OOTS #629 - The Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 3

David Argall

2009-02-10, 02:24 AM

That's quite a risky attitude, even when you ARE right.
Of course. But we know V was right, and so did V. This is not a matter of overconfidence on his part. She knew with law of science certainity that Kubota was guilty.

And risky != evil.
We are talking moral risk here, so risk does tend to equal evil. That is only a tendency. Everything we do involves risk, whether it is good or evil. We have to consider the degree of risk and the predictable benefits and costs.

If Varsuuvius had shown enough interest/respect in justice and/or the value of sentient life to make SURE that Kubota was better off dead, then his action could be interpreted as Chaotic Good. But Varsuuvius didn't really care. He was too annoyed/bored/ to waste a few more minutes of his life to make sure. He valued his time more highly than another person's life. That makes V's action EVIL.
V was sure, absolutely sure. There was and is no additional information he needed to know. There was a lot he might want to know out of idle curiosity, but none she needed to know. Kubota was guilty of some crime deserving death, and he was attempting to cause additional trouble. The rest is filling out the paperwork.

Either "Anyone Elan has tied up is automatically someone who deserves killin'" is a legitimate viewpoint or it's not (specifically, it's not). The fact that Vaarsuvius knows Haley, and would not follow that reasoning himself/herself if the tied-up person was Haley, doesn't change that--it's just the simplest example I could think of of a flaw in Vaarsuvius' assertion.
As I have noted before, you are arguing against the writer here, not V. That there would be a flaw in a real V saying this is simply not relevant. In the OOTS world, V is absolutely correct.

We again consider Sherlock Holmes and the hat. Holmes makes a long list of deductions, a great many of which have been challenged from a real world setting. But within the story, Holmes is shown as completely correct, and his logic entirely sound.
The same applies to V here. She is the genius of the story, always right. She knows the exact number of random encounters, based on obviously absurd logic. And she is correct. He serves as the introducer of fact elsewhere too.

Notice here that Elan does not contradict V's logic. Instead he confirms that the result was for the greater good.

That the severely trance-deprived Vaarsuvius thought Elan's "strict adherence to dramatic conventions" was close enough to "Elan's infallible judgment sentences anyone he ties up to death" wasn't surprising precisely because there are many veins or cracks or something showing in Vaarsuvius' skin as s/he asserts that Elan would only tie up a legitimate target.
V had the same problems when she took out the devil. We have text reason to suspect her hand-eye coordination, but not her mental processes.

Boirgain

2009-02-10, 07:15 AM

What bugs me is that V screams at the end ARRRRRGH, not something like NOOOOO.
Also the reaktion of the other parent talking about v´s adventure is a bit arrogant.
Could it be that v isn´t the most powerful member of his little family and that mother dragon is in for a little surprise?
Also who say´s that the home of v isn´t magical secured in several ways like every normal mage at his powerlevel whould do?
This would be the best way to play with our expactions, a thing mr. Burlew seems to love most.

Radaga

2009-02-10, 07:15 AM

Hello all, first-time poster here. I've lurked the forums once and again upon reading a particular episode (been keeping up for a few years now). This time, I have to post due to some clear (to me) conclusions about the wicked catch-22 V is now in. Welcome to Ownage of the Stick... or Owned in the Playground. (Poor V!)

Since these conclusions could obviously be spoilers, I hope the spoiler tag in BBcode will suffice for the below...

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. This is the perfect revenge for Mama Dragon:

Revenge on V for kids death
Revenge on Roy for kids death
Revenge on the entire party for forcing V into a pact

In my mind, Mama Dragon is or is not a pawn of the fast-healing imp. The result is the same whether it's the dragon pulling the strings, the dragon is an illusion, or the imp made a deal with the dragon and is in charge.

The kids being V's and Roy's seed also explains why V wanted so badly to find "Miss Starshine", since she was in charge of Roy's Body. Knowing that V stays with Roy's group to achieve her ultimate goals in magic as well as her affection (but probably not lust any longer) for Roy also explains a lot. Green-haired parental unit at V's kids house? Foster parent, probably in the dark as to V's kids' real parents and probably rearing the rugrats as proper half-elven flower-huggers (take THAT you filthy humans?). Thinking of V and the Green-haired foster parent cuddling Roy's unknown kids brings a sentimental tear to my eye.

Annoying Belkar is, as always, just icing on the cake.

Anyway, Mama dragon is an imbecile to let V live through this revenge, since clearly V has might and friends to come back and continue the revenge cycle. Rage does blind, yes. Let's hope it blinds enough to have the dragon assume that the Green-Haired elf is a wuss, and not actually in full command of a Contingency keyword to whisk the kids to safety in case of attack.

Can V cast Contingency yet? Still a little noobish as to the character levels.

Great comic, Rich. Wish it loaded a little more reliably, but I get server errors 2 out of 3 times with your site (darn you, internets). Please keep up the excellent work.

Problem: The kids are 28 years old. Roy could not be that old to be parent of one of them.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 07:24 AM

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 07:35 AM

Onthe BoVD. Don't use that to say that action X IS teh evil. You can use it to say YOU consider it evil and some other do. But that's all. Three main reasons:

1) BoVD is inconsistent. It says murder=evil but BoED has murderers who are good. Oopsie. How do you tell an ED murder fro a VD murder? one's done by a good critter???

2) Unless and until there's proof that the rule is being used, only when Rich says "I am using the BoVD sections...." will we be able to say it's extant. All we have at the moment is that a book with BoVD written on it is there. Nothing more.

3) Hamishpence says of the book "BoVD says that Good will never do evil. Neutral sometimes, Good - almost never." almost never. So do a scatter plot of each action V took. The centroid on that will be in the CG section. V's CG. So you can if you want say that action X is evil. Says nothing about how character Y is not good. Says nothing about how character Y must be neutral and on the way to Evil. Just that the complex characterisation of Y includes the occasional rain as well as sunshine (and lollipos, and....).

Volkov

2009-02-10, 07:38 AM

Vaarsuvius is doomed, I really think only Xykon himself is capable of taking on the Dragon and surviving. That Dragon has an Epic level CR, and it's got more D4's in it's breath weapon than Vaarsuvius does in he/she's hit dice.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 07:46 AM

Either "Anyone Elan has tied up is automatically someone who deserves killin'" is a legitimate viewpoint or it's not (specifically, it's not). The fact that Vaarsuvius knows Haley, and would not follow that reasoning himself/herself if the tied-up person was Haley, doesn't change that--it's just the simplest example I could think of of a flaw in Vaarsuvius' assertion. .

You err in considering that in any other case, different criteria would be used. Ever read up about AI programming and neutral nets?

Even though 100% logical and mechanical, the inputs are aggregated and the presence of some input (Haley being tied up, which, by the way, we've never seen. And why would Elan be IN PUBLIC talking about how he would testify against here? RP crossed with dogging???) reduces the weighting given to another input (say, someone being tied up by Elan is a baddie).

All this has proven is that you would not be sufficiently intelligent to safely make conclusions on life-and-death incidents like V does. Nobody on this planet is. And THAT is why we, real humans in a real world, do NOT use this method.

And, just because we don't use these methods doesn't mean that only evil guys use them. That's just projection of self-image. We like to think we're the good guys (how many people really go to work thinking "I shall do evil today. Bwahahahaha"? No they all think they are doing The Right Thing(tm)) and anyone who does something we don't do must be "Not the Good Guys".

You wouldn't do it.

I wouldn't do it.

Sherlock Holmes would.

V would.

And we are ALL RIGHT. You and I would fail epically. You apparently more epically than me, since you'd figure you would have to ignore it being Haley tied up, but never mind.

But Sherlock Holmes would get it right.

And V did get it right.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 08:08 AM

And, just because we don't use these methods doesn't mean that only evil guys use them. That's just projection of self-image. We like to think we're the good guys (how many people really go to work thinking "I shall do evil today. Bwahahahaha"? No they all think they are doing The Right Thing(tm)) and anyone who does something we don't do must be "Not the Good Guys".

I leisurely kill ants in cold blood(or should I say heavy shoe?) when they start invading my home, before I start applying traps and detergent-based poisons to the spots they come through, since that fends them off for months.

Also, when I was a kid, I used to burn them with magnifing glasses under the sun for fun.
Or cut of their antenna and put a couple of them together so they'd fight to death, because it was fun. I'd still do it given enough boredom.

OMG I SHOW NO CONCERN FOR THE LIFE OF OTHER LIVING BEINGS AND AM THEREFORE A HORRIBLE MONSTER! SOMEONE JAIL ME !!!!!!111!1oneoneone

But yeah. It made logical sense based on what V knew, but it's still stuff that people around here don't seem to like.
It'd be funnier to put a fly spell on him that he couldn't control, and make him go up till the spell expires.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 08:26 AM

But yeah. It made logical sense based on what V knew, but it's still stuff that people around here don't seem to like.

Well, they don't HAVE to like it. It's what Rich thinks V would do. Not what he things the reader would do.

It'd be funnier to put a fly spell on him that he couldn't control, and make him go up till the spell expires.

What would the reason for that to be? And if you're talking about the dragon two problems:

1) I don't think there is such a spell
2) 20,000ft and you suffocate. falling from there wont kill you, you're already dead.

Snake-Aes

2009-02-10, 08:29 AM

Well, they don't HAVE to like it. It's what Rich thinks V would do. Not what he things the reader would do.

What would the reason for that to be? And if you're talking about the dragon two problems:

1) I don't think there is such a spell
2) 20,000ft and you suffocate. falling from there wont kill you, you're already dead.

It's what I did when I had a very livid conscious dream a few years ago, but then Samuel L Jackson showed up and started reproaching me, and he was immune to my "The maker" level powers caused by being in full control of the dream.

The fact my conscience is best-represented by Samuel L Jackson disturbs me to this day.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 08:48 AM

The fact my conscience is best-represented by Samuel L Jackson disturbs me to this day.

Worry when it's Jabba.

Scarlet Knight

2009-02-10, 09:06 AM

Of course. But we know V was right, and so did V. This is not a matter of overconfidence on his part. She knew with law of science certainity that Kubota was guilty.

Oh for the love of Gygax! We've been over this so many times!

V did not KNOW s/he was right. S/he BELIEVED s/he was right. S/he simply got lucky this time. And V should know better, after Elan himself was the victim of mistaken identity.

Nale & Thog had Elan tied up, only with a goatee instead of a mustache. The police came in, arrested him, and Elan lived to prove his innocence. If V had arrived first, he would have disintegrated a party member. Nale wins.

And V is wrong alot! Remember, high intellegence ( knows alot of facts) but not a high wisdom ( doesn't always do the right thing with those facts).

One out of one mindflayers prefer the great brain of Roy over V!:smallwink:

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 09:13 AM

V did not KNOW s/he was right. S/he BELIEVED s/he was right. S/he simply got lucky this time.

1) You don't know that. All you know is that you THINK V doesn't know, just believed

2) That belief turned out to be right. We can't even PRINT the logical workings of a mind, limited as we are to crude hyroglyphs. So we only know what V said. Not how V thought.

3) How do you know it was lucky? And if it was, what's the difference between 100% luck and being right all the time?

V had reasons.
V is intelligent.
V was right.

YOU would have stuffed it up, probably, but that's you not V.

The Adder

2009-02-10, 10:25 AM

To all those who say that V is evil for killing Kubota:

V knew that, 1), Elan had tied Kubota up, and 2), that there was going to be a trial invlolving Kubota (comics 595 and 596). Because of these two facts, V assumed that Kubota was evil.

Some of you think that this does not constitute sufficient evidence to kill someone.

But tell me, what other explanation could there possibly have been? What situation involving Elan tying Kubota up and Kubota going on trial could possibly involve Kubota not being evil?

Especially tricky thief capable of escaping anything short of being tied up.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 10:28 AM

Especially tricky thief capable of escaping anything short of being tied up.

An especially tricky thief who, nevertheless, decides NOT to put one of their voluminous skill points into Rope Use????

You bought any bridges recently? You may want to check the order details...

The Adder

2009-02-10, 10:37 AM

An especially tricky thief who, nevertheless, decides NOT to put one of their voluminous skill points into Rope Use????

You bought any bridges recently? You may want to check the order details...

I didn't say they couldn't escape being tied up, just that so far anything short of tying them up has proved useless.

Anyways, you asked for a situation in which "Elan tying Kubota up and Kubota going on trial could possibly involve Kubota not being evil?" This is such a situation, don't get mad just because your, and by extension V's, logic wasn't infallible. No one's is.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 10:41 AM

I didn't say they couldn't escape being tied up, just that so far anything short of tying them up has proved useless.

And why try so hard to catch a tricky thief if they stole cookies from the jar?

You're all forgetting with your "well, if you replaced X then it would be wrong" is that THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION. What do you expect V to be doing? Going down a static checklist???

"Tied up? Check".
"Elan did it? Check".
"Disintegrate fired? Check".

???

In *this* case all that was needed to be known by V was right.

You seem to want to change the situation but not V's reaction to the change.

Stop it.

The Adder

2009-02-10, 10:54 AM

And why try so hard to catch a tricky thief if they stole cookies from the jar?

So you're saying that any theif guilty of stealing more than that is

A. Evil

and

B. Worthy of death?

The comic itself would seem to disagree as Haley has stolen far more than that and is good.

You're all forgetting with your "well, if you replaced X then it would be wrong" is that THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION. What do you expect V to be doing? Going down a static checklist???

"Tied up? Check".
"Elan did it? Check".
"Disintegrate fired? Check".

???

In *this* case all that was needed to be known by V was right.

You seem to want to change the situation but not V's reaction to the change.

Stop it.

Hold up now, sir.

A. The situation I presented has not changed at all, at least from V's perspective. Someone who Elan has tied up intends to weasel his way to innocence through a lengthy trial. This is all V was aware of (possibly less than this). The only things that have changed are the details, which V was totally unaware of.

And

B. YOU were the one who asked for a situation in which V's reaction was not justified. Now that you've been presented with one you want to raise a stink, it doesn't work that way, sir.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 11:02 AM

So you're saying that any theif guilty of stealing more than that is

A. Evil

and

B. Worthy of death?

Could be.

You left that out.

The comic itself would seem to disagree as Haley has stolen far more than that and is good.

And is the thief Haley?

Hold up now, sir.

A. The situation I presented has not changed at all, at least from V's perspective. Someone who Elan has tied up intends to weasel his way to innocence through a lengthy trial. This is all V was aware of (possibly less than this). The only things that have changed are the details, which V was totally unaware of.

And

B. YOU were the one who asked for a situation in which V's reaction was not justified. Now that you've been presented with one you want to raise a stink, it doesn't work that way, sir.

