So. Is V going to prove a hypocrite?

[AndrewRogue]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html

Well. Generally speaking, V left because of subplot distractions. The entirety of V's argument rested on the idea that he was doing whatever it took to successfully research things.

Of course, if V opts to pursue the dragon and such to protect his family, he has allowed a subplot to interfere with his research.

So, realistically, if V actually believed anything about his own argument for killing Kabuto, the only real option is to simply let the dragon do its thing and move on with life. After all, his family has become a distraction.

Thoughts?

[Da'Shain]

My thought is that anyone who would consider their own family's demise a "subplot" isn't worth the air they're breathing.

Hypocrite or no.

Also, V killed Kubota, not Hinjo.

[Penquin47]

No. V is going to learn the error of his ways and seek to mend them. You're not a hypocrite if you say one thing at one time and change your mind.

[AndrewRogue]

Sorry, was thinking one thing and typing another, apparently. Thanks for catching that.


No. V is going to learn the error of his ways and seek to mend them. You're not a hypocrite if you say one thing at one time and change your mind.

I don't know. It seems like an awfully convenient position for "learning the error of his ways and seek to mend them" if he changes his mind as soon as the subplot involves things he cares about.

[Finwe]

I don't know. It seems like an awfully convenient position for "learning the error of his ways and seek to mend them" if he changes his mind as soon as the subplot involves things he cares about.

Generally this is called "learning things the hard way."

[Carnivorous_Bea]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html
[url]http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html[/url

So, realistically, if V actually believed anything about his own argument for killing Kabuto, the only real option is to simply let the dragon do its thing and move on with life. After all, his family has become a distraction.

Thoughts?

Totally different situation, unless you view V as viewing the OotS world from outside the comic.

In-comic, he had never seen Kubota before in his life, and even from an out-of-comic perspective, Kubota was just a petty, small-time, treacherous politician of the most dull and predictable kind.

In-comic, he's been married to his wife for decades at least, and possibly centuries. His children are 26, after all, and still in kindergarten, so there's probably a 6 year gestation period or something ...

Anyway, my point is, that unless V has only seen his family ever for this one comic strip, then no, he's not being hypocritical, because they're not a subplot to HIM. To US, they're a subplot, because we haven't seen his entire life. But if we assume that the characters have existed in their own world even when we don't see them in the strip, then this isn't a subplot, it's the main theme of his life, and your argument becomes just another bit of V-bashing. :smallsigh:

[cobaltstarfire]

I would not personally consider something that directly affects a PC in such a way to be a subplot.

[AndrewRogue]

"Now can we PLEASE resume saving the world?"

Again, the entire thrust of V's argument against Elan was that saving the world was the most important thing, to the point where he would willingly do anything to stop from being interrupted, including brutally eliminating obstacles and abandoning the rest of the group. V has established that saving the world is the main plot and the only thing he is interested in.

Hell, by similar logic (his family is important to him, therefore it isn't a subplot), Therkla was intensely important to Elan and it was likely a relatively traumatizing experience to him, but V wrote it off as a mere subplot. That situation, even though it was based on a shorter time frame, was still incredibly important to Elan. *shrugs* I just don't see how V deserves a free pass for suddenly deciding that there are more important things than the main plot of the game because his family's life is on the line. When you can justify randomly disintegrating people and threatening your teammates (as well as demean issues that are important to them) based on comic logic or being subplots, you don't really have a leg left to stand on. *shrugs*

[Kish]

Are you saying that to ever go against something you said previously makes you a hypocrite?

'Cause I'd have to say that if you are, I'd rather not know anyone who isn't a hypocrite, thanks. :smalltongue: I can think of no more certain formula to produce an absolute monster than "this person has never gone against anything he said previously. Never. No, not even then."

That said, this is certainly a subplot. It doesn't relate to saving the world. It has nothing to do with Xykon or the gates. If Vaarsuvius attempts to maintain the contempt s/he previously showed for Hinjo's and Elan's concerns while still focusing on preventing the ancient dragon's revenge, s/he will be very much a hypocrite with all that term's negative connotations intact.

[Quorothorn]

"Now can we PLEASE resume saving the world?"

Again, the entire thrust of V's argument against Elan was that saving the world was the most important thing, to the point where he would willingly do anything to stop from being interrupted, including brutally eliminating obstacles and abandoning the rest of the group. V has established that saving the world is the main plot and the only thing he is interested in.

Hell, by similar logic (his family is important to him, therefore it isn't a subplot), Therkla was intensely important to Elan and it was likely a relatively traumatizing experience to him, but V wrote it off as a mere subplot. That situation, even though it was based on a shorter time frame, was still incredibly important to Elan. *shrugs* I just don't see how V deserves a free pass for suddenly deciding that there are more important things than the main plot of the game because his family's life is on the line. When you can justify randomly disintegrating people and threatening your teammates (as well as demean issues that are important to them) based on comic logic or being subplots, you don't really have a leg left to stand on. *shrugs*

Vaarsuvius clearly did not understand so much as one tiny bit of what was happening with regards to Therkla, quite frankly.


Are you saying that to ever go against something you said previously makes you a hypocrite?

'Cause I'd have to say that if you are, I'd rather not know anyone who isn't a hypocrite, thanks. :smalltongue: I can think of no more certain formula to produce an absolute monster than "this person has never gone against anything he said previously. Never. No, not even then."

Three words: "Stay the course".

[whitelaughter]

How is hypocritical for V to care about hir family, after calling Elan to task for not focusing on finding *his* girlfriend?
While what V said to Elan wasn't fair, that was due to lack on information on V's part - information V didn't have due to an obsession with, let's face it, a noble goal.

