Vaarsuvius and Kubota - Was (S)he right?

[RMS Oceanic]

I've been involved in a long discussion over the hows and whys of Vaarsuvius executing Kubota in #595, which was dragging the discussion thread for #629 way off topic, so I've decided to start a new thread and let that thread return to sanity.

The question the thread poses is: Was V in the right to execute Kubota?

While removing a major threat to Hinjo's position is most likely a good thing, in my view #596 shows V did not do it for those reasons. (S)he didn't know who Kubota is, or what that person Elan had tied up had done. All (s)he knew is said person was talking about winning a trial. (S)he made an assumption that he was a bad guy deserving of death and took it upon h**self to finish the job. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, making an assumption without knowing it is true or false makes the assumer guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assumption should not excuse or justify them.

H** motivation for this is foggy: Some contend it's for the reason stated immediately after frying Kubota, saving the world. I believe however it was more about getting back to the research to unravel the Gordion Knot of Cloister, to dispel h** guilt and impotence stemming from the Battle of Azure City. World-saving is a happy distant side effect of that goal.

Whatever h** motivation, I think it's more or less clear we're meant to disapprove of it, given Elan's reaction. Even if he thinks the end result of a dead Kubota is worthwhile, when your actions shock the Naive Spoony Bard into learning sarcasm to show how he disapproves, that should be telling you something.

What are your thoughts?

[bluewind95]

I think that the results were "right", but the motivations were very, very wrong. Kind of "necessary" plot-wise, but goodness... that was one nasty thing to do anyways.

[King of Nowhere]

Zapping Kubota in itself was totally right; Elan should have damped him to the ocean in the first place.
Zapping him out of genre savyness, without knowing what really happened, was wrong.
Also, he could have at least taken his equipment, rather than sinking a +5 armor and a small fortune in armor increasin item to the sea.

[Cúchulainn]

Killing offhandedly and almost dismissively is dishonourable and reproachable, but Kubota was a bastard so I don't care. Elan doing it would have been better in my eyes but not every death lives up to expectation I guess.

[Niknokitueu]

As others have said, killing Kubota was the right thing to do.

As to V's motivations, they scare me. If I was in a party where a fellow PC had done the same as V, I would be scared to go to sleep in case he suddenly decided that my sleeping was 'time wasting' and offed me too.

So, killing Kubota was right. He was even gloating about how he was going to pervert the due course of justice and get off. If I could justify killing Kubota on the spot as a LG character (not a paladin, just someone who believes in 'the common good' and 'laws are a good idea' hence LG) with only a small 'blip' on my moral compass, then none of the other alignments would have a problem either.

And V's motivations were wrong. Justifiable to him, but stone cold and indefensible when you stop to think about it.

Killing him because he was evil? Okay.
Killing him because the law could not prevail? Okay.
Killing him because he was endangering (and would continue to endanger) lives? Okay.
Killing him because he was a clear and present threat? Okay.
Killing him because he was an unneccessary plot complication? Not okay.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[RMS Oceanic]

That's exactly what I'm saying: V's motive for the crime is what makes it evil. If (s)he had the same motive as Elan did, it could be viewed as a crime of necessity. As it stands, I view it as a crime of convenience.

[skyclad]

whats the problem? V did like alexander, cut off the gordion knot. He is a PC after all, this story is about the order, not some lame ass noble. I'm totally on Vs side, no more unnecessary side tracks for 50 pages when a simple disitegrate will suffice.

[factotum]

That's exactly what I'm saying: V's motive for the crime is what makes it evil.

Problem is, many people round here seem to find the concept of characters in the strip having different motivations or knowing different things to the READERS to be a difficult one to grasp! From what I recall of the discussion most of the counter-argument seemed to be along the lines of "Well, WE know that killing Kubota was an OK thing to do, so obviously it was an OK thing to do no matter what the motivation." How quickly people forget Roy's discussion with the Deva in strip #488, where it was made clear that one's reasons for doing something are as important as the outcome...

[King of Nowhere]

If we want to put it at that level, it's not so simple. In the real world, shooting someone who was held by the police because that bring to the assumption that he was a criminal, without any more data, would be totally wrong, no doubt about it.
The point is, this is not the real world. No, I'm NOT arguing "this is DnD and killing things is what adventurers are supposed to do", I find that argument to be crap.
I'm arguing, This is a world regulated by laws of funny, gaming, and genre-savyness. V assumed Kubota was a valid target because Elan was holding him, and Elan only captures the main villains. That is assuming something for genre savyness.
In the real world that would be nonsense, but this comic tend to obey to that law. Can we consider genre savyness to be a force in this world? Can we assume it is as safe as, say, a DNA test? If so, V had enough proof to dispatch Kubota. If not, V committed a murder that incidentally turned out to be the right thing to do.