Can you cite where I asked that? Because I'm certain that's a rewording of what maybe YOU read as what I said.

And apparently it DOES work that way. Seen it here on the site a thousand times.

Is there any case where V has made a catastrophic mistake where death is on the line?

kusje

2009-02-10, 11:19 AM

In *this* case all that was needed to be known by V was right.

You seem to want to change the situation but not V's reaction to the change.

Stop it.

We're not arguing that he was right in the end, we're saying that he could have been wrong.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 11:31 AM

We're not arguing that he was right in the end, we're saying that he could have been wrong.

Well that and 50p will get you a mars bar.

He wasn't wrong. You're complaining that you think you would get it wrong so V shouldn't have done it.

V isn't you.

He was right, so whatever he thought was accurate.

The Adder

2009-02-10, 12:14 PM

Well that and 50p will get you a mars bar.

He wasn't wrong. You're complaining that you think you would get it wrong so V shouldn't have done it.

V isn't you.

He was right, so whatever he thought was accurate.

Except he wasn't "right". His actions were the morally wrong ones to take, even if they had arguably positive results.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 12:41 PM

Except he wasn't "right". His actions were the morally wrong ones to take, even if they had arguably positive results.

He was right. Kabuto deserved to die.

That is 100% right. No scare quotes or anything. He. Was. Right.

PS May I refer you to the following post since correcting you eternally is Sisyphean in nature:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5754757&postcount=519

The Adder

2009-02-10, 12:58 PM

He was right. Kabuto deserved to die.

That is 100% right. No scare quotes or anything. He. Was. Right.

PS May I refer you to the following post since correcting you eternally is Sisyphean in nature:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5754757&postcount=519

*sigh*

How can I make this simple for you.

I thought by demonstrating exactly how easily V could have offed someone who wasn't evil AS YOU REQUESTED would have been explanation enough, obviously not.

1. There is no such thing as 100%. Almost the entire comic has been about moral gray-area.

2. V himself doesn't even say he did it because anyone Elan ties up is evil or worthy of death. He says that they are a "valid target". V didn't kill him because he was evil, he killed him because he figured leaving him alive would be inconvenient and, since Kubota wasn't an ally, he could get away with offing him.

3. Elan puts it in PLAIN BLACK AND WHITE what is wrong with what V did. Does someone have tgo beat you over the head with a brick for you to get it?

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:06 PM

1. There is no such thing as 100%. Almost the entire comic has been about moral gray-area.

Nope, there's 100% right:

1+1=2

There's 100% wrong
1+1=9

There's "sort of right":

1.0+1.0=2

But

Kabuto deserved to die

100% correct.

2. V himself doesn't even say he did it because anyone Elan ties up is evil or worthy of death. He says that they are a "valid target". V didn't kill him because he was evil, he killed him because he figured leaving him alive would be inconvenient and, since Kubota wasn't an ally, he could get away with offing him.

That's all he said. Why would he explain to Elan every line of thought every grain of evidence and how he weighed them up to someone with the mental acuity of a wet house sponge?

Sherlock Holmes did but ONLY because Dr Watson (a very intelligent man) ASKED him.

And irrelevant as to whether the action taken was the right one.

3. Elan puts it in PLAIN BLACK AND WHITE what is wrong with what V did.

More a half-tone. And Elan was demonstrating why HE thought it was a bad thing to do.

Doesn't make it the wrong thing.

In fact Elan even said it was the right thing to do.

He, like you (and to an extent me, but I don't demand that Rich write characters that I can understand) don't understand the reasoning.

That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Just we don't understand it.

And Elan (unlike you) has said that the actions WERE RIGHT and therefore V did the right thing.

Does someone have tgo beat you over the head with a brick for you to get it?

Maybe. Do I have to hit you with a 9 iron to get you to shut up?

PS what do I have to do to get a citation of your assertion I asked for an example where V would be wrong? You just going to forget about it and hope nobody notices? Or are you going to say "Well, sorry, I don't know, so maybe it was a mischaracterisation of what you said"?

Timberboar

2009-02-10, 01:08 PM

I find myself hoping for a lock, just to end this pointless quibbling over stick-figure morality.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:10 PM

I find myself hoping for a lock, just to end this pointless quibbling over stick-figure morality.

Problem may be that some don't see it as that, they see it as THEIR morality. Forgetting that this is Rich's character in Rich's universe enacting Rich's story.

And they can't seem to get the idea that maybe, just maybe, they can have a problem with the "morals" of a stick figure and not worry about it.

Rather than condemn the character and by inference the writer for doing eviills.

hamishspence

2009-02-10, 01:17 PM

Condemning that particular act does not equate to condemning V as a whole.

Nor does condemning a character equate to condemning the writer, even by inference.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:23 PM

Yes it is.

factotum

2009-02-10, 01:53 PM

Yes it is.

Cobblers. I'm sure everyone has been condemning Xykon practically since the beginning of the comic--does that mean we've also been condemning Rich? Of course it doesn't. If anything, it's a testament to how much depth he's put into these characters that they inspire such devotion or dislike.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 01:56 PM

Cobblers. I'm sure everyone has been condemning Xykon practically since the beginning of the comic--does that mean we've also been condemning Rich? Of course it doesn't. If anything, it's a testament to how much depth he's put into these characters that they inspire such devotion or dislike.

Well I didn't want to put any more thought into the counter than hamishpence did.

And Xykon IS evil. 100%. Capital E, Butch not bitch EVIL.

And so how would slagging off someone for being evil when obviously that was the entire point of the character proof that some people are taking it as personal and want Rich to "do it right"?

Rich does evil char. People say "he's evil".

Where's the problem?

That's not what's keeping this thread alive though

And I'll copy you back again to:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5754757&postcount=519

How's it work here? I say "you can say you're right" but I'm not allowed to say I'm right???

Da'Shain

2009-02-10, 02:05 PM

PS what do I have to do to get a citation of your assertion I asked for an example where V would be wrong? Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0436.html), here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html), and he's fated to be wrong (or at least have the wrong reasons) here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html). And here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) he simply misinterprets something for comedic effect; it's still him being wrong, though.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 02:10 PM

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0436.html), here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html), and he's fated to be wrong (or at least have the wrong reasons) here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html). And here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) he simply misinterprets something for comedic effect; it's still him being wrong, though.

Wow. I never knew I really was Rich Burlew and didn't know until I metamorphosed like "Big John, Little John"...

I never wrote those so how could they be assertions that ***I*** asked for proof where V would be wrong?

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 02:11 PM

And Elan (unlike you) has said that the actions WERE RIGHT and therefore V did the right thing.

But V didn't know they were right when (s)he did them. (S)he assumed they were. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln:

I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assumption without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assumption, does not justify or excuse him.

V did not have all the facts. (S)he just assumed tied up = bad guy = must die. For all (s)he knew, Kubota could have been a pick-pocket that Elan caught. Would that have justified the green-beam-o-doom?

V didn't execute Kubota because he would have stirred up trouble for Hinjo. (S)he executed him because (s)he assumed his actions would inconvenience and impede h** research.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 02:14 PM

But V didn't know they were right when (s)he did them. (S)he assumed they were.

And the facts were sufficient. Why do you need more facts than that?

V did not have all the facts.

Nope, but enough to make the right decision.

The ONLY one who knows whether this was a mistake or wrong on V's part is the writer.

Definitely not you.

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 02:23 PM

The ONLY one who knows whether this was a mistake or wrong on V's part is the writer.

I'd like to say that while the action may have been justified in hindsight, V's motive for doing it was not sound by any stretch. To V, it was an action of convenience (avoid a trial), rather than necessity (remove a major threat to Hinjo). And that's why I disapprove of it.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 02:40 PM

I'd like to say that while the action may have been justified in hindsight, V's motive for doing it was not sound by any stretch. To V, it was an action of convenience (avoid a trial), rather than necessity (remove a major threat to Hinjo). And that's why I disapprove of it.

Not sound from what we saw written down, yes. But we don't know how V thinks. Rich does.

And the reason for avoiding the inconvenience as you put it?

TO SAVE THE WORLD.

Kinda important, wouldn't you think?

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 02:49 PM

Not sound from what we saw written down, yes. But we don't know how V thinks. Rich does.

And the reason for avoiding the inconvenience as you put it?

TO SAVE THE WORLD.

Kinda important, wouldn't you think?

Saving the world is what was "written down", but is that V's real motivation? Sure, that enters into it on some level, but it's increasingly apparent this is primarily about V's sense of impotence after the Battle of Azure City, and h** obsession with proving h** magic can find Haley to try and dispel that. When (s)he left in 599, it wasn't to save the world, it was to continue h** research in peace. Saving the world is a side effect to h** main goal right now.

You know, apart from the whole "Dragon gonna obliterate my family" thing.

Shatteredtower

2009-02-10, 02:53 PM

And the adventure... continues...

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.

Hmm. I think the "latter three words" argument is stretching a technicality too fine, but the main issue is whether saying a spell's name counts as saying the number of words in that name. Strip #626 suggests that it does in the dragon's statement, "Say 'Disintegrate' one more time, Vaarsuvius," but even that is just shy of definite.

Arthur Conan Doyle had just such a character: Sherlock Holmes.

Writers have long torn Holmes apparent on the point that nearly every "proof" he offered was anything but. My favourite of these was written by either Mark Twain or O'Henry (sorry, but it's been over thirty years since I last read the story, so I can't remember which it was), where the Holmes parody would be presented with obvious clues and ignore them to guess the right answer based on some other fact pulled out of thin air. The best example was of the police officer who bet the detective couldn't guess what he'd had for breakfast, apparently oblivious to the fact that there was egg yolk dribbled onto his uniform. The detective correctly guessed that the meal had not included eggs based on the fact that a nearby restaurant had been offering a special for some other fare.

Genius isn't necessarily any less prone to mistakes. On occasion, it even provides the opportunity to make bigger ones.

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!

While I don't share your hopes that the dragon will succeed, I have to applaud the way you presented your position here. I'm still chuckling over it. Thank you.

Reread 596. V knew that Kubota was guilty of death penalty level crime.

V knew no such thing. Neither 596 or 595 support this claim. Please stop making things up.

If the court would have found Kubota guilty, killing him now saves time.

Expediency is not an acceptable argument. It's the sort of thinking that executes people because, "They must have done something wrong," or, "The important thing is that someone was punished for the crime."

That happens all too often. Timothy Cole spent the last 14 years of his life in jail for that kind of thinking, the last four of them after someone else confessed to the crime. Human nature causes people to complain if evidence undeniably clears the accused murderer of someone close to them, for reasons that amount to the fact that the accused death would let them put the matter behind them.

Let me make that clear to you: people have a tendency to prefer closure to justice, so long as someone else is made to pay. V demonstrates a particularly reprehensible version of that view, as personal inconvenience is deemed more important than the concerns of the wronged parties. This isn't about "saving the world."

As you have argued, flight was clearly safer. Safe no, but safer than the alternatives.

There is no reasonable cause for this assumption. Given hours to discuss the matter with a being magically compelled into a cooperative state, the safety of all alternatives could have been readily determined.

They of course suspected it. But they had no way of knowing it.

Yes, they did. It's called, "Ask the dragon." This could only work if V allowed it, since the dragon was proscribed from taking any action other than that explicity ordered by V. Still, there was not reason V couldn't have ordered the dragon to: "Answer truthfully any questions my companions have for you. Inform them of what I just told you."

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.

The right to break into another creature's home and steal his stuff? The right to enslave him and murder him at the end of an eleven hour interlude in which no attempt was made to talk with him?

Due to living by dramatic conventions, Elan would have only tied up someone like this if he deserved to be killed.

No. That was merely a possibility. It doesn't matter that it may also have been true. All that matters is that V had no proof.

Things that are more likely than not are not considered speculation.

Again with the fabrications. You can't demonstrate how likely this is, and it would still be speculation even if it could. All it is is prejudice.

Goatee==Evil

Does Hinjo know? :smallwink:

And to save the world.

No. V claimed that after disintegrating Kubota, but in strip #505, it's become apparent that one of the major obstacles to that fact has been V's insistence on spending the last three months searching for Haley and Roy. While it's true that Roy is the only known source of information for the location of Girard's Gate, it's also true that V could have spent the last three months researching divinations that might have been able to determine another source for that information.

In fairness to V, though, the dwarf is also a spellcaster with access to the commune spell. Single word answers might not be ideal, especially when there's an xp cost involved, but it would help to have known that he'd at least made a single attempt with it.

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

How? A trial just means more time for V to conduct spell research in private, especially if Elan and Durkon and Hinjo are making themselves busy elsewhere for a few weeks.

The members of the party have each killed over a hundred people, and don't regret it. And they are the good guys. By the very basis of our story, there are a number of grounds under which people deserve to be killed.

By the basis of our story, there are also a number of grounds under which people don't deserve to be killed, not even by the good guys, even if they happen to be evil. Start of Darkness demonstrates that most effectively, but it would be part of Redcloak's legacy -- and Miko's -- even if it that volume never came out.

And the trial would have either taken a great deal of time and trouble to kill him like he deserved, or would have taken that time and trouble to allow him to cause even more trouble and grief. The man was guilty, guilty, guilty. Save the demands for a trial to where there is doubt.

V doesn't have reader privilege, only woefully inadequate cause for certainty.

But tell me, what other explanation could there possibly have been? What situation involving Elan tying Kubota up and Kubota going on trial could possibly involve Kubota not being evil?

Elan made a mistake founded upon wacky reasoning. It's not like he hasn't been wrong in similar ways before.

V was sure, absolutely sure.

For all the wrong reasons. Circumstance is not a reason to be sure. Elan had reasons to be sure, because he'd seen Therkla killed after having his own life threatened by the gloating villain. V had nothing of the sort.

Whether or not Kubota deserved to die, V's causes for killing him were all wrong. All of them.

As I have noted before, you are arguing against the writer here, not V.

That's a rather arrogant admission, as well as wrong. A typical Elan misunderstanding was at least as plausible within the narrative as the justification V gave. Therefore, V was leaping to conclusions. When that leads to the death of a bound prisoner and you don't happen to care what crimes he committed (if any), only that he's inconvenient, you have done wrong.

Notice here that Elan does not contradict V's logic. Instead he confirms that the result was for the greater good.

"I guess..." is not the sort of statement that prefaces a confirmation. It's the sort of prelude you give when you're trying to find some excuse for another's conduct, however.

He was right. Kabuto deserved to die.

Elan, one of the wronged parties, wasn't convinced of either of these claims. Claiming that this doesn't matter because Elan isn't as smart as V runs into a snag. It only means anything if Elan is prone to making mistakes -- and if Elan is prone to making mistakes, then it's not reasonable to assume that none were involved in Kubota's abduction.

