Will now V turn evil?

[VladtheLad]

It seems all the conditions are met.

Left some of his allies to their deaths.
Abandoned his friends.
Started talking with the imp.
Now its his fault his family will die.

Yoda sequence will initiate:
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Anger leads to hate being the key part.

I suppose now is great opportunity for the imp to "drag him down".

[Evil DM Mark3]

For the first time in the whole debacle I think that V may well be willing to be evil. Yes, he might turn evil soon.

[VladtheLad]

You know I would be certain he will now turn evil.

Its just that the Giant might be on purpose giving off that impression, just to make us believe so.

Remember the undead Miko...

[Jural]

the temptation certainly is there, but V has not convincingly been swayed by it yet, IMHO.

I can guarantee one thing: this conflict will be part of the V character development. I don't know if it will be resolved in the next 1, 10, or 100 strips though...

I wonder if Qarr will be there as an "anti-Jimmeny Cricket" along the way?

[King of Nowhere]

Probably now V will dismiss dimensional anchor on Quarr, and ask him to teleport. Quarr will ask something in exchange. However, I don't think that will make V evil: the situation is so desperate that V is justified in doing some evil to save hir children.

[snafu]

If V were a Jedi, I'd say yes, definitely. But she's a wizard. Not the same thing.

There might be a Chaotic way out of this. Make a deal with the imp; agree to whatever he wants; teleport there, rescue the family, teleport out again, and by the time the dragon catches up hopefully she'll be able to recharge spells, and find some backup.

When it comes time to pay the price, instead of doing whatever Evil deed was demanded, just kill the imp.

[Ladorak]

Indeed; with the Imp on hand as the only possible way of saving h** children...

Frankly I'd do anything, and although I swore I'd never make a '4 words' prediction, maybe those 4 words will turn out to be something along the lines of 'Please, I'll do anything.'

I like this story arc immensely incidently:smallsmile: And not just because of my passionate hatred of Elves.

[MickJay]

It could very well happen, "serve the forces of evil for 101 years and I'll give you a shot at saving your kids" kind of deal with Qarr seems at the moment very plausible to me.

Then again, even if such deal is made it doesn't necessarily mean V will become genuinely evil, either. He could crack if he made the deal, and teleported only to helplessly witness killing of his family, though.

edit: I dont' really see how making the deal with Qarr could be "for all the wrong reasons" to fit the prophecy - now, if V made the deal with the dragon after she finished killing his family, that would be quite different (it's just far-fetched enough to be possible, and could fulfill all of the conditions of the prophecy - right time, right being and the wrong reasons, whatever they might be).

[Kaytara]

It seems all the conditions are met.

Left some of his allies to their deaths.
Abandoned his friends.
Started talking with the imp.
Now its his fault his family will die.


Your reasons are rather hazy. V did not leave Elan and Durkon to their deaths, he left them in the snuggly care of a whole fleet and two high-level paladins, one of them the highest ranking noble who would put any amount of resources into keeping them alive. (Unless you mean someone else, in which case I have no idea whom.)

And he only talked with the imp as long as he needed to find out why the imp was there, which was a smart decision, since Qarr might have been there at the bidding of a much more powerful devil, which is something you'd rather be aware about.

I don't think V will turn evil because the only way for it to happen would be, IMO, for the dragon to actually succeed, and I don't think the Giant is going to make the comic quite that morbid.

No, the real problem now is that Qarr will have heard all that and thus knows that he is holding all the bargaining chips. Vaarsuvius needs to get there in a matter of seconds or it will be too late. Qarr can pretty much ask anything of V and the elf will have no choice but to accept.

To top it off, Qarr has been nearly disintegrated by V and may now feel inclined to make sure the elf gets screwed over in whatever deal they strike.

[Big Al]

Here is what I predict will happen:

V will make deal with imp

V will remove dimensional anchor.

Imp will teleport and warn V's family.

Whether he saves them or not, V will have to work with the imp as part of the deal.

Imp will try to corrupt V. Will he succeed? Only Rick knows.

[tomaO2]

You guys are looking at the evil angle all wrong. If V gained her ultimate power by striking a deal with the devil in order to save her children, that would not be for "all the wrong reasons".

There is only one way this works.

I suppose I should spoiler this because I have not read anyone else come up with this plot idea. Although someone probably did. Not that I think it will happen.

At least. I hope not.

Anyway, the only way this works (in my mind) is...

The dragon eats the kids and then V makes her pact with the devil to gain revenge.

That fits the idea of V, evil and ultimate power perfectly.

[MattR]

'For all the wrong reasons'

1) Becoming evil to get revenge because you *think* your family is dead might fit that. Qarr might teleport and then say he was too late to stop the dragon.

2) Wouldnt becoming evil i.e. playing a role, be for the wrong reasons because your heart isnt in it at all?

[toysailor]

You guys are looking at the evil angle all wrong. If V gained her ultimate power by striking a deal with the devil in order to save her children, that would not be for "all the wrong reasons".

There is only one way this works.

I suppose I should spoiler this because I have not read anyone else come up with this plot idea. Although someone probably did. Not that I think it will happen.

At least. I hope not.

Anyway, the only way this works (in my mind) is...

The dragon eats the kids and then V makes her pact with the devil to gain revenge.

That fits the idea of V, evil and ultimate power perfectly.


I like that idea.

And of course, s/he will come back in black robes and save the rest of the party a la Raistlin Majere mode in the final showdown =)

[Cracklord]

So far we have been given no indication that V has the slightest respect for Quarr, and would even consider him as a possible avenue to success. V has always relied on his/her/both/it's/whatever the hell's own abilities before looking to other alternatives. Now perhaps the imp will approach him/her/both/neither/something I guess, but I doubt Quarr is feeling all that receptive. I have to go with the whole revenge theory that was presented by tomaO2.

As for will V turn evil, I am of the conviction that he/she/them/it already is, just have his/her/both/its just yet to fully comes to terms with it. I feel that V has been since that stint with Kabuto. It just needs to be made official

But with so much ground still to cross in the comic I can't help but feel that complete arcane power may come a lot later, and she only gets some of it at this stage.

And perhaps this is all a red herring and V's decision is made rather later in the story, to someone rather higher on the food chain. This doesn't mean your wrong, I probably am.
QED

[Iranon]

My guess is 'no', for a very simple reason: Redundancy.

V would make a chilling villain as is, while still being Neutral on the Good/Evil axis... and a more interesting one. An obvious descent into Evil would be cliché

[Tempest Fennac]

I disagree that abandoning the soldiers was remotely evil; V was incapable of doing anything to save them, and they were stupid enough to throw their weapons away before stopping to try to get V to help even though they couldn't be certain it was V who they bumped into him/her. If V had said anything, that would have put him/her at needless risk for no gain. (The soldiers weren't that likely to be able to escape thanks to stopping in the first place).

[Cracklord]

So its ok to sacrifice yourself to save your brother, but not ok to save your aunt? I can't do good because it will have no obvious benefit? That is cold, logical, and egotistical. I'm more important then everyone else reasoning at it's finest. Not and evil act, but not one I'd call a good one either. But killing a man in cold blood for your own convenience? Evil at it's finest.

And cliché's become cliché for a reason. An idea does not get over-used for no reason. Ask any post-modernist.
QED

[Kaytara]

So its ok to sacrifice yourself to save your brother, but not ok to save your aunt? I can't do good because it will have no obvious benefit? That is cold, logical, and egotistical. I'm more important then everyone else reasoning at it's finest.

If you're replying to what Tempest Fennac said, you must have misunderstood.

I can't do good because it will have no obvious benefit?
The point is, at the end of the battle Vaarsuvius was NOT capable of doing good. When Tempest Fennac says V will have endangered himself for no gain, I think he meant that V wouldn't have been able to help them.
Which is true. V doesn't carry a weapon and even if he did, he's not a combat type. And he was already injured. There was nothing he could do against the goblins.


Not and evil act, but not one I'd call a good one either. But killing a man in cold blood for your own convenience? Evil at it's finest.
I merely wish to point out that "in cold blood" is something that is very difficult to apply in DnD, as characters can use every trick up their sleeves to cause harm while taking advantage of someone else's misguided mercy.
To sum up my views on the matter, a prisoner should only be able to count on being spared in his surrender if he has actually surrendered and ceased hostilities rather than just laid down pointy weapons. A character who is just using the 'unarmed prisoner' shtick to stab you in the back later should not have the benefit of being spared.

Mercy should be a means of preventing bloodshed. It should not be a tool for the villain to screw the noble guy over with.

Apart from that, you have to differentiate what you mean by killing for your own convenience. Vaarsuvius didn't smoke him because his name was too difficult to pronounce, or because he was just in the way, or because he happened to like Kubota's armour. He smoked him because he perceived him to be a major obstacle in achieving his goal, which is saving his friends, not to mention the whole world. That may not necessarily make it good, but V's motives were not by any measure selfish.
So, basically, it was not V's own convenience.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for clarifying my point, Kaytara.:smallsmile: If V could have saved them, it would have been different. On the other hand, if s/he had done anything then, it would have just meant risking his/her own life needlessly (I'd class saving the soldiers as a benefit). I agree with your point about taking people prisoner being dangerous as well, especially considering how much backing Kubota appeared to have (a lot of the other nobles probably blamed Hinjo for losing the city after failing to even attempt to negotiate with Xykon).

[Cracklord]

No Kaytara, it still was his own convenience, it was just his convenience towards a greater cause.

The other day I saw a man, late forties and out of shape, get between two twenty year olds who were about to come to blows. Naturally he got injured instead. But he did the right thing, even though it cost him instead of a total stranger. He had no duty to do so, he didn't look like a cop, and even if he was he wasn't in uniform.

It's easy to do good when you can reprogram physics with your mind. It's quite another to put your arse on the line for someone you don't know when there is no obvious benefit to you. If you only do good when you know your totally secure and in no way placing yourself in harm then whatever you give is token at best.

Mind you, it's not evil to do nothing. I didn't. No one else in the mall did either until it was over. Does that make us evil? No. Cowardly, maybe. I advise you to read about the Kitty Genovese case. Were the people here who did nothing evil? I think so. Sure, they could have got hurt, but surely that's better then letting someone die.

That's the answer real world ethics gives. As to game world ethics, well in 8 Bit theatre it's considered fine for Black Mage Evilwizardington to kill whoever he wants as they are NPC's and therefore not really alive.

But I feel that yes, V's decision not to do anything was a evilish act, say a .3 of a KiloNazi.
QED

[Cracklord]

Oh and Kabutu had specifically said "I surrender", not just layed down his weapons, and had allowed himself to be tied up. He was wearing full plate armor, or something close, so was not a spellcaster. HE WAS IN NO WAY A THREAT. V specifically said that he/she whatever the hell killed the man to keep the spotlight from going to another tedious trial scene.
When did this become moral?
QED

[Tempest Fennac]

My stance is that it depends on the actual risk to you. I have next to no melee combat capabilities so there wouldn't be any point in me trying to prevent someone being attacked unless there was a weapon which I could use effectively nearby. I was refering to Kubota being a threat due to his political connections. Besides, just because he was never a threat without Black Lotus Extract, there are other cases in D&D games where captives are perfectly able to become a threat (eg: the Order knew full well that there was a chance that Sabine would try to rescue Name and Thog and that the low-level Warriors who were town guards wouldn't stand a chance against her, but they decided to hand them over rather then killing them and chopping them up before feeding them to the monsters to minimize the chances of them being raised, which resulted in over 400 deaths).

As far as I'm concerned, evil people would only surrender because they knew you had them beaten at that moment. If they are kept alive, they are still a threat to you. If Kubota was found innocent during the trial, he would have still been a threat to Hinjo.

[Oregano]

Of course Kubota(is that his name?:smallconfused:) could have had Ninja's waiting to jump V and Elan and after V vaporised him they fled, you can't just say he wasn't threat as he clearly was, especially considering that he would have tried to kill them again. V killing him wasn't good, but it was random evil either.

[Cracklord]

400 deaths caused by the linear guild, not by them. It's in no way your fault for any wrong doing perpetrated by someone else, especially not after subduing them and putting them in another's hands. If anyone is to be blamed other than the guild itself, it would be the town guard for not hiring some decent soldiers.

So, did you read about Kitty Genovese? No? Here's a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

Read it? Good. Now tell me doing nothing to save someone is within moral rights. Even when V cast the invisibility spell to save V's self, that was morally questionable. Who's V to decide whether V deserves to live more then anyone else. But ultimately it can be regarded as the right decision, if not the good one. However not helping people who are begging you for it, even if the help is so pathetically token as whispering "I saw some sacks you could hide in and pretend to be potatoes" is wrong.

Anyway back to the Kubuto conundrum, I am to believe that it is moral to kill him because he might kill people in the future and you'd be saving them? In other words, sin yourself to stop potential sinning in the future? I can't believe this is even considered a valid point. Killing is wrong, but when it is done it should be done in a way that the victim has a chance to defend himself and/or justify his actions before a recognized Authority, preferably an impartial elected one but you can't have everything.

But V wasn't even killing him because he was to dangerous to live. V said specifically it was to keep the strips focussed around him/her/it. (Boy I bet V's regretting that decision now). Yes, there was a reason that is semi- justifiable, but that in no way excuses murder. There were in fact alternatives, the spell imprisonment is a real zinger that would have worked nicely and neutralized any threat he would have posed.
QED

[Kaytara]

No Kaytara, it still was his own convenience, it was just his convenience towards a greater cause.

....

But I feel that yes, V's decision not to do anything was a evilish act, say a .3 of a KiloNazi.
QED

Two questions.

1) How is it convenient for Vaarsuvius to put himself at great personal risk by going against soul-destroying monstrosities and by ruining his health in order to save his close friend and respected leader?
For the latter at the very least, power isn't a factor. V doesn't want to save them because it will enable him to continue on their XP-gaining quest. He wants to save them because he cares about them, personally.

2) Exactly how does V's ability to rearrange physics with his mind serve him in a battle where he is unable to do so due to having run out of spells?


Oh and Kabutu had specifically said "I surrender", not just layed down his weapons, and had allowed himself to be tied up. He was wearing full plate armor, or something close, so was not a spellcaster. HE WAS IN NO WAY A THREAT. V specifically said that he/she whatever the hell killed the man to keep the spotlight from going to another tedious trial scene.
When did this become moral?
QED

He was also in the middle of outlining exactly how Elan's team would get the short end of the stick by letting him live.
I'll repeat what I said. He surrendered in name only. He did not have any intention of ceasing hostilities.

What you're doing is trying to follow ingrained moral conventions while ignoring their intent. The purpose of this principle is to prevent unnecessary bloodshed. If applying it does NOT prevent it, but instead enable it to continue at a later point, in greater amounts, executed by the villain and directed at the person who was honourable enough to uphold the principle, then it is not applicable.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm guessing you're not familiar with D&D, right? Most of people people who exist in campaign world use Non-Player Character classes which are much weaker then PC classes. Most people are Commoners, who are weak enough to be killed by housecats, and others are Experts, who are much more skilled then Commoners, and some are Adepts (who have some magic abilities), Aristocrats (such as Kubota and Shojo) and Warriors, who are basically weak Fighters. While Rich may do things differently for Exp. gain, which is needed to become stronger, the rules say that everyone gains Exps. in the same way. Because hiring adventurers would be so expensive (they are meant to be people who have trained in their chosen field for years while having much better training then NPCs), they aren't likely to end up as town guards. Therefore, the town guards aren't likely to be able to handle the sort of threats which adventurers can handle. (For instance, Haley had a supply of rare metal arrow which could overcome Damage Reduction, but the town guards are unlikely to have that sort of equipment due to the cost).

I never said not saving people if you could was moral. In that case people could have called the police, or possibly checked on the victim if they had a weapon (the killer may have still been around). On the other hand, as we said, V couldn't do anything other then get discoverered and killed, which would have achieved noting apart from getting the Hobgoblin who killed him/her a ton of Exps. As Kaytara said, Kubota wasn't about to give up just because Elan had captured him. By the way, I am completely in favour of killing people if it would prevent further bloodshed due to prefering to save as many people as possible rather then caring about the "ethics" of letting people who are a danger to others live.

[Cracklord]

But V did not hear any of this. If I kill someone because I like there watch and that person later turns out to be Ossamah Bin Laden, does that make me a hero? No. It makes me a cold blooded psycho out of touch with world events who got lucky.

V's explanation of why they can't afford to let Kabutu live was "I saved us all thirty something comics of humorless drudgery. Oh yes, V's a saint.

And yes, V was in hardly any shape to do such a thing, but a level thirteen wizard has an average base attack of +7, counting frailty. V would hit nearly every attack with an improvised weapon, and the hobgoblin would hit, as O-Chul put it, one in twenty times (closer to one in seven actually). V is more competent in combat by default then those soldiers will ever be.

As to putting V's self at personal risk, well if V sits back then there's a good chance (based on what V knows, Roy's the only one aware that Xykon isn't out to obliterate creation) that V will die anyway. Doing out of your way to save the world from certain destruction is hardly self sacrificing. You'd simply die anyway.

And I was pointing out that V is willing to save people when it requires no sacrifice on V's part, but not when required to take a risk.

As to the greater good argument, once more I'm forced to bring a comparison to 8 bit theatre. The so-called light warriors are on a quest to rid the world of evil. On the way they have achieved no clear success or even attempted to without cajoling, threats, or self-interest. In the mean time they have wiped out two major civilizations, three minor ones, not to mention hundreds of acts of personal trauma. But it's all for the greater good right?

There is no big picture. Only lot's of little one that form an overall image. And the second you disregard your own morals for the sake of such things, evil wins. When you kill someone 'for the people,' who are these people? No one, just your self-constructed fantasies of the world. Morally, V was way out of line.
QED

[Cracklord]

I'm guessing you're not familiar with D&D, right? Most of people people who exist in campaign world use Non-Player Character classes which are much weaker then PC classes. Most people are Commoners, who are weak enough to be killed by housecats, and others are Experts, who are much more skilled then Commoners, and some are Adepts (who have some magic abilities), Aristocrats (such as Kubota and Shojo) and Warriors, who are basically weak Fighters. While Rich may do things differently for Exp. gain, which is needed to become stronger, the rules say that everyone gains Exps. in the same way. Because hiring adventurers would be so expensive (they are meant to be people who have trained in their chosen field for years while having much better training then NPCs), they aren't likely to end up as town guards. Therefore, the town guards aren't likely to be able to handle the sort of threats which adventurers can handle. (For instance, Haley had a supply of rare metal arrow which could overcome Damage Reduction, but the town guards are unlikely to have that sort of equipment due to the cost).


I realize this. It was a joke. Though the linear guild were only about third- fourth level at the time, according to class and level geekery.

My statement was more to say that once things get to this point, the order is no longer accountable. it was simply a rebuttal that has been misinterpreted. I do it to people all the time. But you are right, there was nothing much that could be done. They couldn't kill them because they're the good guys (not the neutral twin, remember?)
QED

[Tempest Fennac]

Apart from the Light Warriors themselves, I don;t think anyone sees them as good. Where did you get the idea from that V had a BAB of 9? At level 13, it would only be 6 for the 1st attack and 1 for the 2nd attack, which is probably enough for Hobgoblins, but V doesn't appear to have a melee weapon, meaning s/he would provoke Atacks of Opportunity from trying to punch them, and even then, V's Str penalty would mean it wouldn't be worth it. ( http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Wizard )

O'Chule was refering to the highest Armor Class, which V isn't going to have (rolling 20 on a 20-sided dice always succeeds, which is what he meant). V's AC isn;t likely to be higher then 11 based on his/her apparently not that good Dex modifier as well as his/her apparent lack of AC-boosting items. V was also injured already which means 1 hit would have probably knocked him/her out due to how few HPs Wizards get anyway.

As far as saving the world goes, that's obviously a risk but letting some soldiers know where you are when enemies are nearby or trying to attack Hobgoblins in a fashion that you're not trained in which is unlikely to cause any damage wouldn't achieve anything.

Where did you get the idea that the LG were only level 3 or 4 at that point? We know the Order was at least level 9 from V using Cone of Cold a bit before that , and it's likely the LG were at least the same level (Hilgya needed to be at least level 7 to cast Restoration). This is assuming that everyone was on the same level at that point (they may not have been exactly the same).

Regarding Kubota, what would the trial have achieved apart from giving him a chance to get off the hook?

[Mjoellnir]

It seems all the conditions are met.

Left some of his allies to their deaths.
Abandoned his friends.
Started talking with the imp.
Now its his fault his family will die.

Yoda sequence will initiate:
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Anger leads to hate being the key part.

I suppose now is great opportunity for the imp to "drag him down".

