if Roy didint reject Miko? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

mistformsquirrl

2009-06-18, 01:35 AM

Hrmm... I see a few possible scenarios.

A) Miko rejects Roy - After awhile longer adventuring with Roy and the OOTS, either Belkar's antics, or Haley's pilfering, or Elan's general chaos-causing would drive her away from Roy. She might try to pull him away from them, but I find it doubtful that she'd succeed.

B) Miko mellows out - Spending time with Roy helps her see that you can be Lawful Good and still have fun. The primary question here is whether or not her attraction to Roy can overwhelm her narrow outlook. It happens in RL, so I could see it happening as an alternate to A), but also less likely than A) because it requires work from Miko. Much as I hate to say it, she always struck me as intellectually lazy - not stupid, but someone who, upon settling on a viewpoint, didn't want to do the work to re-evaluate it when evidence counter to it appears.

C) Roy hardens up (... not like that.) - Even more doubtful, but still possible, given time, Miko may well have been able to convince Roy that he needed more discipline in his life. It's likely that if this occurred, the OOTS would disband in short order, as Roy would stop tolerating everyone else's shenanigans in short order - particularly Belkar.

I find this particularly unlikely because Roy's personality would have to shift completely. For Miko, you can still be highly organized, duty focused... and chill the heck out now and again. For Roy though this would be a more drastic shift, as his entire outlook would need to change. Possible - it has happened both in games and fiction... but definitely low on the totem pole.

D) Miko and Roy dilute each other - I find this particularly unlikely since both have strong personalities; but it's possible Miko could inspire Roy to be a little more disciplined, and likewise Roy could inspire her to chill a bit - leaving them both a bit more middle of the road. Honestly even in the case of true love, with them married and with kids at some point... I don't see this as at all likely; but it's listed for completeness.

E) Miko kills Roy instead of Shojo - A reasonable outcome both of A) and of any situation where Miko sticks around for awhile.

Given her uncompromising nature, she may very well eventually lose her grip on sanity over something Roy did (or failed to prevent), and try-possibly succeed- to kill him. I rate this above B for possibility.

F) Miko kills herself - This would be a classic situation of Duty vs Love. If put into a situation where her duty (she feels) demands Roy be brought to justice, but she loves him to much to do so... this is a possible outcome. Not an uncommon practice among Samurai, and not unheard of in Europe either. Less likely than E though, because Miko's got an aggressive streak miles wide - this would require some inward searching that she doesn't engage in; even if that searching would come up blank.

G) Miko runs away with Roy - Highly unlikely but, theoretically, an extreme version of Miko mellows out. She'd be abandoning her oaths, paladinhood and station, and taking a huge risk. Infinitesimal in likelyhood, but from a strictly theoretical standpoint it could happen. It'd essentially involve Miko transforming completely in personality though.

H) Miko runs away from Roy - Less likely than G or even F - but possible. Essentially would result from the same Duty vs Love question, only in this case the decision is that neither is worth self destruction. The chances of this are roughly the same as the Snarl apologizing to the gods, and then having tea with MiTD.

>.> I'm sure there are other possibilities too though.

Tempest Fennac

2009-06-18, 01:48 AM

Regarding Miko seeing the Order as working for Xykon; given what she was told (the Order destroyed one of the gates, they had a crown which belonged to Xykon, and Xykon was alive dispite the Order claiming to have destroyed him), I see her conclusion that Shojo was working for Xykon to make perfect sense, especially since Shojo made no effort to dispell this idea. He can also be blamed for Miko thinking she was divinely favoured due to telling her this initially (I agree with people in other discussions who have said that all Miko really had was being a Paladin, and it appeared as though she'd managed to convince herself that acting how she did would let her keep her status, which makes sense considering how the same Monks who brought her up appear to even have issues with escalators on Mount Celestia).

Ignoring Shojo's lies causing his death, I'm also inclined to blame him for how Miko turned out; he appeared to be aware that her fanaticism was out of control, but he never seemed too interrested in doing anything constructive about it. I'm tempted to think that it's because he just saw Miko as a weapon rather then a person, meaning that only caring about doing her duty would benefit him. Until Miko thought he was working for Xykon anyway.

Samurai Jill

2009-06-18, 06:04 AM

What would have happened? Would Xykon be dead now and all lived happily ever after?
The problem that I have with a lot of these "what-if" scenarios is that they presuppose conditions that, if satisfied, render the question obsolete. Simply put, at the precise time and circumstances that Roy rejected Miko, Roy could not have avoided rejecting Miko and Miko could not have avoided reacting as she did (at least, given the order's refusal to come peacefully) without Roy and Miko being, well, substantially different people in the first place. By that point in the story, they were already, so to speak, past the point of no return.

So on balance, I don't have a problem with the breakup scene. What I have a problem with is the idea that everything else in Miko's story was somehow inevitably hardwired into her psychological programming. Miko has been beat upside the head with the Improbability Stick more than any other single character in the strip- and that is saying something. People seem to forget how dazzlingly unlikely the assassin chase and inn explosion was in the first place, which was where relations really started to go downhill, and that was the least of Miko's not-so-subtle GM-ordained cues to go increasingly berserk.

...miko simply, completely, could not accept the fact that she could be wrong. that was her flaw.
Rich is on record as saying that Miko's Fall was more-or-less inevitable given her... 'habitually creative interpretations' of the paladin code... which would suggest that the order simply accelerated an underlying trend. However, this doesn't mean that there was no trend, or even that this trend was impossible to reverse. One point in the plot that I always thought was very revealing is the check-in (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0225.html) at the start of the inn scene.
Miko was very much of the avowed opinion that they should all be sleeping in the ditch outside and eating lichen. She winds up paying for 4 rooms, stabling, and baggage- certainly more than the bare minimum required for prisoners and even more than reasonable concession would commend. She didn't just compromise, she bent over backwards for the sake of her companions- a small concession, but it's a start. And the idea that Miko, at the time, was incapable of admitting mistakes in some form is absurd- if that were true, she would never have accepted Roy's explanation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html) about the Linear Guild:
:miko: Wait- you are serious? That is your actual explanation? "My Evil twin did it?"
Which was why, at the time (particularly given the extraordinary lengths the author went to establish terms of co-existence between her and Belkar,) I sorta assumed that the story would involve Miko joining the order on a quasi-regular basis and becoming ever-so-gradually less abrasive for it. Which I think would have been more-or-less plausible and might well have resulted in a happier ending for, well... most of those concerned. This isn't to say that there wouldn't have been rough patches and fallings-out, temporary or otherwise, but I like to think Miko did have a potential for growth, and that the Order's long-term company would have been good for her. Hard to say, I suppose.

There's a bonus strip in War and XPs that really speaks volumes about her character: it's set around the new year, where she approaches two fellow paladins who have no family in the city and tries to join them for dinner. Long story short, she actually intended to order them to dine in her quarters, where she had painstakingly prepared three settings of home-cooked food, probably at considerable personal trouble. On the one hand, you want to beat her upside the head, but on the other... she's desperately lonely and actively wants people to like her. She just has no clue how to win people without, to her understanding, compromising her lofty ethical position. She's not a bad person. She just doesn't understand.

pendell

2009-06-18, 06:36 AM

Insulabot says

confidence is good, and justifiable pride in yourself is the beginnings of a great hero or leader. but if you cant also recognize and correct your errors, its just hubris, and it WILL be your undoing, its just a matter of time

Sex doesn't cure anything; in fact, it amplifies everything. In a good relationship, you get closer. In a bad one, it drives you apart. If you're immature, it can ruin your life. If you're ready, it can be the start of something wonderful.

The idea that a repressed sex drive could make you delusional is about as Freudian as it gets. Also, Freud was dead wrong.

*Takes off his hat*

Ya know, we've got some profound wisdom on this forum , sometimes. It ain't all just argument about V's gender.

Hmm .. thread topic. Let's see .. this happened back before the trial. If Roy had really gone for Miko, the rest of the OOTS would have rejected her. Haley and Elan and Belkar, being chaotic, would probably have snuck off or left at the first opportunity. Miko still believes she is the Chosen one. She would still have gone on that mission, she would still have returned to the throne room and overheard Shinjo speaking to Roy, she would still have become angry with him and, as the agent of the gods, taken the law into her own hands, and fallen.

Roy may love her, but he's too lawful to allow Miko to kill Hinjo in front of him.

So the net change in the outcome is negative; Miko still winds up in jail. However, the OOTS goes into battle with three fewer members, possibly four as Vaarsuvius can't stand Miko either.

With Haley and Elan and Belkar gone, Roy faces Xykon alone. Not on top of the dragon -- more likely in the throne room. And Xykon will kill him.

And there will be no one to raise him this time. Because he alienated his friends for someone who ultimately wasn't good for him.

Doesn't mean he had to be as rude about it as he was. But that's our Roy ... one of his flaws is that he never says things gently and with tact when he can say them in an angry and sarcastic way. As the Deva says, that may come back to haunt him one day.

Still ... as a married man of 15 years, let me drop this little thought. Ready?

...

It IS possible for a man and a woman to be friends .. even long term, intimate friends .. and not have sex.

Roy could have accepted Miko and been a friend to her, but not a sex partner. That would probably have helped more than sex would. As Callista says, sex often causes as many problems as it solves.

The problem is, as War and XPs shows, Miko has had a number of opportunities for friendship and comradeship among the other paladins of Azure City already, and has made a point of driving them away. Her utter belief in her own destiny, willingness to kill at a drop of a hat, willingness to judge, and her utter lack of a sense of humor see to that.

Seriously, if love or friendship or respect would have helped her, couldn't she have received it from other people in Azure City? If they couldn't do it, the odds are good Roy wouldn't be able to, either.

The only thing that could possibly have saved Miko is if she was willing to admit that she was wrong. If she had been able to make that one step, things would have been very different.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Primy

2009-06-18, 06:44 AM

The truth is we don't know what would have happened. as Mistformsquirrl pointed out, there are many different scenarios that could have happened.

Personally, I think sort of merging would occur, with Miko relaxing a bit and Roy becoming more uptight. Although I'm unsure how the rest of the party would have reacted if Miko had joined the OotS. Probably Negatively

theinsulabot

2009-06-18, 07:38 AM

/snip
And the idea that Miko, at the time, was incapable of admitting mistakes in some form is absurd- if that were true, she would never have accepted Roy's explanation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html) about the Linear Guild:
:miko: Wait- you are serious? That is your actual explanation? "My Evil twin did it?"
/snip

well for starters, its pretty clear from her line she didnt believe it at all, but in miko's eyes, it didnt really matter, she had placed them under arrest and was taking them back to stand trial. she was the arresting officer, she has promised shojo that of possible, she would get the oots ack in one piece. to me it seems like she didnt buy the evil twin story for one second, but she just wasnt going to argue the point.

but lets say, for the sake of argument, that your right, that miko was open minded enough to believe that it was nale and not elan who had committed those crimes. miko had no first hand evidence that elan was the one doing it, as she herself pointed out, this was information she had heard second hand from several townspeople. miko has no problem believing OTHER people could be wrong, and her own detect evil spell had registered elan as not evil. so her own examination is in conflict with the reports. its entirely within miko's hubris to expect her own evidence to trump any other report, even several other reliable witnesses.

Underground

2009-06-18, 08:00 AM

I cannot imagine Miko being truely in love with anyone. She is all aggression and prejudices and radicalism. This "lawful good" person is at constant war with the imperfection of the world. If a man would have asked to be her husband, she would have probably forced all kinds of stupid things on him, just to fit that role "perfectly". And once she managed to drive him away, she would very likely have thought it was his fault, not hers.

Guess what feelings cause, too? All kinds of stuff, actually. Feelings are weird things.

[...]
____
i was hating miko before hating miko was cool I was breathing air before it was cool. Like, since when is hating miko "cool" ? Just because everybody does it doesnt mean something is cool. Eating bread isnt cool either, for example. Or watching TV. Etc.

Solomon of Israel predated Socrates by hundreds of years, said the same thing. Just not famous for saying it, which is kinda weird since the Bible is the world's most read and printed book. It is very likely that he wasnt the first one either, just the first one recorded. At least to me that sounds like a pretty obvious thing to state.

theinsulabot

2009-06-18, 08:26 AM

I was breathing air before it was cool. Like, since when is hating miko "cool" ? Just because everybody does it doesnt mean something is cool. Eating bread isnt cool either, for example. Or watching TV. Etc.

well for starters that sig is a relic from way back in the day when the miko strips were actually happening, i just never got around to changing it. the mention of miko could divide the room like the proverbial red sea.

when the scene in the throne room was going on, i remember in the strip after she killed shojo, when she fought with roy, before the next strip came up everyone was howling that miko would of surrendered if given a chance and roy was totally out of line for bum rushing her, then hinjo does it and she nearly Ginsus him for it. right about then anti miko sentiment was beginning to form and i sigged that just to get under a few people skin, because i had been anti-miko since pretty much the first time she opened that hole in her face.

It is very likely that he wasnt the first one either, just the first one recorded. At least to me that sounds like a pretty obvious thing to state.

i find that the most obvious and best pieces of wisdom are the ones most often ignored

Murdim

2009-06-18, 08:32 AM

She would still have gone on that mission, she would still have returned to the throne room and overheard Shinjo speaking to Roy, she would still have become angry with him and, as the agent of the gods, taken the law into her own hands, and fallen. Could someone explain me AT LAST who the heck is this "Shinjo" guy I frequently hear about lately ? :smallconfused:

Dinvan

2009-06-18, 09:06 AM

The idea that all a tightly wound woman needs is a little sex is a pretty sexist idea.

.

Not really. The act of sex releases chemicals into the body that, dumbing it down here, rids the body of tension and frustration. Chocolate does a similar job...

Women, despite what many think, work the same as men. Women may have a greater self control than men when it comes to sex(I blame society more than genetics) but their bodies still essentialy work the same(obvious exceptions excluded ofcourse)

Ask any doctor or therapist, sex is alot to do with tension and stress in the day to day lives of the majority of the world. The next time your walking through town, look at all the men and women. How many have make up, hair products, peircings or follow the latest fashion ? All for what ? To be athsteticly pleasing for the opposite sex(or same sex).

The very notion that saying a woman is sexualy frustrated is sexist....its pure idiotic.

However, I doubt the author has gone that deeply into Miko's character, so my point is moot. However, sex/love/phyical relationships tend to have a big effect on even the most diciplined of people. I am sure a good humping from Roy would have changed Miko quite a bit, seeing as she is so guarded and icy (and has never been involved before).

P.S. Lets flip this for a second. Lets say Roy was female and Miko was male. All of a sudden this becomes a non-issue.

EDIT

Sex doesn't cure anything; in fact, it amplifies everything. In a good relationship, you get closer. In a bad one, it drives you apart. If you're immature, it can ruin your life. If you're ready, it can be the start of something wonderful.

The idea that a repressed sex drive could make you delusional is about as Freudian as it gets. Also, Freud was dead wrong.

I really disagree. Not with the Freud thing, but with that Sex does not cure anything. Sex, as I said above, does more than people think.
How many relationships would last WITHOUT sex ? I would hazard a guess at none.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-18, 09:18 AM

Sex, like fighting, relieves stress. Stress relief is good.

But it's moot =( she's dead. That would have been interesting - she was hot :P

Optimystik

2009-06-18, 09:34 AM

But it's moot =( she's dead. That would have been interesting - she was hot :P

Plenty of non-psychotic fish in the sea, I say.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-18, 09:41 AM

Plenty of non-psychotic fish in the sea, I say.

True. Sometimes the psychotic ones are the most fun, as long as they mellow out at least a little.

I dunno, my first read, Roy's response was totally badass and right. But the second time, it honestly seemd rude and unecessary. Miko wasn't a bad person, and though she was easily stressed and a complete fanatic, sometimes having someone care about you really does make you a better person.

Like... she was a paladin, but there was a lot that she did that wasn't bad at all. Some of it was actually cool and clever.

Samurai Jill

2009-06-18, 09:47 AM

Personally, I think sort of merging would occur, with Miko relaxing a bit and Roy becoming more uptight. Although I'm unsure how the rest of the party would have reacted if Miko had joined the OotS. Probably Negatively
That's an interesting point, actually- in the strip where Roy is kicking back as a pretender to the throne (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0227.html), he thinks this luxury was a 'karmic reward' for their good behaviour earlier- this, from a guy who describes himself as not particularly religious to the Deva who interviews him later.

I'm not sure that permanent membership of the OOTS was a possibility- Miko does have obligations to her Lord and Master that would probably preclude typical freelance adventuring- but since Azure City was going to be their base of operations once they got in touch with Shojo, I could imagine a sort of intermittent liaison with the Order and particularly Roy as the months went by. (Besides, Belkar would need periods without supervision to commit his needed quota of evil. :smalltongue: )

*sighs* -But that is the past as it might have been.

well for starters, its pretty clear from her line she didnt believe it at all...
It's pretty clear from the fact that she stopped trying to kill the order that she was at least giving them the benefit of the doubt. She says as much in the strip:
:miko: You may not be strictly evil, and you may not be guilty of the ancillary crimes of which I was told by the populace, but you are still charged with crimes against existence. ...my ability to gather intelligence may have been flawed...

Murdim

2009-06-18, 09:51 AM

The very notion that saying a woman is sexualy frustrated is sexist....its pure idiotic.Actually, if anything, that's the reverse, true or false, justified or not, who would be sexist... against men. "What, we can be sexually frustrated but women can't ? That's not fair !". While more or less all sexist prejudices find their origins in ye olde male chauvinism, attitudes and values evolved since then, so that many men would find offensive yesterday's positive portrayals of manliness. Rather ironic, isn't it ?

Dinvan

2009-06-18, 10:44 AM

Not really, but I see your point.

theinsulabot

2009-06-18, 11:10 AM

That's an interesting point, actually- in the strip where Roy is kicking back as a pretender to the throne (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0227.html), he thinks this luxury was a 'karmic reward' for their good behaviour earlier- this, from a guy who describes himself as not particularly religious to the Deva who interviews him later.

I'm not sure that permanent membership of the OOTS was a possibility- Miko does have obligations to her Lord and Master that would probably preclude typical freelance adventuring- but since Azure City was going to be their base of operations once they got in touch with Shojo, I could imagine a sort of intermittent liaison with the Order and particularly Roy as the months went by. (Besides, Belkar would need periods without supervision to commit his needed quota of evil. :smalltongue: )

*sighs* -But that is the past as it

It's pretty clear from the fact that she stopped trying to kill the order that she was at least giving them the benefit of the doubt. She says as much in the strip:
:miko: You may not be strictly evil, and you may not be guilty of the ancillary crimes of which I was told by the populace, but you are still charged with crimes against existence. ...my ability to gather intelligence may have been flawed...

I think I covered this in my previous post, but after the trial, in a flash back, miko promises to bring the order back to stand trial, if possible. Because at that point, it really doesn't matter what she thought, as long as the order wasn't resisting arrest, she wouldn't attack.

Miko had many issues, but I don't think anyone has ever accused her of being a liar

Samurai Jill

2009-06-18, 02:15 PM

theinsulabot

2009-06-18, 03:14 PM

Strictly speaking, she promises to Lord Shojo's cat that she would bring them in alive if possible. She was 100% prepared to kill Roy before Durkon stepped in and straightened the matter out (more or less.) But that's beside the point- you have a frank concession of error, right there, in the section I quoted.

It's not a factor which holds much meaning for her, I doubt she really believed them in any case, her actions would not change if she thought them killers or wrongly accused, either way, they were to be brought to azure city to stand trial. And once again, her information gathering relied on second hand reports, while detect evil was a divine spell granted by the 12 gods, to whom she had absolute trust. I find it entirely in keeping with what I know of her to trust her own abilities, rather then then eye witness accounts.

pendell

2009-06-18, 03:20 PM

How many relationships would last WITHOUT sex ? I would hazard a guess at none.

Say what? I cannot disagree more strongly. I am aware of one platonic relationship (not one I'm in) that has existed comfortably for more than five years.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Callista

2009-06-18, 03:27 PM

Quite a few asexual people are in happy, long-term platonic relationships; generally, asexuals tend to prefer mental and emotional intimacy, or are even all-out disgusted by sex (attracted to the opposite sex as much as a homosexual; attracted to the same sex as much as a heterosexual). Asexual people don't miss sex. There are a great many other ways to build a relationship, and many of them are stronger than just the purely physical connections. Of course, it comes in a spectrum just like attraction does; there are people who want sex very frequently, and others who want hardly any at all. "Asexual" is really just the end of the spectrum that way, like gay and straight are the ends of the attraction spectrum.

Sex doesn't do that. However, relationship may turn you to improve yourself.Yeah it does. Sex affects a lot of things. When you have sex, a whole lot of biochemical things happen, including a bunch of neurotransmitter levels going crazy. Even in a purely physical way, sex changes things, and that's saying nothing about the psychology and sociology of it. I'm not saying there's no such thing as sex without romance; but I am saying that sex changes the people who are having sex, physically and mentally. It's not nearly as huge an impact as, for example, having a child; but why do you think society is so fascinated with sex--to the point that it's become either an idol or a taboo in many places? It's certainly not because sex leaves you exactly the same after as before. It's powerful stuff, and it can go either way, bad or good.

Mystic Muse

2009-06-18, 03:36 PM

Office Space.

here you go. a chocolate, chocolate, chocolate, chocolate chip cookie.

sorry no picture:smallfrown:

Dinvan

2009-06-18, 03:37 PM

Say what? I cannot disagree more strongly. I am aware of one platonic relationship (not one I'm in) that has existed comfortably for more than five years.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Friendships don't count.

veti

2009-06-18, 04:34 PM

Hmm .. thread topic. Let's see .. this happened back before the trial. If Roy had really gone for Miko, the rest of the OOTS would have rejected her. Haley and Elan and Belkar, being chaotic, would probably have snuck off or left at the first opportunity. Miko still believes she is the Chosen one. She would still have gone on that mission, she would still have returned to the throne room and overheard Shinjo speaking to Roy, she would still have become angry with him and, as the agent of the gods, taken the law into her own hands, and fallen.

Except that Shojo, not being a complete idiot, wouldn't have taken Roy into his confidence if he and Miko had developed a close relationship. Either that or he'd have figured out a way of including Miko. But he certainly wouldn't have set it up as he did, such that one half of a couple would be in on the Big Secret and the other not.

The outcome that creates minimum disruption to the story works something like this:
- Miko and Roy get together
- Shojo busts them apart - either physically (by sending Miko on another of her trademark ridiculously long quests) or emotionally (by somehow showing them how different they are)

The Miko Character Growth path is a bit more complicated:
- Through their relationship, Miko begins to understand how other people think
- Then she starts to see that they're not so very different from her
- Although she doesn't realise it at first, this revelation dents her conviction that the Twelve Gods have a Special Destiny in mind for her. Shojo would notice this mellowing, and (if I were him) would keep Miko close at hand and try to teach her the meaning of "LG".
- The OOTS, meanwhile, go off on their quest, separating the lovers for the duration. That's not so bad - it's no worse than Roy and Celia's separation.

Then there's the Miko Character Shrinkage option:
- Roy and Miko enjoy a night of sordid passion in a decadent bed
- Miko, in the cold light of day, is revolted and blames both Roy and herself for her "corruption". She treats him and the party more than ever like evil prisoners. From now on it's ditches and lichen all the way to Azure City.
- On arrival, she seeks out some extravagant penance for herself and puts it about that the party, while not actually "evil", are dangerously "foreign" and corrupting. Shojo, to appease the paladins, keeps them well out of sight and gets them out of the city as quickly as he can. This is pretty much the story as written, but without the New Years celebrations.
- The OOTS is now strongly prejudiced against Azure City and avoids the place as much as possible. They set off to the western continent, and only realise their mistake much later when they hear through the grapevine that Xykon has captured Azure City.
- (Alternatively, Xykon might be beaten off, but not destroyed, by Soon. Or he might capture the gate intact. Who knows? Who cares?)
- In this scenario, we miss Roy's death, the Breaking of the Stick, and V's recent development. In short, the Order's life is greatly simplified.

It IS possible for a man and a woman to be friends .. even long term, intimate friends .. and not have sex.

Roy could have accepted Miko and been a friend to her, but not a sex partner. That would probably have helped more than sex would. As Callista says, sex often causes as many problems as it solves.

Absolutely. The problem with that scenario isn't that Miko's a woman, it's that she's an insane woman. To love someone - which is what you're talking about - it's necessary to change yourself. Miko regards any "change" to herself as corruption or betrayal of her divine destiny: therefore, she is incapable of love.

Seriously, if love or friendship or respect would have helped her, couldn't she have received it from other people in Azure City? If they couldn't do it, the odds are good Roy wouldn't be able to, either.

Exactly. She can't love Roy, for the same reason as she can't love anyone. Sex has nothing to do with it either way - sex, by itself, wouldn't have helped at all.

Roy's "Treasure Type O" comment is his perception of her insanity, but Roy doesn't know her well enough to see the underlying problem. It's probably true that if she were having sex regularly she wouldn't be as "tightly wound" - but for that to be happening, she'd have to be a different character in the first place. It's not that regular sex would make her happier - she'd have to be happier to be having regular sex.

homeosapiens

2009-06-18, 07:13 PM

Your teory generally bases on Miko beeing sure of that the gods chose her and she is special. She never mentioned it before her fall and it just might be sth she did to justify her actions to herself. It seemed a good choice.

I would rather point that she might not think so before her fall. She thinks paladinhood is something special. To that i would agree myself.

Ot:
Blackguardhood is special too :-P.
Ans Miko in black leather?
Priceless.

Shatteredtower

2009-06-18, 07:22 PM

Friendships don't count.

Yes, actually, they do. I've known couples that are non-sexually involved closer to each other than anyone with whom they've had a sexual relationship. Hell, I've known married couples for whom sex was all but impossible for one reason or another, and irrelevant.

The bond is all that matters. Sex be damned; a real, committed relationship is one that survives buying a house together.

Imgran

2009-06-18, 08:23 PM

homeosapiens

2009-06-18, 08:33 PM

I always thought Miko spent her entire role in the adventure getting the short end of the stick again and again and no one really caring enough to bother to help her. It's kind of sad.

True. Why wouldnt V tell her streight, that he does not want to be called "elf"? Why wouldnt Roy tell her all his late and rejecting speech more subtle so she could actually think about it? With Durkon confirming it im positive she would change at least a bit if not tottally in attitude toward others. Why wouldnt Roy explain the exp he had with Elan so she could easier withstand him? All of this could be avoided.Ofc Haley and Belkar would never get along with her very well, but it couldnt be worse than Roy-Belkar anyway.

Swordlol

2009-06-18, 09:41 PM

The plot line would be more derailed and drawn out than it is now because:

-Belkar would have 3 dozen sex jokes about Roy and Miko.

-Miko's sense of honor would intervene on nearly every action made my Haley, Belkar and partially V.

-Roy's sense of honor would probably make him do things he normaly wouldn't do, in order so that Miko wouldn't be harm. Alternatively, if Miko was attacked he may foolishly rush in to protect her and take a "fireball" for her. Resulting in his death which....

Is exactly... what happened....

veti

2009-06-18, 10:13 PM

The sad part was that Roy's rejection of Miko had nothing to do with Miko. The most obnoxious thing you can do is tell someone who's already feeling remorse for their own foolishness that what they did is wrong and that they should be ashamed of themselves. Roy reacted so strongly to Miko largely to make his own conscience shut up.

That's not how I read it. Roy's rejection of Miko had everything to do with Miko. Yes, he was over-compensating for his previous behaviour, but he delivers a verdict based on clear, fact-based assessment of her character and potential compatibility with him. "You're not Good, at least not any definition of Good that I would want to follow" - he says - and it's true. She's not Good, whatever it might say on her character sheet.

For the record: I quite like Miko. I think she had great potential, and I'd have liked to see her develop a little. But I can't let my personal soft spot blind me to the clear, objective, indisputable fact, confirmed by The Giant Himself in one of the books, that she's freakin' insane.

It would have taken a bit of character development but yes, I could very much have seen Miko adjust her attitude and simply become one of those stuffly proper ladies that always seem to turn up as mothers of great men. Or the obnoxious rule-stickling good guy that you put up with because he gives your party public credibility and is good in a fight if needed.

If she could get over her Messiah complex, she could have become a reasonable, friendly and compatible character. She might well have been capable, then, of loving and being loved. It would have taken more than a bit of character development, but it would have been possible, and maybe very rewarding for whoever was determined and clever enough to bring it about. Maybe.

She couldn't have joined the OOTS as a paladin, though, for the same reason as O-Chul can't join them now: a paladin's loyalty has to be absolute and undivided, and you can't be loyal to both the Sapphire Guard and the OOTS - they may be allies, even friends, but their goals and priorities are quite different.

As a Fallen paladin - a second LG fighter - she could've joined them, and I thought that might be a redemption option for her at one point, but obviously it would've taken a fair bit of persuasion to make her accept that idea...

I always thought Miko spent her entire role in the adventure getting the short end of the stick again and again and no one really caring enough to bother to help her. It's kind of sad.

There I agree with you. It was sad. But drama often is.

Cracklord

2009-06-18, 10:30 PM

True. Why wouldnt V tell her streight, that he does not want to be called "elf"? Why wouldnt Roy tell her all his late and rejecting speech more subtle so she could actually think about it? With Durkon confirming it im positive she would change at least a bit if not tottally in attitude toward others. Why wouldnt Roy explain the exp he had with Elan so she could easier withstand him? All of this could be avoided.Ofc Haley and Belkar would never get along with her very well, but it couldnt be worse than Roy-Belkar anyway.

Roy refers to V as a demihuman. V was just being difficult. And Belkar isn't long for this world anyway.

Look at Crysania in the Dragonlance series, so pure and good, yet she works with what is quite possibly the most evil bastard in that or any other universe. She's still a good person, and Paladine understands. And eventually working through it she becomes a better person.
That could have been Miko. If only Roy had a better charisma score.

Here is my idealised end:
Roy wears the belt, and realises all he does, but also realises that Miko can change, she just needs to learn to think of other people as equals.
He doesn't blow her off, they continue on with Haley and Belker especially sullen, and next hotel Miko and Roy get a room together.
At the trial, Roy does not try to escape, though he still covers for his friends. They get of the same way, but instead of taking Roy into his confidence Shojo locks them back up, never revealing he isn't senile (He doesn't trust Roy, can't communicate with Haley, can't tell Durkon for the same reason he can't tell the paladins. No to Elan and V.) Belkar is caught by Miko, put on trial and executed.
During the attack the Order are let out. They fight on the walls, then go to the Throne room to try to face Xykon (No Ring of Jumping). Roy and Miko die, then Soon kills Xykon and Redcloak. The Hobgoblins are forced to retreat.
The rest of the Order break up.
Better for the world, but worse for the story.
(Shojo dies a week later of old age)

Lamech

2009-06-18, 11:51 PM

Hmm... I bet if Roy and Miko were a couple information sharing would have happened, and better communication would have resulted. I suspect it would have led to Miko not snapping and killing Shojo; she would have known Xykon was "alive", despite being destroyed. See this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0371.html). I suspect Miko concluded Shojo was evil on the belief that he was conspring with with the OotS (true) and that the order of the stick lied about Xykon's defeat (false), along with various tramua about being betrayed. So Miko keeps her paladinhood and her freedom, she might be really pissed but I doubt she would have killed Shojo with out the belief the Order was working with Xykon.

Anyway fastforward to the battle, nothing else really changes except Roy and Celia don't get together. Now the battle: the saphirre guard is up a paladin, but they STILL ALL DIE. Soon kills Xykon and Redcloak, but he can't smash the phylactry (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0462.html). Worse, it seems he can't even leave the room, since he doesn't plan on finding a human to smash it. Not that it matters since the MitD has WISH. Yeah enjoy nothing Soon can do about that little detail, Xykon and Redcloak return no matter what.

Anyway Redcloak and Xykon recover their bodies rescued by the loyal hobgoblins via grappling hooks or ten foot poles, or wished back by the MitD. Soon will of course not last long against a ready caster, Xykon will buy the needed scrolls or research an epic spell. Or just magic fang the MitD have him rip Soon up. Or wish Soon 5 billion light years away, 'cause its wish. Gate captured by team evil. Game over user evil wins."

Mystic Muse

2009-06-19, 12:24 AM

Hexen_Hase

2009-06-19, 12:31 AM

...Here is my idealised end:
Roy wears the belt, and realises all he does, but also realises that Miko can change, she just needs to learn to think of other people as equals....

I don't get it, how does the Belt of Gender Change make that happen? :smallconfused:

Kish

2009-06-19, 12:34 AM

we still don't know that it was the MITD or wish that caused that.
I think you're wrong (about the MITD part), but I'm completely mystified by Lamech's assumption that the creature in the darkness would have lifted a finger to help Redcloak and Xykon, with or without wishes. He would have continued with his tea party until he concluded they weren't coming back. Then what he did would have been up for grabs, but I'd put "wish Xykon and Redcloak back to life and single-handedly annihilate the victorious Azure City army" so far down the list it wouldn't be on the page.

Mystic Muse

2009-06-19, 12:35 AM

I don't get it, how does the Belt of Gender Change make that happen? :smallconfused:

a wizard did it.

David Argall

2009-06-19, 12:48 AM

I think Roy/Miko as a romantic relationship simply wouldn't work.
That is why it could work great.
Boy chasing girl and being put down has been enough to keep a dozen shows running for years.

pendell

2009-06-19, 07:24 AM

Except that the closest male-female relationship I can think of to Roy and Miko would be Charlie Brown and Lucy. A basically decent man being overrun, criticized, picked on, and harped at by a domineering PITA.

It just doesn't work. Roy is male. Miko is female. Beyond that, their personalities are so incompatible there's no room for a relationship.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tempest Fennac

2009-06-19, 08:05 AM

Scarlet Knight

2009-06-19, 08:49 AM

Haven't we all seen examples of good girls gone bad? Especially after years of self control , serving authority, & then introduction to sex?

If Roy ever gave Miko her Treasure Type "O", I could see her becoming like a college girl on an eternal spring break, forgetting all other duties in pursuit of the "Trouser Titan".

I can see a scene similar to the one in "Zoolander":
:roy: " There was a moment last night, when Miko was sandwiched between Haley, Elan, and Belkar, where I thought, "Wow, I could really spend the rest of my life with this woman".

Lamech

2009-06-19, 09:23 AM

I think you're wrong (about the MITD part), but I'm completely mystified by Lamech's assumption that the creature in the darkness would have lifted a finger to help Redcloak and Xykon, with or without wishes. He would have continued with his tea party until he concluded they weren't coming back. Then what he did would have been up for grabs, but I'd put "wish Xykon and Redcloak back to life and single-handedly annihilate the victorious Azure City army" so far down the list it wouldn't be on the page.First off "victorious Azure City army"? They were dead and gone no matter what. They were being overwhelmed. One of the hobogoblins could have told MitD they were dead, and that he should bring them back.
SoD
Redcloak nows what MitD is. He could have easily told a hobogoblin to inform the MitD of what do due in case he died.Also the MitD helps Redcloak and Xykon. O-chul was trying to prevent that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0651.html), so yes if the MitD was informed by a hobogoblin Redcloak told him to trust Xykon and Redlcloak would be back.

Imgran

2009-06-19, 11:39 AM

Not the place for MiTD discussion, but we still have no idea whether MItD can do whatever he did consciously or whether it was a subconscious spell. Certainly there wasn't the emotional hook to bring Redcloak back that there was when he was trying to save his best friend's life from someone who terrified him.

Remember. MItD was ticked off at Redcloak for not letting him fight. MItD is terrified of Xykon. MItD had no reason to really love either of those guys. If he had used his power to save them it would have been a total railroad plot.

Someone raised a great point about Roy. He liked to behave like he's the only sane man in the universe sometimes. Maybe it's just because of whose son he is, but he needs to get down off his own high horse sometime. His treatment of Miko in the aftermath of the inn fiasco is a classic example.

Scarlet Knight

2009-06-19, 03:06 PM

Someone raised a great point about Roy. He liked to behave like he's the only sane man in the universe sometimes. Maybe it's just because of whose son he is, but he needs to get down off his own high horse sometime. His treatment of Miko in the aftermath of the inn fiasco is a classic example.

I believe Roy behaved pretty reasonably. He just had his eyes opened by Elan inside the inn. He had been covering for Miko's rudeness ever since Durkon informed the Order that she was not a villian. Roy finally had enough & chose his friends over the really mean paladin.

Kish

2009-06-19, 03:10 PM

Remember. MItD was ticked off at Redcloak for not letting him fight. MItD is terrified of Xykon.
I don't see any indication that the creature in the dark is terrified of Xykon, actually. He seems to be under the bizarre, largely unaware impression that Xykon is his friend and the things Xykon does don't merit deeper consideration. But insisting that he would, independently, use whatever powers he possesses to prevent Xykon and Redcloak from being defeated by Soon is just goofy.

theinsulabot

2009-06-19, 04:33 PM

I don't see any indication that the creature in the dark is terrified of Xykon, actually. He seems to be under the bizarre, largely unaware impression that Xykon is his friend and the things Xykon does don't merit deeper consideration. But insisting that he would, independently, use whatever powers he possesses to prevent Xykon and Redcloak from being defeated by Soon is just goofy.

i hadnt actually intended to respond again on this thread, but ill make a note on this point, theres evidence lately that MitD has a pretty good idea what X is capable of. when X got angry, MitD said that o-chul didnt want to meet xykon when he was angry, strongly implying that MitD HAS seen xykon enraged, and had a chance to view that aftermath

Kish

2009-06-19, 05:01 PM

i hadnt actually intended to respond again on this thread, but ill make a note on this point, theres evidence lately that MitD has a pretty good idea what X is capable of. when X got angry, MitD said that o-chul didnt want to meet xykon when he was angry, strongly implying that MitD HAS seen xykon enraged, and had a chance to view that aftermath
Certainly, but that's not the same as believing Xykon would (or even could, for that matter) harm the creature in the darkness himself. The one time the creature has seemed afraid of what Xykon might do, it was all for O-Chul.

LuisDantas

2009-06-19, 11:05 PM

What would have happened? Would Xykon be dead now and all lived happily ever after?

They main question is - would it actually give her some development? Like Roy says about "treasure type O" and being "this tightly wound"?

Well maybe it wouldnt end with "Honey we're out of milk. -Clearly, this means the Gods want me to kill you. Slash. Slash. Slash." At least i would like to think so.

It is far closer to the truth to say that Miko rejected Roy than to claim that Roy rejected Miko. I present #250 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html) as evidence.

Also, the same strip shows a serious lack of tact from Roy; he had just managed to reach a degree of mutual understanding and respect with Miko, yet he immediately uses it to hurt her feelings - rather needlessly, no less.

So, the way I see it, there is no way the two of them could be romantically involved without some sort of character development changing either or both of them after the events of #250. As we all know, the plot went somewhere else entirely instead. We're therefore talking about alternate continuities.

Could the two of them become a couple? Yes, under appropriate circunstances, I can definitely see that happening. Miko, we have since learned, had acceptance issues and IMO Roy blundered his chance at dealing with her in a constructive way. That had very unfortunate consequences for both, probably more so for Miko, putting her in the first step of her downfall.

Still, I don't think the two of them were ever all that close to establishing a relationship; a scenario of earned trust comraderie was always more likely than that. And yes, that would spell very bad news from Xykon and Redcloak, probably leading to far less division among the Azure City defenders and even to the destruction of Team Evil during the siege of the Gate. For one thing, Shojo, Hinjo and Miko would all be alive and cooperating with each other. Miko would probably be fighting along O-Chul at the crucial confrontation with Xykon, while the soldiers that Vaarsuvius helped could have avoided their routing.

