Was Roy's attack on Miko after the murder of Shojo morally justified? [Archive]

David Argall

2009-07-05, 02:40 PM

OK, let's start with the basics. Roy attacks Miko. We have three basic explanations. Self defense, arrest, or just being pissed off at her.

Self-defense: Roy advances on Miko. This of itself kills any self defense plea. Legal systems vary on how much, or if, you need to retreat, but when you advance, you are not defending yourself, you are simply attacking. It does not matter if the other guy has slugged you a few times or not. When he moves away from you, you can not plea self defense if you advance to attack him.
And we have Roy's statement, "All I care about..." He does not mention any fear for himself, nor for any others, nor about her ability to attack, either immediately or later. He say "All" and that is about a past event.
Self defense is out of the question here.

Arrest: Again we have "All", followed by a lack of any demand that Miko surrender, drop her weapon, or in any way submit to the law or him. We know the drill. The cop sees the criminal, pulls his gun, aims, and shouts some version of "Police! Drop your weapon! Hands up!" The cop who just bashes the criminal is routinely condemned, sometimes not harshly, but still condemned. When the criminal is just standing there, the condemnation is automatic, and can be severe.
We note back in the dungeon that the surrenders of both Thog and Nale are accepted. Annis and Dragon are the ones who advance to the attack. Elan confronts Nale and waits. Hinjo gets in front of Miko, and talks. Elan accepts Kubota's surrender.
We simply have nothing here that suggests an attempt to arrest on the part of Roy.

Anger: This clearly fits all the facts. Roy is visibly angry. His stated motive is anger. And we see plenty of reason to think he should be angry. Why is there any dispute on the point? [Beyond looking for excuses for the clearly wrong?]

Now how much should we condemn Roy? We have to condemn him some. Anger is of itself a sin, and damaging somebody because you are angry is even more obviously evil.
Roy does not have any legal justification here for merely attacking. This is a major city with a fully functioning LG legal system, the place he is least able to justify attacking someone. By what Roy knows, Miko will be fully and correctly punished. It is not Roy's right or duty to add to that punishment.

Now we can say that Roy does not qualify for major crime. He is acting in the heat of the moment for what pass as vaguely honorable motives. [No, that does not excuse him. Recall what the road to Hell is paved with.] That Hinjo does not even consider pressing charges is quite reasonable. But this does not make his action either legal or moral.

Now on some particular points...

roy never attempted to kill miko,
Sticking a sword right thru her hardly can be anything else.

he specifically used non lethal damage during the battle,

"Specifically"? Absolutely not! Point to where anybody says anything about non-lethal damage here, and we are talking about big pointy weapons. The presumption they are doing lethal damage is very powerful.
The very idea Roy is going to bother with non-lethal damage is silly to start with, but this is simply ignoring the text.

most notably when he hit her with non lethal damage to knock her off hinjo.
Now a-that is after the attack we are discussing. and...
B-it would be extremely stupid to be doing non-lethal damage at that point. Hinjo was in immediate danger of death, and non-lethal means a 20% increase in the chance of his dying. That is no time to be dithering around. One swings to stop Miko cold, and if that means her body is going to be cold in a few hours, so be it.

As has been regularly shown in the strip, impalement is not considered lethal for the main characters and others at their level.
Lethal is in no sense limited to blows that kill, or to blows that might kill. The term is quite expansive. You can go down for use of lethal weapons for a long variety of things whose lethal threat is minor or even non-existent. [One fellow a few years back claimed to have AIDS and threatened to spit on the officer. Despite the low chance of actually catching the disease that way, and the fact he didn't have it in the first place, he did time for the threat.]
Nor are game rules any different. Lethal damage cures at the rate of points per day. Non-lethal goes away at points per hour. There is a major difference in the rules, and thus in the laws of any D&D setting.

it's not something anyone would really hold against him.
Something that people would not really hold against you is something that people can hold against you. [A criminal might say "It wasn't "really" murder..."] They are just being forgiving and deeming it a minor crime instead of a major.

Imagine the following:

President of the USA and his 200 bodyguards sit in the oval office. In comes some lunatic former secret service agent, declares everyone an agent of evil (or a taliban terrorist or whatever) and shoots him.

You think the other guys will try to talk sense into him? Nope, they'll put him so full of bullets that you need a DNA sample to identify him later :)
They might, and they would get run over the coals for doing so, and at least be suspected of criminal conspiracy. Their job is stopping the shooting in the first place, and capturing the assassin alive if they can't. Shooting the assassin is an inferior result, sometimes excusable, but not desirable.
Standard procedure for our real assassins in such cases is gang tackling.

And why would you bother comparing it to reality's morality? They are just too different to be "portable".
Except where we are told different, story morality is current morality. Otherwise, the reader simply can't make sense of what is going on.

hamishspence

2009-07-05, 02:57 PM

Prediction: none of these will be considered to apply to any of V's attacks or killings- because in the case of killings by V "a killing replaces the punishment and is not in addition to it"

Or, in Nale's case, "V knew from his fantastic deductive powers that Nale wouldn't surrender, therefore V's use of a damaging spell against him was right and just"

Do I predict correctly? :smallwink:

And please show exactly how you are judging V, Elan, and Roy to the same standard. (or Miko, for that matter, I recall a "act of killing Shojo was chaotic, not evil" argument, though I could be recalling wrong)

Shadic

2009-07-05, 03:01 PM

David - I'm surprised again, this is the second time you've taken a quote of Roy's terribly out of context. Here's the full phrasing, with a proper set of context before hand:

Miko after falling, is questioning how and why the gods would have stripped her of her power, as she thinks they were clear in what they wanted.