Rather than condemn the character and by inference the writer for doing eviills.

What? Are you claiming that it's impossible to condemn a character's actions without condemning the writer? Does this just apply to the protagonists, or should we be locking the Giant up for his portrayal of Xykon? Really, even if we inferred that only the views of the heroes mirrored those of the author, we'd have to assume that all the arguing they do with one another means he's barking mad -- as well a sociopath with murderous tendencies, if we factor in Belkar with that lot. Doesn't seem reasonable to assume anyone is making that assumption, regardless of what we think of any actions by any of the characters.

Keep in mind that you're defending a character who's held teammates captive under threat of feeding them to a dragon, a character who implied the threat of disintegrating teammates after dispatching same dragon, repeating a more severe form of the threat against Elan for presuming to voice objections to the wizard's callous behaviour. Regardless of V's alignment, such actions can't be handwaved with the observation that V isn't always nice.

Da'Shain

2009-02-10, 02:55 PM

Wow. I never knew I really was Rich Burlew and didn't know until I metamorphosed like "Big John, Little John"...

I never wrote those so how could they be assertions that ***I*** asked for proof where V would be wrong?Ah. My mistake. I assumed the section I quoted was you asking for examples of V being wrong.

Still, though, examples of V's logic being incorrect in the past as well as a specific prophecy that he will do something at one point that, while technically the right thing to do, will be for all the wrong reasons, means that you can't just trust that "whatever he thought was accurate," as you put it.

Of course, I think most people are arguing that his reasoning in Kubota's case was "wrong" in the moral sense, not "wrong" in the logical sense. Still, though, it's possible for a situation to come up in which V's reasoning in that situation would have been incorrect and lead to his disintegrating a target that did not deserve it. Such as, for example, two actors rehearsing for a play based on the same events, which V has no idea is going on and comes back thinking the things they are saying and doing are for real. Or, with the same two people, Kubota having been in possession of information which could lead them to any other members of the OOTS or to another gate. Or if Kubota had a contingency plan in the event of his death or disappearance that would lead to assassins being sent after all of the OOTS, V included (which was quite possible considering Kubota's genre savviness, as V would have known if he had paid any attention at all to non-combat events outside his room).

V was merely acting on his own genre savviness and his trust in Elan's judgment. Which, considering Elan is at an Int penalty and quite possibly a Wis one as well, isn't a logical choice to base your reasoning on. The fact that he made a "right" choice with faulty information is as much due to luck as to logic. Considering he takes the time to explain his logic to Elan (to whom he has no reason whatsoever to lie, as evidenced by the bluntness of his words), we can say we know his motive and reasoning as well as we're ever going to without needing to see it in thought bubble form, so saying "He might have had other reasons" is a bit like saying "Roy might have other reasons for stopping Xykon than his father's oath and Xykon's threat to the world." It's possible, but the evidence we have supports the simpler explanation.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 03:02 PM

V knew no such thing. Neither 596 or 595 support this claim. Please stop making things up.

You first.

Show that Kabuto didn't deserve the death sentece.

Then we can say "V got it wrong".

Expediency is not an acceptable argument. It's the sort of thinking that executes people because, "They must have done something wrong," or, "The important thing is that someone was punished for the crime."

But what are you trying to achieve? more suffering? Then let people get away because "you can't be certain".

Again with the fabrications. You can't demonstrate how likely this is, and it would still be speculation even if it could. All it is is prejudice.

Yet the evidence we have is that Kabuto deserved the death penalty and many lives were saved.

You have not shown this to be untrue.

Do so.

No. V claimed that after disintegrating Kubota, but in strip #505

What was the first thing V said as a conversation not a spell?

Can we get on with saving the world now.

Keep in mind that you're defending a character
blah
blah
blah
Regardless of V's alignment, such actions can't be handwaved with the observation that V isn't always nice.

Yeah, I read it.

And for each one of those, there are ten examples of how V showed great loyalty.

Despite all this threatening behaviour from a uber powerful wizard, they all still seem to be alive.

Maybe he wasn't going to kill them.

Whaddaya think?

But when everyone around you is an idiot, you go back to the obvious. Don't explain. Make em do it.

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 03:14 PM

Yet the evidence we have is that Kabuto deserved the death penalty and many lives were saved.

You have not shown this to be untrue.

Yes, the evidence we have shows Kubota is guilty of treason. Vaarsuvius didn't have that evidence, and shouldn't gain the benefit of hindsight.

What was the first thing V said as a conversation not a spell?

Can we get on with saving the world now.

And as you said, what was "written down" and what the truth is aren't necessarily the same thing.

Your basic argument is "The ends justify the means". Sometimes, that is indeed the case. The problem here is our "ends" and V's "ends" are not the same thing, and V's ends don't justify summary execution, even if it independantly fulfils our ends.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 03:23 PM

Yes, the evidence we have shows Kubota is guilty of treason. Vaarsuvius didn't have that evidence, and shouldn't gain the benefit of hindsight.

No the EVIDENCE that V had was enough to make V undertake an endeavour that is the correct one.

And as you said, what was "written down" and what the truth is aren't necessarily the same thing.

Yup, the only one who knows is Rich. And all we have is what is written. Which we know doesn't show everything. But from what it DOES show, V did the right thing.

You may disagree with the way it was done, but then again, you're not writing the character. And if it were a real person, you aren't them.

Your basic argument is "The ends justify the means".

Nope, that's merely one thing that makes the whole argument moot.

If Rich turns round and says "look, V didn't have enough information to make an informed and robust decision of that nature" then we have "The ends justify the means".

But without that, we have V did the right thing. We KNOW we don't know all that led V to this decision. We also know we can't see how V thinks. Heck, we don't even know when he landed and what precisely he heard. So, like Sherlock Holmes deciding that the man was a baker in Ladle street because of the shoes, the mud upon them, the time taken to get there from his statement and so on would not mean much to us (uh, could you tell that the mud on the shoes was mud washed from the nearby park and had elements of wheat flour in it?) but it does to him.

Sans any other information, all we have is V made a decision and it was right.

EDIT: This isn't "Ends justifying the means" anyway, since Kabuto is dead, deserved death and there's no means other than killing kabuto to achieve that ends.

Whether there's something like "the wrong way to the right answer" I can't remember seeing, but that like I said will only be KNOWN if Rich 'fesses.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-10, 04:22 PM

V knew no such thing [that Kabuto deserved death]. Neither 596 or 595 support this claim. Please stop making things up.I was pretty sure that V came to the conclusion that whomever Elan was holding captive was worthy of death by reason of Elan's following of dramatic themes. This might seem like a shaky and ill-considered line of reasoning to you, but it doesn't make false the fact that according to this reason Kabuto did indeed deserve death from V's point of view.

There is no reasonable cause for this assumption. Given hours to discuss the matter with a being magically compelled into a cooperative state, the safety of all alternatives could have been readily determined.
[...]
Yes, they did. It's called, "Ask the dragon." This could only work if V allowed it, since the dragon was proscribed from taking any action other than that explicity ordered by V. Still, there was not reason V couldn't have ordered the dragon to: "Answer truthfully any questions my companions have for you. Inform them of what I just told you."
[...]
The right to break into another creature's home and steal his stuff? The right to enslave him and murder him at the end of an eleven hour interlude in which no attempt was made to talk with him?

All the above can be easily resolved by the rules of the game world. Evil and good are not shades of grey, as they are in our world. Evil and Good are absolutes, and are a known attribute of all intelligent beings. Dragons without "shiny scales" are known to be Evil, and are therefore not due any kind of consideration, conversation, or concern for the sanctity of their homes or lives. They are to be tracked down and killed, post haste. Far from being a violation of the dragon's home rights and subsequent "murder", killing the dragon was a Good act. And it's best if some king or religious leader offers to pay you for doing this good act. And if a dragon happens to be stumbled across while hunting for a chunk of star metal? Kill it and take their hoard. It would be non-Good to leave such an Evil beast alive, you know, if you had the chance to end its life and the threat it posed by the simple fact of its existence to all Good (and even Neutral) humanoids and other Good creatures.

Sure, that's not how we do it here in the real world, but that doesn't make it wrong in the game world. It's not only not wrong, but it is very right.

Kish

2009-02-10, 04:26 PM

All the above can be easily resolved by the rules of the game world. Evil and good are not shades of grey, as they are in our world. Evil and Good are absolutes, and are a known attribute of all intelligent beings. Dragons without "shiny scales" are known to be Evil, and are therefore not due any kind of consideration, conversation, or concern for the sanctity of their homes or lives. They are to be tracked down and killed, post haste. Far from being a violation of the dragon's home rights and subsequent "murder", killing the dragon was a Good act. And it's best if some king or religious leader offers to pay you for doing this good act. And if a dragon happens to be stumbled across while hunting for a chunk of star metal? Kill it and take their hoard. It would be non-Good to leave such an Evil beast alive, you know, if you had the chance to end its life and the threat it posed by the simple fact of its existence to all Good (and even Neutral) humanoids and other Good creatures.

Sure, that's not how we do it here in the real world, but that doesn't make it wrong in the game world. It's not only not wrong, but it is very right.
That's exactly the viewpoint Roy rejects and storms away from his first adventuring group for in OtOoPCs, not to mention the one the rest of the Order glares at Belkar for endorsing in strip #13.

hamishspence

2009-02-10, 04:29 PM

Even in D&D, evil creatures, while possibly deserving of "less consideration" aren't always Slay On Sight- BoED, Heroes of Horror, for example.

In Stickverse, we don't know as much, but going by War & XPs commentary, this was one of the most reprehensible things about Azure City- that its paladins acted like this and "their actions may have been sanctioned by the Twelve Gods, but even the twelves gods can't stop karma from kicking them"

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 04:48 PM

Shatteredtower

2009-02-10, 04:56 PM

You first.

Oh, no... No, you claimed that V knew that Kubota was guilty of death penalty level crime.

Since V doesn't actually know (or care) what he did, that's false. Claiming otherwise is, therefore, a making stuff up.

Then we can say "V got it wrong".

It wasn't for V to decide, which makes the wizard wrong by default. Treason? That's for the nation to decide, not us. Murder? V's not exactly on good grounds to decide that one, since disintegrating other people's prisoners with no idea what they might have done is murder.

V got it wrong. I realize it may be hard to accept, what with the character being one of several people charged with attempting to save the world from a greater threat, but that's a fact. The villains can have a legitimate beef, and the heroes can do terrible things.

But what are you trying to achieve? more suffering? Then let people get away because "you can't be certain".

Kubota was tied up. He was most clearly not "getting away" at the time.

Look, if V had done this after a trial cleared Kubota, knowing what he'd done and how he'd arranged to get away with it, I'd be more understanding. It would still be wrong, but I could still sympathize with it. Likewise, I'd have understood if Elan had killed him instead of tying him up, even if it was not the ideal response. Elan, at least, has witnessed wrongdoing by Kubota, including murder and conspiracy to commit more murders.

V has no such excuses. Reader knowledge isn't justification.

Yet the evidence we have is that Kabuto deserved the death penalty and many lives were saved.

What evidence? I count two paladins, three party members, and a couple of expectant parents. That's eight -- or about the same number Kazumi killed (with full justification, I might add).

In the meantime, his decision to abandon Azure City saved how many lives? Condemned how many to death? Hard to say, but that's in the past. Where the notion that he'll kill scores of people in his quest to eliminate Hinjo originates, I don't know.

You have not shown this to be untrue.

Do so.

No need. There has yet to be any evidence demonstrating any truth to your claim.

What was the first thing V said as a conversation not a spell?

A request to attempt something the wizard has not actually been attempting to do up until this point, focusing stubbornly on one course of action that has continually proven unsuccessful to the exclusion of all alternatives, which is why the elf was called out by Durkon.

Despite all this threatening behaviour from a uber powerful wizard, they all still seem to be alive.

That's not good enough. It's like telling some guy he's allowed to shoot you if you move for the next few hours, then shooting that guy and telling your buddies, "That could have been you, you know."

Knocking his teeth out and breaking all his fingers after that is the least he'd deserve.

But when everyone around you is an idiot, you go back to the obvious. Don't explain. Make em do it.

With death threats?

Riiiiiiiight...

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-10, 05:02 PM

That's exactly the viewpoint Roy rejects and storms away from his first adventuring group for in OtOoPCs, not to mention the one the rest of the Order glares at Belkar for endorsing in strip #13.Some people even in the game world might reject this, but it's still the way things appear to be seen by most, even LG people.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-10, 05:13 PM

[Coerce supposedly Good people (with one notable exception :smallsmile:) who are showing zero concern for you, their long time companion who is reduced to the form (and HP) of a lizard to spend the time working on changing you back as their first and foremost objective.]

With death threats?

Riiiiiiiight...

Yes, right. Perhaps the ignoring of V's state in the persuit of trivial other plans was used for some comedic value, but that can't excuse that behavior. The threats were used to kick some sense into them, and were not carried out. 100% completely justified, as I see things.

Oh, no... No, you claimed that V knew that Kubota was guilty of death penalty level crime.

Since V doesn't actually know (or care) what he did, that's false. Claiming otherwise is, therefore, a making stuff up.
I already dispelled your myth about this being made up. It's in the story. V knew Kabota was deserving of death due to his knowledge of Elan following dramatic convention. You can dismiss this as a poor reason, but it was a conclusion arrived at by V prior to his dusting of our favorite evil Samurai Aristocrat.

Assassin89

2009-02-10, 05:14 PM

Several of these posts are arguing about morality, but the plot in later comics should resolve several questions that are emerging. Kubota is insignificant right now, and is somewhat pathetic as he believes that he can retake Azure city in a couple of days.

*stabs morality debate*
Can we get back to discussing the comic?

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 05:17 PM

Oh, no... No, you claimed that V knew that Kubota was guilty of death penalty level crime.

Yup. He knew Kabuto was guilty of something bad enough to deserve death.

Since V doesn't actually know (or care) what he did, that's false.

Nope, he doesn't care what SPECIFICALLY he did, but he knows Kabuto deserved death.

The hangman never knows (ideally) what the man on death row is being hung for. Just that he is to be hung.

So there's no need to know WHAT SPECIFICALLY was done, just that it would have been something deserving of death.

It wasn't for V to decide

Say you.

But are you CG?

Kubota was tied up. He was most clearly not "getting away" at the time.

Whu? Never said he was, just that in the case YOU SAID:

Expediency is not an acceptable argument

Nowt about Kabuto in that nor in the response. Stop making things up. Especially before you start demanding others do.

With death threats?

Riiiiiiiight...

Well when you were naughty, did you dad never say "YOU GO AND TIDY YOUR ROOM LIKE YOUR MOM SAYS OR I'LL TAN YOUR HIDE FOR YOU, BOY!!!!"?