[magic9mushroom]

Unfortunately, Kish, the bad definition of hypocrite and the one that the OP is using seems to be the one accepted on the internet. If it wasn't, then flamewars would be a lot less common.

[Branco]

A daft mind like V's will find bridges to rechtfertige his goal.

Somethin' like the dragon killing my children and having me watch him and the mental impact it will have on me is too much of a distraction and will therefore hinder him on his search for Haley and co.

Damn, Im so ****ing right right now lawlz!

[AndrewRogue]

Harsh reactions. :p

Look, there is plenty of fair room for learning from your mistakes and developing from them. However, that actually takes a moment of thought, reflection and realizing what a jerk you've been. Jumping straight from "quit screwing around with these side characters, we've got to save the world" to "oh no, my family, I must drop everything and save them" is actually relatively hypocritical.

I will, of course, give him a fair shake if he stops and has a dawning moment where he realizes he's been a fool, but I'm not seeing that as likely at the moment.

To break it down a little further, I don't see how him leaping to his family's aid wouldn't be a case of hypocrisy. He established himself as someone who emphasizes the big picture over everything else and is above unimportant (in the face of the end of the world) distractions. Again, he has presented this as his position to the point where he is willing to disintegrate people, alienate aid and threaten his teammate.

If he drops all his research to go to his family's aid, that is a pretty distinctive act of hypocrisy. :p

[Balgus]

So, realistically, if V actually believed anything about his own argument for killing Kabuto, the only real option is to simply let the dragon do its thing and move on with life. After all, his family has become a distraction.

Thoughts?er... seriously? You think that keeping a promise to a friend is more important stopping someone from murdering your family?

Subplot or not, I believe spouse and children warrants whatever detour life throws at you.

[Sholos]

Three words: "Stay the course".

That's not a good policy when you're headed towards a waterfall, or the edge of a cliff.
_________________________


That said, this is certainly a subplot. It doesn't relate to saving the world. It has nothing to do with Xykon or the gates. If Vaarsuvius attempts to maintain the contempt s/he previously showed for Hinjo's and Elan's concerns while still focusing on preventing the ancient dragon's revenge, s/he will be very much a hypocrite with all that term's negative connotations intact.

This. Basically, to be a hypocrite, you have to be going against currently held beliefs. Meaning that the threat to V's family could very well change his thoughts on what is and isn't important. I agree that if V continues to think personal plots are unimportant after this point (assuming he tries to do something about it) that he would be being a hypocrite.

[Quorothorn]

That's not a good policy when you're headed towards a waterfall, or the edge of a cliff.

Too right you are, as I think we all can attest to of late.

[Kalbron]

hyp⋅o⋅crite 
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

V's personal beliefs on the defence of family. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html)

/thread

[AndrewRogue]

V's personal beliefs on the defence of family. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html)

/thread

Fair enough counterpoint. ^_^

Of course, I'd debate the /thread-ness of that, given, as everyone above has so kindly pointed out, that people can change and take new approaches to life. For example, in that panel, V did not threaten to disintegrate anyone who opposed the quest or served as a slight nuisance. :p

[Kaytara]

V's personal beliefs on the defence of family. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html)

/thread

Yes, exactly.

For V to be a hypocrite, he'd have to go against his beliefs. So we need to first define exactly what constitutes his beliefs.

Now let's see... Vaarsuvius has not professed the absolute belief that people who are important to him are alright to betray and leave to certain death for the sake of a larger goal. If we look at the ship arc, we notice that Vaarsuvius' strategy kept him from having to choose - he could concentrate his efforts both on the big goal and on saving his close friends, Roy and Haley, and went against Durkon's insistence to ditch their friends behind enemy lines and go on to the gate.
His callousness during the arc (and with the dirt farmers, as well) was indifference towards the people he didn't care about enough to go out of his way to help them. He didn't care enough about Lien to help rescue her from her own stupidity in not running away, he didn't care about Therkla because, to him, she was just the object of a fling to a bard with Attention Deficit Disorder who can't concentrate enough to remember that he still has a girlfriend somewhere and who had already expressed the opinion that seducing bad guys was in his job description.

Protecting those he cares about and disregarding those that mean nothing to him is an entirely consistent trait in Vaarsuvius.

While he threatened Elan, we do not know if he would actually have been willing to follow up on that threat. It's also worth noting that V was very angry with Elan at that moment for reasons I already outlined, as he perceived Elan to be both unfaithful to Haley and to hinder him in getting her back.

And before anyone brings up V abandoning Elan and Durkon - he left them in the care of two high-level paladins with both willingness and resources to keep their PC allies alive and safe. After defeating a huge devil for them. If V didn't care about them and only perceived them as distractions he would have left there and then, leaving them to fend for themselves. Not that would have been reprehensible, but V instead chose to defend them at a great risk to his life.

[Iranon]

I don't see V as a hypocrite, and I seel little evidence of a change in morality.

V has always been fond of applying a generous amount of magical violence. Add that s/he let slip s/he tampered with the 'fundamental natural order when bored' and casually considered soul binding Nale out of expediency.

The Giant has done a wonderful job of showing that characters need to be of the shallow baby-eating Evil variety to be truly scary.

[CliveStaples]

Totally different situation, unless you view V as viewing the OotS world from outside the comic.

In-comic, he had never seen Kubota before in his life, and even from an out-of-comic perspective, Kubota was just a petty, small-time, treacherous politician of the most dull and predictable kind.