Roy responds, saying "Who the hell cares?" And then he says:
"All that matters to me right now is that you just killed the only other person who was actively trying to fix this stupid end-of-the-world thing."
"Which means I'm kicking your Fallen ass RIGHT NOW!"
What does that look like? It certainly looks like he's doing such because she just murdered a GOOD-aligned ruler.

As for the lethal/non-lethal dispute:
He's very likely doing lethal damage through most of #408. The first swing very well could have been an attempt to knock her out or something through some rule-stretch, considering it was a relatively-strong looking attack that only gave her a '#' in damage (On the head).

However, he has very, very good reason to not be using non-lethal damage at first. Why? He's fighting somebody who has taken down his ENTIRE team before, and he's more or less alone in this fight. Sure, he's gotten his sword back, and she's lost her paladin abilities, but she's still definitely a threat. There's no way Roy could take a -4 to hit to do non-lethal damage at this point.
Small War & XPs commentary spoiler:
Keep in mind, Miko likely lost a lot of her magic items in this fight as well. Rich talked about how it was likely a factor in the fight, as her magical equipment was drained of most use as a result of her falling. However, Roy doesn't know this. He could think he's just doing well on attack rolls, or something similar.

In fact, when Miko IS wounded and almost out for the count, what does Roy do? Non-lethal damage. He very well could have just sliced her with a power attack for the kill at the end of Comic 409 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html).

hamishspence

2009-07-05, 04:16 PM

The claims I've heard tend to be
"It was an art error"
"Miko didn't die- because the plot demanded it"
"It would be far too risky for Roy to take the gamble of using non-lethal damage at this point"

However, they may not be very plausible.

Simplest way of combining "last attack was lethal" and "miko fell unconscious" is, first attack was nonlethal. Which means Roy wasn't attacking to kill.

"Roy reduced her to exactly 0 hp, and Belkar's last kick gave her the non-lethal damage needed to make her fall unconscious" is possible, but not very plausible.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-05, 06:21 PM

In the second case, probably- V attacks Nale when he is not attacking with his dagger, but talking,

Keep in mind that, at that point, Nale's accomplices, a CE halforc barbarian and succubus, were busy trying to assassinate people and doing a pretty good job of it. Legally and morally is you are part of a group committing a crime you are still committing that crime if you stop for 5 seconds and try to trick the rescuers.

Morally, nale had slaughtered dozens of innocent cliffporters and deserved to die whether he was standing, talking, eating, or sleeping.

The fact that Miko had just committed murder and high treason, just picked up a weapon, and was, going by War & XPs comments on her actions "not a rational or sane paladin", are very strong exculpating factors.

Do you want a legalistic argument or a moralistic one? Like most here, you seem to be getting the two mixed up. Moral does not equal legal. Legally, new york state can take your property for what they think a fair market value is, and the only notice they have to give you is an ad section in a newspaper you may or may not read in a section that no one ever reads.

Add in the comment by the Giant that, way back when Shojo talked her down from killing Belkar, she was "on the verge of a psychotic break" then, depending on Roy's motive, it may possibly be considered morally justifiable now, consider that, in the eyes of Roy, she has "gone off her rocker"

Legally or morally, someone being insane does not prohibit you from self defense or the second party self defense of the innocent. You have a right to live and if that means someone crazy enough to qualify as the material component for a fireball spell needs to die then its regrettable but necessary.

In most cases someone being crazy isn't anyone's fault, but if someone has to die its better that its the psyco with the axe than little timmy or the strategically important political leader. If their mind is half gone anyway its best that they get subdued and treated, regrettable that they have to die, but innocent not crazies dying is the worst outcome of all, because the psyco will keep on killing. Better one death that will stop the killing than many that will not.

LuisDantas

2009-07-05, 08:30 PM

While I see Roy's attack as a mistake, there is no way to interpret it as an attempt with lethal intent.

To want to see it that way would go against all available evidence: it would be (1) out of character for Roy; (2) against the evidence of the strips themselves, which show a Miko that is both quite capable of defending herself and not under danger of lethal damage at any time; and finally (3) lethal damage simply does not happen accidentally in this webcomic, far as I can tell.

There is also (4) - the D&D mechanics that OOtS partially follows are simply not well suited for sudden and undesired sword kills; fighters such as Roy and Miko would be hard pressed to kill each other all of a sudden even if they both explicitly wanted to; except under exceptional circunstances, they would need to eat each other's HP gradually.

ZeroNumerous

2009-07-05, 08:40 PM

In D&D context,

the modified D&D setting of OOTS context,

and 21st century context.

1) There's no such thing as justification in D&D. Contrary to the popular opinion, D&D has objective morality. There's no justification for an act. It either is or isn't Good/Neutral/Evil.

2) See 1).

3) He just witnessed a murder. He feels obligated to halt the perpetrator and place her in the care of the proper authorities. So he attempts to do so. Morality never enters into it.

Malek2991

2009-07-05, 09:15 PM

Roy vs Miko

Roy did not try to kill Miko, even when he impaled Miko, Roy had 0 chance of killing her with one attack, Max critical damage would be 24 (max on 2d6 with x2 crit) + 5 enhancement bonus +7 (20 STR +5 x 1.5 for a two-handed weapon), for a grand total 36 MAXIMUM crity damage. On average a 10th level paladin (and Miko is probably above 10th level) has 55 HP + (10 x CON modifier), So even when Roy impaled her he could not kill her in a single attack, even if he did manage to crit and roll 4 6's on damage. (Note the minumum HP would be 10, regardless of CON ones HP can't go below 1 per level, but if she had the minumum she would have died LONG before then).