No?

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 05:18 PM

*stabs morality debate*
Can we get back to discussing the comic?

This isn't about the comic; you're so obsessed with not assassinating your 89th target, thence making your name null and void, you stab debates without understanding what they're about so you can get back to murder-planning! :smalltongue:

But yeah, things suck for V right now.

hamishspence

2009-02-10, 05:18 PM

the comic is certainly pretty dramatic. I wonder if next strip will focus on V's actions, or on the dragon and V's family?

I think V, but this is pure surmise.

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 05:27 PM

Yup. He knew Kabuto was guilty of something bad enough to deserve death.

Read 596: (s)he didn't even know who Kubota was. All that can be construed from what's in the comic is that (s)he saw Elan with a tied up guy and that guy talked about a trial.

Nope, he doesn't care what SPECIFICALLY he did, but he knows Kabuto deserved death.

The hangman never knows (ideally) what the man on death row is being hung for. Just that he is to be hung.

(S)he knew squat. S(h)e assumed Kubota was guilty and deserved to be executed. Assumption of guilt does not justify execution, no matter how right you turn out to be.

But are you CG?

Is Vaarsuvius?

Well when you were naughty, did you dad never say "YOU GO AND TIDY YOUR ROOM LIKE YOUR MOM SAYS OR I'LL TAN YOUR HIDE FOR YOU, BOY!!!!"?

No?

While I find both deplorable, there's a difference between spanking a child and killing someone in cold blood.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 05:31 PM

While I find both deplorable, there's a difference between spanking a child and killing someone in cold blood.

There's another even BIGGER difference between the two:

ONE IS A COMIC STRIP.

ONE IS REAL LIFE.

GET IT???

EDIT

And yes V is CG.

And the name of the guy tied up by elan, gloating about how he'd get away with it all and Elan saying "I'll testify" doesn't change the FACT that this is a guy tied up by elan, gloating about how he'd get away with it all and Elan saying "I'll testify".

Should it?

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 05:36 PM

the comic is certainly pretty dramatic. I wonder if next strip will focus on V's actions, or on the dragon and V's family?

I think V, but this is pure surmise.

See, now, this is OK. This is calm and this progresses things.

I only say this (risking annoying you by seeming to be patronising or sarcastic which is NOT the intent [dandilion, this may be a way to make a "joke"]) because I've only so far gypped you for your illogical ravings.

There's nothing I can agree or disagree with here, but since this is the first thing you've said which hasn't been an obviously refutable statement, I had to go with what I had.

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 05:43 PM

There's another even BIGGER difference between the two:

ONE IS A COMIC STRIP.

ONE IS REAL LIFE.

GET IT???

Yeah, because we haven't had a nonsactioned life-termination since 2016.[/Demolition Man]

And yes V is CG.

This is a claim with no proof beyond a particular interpretation of the alignment system. All we know is (s)he is not evil. There is no solid evidence for any other alignment component.

And the name of the guy tied up by elan, gloating about how he'd get away with it all and Elan saying "I'll testify" doesn't change the FACT that this is a guy tied up by elan, gloating about how he'd get away with it all and Elan saying "I'll testify".

Should it?

But as I said before, Vaarsuvius did not know what "it" was. It could have been robbery or littering for all (s)he knew. Should he have been killed for that?

Vaarsuvius jumped to a conclusion. Based on the inconvenience to h** research said conclusion would imply, (s)he killed someone. (S)he did not know what said someone had done. I daresay you're having trouble separating audience knowledge with character knowledge.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 05:50 PM

But as I said before, Vaarsuvius did not know what "it" was. It could have been robbery or littering for all (s)he knew. Should he have been killed for that?

Yes. It was tied up by Elan. And the rest of the stuff that V knew both about how Elan works, the world there works, and all the other information that is unavailable on a cartoon strip

Vaarsuvius jumped to a conclusion.

True

Based on the inconvenience to h** research

Ah, this is where you're wrong.

"Lets get on with saving the world now, shall we?" ring any bells?

The research meant that V hadn't been keeping track but that would merely have introduced more data that, as it turns out, is unnecessary.

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 06:03 PM

Yes. It was tied up by Elan. And the rest of the stuff that V knew both about how Elan works, the world there works, and all the other information that is unavailable on a cartoon strip.

Uh, what? What "stuff" are you talking about? How does knowing Elan lead one to conclude anyone he ties up should be fried on the spot?

"Lets get on with saving the world now, shall we?" ring any bells?

You have missed what myself and shatteredtower have said: V's words and actions both before and after killing Kubota show it is not about saving the world, but about unravelling the Gordion Knot that is Cloister, as a result of failing to win the Battle of Azure City. World-saving is a happy side effect. Much like removing a threat to Hinjo is a happy side effect of removing someone threatening to take h** away from h** research.

Kish

2009-02-10, 06:04 PM

Some people even in the game world might reject this, but it's still the way things appear to be seen by most, even LG people.
You didn't claim it was "the way most in the world see it." You claimed it was the way it is. It may or may not be the way anyone whose viewpoint we're supposed to sympathize with sees it--feel free to support that it is, if you can--but it's certainly not the way it is.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 06:29 PM

You didn't claim it was "the way most in the world see it." You claimed it was the way it is.

What's the difference?

If people say "all black dragons are evil and should be killed on sight" and so every black dragon is killed on sight and, since they're always killed on sight, black dragons are always evil because they kill any good adventuring party on sight, then what's the difference?

It is a difference that COULD be broken by either side saying "OK, this MAY not be the way it is" but nobody does, because nobody sees it any differently.

Heck, if some DO think "It might be different" but get killed each time they stop to ask a black dragon if they are evil (because black dragons know everyone things they are all evil, so why risk a fair fight? or because each time so far each dragon HAS been evil), what's the difference between the two?

Or from the dragons side, one may think "Hang on, maybe not all humans kill evil on sight" but then dies to the next lot of adventurers because he wasted the free round whilst the adventurers went "OMG! Black DRAGON!!! Doomed! Throw EVERYTHING!!!".

Again no difference.

Not in result.

In what COULD be, yes.

And that would make it a shame.

Rather like the short end of a VERY shtty stick the goblins and the like got (though we only have the Goblin side of the tale for most of this, AFAIR, so take with salt), we see that they COULD be done differently.

RC sees one way (in fact the ONLY way) is to ensure that the Snarl is used to force change.

Other goblins have had different ideas and, for a while some success.

But the story steamrollered over their attempts.

And that's a pity. And so even if Evil, we see enough chance for harmony that their plight has some pathos and sympathetic wishes in it.

Whether that could ever happen if out of the 1000 black dragon population, merely one of them thought "Stuff this, it's not RIGHT to beat people up and take their stuff just because I *can*" I think unlikely. If nothing else, he'd have to put himself against 999 other black dragons who think him a weakling.

With the goblins, the ideology isn't so one-sided in their occupancy.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 06:35 PM

Uh, what? What "stuff" are you talking about? How does knowing Elan lead one to conclude anyone he ties up should be fried on the spot?

And whatever thought processes went on.

After all, they've spent months together on the ship. Which was the interstitial between one strip and the next.

We saw NOTHING.

So what happened? Stuff. Not important story-line stuff, but stuff. And stuff we never saw. Because waiting in real time for every action every step of the entire six months at sea would be BORING.

That stuff.

And whatever goes on in his head.

Or when EXACTLY he sat down offscreen.

Or what EXACTLY he heard with his elven ears.

All stuff that never got put on screen.

Because it would be boring as heck.

That stuff.

You have missed what myself and shatteredtower have said: V's words and actions both before and after killing Kubota show it is not about saving the world

And what words were that?

The first words were, "Now can we get back to saving the world". Not "Thank got that's over, now I've got to get back to work". Your assertion is only true id you use white-out to remove some words from V's speech bubble.

I mean, YOU and shatteredtower may have said that V only did it for those reasons, but V hasn't said it. First words after disintegrate were?

Go have a look.

I may not have the exact words right, but they're a LOT closer to V's words than your memory has it.

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-10, 07:07 PM

And whatever thought processes went on.

After all, they've spent months together on the ship. Which was the interstitial between one strip and the next.

We saw NOTHING.

So what happened? Stuff. Not important story-line stuff, but stuff. And stuff we never saw. Because waiting in real time for every action every step of the entire six months at sea would be BORING.

That stuff.

And whatever goes on in his head.

Or when EXACTLY he sat down offscreen.

Or what EXACTLY he heard with his elven ears.

All stuff that never got put on screen.

Because it would be boring as heck.

That stuff.

You're assuming that the offscreen stuff will have given Vaarsuvius the idea he should kill whoever Elan ties up. There is no evidence of that. There is only proof that he knew Elan had tied someone up, and that person talked about winning in a trial. Everything else is speculation.

And what words were that?

The first words were, "Now can we get back to saving the world". Not "Thank got that's over, now I've got to get back to work". Your assertion is only true id you use white-out to remove some words from V's speech bubble.

I mean, YOU and shatteredtower may have said that V only did it for those reasons, but V hasn't said it. First words after disintegrate were?

Go have a look.

I may not have the exact words right, but they're a LOT closer to V's words than your memory has it.

When I say before and after, I meant slightly further afield than that.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0504.html), (s)he blames h**self for not being powerful enough to save the day. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0554.html), (s)he shows how little (s)he cares for anything but h** research. Searching for lost friends is one thing, but neglecting the friends you have left is another. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0585.html) is another example of h** priorities, without Haley even being mentioned. (S)he then leaves Elan and Durkon here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0599.html), citing a desire for uninterrupted research. World-saving didn't enter into it. This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html) is the proof that this all stems from h** feelings of impotence over the Battle of Azure City.

With these two points, your trying to have it both ways. You want us to assume h** time with Elan would logically lead h** to assume he wants tied up people dead without any evidence, while expecting us to take what (s)he said after frying Kubota at absolute face value.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 07:29 PM

When I say before and after, I meant slightly further afield than that.

Well what was the reasoning for that?

Do you expect a logical person to say the THIRD thing that comes into their head first, then the fourth, first and then second?

When something's over and you are waiting for dinner but you've done a good job and you

a) are really proud of the job
b) just ready for dinner

would you say

Ah, a good job well done. Now, off for my dinner?

Or

Ah off for my dinner. And that was a good job well done.

?

Because it would seem logical to me that the first thing to say was the thing you're most interested in FIRST.

But apparently there's a reason for picking up different things so the important things are much later.

Of course you'll say what they are, won't you, because the default simplest explanation is that you picked the words that fitted your expectation rather than fitted your expectation to the words.

So I wait to hear what your reasoning for the selection method is and how it is better and more apt than "the first thing said is the most important".

Breath. Baited.

Da'Shain

2009-02-10, 07:58 PM

Because saving the world is V's excuse for the search for greater arcane power.

Not only has this been V's stated goal since the beginning of the strip, but V's lack of such power has been highlighted for him/her by the way (s)he was forced to cut and run from the battle in Azure City, as well as by the continual failures (s)he runs into when attempting to contact, or even find, the other members of the Order magically.

The fact that V's goal happens to be likely to coincide with saving the world does not mean that saving the world is V's main motivation. It is not the prospect of Xykon harnessing the power of a gate which propels V to not trance at all anymore and spend his/her days in constant study, after all.

However, V is perfectly well aware that his/her personal goal is not shared by the rest of the Order, and in fact would be frowned upon by the rest of the Order (most of them being Good types) if they knew it eclipsed saving the world in V's mind. Furthermore, (s)he knows that reminding the other members of the party of their major goal is more likely to impel them to cast off "subplots" and "sidequests" than just coming out and saying "I can't get any studying done with this racket! Knock it off!"

So it's perfectly reasonable for V to say, to another member of the party, "Can we PLEASE get back to saving the world?" when it is not V's primary motivation. It is Elan's primary motivation, and thus more likely end the distractions.

Wanton Soup

2009-02-10, 08:11 PM

Because saving the world is V's excuse for the search for greater arcane power.

Uh, where did you pull that one from???

V was looking for ultimate arcane power before he got into the team. Is he an Oracle???

And there;s nothing that even suggests that saving he world will get V absolute arcane power. Which he had when someone gave him a doily anyway.

So, where do you get this idea that

a) saving the world is going to get V greater arcane power
b) that this is the only reason why V wants to save the world (unlike the Tick who wouldn't destroy the world 'cos that's where he keeps all his stuff)

Lay of those "smarties", dude.

David Argall

2009-02-10, 10:01 PM

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0436.html),
Now notice here that V is immediately shown to be wrong, in the very next picture. This is a very routine dramatic effect. We have it for other characters too when they make statements that are wrong in the story. Next we notice that in 596, there is no such immediate demonstration. This then becomes proof that V was right in killing Kubota.

here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html),
Now here V was right. She was just slow for Haley's taste.

and he's fated to be wrong (or at least have the wrong reasons) here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html). And here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) he simply misinterprets something for comedic effect; it's still him being wrong, though.
And in both cases, the reader is informed right away, unlike 596, where Elan is shocked and does not make any claim that V's logic is at all wrong. He does not say he would have tied up any other types, nor that there were other flaws. So we have V speaking Word of God here. The fact V might be wrong in a real world is simply something to criticize the author about, not to claim V was wrong.

V did not KNOW s/he was right. S/he BELIEVED s/he was right. S/he simply got lucky this time.
Right, a 99.99% chance just happened to come thru.

Nale & Thog had Elan tied up, only with a goatee instead of a mustache. The police came in, arrested him, and Elan lived to prove his innocence. If V had arrived first, he would have disintegrated a party member. Nale wins.
Given that V didn't try disintegrate on druid or trees, it seems quite possible he didn't have it in memory at that time. Nor is she the type to start off with that spell. Knowing that he was likely to encounter Thog, Suggestion or Charm Person are likely to be racked, and useful. And in general, V lets the others have their fun before tossing spells. She waits with the big green guys and the hydra... So it is most unlikely he will toss out that disintegrate before it is clear that it is not a good move.

And V is wrong alot!
When? As has been noted, these errors often help prove that V was right this time.

A. The situation I presented has not changed at all, at least from V's perspective. Someone who Elan has tied up intends to weasel his way to innocence through a lengthy trial. This is all V was aware of (possibly less than this). The only things that have changed are the details, which V was totally unaware of.
But that is not the situation V would see. Since the thief is guilty of lesser crime, Elan would not tie him up, and V would not see him tied up.