In-comic, he's been married to his wife for decades at least, and possibly centuries. His children are 26, after all, and still in kindergarten, so there's probably a 6 year gestation period or something ...

Anyway, my point is, that unless V has only seen his family ever for this one comic strip, then no, he's not being hypocritical, because they're not a subplot to HIM. To US, they're a subplot, because we haven't seen his entire life. But if we assume that the characters have existed in their own world even when we don't see them in the strip, then this isn't a subplot, it's the main theme of his life, and your argument becomes just another bit of V-bashing. :smallsigh:

Surely you see the immorality in valuing a person's life solely based on how important they are to you. It may not be hypocritical, but it's not Good.



The fact is that V thinks he can kill anyone that is sufficiently unimportant and/or distracting. Know who else thinks like that? Darth Vader. V's interests simply happen to coincide with the party's for the time being.

The point is that if this was happening to someone else's family, there's very little chance that V would oppose the dragon. And he might even help the dragon, if the person or the person's family was unimportant and/or distracting to V.

[Golden-Esque]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html

Well. Generally speaking, V left because of subplot distractions. The entirety of V's argument rested on the idea that he was doing whatever it took to successfully research things.

Of course, if V opts to pursue the dragon and such to protect his family, he has allowed a subplot to interfere with his research.

So, realistically, if V actually believed anything about his own argument for killing Kabuto, the only real option is to simply let the dragon do its thing and move on with life. After all, his family has become a distraction.

Thoughts?

He could quite possibly be hippocritical. What is it with this forum and treating hippocracy like the creme de la crop of sins? I don't get it ....

I'd put this more in the terms of irony rather then hippocracy. V left the boat to avoid frivolous subplots and events, only to provide the dragon an opportunity to entangle V in the largest and most distracting subplot that could have possibly been plotted against V.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

Surely you see the immorality in valuing a person's life solely based on how important they are to you. It may not be hypocritical, but it's not Good.



The fact is that V thinks he can kill anyone that is sufficiently unimportant and/or distracting. Know who else thinks like that? Darth Vader. V's interests simply happen to coincide with the party's for the time being.

The point is that if this was happening to someone else's family, there's very little chance that V would oppose the dragon. And he might even help the dragon, if the person or the person's family was unimportant and/or distracting to V.

Hm, a touch of Miko in this argument.

This argument is certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions, pretty elaborately, too. Permit me to elucidate --

1. I merely stated that to V, his family is NOT a subplot. They are a subplot to US because we exist outside the comic world. From V's perspective, they are a main plot which has been going on for far longer than V's membership in the Order of the Stick. I said nothing about the morality/immorality ....

2. I don't see why you're saying it's immoral for V to defend his family. You basically just said that valuing your family's lives is immoral and "not Good." I can't even imagine what you're driving at here -- trying to keep your family from being tortured to death is suddenly an eeeeeeeevil act simply because V, whom you dislike, is trying to do it?

3. V thinks he can kill anyone who is sufficiently unimportant or distracting? Where on earth do you come up with this? V killed Kubota because of the correct assumption that Elan, a Good person, would not have a prisoner unless said prisoner was a villain. If he thought like you said, he would have simply killed the old woman asking for her husband back, he would have killed the husband, he would have killed Elan innumerable times, etc. V has never acted like you're saying, so I can't see where you're getting this, other than the fad for "illogical V hate" that seems to have suddenly exploded on the forums.

4. If it was happening to someone else's family, V wouldn't help against the dragon -- and might help the dragon? This is a pretty bizarre assertion -- in that case, why didn't he help Xykon wipe out Azure City? Why did he risk his life fighting two titanium elementals alone, including casting feather fall on two ordinary mooks who had absolutely no use to him, simply so they wouldn't splat? He should have helped the bandits kill Elan then as well, since Elan getting captured was just a nuisance, etc., etc. Your idea doesn't match up to the V I've been reading about.

I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about, to be honest.

[CliveStaples]

Hm, a touch of Miko in this argument.

This argument is certainly jumping to a lot of conclusions, pretty elaborately, too. Permit me to elucidate --

1. I merely stated that to V, his family is NOT a subplot. They are a subplot to US because we exist outside the comic world. From V's perspective, they are a main plot which has been going on for far longer than V's membership in the Order of the Stick. I said nothing about the morality/immorality ....

And I merely stated that the importance V places on his family doesn't absolve his viewpoint of its immorality.


2. I don't see why you're saying it's immoral for V to defend his family. You basically just said that valuing your family's lives is immoral and "not Good." I can't even imagine what you're driving at here -- trying to keep your family from being tortured to death is suddenly an eeeeeeeevil act simply because V, whom you dislike, is trying to do it?

I said nothing of the sort. You're knocking down strawmen.

Of course it's moral for V to defend his/her family. However, it is not moral for V to kill people that he deems unimportant and/or distracting.


3. V thinks he can kill anyone who is sufficiently unimportant or distracting? Where on earth do you come up with this? V killed Kubota because of the correct assumption that Elan, a Good person, would not have a prisoner unless said prisoner was a villain. If he thought like you said, he would have simply killed the old woman asking for her husband back, he would have killed the husband, he would have killed Elan innumerable times, etc. V has never acted like you're saying, so I can't see where you're getting this, other than the fad for "illogical V hate" that seems to have suddenly exploded on the forums.

I've read maybe three threads on this forum in the last six months. Any V hate I have is because of the comic.

What was V's justification for killing Kubota? Was there not a justice system in place that would deal with a captured villain? Was Kabuto about to hurt or kill someone else?

What possible justification did V have, except "I want to do it, and it expedites my timetables"? How would you characterize that view? Good?