1. According to your logic Benjamin Sisko is evil because he went into an escape pod when his ship was about to explode at Wolf 359 and let the Borg destroy the rest of the fleet. V couldn't do anything. He could maybe have told them to run, but if he panicked and was couldn't think of it or had fear to give his position away is not known to us. Only to him and the Giant.
2. He abandoned no friends! Elan and Durkon abandoned Haley, Roy and Belkar! V is the truest friend you can have.
3. Okay, so talking to someone before kicking him off your island or trying to transform him into a pile of dust is now evil...... Clearly you have a definition of morals that is unknown to me.
4. It's not his fault. Or is it your fault if you die when somebody drops a bomb on your house because you weren't in the cellar for security reasons? You always have to think that somebody may have the intent to bomb your house...

Magic in D&D has no dark side that can corrupt you for having negative emotions. And even if V would make a pact with the devil to save his family, that wouldn't automatically make him evil. It would maybe endanger his soul or force him to do things he doesn't want to, but no auto-evil...

[Cracklord]

Apart from the Light Warriors themselves, I don;t think anyone sees them as good. Where did you get the idea from that V had a BAB of 9? At level 13, it would only be 6 for the 1st attack and 1 for the 2nd attack, which is probably enough for Hobgoblins, but V doesn't appear to have a melee weapon, meaning s/he would provoke Atacks of Opportunity from trying to punch them, and even then, V's Str penalty would mean it wouldn't be worth it. ( http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Wizard )

O'Chule was refering to the highest Armor Class, which V isn't going to have (rolling 20 on a 20-sided dice always succeeds, which is what he meant). V's AC isn;t likely to be higher then 11 based on his/her apparently not that good Dex modifier as well as his/her apparent lack of AC-boosting items. V was also injured already which means 1 hit would have probably knocked him/her out due to how few HPs Wizards get anyway.

As far as saving the world goes, that's obviously a risk but letting some soldiers know where you are when enemies are nearby or trying to attack Hobgoblins in a fashion that you're not trained in which is unlikely to cause any damage wouldn't achieve anything.

She/He buffed herself up before the fight with a potion of heroism, and I would be shocked and appalled if she/he didn't have mage armor active. And as for not carrying a weapon, there were plenty lying around, there's a war going on. She/He was adequately prepared for combat (or had no justifiable reason not to be.)

On screen there were three hobgoblins, with levels in an NPC class (warrior). This would not even be a challenge. The only possible way it could inconvenience V was that it would remove invisibility. But Haley survived in the city without magic concealment, as did Belkar and enough soldiers to form the resistance. V could have survived easily.

And no, the light warriors are not heroes by any definition (except Fighter's) I am simply using them as an example of the dangers of bigger picture thinking.
QED (For now)

[Tempest Fennac]

I don't think you can accuse Durkon and Elan of abandoning Haley, Roy and Belkar. As the ship's captain said, they had to go at that point or risk the ship being overrun by Hobgoblins. Also, it was technically V's fault about his/her situation with the Dragon due to the dragon seeking vengence for something V had done. (S/he just didn't seem to expect anyone to care about the dragon who s/he killed.)


V can't cast Mage Armour due to barring Conjuration, and those potions don't last forever. Haley and Belkar are designed for combat to a larger degree then V is, and, as V said about proficiency, there's a difference between being proficient and good with a weapon. The fact is, if V had tried to fight the Hobgoblins without magic, they would have killed him/her as well, or possibly taken V prisoner on the grounds that Wizards are designed to be useless in melee combat.

Wizards also aren;t designed to be stealthy without magic, while Rangers and Rogues are designed to be stong in this area. Also, V was pretty much just a Commoner with high Will saves at that point, so several Warriors would have owned him/her.

[Cracklord]

1. According to your logic Benjamin Sisko is evil because he went into an escape pod when his ship was about to explode at Wolf 359 and let the Borg destroy the rest of the fleet. V couldn't do anything. He could maybe have told them to run, but if he panicked and was couldn't think of it or had fear to give his position away is not known to us. Only to him and the Giant.
2. He abandoned no friends! Elan and Durkon abandoned Haley, Roy and Belkar! V is the truest friend you can have.
3. Okay, so talking to someone before kicking him off your island or trying to transform him into a pile of dust is now evil...... Clearly you have a definition of morals that is unknown to me.
4. It's not his fault. Or is it your fault if you die when somebody drops a bomb on your house because you weren't in the cellar for security reasons? You always have to think that somebody may have the intent to bomb your house...

Magic in D&D has no dark side that can corrupt you for having negative emotions. And even if V would make a pact with the devil to save his family, that wouldn't automatically make him evil. It would maybe endanger his soul or force him to do things he doesn't want to, but no auto-evil...

Yes?
So V is good because despite perpetrating acts of semi-evil at the very least, he has kept focusing on some vague goal that somehow justifies all this?

I don't think you could accuse Durkon of anything but pragmatism. Good on him for never stepping over the line to achieve his goals, but instead making the decisions he knows are best and finding his own serenity. A few more like him and the OoTS world would a wonderful place. And Elan's and idiot, but he's hardly abandoned Haley (She's not dead), he just does not have a skillset any use in finding his lover.

So because magic is not intrinsically corrupting you can use it however you want? Well the regular sort of power ain't either, and yet there is still so much corruption, so many shining ideals tarnished.

And Quarr was only trying to help... It's not his fault that his looks and reputation is against him. Seriously he in no way acted aggressively. Though V did the right thing.
QED

[Cracklord]

I don't think you can accuse Durkon and Elan of abandoning Haley, Roy and Belkar. As the ship's captain said, they had to go at that point or risk the ship being overrun by Hobgoblins. Also, it was technically V's fault about his/her situation with the Dragon due to the dragon seeking vengence for something V had done. (S/he just didn't seem to expect anyone to care about the dragon who s/he killed.)


V can't cast Mage Armour due to barring Conjuration, and those potions don't last forever. Haley and Belkar are designed for combat to a larger degree then V is, and, as V said about proficiency, there's a difference between being proficient and good with a weapon. The fact is, if V had tried to fight the Hobgoblins without magic, they would have killed him/her as well, or possibly taken V prisoner on the grounds that Wizards are designed to be useless in melee combat.

Wizards also aren't designed to be stealthy without magic, while Rangers and Rogues are designed to be strong in this area. Also, V was pretty much just a Commoner with high Will saves at that point, so several Warriors would have owned him/her.

I know that V has almost no ranks in stealth, hence my pointing out that plenty of soldiers (also, in all probability, with few ranks in stealth) made it to join the resistance. Potions last at least an hour per caster level. Six hours is plenty of time. V has been shown to use scrolls, mage armor is relitively cheap, and I'm fairly sure it's not conjuration anyway (though if you say it is I'm probably wrong.) And V was up against (at that moment) Three Hobgoblins. a forth level commoner could pull that off (Joke). If mister scruffy can kill three rogues, all of who have more than one character level, I'm willing to place my money on the wizard.
QED

[Tempest Fennac]

Where did you get that bit about potions lasting 1 hour/caster level? From what I can gather from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Potions , they last as long as the spell normally would. Also, we know there were significantly more Goblins coming through the breech. Mr. Scruffy appears to be Belkar's animal companion, which is why he is more powerful then a normal cat.

[Hjiryon]

Aha! First post here. Might as well make it a geeky one:

The case of V is one of overt dedication to a cause. The archetypical character class associated with that kind of zeal in D&D is the paladin.

Kill a few kobold children to make the world a safer place? Sure, they're evil anyway!
Leave semi-irrelevant NPCs to die because the safety of the world is at stake? So long guards, thanks for all the fish.
Kill the evil overlord instead of letting him live to commit acts of evil later? No problem.
Try to brush it all away as annoying irrelevancies getting in the way of the cause? Absolutely.

So, aside from the fact that this challenges the supposed quality of the alignment system on the whole (and it is broken in the first place), what is to be taken from V's actions is that (s)he's a fanatic, nothing more or less, and those belong on both sides of the fence.

On top of that, and this is why V is not Miko, we're talking about a cynicist here. There is nothing spontaneous about V's decisions (except the whole "let me use all my powerful spells on an imp" business). It's premeditated, and careful calculated (if not always accurate in the end); V is basically correct in assuming that saving the world is likely relevant business, and that doing so easily outshines the concerns of a few guards.

Within the framework of the D&D alignment system? This lands squarely at true neutral; mostly because there are forces at play (the end of the world) that really does make a lot of moral estimation worthless.

[hamishspence]

in 3.0, maybe "the end of the world" makes moral estimation worthless. In 3.5, not so much, especially with BoED, no evil act will be made less evil by the intent to save people by the million.

Generally though, its evil acts as "standard operating procedure" no matter how good the motive, that make a character Evil rather than Neutral, (by Champions of Ruin)

In D&D, altruism is a good motive, but it can only be taken so far.

[Hjiryon]

in 3.0, maybe "the end of the world" makes moral estimation worthless. In 3.5, not so much, especially with BoED, no evil act will be made less evil by the intent to save people by the million.

Generally though, its evil acts as "standard operating procedure" no matter how good the motive, that make a character Evil rather than Neutral, (by Champions of Ruin)

In D&D, altruism is a good motive, but it can only be taken so far.

Worthless argument, and a part of the D&D mechanic that got more broken as 3.5 was implemented.
Examples, in syllogistic form:

- Killing is killed as "standard operating procedure".
- Party kills evil sorceror to save world.
- Ergo, party is evil.

- Hearing the cries of those in need and failing to respond is evil.
- Party arrives at scene of war, facing hundreds, if not thousands suffering, mutilated by the war, dying from infected wounds etc. Party feel sorry for them, but decide that stopping the evil wizard from above takes precedence and hence does not spend time trying to help the (litterally) helpless.
- Ergo, party is evil.

The above are entirely correct according to the 3.5 logic (although certain volumes point out that evil, being an absolute value, can be irrevocably determined, in which case killing the source is in order for those good-aligned; let me rant on the stupidity of that some other time. Tome of Vile Dorkness (3.0 as I recall, though) has a very special place in my heart - and it's not a positive one). It should be pretty plain to see that neither will really work.

What you are seeing in the comic at the moment should not be seen as a conflict between a good party and a party member turning evil (though we may get to that point still), but rather as emotionalism ("Hey, let's stay and help these people, they need it!") and cynicism ("Helping these people isn't getting us anywhere closer to the goal; we need a change of pace. My friends will not be brough to see this, so I'll have to act on my own").

[hamishspence]

I was thinking more "For some reason, a child sacrifice is needed to save world- Party does it- party members have commited an Evil act, even if they have not, necessarily, changed alignment, yet."

and making decision to not help helpless, based on fear that it will delay them- also evil act, by 2nd ed rules, and continued into 3.5.

Miko had a job to do- bring the order back. She was willing to compromise that job by asking the Order to help when people in Need came into view- example of Good over Law, and normal for paladins.

[Tempest Fennac]

Welcome to the forums. :smallsmile: To be honest, I tend to see the ends as justifying the needs (I can't read BoED without suffering from brain damage due to how poorly thought out a lot of it is to me). One line which Toreno says in GTA: San Andreas sums up how I feel about this kind of thing: "people expect white knights and heroes, but if I go out there and play a hero, I'm dead". Basically, it would be nice to be able to avoid killing everyone while putting everyone first, but when doing so would endanger yourself or other people, it's unwise at best and dangerous at worst.

[hamishspence]

yes, but mostly, Ends justify Means people raise caveats "Its still Evil, even though I'm willing to do it." The Operative, Anita Blake, even in Machiavelli's the Discourses which virtually invented the trope, the theme is that the acts themselves, however excusable, are still reprehensible.

[Kaytara]

Yes?
So V is good because despite perpetrating acts of semi-evil at the very least, he has kept focusing on some vague goal that somehow justifies all this?

I don't think you could accuse Durkon of anything but pragmatism. Good on him for never stepping over the line to achieve his goals, but instead making the decisions he knows are best and finding his own serenity. A few more like him and the OoTS world would a wonderful place. And Elan's and idiot, but he's hardly abandoned Haley (She's not dead), he just does not have a skillset any use in finding his lover.
...
And Quarr was only trying to help... It's not his fault that his looks and reputation is against him. Seriously he in no way acted aggressively. Though V did the right thing.
QED

First off, of course Qarr didn't act aggressively. He wasn't trying to kill V, he was trying to strike a deal that would coax the wizard into committing evil acts. And we know from Qarr's previous appearances that he is by no measure Good. We have to assume by default that he's up to no good.

As for Durkon... He was willing to completely ditch Haley and Roy behind enemy lines as soon as three and a half months after their separation, based solely on the fact that they hadn't been able to contact each other - even though, for all he knew, Haley might have gotten captured and was being tortured by Xykon at that very moment. Or worse, maybe he'd fed her to the Snarl for his own amusement. Durkon didn't even have an alternate suggestion of how they would be able to find Girard's Gate, much less defend it with half of their team missing. No, all he did was complain at V that the elf's efforts weren't getting them anywhere quickly enough.

If Durkon thought it justified to abandon one of his oldest friends in the domain of the enemy in order to pursue the greater good by moving on to the gates... I really don't see how you can give Vaarsuvius grief over leaving Durkon and Elan in the care of the paladins to go and do research somewhere.

Also, about the fleeing soldiers: One of them exclaims "There are so many of them!" when seeing the goblins. We may have only seen three of them on-screen, but apparently those were only the first three of the wave that was sweeping through the city.

Regarding potions, of course Vaarsuvius MIGHT have bought a potion of Mage Armour or something before the battle. But first of all, inefficacy is not immorality. There's no sense in wondering what V might have done had he had more resources. Second of all, the party in general seems to be rather ill-equipped, since apparently Roy only had that one potion he drank after taking the arrows for Elan. The party did not have unlimited means after losing all of that treasure. And Vaarsuvius apparently focussed on purchasing scrolls before the battle, such as Dismissal.
Besides, whatever potions V may have purchased obviously ran out in the end, V says so himself. "I am out of potions and scrolls and have but a single spell remaining."

The point is, you do NOT send an injured spellcaster who's out of their magic into melee battle against a seemingly endless wave of hobgoblins who can decapitate regular human warriors with a single blow.
And as already pointed out, Vaarsuvius is completely incapable of concealing himself without magic. Hide is cross-class for wizards. Even Elan, who has ranks in hide, had to stay with Hinjo because he didn't have enough to help Haley and sneak past the hobgoblins.

As for Kubota, we were discussing the morality of accepting surrenders in general. Yes, Vaarsuvius probably wasn't overly concerned with the morality of killing Kubota, just with the benefits thereof. It doesn't change the fact that he was doing what he thought best in order to rescue Haley. We can question his judgement but not really his intent.

Do the ends justify the means? There are obvious extremes to that rule, yes. But it isn't any less harmful to assume that they never do.

[Tempest Fennac]

I disagree about a lot of things being evil in these situations. Killing Nale and Thog would be neutral to be due to the fact that they had just tried to kill the Order, and they would be likely to try and get revenge if they escaped due to how petty Nale appeared to be.
That is a good point about Durkon. He was concerned with helping the people on the boats, though.

[hamishspence]

Which is why killing "one of the most horrible acts a sentient being can commit" is considered justified- up to a point. Go beyond that point though, and the act is considered Evil.

I recall a survey on "Killing to save lives" apparently, even across very different cultures, people saw a difference between a Murderous example (where the sacrificed person was in no danger at the time) and a Non-murderous example- where the victim was among the group of people who were in danger, and the act simply involved directing that danger at that person instead of a larger number of people.

The Train Dilemma, sometimes redone as "The Crocodile Dilemma" or "The Patient Dilemma"

Apparently 97% of people thought it was wrong to murder one person to save several.

[Forias]

My understanding of QED is that it's used at the end of a definitive proof. As what's being debated is open to opinion and interpretation, and nothing is being "proved" beyond doubt, I'm not sure it's applicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED - 'Q.E.D. "Quod erat demonstrandum", a Latin phrase used at the end of a definitive proof.'

In my view, doing nothing is very rarely an evil act. By it's nature, it seems to lean towards neutrality. I totally understand anger at people who do nothing in situations where something horrific is happening, but V was totally powerless in the scenario with the guards.

Absolutely no one has a duty to throw their lives away for an infintesimally small chance of doing good/averting evil - or whatever. V had no magic and faced an entire army. There was nothing realistic that he could have done.

[hamishspence]

Apart from yell "Run!" and do so as well, instead of hanging around- a risk to self, but not a huge one.

I was thinking more Refusing to help Lien, after the others said "she needs help" Especially if Liens reason to remain was to delay the orcs just long enough to give Elan and Durkon chance to escape and reach fleet.

[Tempest Fennac]

That is a good point about Lien. I still think V would have been putting him/herself at risk by shouting that, though.

[Kaytara]

Especially if Liens reason to remain was to delay the orcs just long enough to give Elan and Durkon chance to escape and reach fleet.

Did she? :smallconfused: How do we know? The others were clearly under the impression that she was simply unwilling to back down from an enemy because she was a paladin. If they thought she had done so to save them, you'd think their expressions would be different.

[hamishspence]

"Good people take risks to help others" PHB.

If V was ever Good, then by the farmer arc V was showing signs of leaning toward neutrality.

[Iranon]

Also, I fail to see why V would be obliged to fight to his/her last drop of blood. A wizard without spells is considerably less useful than a fighter type with their insides rearranged and a limb or two chopped off.

Recklessly endangering one's life for - maybe - saving a few soldiers wouldn't be heroic as much as stupid considering someone of V's caliber can turn entire battles and possibly wars when rested.
I'm also not aware that hobgoblin troopers come with their CR branded into their foreheads... there's a chance some of them would have had enough warrior levels to dispatch V with depressing ease.

[GoC]

Whether he saves them or not, V will have to work with the imp as part of the deal.

V is chaotic.

[hamishspence]

Possibly. But signing a Pact Certain (though not a Pact Insidious), is an "irrevocably Lawful Evil act".

so, if V does end up asking for help, V may have to cope with this. And even if they don't collect V's soul now, V may end up with no way out of it later.

[Wraithfighter]

Just a thought, but all that is needed right now (possibly) to save V's family is a dispel magic, a teleport, a stone-to-flesh type spell, some nice speechifying by Quar and another teleport.

Quar can Teleport, but V can't thanks to specialist wizardry.

The dragon implied that the, erm, death of V's family would be a slow process, so that gives him some time. Go to that giant freaking devil on the island, turn him back to flesh, convince him to help out, and teleport to V's house.

4 rounds total, if you keep talking as a free action :).

Oh, and also: Doing something to SAVE ONE'S FAMILY is not 'for all the wrong reasons.'

There are two really good reasons for V's pursuit of ultimate arcane power: For the sake of knowledge (more a true-neutral perspective, but a legitimate researcher's stance) and to protect the innocent.

Revenge, on the other hand...

So, taking bets: Who else thinks that V will arrive to a smoking crater?

[Optimystik]

V is chaotic.

Neutral is much more likely.


The dragon implied that the, erm, death of V's family would be a slow process, so that gives him some time. Go to that giant freaking devil on the island, turn him back to flesh, convince him to help out, and teleport to V's house.

Good point, that devil is a Chekov's Gun if I ever saw one.

[hamishspence]

"Sometimes Lawful can be wrong for all the right reasons and Chaotic can be right for all the wong reasons"

If in the aforesaid example, V, believing Haley to be in danger, still chose to go after family (and we know she is not in danger) then:

that would be doing the right thing (in the sense of aiding who's in danger) for the wrong reasons (because V didn't know Haley wasn't in danger at the time)

[Cracklord]

My understanding of QED is that it's used at the end of a definitive proof. As what's being debated is open to opinion and interpretation, and nothing is being "proved" beyond doubt, I'm not sure it's applicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED - 'Q.E.D. "Quod erat demonstrandum", a Latin phrase used at the end of a definitive proof.'

In my view, doing nothing is very rarely an evil act. By it's nature, it seems to lean towards neutrality. I totally understand anger at people who do nothing in situations where something horrific is happening, but V was totally powerless in the scenario with the guards.

Absolutely no one has a duty to throw their lives away for an infintesimally small chance of doing good/averting evil - or whatever. V had no magic and faced an entire army. There was nothing realistic that he could have done.

I know it's totaly unjustified in it's use, but I like the effect (damn ou, classical education!)

[QUOTE=Kaytara;5741391] While your arguments are all valid and well thought out, the rely on V knowing or not knowing certain things. Yes, V could not have brought the scroll, but I didn't say he/she did. I was simply pointing out that V had buffed up before battle and there were plenty of ways to get acess to such things. But your right. Inefficiency is not a sin. The angels even said that to Eugene. But that's not what V is guilty off.

However, because you are not adequately buffed is no reason to condemn others to death. A good act would be to do your very best to save them, a neutral act would be to help them in any way that does not put yourself in undue risk. Guess what doing nothing is? I posted a real world example before, but I think I've obsessed over that enough.