Considering how close Xykon and RC came to defeat despite all the unfortunate circunstances in Azure City, I don't see how they could have survived such a better scenario.

The Succubus

2009-06-20, 08:43 AM

You know, I used to see the character of Miko as a comical, hyper-efficient soldier type. Like Rimmer with a backbone.

After reading this, I realise she's actually a tragic figure - so many times in this thread I've seen the words "If only...." and it made me think about how lonely she actually was.

Fate is a cruel b****. :smallfrown:

yanmaodao

2009-06-21, 05:59 AM

There's a bonus strip in War and XPs that really speaks volumes about her character: it's set around the new year, where she approaches two fellow paladins who have no family in the city and tries to join them for dinner. Long story short, she actually intended to order them to dine in her quarters, where she had painstakingly prepared three settings of home-cooked food, probably at considerable personal trouble. On the one hand, you want to beat her upside the head, but on the other... she's desperately lonely and actively wants people to like her. She just has no clue how to win people without, to her understanding, compromising her lofty ethical position. She's not a bad person. She just doesn't understand.

That... is actually very sad. Wow.

Kaytara

2009-06-21, 06:41 AM

People keep saying that Miko is completely incapable of admitting she was wrong. I won't argue with that, but I do not think that it was completely impossible for her to change. I think by far the most likely moment for her to reconsider her own decisions was immediately after her Fall, when she was no longer brimming with righteous fury, but simply shocked and trying to understand what the hell just happened, and the closest to introspection she had ever been. That Roy attacked her at that point, forcing her to become aggressive again, is what I consider to be his greatest blunder as far as his interaction with Miko goes (although the example above from 250 probably also qualifies). It was a ridiculous decision. Shojo was already dead, so attacking her at that point achieved no practical purpose at all, save to show her that he really didn't like her and was just looking for an excuse to beat the hell out of her. Attacking her just cemented her delusion rather than allowing her a bit of introspection.

hamishspence

2009-06-21, 07:38 AM

Jagos

2009-06-21, 08:22 AM

I think Roy/Miko as a romantic relationship simply wouldn't work. A friendship, with none of the intensity and expectations of a romantic relationship, might have kept her from becoming delusional; but by the time Roy met her, she was already actively pushing away any personal relationships. It would have taken a saint at that point. Maybe the decision to send her on lots of solo missions was what really tipped the scales in favor of her ultimate downfall; had she stayed in Azure City, the influence of other level-headed paladins might have straightened her out.

Whatever the influences were, though, Miko made her own decisions; one can't call her blameless just because circumstances made it easier for her to fall.

She had been pushing away personal relationships a LOOOONG time before she met the Order. She had been a monk for a while and didn't understand how to interact with people. As well, she obviously liked to argue with people until she was convinced she was right. No amount of level headed paladins could necessarily change her.

The problem is, I got to the Miko scene too late. It took me a while to really like her and just as I was going to, she decided to kill Shojo. But let's look at the evidence of why Roy made a good decision.

1) He's the leader. No one trusted the Sapphire Guard on some trumped up charge of weakening the universe in another region. He allowed Miko to order his friends around simply because she felt everyone was beneath her. Evidence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html)
Even more evidence she needs a life (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0220.html). When he spurned her, he was making a suggestion based on what he saw from her. Who really believed she would attack the order as a result?

2) Miko was rude and abrasive because she didn't have a lot of contact with people. She never really smiled but always seemed to value people on their position. It was Shojo that stopped her from killing Belkar. Also, as mentioned before, she was hard for even the Paladins to get along with. Face it, the girl was built with -5 in Diplomacy in mind. Even Elan didn't like her, and he damn near likes everyone!

Miko may be powerful but she wanted everything her way. She was insane, believing she was above everyone. The same can be said about Shojo. Both thought that they were above the law and were punished respectively.

Optimystik

2009-06-21, 08:30 AM

It's Shojo. S-H-O-J-O.

*bangs forehead into server, hopefully dislodging the new strip*

Jagos

2009-06-21, 08:45 AM

hamishspence

2009-06-21, 08:50 AM

So, exactly why is it a "ridiculous decision" to attack someone who has just committed murder (and treason) and then armed themself, even after being struck down by the gods, considering the fact that the new ruler of the city is feet away from the armed, delusional murderer?

and why should an armed murderer be allowed a bit of introspection to rethink his acts and turn themself in? The Cliffport police didn't allow "nale" time to explain himself, considering there were dead bodies around- they took him down as fast as possible (without killing him)

Prowl

2009-06-21, 08:51 AM

The idea that all a tightly wound woman needs is a little sex is a pretty sexist idea.

Sexist, yes, but stunningly accurate.

- Mr. Unwinder

David Argall

2009-06-21, 02:06 PM

Practical purpose is pretty clear- protecting others from her.
Nonsense. Roy tells Miko, and us, why he acts. "All that matters to me..." His motive is revenge, not protection.

The point I'm trying to make, is, when the ruler of a city has just been murdered, the armed witnesses can hardly be expected to "give the armed murderer a chance to think things out"
True enough, but their proper reaction is to take the attacker into custody, not tear to pieces and kill. [And Roy's tactics do seem to have more the idea of torturing her than actually killing. Of course the needs of drama often overthrow combat tactics, making this somewhat questionable.] The latter may be understandable, but it is neither legal nor good.

So, you got someone who is mad, armed, has just committed high treason, and is feet away from the new ruler.
You should know the drill. You aim your gun/get your sword ready to swing, order the suspect to put down her weapon, and demand her surrender. You do not start shooting/swinging until it is absolutely necessary. [For one thing, when guards are quick to kill the assassin, they are often accused of being part of the plot.]

Now there are cases where one must attack right away, but this case simply does not meet those standards. It's not even close. Miko is just standing there, almost totally stunned, doing little besides babble quietly. That she is dangerous is obvious, but immediately dangerous?

hamishspence

2009-06-21, 04:41 PM

and Roy's methods finish with a live Miko- a mix of lethal and non-lethal strikes, taunting to distract her and keep her attention fixed on him, etc.

"Kicking her ass" has purposes other than revenge, though The Giant does say it is "cathartic release" for both Roy, and the readers.

Maybe Roy's attack resulted in a less reasonable Miko, causing her to Not Listen to Hinjo. Somehow though, I doubt it- the delusions were already in place, claiming Roy to be "cementing them" is a bit much.

veti

2009-06-21, 04:53 PM

What makes you say that Miko wasn't good, veti? I find it ironic that Roy made that comment consideringn how he tends to look down on pretty much everyone else while reacing to people who are in trouble by celebrating finding a quest hook.

It's a matter of motivations. My argument is that Miko is a Neutral character who's acting Good. (In fact, looking at the official definitions, she's possibly even an Evil character who's just convinced herself that she's Good.)

Rich has - more than once - lampooned the way alignment is often reduced to no more than a hat colour. But in Roy's dialogue with Miko, he refers to the rulebook description: "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Miko does none of these things. She shows no sign of altruism, no more than average "respect for life" ("My blades will bathe in the blood of those responsible!"), and scant "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". (I mean, seriously - telling her prisoners to sleep in a ditch and eat lichen?) She has convinced herself that her whole life is one huge "personal sacrifice", and therefore she has nothing left to give. That's the nature of her insanity.

She remains a Paladin precisely as long as she remains loyal to the Sapphire Guard, in accordance with her oaths and duty. The moment that loyalty breaks - when she lets her "direct connection" to the Twelve Gods override her duty to the Guard - she Falls. But long before that, Miko isn't "good" because she's motivated by "altruism, concern, respect" - she's motivated by pride.

(Actually I like her well enough to think that she has some Good instincts buried in there somewhere - but they don't often show.)

Jagos

2009-06-21, 05:37 PM

It would be interesting if she were to come up again as an antagonist of some sort. She had the road to redemption SLAMMED in her face, she lost her powers, and she saved the day in the worst way possible. Even though she should have known better with a decent WIS score, she acted in such a manner as to not really redeem herself.

I'd like it to be that Roy met her ghost on the planes before he returned but sadly, that's not meant to be. :(

LuisDantas

2009-06-21, 05:55 PM

It's a matter of motivations. My argument is that Miko is a Neutral character who's acting Good. (In fact, looking at the official definitions, she's possibly even an Evil character who's just convinced herself that she's Good.)

I agree completely with that, as well as with the whole post.

It would be interesting if she were to come up again as an antagonist of some sort. She had the road to redemption SLAMMED in her face, she lost her powers, and she saved the day in the worst way possible.

It would be troublesome to bring her back in any meaningful way. Her personality is too damaged already, and death will certainly help none in this regard.

And she did not save the day at all, except in her own mind. She turned a decisive victory into a slowly-growing defeat.

Ytaker

2009-06-21, 06:08 PM

It's a matter of motivations. My argument is that Miko is a Neutral character who's acting Good. (In fact, looking at the official definitions, she's possibly even an Evil character who's just convinced herself that she's Good.)

Officially, she's lawful stupid. Didn't the creator say he created her as a way to criticize both people who roleplay paladins as lawful but forget the good, and as a way to criticize those who thought their paladin status was an excuse to run the party?

Callista

2009-06-21, 06:35 PM

ResplendentFire

2009-06-21, 07:19 PM

Actually, if anything, that's the reverse, true or false, justified or not, who would be sexist... against men. "What, we can be sexually frustrated but women can't ? That's not fair !". While more or less all sexist prejudices find their origins in ye olde male chauvinism, attitudes and values evolved since then, so that many men would find offensive yesterday's positive portrayals of manliness. Rather ironic, isn't it ?

That's not sexist against men. It's a statement about a woman, about how a woman is sexually frustrated. That statement has nothing to do with men.

Sexist, yes, but stunningly accurate.

- Mr. Unwinder

Sexist yes, but not accurate. Sex doesn't change people's personalities.

Really, these Miko threads are some of the worst things I've read on this forum. It's almost as if, from reading these discussions, that Miko had no independent existence outside of what men created for her - that Shojo cultivated her as a weapon, that Roy could've liberated her from her self-righteousness. Hardly anywhere is she actually viewed as an independent entity who's made her own choices and mistakes. Some of you are willing to blame her disposition on not getting enough (or any) sex.

theinsulabot

2009-06-21, 08:12 PM

That's not sexist against men. It's a statement about a woman, about how a woman is sexually frustrated. That statement has nothing to do with men.

Sexist yes, but not accurate. Sex doesn't change people's personalities.

Really, these Miko threads are some of the worst things I've read on this forum. It's almost as if, from reading these discussions, that Miko had no independent existence outside of what men created for her - that Shojo cultivated her as a weapon, that Roy could've liberated her from her self-righteousness. Hardly anywhere is she actually viewed as an independent entity who's made her own choices and mistakes. Some of you are willing to blame her disposition on not getting enough (or any) sex.

i think i can call myself on the outside of this one, as i loathe miko enough i am happy to place responsibility on her own shoulders, but i think you are reading a tad to much into specifics here. i rather imagine anyone who says miko might have handled things better if she had some regular intercourse would say the same thing if she had a weekly massage, developed a social drinking habbit, or took a cruise every summer.

i dont agree with the concept, but i believe the underlying theme isn't sex, or being female for that matter, but those posters simply believe that if miko had been able to take some time off, ease the rod out of her ass once in a while, had some time that was just for miko that had nothing to do with monster slaying or praying to the 12 gods, then maybe she would of been stable enough to of handled the throne room events more logically. as it was, she was so naturally wound up so tightly that a shocking event such as shojo's duplicity simply caused her to snap under the pressure.

Chameon

2009-06-21, 08:19 PM

i think i can call myself on the outside of this one, as i loathe miko enough i am happy to place responsibility on her own shoulders, but i think you are reading a tad to much into specifics here. i rather imagine anyone who says miko might have handled things better if she had some regular intercourse would say the same thing if she had a weekly massage, developed a social drinking habbit, or took a cruise every summer.

i dont agree with the concept, but i believe the underlying theme isn't sex, or being female for that matter, but those posters simply believe that if miko had been able to take some time off, ease the rod out of her ass once in a while, had some time that was just for miko that had nothing to do with monster slaying or praying to the 12 gods, then maybe she would of been stable enough to of handled the throne room events more logically. as it was, she was so naturally wound up so tightly that a shocking event such as shojo's duplicity simply caused her to snap under the pressure.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, it's obvious she was under incredible stress from the first moment she goes to attack the order. It is unknown if she was like this before she was ever bothered by old man saying she's so important.

dps

2009-06-21, 09:20 PM

It is far closer to the truth to say that Miko rejected Roy than to claim that Roy rejected Miko. I present #250 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html) as evidence.

Also, the same strip shows a serious lack of tact from Roy; he had just managed to reach a degree of mutual understanding and respect with Miko, yet he immediately uses it to hurt her feelings - rather needlessly, no less.

The fact remains, though, that however tactless Roy was, he was also entirely correct--she was an overbearing, self-righteous bitch.

Roy found her physically attractive, but there was nothing in her personality or conduct that was attractive to him.

veti

2009-06-21, 10:25 PM

I think that it's the actions that really play out what side you're on. You can be tempted to evil a hundred times over; you can have the grumpiest, meanest personality; but it's what you do that reveals your true alignment. Miko was never a perfect LG; she was always rather weakly Good... We don't know her previous history; what she may have been like as a teenager, for example... She seems very much like the sort of person who follows the precepts of Good because shes sees them as identical to being Lawful--the "good little girl" model of behavior; not very morally sophisticated, not something that can deal with the sort of dilemmas a paladin will inevitably face. When we meet her, Miko already seems most of the way down the path to falling; she just hasn't crossed that critical line.

I don't think you can explain Miko by suggesting that she attached more weight to "Lawful" than to "Good". She Fell when she showed disdain for the Law - "The laws have no meaning... Only honor and the will of the Gods matter now!" - that's not the sentiment of a fundamentally Lawful person. In fact it's hard to attach a meaningful alignment to her - probably because she's crazy.

But I do agree about the main reason she follows "Good" precepts. I'd phrase it as: those are the established rules of her Order, which she has to constantly remind herself to follow, despite her natural instincts.

I think Miko is a case study in the disconnection between a character-as-played and character-as-written-on-a-character-sheet. Miko's character sheet probably says she has high Charisma, despite the observable fact that everyone she talks to for more than three minutes hates her guts. And in the same way, it says she's LG.

That's why Roy has such a hard time seeing through her at first: he's the kind of player who looks at the character sheet, not the character, so he sees her as personable and LG. The other players are either positioned where they can't see the character sheet, or they don't think it's important enough to affect their opinions, so they react to the character-as-played.

homeosapiens

2009-06-22, 12:04 AM

Really, these Miko threads are some of the worst things I've read on this forum. It's almost as if, from reading these discussions, that Miko had no independent existence outside of what men created for her - that Shojo cultivated her as a weapon, that Roy could've liberated her from her self-righteousness.Some of you are willing to blame her disposition on not getting enough (or any) sex.

Well i dont post on the treads i think are "the worst" and i dont read them too - nobody forces anybody to do that here. You can ignore them. If making a thread made you feel bad, than i am sorry - i didnt mean to. Since there is no more of "your thoughts" here... that shall be all from me on that matter.

Hardly anywhere is she actually viewed as an independent entity who's made her own choices and mistakes.
Really? Was she a zombie? Seriously - it sounds like you think so. I dont.

She has feelings.(Scene when Roy tells her[x2])
She has a sense of duty, even if wrong taken it made her fall in the end.
She has tactical sense.(Ogre fight)
She made her own choices. (throne room x2)
She made mistakes. (...)

The fact remains, though, that however tactless Roy was, he was also entirely correct--she was an overbearing, self-righteous bitch.

Roy found her physically attractive, but there was nothing in her personality or conduct that was attractive to him.
Well, i d say one thing. She seemed a canny warrior and responsible adventurer when they were talking on the carts. She had the same reactions on Elan as Roy has, and that made Roy feel a bit closer to her.

Kaytara

2009-06-22, 12:25 AM

Practical purpose is pretty clear- protecting others from her.

Imagine a Secret service agent going into a Rant, pulling out a knife, and cutting The President in half. Is struck down by the power of the gods. (or some automatic security system, in real world)

Still picks up their weapon. Has immediately prior, announced everyone in the room besides her and the Vice President, now the new President, to be "an agent of evil"

So, you got someone who is mad, armed, has just committed high treason, and is feet away from the new ruler.

Roy is more a mercenary than a citizen, but his employer has just been cut dead in front of him. If his promise was to serve the head of the Sapphire guard in preventing the gates from being interfered with, that promise may pass to the new ruler.

The point I'm trying to make, is, when the ruler of a city has just been murdered, the armed witnesses can hardly be expected to "give the armed murderer a chance to think things out"

IRL people are not able to get skewered by a freackin' huge greatsword and still continue fighting, though. Different reaction to damage is one of the reasons this is different. Hinjo is no unarmed octogenarian, he's the second most powerful paladin and in no danger of being instant-killed by Miko. Plus, she had already declared a second ago that she did not consider Hinjo evil - "Everyone but you and I in this room are agents of evil". Presumably, if she chooses to attack Hinjo then, he will be able to hold his own at least long enough for Roy to intervene THEN, rather than before it, when she's no longer attacking anybody. Besides which, as Argall said, Roy did not demand that she lay down her weapon and surrender, he just got straight to beating her up, which makes the idea of honourable intentions on his part somewhat questionable. It's more "You've been getting on my nerves for such a long time and this is the final straw! I'm gonna give you one hell of a beating!"
Besides which, as Argall said, she is not actively threatening anyone at that time, just standing still in shock. It should be obvious that attacking her then wouldn't make things any better.

The ideal solution would have been for Roy and Belkar - aka the two people she hates the most - to retreat into the background and let the person she actually trusts and respects handle it. Would she still have decided to turn violent on Hinjo? Maybe. Doesn't make attacking her any less lousy a decision.

ResplendentFire

2009-06-22, 03:30 AM

Really? Was she a zombie? Seriously - it sounds like you think so. I dont.

She has feelings.(Scene when Roy tells her[x2])
She has a sense of duty, even if wrong taken it made her fall in the end.
She has tactical sense.(Ogre fight)
She made her own choices. (throne room x2)
She made mistakes. (...)

No, I said she had her own will and made her own decisions. No one else is responsible for her decision to kill Shojo and destroy the seal.

i dont agree with the concept, but i believe the underlying theme isn't sex, or being female for that matter, but those posters simply believe that if miko had been able to take some time off, ease the rod out of her ass once in a while, had some time that was just for miko that had nothing to do with monster slaying or praying to the 12 gods, then maybe she would of been stable enough to of handled the throne room events more logically. as it was, she was so naturally wound up so tightly that a shocking event such as shojo's duplicity simply caused her to snap under the pressure.

Except people are relating it to sex, the idea if Roy had sex with her, she'd calm down.

It's entirely possible that this is her personality, the way she works. She may not have even enjoyed the kinds of relaxation you mention - or she might have enjoyed them, but they didn't change her outlook.

I'm not sure why she needs to constantly be characterized as out of control of herself, that her decisions are somehow not entirely her responsibility, that she was too tightly wound to do the right thing.

Jagos

2009-06-22, 06:36 AM

i dont agree with the concept, but i believe the underlying theme isn't sex, or being female for that matter, but those posters simply believe that if miko had been able to take some time off, ease the rod out of her ass once in a while, had some time that was just for miko that had nothing to do with monster slaying or praying to the 12 gods, then maybe she would of been stable enough to of handled the throne room events more logically. as it was, she was so naturally wound up so tightly that a shocking event such as shojo's duplicity simply caused her to snap under the pressure.

Miko never got out. She only had the horse. I'm tellin ya she's the cat lady of OotS! XD

IRL people are not able to get skewered by a freackin' huge greatsword and still continue fighting, though. Different reaction to damage is one of the reasons this is different. Hinjo is no unarmed octogenarian, he's the second most powerful paladin and in no danger of being instant-killed by Miko. Plus, she had already declared a second ago that she did not consider Hinjo evil - "Everyone but you and I in this room are agents of evil". Presumably, if she chooses to attack Hinjo then, he will be able to hold his own at least long enough for Roy to intervene THEN, rather than before it, when she's no longer attacking anybody. Besides which, as Argall said, Roy did not demand that she lay down her weapon and surrender, he just got straight to beating her up, which makes the idea of honourable intentions on his part somewhat questionable. It's more "You've been getting on my nerves for such a long time and this is the final straw! I'm gonna give you one hell of a beating!"
Besides which, as Argall said, she is not actively threatening anyone at that time, just standing still in shock. It should be obvious that attacking her then wouldn't make things any better.

The ideal solution would have been for Roy and Belkar - aka the two people she hates the most - to retreat into the background and let the person she actually trusts and respects handle it. Would she still have decided to turn violent on Hinjo? Maybe. Doesn't make attacking her any less lousy a decision.

First, we've established they've done the best thing that they thought was right. If someone had just killed my benefactor, I'd go to take them down with lethal force if necessary. Why should I be relegated to the background when someone has shown they have killing intent? Next thing you know, she MAY come to kill me and that won't do. As well, as a PC, I doubt he'd ask someone to lay down their weapon. Hinjo, yes because of his oath, but Roy is more of a take action kinda guy.

No, Miko was above the law and took it into her own hands. She came out to be DEAD wrong and it cost her.

Optimystik

2009-06-22, 09:26 AM

I don't know what you're talking about. I wouldn't just change my post to make you look like you're talking to everyone else about a different name.

*Halo forms around head*

*Red tail swooshes behind him*

/hug

True enough, but their proper reaction is to take the attacker into custody, not tear to pieces and kill. [And Roy's tactics do seem to have more the idea of torturing her than actually killing. Of course the needs of drama often overthrow combat tactics, making this somewhat questionable.] The latter may be understandable, but it is neither legal nor good.

Roy said he was "kicking her ass." Assuming that meant he wanted to "tear her to pieces" is quite the leap. A more likely assessment is that he wanted to subdue her, and fast.

You should know the drill. You aim your gun/get your sword ready to swing, order the suspect to put down her weapon, and demand her surrender. You do not start shooting/swinging until it is absolutely necessary. [For one thing, when guards are quick to kill the assassin, they are often accused of being part of the plot.]

Now there are cases where one must attack right away, but this case simply does not meet those standards. It's not even close. Miko is just standing there, almost totally stunned, doing little besides babble quietly. That she is dangerous is obvious, but immediately dangerous?

I do agree that Roy was a tad hasty to go on the offensive here, but in his defense there was quite a bit of pent-up aggression from his two prior losses to her. An excuse to take her down (and hard) is just what he was looking for.

Ancalagon

2009-06-22, 11:21 AM

I do agree that Roy was a tad hasty to go on the offensive here, but in his defense there was quite a bit of pent-up aggression from his two prior losses to her. An excuse to take her down (and hard) is just what he was looking for.

In general agreed and I also feel that way each time I read it, but on the other hand we are talking about Miko here and Hinjo devlivered a much better speech to her than Roy could have. So Roy might have ruined something here or might have passed the opportunity to achieve and break-through in her mind, but I still think Miko would not have changed since even Hinjo's speech could not break through and, even worse, she DID attack Hinjo - which is far worse than attacking Roy would have been. And, in some way, attacking Hinjo was even worse than attacking Shojo.
We can turn it as we wish, but she did have reason to believe that Shojo indeed had something evil in mind when working behind the backs of the paladins (even if her means to to prevent him from going on with that were wrong) and she surely also had reason (if you follow that reason or not is your descision) not to trust Roy, who also was just some stranger. But the attack was the sign she's totally and utterly lost and nothing anyone could do or say would change that.
So, Roy did ruin the best opportunity to talk to Miko, but no matter what he would have said she still would have snapped/went on being snapped (and yes, he still was too hasty).

Roy might have come to the right conclusion that Miko was lost (as outlined above), so words, from his point of view, were pointless. And I think he was right with that judgement (even if it was not his place to strike first).

Kaytara

2009-06-22, 12:18 PM

First, we've established they've done the best thing that they thought was right. If someone had just killed my benefactor, I'd go to take them down with lethal force if necessary. Why should I be relegated to the background when someone has shown they have killing intent? Next thing you know, she MAY come to kill me and that won't do. As well, as a PC, I doubt he'd ask someone to lay down their weapon. Hinjo, yes because of his oath, but Roy is more of a take action kinda guy.

No, Miko was above the law and took it into her own hands. She came out to be DEAD wrong and it cost her.

What do you mean when you say we've established that they did what they thought was right? Well, of course they thought it was right... that doesn't necessarily make it right. Besides, Hinjo himself says to Roy that they need to talk this out, not batter it into submission, which can easily be read as criticism of Roy's automatic approach of attacking Miko, which really IS something a typical Big Dumb Fighter would do.

And you yourself said that you would use lethal force if necessary. That's not applicable to Roy's action. It becomes necessary to attack when someone is advancing with a weapon drawn with an aggressive posture, not when they're standing around looking shocked and mumbling to themselves. Roy had already blown his opportunity to make himself useful - he should have intervened a few rounds earlier, while Miko was still shoving Shojo around. Afterwards, attacking no longer had any immediate benefit. And you haven't addressed my point that it was perfectly possible to actually wait for Miko to make the first move before attacking her, at which point it would have been justified. I mean, it's clear enough that she's attacking if she starts looking mad again and moves towards Hinjo in a threatening manner. Roy could just intervene then. Until she attacks, though, there's nothing to be gained by attacking her pre-emptively, and everything to be lost - namely, any chance at all of making her actually reconsider her own actions.

I do agree that Roy was a tad hasty to go on the offensive here, but in his defense there was quite a bit of pent-up aggression from his two prior losses to her. An excuse to take her down (and hard) is just what he was looking for.
Arguing that it is in-character and understandable is not the same as arguing that it is right - for one thing, V's Familicide was both in-character and completely understandable given his state of mind at the time, and yet most people seem reluctant to employ this kind of thinking in his case.

Now, you guys seem to be arguing that, with her murder of Shojo, Miko turned herself into an acceptable target, forfeiting her right to having people around her take her well-being into consideration. She killed Shojo, therefore you're good to go to attack her, as well. My problem with this perspective is that it implies that, in your interpretation of Lawful Good, vanquishing evil/threatening foes is at least somewhat preferable to reforming/peacefully neutralising them, which goes in the face of the idea that violence should only be used when necessary. In addition to that, this approach is, at its core, simply a manifestation of the "eye for an eye" approach, which is considered barbaric and unproductive by most civilised systems.

Unless, of course, you say that Roy's action was not typical of a perfect LG character, which would seem to imply that it was a mistake, which is what I've been saying all along. Not a huge one, and most importantly it's not something most people would hold against him (although, if we replaced Miko with someone like Kubota, we could be sure someone would be trying to sue Roy for employing pointless and unnecessary violence), but probably still not a good idea.

Miko had declared and acted on violent intentions towards a single person - Shojo. The idea that she would just immediately randomly attack the person she just stated to believe to be her ally, Hinjo, is not readily apparent. The idea that she is shocked by the results of her act should be obvious given her reaction. The idea that this act may allow her to see her wrongdoings and become a better person is optimistic, but not a stretch. The idea that it's better to let the paladin colleague with the high CHA and Diplomacy handle it rather than hitting her with a big sword should also be apparent.

I don't hold it against Roy for attacking her - she HAD been a thorn in his side for a long time and her unjustified accusations of him would have made anyone mad. Psychologically, he may have also been trying to make up for his lack of action a few rounds ago by going into action now without really thinking about whether it was a good idea. To me, that doesn't make his eager attack on her a big mistake where acting for the greater good was concerned.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-22, 12:21 PM

Kaytara

2009-06-22, 12:30 PM

"Unless, of course, you say that Roy's action was not typical of a perfect LG character, which would seem to imply that it was a mistake"

Wrong. Very few people are perfect LG people, and Roy is not one of them. You are a character, not an alignment, and Rich understands this.

I am not arguing otherwise. I am not saying that Roy should be the perfect LG type. On the contrary, I acknowledge that Roy has traits that are untypical or at least unwanted for someone of his alignment - his tendency to verbally beat down both friends and enemies is another thing that comes to mind, and it's something the deva scolds him for, as well. To me, his eagerness to attack Miko was similar - perfectly fine as far as being understandable and in-character goes, but not a very good idea and not desirable for a LG type.

By "mistake", I mean to say that it isn't the ideal course of action there, that's all.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-22, 01:09 PM

It seems to me like she earned it. But I can't remember exactly what happens. Does he only step in to defend Hinjo? Or does he attack before that?

Kaytara

2009-06-22, 01:46 PM

It seems to me like she earned it. But I can't remember exactly what happens. Does he only step in to defend Hinjo? Or does he attack before that?

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html) the comic: Miko is standing around staring into the air with widened eyes and talking to herself when Roy decides to "get involved" and attacks her. Hinjo at that point is presumably cradling Shojo's dead body, or something. He doesn't get involved until the comic after that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html), at which point he tells Roy that the need to talk this out rather than battering things into submission and orders him and Belkar to stay out of it.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-22, 01:53 PM

Oh crap. Fair enough, I misremembered. I'm totally wrong.

But we all know Roy is only human, and allowed to make mistakes :P

hamishspence

2009-06-22, 02:05 PM

Now there are cases where one must attack right away, but this case simply does not meet those standards. It's not even close. Miko is just standing there, almost totally stunned, doing little besides babble quietly. That she is dangerous is obvious, but immediately dangerous?

More immediately dangerous than a tied up Kubota, by a long shot.

Armed- check
Deluded- check
Has announced she believes people in the room to be "Agents of evil"- check
Has just demonstrated that she kills people who are "agents of evil"- check

Police are not always required to shout "Drop your weapon" and Roy isn't a cop anyway.

The situation might be compared to a very formidable civilian witnessing a murder, seeing the murderer babbling, and promptly attacking first to render them out of action. Since reasoning with them, when they want to kill you, is extremely risky, and letting much less powerful ruler of the city reason with a dangerous, deluded murderer is also extremely risky.

Optimystik

2009-06-22, 03:30 PM

Now, you guys seem to be arguing that, with her murder of Shojo, Miko turned herself into an acceptable target, forfeiting her right to having people around her take her well-being into consideration. She killed Shojo, therefore you're good to go to attack her, as well.

I'm arguing no such thing. I think Roy was fully wrong for trying to "batter her into submission." I was just explaining why HE might've considered that course of action to be warranted.

hamishspence

2009-06-22, 03:36 PM

Some people argued V's killing of Kubota was non-evil because he was "an enemy, and therefore a valid target"

Picking up the weapon after the Twelve Gods themselves had struck her down and struck it out of her hand- she's dangerous. The difference here is between a bound enemy you know very little about, and an unbound, armed enemy you know is delusional, has just committed murder, and has moments ago declared you an "agent of evil"

Here, a preemptive strike is almost as justified as it can get.

David Argall

2009-06-22, 04:57 PM

It's a matter of motivations. My argument is that Miko is a Neutral character who's acting Good.
Miko was a paladin. By definition, she is Good. This is simply not open to debate. Less good than she really should be, maybe, but flat out, she is Good.

Miko does none of these things. She shows no sign of altruism,
See the dirt farmers. She has no reason to help them and has solid reasons she should not. Yet she automatically assumes she must help them despite any bother to her [unlike Roy, whose immediate motive is that he is bored].
Also see 207 where she wonders what Roy is going to do with the dragon hoard. She lists several altruistic alternatives and can't seem to think of the obvious more greedy uses.

scant "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". (I mean, seriously - telling her prisoners to sleep in a ditch and eat lichen?)
That is where she was going to sleep and eat. And you will find plenty of philosophers who deem physical comfort bad for people. That these people are pretty much insane does not stop them from being widely respected, and
from Miko's idea being entirely compatible with concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Miko isn't "good" because she's motivated by "altruism, concern, respect" - she's motivated by pride.

Well, everybody is motivated by pride if one defines it loosely. But if one starts breaking that down and talking about things not being properly pride, Miko is not at all prideful. If one looks at the classic seven deadly sins, Miko is rather clearly Wrath, and is prideful only in the sense that pride is deemed the base for all the other sins. [In fact, now that I review the definition, I wonder if our writer was consulting the definition of Wrath as he created Miko.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Wrath
"Wrath (Latin, ira), also known as anger or "rage", may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others. The transgressions borne of vengeance are among the most serious, including murder, assault, and in extreme cases, genocide. Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self-interest (although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy, closely related to the sin of envy). Dante described vengeance as "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite"."

Now really, doesn't that describe Miko a whole lot better than "pride"?

and Roy's methods finish with a live Miko- a mix of lethal and non-lethal strikes, taunting to distract her and keep her attention fixed on him, etc.
Miko's survival is no fault of Roy's here. It was only the plot that let Miko survive his final blow. Nor do we see any attempt to distract her or keeping her attention focused on him, except as the incidental result of beating her up and hurting her.

"Kicking her ass" has purposes other than revenge, though The Giant does say it is "cathartic release" for both Roy, and the readers.
"Cathartic release" routinely borders criminal and moral crime. About its best justification is that it may prevent one from doing something worse.

Armed- check
Deluded- check
Has announced she believes people in the room to be "Agents of evil"- check
Has just demonstrated that she kills people who are "agents of evil"- check

is clearly about to attack someone-Not check. And that is the one that must be checked.

Police are not always required to shout "Drop your weapon" and Roy isn't a cop anyway.
Ordering the suspect to drop any weapons is the default for the cop. He has no right to just start shooting. And Roy not being the cop has even less right.

The situation might be compared to a very formidable civilian witnessing a murder, seeing the murderer babbling, and promptly attacking first to render them out of action.
But Roy tells us his motivation. He is there to kick her ass, not to subdue someone, and acts in a manner about guaranteed to cause her to react violently. In essence, Roy is at a bar and sees one drunk knock down the other. Since he likes the one knocked down, he clobbers the one still on his feet [which is often the signal for a riot to start.]

Since reasoning with them, when they want to kill you, is extremely irisky, and letting much less powerful ruler of the city reason with a dangerous, deluded murderer is also extremely risky.
But it is still the morally and legally required action. You attack like Roy did and you about guarantee somebody dies. You talk, and there is a very good chance everybody lives.

Roy said he was "kicking her ass." Assuming that meant he wanted to "tear her to pieces" is quite the leap.
Kicking ass fatally is quite common, especially when done with a +5 greatsword. And one sometimes survives being "torn to pieces", at least if the attacker[s] are not too literal. So the two overlap.

A more likely assessment is that he wanted to subdue her, and fast.
So he stands around and talks to her? And there was no clear evidence she needed to be subdued. No, Roy just wanted to hurt her, pure and simple.

I do agree that Roy was a tad hasty to go on the offensive here, but in his defense there was quite a bit of pent-up aggression from his two prior losses to her. An excuse to take her down (and hard) is just what he was looking for.
"Excuse" pretty much means Roy's behavior was unacceptable, not just a tad hasty.

Teddy

2009-06-22, 06:34 PM

Miko's survival is no fault of Roy's here. It was only the plot that let Miko survive his final blow. Nor do we see any attempt to distract her or keeping her attention focused on him, except as the incidental result of beating her up and hurting her.

The final blow was struck with the flat side of the sword - one of the methods actually mentioned in PH of dealing non-lethal damage.

is clearly about to attack someone-Not check. And that is the one that must be checked.

Those who accompanied Miko for some time should have learned that when she starts acusing someone for something worse than tag-from-matress-removing, the next thing she would do is to attack the acused with sharp blades.

Ordering the suspect to drop any weapons is the default for the cop. He has no right to just start shooting. And Roy not being the cop has even less right.

Still, Miko is the type that never surrenders a fight if she can justify her actions, as in #409 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html). And to someone that know Miko a bit deeper, that souldn't have come right out of the blue...

But Roy tells us his motivation. He is there to kick her ass, not to subdue someone, and acts in a manner about guaranteed to cause her to react violently. In essence, Roy is at a bar and sees one drunk knock down the other. Since he likes the one knocked down, he clobbers the one still on his feet [which is often the signal for a riot to start.]

Kick her ass doesn't necessarily means kill, and since the procedure of dealing non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon includes a -4 penality on attack rolls, dealing lethal damage in the start of the battle both ensures a much higher hit-ratio and make a point in how serious you are about what you are doing.

But it is still the morally and legally required action. You attack like Roy did and you about guarantee somebody dies. You talk, and there is a very good chance everybody lives.

The police is specially trained in psycology to reason people out of doing stupid things, and still it doesn't work all the time. In D&D-terms, that equals a decent amount of skills spent at Diplomacy, a cross-class skill for Fighters, and the DC of Miko should be floating somewhere around 40, at least. And as I pointed out earlier, most of those who know her should know that se is far to idealistic to let herself be easily swayed.

Kicking ass fatally is quite common, especially when done with a +5 greatsword. And one sometimes survives being "torn to pieces", at least if the attacker[s] are not too literal. So the two overlap.

Still, there is no evidence that he wouldn't switch to non-lethal attacks when Miko was down on low hit points, even if their fight had continued without interruption. He is Lawful Good after all, and he doesn't kill other reccuring villians even though he is fighting them with deadly blows. Three encounters with the Linear Guild should add to my point (even though he didn't fight them the third time, he didn't kill them in the corridor next morning even though he knew that they would just come back another day).

So he stands around and talks to her? And there was no clear evidence she needed to be subdued. No, Roy just wanted to hurt her, pure and simple.

Talking is a free action, and it has been proven earlier that you can talk for quite a long time before it flips over to a Full round action. And yes, Roy wanted to hurt her, but he also wanted to subdue her.

Jagos

2009-06-22, 07:21 PM

What do you mean when you say we've established that they did what they thought was right? Well, of course they thought it was right... that doesn't necessarily make it right. Besides, Hinjo himself says to Roy that they need to talk this out, not batter it into submission, which can easily be read as criticism of Roy's automatic approach of attacking Miko, which really IS something a typical Big Dumb Fighter would do.

And you yourself said that you would use lethal force if necessary. That's not applicable to Roy's action. It becomes necessary to attack when someone is advancing with a weapon drawn with an aggressive posture, not when they're standing around looking shocked and mumbling to themselves. Roy had already blown his opportunity to make himself useful - he should have intervened a few rounds earlier, while Miko was still shoving Shojo around. Afterwards, attacking no longer had any immediate benefit. And you haven't addressed my point that it was perfectly possible to actually wait for Miko to make the first move before attacking her, at which point it would have been justified. I mean, it's clear enough that she's attacking if she starts looking mad again and moves towards Hinjo in a threatening manner. Roy could just intervene then. Until she attacks, though, there's nothing to be gained by attacking her pre-emptively, and everything to be lost - namely, any chance at all of making her actually reconsider her own actions.

Roy could have killed her with the last POW (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) that sent her flying across the room. But she'd JUST killed Shojo, who was looking to save the world. She'd accused him of treason for working with Xykon and when the law was too slow, she ignored it and took matters in her own hands. I'm not going to quote alignments here but dangit if that isn't messed up. How do you kill someone in near cold blood with a room of witnesses and can barely contain yourself and kill the one link to what you are supposed to protect? Yes, Roy should have intervened. He chose not to, who would believe she'd kill someone? That's the point I'm driving home here. She made EVERYTHING worse with her accusation, believing herself superior to even Shojo.

Hinjo is a more reasonable paladin, able to listen to what they'd said and not believe that Shojo had to die for falsified crimes. Yes, they may or may not have put him in handcuffs on the eve of Xykon's attack but he did talk to her. Instead, she said:

NO! I will not submit to your tainted courts!
Even if Roy was wailing on her, Hinjo tried to make her see and atone for her crimes. He got nothing more than SLASH! SLASH! SLASH!