4. If it was happening to someone else's family, V wouldn't help against the dragon -- and might help the dragon? This is a pretty bizarre assertion -- in that case, why didn't he help Xykon wipe out Azure City? Why did he risk his life fighting two titanium elementals alone, including casting feather fall on two ordinary mooks who had absolutely no use to him, simply so they wouldn't splat? He should have helped the bandits kill Elan then as well, since Elan getting captured was just a nuisance, etc., etc. Your idea doesn't match up to the V I've been reading about.

He didn't help Xykon because they have opposed interests. If, however, the dragon were killing the family of someone who refused to let V into an arcane library or something, and V thought killing his family would gain him entrance, I don't see any reason why V wouldn't. He obviously doesn't value the lives of unimportant people very highly, and certainly not above his own interests.


I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about, to be honest.

I'll see if I can help.

There's this comic. It's called Order of the Stick. Read it, and pay close attention to Vaarsuvius, his acts, and his motivations. Then get back to me.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

I'll see if I can help.

There's this comic. It's called Order of the Stick. Read it, and pay close attention to Vaarsuvius, his acts, and his motivations. Then get back to me.

Thanks for the self-righteous snark. I appreciate being sneered at.

[CliveStaples]

Thanks for the self-righteous snark. I appreciate being sneered at.

I figured I had some slack, since it was preceded by paragraphs of patient argumentation.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

I figured I had some slack, since it was preceded by paragraphs of patient argumentation.

Ah, so explaining your viewpoint is now considered to be justification for ending your argument by spitting in the other's debater's face?

Well, it would make political debates more interesting, I'll grant you that.

[MickJay]

Ah, so explaining your viewpoint is now considered to be justification for ending your argument by spitting in the other's debater's face?

Well, it would make political debates more interesting, I'll grant you that.

Sure, I mean, at least we'd get to hear some discussion before the spitting commences. :smallyuk:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

To be fair, some orc girl who's infatuated with one of V'sfriends, and trying to kill V and all of V's other friends, probably has far less utility to V than V's children and spouse, who don't try to kill V or V's friends, and whom V has loved for a long time. To treat them in the same way would defy normative theories of decision making. V is acting rationally, right now.

[CliveStaples]

To be fair, some orc girl who's infatuated with one of V'sfriends, and trying to kill V and all of V's other friends, probably has far less utility to V than V's children and spouse, who don't try to kill V or V's friends, and whom V has loved for a long time. To treat them in the same way would defy normative theories of decision making. V is acting rationally, right now.

"It is not against reason to prefer the destruction of half the world to the pricking of my little finger." - David Hume

He may be acting rationally. That doesn't mean his worldview is right.

[Warren Dew]

I would not personally consider something that directly affects a PC in such a way to be a subplot.

I'd agree with this. Allowing Kubota to come to trial wasn't particularly important to any of the player characters. Vaarsuvius' family is.

That said, I could easily believe that the black dragon subplot is the gamesmaster's revenge on Vaarsuvius' player for having scotched a carefully planned trial scene.

[CliveStaples]

I'd agree with this. Allowing Kubota to come to trial wasn't particularly important to any of the player characters. Vaarsuvius' family is.

That said, I could easily believe that the black dragon subplot is the gamesmaster's revenge on Vaarsuvius' player for having scotched a carefully planned trial scene.

By that standard, if V killed a barmaid who was desperately in love with the innkeeper, or someone who insulted V, then it would be fine, so long as those characters weren't "particularly important to any of the player characters." What a terrible standard.

[Warren Dew]

By that standard, if V killed a barmaid who was desperately in love with the innkeeper, or someone who insulted V, then it would be fine, so long as those characters weren't "particularly important to any of the player characters." What a terrible standard.

A terrible standard from a moral standpoint, yes. Hypocritical, no.

[CliveStaples]

A terrible standard from a moral standpoint, yes. Hypocritical, no.

Of course it wasn't hypocritical. But then, and apologies to Msr. Godwin, neither was Hitler.

[Quorothorn]

I'd agree with this. Allowing Kubota to come to trial wasn't particularly important to any of the player characters. Vaarsuvius' family is.

That said, I could easily believe that the black dragon subplot is the gamesmaster's revenge on Vaarsuvius' player for having scotched a carefully planned trial scene.

...But...this isn't an actual DnD campaign (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html), remember? There are no players, there is no GM.


Of course it wasn't hypocritical. But then, and apologies to Msr. Godwin, neither was Hitler.

Actually, Hitler was a bit of a hypocrite, too, on top of everything else. But I don't think we need to get into that one.

[CliveStaples]

Actually, Hitler was a bit of a hypocrite, too, on top of everything else. But I don't think we need to get into that one.

My point was that hypocrisy isn't really the most glaring fault V has exhibited in recent events.

[Quorothorn]

My point was that hypocrisy isn't really the most glaring fault V has exhibited in recent events.

Point taken.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

By that standard, if V killed a barmaid who was desperately in love with the innkeeper, or someone who insulted V, then it would be fine, so long as those characters weren't "particularly important to any of the player characters." What a terrible standard.

Too bad for all your theorizing on this point that V has killed exactly one person outside of a combat situation -- Kubota....

.... and that the said Kubota was a villain, who was caught while trying to murder a pregnant woman and her husband, after attempting repeatedly to get the OotS killed, after killing the dinner guests at a wedding party with sea trolls, summoning and dealing with creatures of pure evil, plotting to murder his rightfully crowned lord, surrendering like a coward without striking a blow because he knew that he could manipulate the justice system into letting him off scot free to continue his evil, and gloating openly about how he was going to do exactly that.