He did not want to risk the -4 penalty to hit to attempt to deal nonleathal damage against her with his initial attacks. She did not possess any method of healing herself after she fell, so Roy might have thought if she were injured enough she would surrender. He did most likely deal non-leathal damage on the last attack because he did not want to kill her, and to knock her unconsious with non-leathal damage, he needs to only deal non-leathal damage greater than her current HP total, which was reduced by his initial attacks.

In V's case, one (s)he's Neutral, and two Nale is only not attacking with the dagger to trick V... If V simply said "You're Nale" (with V probably using a lot more words) while pointing at him, he would simply resume attacking. She was "morally justified" in attacking a LE villian that was trying to kill his/her friends.

Ridureyu

2009-07-05, 09:20 PM

No. What Roy should have done is fallen to his knees, bowed his head, and said, "Smite me, oh Righteous One."

veti

2009-07-05, 09:27 PM

In D&D context, "morality" is usually obscenely over-simplified, to the point where Good-aligned characters can actually justify attacking other sentient beings with no cause and no warning, for no better reason than that the Monster Manual entry says "Evil". That's what "D&D morality" means to me. It's a morality based almost entirely on loyalty, with no more than lip service paid to the demands of justice.

That's a depressingly accurate representation of medieval morality. The English thought Joan of Arc must be a witch, the French that she was a saint. Both sides were perfectly sincere in their beliefs, based solely on which side she was on.

The picture grows a bit more complicated when you introduce bodies that really believe in justice as an ideal, rather than just using the word as code for "do as you're told". The Sapphire Guard is one such organisation: in SoD, we see that they actually have a reason to destroy the goblin village - they don't do it willy-nilly just because it's there, or purely for the XP - and it does bother them. Which makes it ironic that Redcloak focuses on them as the standard-bearers for anti-goblin injustice. But I digress.

Nowadays, we tend to take "justice" a lot more seriously. There are all sorts of reasons for that, but I think the most important point is that the elites no longer pretend to be self-supporting - we riff-raff are more aware that they need us, and therefore they have to at least pretend to treat us with some respect. Justice means treating people according to their actions and the situation, without special favouritism based on who they are.

So: for me, the questions are:

would Roy have acted any differently if it'd been Belkar, or Haley, or Durkon, who killed Shojo? There's room for doubt here, but I think he would have reacted very much the same: kick their ass. The dialogue would be different, but that's all.
would Roy have acted any differently if, instead of Shojo, some other defenceless octogenarian had been bisected in front of him? Again, I don't think so. We know "Protecting the weak" is one of Roy's core ideals (from here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html)), and when a high-level character murders a defenceless person, it's his role - as a high-level Defender Of The Weak - to take them down. (Non-lethally if possible, but that's secondary to stopping them.)

As for "would Roy be acquitted by a modern court in some random jurisdiction, based on what we know from watching crummy TV dramas?" - well, that would depend on the dramatic necessity of the author of that particular drama. Obviously.

Pronounceable

2009-07-06, 02:01 AM

I don't much care about this discussion. BUT:

You have a right to live and if that means someone crazy enough to qualify as the material component for a fireball spell needs to die then its regrettable but necessary
this needs to be acknowledged as awesomeness.

David Argall

2009-07-06, 03:12 AM

Here's the full phrasing, with a proper set of context before hand:

Miko after falling, is questioning how and why the gods would have stripped her of her power, as she thinks they were clear in what they wanted.

Roy responds, saying "Who the hell cares?" And then he says:
"All that matters to me right now is that you just killed the only other person who was actively trying to fix this stupid end-of-the-world thing."
"Which means I'm kicking your Fallen ass RIGHT NOW!"
What does that look like? It certainly looks like he's doing such because she just murdered a GOOD-aligned ruler.
So what is the difference with the way I put it?
Miko had just done something that made Roy furious. Does that give him any right to harm her? The answer is clearly no. He is not the city executioner, nor employed as anything of the sort. He might be said to have a duty to make sure she is arrested and turned over to the proper authorities, but he has no right nor duty to harm her.
That Miko had killed a good man? One that Roy liked? Reasons that Miko should be punished, but it is not Roy's place to do so.

As for the lethal/non-lethal dispute:
He's very likely doing lethal damage through most of #408. The first swing very well could have been an attempt to knock her out or something through some rule-stretch, considering it was a relatively-strong looking attack that only gave her a '#' in damage (On the head).

However, he has very, very good reason to not be using non-lethal damage at first. Why? He's fighting somebody who has taken down his ENTIRE team before, and he's more or less alone in this fight. Sure, he's gotten his sword back, and she's lost her paladin abilities, but she's still definitely a threat. There's no way Roy could take a -4 to hit to do non-lethal damage at this point....
when Miko IS wounded and almost out for the count, what does Roy do? Non-lethal damage. .
You need to explain the inconsistency here. That -4 applied to the last blow as well as the first, and created a major chance Hinjo would die. Definitely a powerful reason not to use non-lethal on the last blow.

Simplest way of combining "last attack was lethal" and "miko fell unconscious" is, first attack was nonlethal.
However, Roy's sword had that green flame. The only previous time it had had that was when he was attacking Sabine. Are we going to claim he wasn't trying to kill her either? And was he trying non-lethal against Xykon and his mount? Its meaning is not set at this time, but it is hard to consider it consistent with non-lethal damage.

While I see Roy's attack as a mistake, there is no way to interpret it as an attempt with lethal intent.

it would be (1) out of character for Roy;
Please point out evidence of this. Roy is a PC. That means he has killed hundreds to reach his current level.

(2) against the evidence of the strips themselves, which show a Miko that is both quite capable of defending herself and not under danger of lethal damage at any time;
a-Miko ends up flat on the ground, clearly below zero hp. So she was definitely under threat of being killed [save for plot armor].
b-Use of a lethal weapon is still use of a lethal weapon even if the chance of immediately killing is extremely low, both according to the law and according to D&D rules.

and finally (3) lethal damage simply does not happen accidentally in this webcomic, far as I can tell.
Lethal damage is the automatic assumption for just about all attacks unless stated otherwise.