[Nerdanel]

V's act was totally not ok. In fact, I'd class it as Chaotic Evil. V himself might have become Neutral Evil because of that act.

Anyway, I notice a lot of people have a really low opinion of the Azure City justice system and/or a really high opinion of Kubota's competence. However it must be taken into account, Kubota's single success in the comic was killing his own minion with a really expensive poison, Azure City is a Lawful Good place with a paladin in charge, and Kubota was even stupid enough to blab to Elan about his Aristocrat-friendly prestige class when he already should have realized Elan was going to testify against him. Chances are, Kubota would have lost the lawsuit. In any case, it wouldn't have hurt to give the law a chance.

Not that V knew anything about this... V just heard someone saying that there would be a huge, lengthy trial and in the end the court would find him innocent. V didn't care if his victim thought he could wriggle out of being punished for an unidentified, possibly not even capital, crime or if he was an innocent mistakenly accused by Elan the idiot. V only wanted to avoid a boring trial, and his victim being a suspected criminal only meant that V thought he could get away with it and have Elan play along and that he would probably not kill anyone that was a big loss.

[enarch3t]

In terms of the institutional justice, V was guilty of murder. Had Elan told Shinjo (sp?) what V had done she would have been arrested for murder.

Now, legally right and morally right are not the same thing though they might be similar at times. V was morally correct to kill Kubato, he was a villain that needed to be killed because the system could not handle him. Kubato has already attacked Shinjo multiple times with henchmen, he cannot be linked to the attacks.

Who is more likely to be believed in the court, a nobleman who has been a major political figure for many years in a lawful good society or a foreigner who arrived just as a horde of goblins and hobgoblins that sacked said City? We know Elan is more trustworthy than Kubato but the people of Azure City would not, also is should be assumed that Kubato had allies and would probably have an alibi. Another factor that would increase the bias in favor of Kubato there are deep seeded resentments towards both Shinjo and foreigners, as has been seen in Azure city with Haley,

People keep reiterating that Vaarsuvius is so evil for wanting to keep moving. The Order of the Sticks is supposed to be stopping an evil lich (who is extremely powerful) from gaining possession/control of the most powerful force in the universe. V is totally correct to want to get the Order back together and continue their mission. There is literally nothing more important.

[King of Nowhere]

However it must be taken into account, Kubota's single success in the comic was killing his own minion with a really expensive poison
You could take into account all the deaths caused by the attacks of charmed monsters to the fleet. While I don't count it as a success for kubota, it wasn't nice either. Not to say that he came very near to killing Hinjo (twice) and to killing Daigo and Kazumi.


Anyway, I notice a lot of people have a really low opinion of the Azure City justice system
We know how the trial against the oots went. And how Kubota was able to plan all his attacks to the fleet without even being called to stand trial. So, yes, we have a really low opinion of the Azure city justice system. Personally, I have a low opinion of every justice system when it comes to stand trial against a rich and powerful person, but, meh, anyway.

[Nimrod's Son]

whats the problem? V did like alexander, cut off the gordion knot. He is a PC after all, this story is about the order, not some lame ass noble. I'm totally on Vs side, no more unnecessary side tracks for 50 pages when a simple disitegrate will suffice.
Interestingly, Vaarsuvius was the one who poured scorn on the "Alexandrian Solution" when the Gordian Knot was mentioned in the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html).

Ahh, simpler times...

[dresdor]

I don't think it's right or wrong neccesarily, merely a chaotic neutral act...at best chaotic good. The only thing that was "wrong" about it is that he didn't get a trial, which he clearly would have manipulated. Killing him is an expedited situation.

[Noam]

In terms of the institutional justice, V was guilty of murder. Had Elan told Shinjo (sp?) what V had done she would have been arrested for murder.

Now, legally right and morally right are not the same thing though they might be similar at times.

I agree. However, that's the only thing in your post I agree with.


V was morally correct to kill Kubato, he was a villain that needed to be killed because the system could not handle him. Kubato has already attacked Shinjo multiple times with henchmen, he cannot be linked to the attacks.

Who is more likely to be believed in the court, a nobleman who has been a major political figure for many years in a lawful good society or a foreigner who arrived just as a horde of goblins and hobgoblins that sacked said City? We know Elan is more trustworthy than Kubato but the people of Azure City would not, also is should be assumed that Kubato had allies and would probably have an alibi. Another factor that would increase the bias in favor of Kubato there are deep seeded resentments towards both Shinjo and foreigners, as has been seen in Azure city with Haley,

Yes, but V had no idea about any of those things. The only thing V knew is that there's going to be some long and boring trial and that Kubota is probably a villian.