V didn't kill him because he was evil, he killed him because he figured leaving him alive would be inconvenient
That his death was convenient does not make it the sole reason, or even a reason at all. V very definitely killed him for being evil. She does not kill a number of other inconvenient people, including Elan, who are not evil. She just kills the evil one[s]. V thus killed him for being evil. We can classify being inconvenient as a supplemental reason, but it is very clearly not a sole reason.

and, since Kubota wasn't an ally, he could get away with offing him.
V was, and is, of the opinion she can get away with most anything. This is just trying to plant a reason V didn’t have.

while the action may have been justified in hindsight, V's motive for doing it was not sound by any stretch. To V, it was an action of convenience (avoid a trial), rather than necessity (remove a major threat to Hinjo).
But Kubota was a major threat to Hinjo, and V did “know” it. She did not know how, but that Kubota was trying to cause additional trouble was clear.

(s)he didn't even know who Kubota was. All that can be construed from what's in the comic is that (s)he saw Elan with a tied up guy and that guy talked about a trial.
And that is all V needed to know.

Saving the world is what was "written down", but is that V's real motivation?
That statement puts the burden of proof squarely on you. Asserting a different motivation is insufficient. You need proof it is real.

When (s)he left in 599, it wasn't to save the world, it was to continue h** research in peace. Saving the world is a side effect to h** main goal right now.
A distant goal is not a side effect. It is simply something you can’t achieve yet. V explains quite well his path to her distant goal and so far nobody has really shown much of a better way.

Writers have long torn Holmes apparent on the point that nearly every "proof" he offered was anything but.
Which is the point for our discussion. Holmes’ reasons are often defective from the view of real life, but that does not matter. They are valid from the view of the story. V’s logic is defective from the view of real life, but that just does not matter. Within the story, she is absolutely correct.

V knew no such thing. Neither 596 or 595 support this claim. Please stop making things up.
596 clearly does show V as knowing Kubota had done more than death penalty level crime. Our story involves lots of killing and even rather unimportant criminals are looking at the death penalty at trial. So when V deducts that Kubota is a major villain, she is saying the death penalty is really not sufficient punishment, but it’s not nice to do any torture.

Expediency is not an acceptable argument.
Of course it is. Anything and everything is judged at least partly on the basis of expediency. You can always do one more test to see if Jones is actually guilty or not. But at some point you say “Let’s stop wasting time and money. We hang the guy/let him go, based on our current knowledge.”
We do a whole lot of things simply because it is more convenient that way.

Human nature causes people to complain if evidence undeniably clears the accused murderer of someone close to them, for reasons that amount to the fact that the accused death would let them put the matter behind them.
Which would be a possible charge if Kubota was not guilty. But he is clearly and totally guilty. People do have a right to complain when the killer gets off.

Let me make that clear to you: people have a tendency to prefer closure to justice.
But here they are getting both, and the trial threatened to give neither.

V demonstrates a particularly reprehensible version of that view, as personal inconvenience is deemed more important than the concerns of the wronged parties. This isn't about "saving the world."
Why not? As noted, this is the first thing that V asks, before anyone even suggested there was a problem with his actions.

Given hours to discuss the matter with a being magically compelled into a cooperative state, the safety of all alternatives could have been readily determined.
So we have had months to discuss the situation, and have yet to come up with a safe plan. Given the predictable reaction of the dragon, there is no safe plan, merely a choice of where and how you fight it.

"Ask the dragon." This could only work if V allowed it, since the dragon was proscribed from taking any action other than that explicity ordered by V. Still, there was not reason V couldn't have ordered the dragon to: "Answer truthfully any questions my companions have for you. Inform them of what I just told you."
Nor was there any reason the party could not ask the dragon, and then ask the lizard to ask the dragon. Blame can not be assigned here to V in particular. And as has been noted, this is a charge of stupidity, not sin.

The right to break into another creature's home and steal his stuff?
They did neither. You do not break in when you walk in an open door [absent “keep out” signs or such] Nor did they try to take anything until after the dragon was dead and no longer owned it.

The right to enslave him and murder him at the end of an eleven hour interlude in which no attempt was made to talk with him?
When he has every intention and ability to kill you after those eleven hours, that is clear self defense and does not require any delay in defending yourself.

No. That was merely a possibility.
That is what the comic presents as certainity.

Again with the fabrications. You can't demonstrate how likely this is, and it would still be speculation even if it could. All it is is prejudice.
If you want a precise figure, no I can’t. If you want a general figure, yes I can. The dragon’s every action has been hostile to the party and the idea it will just let the party escape is wishful thinking.

in strip #505, it's become apparent that one of the major obstacles to that fact has been V's insistence on spending the last three months searching for Haley and Roy. While it's true that Roy is the only known source of information for the location of Girard's Gate, it's also true that V could have spent the last three months researching divinations that might have been able to determine another source for that information.
Possibly, but recall this strip is drawn on the principle that the PCs will not see the superior tactic that will work right away. We can not deduct something about V’s morals from his failure to see a particular tactic.

How? A trial just means more time for V to conduct spell research in private, especially if Elan and Durkon and Hinjo are making themselves busy elsewhere for a few weeks.
Which challenges your claim that Kubota was killed for V’s convenience.

By the basis of our story, there are also a number of grounds under which people don't deserve to be killed, not even by the good guys, even if they happen to be evil
Which is irrelevant. That people don’t deserve to be killed is the default. We need to examine the reasons for a given killing.

Circumstance is not a reason to be sure. Elan had reasons to be sure, because he'd seen Therkla killed after having his own life threatened by the gloating villain. V had nothing of the sort.
But because Elan had reasons, so did V.

Whether or not Kubota deserved to die, V's causes for killing him were all wrong. All of them.
Why? And we know rather well that Kubota did deserve to die. An unwillingness to admit that may suit his lawyer, but it suggests an unwillingness to consider the evidence.

A typical Elan misunderstanding was at least as plausible within the narrative as the justification V gave.
Nope. Elan misunderstandings are marked as such, and immediately visible to observers. Moreover, they do not involve dramatic conventions, where Elan acts as a idiot savant. Since we are talking dramatic convention, Elan is right, and V knows that.

When that leads to the death of a bound prisoner and you don't happen to care what crimes he committed (if any), only that he's inconvenient, you have done wrong.
But V does care that Kubota has committed crimes, and we certainly do not accept as justice that Joe gets off because the authorities charged him with Section 8, Subsection Y, Clause 5, when it should have been Clause 7. V’s ignorance of the precise charge is a trivial point.

"I guess..." is not the sort of statement that prefaces a confirmation. It's the sort of prelude you give when you're trying to find some excuse for another's conduct, however.
It is also the prelude you use when there is solid reason and you are working your way to understanding that. We can note that Elan says he is ok with the death of Kubota three times.

Keep in mind that you're defending a character who's held teammates captive under threat of feeding them to a dragon, a character who implied the threat of disintegrating teammates after dispatching same dragon, repeating a more severe form of the threat against Elan for presuming to voice objections to the wizard's callous behaviour. Regardless of V's alignment, such actions can't be handwaved with the observation that V isn't always nice.
They are, however, limited by being just threats. Particularly in the case of Elan, we see that when push comes to shove, V does not carry out those threats. A threat is only a threat to the extent you believe it will be carried out.

Where the notion that he'll kill scores of people in his quest to eliminate Hinjo originates, I don't know.
Try 508 where one ship loses 14 people and there were no survivors on another, and where we find there have been a whole series of attacks. About the only thing that will keep the tab out of the hundreds is an early success, or V dusting him.

kusje

2009-02-10, 11:25 PM

V is an amazingly stupid Sherlock Holmes...

He can't foresee that his actions in the cave will put the party in additional danger from the dragon. Most people agree that it was stupid but he suddenly becomes an omniscient Sherlock Holmes a few months later when making leaps of logic about Kub.

Maybe Rich intended that V be Sherlock Holmes in that encounter making his leap of logic perfectly logical in the story. Or maybe he didn't. The story isn't over yet so we can't say what the author thinks.

Ragan

2009-02-11, 02:35 AM

It has been five days. I must have checked for a new strip like 20 times at least. I cant take this any longer.

Help...

HandofShadows

2009-02-11, 02:37 AM

*stabs morality debate*
Can we get back to discussing the comic?

I think to kill this one at minimum you will need to yell "SNEAK ATTACK" and Back Stab it with a poisoned weapon. But don't even think that will work. :smallfrown:

silvadel

2009-02-11, 03:10 AM

My prediction is #630 will change focus and not be a V strip.

RMS Oceanic

2009-02-11, 03:42 AM

My prediction is #630 will change focus and not be a V strip.

I daresay that would create an even bigger uproar than the change between 599 and 600.

Incidentally, I've created a thread where we can talk about Kubota without further dragging this thread off topic. Let's take it there.

Monsterknuffel

2009-02-11, 05:20 AM

long time since this threads had 20+ pages eh ?

And another twist in the twist the twist in the twist.. oh wait.... ah yes in the twist. we will se what happens.

funny, though i think the next conclusion of whatever (V's Gender, teaming up with V again, raising roy, maybe a failed sending,i dont remember) will be at strip 1000+

Kilyle

2009-02-11, 05:22 AM

Here's my take on this:

In a story with this many different elements, there are bound to be pieces that seem unrelated to the main plotline. But a good storyteller will weave them all together so that, by the end, we see that nothing was really just a pointless side story - that everything had a point, and that every path eventually led back to the central hub.

Rich has proven himself to be a skilled storyteller, and I have faith in his ability to pull it off. Even ninja intrigue on the open seas has never left me going "Well, this has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot." And after all, things aren't always what they seem.

Still, the possible slaughter of V's family doesn't seem very real to me. The dragon is certainly capable of it. The situation is certainly dramatic - in and of itself. But if this is what it takes to push V over the edge, then it seems to me that V's personal storyline was tangential to the main plot, and my faith in Rich's ability to weave it all together takes a nosedive.

If the dragon kills V's family, I can see V going mad with rage and grief and heading off after the dragon... which separates him from the team (something already accomplished) for what I would consider non-selfish reasons (freeing your kids' souls). And it undoes months of character development! I don't really understand how this could work with the story.

There's a slim possibility that V will find his family destroyed, kill the dragon very quickly thereafter, and then return to the plot as some sort of avenging angel. Perhaps he'll hunt Roy (since Roy made them go to the dragon's cave). Perhaps he'll join with Redcloak to try to destroy the universe, rather than live with his pain (hello, Willow from Buffy... will Haley play Xander?). I could see this happening and I could see it being good reading, but I'm not really liking the direction the story would take (or rather, I could see other directions that I would like better).

Another possibility: V comes home, finds the dragon at his house, with V's family already dead or about to be killed. V kills the dragon. Turns out the dragon set up an illusion, so V just killed his own family. This would be even worse for V than the dragon's initial plan.

Anyway, my two copper pieces.

ETA: I forgot one interpretation I had for those last four "V's emotions" panels. I wonder if elves who bond for life are soul-linked? Because that could be V reacting directly to feeling his mate get destroyed.

Taekwondodo

2009-02-11, 06:04 AM

C'mon! Need know what happens! (English gone, no comic *sob*)
Just now::smallfrown: don't make me get::smallfurious:

Edit:

Another possibility: V comes home, finds the dragon at his house, with V's family already dead or about to be killed. V kills the dragon. Turns out the dragon set up an illusion, so V just killed his own family. This would be even worse for V than the dragon's initial plan.

Oooooh... that would probably send him over the edge.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-11, 02:03 PM

You didn't claim it was "the way most in the world see it." You claimed it was the way it is. It may or may not be the way anyone whose viewpoint we're supposed to sympathize with sees it--feel free to support that it is, if you can--but it's certainly not the way it is.
I see zero difference between those two. It is indeed "the way it is", and will remain "the way it is" even if some would like for it to be "some other way." Feel free to support that it is not, if you can. In making the attempt realize that you'll just be one person who feels that it should be some other way than the way that it is. So, good luck with that.

David Argall

2009-02-11, 02:15 PM

My prediction is #630 will change focus and not be a V strip.

Our writer does not do cliffhangers. Page turners where we refresh every hour as we await the next page, yes indeed. But that next page is on the same subject. The scene is resolved before we leave it. Haley and O-Chul are left going to bed, not with their lives within a second of ending. So we will be sticking with V for about the next 10 strips, or until the crisis is resolved, well or badly.

hamishspence

2009-02-11, 02:19 PM

Elan bursting in on Nale & Haley is a prime specimen of cliffhanger followed by scene switch.

Corseth

2009-02-11, 02:22 PM

Yeah yeah, more debate fodder ;)

Let's ignore that it was a black dragon for a moment, because so far, the black dragons haven't DONE anything black-dragony, in classic D&D terms (plus, 4th Ed. removed the 'magical compulsion' to their alignment - dragons of all types are now good or evil by personal choice, not by 'born black = evil', not that that's particularly relevant to the comic). So we have person A (V) and person B (dragon).

A's "Crimes" as known
'A' broke into 'B's home and killed B's child. That the child was threatening A at this point is really no excuse, nor is A not initially knowing that it was B's home. Morally, there's not much excuse for this, especially as this was not a 'save the world' mission the dragon was keeping them from completing. Trying to argue otherwise quickly falls to a 'because it was a dragon' excuse, which relies on preconceived notions rather than evidence. Moreover A had many non-lethal solutions handy. Why not Force Cage the youngling, like A did to B, for example?

B's Child's "Crimes" as known
None. Fighting the party, in the child's own home, is not a crime unless you think self-defense is a crime. At no point is it mentioned B's child has caused any problems to the area.

B's "Crimes" as known.
Assault on A. Would probably get off or heavily plea bargained due to A killing B's child, but it was premeditated and after the event so can't be argued as self defense either. Nothing else. After all, at no point is it mentioned B had caused any problems to the area either.

So what's at stake is the 'crime to come', presumably next comic, where B kills and does quite horrible things to A's family. Remember this crime has not yet been committed.

I find the dragon's frame of mind quite understandable, given this, and I'm not even going to rely on D&D 'good' 'evil' alignment because you're magically born some way. Is what it proposed horrendous? Oh yes. Would just killing A be a better retribution, both morally and in that it doesn't leave A alive to hunt her down afterwards or throw a wrench in the plan sooner? Of course. B is also a mother who lost her only child, also the only family she had left. If she really did love the B, there's a strong chance she may no longer be sane, and good or evil alignment in the D&D sense may have no actual part in why her scheme is so viciously cruel.

As mentioned, I somehow doubt the comments the dragon should just 'breed more' (which she may not be capable of) a bit missing the point - you wouldn't tell a human that. We can't know for sure if the dragon loved her child or not, but if she didn't, this is awfully risky for her own safety in the long-term for a 'slight'.

True Ressurection is one of two possible 'save the dragon-kid' alternatives (the other being Wish, and then another sort of res spell). Both require someone capable of 9th level spells. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only 9th level spell I've seen thus far was Meteor Swarm, and the only thing stronger was an artifact-assisted cast of an epic spell. The dragon also went out of her way to mention that her son was not just dead, but left no corpse and she was unable to collect the ashes - chances are she might have access by some means to a regular res, then, but doesn't know any way to get a True Res.