I mean hell, if she had been looking to clear this up, she should have submitted when everything was peachy keen and Hinjo said "Look, let's look for atonement" She chose to refute that and cut near all links to reality by attacking the one "innocent" person in the room (Hinjo) What did he do to deserve an attack? He didn't accuse Miko of murder, he saw her do it! And for what? A trumped up charge where she is judge, jury and executioner?

Both Roy and Hinjo did what they thought was right. Roy with subduing the murderer and Hinjo in peaceful delegation. Roy's way worked eventually. What more can we ask when someone doesn't want to see reason?

Arguing that it is in-character and understandable is not the same as arguing that it is right - for one thing, V's Familicide was both in-character and completely understandable given his state of mind at the time, and yet most people seem reluctant to employ this kind of thinking in his case.

[b]Now, you guys seem to be arguing that, with her murder of Shojo, Miko turned herself into an acceptable target, forfeiting her right to having people around her take her well-being into consideration. [b]She killed Shojo, therefore you're good to go to attack her, as well. My problem with this perspective is that it implies that, in your interpretation of Lawful Good, vanquishing evil/threatening foes is at least somewhat preferable to reforming/peacefully neutralising them, which goes in the face of the idea that violence should only be used when necessary. In addition to that, this approach is, at its core, simply a manifestation of the "eye for an eye" approach, which is considered barbaric and unproductive by most civilised systems.

Unless, of course, you say that Roy's action was not typical of a perfect LG character, which would seem to imply that it was a mistake, which is what I've been saying all along. Not a huge one, and most importantly it's not something most people would hold against him (although, if we replaced Miko with someone like Kubota, we could be sure someone would be trying to sue Roy for employing pointless and unnecessary violence), but probably still not a good idea.

Miko had declared and acted on violent intentions towards a single person - Shojo. The idea that she would just immediately randomly attack the person she just stated to believe to be her ally, Hinjo, is not readily apparent. The idea that she is shocked by the results of her act should be obvious given her reaction. The idea that this act may allow her to see her wrongdoings and become a better person is optimistic, but not a stretch. The idea that it's better to let the paladin colleague with the high CHA and Diplomacy handle it rather than hitting her with a big sword should also be apparent.

I don't hold it against Roy for attacking her - she HAD been a thorn in his side for a long time and her unjustified accusations of him would have made anyone mad. Psychologically, he may have also been trying to make up for his lack of action a few rounds ago by going into action now without really thinking about whether it was a good idea. To me, that doesn't make his eager attack on her a big mistake where acting for the greater good was concerned.

I explained better with my first one. But seriously, her well being? Maybe it's from the bonus comics in Paladin Blues but Miko had NO social skills. That was because she is too busy bossing people around. If you're weak, she walks over you. If you're strong, she uses you. But she had no friends.

But let's look at the accusation:

Shojo had been working with Xykon. That's a FAAAR leap that even Shojo couldn't explain. Because of what had just happened, they should have been preparing defenses, talking strategy. But the timing couldn't have been worse. Again, rather than allow this to happen Miko, who believes she walks with the Gods (this is important) she can do anything she wants with impunity. She may have been smart enough to be a Paladin but somehow she had -2 to her Wis score from believing her delusions.

Now let's look at Shojo:

He was the most likely to assist in helping with the defense, who goes where, how to protect the entire place... He'd been running the city for 45+ years. You think being outnumbered by hobgoblins would have worried him? All that is gone in one stroke, DESTROYING a LOT of the morale of the city who can't know that their ruler was killed by his best paladin for a trumped up charge. Who is really working for the greater good?

Let's look at Miko:

A social outcast, a bully, more Lawful than Good, she was really good at killing evil beings. But so much time alone or with her horse wasn't good for her. I don't know how she should have turned out. But her actions did one thing. They made me think that she was nothing more than a zealot. She wasn't satisfied unless she was ranting about something (see the Inn) or telling people the best way to live their lives by HER standards. Since she thought she was "The Chosen One" it more or less comes down to the fact that a rude awakening of killing her liege neither humbled her nor slowed her down.

Soon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) said it best, she didn't seek redemption from her past deeds, nor even admit she was wrong. I don't think she could after everything that happened. Unfortunately, being an outcast doesn't justify all of the things she had done in a short span of time.

Ridureyu

2009-06-22, 07:34 PM

Yeah, Soon said it best. "Perhaps if you had more time... but then again, perhaps not."

If Hinjo had been the first to approach her after Shojo's death, she would've skewered him just the same. Miko cannot be wrong in her mind. Since being Good is "not open for debate," she assumed that everything she did was not only good, but the paragon of what "good" is. By the end, Miko was ready to do whatever she felt like and justify it.

LuisDantas

2009-06-22, 08:04 PM

Miko was a paladin. By definition, she is Good. This is simply not open to debate. Less good than she really should be, maybe, but flat out, she is Good.

Except that you are completely wrong, I am afraid; there is no reason at all to assume that the Giant will stand by the most simplistic interpretations of the canon D&D material in this regard.

Much on the contrary, the books give us very good reason to doubt this claim of yours.

For all we know, Miko may have never been Good in the D&D alignment sense. She certainly SAW herself as Good, and the Twelve Gods gave her their favor for long enough. But there are any number of ways around the assumption that she must then be good - and most, in fact, make great plot seeds, not unlike some that the Giant has already used with other characters such as Redcloak.

Just to mention a fairly obvious possibility, it may well be that the Twelve Gods decided to let Miko keep her powers after she lost her alignment due to some mix of recognition for past efforts and hope for moral recovery. Another possibility is that Miko was so sincerely deluded that the Gods hoped to teach her true virtue by example, and could not step back once that failed.

Jagos

2009-06-22, 08:18 PM

Except that you are completely wrong, I am afraid; there is no reason at all to assume that the Giant will stand by the most simplistic interpretations of the canon D&D material in this regard.

Much on the contrary, the books give us very good reason to doubt this claim of yours.

For all we know, Miko may have never been Good in the D&D alignment sense. She certainly SAW herself as Good, and the Twelve Gods gave her their favor for long enough. But there are any number of ways around the assumption that she must then be good - and most, in fact, make great plot seeds, not unlike some that the Giant has already used with other characters such as Redcloak.

Just to mention a fairly obvious possibility, it may well be that the Twelve Gods decided to let Miko keep her powers after she lost her alignment due to some mix of recognition for past efforts and hope for moral recovery. Another possibility is that Miko was so sincerely deluded that the Gods hoped to teach her true virtue by example, and could not step back once that failed.

Hmmm... She was good as a paladin until the entire Shojo thing. She fought evil and killed evil. I'm apt to believe that she did what was required of her with no questions asked. That is more a double edged sword than anything else. If all you see is evil in front of you, of course you begin to see it all around you as she began doing.

The Gods took away her powers because she did something against the Paladin Code. Thinking you're above the law is a serious offense, even in a fantastical setting. I don't think she was used as an example. Merely, they were showing what would happen as a consequence of false accusations.

veti

2009-06-22, 09:38 PM

Miko was a paladin. By definition, she is Good. This is simply not open to debate. Less good than she really should be, maybe, but flat out, she is Good.

Nope. What the rulebooks say, what character sheets say, and what DMs and players actually do, are often quite different things. I think that's a significant part of the humour of OOTS. Miko firmly believes that she's good, but she's delusional.

See the dirt farmers. She has no reason to help them and has solid reasons she should not. Yet she automatically assumes she must help them despite any bother to her [unlike Roy, whose immediate motive is that he is bored].

She might be thinking of the farmers, certainly, but her actual words are: "Clearly it is my sacred duty to smite these wretched abominations". She's more interested in the ogres than their victims.

But the real telltale here is the phrase "my sacred duty". She's not doing it out of pity for the farmers, she's doing it because that is her role in life, to which - in her mind at least - she's been personally selected and appointed by the Gods. That's what I mean by Pride.

Roy's line is a meta-game joke: "we wouldn't be bothering to play [show] this scene if something weren't going to happen, and since we're not going to get any interesting revelations out of you, that can only mean there's a random encounter due in 3... 2... 1..."

Also see 207 where she wonders what Roy is going to do with the dragon hoard. She lists several altruistic alternatives and can't seem to think of the obvious more greedy uses.

That's because she's not an adventurer. She has a stable home, where all her needs are attended to by willing flunkies... wealth qua wealth has no meaning for her. She's not being altruistic, there, she's being sarcastic and nasty - trying to make Roy feel that keeping the money for himself is somehow incompatible with being Good.

As for "respect for the dignity of sentient beings", the sleep-in-a-ditch episode is only one example. How do you interpret her constantly addressing V as "Elf"? Or "You are all my prisoners, so you must all obey my orders"? "You have no right to speak to me this way! I am a samurai!"?

Well, everybody is motivated by pride if one defines it loosely. But if one starts breaking that down and talking about things not being properly pride, Miko is not at all prideful. If one looks at the classic seven deadly sins, Miko is rather clearly Wrath, and is prideful only in the sense that pride is deemed the base for all the other sins. [In fact, now that I review the definition, I wonder if our writer was consulting the definition of Wrath as he created Miko.]

Respectfully - I disagree. Pride is the core of her madness and the key to her downfall.

She believes, with a certainty you could use for an anvil, that the Twelve Gods have a Special Purpose in mind for her. She doesn't know quite what it is, but she is forever looking out for that special something that only she, uniquely in all the world, can accomplish. Whenever some difficulty arises, she puts her head down and prays to her gods to show her the way to realise her Destiny. And at these times, she knows the Gods will help her, because otherwise how could she fulfil her purpose?

This is the conviction that leads her to believe that the Gods put her in the right place at the right time to hear Shojo's "confession". It had to be her, because she was the only one strong enough - morally and physically - to act on it, as decisively and unilaterally as she did. (Later, in the same way, the Gods put her in a position to destroy the Gate.)

So she sets her moral compass above the Laws, above the orders of her superior officers and the lawful procedures of her own Order. Her Fall isn't because she hears and misinterprets Shojo's words (Hinjo does the same), nor because she's personally miffed at Roy - it's because, at the crunch, she refuses to take orders and follow correct procedures, choosing instead to follow the Voices In Her Head. That's pride; in real-world religion it would be called "heresy", the crime that earned Joan of Arc a one-way ticket to the stake.

The Wikipedia page you link to describes Pride as: "(especially holding self out of proper position toward God)". I think that sums Miko up in a single line. "Wrath" might more aptly be applied to V's recent antics.

LuisDantas

2009-06-23, 06:54 AM

Hmmm... She was good as a paladin until the entire Shojo thing.

That may or may not have been true for the most part; but far as the webcomic itself shows, it is not very true at all. Miko is highly capable as a warrior, for sure, as we have seen time and again - but she has consistently shown a very poor performance as a Paladin proper.

From the start, she has been very testy, to the point of completely ignoring (or perhaps forgetting all about) the explicit orders from Shojo to bring the Order to her alive. Before that, she killed a couple of thieves that did not really pose much of a threat to her. After that, she misled a bunch of ogres into a vulnerable position by using deceipt. And then we have her truly awful people skills, going all the way up to suggesting a lichen diet to the prisoners that she had attacked unfairly previously.

I don't see how that could possibly indicate a good Paladin, sorry.

She fought evil and killed evil. I'm apt to believe that she did what was required of her with no questions asked. That is more a double edged sword than anything else. If all you see is evil in front of you, of course you begin to see it all around you as she began doing.

Aren't you in fact saying that she was inept as a Paladin? A Paladin - or any other character, fictional or otherwise - is not supposed to be "good" because it is a slave of its own stereotypes.

And Miko indeed failed a lot as a Paladin. She made little to no effort to avoid the existence or manifestation of evil, for all the gusto she had in directly fighting supposedly evil creatures.

The Gods took away her powers because she did something against the Paladin Code. Thinking you're above the law is a serious offense, even in a fantastical setting.

Not really, but that is not very relevant to the case at hand anyway.

I don't think she was used as an example.

Neither do I. If anything, she was an example of leniency taken too far, with tragic results.

Merely, they were showing what would happen as a consequence of false accusations.

The 12 Gods? They were strongly implied to be reacting to the murder of Shojo, although I will be the first to suggest that it was the last straw as opposed to a deciding factor.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-23, 07:25 AM

Errr... what? Are you really claiming Miko wasn't good?

The guy who said "If all you see around you is evil, bad things happen to your perceptions" (not a direct quote) was absolutely correct.

Everything Miko did up to but not including killing Shojo was Lawful Good. She did her duty to the letter. Your examples (attempting to kill the Order and killing the two bandit leaders who attacked her[and we know they're high enough level to threaten the Order, so they could have threatened her, too]) are faulty.

Tactical awareness is not the same as not being Lawful Good. She had a bunch of ogres attack her, and the group used AoE to take them down. That is absolutely no different from being surrounded and using Great Cleave. There was no deceit.

You should reread everything that she did. She really was a great Paladin until she started going crazy. She did what she was ordered, lived as a monk, and rid the world of Evil that deserved it. Works for me.

No, Paladins don't fall from committing too many Lawful Neutral acts, as long as their alignments don't change - but a SINGLE evil act drops the crap out of them. Killing Shojo was her Evil act. BAM! No paladin.

Tempest Fennac

2009-06-23, 07:29 AM

Regarding Miko's treatment of the Order; considering how Shojo had told her that they were responsible for weakening the fabric of existance, in addition to the fact that she was outnumbered, why would attacking them be bad? I'd say the problem here was the fact that her introduction gave them pretty much no choice but to fight her. As far as Samantha went, she tried to mind control Miko, which sugggests that she was a threat (same for her father after Miko had bi-sected Samanta).

I'd also say there was nothing wrong with her using deceit for the Ogres considering how she thought they had kidnapped the dirt farmer (the tactics she used minimized the risk to the Order). Assuming that the dirt farmer had asked the Ogres to kidnap him, killing them would technically be an evil act in my view, but I'm guessing it wasn't being as the gods presumably created the Ogres as higher-level cannon-fodder based on how IC knowledge apparently failed to justify Shojo being killed by Miko.

EDIT: The"living like a Monk" bit was unfortunately a problem as far as the inn went before and after they stayed there.

Jagos

2009-06-23, 08:10 AM

That may or may not have been true for the most part; but far as the webcomic itself shows, it is not very true at all. Miko is highly capable as a warrior, for sure, as we have seen time and again - but she has consistently shown a very poor performance as a Paladin proper.

Yes, Paladin proper. But she executed her duties as asked of her liege. A bad Paladin is one that ignores all adherence to rules because they are beneath them. When she did that, that's when she fell. Before that, she fought for the Guard. Even if people don't like her, I can't fault her for it.
Just look at how she handled Redcloak and you understand what I mean.

From the start, she has been very testy, to the point of completely ignoring (or perhaps forgetting all about) the explicit orders from Shojo to bring the Order to her alive. Before that, she killed a couple of thieves that did not really pose much of a threat to her. After that, she misled a bunch of ogres into a vulnerable position by using deceipt. And then we have her truly awful people skills, going all the way up to suggesting a lichen diet to the prisoners that she had attacked unfairly previously.

I don't see how that could possibly indicate a good Paladin, sorry.

Yes, she probably would have killed the orders and brought their dead bodies in front of Shojo. She even said she should have formed a Gather Info check. And Roy couldn't have said it better about the ogres:

Apparently, getting your ass kicked is part of this balanced breakfast

She knew tactics, she was powerful, she was just Lawful Stupid.

Aren't you in fact saying that she was inept as a Paladin? A Paladin - or any other character, fictional or otherwise - is not supposed to be "good" because it is a slave of its own stereotypes.

And Miko indeed failed a lot as a Paladin. She made little to no effort to avoid the existence or manifestation of evil, for all the gusto she had in directly fighting supposedly evil creatures.

She failed a lot because she couldn't admit she was wrong. She failed because she put herself above the laws she was supposed to protect. She was spurned for not caring enough about people and wanting to tell them what to do.

But she didn't fail in executing monsters. She didn't fail in traveling to LOOOONG distant places and doing what was asked of her BEFORE the monk ability to jump to conclusions took place.

Not really, but that is not very relevant to the case at hand anyway.

*scratches head*
Murder of your liege isn't a heinous crime?

Neither do I. If anything, she was an example of leniency taken too far, with tragic results.
I'd like to think the gods don't interfere until your actions speak for you. Going against the laws in place would probably result in Paladin failure.

The 12 Gods? They were strongly implied to be reacting to the murder of Shojo, although I will be the first to suggest that it was the last straw as opposed to a deciding factor.

Yes, but she had been thinking this for a while now. She just never acted upon it. Not until all the chips were down and she had said "I refute your laws!" did she drive the point home she was no longer fit to be Paladin. That's why I think it was more a factor. But yeah, I can see how it is a final straw. Her powers are taken and yet she STILL thinks she's special.

EmeraldPhoenix

2009-06-23, 08:22 AM

:smallsigh: I fear that I will be quickly silenced by waves of Miko haters.

Ok, just keep in mind: I hate Miko. I love how hateable Rich made her. But she, yeah. She sucks big time.

But I think if Roy and Miko had actually hit it off, Miko would not have believed the Order was evil. She might have learned a few things about rolling with the punches, maybe even joining the party-or disolving it. Hey, who knows?

And maybe...(just speculation here) Miko was so quick to believe them evil because just as she started to accept Roy, he turned on her (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html) and broke her heart.

Any ideas?

SadisticFishing

2009-06-23, 08:25 AM

Absolutely correct. He flattened her the one time she opened herself. That is not what you are supposed to do to people. It's brutal, unecessary, and as always, weakens the fabric of reality and kills off a Lord of a large blue city.

LuisDantas

2009-06-23, 08:26 AM

Errr... what? Are you really claiming Miko wasn't good?

Yes.

The guy who said "If all you see around you is evil, bad things happen to your perceptions" (not a direct quote) was absolutely correct.

I believe such statements are usually followed by warning about how such perceptions eventually corrupt the person who has them, too.

Everything Miko did up to but not including killing Shojo was Lawful Good.

Patently not true. Misleading the ogres was very Chaotic; killing the thieves was neutral at best, and only marginally Lawful. Attacking the Order and threatening them with death against her orders was rather Chaotic indeed, perhaps even an early hint of her insanity.

She did her duty to the letter.

Except when her insanity, her pride or her wrath got the best of her, which happened often enough from early on.

Your examples (attempting to kill the Order and killing the two bandit leaders who attacked her[and we know they're high enough level to threaten the Order, so they could have threatened her, too]) are faulty.

Show me how so.

Tactical awareness is not the same as not being Lawful Good.

Indeed. In fact, tactical awareness is a major boost to being Lawful Good. Evil, after all, is very much a response to one's own shortcomings.

She had a bunch of ogres attack her, and the group used AoE to take them down. That is absolutely no different from being surrounded and using Great Cleave. There was no deceit.

She deliberately created the situation, so it was very much deceit.

You should reread everything that she did. She really was a great Paladin until she started going crazy.

Which was around her second or third appearance, before we even saw her face, yes.

She may have been a great paladin, and then again she may not have been. What we actually saw in the webcomic implies that she was barely a paladin at all, although she certainly was a formidable and determined warrior.

Even when she received praise, it was for her capability, never for her wisdom or compassion.

She did what she was ordered, lived as a monk, and rid the world of Evil that deserved it. Works for me.

That, however, is lousy behavior for a true Paladin. More so when the approach to find and get rid of evil is so poor and contraproducent as Miko's.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-23, 08:31 AM

Having a group of ogres surround her after NOT sneak attacking them is in absolutely no way chaotic. That was a very lawful act, it was also tactically advantageous. You realize there was a group of sleeping ogres that she could have just coup de grace'd? Your example makes no sense. There was no misleading, either. She allowed them to surround her, then her party members killed them. Perfect. Well played, one of the few things I truly respected that Miko did.

Do you think Lawful Good people should allow their enemies to attack them before killing them? Because if so, you completely misunderstand both the alignment system, and violence.

Both of the bandits ATTACKED her. She then killed them. No inherent alignment in that action at all.

Show me one time that her pride got the better of her before she killed Shojo, in any way that effected her actions.

EmeraldPhoenix

2009-06-23, 08:33 AM

Absolutely correct. He flattered her the one time she opened herself. That is not what you are supposed to do to people. It's brutal, unecessary, and as always, weakens the fabric of reality and kills off a Lord of a large blue city.

Exactly! It's the old story:

Boy meets Girl
Girl turns down Boy
Girl accepts Boy
Boy turns down Girl
Girl gets so mad she ends up killing her own lord in a blind rage.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-23, 08:55 AM

Don't forget weakening the fabric of reality! If we're going to follow that ol' trope, though.

(By the way, I meant flattened)

LuisDantas

2009-06-23, 09:13 AM

*scratches head*
Murder of your liege isn't a heinous crime?

Yes, it sure is. But because it is an act of treason and uncalled violence, not due to any legal status; it is the law that attempts to follow and encourage moral values, not vice versa.

Shatteredtower

2009-06-23, 11:09 AM

I'm going to stay out of this one for now, save to say that the dialogue running between Belkar=Awesome and SadisticFishing has been hilarious. Thank you both.

EmeraldPhoenix

2009-06-23, 11:59 AM

I'm going to stay out of this one for now, save to say that the dialogue running between Belkar=Awesome and SadisticFishing has been hilarious. Thank you both.

You're welcome:smallsmile:

thepsyker

2009-06-23, 01:11 PM

Frankly, I think to many people here are stripping Mikio of responsibility for her own actions. Why is Roy under some sort of responsibility to be nice to an individual who has constantly mistreat him and his friends, just because she for once shows some basic politeness in accepting his apology for his own misconduct. So what she was justified in her cold response to him because he was crude in his advances toward her, but he is suppose to just politely accept the rudeness she had previously showed not just to him, but to his friends? His response might not have been strictly LG, but then that was why he was taken to task for acting that way with people he disliked when in the afterlife. And the basic premise of this thread isn't even that Roy had a responsobility to be nicer to her, but that because she showed some basic manners he is all of a sudden suppose to try and build a romantic relationship with her? and just stomach the problems with her actions. Maybe if she had returned his apology with one of her own for her preaching and other issues, but a healthy relationship should not be built on one party kowtowing to the other with no reciprocity, it has to go both ways with both parties giving a little.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-23, 01:49 PM

You're welcome:smallsmile:

Indeed.

I'm here on Tuesdays! And Wednesdays. And Thursdays.. and... *breaks down and cries*

We're not saying what Roy did is inexcusable, or EEEeeevil, just that it wasn't nice. Had he been nice, things may have ended differently.

Plus, she was hot!

Sometimes, just like real life, a little bit of shallowness can prevent someone from breaking out of prison and destroying the best chance Good has to win.

Ytaker

2009-06-23, 02:29 PM

His response might not have been strictly LG, but then that was he was taken to task for acting that way with people he disliked when in the afterlife.

Yes, because it's stupid. Insulting someone, incredibly hard, who loves and respects you, is quite likely to cause them to become unstable. A lawful good person is supposed to be compassionate. That's part of why she let her guard down. You should let girls down gently, if you don't fancy them. Go to her computer and break up your characters on her sims 3 game, say.

hamishspence

2009-06-23, 02:42 PM

Do you think Lawful Good people should allow their enemies to attack them before killing them? Because if so, you completely misunderstand both the alignment system, and violence.

In which case, by demonstrating, overwhelmingly, that she was both homicidal and irrational when she killed Shojo:

(War and XPs "Contrasting Miko's reactioon with that of a rational, sane paladin)

she proved herself an enemy that had to be put out of action- immediately. No trying to talk her down, or waiting for Hinjo to try and talk her down (trying to negotiate the surrender of someone both irrational and homicidal- and armed- very dangerous) - just render her out of action- before she tries to attack someone else.

thepsyker

2009-06-23, 03:07 PM

Yes, because it's stupid. Insulting someone, incredibly hard, who loves and respects you, is quite likely to cause them to become unstable. A lawful good person is supposed to be compassionate. That's part of why she let her guard down. You should let girls down gently, if you don't fancy them. Go to her computer and break up your characters on her sims 3 game, say.Which of her actions up to that point gave any indication that she respected him let alone loved him? Is it the grudgingly acknowledging that he might not be evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html), the accusing him and his friends of various improprieties (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html), the being rude to his friends (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html), and the preaching about how he and his friends don't live up to her standards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html). That last even directly precedes his final rejection of her. And what is this about her letting her guard down she is polite, for once, in accepting an apology where he admits he acted poorly, but that doesn't strike me as letting her guard down. If she had continued to say that maybe she had been a bit hard on him and his friends, I could see that be an example of letting ones guard down. Saying that if he is properly respectful in the future she might not dismiss him out of hand is only opening up in light of how poorly she had treated him and the party previous to that.

theinsulabot

2009-06-23, 03:23 PM

this thread is like a window to the past...

Ytaker

2009-06-23, 03:43 PM

She praised his good quality of praising her. Evidently, she did respect that. I don't know how deeply she felt, but she looked like she might love him. He's got a pretty decent charisma score. She was probably attracted, at least.

Admitting you're romantically attracted to someone is letting your guard down. Before she was all business, now she was letting him into her personal life. If someone you like or love tells you they hate you, your feelings against them will be much stronger.

He then responded by telling her how bad she was. He was not responding to "Saying that if he is properly respectful in the future she might not dismiss him out of hand" he was responding to her speech just before- he still believes it's bad to be mean to women. He was right to criticize her control of the party, but it was a very poor time to do it, and a very rough way to do it. It's part of what I like about the comic. Everyone is flawed, and when there's victory or defeat, it's very close.

Even the paladin isn't just a token bad girl. It's understandable what she did. If, on occasions, retarded, disrespectful, unlawful.

veti

2009-06-23, 03:52 PM

Yes, it sure is. But because it is an act of treason and uncalled violence, not due to any legal status; it is the law that attempts to follow and encourage moral values, not vice versa.

I've agreed with most of what you've said in this thread. But this one line is so perfectly wrong that I just have to pick it up. I can't help myself.

Miko seldom lets her moral values come into the story at all. For the most part she follows the code of her order, and she follows it faithfully even though (I suspect) she doesn't personally see the point. That's why the Twelve Gods grant her so much slack. It's like the Deva says to Roy: "You're trying. That counts for a lot." The gods aren't about to penalise her for her low Wisdom score, so long as she honestly does her best to follow her duty.

The minute she stops following her duty - when she presumes to know better than the Law - that's when she falls. When the Gods see that she's not taking orders any more, but determined to follow her own dodgy moral compass, they strip her of her powers faster than she can take a free action.

So I'd say her Fall is more a betrayal of the Lawful side of her alignment than the Good side. Yes, it's a failure of the Good side as well, but that's not its most important aspect. If killing a traitor in cold blood had been compatible with the laws of her Order, she'd still have gotten away with it.

hamishspence

2009-06-23, 03:54 PM

But not, avoided falling- sapphire guard might permit evil acts, but being a paladin doesn't.

And remember, he wasn't a traitor, she just thought he was, and thinking is not enough.

EmeraldPhoenix

2009-06-23, 03:54 PM

If I may be so bold as to say it, she may have secretly admired him before then.

Look at it logically: If you like someone, you're not going to admit it while they're being rude and sexist. That would give the impression they're doing something right. But if they appoligise for previous behavior, that's a good time to tell them. We, as humans, subconsciously "train" others the way we train dogs; reinforce the good behavior, shun the bad.

I'm not saying Miko liked Roy, only that when she was finally open to the possibility, and then BAM! He turns on her, going from "I like you" to "I hate you", just as Miko had made turn from "I hate you" to "I might like you".

Women are women, despite fancy paladin classes and katanas. They have the same emotions.

thepsyker

2009-06-23, 03:55 PM

He then responded by telling her how bad she was. He was not responding to "Saying that if he is properly respectful in the future she might not dismiss him out of hand" he was responding to her speech just before- he still believes it's bad to be mean to women. He was right to criticize her control of the party, but it was a very poor time to do it, and a very rough way to do it. It's part of what I like about the comic. Everyone is flawed, and when there's victory or defeat, it's very close. I agree with the bolded part, but I am not sure I agree with the italicized part. I think that looking at the reactions of the rest of the party to his apology to Mikio, he had to come down on her control of the party at that time or risk alienating the rest of the party. I am also not sure he could have been politer about it, he had made attempts at politely reigning in her treatment of the party in the past (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) that had all failed, now it is possible that in response to his apology she might have listened this time, but just as likely that she would have ignored the statements again. Either way we have to take into account Roy's mental state at the time and I think it was fairly clear that he had reached the point where he had had enough of the way she was treating the party and responded with the sarcasm he so often seem to use in such situations.

Ytaker

2009-06-23, 05:31 PM

Right then? And, coupled with a respect and kindness to her right before, so that she would like him more?

It would have been quite possible for him to criticize her over commanding nature without insulting her body and her class. He could have cut out the"skinny arse" "socially inept bully who hides behind a badge and her holier than thou morality as excuses to treat other people like crap" and "what kind of stupid class relies on other people to keep their powers anyway" and it wouldn't have been that insulting. She showed, with Redcloak, that she can resist insults.

Of course, he did it because he was frustrated, and it was more dramatic to have them dragged in with chains, and it fit the story better, as you said. So, it's a reflection on two lawful good characters that aren't perfect, not just one.

veti

2009-06-23, 05:41 PM

But not, avoided falling- sapphire guard might permit evil acts, but being a paladin doesn't.

And remember, he wasn't a traitor, she just thought he was, and thinking is not enough.

Uh-uh. That's my point. Being a Paladin, and being a member in good standing of the Sapphire Guard, are inseperable - they're the same thing, as far as the SG are concerned.

Remember Miko, before she sets out to find the OOTS: "My blades will be bathed in the blood of those responsible."? Then Shojo tells her to do her best to bring them back alive for trial, and she - with some reluctance - accepts that as an order. Left to herself, she'd prefer to just kill them all; the only reason she doesn't is because she's ordered not to.

Then remember her standing over Belkar in the throne room, about to kill him? She stops when Shojo tells her to stop. Again: she takes orders. (Even though those orders are being issued by an insane old coot listening to his cat.)

As I see it: the Twelve Gods grant authority to the Sapphire Guard to perform their functions, and they don't try to micro-manage what they can and can't do. As long as you follow the Guard's orders, unless the Guard itself somehow falls from grace, you can perform acts that individually might be adjudged Evil - such as ethnic cleansing of goblins, for instance - without Falling. You Fall when, and only when, you show that the Guard can't trust you.

Jagos

2009-06-23, 07:33 PM

Yes, it sure is. But because it is an act of treason and uncalled violence, not due to any legal status; it is the law that attempts to follow and encourage moral values, not vice versa.

...

*shocked speechless*

She accuses Shojo, her direct link of being in line with the enemy. She turns against everyone in the Guard for her conviction to be true. She kills Shojo and that's in NO way a heinous crime that goes against everything the Sapphire Guard stands for?

Seriously, that seems a little off to me.

LuisDantas

2009-06-23, 07:38 PM

I've agreed with most of what you've said in this thread. But this one line is so perfectly wrong that I just have to pick it up. I can't help myself.

O Rly? :smalltongue:

Miko seldom lets her moral values come into the story at all. For the most part she follows the code of her order, and she follows it faithfully even though (I suspect) she doesn't personally see the point. That's why the Twelve Gods grant her so much slack. It's like the Deva says to Roy: "You're trying. That counts for a lot." The gods aren't about to penalise her for her low Wisdom score, so long as she honestly does her best to follow her duty.

The minute she stops following her duty - when she presumes to know better than the Law - that's when she falls. When the Gods see that she's not taking orders any more, but determined to follow her own dodgy moral compass, they strip her of her powers faster than she can take a free action.

Who knows, maybe that is indeed how the Giant sees things. It is his story, after all.

I just don't think that is a particularly good model, either in the dramatic or realistic senses. Law is an human (or in the OOtS-verse, perhaps divinely ditated) tool, and only a tool. It can't possibly and won't ever be wiser or more proper than real moral values, for its only purpose is to try and emulate such values.

To believe that Law is somehow wiser or better than morals is to be confused about what those concepts actually are.

So I'd say her Fall is more a betrayal of the Lawful side of her alignment than the Good side. Yes, it's a failure of the Good side as well, but that's not its most important aspect. If killing a traitor in cold blood had been compatible with the laws of her Order, she'd still have gotten away with it.

Maybe so. That wouldn't reflect well on the 12 Gods, however.

LuisDantas

2009-06-23, 07:40 PM

...

*shocked speechless*

She accuses Shojo, her direct link of being in line with the enemy. She turns against everyone in the Guard for her conviction to be true. She kills Shojo and that's in NO way a heinous crime that goes against everything the Sapphire Guard stands for?

Seriously, that seems a little off to me.

Why, I just told in clear terms that it IS. I just don't think being unlawful has any significant link to that heinous quality of the act.

Heck, she would probably be acting lawfully under Azure City's current law. Doesn't make the thing any less heinous, now does it?

Kish

2009-06-23, 07:53 PM

Who knows, maybe that is indeed how the Giant sees things. It is his story, after all.

I just don't think that is a particularly good model, either in the dramatic or realistic senses.
[...]
Maybe so. That wouldn't reflect well on the 12 Gods, however.
I would consider the theory "a member in good standing of the Sapphire Guard cannot fall as a paladin" theory far morally superior to the "the Sapphire Guard members in Start of Darkness did not fall because they simply did nothing wrong" theory, m'self.

Ytaker

2009-06-23, 08:04 PM

thepsyker

2009-06-23, 08:57 PM

So, it's a reflection on two lawful good characters that aren't perfect, not just one.I can agree with that, although I could see a case for arguing that one might hold a LG Paladin to a higher standard than a LG Fighter. My main issue here is that the premise of the thread, that if Roy hadn't rejected Mikio she wouldn't have fallen, seems to shift to much of the responsibility for Mikio's actions from her to Roy.* I'm quite willing to admit that Roy handled his rejection of her poorly, while at the same time realizing that he could not in character have responded any other way to the frustration of her treatment of him and, I am tempted to say more importantly, his friends.

*Well, that and I'm getting the impression that some people feel that Roy had some sort of obligation to form a relationship with her just because she was starting to open up to him, which just bugs me. But, I might just be reading to much into things...

Jagos

2009-06-23, 09:18 PM

Why, I just told in clear terms that it IS. I just don't think being unlawful has any significant link to that heinous quality of the act.

Heck, she would probably be acting lawfully under Azure City's current law. Doesn't make the thing any less heinous, now does it?

Wait, let's back up here. I was saying she put herself above the laws of Azure city. She killed Shojo which is reprehensible but also couldn't admit that she was wrong. What I'm confused about is how it's not relevant to the argument that her powers weren't taken away because of her direct actions. She acted above the law to enforce it. That is what is truly at conflict. What makes it heinous... Hmmm... should use a different word... Audacious is the fact that she had come to a bold conclusion with NO one backing her up. She didn't hate Shojo, and I probably should have used audacious in my previous post. My point is that she acted in a manner that was against the laws she was sworn to uphold.

----------------------------------------------------
When this first started, you were saying Miko had kept her powers. She hadn't. The beige meant that some of the magic items that gave her blue tint in her robe were gone, making it easier for Roy to hurt her.

What I've said is that she was efficient to the job at hand which is fighting evil. There's been posts in here that say it far better than I can. I'll defer on that point.

Mainly, she was a Paladin. A stereotypical Knight Templar type Paladin, yes, but all the same, she was a Paladin.

I didn't like her because she was exactly what you don't want in a paladin. You name it, she had a bad symptom of it. In regards to Roy, he was right to tell her off. I don't believe for a second she would have liked being in a relationship with him. I mean seriously, who fights about a mattress tag being torn off?

veti

2009-06-23, 10:13 PM

I just don't think that is a particularly good model, either in the dramatic or realistic senses. Law is an human (or in the OOtS-verse, perhaps divinely ditated) tool, and only a tool. It can't possibly and won't ever be wiser or more proper than real moral values, for its only purpose is to try and emulate such values.

To believe that Law is somehow wiser or better than morals is to be confused about what those concepts actually are.

I disagree. Neither "morals" nor "law" even have a "wisdom" or "goodness" stat in themselves: they are functions of people and societies. Morals are personal; to say that "real morals are better than law" is like saying that "everyone is capable of making a 'correct' moral decision for themselves" - which is ridiculous, both because people have different moral codes, and because they have different Wisdom stats.

That's why the law exists to give guidance. No matter how low your WIS (and Miko's is pretty low), you can follow the Law and know that, even when you do screw up, the damage will be limited and procedures will be applied to contain it.

To say that "my moral sense is better than the law" is to declare that either (a) you are wiser than the aggregated "best efforts" of your entire social structure, evolved over generations, or (b) that structure has been "corrupted" to the point where it can no longer be trusted to weigh up your case. Option (b) is the usual line of Chaotics and rebels everywhere.

But that's where the Twelve Gods come in, because if Option (b) really were true of the Sapphire Guard, the Gods could withdraw their patronage from it, and they'd all of them lose their Paladinhood together. The fact that this hasn't happened tells me - as it should have told Miko - that the Gods still have confidence in the Guard's capacity to keep their own house in order.

David Argall

2009-06-24, 01:38 AM

The final blow was struck with the flat side of the sword - one of the methods actually mentioned in PH of dealing non-lethal damage.
Now where do you get this information? Quite clearly some of the blows were struck with lethal intent, but it would seem the only reason to think the final blow was not lethal is that Miko survived it. Certainly Roy should have been swinging to kill. Hinjo was about to be killed. Giving Miko an extra 20% chance of killing Hinjo is not to be risked.

Those who accompanied Miko for some time should have learned that when she starts acusing someone for something worse than tag-from-matress-removing, the next thing she would do is to attack the acused with sharp blades.
In 264, she accuses the party [correctly] of attempting to escape. 285 also involves major accusations and Miko not attacking. So no, we can not automatically assume Miko was going to attack shortly, and if we can't, morality requires we not attack.
264 is particularly relevant here. Miko accuses, finds evidence to the contrary, and backs off. In the throne room, Miko had suffered a major shock after making her threat, again giving us reason to assume past threats are now void.

Still, Miko is the type that never surrenders a fight if she can justify her actions, as in #409 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html). And to someone that know Miko a bit deeper, that souldn't have come right out of the blue...
Now A-Miko did almost surrender, so the idea she would never surrender is clearly off.
B-Hinjo knows Miko much better than we do. We have no reason to think our judgement is superior here.

Kick her ass doesn't necessarily means
As I note from time to time "doesn't necessarily mean" routinely means "there are about 1% exceptions". Given our limited knowledge on all points, we have to ignore such minor chances unless we have good reason to accept them.

kill, and since the procedure of dealing non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon includes a -4 penality on attack rolls, dealing lethal damage in the start of the battle both ensures a much higher hit-ratio and make a point in how serious you are about what you are doing.
And we still lack a reason for Roy to use non-lethal damage. He tells us his motives and arresting Miko is not among them.

The police is specially trained in psycology to reason people out of doing stupid things,
Not really. They have more training than Joe Average, but police work does not require high education or intelligence. [Some departments reject you for scoring too high on an IQ test.] So add in the many things they do need to be trained in [such as just what those laws they are enforcing are] and there isn't much room for special training of any sort.

Still, there is no evidence that he wouldn't switch to non-lethal attacks when Miko was down on low hit points, even if their fight had continued without interruption. He is Lawful Good after all
Does not follow. We know Roy to have killed large numbers of foes.