People keep reiterating that Vaarsuvius is so evil for wanting to keep moving. The Order of the Sticks is supposed to be stopping an evil lich (who is extremely powerful) from gaining possession/control of the most powerful force in the universe. V is totally correct to want to get the Order back together and continue their mission. There is literally nothing more important.

V isn't evil for wanting to keep moving. The killing of Kubota is evil because V killing him only because s/he wanted to move on, and not because he deserved it or anything. He did, mind you, but as I said, V didn't know that.

[RMS Oceanic]

V was morally correct to kill Kubato, he was a villain that needed to be killed because the system could not handle him. Kubato has already attacked Shinjo multiple times with henchmen, he cannot be linked to the attacks.

The thing is, you know that, and I know that, but Vaarsuvius did not. (S)he assumed that was the case based on two pieces of information that could be used to reach other equally valid conclusions. In fact, (s)he didn't even assume Kubota had attacked Hinjo. (S)he assumed Kubota had done something worthy of execution. In my view of the world, (s)he should not gain the benefit of hindsight just because the assumption happened to be correct. Of course, maybe you disagree.

[factotum]

People keep reiterating that Vaarsuvius is so evil for wanting to keep moving. The Order of the Sticks is supposed to be stopping an evil lich (who is extremely powerful) from gaining possession/control of the most powerful force in the universe. V is totally correct to want to get the Order back together and continue their mission. There is literally nothing more important.

And killing Kubota achieves this how, exactly? The fleet had already been wandering the seas for several months, getting no closer to that goal. V was himself no closer to being able to contact Haley and the others, and if he DID somehow manage to contact them, they'd still be faced with a likely long and arduous trip back to fetch them (V not being able to cast Teleport, after all). It's not like putting Kubota on trial would somehow prevent the boats moving or V researching, so I ask again: how did killing Kubota get them any closer to their goal?

Oh, and since you say there is literally nothing more important than saving the world from Xykon, I assume you think V is going to ignore the dragon currently on the way to kill his family in order to continue trying to contact Haley and the others... :smallsigh:

[enarch3t]

And killing Kubota achieves this how, exactly? The fleet had already been wandering the seas for several months, getting no closer to that goal. V was himself no closer to being able to contact Haley and the others, and if he DID somehow manage to contact them, they'd still be faced with a likely long and arduous trip back to fetch them (V not being able to cast Teleport, after all). It's not like putting Kubota on trial would somehow prevent the boats moving or V researching, so I ask again: how did killing Kubota get them any closer to their goal?

Oh, and since you say there is literally nothing more important than saving the world from Xykon, I assume you think V is going to ignore the dragon currently on the way to kill his family in order to continue trying to contact Haley and the others... :smallsigh:

Vaarsuvius has been acting from that point of view during the Kubato affair, now it might change because the dragon directly affects her, we will see if she keeps this point of view. From my perspective, yes stopping Xykon is still the most important thing.

Killing Kubato means that they will not have to waste as much energy defending the ship(s) from attacks orchestrated by Kubato. Now, there is a big assumption on my part, that Kubato would still be able to orchestrate attacks from potentially a prison cell. This is something we cannot prove one way or the other, I'd say he probably could because of Qarr.

While it may not have been reflected in the comic, I think we can assume that these attacks delayed the already long journey. Again though, this is not really a provable or disprovable.

Also, there could be further faction-ing of the ships because of the trial which could further destabilize Shinjo's control. Kubato would probably paint the picture that this was all done by Shinjo to try and ruin him, and show that it was Shinjo's fault that Azure City fell in the first place.

Who says they'd have to travel with the rest of the fleet? The only reason they might want to keep with the rest of the fleet is to protect Shinjo from assassination attempts.

I do give V the benefit of the doubt because she was right, I can understand not giving her the benefit because she only guessed.

[enarch3t]

The thing is, you know that, and I know that, but Vaarsuvius did not. (S)he assumed that was the case based on two pieces of information that could be used to reach other equally valid conclusions. In fact, (s)he didn't even assume Kubota had attacked Hinjo. (S)he assumed Kubota had done something worthy of execution. In my view of the world, (s)he should not gain the benefit of hindsight just because the assumption happened to be correct. Of course, maybe you disagree.

I do give her the benefit of hindsight, but I understand your reasoning.