Compounding the matter is, as also mentioned, there's absolutely no recourse for the dragon in terms of punishing V through 'authorities' or 'legal channels'.

There's two ways this is likely to go. Dropping the A and B thing now since I just wanted to disassociate the D&D stereotypes from the characters.
1) The dragon follows through on the threat and kills V's family, does the rest.
2) The dragon is slain before it can via some method.

To be honest, I don't like EITHER of these (on a moral sense. A good story could be done out of either though).

1) The family is innocent; the dragon's /feelings/ are justified but /acting/ on them is not. Moreover, this won't TEACH V anything about why her (I refuse to use double pronouns) actions have been so selfish lately. It will just lead to more vengeance, and likely increase V's thirst for power to accomplish it when it's that same thirst that is making it harder and harder for V to socialize with normal society (ironically at the same time Belkar starts figuring it out).

2) A horrible crime is prevented, but another is left not only unanswered, but without even a realization in V that she might have done anything wrong. V STILL doesn't learn anything about consequences or the downsides to her thirst for power, since a mechanism stops the downsides from taking place. Since this is a story and not real life, I'd say the latter is more important; V breathing a sigh of relief then going back to what she's been doing doesn't sit well.

The only way I see V to be sure to learn something, is if she somehow comes to terms with the dragon before the crime takes place. I have no idea how this might happen, though, as time is very short. The imp? He's not doing so hot, but maybe. If V had Teleport or Greater Teleport herself, I expect we'd have seen them by now in the comic, but also possible. Dragon getting held off until V arrives somehow? Less likely if she really has done the scouting she says she's done. Dragon finding herself unable to actually carry out the plans? Depends on how true to the D&D 'evil black' stereotype she is - if this is really about her son, and not being an evil black dragon, then she may find herself unable to make herself execute her scheme.

All in all, this comic is definitely serving its true purpose - making everyone itch and squirm and twitch waiting impatiently for the next installment!

Selene

2009-02-11, 03:09 PM

Perhaps he'll join with Redcloak to try to destroy the universe, rather than live with his pain (hello, Willow from Buffy... will Haley play Xander?).

I don't think Haley & V have the same kind of bond Willow and Xander have, so I'm thinking V would blast the world right through her. :smalleek:

silvadel

2009-02-11, 03:44 PM

Anything that damages/destroys/affects souls are orders of magnitude more evil than anything else that goes on in the campaign world. Even redcloak supports that (he is MUCH more (..) when something bad happens to even a human soul than ...

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-11, 03:44 PM

Yeah yeah, more debate fodder ;)

Let's ignore that it was a black dragon for a moment, because so far, the black dragons haven't DONE anything black-dragony, in classic D&D terms.
You can't ignore that it was a Black Dragon, because that's the entire point. Again, this is a fantasy world where good and evil aren't measured by whatever others think about you. The baseball player who was once thought good because of his clean image but who is discovered to have used a performance enhancing drug in violation of the rules of the game doesn't change alignment in the real world, people just think less of them. Not so in the D&D world. In that world, Good and Evil are measurable attributes of every intelligent being. Black Dragons are evil through and through, and are a menace to all good beings. It doesn't matter that we haven't seen any of this menace in the strip, it's not necessary to have to show it to have the audience know that these are evil beings who deserve to die by the simple fact that they are Evil.

If the Order had snuck in and killed it while it was sleeping and taken its hoard, that would have been a good act by virtue of eliminating an evil menace.

Bumbling into it in the area of darkness and killing it doesn't make it any less of a good act.

Killing it after dominating it doesn't make it any less of a good act.

And the death of the younger dragon does not make the vengeance the ABD is seeking in the most tiny way justified. Understandable, but not justified to any good being.

Leaving it alive out of some form of misguided and false "moral virtue" would have been an evil act, and the death or harm of anyone or anything harmed by the dragon would have been on the hands of all of the members of the Order.

Kish

2009-02-11, 03:51 PM

I see zero difference between those two. It is indeed "the way it is", and will remain "the way it is" even if some would like for it to be "some other way."

I pointed out that the perspective which you asserted, with no support whatsoever, was the right perspective in all D&D-based worlds (apparently including the one with the succubus paladin...) had been roundly rejected by every good-aligned protagonist in this story. Since then, you've talked about how deluded anyone in or out of the story who disagrees with you would be, but you still haven't offered any support for your claim but your own repeated assertions. All your posts on the subject seem to amount to, "It's Good to kill a black dragon and any further considerations are pointless, because it is and because I don't mind repeating this yet again." When Roy storms away from that adventuring party in OtOoPCs, in your view, are we supposed to shake our heads and think "poor deluded Roy should have stayed with them and killed the orcs"?

Rotipher

2009-02-11, 03:57 PM

Er, might the fact that the JBD's presence came as a complete surprise to the Order -- i.e. that they'd heard no stories about black dragons being in the vicinity of the starmetal -- imply that Mama and her son were not rampaging freely across the landscape, gulping down peasants at will? For all we know, the BD family has been lying low to avoid the attentions of adventurers, having already lost a member that way. If they'd been actively menacing humans in the region, surely somebody the Order met in town that day would've mentioned it: telling adventurers your troubles is one of the best ways to get pesky monsters removed from your neighborhood.

Heck, for all we know, Mama and Junior had been happily preying on goblins up to then. That'd put a nicely-ironic spin on things, as it'd put them on the same side as the Sapphire Guard! :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence

2009-02-11, 04:04 PM

the only book that suggests that "leaving evil creature alive is an evil act" is BoVD- and only for fiends, and even that is subject to local rules (it wouldn't apply in Sigil, for example, where fiends can be citizens)

After Fiends with 10% of population being Neutral or Good came out in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (Cambions- fiends and demons by virtue of being Extraplanr Outsiders with the Evil and Chaotic subtypes, native to the Abyss) I figured that phrase had finally passed its sell-by date.

Dragons, even Always Evil dragons, are even less covered.

EDIT:
The bit I take issue with is "And should be killed" given the number of evil characters in D&D novels and adventures who end up working on the same side as the heroes, thats an overly strong assertion.

when a black dragon is CE, how does this manifest itself. According to Draconomicon, they are "malicious and sadistic"

If this is directed at natural prey- the fish, crocodiles, and other wild beasties of the swamp, it may be objectionable, but not as much.

4th ed takes this and carries it further "those who aren't evil could be compared at best to hunting cats which get a sadistic delight out of playing with their prey"- very like 3.5 ed's CN Fang Dragon.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-11, 04:37 PM

I pointed out that the perspective which you asserted, with no support whatsoever, was the right perspective in all D&D-based worlds had been roundly rejected by every good-aligned protagonist in this story.No, you did not. You gave two examples. One of which I have no means to refer to, since it doesn't come from this comic. And so that is invalid for this discussion. The second being the party being unhappy with Belkar's kill mania, which they are always unhappy with. So again, not buying it.

The support I gave which you either ignore or refute, and I don't know which, is that in this fantasy world, Evil and Good are real and measurable. They have a substance which they can never have in our own world. This makes our own worlds moral values highly suspect when projected onto the residents of a D&D world.

the only book that suggests that "leaving evil creature alive is an evil act" is BoVD- and only for fiends, and even that is subject to local rules (it wouldn't apply in Sigil, for example, where fiends can be citizens)

After Fiends with 10% of population being Neutral or Good came out in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (Cambions- fiends and demons by virtue of being Extraplanr Outsiders with the Evil and Chaotic subtypes, native to the Abyss) I figured that phrase had finally passed its sell-by date.

Dragons, even Always Evil dragons, are even less covered.

Thanks for citing 2 books which I do not own, have not read, and haven't even seen for sale at any B&M game shop I've been in. But if citing non-core sources is fair game, then I'll point you at the literally dozens of modules where the players do exactly what is being described here: Kick down doors, kill Evil beings, and take their loot. Often there is an additional element of support for their actions: They are hired or commissioned by some Good king/ruler/noble/Priest/Wizard/god/whatever, and encouraged to do just this thing.

In addition, I have seen the "morality plot" used maybe 4 times, all to very horrible effect. It goes like this, but there can be many variations of course :

===
GM: Ok, so you've killed all the Orcs. What do you do?

Players: We collect their loot!

GM: (crafty grin on his face) What about all the unarmed females and children Orcs? What do you plan to do with them?

Player A: We kill them, of course. They are Evil and if left to their own devices they would be a threat to Good beings everywhere.

Player B: No, we must show mercy. We will take their wealth, but will leave them with food and drink and the rest of their belongings.

Player C: No, no! To take their treasure would inflict hardship upon them. We must leave everything, having accomplished what we came here to do, which is to rid the Good citizens of Fairmeadow of the blight of Orcs at the urgings of the Good Father Ronald.

[imagine any other alternative option or discussion of the first 3 options here]
===

And of course all, of the players are right. And of course, all of the players are wrong.

Any of those options or any variation on them can be interpreted as the wrong pick by the GM, and it's a poor GM who tries to trick his players into committing an evil act and change their alignment. This kind of projection of real world moral struggles into a D&D world is always a lousy option, unless by some slim chance all of the players and the GM have [i]exactly the same moral values and will agree in all cases. I offer this current discussion as an example of how unlikely this is.

But in a world where evil is not evil, it is Evil, things are very different. If you can measure Evil then things are suddenly not as grey anymore, are they? Once evil becomes Evil, then Player A is the only one who is right. Mercy is not required from Good people towards Evil, because that leaves Evil in the world. This is not to say that all Good people must be adventurers, and it also does not say that mercy is absolutely forbidden. Evil can be a small Evil, and some mercy can be extended in some cases.

But in the example of leaving an Evil Dragon alive after placing it under your power to kill, where any Good character is well aware that no promise from said Dragon is a surety against any possible future act it might take, is not an option. If the Evil Dragon is within your power to kill, then it must die. To do otherwise is to help Evil and to harm Good, and this is not the option any Good person would take.

EDIT:

EDIT:
The bit I take issue with is "And should be killed" given the number of evil characters in D&D novels and adventures who end up working on the same side as the heroes, thats an overly strong assertion.
I'm sorry, but I don't see "Hey, we should leave this Evil Black Dragon alive, because the legendary hero Dunderhead once teamed up with one in a tale I once heard a Bard tell!" as a serious alternative in a moral discussion of whether killing an Evil Dragon which has been Dominated by the party Wizard is a good idea or not.

hamishspence

2009-02-11, 04:44 PM

BoED would contradict that- mercy is required by good guys. Even mercy toward evil. (when it offers to surrender, and when it has been taken prisoner)

Which is not to say that Evil beings get off- redemption requires doing good things, and at least tring to rectify the evil done in the past.

But it is a standard principle of many D&D sourcebooks in the 3.5 era. (and even the 3.0 era- Manual of the Planes has a CE wizard in Celestia sincerely trying to change his ways- having struck an agreement with the LG celestial lords- he "still retains many of the instincts and attitudes of his former lifestyle")

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-11, 04:53 PM

BoED would contradict that- mercy is required by good guys.
Yet another non-core source which I don't own, have never read, and have never seen for sale on the shelves of a B&M gaming store.

And I don't agree with the conclusions it arrived at, because it appears as though the authors made a very fatal flow: They are projecting real world moral values into a world where Good and Evil are real and measurable, and this changes the very nature of morality. Mercy towards Evil is not a good act. Leaving an Evil Dragon alive when it is a near certainty that it will do evil can not be a sane and Good act.

But I'm curious. Which of the options would you take, in my hypothetical Orcs case above? Or what option, I should say, you are not limited to the three I listed. And why? And would you be upset in that game if the GM were to say later, speaking as the NPC Lord Ronald:

You picked A: You killed the women and children Orcs! How could you do such a dastardly thing? Get from my sight, I should never have asked you to help the village end the Orc threat had I known you were so foul!

You picked B: How could you leave the Orcs alive? Don't you understand, the things are Evil? They can not be reasoned with aside from the end of a blade. Get from my sight, you have offered our poor village a mere respite from our troubles.

You picked C: How could you leave the Orcs alive? And with the golds they stole from our good citizens during their raids! Begone, betrayers!

Because as I see it, if Evil is merely evil, if it is not a measurable attribute, then any of those three outcomes is a fair blindsiding of the players no matter which option whey chose. Again, it's real world morals projected onto a D&D game. But if Evil is Evil, a real and measurable attribute, then to faithfully carry out your duty to protect the village from the Orcs, then you must kill them all, including the unarmed women and children. Because, as Forest Gump might say, Evil is as Evil does.

Tobimaro

2009-02-11, 05:00 PM

Wow. This is harsh. But I can see a dragon, who is tired of seeing its kind turned into other people's clothing saying those words in panel 8.

She is pissed, and has the means to carry out her threats. This does not bode well for V's future. :smalleek:

hamishspence

2009-02-11, 05:05 PM

given that there are only 3 core books, and none of them go into morality in any depth, most discussions on "what morality means in a D&D context" draw on other WOTC D&D sources, because otherwise there is just too little material to give definitive answers one way or another.

Main point of BoED mercy is- when you grant it, you are also supposed to be working very hard to change the evil creatures ways (and sometimes, evil creatures start trying to change their own ways- killing them when they are only part-way to succeeding is not very just)

also, by the rules- virtually all evil creatures are capable of change- though fiends cant be changed by any act of the players, (except maybe use of Helm of Opposite Alignment), only DM fiat.

Kish

2009-02-11, 05:08 PM

No, you did not. You gave two examples. One of which I have no means to refer to, since it doesn't come from this comic. And so that is invalid for this discussion.

Well, if you assert a source is invalid it must be, eh?

The support I gave which you either ignore or refute, and I don't know which, is that in this fantasy world, Evil and Good are real and measurable. They have a substance which they can never have in our own world. This makes our own worlds moral values highly suspect when projected onto the residents of a D&D world.

Even if I granted your conclusion there, which I don't (more after this paragraph), it would still not grant you license to declare unilaterally what morality here is. You started from a specific assertion, two actually: It's not wrong to kill a black dragon, and it is wrong to not kill a black dragon.

Judging races instead of individuals is given, in the Player's Handbook, as an example of Lawful Evil behavior. All the descriptions of good and evil there are taken from our world, which should surprise no one who observes the world in which the books were written.