There is also (4) - the D&D mechanics that OOtS partially follows are simply not well suited for sudden and undesired sword kills; fighters such as Roy and Miko would be hard pressed to kill each other all of a sudden even if they both explicitly wanted to; except under exceptional circunstances, they would need to eat each other's HP gradually.
A long drawn-out fight makes for better drama, but is not a 3.5 feature. A melee fighter deals out massive damage and the fights are over in 1-2 rounds in most cases. An archer can deal out about 10 hp a level, and the melee fighter hits for close to 20. A full round attack puts your equal level foe on the floor, or close to it. Roy can't kill Miko with one blow, but he does 3-4 attacks a round, and Roy can do 50 a hit. [No, this is not a tweeked Roy, just your garden variety 13th level.] The battle in the strip is spread out for drama. With a little luck on the dice, a game Miko would never get a chance to swing.

1) There's no such thing as justification in D&D. Contrary to the popular opinion, D&D has objective morality. There's no justification for an act. It either is or isn't Good/Neutral/Evil.
Depending on your view, this is simply wrong, or a trivial difference since players and characters are required to justify acts anyway.

3) He just witnessed a murder. He feels obligated to halt the perpetrator and place her in the care of the proper authorities. So he attempts to do so.

But Roy does not do that. He simply attacks her, never making a demand she surrender or otherwise comply with the law. He just says he is mad and attacks her.

Max critical damage would be 24 (max on 2d6 with x2 crit) + 5 enhancement bonus +7 (20 STR +5 x 1.5 for a two-handed weapon), for a grand total 36 MAXIMUM crity damage.
You forget Power Attack, which can add up to 26 hp per hit, and Roy should have a +4 or +6 Str bonus item, which also benefits from the 1.5, which brings us to 65 [and a fort save to avoid immediate death], before we consider specials, such as that green flame, which seems to hurt Sabine a lot, as well as Xykon and his mount.
This is just one hit. Roy swings 3 times a round, 4 if he has something like Boots of Speed... Roy could take down Miko in just one good round.

In D&D context, "morality" is usually obscenely over-simplified, to the point where Good-aligned characters can actually justify attacking other sentient beings with no cause and no warning, for no better reason than that the Monster Manual entry says "Evil". That's what "D&D morality" means to me. It's a morality based almost entirely on loyalty, with no more than lip service paid to the demands of justice.
This depends on your DM. However, your commercial product is quick to provide the party with proper excuses to run riot. The evil monster the party kills and robs really is doing something evil that makes his demise a good idea.

* would Roy have acted any differently if it'd been Belkar, or Haley, or Durkon, who killed Shojo? There's room for doubt here, but I think he would have reacted very much the same: kick their ass. The dialogue would be different, but that's all.
We have Roy shown as big on group loyalty. Belkar killed a guard, and Roy stops Miko from giving him what he so richly deserves. Later, he argues Shojo into a reduced charge, and then tries to fiddle with that so Belkar can go free.
Now Haley, standing in for Roy, does cut Belkar loose when he kills the Oracle, but she does not try to harm him despite his being helpless. So all we can see suggests Roy would be a lot more helpful to a party member who cut down Shojo.

* would Roy have acted any differently if, instead of Shojo, some other defenceless octogenarian had been bisected in front of him?
Now besides the guard again, this time, we have Belkar and the gnome. Belkar got to walk from that. Now Haley really didn't have much choice, until Belkar got sick, but we are still seeing group loyalty as the prime virtue. Roy may chew him out a little, but Roy is going to be on his side, not the side of justice.

We know "Protecting the weak" is one of Roy's core ideals (from here),

But Roy was the slowest member of the party to recognize any duty here. We can not consider this a powerful value of his.

and when a high-level character murders a defenceless person, it's his role - as a high-level Defender Of The Weak - to take them down. (Non-lethally if possible, but that's secondary to stopping them.)
Stopping them and taking them down have different meanings often enough. Roy has a duty to protect, but not to avenge. He can help arrest, but not to punish, at least in a LG city. So no, the mere fact of murder does not justify Roy's attack.

Darklord Bright

2009-07-06, 07:15 AM

Shpadoinkle

2009-07-06, 07:35 AM

She murdered one guy because she had lost her mind, and was attempting to kill another when Roy said "Screw this" and stepped in to help stop her, even though it wasn't neccisarily his fight.

She wasn't in her right mind (if she even had one to begin with) and was a threat to herself and everyone else around her. Yes, I personally think attempting to stop a lunatic from mudering everyone is a 'morally justified' thing to do.

Even if she didn't realize what she was doing, she was still a threat, and you deal with a threat by either controlling (which they did) or eliminating it. They subdued her and probably would have tried to get help for her (it should have been clear to everyone at that point that she wasn't mentally stable), if not for the fact of the much larger threat posed by Xykon and his army. As it was, they had to put the smaller threat on the back burner for a little while as they dealt with the much larger one. That ultimately proved to be thier undoing, yes, but they had no way of knowing that ahead of time.

Malek2991

2009-07-06, 10:07 AM

Yes, if Roy wanted to kill her in a round he could have done so, he did not. A SINGLE greatsword crit could not of killed her even if Roy had 26 STR (20, +6 belt of giant str). If he did not take the -4 hit penalty to deal non-lethal damage the -5 penalty for max Power Attack would result in him missing more since Miko does wear heavy armor (most likely magic). IF he did crit while power attacking and dealt 65 damage, Paladins have good saves for all types of attacks, as do Monks, even without Divine Grace (which she lost when she fell). Her chances of dying there were slim, and if she DID die somehow, Durkon can Raise Dead, as could the cleric who tried to revive Shojo.