[Nerdanel]

I consider the deaths of irrelevant low-level NPCs no success for Kubota. Kubota was trying to usurp Hinjo for the throne of Azure City, not kill random Azurites. If Kubota had kept on making similar proxy attacks, most likely he would have whittled to death most of the remaining Azure City military before his actual targets, since the difference in the durability of someone high-level with a PC class and a low-level NPC warrior are quite significant.

Considering that Qarr was a source of unlimited Charm Monster spells, Kubota would have been well-served in remembering that those spells work on humans too and used that to work up some subtle mischief in the fleet. But that would have taken serious intelligence and capability for scheming, which Kubota didn't have. All of Kubota's schemes against Hinjo were variants simple brute force surprise attacks with different proxies doing the attacking. He did get a little bit more complex with the Katos, but even then I wouldn't call that particularly fiendish.

[Warren Dew]

(S)he made an assumption that he was a bad guy deserving of death and took it upon h**self to finish the job.

First, I would point out that any argument based on what Vaarsuvius did or didn't know is likely specious. As others have pointed out, Vaarsuvius is smarter than most of the posters on this forum. When judging Vaarsuvius, we should assume that Vaarsuvius' logic is sound. For example, Vaarsuvius didn't know Kubota's name - neither do a lot of the posters, judging by the misspellings - but it's perfectly possible to know what someone did without knowing their name.


Anyway, I notice a lot of people have a really low opinion of the Azure City justice system and/or a really high opinion of Kubota's competence. However it must be taken into account, Kubota's single success in the comic was killing his own minion with a really expensive poison, Azure City is a Lawful Good place with a paladin in charge, and Kubota was even stupid enough to blab to Elan about his Aristocrat-friendly prestige class when he already should have realized Elan was going to testify against him. Chances are, Kubota would have lost the lawsuit. In any case, it wouldn't have hurt to give the law a chance.

An excellent point. I think a lot of people who so quickly believe that this plan of Kubota's would have worked, despite his 100% failure rate to date, are engaging in wishful thinking. Kubota is unpopular, so they want it to be okay to kill him - unlike, say, Therkla, who had also murdered people, but who is portrayed sympathetically and is thus popular. People who want to punish Kubota for being unpopular use the line of reasoning you describe, despite its error, to justify what they want. However, killing people because they are unpopular is not justice.

People also miss the value in following the rules of a justice system. It's extremely easy for a government to become oppressive. An independent judicial system places a check on that, by requiring certain proofs before people can be punished. Yes, that means that people sometimes get off on technicalities, but it also means protects many more people that would otherwise be used as scapegoats.

Now the argument that Vaarsuvius didn't recognize the Azure City justice system has some weight. However, to the extent that the people who were wronged did fall under that system, going outside that system to avenge them is illegitimate.

I think the only case that can be made for Vaarsuvius' act to be legitimate is to see it as a reaction to Kubota's indirect attack on Vaarsuvius through the use of the imp and the devil.


People keep reiterating that Vaarsuvius is so evil for wanting to keep moving.

I agree with Vaarsuvius on that point. However, killing Kubota does zilch for that goal. Vaarsuvius could easily have abandoned the fleet without killing Kubota first.

[MReav]

What Vaarsuvius did was wrong. While (correctly) guessing that Kubota was a villain, V did not know whether or not Kubota even deserved death. Not only that, Kubota's trial might not even involve V. V offed Kubota on the basis that he might interfere with V's research. That's what makes it deplorable.

[Scarlet Knight]

Vaarsuvius declared himself judge, jury, & executioner, then imposed the death sentence on a captive.

He did not know the name of the captive, nor that of the victim, nor what his crime was.
He only knew that a lengthy trial was involved.
He based his decision on the fact that Elan had tied up the captive.
The same Elan, who V had described as a “simpering buffoon without the brain power to dress yourself.”
Elan, who V was already aware, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice because the police confused the concept of being tied up and being guilty.

Yet V rolled double 00’s and actually killed a villain who was guilty of murder. Probability is indeed a copper piece harlot….

[MReav]

Elan, who V was already aware, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice because the police confused the concept of being tied up and being guilty.

I had forgotten that and now the significance hits me even harder.

[Noam]

First, I would point out that any argument based on what Vaarsuvius did or didn't know is likely specious. As others have pointed out, Vaarsuvius is smarter than most of the posters on this forum. When judging Vaarsuvius, we should assume that Vaarsuvius' logic is sound. For example, Vaarsuvius didn't know Kubota's name - neither do a lot of the posters, judging by the misspellings - but it's perfectly possible to know what someone did without knowing their name.