[MickJay]

V might have thought himself to be totally unable to help in any way that would have made a difference. If he had unlimited time to think and there was no horde of hobgoblins coming his way, maybe he'd come up with a theoretical possibility of helping the Azurites, but he had no such luxury. Even if he was slightly more effective in melee than a first level soldier, I'm pretty sure that he'd just join the rest of the corpses the moment he lost invisibility (and even if the extremely unlikely possibility of V defeating 4 hobgoblins came true, there would be few dozens more right behind them).

My guess is that, to the best of his knowledge, V did everything that was possible considering the circumstances; doing anything more would be equal to a (pointless) suicide.

[CliveStaples]

There's a very thin line between cowardice and evil. I wouldn't be surprised to see V cross it.

Do you know what you call someone who only thinks of himself, and is unwilling to make sacrifices for others? Because that's what V is. S/He abandoned everyone else without even trying to help them. I find it fitting that s/he has a coward's lot: to lose all that s/he holds dear. Maybe s/he'll learn to not be such a gutless sh*t.

[MickJay]

Frankly, I have yet to see a single instance of V behaving in a way that would qualify him as "coward". He knows his limits and acts accordingly, not being always heroic doesn't make a person evil, either.

[CliveStaples]

Frankly, I have yet to see a single instance of V behaving in a way that would qualify him as "coward". He knows his limits and acts accordingly, not being always heroic doesn't make a person evil, either.

What's the saying?

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

When you refuse to risk your own life to try to save someone else's, that's cowardice. The fact is that V cared more about making sure he would survive than in trying to help others. He was too scared of dying to lend a hand. And that's cowardice.

[MickJay]

He would have been a coward if he ran away from the city before the battle began. He used all but one of his spells to aid Azurites and retreated when he knew he couldn't make any difference anymore. He could have got himself killed with the fleeing soldiers, sure, but would it have made any sense? There's a difference between courage and stupidity. He fought a number of powerful enemies before, to his full capability, and retreated only when necessary. True, quite often it is the arrogance that drives him, but you can't deny that he has guts.

[CliveStaples]

He would have been a coward if he ran away from the city before the battle began. He used all but one of his spells to aid Azurites and retreated when he knew he couldn't make any difference anymore. He could have got himself killed with the fleeing soldiers, sure, but would it have made any sense? There's a difference between courage and stupidity. He fought a number of powerful enemies before, to his full capability, and retreated only when necessary. True, quite often it is the arrogance that drives him, but you can't deny that he has guts.

What guts? He was never at risk. As soon as he didn't have his superpowers, he ran away like a little b*tch. It's easy to be Superman when you're invincible. That doesn't take courage.

[tiercel]

When you refuse to risk your own life to try to save someone else's, that's cowardice.

Incorrect.

Sometimes it's just being smart -- Hinjo, a paladin, is convinced to run away (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html) despite knowing how many people will die, despite protesting "I can't run away! That's not what a paladin does when evil attacks!"

Even though it's not Durkon's reasoning in that strip (do the good you can, when you can, or wind up not doing any good at all) that winds up finally changing Hinjo's mind, it is a reasonable argument offered by a pretty unambiguously Good character that was perfectly applicable to V's situation during the flight through Azure City.

Even if V, essentially/entirely unbuffed aside from being invisible, could have somehow stopped the 3-4 troops chasing the Azurites in the flashback, what about the 70 hojillion gobbos coming after? With invisibility blown, V would have not only essentially no way to escape but no way to *further* help the fleeing Azurites, and would have very likely just been killed alongside them eventually.

Just because refusing to sacrifice himself for what was probably a futile cause wasn't, in and of itself, a Good action, doesn't make it an Evil one either.

[CliveStaples]

Incorrect.

Sometimes it's just being smart -- Hinjo, a paladin, is convinced to run away (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html) despite knowing how many people will die, despite protesting "I can't run away! That's not what a paladin does when evil attacks!"

Even though it's not Durkon's reasoning in that strip (do the good you can, when you can, or wind up not doing any good at all) that winds up finally changing Hinjo's mind, it is a reasonable argument offered by a pretty unambiguously Good character that was perfectly applicable to V's situation during the flight through Azure City.

Even if V, essentially/entirely unbuffed aside from being invisible, could have somehow stopped the 3-4 troops chasing the Azurites in the flashback, what about the 70 hojillion gobbos coming after? With invisibility blown, V would have not only essentially no way to escape but no way to *further* help the fleeing Azurites, and would have very likely just been killed alongside them eventually.

Just because refusing to sacrifice himself for what was probably a futile cause wasn't, in and of itself, a Good action, doesn't make it an Evil one either.

That wasn't my argument. I didn't say "It wasn't good, therefore it was evil." V could have tried to save lives; instead, he protected his own and left everyone else out to dry. That's selfish, and it's cowardly. Which isn't just not, in and of itself, a Good action. It's an evil one.

It isn't like V was ten thousand miles away and a paraplaegic. He was right there. He could have provided material assistance. He might have even sacrificed his own life to allow someone else--or a group of people--to escape. But unfortunately for everyone else, V didn't give a sh*t about them.

[MickJay]

What guts? He was never at risk. As soon as he didn't have his superpowers, he ran away like a little b*tch. It's easy to be Superman when you're invincible. That doesn't take courage.

Check his fight with the demon on the island, for one.

In Azure city, once V used up his spells, he was defenceless, even more so than a soldier without his weapon and armor, since he isn't physically strong, or trained in unarmed combat.

Imagine a man standing on the path of a rolling 30 ton rock - he can either try to grab it so it wouldn't crush people further down, or jump aside. Again, getting pointlessly killed isn't "cowardice".

Edit: the whole situation he was in makes it painfully clear that there was absolutely nothing that V could have realistically done that would have made any difference. His options were limited to saving his life or dying with the fleeing Azurites.

[CliveStaples]

Check his fight with the demon on the island, for one.

In Azure city, once V used up his spells, he was defenceless, even more so than a soldier without his weapon and armor, since he isn't physically strong, or trained in unarmed combat.

Imagine a man standing on the path of a rolling 30 ton rock - he can either try to grab it so it wouldn't crush people further down, or jump aside. Again, getting pointlessly killed isn't "cowardice".

Edit: the whole situation he was in makes it painfully clear that there was absolutely nothing that V could have realistically done that would have made any difference. His options were limited to saving his life or dying with the fleeing Azurites.

He must be the only elf wizard in the world who doesn't know how to use a longsword or bow.

And what was he fighting against? Balors? Epic-level spiked-chain fighters from the Character Optimization Plane?

Hobgoblins. Hob. Goblins.

Sure, he couldn't have killed the entire horde. But he didn't even take his chances against a single one of them.

[tiercel]

V could have tried to save lives; instead, he protected his own and left everyone else out to dry.

Hinjo could have tried to save lives (and wanted to). He could have undoubtedly killed a lot of invading troops before being killed, and yet, he fled -- because he wanted to protect those who *were* getting away, and do more good later (by hopefully retaking the city) than a limited amount of good (*possibly* saving a handful of stragglers and then dying, cutting off the possibility of future good).

By your argument, the entire OotS is flat out Evil (they certainly could have massacred a lot more invaders, as Hinjo noted), and yet they made the same decision to flee.



He could have provided material assistance.

Whether he could have taken the handful of gobbo soldiers seen "on screen" during the flashback is doubtful, and of dubious value even if he had been successful. So "material assistance" in this case is more of a technicality -- sure, he could have been willing to probably sacrifice himself for assistance of little or no value, but it's not JUST if you can help right now, but the opportunity cost of giving up all future good you will ever do.


He might have even sacrificed his own life to allow someone else--or a group of people--to escape. But unfortunately for everyone else, V didn't give a sh*t about them.

The other thing about a D&D gaming reality is that, in some sense, some people *are* more valuable than others. If V escapes, as a high-level wizard who recovers all his spells, he's going to be able to do a lot more to save people/survivors/the Universe than a handful of random redshirts. This can of course lead to unconscionable PC arrogance, but the fact of the matter is that PCs can Save the World and, in general, others can't.

Furthermore, if you are going to claim that V's action here are not only non-Good but flat-out Evil, you pretty much have to tar the rest of the OotS as well as Hinjo with the same brush. V's nightmare situation is just more immediate.

...and as a final point, the fact that V is still having *nightmares* about it says something about V's intentions. If V really couldn't give a cow-patty about the Azurites and simply was a self-serving Evil coward, he wouldn't give the episode a second thought afterward, instead of being tortured to the point of chronic trancelessness over it.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

He must be the only elf wizard in the world who doesn't know how to use a longsword or bow.

And what was he fighting against? Balors? Epic-level spiked-chain fighters from the Character Optimization Plane?

Hobgoblins. Hob. Goblins.

Sure, he couldn't have killed the entire horde. But he didn't even take his chances against a single one of them.

Sure, he could probably have killed one of them. But then his invisibility is gone, his spells are gone, and he's alone against the Horde with an armor class of somewhere around 12. Sure, he could do a suicidal, futile gesture of killing one hobgoblin. On the other hand, he already destroyed 2 titanium golems and used his spells to help the Azurites kill a zillion hobgoblins. How much does he have to do in order to count as doing anything at all? How many chances does he have to take before he counts as taking 1 chance?

[MickJay]

He even made a point that being "proficient" with a weapon doesn't make him "good" at using it. He wasn't facing a hobgoblin (which he'd probably kill), he was facing a freaking huge wave of them, and once he lost invisibility by attacking, his chances of running away would have been similar to those of the guys that got killed around him. Besides, those hobgoblins were able to single-hit kill the soldiers around him - if he stopped to fight, he'd be dead in a round, struck by at least 4 enemies (which wouldn't increase the chances of survival of anyone). Again, knowing one's limits isn't cowardice, and getting beautifully killed when it doesn't accomplish anything is still pointless (unless your side's military propagandists need some good material to work with).

[CliveStaples]

Sure, he could probably have killed one of them. But then his invisibility is gone, his spells are gone, and he's alone against the Horde with an armor class of somewhere around 12. Sure, he could do a suicidal, futile gesture of killing one hobgoblin. On the other hand, he already destroyed 2 titanium golems and used his spells to help the Azurites kill a zillion hobgoblins. How much does he have to do in order to count as doing anything at all? How many chances does he have to take before he counts as taking 1 chance?

Interesting. You consider it a "futile" gesture? Die fighting or live as a coward? {Scrubbed}

What chances did he take? Was he ever really in danger? Did he ever actually risk anything? He was Superman, fighting against people who could only shoot bullets at him. That doesn't take courage.

And this nonsense about "losing" invisibility is idiotic. What if he didn't cast invisibility, and took some potshots at the hobgoblins?


He even made a point that being "proficient" with a weapon doesn't make him "good" at using it. He wasn't facing a hobgoblin (which he'd probably kill), he was facing a freaking huge wave of them, and once he lost invisibility by attacking, his chances of running away would have been similar to those of the guys that got killed around him. Besides, those hobgoblins were able to single-hit kill the soldiers around him - if he stopped to fight, he'd be dead in a round, struck by at least 4 enemies (which wouldn't increase the chances of survival of anyone). Again, knowing one's limits isn't cowardice, and getting beautifully killed when it doesn't accomplish anything is still pointless (unless your side's military propagandists need some good material to work with).

The "single-hit kill" applies to almost every character in the comic, especially unnamed non-gimmick characters, like common soldiers.

But then, this was a gimmick. There was never any question that V would die; that would ruin the strip. V was never in danger, and no situations contain any element of risk. Because the strip must go on. If V died heroically, it would mean that his character actually had virtue. And we all know that virtue is something for Lawful Stoopid characters. Real heroes aren't good guys!

Imagine if they had thrown a grenade at the group. Do you really think V would throw himself on it? Or would he spend his last spell to teleport himself away?

He might not have been able to save everyone else, but he could have bought them time to run away. He's made attention-grabbing speeches before.

But, again, that wouldn't accomplish what the Giant wanted. He wanted V to do exactly what he did. Because Good = Dumb.

[Tempest Fennac]

V was in danger just by being there. The fact that s/he got so many injuries shows that V wasn't able to stay out of melee. Also, you still haven;t explained why killing 1 Hobgobling before being slaughtered for sdoing the sensible thing is better then retreating and killing dozens of Hobgoblins in the future.

[Kaytara]

Going down fighting does not equal bravery, and retreating when you're out of ammo does not equal cowardice.

As for how Vaarsuvius was in danger, with all of his Superpowers...

They aren't Superpowers. They're spells that he can choose to fire off at will. As a frail wizard, he is by default in danger just by being present there, because he'll get killed by any number of things someone with higher hit dice would survive. Oh, sure he has buffs, but that only makes him about as tough as the random redshirts around him.

Now let's see how Vaarsuvius was in danger.
If a goblin ninja had snuck up behind him, he would've been dead.
If Redcloak had hurled another Titanium elemental in his direction, he would have been dead.
If just a fraction of the thousands of hobgoblins out there had showered him with arrows for a few rounds, his Protection from Arrows would have collapsed and he'd have been dead.
If he had forgotten to cast Protection from Arrows, or if an enemy had dispelled it, he would've been dead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0436.html).
If the Titanium elemental in panel twelve (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0424.html) had aimed a few inches to the left, V would've been dead.
If he simply didn't have the right spell prepared for a certain situation - like a death knight with SR - he would've been dead, as it very nearly happened.
If he ended up needing a spell he'd already expended, he would've been dead.
If he failed his concentration check against a bunch of ghouls crowding him, like here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html), he would've been dead.
If he'd been standing a bit closer when the death knight roasted the soldiers, he would have been dead.
If the zombie dragon's head had fallen a few feet to the side, he would've been dead.
If all of the army had decided to charge the breach, even WITH spells, Vaarsuvius would only have been able to take down a few dozen before being run over. And then he would have been dead, Superpowers notwithstanding. And wait, that's what nearly happened.
If Xykon had come after him, personally, he would have been dead.
If Redcloak had come after him, he likely would've been dead as well, especially a bit later in the battle.

So yes, there are plenty, plenty ways for a frail PC with "Superpowers" to die during a battle with thousands of hobgoblins, thank you very much, and the fact that Vaarsuvius even prepared Invisibility shows that he has given the worst-case scenarios some amount of thought. It didn't stop him from going out there and doing everything he could against them, to the absolute limit of his abilities.

Should Vaarsuvius have ignored Invisibility and prepared another offensive spell instead? Maybe. He likely would have been able to kill a few dozen more hobgoblins.
But as Haley said, "Too bad there are hundreds of thousands left to be killed."

Maybe he would have saved that particular group of soldiers, who knows? But he would've doomed any and all people his actions would've ended up saving afterwards, like a certain fleet being attacked by a giant devil.

As for the suggestion of taking up weapons, sending a spell-less wizard at a horde of goblins with a bow is like tossing your gun to smack the enemy on the face after you run out of ammo. You won't do much to hurt your enemy, just annoy and amuse them, and while it might give you an opportunity to bolt and run, if you're really lucky, you'll be unarmed against everyone you meet afterwards.
In this extended metaphor, if you waste a wizard stupidly, you'll be wishing you hadn't later.

And one last thing. Vaarsuvius actually stopped running after bumping into them. The only explanation I see is that he was trying to think of something to help them. So he DID give a damn about them.

[Prak]

It seems all the conditions are met.
no. observe:


Left some of his allies to their deaths.
Not evil, just selfish/stupid

Abandoned his friends.
not evil, just disloyal.

Started talking with the imp.
not evil, just talking. Otherwise every witty quip or condemnatory remark from a paladin to his just enemy would destroy a hero.

Now its his fault his family will die.
not evil, just a tragedy.


Yoda sequence will initiate:
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
The dark side is not evil, just dark. The sith may well be, but there is a difference between dark side and sith.


Anger leads to hate being the key part.
V hasn't hated yet, just gotten angry. Not to mention, unless you follow Judaism or Christianity, hate isn't evil. It just is.


I suppose now is great opportunity for the imp to "drag him down".
Yes, the imp very well could use this to get V to make a pact. And if Quarr has any idea what he's doing, he will. Unless The Giant decides that Imps are fraking idiots, which they shouldn't be but it's Burlew's (idiotic) decision to make, if he so chooses.


If V were a Jedi, I'd say yes, definitely. But she's a wizard. Not the same thing.
Again, the dark side is not evil, more chaotic, but chaos doesn't mean a damn thing in (core) D&D.


There might be a Chaotic way out of this.
There is, "fall" to the "Dark Side"


Make a deal with the imp; agree to whatever he wants;
The real problem is, this isn't chaotic. Making a deal with a devil is, by RAW (FC2) a lawful (and evil) act. It would give him obeisance points (as well is evil points, but probably more obeisance points).


When it comes time to pay the price, instead of doing whatever Evil deed was demanded, just kill the imp.
This would be the chaotic (and ironically, very evil) way to do this. It will also get "The Forces of Evil" to take notice of you, but, well, he's an imp (unless he gets promoted along the way, which, if he gets V to sign a pact, he may well get promoted*)

(*This is all by RAW, and we know how much RAW matters here...)


edit: I dont' really see how making the deal with Qarr could be "for all the wrong reasons" to fit the prophecy
If he makes the deal to "kill the dragon" rather than "protect his family", it would be for the wrong reason.


I don't think V will turn evil because the only way for it to happen would be, IMO, for the dragon to actually succeed, and I don't think the Giant is going to make the comic quite that morbid.
No it would require the comic to become too serious to remain what it is.


To top it off, Qarr has been nearly disintegrated by V and may now feel inclined to make sure the elf gets screwed over in whatever deal they strike.
He's a devil, they generally feel that way anyway, unless you are a more powerful force of evil.


Read it? Good. Now tell me doing nothing to save someone is within moral rights. Even when V cast the invisibility spell to save V's self, that was morally questionable. Who's V to decide whether V deserves to live more then anyone else. But ultimately it can be regarded as the right decision, if not the good one. However not helping people who are begging you for it, even if the help is so pathetically token as whispering "I saw some sacks you could hide in and pretend to be potatoes" is wrong.

Well, there is another conceivable way V could have helped. If he had a longsword or rapier, he could have attacked the enemy soldiers. Elves are automatically proficient with those weapons because of their upbringing. Granted, his BAB is probably 6 or 7, and he only cast Invisibility (whytf does shi not have Gtr Invis?) so shi'd have only gotten one attack in before he was screwed, but being invisible means the enemy soldiers were unaware of his presence and would have been flatfooted, he could conceivably hit them, and honestly, IIWDM,IWAT**, shi could have coup de grac'ed them. But... well, AFAIK, V doesn't carry any conventional weapons, though shi could always pick up a dropped weapon and attack untrained at "only" a -4 penalty.

**"If I Were DM, I Would Allow This"


She/He buffed herself up before the fight with a potion of heroism, and I would be shocked and appalled if she/he didn't have mage armor active. And as for not carrying a weapon, there were plenty lying around, there's a war going on. She/He was adequately prepared for combat (or had no justifiable reason not to be.)

On screen there were three hobgoblins, with levels in an NPC class (warrior). This would not even be a challenge. The only possible way it could inconvenience V was that it would remove invisibility. But Haley survived in the city without magic concealment, as did Belkar and enough soldiers to form the resistance. V could have survived easily.

And no, the light warriors are not heroes by any definition (except Fighter's) I am simply using them as an example of the dangers of bigger picture thinking.
QED (For now)
Yeah, with this additional info, V should have attacked. Maybe one of the biggest lesson's shi could learn is that "Martial Combat is not low, it is not the province of idiots, sometimes it will save the day when magic has done everything it can." But, V isn't the type to admit that.


V can't cast Mage Armour due to barring Conjuration, and those potions don't last forever. Haley and Belkar are designed for combat to a larger degree then V is, and, as V said about proficiency, there's a difference between being proficient and good with a weapon. The fact is, if V had tried to fight the Hobgoblins without magic, they would have killed him/her as well, or possibly taken V prisoner on the grounds that Wizards are designed to be useless in melee combat.
I'm sorry, no, I think you're wrong. V could have killed those four hobgoblins, even with his meager combat ability. Let's look at this:
V: Wiz13(~), which gives hir a +6 BAB, now, granted, str is what, 8? so shi's got a +5 MAB, being invisible, the hobgoblins are flatfooted to V, which means their AC is maybe 15 (assuming Breastplate, and even that's generous). V finds a longsword (not unreasonable, the Hobs can be assumed to be using them to some degree, as can the city defenders), shi is proficient as an elf, and so has the following attack routine: +5/+0, 1d8-1, 19-20/x2. Hir Hp can reasonably be assumed to be 16 (avg w/ an 8/9 con) to 28 (avg w/ a 10/11 con).
Hobgoblin Warriors: War3 (at best, more likely War 1), which means a +1 BAB, with a 13 str is +2 MAB. Actually probably won't hit V, on avg, shi's likely got a respectable AC. Each hob. would probably have 6 (1st lv) to 18 (3rd) hp.
So, V couldn't have done much, but... with an attack or two, maybe some bluffing... I don't know. Hir best option would have been what daigo(?) suggested, grab a bow. Shi could have sniped. If shi hadn't been so damn negative/disdainful of martial combat/pessimistic.