Thanks for citing 2 books which I do not own, have not read, and haven't even seen for sale at any B&M game shop I've been in. But if citing non-core sources is fair game,

What's this "non-core" business? Other than a label you seem to be sticking on both any D&D source that contradicts your assertions about all D&D worlds, and any OotS source that contradicts your assertions as they specifically apply to OotS?

then I'll point you at the literally dozens of modules

Unless Rich Burlew wrote the ones you're thinking of, I fail to see the relevance, but I can play here, too. Would Ruins of Adventure be one of them? You know...the one that specifies MASSIVE ALIGNMENT PENALTIES for killing orc noncombatants? (Will you ignore this reference like you did my pointing out WotC publishing a succubus paladin?)

But in a world where evil is not evil, it is Evil, things are very different. If you can measure Evil then things are suddenly not as grey anymore, are they? Once evil becomes Evil, then Player A is the only one who is right.

If by "right" you mean "thoroughly evil."

And then you proceed, in many words, to repeat your assertion that it's good to kill a black dragon and evil not to, yet again. Good and evil being detectable does not require or suggest those qualities being unchangeable. There are fallen celestials, redeemed fiends, and many more "nonstandard alignment" representatives of races with racial descriptions that include, "Often," "Usually," or "Always X Alignment." A heroic orc is no more remarkable than a villainous high elf.

For that matter, if what you were insisting on was true, why would there be nine alignments, much less racial gradations of "always," "often" and "usually"? Humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and those creatures the DM wants them to not kill for XP on sight are one of two alignments: Good. Always. Everything else is the other alignment: Evil. Always. Bam. I'm describing a game nothing like D&D, but I'm describing the game you're insisting D&D is.

Now, if you could look at any creature in the OotS world and immediately know, "This is evil and will always be" or, "This is good and will always be," you might have a point. But not only is that not the case in OotS, it's not the case in any D&D campaign unless the DM is deliberately choosing, and ignoring huge swaths of the sourcebooks to do so, to present a very simplistic videogame morality. Mercy is a Good quality--D&D is not ambiguous about that at all--and I can't think of any D&D characters who take the position "mercy is not required for good people toward evil" without promptly becoming evil themselves--though D&D characters who start out good, take that position, and go down in history as legendary villains are quite common: Elena Faith-hold, the Kingpriest of Istar....If you can come up with any actual examples, instead of just vaguely referencing "dozens of modules" again, I'll be quite surprised. It explains a lot that you haven't read the prequel books. I'll be amazed if you make it to the end of the online strip before leaving in disgust, but we'll see, won't we? I'm done here, I don't anticipate our understanding each other any better than we now do. The last word's yours.

Because, as Forest Gump might say, Evil is as Evil does.
...You know, words really do mean things. That quote is either meaninglessly glib or supports judging by actions, rather than green skin and fangs. In neither case does it support the position you're insisting on.

hamishspence

2009-02-11, 05:19 PM

now a point to remember is- while redeeming evil creatures is an ideal- one important priority for adventurers in D&D is the lives of others.

If a threat of homicide is clear and immediate, killing even a Good creature (that had been deceived or magically controlled) isn't always an evil act by BoVD rules.

But, the threat must be clear and immediate. A Good being who had been conned, attempting to destroy a village they erroneously believe to be populated entirely by fiends, is the example given- if the only way to stop the poisoning of the water supply is to kill the creature to prevent the mass murder, a Good adventurer is obliged to do so.

Hypothetical "future evils" are not covered by this though.

(using this criteria, had Roy reacted quickly enough to save Shojo's life by hurling a weapon straight into Miko's chest, it would not be an Evil act)

neriana

2009-02-11, 05:46 PM

No, you did not. You gave two examples. One of which I have no means to refer to, since it doesn't come from this comic. And so that is invalid for this discussion.

Wow. I'm trying to imagine what my professors would say if I turned in a paper with an argument that was flatly contradicted by many sources, and then claimed my argument was still valid because I hadn't consulted those sources. It would probably start with "ignorance is not a defense" though.

Shatteredtower

2009-02-11, 07:34 PM

Which is the point for our discussion. Holmes’ reasons are often defective from the view of real life, but that does not matter. They are valid from the view of the story. V’s logic is defective from the view of real life, but that just does not matter. Within the story, she is absolutely correct.

David, so many writers have savaged the Holmes' method of deduction because it's bad writing as well as bad reasoning. That is what makes V wrong.

596 clearly does show V as knowing Kubota had done more than death penalty level crime.

You keep claiming this, but never back it up. Very, well, a few quotes from the strip in question:

"I confess that I tired of those happenings some time ago and have paid them scant attention ever since."

V didn't care whether or not Kubota was behind the ninjas and devils "and all that stuff". You know... the bad stuff. The events didn't matter at all, and V was acting solely on appearances. But let's skip ahead:

"The man I killed was bound, and you were holding the rope. I therefore deduced that he was an enemy of some sort, and therefore a valid target."

That "enemy of some sort" comment should be setting off warning bells in your head right there. And now:

"As I landed on deck, I overheard him say something about his trial taking weeks -- and we all know that such would translate to 20 or 30 strips of humourless drudgery, likely involving those two idiot lawyers. Not if my index finger has anything to say about it."

V never once mentions the possibility that Kubota would get away with his crimes at the end of this trial. Not once in the entire strip. V has a lot to say about being inconvenienced, though, and more damning:

"According to your own words, he probably deserved death anyway."

Here's the key word: "probably.".After hearing what Elan had to say about Kubota, the best the elf can offer is "probably". In other words, V doesn't know at that point. Before Elan said anything, V had even less cause to know.

And without cause to know (not that V cared either), disintegrating a bound captive just to avoid a trial V wants to avoid is evil.

Oh, and let's not forget that the title of the strip is "Convenience Story" either.

Of course it is.

David, the expedient way for you to bring this argument to a close would be to shoot me in the head. That would be wrong. It's why disintegrating bound captives to avoid 20 to 30 strips of idiot lawyers is not acceptable either. It's not like V can't do off panel research. We know Haley managed to sneak in a shower during strips #273-7, after all.

People do have a right to complain when the killer gets off.

V didn't care whether or not that was a possibility, nor even what Kubota's crime might have been. V only cared about a lengthy trial.

But here they are getting both, and the trial threatened to give neither.

Elan isn't convinced, neither Durkon nor Hinjo would think so, and V didn't care. No, they're not getting either. Hinjo and Lien just have more questions now, as shown by their conversation in strip #599.

Why not? As noted, this is the first thing that V asks, before anyone even suggested there was a problem with his actions.

V's own actions for the last few months put the lie to that question. Neither will V even consider the possibility of having been wrong here.

So we have had months to discuss the situation, and have yet to come up with a safe plan.

Actually, we have months in which the situation wasn't discussed, something entirely different. It also has nothing to do with:

Given the predictable reaction of the dragon, there is no safe plan, merely a choice of where and how you fight it.

Taking the hours available to you to ask questions is the safe plan -- safer than a 5% chance of missing a creature that has a decent chance of making its saving throw against a disintegrate spell even if you do hit, doing less damage than explosive runes would.

That's an acceptable last resort plan, but V made certain that it would have to be the only option. When you have half a day to talk with a prisoner you can compel to answer you honestly, that is not acceptable.

Nor was there any reason the party could not ask the dragon...

Unless V instructed the dragon to answer them, it was magically compelled to be unable to answer them.

...and then ask the lizard to ask the dragon.

Why would it occur to them that the only way they could get the dragon to answer questions would be to ask V to ask him?

Blame can not be assigned here to V in particular.

As the one holding the team captive with the threat of letting a dragon eat them, it most certainly can.

And as has been noted, this is a charge of stupidity, not sin.

Using the threat of becoming dragon chow to imprison your teammates fits quite nicely in the sin category. That's wrath. Setting things up so only you can save the day once you're back to looking like you usually do is pride. Forcing everyone to sit tight, unable to do anything for eleven hours, and not caring to learn a thing about your host n all that time is sloth.

You do not break in when you walk in an open door [absent “keep out” signs or such]

Actually, you can. Misrepresenting your reason for being allowed to cross over a threshhold consitutes breaking. Coming down the chimney works too, as a matter of fact. But fine then: they were trespassing.

Nor did they try to take anything until after the dragon was dead and no longer owned it.

If you kill me and take my stuff, you are still stealing from me. And if I'm looking after my mother's house, you'd actually be stealing her stuff. Furthermore, if she's my only immediately relative to survive me, that generally means that any of my stuff I happen to have lying around would become her stuff, not yours. There's a possibility that the government might claim it, but you're not the government -- and neither was the Order in the case of the two dragons.

When he has every intention and ability to kill you after those eleven hours, that is clear self defense and does not require any delay in defending yourself.

Not if the only reason he got the opportunity was because you held him there until you were ready to shoot him first -- as V did. Not if there was any chance to avoid that intention, which V had all the time in the world to attempt.

You have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it could not have possibly worked. You have never once come close to doing so.

That is what the comic presents as certainity.

No, it presents it as what happened. That is not the same thing at all. Until it was shown, it was merely a possibility -- an extremely likely possibility, perhaps, but still only a possibility.

If you want a precise figure, no I can’t. If you want a general figure, yes I can. The dragon’s every action has been hostile to the party and the idea it will just let the party escape is wishful thinking.

"Well, yes. Mom taught me Lizard, said it was important to study other cultures."

Nothing hostile about that statement at all, especially since it's being delivered while ignoring an arrow bouncing off his cheek.

And once again, Elan survived four rounds of that hostility pinned under the dragon's right foreclaw. Seems like an admirable example of restraint under the circumstances, if you'll pardon the pun.

Possibly, but recall this strip is drawn on the principle that the PCs will not see the superior tactic that will work right away. We can not deduct something about V’s morals from his failure to see a particular tactic.

After three months, that excuse would have been long worn out. Refusing to consider another option and then blaming the guy who'd insisted that it was well past time to do so for obstructing your effort to save the world is a moral failing.

Which challenges your claim that Kubota was killed for V’s convenience.

Since V didn't care how this affected Hinjo or Elan, nor even show any concern for what Kubota had done or whether he'd have gotten off at the end of the trial, it can be for nothing but V's convenience.

Which is irrelevant. That people don’t deserve to be killed is the default. We need to examine the reasons for a given killing.

Avoiding 20 to 30 strips of trial. Offering a lot of circumstantial reasoning in place of evidence. Concluding that the person V killed "probably" deserved it based on what Elan had to say after he'd been killed.

Killing someone you'd enslaved and used to imprison your teammates without making an effort to find a less fatal solution because your control was about to expire.

But because Elan had reasons, so did V.

Elan's "I guess..." indicates that they weren't reason to do more than capture Kubota and turn him in. V's after-the-fact "probably" indicates that V had no valid reason whatsoever.

Why?

You ask why it's wrong to kill someone else's prisoner with no concern for what the prisoner may actually have done or for the captor's wishes? You can't see why that's wrong?

And we know rather well that Kubota did deserve to die.

V didn't. That's why it was wrong.

Nope. Elan misunderstandings are marked as such, and immediately visible to observers. Moreover, they do not involve dramatic conventions, where Elan acts as a idiot savant. Since we are talking dramatic convention, Elan is right, and V knows that.

Wow. That sounds exactly like the sort of argument Holmes would make -- fancy, insubstantial, and unsupported by facts. Sure would be nice if Sir Arthur could make it right anyway, wouldn't it?

But V does care that Kubota has committed crimes...

If V doesn't know what the crime was, V can't honestly make that claim. That is most certainly not a trivial point.

They are, however, limited by being just threats.

Pointing a loaded gun -- or an empty dragon -- at someone for half the day goes well beyond the crime of "uttering threats". So does killing someone and making it clear that other targets are also being considered.

Particularly in the case of Elan, we see that when push comes to shove, V does not carry out those threats. A threat is only a threat to the extent you believe it will be carried out.

So if you know that it's a threat, but Elan was oblivious to it, it's not a threat, even though it just killed someone else in front of Elan?

Try 508 where one ship loses 14 people and there were no survivors on another, and where we find there have been a whole series of attacks.

Point.

About the only thing that will keep the tab out of the hundreds is an early success, or V dusting him.

Wishful thinking.

Kilyle

2009-02-11, 08:04 PM

Sorry if someone's already brought this up, but... my default assumption regarding the original dragon is "Here's this dragon in our way; we have to kill it before we proceed." I assume the team was operating under this assumption.

Was there a way to get out and leave the dragon alive? Sure. Was there good reason for them to think along those lines? No. They're a team formed around combat skills, so they're not the sneaky types unless they have to be. And that dragon was a great big pile of XP.

Adventuring tends to divide the world into neat little boxes. Offhand, I'd say Friend, Neutral, Mild Obstruction (the kind you don't kill), Humanoid Enemy (the kind you take out via law and order), and Enemy (the kind you just kill).

Now, by "humanoid" I mean the ones who might be found in any human town, cheerfully chatting up the barkeep, with the town sheriff seated nearby. I don't mean the "evil humanoid races" (goblins, ogres, trolls, etc.) - they fit under Enemy. So do some humans - see The Slayers where Lina uses this defense to take out whole groups of bandits, and nobody cares.

Kubota was a Humanoid Enemy, so just killing him raises all sorts of ethical problems. The black dragon kid was just an Enemy, so killing him doesn't raise any ethical problems. That their race is Always Chaotic Evil just solidifies that impression. This world is not a nice one, and killing Enemies is something like killing mice - yeah, there might have been a way to do it without killing them, but no one faults you for laying traps.

Goblins is examining this issue from the flip side, deconstructing it to show the prejudice that exists in a world where humans assume that goblins are XP fodder. Order of the Stick isn't even close to that level of deconstruction. Yes, there's a bit of it from Redcloak's side, and Celia's, and this dragon, but this group has waded through countless enemies whose deaths don't even merit a blip on the Karma Meter. How about Belkar and the "You killed my father!" guy?

Yes, it's easy to look at the dragon's situation as though he were a human teenager. But he's not a human teenager, and the strip has not encouraged the team to see black dragons as worthy of the same sort of consideration as humans... until now, and even that's in question.

I like that they're starting to examine the issue, but really, there's no reason to go back to the original scene and go "You guys should have found a way to leave without killing the dragon, and because you didn't, you're getting punished now." They had no reason to handle the situation differently, and this ultimate consequence isn't deserved, it's just...unforeseen.

Fargo1168

2009-02-11, 08:30 PM

Why haven't there been any implications before this moment, though? The team has gone through a bunch of random monsters; goblins, hobgoblins, this dragon. Each and every one of them has a backstory. Goblins and the like don't just pop out of mid-air.

"I want to fight something!" Pop!

They too have backstories, maybe not as significant. Everyone has a family. Is this action different just because we see the reprecussions "onscreen?"

My first post! Yay!

A Quiet Person

2009-02-11, 09:03 PM

I can't believe that I haven't really noticed it before, but it's quite striking - when I actually look for it - just how much of these discussion threads are taken up with discourse about who deserves what.