The thing is, V explained what h** reasoning for killing Kubota. Maybe s/he lied, but the problem is that if we go by that logic, we can justify anything V does by saying "s/he is smart enough to know what s/he's doing".

[Da'Shain]

First, I would point out that any argument based on what Vaarsuvius did or didn't know is likely specious. As others have pointed out, Vaarsuvius is smarter than most of the posters on this forum. When judging Vaarsuvius, we should assume that Vaarsuvius' logic is sound. For example, Vaarsuvius didn't know Kubota's name - neither do a lot of the posters, judging by the misspellings - but it's perfectly possible to know what someone did without knowing their name."Smarter" does not equate to "is always more correct." Smart people make bad decisions as well. V's made some him/herself, many of them based on faulty logic -- i.e., trancing is inefficient, thus more work can get done if you don't trance. We see how well that decision is working out for V, when the vast majority of people would have immediately said "but the lack of trance will not only affect the quality of your work, but your judgment, your health and your relationships."

We can't assume that V's logic is always sound when (s)he's a fallible mortal, just like the rest of us. We can simply evaluate V's logic and see whether it is flawed or not. In this case, it was flawed, because despite his genre savviness, situations exist in which Disintegrating the person Elan has tied up is the wrong thing to do can easily be imagined, even by as simple a method as remembering what happened to Elan himself. The fact that V'skilling of Kubota was probably a right choice (not the ONLY right choice, but one of them) does not mean that his/her line of reasoning for getting there was correct.

And V explicitly states that (s)he does not know what Kubota did. "I confess I tired of those happenings some time ago and have paid them scant attention ever since." (S)He doesn't even know for sure that Kubota deserved death! "According to your own words, he probably deserved death anyway." (S)He makes clear to Elan, to whom (s)he has no reason to lie, that (s)he "will remove that which distracts him from his crucial research," which in this case was Kubota, and which V was attempting to imply would be Elan if he didn't shut up.

[Silverraptor]

Well I for 1 think that what V did was quick, rash, and, of course, wrong. The reason that V did that was totally wrong and many of you think that as well. We don't know the outcome of the trial, so we can't really make an argument because the trial could have gone either way! There were plenty of witnesses on the prosecution, and then there was the ability to lie in truth circle on the defense. I feel that what V did was wrong and unnecessary. But that's just me.

[Chirios]

Yes. Yes he was.

[Kish]

When judging Vaarsuvius, we should assume that Vaarsuvius' logic is sound.
No, we most certainly should not assume anything of the sort. Vaarsuvius increasingly appears to believe s/he is infallible--a delusion we shouldn't join him/her in.

[Cúchulainn]

V dusted the guy based entirely on 1 (afaik) similiar encounter where Elan tied up an enemy leader, and Kubota having a mustache; what if he had been wrong? What if he'd dusted an innocent mustached minion who was the only person Elan could capture for proof of Kubota' crime?

I don't care about the morality behind V's action but the action itself was highly assumptive, death isn't just something you go waving around.

V was right for the wrong reasons. If I were Elan I would have executed Kubota considering everything, but V didn't have the right. V was neither an enemy with a grudge or someone with lawful authority who knew the circumstances. In fact if I were Elan I would have executed V as well on the spot for what he did. V robbed the victim of an honourable death and anyone who had been wronged by Kubota of retribution just to save time.

Makes me wish all the more that the dragon had just killed V and gotten it over and done with, now people are back to feeling sorry for the bastard.

[David Argall]

V was entirely justified.

We start with the basic fact that Kubota was guilty, guilty, guilty. That V didn't fill out the proper paperwork first is a lawful sin, not one against good.

V's logic? Of course it is not sound in a real world setting, but this is not a real world. It is a comedy set in a world of flying dragons, lightning shooting out of fingers, magic spells.... Insisting real world rules apply is simply not getting into the story.
V presents us with a simple and basic piece of logic.
Elan only ties up major criminals who deserve death.
This fellow is tied up by Elan.
He is a major criminal deserving of death.

Just what the crime was? It doesn't matter. There was such a crime and Kubota was guilty of it. V doesn't need to care about the details.
Kubota failed a lot? A whole lot of people were dying in his failures. We want him stopped, no matter what his failure rate.

Could Elan make a mistake?
Not here. Elan is an idiot savant. He makes wild mistakes about most everything, except bard things. There, he is an extreme genius. He recognizes cliches and story motifs easily and quickly. Since there is a dramatic convention he only ties up chief villains, he only ties up chief villains, and he makes no mistakes on the subject.

So V can deduct, without reservation, that Kubota is a criminal that can be killed without moral worry.