Yeah, that's exactly like V killing random people for nothing. Riiiiiiight.

When I see V randomly kill a barmaid desperately in love with an innkeeper, then I'll agree with you. Until then, this is pretty much the same thing as saying, "Wow, Roy must be evil, because he really smashed Xykon up, and if he did that to Haley because she stepped on his toe, then he'd be evil, so he's really evil RIGHT NOW!!!!"

[Kaytara]

Yep, exactly.
Vaarsuvius killed Kubota because to him, he was a major obstacle in saving the world and rescuing Haley and Roy. We can argue all day long about the ends justifying the means, but V's motivation is a great deal different from "he annoyed me, so I killed him", which is the kind of reasoning you're implying.

Your claim that Vaarsuvius has absolutely no regard for humanoid lives is simply unfounded.
That humanoid lives are not his foremost priority and tend to get stuck behind saving the world and saving people he cares about is not grounds to condemn him.

As for valuing your family over random strangers, what are you guys even talking about? Are you saying that if you had to choose between rescuing your child and a complete stranger from a burning building, you would choose the stranger out of some notion that all humanoids should be treated equally?

People in general - even good people - don't care about strangers suffering - or rather, they may care about it intellectually, but they probably won't lose any sleep over it.
So not going out of your way to help nameless strangers if it means risking your friends' and family's lives isn't really something I'd call immoral.

As for Kubota, seriously, how many times do we need to go over surrendered =! defenceless argument?
Kubota was trying to abuse the system to backstab the honourable fools he was dealing with. It's idiotic to take his "surrender" at face value.

[hamishspence]

idiotic, maybe, but standard operating procedure in any civilized system. Otherwise cops would kill any powerful figure they witnessed committing a crime. How do we react to a chief of police shooting a handcuffed politician? We generally call it murder.

so, Not the best precedent to set.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

idiotic, maybe, but standard operating procedure in any civilized system. Otherwise cops would kill any powerful figure they witnessed committing a crime. How do we react to a chief of police shooting a handcuffed politician? We generally call it murder.

so, Not the best precedent to set.

Except that this is a war situation and the person in question is a confessed and extremely dangerous traitor. Extremely dangerous people who were likely to get away through a technicality have been "shot while trying to escape" before. And, V is not a policeman, nor is he part of the Azure City system, nor is this a modern system of government.

[hamishspence]

they are a long way from the war zone. And not being a policeman makes V more obliged not to carry out punishments- not less- V has no authority in this situation.

Elan was in the position of being in the know, and when Kubota surrendered, he felt obliged to accept. V was not in the know- V didn't even know who Kubota was, much less that he had a chance of escaping justice.

[Kish]

Extremely dangerous people who were likely to get away through a technicality have been "shot while trying to escape" before.
This Just In: Fire still hot! Er, I mean, law enforcement agencies have shown criminal disregard for their own rules before!

I'm not at all clear what the argument's about now (is it about hypocrisy or evil?) but I'm quite sure it's not about whether Vaarsuvius acted in a fashion unknown to all real-world law enforcement agencies.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

This Just In: Fire still hot! Er, I mean, law enforcement agencies have shown criminal disregard for their own rules before!

I'm not at all clear what the argument's about now (is it about hypocrisy or evil?) but I'm quite sure it's not about whether Vaarsuvius acted in a fashion unknown to all real-world law enforcement agencies.

I agree that the argument has gotten lost here. The thread's just turned into another back-and-forth between the "V-bashers" and the "V-defenders." :smallbiggrin:

[elliott20]

I think you all are forgetting that family is in fact something that V strongly values, regardless of whatever else is going on. Take a look at what V says here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html).

People like Therkla or Kubota just don't even register to him. But notice he was willing to put saving the world aside for a short while to go help Roy save his sister.

Does it mean his actions of killing Kubota was justified? not necessarily. But quite honestly, that's not the point. He's not interesting in justifying his actions to anyone.

[Ehra]

they are a long way from the war zone. And not being a policeman makes V more obliged not to carry out punishments- not less- V has no authority in this situation.

By that logic, Elan had no authority to place him under arrest in the first place. And them "being a long way from the war zone" is laughable. I'm sure the fleet also thought they were a long way from the war zone until they were attacked by trolls and demons. It doesn't matter where you are when you're dealing with someone that has connections to beings that can manifest themselves wherever and whenever they want.

And none of this has anything to do with whether V's a hypocrite.

[Kish]

I think you all are forgetting that family is in fact something that V strongly values, regardless of whatever else is going on. Take a look at what V says here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0338.html).

People like Therkla or Kubota just don't even register to him. But notice he was willing to put saving the world aside for a short while to go help Roy save his sister.
I would venture that Vaarsuvius' callousness toward Kubota and Therkla is at least as likely to have had something to do with Vaarsuvius' extreme current trance-deprived state as with any rational assessment on Vaarsuvius' part.

[hamishspence]

Citizen's arrests (or in this case, Employee of Hinjo rather than citizen)

There are, however, no "Citizen's executions"

principle applies anywhere, just cos there could be devils anywhere doesn't mean every D&D character who allies with devils should be killed the moment they are successfully captured.

[Noam]

Citizen's arrests (or in this case, Employee of Hinjo rather than citizen)

There are, however, no "Citizen's executions"

principle applies anywhere, just cos there could be devils anywhere doesn't mean every D&D character who allies with devils should be killed the moment they are successfully captured.

Your argument is about lawful/chaos, not good/evil. Breaking the law isn't evil by itself.