Furthermore, assuming Roy did not attack her, redirecting her attacks to him, there is no telling who she would have attacked next. She went "completely off her rocker" after all...

Worira

2009-07-06, 10:29 AM

You need to explain the inconsistency here. That -4 applied to the last blow as well as the first, and created a major chance Hinjo would die. Definitely a powerful reason not to use non-lethal on the last blow.

Whether or not it was a good idea to use nonlethal damage on the last attack, Roy very clearly did. The sharp side of a sword does not go ""POW" and send people flying.

hamishspence

2009-07-06, 11:40 AM

1) There's no such thing as justification in D&D. Contrary to the popular opinion, D&D has objective morality. There's no justification for an act. It either is or isn't Good/Neutral/Evil.

Which is sort of the point- a killing or assault, if justified by the context and intent, is Neutral or Good, if not justified, its Evil.

As boVD points out, intent and context do matter, to a degree, even in an objective morality system.

Shadic

2009-07-06, 02:48 PM

Whether or not it was a good idea to use nonlethal damage on the last attack, Roy very clearly did. The sharp side of a sword does not go ""POW" and send people flying.
Bingo.
Besides, you could argue that she was surprised (She clearly didn't see Roy coming, and she was able to attack a man that was lying down.. You can't really combat something coming at you.) That could make her something close to being flat-footed. That'd mean she would lose at least 3 to her AC... Stack that in with any magical enhancements being gone from her armor. (Granted, Roy doesn't know, but still.)
Not to mention Roy's attack very well could have been a charge, which would give him an additional +2 to hit. Either way, Roy has a full BAB, and would only miss on a very low roll. And I don't think Miko would try and kill Hinjo while she's low on HP herself, and has an angry fighter standing next to her.

David Argall

2009-07-06, 04:46 PM

I suppose it would kind of be like a hired muscle for the leader of a Special Police Force witnessing a lower ranking officer kill the leader in cold blood. The way he sees it, she's gone nuts and needs to be put down before she kills another innocent.
You don't want to put down the attacker. Take down, yes, but that means leaving the assassin alive.
a-you have a general duty to use minimal force, and not to kill if you can avoid it.
b-you have a need to determine who was behind this, and killing the assassin means the assassin can't tell you.
c-you kill the assassin, and you will be suspected of doing so just to shut him up.
Now in the excitement of the assassination, one might shoot, but this is about a one second period of time. Thereafter it is time for cooler heads to prevail. Only if the assassin is aiming to shoot somebody else do you try to shoot him. But, as in the case of Miko here, if the assassin is simply standing there, your duty is to take her prisoner. So you get your weapon ready, and order her to drop her weapon and surrender. You do not attack until she resists.

She murdered one guy because she had lost her mind, and was attempting to kill another when Roy said "Screw this" and stepped in to help stop her, even though it wasn't neccisarily his fight.
You are talking about two different incidents. The attack after Shojo was killed is the main question, and Roy's attack has no justification because no active threat existed. The attack when Hinjo was being attacked was justified because Hinjo was being lethally attacked. The difference between immediate and sometime, maybe soon, is quite large legally and morally.

The sharp side of a sword does not go ""POW" and send people flying.
The sharp side does not slice people in half either. The strip has this happen frequently.
This is the only time so far we have had "Pow" happen. So assuming it means non-lethal is distinctly suspicious. Rather it seems to mean this is an all-out effort, Roy doing his max best, the home-run swing. None of these are really compatible with the idea of a non-lethal swing.
The picture is drama, not an intent to say Roy was trying to take Miko alive.

Furthermore, assuming Roy did not attack her, redirecting her attacks to him, there is no telling who she would have attacked next.
That of itself rejects any self defense plea. Since there is no telling who she would have attacked [or that she would attack at all], Roy can't tell if he is under the immediate threat needed to justify self defense.

hamishspence

2009-07-06, 05:10 PM

shoot him. But, as in the case of Miko here, if the assassin is simply standing there, your duty is to take her prisoner. So you get your weapon ready, and order her to drop her weapon and surrender. You do not attack until she resists.

Did the Cliffport Police department react this way, when "Nale" was just standing there, with a weapon in hand, after killing The Chief? No. They took "Nale" down first, fast, no demands for surrender, etc.

Now this could be partly because he has an accomplice, and a proximate innocent near to his weapon, but it rules out the "do not attack until person resists" claim.

ZeroNumerous

2009-07-06, 05:46 PM

Depending on your view, this is simply wrong, or a trivial difference since players and characters are required to justify acts anyway.

No, they do not. To wit: I cast Animate Dead to animate a bunch of zombies to save orphans. Is my intention Good? Yes. But I cast an Evil spell, therefore I have done an Evil action. Justification is irrelevant as morality in D&D is objective. The end result becomes equally irrelevant as only the action itself matters.

But Roy does not do that. He simply attacks her, never making a demand she surrender or otherwise comply with the law. He just says he is mad and attacks her.

And? Again, morality never enters into it. It's an ethical argument, not a moral one. Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.

hamishspence

2009-07-06, 05:54 PM

This applies to some actions, by Fiendish Codex 2: torture, murder, casting an evil spell. However, even here, acts have context:

"perverting justice for personal gain" as opposed to perverting justice for other reasons

"betraying a comrade for personal gain" as opposed to betrying a comrade for idealistic reasons

"stealing from the needy" as opposed to stealing from the less needy.

The acts are still usually evil, but they may be less evil.

and some acts, such as killing, are strongly dependant on the context, and intent, according to BoVD, which explains that even in "objective morality" intent and context are important.