Can V be mistaken about the dramatic convention?
No. V has been associating with Elan for approximately 2 years now. He knows Elan, far better than we do from seeing a few flashes from those years.
Then we have the behavior of Elan. He does not deny there is such a convention, nor that he follows it. And he has a perfect chance to do so. We might note by contrast here that in 436 when V does make a mistake [of thinking she was more than competent outside her area of expertese], we are immediately shown it is an error. So V is speaking here as Word of God. By story logic, she is absolutely right.

So V has a choice, to do nothing and take the risk that a fully guilty man will be free to do more evil, which will be major evil by definition, or act and make sure he stops doing evil. He chooses to eliminate the evil.

The trial might have gone either way? That is just why V acts. There is not a danger of the court convicting an innocent man. There is only the danger of a guilty man getting off. V eliminates that danger.



Elan, who V was already aware, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice because the police confused the concept of being tied up and being guilty.
Not the same situation. There was no case of "Elan" holding a rope. This was Elan tied up by the police, who do not stick to dramatic conventions.

[Cúchulainn]

V was entirely justified.

We start with the basic fact that Kubota was guilty, guilty, guilty. That V didn't fill out the proper paperwork first is a lawful sin, not one against good.

V's logic? Of course it is not sound in a real world setting, but this is not a real world. It is a comedy set in a world of flying dragons, lightning shooting out of fingers, magic spells.... Insisting real world rules apply is simply not getting into the story.
V presents us with a simple and basic piece of logic.
Elan only ties up major criminals who deserve death.
This fellow is tied up by Elan.
He is a major criminal deserving of death.

No killing of someone elses prisoner is ever justified, though that's just my personal belief. The fact that Kubota's crime warrented death was beyond V's scope of knowledge, he acted purely on discrimination, deducive or not at the time, which makes it wrong.

I will agree that shotgun logic is perfectly acceptable in this particular setting however, but personally I'm against it in this instance.


Just what the crime was? It doesn't matter. There was such a crime and Kubota was guilty of it. V doesn't need to care about the details.
Kubota failed a lot? A whole lot of people were dying in his failures. We want him stopped, no matter what his failure rate.

Could Elan make a mistake?
Not here. Elan is an idiot savant. He makes wild mistakes about most everything, except bard things. There, he is an extreme genius. He recognizes cliches and story motifs easily and quickly. Since there is a dramatic convention he only ties up chief villains, he only ties up chief villains, and he makes no mistakes on the subject.

So V can deduct, without reservation, that Kubota is a criminal that can be killed without moral worry.

V's reasoning, again in this setting, as you put it is without a doubt irrefutable. However what is also irrefutable is the fact that V violated the justice system that was currently (if not loosely) in place where he was residing, making it in my eyes a chaotic act. Was it good? Technically yes, technically no, therefore neutral. But this screams of depraved indifference to me, the underlying motive of the act was to save time, I'd say at its roots it is a selfish act for an unselfish reasons. True nuetral perhaps though I'm fuzzy on that particular alignment.


Can V be mistaken about the dramatic convention?
No. V has been associating with Elan for approximately 2 years now. He knows Elan, far better than we do from seeing a few flashes from those years.
Then we have the behavior of Elan. He does not deny there is such a convention, nor that he follows it. And he has a perfect chance to do so. We might note by contrast here that in 436 when V does make a mistake [of thinking she was more than competent outside her area of expertese], we are immediately shown it is an error. So V is speaking here as Word of God. By story logic, she is absolutely right.

So V has a choice, to do nothing and take the risk that a fully guilty man will be free to do more evil, which will be major evil by definition, or act and make sure he stops doing evil. He chooses to eliminate the evil.

The trial might have gone either way? That is just why V acts. There is not a danger of the court convicting an innocent man. There is only the danger of a guilty man getting off. V eliminates that danger.

The thing is that I don't believe V knew or even cared that the enemy was evil. He could have been at the very best chaotic good, truly believing that the current leader was unfit to lead and using any means to change that. We have to look at V's actions in this instance, not the results, no matter how good or bad they may be. V acted selfishly and recklessly based upon, of course, extreme logic, but logical is not an alignment or an excuse.

As I said before V was right for the wrong reasons. V did what was right but that doesn't automatically make it good or lawful, he asserts the importance of his (and by extension the Order's) quest above everything else. If Roy had seen what V did as a lawful good warrior he would have had to party kick V, no exceptions. V's prioritizing is extremely dangerous and has alot of potential for evil, if destroying a continent was the only way to get rid of the Snarl I believe V would do it without hesitation and the chances of a situation like that presenting itself is reasonably high. Right now V has gone rogue, the next time and the next time something like this happens it's going to get harder and harder to justify a reckless action done for the greater good.