OoTS readers really seem to look closely at the story to see what moral judgements its making of its own characters. I chalk this up to Roy's interview before he entered the afterlife and all of the little sermons on alignment that have cropped up in the story. I doubt the early OoTS material would have attracted the same sort of analysis.

My current thought on the OoTS story is: where is it going with this?

We already know that V is messed up by the idea of helplessness, due to running out of spells in Azure City. So what does the story achieve by driving V deeper into that - throwing the character against an adversary to whom V is practically impotent, and apparently resulting in the deaths of people far more precious to V than Azure City soldiers? Does it help the plot if V is even more of a wreck?

Is it supposed to be instant karma for being ruthless and separating from the Order? The dragon says that she waited for V to be alone. But... that seems a very contrived and over the top way of delivering a "comeuppance". You left the team - but what will oblige you to return to the party is that an ancient black dragon will kill your family and there's nothing you could do to stop it on your own!

If we treat OoTS as a story told like a RPG game, then what's happening to V looks like a punishing railroad plot for a PC - perhaps that's intentional.

SporeGames

2009-02-11, 09:08 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 disagree
in my opinion

KILL THE KIDS LET THEM BURN IN THE NINE HELLS. YOU KNOW WHAT? KILLING'S TO GOOD FOR THEM , THEY SHOULD BE DISEMBOWELED ! YEAH! AND INCINERATED TOO. ALL WHILE KEPT ALIVE WITH MAGIC. NO. ON SECOND THOUGHT (BURNING'S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! HANGING'S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! THEY SHOULD BE TORN INTO LITTLE-BITSY PIECES AND BURIED ALIVE! AND THERE HOT *ILF OF A PARENT SHOULD WATCH!

in less homicidal tones it seems this has already happened , judging by what the dragon said it’ll only take a second and Rich has a built in sensor of us not being there. we can just assume there deader than dead after a few rounds pass.

(and really my bets were on V being female with the whole sleeping in the room Haley gets whenever they hit an inn and a whole bunch of things but millions died in the flame wars and quote pyramids before me so I'll let it slide)

(NOTE: TV Trope link where appropriate)

Fargo1168

2009-02-11, 09:22 PM

KILL THE KIDS LET THEM BURN IN THE NINE HELLS. YOU KNOW WHAT? KILLING'S TO GOOD FOR THEM , THEY SHOULD BE DISEMBOWELED ! YEAH! AND INCINERATED TOO. ALL WHILE KEPT ALIVE WITH MAGIC. NO. ON SECOND THOUGHT (BURNING'S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! HANGING'S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! THEY SHOULD BE TORN INTO LITTLE-BITSY PIECES AND BURIED ALIVE! AND THERE HOT ELF OF A PARENT SHOULD WATCH!

That seems kinda rough, seeing as they've only been in one strip and there hasn't been time to get to know them yet. All we know is that they are (1) related to V, and (2) they're kids. Not a lot to go on, screaming for their blood. Seriously.

SporeGames

2009-02-11, 09:43 PM

Reminds me of Redcloak, he seems to keep forgetting the majority of his race is Evil. And instead of trying to change his people's culture (which at the end of the day is their own) so they slowly gain more respect the right way, he does as any modern man and choses to change the world to suit them.

She IS a hypocrite, she venomously declares she, her son, and her kind is MORE than just their alignment and type, and goes and proves she's just that.

"Even the sinful care for their loved ones."

If she had proven she had the chance to kill V's loved ones and chose not to (WITHOUT planning to later), she'd have proven she was made of better stuff than her DNA, but instead she proves she's chosen to be a slave to it.

How is it possible to choose to be a slave. If someon ekille dme because they thought I was a gun toting balck man I would more than lilely tote a gun. It's really just a circumstional coincidence

and to reply to Fargoo ther eleves. And I doubt that being raised by V and someone V would willing marry/sllep with I doubt that they would care. Throughout teh story everybody has been seen as caring about only oin ething : ther reown . From Roy an dhi sfeud to Haley and treasure/Elan to V and.. whatevr to Bely and killing to the theives guild and thneiving to tredcolak and the goblins its shown that evryone has an alterior motive and doenst care what happpens as long as that motice get sought out in short its a world full of *******s

(REALLY sorry but don't hav etime to spell check but post is to important not to send i'll edit when i hav emore felxibiklty. again sorry.)

BillyJimBoBob

2009-02-17, 12:36 PM

Well, if you assert a source is invalid it must be, eh?Just as if you insist a source is valid, it must be? Most discussions of D&D rules omit non-core sources for the simple reason that if you admit everything not only do you find much contradiction, but you also are insisting that every person who wants to hold an opinion must have purchased $500.00 worth of source materials for that opinion to be at all valid. Either of which is a preposterous presumption.

If you want to hold that all non-core sources are valid, then please stop citing the specific sources which support your side, I will fully admit that you can find a few sources where "morality play" is the theme. The succubus paladin, and the many ways in which the scenarios of "Oh, my, what do we do with these Evil, but currently unarmed women and children of the race which, until we killed all their men-folk (a Good act in the context of the module) were a huge threat. They aren't now, but we know from experience that they probably will in the future. Enjoy our anguish as we try to decide the predetermined "Good" course of action." can play out. Bah.

Instead cite why the general sources which support my side are to be considered less valid. I own a decent number of D&D modules. Not many of which include any kind of "morality play". The vast majority are simple dungeon romps similar to the ones I have described earlier in this thread. The players kick in a door, kill the monsters, and take their loot. Often at the specific request of some outside authority which is described as being Good. There are no issues of morality, and often the women and children of any Evil humanoid race are simply monsters with lesser stats, who get cut down just as the men do.

And then you proceed, in many words, to repeat your assertion that it's good to kill a black dragon and evil not to, yet again. Good and evil being detectable does not require or suggest those qualities being unchangeable. There are fallen celestials, redeemed fiends, and many more "nonstandard alignment" representatives of races with racial descriptions that include, "Often," "Usually," or "Always X Alignment." A heroic orc is no more remarkable than a villainous high elf.You lost me at you last sentance. Was it intended to be connected? I've never said that a heroic (i.e. Good) Orc needs to be killed, or that a villainous Elf (i.e. Evil) must be spared. I've said that Evil must be slain when it is reasonable and possible to do so, because to not do so leaves Evil in the world.

It explains a lot that you haven't read the prequel books. I'll be amazed if you make it to the end of the online strip before leaving in disgust, but we'll see, won't we?What the hell? What kind of comments are these? I haven't purchased something I need to buy online, means what to you, exactly? Be careful! And who the hell are you to try to pop-analyze my enjoyment of this "online strip"? Take a hike, I don't need any of that from some anonymous user ID.

Wow. I'm trying to imagine what my professors would say if I turned in a paper with an argument that was flatly contradicted by many sources, and then claimed my argument was still valid because I hadn't consulted those sources. It would probably start with "ignorance is not a defense" though.Wow. I'm trying to imagine what your professors must be like if they consider flat contradictions from any source at all as invalidating your work. Must be hard to get a passing grade, because I can find a contradicting source for just about any topic you might like to write about. You want to claim the Earth is round? I can find sources to refute that. The sun is at the center of the solar system? Not according the Catholic Church doctrine of the time this theory was released, or even the prior scientific theory. Matter is made up of unique atoms? Nope, it's all earth, air, fire, and water, as can be "proven" by scientific tests repeatable today.

Please, if you are in college then you already know better than to say that every source is valid just because it's been published.

David Argall

2009-02-19, 01:37 AM

so many writers have savaged the Holmes' method of deduction because it's bad writing as well as bad reasoning. That is what makes V wrong.
By the most common standards, it was quite good writing. A huge percentage of the audience was familiar with the figure and what it meant. The later writers only savage it because it is so popular.
However, this is simply acknowledging that the flaw [if any] is the writer’s, not V’s. V makes her decision within the story, and it does not matter if the story is badly or well written. It is the logic, flawed or not, of the story that counts.

"According to your own words, he probably deserved death anyway."

Here's the key word: "probably.".After hearing what Elan had to say about Kubota, the best the elf can offer is "probably".
The key phrase here is “According to your own words…” V was not speaking from her point of view here. She was speaking from Elan’s. In essence, V is saying “You got what you wanted, the execution of the guilty. What are you complaining about?”

And without cause to know (not that V cared either), disintegrating a bound captive just to avoid a trial V wants to avoid is evil.
But he did know that Kubota was guilty of crime, and that crime was major. V did not dust him Just to avoid a trial.

, the expedient way for you to bring this argument to a close would be to shoot me in the head. That would be wrong. It's why disintegrating bound captives to avoid 20 to 30 strips of idiot lawyers is not acceptable either.
But you have not done crimes worthy of being tied up by Elan [at least to my direct or indirect knowledge]. That is why it would be wrong, and why V did not dispose of Elan.

V didn't care whether or not that was a possibility, nor even what Kubota's crime might have been. V only cared about a lengthy trial.
You keep on trying to slip in “only”, “just”, etc, and the simple fact is that was not V sole motive. We can call it the straw that broke the camel’s back, but that camel was already under a heavy load. V was fully aware he was justified in killing Kubota.

Elan isn't convinced,
As noted, Elan is an idiot savant, and this is not a subject he is skilled at.

neither Durkon nor Hinjo would think so, and V didn't care.
Of course not. They are lawful and want the trial despite the chance the guilty will get off.

No, they're not getting either. Hinjo and Lien just have more questions now, as shown by their conversation in strip #599.
So? And why should a CG care?

V's own actions for the last few months put the lie to that question.
How so?

Actually, we have months in which the situation wasn't discussed, something entirely different.
Not really. It was entirely possible to bring this up at any time, and you will note that subjects are frequently revived.

That's an acceptable last resort plan, but V made certain that it would have to be the only option. When you have half a day to talk with a prisoner you can compel to answer you honestly, that is not acceptable.
“Don’t blame on cupidity what can be credited to stupidity.” This is especially true in a comic. V was not making sure it would be the only option. She was assuming it was the best alternative.

Why would it occur to them that the only way they could get the dragon to answer questions would be to ask V to ask him?
Why wouldn’t it? It seems a highly obvious thing to try.

As the one holding the team captive with the threat of letting a dragon eat them, it most certainly can.
But we hear no protests from the party, except to the part of the orders that makes the most sense, restoring V.

Using the threat of becoming dragon chow to imprison your teammates fits quite nicely in the sin category. That's wrath. Setting things up so only you can save the day once you're back to looking like you usually do is pride.
Again you are trying to assign motive to V without any evidence this was

Forcing everyone to sit tight, unable to do anything for eleven hours, and not caring to learn a thing about your host n all that time is sloth.
No, it is convenience for the writer, who does not want to deal with two subjects at the same time.

Misrepresenting your reason for being allowed to cross over a threshhold consitutes breaking. Coming down the chimney works too, as a matter of fact.
Neither of which applies here.

But fine then: they were trespassing.
Which is not an offense absent intent to trespass. Merely being in the dragon’s home is not trespass. They must know they are forbidden to enter.

If you kill me and take my stuff, you are still stealing from me.
In a society where you are presumed to have an heir, yes. But the dragon is presumed to have no heir. His property becomes ownerless with his death.

And if I'm looking after my mother's house, you'd actually be stealing her stuff.
Ma might have a property case against the party. She would not have a criminal case. [There is no reason for the party to think Ma still had relations with Junior. Dragons are rather loners, especially at her age.] Now she would need to prove this was her property, and we can presume that most or all was acquired by various criminal means.

There's a possibility that the government might claim it, but you're not the government -- and neither was the Order in the case of the two dragons.
There was no government in the area to claim it.

Not if the only reason he got the opportunity was because you held him there until you were ready to shoot him first -- as V did. Not if there was any chance to avoid that intention, which V had all the time in the world to attempt.
The dragon was being held at bay the entire time. There was no moral duty to run away, particularly when the presumption is that the dragon would just chase them down.

You have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it could not have possibly worked. You have never once come close to doing so.
Now note this works two ways. If I have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, so do you, which makes your entire case against V inadequate. But this is a comic. By definition, it gives us inadequate information on most every point. We accordingly do not have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. We use merely the preponderance of the evidence.

"Well, yes. Mom taught me Lizard, said it was important to study other cultures."

Nothing hostile about that statement at all, especially since it's being delivered while ignoring an arrow bouncing off his cheek.
Also nothing unhostile. The thug holding you at gunpoint can brag all he wants about his college education.

The arrow, and other things, were there to show how clearly the dragon was dominating the battle.

And once again, Elan survived four rounds of that hostility pinned under the dragon's right foreclaw. Seems like an admirable example of restraint under the circumstances, if you'll pardon the pun.
You are assuming precise following of battle detail here, which is not the case. The fight was a showcase for V and had no serious accuracy.
If we give it accuracy, we have the point that there is no way Elan should be under the dragon, unless the dragon was the aggressor in the battle.

After three months, that excuse would have been long worn out. Refusing to consider another option and then blaming the guy who'd insisted that it was well past time to do so for obstructing your effort to save the world is a moral failing.
Not in a comedy, or really any place else. People can be stubborn. Not to mention that V’s idea seems reasonable. And what alternative did Durkon suggest? As near as can be told, he had no real idea of how to continue.

Since V didn't care how this affected Hinjo or Elan, nor even show any concern for what Kubota had done or whether he'd have gotten off at the end of the trial, it can be for nothing but V's convenience.
How? Your own words are that it would not be inconvenient for her.

Avoiding 20 to 30 strips of trial. Offering a lot of circumstantial reasoning in place of evidence. Concluding that the person V killed "probably" deserved it based on what Elan had to say after he'd been killed.
V concluded that Kubota CERTAINLY deserved it. Elan had acknowledged he probably deserved it.

Killing someone you'd enslaved and used to imprison your teammates without making an effort to find a less fatal solution because your control was about to expire.
Trying to avoid killing a killer may get some moral bennies, but killing him is not going to raise many eyebrows.

You ask why it's wrong to kill someone else's prisoner with no concern for what the prisoner may actually have done or for the captor's wishes? You can't see why that's wrong?
When I know he deserves killing and he will cause trouble if allowed to live, nope.

V didn't. That's why it was wrong.
V did, absolutely. She did not know the particular crime, but he knew quite well that he was guilty.

Wow. That sounds exactly like the sort of argument Holmes would make -- fancy, insubstantial, and unsupported by facts. Sure would be nice if Sir Arthur could make it right anyway, wouldn't it?
And your comment is the sort of answer we expect someone without a serious response.

If V doesn't know what the crime was, V can't honestly make that claim.
Why not?

Pointing a loaded gun -- or an empty dragon -- at someone for half the day goes well beyond the crime of "uttering threats". So does killing someone and making it clear that other targets are also being considered.
Nope. They are still just threats.