Killing a good person is nearly always evil, but if the Good person has been tricked into committing an act of mass murder (poisoning a water supply, in the BoVD case) and the only way to stop them is to kill them, the intent and context make the act non-Evil.

Results are irrelavent if the act is an Always Evil one, yes, by BoED. But there are very few of those.

David Argall

2009-07-06, 08:08 PM

Did the Cliffport Police department react this way, when "Nale" was just standing there, with a weapon in hand, after killing The Chief? No. They took "Nale" down first, fast, no demands for surrender, etc.

Now this could be partly because he has an accomplice, and a proximate innocent near to his weapon, but it rules out the "do not attack until person resists" claim.
Now notice how that worked out. They beat up and arrested an innocent victim, while the criminal mastermind escaped. If they had stopped at the door and just called for surrender, Nale's whole plan falls apart. Elan starts talking and creating doubt about who is who. The police arrest both, and not long after that, V shows who is who. [Now we can make corrections to give Nale's plan a better chance, but by the text before us, Nale's plan was entirely dependent on the police attacking without asking questions. And, as V tells us, Nale is not that good as a devious mastermind. So there is no reason to really say Nale would have made any corrections.]
Now we have excuses for the cops here. Nale had showed them for chumps for some time, and had just killed their commanding officer. So they were angry and inexperienced, a combination that makes for a lot of errors. And Nale may have set up the situation so the cops assumed the "horrible demon" was going to appear any second, encouraging hasty thinking. But we are making excuses. Attacking right away worked out quite badly from the cops' view.

Again, morality never enters into it. It's an ethical argument, not a moral one. Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
That is not an either or question. We have 9 alignments, meaning all question are both, not either. You have a Law vs Chaos question And a Good vs Evil question involved on any point.

theinsulabot

2009-07-06, 08:15 PM

The sharp side does not slice people in half either. The strip has this happen frequently.
This is the only time so far we have had "Pow" happen. So assuming it means non-lethal is distinctly suspicious. Rather it seems to mean this is an all-out effort, Roy doing his max best, the home-run swing. None of these are really compatible with the idea of a non-lethal swing.
The picture is drama, not an intent to say Roy was trying to take Miko alive.

that just doesn't make any sense, miko, in an a vulnerable position, is hit by a power attack from a star metal sword we know for a fact can pierce her armor with little difficulty. a cleave hits miko with enough force to render her unconscious or close enough for a wall to finish the job, and she doesn't at the very least have a huge gash where the blade punched through, not to mention if that attack had been done with the blade of the sword miko wouldn't of flown straight back because however deep the blade bit into would of had her flopping around on the blade and she would of spun limply off somewhere near the back end of the arc. then of course there's the fact that your dodging the issue on the sound effect, and rarely if ever does the giant whiff on a sound effect, especially on his combat scenes. swords slicing into metal have always had a distinctive schink sound, usually accompanied by a crunch. pow, is an easy sound effect, the cigar is just a cigar, its the sound that a heavy blunt iron instrument, like the flat of a blade, makes against metal armor when slammed into it really hard.

EDIT: also, on a another point. just for the sake of honesty i went back and looked over miko in the next few strips to see if i could spot anywhere on her armor where the blade might of cut through (there wasnt) or any blood streaks that might indicate a new cut (also no) i also noticed something else. when roy hits her with the sword, there are several lines of impact, drawn streight, to indicate the point where the blow hit. now look at the next panel where she hits the wall, there is the same exact impact point. cant ever remember rich doing that for piercing or slashing damage, but i have seen him do it a few times for bludgeoning damage.

a few quick reference strips where bludgeoning damage is conveyed by straight lines

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0587.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0525.html

i especially like the first one because it has both a fall and an attack, like the miko fight, but all of these strips have at least one fall or one bludgeoning attack being represented by the straight lines surrounding it.

Worira

2009-07-06, 08:49 PM

Also note the "pow" in that last one, resulting from Elan punching Kubota. The "pow" also appears in 408 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html), when Miko kicks Roy.

theinsulabot

2009-07-06, 08:53 PM

Also note the "pow" in that last one, resulting from Elan punching Kubota. The "pow" also appears in 408 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html), when Miko kicks Roy.

huh, your right, hadnt even noticed that, so we now have both visual and audio clues from the giant that roy hit her with the flat of the blade, a specifically non lethal attack.

nice catch there

EDIT: second lo last one now, i later edited in another one just because it was a funny strip

ZeroNumerous

2009-07-07, 12:29 AM

That is not an either or question. We have 9 alignments, meaning all question are both, not either. You have a Law vs Chaos question And a Good vs Evil question involved on any point.

A given situation does not always require an answer from both Good v Evil and Law v Chaos. This is one such situation. There is no inherent good or evilness in his response. It's a question of ethics, not his morals.

Samurai Jill

2009-07-07, 01:06 AM

Roy was more verbally abrasive than he had to be, but I have absolutely no complaints with taking Miko down ASAP under the circumstances.

FujinAkari

2009-07-07, 01:15 AM

This has actually been discussed quite a bit, and the answer boils down to whether you feel Roy was trying to kill or incapacitate Miko.

If you think it was incapacitation, then Roy acted brashly... but not necessarily wrongly. He ended up exacerbating the situation, but was merely acting on the (incorrect) premise that Miko was too delusional to talk down, so he made the decision to attack since neither Belkar nor Hinjo would be able to deal with her if she went after them next.