[hamishspence]

it ca be- if you kill without authority, and without mitigating factors like direct self-defense or defense of another (indirect isn't generally enough) such killing would fit the definition of Murder.

Which, by both BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2, is evil.

Fiendish Codex 2 categorises murder- plain murder, Cold Blooded Murder, Murder For Pleasure.

the third is the most evil.

[Noam]

it ca be- if you kill without authority, and without mitigating factors like direct self-defense or defense of another (indirect isn't generally enough) such killing would fit the definition of Murder.

Which, by both BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2, is evil.

Fiendish Codex 2 categorises murder- plain murder, Cold Blooded Murder, Murder For Pleasure.

the third is the most evil.

I said breaking the law isn't evil by itself. The paladins who slaugther the goblins adhere to an authority - does that make them right?
It seems that according to BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2, adventurers who kill, say, a tribe of goblins for ruining a village are evil because they should have given them a fair trial, and chaos is generally evil.

[hamishspence]

if the goblins are captured alive, yes.

if the goblins fight and refuse all offers of surrender, no. Said trial would also show which participated in raid and which did not- were too young to go on raid, were wives of the raiders.

The difference between killing and Murder is an important one, but without it, you end up with the "all killing of evil creatures is non-evil" view.

in DMG2 and Cityscape, we find out even Chaotic jurisdictions have trials, even if its more Magistrates than Juries in a D&D setting.

[Noam]

if the goblins are captured alive, yes.

if the goblins fight and refuse all offers of surrender, no. Said trial would also show which participated in raid and which did not- were too young to go on raid, were wives of the raiders.

The difference between killing and Murder is an important one, but without it, you end up with the "all killing of evil creatures is non-evil" view.

in DMG2 and Cityscape, we find out even Chaotic jurisdictions have trials, even if its more Magistrates than Juries in a D&D setting.

But let's say you do arrest them, and find out that they are all killers that participated in a raid (they admit it). You also find out that because of the crappy law system in the area, they are going to get out on a technicality.

A chaotic court would've probably said "screw this" and punished them anyway. But the court here is lawful. Are you supposed to turn them in, knowing full well that they are going to get away with what they did?

[hamishspence]

apparently, yes. Though if the law system is corrupt as opposed to technical, you are expected as good guys to expose the corruption.

Similarly, if trial result was due to corruption, arresting the goblins again and retrying them (no double jeopardy in D&D) is a possibility.

Chaotic guys might hold the trial themselves (The Three Musketeers gives a classic example) but they do need to do something.

Note that in said book, the Musketeers use a legal executioner, rather than carrying it out themselves (though this is a bit of a technicality)

Releasing known villains may suck, but it does happen in D&D novels, if the characters are strongly Good.

I think its a case of the difference between "killing in battle" and "killing in cold blood"

[Noam]

apparently, yes. Though if the law system is corrupt as opposed to technical, you are expected as good guys to expose the corruption.

Similarly, if trial result was due to corruption, arresting the goblins again and retrying them (no double jeopardy in D&D) is a possibility.

Chaotic guys might hold the trial themselves (The Three Musketeers gives a classic example) but they do need to do something.

Note that in said book, the Musketeers use a legal executioner, rather than carrying it out themselves (though this is a bit of a technicality)

Releasing known villains may suck, but it does happen in D&D novels, if the characters are strongly Good.

I think its a case of the difference between "killing in battle" and "killing in cold blood"

Appreantly? If the law system isn't corrupt, but rather sucks, what are you supposed to do? You don't talk about the 'strongly good guys' here, you talk about the lawful stupid guys.

You know what's wrong about batman? The fact that he didn't put a bullet in the joker's head. The joker killed people, got arrested, escaped and killed more people. Several times. When the law system fails letting it fail is lawful, not good.

[Kish]

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.)

[hamishspence]

I was thinking more Superman & Lex Luthor. With all the power at their disposal, adventurers, especially wizards, are supermen- when they set themselves above the law, killing people because "they're too dangerous to be left alive" its a dangerous precedent.

in worlds where the characters really are "judge, jury and executioner" that aren't heavily into Evil territory there are very few death crimes, and while a Judge type can use lethal force in defense of others, most of the time they can't use it just as a punishment.

[hamishspence]

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.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

"It is not against reason to prefer the destruction of half the world to the pricking of my little finger." - David Hume

He may be acting rationally. That doesn't mean his worldview is right.

Yes, but hypocrisy is the reasoning fallacy in which one advocates one idea, but does not act according to it. He may not be "in the right," but he is neither acting irrationally nor hypocritically.

[Wanton Soup]

idiotic, maybe, but standard operating procedure in any civilized system.

However, I can't think of ANY Sword & Sorcery milieu that is civilised. Feudal yes, sort of at the level of Shakesperian England. Where bear pits were a famously well regarded passtime. Where dead bodies were put up for all to see and where the law really didn't apply if you had money.

Otherwise cops would kill any powerful figure they witnessed committing a crime.

We do. Azure City Paladins raidin ur villgz, killin ur goblinz.



How do we react to a chief of police shooting a handcuffed politician? We generally call it murder.



Uh, no handcuffs. Unless Elan and Haley are getting ready for a shindig like never seen before when they meet up next...

And this, our world, isn't driven by plot.

Fantasy worlds and OotS in particular ARE.

[Optimystik]

We do. Azure City Paladins raidin ur villgz, killin ur goblinz.

Just to chime in, SoD:
Those goblins committed no crime. Redcloak even highlights this fact during the attack, when anxiously asking the previous Mantle-bearer why.

