Uh, V DOES know.

He knows that Elan has him tied up because he's a big bad.

He's heard the big bad saying "the trial will take weeks and I'll get away with it too!".

Chaotic Good: Off the scum. A broken justice system is no justice system.

"He had no idea" is absolutely 100% incorrect by asserting an absolute when it's not. V knew Elan had him tied up for doing something REALLY BAD.

PS Kuse when did you ever say V heard anything? All you ever said was V didn't know what was going on. If he'd heard ANYTHING, he'd know about SOME of what was going on.

PPS And it was the group "you" as in "all YOU who think V is evil for doing it".

Tharivole

2009-02-09, 08:47 AM

Poor kids. Their father/mother is unable to save them. Boo Hoo!!!:smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the dragon bites of more than she can chew and finds out that the other parent is, like, epic level or something or that the kids have levels in a class or two. I would pay to see the kids whup up on that dragon. :smallbiggrin: (Hoping that this is the case!!!)

Snake-Aes

2009-02-09, 08:53 AM

derfenrirwolv

2009-02-09, 09:36 AM

think it would be about time to reveal whether Vaarsuvius is actually a bloody male or a bloody female, at last!! Come on, what kids could possibly call their mother/father "parent"... with all those absurdly vague terms???

Elves speaking elven which doesn't have a masculine or feminine form of parent.

kusje

2009-02-09, 09:42 AM

PS Kuse when did you ever say V heard anything? All you ever said was V didn't know what was going on. If he'd heard ANYTHING, he'd know about SOME of what was going on.

Yes, he did know SOME of what was going on but I maintain that it wasn't enough to kill someone over.

Here's what I think V knew:

1. Kubota was a villian and had committed some crime
2. Kubota thinks he will not be convicted in a trial
3. Said trial will likely take weeks.
4. Elan believes that there is a chance Kubota might be convicted in the trial with all the witnesses

Here's what I think V didn't know:

1. What crime Kubota was guilty of
2. The specifics of how Kubota was going to escape conviction (this means he doesn't know how likely it was that Kubota would get off)

Here is one reason why V killed Kubota:

To remove someone impeding his progress to find Haley and Co. (That is what he told Elan)

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 10:33 AM

Yes, he did know SOME of what was going on but I maintain that it wasn't enough to kill someone over.

Here's what I think V knew:

1. Kubota was a villian and had committed some crime
2. Kubota thinks he will not be convicted in a trial
3. Said trial will likely take weeks.
4. Elan believes that there is a chance Kubota might be convicted in the trial with all the witnesses

Here's what I think V didn't know:

1. What crime Kubota was guilty of
2. The specifics of how Kubota was going to escape conviction (this means he doesn't know how likely it was that Kubota would get off)

Do either make a difference?

No.

Why?

Because this world is driven by plot and Elan is driven by plot convention.

AND THE BAD GUY HAD A MOUSTACHE.

The last one is only ridiculous in this, the real world. But Star Trek had the same problem (Evil Kirk/Spok had goatees). And that episode was driven by plot too.

Goatee==Evil

Same here, and in many other cliches of fantasy (Fu Manchu et al). Heck, it has a whole section to itself in tv tropes.

Here is one reason why V killed Kubota:

To remove someone impeding his progress to find Haley and Co. (That is what he told Elan)

And to save the world. And because waiting for a trial would be counter productive and expecting justice was not going to happen (and therefore the problems would continue).

At least you said "one reason".

But there are plenty more.

So we have plenty of reasons to think that this guy was a baddie. And the details weren't known. But the actual 100% truth of it is that V did the right thing. Maybe poor reasoning would have led him to kill incorrectly, but he didn't. He done right.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-09, 10:44 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html

V admits she has no idea why Elan has him tied up and simply killed him because she assumed Kubato or whomever, was a major villain.

Try reading

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html

to see what the conversation order was.

"As I landed I heard..." so he could very easily have been within earshot a few rounds of overland flight earlier.

B.I.T.T.

2009-02-09, 02:35 PM

If V killed the first dragon because of the threat it represented rather than because "it's a freeking black dragon, of course adventurers kill it" then that doesn't improve his moral standing at all. It makes it (much) worse.

(A) He's killing something because of something it MIGHT do at some point in the future. How is this better than the dragon claiming she's killing V's children because at some future date they MIGHT kill a dragon and soul binding them because otherwise they MIGHT be resurected and do it anyway. (In fact the resurect is a pretty good bet if the dragon doesn't soul bind.)

Well do keep in mind the situation. It's not like V and the other OOTS walked in, saw a sleeping dragon and thought "Hey, that dragon might wake up and kill us all, let's kill it before it can.

V had seen his party members bathed in acid. Following that there was a battle, during which they had a brief conversation. Then V was eaten. After being saved he saw his friend Haley eaten. He was about ready to be eaten when the spell succeeded.

Given all this, I think it's a little more reasonable to assume that their lives were in considerable danger, especially given that the spell was about to wear off any second. V's actions may not have been good, don't get me wrong. He was acting in the general realm of self-preservation, making it a fairly neutral act. But it wasn't evil, in my opinion.