, and he doesn't kill other reccuring villians even though he is fighting them with deadly blows.
See Plot Immunity.

Three encounters with the Linear Guild should add to my point
I'm not sure how.
In the dungeon, Nale and Thog surrender.
In Cliffside, Roy attacks a "surrendering" Sabine [a measure that allows her to escape], and it seems most unlikely he was trying non-lethal damage vs Thog.
In Azure City, the three were already prisoners when he encountered them.
Just where does he use non-lethal damage?

yes, Roy wanted to hurt her, but he also wanted to subdue her.
Where is the evidence of any desire to subdue her?

Except that you are completely wrong, I am afraid; there is no reason at all to assume that the Giant will stand by the most simplistic interpretations of the canon D&D material in this regard.

What the rulebooks say, what character sheets say, and what DMs and players actually do, are often quite different things. I think that's a significant part of the humour of OOTS. Miko firmly believes that she's good, but she's delusional.
How about WOG? from NCPB "Miko is... Can a lawful Good character be the villain--and still be Lawful Good?"...she sticks to her Lawful Good code,..."

But the real telltale here is the phrase "my sacred duty".
Lowly altar boys have sacred duties. My or her having a sacred duty is not marking us as anything special.
Moreover, look at this sacred duty. It is defending an insignificant mudhole from some second-rate bandits. Where is the glory in this petty conflict?

She's not doing it out of pity for the farmers, she's doing it because that is her role in life, to which - in her mind at least - she's been personally selected and appointed by the Gods. That's what I mean by Pride.
She has been personally selected and appointed to handle the small stuff? There is pride in carrying out your duty, no matter what the duty, but...

Roy's line is a meta-game joke:
Jokes are best when they show the true feelings of the characters. The joke works because we find it reasonable that Roy would say that.

That's because she's not an adventurer. She has a stable home, where all her needs are attended to by willing flunkies...
What flunkies? W&XP Miko does her own laundry, and apparently her own cooking.
Everything suggests her quarters and possessions are quite modest, and that gold could greatly improve them.

wealth qua wealth has no meaning for her. She's not being altruistic, there,

Wealth having no meaning to one is often deemed the definition of altruistic.

she's being sarcastic and nasty - trying to make Roy feel that keeping the money for himself is somehow incompatible with being Good.
You will find a fair number philosophers [& con-men] who argue the same thing. But she is acting in an altruistic manner here.

As for "respect for the dignity of sentient beings", the sleep-in-a-ditch episode is only one example. How do you interpret her constantly addressing V as "Elf"?
Like who uses V's full name?

Or "You are all my prisoners, so you must all obey my orders"?
That is what prisoners are supposed to do. Of course we see her being amazingly willing to pay the hotel bill for her prisoners even after they absurdly fatten it up.

"You have no right to speak to me this way! I am a samurai!"?
Given Roy's comments, that seems a distinctly mild response.

The Wikipedia page you link to describes Pride as: "(especially holding self out of proper position toward God)". I think that sums Miko up in a single line.
Not at all. This part of the definition refers to Satan, "as proud as Satan", who rebelled against God. Miko is highly loyal to the gods, at least as she sees their demands.

But recall Roy's "Honey, we are out of milk. Clearly this means the gods want me to kill you." Again we have loyalty to the gods, and an eagerness to do violence, in other words, wrath. We have this constantly. Classify her flaw under wrath.

SadisticFishing

2009-06-24, 01:47 AM

DarkLadyNyara

2009-06-24, 02:42 AM

"Wealth having no meaning to one is often deemed the definition of altruistic."

... WHAT!? You're... what??? You realize... *twitch* um, I don't even know how to begin with explaining how wrong this is.

Joker, in the new Batman movie - definitely altruistic, right?

Thank you. I think my brain short-circuited for a bit when I read that comment- I'm glad I'm not the only person who saw the problem.

Altruism and lack of concern for wealth are often found in the same people, but they are nowhere near the same thing.

As to the main topic of this thread- Miko had issues that went well beyond "Roy not being nice to her." And, honestly, I doubt there was anything he could have done to seriously affect her worldview.

Jagos

2009-06-24, 07:30 AM

Now where do you get this information? Quite clearly some of the blows were struck with lethal intent, but it would seem the only reason to think the final blow was not lethal is that Miko survived it. Certainly Roy should have been swinging to kill. Hinjo was about to be killed. Giving Miko an extra 20% chance of killing Hinjo is not to be risked.

Yes he sliced her through. Won't doubt that but come on man... Roy wouldn't want to give Miko two XXs. He would want her to be put on trial for her crimes, same as Hinjo or most similarly aligned people. She has the HP to get hurt and sliced. Let's remember that they all survived worse. Roy DID get sliced through by Miko on their first meeting. Look how it came through for him.

In 264, she accuses the party [correctly] of attempting to escape. 285 also involves major accusations and Miko not attacking. So no, we can not automatically assume Miko was going to attack shortly, and if we can't, morality requires we not attack.
264 is particularly relevant here. Miko accuses, finds evidence to the contrary, and backs off. In the throne room, Miko had suffered a major shock after making her threat, again giving us reason to assume past threats are now void.

You do realize that Durkon stopped her from attacking on a technicality. As well, Belkar accomplished one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread. He effectively alienated Miko and the Order from ever working together. Granted, given how most people didn't like her and she was all in all mean anyway, AND she was about to fight them all even in her weakened state, the girl wasn't far from flying off the handle. She wasn't going to stop until she killed what she thought was evil. That was the entire Order from 285 on.

Now A-Miko did almost surrender, so the idea she would never surrender is clearly off.
B-Hinjo knows Miko much better than we do. We have no reason to think our judgement is superior here.

Almost never counts. She didn't surrender in the face of logic and damn near killed Hinjo. Really, are we looking at the same person? She chose to fight rather than atone for her sins. That explains a lot more along with her belief in the courts being tainted (which I even quoted earlier) than anything else. Miko had lost it.

As I note from time to time "doesn't necessarily mean" routinely means "there are about 1% exceptions". Given our limited knowledge on all points, we have to ignore such minor chances unless we have good reason to accept them.

By the Gods man, must every ass beating end in death?

"I lost a library book"
"Clearly the Gods believe I must kill you." SLASH SLASH SLASH

And we still lack a reason for Roy to use non-lethal damage. He tells us his motives and arresting Miko is not among them.
See Origin of the PCs; Roy decides not to attack ogres who enjoy music rather than kill them and get the same xp. Oh, and his last hit knocked her out when he probably could have killed her. I'm going to assume he has a charge in feat and probably could have ran her through with a greatsword. Instead, he smacks her and sends her flying. Subdued. So she can be charged for her crimes. As any Lawful character would probably want.

Does not follow. We know Roy to have killed large numbers of foes.

He won't kill where negotiation may work. That's Origin of PCs. You should probably read that one. Still a good read even if kinda small. :)

I'm not sure how.
In the dungeon, Nale and Thog surrender.
In Cliffside, Roy attacks a "surrendering" Sabine [a measure that allows her to escape], and it seems most unlikely he was trying non-lethal damage vs Thog.
In Azure City, the three were already prisoners when he encountered them.
Just where does he use non-lethal damage?

Doesn't that already explain your point? Although with Sabine's case, since she was a fiend, throwing her from a window didn't necessarily kill her so that was pretty much non-lethal.

Where is the evidence of any desire to subdue her?

Saving Hinjo's life, he didn't run her through. He knocked her out. He's not a big dumb fighter, I would think he has the intelligence to know to weaken her then knock her out.

Lowly altar boys have sacred duties. My or her having a sacred duty is not marking us as anything special.
Moreover, look at this sacred duty. It is defending an insignificant mudhole from some second-rate bandits. Where is the glory in this petty conflict?

She has been personally selected and appointed to handle the small stuff? There is pride in carrying out your duty, no matter what the duty, but...

We're forgetting the Shard already? And the entire side story about "The Dark One" that Redcloak follows? Seriously, look back at the Crayon pages. They defended against goblins so the Shard wouldn't be released. Glory in doing your duty is never taken over doing what needs to be done.

Jokes are best when they show the true feelings of the characters. The joke works because we find it reasonable that Roy would say that.

What flunkies? W&XP Miko does her own laundry, and apparently her own cooking.
Everything suggests her quarters and possessions are quite modest, and that gold could greatly improve them.

You know all the restrictions of being a paladin? More than likely Miko follows them to the letter. She gives almost all of her gold away and lives modestly.

Wealth having no meaning to one is often deemed the definition of altruistic.

Yes...

You will find a fair number philosophers [& con-men] who argue the same thing. But she is acting in an altruistic manner here.
She's only altruistic because it's within her pally restrictions to do so, not necessarily because it's something she wants to do.

Like who uses V's full name?
But who doesn't even use his name at all? There's respect, then there's calling someone a race and that's it. She doesn't even bother to learn his name. Even in 284, she merely called him "Elf" as if he's far beneath her.

That is what prisoners are supposed to do. Of course we see her being amazingly willing to pay the hotel bill for her prisoners even after they absurdly fatten it up.

Uhmmm... No? We actually see her berate everyone for the place blowing up, not sleeping on the ground with lichen, and overall "hedonism" with the pile of gold.

The bill probably was going somewhere (there's the joke) but I don't think Miko would have paid it. She was just paying for the four rooms.

Given Roy's comments, that seems a distinctly mild response.
Given what this was commenting on, I feel we are saying the same thing. She's outraged because she feels entitled to bully others. Roy feels a free man should be able to do what he wants.

Not at all. This part of the definition refers to Satan, "as proud as Satan", who rebelled against God. Miko is highly loyal to the gods, at least as she sees their demands.

But recall Roy's "Honey, we are out of milk. Clearly this means the gods want me to kill you." Again we have loyalty to the gods, and an eagerness to do violence, in other words, wrath. We have this constantly. Classify her flaw under wrath.

Mmmm... I say pride more. Wrath is more vengeance. She is committed to not being wrong. She isn't necessarily vain about it, more like "I'm right, you're not."

I understand the "I will strike down upon thee, with fire and brimstone" but it just doesn't fit what she did.

Vaarsuvius in full evil elf mode with familicide DOES qualify for wrath since he not only killed the dragon but her family maybe 10 generations down plus their dog too.

veti

2009-06-24, 07:32 PM

How about WOG? from NCPB "Miko is... Can a lawful Good character be the villain--and still be Lawful Good?"...she sticks to her Lawful Good code,..."

Quite. What that spoilered text tells us is that the author is self-consciously exploring the nature and limits of Lawful Good. Questions such as: is there more to Lawful Good than simply a "code"? These are the issues he's inviting us to think about, and they're what we are thinking about. Pointing to some rulebook definition and saying "case closed" is just a cop-out.

Moreover, look at this sacred duty. It is defending an insignificant mudhole from some second-rate bandits. Where is the glory in this petty conflict?

Well, it's partly about defending innocents. But it's more about smiting evil. As I pointed out before, she's more interested in the ogres than their victims.

Wealth having no meaning to one is often deemed the definition of altruistic.

Wealth having no meaning is often deemed the definition of "wealthy".

Like who uses V's full name?

There's all the difference in the world between abbreviating someone's name, because it's long, and refusing to acknowledge that they even have a name. Miko's attitude to V is very clearly in the second category.

David Argall

2009-06-24, 11:35 PM

Are you arguing that Roy did non-lethal damage for any reason other than to subdue Miko?
I am arguing there is no reason to think Roy was doing non-lethal damage at all. He obviously was not for at least one swing.

Re: if Roy didint reject Miko?
Yes he sliced her through. Won't doubt that but come on man... Roy wouldn't want to give Miko two XXs.
Why not? She had just murdered his employer, a vitally important leader.

He would want her to be put on trial for her crimes, same as Hinjo or most similarly aligned people.
Roy tells us his motives and intents. Putting her on trial is not mentioned.

She has the HP to get hurt and sliced.
Somehow I doubt most cops, not to mention judges and juries, would be much impressed by such a plea.

You do realize that Durkon stopped her from attacking on a technicality.
But he did stop her, which means she can not be guaranteed to attack in future cases. And if we have no guarantee, we lack grounds for attacking in self defense.

Almost never counts.
Almost never and never are seriously different here. As already mentioned, you can not legally or morally attack in self defense if you are merely almost sure you are about to be attacked. You have to be sure.

She didn't surrender in the face of logic and damn near killed Hinjo. Really, are we looking at the same person?
You mean the lass handing over her sword in 409, picture 5?

By the Gods man, must every ass beating end in death?
Enough do, and those that involve lethal weapons are even more likely to.

See Origin of the PCs; Roy decides not to attack ogres who enjoy music rather than kill them and get the same xp.
Origin Roy never swung at them at all. So that is not evidence of any intent to use non-lethal attacks at any point.

his last hit knocked her out when he probably could have killed her. I'm going to assume he has a charge in feat and probably could have ran her through with a greatsword. Instead, he smacks her and sends her flying. Subdued. So she can be charged for her crimes. As any Lawful character would probably want.
You are deriving your facts from your conclusions here. There is no sign the last swing was non-lethal, other than that Miko survived it. [On which, note that Miko survived a hit from the MitD that sent her thru a wall, and about a mile away. So we can't deem Roy's swing as definitely strong enough to kill.] And there is no sign he was concerned on whether she could be charged afterwards.
There is the negative point that non-lethal is -4 to hit, meaning Roy would have been giving Miko a 20% chance to kill Hinjo. That is quite simply not to be risked.

He won't kill where negotiation may work. That's Origin of PCs. You should probably read that one.
I've read it several times. However, see 214 when it is Miko who "negotiates" while Roy wants a surprise attack. Also see #11, where Roy executes prisoners.

Doesn't that already explain your point?
You mean the point that we simply don't have a case where Roy used non-lethal damage? And thus that we have no reason to think Roy used non-lethal on Miko?

He's not a big dumb fighter, I would think he has the intelligence to know to weaken her then knock her out.
He would have the intelligence to know the situation was an emergency and he must attack to kill.

We're forgetting the Shard already? And the entire side story about "The Dark One" that Redcloak follows? Seriously, look back at the Crayon pages. They defended against goblins so the Shard wouldn't be released.
Ah, that's the Snarl... And it is reason why Miko should not be wasting her time saving this irrelevant piece of nowhere.

You know all the restrictions of being a paladin? More than likely Miko follows them to the letter. She gives almost all of her gold away and lives modestly.

Quite likely, but...
a-the original claim was that she had servants, and other luxuries were implied.
b-Giving her gold away [or refusing it in the first place] would be deemed altruism, which the post tried to deny her.

She's only altruistic because it's within her pally restrictions to do so, not necessarily because it's something she wants to do.
Again that "not necessarily" [=1% or so], which translates to "highly probably"[=99% or so] it is something she wants to do.

Uhmmm... No? We actually see her berate everyone for the place blowing up, not sleeping on the ground with lichen, and overall "hedonism" with the pile of gold.
But she agreed to pay the bill.

The bill probably was going somewhere (there's the joke)
Definitely not. Miko being unfairly stuck with the tab is the joke in 225.

but I don't think Miko would have paid it. She was just paying for the four rooms.
The strip says she pays for more.

Mmmm... I say pride more. Wrath is more vengeance. She is committed to not being wrong. She isn't necessarily vain about it, more like "I'm right, you're not."

[quote=Jagos]I understand the "I will strike down upon thee, with fire and brimstone" but it just doesn't fit what she did.
1st appearance: "My swords will be bathed in the blood of those responsible."
2nd: "They will taste my blades."
3rd appearance: She kills Samantha and dad.
4th appearance: "Surrender yourselves or have that sentence [death] carried out immediately."
And so on.
Wrath seems to fit her very well indeed.

Quite. What that spoilered text tells us is that
NCPB
the author is self-consciously exploring the nature and limits of Lawful Good. Questions such as: is there more to Lawful Good than simply a "code"? These are the issues he's inviting us to think about, and they're what we are thinking about.
NCPB [spoiler] not with questions like "Can a lawful Good character be the villain--and still be Lawful Good?". That question is unanswerable unless one has already defined Lawful Good. Nor can our writer say Miko sticks to a Lawful Good code without knowing what that means. So these statements say flatly that Miko was alignment LG until the death of Shojo.

Well, it's partly about defending innocents. But it's more about smiting evil. As I pointed out before, she's more interested in the ogres than their victims.

More interested is not the same as only interested. So we are saying that Miko is interested in defending innocents.

Wealth having no meaning is often deemed the definition of "wealthy".
And under such a definition, some of the very poor have been called wealthy.

LuisDantas

2009-06-25, 06:34 AM

I would consider the theory "a member in good standing of the Sapphire Guard cannot fall as a paladin" theory far morally superior to the "the Sapphire Guard members in Start of Darkness did not fall because they simply did nothing wrong" theory, m'self.

I agree. Althought I fail to see how this connects to Miko, since she is in neither situation. Unless she appearead in SoD?

Law is a moral value. It means respect for organizations, the power of working together, as embodied by guilds, or empires.

Not really. You are describing being lawful. It does not follow that law is a moral value - as recognized both by real life and by the D&D alignment system, both of which separate moral values from lawful alignment.

It means never telling a lie (to those you respect, if lawful evil), and never betraying a friend. Respecting authority as a method to carry out your desires, rather than wanting to do it yourself.

IRL it is not even possible to respect people without ever lying to them, I'm afraid.

In respect to, whether it emulates values, lawful means you would normally trust larger groups to give you your values.

I respectfully disagree. Lawfulness would be respecting community values, not necessarily implicitly trusting them, which would probably be an unwise choice in any case.

Your king, your nation, rather than relying on it yourself. That's useful for a paladin, because it means they're not going to be erratic.

That is one interpretation of what being a Paladin is, I suppose. But not a very good one.

You should just become a cleric. The buffs you can get can make you much stronger than any paladin. And your alignment is far less strict.

I'm not sure who you are talking about, but characters are not necessarily going to think about bonuses above characterization.

Wait, let's back up here. I was saying she put herself above the laws of Azure city. She killed Shojo which is reprehensible but also couldn't admit that she was wrong.

Agreed, except perhaps about the "putting herself above the laws" thing. Miko tended to see herself as an Avatar of Justice, so she would (sincerely?) believe herself as the means for the Laws to be enforced, no matter what evidence to the contrary she met.

What I'm confused about is how it's not relevant to the argument that her powers weren't taken away because of her direct actions.

That is not what we were arguing about; of course it was because of her direct actions, but that has little (if anything) to do with how lawful they were.

She acted above the law to enforce it. That is what is truly at conflict.

So you are claiming that Miko fell due more to her chaotic leanings than to her loss of moral values (i.e. no longer being Good)?

If anything, that would make her fall happen much earlier.

What makes it heinous... Hmmm... should use a different word... Audacious is the fact that she had come to a bold conclusion with NO one backing her up.

Well, that is one of her main character traits. She adapted to loneliness a bit too completely.

She didn't hate Shojo, and I probably should have used audacious in my previous post.

At that point, she sure hated him. Although I don't see how it would be much different if she did not.

My point is that she acted in a manner that was against the laws she was sworn to uphold.

True enough. But not particularly relevant to her fall. In fact, opposing the law is by definition Chaotic, and therefore not in itself enough to cause an irreversible fall for a Paladin.

----------------------------------------------------
When this first started, you were saying Miko had kept her powers. She hadn't. The beige meant that some of the magic items that gave her blue tint in her robe were gone, making it easier for Roy to hurt her.

What I've said is that she was efficient to the job at hand which is fighting evil. There's been posts in here that say it far better than I can. I'll defer on that point.

One that fails to recognize and understand Evil simply can not do a good job at fighting it. Much less when she allows it to grown inside herself.

Mainly, she was a Paladin. A stereotypical Knight Templar type Paladin, yes, but all the same, she was a Paladin.

A stereotypical failed Paladin of poor wisdom, yes.

I didn't like her because she was exactly what you don't want in a paladin. You name it, she had a bad symptom of it. In regards to Roy, he was right to tell her off. I don't believe for a second she would have liked being in a relationship with him. I mean seriously, who fights about a mattress tag being torn off?

I agree that the two of them wouldn't work out, of course. At the same time, that also hints on how constructive for both it could be to work their own characters enough to make it work. I like Roy, but he really blundered it when he humiliated Miko at the worst possible moment in #250. And he does not have Miko's excuse of Simply Not Knowing Better.

I disagree. Neither "morals" nor "law" even have a "wisdom" or "goodness" stat in themselves: they are functions of people and societies. Morals are personal; to say that "real morals are better than law" is like saying that "everyone is capable of making a 'correct' moral decision for themselves" - which is ridiculous, both because people have different moral codes, and because they have different Wisdom stats.

Not it the Real World (TM); in it, moral values are hardly as arbitrary as some people seem to think. They are very much unavoidably derived from circunstances and from the consequences of actions.

That's why the law exists to give guidance. No matter how low your WIS (and Miko's is pretty low), you can follow the Law and know that, even when you do screw up, the damage will be limited and procedures will be applied to contain it.

Trouble is, Law simply lacks such ineherent wisdom, as shown time and again in various RL examples. Law is created by political interests, not Moral Wisdom.

To say that "my moral sense is better than the law" is to declare that either (a) you are wiser than the aggregated "best efforts" of your entire social structure, evolved over generations,

And that can and does happen, routinely. For one thing, that is how and why law can and must change. Heck, that is why same-sex marriage is finally being legalized :)

or (b) that structure has been "corrupted" to the point where it can no longer be trusted to weigh up your case. Option (b) is the usual line of Chaotics and rebels everywhere.

Once one accepts that the structure is not emanated from some hypothetical Higher Good Power but instead built by human beings with human wisdoms, it is easy to see that this, too, happens to some degree rather routinely, and should be accepted with serenity and dealt with in a responsible way.

But that's where the Twelve Gods come in, because if Option (b) really were true of the Sapphire Guard, the Gods could withdraw their patronage from it, and they'd all of them lose their Paladinhood together. The fact that this hasn't happened tells me - as it should have told Miko - that the Gods still have confidence in the Guard's capacity to keep their own house in order.

We know that the Twelve Gods are not perfectly and completely Good, much less Lawful Good. We also know that the Guard is not and probably will never be uniform in its moral views. So I don't think your statement is necessarily true.

On the other hand, Miko did make it a great deal of her supposed status as Chosen Weapon of the Twelve Gods, so yes, she ought to pay more attention and respect to their clear choices. In fact, had she lived a little bit longer, she would probably begin to consider Sabine's offer.

Jagos

2009-06-25, 07:53 AM

I am arguing there is no reason to think Roy was doing non-lethal damage at all. He obviously was not for at least one swing.
Why not? She had just murdered his employer, a vitally important leader.
Roy tells us his motives and intents. Putting her on trial is not mentioned.
Somehow I doubt most cops, not to mention judges and juries, would be much impressed by such a plea.

All this says basically the same thing about Roy. He has a motive to kick her ass. You come with your A game, true. But when all is said and done and she's down to -1 (which isn't lethal) you don't attack her while she's down. I believe this is where we're having a disparity. As I understand the rules, you go down to -1 and you're unconscious and you hit afterwards, that's lethal intent. Mostly Roy was taking out a threat by subduing her, or hitting her until she stopped attacking. And given his lineage (Dang Eugene is an A-hole...) he's real good at backtalk.

She had just killed Shojo, and come to the conclusion that everyone in the room was evil except Miko and Hinjo. She had been wrong in her assumption (funny when you assume, you make an... yeah, you get the joke) and basically she had disconnected herself from the Sapphire Guard by killing the head.

Almost never and never are seriously different here. As already mentioned, you can not legally or morally attack in self defense if you are merely almost sure you are about to be attacked. You have to be sure.

Uh... Roy was LG enough to submit to what Hinjo said. Miko had NO excuse not to submit. She instead chose to attack her new liege and damn near kill him. I don't see the logic in saying she almost submitted when she chose not to "submit to tainted courts." She may have been powerful but she wasn't going to be attacked and she made a choice. In this sense, Almost doesn't count. I want to drive the point home... She didn't submit and chose to fight for whatever logic she believed to be true. If it meant killing Hinjo to get her way, she WAS going to do that.

You mean the lass handing over her sword in 409, picture 5?
And panel 6 along with 16 solved that one quite nicely.

Enough do, and those that involve lethal weapons are even more likely to.

*Watches the joke go sailing over a few people's head*
There goes left field...

Origin Roy never swung at them at all. So that is not evidence of any intent to use non-lethal attacks at any point.

He took a "bullet" for Durkon without "returning fire". That says more about him than leaving Durkon, who was an ass, before to take a hit.

You are deriving your facts from your conclusions here. There is no sign the last swing was non-lethal, other than that Miko survived it. [On which, note that Miko survived a hit from the MitD that sent her thru a wall, and about a mile away. So we can't deem Roy's swing as definitely strong enough to kill.] And there is no sign he was concerned on whether she could be charged afterwards.
There is the negative point that non-lethal is -4 to hit, meaning Roy would have been giving Miko a 20% chance to kill Hinjo. That is quite simply not to be risked. You mean the point that we simply don't have a case where Roy used non-lethal damage? And thus that we have no reason to think Roy used non-lethal on Miko?He would have the intelligence to know the situation was an emergency and he must attack to kill.

I explained what I meant about lethal and nonlethal. In this game of HP, I'm pretty sure Roy would know that certain types of attacks could cause more or less damage. As he said, he's not a big dumb fighter who just attacks and attacks.

I've read it several times. However, see 214 when it is Miko who "negotiates" while Roy wants a surprise attack. Also see #11, where Roy executes prisoners.

Wasn't he going after the known evil of Xykon? A coup de grace on people that haven't surrendered doesn't necessarily count in this circumstance.

More later, work now...

SadisticFishing

2009-06-25, 07:59 AM

One thing I don't understand is the assumption that the Goblins were not Evil.

One of them was out to undo the fabric of reality. The fact is, it's not that they're not Evil in OotS-verse, it's that they had no choice from the start.

The paladins slaughtering the Goblins probably WAS the Lawful Good thing to do, especially seeing as they got the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

Sure, we see the goblins doing non-Evil stuff, but we've also seen Xykon doing non-Evil stuff. Maybe.. once or twice.. ish :P That does not imply that they're not Evil.

Right-Eye seems to me like an uncommon exception, and even he was probably Neutral Evil for most of his life - and came to his senses and decided to start a family.

Learnedguy

2009-06-25, 08:39 AM

Perhaps. But I'd done the same thing Roy did.

"Ah, so you want to be friends after having dragged me through half a continent beaten and berated? Who do you think I am, some kind of Stockholm Syndrome fetishist?!?"

hamishspence

2009-06-25, 11:51 AM

War and XPs "Contrast Miko's reaction with that of a rational, sane, paladin."

Implying that Miko was neither fully rational nor sane when she killed Shojo.

Roy does not have an obligation to ask an irrational, insane, armed murderer to surrender before taking them down. That would be Lawful Stupid in the extreme. And roy, having heard her rationalization for kiling Shojo, knows she is irrational and dangerous.

Arguably, that first hit was non-lethal (left a hatch mark instead of a slash) showing Roy intends to take Miko alive.

"But Roy could have stood aside and let Hinjo try"

Again- why? Roy saw what happened last time he decided not to interfere- Shojo got killed.

Personally, I see the next strip, not as Roys fault for "making Miko more irrational" but as evidence that he was doing the right thing.

Hinjo "As far as I know, Roy hasn't done anything wrong other than breaking an oath he never made in the first place. And maybe enjoying the beating he just gave you a little more than is healthy"

And the deva doesn't even mention it. It could come up in a bonus strip- but how exactly would it be rendered?

My guess:

Deva: "Attacking an armed, irrational murderer first instead of giving them the chance to surrender?"
Roy: "You have GOT to be kidding!"

veti

2009-06-25, 04:58 PM

NCPB not with questions like "Can a lawful Good character be the villain--and still be Lawful Good?". That question is unanswerable unless one has already defined Lawful Good. Nor can our writer say Miko sticks to a Lawful Good code without knowing what that means. So these statements say flatly that Miko was alignment LG until the death of Shojo.

Absolute nonsense. The question is a question, not an answer. There's no law of logic that says it even has to be answerable, in order to be interesting.

Once more: is there more to LG than just a code? Is it possible to follow the code and not be LG, or vice versa? I think so, you think not - that's fine, fortunately neither one of us is playing in the other's campaign. But the Giant hasn't stated a clear position either way.

[QUOTE=LuisDantas;6363044]
Trouble is, Law simply lacks such ineherent wisdom, as shown time and again in various RL examples. Law is created by political interests, not Moral Wisdom.

What makes you so sure that political interests are completely separate from moral wisdom? The point of a political system is to resolve conflicts - different people having different beliefs and aims - peacefully, which is a pretty moral goal if you ask me. You make changes by persuading a sufficiently large number of decision-makers to agree with your point of view. Moral arguments are one of the strongest tools to build that agreement.

And that can and does happen, routinely. For one thing, that is how and why law can and must change. Heck, that is why same-sex marriage is finally being legalized :)

Once one accepts that the structure is not emanated from some hypothetical Higher Good Power but instead built by human beings with human wisdoms, it is easy to see that this, too, happens to some degree rather routinely, and should be accepted with serenity and dealt with in a responsible way.

Well.. that's why legal systems - all legal systems - contain, within themselves, a set of procedures for changing the law. They don't pretend they're perfect and eternal. The law may be wrong, but for a lawful person, that just means it needs changing. It doesn't mean you're entitled to defy it without repercussions.

We know that the Twelve Gods are not perfectly and completely Good, much less Lawful Good.

Err... do we? How do we know that? Unless you're prepared to say that your moral code is higher than that of the Gods - i.e. you're wiser than they are - I don't see how it's even possible to make that argument.

But even if we accept it, that doesn't mean they don't maintain the Sapphire Guard in a state of perfect and complete Good (assuming they are capable of knowing what that condition looks like). It might well suit their ends to maintain a faction that is perfectly Good, even if they themselves aren't.

We also know that the Guard is not and probably will never be uniform in its moral views.

Individual members of the Guard differ in their moral views, true. But they all take the same orders from the same command structure. They may sometimes privately have doubts about their orders, but they swallow those doubts and work together because they're Lawful.

Example: You may privately believe that Belkar is an evil little scuzzbucket who needs to be slaughtered out of hand. But the head of your order rules otherwise - that he should be held and tried like any other criminal - so you swallow your doubts and do as you're told. That's Lawful.

Political example: You believe $HOBGOBLIN_VILLAGE is a threat and needs to be wiped off the face of the map. You make a case to your superiors. Someone else argues that if you did that, you'd create ongoing problems - either humans would settle the area, in which case they'd need to be defended, or the hobgoblins would come right back and in greater strength this time. You're not convinced, but your superiors are, so you abide by their decision. That's how Lawful works.

One thing I don't understand is the assumption that the Goblins were not Evil.

I don't think anyone is making that assumption. What I'd argue is that just because someone's Monster Manual entry says "evil", that doesn't mean that Good people should have a license to slaughter them on sight. Heck, even people whom we know damn' well are intentionally and premeditatedly evil (*cough*Belkar*cough*) are entitled to a trial.

Even in SoD, there's no implication that the paladins routinely kill every goblin they see. On the contrary, they have a specific reason for attacking that particular village.

Random832

2009-06-25, 05:19 PM

Unless you're prepared to say that your moral code is higher than that of the Gods - i.e. you're wiser than they are

Than the stickverse gods? :smallbiggrin:

But we're talking about their alignment, not their wisdom. Unless your contention is that they're honestly trying to be perfectly LG, in which case being 'perfectly' wise would (according to you) imply they would be successful.

We are shown that it is their decision to take away the powers of a paladin who falls - which means that they can easily decline to do so if they approve of the particular evil act or of the pattern of behaviors of a non-LG-aligned paladin.

We are also told that paladin powers such as Detect Evil are granted by them - which, to me, means they can falsify the results, if it's necessary to get the Guard to slaughter an entire village instead of just taking out the high priest.

Jagos

2009-06-25, 11:53 PM

And... I'm back for a few small extras:

So you are claiming that Miko fell due more to her chaotic leanings than to her loss of moral values (i.e. no longer being Good)?

If anything, that would make her fall happen much earlier.

I try not to get into the Law Vs Chaos theories. Mainly because when you get into that you don't really look at the person but all of their actions are defined into a nice little package. "Oh that was a chaotic act but given the circumstances it was within her means.

No No...

The girl was crazy and didn't follow her alignment. To say it was chaotic or otherwise is missing the point. She wasn't necessarily good to people but she did a decent job at killing and leaving for missions as a Paladin until the end. That's my main point. Her morals were screwed up a LOOOONG time before she joined the Paladinhood. She really needed more Treasure Type O. Just someone to talk to other than her horse. Roy, given his father just wasn't the person. But even Hinjo, with all of his sensibilities, couldn't get through to her. I guess when the only thing you have to Detect Evil is a spell you really need to sort out who you are before you see evil in front of you. That's more the moral of Miko's story.

Samurai Jill

2009-06-26, 12:19 AM

I hate these debates.

David Argall

2009-06-26, 03:32 AM

Roy does not have an obligation to ask an irrational, insane, armed murderer to surrender before taking them down. That would be Lawful Stupid in the extreme.
Maybe, but yes, that is precisely what the law and morals do require of you. Not to mention practicality. [You try taking down an irrational insane armed killer and you will get taken down entirely too often.]
You are not defending yourself when you move forward and swing at somebody. You are attacking, period. Miko is simply standing there and thus has every right to not be attacked. Only when she resists arrest or attempts another crime can you start using violence.

And roy, having heard her rationalization for kiling Shojo, knows she is irrational and dangerous.
Of course, which argues for a careful approach. You use violence to prevent violence, which means doing it when there is no violence in immediate prospect pretty much just defeats the justification for using violence.

Arguably, that first hit was non-lethal (left a hatch mark instead of a slash) showing Roy intends to take Miko alive.
When you use arguably, you are already acknowledging the argument is shaky, and that those blithely stating Roy used non-lethal are simply full of it.

"But Roy could have stood aside and let Hinjo try"

Again- why? Roy saw what happened last time he decided not to interfere- Shojo got killed.
If we take the strip as correct, there was no good time to interfere prior to Miko's attack. Hinjo was the authority figure with the duty to restrain Miko, and was on the edge of arresting Roy as well. If Hinjo couldn't spot that Miko had gone bananas, Roy was distinctly unlikely to be able to, and entirely likely to make things worse.

Personally, I see the next strip, not as Roys fault for "making Miko more irrational" but as evidence that he was doing the right thing.
Beating people up is not generally classified as the right thing.

Hinjo "As far as I know, Roy hasn't done anything wrong other than breaking an oath he never made in the first place."
Hinjo is almost certainly showing a complete ignorance of the law, possibly caused by stress of the moment, is playing fast and loose with the facts, or is just lying. Roy was in criminal conspiracy with Shojo, to engage in a crime that caused Shojo to be immediately removed from office. The fact Roy is not a citizen in noway protects him from being convicted, and possibly executed, for his part in aiding treason, or whatever crime they toss Shojo into the clink for the rest of his life for.

And the deva doesn't even mention it.
We already know we did not see all parts of the deva interview. So we can not say the deva didn't mention it.

My guess:

Deva: "Attacking an armed, irrational murderer first instead of giving them the chance to surrender?"
Roy: "You have GOT to be kidding!"
Deva: "Not at all. Anytime you attack someone, you are at fault until proved otherwise."
Roy: "But she would have attacked..."
Deva: "How are you sure of that? She was close to catonic when you attacked. The odds are in fact quite high she would not have. And if she had, you would not have to be explaining why you attacked somebody who was doing nothing."

All this says basically the same thing about Roy. He has a motive to kick her ass. You come with your A game, true. But when all is said and done and she's down to -1 (which isn't lethal) you don't attack her while she's down. I believe this is where we're having a disparity.
Now attacking her when she was down would make it clear he wasn't trying to just subdue her, but it does not prove the reverse. Quite the contrary. Roy's last swing was a swing from the heels-put everything he has into it effort. There is just no way he can be at all sure she is going to survive his effort. Roy was extremely able to take her way past -10.

As I understand the rules, you go down to -1 and you're unconscious and you hit afterwards, that's lethal intent.
Lethal intent is just that, intent to kill. It doesn't matter if the victim is -1 or +100 and it doesn't matter if you can do 1 or 100 points of damage. You are trying to do lethal damage that could, if done often enough, kill the character.

Mostly Roy was taking out a threat by subduing her, or hitting her until she stopped attacking.
Again, where is the blasted evidence?? She wasn't attacking, so where is the justification for starting?

She had just killed Shojo, and come to the conclusion that everyone in the room was evil
You have that in the wrong order. She came to the conclusions about evil first, and then was confronted with very obvious evidence that she was wrong. That she still had any hostile intent vs anybody is unclear.

I don't see the logic in saying she almost submitted when she chose not to "submit to tainted courts." She may have been powerful but she wasn't going to be attacked and she made a choice. In this sense, Almost doesn't count.

For any future court case, true enough. But for our purposes, it matters a lot.
The contention is that Miko would have never surrendered, not once in a hundred times. But when we see her almost surrendering, this contention is sharply challenged. Clearly change just a little bit and she would have surrendered. And Roy not bashing at her sounds very much like a factor that would have left her calmer and more likely to surrender.
Her almost surrendering makes it quite likely there was a quite substantial chance of her surrendering.

I explained what I meant about lethal and nonlethal.
And it's not an explanation that D&D or common sense accepts.

Wasn't he going after the known evil of Xykon? A coup de grace on people that haven't surrendered doesn't necessarily count in this circumstance.
Now as I have noted before, things like "doesn't necessarily count" routinely translate to "does count in all but a tiny number of unusual exceptions". And here the sleepers never had a chance to surrender. Now we can argue that Roy didn't really have a choice in the matter, but he is the only one we see killing the sleepers.
Roy may not be the most bloodthirsty of fighters, but the idea that he won't fight his way out of a situation if he can talk his way out is simply refuted by the evidence before us.

Teddy

2009-06-26, 06:07 AM

First of all, I've got to add that even though the OotS-characters fight in a turn-based combat, they haven't got the possibility to think and plan their actions by weighting good and bad against each other. And most important of all: just giving up your initiatve to ask the paladin, who has previously defeated your entire party and now killed her own liege, to step back peacefully is plain stupid and bordering to suicide.

Maybe, but yes, that is precisely what the law and morals do require of you. Not to mention practicality. [You try taking down an irrational insane armed killer and you will get taken down entirely too often.]
You are not defending yourself when you move forward and swing at somebody. You are attacking, period. Miko is simply standing there and thus has every right to not be attacked. Only when she resists arrest or attempts another crime can you start using violence.

I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Sweden, you are allowed to arrest a criminal red-handed or on fleeing foot, even if you aren't a cop. Using violence to stop a murderer will probably result in a court deciding wether it was neccessary or not. Roy would probably have made it through that trial.

Of course, which argues for a careful approach. You use violence to prevent violence, which means doing it when there is no violence in immediate prospect pretty much just defeats the justification for using violence.

There is no violence in immediate prospect? She killed her liege after accusing him for conspiring together with Roy, who I might add, is in the same room as her.

When you use arguably, you are already acknowledging the argument is shaky, and that those blithely stating Roy used non-lethal are simply full of it.

In the beginning, Roy used lethal attacks, there is no point arguing about that. The final blow, however... (comes to that later)

If we take the strip as correct, there was no good time to interfere prior to Miko's attack. Hinjo was the authority figure with the duty to restrain Miko, and was on the edge of arresting Roy as well. If Hinjo couldn't spot that Miko had gone bananas, Roy was distinctly unlikely to be able to, and entirely likely to make things worse.