[Wanton Soup]

What was V's justification for killing Kubota? Was there not a justice system in place that would deal with a captured villain? Was Kabuto about to hurt or kill someone else? .

a) Apparently not. Kubota was completely confident that he'd get away with it.

b) Apparently, yes. Kubota was admitting he'd do it all again. People died last time.

Now, I ask: if Kubota killed someone in front of everyone and then said "Sorry, I won't do that again", would it be wrong to send him to trial? After all, there's no point putting him in prison for a crime that he did commit but has seen the error of his ways and, according to you, if someone isn't going to kill again in the next five minutes, he's not a threat.

And hurting someone who isn't a threat is, according to some here, an Evil act worthy of damnation.

[Wanton Soup]

Citizen's arrests (or in this case, Employee of Hinjo rather than citizen)

There are, however, no "Citizen's executions"

principle applies anywhere, just cos there could be devils anywhere doesn't mean every D&D character who allies with devils should be killed the moment they are successfully captured.


How do you know there aren't?

Conan The Barbarian is practicall ALL "Citizen's executions".

[hamishspence]

Shackles, then- not quite the same thing, but still metal cuffs and chains, and the ancestor of handcuffs.

yes, but D&D isn't exactly Sword and Sorcery. And Conan is a long way from Good.

as for imprisonment- generally, we imprison people even if they claim to have "changed" or were rendered not a threat. Even after the Mark, Belkar was going to be imprisoned- until Hinjo made an agreement with him.

Both Cliffport and Azure city- much more modern. Roy tells Belkar in War & XPs bonus strip that 20-30 years is the other choice besides sticking with him-so, second degree murder doesn't merit a death sentence in D&Dland.

[Wanton Soup]

Shackles, then- not quite the same thing, but still metal cuffs and chains, and the ancestor of handcuffs.

yes, but D&D isn't exactly Sword and Sorcery. And Conan is a long way from Good.

Is he? CG is what is considered Conan's AD&D alignment. Do you have anything else?

He's a long way from YOUR Good.

I My god this thing still times out like it's run on a Spectrum...


EDIT

I notice you neither quoted, refuted or accepted



And this, our world, isn't driven by plot.

Fantasy worlds and OotS in particular ARE.


I take it you accept them as rebuttals then.

[Wanton Soup]

Just to chime in, SoD:
Those goblins committed no crime. Redcloak even highlights this fact during the attack, when anxiously asking the previous Mantle-bearer why.

But if you asked the oracle who would cause the release of the Snarl and the death of billions and he said "This village here" then you go and kill the people in the village.

Pre-crime yes, but then again, doesn't stop the (non-judicially empowered) Oracle ensuring punishment for something Belkar was bound to do (or be given a refund).

[hamishspence]

Chaotic Neutral at best. Splitting people's heads for being impolite, I think it was phrased as.
2nd ed CG was a lot more ruthless than 3rd ed- described as self-centred and not very altruistic.

[Kish]

Conan's portrayal also varies widely. I've seen him presented in ways I would call everything fron Neutral Good to Chaotic Evil.

[ArcadiaGM]

Back on topic...

Setting aside for a moment the discussion of what is and is not a hypocritical act, I can certainly see a circumstance where V's next action is *not* to persue the dragon, but rather to stay the course on his research.

In a coldly-logical way, I can see V's mental process go as follows.

1. I can not pursue the dragon right now, and even if I did (perhaps by entreating Qarr to transport me home), I'm powerless to stop it.
2. By the time I can return home, the dragon will have had ample time to make good on its threat.
3. Therefore, I can not affect the outcome of things at home.
4. The fate of the whole world may depend upon the reuniting of the OOTS.
5. Therefore, I must continue my research and not be distracted by my own personal tragedy.

This is what I predict he will do, and he will not return home to discover the fate of his family until the current crisis (reunite the OOTS and bring Roy back from the dead) is ended.

[Wanton Soup]

Back on topic...

Setting aside for a moment the discussion of what is and is not a hypocritical act, I can certainly see a circumstance where V's next action is *not* to persue the dragon, but rather to stay the course on his research.

In a coldly-logical way, I can see V's mental process go as follows.

1. I can not pursue the dragon right now, and even if I did (perhaps by entreating Qarr to transport me home), I'm powerless to stop it.
2. By the time I can return home, the dragon will have had ample time to make good on its threat.
3. Therefore, I can not affect the outcome of things at home.
4. The fate of the whole world may depend upon the reuniting of the OOTS.
5. Therefore, I must continue my research and not be distracted by my own personal tragedy.

This is what I predict he will do, and he will not return home to discover the fate of his family until the current crisis (reunite the OOTS and bring Roy back from the dead) is ended.

O he could go

"Right. Stuff it. Even the Gods are giving ME gyp *times ten* while *I* am trying to save their sorry mules for something that was THEIR fault in the first place. I'm letting the Snarl out. Stuff the lot of you.

If it's a choice between working hard for people who not only don't CARE but are actively strewing cowpats from the devils own satanic herd across my path, lets see how YOU guys like it.

OPEN WIDE!!!!!"

I mean, the gods really do deserve eternal annihilation.

[Wanton Soup]

Chaotic Neutral at best. Splitting people's heads for being impolite, I think it was phrased as.
2nd ed CG was a lot more ruthless than 3rd ed- described as self-centred and not very altruistic.

In occidental post-feudal definitions of good, yes.

Oriental? no.

Feudal system? no.

Barbarian? No

All those cultures saw that sort of thing as RIGHT.

Heck look at the ancient Greek Gods. Nasty bunch. Just like humans would be if they could get away with it.

We have never really been in the past what we now would consider good.