However, if you think he was actually trying to kill her, then yes he very much acted incorrectly. In essence, he duplicated the very crime he's attacking her for. After all, Miko saw something which she considered supremely evil and passed judgement on the perpetrator, taking the law into her own hands and metting out judgement instead of allowing the law to take its due course. If Roy was trying to kill her then... well... ditto for him :)

For me... I think he was trying to kill her, simply due to the complete absence of any indication that he isn't. All his attacks seem to be lethal attacks (arguably except the "baseball-swing" attack, but that isn't until after Hinjo makes it clear that he wants Miko to survive, so it can't be considered as evidence to Roy's initial intention)

JonathanC

2009-07-07, 01:19 AM

FujinAkari

2009-07-07, 02:03 AM

Topics like this remind me why I try never to read this forum.

Killing your liege based on delusion and something you think you overheard is not the same thing as killing someone who just murdered the chaotic-good lord of the land right in front of your own eyes. And being a hot asian chick in plate armor does not make it wrong to murder you. Please, find something else in this comic to obsess over. The plot has moved so far beyond this that it's utterly ridiculous that people are still trying to make "new" (read: old) arguments about it.

You seem to be confusing your knowledge with Miko's knowledge. Her conclusion is neither illogical or foolish based on the facts known, and her being a "hot asian" has nothing to do with these facts. I rather resent the fact that you think I am attracted to stick figures, particularly female stick figures (not that there's anything wrong with that)

To recap, here is what Miko knows:

1) The Order of the Stick based their defense on the fact they had killed Xykon but Redcloak escaped.
2) Xykon isn't dead (well... at least in the "destroyed" definition)
3) Xykon bears no animocity towards Roy & co. His exact line is "Oh, Bluepommel and his buddies? Man did they leave a mess!" This is what you say about someone who comes to a kegger and doesn't clean up, not what you say about someone who supposedly killed you.
4) Xykon apparently knows a great deal about Azure Cities' military defenses and has been able to get within a few days of the city without anyone setting off an alarm.
4a) She concludes that this means she has an informant within Azure City... not necessarily true but, without ranks in Knowledge: Arcane, it seems to be a reasonable assumption.
5) When she arrives in Azure City, Shojo is speaking to Roy and Belkar (remember, Belkar is SUPPOSED to be in prison for murdering a guard, not waltzing around unchained in the throne room unattended!)
6) Miko directly hears Shojo say that he spent a lot of time getting OOTS into Azure City behind the Sapphire Guards' backs and plainly states he has been lying to them for some time.

This is what she knows... her conclusion is quite understandable... anyone with the same facts would conclude the same thing.

Of course, her ACTION is incorrect, but so is Roy's... which is what is being discussed.

Also: What the heck is the point of posting in a thread in order to say how much others are stupid for posting in the thread?

rakkoon

2009-07-07, 02:40 AM

I rather resent the fact that you think I am attracted to stick figures, particularly female stick figures (not that there's anything wrong with that)

So there's nothing wrong with being attracted to female stick figures?
Pff, you had me worried there for a second

Coidzor

2009-07-07, 02:48 AM

A dangerously unhinged, murderous human? Attempting to subdue them so that they don't go after you and yours when they have a declared and active hostility against you?

...What?

Avilan the Grey

2009-07-07, 03:20 AM

That is more separate from modern morality than you might think. A good aligned character naturally reaches most of the things we have today, but even for him, there are deeds we still condemn and are well within their moral boundaries.

I do not agree. See, this is where relative and absolute morals come into play; D&D has an aligment system built on modern day western morals.
If it did not, a Good character could, for example, see Torture as a Good punishment, or Human Sacrifice as an act of Good. Depending in what culture he is raised and what gods exists in the "setting".

Zerkai

2009-07-07, 04:28 AM

In my opinion, I do consider Roy's attack unjustified. I happened to be reading this particular arc when I checked the forum out.

After Miko slayed Shojo, she fell, dropping her sword in the progress, which led to her having a blue-screen-of-death moment while she backpedaled away from the thrown, confused. She is still unarmed when Roy comes over to 'Get involved'.

Though Miko picks up her sword next, she just stares at it, still confused as all hell, wondering aloud what went wrong. Then Roy Walks up to her and attacks, out of anger. He doesn't say anything about taking her in or attempts to get her to surrender. Making Miko fly into "Rage Mode"( :miko: Slash! Slash! Slash!) as one of the other forum-goers put it. and attack, the two exchange bloes for a bit, then Roy impales her.

And then Miko snaps back to her confused expression, stating she "I need time to figure out what the gods what me to do.", sword out of hand again. Then Roy starts to exacerbate the situation again with his taunting while Miko starts to get up, proceded by Roy attacking. While she was on her knees. With her back to him. Miko pivots and blocks it while Roy continues with the taunting ( :miko: STOP TALKING! ), then recieves a boot to the head and Miko tries to run off.

So I don't believe the attack on Miko was justified in the first part of the fight, I do believe it was justified in the end of it. Hinjo's down and unarmed while Miko goes berserk on him with no signs of stopping (:miko: Miko slash!), and Roy knocks her out. I think he was justified in using lethal or non-lethal force in that situation.

Samurai Jill

2009-07-07, 07:55 AM

This has actually been discussed quite a bit, and the answer boils down to whether you feel Roy was trying to kill or incapacitate Miko... For me... I think he was trying to kill her, simply due to the complete absence of any indication that he isn't. All his attacks seem to be lethal attacks (arguably except the "baseball-swing" attack, but that isn't until after Hinjo makes it clear that he wants Miko to survive, so it can't be considered as evidence to Roy's initial intention)
I don't think that's true. The very fact that Miko didn't stand down after Hinjo talked to her would indicate that reasonable efforts at diplomacy would have failed- because, after all, they did- which make's Roy's assessment as such seem justified.
In addition, his first attack seemed to leave bruising but no cuts, despite the large degree of damage dealt (given Miko's scream, and especially considering that the greatsword was capable of literally skewering her.) I think this indicates nonlethal damage was dealt initially, to provide a 'HP cushion' for ensuing combat (nor is dealing lethal damage necessarily a sign of outright lethal intent- you can (almost) always stabilise the target afterwards.) The very fact that Miko survived- never mind what Hinjo said, he's not the boss of Roy- should be taken as a reasonable sign that Roy was taking prisoners. -IMHO

Jagos

2009-07-07, 08:01 AM

Here's the hard part that I have with the situation. It's okay for her to have to think but it's not ok for Roy to attack her?