Initiative order probably played quite a big part in this, and Miko won the initiative rolls (she got a surprise round too).

Beating people up is not generally classified as the right thing.

Yes, if the person in question is a "irrational, insane, armed murderer on the loose", then beating up before getting beaten up is a pretty good thing. Especially in a OotS-world.

Hinjo is almost certainly showing a complete ignorance of the law, possibly caused by stress of the moment, is playing fast and loose with the facts, or is just lying. Roy was in criminal conspiracy with Shojo, to engage in a crime that caused Shojo to be immediately removed from office. The fact Roy is not a citizen in noway protects him from being convicted, and possibly executed, for his part in aiding treason, or whatever crime they toss Shojo into the clink for the rest of his life for.

First of all, whe don't know the Azure City rules, so we can't say that Roy was acting illegaly, and since Hinjo is a paladin with a high wisdom score, I'm leaning towards that he wasn't doing anything wrong in strictly legal terms.

We already know we did not see all parts of the deva interview. So we can not say the deva didn't mention it.

Deva: "Not at all. Anytime you attack someone, you are at fault until proved otherwise."
Roy: "But she would have attacked..."
Deva: "How are you sure of that? She was close to catonic when you attacked. The odds are in fact quite high she would not have. And if she had, you would not have to be explaining why you attacked somebody who was doing nothing."

Probably not. The deva wasn't reasoning that way in the rest of the conversation.

Now attacking her when she was down would make it clear he wasn't trying to just subdue her, but it does not prove the reverse. Quite the contrary. Roy's last swing was a swing from the heels-put everything he has into it effort. There is just no way he can be at all sure she is going to survive his effort. Roy was extremely able to take her way past -10.

Just because Roy goes "Power Attack" with the broad side of the sword doesn't mean his intentions were not to subdue her. Miko was flanked and probably surprised too, so Roy hitting wasn't that unlikely. And OotS combat doesn't operate on carfully planned logic. What seems best at the moment is probably what the characters will do, unless instructed otherwise. And just because it isn't spelled "non-lethal damage" when Roy hits Miko doesn't prove the opposite. There isn't any good evidence that Roy didn't use lethal attacks (with the broad side of the sword:smallconfused:).

Lethal intent is just that, intent to kill. It doesn't matter if the victim is -1 or +100 and it doesn't matter if you can do 1 or 100 points of damage. You are trying to do lethal damage that could, if done often enough, kill the character.

But just because yo do one, or two, or one hundred lethal attacks doesn't force you to do them all lethal. Roy is smart enough to know that. And even though combat in OotS isn't carfully planned every round, Roy could still have adopted lethal first, non-lethal when weakened as a general battle strategy.

Again, where is the blasted evidence?? She wasn't attacking, so where is the justification for starting?

She was clearly attacking! Lord Shojo, do you remember!? Miko clearly was a threat, and even more so if you take into account what she belives about the OotS from earlier encounters.

You have that in the wrong order. She came to the conclusions about evil first, and then was confronted with very obvious evidence that she was wrong. That she still had any hostile intent vs anybody is unclear.

She still had hostile intent (she wouldn't let the entire grudge against the OotS go just because striking down lord Shojo took away her powers). And the idea that doing so would suddenly make her come to a good conclusion is ridiculous.

For any future court case, true enough. But for our purposes, it matters a lot.
The contention is that Miko would have never surrendered, not once in a hundred times. But when we see her almost surrendering, this contention is sharply challenged. Clearly change just a little bit and she would have surrendered. And Roy not bashing at her sounds very much like a factor that would have left her calmer and more likely to surrender.
Her almost surrendering makes it quite likely there was a quite substantial chance of her surrendering.

Not really. Hinjo was the highest authority figure she had to look up to, and would there be any good reason that Roy attacking Miko resulted in Miko attacking Hinjo? It's not especially likely that Miko would have wasted another round looking at her sword, and Hinjo wasted his first round running up to Shojo.

And it's not an explanation that D&D or common sense accepts.

But OotS common sense accept it. After all, it's a world of meta-gaming, and Roy would probably know when Miko is down in the low from how she looks.

Now as I have noted before, things like "doesn't necessarily count" routinely translate to "does count in all but a tiny number of unusual exceptions". And here the sleepers never had a chance to surrender. Now we can argue that Roy didn't really have a choice in the matter, but he is the only one we see killing the sleepers.
Roy may not be the most bloodthirsty of fighters, but the idea that he won't fight his way out of a situation if he can talk his way out is simply refuted by the evidence before us.

Just trying to talk your way out of every situation is a clear case of Stupid Good, and Roy isn't that kind of person who goes for the Stupid alignments. The goblins were Xykons henchmen, and Roy didn't have enough fact on his hand to say that they weren't of free choice.

Jagos

2009-06-26, 07:22 AM

Now attacking her when she was down would make it clear he wasn't trying to just subdue her, but it does not prove the reverse. Quite the contrary. Roy's last swing was a swing from the heels-put everything he has into it effort. There is just no way he can be at all sure she is going to survive his effort. Roy was extremely able to take her way past -10.
He didn't follow up the swing and even had something to say to Hinjo. Proof enough that he was smart enough to know when to stop. I just wish the art could show that he hit more with the flat side of his broadsword than a slice through her abdomen. That's why I believe he was trying to knock her out near the end.

Again, where is the blasted evidence?? She wasn't attacking, so where is the justification for starting?

We're going back and forth about the same thing. Shojo died, Roy was his bodyguard who didn't think Miko was off the chain enough to kill the highest person in the city on the eve of an attack. Circumstances should have allowed him a reprieve but Miko forced the issue of Shojo's guilt with a sword. When someone has been murdered, I would want them out of action. Think about when Reagan was shot by John Hinckley. Did the guy die or did they remove a threat? Luckily, no one had died from the incident but my point is the same. They would remove her from action through whatever means worked. But when she gets lower in HP, he would probably switch to non lethal until she was unconscious which is what happened.

You have that in the wrong order. She came to the conclusions about evil first, and then was confronted with very obvious evidence that she was wrong. That she still had any hostile intent vs anybody is unclear.

No (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) She was clearly seeing everyone with rose tinted eyes that said everyone around her was evil. And knowing enough about Miko she WOULD have attacked the evil she saw, until it was dead.

The contention is that Miko would have never surrendered, not once in a hundred times. But when we see her almost surrendering, this contention is sharply challenged. Clearly change just a little bit and she would have surrendered. And Roy not bashing at her sounds very much like a factor that would have left her calmer and more likely to surrender.
Her almost surrendering makes it quite likely there was a quite substantial chance of her surrendering.

Surrendering was a good logical choice. We, as humans, don't always make the logical correct choice. Roy may have wanted her knocked out because she was a bully that wanted her way or whatever but in the end, what was done was the fact that Miko DID NOT surrender. As Paladin Blues tells us, we are slaves to the consequences of our own actions. Hinjo probably rolled +9 on his Diplomacy check. And yet he still didn't get through to Miko who still believed she was special among the gods.

As I have stated, an almost does not count when it comes to surrendering. It's not seeing the world black and white, it's just seeing that Miko chose to make things harder for herself by not submitting. If she had surrendered she would have been put on trial for her crime, she could have atoned, possibly redeeming herself. What she chose, with no rational thought, was to fight her new liege, making things harder on everyone. she had already declared (before killing Shojo) that she and Hinjo weren't evil. Why damn near kill an LG person that was trying to help her? Would have taken out Hinjo had Roy not been there.

It goes back to her pride and her belief that she's not wrong.

But now I think we're saying the same things over and over. We can see that Roy was quick with a biting remark and even with Miko being more accepting, the relationship would not have worked. Miko was a loner who didn't have anything resembling social skills. She submitted to no one and even with all of her strength she couldn't see people for nothing more than Good or Evil.

hamishspence

2009-06-26, 01:30 PM

Plus Hinjo appears shell-shocked in that scene- does nothing till Miko flees Roy and tries to kill Belkar.

Miko had proven herself "an enemy, and therefore a valid target" several times over- picking up a weapon after the gods themselves have struck it out of your hand is not the way to communicate "I'll come quietly."

And Roy has his own eyes to prove it, not a set of deductions.

Armed, murderer, irrational and therefore a danger to everyone in the room- why precisely is Roy supposed to wait for Hinjo to act? Or ask her to drop her weapon and surrender immediately? When such would almost certainly lead to "You!- this is all your fault" only with her attacking first?

Teddy

2009-06-26, 01:42 PM

hamishspence

2009-06-26, 01:52 PM

I look at it as adventurers being a bit like comic book-movie vigilantes.

LG, especially Exalted LG (which Roy is almost certainly not) would be something like Adam West Batman.

And somehow, if said version of Bats witnessed somebody going into a rant, killing the mayor, picking up their weapon, and babbling a bit, I can't imagine him waiting for the cops to shout Surrender. Or, waiting for them to attack first.

D&D setting methods of taking somebody down quickest- a couple of non-lethal strikes, lethal for the rest- down but in no danger of death.

Teddy

2009-06-26, 01:56 PM

D&D setting methods of taking somebody down quickest- a couple of non-lethal strikes, lethal for the rest- down but in no danger of death.

Didn't you get that backwards? lethal first and non-lethal for the finnish-off (does it really matter? I don't think so when I think about it:smallconfused:). It was at least that tactic Roy employed.

hamishspence

2009-06-26, 01:59 PM

I thought (but wasn't certain) that the first strike- the glowing one- was non-lethal due to it leaving a hatch mark, a bit like a bruise, instead of a slash mark.

It doesn't matter that much.

Teddy

2009-06-26, 02:05 PM

I thought (but wasn't certain) that the first strike- the glowing one- was non-lethal due to it leaving a hatch mark, a bit like a bruise, instead of a slash mark.

It doesn't matter that much.

Well, I think of it as a lethal attack just because of the mark (to the contrary to the POW), but as you say, it's not that important to dwell on.

hamishspence

2009-06-26, 02:27 PM

I saw the argument somewhere that it is not evil to kill a tied up person who has "committed major crimes worthy of death- because they are an enemy, and therefore a valid target" Even if the only evidence is circumstantial (tied up by someone who supposedly only ties up major villains)

Well here, its an armed, unstable, person, who you've witnessed committing a crime worthy of death (high treason + murder) who is also an enemy, and was only last time stopped from trying to kill you and your friends, by the person she has just murdered.

Much more justifiable to attack first. Especially when we have grounds to consider that the attacks are intended to subdue, rather than kill.

EDIT:
I went back through the original discussion threads 408 and 409. The general consensus (with a few dissenters) was that Roy was acting reasonably:

armed+murderer+irrational= do not waste time trying to talk them down.

Also, the sound effects (THUNK) and hatch marks strongly suggested some non-lethal strikes from the beginning.

David Argall

2009-06-26, 09:15 PM

just giving up your initiatve to ask the paladin, who has previously defeated your entire party and now killed her own liege, to step back peacefully is plain stupid and bordering to suicide.
To the extent it is stupid and bordering on suicide to ask her to surrender, it is also stupid to attack her. However, Roy is now using a magic sword instead of a stick, making him at least +6 to hit and +7 to damage [quite possibly more], and Miko is an ex-paladin, making her notably weaker as well.

I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Sweden, you are allowed to arrest a criminal red-handed or on fleeing foot, even if you aren't a cop. Using violence to stop a murderer will probably result in a court deciding wether it was neccessary or not. Roy would probably have made it through that trial.
What makes you think so? Miko was not trying to flee when he first attacked. Nor was Roy attempting to arrest Miko. He wanted to kick her ass. No different really from where your buddy at the bar is knocked out by the drunk next to him. When the drunk turns back to his drink, you have no right to take a swing at him. You can demand he surrender to you or some other authority to be taken to the police, but until he resists or tries to escape or start another crime, you can't whack him.
Now Roy might well beat the rap. His 2nd attack was obviously justified, and succeeded in capturing a dangerous criminal, as well as presumably saving Hinjo's life. Cops are apt to overlook lesser crimes for people who rescue cops, and the judge may also take a generous view. But the 1st attack was clearly unjustified, and illegal by Swedish law, and American.

There is no violence in immediate prospect? She killed her liege after accusing him for conspiring together with Roy, who I might add, is in the same room as her.
And Roy advances on her.
That is sufficient grounds to void any claim of self defense. Often the law and morals requires that you take advantage of any open door to flee if you can. Other times, you may stand your ground. But you are almost never acting in self defense if you advance. [Otherwise, you have the chance both sides are defending themselves.] You are attacking. Miko is the one acting in self defense.

Yes, if the person in question is a "irrational, insane, armed murderer on the loose", then beating up before getting beaten up is a pretty good thing. Especially in a OotS-world.
No such distinction exists in the law. You may only use the minimum amount of force necessary, and only for the purpose of reducing the threat, not for the purpose of venting your feelings.

whe don't know the Azure City rules, so we can't say that Roy was acting illegaly,
We have reviewed American and Swedish law and found the same conclusion. If we add in other legal systems, we would find the same thing. Roy was acting illegally.

and since Hinjo is a paladin with a high wisdom score, I'm leaning towards that he wasn't doing anything wrong in strictly legal terms.
Hinjo is a distracted and biased source here.

Just because Roy goes "Power Attack" with the broad side of the sword doesn't mean his intentions were not to subdue her.
But we have no evidence that Roy was using the broad side of his sword. It is not pictured any differently when we see him killing stuff.
And "doesn't mean" is another way of saying "I admit the evidence is against Roy, but we haven't proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Miko was flanked and probably surprised too, so Roy hitting wasn't that unlikely.
Unimportant. If Roy needed a 3 or a 13 to hit, either way, a -4 is a minimum 20% greater chance of getting Hinjo killed. Roy failing to strike to kill is simply not acceptable tactics.

And OotS combat doesn't operate on carfully planned logic. What seems best at the moment is probably what the characters will do, unless instructed otherwise.
And since we have no examples of non-lethal damage by Roy, we would presume his automatic reaction would be lethal damage.

And just because it isn't spelled "non-lethal damage" when Roy hits Miko doesn't prove the opposite.
It certainly does not prove that it is non-lethal. But we have all these cases where Roy did lethal damage. Why should we think there is an exception here?

There isn't any good evidence that Roy didn't use lethal attacks (with the broad side of the sword:.
There is zero evidence that Roy did use non-lethal attacks. So the balance favors lethal.

But just because yo do one, or two, or one hundred lethal attacks doesn't force you to do them all lethal.
As the saying goes "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet." Roy having made a lot of lethal attacks, we need contrary evidence or we assume that any attacks are lethal.

She was clearly attacking! Lord Shojo, do you remember!?
She HAD attacked. She was NOT attacking. At the moment of Roy's attack, she was just standing there. What she was going to do next was not at all sure, and could have included suicide among other things.

Miko clearly was a threat,
Of course, but you are not allowed to attack all threats, only those that are inescapable.

She still had hostile intent (she wouldn't let the entire grudge against the OotS go just because striking down lord Shojo took away her powers). And the idea that doing so would suddenly make her come to a good conclusion is ridiculous.
Quite obviously not ridiculous. Note again that Miko does start to surrender. That means that under slightly different conditions, she would have surrendered.

Hinjo was the highest authority figure she had to look up to, and would there be any good reason that Roy attacking Miko resulted in Miko attacking Hinjo?
Certainly. His attack brings rage to the top of her mind, and that rage can lash out at the nearest target, no matter how innocent. We can not be certain about it, but if Roy had just stood back and allowed Hinjo to speak first, she might have been in a state of confusion and willing to accept his leadership.

It's not especially likely that Miko would have wasted another round looking at her sword, and Hinjo wasted his first round running up to Shojo.
Miko was spending rounds just talking to herself. There is no reason this might not continue for an extensive period.

Just trying to talk your way out of every situation is a clear case of Stupid Good, and Roy isn't that kind of person who goes for the Stupid alignments.
The original claim was that Roy was wanting to talk his way out of any situation, and thus the damage was non-lethal. Please discuss with the original poster, and decide which of you is wrong. [It can be both.]

He didn't follow up the swing and even had something to say to Hinjo. Proof enough that he was smart enough to know when to stop.
Which may or may not be with a still living foe. That Miko ended up alive, but unable to fight further does not mean at all that Roy was trying to avoid killing her. Once she was down, his duty was done. He had no legal nor moral right to hit her again.

I just wish the art could show that he hit more with the flat side of his broadsword than a slice through her abdomen. That's why I believe he was trying to knock her out near the end.
Strip 1: Roy is shown with sword in the same position as with Miko. Goblin is cut in half.
#11: Goblin heads are sent flying by Roy.
#99: Roy cuts off monster head with "flat" of the blade.
#102: Roy kills a lot of zombies with the blade in the same position
#106: Roy cuts goblin in half.
#112: Roy stabs a goblin with the flat blade.
I'm too lazy to go on, but that flat side of the blade has been involved in a whole lot of killings. It simply can't be used as evidence of any alleged use of non-lethal tactics.

Shojo died, Roy was his bodyguard
Roy did not have that position, either legally or otherwise. He became Hinjo's bodyguard later.

Think about when Reagan was shot by John Hinckley.
Hinckley was quickly swarmed by guards, and emerged more or less unharmed. Those attacking him had no reason to assume he was out of bullets or had stopped attacking.
Miko had ceased attacking, a fact obvious to all. She might well resume attacking, but that is only "might". The situation is no longer an emergency, and more deliberate and less violent tactics are required.

No She was clearly seeing everyone with rose tinted eyes that said everyone around her was evil. And knowing enough about Miko she WOULD have attacked the evil she saw, until it was dead.
But we know she does not automatically attack. We have the cases on record.

what was done was the fact that Miko DID NOT surrender.
Which is only one rolling of the dice. The claim is that no matter how often we rolled the dice, Miko would not surrender. But the fact the surrender almost happened means there is a substantial chance she would surrender.

As I have stated, an almost does not count when it comes to surrendering.
Why not? We are not concerned with what her punishment would be, but with what were the actual chances she would surrender? The fact it was really just a coin flip whether or not she surrendered is clearly relevant.

Miko had proven herself "an enemy, and therefore a valid target" several times over-
A new argument at least... Now...
Let us start with Elan attacking Kubota vs V attacking Kubota. Despite the much lower level of damage, it is the Elan attack that is the more clearly evil. In the Elan case, Kubota would be taken to the court and punished. Elan's attack would not be considered at part of the punishment. So if we assume the LG court would give a proper punishment, Elan's attack is pure excess punishment.
The V attack, by contrast, replaces the court punishment. There is no double punishment and thus no clear excess. Now we do have to ask if the V inflicted punishment fit the crime. And we quickly find that if anything, Kubota got off easy. He could rightfully have been not only executed, but all property forfeited, leaving any family or kin destitute.

Now when Roy attacks Miko, we see the parallel with Elan. There is an attempt to punish her [far more for far less crime than Kubota by the way] which will not reduce her legal punishment, and so we have double punishment, and evil. [Elan has the slight justification of being chaotic, and thus mistrusting lawful courts, while Roy is LG and so must give all deference to the local LG courts.]
If we assume Roy was planning to kill her, and thus administer what might be just punishment, he might escape a charge of evil, but his action then is obviously chaotic, and still a serious alignment breech. But we can reasonably say Roy was merely acting in reckless endangerment of her life, with a substantial chance of her survival or death, and so we remain with an evil stain here.

[quote=hamishspence] why precisely is Roy supposed to wait for Hinjo to act?
That is his legal duty. It is not the duty of an alien to administer the laws he does not know [and is known to object to as well]. As a practical matter, it seems entirely possible that Hinjo could have gotten Miko to surrender quietly if Roy had not attacked.

Or ask her to drop her weapon and surrender immediately? When such would almost certainly lead to "You!- this is all your fault" only with her attacking first?
For starters, that clarifies the legal situation. Miko is clearly identified as the aggressor. Then we are having Roy act the role of cop here. The police response here is "Drop your weapon and surrender". The cops do not get to simply start wailing on the suspect, and Roy is not freed of that duty to refrain from unneeded violence.

I saw the argument somewhere that it is not evil to kill a tied up person who has "committed major crimes worthy of death- because they are an enemy, and therefore a valid target".
Now one difference here is that Kubota was threatening to cause further violence, which was effectively unavoidable, except by killing him. Miko was not threatening immediate violence, and at least possibly could be prevented from violent act by jail.

Much more justifiable to attack first.
It is almost never justifiable to attack first. All your old Westerns should have taught you that.

Especiallly when we have grounds to consider that the attacks are intended to subdue, rather than kill.
And just what are these "grounds"? So far they seem to consist of "I like Roy, so he must be in the right."

Jagos

2009-06-26, 10:32 PM

... I believe this thread has lost sight of what we were talking about.

I'm gonna be done and read after this last post. There's no point in arguing semantics, believing that everything is one way or the other.

Regardless:

The original claim was that Roy was wanting to talk his way out of any situation, and thus the damage was non-lethal. Please discuss with the original poster, and decide which of you is wrong.
First, that's a misinterpretation. He is willing to talk, true, but Roy also knows when to take action. As I've posted time and again, Roy didn't have to give XXs to Miko to subdue her, only get her HP low enough that she is knocked out and stop fighting her. We saw her sliced through which, if the attack hit one of us IRL, we'd have to scoop up our entrails or something. My point is in the world of DnD, you can survive a stab through with only a flesh wound and continue attacking at full strength.

Second, how about we keep our posts civil and not try to say someone's wrong for having a different view on things? We don't need hurt feelings over the internet. ;)

That is sufficient grounds to void any claim of self defense. Often the law and morals requires that you take advantage of any open door to flee if you can. Other times, you may stand your ground. But you are almost never acting in self defense if you advance. [Otherwise, you have the chance both sides are defending themselves.] You are attacking. Miko is the one acting in self defense.

It's as if we forget that Miko is a paladin that is supposed to uphold the law and not execute it in her own regard. She gets to act in self defense because someone watched as she killed someone. And to drive the point home, Hinjo had tried to arrest her peacefully and yet she attacked him in self defense. I mean, which oil gets some grease? Is Miko supposed to be a sympathetic character because she screwed up and we see her as the victim or is she the one that acted out of turn because of faulty information on her part?

I choose to believe the latter. She had screwed up her info before and it basically made her first appearance so much worse, what, with trying to kill the OotS.

No such distinction exists in the law. You may only use the minimum amount of force necessary, and only for the purpose of reducing the threat, not for the purpose of venting your feelings

That's what Roy has been using. But someone as powerful as Miko (who handed Hinjo his ass on a silver platter even though she was weakened by the loss of her powers) needs a good few hits on the noggin before she's phased. I doubt HIGHLY that Roy didn't come to a cool logical conclusion to take Miko out without his personal feeling getting in the way. The only thing that probably made this worse for Miko was the fact that he's FULL of sarcasm when she can't think. And why in the world should he wait for her to think clearly when she's already 2 cents short of a fruitbasket? That isn't his job. His job was to check out Girard's Gate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0405.html). Now with his benefactor dead and Xykon approaching, what's he supposed to do? Let Miko escape? Come on...

Certainly. His attack brings rage to the top of her mind, and that rage can lash out at the nearest target, no matter how innocent. We can not be certain about it, but if Roy had just stood back and allowed Hinjo to speak first, she might have been in a state of confusion and willing to accept his leadership.

That's an improbable conclusion. Hinjo didn't expect his uncle to be killed and we don't know what would have happened had they waited a few rounds. To make a guess as such is to try to jump to a conclusion that may or may not have occurred. But Roy took the action that he thought necessary. "Subdue Miko"

When Hinjo decided to take over, he was given the BEST CHANCE that could be. He explained away all of Miko's illogical conclusions (which she jumped to) and unfortunately the logic didn't appeal to her. What more can be done? There have been about 5 posts explaining, "How do you talk to an irrational person?" All we're getting is "well, don't beat on them first" But what's done is done. Now what? Hinjo had his chance, it failed, he was near killed, Roy stepped in and with non lethal force, knocked out Miko. Which gets me into this:

Strip 1: Roy is shown with sword in the same position as with Miko. Goblin is cut in half.
#11: Goblin heads are sent flying by Roy.
#99: Roy cuts off monster head with "flat" of the blade.
#102: Roy kills a lot of zombies with the blade in the same position
#106: Roy cuts goblin in half.
#112: Roy stabs a goblin with the flat blade.
I'm too lazy to go on, but that flat side of the blade has been involved in a whole lot of killings. It simply can't be used as evidence of any alleged use of non-lethal tactics.

Those aren't real examples of a flat side broadsword hit. #1, 11 is obviously a slice with the sharp edge of the sword to the abdomen and head respectively.

#99, come on, act it out... Jump up and attack down, it's not the same thing. Again, not the broad side of the sword but a sharp slice.

102 & 106 - a Cleave, a charging slice.

#112 - Again, act it out, put a sword up high. It's an overhead lunge, not really what I'm talking about.

Think baseball with a sword. You can hit the ball with the narrow edges, but that will slice the ball. In order for Roy to have launched her as he did, he HAD to hit her with the flat side of his blade.

But we know she does not automatically attack. We have the cases on record.

... Are you sure? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html) If they're evil, they're dead. It only takes 2 seconds to cast Detect Evil and one surprise round to attack.

Which is only one rolling of the dice. The claim is that no matter how often we rolled the dice, Miko would not surrender. But the fact the surrender almost happened means there is a substantial chance she would surrender.

Again, it goes back to Miko being irrational. Just as charging her liege for being in league with Xykon (false) and charging him with treason and committing to the belief that she isn't wrong when the info proves otherwise, Miko was more about the mistakes made by jumping as far as her Monk jump skills could carry her. And I will repeat, Hinjo had the best chance and yet her irrational thoughts made her reject that which was most logical. I have to think Hinjo took a LOT of Diplomacy skills from Shojo. He wasn't quite there in regards to diplomacy but damned if he wasn't the best choice when Roy is a better Intimidating fighter.

For all intents and purposes, after having Hinjo talk her down, she may have had a -2 to her Wis score. But Hinjo had to make it damn near even or have given her a +1 with all of the bonuses he should have had. Lessee... :

Second highest Paladin +10%
Lawful Good +30%
Known a long time +5%
Second in line for leadership +30%
Guilt over death - .00000001%
Peaceful + 2%
Logic + 3%

Second Powerful -20%
Subordinate - 5%
Irrational - 40%
Roy's Ass Whoopin' - 20%

If ya wanna add, feel free. But it does kinda come up about even on a d100.

Teddy

2009-06-27, 05:15 AM

I'm not going to answer to the rest of your post, since well only draw the same arguments one after another in a long endless spiral. The only thing I say is that I disagree with what you are saying.

A new argument at least... Now...
Let us start with Elan attacking Kubota vs V attacking Kubota. Despite the much lower level of damage, it is the Elan attack that is the more clearly evil. In the Elan case, Kubota would be taken to the court and punished. Elan's attack would not be considered at part of the punishment. So if we assume the LG court would give a proper punishment, Elan's attack is pure excess punishment.
The V attack, by contrast, replaces the court punishment. There is no double punishment and thus no clear excess. Now we do have to ask if the V inflicted punishment fit the crime. And we quickly find that if anything, Kubota got off easy. He could rightfully have been not only executed, but all property forfeited, leaving any family or kin destitute.

Now when Roy attacks Miko, we see the parallel with Elan. There is an attempt to punish her [far more for far less crime than Kubota by the way] which will not reduce her legal punishment, and so we have double punishment, and evil. [Elan has the slight justification of being chaotic, and thus mistrusting lawful courts, while Roy is LG and so must give all deference to the local LG courts.]
If we assume Roy was planning to kill her, and thus administer what might be just punishment, he might escape a charge of evil, but his action then is obviously chaotic, and still a serious alignment breech. But we can reasonably say Roy was merely acting in reckless endangerment of her life, with a substantial chance of her survival or death, and so we remain with an evil stain here.

Now, this is NOT logical at all. Elan clearly attacked with a good intent, namely to get evil Kubota to hand over an antidote (which he unfortunately didn't posess). It wasn't a punishment, it was a way to right others (Kubota's) wrongs and save the life of another person. Reference. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0593.html)

The second attack was an act of vengeance for Kubota killing Therkla. It wouldn't be 100% justified in a modern day court, but he did restrain himself and captured Kubota instead. The punch wasn't a good action, but calling it evil is ridiculous.

This compared to V, who disintgrated an unknown person bound by Elan just because V didn't want another time-wasting trial is clearly evil (and un-lawful), and would never make it through a court. ("What? He had handcufs and was sitting in the back of a police car. Of course I had rights to shoot him!"). Heard of "innocent untill the opposite has been proved"? V didn't know wether Kubota actually done something. V just drew the conclusion from him being tied up by Elan.

And I've got no idea from where you got that Kubota's crime was worse than Miko's? Both murdered another person.

LuisDantas

2009-06-27, 07:00 AM

What makes you so sure that political interests are completely separate from moral wisdom? The point of a political system is to resolve conflicts - different people having different beliefs and aims - peacefully, which is a pretty moral goal if you ask me. You make changes by persuading a sufficiently large number of decision-makers to agree with your point of view. Moral arguments are one of the strongest tools to build that agreement.

I don't think the two things are completely separate. But they are definitely quite distinct and I fear you overestimate their link.

Mostly, because policts are collective in nature, while moral values are essentially individualistic. It is necessary and good to try and make them match in the best possible manner, but hoping for political systems and institutions to make people more moral is possibly the worst, less reliable and more dangerous of all approaches to reach that goal.

Well.. that's why legal systems - all legal systems - contain, within themselves, a set of procedures for changing the law. They don't pretend they're perfect and eternal.

Legal systems are unavoidably subject to change even if they don't spell that out aloud. Nor do I think that they all do, although of course it is fine and good when they do.

The law may be wrong, but for a lawful person, that just means it needs changing. It doesn't mean you're entitled to defy it without repercussions.

Defying Law is by definition meant to have repercussions, regardless of how lawful one is.

Err... do we? How do we know that? Unless you're prepared to say that your moral code is higher than that of the Gods - i.e. you're wiser than they are - I don't see how it's even possible to make that argument.

It has been stated flat out somewhere in the books' commentary and/or extra material. I've seen it mentioned before.

But even if we accept it, that doesn't mean they don't maintain the Sapphire Guard in a state of perfect and complete Good (assuming they are capable of knowing what that condition looks like). It might well suit their ends to maintain a faction that is perfectly Good, even if they themselves aren't.

A pantheon that can not or will not keep itself completely Good is unlikely to even have the means to do that with its order of Paladins, except perhaps by expelling those that fall out of line.

The reason is the one that you mention: they are explicitly unable of knowing that Complete Good actually is, since they do not experience it themselves.

Individual members of the Guard differ in their moral views, true. But they all take the same orders from the same command structure. They may sometimes privately have doubts about their orders, but they swallow those doubts and work together because they're Lawful.

Example: You may privately believe that Belkar is an evil little scuzzbucket who needs to be slaughtered out of hand. But the head of your order rules otherwise - that he should be held and tried like any other criminal - so you swallow your doubts and do as you're told. That's Lawful.

Political example: You believe $HOBGOBLIN_VILLAGE is a threat and needs to be wiped off the face of the map. You make a case to your superiors. Someone else argues that if you did that, you'd create ongoing problems - either humans would settle the area, in which case they'd need to be defended, or the hobgoblins would come right back and in greater strength this time. You're not convinced, but your superiors are, so you abide by their decision. That's how Lawful works.

That is also why Lawfulness and Good alignment are often enough at odds with each other, indeed.

The girl was crazy and didn't follow her alignment.

Isn't it more accurate to say that her madness changed her alignment?

To say it was chaotic or otherwise is missing the point. She wasn't necessarily good to people but she did a decent job at killing and leaving for missions as a Paladin until the end. That's my main point. Her morals were screwed up a LOOOONG time before she joined the Paladinhood.

That, I feel, is the main point of the controversy involving Miko. How fair is it to describe her as Good (or, for that matter, Lawful) before she fell?

I tend to see that as a question that directs us more to studies of the 12 Gods, who after all are the ones judging the matter in-story, than of Miko herself, who quite frankly is far more straightforward a character than people sometimes make her to be.

She really needed more Treasure Type O. Just someone to talk to other than her horse. Roy, given his father just wasn't the person. But even Hinjo, with all of his sensibilities, couldn't get through to her. I guess when the only thing you have to Detect Evil is a spell you really need to sort out who you are before you see evil in front of you. That's more the moral of Miko's story.

That suggests that the 12 Gods, her fellow Paladins and Shojo most of all failed in duly supporting her. I happen to think that is correct. How ironic that Belkar developed such strong feelings for the one responsible for one his greatest nemeses.

Ytaker

2009-06-27, 07:08 AM

This compared to V, who disintgrated an unknown person bound by Elan just because V didn't want another time-wasting trial is clearly evil (and un-lawful), and would never make it through a court. ("What? He had handcufs and was sitting in the back of a police car. Of course I had rights to shoot him!"). Heard of "innocent untill the opposite has been proved"?

And I've got no idea from where you got that Kubota's crime was worse than Miko's? Both murdered another person.

We can accept V's knowledge of dramatic procedure, that Kubota must be a main villain, and he knew that Elan hated him, so he knew he was evil, since Elan is lovable and kind and trusting. He clearly wasn't innocent. And, innocent until proven guilty wasn't an especially strong tradition in the time frame that they exist in. Defendants were often tortured to find their guilt. And of course, Elan recognised that, and initially recognised that, empirically, the action was for the best.

Kuboto betrayed his fellow citizens by organising attacks on them. An incredibly unlawful and evil act. He could be under no impressions that his acts were evil and unlawful, unlike Miko who was merely delusional and arrogant, and operating under reasonable assumptions.

LuisDantas

2009-06-27, 07:17 AM

We can accept V's knowledge of dramatic procedure, that Kubota must be a main villain, and he knew that Elan hated him, so he knew he was evil, since Elan is lovable and kind and trusting. He clearly wasn't innocent.

That is simply not true. Even in the comic itself we have at least a couple of examples of innocent people being misjudged (Elan when framed as Nale and/or when Haley was under Nale's Suggestion; the Order itself when jailed by Miko and Shojo).

And, innocent until proven guilty wasn't an especially strong tradition in the time frame that they exist in. Defendants were often tortured to find their guilt.

True, but that has little to do with V's actions. He is not even a formally established judge or juror of any kind, after all.

And of course, Elan recognised that, and initially recognised that, empirically, the action was for the best.

Uh? On the contrary, Elan was appalled at first, then he unfortunately let go of it.

Kubota betrayed his fellow citizens by organising attacks on them. An incredibly unlawful and evil act. He could be under no impressions that his acts were evil and unlawful, unlike Miko who was merely delusional and arrogant, and operating under reasonable assumptions.

Sorry, but I must disagree again. Far as Lawfulness goes, Kubota seemed to be fairly confident of his own. Nobility privileges and all that, you know.

Nor were Miko's assumptions often reasonable, either.

Kish

2009-06-27, 07:24 AM

Err... do we? How do we know that?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html

As a bonus, I'll throw in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html .

Unless you're prepared to say that your moral code is higher than that of the Gods - i.e. you're wiser than they are - I don't see how it's even possible to make that argument.

My moral code is higher than that of the gods of the OotS universe. I am wiser than they are. Considering how petty and childish they're consistently presented as being, I'm pretty sure most people on this board could make that claim.

More seriously, what? What I quoted from you seems to hinge on a concept of "gods" that comes from something other than OotS. Why would anyone balk at claiming to be wiser than those characters?

hamishspence

2009-06-27, 07:46 AM

What makes you think so? Miko was not trying to flee when he first attacked. Nor was Roy attempting to arrest Miko. He wanted to kick her ass. No different really from where your buddy at the bar is knocked out by the drunk next to him. When the drunk turns back to his drink, you have no right to take a swing at him. You can demand he surrender to you or some other authority to be taken to the police, but until he resists or tries to escape or start another crime, you can't whack him.
Now Roy might well beat the rap. His 2nd attack was obviously justified, and succeeded in capturing a dangerous criminal, as well as presumably saving Hinjo's life. Cops are apt to overlook lesser crimes for people who rescue cops, and the judge may also take a generous view. But the 1st attack was clearly unjustified, and illegal by Swedish law, and American.

First- not knocked out. Murdered. You cannot compare the two.
Adventures are like comic book vigilantes- they witness the crime- the attack the perpatrator, to subdue.

And Roy advances on her.
That is sufficient grounds to void any claim of self defense. Often the law and morals requires that you take advantage of any open door to flee if you can. Other times, you may stand your ground. But you are almost never acting in self defense if you advance. [Otherwise, you have the chance both sides are defending themselves.] You are attacking. Miko is the one acting in self defense.

No such distinction exists in the law. You may only use the minimum amount of force necessary, and only for the purpose of reducing the threat, not for the purpose of venting your feelings.

We have reviewed American and Swedish law and found the same conclusion. If we add in other legal systems, we would find the same thing. Roy was acting illegally.

If you witness a serious crime, some say you are morally obliged to immediately render the perpatrator unable to attack anyone else. To perform a "citizen's arrest" (and the fact that roy is not techically a citizen is irrelavent- he's a witness with the resources available to do this. Failure to act might even be interpreted as making him culpable. Note that Eugene blames him for failing to act to save Shojo.

We are not arguing Roy was acting in direct self-defense primarily, but secondarily- insane, armed murderer does not need to be advancing on you to be an immediate and lethal threat. If we believe Tom Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger, shooting a murderer the moment they pick up their weapon is well within the bounds of the FBI code of conduct.

Hinjo is a distracted and biased source here.

But we have no evidence that Roy was using the broad side of his sword. It is not pictured any differently when we see him killing stuff.
And "doesn't mean" is another way of saying "I admit the evidence is against Roy, but we haven't proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Unimportant. If Roy needed a 3 or a 13 to hit, either way, a -4 is a minimum 20% greater chance of getting Hinjo killed. Roy failing to strike to kill is simply not acceptable tactics.

And since we have no examples of non-lethal damage by Roy, we would presume his automatic reaction would be lethal damage.

It certainly does not prove that it is non-lethal. But we have all these cases where Roy did lethal damage. Why should we think there is an exception here?

There is zero evidence that Roy did use non-lethal attacks. So the balance favors lethal.

As the saying goes "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet." Roy having made a lot of lethal attacks, we need contrary evidence or we assume that any attacks are lethal.

We have that evidence- sound effects, bruise marks rather than cuts.

It is almost never justifiable to attack first. All your old Westerns should have taught you that.

And just what are these "grounds"? So far they seem to consist of "I like Roy, so he must be in the right."

Miko's action could be compared to Clint witnessing someone draw and blow away the mayor, then start babbling. One would expect that he would promptly attack to subdue, if not kill.

And the grounds we have, have already been shown- sound effects, bruises, etc.

Ytaker

2009-06-27, 07:48 AM

That is simply not true. Even in the comic itself we have at least a couple of examples of innocent people being misjudged (Elan when framed as Nale and/or when Haley was under Nale's Suggestion; the Order itself when jailed by Miko and Shojo).

They ignored the obvious idea that twins can switch. That's fairly up there in the common dramatic tropes. Kuboto, on the other hand, has no twins, and was clearly acknowledging his guilt. Mind control, likewise, renders people immune to accusations of guilt, but it would be fairly obvious to V that Elan wouldn't mind control Kuboto. The order was jailed for acts they were guilty of, and it's clear from their defense team and Miko that lawful good can be overzealous.