[The Minx]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0597.html

Well. Generally speaking, V left because of subplot distractions. The entirety of V's argument rested on the idea that he was doing whatever it took to successfully research things.

Of course, if V opts to pursue the dragon and such to protect his family, he has allowed a subplot to interfere with his research.

So, realistically, if V actually believed anything about his own argument for killing Kabuto, the only real option is to simply let the dragon do its thing and move on with life. After all, his family has become a distraction.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that I agree with Kish: I don't think "hypocricy" means what you think it means. :smallsmile:

Killing Kubota because he got in the way of the main mission was one thing. Saving ones family is something else alltogether. Moreover, he is researching spells not only to save the world, but to save his friends Haley and Roy. In that light, he is being entirely consistent with his principles.


Back on topic...

Setting aside for a moment the discussion of what is and is not a hypocritical act, I can certainly see a circumstance where V's next action is *not* to persue the dragon, but rather to stay the course on his research.

In a coldly-logical way, I can see V's mental process go as follows.

1. I can not pursue the dragon right now, and even if I did (perhaps by entreating Qarr to transport me home), I'm powerless to stop it.
2. By the time I can return home, the dragon will have had ample time to make good on its threat.
3. Therefore, I can not affect the outcome of things at home.
4. The fate of the whole world may depend upon the reuniting of the OOTS.
5. Therefore, I must continue my research and not be distracted by my own personal tragedy.

This is what I predict he will do, and he will not return home to discover the fate of his family until the current crisis (reunite the OOTS and bring Roy back from the dead) is ended.

I really doubt that V is as cold as all that. His reaction to his own inability to save the soldiers, as well as the disappearance of Haley and to Roy's death suggests that for all his attempts at a cold and logical demeanor he is really very sensitive about things that matter to him.

[dogmac]

If the world ends, so do V's family. The motivation to save the world is personal as well as logical.

The only difference now is, they are in IMMEDIATE danger.

I don't see that V attempting to save them is hypocritical. With Kubota it was more of a case of "sick of stupid red tape"

[Warren Dew]

I really doubt that V is as cold as all that. His reaction to his own inability to save the soldiers, as well as the disappearance of Haley and to Roy's death suggests that for all his attempts at a cold and logical demeanor he is really very sensitive about things that matter to him.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. While a lot of people take unwillingness to "do something" when there logically isn't anything that can be usefully done as "cold", such unwillingness is typically simple intelligence rather than coldness. One can be very sensitive about a lot of things and still be smart enough to refuse to take actions that are doomed to be futile or worse.

[Wraithfighter]

One moment.

I need to think of an example of a non-fictional person who has never been hypocritical at all.

...

Anyone?

If V is a hypocrite, he's only showing that he is, in fact, human.

...

Okay, elven. But a sentient, flawed being with issues like everyone else.

Also, do remember that he's rather tortured by his failure against the goblins, leading to the deaths of countless innocents that he could've saved, is suffering an extreme case of sleep deprivation due to his refusal to accept what occurred, and his clear determination to find two of his closest friends (he's always acted the kindest to Haley and Roy) and possibly save them from mortal danger.

So, why is everyone surprised that he might not be acting rationally all the time?

So, yes, he may act hypocritically in the future.

Who f***ing cares. Everyone's allowed a couple whoopsies.

[Wanton Soup]

If the world ends, so do V's family. The motivation to save the world is personal as well as logical.

But if V's family ends then what's the loss? Even if V just dies, he'll never see his family again and will still be sentient to know this.

So why not just pull the plug on the whole thing. When the Snarl has you, you don't exist, not even dead.

EDIT: This is the sort of thing that sometimes turns up in fantasy fiction. Hero does something and then the universe just craps on him from a great height. It's a cheap way of increasing tension and to sell the next novel in the series. But it's bloody annoying to read because the sap is doing their best and then the universe (in the guise of the author) is deciding that metaphorically opening the umbrella while inserted THERE is a good thing to do.

It's a cheap stunt and annoying.

[nleseul]

EDIT: This is the sort of thing that sometimes turns up in fantasy fiction. Hero does something and then the universe just craps on him from a great height. It's a cheap way of increasing tension and to sell the next novel in the series. But it's bloody annoying to read because the sap is doing their best and then the universe (in the guise of the author) is deciding that metaphorically opening the umbrella while inserted THERE is a good thing to do.

It's a cheap stunt and annoying.

Heh, you must not like Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series at all.

[Wanton Soup]

Heh, you must not like Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series at all.

Pfft. Although some well written and powerful passages, Terry Goodkind's Wizards Rule series was TERRIBLE for it. It was only in "Faith of the Fallen" (which WOULD NEVER have been bought if I didn't scan through the early pages of the book) the downward spiral ended. Until then each book ended with something really unpleasant in the personal sacrifice department for Richard Cypher but having won a bitter victory and then the next book starts off with that victory having dumped them MUCH further in the cesspool.

It was like the choice between being boiled in oil or boiled in lard. Lard would get slightly hotter, but neither would be a preferred choice.

REALLY annoying.

[Avilan the Grey]

However, I can't think of ANY Sword & Sorcery milieu that is civilised. Feudal yes, sort of at the level of Shakesperian England. Where bear pits were a famously well regarded passtime. Where dead bodies were put up for all to see and where the law really didn't apply if you had money.

I think that is a very simple and unfair view of that era, and built far more on common misconceptions than actual history.
It also seems your definition of civilized than I do, for example. (For me, the #1 criteria for calling some time or place "Civilized" is: Does it have a civilization? The answer for Elizabethan England is definitely "yes").