Ok, how about this, who would have done what differently?

I would have prepared Gtr Invisibility instead of Invisibility, to begin with, then when I got into that situation, I'd've grabbed a bow, and sniped.

[quote=CliveStaples]He must be the only elf wizard in the world who doesn't know how to use a longsword or bow.

And what was he fighting against? Balors? Epic-level spiked-chain fighters from the Character Optimization Plane?

Hobgoblins. Hob. Goblins.

Sure, he couldn't have killed the entire horde. But he didn't even take his chances against a single one of them.
Exactly, he is weak. Maybe not magically, and not notably physically, but... character-wise? morally? I don't know. I don't consider myself particularly moral, but I'd've killed those hobgoblins like the bitch-peons they were and helped the soldiers to safety/re-equipment/whatever would be best.


Sure, he could probably have killed one of them. But then his invisibility is gone, his spells are gone, and he's alone against the Horde with an armor class of somewhere around 12. Sure, he could do a suicidal, futile gesture of killing one hobgoblin. On the other hand, he already destroyed 2 titanium golems and used his spells to help the Azurites kill a zillion hobgoblins. How much does he have to do in order to count as doing anything at all? How many chances does he have to take before he counts as taking 1 chance?
There's a difference, between participating in a war, and watching four helpless people get slaughtered because you're too damned afraid to act.


He even made a point that being "proficient" with a weapon doesn't make him "good" at using it. He wasn't facing a hobgoblin (which he'd probably kill), he was facing a freaking huge wave of them, and once he lost invisibility by attacking, his chances of running away would have been similar to those of the guys that got killed around him. Besides, those hobgoblins were able to single-hit kill the soldiers around him - if he stopped to fight, he'd be dead in a round, struck by at least 4 enemies (which wouldn't increase the chances of survival of anyone). Again, knowing one's limits isn't cowardice, and getting beautifully killed when it doesn't accomplish anything is still pointless (unless your side's military propagandists need some good material to work with).
Better to die doing the courageous thing than to live as a coward. Besides, this is D&D, a smart adventurer carries a pouch of 50,000 gp worth of Diamond Dust in a pouch so they can be resurrected on their own damn dime.
Another thing to look at, what are the two likely outcomes here:
first outcome (stand and watch): You survive, and are tormented by the memory of your weakness.
second outcome (fight): Die, spend a bit of time in the after life and (hopefully) get ress'd relatively soon. Hell, Fight and say "If I fall, you four need to carry me to my cleric friend, he knows what to do".


Going down fighting does not equal bravery, and retreating when you're out of ammo does not equal cowardice.
No, but Fighting to save innocents, even if you have little better chance than they do is courageous, and standing by doing nothing as said innocents are slaughtered, because you're too afraid, is cowardice.

[Tempest Fennac]

How would abandoning the soldiers class as stupid? Ironically, you could argue that V is actually being loyal for being so hell-bent with finding Haley which Durkon and Elan are more concerned with helping Hinjo and the fleet.

[Kaytara]

How would abandoning the soldiers class as stupid? Ironically, you could argue that V is actually being loyal for being so hell-bent with finding Haley which Durkon and Elan are more concerned with helping Hinjo and the fleet.

Not just more concerned with helping Hinjo and the fleet, Durkon was actually willing to abandon Haley and go on to protect the gate. (Without them, somehow.)

[Prak]

How would abandoning the soldiers class as stupid? Ironically, you could argue that V is actually being loyal for being so hell-bent with finding Haley which Durkon and Elan are more concerned with helping Hinjo and the fleet.

abandoning your allies is stupid, but sometimes it's the least stupid option. It's stupid for a number of reasons but the only one I can think of right now (3:16am, after not the greatest day) is "because you may need them later."

I notice you didn't dispute that it was selfish.

[Tempest Fennac]

I didn't bother mentioning the selfish part due to already saying that I class throwing your own life away by risking it in a situation where you can't do anything as being pointless. I agree that V abandoning Elan and Durkon to go study on his/her own was stupid due to how V would have probably had problems if a tough enough random encounter came along. The problem was that they didn't seem to have any ideas for getting Haley and the others back, and Hinjo's problems were a distraction from the bigger picture.

[Prak]

Can my point that it's not evil still stand? We can call it whatever we want, but, the point is, it's not evil.

[Kaytara]

You keep forgetting. It wasn't just the three hobgoblins on screen. The soldier's comment - "Gods, there are so many of them..." implies that the whole wave was coming at them.


Can my point that it's not evil still stand? We can call it whatever we want, but, the point is, it's not evil.

Well, selfishness is neutral at best. When it comes at the cost of others, it can easily be evil.

Not that it applies here. Vaarsuvius did NOT pass up the chance to help them because he was afraid, I don't know where you got that impression. He simply could not come up with any way to help them. The fact that he stopped and stood there probably indicates that he tried to think of something.

Now a bit more about Vaarsuvius being a coward. Seriously, what in the world makes you think that? Vaarsuvius has never displayed cowardice, and if you keep insisting that not committing suicide is cowardly, then sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree. If there is a far better explanation for V's behaviour there (i.e. he didn't do anything because he couldn't do anything, or, at the very least, believed that he couldn't), moreover, if it's an explanation that's consistent with being a smart character, then it's better than assuming that Vaarsuvius has suddenly become a coward out of the blue.

In any case, notice how Vaarsuvius takes it when he is pinned by an Ancient dragon and under the impression that said dragon is going to kill him. V doesn't try to weasel out of it, or strike a bargain with the dragon, or beg for his life, or even justify his actions. He takes it with complete calm. Even though his death may easily be permanent, since the dragon is capable of destroying his remains. Does that really strike you as cowardly?

[MickJay]

If he makes the deal to "kill the dragon" rather than "protect his family", it would be for the wrong reason.
------
Better to die doing the courageous thing than to live as a coward. Besides, this is D&D, a smart adventurer carries a pouch of 50,000 gp worth of Diamond Dust in a pouch so they can be resurrected on their own damn dime.
Another thing to look at, what are the two likely outcomes here:
first outcome (stand and watch): You survive, and are tormented by the memory of your weakness.
second outcome (fight): Die, spend a bit of time in the after life and (hopefully) get ress'd relatively soon. Hell, Fight and say "If I fall, you four need to carry me to my cleric friend, he knows what to do".
------
No, but Fighting to save innocents, even if you have little better chance than they do is courageous, and standing by doing nothing as said innocents are slaughtered, because you're too afraid, is cowardice.

If V made the deal after his family died, then yes, it would be evil. If he makes the deal to kill the dragon before, then the only reason would have been to protect the family.

That's a very meta- approach to a story. Whole party taken together in Azure City didn't have the 5000gp worth of diamonds, so it's relatively safe to assume it's either not that easy to get them, or that the adventurers don't act in the way you described in Stickverse. See also how easily Roy is getting resurrected "in his own damn time" - it's not easy. Not to mention, if V actually died in Azure City, there would be no corpse of him left to use for Resurrecting and he would have needed True Res (we don't even know if there's anyone of high enough level do cast that in the whole world). And THAT would have been possible only assuming Xykon for some reason would have skipped V's body when making new undead. If V actually fell defending the cowardly soldiers, then there wouldn't have been anyone left to take his body on account that a) the soldiers would have already been far away b) they would already be dead as well, and there wouldn't have been any cleric left to Resurrect V, either (there were very few high level clerics to start with, the only ones left would have been with the fleet).

The guys that were running weren't innocents, they were soldiers who abandoned their posts and duties (while V was bravely acting without no duty binding him for the whole time and retreated when out of power).

I agree with Kaytara's points, too.

[hamishspence]

yes, still, V could at least have yelled- "No spells left- fly you fools!"

[Tharivol123]

Nothing V did in the battle of Azure city was cowardice or evil. V went to take on three titanium elementals, alone I might add, despite the rest of the order taking on two total. After that, V stayed at the breach in the wall, backed up the soldiers, and stood against a death knight...alone. After expending every other spell, turning invisible and retreating is not cowardly or evil, its being smart.
As for not preparing greater invis? Also a smart move. Preparing invisibility was a good escape plan, but great invisibility would have taken away a higher spell slot used for a better buff or more damaging spell.
Further, wizards are lower than useless in melee combat and V is even weaker than others. Likely a negative strength modifier, something around 0 for dex modifier (only because of the +2 racial bonus) in all likelihood, and a negative for con modifier (-2 to the ability score as an elf, after all). This means, almost no attack bonuses for melee and ranged attacks, almost no AC to speak of, and very few HP...probably fewer than the redshirts that got killed.
V stopping to kill one, maybe two or three hob goblins, would have been pointless and robbed the Azurites of one of their greatest assets. After all, it was V helping Elan with his illusions that bought the ship a little more time to escape (remember the celestial lion that chased a group of hobs away?). Sacrificing yourself needlessly is not courage. Need more evidence of that, look up quotes by George Patton on courage and battle. One you'll find is this: "Take calculated risks." Sacrificing your one advantage is not a risk that is worth taking.

[Prak]

You keep forgetting. It wasn't just the three hobgoblins on screen. The soldier's comment - "Gods, there are so many of them..." implies that the whole wave was coming at them. not near enough that he couldn't have helped one group of frightened soldiers.



Not that it applies here. Vaarsuvius did NOT pass up the chance to help them because he was afraid, I don't know where you got that impression. He simply could not come up with any way to help them. The fact that he stopped and stood there probably indicates that he tried to think of something.
or he was paralyzed by fear/his own feelings of inadequacy/uselessness.


Now a bit more about Vaarsuvius being a coward. Seriously, what in the world makes you think that? Vaarsuvius has never displayed cowardice
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html
having one spell left (invisibility) and deciding to save your own damn hide rather than make the noble, and yes, probably suicidal, attempt to help with what you have as a part of your cultural heritage ("You're an elf, right? Pick up a bow and get ready then.") and only saying "I'm sorry" while someone else gets ready to make the sacrifice you should have (especially as a hero), that's cowardice. How is it not? V's a pc, the enemy is a mass of npcs which only possess a handful of levels of an npc class. If nothing else, V could have turned invisible and started setting (off) improvised/planned traps, such as pouring pots of boiling oil on the Hobs. Shi had options other than stand there and watch while people as or less skilled than hir did the courageous thing and fought for what was important to them.


and if you keep insisting that not committing suicide is cowardly, then sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree.
There is a vast gulf between a noble sacrifice and suicide. Suicide is selfish and meaningless. A noble sacrifice, even if it can save only one person, even if it can make only one enemy easier to kill, even if all it does is improve ally morale for one brief instant because the rank and file soldiers haven't been deserted by the hero, is something which will never be forgotten.

...not to mention... HERO!!! RESURRECTION!!!


If there is a far better explanation for V's behaviour there (i.e. he didn't do anything because he couldn't do anything, or, at the very least, believed that he couldn't), moreover, if it's an explanation that's consistent with being a smart character, then it's better than assuming that Vaarsuvius has suddenly become a coward out of the blue.
Do you know what a smart character would do? Instead of preparing Invisibility, prepare Rope Trick. When you run out of everything else, you take the rope from around your waist, kept for just this occasion, unfold it to reach it's full 5' length, and cast Rope Trick, climb up in your sanctuary, bringing tired frightened soldiers with you (you can have 7 of them) and rest. The spell lasts 1 hour/level, so V';s would last half a day, and the space is completely extradimensional, outside of the normal planes, and has no time. You can rest eight hours, prepare a new full suite of spells, and climb back down with no time lost, and start blasting hobs.


In any case, notice how Vaarsuvius takes it when he is pinned by an Ancient dragon and under the impression that said dragon is going to kill him. V doesn't try to weasel out of it, or strike a bargain with the dragon, or beg for his life, or even justify his actions. He takes it with complete calm. Even though his death may easily be permanent, since the dragon is capable of destroying his remains. Does that really strike you as cowardly?
Shi saw no way out of it, and is in a significantly different frame of mind than he was back at the azure city. Shi is likely deeply clinically depressed and quite possibly on the brink of being suicidal. This thing with the dragon is actually exactly the thing V needs to get hir kick in the pants and stop moping and better hirself. Not level wise, not spell wise, but character wise.


If V made the deal after his family died, then yes, it would be evil. If he makes the deal to kill the dragon before, then the only reason would have been to protect the family.
No, Shi could make the deal for the purpose of destroying the dragon for daring to plot to destroy Hir Family. This is subtly different from defending hir family, the former is arrogance, the latter is selfless-ish.


That's a very meta- approach to a story. Whole party taken together in Azure City didn't have the 5000gp worth of diamonds, so it's relatively safe to assume it's either not that easy to get them, or that the adventurers don't act in the way you described in Stickverse.
It's the fantasy equivalent of why pirates would frequently have gold earrings or teeth. Pirates had these things so that their comrades could give them a proper funeral, and the dead pirate was nopt over-burdensome.


See also how easily Roy is getting resurrected "in his own damn time" - it's not easy.
Hence the "If I fall, get me back to my cleric, he'll know what to do".


Not to mention, if V actually died in Azure City, there would be no corpse of him left to use for Resurrecting and he would have needed True Res (we don't even know if there's anyone of high enough level do cast that in the whole world).
Why?


If V actually fell defending the cowardly soldiers, then there wouldn't have been anyone left to take his body on account that a) the soldiers would have already been far away b) they would already be dead as well this is the flaw I didn't want to admit first. But... rule of drama? hey it works for the giant...


The guys that were running weren't innocents, they were soldiers who abandoned their posts and duties
They were retreating defending soldiers, they're a hell of a lot more innocent than the Hob soldiers that pursued.


(while V was bravely acting without any duty binding him for the whole time and retreated when out of power).
...He acted bravely while he had spells, the second he was down to one spell left... I'm sorry, I see what he did as cowardice and poor planning.


As for not preparing greater invis? Also a smart move. Preparing invisibility was a good escape plan, but great invisibility would have taken away a higher spell slot used for a better buff or more damaging spell.
I don't know what 4th level spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm#fourthLevelSorcererWizard Spells) V prepared, but he could have done worse than to prepare Gtr invisibility, and as I said above, Rope Trick would've been a better use of a 2nd level slot.


Sacrificing yourself needlessly is not courage. Need more evidence of that, look up quotes by George Patton on courage and battle.
alright, good point, but hiding while allies die isn't courage either. and honestly, what would've contributed to the battle more? V's a high level adventurer, his combat abilities are better than people give him credit for.

[Tempest Fennac]

GettingV's corpse to raise him/her if s/he died would have been next to impossible. Also, the soldiers who were too stupid to initially run could have retreated. Rope Trick takes 10 minutes to cast, and I still fail to see how 1 level 2 spell would have done anything meaningful. Quite frankly, if V was stupid enough to stay, it would have been even worse then it was when s/he ran due to how they wouldn't have been able to help in the future. Also, if V rested inside the city, Xykon would have soon noticed after the Rope Trick wore off if s/he started killing Hobgoblins again.

[Prak]

Rope trick would have allowed hir to rest without actually taking a real 8 hours to do so. Shi could have cast it (As a standard action, might I add), climbed up and rested "8 hours" in a timeless space (it lasts 13 hours, as measured on the plane it was cast on) preparing new spells, and climbed back down just moments after climbing up in the first place. Xykon wouldn't have noticed until he finished havign fun with everyone else, and I think he was having a lot of fun and thus fairly oblivious.

[Tharivol123]

alright, good point, but hiding while allies die isn't courage either. and honestly, what would've contributed to the battle more? V's a high level adventurer, his combat abilities are better than people give him credit for.

I quote V: "There is a vast gulf between being proficient in a weapon and being good with a weapon." As I had stated before, despite being proficient with a bow, V probably doesn't have any modifiers to attack and would stop being invisible, losing hir only advantage. Further, at the range of the hobs, V would be an untrained archer in a melee...always a great result when that happens.

As for not using rope trick, two answers. The first being from the FAQ, where the Giant specifically points out that the characters don't always do the smartest thing/take the best course of action. Number 2...do we have any evidence that V even learned rope trick? There has been none that I have ever seen, otherwise they wouldn't have needed Roy to stand watch every night.

*edit* Also, nowhere in the description of rope trick does it say that time does not pass in the plane it was cast from.

[MickJay]

I don't know what to say, really. The comic makes it clear that V would have pointlessly died if he acted "heroically" (or stupid, considering the circumstances). If you know you can't make any, again, any difference except to save your own life, then getting killed is the worst possible thing to do and for any purpose not different from suicide, and one commited with full clarity of mind. Being smart, he cut the losses by the greatest margin possible (by saving himself). His duty, if any, was to save his life, since he was a much greater asset to the Azurites (and proved this later on) than a few low level and demoralised soldiers. Why Resurrection was not an option, I mentioned in an earlier post.

[Tempest Fennac]

Sorry about that (I'm getting mixed up with other spells which are used to hide while resting). That still doesn;t strike me as practical; why Xykon has no real attention span, I think he's probably be interrested in a high level PC causing damage, if for no other reason then the fact that they would be delaying his plans. (Especially since V would have still been injured unless s/he could retrieve a Cleric, and even then, the lack of food and water would be a problem). We've also never seen V cast Rope Trick for some reason, which suggests s/he never bothered to learn it.

[Prak]

I quote V: "There is a vast gulf between being proficient in a weapon and being good with a weapon." As I had stated before, despite being proficient with a bow, V probably doesn't have any modifiers to attack and would stop being invisible, losing hir only advantage. Further, at the range of the hobs, V would be an untrained archer in a melee...always a great result when that happens.
You grab the bow and get behind cover... I maintain it's better than watching the people you're supposed to protect die and hearing the force you exalt above all others cursed on their last breath.


As for not using rope trick, two answers. The first being from the FAQ, where the Giant specifically points out that the characters don't always do the smartest thing/take the best course of action.
I know... and it hurts... It damn near physically hurts to see the stupid that comes out of some of these characters, especially the ones whose intelligence should be in the 20s...


Number 2...do we have any evidence that V even learned rope trick? There has been none that I have ever seen, otherwise they wouldn't have needed Roy to stand watch every night.
What evidence do we have that he learned Disintegrate apart from him casting it?


*edit* Also, nowhere in the description of rope trick does it say that time does not pass in the plane it was cast from.
also doesn't say that time does. It creates an extradimensional space, which is a demiplane, and it's being created by the caster. I have heard that this tactic is viable, I don't know specifics, would you like me to go find them or are you going to continue to deny the viability no matter what I say?\


Sorry about that (I'm getting mixed up with other spells which are used to hide while resting).
Not a problem, I had to check it myself.

That still doesn;t strike me as practical; why Xykon has no real attention span, I think he's probably be interrested in a high level PC causing damage, if for no other reason then the fact that they would be delaying his plans. (Especially since V would have still been injured unless s/he could retrieve a Cleric, and even then, the lack of food and water would be a problem). We've also never seen V cast Rope Trick for some reason, which suggests s/he never bothered to learn it.
Xykon hadn't paid much attention so far.. he's too arrogant and simultaneously focused on other things.

[Tharivol123]

Adding to the idea V may not know rope trick. I don't have my PHB near me at the moment, so I'm not sure how many 2nd level spells V would have had knowledge of at that time, but we know these from within the comic:
Protection from Arrows, See Invisibility, Gust of Wind, Bull's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Levitate, Owl's Wisdom, Invisibility, and (I could be thinking of someone else on this) Scorching Ray. All of them (except levitate) more useful in a combat situation against a sorcerer and cleric led army than rope trick.

*edit* Yes we have no evidence that V knows disintegrate besides it use. We do not have even that for rope trick. And in all the campaigns I have been a part of, the DM has had time pass for us while in a rope trick.

[Prak]

Adding to the idea V may not know rope trick. I don't have my PHB near me at the moment, so I'm not sure how many 2nd level spells V would have had knowledge of at that time, but we know these from within the comic:
Protection from Arrows, See Invisibility, Gust of Wind, Bull's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Levitate, Owl's Wisdom, Invisibility, and (I could be thinking of someone else on this) Scorching Ray. All of them (except levitate) more useful in a combat situation against a sorcerer and cleric led army than rope trick.
He can "know" as many as he can fit into a spell book. Possibly even using secret page to get around cost limitations.


*edit* Yes we have no evidence that V knows disintegrate besides it use. We do not have even that for rope trick. And in all the campaigns I have been a part of, the DM has had time pass for us while in a rope trick.
I'm seeking the rules which support my suggested usage.

[Tharivol123]

He can "know" as many as he can fit into a spell book. Possibly even using secret page to get around cost limitations.


I'm seeking the rules which support my suggested usage.