[Warren Dew]

Maybe s/he lied, but the problem is that if we go by that logic, we can justify anything V does by saying "s/he is smart enough to know what s/he's doing".

We can justify it as correct from Vaarsuvius' standpoint. That doesn't answer the question of whether the act is good or evil. If killing Kubota is itself evil, then Vaarsuvius' act is evil, irrespective of Vaarsuvius' reasons for it. For example, what Kubota is guilty of may not deserve death; indeed, I suspect it does not, by Azure City law.

What you can't do is have it both ways, by saying it would be okay if Elan killed him but not okay for Vaarsuvius to do it.

[Kish]

We can justify it as correct from Vaarsuvius' standpoint. That doesn't answer the question of whether the act is good or evil. If killing Kubota is itself evil, then Vaarsuvius' act is evil, irrespective of Vaarsuvius' reasons for it. For example, what Kubota is guilty of may not deserve death; indeed, I suspect it does not, by Azure City law.

What you can't do is have it both ways, by saying it would be okay if Elan killed him but not okay for Vaarsuvius to do it.
Yes, you can. Elan knows far more about Kubota than Vaarsuvius knows or has any interest in knowing, including who "Kubota" and "Therkla" are. All of Vaarsuvius' (extremely limited) avowed knowledge on the subject is filtered through Elan.

[Woodsman]

V's act was actually more Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil.

He killed Kubota for his own reasons, rather than doing it because his lust for destruction told him to (Take Belkar (A confirmed Chaotic Evil) for example).

I would also like to point out how nonchalant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html) V is in explaining his reasons for killing Kubota. Then again, taking Belkar for an example, that's really not saying much.

[Reclaimer]

There's a lot we miss since this comic is based on stick figure art: What did Elan really look like? How was he breathing? Did he look like this guy he had in ropes had just killed somebody, perhaps a close (if new) friend? Or did he just have an angry line above his eyes? So it was not a casual, out-of-hand disintegration. This wasn't some mook he'd tied up, it was obviously somebody who had wounded him greatly, and was proceeding to mock both him and the legal system he was attempting to enforce by capturing him in the first place.

Does any of this make V's actions precisely GOOD? Heavens no. Not even Lawful. But just keep in mind that despite our knowledge, and V's ignorance, of all of Kubota's actions, s/he could also see things that we could not, due to the perhaps intentional limitations of the artform.

Kubota was wrong. He was an evil man. And Elan, I am sure, hated him as much as his big, optimistic, heroic heart was capable of hating anybody. I imagine him positively seething with impotent rage and pain. This alone makes V's decision seem a lot less scandalous to me.

Was it the right decision? Yeah. Just not GOOD. The condescending "I don't care" explanation afterward was probably due in part to a lack of sleep, general battle-fatigue, and frustration on V's part because s/he'd been unable to do anything to help the Order even though s/he had been working for so long just to try. It is definitely not the last nail in the coffin that seals this as an EVIL act.

Edit: Also, refusing to accept someone else's authority over you is hardly exclusively Chaotic, and more along the lines of Neutral, especially in this case. Particularly when expecting that said authority would be impotent to remedy the issue at hand.

[nleseul]

The condescending "I don't care" explanation afterward was probably due in part to a lack of sleep, general battle-fatigue, and frustration on V's part because s/he'd been unable to do anything to help the Order even though s/he had been working for so long just to try.

This.

I think I already said so earlier on another thread, but I do think that V probably exaggerated zir ignorance of the situation out of sarcasm and annoyance. In the next strip, V claims similar ignorance about who Therkla was, but is still sufficiently aware of her to make some hurtful comments about the romantic subplot to Elan a couple of panels later.

So I think that V probably did know at least vaguely who Kubota was and what his involvement with the stuff affecting the ships was.

[Warren Dew]

Elan knows far more about Kubota than Vaarsuvius knows or has any interest in knowing, including who "Kubota" and "Therkla" are. All of Vaarsuvius' (extremely limited) avowed knowledge on the subject is filtered through Elan.

Since Elan knows so much about the situation, knowledge filtered through Elan is exactly the knowledge needed to assess the situation properly, as David Argall points out.

I think the sequence should really highlight to the people who were egging Elan on to, frankly, murder Kubota in cold blood after he surrendered just how questionable their position was.

[Scarlet Knight]

So V is speaking here as Word of God. By story logic, she is absolutely right..

The problem with the word of God is that the story hasn't ended, yet. The Word of God may come when Hinjo executes V later to show that no one is above the law. We don't know the story logic, and neither does V.