Elan, on the other hand, is unlikely to imprison someone on a vague crime, unless he is personally offended. And to my knowledge, he's only ever been annoyed unless the other person is evil. He can laugh at jokes, he's more likely to cry if hurt. Her assertion, that the fact that he tied him up means he's probably evil, is true.

True, but that has little to do with V's actions. He is not even a formally established judge or juror of any kind, after all.

Adventurers frequently act as trial judge jury and executioner. It's a frequent source of moral conflicts and problems. Say, when they killed Bandits. It is rather merciless to kill a prisoner, but, V knew this was a bad prisoner.

Uh? On the contrary, Elan was appalled at first, then he unfortunately let go of it.

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

First he said that it was for the best, but he felt awkward, then he said it was wrong to kill for convenience. That he'd then turn V over to the authorities. He then covered up for him, lying about what he did. He let it go because V was gone, and he was really uncertain about the morality of the action.

Sorry, but I must disagree again. Far as Lawfulness goes, Kubota seemed to be fairly confident of his own. Nobility privileges and all that, you know.

Nor were Miko's assumptions often reasonable, either.

"Lawful evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits: while they typically obey their superiors and keep their word (trustworthy), they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, honorable but undiscriminating mercenary types, and soldiers who follow the chain of command but enjoy killing for its own sake."

No, he's not obeying Hinjo. He's not keeping his word. He doesn't care for the rights and freedoms of others. 1/3 isn't that good. He doesn't enjoy killing for its own sake, and is willing to flee. His motivations aren't lawful, but are evil (I doubt any evil character cares about the rights and freedoms of others that much.)

"Neutral evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. An example would be an assassin, who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either lawful or chaotic evil characters, since he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent."

He turned on ninja girl. He has no compunction about harming others, obviously. He didn't cause carnage unnecessarily. He's not bound by any sense of honour, or disorganized, or pointlessly violent given that he fled. As such, he's far more neutral evil than lawful evil. Being a member of the nobility does not make you any more lawful.

Miko believed she was protecting the city from an evil dictator. Given that she had only heard part of the conversation, this wasn't too insane an idea. She also, stupidly, believed that the Gods were organising everything for her benefit, so his evil act must be part of a greater conspiracy.

hamishspence

2009-06-27, 11:17 AM

the question is, should they?

According to BoED- no, killing prisoners after you have taken them prisoner is evil. Executions aren't evil. Conclusion, if you kill a prisoner- it must qualify fully as an execution for it not to be evil.

Concerning Roy's act with Miko- much more justifiable. She was much more of an immediate danger than kubota, Roy had much more evidence that she had committed death-penalty-worthy actions than Kubota, she was irrational, she was armed.

Any argument that V's act was "just punishment of Kubota that the law would have carried out" automatically acquits Roy for the very same reason.

Moreover, going by the "Thunk, PoW- Bruise" rather than Slash slash slash, Roy at least was trying to take Miko alive.

It might not be perfectly Lawful, but there is more evidence to show it is non-evil, than for V's killing of Kubota.

Claims that Roy committed "the evil act of attempted murder" fall foul of the judgement scene. "nothing that even merits a blip on the Malev-O-Meter." Attempted murder would merit being included.

Plus- Citizen's arrest does not require you to actually be a citizen, and if Roy can say he had reasonable belief that Miko was a danger, having witnessed her crime, he can use reasonable force on her, on the grounds of necessity. And if she escalates, he can escalate.

Compare to miko's act, and the claim that because she was angry, it was not "In cold blood" Wikipedia on this:

"In cold blood" - the act of killing of another person a) without emotion or remorse, b) where the target is unarmed and not posing an immediate threat or c) both.

Miko and V commited "murder in cold blood" Roy did not try to "Kill Miko in cold blood"

Ytaker

2009-06-27, 12:36 PM

the question is, should they?

According to BoED- no, killing prisoners after you have taken them prisoner is evil. Executions aren't evil. Conclusion, if you kill a prisoner- it must qualify fully as an execution for it not to be evil.

Actually, no it doesn't. "it is in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme-- respecting and honouring the life of one's enemy." That implies it's an act of extreme good, but not that the opposite is evil. Just because something is described as good in the book, doesn't mean that not doing it can't be good. Elan implied that if V had done it to avenge his temporary girl, it would be good.

And "In general, it’s a good idea for the DM to make sure that the players aren’t punished unnecessarily for showing mercy to opponents. If every prisoner schemes to betray the party and later escapes from prison, the players quickly come to realize that showing mercy simply isn’t worth it."

Their experiences. When they were imprisoned by bandits, they were almost executed. Linear guild, they do exactly what that says. Kubota was saying that he would do exactly the same, and, given what V heard, Kubota was probably right. Because Rich never gives them a good prisoner, and has had enemies be terrible prisoners, V's attitude is expected, according to the book of exalted deeds.

hamishspence

2009-06-27, 12:52 PM

Page 28

"Justice demands mercy, so killing an enemy who surrenders is out of the question for a character pursuing the exalted path of good"

so, just because its expected, doesn't mean its right.

Fiendish codex 2: Murder is a corrupt act. BoVD: Murder is one of the most evil acts a being can commit.

While it doesn't exclude the possibility that V would remain non-evil after committing murder, it does show that its Evil.

hamishspence

2009-06-27, 03:08 PM

Now one difference here is that Kubota was threatening to cause further violence

How, exactly? "Hinjo will look like a fool for trying me" does not constitute "threatening to cause further violence.

It is almost never justifiable to attack first. All your old Westerns should have taught you that.

And what, precisely, do they have to do with D&D alignment? Murderer + armed + irrational/insane (War & XPs ) + holds a personal grudge against Roy and has accused him and Shojo of conspiring with Xykon, means extreme and immediate threat.

At least, in D&D terms. in Legal terms, might be a bit more borderline, but, roy's attack on Miko could be reasoned as falling within the bounds of "justifiable assault" whereas V's certainly does not fall within the bounds of "justifiable homicide"

One is "The Combat Pragmatist" the other "Vigilante Execution" at best.

David Argall

2009-06-27, 11:57 PM

Now, this is NOT logical at all. Elan clearly attacked with a good intent, namely to get evil Kubota to hand over an antidote (which he unfortunately didn't posess). It wasn't a punishment, it was a way to right others (Kubota's) wrongs and save the life of another person. Reference. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0593.html)
There was no reference to this strip. The strip in question was 594.

The second attack was an act of vengeance for Kubota killing Therkla. It wouldn't be 100% justified in a modern day court, but he did restrain himself and captured Kubota instead. The punch wasn't a good action, but calling it evil is ridiculous.
Clearly evil. We can classify it as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, but the intent is purely to hurt someone, and so is entirely evil.

This compared to V, who disintgrated an unknown person bound by Elan just because V didn't want another time-wasting trial is clearly evil (and un-lawful), and would never make it through a court.
As I frequently point out, that was only one of V's motives. The major one of interest here is that he was an enemy worthy of being killed.

Heard of "innocent untill the opposite has been proved"?
Heard of how a lot of such people are guilty? And by the rules of the strip, Kubota's guilt had been proven.

V didn't know wether Kubota actually done something. V just drew the conclusion from him being tied up by Elan.
And by the drama rules Elan lives by, this can only mean Kubota is a major criminal. When he claims to be a continuing pest, V treats him just as if he would if Kubota was drawing a gun.

And I've got no idea from where you got that Kubota's crime was worse than Miko's? Both murdered another person.
For one thing, Miko murdered only one person. Kubota's victims may number in the hundreds. Miko can also claim insanity, emotional confusion, and simple error. We hardly deem these adequate excuses in her case, but she does have some excuse on those grounds. Kubota's actions are cold-blooded and entirely deliberate.

Roy didn't have to give XXs to Miko to subdue her, only get her HP low enough that she is knocked out and stop fighting her.
That is technically true, but that is not evidence that Roy wasn't trying to give her XXs. In the final situation, Roy has very good reason to be using lethal damage. Why shouldn't he?

Second, how about we keep our posts civil and not try to say someone's wrong for having a different view on things?
Keeping thing civil is pretty much limited to not telling people they are idiots, depraved, insane, ugly, or a jerk. Saying somebody is wrong is simply automatic when one disagrees with them.

It's as if we forget that Miko is a paladin that is supposed to uphold the law and not execute it in her own regard.
The position of self defense can shift rapidly and easily during the course of a fight. Virtually all you have to do is back away from the other guy, and you have a claim of self defense if the other guy then advances. Miko, having stopped fighting and Roy advancing means she has, at that moment, a claim of self defense. When she attacks Belkar, or later fights with Hinjo, she no longer has that claim. Roy then has it because he is defending Hinjo.

I doubt HIGHLY that Roy didn't come to a cool logical conclusion to take Miko out without his personal feeling getting in the way.
What is the evidence of this? Other than this sounds nice and Roy is the hero? His expression hardly looks cool, and his comments seem designed to insult and hurt.

That's an improbable conclusion. Hinjo didn't expect his uncle to be killed and we don't know what would have happened had they waited a few rounds. To make a guess as such is to try to jump to a conclusion that may or may not have occurred.
That is a meaningless statement. We don't know what would happen, of course. But we can make some reasonable guesses. And that Miko would have been more likely to surrender if Roy had not attacked her seems entirely so.

But Roy took the action that he thought necessary. "Subdue Miko"
Again, where is the evidence this is subdual? Why is it not "Kill Miko!"?

When Hinjo decided to take over, he was given the BEST CHANCE that could be.
Perhaps at that time and under those conditions, but we are changing those conditions, and it would seem that Roy not attacking improves those chances.

There have been about 5 posts explaining, "How do you talk to an irrational person?" All we're getting is "well, don't beat on them first" But what's done is done.
And what is done is sinful and wrong-headed on Roy's part.

In order for Roy to have launched her as he did, he HAD to hit her with the flat side of his blade.
Given you are complaining about poor quality artwork here, you are in a poor position to insist the artwork is precise and can be relied on. The strip called for a dramatic picture, and since Miko still had a part to play in the story, she survived what should have been a fatal blow.

If they're evil, they're dead. It only takes 2 seconds to cast Detect Evil and one surprise round to attack.
See 200. Roy is detected as evil and she gives him a chance to surrender, attacking only when he "refuses to".

Again, it goes back to Miko being irrational.
And you don't go around just bashing irrational people. Just as with the rational, you use persuasion when you can, and force when you have to.

And I will repeat, Hinjo had the best chance and yet her irrational thoughts made her reject that which was most logical.
And I repeat, that was not the best chance. Roy had almost certainly prevented it from being the best chance.

For all intents and purposes, after having Hinjo talk her down, she may have had a -2 to her Wis score. But Hinjo had to make it damn near even or have given her a +1 with all of the bonuses he should have had. Lessee... :

Second highest Paladin +10%
Lawful Good +30%
Known a long time +5%
Second in line for leadership +30%
Guilt over death - .00000001%
Peaceful + 2%
Logic + 3%

Second Powerful -20%
Subordinate - 5%
Irrational - 40%
Roy's Ass Whoopin' - 20%

So by your admission, Roy did make things worse by attacking.

Even in the comic itself we have at least a couple of examples of innocent people being misjudged (Elan when framed as Nale and/or when Haley was under Nale's Suggestion; the Order itself when jailed by Miko and Shojo).

Under any legal system, there are people falsely accused, and standards of proof that are considered [not necessarily correctly, but...] absolute. V deemed [apparently correctly] that Elan tying Kubota up is such an absolute prooft of guilt, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, DNA...

He is not even a formally established judge or juror of any kind, after all.

A point of little concern to the chaotic.

Uh? On the contrary, Elan was appalled at first, then he unfortunately let go of it.
Elan was appalled at first out of simple shock, but then acknowledged Kubota deserved it.

Far as Lawfulness goes, Kubota seemed to be fairly confident of his own. Nobility privileges and all that, you know.
Kubota seemed confident of his ability to beat the rap, not that his actions were other than evil and unlawful.

First- not knocked out. Murdered. You cannot compare the two.
Quite the contrary. You may get 30 days instead of life, but the court demands the same set of facts. You spin the drunk around and bash him. He is just bruised, maybe 30 days. He has to go the the hospital, maybe a year. He falls wrong and dies, maybe 10 years.

Adventures are like comic book vigilantes- they witness the crime- the attack the perpatrator, to subdue.
D&D heroes are not comic book heroes. We kill, frequently and routinely. In the dungeon, Nale and Thog are the only ones who are not dead or fled, and they both surrendered. In NCPB, we again have no attempts to subdue, just dead trolls[?], Anais, dragon, ogres... We being the good guys, we accept surrenders, but if they keep fighting, we kill without much hesitation.

If you witness a serious crime, some say you are morally obliged to immediately render the perpatrator unable to attack anyone else. To perform a "citizen's arrest"
And beating somebody upside the head is not a citizen's arrest. It is an assault, a crime of its own even when the victim is a criminal.

We are not arguing Roy was acting in direct self-defense primarily, but secondarily- insane, armed murderer does not need to be advancing on you to be an immediate and lethal threat.
It is hard to see how she can be. Miko was a definite threat, but immediate? There is clearly time to leave or do any of a number of unheroic actions.

If we believe Tom Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger, shooting a murderer the moment they pick up their weapon is well within the bounds of the FBI code of conduct.
A fiction writer's book is not a good source for legal opinions. [I have never read the book, but the reviews look to be enough to reject it out of hand.]

We have that evidence- sound effects, bruise marks rather than cuts.

There is no sound effect on the hit where Miko got the double cross. "Thunk", which appears later also is used for an arrow hitting the ground in 436. POW is used nowhere else and is clearly used to indicated maximum effort, not the careful sort of blow you must do for non-lethal damage.
Bruise marks - see 251, where Miko and her swords have inflicted bruise marks on Elan, Roy, Belkar, and V.

Miko's action could be compared to Clint witnessing someone draw and blow away the mayor, then start babbling. One would expect that he would promptly attack to subdue, if not kill.
We would likely expect Clint to blow the guy away before he could get to the mayor, but my flawed memory [I am not even sure it was the right movie I saw some casual glimpses of] is that the famous "Make my day" line is very relevant here. The thug was armed and highly dangerous, and hostile to him. But Clint does not open fire. He waits and gives the lout a chance to surrender.

And what, precisely, do they have to do with D&D alignment? Murderer + armed + irrational/insane (War & XPs ) + holds a personal grudge against Roy and has accused him and Shojo of conspiring with Xykon, means extreme and immediate threat.
And our sheriff or other hero just stands there and tells the thug something like "Make your play." The other guy is obviously intending on killing him, but he does not draw first [just finishes drawing first]. Our good guy does not start shooting just because the other guy might.

At least, in D&D terms. in Legal terms, might be a bit more borderline, but, roy's attack on Miko could be reasoned as falling within the bounds of "justifiable assault" whereas V's certainly does not fall within the bounds of "justifiable homicide"
Reasoned by a defense attorney, or by a Hinjo he had just saved the life of, but not by the law as clearly written. Roy was not trying to arrest Miko. Nor was he under any immediate danger that would justify a self-defense plea. Simple battery, with intent to kill.

hamishspence

2009-06-28, 04:19 AM

Keeping thing civil is pretty much limited to not telling people they are idiots, depraved, insane, ugly, or a jerk. Saying somebody is wrong is simply automatic when one disagrees with them.

No. Its "Saying "I personally believe that you are wrong" that is simply automatic. Saying "You are wrong" when, as in this case, its partly a matter of opinion (was Roy trying to take her alive or not, was V trying to mete out just punishment or not) is discourteous.

Pre-emptive strikes are permitted in self defense or defense of others. (see English criminal law, and probably criminal law elsewhere as well) All that Roy needs to show is that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Miko would commit a crime. Murder + picking up her weapon amount to reasonable grounds.

He doesn't need to show she would, only that he believed it.

When he claims to be a continuing pest, V treats him just as if he would if Kubota was drawing a gun.

Didn't you just condemn Roy for treating Miko as if she was drawing a gun, right after she actually did so (or the equivalent- picking up a sword, which is a deadly weapon, right after she committed murder and high treason?)

As I frequently point out, that was only one of V's motives. The major one of interest here is that he was an enemy worthy of being killed.

And didn't you just say that one motive- vengeance- automatically makes Roy's act "sinful and wrong-headed" even if secondary motives are taking down a clear and present danger to Belkar and himself?

Reasoned by a defense attorney, or by a Hinjo he had just saved the life of, but not by the law as clearly written. Roy was not trying to arrest Miko. Nor was he under any immediate danger that would justify a self-defense plea. Simple battery, with intent to kill.

Unjustified assault and battery with intent to kill is attempted murder.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the claim that Roy commited the "sinful" act of attempted murder, and yet the only reference to it by the deva was "offscreen" is an extraordinary claim.

David Argall

2009-06-28, 06:06 PM

Pre-emptive strikes are permitted in self defense or defense of others. (see English criminal law, and probably criminal law elsewhere as well)
Please provide a source for this belief. I find...

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(Sweden)

a person is subjected to, or is in imminent danger of being subjected to, a criminal attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. Lord Griffith said in Beckford v R:

"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."

But, in the general case, the time factor is important.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

Immediate, means "at this very second."
There is literally nothing more dangerous to you and your family than *not* understanding what is meant by "immediate" or "imminent" (depending on which term your state uses). This idea cuts through *all* emotions, fears, thoughts and suspicions and defines when you are - in the eyes of the law - justified to use lethal force.

If he isn't trying to kill you right now, you aren't justified in using lethal force.

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/how-self-defense-claim.html

Essentially the defendant has to meet an objective standard of showing that using force was necessary and that he or she had an immediate fear of death or serious bodily harm.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard144.html

It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. Any remote or indirect criterion – any "risk" or "threat" – is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed "defender" against the alleged "threat." One of the major arguments, for example, for the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was that the imbibing of alcohol increased the likelihood of (unspecified) people committing various crimes; therefore, prohibition was held to be a "defensive" act in defense of person and property. In fact, of course, it was brutally invasive of the rights of person and property, of the right to buy, sell, and use alcoholic beverages.

http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm

‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.

All that Roy needs to show is that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Miko would commit a crime. Murder + picking up her weapon amount to reasonable grounds.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

someone standing across the room waving a knife threatening to kill you isn't offering you an immediate threat. Which means that you cannot legally shoot him. On the other hand, when he starts charging across the room, then you are in immediate and immanent danger of death or previous bodily harm.

She was standing there, doing nothing. Not looking at Roy or any other potential victim, not moving towards them.

He doesn't need to show she would, only that he believed it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperfect+self-defense

imperfect self–defense
Function: noun
: a defense based on self-defense that does not shield the defendant from all liability but reduces the liability esp. because the defendant actually but unreasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury
NOTE: Imperfect self-defense is not recognized in all jurisdictions. When it is successfully used in criminal cases it eliminates the element of malice, reducing the level of the offense from murder to manslaughter.

So again, no. You want to avoid jail time on a self defense please, you need to convince the jury it was a reasonable belief, not merely that you believed it.

Didn't you just condemn Roy for treating Miko as if she was drawing a gun, right after she actually did so
Miko was not "drawing a gun". That phrase's definition includes an intent to "shoot" right away. If the sheriff were to demand your weapon, your removing it from the holster would not be considered drawing. Miko was simply holding a sword. She had no immediate plans on attacking anybody with her weapon. She is just standing there in a daze.

And didn't you just say that one motive- vengeance- automatically makes Roy's act "sinful and wrong-headed" even if secondary motives are taking down a clear and present danger to Belkar and himself?
Where is the evidence of that? Roy tells us his motives, and they are not defensive in nature.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the claim that Roy commited the "sinful" act of attempted murder, and yet the only reference to it by the deva was "offscreen" is an extraordinary claim.
"Extraordinary" is how we would describe any claim that only the subjects we saw were discussed. In fact we know for a fact that other subjects were considered. We see the tail end of one.
And once we acknowledge we have only a partial record, it seems extraordinary that a whole lot of things were not discussed. Every violent act of Roy's becomes a matter that might be discussed, entirely reasonably. So the Miko case can entirely reasonably have happened off-camera.
Consider it a different way. Roy gets killed again, and the Deva looks over his case again, saying "Now about the assault on Miko in the throne room..." and Roy answers "But we discussed that last time." Does that conversation seem at all extraordinary? If it seems entirely reasonable, you are saying it is entirely reasonable that they did discuss it off camera last time.

Cracklord

2009-06-28, 08:29 PM

Didn't you just condemn Roy for treating Miko as if she was drawing a gun, right after she actually did so (or the equivalent- picking up a sword, which is a deadly weapon, right after she committed murder and high treason?)

Protecting a chaotic evil individual who cheerfully slaughters others from a lawful good person who slaughters with a kind of hard love?

dps

2009-06-28, 08:35 PM

"Cathartic release" routinely borders criminal and moral crime.

Actually, the term seems to be used most in relation to entertainment--being applied to watching TV and the like.

is clearly about to attack someone-Not check. And that is the one that must be checked.

Taken to it's logical limit, this argument says that she should have been given the opportunity to kill someone else before being attacked--and then she should have been given the opportunity to kill a third person before being attacked, etc.

Ordering the suspect to drop any weapons is the default for the cop. He has no right to just start shooting. And Roy not being the cop has even less right.

Actually, in most jurisdictions in the US, a law enforcement officer has more restraints on the use of force than a civilian.

hamishspence

2009-06-29, 11:49 AM

Yes- and anyway, who says OOTS, or D&D, rules for adventurers and crime-fighting are the same as real life rules?

So far we've seen maybe two scenes where its "Criminal vs Order members" inside a city- the Cliffport bit, and the scene with Miko falling.

We've also seen "Criminal vs Law enforcement" - Miko vs Belkar, the first time.

Is it enough to generalize from?

Teddy

2009-06-29, 02:46 PM

There was no reference to this strip. The strip in question was 594.

Well, guess why I responded to your post as if you refered to both strips? After all, you didn't mention which event you referred to...

Clearly evil. We can classify it as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, but the intent is purely to hurt someone, and so is entirely evil.

Making a bad guy shut up so that he stops gloating (more or less) over how he will escape justice? Not clearly evil, but arguably evil, if evil at all.

As I frequently point out, that was only one of V's motives. The major one of interest here is that he was an enemy worthy of being killed.

V didn't know what Kubota had done. V only assumed he was a main villian because of the few times where someone is tied up (and Elan wasn't in charge during any of these). Elan, as a good character, wouldn't kill villians of lesser crimes, nor would he let them go. V acted on insufficient information and drew a conclusion at the same level as saying that all swans in the world are white just because the only ones you've seen in your local pond were.

Heard of how a lot of such people are guilty? And by the rules of the strip, Kubota's guilt had been proven.

That should nevertheless influence a trial, and still, V didn't know anything about that.

And by the drama rules Elan lives by, this can only mean Kubota is a major criminal. When he claims to be a continuing pest, V treats him just as if he would if Kubota was drawing a gun.

No. As I said before, and Kubota wasn't anywhere near drawing a gun. He was unarmed and bound. And V never heard him say anything about being a continuing pest...

For one thing, Miko murdered only one person. Kubota's victims may number in the hundreds. Miko can also claim insanity, emotional confusion, and simple error. We hardly deem these adequate excuses in her case, but she does have some excuse on those grounds. Kubota's actions are cold-blooded and entirely deliberate.

Or not. Kubota was smart enough not to coat his hands in blood. Instead he had his henchmen doing it, but it's almost impossible to charge a person for that. But when it comes to more disputable "murder", Miko herself did a lot of that "kill first - ask for surrender afterwards" that you despice so much.

That is technically true, but that is not evidence that Roy wasn't trying to give her XXs. In the final situation, Roy has very good reason to be using lethal damage. Why shouldn't he?

Because he's a lawful person that to some extent tries to uphold law and not kill people to the left and right when he's in a city, and after all, Hinjo is in the same room, and Roy respects him and his judgements (as shown later when he steps back).

What is the evidence of this? Other than this sounds nice and Roy is the hero? His expression hardly looks cool, and his comments seem designed to insult and hurt.

Just because your aren't cool doesn't force you to kill anyone you fight (and just because your cool doesn't force you to let them survive). And there are a lot of movies and fiction where the good guys let injured opponents live, even though they attacked them with lethal force to begin with.

Given you are complaining about poor quality artwork here, you are in a poor position to insist the artwork is precise and can be relied on. The strip called for a dramatic picture, and since Miko still had a part to play in the story, she survived what should have been a fatal blow.

Or you're taking the "POW!", the flight and the clear non-existence of the fatal wound such a slash as you're talking about would have produced, as a artistic error. I don't belive Rich would have made such a big error in such important scene.

See 200. Roy is detected as evil and she gives him a chance to surrender, attacking only when he "refuses to".

Because she was ordered to bring them alive to Azure City, and then she almost break those orders several times.

And you don't go around just bashing irrational people. Just as with the rational, you use persuasion when you can, and force when you have to.

Well, I wouldn't say that this was just random bashing. Miko did kill Shojo before Roy intervened, after all...

Under any legal system, there are people falsely accused, and standards of proof that are considered [not necessarily correctly, but...] absolute. V deemed [apparently correctly] that Elan tying Kubota up is such an absolute prooft of guilt, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, DNA...

V neither checked for fingerprints nor DNA. V used logic based on poor infortmation about another person to judge "it's reliability as a proof of guilt" as a proof of guilt stong enough for a execution without trial. That V came to a correct conclusion doesn't make the act any better.

A point of little concern to the chaotic.

Even chaotic people can respect the need of a judging court, but the adherence to the strict law tends to be replaced by careful judging in individual cases. After all, chaos doesn't necessarily mean anarchy.

Elan was appalled at first out of simple shock, but then acknowledged Kubota deserved it.

Until the point where he realized that V acted on pure self-interest and no piece of real evidence.

It is hard to see how she can be. Miko was a definite threat, but immediate? There is clearly time to leave or do any of a number of unheroic actions.

She didn't stop to kill her highest in command, and Roy was the only one who had the opportunity to act before heur next round. Since the Roy-Miko relationship was far too strained for Roy having any positive influence on Miko's thought process, and to think that Miko would be dazed for another six seconds is to grasp for thin straws.

And there is another problem with running away. As long as Miko has 3 or more levels in monk, she has superior movement speed if she takes her time removing her armor (doing so would make her speed at least Roy's dubble). And Miko probably has a higher dexterity than Roy, thus she will win any running contest as long as it's short.

There is no sound effect on the hit where Miko got the double cross. "Thunk", which appears later also is used for an arrow hitting the ground in 436. POW is used nowhere else and is clearly used to indicated maximum effort, not the careful sort of blow you must do for non-lethal damage.

D&D rules never says that you have to be careful when you deal non-lethal damage whith a lethal weapon, only that you take a -4 penality because you can't make optimal use of the weapon (must strike with the flat of the blade or on non-vital spots). Nowhere does it say that you can't strike at full power (and the blow hit Miko in her stomach).

And our sheriff or other hero just stands there and tells the thug something like "Make your play." The other guy is obviously intending on killing him, but he does not draw first [just finishes drawing first]. Our good guy does not start shooting just because the other guy might.

So the good guys does always survive such an encounter because they can draw faster than the evil guys? I guess western movies aren't such a good reference in this matter...

Reasoned by a defense attorney, or by a Hinjo he had just saved the life of, but not by the law as clearly written. Roy was not trying to arrest Miko. Nor was he under any immediate danger that would justify a self-defense plea. Simple battery, with intent to kill.

You base this on your own perceptions on the situation and what you belive is written in Azure City law, and then hold it for truth? I wouldn't make such a statement before we've made an agreement of wether that's the case or not.

hamishspence

2009-06-29, 03:43 PM

Plus, as I've said before, we are told, explicitly, in the strip, by Roy's Deva, that "I see very few truly evil acts... nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-O-Meter."

So, either "battery with intent to kill" (just a rephrasing of "attempted murder") does not register a blip on the Malev-O-Meter,

Or, Roy's act was not "battery with intent to kill"

I know which one I think is more plausible.

Ytaker

2009-06-29, 04:21 PM

Page 28

"Justice demands mercy, so killing an enemy who surrenders is out of the question for a character pursuing the exalted path of good"

That's in the initial paragraph and is balanced with "a prudent character certainly recognizes that an evil person requesting mercy is quite possibly hoping for an opportunity to kill her when her back is turned". It's not trying to say that justice demands mercy is the only ideal, but that it's a good idea that it balanced by practicality.

Kubuta was hoping to kill the order when their back was turned, to return to his ship and continue trying to conquer the enemy. And also, you haven't addressed my point- the dm had indicated that Elan was going to be "punished unnecessarily for showing mercy to opponents" by having a man who killed a woman he loved get off his trial.

And then, Kubota would have subverted justice due to the mercy, with a nobleman feat. V knew this, because Kubota just said he would do that. That's why this is a morally tricky case, and why it's acceptable to lean either way (though better to lean towards mercy)

Fiendish codex 2: Murder is a corrupt act. BoVD: Murder is one of the most evil acts a being can commit.

While it doesn't exclude the possibility that V would remain non-evil after committing murder, it does show that its Evil.

And I'll finish the quote. "Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, peverse pleasure, or the like".

V's main stated reason was that (due to bardic conventions, that he knew well due to his intelligence) the person had to be a personal foe of Elan's, and, we can deduce, evil. The villain had demonstrated his evil nature by saying he would evade the charges by lying. That meant he was an acceptable target.

His second stated reason was to eliminate distractions to his desperate research to prove that his magic wasn't worthless, that he could save others, and the distractions were evil distractions- the murder of low level npcs on the boat by monster attacks. That doesn't fit the definition of murder. It may be a wrong killing, but it's not anywhere near murder. It was for Haley and the soldiers who had died because of him's gain, and he certainly didn't gain pleasure or items out of it.

hamishspence

2009-06-29, 04:27 PM

the dm had indicated that Elan was going to be "punished unnecessarily for showing mercy to opponents" by having a man who killed a woman he loved get off his trial.

Therkla does not exactly count as "A woman he loved"

And then, Kubota would have subverted justice due to the mercy, with a nobleman feat. V knew this, because Kubota just said he would do that. That's why this is a morally tricky case, and why it's acceptable to lean either way (though better to lean towards mercy)

V's comment is "I heard him say something about the trial taking weeks" No evidence that V heard the earlier "Did you know that there is a feat that foils lie detection" (Which, by the way, is no guarantee that he will get off)

And I'll finish the quote. "Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, peverse pleasure, or the like".

V's main stated reason was that (due to bardic conventions, that he knew well due to his intelligence) the person had to be a personal foe of Elan's, and, we can deduce, evil. The villain had demonstrated his evil nature by saying he would evade the charges by lying. That meant he was an acceptable target.

His second stated reason was to eliminate distractions to his desperate research to prove that his magic wasn't worthless, that he could save others, and the distractions were evil distractions- the murder of low level npcs on the boat by monster attacks. That doesn't fit the definition of murder. It may be a wrong killing, but it's not anywhere near murder. It was for Haley and the soldiers who had died because of him's gain, and he certainly didn't gain pleasure or items out of it.

Again- evidence that V overheard the bit about lying? Evidence that V knows about Bardic Conventions? If anything the evidence is the other way round- V is completely surprised by the million to one chance.

Ytaker

2009-06-29, 04:59 PM

Therkla does not exactly count as "A woman he loved"

There was clearly some friendliness, maybe a bit of romantic friction, with that ending scene, where he held her in his arms and told her that he'd help her live. He was clearly quite pissed, anyway, which was why he was initially ok with the murder.

V's comment is "I heard him say something about the trial taking weeks" No evidence that V heard the earlier "Did you know that there is a feat that foils lie detection" (Which, by the way, is no guarantee that he will get off)

Well, it was just moments before the speech bubble. And in the words after, he used sarcasm and mocking to indicate that he was guilty. That was mainly to indicate why Elan felt he was bad, and why Elan was opposed to him. Elan had extensive evidence of why this man was a bad, evil man, which V knew he would have. And likewise, V had reasonable evidence that this man was evil, that he could put him into the category of "people I can kill".

A strong indication that he's going to get off. Since he could contradict Elan. If they were going to get him trialed, they'd probably have to catch him in a contradiction, as V did with Elan and Nale by insulting Nale's intelligence. Which would require intervention by V, another annoyance, and would be very uncertain.

Again- evidence that V overheard the bit about lying? Evidence that V knows about Bardic Conventions? If anything the evidence is the other way round- V is completely surprised by the million to one chance.

Part of that was for Elan. V could easily infer from his words after that that he was going to lie, dragging the trial out, and corrupting justice.

When was V surprised? He never showed a surprised face. In fact, he showed a knowledgeable face.

Random832

2009-06-29, 05:03 PM

Again- evidence that V overheard the bit about lying? Evidence that V knows about Bardic Conventions? If anything the evidence is the other way round- V is completely surprised by the million to one chance.

Being surprised that it applied to some random event is not the same as being surprised (or not expecting) it to govern Elan's choices and actions.

hamishspence

2009-06-29, 05:07 PM

I'd have said "annoyed" rather than "knowledgeable" in the case of the fiend summoning.

And is "taking enemies alive" a bardic convention, or a convention of Good?

V's words were "As I arrived on the boat, I overheard" strongly implying he didn't hear anything before then.

V was pretty happy to recommend turning enemies over to the law- at least until, in the case of the Linear Guild, it stopped working. However, is V entitled to generalize from this one failure, that it will never work?

And Elan pointed out the Kaitos could testify- its not just "his word against Kubotas" Possibly even Therkla- Speak With Dead.

You'll probably find more in Discussion Index II (a page or two back from the front page): strips 595, 596, explaining the whole issue in more detail.

Since this seems to be something of a rehash of the older discussions, it may be that we will have to wait to find out if V's vigilantism is justified or not.

Teddy

2009-06-29, 05:19 PM

Well, it was just moments before the speech bubble. And in the words after, he used sarcasm and mocking to indicate that he was guilty. That was mainly to indicate why Elan felt he was bad, and why Elan was opposed to him. Elan had extensive evidence of why this man was a bad, evil man, which V knew he would have. And likewise, V had reasonable evidence that this man was evil, that he could put him into the category of "people I can kill".

A strong indication that he's going to get off. Since he could contradict Elan. If they were going to get him trialed, they'd probably have to catch him in a contradiction, as V did with Elan and Nale by insulting Nale's intelligence. Which would require intervention by V, another annoyance, and would be very uncertain.

Is that the kind of court you would like to stand trial before? "You were caught by the cops, therefore you must be guilty, and therefore I will shoot you before you even manage to utter a word in self-defence." *BANG!* Sounds a bit unfair to me...

And lying isn't neccesarily an evil act, it all depends on intentions and circumstances. However, it's more commonly asociated with chaos and evil, since lies usually are made in self-beneficiary intent.

Cleverdan22

2009-06-29, 05:19 PM

I just looked through this thread...dear gods. I thought that we were done with this. I didn't think it would come back. She has been dead for over two years; it has been longer since the rejection and the killing of Shojo including Roy's beatdown afterwords. I thought we were done.

While I'm here though, I do have some questions related to the moral choices of Durkon relating to Hilgya.:smallannoyed:

hamishspence

2009-06-29, 05:22 PM

That does fit "romantic rejection" better, actually- the V discussion seems a bit of a side-track.

what moral discussions are these- was it wrong to reject her when he found out she was married, or wrong to associate with her in the first place, or what?

Cleverdan22

2009-06-29, 05:25 PM

...You knew I was joking, right? Sorry, I'm bad about reading sarcasm on the internet.

Ytaker

2009-06-29, 05:46 PM

Is that the kind of court you would like to stand trial before? "You were caught by the cops, therefore you must be guilty, and therefore I will shoot you before you even manage to utter a word in self-defence." *BANG!* Sounds a bit unfair to me...

And lying isn't neccesarily an evil act, it all depends on intentions and circumstances. However, it's more commonly asociated with chaos and evil, since lies usually are made in self-beneficiary intent.

If I am captured by a person who is known to only capture people if they have (killed cops, worked with devils, mass murdered other people) done terribly evil stuff, and I am boasting that I will get off and be able to kill more people, and you suspect I might get off, yes, kill me. I do not wish to be a malevolent killer, and I am better off dead.

Although I don't have any confidence I could lie well. And there is no human who adheres to bardic convention. And the police rely on genetic evidence, not magical trials.

V suggests that Elan lie for his self benefit. V doesn't push him to lie, and evidently doesn't care much what he does. "At what point did I start answering to him"

"And is "taking enemies alive" a bardic convention, or a convention of Good?"

Bardic. Roy is more creative. He might use a gag, or antimagical cells.

"V's words were "As I arrived on the boat, I overheard" strongly implying he didn't hear anything before then."

After that, Kubota indicated he was lying. So, eh.

"V was pretty happy to recommend turning enemies over to the law- at least until, in the case of the Linear Guild, it stopped working. However, is V entitled to generalize from this one failure, that it will never work?"

He's entitled to do anything he wishes. If the dm wishes to teach him to follow a specific moral procedure, he has to show him that it works. V isn't stupid. Kubota is a fairly obvious villain.

"And Elan pointed out the Kaitos could testify- its not just "his word against Kubotas" Possibly even Therkla- Speak With Dead."

And, they'd have to face assassins (Kubota's answer to all questions), and lawyers would try to rule out questioning the dead. It is, again, very tricky, especially if Kubota can freely lie. From the past trial they've had, V knows that both sides will have a fairly strong case, and that they only won by cheating with a false holy thing.

Assassin89

2009-06-29, 06:02 PM

In term of "romantic rejection", we might end up with a type of couple named after a certain author of manga (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakahashiCouple) if Roy did not reject Miko.

David Argall

2009-06-30, 11:01 PM

Taken to it's logical limit, this argument says that she should have been given the opportunity to kill someone else before being attacked--and then she should have been given the opportunity to kill a third person before being attacked, etc.
No, it simply says one can not claim self defense as justification for these attacks. One might arrest her, and then attack when she resists, or attack her simply as a matter of administering justice, but Roy makes no attempt to arrest, and as a LG, can not administer justice himself in the presence of a functioning court system, as was the case with Azure City at that time.

Actually, in most jurisdictions in the US, a law enforcement officer has more restraints on the use of force than a civilian.
A law enforcement officer can feel these restrictions more since he is more often in situations where they apply, but the civilian in many areas faces laws against his even having a gun, while the cop can face a requirement that he always carry his gun. The number of cops imprisoned for shooting somebody on the job is trivial. The number of civilians in jail on shooting charges is massive. So no, the cop is far less restrained.

who says OOTS, or D&D, rules for adventurers and crime-fighting are the same as real life rules?
Except where we can see differences, we have to import real life rules. Otherwise, everything we see is meaningless. Real life rules are the default. Until we see reason not to apply them, they apply.

So far we've seen maybe two scenes where its "Criminal vs Order members" inside a city- the Cliffport bit, and the scene with Miko falling.

We've also seen "Criminal vs Law enforcement" - Miko vs Belkar, the first time.

Is it enough to generalize from?
Counting our real life experiences and beliefs, sure.

Making a bad guy shut up so that he stops gloating (more or less) over how he will escape justice? Not clearly evil, but arguably evil, if evil at all.
Making a guy shut up? Doesn't that immediately show evil motive? You are censoring the other guy, violation of freedom of speech, and in general just bullying him.
Oh yes, Kubota was not saying a word when Elan struck him.

V didn't know what Kubota had done. V only assumed he was a main villian because of the few times where someone is tied up (and Elan wasn't in charge during any of these). Elan, as a good character, wouldn't kill villians of lesser crimes, nor would he let them go. V acted on insufficient information and drew a conclusion at the same level as saying that all swans in the world are white just because the only ones you've seen in your local pond were.
You have the positions reversed. We are the ones who can only see the local pond, that being the few strips we have. V has had something like two years to study Elan and know his reactions to situations. Add in that V is displayed as the resident genius of the crowd. She knows Elan far better than we do, and when he says that Elan would have only tied up a major villain, she is right. Essentially you are trying to challenge the author, not the character.