True, but is it really worth using more pages for level 2 spells than you need to? Especially when one word takes up several pages and a full day to write?

As for rope trick, I look forward to seeing those rules. If that is the case, I know a certain DM whose legs need breaking.

[kusje]

He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.

Now assuming V had the chance to save 4 soldiers at the cost of his own life and he didn't do it - Would it it be Evil? Nope, just selfish.

Is it wrong to be selfish? I don't think so; the vast majority of people are selfish. There are many innocent people dying in totalitarian regimes worldwide and the very fact that I am sitting in my chair typing this post instead of taking up arms to fight for their freedom says that I'm a selfish person who values my life more than theirs.

The 4 soldiers V chose to ignore were selfish too. They deserted their post and run away because they didn't want to die. If they had stayed, they might have bought time for one extra person to escape from the city.

If V had stayed behind to die, we'd probably have everyone in the forums calling him idealistic and stupid right now.

[Tempest Fennac]

Even if Xykon wasn't bothered about V, Redcloak appeared to be at least 2 levels higher then V during the battle for Azure City, so he would have probably been able to kill V on his own. (Assuming he had back-up to take care of any AC soldiers, who probably wouldn;t be able to help V much anyway.)

[heroe_de_leyenda]

I don't think he/she will turn evil.
He/she WILL take really bad choices. "Wrong" choices that might unleash really creepy events.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

Interesting. You consider it a futile gesture? Die fighting or live as a coward? Your answer reveals more about you than it does about V.

Ah, thank you for the thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. Kindly refrain from them in the future. You are not making your case any stronger, IMO, by making snide comments and thinly-veiled personal attacks against a person you don't know, just to try to discredit my statements when you are unable to do so by using actual logic.

As far as that goes, Die fighting or live like a coward ? Come off it. In what way is it not futile to 'die fighting' when a city that isn't your own, where you were hauled because you were arrested as part of a Machiavellian plot by the city's ruler to coerce you into fighting, has been OVERRUN, and your death will be a momentary blip in the onrush of a legion of enemies?

So every soldier who has surrendered in history has been a coward, no matter what the situation?

Everyone should die to the last man and never retreat every time no matter how it will weaken the future of your cause? Are you claiming that you should never put on the brakes on your car when you see a runaway cement mixer coming at you, because you should take it like a man ? Heck, why head for a tornado shelter when a tornado is coming – show your defiance and die, don’t be a useless lily-livered coward! Widow your wife, orphan your children pointlessly any chance you can get, when your death serves no purpose than some supposedly ‘noble gesture’ that makes no difference to how events come out, will probably cause serious harm later, and will neither be noticed nor remembered and will therefore have no inspirational effect either. After all, that’s what you’re here for – to die ASAP.


What chances did he take? Was he ever really in danger? Did he ever actually risk anything? He was Superman, fighting against people who could only shoot bullets at him. That doesn't take courage.

Hm, and here I thought that he was in imminent peril of death ....

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0424.html

.... but then again, according to your previous sneer, I never really read the comic, so who am I to comment? See, now, I thought V came within a hair of being smashed to a pulp, twice, then used feather fall to save not only himself, but the two Azure city guards, who thank him for that. Looks like he was at risk to me. But since I didn’t really read that, please feel free to disregard it.




And this nonsense about losing invisibility is idiotic. What if he didn't cast invisibility, and took some potshots at the hobgoblins?

Huh? :smallconfused: Are you saying that he could have done anything alone against that tide of hobgoblins swarming through the breach with no spells left, and then cast invisibility later and retreat? He would have been dead before he could say “In–“




The single-hit kill applies to almost every character in the comic, especially unnamed non-gimmick characters, like common soldiers.

But then, this was a gimmick. There was never any question that V would die; that would ruin the strip. V was never in danger, and no situations contain any element of risk. Because the strip must go on. If V died heroically, it would mean that his character actually had virtue. And we all know that virtue is something for Lawful Stoopid characters. Real heroes aren't good guys

Imagine if they had thrown a grenade at the group. Do you really think V would throw himself on it? Or would he spend his last spell to teleport himself away?

He might not have been able to save everyone else, but he could have bought them time to run away. He's made attention-grabbing speeches before.

But, again, that wouldn't accomplish what the Giant wanted. He wanted V to do exactly what he did. Because Good = Dumb.

Well, I always thought that throwing yourself on a grenade WAS dumb. Because if you have time to throw yourself on it, you have time to pick it up and throw it away. Or kick it away. But it's hypothetical. There was no grenade, and you can't make a logical argument about V and a grenade when a grenade wasn't there. :smallsigh:

You’re blaming V for not throwing himself on a grenade when one wasn’t there???? That seems like ‘reaching’ a bit to me. It’s like blaming you for not fighting an elephant in your livingroom this morning when there was in fact no elephant present there ....

And as for “Rope Trick,” a very pretty theory. However, V had exactly ONE SPELL LEFT – invisibility. Can’t cast Rope Trick if you don’t have it.

[Kish]

True, but is it really worth using more pages for level 2 spells than you need to? Especially when one word takes up several pages and a full day to write?
I would expect Vaarsuvius to want to learn every spell in existence. Wizards aren't limited to a single spellbook, you know.

[Noam]

He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.

Now assuming V had the chance to save 4 soldiers at the cost of his own life and he didn't do it - Would it it be Evil? Nope, just selfish.

Is it wrong to be selfish? I don't think so; the vast majority of people are selfish. There are many innocent people dying in totalitarian regimes worldwide and the very fact that I am sitting in my chair typing this post instead of taking up arms to fight for their freedom says that I'm a selfish person who values my life more than theirs.

The 4 soldiers V chose to ignore were selfish too. They deserted their post and run away because they didn't want to die. If they had stayed, they might have bought time for one extra person to escape from the city.

If V had stayed behind to die, we'd probably have everyone in the forums calling him idealistic and stupid right now.

Leaving the azure soldiers to their deaths wasn't selfish, it was sane - V had no way of saving them, as s/he had ran out of magic. The most V could've done is die with them, and that serves no purpose.

[hamishspence]

or just yell "I can't help- just run," Though V might not have thought of that at the time.

[MrPhoenix]

- four words
- to the right guy
- in the right time
- for all the wrong reasons
my guess:

he DECLINES to team up with the evil minion of hell and decides NOT to help his family.

[Tharivol123]

I would expect Vaarsuvius to want to learn every spell in existence. Wizards aren't limited to a single spellbook, you know.

Possible, but if V wanted to learn every spell in existence, why take a specialization and bar two schools? I think there is a reason V hasn't used it before, that being the lack of having it. I don't deny its usefulness, but its lack of use suggests V has no knowledge of it. Much like tiny hut, secure shelter, etc... its one of the spells I make sure a wizard never leaves town without.
Until we see V use it (and thus conclusive evidence to the contrary), all we can presume is that it is not in hir arsenal for one reason or another. Much in the same way we can presume Durkon does not have Zone of Truth, as he has never used it even though it would be well worth it with the party he is a part of.

[Kaytara]

not near enough that he couldn't have helped one group of frightened soldiers.

There were thousands of hobgoblins, all of them charging that breach in the wall. How is that not enough? Vaarsuvius exposing himself to them would have been suicide.


or he was paralyzed by fear/his own feelings of inadequacy/uselessness.
He would still have to want to help the soldiers in order for his uselessness to impact him that badly, which runs contrary to your original point that Vaarsuvius didn't care about them. And if he were afraid, he would have kept running. Stopping because he had frozen up due to fear is not a valid explanation for someone who is a battle-hardened adventurer.


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html
having one spell left (invisibility) and deciding to save your own damn hide rather than make the noble, and yes, probably suicidal, attempt to help with what you have as a part of your cultural heritage ("You're an elf, right? Pick up a bow and get ready then.") and only saying "I'm sorry" while someone else gets ready to make the sacrifice you should have (especially as a hero), that's cowardice. How is it not? V's a pc, the enemy is a mass of npcs which only possess a handful of levels of an npc class. If nothing else, V could have turned invisible and started setting (off) improvised/planned traps, such as pouring pots of boiling oil on the Hobs.

You keep missing the point. A PC is not inherently more powerful and capable than a bunch of NPCs - he is more powerful due to very specific abilities he possesses. If he can no longer use those abilities, he is not more powerful and you can not expect him to participate helpfully just because he happens to be of a PC class.

I'm not entirely solid about this, but if memory serves setting up traps requires skill ranks, skills that are cross-class for wizards. And even if Vaarsuvius were both capable of that AND had the right tools at his disposal, he still would have been able to take down a few dozen hobgoblins at the most out of the thousands that were invading. It's likely several of the goblins would have stopped to hunt him down while the rest would have continued hunting down survivors. In short, there is no real chance that a couple of traps would have changed anything. Also keep in mind that Vaarsuvius is not closely familiar with this city. I fail to see how you can ambush the enemy if you don't know your surroundings.

On top of it, so what if the enemy consists of low-level hobgoblins? There are still thousands of them. You ever play Heroes of Might and Magic? Ask someone who does what would happen if you send 5000 Pikemen (the weakest unit) at a couple of uber-powerful Black Dragons.


Shi had options other than stand there and watch while people as or less skilled than hir did the courageous thing and fought for what was important to them.
I'm assuming you mean the soldiers who stayed at the breach.
Now read that comic again. What happens at the end? They do not do the courageous thing by fighting for what's important for them, because they do not get the chance to fight at all. They are run over. They do not even slow the enemy down, not even a little bit. They got killed without achieving a single thing through their sacrifice.

If you still think that's "noble" then that is clearly the crux of our disagreement and further discussion is completely pointless.


There is a vast gulf between a noble sacrifice and suicide. Suicide is selfish and meaningless. A noble sacrifice, even if it can save only one person, even if it can make only one enemy easier to kill, even if all it does is improve ally morale for one brief instant because the rank and file soldiers haven't been deserted by the hero, is something which will never be forgotten.
So, in short, the difference between (meaningless) suicide and noble self-sacrifice is that the latter achieves something.
As many have already shown, in that situation Vaarsuvius could not achieve anything. You keep trying to prove otherwise, but your ideas rely on the assumption that the PCs have access to every resource and spell in the book and that V is not just Lawful Good, but more so than the paladin Hinjo, who too became convinced that it was better to live to fight another day. Even Durkon, who is Lawful, Lawful, Lawful!, explicitly said that no one blames V for running when he ran out of spells.
No, there was nothing Vaarsuvius could do with any worthwhile chance of success in that situation.
Even if there was something, Vaarsuvius thought that there was nothing he could do, in which case you may accuse him of being misguided or of not giving himself enough credit, but certainly not of cowardice.


...not to mention... HERO!!! RESURRECTION!!!
As already said, that didn't work out so hot for Roy.
On top of it, if Vaarsuvius had refused to flee, any number of things could have happened. He may have simply died, been reanimated as a zombie, and gotten lost among the thousands of others. It's also possible he would have been taken prisoner by Mr. Sorcerer-Who-Hates-Wizards. On top of torture, Team Evil would have been able to learn everything Vaarsuvius knows about the Gates, one way or another. (They do have psionics, after all...) And that happy little scenario just might have ended with Vaarsuvius getting tossed to the Snarl and ending up completely destroyed.


Do you know what a smart character would do? Instead of preparing Invisibility, prepare Rope Trick. ...

Why would Vaarsuvius have prepared Rope Trick before an epic battle? That's not smart, that's just random.
Besides, the assumption is that V does not have it unless shown in the comic.
Even if it were a viable option, that still doesn't mean that running away wasn't the smart thing to do, as well.


Shi saw no way out of it, and is in a significantly different frame of mind than he was back at the azure city. Shi is likely deeply clinically depressed and quite possibly on the brink of being suicidal.

Why would he be in a different frame of mind? He was feeling useless then, he is feeling useless now.
Also, V has a mate, children, and close friends he is actively trying to rescue, which killing himself would run rather counter to. That alone would stop the average person from thinking of suicide and there's been absolutely nothing to indicate that V is the type to off himself in order to escape from this cruel world. Your explanation is completely unfounded.

[Warren Dew]

To sum up my views on the matter, a prisoner should only be able to count on being spared in his surrender if he has actually surrendered and ceased hostilities rather than just laid down pointy weapons. A character who is just using the 'unarmed prisoner' shtick to stab you in the back later should not have the benefit of being spared.

Laying down arms is what ceasing hostilities means. I don't think Kubota's defending himself in the courts - the legitimate courts of the government Elan is defending - counts as "hostilities".

The only thing that makes Vaarsuvius' actions grey there is that unlike Elan, Vaarsuvius had not recognized the legitimacy of Sapphire City law.

However, one action does not an alignment change make. I think for the purposes of this thread, we can assume that Vaarsuvius is presently good or neutral, and the question is what will happen now, rather than what happened in the past.


Mind you, it's not evil to do nothing. I didn't. No one else in the mall did either until it was over. Does that make us evil? No. Cowardly, maybe. I advise you to read about the Kitty Genovese case. Were the people here who did nothing evil? I think so. Sure, they could have got hurt, but surely that's better then letting someone die.

This seems self contradictory to me. Why is it not evil to refrain from intervening in your case where the combatants were unarmed, yet evil for people to restrict themselves to calling the police and yelling to temporarily drive off the assailant in the Genovese case, where the assailant was armed?

It seems to me that in the case of the fleeing guards, the intervention of Vaarsuvius, out of spells and unable to do a thing, would have been more stupid than good. In fact, I don't even think Vaarsuvius' dream is about guilt at being unwilling to act differently; rather, it's guilt at not being more powerful, and thus at being unable, rather than unwilling, to act differently.

[kusje]

You grab the bow and get behind cover... I maintain it's better than watching the people you're supposed to protect die and hearing the force you exalt above all others cursed on their last breath.



That isn't that mission.... Their mission is to protect the gate and not make sure every single person on earth is safe.


Xykon hadn't paid much attention so far.. he's too arrogant and simultaneously focused on other things.

The OOTS doesn't know that. We (the readers) know it because we are semi-omniscient! We get to see scenes that the OOTS cannot possible see.


Leaving the azure soldiers to their deaths wasn't selfish, it was sane - V had no way of saving them, as s/he had ran out of magic. The most V could've done is die with them, and that serves no purpose.

Agreed. Which is why i said "Now assuming V had the chance to save 4 soldiers at the cost of his own life and he didn't do it".

[Noam]

Agreed. Which is why i said "Now assuming V had the chance to save 4 soldiers at the cost of his own life and he didn't do it".

Ah, I see. However, in V's case that isn't the case, and it's pretty hard to find a way to call someone evil for not needlessly killing himself.


The only thing that makes Vaarsuvius' actions grey there is that unlike Elan, Vaarsuvius had not recognized the legitimacy of Sapphire City law.

Yes, but isn't that, as I said somewhere else, an issue of law versus chaos rather than good versus evil?

[hamishspence]

Does V have to? standard laws like "do not murder" "do not steal" are assumed to be present everywhere, according to DMG, and does V have to have accepted its legitimacy for disobeying it to be evil?

[Kaytara]

Laying down arms is what ceasing hostilities means. I don't think Kubota's defending himself in the courts - the legitimate courts of the government Elan is defending - counts as "hostilities".


Kubota standing trial was not the hostilities I was referring to. Rather, it was his clearly proclaimed intention (along with evidence that he was certainly capable of making good on it) to exploit the justice system and then continue menacing the good guys, not in the least by making the whole trial work out to undermine Hinjo's position.
In short, he would've simply used Elan's mercy for his own advantage in order to continue what he had been doing prior to surrendering - using assassins and plots of intrigue to kill Hinjo and take over the throne.

[Noam]

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
(from A Man For All Seasons.)

Yes, that's right, our society is build upon laws, and if we take them away it falls apart. In the case of the azure fleet, society is a bunch of ships and most judges and those who know the rules are dead.


now breaking minor rules is par for the course for Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Scoundrels in Complete Scoundrel (Batman is listed as a LG scoundrel who will "break minor rules for the greater good", Spiderman as a NG scoundrel)

But major rules like murder? Not so much.

Because those rules also have a moral reason. Kubota is a killer, both directly and indirectly. He caused the deaths of countless people and was going to continue doing so unless stopped. V stopped him. The law couldn't stop him. Explain to me what was the harm that his death caused, in this case. Not how this sort of behavior is negative in general, but how this time what V did was wrong.

[hamishspence]

well, they do have a magistrate.

Most of the harm will be to relations between Hinjo and the nobles. Its easy to see how "people who oppose Hinjo disappear" is likely to wreck Hinjo's reputation.

Given that Elan decided to keep the secret after all, and Hnjo and Lien are very aware he's hiding something, it will risk breaking trust between Hinjo and Elan.

Then there's the damage to V from having committed a murder- risks the Nine Hells claiming his soul (especially if V has done other, less evil acts) even if V does not make a specific deal.

then there is "evil acts lead to a fundemental shift of the cosmos- in evil's favour" in both 2nd and 3rd ed.

Etc.

[kusje]

Because those rules also have a moral reason. Kubota is a killer, both directly and indirectly. He caused the deaths of countless people and was going to continue doing so unless stopped. V stopped him. The law couldn't stop him. Explain to me what was the harm that his death caused, in this case. Not how this sort of behavior is negative in general, but how this time what V did was wrong.

I can't explain what harm Kubota's death caused because I believe there is none. But that doesn't mean V was justified in killing him because V didn't even know who Kubota was and what he had done.

[hamishspence]

the "elan only ever ties up major villains" theory is a bit iffy- Elan and the order tie up villains of all kinds from major (nale) to minor (bandits, goblins in DCF bonus strips)

[Prak]

True, but is it really worth using more pages for level 2 spells than you need to? Especially when one word takes up several pages and a full day to write?

As for rope trick, I look forward to seeing those rules. If that is the case, I know a certain DM whose legs need breaking.
apparently the precise tactic is to Plane Shift to a dangerous timeless plane, then cast rope trick there, so you don't get molested by fire elementals (or whatever) while preparing spells.

So, it's not a great idea for the middle of a war, but it's better than what V did. It also requires V to prepare one less Disintegrate each "day" and to have not banned conjuration like an idiot... However, if he gets a wand or some scrolls of plane shift, he can do this. A wand of Plane Shift is 68,250g. not impossible, assuming The silent GM of OotS-world stops being a "punk" and lets someone in the party keep some gods damned gold for mare than three panels. A Wand of Rope Trick would be 4500.

V could conceivably get a custom item that is essentially a portable rope trick on another plane, but... well it's custom and would be expensive.


which runs contrary to your original point that Vaarsuvius didn't care about them.
tell me, when did I say he didn't care? I just said he was a coward.


You keep missing the point. A PC is not inherently more powerful and capable than a bunch of NPCs - he is more powerful due to very specific abilities he possesses. If he can no longer use those abilities, he is not more powerful and you can not expect him to participate helpfully just because he happens to be of a PC class.
No, they had npc class levels, probably one each, but maybe three. He is a 13th level wizard, you can wake him up in the middle of the night, walk him out into the street naked, and hand him a longsword, and he will be a better fighter than any of those hobgoblins (individually), he just doesn't have any staying power.


I'm not entirely solid about this, but if memory serves setting up traps requires skill ranks, skills that are cross-class for wizards. And even if Vaarsuvius were both capable of that AND had the right tools at his disposal, he still would have been able to take down a few dozen hobgoblins at the most out of the thousands that were invading. It's likely several of the goblins would have stopped to hunt him down while the rest would have continued hunting down survivors. In short, there is no real chance that a couple of traps would have changed anything. Also keep in mind that Vaarsuvius is not closely familiar with this city. I fail to see how you can ambush the enemy if you don't know your surroundings.
BOILING OIL!! MORTAL FLESH!! The only skill ranks you need for that is Knowledge (Boiling Oil hurts like fraking hell and can kill someone in large quantities poured over them) and Spot (Those giant fraking vats of boiling oil on the wall of the mideval castle).


I'm assuming you mean the soldiers who stayed at the breach.
Now read that comic again. What happens at the end? They do not do the courageous thing by fighting for what's important for them, because they do not get the chance to fight at all. They are run over. They do not even slow the enemy down, not even a little bit. They got killed without achieving a single thing through their sacrifice.

If you still think that's "noble" then that is clearly the crux of our disagreement and further discussion is completely pointless.
I never said shi should have laid down hir life for the entire damned fortress, shi should have just been willing to do whatever the hell she could have done untill she could no longer do a damned thing. To quote Mal from Firefly, "When you can't run anymore, you walk. When you can't walk anymore, you crawl. When you can't do that anymore, you findsomeone to carry you."
There are a lot of things V could have been doing other than standing there, getting in people's way and watching people die.

However, having watched so many people die while shi couldn't do anything could set up a nice vengeance scene when a force is sent to try and overthrow the hobgoblin occupation...


So, in short, the difference between (meaningless) suicide and noble self-sacrifice is that the latter achieves something.
sounds about right.