Just what the crime was? It doesn't matter. There was such a crime and Kubota was guilty of it. V doesn't need to care about the details...

...So V has a choice, to do nothing and take the risk that a fully guilty man will be free to do more evil, which will be major evil by definition, or act and make sure he stops doing evil. He chooses to eliminate the evil....

... The trial might have gone either way? That is just why V acts. There is not a danger of the court convicting an innocent man. There is only the danger of a guilty man getting off. V eliminates that danger.

These statements remind me of the old cowboy movies. You know, where the posse is chasing the cattle rustlers, find some guys with the stolen herd. They decide they're guilty over the protests of the few (Henry Fonda is one, I think) who call for a fair trial, & decide that because they are in possesion of the stolen cattle , that's good enough.

After the hanging, the posse goes back to town, only to find out they hung innocent men because the real rustlers had sold them the cattle.

V has high intelligence, so he can reason. His wisdom is not as good, which means she can put the facts together incorrectly and not know it.

"Its rains. I find frogs. Ergo it rained frogs."


... Could Elan make a mistake?

... Not the same situation. There was no case of "Elan" holding a rope. This was Elan tied up by the police, who do not stick to dramatic conventions.

Well, in V's words, "Elan is an addled brained fool". Was V wrong then or is she now? Either way, V is capable of error, and should be smart enough to realize it.

Nale counted on the reaction the police would make, knowing they would not stop to think or confirm. He counted on a false impression. V did not learn.

Although if V killed the guy tied up then, he would have gotten a villian , too...:smallconfused:

[Noam]

Since Elan knows so much about the situation, knowledge filtered through Elan is exactly the knowledge needed to assess the situation properly, as David Argall points out.

I think the sequence should really highlight to the people who were egging Elan on to, frankly, murder Kubota in cold blood after he surrendered just how questionable their position was.

Yes, yes I think Elan had every right to kill Kubota. Maybe, and it's a big maybe, it wouldn't be a good act, but it wouldn't be evil since Kubota had it coming, is still a possible threat and Elan knows this. Elan knows so much about Kubota, but again, V had no idea about that. V guessed, and happened to be right. That doesn't make h** right.

[whatchamacallit]

Totally agree with your synopsis RMS Oceanic

The act had no 'good' or moral motivation behind them, though it did make V look pretty bad-assed IMHO

[Kish]

I think the sequence should really highlight to the people who were egging Elan on to, frankly, murder Kubota in cold blood after he surrendered just how questionable their position was.
Unfortunately for you, it only reads that way to the dramatically small minority (you and Argall*, as far as I can tell) who think Vaarsuvius' judgment of the morality of killing Kubota was based on brilliance rather than trance-deprivation and borderline insanity.

*Except that Argall's argument seems to be "Vaarsuvius was at least as well equipped to judge the morality of killing Kubota based on a fraction of Elan's knowledge as Elan was with all of his knowledge, and s/he was right to kill Kubota" whereas yours seems to be "Vaarsuvius was at least as well equipped to judge the morality of killing Kubota based on a fraction of Elan's knowledge as Elan was with all of his knowledge, and Elan would have been wrong to kill Kubota."

[King of Nowhere]

Was it the right decision? Yeah. Just not GOOD.

How can something be the right thing to do, yet not good? In my book the two things tend to be the same

[Snake-Aes]

How can something be the right thing to do, yet not good? In my book the two things tend to be the same

In a certain village,a blue dragon demanded a new bride every few years, who he would eventually sacrifice so the new one could assume.
Your group stumbles upon the village, and you are kept at bay and asked not to come, for there is a dragon who forbids people from entering and leaving the village.
Your group is enraged with such tiranny, and kills the dragon.
The village's head comes to you and requests that you leave. Because of that dragon, the nearby bandits and monsters never dared invading the village, but they will as soon as the news is spread. Congratulations on leaving the village defenseless.

---
i.e.: Hindsight's a bitch.

[Reclaimer]

How can something be the right thing to do, yet not good? In my book the two things tend to be the same

Right for all the wrong reasons, basically. Right implies justice, whether it be karmic or otherwise. And as I've said before, there's plenty of reason to believe that V had more motive for the murder than simple convenience. Justice is not always GOOD, like the starving thief who steals bread getting his hand cut off. I'm sure everyone here would agree this is a far less extreme case of that.

Also: Right to us readers because we didn't have to sit through 30 comics of trial. I can't even imagine this many D&D players being such white knights about something that played out so well. Plz to be inviting me to your campaigns, we'll run the Chaotic Stupid players out with torches and pitchforks.