No. As I said before, and Kubota wasn't anywhere near drawing a gun. He was unarmed and bound.
Unimportant. The vast majority of Kubota's crimes took place without him needing to life a finger. He "draws" simply by speaking.

And V never heard him say anything about being a continuing pest...
Again, do you really want to claim Kubota wasn't going to be a continuing pest? Unless convicted and executed? Or just executed?

Or not. Kubota was smart enough not to coat his hands in blood. Instead he had his henchmen doing it, but it's almost impossible to charge a person for that.
You refer to a mere practical difficulty. The thug with blood on his hands is easy to convict. The guy who hired him has an alibi, and a fancy attorney. So it's harder to prove. But this in no way removes any moral blame, which we are discussing here. In fact our mastermind is generally deemed the more guilty.

Because he's a lawful person that to some extent tries to uphold law and not kill people to the left and right when he's in a city, and after all, Hinjo is in the same room, and Roy respects him and his judgements (as shown later when he steps back).
As far as we know, Hinjo was using lethal force against Miko, or at least trying to. And if Roy wants to uphold the law, he needs to rescue Hinjo, which means not using inferior methods that give Miko a greater chance to kill him.

Just because your aren't cool doesn't force you to kill anyone you fight And there are a lot of movies and fiction where the good guys let injured opponents live, even though they attacked them with lethal force to begin with.

You are trying to make the exceptions the rules here. "Just because you aren't cool doesn't force you..." amounts to saying "Normally it does".

Or you're taking the "POW!", the flight and the clear non-existence of the fatal wound such a slash as you're talking about would have produced, as a artistic error.
Not at all. There is no fatal wound because the plot called for her to survive, not because the art forgot to include it.

I don't belive Rich would have made such a big error in such important scene.

There is no error, except in the sense that something is made unrealistic in order to increase the drama.

Because she was ordered to bring them alive to Azure City, and then she almost break those orders several times.
The details don't matter. We see that Miko could be well aware of evil, and not kill. Accordingly, we can not say that her standing around with a sword is an immediate or definite threat.

Well, I wouldn't say that this was just random bashing. Miko did kill Shojo before Roy intervened, after all...
Which merely enforces the point that Roy was acting on base motives, not to arrest or for self defense.

V neither checked for fingerprints nor DNA. V used logic based on poor infortmation about another person to judge "it's reliability as a proof of guilt" as a proof of guilt stong enough for a execution without trial. That V came to a correct conclusion doesn't make the act any better.
It rather obviously calls into question your claim that V was working on poor information. Remember, this is the character that identified Nale over Elan quite quickly and casually. V is also our lecturer and teacher of facts. He had plenty of information, quite enough for her to take action.

Until the point where he realized that V acted on pure self-interest and no piece of real evidence.
You are getting out of Elan's areas of knowledge here. Elan knows nothing of the sort. He merely knows V knew less than Elan would have needed to reach the same conclusion.

She didn't stop to kill her highest in command, and Roy was the only one who had the opportunity to act before heur next round. Since the Roy-Miko relationship was far too strained for Roy having any positive influence on Miko's thought process, and to think that Miko would be dazed for another six seconds is to grasp for thin straws.
Why? People in a daze can stay in it for extensive periods of time, unless something brings them out of it.

And there is another problem with running away. As long as Miko has 3 or more levels in monk, she has superior movement speed if she takes her time removing her armor
It takes a minute+ to remove armor, giving Roy a huge lead [unless he tries to get a free peek, in which case the ladies would likely argue he deserved getting beat up]. And removing armor hurts her AC by several steps, making the idea extremely rash.

D&D rules never says that you have to be careful when you deal non-lethal damage whith a lethal weapon, only that you take a -4 penality because you can't make optimal use of the weapon (must strike with the flat of the blade or on non-vital spots).
Which means you must take extra care.

Nowhere does it say that you can't strike at full power (and the blow hit Miko in her stomach).
Why do you think so? The height of the impact point and the posture of Miko's body seem to argue the hit was at least chest high.

So the good guys does always survive such an encounter because they can draw faster than the evil guys? I guess western movies aren't such a good reference in this matter...
Their rationality is not at issue here. What is is that we see the good guy can not attack just because the other guy might.

You base this on your own perceptions on the situation and what you belive is written in Azure City law, and then hold it for truth? I wouldn't make such a statement before we've made an agreement of wether that's the case or not.
Of course you would. " Roy was the only one who had the opportunity to act before heur next round." is precisely a case of doing that.

we are told, explicitly, in the strip, by Roy's Deva, that "I see very few truly evil acts... nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-O-Meter."

So, either "battery with intent to kill" (just a rephrasing of "attempted murder") does not register a blip on the Malev-O-Meter,

Or, Roy's act was not "battery with intent to kill"
A third alternative is simply that our writer is just simplifying here and that a real malev-0-meter would register this crime, and likely several more that would largely be a bore to discuss. We are discussing here what a real OOTS world would be like, which can be different from what the author shows us.
Now we can argue that Roy's act does not register as a major crime on the grounds of emotional distress, but that does not make it a non-crime. But we can not say it is not battery without grounds for saying so, not just a different part of the strip that does not directly mention it.

Is that the kind of court you would like to stand trial before? "You were caught by the cops, therefore you must be guilty, and therefore I will shoot you before you even manage to utter a word in self-defence." *BANG!* Sounds a bit unfair to me...
{Scrubbed}

hamishspence

2009-07-01, 03:18 PM

"No innocents were bothered by this lack of trials" is hardly a reason why lack of trials was morally right.

Could you clarify your position on "base motives" and "justified violence"?

Roy attacks an armed, delusional person whose act of murder he witnessed, and apparently thats "evil, "sinful" because....he was vengeful?

V kills an unarmed, restrained person being led to the law authorities to face trial, and apparently thats not evil because....trials are unnecessary when you know the person is guilty?

If that applies to V, why doesn't it apply to Roy?
Conversely, if Roy's violence is evil because its "unnecessary" then why isn't V's evil on the same grounds?

Teddy

2009-07-01, 04:29 PM

Except where we can see differences, we have to import real life rules. Otherwise, everything we see is meaningless. Real life rules are the default. Until we see reason not to apply them, they apply.

OR, we maybe should import medieval rules, since that's the time-period that the OotS-world is most similiar to (although it is somewhere in between when it comes to legal system).

Counting our real life experiences and beliefs, sure.

But, this is a stick comic, so real life experience won't take you far unless your real life is oddly linear...:smallwink:

Making a guy shut up? Doesn't that immediately show evil motive? You are censoring the other guy, violation of freedom of speech, and in general just bullying him.
Oh yes, Kubota was not saying a word when Elan struck him.

Still, clearly evil? You say that giving someone a blue eye with poor motives is more evil than killing the same guy since, well, the other alternative will slightly inconvenience you? (Vaarsuvius main motive, the rest was just excuses).

You have the positions reversed. We are the ones who can only see the local pond, that being the few strips we have. V has had something like two years to study Elan and know his reactions to situations. Add in that V is displayed as the resident genius of the crowd. She knows Elan far better than we do, and when he says that Elan would have only tied up a major villain, she is right. Essentially you are trying to challenge the author, not the character.

Elan only spent a small amount of time in a town, and most of that time there was an important errand to be run. The likelyhood of Vaarsuvius wittnessing Elan tie up any villian at all (off-panel and not including LG) is nonexistent, since there wouldn't be time for Elan to wittnes a crime and catch the villian. After all, you don't run into burglars and thieves-in-action every day (unless you are a spectaculary bored adventurer on a journey). And being a genius doesn't prevent you from drawing false conclusions after weeks of no sleeping (trancing).

Unimportant. The vast majority of Kubota's crimes took place without him needing to life a finger. He "draws" simply by speaking.

So, if the guy with handcuffs in the police car says that he expect his coming trial to make a fool out of the accuser, does it give you the right to shoot him? No.

Again, do you really want to claim Kubota wasn't going to be a continuing pest? Unless convicted and executed? Or just executed?

Irrelevant. V didn't know anything about that, just a lengthy trial. And it's what V knows, not the actual facts, that are relevant in this case.

As far as we know, Hinjo was using lethal force against Miko, or at least trying to. And if Roy wants to uphold the law, he needs to rescue Hinjo, which means not using inferior methods that give Miko a greater chance to kill him.

Unless he judges the chances of a good outcome to be good enough. In that case, it's a viable option to go for the best of the alternatives, and even a miss could have drawn Miko's attention.

You are trying to make the exceptions the rules here. "Just because you aren't cool doesn't force you..." amounts to saying "Normally it does".

No, I'm trying to point out that you are trying to connect dot 5 and 7 without passing 6. They influence each other, but they don't force the outcome to be one specific. Usually there is a dot 6 to take into account that connects both dots and influence them both (background history for example)

Not at all. There is no fatal wound because the plot called for her to survive, not because the art forgot to include it.

There is no error, except in the sense that something is made unrealistic in order to increase the drama.

Okay, fatal was the wrong word. Still, there was no serious wound in the chest. There was no wound in the chest at all, and a cut of that power should nearly have sliced her in two (that is "thick red line")

The details don't matter. We see that Miko could be well aware of evil, and not kill. Accordingly, we can not say that her standing around with a sword is an immediate or definite threat.

As long as someone with a clear authority higher than her's orders her not to do that, and then it's still a borderline that she think it's reasonable to pass if she encounter the slightest resistance. Now, there are only two authority figures to Miko: the twelve gods (count them as one entity, since that's how they're worshiped), and lord Shojo... Ohh, she already killed that guy for something she believed was treason. Since she see her every action as the result of the twelve gods' wish, the likelyhood of herself admitting that she done anything wrong is nonexistent.

Which merely enforces the point that Roy was acting on base motives, not to arrest or for self defense.

Is it impossible to combine two motives? I would say it isn't.

It rather obviously calls into question your claim that V was working on poor information. Remember, this is the character that identified Nale over Elan quite quickly and casually. V is also our lecturer and teacher of facts. He had plenty of information, quite enough for her to take action.

Not the same thing. V wasn't suffering from weeks of no trancing, used wit to make Nale slipping that he was in fact Nale (almost), and acted rationally on that information (didn't transmute him into small dust particles).

You are getting out of Elan's areas of knowledge here. Elan knows nothing of the sort. He merely knows V knew less than Elan would have needed to reach the same conclusion.

Elan clearly knowed that. Citing Elan in#596 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html):

"Wow, V, you're absolutely right. It's totally cool for us to go around killing people. As long as it makes it more convenient for us, why worry?
I mean, it's not as if knowing that we need to lie about it to the paladin is a good indication that it might be the wrong idea."

V told him that the main cause of V zapping Kubota was to avoid another lengthy trial, not to remove a dangerous villian.

Why? People in a daze can stay in it for extensive periods of time, unless something brings them out of it.

It's Miko we're talking about. She's only dazed long enough for "individually chosen by the twelve gods to bring out their wish" to cross her mind. How long? Maximum six seconds.

It takes a minute+ to remove armor, giving Roy a huge lead [unless he tries to get a free peek, in which case the ladies would likely argue he deserved getting beat up]. And removing armor hurts her AC by several steps, making the idea extremely rash.

Still, she's got the dexterity to beat Roy in a short contest.

Which means you must take extra care.

But it still doesn't lessen the damage you deal, only makes it non-lethal.

Why do you think so? The height of the impact point and the posture of Miko's body seem to argue the hit was at least chest high.

Still, not an area where broken bones are fatal (as opposite to the skull).

Their rationality is not at issue here. What is is that we see the good guy can not attack just because the other guy might.

"Good - not stupid", as Lien said. Waiting for the bad guy to draw first is western, but doing so in a world where combat is not governed by tropes, but other, more realistic factors, is truely stupid. Giving the opponent the possibility to make a critical (for the outcome of the battle) strike is not a good move if surviving ever crossed your mind. Remember that Miko has some nifty monk-abilities, like stunning fist, that could give her a decisive advantage by preventing Roy to act at all, for example.

Of course you would. " Roy was the only one who had the opportunity to act before heur next round." is precisely a case of doing that.

Noone has disagreed with me so far, but since you are mentioning it, I will explain how i'm thinking:

Miko's surprise round is used up to push Shojo down in his thrown (standard action) she then win's initiative (the other characters in the room are aware of what is happening now, and Hinjo tries to act) and execute lord Shojo. She loses her powers (we don't know if that wastes any actions on either side). After that she backs down and Hinjo runs up. Them both acting at the same time, but Miko being able to do things before Hinjo, suggests that Miko only won initative with one or two over Hinjo. Next is Belkar, who can't do anything usefull, followed by Roy, who attacks Miko while she's dazed.

A third alternative is simply that our writer is just simplifying here and that a real malev-0-meter would register this crime, and likely several more that would largely be a bore to discuss. We are discussing here what a real OOTS world would be like, which can be different from what the author shows us.
Now we can argue that Roy's act does not register as a major crime on the grounds of emotional distress, but that does not make it a non-crime. But we can not say it is not battery without grounds for saying so, not just a different part of the strip that does not directly mention it.

And you say that I'm challenging the author? I would say that stating that Rich on several important occations simplify things and don't bother to include important "facts" in his texts and pictures (things that he normally would have included) is to challenge him...

{Scrubbed}.

{Scrubbed}

hamishspence

2009-07-01, 04:44 PM

when reading Tony Storey & Alan Lidbury's Criminal Law: 4th edition, the following bits in the summary seemed appropiate to the situation:

Force may be used to protect oneself or to prevent a crime from being committed.

D does not have to be attacked, he may make a preventative strike (Beckford)

A desire for revenge is not necessarily inconsistant with a plea of self-defense, provided that, at the relevent time, D honestly believed it was necessary to defend themselves (Rashford)

There is no requirement of spontaneity. D may arm himself in preparation for a perceived attack on himself and not be guilty of firearms or explosives offenses.

There is no obligation on D to demonstrate an unwillingness to fight (Bird)

If Roy honestly believed an attack from Miko was imminent, and it was reasonable for him to believe so, then self-defence comes into play.

Add in the right of anybody (including non-citizens) to make a so-called "citizen's arrest" and we can have several simultaneous motivations for Roy:

To protect himself and Belkar from a person who has claimed "everyone in room but Me and Hinjo are agents of Evil" and just murdered one of these "agents of evil" and picked up her weapon after having had it struck out of her hands by her own gods.

To arrest an armed criminal who he had just witnessed committing a serious crime.

To (in conjunction with these two) dish out a little punishment in revenge for her actions against the Order, and her crime.

The presence of the first two, means presence of the third does not necessarily make his act criminal or evil. as BoVD points out "Revenge is not necessarily evil- but the evil mindset redefines it as "revenge at any price"

To quote somebody (David Argall, I think) on whether immediacy is required or not:

As noted already, this is merely a practical rule. In a huge majority of cases, if a threat is not immediate, it is not unavoidable. As already noted, the ability to avoid the threat increases fantastically the further away the threat is. So the law just takes the easy way and assumes that immediate is required, rather than a strong sign. But the base principle is that there is an unavoidable threat, immediate or not.
We can see this more easily at the international level, where the threat from another nation may be years in the future, but it is still held to justify self-defense efforts now. [Of course, it is much more often used to justify "self defense" efforts instead, but this is also true of the immediate threat too.]

rxmd

2009-07-01, 05:13 PM

Hi David,

The number of cops imprisoned for shooting somebody on the job is trivial. The number of civilians in jail on shooting charges is massive. So no, the cop is far less restrained.
Your comparison has three methodological errors. Firstly the number of people in jail seems a poor indicator of restraint. Secondly there are massively more civilians than cops. Thirdly in practice cops are often less likely to be convicted than civilians. In short, your comparison is useless.

His guilt was absolutely established and there was no need for a trial to establish that fact.
Is this one of those cases where you claim to be defaulting to real-world morality? What's the point of a trial again?

hamishspence

2009-07-02, 12:10 PM

As long as A: Roy believed that an attack was imminent, and B: it was reasonable for Roy to believe an attack was imminent, it doesn't matter if it isn't- its not assault.

Picking up a weapon after it has been struck from person's hand moments after they committed the murder, makes for a pretty good way for everyone around the person, to believe they are about to attack.

We cannot see what Roy was thinking, we can only surmise it, but I'm guessing it went something like this:

"Oh crap, the only guy who can help me has just been murdered by a homicidal maniac- and she announced moments before that she thinks Shojo, Belkar and me, are agents of evil"

"I'd better go over there and take her down, fast, before she gets her head together and decides on her next target"

"she's picked up her weapon again- I'd better take her out fast."

If this is implausible- explain how "I want to murder Miko" is more plausible.

David Argall

2009-07-03, 12:44 AM

"No innocents were bothered by this lack of trials" is hardly a reason why lack of trials was morally right.
Now the first reason usually cited for demanding trials is to avoid innocents being punished, so on the face of it, a lack of danger to innocents would be a reason why a trial could be dispensed with.

Could you clarify your position on "base motives" and "justified violence"?
Our base motive here is personal, dictated by his feelings, not by any system of justice. He wanted to hurt Miko, not uphold the law. Our justified violence is the violence needed to achieve the goal. If no violence is needed, none is justified.

Roy attacks an armed, delusional person whose act of murder he witnessed, and apparently thats "evil, "sinful" because....he was vengeful?

[QUOTE=hamishspence;6407470]V kills an unarmed, restrained person being led to the law authorities to face trial, and apparently thats not evil because....trials are unnecessary when you know the person is guilty?
Note the difference. Miko, once arrested, would be presumed to go before a LG trial for full punishment. Roy has no right to add to that punishment. So any damage done her is simply assault and a crime.
V, by contrast, is replacing the punishment a court might impose. Kubota is not going to get executed twice. We can argue the punishment may be excessive, but both what we see and Elan's comments gives us no reason to think so.

OR, we maybe should import medieval rules, since that's the time-period that the OotS-world is most similiar to (although it is somewhere in between when it comes to legal system).
Whether it is a medieval system or something the writer has made up, these are things the reader can't be assumed to understand. So they must be explained to the reader. By contrast, the reader can be assumed to know modern customs and laws. So no explanation is needed, and when none is offered, we assume the one familiar to the reader is being used.

But, this is a stick comic, so real life experience won't take you far unless your real life is oddly linear...
As already noted, real life is all you have to work with, and if it won't take you where you are supposed to go, the writer has a duty to give you the sign posts to get there.

Still, clearly evil? You say that giving someone a blue eye with poor motives is more evil than killing the same guy.
See the explanation above. But you can go to jail for slugging somebody without cause, while you walk when you kill the guy in self defense.

since, well, the other alternative will slightly inconvenience you? (Vaarsuvius main motive, the rest was just excuses).
You wish to label it excuses, but V labels it, correctly, as a vital requirement.

Elan only spent a small amount of time in a town, and most of that time there was an important errand to be run. The likelyhood of Vaarsuvius wittnessing Elan tie up any villian at all (off-panel and not including LG) is nonexistent, since there wouldn't be time for Elan to wittnes a crime and catch the villian. After all, you don't run into burglars and thieves-in-action every day (unless you are a spectaculary bored adventurer on a journey). And being a genius doesn't prevent you from drawing false conclusions after weeks of no sleeping (trancing).
You continue to insist your extremely limited knowledge is somehow supposed to be superior to someone with much greater knowledge, and intelligence. This scene is drawn with V as Sherlock Holmes, and he is right in his facts. You need to argue with the author as to whether it is properly done.

So, if the guy with handcuffs in the police car says that he expect his coming trial to make a fool out of the accuser, does it give you the right to shoot him? No.
I do not claim to be V's mental equal, much less superior, and I am aware that police do arrest innocents, while V is aware that Elan does not tie up innocents.

Irrelevant. V didn't know anything about that, just a lengthy trial. And it's what V knows, not the actual facts, that are relevant in this case.
In other words, yes, Kubota was going to be a continued pest unless V killed him.
And yes, V knew this would happen, just as he knew Kubota was a major enemy.

Unless he judges the chances of a good outcome to be good enough.
Do you wish to claim a 20% chance of Hinjo getting killed was a reasonable risk? You have just gotten thru saying you can judge better than V, so surely you can judge better than Roy here.

there was no serious wound in the chest. There was no wound in the chest at all, and a cut of that power should nearly have sliced her in two (that is "thick red line")
The simple point is that our artist just does not pay that much attention to wound marks. Hurt people are shown as unhurt and additional wounds do not get additional marks unless it has plot significance. You are simply holding our artist to a standard he does not care to achieve.

Since she see her every action as the result of the twelve gods' wish, the likelyhood of herself admitting that she done anything wrong is nonexistent.

But we do see her almost surrender. So the chance clearly exists. And we do see her not attack. The simple fact is that the danger of her attacking is well below 100% and does not meet the legal and moral standard for self defense.

Is it impossible to combine two motives? I would say it isn't.
Since Roy is not acting in self defense or to arrest, it doesn't matter.

Not the same thing. V wasn't suffering from weeks of no trancing,
“All that trance-deprivation may have ruined your aim, but not your deductive reasoning.” 628

used wit to make Nale slipping that he was in fact Nale (almost), and acted rationally on that information (didn't transmute him into small dust particles).

Dusting Kubota was a rational decision, just not one you approve of.

Elan clearly knowed that.
The distinction here is between what Elan knew and what he Knew. Elan is simply not a moral authority, but he is an authority of dramatic principle.

V told him that the main cause of V zapping Kubota was to avoid another lengthy trial, not to remove a dangerous villian.
It was to do both. Note that Elan threatened to be even more of a pest, and was not hurt.

It's Miko we're talking about. She's only dazed long enough for "individually chosen by the twelve gods to bring out their wish" to cross her mind. How long? Maximum six seconds.
In the jail cell, it seems to take several hours for her to get the message. The claim there is any rush is simply an assertion.

Still, she's got the dexterity to beat Roy in a short contest.
Since Roy beat her, this seems obviously wrong.

But it still doesn't lessen the damage you deal, only makes it non-lethal.
Which is irrelevant. You have to take the extra care to make the damage non-lethal, and that means you will fail to damage the target at all in far too many cases.

Giving the opponent the possibility to make a critical (for the outcome of the battle) strike is not a good move if surviving ever crossed your mind.
Quite the contrary actually. If you don't attack, the other guy may well not attack either, and nobody gets hurt.

Remember that Miko has some nifty monk-abilities, like stunning fist, that could give her a decisive advantage by preventing Roy to act at all, for example.
Yet Roy shows no fear or worry. He correctly deems himself the superior fighter.

Miko's surprise round is used up to push Shojo down in his thrown (standard action) she then win's initiative (the other characters in the room are aware of what is happening now, and Hinjo tries to act) and execute lord Shojo. She loses her powers (we don't know if that wastes any actions on either side). After that she backs down and Hinjo runs up. Them both acting at the same time, but Miko being able to do things before Hinjo, suggests that Miko only won initative with one or two over Hinjo. Next is Belkar, who can't do anything usefull, followed by Roy, who attacks Miko while she's dazed.
Now you are clearly pushing the rules here. Miko has no valid claim to a surprise round here. And we see both Roy and Hinjo acting before Miko can swing. Then we see Hinjo acting before Miko, not at the same time.
And of course, most basic is that Miko ends her round just standing there, not looking hostile, indeed looking only confused, and thus legally harmless.

And you say that I'm challenging the author? I would say that stating that Rich on several important occations simplify things and don't bother to include important "facts" in his texts and pictures (things that he normally would have included) is to challenge him...
I have never said that I don't challenge the author when he is wrong. And your argument here requires the writer not only be right, but extremely so.

Since it can't be guarantied that no innocent were executed,
Feel free to explain how innocents could have been executed and how these same innocents would have been able to get off if there had been a trial.

Vaarsuvius acted without knowing that there even was a crime (only suspecting, and then still didn't know what crime it was),
Of course he knew a major crime had been committed. Again, you are just denying the obvious.

V wasn't a citizen of Azure City, didn't act on azurite orders, and didn't even report the act to azurite leaders.
Like a chaotic cared.

V acted with pure self interrest as the main reason, and everything else was just convenient.

Now since convenient is normally defined as self interested, this is rather a confused charge. Everything can be called self interest. However, we have V saying "I would think you would be exceedingly grateful." She didn't see her deed as pure self interest.

when reading Tony Storey & Alan Lidbury's Criminal Law: 4th edition, the following bits in the summary seemed appropiate to the situation:

Force may be used to protect oneself or to prevent a crime from being committed.

D does not have to be attacked, he may make a preventative strike (Beckford)

A desire for revenge is not necessarily inconsistant with a plea of self-defense, provided that, at the relevent time, D honestly believed it was necessary to defend themselves (Rashford)

There is no requirement of spontaneity. D may arm himself in preparation for a perceived attack on himself and not be guilty of firearms or explosives offenses.

There is no obligation on D to demonstrate an unwillingness to fight (Bird)

If Roy honestly believed an attack from Miko was imminent, and it was reasonable for him to believe so, then self-defence comes into play.

Add in the right of anybody (including non-citizens) to make a so-called "citizen's arrest" and we can have several simultaneous motivations for Roy:

No we can't. Self defense and attempted arrest are contradictory claims. When you attempt to arrest, you are the aggressive individual, but self defense requires you not be the aggressive individual. So Roy must choose his defense. He can not claim both. It is like saying your dog was provoked into biting, and that you do not have a dog.

To protect himself and Belkar from a person who has claimed "everyone in room but Me and Hinjo are agents of Evil" and just murdered one of these "agents of evil" and picked up her weapon after having had it struck out of her hands by her own gods.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

"someone standing across the room waving a knife threatening to kill you isn't offering you an immediate threat. Which means that you cannot legally shoot him. On the other hand, when he starts charging across the room, then you are in immediate and immanent danger of death or previous bodily harm."

In other words, by the standards of self defense, Miko was the one with the right to use force in self defense, not Roy.

To arrest an armed criminal who he had just witnessed committing a serious crime.
Roy does not attempt to arrest Miko. He attacks her with the intent of inflicting harm.

To (in conjunction with these two) dish out a little punishment in revenge for her actions against the Order, and her crime.
Which is labeled police brutality, and is clearly illegal and immoral.

To quote somebody (David Argall, I think) on whether immediacy is required or not:

As noted already, this is merely a practical rule. In a huge majority of cases, if a threat is not immediate, it is not unavoidable. As already noted, the ability to avoid the threat increases fantastically the further away the threat is. So the law just takes the easy way and assumes that immediate is required, rather than a strong sign. But the base principle is that there is an unavoidable threat, immediate or not.

Now note I say the two principles routinely produce the same result. If the threat is not immediate, it is not unavoidable in excess of 99% of the cases.

Your comparison has three methodological errors. Firstly the number of people in jail seems a poor indicator of restraint.
It seems a distinctly clear one. If nobody is jailed for a crime, we have to question whether it restrains anybody.

Secondly there are massively more civilians than cops.
There are about 850,000 cops and 300 mil civilians. There are about 1.75 mil arrests for assaults every year. Do you wish to claim anything close to 5000 of those are cops? But if not, we find the civilian is more restrained.

Thirdly in practice cops are often less likely to be convicted than civilians.
This seems to support my argument

In short, your comparison is useless.
So far you have produced zero information supporting your assertion. Please supply some.

As long as A: Roy believed that an attack was imminent, and B: it was reasonable for Roy to believe an attack was imminent, it doesn't matter if it isn't- its not assault.

Picking up a weapon after it has been struck from person's hand moments after they committed the murder, makes for a pretty good way for everyone around the person, to believe they are about to attack.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

"someone standing across the room waving a knife threatening to kill you isn't offering you an immediate threat. Which means that you cannot legally shoot him. On the other hand, when he starts charging across the room, then you are in immediate and immanent danger of death or previous bodily harm."

We cannot see what Roy was thinking, we can only surmise it, but I'm guessing it went something like this:

"Oh crap, the only guy who can help me has just been murdered by a homicidal maniac- and she announced moments before that she thinks Shojo, Belkar and me, are agents of evil"

"I'd better go over there and take her down, fast, before she gets her head together and decides on her next target"

"she's picked up her weapon again- I'd better take her out fast."

If this is implausible- explain how "I want to murder Miko" is more plausible.
"All that matters to me right now is that you just killed..." Roy flatly denies any self defense motive here.
"Which mean I am kicking your fallen ass right now." open intent to harm and when you are using a big sword, the idea you are intending to kill follows automatically.

Teddy

2009-07-03, 07:05 AM

Our base motive here is personal, dictated by his feelings, not by any system of justice. He wanted to hurt Miko, not uphold the law. Our justified violence is the violence needed to achieve the goal. If no violence is needed, none is justified.

Just because he was frustrated doesn't exclude him from having capture as an intent.

Note the difference. Miko, once arrested, would be presumed to go before a LG trial for full punishment. Roy has no right to add to that punishment. So any damage done her is simply assault and a crime.
V, by contrast, is replacing the punishment a court might impose. Kubota is not going to get executed twice. We can argue the punishment may be excessive, but both what we see and Elan's comments gives us no reason to think so.

So, it's totally cool to replace any court with a death sentence? Does that mean that it would have been a more good action of Roy to kill Miko instead of capturing her?

Whether it is a medieval system or something the writer has made up, these are things the reader can't be assumed to understand. So they must be explained to the reader. By contrast, the reader can be assumed to know modern customs and laws. So no explanation is needed, and when none is offered, we assume the one familiar to the reader is being used.

As already noted, real life is all you have to work with, and if it won't take you where you are supposed to go, the writer has a duty to give you the sign posts to get there.

There is no duty from the writers side to enlighten the readers about everything in his fictional world. Especially details in such obscure things as self-defence laws are better to leave out, since othervise it will be a story about how you make a story without a story.

You wish to label it excuses, but V labels it, correctly, as a vital requirement.

No, that was just an explanation that ended with V saying that since he must have been a major villian, his trial would be lengthy (as Kubota said himself), and that was not convenient for V who rather not be disturbed with the magical research.

You continue to insist your extremely limited knowledge is somehow supposed to be superior to someone with much greater knowledge, and intelligence. This scene is drawn with V as Sherlock Holmes, and he is right in his facts. You need to argue with the author as to whether it is properly done.

I do not claim to be V's mental equal, much less superior, and I am aware that police do arrest innocents, while V is aware that Elan does not tie up innocents.

In other words, yes, Kubota was going to be a continued pest unless V killed him.
And yes, V knew this would happen, just as he knew Kubota was a major enemy.

So, lets say that Elan had encoutered someone trying to steal supplies from one of the ships. Would he kill, capture or let the thief go? From what I know about Elan, capture would be the most likely response.

Do you wish to claim a 20% chance of Hinjo getting killed was a reasonable risk? You have just gotten thru saying you can judge better than V, so surely you can judge better than Roy here.

Well, I neither know the numbers nor how Roy was reasoning. What I'm saying is that he somehow reasoned that it was worth the -4 penality.

The simple point is that our artist just does not pay that much attention to wound marks. Hurt people are shown as unhurt and additional wounds do not get additional marks unless it has plot significance. You are simply holding our artist to a standard he does not care to achieve.

Does not pay...? We are talking about the man who almost never exclude a wound in normal combat. And this battle was plot significant. The POW! even got its own section in one of the comentaries in WaXPs. Why would he deem the most important blow in the entire battle as not worthy of a wound cut?

But we do see her almost surrender. So the chance clearly exists. And we do see her not attack. The simple fact is that the danger of her attacking is well below 100% and does not meet the legal and moral standard for self defense.

I don't know how the DC would be set for Hinjo's Diplomacy check, but I would reason that the difference between surrender and attack would be at least 5 where the subject would refuse but does not attack the character. Miko could have said that Roy and Belkar would be of a too imminent threat to not deal with and simply ignore Hinjo, since he's still a paladin, and thus a good guy.

“All that trance-deprivation may have ruined your aim, but not your deductive reasoning.” 628

I bet 10 gold pieces that Elan would be able to draw the same conclusion relativly quickly too. It's not especially hard to realize that it's about revenge when treasure is excluded.

The distinction here is between what Elan knew and what he Knew. Elan is simply not a moral authority, but he is an authority of dramatic principle.

And you try to say what?

It was to do both. Note that Elan threatened to be even more of a pest, and was not hurt.

Well, his obliviousness (as a nice contrast to the previous scene) probably saved him a bit trouble, but he's also still a team mate, albeitest an extremly annoying such (to V).

In the jail cell, it seems to take several hours for her to get the message. The claim there is any rush is simply an assertion.

Several hours? She seems to realize what's happened quite quickly, and just because she decides to pray for advice doesn't mean she's totaly oblivious

Since Roy beat her, this seems obviously wrong.

Were talking about a speed contest, remember. Roy never got the chance to chase Miko.

Which is irrelevant. You have to take the extra care to make the damage non-lethal, and that means you will fail to damage the target at all in far too many cases.

That was not what we were discussing in this case... Nevermind, it doesn't matter anymore.

Quite the contrary actually. If you don't attack, the other guy may well not attack either, and nobody gets hurt.

It can all finaly be shrunk down into a percentage chance, and the chance for Miko? Nigh inexistent.

Yet Roy shows no fear or worry. He correctly deems himself the superior fighter.

Miko didn't fight very effective, so that's probably more on Miko's part.

Now you are clearly pushing the rules here. Miko has no valid claim to a surprise round here. And we see both Roy and Hinjo acting before Miko can swing. Then we see Hinjo acting before Miko, not at the same time.
And of course, most basic is that Miko ends her round just standing there, not looking hostile, indeed looking only confused, and thus legally harmless.

Well, Miko got the chance to act first anyway (push Shojo and draw weapon and then execute Shojo). And I wouldn't call "starting to move" or "drawing a sword" a full-round action.

I have never said that I don't challenge the author when he is wrong. And your argument here requires the writer not only be right, but extremely so.

Well, your argument requires that the author regulary miss important facts when he write important strips. I just don't think Rich is so careless, and the quality of this comic is really high on this part.

Feel free to explain how innocents could have been executed and how these same innocents would have been able to get off if there had been a trial.

Anyone with a red neck got executed? There are many ways an innocient person can get red color on his neck. In a city of millions(?), things like that are very likely to happen. Now, the entire China-example got some major flaws. To make a good comparision, we would instead have an american (or another mostly neutral state) army march into the city directly after the battle (no nationalists in the city yet). There they see the men with red necks and say "Hey, those guys got red dye on their necks. They must be villians and that gives us right to shoot them without any questioning of any kind at all."

Of course he knew a major crime had been committed. Again, you are just denying the obvious.

A crime, perhaps, but that it must be a major crime was just a conclusion that happened to be correct even though it was achieved through the wrong ways. A bit like calculating 2+2 and get 5, and then it happens to be correct since you missread and the real question was 2+3.

Like a chaotic cared.

That doen't justify the act. And as I said before, chaotic creatures can still trust to a court's decision.

Now since convenient is normally defined as self interested, this is rather a confused charge. Everything can be called self interest. However, we have V saying "I would think you would be exceedingly grateful." She didn't see her deed as pure self interest.

No, it's more something that is going along well with the wishes of the character. And "I would think you would be exceedingly grateful." doesn't make the act less driven by pure self-interest. It's more: "I've done this and you should be grateful for me doing it."

"All that matters to me right now is that you just killed..." Roy flatly denies any self defense motive here.
"Which mean I am kicking your fallen ass right now." open intent to harm and when you are using a big sword, the idea you are intending to kill follows automatically.

Just him saying so doesn't mean that that is his only pure motivation in the battle. As allways, there are a large number of cirkumstances that drives a person to do a thing, but the significance of each may vary.

hamishspence

2009-07-03, 11:03 AM

Even if we assume that vigilantes are morally the same as juries, and that a jury is exactly as morally responsible for killing the condemned prisoner as an executioner (both pretty shaky assumptions) we are forgetting one thing.

The standard juries are held to. Typically, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

And this must be a reasonable satisfaction- if I'm "satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt" that person is guilty beacuse he has a guilty look in his eye, and send him to his death, that is a perversion of justice. Even if he turns out to actually be guilty, based on later discovered evidence.

The grounds V gives are not "reasonable grounds" Elan has not tied up enough people to make any generalizations about how everyone he ties up deserves death. Same with moustache, Shojo has one too.

And V admits, even based on Elans comments, that Kubota "probably deserved death" Thats not enough. If a police cop fires his gun based on "crime probably imminent" he's done for negligence.

By contrast Roy can certainly say he is "satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt" that Miko has committed an act deserving of death (murder of "the only guy actively working to save the world", treason) and, he might even have a "reasonable belief" that she would attack someone else next.

We don't know what his plan for going over was, but by the time he reached her, she'd already picked up her weapon.

David Argall

2009-07-04, 01:08 AM

The standard juries are held to. Typically, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

And this must be a reasonable satisfaction- if I'm "satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt" that person is guilty beacuse he has a guilty look in his eye, and send him to his death, that is a perversion of justice. Even if he turns out to actually be guilty, based on later discovered evidence.

The grounds V gives are not "reasonable grounds" Elan has not tied up enough people to make any generalizations about how everyone he ties up deserves death.
Again you are challenging the strip. What we have consistently is V as the genius who solves mental problems at the Holmes level. When V makes a conclusion like this, it is sound by OOTS logic.

And V admits, even based on Elans comments, that Kubota "probably deserved death"
You are misunderstanding V's statement. He is saying that even based just on what Elan has said, ignoring the other evidence, it is pretty clear that Kubota is guilty, [the difference being that Elan is known to misstate things.] An alternate, and similar, reading is that Elan's statements show he deems Kubota guilty too. Either way, V is not retracting his certainty that Kubota was guilty. He is merely adding evidence to what is already sure.

By contrast Roy can certainly say he is "satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt" that Miko has committed an act deserving of death (murder of "the only guy actively working to save the world", treason)
Roy is LG, and in a LG city where he has every reason to assume Miko will receive full justice. V is being assured that Kubota is going to walk.
And, unless you are wishing to acknowledge that Roy was striking to kill [when he, like V, would be trying to replace lawful justice], Roy's attacks are simply unjustified punishment, above and beyond whatever the law sets.

and, he might even have a "reasonable belief" that she would attack someone else next.
"Might even have" is not even close to any acceptable standard justifying attack.

We don't know what his plan for going over was, but by the time he reached her, she'd already picked up her weapon.
Holding a weapon is not grounds for attack. The weapon must be held in a threatening manner. Miko was not even looking at anyone as far as we know. She was holding with one hand when she usually attacked with two hands. Her expression is not even her normal angry. It is puzzled.

Just because he was frustrated doesn't exclude him from having capture as an intent.
It does mean, however, that we can not assume he intended to capture. We have adequate motive even if he had no such capture intent.

So, it's totally cool to replace any court with a death sentence? Does that mean that it would have been a more good action of Roy to kill Miko instead of capturing her?
Totally cool? Of course not. But observe p. 10 of BoED, which talks of the possibility that a paladin might decide to "overrule" the court decision. It is not something to do casually, but it is morally possible for it to be the correct decision.
Killing Miko would be a less incorrect action by Roy. Unlike V, he has no reason to distrust the local justice, and so he still has no justification. But his punishment may simply replace the same punishment by the city and so be merely a legal quibble.