As many have already shown, in that situation Vaarsuvius could not achieve anything.
Even killing one Hob would've meant something.

You keep trying to prove otherwise, but your ideas rely on the assumption that the PCs have access to every resource and spell in the book and that V is not just Lawful Good, but more so than the paladin Hinjo, who too became convinced that it was better to live to fight another day.
Bull. Let's look at another fictional character, say, Marv from Sin City. Marv is decidedly not Lawful Good, probably CN at best. He'd probably have done every damn thing he could, even if eventually he was so damned battered and unable to fight all he could do is give the wounded water. V didn't even do that!


Even Durkon, who is Lawful, Lawful, Lawful!, explicitly said that no one blames V for running when he ran out of spells.
Well, I'm not Durkon, as is quite obvious... but V should have done something, not just stand there...

[Wanton Soup]

In short, he would've simply used Elan's mercy for his own advantage in order to continue what he had been doing prior to surrendering - using assassins and plots of intrigue to kill Hinjo and take over the throne.

In the words (near as I remember them) from Richard Cypher, the main hero and good guy in Terry Goodkind's Wizards Rule series

Mercy to the guilty is treachery of the innocents.

This may not be LAWFUL good. Then again, doesn't mean it's Chaotic EVIL.

The idea was that showing mercy to those who have no mercy in themselves will only rebound and be used against you. To kill the army that is going to enslave them, they go back to the homeland and kill anyone they can. By paying with food and labour and most of all MORAL support (but not actually going there with sword-in-hand) these people are NOT innocent and if they see what the cost of war is themselves, they will lose the taste of it.

[hamishspence]

Goodkind books are listed as biggest examples of Moral Dissonance ever on TV Tropes- D&D does not use Goodkind morality. In fact, going by BoED, failing to show mercy is morally very dangerous.

[Wanton Soup]

I can't explain what harm Kubota's death caused because I believe there is none. But that doesn't mean V was justified in killing him because V didn't even know who Kubota was and what he had done.

And in a world driven by plot (see "Witches Abroad" for how powerful that force can be to MAKE it right), there's no need. He's a moustache twirling villain gloating about how he'll make them all pay and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

We don't live in that sort of world.

OotS DO.

[Wanton Soup]

What guts? He was never at risk. As soon as he didn't have his superpowers, he ran away like a little b*tch. It's easy to be Superman when you're invincible. That doesn't take courage.

Same as the paladins and their bosses.

What happened when Ghost Paladin fella nearly killed Xykon? Tried to run away like a little b*tch.

What did the gods do when the snarl was killing them? run away like a little b*tch.

What happens here when the position is being overrun by a superior force or you have no ammo (or none for the purpose, e.g. no AT weapons and tanks are on the horizon)? Would that be run away like a little b*tch?

You calling the armed forces of your country b*tches because they have ALL retreated when they couldn't survive or lost supply???

[hamishspence]

See Thud for examples of how mercy is that appropiate response in a world driven by plot.

Also, Night Watch- Vile as Carcer is, Vimes insists on him being brought in alive, even at real risk to himself.

[Kish]

Possible, but if V wanted to learn every spell in existence, why take a specialization and bar two schools?
Good point. So it's possible that Vaarsuvius had little interest in second-level spells, but...I doubt it. S/he takes pride in spells of great power, in mastery of lesser spells, and even (Nale, the red and green pair in the Sunken Valley) in solving problems with intellect rather than magic. Rope Trick isn't exactly a spell that becomes useless when you gain access to a higher-level version, after all.

In the words (near as I remember them) from Richard Cypher, the main hero and good guy in Terry Goodkind's Wizards Rule series

Mercy to the guilty is treachery of the innocents.

This may not be LAWFUL good. Then again, doesn't mean it's Chaotic EVIL.

That doesn't mean it's not Evil, either...

In the Planescape setting, in the city of Sigil, there were, in 2ed AD&D, nine powerful factions. One for each alignment. One of them, the Mercykillers, held that justice is all-important. "Justice is all-important" made them initially seem appealing to me, until I read more and discovered that a more important part of their philosophy, and the source of their name, is their conviction that mercy is at odds with justice. For every Mercykiller who has a deep philosophical interest in justice, there are five whose primary reason for joining the Mercykillers is that they like breaking legs. They're the faction associated with Lawful Evil.

[kusje]

And in a world driven by plot (see "Witches Abroad" for how powerful that force can be to MAKE it right), there's no need. He's a moustache twirling villain gloating about how he'll make them all pay and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

We don't live in that sort of world.

OotS DO.

V didn't hear the gloating. He didn't arrive early enough for that. All he heard was that there would be a lengthy trial.

"As I landed on the deck, I overheard him saying something about the trial taking weeks".

[Noam]

V didn't hear the gloating. He didn't arrive early enough for that. All he heard was that there would be a lengthy trial.

"As I landed on the deck, I overheard him saying something about the trial taking weeks".

Yea. I believe that killing Kabotu was fine, if, for example, Elan would've done that. That's against the law, but it's the only way to make sure justice is served. V, on the other hand? S/he assumed Kabotu was a villian and killed him to save some time. Yes, s/he turned about to be right. S/he could've just as easily be wrong. Maybe Elan arrested someone because he needs information, and now he'll never get it? Maybe this is some sort of a trick? V didn't have enough evidence to kill someone.

[Kaytara]

apparently the precise tactic is to Plane Shift to a dangerous timeless plane, then cast rope trick there, so you don't get molested by fire elementals (or whatever) while preparing spells.
...
V could conceivably get a custom item that is essentially a portable rope trick on another plane, but... well it's custom and would be expensive.

That's well and good, but I'm not in a position to debate this because I'm no DnD geek. You're still relying on resources V doesn't have - should have, maybe, but apparently doesn't, if often for no other reason than because it would've made things too easy in the story.


tell me, when did I say he didn't care? I just said he was a coward.
Ah, I appear to have confused you with CliveStaples. Apologies.
Nevertheless, the point stands that one usually assumes that an individual who has been in many battles does not randomly freeze up in shock the way a civilian might when faced with a situation like that. In particular, there seems no logical reason for V to have been running and suddenly stopped running, which still runs counter to being afraid of the hobgoblins.


No, they had npc class levels, probably one each, but maybe three. He is a 13th level wizard, you can wake him up in the middle of the night, walk him out into the street naked, and hand him a longsword, and he will be a better fighter than any of those hobgoblins (individually), he just doesn't have any staying power.
See, that there is the problem. How do you persuade each hobbo in a huge army to face you individually just because that's the only way you can beat them?
O-Chul already outlines this problem here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0417.html), and the way it affects a warrior class with an AC of twenty, which V doesn't have.


BOILING OIL!! MORTAL FLESH!! The only skill ranks you need for that is Knowledge (Boiling Oil hurts like fraking hell and can kill someone in large quantities poured over them) and Spot (Those giant fraking vats of boiling oil on the wall of the mideval castle).
In that case, Vaarsuvius would have needed to get on the walls, somehow, despite the invading army streaming through the city. But alright, he has invisibility. But what does he do once he's exposed himself? (Seeing as he apparently doesn't have Rope Trick.)
That said, there are simply far more hobgoblins than are necessary in order to overrun the city. Even if Vaarsuvius had distracted a couple, the wave itself would have remained undamaged and still able to hunt down survivors.



I never said shi should have laid down hir life for the entire damned fortress, shi should have just been willing to do whatever the hell she could have done untill she could no longer do a damned thing. To quote Mal from Firefly, "When you can't run anymore, you walk. When you can't walk anymore, you crawl. When you can't do that anymore, you findsomeone to carry you."
There are a lot of things V could have been doing other than standing there, getting in people's way and watching people die.
Perhaps there are a lot of thing V could have done, but the ideas you've presented so far are not convincing.
So at it stands, Vaarsuvius did indeed do whatever he could until he could no longer do anything.


Even killing one Hob would've meant something.
Please, spell it out. How exactly would one Hobgoblin's death have impacted the force of the invading army and the chances of the survivors?


Bull. Let's look at another fictional character, say, Marv from Sin City. Marv is decidedly not Lawful Good, probably CN at best. He'd probably have done every damn thing he could, even if eventually he was so damned battered and unable to fight all he could do is give the wounded water. V didn't even do that!
The assumption is that you tend to injured people during a break in the fight while in relatively safe conditions (if only very temporarily), not while the enemy is bearing down on you.


Well, I'm not Durkon, as is quite obvious... but V should have done something, not just stand there...
As I said, to me the fact that V just stood there instead of continuing to run indicates that he was indeed trying to think of something. It's possible that, in the few seconds' time he had, he explored some of the possibilities we did and encountered the same problems.

[Wanton Soup]

Yea. I believe that killing Kabotu was fine, if, for example, Elan would've done that. That's against the law, but it's the only way to make sure justice is served. V, on the other hand? S/he assumed Kabotu was a villian and killed him to save some time. Yes, s/he turned about to be right. S/he could've just as easily be wrong. Maybe Elan arrested someone because he needs information, and now he'll never get it? Maybe this is some sort of a trick? V didn't have enough evidence to kill someone.

Why? Elan had already assaulted a helpless prisoner. Killing one is OK???

V assumed with HIS 21 INT SCORE that this was. And why would he repeat the entire bleeding Evil Monologue? The conversation was about "why did you off him"? Well, the reason was that the trial would take weeks, weeks the world may not have.

Which bit of Thud? The bit where Sam Vimes, taken over by a demon of revenge which kills the host and removes the demon by deciding NOT to take revenge is sooo *exactly* applicable to this case. Yup, V was in danger of his life by a demon infesting him here...

I notice you only say "can" here too.

Means it doesn't have to be the case here too.

And all he SAID was a pithy little "he was yakking" precis.

"My trial will last a few weeks at most and when it is over, Hinjo will look like an out-of-to.ch buffoon for even brining charges against me..."

"Yeah, well we'll see who they believe. The Katos and I will testify against you and then..."


Now, have a read.

Where does the "Trial will last a few weeks" come in the dialogue? Now if V heard all that, why didn't he hear the rest? The rest that shows that this guy was going to get away with it (so no justice in the justice system) and that he DID do something really bad (Elan was going to testify).

Now, are you saying V put his fingers in his ears for that bit???

Or do sounds from earlier parts of the speech balloon travel faster in OotSiverse?

[Wanton Soup]

In the Planescape setting,

Hint: This isn't Planescape.

[Wanton Soup]

Also, Night Watch- Vile as Carcer is, Vimes insists on him being brought in alive, even at real risk to himself.

The reason is that Carcer needs to be shown that this isn't a game. Carcer would go to hell laughing at Sam and saying "see, they just fits you up like a kipper. I never done nuthin wrong".

But if he goes down by the numbers, with all the evidence and attempts to prove innocence then Carcer can't do this. He dies knowing that his way DID NOT WORK. Ordinary people living lives of ORDER (==LAW) can and will win against those who ignore the LAW (==Chaos). And Carcer is CE. V is CG.

And Sam Vimes is very different from V. Sam knows he has The Beast in him.

Now go off and read The Wizards Rule series for another hero who is good and has an ideal like V's. Sam isn't the only fantasy character you know.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm guessing V was just assuming it would take weeks rather then having any real evidence for the idea.

[Noam]

Why? Elan had already assaulted a helpless prisoner. Killing one is OK???

V assumed with HIS 21 INT SCORE that this was. And why would he repeat the entire bleeding Evil Monologue? The conversation was about "why did you off him"? Well, the reason was that the trial would take weeks, weeks the world may not have.

Which bit of Thud? The bit where Sam Vimes, taken over by a demon of revenge which kills the host and removes the demon by deciding NOT to take revenge is sooo *exactly* applicable to this case. Yup, V was in danger of his life by a demon infesting him here...

I notice you only say "can" here too.

Means it doesn't have to be the case here too.

And all he SAID was a pithy little "he was yakking" precis.

"My trial will last a few weeks at most and when it is over, Hinjo will look like an out-of-to.ch buffoon for even brining charges against me..."

"Yeah, well we'll see who they believe. The Katos and I will testify against you and then..."


Now, have a read.

Where does the "Trial will last a few weeks" come in the dialogue? Now if V heard all that, why didn't he hear the rest? The rest that shows that this guy was going to get away with it (so no justice in the justice system) and that he DID do something really bad (Elan was going to testify).

Now, are you saying V put his fingers in his ears for that bit???

Or do sounds from earlier parts of the speech balloon travel faster in OotSiverse?

V said, very clearly, that s/he only heard that the trial will take weeks. I don't know how - do you have any reason V would lie to Elan?
It seems you are the one who needs to read the comic again. V said in #596 that s/he didn't even know Kabotu's name, and what he did. V only knew that Kabotu was probably an enemy as Elan had him in custody and that the guy's trial will take weeks.

The reason I think Kabotu's death would've been fine if Elan was the one who did it is because Elan knew the whole story and Kabotu's plan to abuse the law system and go back to his life as a traitor. Imagine someone shots a random person - it later turns out said person was a wanted terrorist. Contrast it with someone who kills said terrorist knowing who he is. Can you honestly say it's the same?

Yes, V has high int score, but that doesn't mean V can't be wrong: the reasons V gave for killing Kabotu were not good enough, IMO.

[Wanton Soup]

Yes, V has high int score, but that doesn't mean V can't be wrong: the reasons V gave for killing Kabotu were not good enough, IMO.
{Scrubbed}

[Wanton Soup]

I'm guessing V was just assuming it would take weeks rather then having any real evidence for the idea.

Based on what?

V is a good guesser???

[Noam]

PS you didnt read again, did you.

What comes after "The trial will only last a few weeks"?

PPS where in the entire conversation did the name of the moustache dude turn up? So how is not knowing his name indicative that V didn't hear the conversation???

What comes after "The trial will only last a few weeks" is "Hinjo will look like a clueless buffon for even charging me" and more gloating about how Kabotu is going to win the trial. No crime is mentioned.


And, just like Holmes' assumptions doesn't mean he's wrong, he's right when he's right and we can't see how the HECK he got to the conclusion. So Watson asks and Holmes explains.

Just because we can't understand the logic doesn't mean it is wrong. Just that we can't understand it.

But Elan did ask V why she killed Kabotu. V said, very very clearly, that the only thing that made h** kill Kabotu was the fact that Elan had him in ropes and that s/he heard his trial will be long. In fact, it is only after Elan tells V what Kabotu did that V says "according to your own words, he probably deserved death anyway", meaning that V didn't know he deserved death before that.

Unless you claim that this was a lie that V told for reasons beyond mortal understanding.

[Wanton Soup]

What comes after "The trial will only last a few weeks" is "Hinjo will look like a clueless buffon for even charging me" and more gloating about how Kabotu is going to win the trial. No crime is mentioned

If there's no crime, why are the Katos and Elan going to testify???

I don't have 180IQ and even ***I*** could work that one out.

[Noam]

If there's no crime, why are the Katos and Elan going to testify???

I don't have 180IQ and even ***I*** could work that one out.

1) Elan and Katos weren't mentioned after Kabotu said the trial will last a few weeks.
2) Of course there was some crime - they were taking about a trial. But V had no way of knowing what it is, and if it's punishable by death.

[Wanton Soup]

1) Elan and Katos weren't mentioned after Kabotu said the trial will last a few weeks.

Take a look at Elan's Speech Bubble in #595. Fifth panel. The one just before "Disintegrate".

What's that say...?

And Elan doesn't tie up people who stole from the cookie jar.

[MickJay]

And Elan doesn't tie up people who stole from the cookie jar.

It's been said already, just because someone commited a crime doesn't mean they deserve to die. There's a whole range of crimes between stealing from a cookie jar and things that are threatened by death penalty (sure, this differs according to time and place, but a "good" society, I expect, would be hesitant to kill its criminals).

Killing of Kubota may have been partially justified (though in a very insignificant way as far as I'm concerned), but it was still evil - not necessarily because Kubota didn't deserve it, but because V didn't even know if Kubota really deserved to die.

[Noam]

Elan doesn't tie up people who stole from the cookie jar.


It's been said already, just because someone commited a crime doesn't mean they deserve to die. There's a whole range of crimes between stealing from a cookie jar and things that are threatened by death penalty (sure, this differs according to time and place, but a "good" society, I expect, would be hesitant to kill its criminals).

Killing of Kubota may have been partially justified (though in a very insignificant way as far as I'm concerned), but it was still evil - not necessarily because Kubota didn't deserve it, but because V didn't even know if Kubota really deserved to die.

That's right. V admits, in the following comic, that s/he didn't really know if Kubota deserved to die, and it seems like s/he didn't care.

[hamishspence]

yes: the phrase "what is a kubota?" springs to mind.

Also on moustaches and goatees- Hinjo has a goatee, Shojo had a Fu Manchu moustatche, neither were villains.

[Wanton Soup]

yes: the phrase "what is a kubota?" springs to mind.

And read #595 again. Where IS his name mentioned????

So he doesn't have the info about this geezers name does he.


Also on moustaches and goatees- Hinjo has a goatee, Shojo had a Fu Manchu moustatche, neither were villains.

Also

Not tied up
Not gloating about how he'd get away with it
Known by V
Weren't killed.


I think your problem (generic you) is the same as with Belkar. Some people liked Belkar but brought up in a cognitive dissonance: I like Belkar, But I don't like Evil, But Belkar is Evil, so I can't like Belkar, but I like Belkar, But I ....

And so got out of the loop purely by jumping outside and saying "HE'S CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!!!" I'M FREEE!

Simialarly here, you seem to have problems with a hero, a good guy doing things you think are wrong. But I am good, I'd do good things, so anyone who doesn't do what I would do is evil so V must be evil.

He's not you.

He's Good.

But he's not you.

And if he does something you don't agree with, that doesn't mean he must be evil any more than Belkar doing something good or funny means he can't be evil.

[Wanton Soup]

That's right. V admits, in the following comic, that s/he didn't really know if Kubota deserved to die, and it seems like s/he didn't care.

Uh, have a look at the panel again.

#596 panel 5.

Doesn't know? Does. Doesn't know WHY but does know he deserved to die.

A valid target is a valid target.

[Wanton Soup]

It's been said already, just because someone commited a crime doesn't mean they deserve to die.

However, this one did.

End of story.


Killing of Kubota may have been partially justified (though in a very insignificant way as far as I'm concerned), but it was still evil - not necessarily because Kubota didn't deserve it, but because V didn't even know if Kubota really deserved to die.

Evil for YOU to do it (via YOUR PC) because YOU consider it evil.

However, V doesn't. I don't either. There isn't enough evidence (that which is seen) to decide whether V is reckless or merely Sherlock Holmes: inscrutably right.

V however is CG.

Elan is CG too, but he's trying to be Roy and Roy is LG. Even Elan says that he deserved summary execution (negating your first point). Like you, he doesn't think V's approach to the decision is right. Hasn't said EVIL though. You have.

[Noam]

And if he does something you don't agree with, that doesn't mean he must be evil any more than Belkar doing something good or funny means he can't be evil.

...What? Elan disagrees with V, and Elan is good to the boot.


Doesn't know? Does. Doesn't know WHY but does know he deserved to die.

A valid target is a valid target.

Based on WHAT? Yes, yes, Elan had him tied up. But maybe Elan needs Kabotu alive to save the innocents, because of some information Kabotu has? Maybe Kabotu stole charity money and resisted arrest, forcing Elan to tie him up? We know, but V has no way of knowing that! V made a guess. It turned out to be right, but that's not enough.


However, V doesn't. I don't either. There isn't enough evidence (that which is seen) to decide whether V is reckless or merely Sherlock Holmes: inscrutably right.

There is evidence that V is reckless, which we keep bringing up. There is no evidence that V is Sherlock.


V however is CG.

There is no place where V is said to be CG. You, like your hero V, are guessing.

{Scrubbed}

[hamishspence]

the main reason I've been arguing that the act was evil (not necessarily V, yet, just the act) is the number of sources in D&D that suggest that any killing that constitutes Murder is evil.

PHB, BoVD, Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2. BoED and Champions of Valor have references to the fact that for Good charcters, killing a prisoner (in the absence of a legal execution) is "out of the question"

Kubota was a prisoner, being taken to custody to await trial. Yes, there was a risk that he might get out of it. but act was still murder.

Killing of evil beings in D&D is not automatically "not murder" especially not when they pose no physical threat (at the moment) and haven't yet been charged.

[Noam]

the main reason I've been arguing that the act was evil (not necessarily V, yet, just the act) is the number of sources in D&D that suggest that any killing that constitutes Murder is evil.

PHB, BoVD, Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2. BoED and Champions of Valor have references to the fact that for Good charcters, killing a prisoner (in the absence of a legal execution) is "out of the question"

Kubota was a prisoner, being taken to custody to await trial. Yes, there was a risk that he might get out of it. but act was still murder.

Killing of evil beings in D&D is not automatically "not murder" especially not when they pose no physical threat (at the moment) and haven't yet been charged.

I agree the act was evil, but saying that killing a prisoner without a legal trial is evil means that law is inherently good and chaos is inherently evil, and I will die before admitting that. You can take my life, but you can never take my chaos!


Like you, he doesn't think V's approach to the decision is right. Hasn't said EVIL though.

Elan compared V to Belkar. That's pretty much saying V is evil, is it not?

[Wanton Soup]

...What? Elan disagrees with V, and Elan is good to the boot.


Roy an Miko disagreed! And she's LAWFUL GOOD to boot!

Must mean Roy is teh evil.

EDIT: And as to the Sherlock Holmes, he's an example of someone SO INTELLIGENT they can deduce *accurately* from clues we miss completely a supposition that is almost always correct.

Intelligent like, oh, I dunno, a 22INT Elf.

PS I'd not post triple but the site is soooo pigging slow (not to render, it doesn't START talking for ages and times out. and times out again. and again. Oh, and again).

{Scrubbed. Regardless of why, please don't post twice or more in a row. Please use the "Edit Post" feature or allow someone else to post. Also, please refer to the Forum Rules of this forum as the primary authority on the rules here.}

Several of the recent posts were, at the time, to the last ones on the thread and did not constitute a double post by your sites definition of it. At the end of posting the updates did not show any new threads.

Thank you for your red. Looks lovely.

[hamishspence]

there is also the "illegal but reasonably fair" trial, a la Milady De Winter in the Three Musketeers novel. Could also fit within CG.

CG groups are expected to have some sort of jurisdictional system though- Races of the Wild mentions how CG elves do it, DMG2 also mentions Chaotic trial systems.

[Wanton Soup]

Elan compared V to Belkar. That's pretty much saying V is evil, is it not?

No, I'd say that was an excellent way to show V how his justification wasn't necessarily a GOOD justification.

Road to hell and all that.

Mind you, while we're on this point, you seem to think that Elan was saying literally V was Evil like Belkar.

Do you also believe that when V turned about after being accused of such said "Well, if I'm bad and only concerned about efficiency, why would I let YOU live, Elan?" and then figured that V just then absolutely threatened Elan with death?

Because BOTH these cases are the same thing. An illustration not of an absolute sense but of how the logical conclusion of the actions and reasonings of the other show how ridiculous the person is being.

Elan to V: Hey, Belkar would think that way too! Do you think that this is a good way to think???

V to Elan: Hey, if I WAS like Belkar, I'd just zap you. You zapped? Maybe your accusation isn't as accurate as you thought.

So in answer to your question, no it is not.

It IS a good warning that if it is acceptable reasoning to someone who IS evil, you may want to reconsider the lifestyle choice there.

That isn't saying "you're evil" it's saying "do you want to BE evil?".

[Wanton Soup]

there is also the "illegal but reasonably fair" trial, a la Milady De Winter in the Three Musketeers novel. Could also fit within C.

How do you have an illegal trial that is fair? The trial should not have taken place!

[Noam]

Geez, Wanton, take it easy. Now look:


Posting twice in a row is generally frowned upon. If you are responding to multiple points, please use quotes and other post formatting to clarify this. Please use the Edit option to modify information in a post instead of immediately making a new one. If you do accidentally double post, you can delete the extra post under the Edit option.

You can find the rules of posting (of this forum) in the link up in the page. I am just trying to keep you from getting banned, you don't have to respond so harshly.


Roy an Miko disagreed! And she's LAWFUL GOOD to boot!

Must mean Roy is teh evil.

That's not what I meant. I meant that what you said it that everyone who thinks V is wrong just say what they think. I'm just saying that there are also people in the comic (Elan, and probably all the paladins should they know what V did) that disagree with V.

EDIT:

Because BOTH these cases are the same thing. An illustration not of an absolute sense but of how the logical conclusion of the actions and reasonings of the other show how ridiculous the person is being.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here, or in the rest your post. No, I don't mean that you're saying BS or anything, I honestly have no idea what you are saying.

[Wanton Soup]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here, or in the rest your post. No, I don't mean that you're saying BS or anything, I honestly have no idea what you are saying.

I'm saying that Elan wasn't saying "V, you're Evil". Just that someone evil would think the same way.

But the good people think that they should live. And so do evil people. Does that mean all good people are evil because they share the same idea?

PS What is the reason for the "no multiple posts"? And the definition of multiple postings doesn't cover what I did. And "please edit your posts" is Ok when you don't have to copy and save anything you write in case the thing times out again and has to post old information. And risk it again the next time. Oh, and the next time).

PPS So what if Elan doesn't agree with V? Roy didn't agree with Miko either. Does Elan disagreeing with someone PROVE someone is evil or does it just prove that Elan doesn't agree with them?

The latter.

[hamishspence]

I'd say closer to "V, that particular act was evil" Not quite the same as saying "V, you're evil now"

Though in the next strip "V, you're a mean and horrible person" Still, Elan chose to cover up for V nontheless- maybe out of some residual loyalty?

[Optimystik]

PS What is the reason for the "no multiple posts"? And the definition of multiple postings doesn't cover what I did. And "please edit your posts" is Ok when you don't have to copy and save anything you write in case the thing times out again and has to post old information. And risk it again the next time. Oh, and the next time).

It seems to me that multi-posting would be okay if your original post is getting too long responding to one person, and so you would shift your responses to others into a second. However, posting just for a quick sound byte (e.g. "Hint: This isn't Planescape") that could have easily fit in a previous post probably isn't going to satisfy that criteria.

However, I'm not a moderator, so I would suggest PMing one for clarification rather than asking one of us.

[Noam]

I'm saying that Elan wasn't saying "V, you're Evil". Just that someone evil would think the same way.

But the good people think that they should live. And so do evil people. Does that mean all good people are evil because they share the same idea?

Elan wasn't talking about something that both good and evil people believe in, such as the will to live. That's not a moral belif. Elan was saying that what V did was something that Belkar would agree with, morally, hench he called V evil (or at least that act evil).


PS What is the reason for the "no multiple posts"? And the definition of multiple postings doesn't cover what I did. And "please edit your posts" is Ok when you don't have to copy and save anything you write in case the thing times out again and has to post old information. And risk it again the next time. Oh, and the next time).

Yes, yes it does. Posting more than once in a row is exactly what you did. Why it's not allowed? I don't know, I don't make the rules, I am just saying. And I know that the servers are annoying. Still, the rules never say "ignore the rules when they annoy you". I am just trying to warn you, mate.


there is also the "illegal but reasonably fair" trial, a la Milady De Winter in the Three Musketeers novel. Could also fit within CG.

CG groups are expected to have some sort of jurisdictional system though- Races of the Wild mentions how CG elves do it, DMG2 also mentions Chaotic trial systems.

That I can agree with.

[Wanton Soup]

I'd say closer to "V, that particular act was evil"

Well I wouldn't.

You would.

World turns.

Only Richard knows the truth.

[QUTOE]Though in the next strip "V, you're a mean and horrible person" Still, Elan chose to cover up for V nontheless- maybe out of some residual loyalty?[/QUOTE]

Or because he didn't think there was anything definitely wrong with what V did. It was just uncomfortable. Remember, Elan is trying to do what Roy would, as he says later.

And Roy is LG.

[hamishspence]

main reason for saying act was evil is: various D&D sourcebooks define murder as evil, and any definition of murder that would exclude V's act would be seriously overstretched.

[nleseul]

yes: the phrase "what is a kubota?" springs to mind.

Honestly, I kind of feel like V is purposefully exaggerating zir own ignorance of the situation to stress how pointless ze finds it to be. In the next strip, V makes some comments about Therkla that strongly suggest that ze is fairly aware of Elan's romantic subplot (despite claiming to not know what a "therkla" is either). I think it's somewhat reasonable to assume that ze was at least somewhat familiar with Kubota's activities as well, and just chose not to waste time explaining that to Elan out of frustration with all of it.

[Wanton Soup]

main reason for saying act was evil is: various D&D sourcebooks define murder as evil, and any definition of murder that would exclude V's act would be seriously overstretched.

You keep saying this. You keep being told this is a tautology. You keep getting refuted and your referrals to BoVD is then shown to be unworkable as your definition doesn't work and if it did, then nobody is G.

Murder = Evil

OK.

Is this murder?

No.

You then bring out BoVD. Someone points out that the Mercykillers in Planescape are killers without remorse and yet somehow not evil. You ignore it and someone points out the deaths of all the goblins by paladins that refuse to be fallen thereafter.

And then you disappear.

Until the next time it comes to stating as apparent fact that murder is evil and that this is murder.

Again.

[Optimystik]

You then bring out BoVD. Someone points out that the Mercykillers in Planescape are killers without remorse and yet somehow not evil. You ignore it and someone points out the deaths of all the goblins by paladins that refuse to be fallen thereafter.

Wha? Weren't you the one saying "this isn't Planescape?"

And of course the paladins didn't fall, they got away on a technicality; just like the paladin in Roy's party in OtOoPCs that was pissed about not being able to murder Durkon because he'd lose his powers who was also LG only technically yet stayed un-fallen.

[hamishspence]

and this is 3.5, alignments have changed quite a bit since 2nd ed.

[Wanton Soup]

Wha? Weren't you the one saying "this isn't Planescape?"

Yup. However this isnt about OotS this is about BoVD's definition of Evil and Murder. Which, as you pointed out before (it was you that did, wasn't it?) is also apparently using BoVD. Except in the case of Planescape it isn't all in Rich's head.

So when another place where people go killing and this ISN'T murder, you need more than "murder is evil and this is murder" to prove your point.

I'm asking for more.

Hamishpence hasn't managed to get any more before, so I'm not holding my breath.

(and this thing "forgot" my login because of timeouts. It's not really a timeout, it's waiting for connections and not getting them).

PS: The paladin guy didn't want to kill ***A TEAM MEMBER***. Or he'd lose quite rightly his status.

Paladins from AC killed an entire village including children. Maybe half of which were good or neutral. Never one fell.

Now any definition of "murder" that both covers V's actions *and* doesn't cover the actions of the Azure paladins is not only stretched, it's practically noneuclidian.

[hamishspence]

BoED mostly- when it points out that if bad guys surrender, its preferable to take them back to the authorities for trial, than kill them and risk being tried for murder.

Also, for how evil a murder is compared to another evil act, Fiendish Codex 2.

since PHB doesn't really define murder, and BoVD only does so very sparsely, real world definitions are almost all we have.

BoED points out that D&D morality isn't medieval- slavery, discrimination, torture etc might have been seen as non-evil in medieval times, but not in D&D.

Then there is Heroes of Horror, which points out Being Evil is not a sufficient justification for a killing.

DMG points out "common sense" laws against murder or theft are assumed to be in force everywhere.

[Kish]

You then bring out BoVD. Someone points out that the Mercykillers in Planescape are killers without remorse and yet somehow not evil.
Ahem. I pointed out the exact opposite, as the faction is defined as Lawful Evil.

And if you think we're supposed to look at the Azure City paladins' actions in Start of Darkness and think, "They didn't do anything wrong," you've missed a great deal of the point of that book. No, the Twelve Gods wouldn't strip Vaarsuvius of paladinhood for killing the young black dragon. That's completely beside the point.

[Wanton Soup]

Ahem. I pointed out the exact opposite, as the faction is defined as Lawful Evil.

And if you think we're supposed to look at the Azure City paladins' actions in Start of Darkness and think, "They didn't do anything wrong," you've missed a great deal of the point of that book. No, the Twelve Gods wouldn't strip Vaarsuvius of paladinhood for killing the young black dragon. That's completely beside the point.

Vhailor is LN.

Heck, Ignus is CN.

How can that be????

And V doesn't have paladin status. But if murder is evil and V's killing the dragon is murder, then the killing of the village is murder too. Yet the paladins didn't fall...

So that couldn't be murder, can it.

So what makes V's killing of the dragon murder and evil when killing the village wasn't?

[Wanton Soup]

since PHB doesn't really define murder, and BoVD only does so very sparsely, real world definitions are almost all we have.




Hang on hang on hang on.

Didn't you say:


main reason for saying act was evil is: various D&D sourcebooks define murder as evil, and any definition of murder that would exclude V's act would be seriously overstretched.

And the only core ones are PHB, and the DMG?

Now, if murder is ALWAYS evil, why is that really quite central thing left out of the PHB and DMG???

And now you suddenly bring in Fiendish Codex2. Well, I suppose if one unknown book isn't enough, TWO unknown books will work!!!

[Kish]

Vhailor is LN.

Well, Vhaillor, not the sourcebooks about Planescape, must define the organization Vhailor belongs to, mustn't he. Look, you convinced me that I'll never be able to relate to your concept of morality, or you to mine, a long time ago. I just object to you grabbing a single word from one of my posts and citing it as though that post said the exact opposite from what it did.


And V doesn't have paladin status. But if murder is evil and V's killing the dragon is murder, then the killing of the village is murder too. Yet the paladins didn't fall...

So that couldn't be murder, can it.

As I said, you completely missed one of the main points of Start of Darkness. Goodnight and goodbye.

Hang on hang on hang on.

Didn't you say:



And the only core ones are PHB, and the DMG?

Of which, the Player's Handbook states unambiguously that judging by the race rather than the individual is an example of Lawful Evil thinking.

[Noam]

But if murder is evil and V's killing the dragon is murder, then the killing of the village is murder too. Yet the paladins didn't fall...

...You really, really didn't get the point of that book, did you?

Not sure if this is worthy of a spoiler tag, but just in case: SoD spoilers ahoy
SoD makes it clear that the OOTS gods - even the supposedly good ones - are evil basterds. It is clearly showen that not all goblins were evil, and that the gods created the goblins so they'll be killed. The paladins didn't fall because the gods that created the goblins as XP chuncks for their followers are the ones who decide if they fall or not.

[hamishspence]

Neither PHB nor DMG list acts. closest thing in PHB is "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (but not necessarily all three)

BoVD does, including murder and also mentions circumstances in which an act is not murder (if its to save people from an immediate threat- a person about to commit murder) BoED also mentions it, and lists circumstances when attacking evil is still evil (if they are non-combatants, for example)

Fiendish Codex 2 has a short list of Always evil acts, and the scale of them compared to each other.

(it also has a list of always Lawful acts)

[Wanton Soup]

...You really, really didn't get the point of that book, did you?

Uh, WE would call them evil. Or really mean people.

But, they are LG/CG/G/LN... etc.

You know, Good is good, even if we think they aren't particularly nice.

Rather like, oh, I dunno, the GREEK GODS I mentioned earlier.

Heck, old YHWH wasn't much better, was he, in the stories.

[Wanton Soup]

Neither PHB nor DMG list acts. closest thing in PHB is "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (but not necessarily all three)

So you agree that it is really up to the GM. Those other books are *ideas* other people have come up with, written down and sold to some people, but they aren't D&D. They are helpful hints of what you MIGHT want to consider.

[Wanton Soup]

Of which, the Player's Handbook states unambiguously that judging by the race rather than the individual is an example of Lawful Evil thinking.

No, I wouldn't call it Evil why would it be *evil*.

And it isn't only the book to go on. It's the immediate nom nom nom from thug junior that kind of puts him down the the bad side of the "nice doggy/bad doggy" camp, really.

So, nope. that doesn't apply here either.

or, oddly enough with V vs Kabuto. Since he doesn't HAVE an entry in the manual.

And how about when it says "ALWAYS EVIL"? Are you supposed to think the universe is lying to you??? That's not D&D, that's Paranoia. Square.

[hamishspence]

Well, the do have the Wizards tag as well as the D&D tag- so, not third party. Add in the fact that multiple sourcebooks draw on them. In massively multiplayer tabletop D&D games like Living Greyhawk, the FAQ on "what constitutes an evil act in D&D?" says "See BOVD"

So, they aren't just one-shot books.

[Wanton Soup]

Where does it say that, hamishpence? In the BoED???

[hamishspence]

Living Greyhawk FAQ is on Living Greyhawk section of WoTC site.

BoVD and BoED based content are in sourcebooks published after them.

The full list I can recall offhand:
Eberron: City of Stormreach
Player's Guide to Faerun
Champions of Ruin
Champions of Valor
Heroes of Horror
Fiendish Codex 1
Fiendish Codex 2
Exemplars of Evil
Elder Evils

[Warren Dew]

Paladins from AC killed an entire village including children. Maybe half of which were good or neutral. Never one fell.

That's a very big "maybe". Maybe - quite likely - all those killed were evil.


Now any definition of "murder" that both covers V's actions *and* doesn't cover the actions of the Azure paladins is not only stretched, it's practically noneuclidian.

I disagree. "Killing any enemy who has surrendered and had that surrender accepted constitutes murder" is a perfectly reasonable rule, and would distinguish the cases.

[Wanton Soup]

Geez, Wanton, take it easy. Now look:



You can find the rules of posting (of this forum) in the link up in the page. I am just trying to keep you from getting banned, you don't have to respond so harshly.



That's not what I meant. I meant that what you said it that everyone who thinks V is wrong just say what they think. I'm just saying that there are also people in the comic (Elan, and probably all the paladins should they know what V did) that disagree with V.

EDIT:


I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here, or in the rest your post. No, I don't mean that you're saying BS or anything, I honestly have no idea what you are saying.

Now notice the EDIT needed there. Why's that? It's because he had to edit his post to my post after I edited my post after his first reply.

THIS is why the site definition of what constitutes a Double Post is not what the internet calls it. And why it doesn't use that definition.

[Wanton Soup]

It seems to me that multi-posting would be okay if your original post is getting too long responding to one person, and so you would shift your responses to others into a second. However, posting just for a quick sound byte (e.g. "Hint: This isn't Planescape") that could have easily fit in a previous post probably isn't going to satisfy that criteria.

However, I'm not a moderator, so I would suggest PMing one for clarification rather than asking one of us.

Like "Murder is evil and this is murder" perhaps? Hamishpence seems to dislike cluttering his posts up with things like "who it's to" and stuff.

And no, the "too long" is mostly the problem of posting a response to multiple people. It makes it that you have to scan through a person's entire ecologue to find out if something for you is within.

Or post back to one person, one topic and if you don't care for that argument, you can skip it and KNOW you are missing nothing.

Which is why the Internet definition of Double Posting is what it is. Not what it is here.

I'm asking WHY at the moment.

[Noam]

That's a very big "maybe". Maybe - quite likely - all those killed were evil.

I don't think so.

Again, not a serious spoiler, but anyway...
There were women and children that were killed there, and I really doubt that every single one of them was evil. It makes more sense to me that the paladins didn't fall because the gods don't see anything wrong with randomly killing goblins - after all, that's why they are there.

[Wanton Soup]

"Killing any enemy who has surrendered and had that surrender accepted constitutes murder" is a perfectly reasonable rule, and would distinguish the cases.

And that IS a reasonable rule.

It just isn't one Rich is using.

And since this is Rich's universe...

[Volkov]

1. According to your logic Benjamin Sisko is evil because he went into an escape pod when his ship was about to explode at Wolf 359 and let the Borg destroy the rest of the fleet. V couldn't do anything. He could maybe have told them to run, but if he panicked and was couldn't think of it or had fear to give his position away is not known to us. Only to him and the Giant.
2. He abandoned no friends! Elan and Durkon abandoned Haley, Roy and Belkar! V is the truest friend you can have.
3. Okay, so talking to someone before kicking him off your island or trying to transform him into a pile of dust is now evil...... Clearly you have a definition of morals that is unknown to me.
4. It's not his fault. Or is it your fault if you die when somebody drops a bomb on your house because you weren't in the cellar for security reasons? You always have to think that somebody may have the intent to bomb your house...

Magic in D&D has no dark side that can corrupt you for having negative emotions. And even if V would make a pact with the devil to save his family, that wouldn't automatically make him evil. It would maybe endanger his soul or force him to do things he doesn't want to, but no auto-evil...

Actually according to the fiendish codex II, signing a pact with a devil automatically changes your alignment to Lawful evil for half of the pacts in return for a very powerful favor/s. The others encourage you to become evil by giving you lesser favors but are not absolute.

[Noam]

I disagree. "Killing any enemy who has surrendered and had that surrender accepted constitutes murder"

So, if Elan were to decline Kabotu's surrender and stab him in the face, would that be fine? Not that I'm saying that it's not, just making sure if that's what you're saying.


signing a pact with a devil automatically changes your alignment to Lawful evil

Maybe, but V signed no pact. V only talked to the imp to make sure what it's doing there before attacking/kicking him out of the island. Or are we saying that talking before attacking is evil?


And that IS a reasonable rule.

It just isn't one Rich is using.

How do you know? What makes you think that Rich isn't using that rule? There isn't any reason to believe that he does, true, but also no reason to believe that he doesn't.

[Wanton Soup]

How do you know? What makes you think that Rich isn't using that rule? There isn't any reason to believe that he does, true, but also no reason to believe that he doesn't.