There is no duty from the writers side to enlighten the readers about everything in his fictional world. Especially details in such obscure things

What you seem to be saying is that the author does not need to explain the unimportant, which is true, but irrelevant. By calling something unimportant, we are saying it doesn't matter if the reader does use modern standards or not, he still reaches the same conclusions.

that was just an explanation that ended with V saying that since he must have been a major villian, his trial would be lengthy (as Kubota said himself),

Reread. There is no connection between trial length and major villain status. There is a connection between major villain status and legitimate target.

So, lets say that Elan had encoutered someone trying to steal supplies from one of the ships. Would he kill, capture or let the thief go? From what I know about Elan, capture would be the most likely response.
More likely, Elan would not even recognize it as theft. "What are you doing?"... "Ah...er... relocating these jewels to a redistribution center?" "Oh, here, let me help you."

Well, I neither know the numbers nor how Roy was reasoning. What I'm saying is that he somehow reasoned that it was worth the -4 penality.

Yet, you are somehow sure that V can not reasonably come to her decision, but Roy can come to one we see no evidence he in fact made? Doesn't that sound more like you are judging based on your opinion of the two characters?

Does not pay...? We are talking about the man who almost never exclude a wound in normal combat.
p. 19 Belkar and Elan fail their save. Belkar gets a booboo. Elan doesn't.
p. 20 Trigak gets hit by lightning bold and fireball, and shows no wounds.
p. 61. Elan hits Nale. No wound shows.
p. 63 Yikyik and Belkar get wounds and then their red marks vanish.
p. 64 Roy hits Thog. No wound shows.
p. 67 Nale has 2 red scratches. They vanish by the end of the page.
p. 70 V's bruise is gone. Nale gains a bruise, but not Thog for the same damage.
p. 72 Nale's bruise is gone.

And so on.

And this battle was plot significant. The POW! even got its own section in one of the comentaries in WaXPs.
And in W&XP "I took the time to show what a rational paladin would do via Hinjo's offer to let the law handle everything." Which rather obviously challenges Roy's behavior.
And "...it was time to let loose all of the frustration Roy...had towards Miko..." "Letting loose frustration" is code for "morally unacceptable behavior", as in clobbering somebody not for any crime, but because you enjoy doing it. So again we find Roy in the moral wrong.

Why would he deem the most important blow in the entire battle as not worthy of a wound cut?
Turning the question around, if it was non-lethal, why was it not worthy of a bruise mark? The answer is the same in both cases. Our artist just is not anywhere near that precise.

I don't know how the DC would be set for Hinjo's Diplomacy check, but I would reason that the difference between surrender and attack would be at least 5 where the subject would refuse but does not attack the character.

Now even assuming our writer is following the rules to that extent, you are acknowledging that there is a chance Miko would have surrendered.

I bet 10 gold pieces that Elan would be able to draw the same conclusion relativly quickly too. It's not especially hard to realize that it's about revenge when treasure is excluded.
None the less, we have an opinion before us that V is not brain-damaged by the lack of trancing.

And you try to say what?
We can rely on Elan's words and actions on matters of dramatic principle, while laughing or ignoring his opinion on most other matters.

Several hours? She seems to realize what's happened quite quickly, and just because she decides to pray for advice doesn't mean she's totaly oblivious

Totally oblivious? No, but Miko still spends a considerable amount before she notices the crack. That in turn means there is no reason to assume she will quickly leap into action in the throne room when she is dazed. She might remain dazed for quite some time.

Were talking about a speed contest, remember. Roy never got the chance to chase Miko.
We were discussing her taking off her armor, which takes enough time that she loses any race involving that.

It can all finaly be shrunk down into a percentage chance, and the chance for Miko? Nigh inexistent.
So you claim. Now what is the evidence for that claim? What we have seen so far says the chance may be lower than desirable, but definitely exists.

Miko didn't fight very effective, so that's probably more on Miko's part.
Nope. We are talking Roy's behavior and he moves up to Miko with full confidence he would win.

Well, Miko got the chance to act first anyway (push Shojo and draw weapon and then execute Shojo). And I wouldn't call "starting to move" or "drawing a sword" a full-round action.
But we end up with no assurance that Roy has any reason to think he must act now or something bad would happen.

Well, your argument requires that the author regulary miss important facts when he write important strips.
What "important facts" are you referring to? If you are talking of wounds, we can see about that our artist does not consider that especially important.

Anyone with a red neck got executed? There are many ways an innocient person can get red color on his neck.
How many people have you ever seen with a red neck from paint or dye?, where it was confined to the neck? You see hundreds of people on an average day, 100,000 or more in a year. You have seen those million throats, and likely have never seen anything that would qualify. So the percentage of innocents convicted would seem to be less than innocents who are convicted when the prosecution expert simply lies about finding a DNA match.

Now, the entire China-example got some major flaws. To make a good comparision, we would instead have an american (or another mostly neutral state) army.
Now how does this make any difference?

A crime, perhaps, but that it must be a major crime was just a conclusion that happened to be correct even though it was achieved through the wrong ways.
Nope. If V can compute there was a crime, he can compute it was a major crime.

That doen't justify the act.
What it does is mean its illegal nature does not make it immoral.

And "I would think you would be exceedingly grateful." doesn't make the act less driven by pure self-interest. It's more: "I've done this and you should be grateful for me doing it."
Which is also a way of saying the speaker does not view the act as selfish.

Just him saying so doesn't mean that that is his only pure motivation in the battle. As allways, there are a large number of cirkumstances that drives a person to do a thing, but the significance of each may vary.
You are trying to assert he had motives he denies he had, indeed that these were the major motives. That there is some slim chance he has unacknowledged motives can be enough not to convict in court, but it is not enough for us not to think the guy guilty.

hamishspence

2009-07-04, 02:24 AM

Again you are challenging the strip. What we have consistently is V as the genius who solves mental problems at the Holmes level. When V makes a conclusion like this, it is sound by OOTS logic.

In strip evidence?

Turning the question around, if it was non-lethal, why was it not worthy of a bruise mark? The answer is the same in both cases. Our artist just is not anywhere near that precise.

Does that mean you are willing to concede the possibility that the first attack by Roy was non-lethal- because it left what looks like a bruise mark?

Now even assuming our writer is following the rules to that extent, you are acknowledging that there is a chance Miko would have surrendered.

When dealing with an armed, delusional murderer "A chance" is not necessarily enough.

Roy's "Which means I am kicking your ass right now" statement could reasonably mean, with unspoken addition":
"so that I can safely take your unconscious body into custody"

We have no idea what "status" adventurers have when dealing with threats- Private citizen? Soldier? Police officer? FBI agent?

Given that they are permitted to carry openly, and given the theme in DMG 2 of retroactive writs of outlawry being issued against the victim if the adventurer catches them in flagante delicto and is forced to kill them, it is possible you are holding Roy to a higher standard than D&D does.

"Unnecessary assault is immoral" Not if Roy genuinely belived it was necessary at the time, and it was a reasonable belief.

Let me turn it around- unnecessary killing is immoral- what was so necessary about the killing of Kubota at that moment?

Teddy

2009-07-04, 06:11 AM

Roy is LG, and in a LG city where he has every reason to assume Miko will receive full justice. V is being assured that Kubota is going to walk.
And, unless you are wishing to acknowledge that Roy was striking to kill [when he, like V, would be trying to replace lawful justice], Roy's attacks are simply unjustified punishment, above and beyond whatever the law sets.

There is no evidence of V hearing anything that can be interpreted as empirical evidence of Kubota being able to slip through the trial without getting convicted. And the court on the ships should be the same as in the city, namely LG.

Totally cool? Of course not. But observe p. 10 of BoED, which talks of the possibility that a paladin might decide to "overrule" the court decision. It is not something to do casually, but it is morally possible for it to be the correct decision.
Killing Miko would be a less incorrect action by Roy. Unlike V, he has no reason to distrust the local justice, and so he still has no justification. But his punishment may simply replace the same punishment by the city and so be merely a legal quibble.

Doesn't have BoED, and I'm not sure where you what to get with the "overrule"...

Death is a very harsh punishment, that (if at all) only should be reserved to convicted criminals that beyond resonable doubt are guilty of murder. That V had empirical evidence of Kubota's guilt is quite resonable to doubt.

Reread. There is no connection between trial length and major villain status. There is a connection between major villain status and legitimate target.

Did that. My conclusion stands.

This is what V stated in chronoligical order:

1. I saved you from a lenghty trial.

2. I have no idea whatsoever of who Kubota was or what he did.

3. He was tied up bu you, therefore he must be an enemy and a legitime target.

4. There would have been a long boring trial with the two idiot lawyers, and I can't allow that.

The first and fourth statement explains WHY V didn't want to hand over Kubota to justice.

More likely, Elan would not even recognize it as theft. "What are you doing?"... "Ah...er... relocating these jewels to a redistribution center?" "Oh, here, let me help you."

But if Hinjo and Elan encountered two thievs red-handed, and the thieves split up so he alone had to chase one of them, would he then kill, capture or let the thief go? He would clearly know that the thief did a bad thing in that case, and Elan's got a strong belief in justice, even though he's chaotic.

Yet, you are somehow sure that V can not reasonably come to her decision, but Roy can come to one we see no evidence he in fact made? Doesn't that sound more like you are judging based on your opinion of the two characters?

No, you are only defying every evidence we come up with and stick to some art-error idea...

p. 19 Belkar and Elan fail their save. Belkar gets a booboo. Elan doesn't.
p. 20 Trigak gets hit by lightning bold and fireball, and shows no wounds.
p. 61. Elan hits Nale. No wound shows.
p. 63 Yikyik and Belkar get wounds and then their red marks vanish.
p. 64 Roy hits Thog. No wound shows.
p. 67 Nale has 2 red scratches. They vanish by the end of the page.
p. 70 V's bruise is gone. Nale gains a bruise, but not Thog for the same damage.
p. 72 Nale's bruise is gone.

And so on.

The first 72 strips are full of other errors as well, and Rich is a much more profesional comic artist now. And compared to the amount of cuts and bruises during that part, those are still a minor part.

And in W&XP "I took the time to show what a rational paladin would do via Hinjo's offer to let the law handle everything." Which rather obviously challenges Roy's behavior.
And "...it was time to let loose all of the frustration Roy...had towards Miko..." "Letting loose frustration" is code for "morally unacceptable behavior", as in clobbering somebody not for any crime, but because you enjoy doing it. So again we find Roy in the moral wrong.

Well, Roy did some moral wrongs during that battle, but "moraly unacceptabel" doesn't equal "EVIL".

Turning the question around, if it was non-lethal, why was it not worthy of a bruise mark? The answer is the same in both cases. Our artist just is not anywhere near that precise.

It's worth to note that I don't belive that bruises are non-lethal. And how would it be left a bruise mark on the chest when it was hit by the broad side of the sword and protected by heavy armor?

Now even assuming our writer is following the rules to that extent, you are acknowledging that there is a chance Miko would have surrendered.

Well, if Rich allowed the check to have another result than "I surrender." and "Kill Hinjo!", then that would mean that Hinjo failed his check by 5 or more, and I'm not sure that Roy's attack would incure a +5 to DC, especially since Hinjo stated that he didn't agree with Roy's "beating enjoyment".

None the less, we have an opinion before us that V is not brain-damaged by the lack of trancing.

Could be sarcastic as well: "Wow, the smart little monkey came to a conclusion. How hard was that?"

We can rely on Elan's words and actions on matters of dramatic principle, while laughing or ignoring his opinion on most other matters.

Elan is a buffon, but he's pretty aware of what's going on around him at least half of the time. Totaly ignore everythin he says and you'll miss his bright moments.

Totally oblivious? No, but Miko still spends a considerable amount before she notices the crack. That in turn means there is no reason to assume she will quickly leap into action in the throne room when she is dazed. She might remain dazed for quite some time.

1. It's not reasonable that the first thing she shoud do is to search for cracks on the prison bars. You are not dazed just because you don't search for cracks...

2. The cracks was a result of Tsukikos Shout spell.

We were discussing her taking off her armor, which takes enough time that she loses any race involving that.

Actually, I said that Miko would have superior movement if she bothered take of her armor, but even with the armor on, her superior dexterity beats Roy in a running contest.

So you claim. Now what is the evidence for that claim? What we have seen so far says the chance may be lower than desirable, but definitely exists.

When it comes to lethal battle, a 0,1% chance is not a risk you take, even before the battle is started if that risk may lose you the upper hand.

Nope. We are talking Roy's behavior and he moves up to Miko with full confidence he would win.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Confidence is not evil.

But we end up with no assurance that Roy has any reason to think he must act now or something bad would happen.[/QUOTE]

Uhm, so Miko would say "Oh, I see all the wrongs I've been making. Forgive me twelve gods, I'll never hurt a sentient being again"? It's Miko were talking about, remember. If killing can solve a problem right now, that's the path she'll be taking as long as the word "evil" fits in somewhere.

What "important facts" are you referring to? If you are talking of wounds, we can see about that our artist does not consider that especially important.

...The malev-o-meter...

How many people have you ever seen with a red neck from paint or dye?, where it was confined to the neck? You see hundreds of people on an average day, 100,000 or more in a year. You have seen those million throats, and likely have never seen anything that would qualify. So the percentage of innocents convicted would seem to be less than innocents who are convicted when the prosecution expert simply lies about finding a DNA match.

Beats me, people do strange things all the time.

Anyway, the example is flawed.

Now how does this make any difference?

The nationalists knew what they were fighting against, and why. A neutral and uninformed party neither would know anything about that, nor have the rights to execute people because it's convenient.

Nope. If V can compute there was a crime, he can compute it was a major crime.

One succesfull die roll doesn't make the next one automatic. A crime wasn't unreasonable, but that it had to be major is more so.

What it does is mean its illegal nature does not make it immoral.

There is a reason that there exist laws, and thats because the moral of two differen people can be so different that order wouldn't be possible to uphold.

Which is also a way of saying the speaker does not view the act as selfish.

Guess why selfishness is deemed by the surrounding people, not the person that did the act. It's allways possible to hide your own selfishness by saying that someone else also should benefit from your actions.

You are trying to assert he had motives he denies he had, indeed that these were the major motives. That there is some slim chance he has unacknowledged motives can be enough not to convict in court, but it is not enough for us not to think the guy guilty.

He never denied he had any other motives, he only express a wish not to hear Miko trying to draw a new conclusion including Roy's guilt.

David Argall

2009-07-05, 02:48 AM

In strip evidence?
50a
145
175
262
306
314a
322
327
397
427
...

Does that mean you are willing to concede the possibility that the first attack by Roy was non-lethal- because it left what looks like a bruise mark?

Because? No. We have seen that our artist is distinctly casual with wound marks and so assuming anything much on that basis is rash.

When dealing with an armed, delusional murderer "A chance" is not necessarily enough.
Again, you are deriving your facts from your conclusions.

Roy's "Which means I am kicking your ass right now" statement could reasonably mean, with unspoken addition":
"so that I can safely take your unconscious body into custody"
No, it could not. You assume the reverse, that an act of violence first removes any incentive to surrender.

We have no idea what "status" adventurers have when dealing with threats- Private citizen? Soldier? Police officer? FBI agent?
Doesn't matter. None of the above are allow to just attack some who is just standing there, no matter what danger they may pose in a minute or so.

Given that they are permitted to carry openly, and given the theme in DMG 2 of retroactive writs of outlawry being issued against the victim if the adventurer catches them in flagante delicto and is forced to kill them, it is possible you are holding Roy to a higher standard than D&D does.
Note you talked about "forced to kill". There is no forced to kill here. Roy deliberately and openly advances and attacks first.

"Unnecessary assault is immoral" Not if Roy genuinely belived it was necessary at the time, and it was a reasonable belief.
As already shown, only certain juristictions accept this plea, and only in mitigation, not justification. And no, the belief was not held at all, reasonable or not. Roy advanced to the attack with every belief he was going to win.

Let me turn it around- unnecessary killing is immoral- what was so necessary about the killing of Kubota at that moment?
Kubota was in the process of "escaping".

There is no evidence of V hearing anything that can be interpreted as empirical evidence of Kubota being able to slip through the trial without getting convicted.
Note you talk of "emperical evidence", an acknowledgment that there was evidence that Kubota would slip thru the cracks.

And the court on the ships should be the same as in the city, namely LG.
According to Hinjo, there was only one magistrate left. The legal system was in a shambles, and a great many tools of justice would have been left back in the captured city. So the chance of a miscarriage of justice was greatly increased.

Doesn't have BoED, and I'm not sure where you what to get with the "overrule"...
BoED says that our paladin, the lawful type with a duty to defer to the law does not have an automatic duty to let the guilty go unpunished when the court so rules. By that rule, the neutral and chaotic good are also free to ignore any mere legal standards when they sufficiently go against the cause of good. There may be good reason to often defer, but it is not an automatic position.

Death is a very harsh punishment, that (if at all) only should be reserved to convicted criminals that beyond resonable doubt are guilty of murder. That V had empirical evidence of Kubota's guilt is quite resonable to doubt.
Again you are trying to fiddle with the facts by demanding proof that is not necessary, and is present. [V's observation of Elan make his theory empirical.]

There is a connection between major villain status and legitimate target.
Did that. My conclusion stands.

This is what V stated in chronoligical order:

1. I saved you from a lenghty trial.

2. I have no idea whatsoever of who Kubota was or what he did.

3. He was tied up bu you, therefore he must be an enemy and a legitime target.

4. There would have been a long boring trial with the two idiot lawyers, and I can't allow that.

The first and fourth statement explains WHY V didn't want to hand over Kubota to justice.
None of this shows the connection you want to show. Kubota was a major enemy whether or not there was a trial or not, much less whether the trial was lengthy.

But if Hinjo and Elan encountered two thievs red-handed, and the thieves split up so he alone had to chase one of them, would he then kill, capture or let the thief go?
Now see how you keep having to add more details? Hinjo was in fact known not to be on board and so this scenario was not going to happen, and V knew that.

And again, you are simply challenging the strip. It is set here that V is right.

No, you are only defying every evidence we come up with and stick to some art-error idea...
Now what is the evidence I am defying? And what art error idea is that?

The first 72 strips are full of other errors as well, and Rich is a much more profesional comic artist now.
And he is still doing the same thing. Recall back with 652 where enough people were pointing out that Xykon was not showing damage from the Sunburst that he went back and corrected it.

And compared to the amount of cuts and bruises during that part, those are still a minor part.
The great majority of these cuts and bruises are pure decoration. Compared to the number that might actually be telling us more than X is wounded, these "errors" are very frequent.

Well, Roy did some moral wrongs during that battle, but "moraly unacceptabel" doesn't equal "EVIL".
Why not? Morally unacceptable seems to be a definition of evil.

Well, if Rich allowed the check to have another result than "I surrender." and "Kill Hinjo!", then that would mean that Hinjo failed his check by 5 or more, and I'm not sure that Roy's attack would incure a +5 to DC, especially since Hinjo stated that he didn't agree with Roy's "beating enjoyment".
Irrelevant. The simple fact of saying there was a roll is saying there was a chance of a different result, that Miko would surrender.

Could be sarcastic as well: "Wow, the smart little monkey came to a conclusion. How hard was that?"
A whole lot of things could be a whole lot of things, including being precisely what they seem to be, in this case, showing that V's mental powers were by no means impaired by his lack of trancing.

Elan is a buffon, but he's pretty aware of what's going on around him at least half of the time. Totaly ignore everythin he says and you'll miss his bright moments.
Of course, but you have to distinguish which is which. We can't simply say "Elan said something, and it means anything." We must show the remark is correct. We can't use Elan's remark to show V is guilty, and then say that because V is guilty, Elan's remark proves that. It is just circular logic.

1. It's not reasonable that the first thing she shoud do is to search for cracks on the prison bars. You are not dazed just because you don't search for cracks...
Irrelevant. We are seeing Miko not acting, which in turn means there is no immediate threat in the throne room.

2. The cracks was a result of Tsukikos Shout spell.[/quote]
Possibly, but we do not see the cracks being made. So by the standard you wish to impose of things not happening off camera, this would be denied.

Actually, I said that Miko would have superior movement if she bothered take of her armor, but even with the armor on, her superior dexterity beats Roy in a running contest.
We have the same basic problem. Roy, if he wants, can have a quite large lead before Miko starts acting, making his chance of being caught effectively zero.

When it comes to lethal battle, a 0,1% chance is not a risk you take, even before the battle is started if that risk may lose you the upper hand.
Now a-that means that Roy's final swing was definitely lethal since we are talking 20% there. B-Moral duties can require you to take much bigger risks than 0.1%. In particular, they greatly restrict your right to strike first.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Confidence is not evil.
Confidence means a relative lack of fear, meaning Roy did not fear for his life because of any threat from Miko, and thus was not acting in self defense.

It's Miko were talking about, remember. If killing can solve a problem right now, that's the path she'll be taking as long as the word "evil" fits in somewhere.
We've been thru this already. We have several cases on record where she did not attack and so we can not assume she is going to attack. The attack simply does not qualify as immediate or unavoidable.

...The malev-o-meter...
A one-panel casual joke is an important fact?

Anyway, the example is flawed.
How? Assertions need to be backed up.

The nationalists knew what they were fighting against, and why. A neutral and uninformed party neither would know anything about that, nor have the rights to execute people because it's convenient.
The differences seem to be trivial and irrelevant. We can quickly say both V and nationalists were behaving in a convenient manner, and neither was concerned about finding a neutral party.

One succesfull die roll doesn't make the next one automatic. A crime wasn't unreasonable, but that it had to be major is more so.
The principle he was using said that Elan only tied up major foes. So he knew it was major crime by the same standard he knew it was crime.

There is a reason that there exist laws, and thats because the moral of two differen people can be so different that order wouldn't be possible to uphold.

Of course, but that in no way makes all laws things that are useful and morally acceptable.

It's allways possible to hide your own selfishness by saying that someone else also should benefit from your actions.
It is possible to try. However, where do we see any sign that V was at all trying?

He never denied he had any other motives, he only express a wish not to hear Miko trying to draw a new conclusion including Roy's guilt.
When does Roy do this? He says he doesn't care what she has to say. But shutting her up does not seem to be a motive.

hamishspence

2009-07-05, 03:29 AM

50a
145
175
262
306
314a
322
327
397
427

And in several of these, V appears not to understand the world he is in- owlbear, spell scribing, or comes to conclusions that turn out to be wrong (the displacer beasts did not attack, not because "Only one encounter per trip" but because they saw the Order first and decided to avoid them.
...

Again, you are deriving your facts from your conclusions.

I'm deriving my fcts from the Giant's own word on the subject- that Miko's behaviour was not that of a rational, sane paladin, and Roy's reaction "she's gone off her rocker"

Doesn't matter. None of the above are allow to just attack some who is just standing there, no matter what danger they may pose in a minute or so.

Incorrect- when the person has been witnessed committing an extremely serious crime (murder) they are entitled to use whatever force is neccessary to arrest them- they do not need to wait for the person "just standing there" do do something else, especially when they are "just standing there" with a deadly weapon they have just picked up off the ground.

Now whether they are required to shout a warning first or not is a diferent question, but they may act against a person that is "just standing there"

Note you talked about "forced to kill". There is no forced to kill here. Roy deliberately and openly advances and attacks first.

As already shown, only certain juristictions accept this plea, and only in mitigation, not justification. And no, the belief was not held at all, reasonable or not. Roy advanced to the attack with every belief he was going to win.

Roy does not (as far as we know) know about the magic item thing, though he might have guessed based on the colour seepage. Based on this, Miko is not significantly less dangerous than she was before, in Roy's eyes, so it is implausible that he had "every belief he was going to win" when he advanced.

Kubota was in the process of "escaping".

Not really. He was in the process of explaining, to Elan, the story he would tell to the Court. He has not yet began to "escape"

Teddy

2009-07-05, 06:54 AM

Kubota was in the process of "escaping".

Oh, we should execute every prisoner who ever been within a 10 foot radius of the word "escape". No, wait, we shouldn't.

Note you talk of "emperical evidence", an acknowledgment that there was evidence that Kubota would slip thru the cracks.

My knowledge of the english language isn't perfect, but I'm learning through experimentation, and sometimes I use a word which almost but not really fit my purpose. In this case, it's "empirical". And, Kubota saying that he will walk free can be a result of overconfidence as well, and certainly not enough for a death sentence.

According to Hinjo, there was only one magistrate left. The legal system was in a shambles, and a great many tools of justice would have been left back in the captured city. So the chance of a miscarriage of justice was greatly increased.

Still, there was one LG magistrate left, and just because the legal system wasn't as strong as before doesn't make it incapable of upholding the law.

BoED says that our paladin, the lawful type with a duty to defer to the law does not have an automatic duty to let the guilty go unpunished when the court so rules. By that rule, the neutral and chaotic good are also free to ignore any mere legal standards when they sufficiently go against the cause of good. There may be good reason to often defer, but it is not an automatic position.

Vaarsuvius wasn't acting to uphold the cause of good. V didn't wan't any distractions in the ongoing research and search for Haley.

Again you are trying to fiddle with the facts by demanding proof that is not necessary, and is present. [V's observation of Elan make his theory empirical.]

Still, a death sentence shouldn't be based on one witness. And basing it on one witness mere presence is a good example of flawed justice.

None of this shows the connection you want to show. Kubota was a major enemy whether or not there was a trial or not, much less whether the trial was lengthy.

Quoting Vaarsuvius in #596 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html):

"As I landed on deck, I overheard him saying something about his trial taking weeks - and we all know that such would translate to 20 or 30 strips of humorless drudgery, likely involving those two idiot lawyers."
"Not if my finger has anything to say about it. And, as it turned out, it had quite the stirring dissertation prepared on that very subject."

This is the only explanation to why Vaarsuvius didn't want Elan to hand over Kubota to the local justice. The enemy part only explains why Kubota was a valid target.

Now see how you keep having to add more details? Hinjo was in fact known not to be on board and so this scenario was not going to happen, and V knew that.

And again, you are simply challenging the strip. It is set here that V is right.

Guess why I keep adding more details. The first scenario containd a flaw that I corrected by adding more details. And, please, stop trying to insert the scenario in a situation where I clearly didn't intent to place it. Elan and Hinjo spent six months on those boats before the Kubota incident, and while nothing like this probaly happened, it's still a likely scenario and I still wonder what you think Elan would do in that case.

I should add that in this scenario Hinjo asked Elan to capture the thief alive, so you don't try to mix up that part either

And I'm not questioning wether V was right or not. I'm questioning your statement that V's action wasn't evil (or at least, not more evil than Elan's)

Now what is the evidence I am defying? And what art error idea is that?

The "cuts, bruises and non-lethal damage debate that has been going on for some posts now. You still claim that the missing cut was an art error.

And he is still doing the same thing. Recall back with 652 where enough people were pointing out that Xykon was not showing damage from the Sunburst that he went back and corrected it.

Then, why weren't enough people complaing about the clear lack of a thick red line? Perhaps most readers saw the POW! as non-lethal, and therefore didn't miss a thick red line since it shouldn't be there in the first case.

The great majority of these cuts and bruises are pure decoration. Compared to the number that might actually be telling us more than X is wounded, these "errors" are very frequent.

But if you look at how they are placed togheter with how the swords and such are swung, you should see that there is a little more thought behind them than "he got injured, so I should draw a red line somewhere". A cut over the face doen't result in a large wound in the chest in this comic (the Miko-Hinjo battle is a pretty good reference)

Why not? Morally unacceptable seems to be a definition of evil.

Then whose moral should be held as the absolute correct one? There are almost as many moral standards as there are humans on the earth. Basing the alignments on all of them will result in a huge gray blob, nothing else.

Irrelevant. The simple fact of saying there was a roll is saying there was a chance of a different result, that Miko would surrender.

We don't know how high Hinjo rolled, so we can't be sure that there actually was a chance of success.

A whole lot of things could be a whole lot of things, including being precisely what they seem to be, in this case, showing that V's mental powers were by no means impaired by his lack of trancing.

Drawing a conclusion of someones mental state from such a conclusion is like testing someones IQ with basic multiplication. There is a maximum amount of information you can get from it, and that maximum is pretty low.

Of course, but you have to distinguish which is which. We can't simply say "Elan said something, and it means anything." We must show the remark is correct. We can't use Elan's remark to show V is guilty, and then say that because V is guilty, Elan's remark proves that. It is just circular logic.

Then please, inform me of what's wrong with Elan's statements in #596 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html), panel 11.

Irrelevant. We are seeing Miko not acting, which in turn means there is no immediate threat in the throne room.

So you agree that Miko wasn't puzzeled for several hours in the prison? Since your entire argument that she was suddenly is irrelevant, why did you use it at all in the first place?

Possibly, but we do not see the cracks being made. So by the standard you wish to impose of things not happening off camera, this would be denied.

Miko said so, and that's the most plausible theory so far (the only, in fact).

We have the same basic problem. Roy, if he wants, can have a quite large lead before Miko starts acting, making his chance of being caught effectively zero.

Just forget everythin I said about removing the armor. I'm talking about Roy running away and Miko immediately picking up the trail.

Now a-that means that Roy's final swing was definitely lethal since we are talking 20% there. B-Moral duties can require you to take much bigger risks than 0.1%. In particular, they greatly restrict your right to strike first.

Notice the difference between "chance" and "risk". Chance is the probability for a positive outcome while risk is the probability for a negative. A 0,1% chance means that in 99,9% of the cases, something negative will happen, and that's not the risk you take unless the worst thing that can happen is essentially harmless. If the risk is 0,1%, then there is no reson not to do something unless the effect of a failiur is devastating or the action must be repeated multiple times (if there was a 0,1% risk of a nuclear powerplant exploding during a 50 years life time (only an example, I don't know the lifetime of a nuclear powerplant, and im pretty sure the risk is much lower than that), then there is no reason to worry but if you build 10'000 nuclear powerplants or if the risk turns out to be 0,1% risk of exploding each day, then Nuclear powerplants would impose a serious risk to the world).

Confidence means a relative lack of fear, meaning Roy did not fear for his life because of any threat from Miko, and thus was not acting in self defense.

Still, he could fear for someone elses life.

We've been thru this already. We have several cases on record where she did not attack and so we can not assume she is going to attack. The attack simply does not qualify as immediate or unavoidable.

Several? Example please, and remember that she was ordered by lord Shojo to bring the OotS back alive.

A one-panel casual joke is an important fact?

I shouldn't be speaking for the mass, but at least I didn't roll out of my chair in hysterical laughter when I read that, and I'm pretty sure I'm a part of tha majority...

Rich thinks a lot of his readers when he writes his comics. He's been making forshadowings and references going back for hundreds of strips (Why would anyone make a conspiracy thread around the phone lines in the last comic if Rich wasn't known to have pretty random facts play a major part later, or make obscure references to earlier strips). It's not unreasonable to belive that the Malev-O-Meter was included to point out to his readers that Roy actually didn't do any major evil actions. It was definitly not a random fact without any connection to anything.

How? Assertions need to be backed up.

Read again.

The differences seem to be trivial and irrelevant. We can quickly say both V and nationalists were behaving in a convenient manner, and neither was concerned about finding a neutral party.

Are you consciously missinterpreting my examples? V can not be compared with the nationalists, since the nationalists knew what they were fighting and why, and had the right reasons to execute the communists. V did take participate in the fighting but forgot most of it on the way back to the ship and couldn't connect the dots untill Elan explained it to V. V is the neutral part.

The principle he was using said that Elan only tied up major foes. So he knew it was major crime by the same standard he knew it was crime.

Still, it was a lucky shot in the dark that just happend to hit its intended target. Basing a death sentence on such information (the mere presence of Elan) and calling it just is riddiculous.

Of course, but that in no way makes all laws things that are useful and morally acceptable.

Still, who's moral are we going after? And saying that LG azurite laws are immoral...?

It is possible to try. However, where do we see any sign that V was at all trying?

Trying? It's not some sort of Hide check you do wen you try to justify your own selfishness, and it's often just a way to try to hide it to your self. To everyone else is it painfully obvious.

When does Roy do this? He says he doesn't care what she has to say. But shutting her up does not seem to be a motive.

Try to think outside the box. Humans very often speak in a very cryptic manner that often is easily understood at the moment, but trying to understand what someone is saying by reading it litterary in such a case will only result in nonsense.

hamishspence

2009-07-05, 08:41 AM

Wasn't the original thread about Roy's rejection of Miko, not Roy's physical atack on Miko, or V's attack on Kubota?

With that in mind, I will create an new thread and make my next comment here as on-topic as possible.

Roy's rejection of Miko, while he was well within his rights to make it, was definitely somewhar excessive. I believe it was one example that the deva's

"you enjoy verbaly lambasting your foes too much for our taste- you might want to cut back when you get raised" refers to.

At worst, it might even qualify for the "very few truly evil acts, none of which register a blip on the Malev-o-meter" comment.

Can we continue discussing just this topic?

Roland St. Jude

2009-07-05, 10:00 AM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't discuss real world politics on this Forum.

David Argall

2009-07-05, 08:03 PM

Oh, we should execute every prisoner who ever been within a 10 foot radius of the word "escape". No, wait, we shouldn't.

We do kill escaping prisoners at times, so this does does not mean Kubota was not morally killable.

Kubota saying that he will walk free can be a result of overconfidence as well, and certainly not enough for a death sentence.
His being tied up by Elan is enough for a death sentence. His comments merely make now a reasonable time to carry that out.

Still, there was one LG magistrate left, and just because the legal system wasn't as strong as before doesn't make it incapable of upholding the law.

It gives us reason to question that.

Vaarsuvius wasn't acting to uphold the cause of good. V didn't wan't any distractions in the ongoing research and search for Haley.

Nothing inconsistent in wanting both.

Still, a death sentence shouldn't be based on one witness. And basing it on one witness mere presence is a good example of flawed justice.

That depends on the witness. Joan is knocked out and raped. She has no idea by who. The DNA test says it was John. Nobody has seen John anywhere near Joan, but he is in deep legal trouble.
Elan in this case functions as a DNA test. His having Kubota tied up gives us certainty that Kubota is guilty.

This is the only explanation to why Vaarsuvius didn't want Elan to hand over Kubota to the local justice. The enemy part only explains why Kubota was a valid target.

You are ignoring the definition of valid target. It is one you have the right to shoot. V could have dusted him without hearing a word. He choose not to bother, until presented with evidence that Kubota was going to be a continued bother.

it's still a likely scenario and I still wonder what you think Elan would do in that case.
Hard to say, but we have the word of the strip that he would not be tying up some minor random criminal.

The "cuts, bruises and non-lethal damage debate that has been going on for some posts now. You still claim that the missing cut was an art error.
I have produced more than a dozen examples of such art errors. We simply can't prove anything by a "missing" cut.

Then, why weren't enough people complaing about the clear lack of a thick red line? Perhaps most readers saw the POW! as non-lethal, and therefore didn't miss a thick red line since it shouldn't be there in the first case.
Now the very idea of these past opinions is already weak evidence. And you are merely speculating about what they didn't say, adding weakness to weakness. But the threads of the time contain few references to non-lethal damage [and many of them refer to Belkar, who couldn't safely do lethal damage]. The majority assumption, by a wide margin, was lethal damage.

But if you look at how they are placed togheter with how the swords and such are swung, you should see that there is a little more thought behind them than "he got injured, so I should draw a red line somewhere". (the Miko-Hinjo battle is a pretty good reference)
"A little more thought" does not give any support to the non-lethal attack idea. For Miko-Hinjo, a picture is wanted of Hinjo being cut down, and so more attention is paid to placement and number. But Miko defeated is defeated. There is no need to make more marks on her, and so she is just one of the typical cases where we have loads of cases where the artist clearly did not pay attention to such details.

Then whose moral should be held as the absolute correct one?
Irrelevant. The identification of evil and morally unacceptable applies no matter which one we select. The question of which standard would apply if we were asking whether X was evil or not, but all systems seem to say that the evil and the morally unacceptable are heavily the same even if they disagree about what is evil.

We don't know how high Hinjo rolled, so we can't be sure that there actually was a chance of success.
That gives us a presumption of a chance of success. We also have Hinjo's own estimate. One does not argue with a storm, and so we have Hinjo showing he thinks there is a chance of talking Miko down. He is presumed to be a much better judge than we are about the chance of success here. So again, we have a presumption that Hinjo, even with Roy's interference, could have gotten Miko to surrender. That does not make it a majority chance, but there was a notable chance.

Then please, inform me of what's wrong with Elan's statements in #596 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html), panel 11.

One point would be that we always kill people for our convenience. We try to avoid saying it that way, but having our murderer around is simply quite inconvenient, and we execute him for our convenience. [Notably here, having people killed is also quite inconvenient, in part because of the fear you might be next. So we are talking large amounts, but we are still talking convenience.] Kubota's continued presence was quite inconvenient, likely in terms of hundreds of lives. Quite a good idea to get rid of him.

So you agree that Miko wasn't puzzeled for several hours in the prison?
Not at all. She was largely quiet during this period, which adds to the idea that there was no rush to take her down.

Just forget everythin I said about removing the armor. I'm talking about Roy running away and Miko immediately picking up the trail.
So how does that really change the analysis. You are talking of a "race" where on "ready, set, go", Roy starts running on "Ready", and Miko may not be moving on "go". The ability of Miko to catch Roy is extremely low.

Notice the difference between "chance" and "risk". Chance is the probability for a positive outcome while risk is the probability for a negative.
Incorrect. Chance is the more general term, used to cover either positive, negative, or other connotations. Risk is the measure of a negative result in most cases. The use of either term is correct enough in our case.

Still, he could fear for someone elses life.
Who?
The only others in the room are Hinjo and Belkar. Hinjo is presumed to be immune at the moment, and Roy orders Belkar to get close to Miko, hardly a sign of concern over his safety.

Several? Example please, and remember that she was ordered by lord Shojo to bring the OotS back alive.
Your original statement was that Miko would attack, not attack with exceptions. So the fact we see Miko stopped by Shojo is quite sufficient to find your statement wrong, and that we can not assume Miko is going to attack as soon as she gets out of her funk.

He's been making forshadowings and references going back for hundreds of strips (Why would anyone make a conspiracy thread around the phone lines in the last comic if Rich wasn't known to have pretty random facts play a major part later, or make obscure references to earlier strips).
And note that he then pointed out that not everything means anything.

It's not unreasonable to belive that the Malev-O-Meter was included to point out to his readers that Roy actually didn't do any major evil actions. It was definitly not a random fact without any connection to anything.
Why not? It is a fairly general comment, which tends to do poorly at foreshadowing or judging particular incidents. That means there are notable chances of his not considering a particular incident, or of having judged it incorrectly, or... The plot doesn't really require the malev-O-Meter to tell the audience Roy is pretty innocent. The audience largely already agrees that Roy hasn't done anything wrong.

Read again.
A comment of "read again" is incomplete. It does not tell the reader what you deem wrong, or what to read.

Still, it was a lucky shot in the dark that just happend to hit its intended target. Basing a death sentence on such information (the mere presence of Elan) and calling it just is riddiculous.
No luck involved. By the laws of OOTS, it was absolute fact.

Still, who's moral are we going after? And saying that LG azurite laws are immoral...?
A whole lot of chaotics.

Trying? It's not some sort of Hide check you do wen you try to justify your own selfishness, and it's often just a way to try to hide it to your self. To everyone else is it painfully obvious.
But yes it is some sort of hide check, and we expect the writer to do something like 623.

Try to think outside the box. Humans very often speak in a very cryptic manner that often is easily understood at the moment, but trying to understand what someone is saying by reading it litterary in such a case will only result in nonsense.
Again you are criticizing our writer. We have to read this literally and so our writer has a duty to "translate". The reader should not need to think outside the box.