This one can be answered.

The paladins didn't fall. And this wasn't an "almost never" this was "frequently". So an alignment change for the paladin to LE or maybe LN.

According to the BoVD.

And can you have a LE paladin?

There's one piece of evidence.

BoVD is inconsistent with itself and its sister publication BoED. So it can't be all used. It has to be appraised and the bits that "work" applied IF YOU WANT THEM TO.

That's a second piece.

Now do you have ANY evidence that the rules in BoVD is in place in this universe?

Anything?

AND AN EDIT AGAIN.

Jumping to conclusions but I've left the crud there as a warning to others about it.

Dead sleeping goblins. Not murder.

Dead kiddie goblins. Not murder.

Dead Black dragon suggested. Not murder.

Doesn't look like it's one Rich is applying, does it. Or if he is, there's a lot of "except..." and "unless...".

[Wanton Soup]

Actually according to the fiendish codex II, signing a pact with a devil automatically changes your alignment to Lawful evil for half of the pacts in return for a very powerful favor/s. The others encourage you to become evil by giving you lesser favors but are not absolute.

Only if the DM is taking that rule on.

It's not a game of Monopoly, you know. Nor a CRPG. The laws are malleable to make THE GAME.

And even if that were so, I would suggest that it is only if the contract requires the alignment change. cf Faust.

[kusje]

This one can be answered.

The paladins didn't fall. And this wasn't an "almost never" this was "frequently". So an alignment change for the paladin to LE or maybe LN.



Sorry, hadn't had the chance to read the prequels (stupid shipping cost is about 150% the price of the book itself) but when has a paladin killed someone who surrendered?

[Wanton Soup]

Sorry, hadn't had the chance to read the prequels (stupid shipping cost is about 150% the price of the book itself) but when has a paladin killed someone who surrendered?

UK? Pfft. You can't get the bleeding thing at all here.

They had no chance to surrender. The paladins were on horses, the kids ran away with their hands in the air and the swords swung.

The entire village apart from two goblins died.

[Ozymandias9]

Better to die doing the courageous thing than to live as a coward. Besides, this is D&D, a smart adventurer carries a pouch of 50,000 gp worth of Diamond Dust in a pouch so they can be resurrected on their own damn dime.
Another thing to look at, what are the two likely outcomes here:
first outcome (stand and watch): You survive, and are tormented by the memory of your weakness.
second outcome (fight): Die, spend a bit of time in the after life and (hopefully) get ress'd relatively soon. Hell, Fight and say "If I fall, you four need to carry me to my cleric friend, he knows what to do".

He's separated from his comrades in a city under siege by numerical superior forces led by a lich and an evil cleric. There's no reasonable expectation that any of the people she might get to aid her would survive to get her body to a cleric (as one of the soldiers noted "There's so many of them"). We know True Resurrection is hard (if not impossible) to come by in this world, and know of no arcane caster aware of the situation who would be both able and willing to use 2 wishes as an alternative. She has a greater chance of being raised as an undead than raised from the dead if he died. And, in the process of dying, she likely would not have made a dent in the hobgoblin/undead horde.


No, but Fighting to save innocents, even if you have little better chance than they do is courageous, and standing by doing nothing as said innocents are slaughtered, because you're too afraid, is cowardice.

Risking your life in an attempt to save others is, I agreee, brave and commendable. And its quite clear that V did succumb to fear. But even if she had not, even if he had been fully self-possessed and in control of her fear, his choice would likely have been the same: there would have been no reasonable expectation of saving others.

The only real choice was whether or not to die in the process of not saving them. V made the choice for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't make it the wrong choice. Adding one-self to the body count for no discernible advantage isn't brave, its stupid.


They had no chance to surrender. The paladins were on horses, the kids ran away with their hands in the air and the swords swung.
The first question there, to my eye anyways, would be whether or not the paladins and their gods earnestly viewed the situation as warfare. Death in warfare, even if it were between two Lawful Good nations, wouldn't constitute murder under the moral codes of most martial societies. Remember, Rome burned Carthage to the ground and salted their farmlands. Twice. And lauded the virtue of the commanders who did it. Scorched earth and general warfare are a good way to introduce the brutality of a medieval setting, and they certainly weren't considered evil at the time.

[Warren Dew]

I don't think so.

Again, not a serious spoiler, but anyway...
There were women and children that were killed there, and I really doubt that every single one of them was evil. It makes more sense to me that the paladins didn't fall because the gods don't see anything wrong with randomly killing goblins - after all, that's why they are there.

Start of Darkness
Why is it that people assume women and children can't be evil? Especially with respect to the women, the OotSiverse is pretty gender neutral - a large fraction of the Azure City guards were women - so that kind of gender stereotyping seems pretty unjustified. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the woman goblins were just as evil as the men.

Children can also be evil; Xykon as a child is a likely example. Granted, children don't generally have the power to do the large scale evil things that adults can, but in my book, ripping the wings off flies for the fun of it is still evil, and seems the kind of thing goblin children might well like to do.

It's nice to assume "innocent until proven guilty", but with a race that's usually evil, one will come closer to the truth assuming "guilty until proven innocent". The paladins didn't have to make any assumptions, though - they have detect evil, and it seems likely they used it.

Now, I'll grant you that might not have been evil yet at that point. On the other hand, I'd point out that he was one of the ones the paladins didn't kill, too.


So, if Elan were to decline Kabotu's surrender and stab him in the face, would that be fine? Not that I'm saying that it's not, just making sure if that's what you're saying.

By that rule, yes. Note that I'm not saying that's the best rule to use; I'm just presenting it as one that would differentiate the two cases Wanton Soup presented - and would also differentiate Vaarsuvius' killing of Kubota from a whole slew of other questionable killings the Order has done.

Edit:

Adding one-self to the body count for no discernible advantage isn't brave, its stupid.

It could be both. As the marines put it, "your job is not to go out there and die for your country. Your job is to go out there and make the other guy die for his country."

[Wanton Soup]

Start of Darkness
Why is it that people assume women and children can't be evil? Especially with respect to the women, the OotSiverse is pretty gender neutral - a large fraction of the Azure City guards were women - so that kind of gender stereotyping seems pretty unjustified. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the woman goblins were just as evil as the men.

Children can also be evil; Xykon as a child is a likely example. Granted, children don't generally have the power to do the large scale evil things that adults can, but in my book, ripping the wings off flies for the fun of it is still evil, and seems the kind of thing goblin children might well like to do.

It's nice to assume "innocent until proven guilty", but with a race that's usually evil, one will come closer to the truth assuming "guilty until proven innocent". The paladins didn't have to make any assumptions, though - they have detect evil, and it seems likely they used it.

Now, I'll grant you that might not have been evil yet at that point. On the other hand, I'd point out that he was one of the ones the paladins didn't kill, too.



But they didn't stop 1 r and detect evil. And the chances of them all being evil are slim to nonexistent by default.

Heck, one eye after he grew up actually went to a settlement that was at peace with the neighbors So was attempting Good. And nobody Detected Evil on him


By that rule, yes. Note that I'm not saying that's the best rule to use; I'm just presenting it as one that would differentiate the two cases Wanton Soup presented - and would also differentiate Vaarsuvius' killing of Kubota from a whole slew of other questionable killings the Order has done.

So zapping the dragon before he surrendered was OK. And Kabuto didn't surrender to V. Nor did it sound like he really surrendered except by the lawful definition of "I say I surrender and put my weapon down".

So I doubt whether this would be considered a surrender even to Elan (even though Elan, trying to be Roy, accepted it after punching Kabuto on the noggin [assault on a prisoner!!!! EVILLLL!!!]).

But as I say, it doesn't appear to be the rule used here. And if it was a hard-and-fast 100% no-exeptions rule, then it can always be exploited.

Rather like picking "CN" so that you can do all the cool stuff Evil do without the downsides. You can't rule against it because those rules can be twisted to let you in. Ask any solicitor.

[Volkov]

No matter what happens if V asks Qarr he'll be closer to having an after life in the Nine Hells of Baator.

[Wanton Soup]

No matter what happens if V asks Qarr he'll be closer to having an after life in the Nine Hells of Baator.

Only in that one small step outside your door can lead you up to the top of Ben Nevis. I.e. if you didn't take a step out your door, you'd never get to the mountain.

But that's the way it works. Start with the small evils. No cost. Just like you, that's all.

And after a while, THEY are asking for more. And then you whip out the old "soul transference" contract.

But you CAN always turn back. It's just that many people say they can't because they don't want to realise they have decided they don't want to. It's a lot nicer to have it blamed on "It's too late now" rather than "I'm just going to keep doing it".

[Noam]

Start of Darkness
Why is it that people assume women and children can't be evil? Especially with respect to the women, the OotSiverse is pretty gender neutral - a large fraction of the Azure City guards were women - so that kind of gender stereotyping seems pretty unjustified. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the woman goblins were just as evil as the men.

Children can also be evil; Xykon as a child is a likely example. Granted, children don't generally have the power to do the large scale evil things that adults can, but in my book, ripping the wings off flies for the fun of it is still evil, and seems the kind of thing goblin children might well like to do.

It's nice to assume "innocent until proven guilty", but with a race that's usually evil, one will come closer to the truth assuming "guilty until proven innocent". The paladins didn't have to make any assumptions, though - they have detect evil, and it seems likely they used it.

Now, I'll grant you that might not have been evil yet at that point. On the other hand, I'd point out that he was one of the ones the paladins didn't kill, too.

Start Of Darkness

The idea is that women and children don't really get the chance to do evil things. Children are weak (unless they happen to have spellcasting), as you said. And if ripping off a flies wings is evil (and I agree that it may very well be) that means that lots of children - human children - deserve to die. Is that what you are saying? Not all evils are punishable by death. And women...Well, I saw lots of women human fighters. I saw maybe 3 women goblin ones. Are the other women in the village evil because they want to do evil things? Do we have any reason to believe that they even want to do that much?

There is no reason to believe the men are evil. They follow an evil god, sure, but it's pretty much the only god that gives a dam about them. The paladins detected evil, and the goblins turned out to be evil - but remember who decides what's good and evil in the first place. The gods, the same gods that created intelligent beings so that their followers will kill them and get XP. I'm not blaming the paladins here (actually, that whole gloating about killing children with cleave thing was a little too much), but the goblins didn't do anything wrong other than being evil - for being goblins.

It is possible that the goblins in the village raided on humans, as Right-Eye told Redcloak when describing the village he lives in that here there are no raids on humans. But does that means that every single goblin in that village was evil?
Remember Right-Eye? He turned out to be a pretty good guy, and he was in that raid. He wasn't killed, but he didn't survive because the paladins showed mercy to him or anything. Remember that village of goblins that coexsists with humans? If paladins go there and kill everyone, is that fine because the gods say it is?

[Wanton Soup]

It could be both. As the marines put it, "your job is not to go out there and die for your country. Your job is to go out there and make the other guy die for his country."

Hah! Oddly enough, that was what was going through my head last night (cold, can't sleep cos I suffocate. boo).

And similarly, if you see a tank on a road in a hostile area. It's not yours, it's not an allies machine and it isn't actualy SHOOTING yet, you don't say to your sergeant "Cop hold of the LAW there and point it at that thing. I'll walk out in front and if it shoots at me, you take it out." do you.

You point the LAW, and fire.

Now it could have been filled with enemy soldiers desperately looking for something in white to wave out the cupola (but being in battle, this seems to be in short supply...).

But your job isn't to save your enemies troops, it's to save your own.

[Prak]

No matter what happens if V asks Qarr he'll be closer to having an after life in the Nine Hells of Baator.

If V dies and is destined for Baator, I really hope that's not the one thing where the Giant starts to actually go with what the books say... With the way Baator is written up in FC2, there's no damned reason for any intelligent person to be evil...

[Wanton Soup]

If V dies and is destined for Baator, I really hope that's not the one thing where the Giant starts to actually go with what the books say... With the way Baator is written up in FC2, there's no damned reason for any intelligent person to be evil...

Except

1) The evil babes wear leather and are HOT
2) They like it kinky too!
3) Pay is GREAT
4) Hours excellent
5) As are the other perks of the job
6) Your boss can be roasted on a spit for a few decades

and much, much more!!!

All you need to do is sign the dotted line. The fine print? It's just standard clauses, no need to worry about it.

But for fifty years, it's EXCELLENT!

PS Just remembered Sir Galahad the chaste: could have stayed back at castle anthrax, teaching all those nubile 18 year old girls the error of their ways and overpowering them EASILY. But no, he got to go into the chasm of eternal pain or whatever it was because he forgot his favourite colour was blue.

Now THAT is the worst way to end up in Baator...

[Prak]

Except

1.Paladins get more chicks than evil characters (generally. My denegration of paladins in the Ur Priest thread not withstanding.)
2.Good chicks often wear leather too.
3.They also can like it kinky.
4.the paragons of Good chicks tend to leave you with more energy when they're done, rather than less.


holy crap I'm arguing in favour of being good...

...course the only reason I'm evil is because the prevailing world view says I am...

Why the Hell would Galahad need to overpower the nuns of Castle Anthrax, they all seemed quite eager.

[Wanton Soup]

Except
3.They also can like it kinky.


Convent school? I may give you that one. The evil ones are hotter, though. Wooo hoo!


Why the Hell would Galahad need to overpower the nuns of Castle Anthrax, they all seemed quite eager.

Exactly Lancelot didn't have to save his soul from the peril since there was very little peril there. But no, that stick-in-the-mud HAD to drag him away.

He's probably gay.

[King of Nowhere]

As the marines put it, "your job is not to go out there and die for your country. Your job is to go out there and make the other guy die for his country."
Also, as Roy said recently, "if there's one thing I learned the hard way, is that you are not helping anyone if you get yourself killed in the process".
Or, to quote Durkon "ye gotta do tha good ye can, when ye can. Else ye end up doin' na good at all"
Or, to slightly modify what Daigo told Hinjo, "If we're going to ever retake the city, we'll need you leading the charge. Not the bard, who is dodoo head".


To add a spoiler to the goblin question, I have something from commentaries in War and XP: Rich said that between goblinoids and humans there is a feud that is going on for centuries. There's no telling who started it, and after all that time it don't matter anymore. But Rich put it clear that striking goblins villages that way was totally bad. On the fall of Azure city, he said something on the line of (sorry I don't have the copy handy at the moment) the paladins have slaughtered goblins for decades, on behalf of their gods, and now they are defeated by a villain they created. Sometimes even the gods can't stop karma to smack their divine butts.
I see it as confirming my previous toughts: the gods didn't give a crap about the goblins (they made them to be killed for XP, remember?) so they let the paladins kill them all. The paladins committed great evil in that, but they didn't fall because the decision is up to the gods, and they were satisfied that way. I hope the snarl get them for this.
By the way, even in warfare, killing civilians is considered bad. It is accepted accidentally killing civilians when aiming at something else (and an army is expected to do the possible to spare them), but deliberately harming civilians is considered wrong in any civilized country, and is against a good bunch of international laws. And surely is a bad thing, so I don't expect a paladin, stalwart champion of good and justice, to do it, even if regular troops find it acceptable.

[MorelHighground]

Ok time for my weigh in (also for sake of simplicity V will be a male)
First let me state my thesis , so those who want to be TL;Dr people can be part of the convo too.
I think what V did in azure city was... Human(or in this case Elven) and therefore neither good bad cowardly or brave. He has since been becoming more questionable in his motives though. Still he has not become evil yet and Is instead changing his veiws and persectives, a neutral act. It is what he will do with this that is the issue
for the person throwing the Real world Kitty Genovese case around, as a Psych student that is a commonly used case to support the EXACT opposite of what you are saying.
The case of kitty Genovese was A case in a phenomenon called the bystander effect. It in short is that people in large groups assume that by doing nothing they are making the process easier for those who can help the situation, They know they can do nothing more than in this case call the cops and so assume that others will have done the same and by blocking up the phone lines they are causing more hassle. In V's case while he could have taken out the three goblins that came into screen he would have quickly become a target to be hurt and needed himself to be saved. Even Emts are taught that if you can't do something that doesn't put you and the person at risk DON'T do anything at all. Two victims you can save are worse than one who you can't save. Please read down into the article for a more detailed description Of said phenomena
also for those who are saying Fight with you bow proficiency. OK look I am not weapons expert but I know my bows and a wizard who, knowing the way most wizards are , didn't waste a feat on Point blank shot, would find the bow a hinder more than a help, hell it would have gotten him killed faster! Don't believe me? Play fable and try to shoot enemy's at close range. I dare you. Bows are meant as long ranged weapons and are meant as cover fire for those who are wielding (proficiently I might add) bigger and badder weapons that are meant for close range. V had little chance to ready a bow much less use one as the goblins were on the heels of the paladins.
Also being Lawful good one way of being good. While I agree there is a time and a place for a last stand, a death charge ect. There is A TIME and A Place.
For instance. Good time for a death charge: when you are one of the ones that either have a chance at surviving or that can hold the enemy off to let something important get away.
Bad time: when you can't do anything but the most ineffectual of damage and get yourself killed when you can be more useful elsewhere
Finally If you are frozen in fear, and trust me when I say I know this feeling, that is not a bad thing. It means you are Living and want to continue living. Weaither V's deal was Fear or Intellegence on his part it was not cowardly not evil and not really anything but what it was.
Since then though, since then V has begun moving into a phase of short temper, obviously fuel by lack of sleep, anger at his own feelings of helplessness and wanting to find power to protect those he loves or repsects. Its a break down of epic proportions. Hes finding out slowly that magic is not the most powerful force on earth and it is making him crack becuase his world was based on that assumption.
V is going through advanced stages of survivor guilt and is not turning evil but changing his veiws. once this break down is done though, once he has changed his views, is when he will change, when we will see if he is evil.

[Wanton Soup]

Ok time for my weigh in (also for sake of simplicity V will be a male)

Pfft. for sake of simplicity V will be "he".

Just because common usage says he=male doesn't mean it is. And, unless procreation is involved or the presence of certain gender-specific items part of the discussion, there's no male or female.

It used to be man was the neuter. Woman was the female man. And Merman was the male man.

If you feel slighted, you could always take the view that women get a *special* name for them, just for them, whereas men just have to do with the generic one. Similarly with "mr" single and "mr" married. Nobody can tell he's bagged a woman, that one was so impressed with him that she tied the knot with him. Whereas women get to say "Mrs" to prove they are wanted and desired.

Which may explain why so many blokes get retentive about being called "Doctor" when they have a doctorate. That's the only thing that separates this mr from all the other hoardes of mr who didin't get a doctorate. And he's going to INSIST it gets used!

All about perspective.

[MorelHighground]

Pfft. for sake of simplicity V will be "he".

Just because common usage says he=male doesn't mean it is. And, unless procreation is involved or the presence of certain gender-specific items part of the discussion, there's no male or female.

It used to be man was the neuter. Woman was the female man. And Merman was the male man.

If you feel slighted, you could always take the view that women get a *special* name for them, just for them, whereas men just have to do with the generic one. Similarly with "mr" single and "mr" married. Nobody can tell he's bagged a woman, that one was so impressed with him that she tied the knot with him. Whereas women get to say "Mrs" to prove they are wanted and desired.

Which may explain why so many blokes get retentive about being called "Doctor" when they have a doctorate. That's the only thing that separates this mr from all the other hoardes of mr who didin't get a doctorate. And he's going to INSIST it gets used!

All about perspective.
Wow ummm way to narrow in on something that wasn't my point?

[Wanton Soup]

Wow ummm way to narrow in on something that wasn't my point?

You're welcome.

You can now use "he" without having to say "for simplicity" or make up the linguistic contortions others try with S/he or Shi or Zi or whatever.

And if someone accuses you of sexism for "just assuming" they're male, you also have a reason why this is not the case.

And, as a bonus, you get another point if someone says "well, use she then" (which is one extra letter to type and anyway why are they demanding you do it their way???). That if there were some unfairness in using "he" rather than "she" that would only balance the unfairness already set against men in the pronoun department.

But you can complain about being helped too, if that makes you feel good.

[MorelHighground]

No sorry, I like that you informed me so well and throughly about the topic, the randomness just threw me a bit off track there. The boards I Gestated on in tended to use that as a way of dismissing longer posts.
Thank you for the info

[David Argall]

I am not sure if V is evil but I think she will make a limited deal with Qarr, and will be teleported back to the ship where V will appeal to Elan and Durkon to help, and will have some problems. I suspect from there he will be teleported to the statue and will de-stone it. This will be followed by a devil-dragon battle, which will end poorly in some way.

[Tempest Fennac]

King, Diagon was actually quoting Elan when he called Kubota a "doodoo head" rather then calling Elan one. That is an interresting theory, David. Whether the giant Devil would want to help V or not is a different matter, though. (I'm assuming he doesn't owe Qarr anymore favours).