She did state she was a vessel of the gods. Getting it wrong and not seeking atonement does tell us she was of a few hinges.

Optimystik

2009-07-07, 08:11 AM

Yes and no, I say. He was obligated to make her stand down - immediately - but doing so might not have required the level of force he used.

Hinjo nailed the reason he leaped to the offense without trying to talk things out first; he enjoyed the opportunity, if mostly on a subliminal level, of putting the kibosh on her physically. This is particularly true since she had utterly thrashed him not once, but twice before.

Angry Rogue

2009-07-07, 08:13 AM

Imagine the following:

President of the USA and his 200 bodyguards sit in the oval office. In comes some lunatic former secret service agent, declares everyone an agent of evil (or a taliban terrorist or whatever) and shoots him.

You think the other guys will try to talk sense into him? Nope, they'll put him so full of bullets that you need a DNA sample to identify him later :)

So yeah, even in 21st century morale it was justified I think. She had picked up the sword again after loosing it. It was a fair asumtion that she might kill again.
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE!

TheCoolThatguy

2009-07-07, 10:19 AM

You seem to be confusing your knowledge with Miko's knowledge. Her conclusion is neither illogical or foolish based on the facts known, and her being a "hot asian" has nothing to do with these facts. I rather resent the fact that you think I am attracted to stick figures, particularly female stick figures (not that there's anything wrong with that)

To recap, here is what Miko knows:

1) The Order of the Stick based their defense on the fact they had killed Xykon but Redcloak escaped.
2) Xykon isn't dead (well... at least in the "destroyed" definition)
3) Xykon bears no animocity towards Roy & co. His exact line is "Oh, Bluepommel and his buddies? Man did they leave a mess!" This is what you say about someone who comes to a kegger and doesn't clean up, not what you say about someone who supposedly killed you.
4) Xykon apparently knows a great deal about Azure Cities' military defenses and has been able to get within a few days of the city without anyone setting off an alarm.
4a) She concludes that this means she has an informant within Azure City... not necessarily true but, without ranks in Knowledge: Arcane, it seems to be a reasonable assumption.
5) When she arrives in Azure City, Shojo is speaking to Roy and Belkar (remember, Belkar is SUPPOSED to be in prison for murdering a guard, not waltzing around unchained in the throne room unattended!)
6) Miko directly hears Shojo say that he spent a lot of time getting OOTS into Azure City behind the Sapphire Guards' backs and plainly states he has been lying to them for some time.

This is what she knows... her conclusion is quite understandable... anyone with the same facts would conclude the same thing.

Of course, her ACTION is incorrect, but so is Roy's... which is what is being discussed.

Also: What the heck is the point of posting in a thread in order to say how much others are stupid for posting in the thread?

I'd also throw in there the complete betrayal of her father figure and his willingness to exploit her power.

Miko's betrayal is really karma at work. Azure's Paladins had no issue exploiting her power, but rather than correct her behavior, they sent her away on long missions (where she would go months without hearing the opinions of those she respected) and emphasized her divine power.

Anyone remember how Miko recounted how Shojo comforted her the first time she was away from the dojo? Azure City reaped what their leaders had sown, really.

FujinAkari

2009-07-07, 11:37 AM

I don't think that's true. The very fact that Miko didn't stand down after Hinjo talked to her would indicate that reasonable efforts at diplomacy would have failed- because, after all, they did- which make's Roy's assessment as such seem justified.

Incorrect... for two reasons.

1) When we are in combat, our brain reverts to a fight-or-flight instinctual state. It is -very hard- to use logic to sway someone who is actively fighting to survive. This is why, when breaking up a fight, we usually see someone being pulled off of someone else, or a third person physically inserting themselves between the two combatants, because simply standing to one side and saying "Hey guys... stop..." isn't going to work. Thus, Roy significantly decreased the odds of a peaceful resolution by instigating violence (yes, it was an instigation, he choose to "get involved" while she was unarmed). The fact Hinjo came as close as he did to talking her down indicates she probably -would have- stopped if Roy hadn't forced the issue...

2) More relevantly, as David Arguile likes to say, you're deriving your facts from your conclusion. Roy doesn't get to "look ahead" in the strip to see that Hinjo won't be able to talk Miko down when he decides to attack her. We have both Roy and Hinjo remarking that Roy's reason to attack was that he was pissed off, so claiming that he was doing it out of a civic duty seems instantly incorrect.

In addition, his first attack seemed to leave bruising but no cuts, despite the large degree of damage dealt (given Miko's scream, and especially considering that the greatsword was capable of literally skewering her.) I think this indicates nonlethal damage was dealt initially, to provide a 'HP cushion' for ensuing combat (nor is dealing lethal damage necessarily a sign of outright lethal intent- you can (almost) always stabilise the target afterwards.) The very fact that Miko survived- never mind what Hinjo said, he's not the boss of Roy- should be taken as a reasonable sign that Roy was taking prisoners. -IMHO

No. The first attack is drawn at a slashing angle. I'll give you that the "baseball" attack might have been with the flat of the blade, but we very clearly see that the initial strike was with the edged side.

And again, you're arguing intention, which cannot be proven. I believe I rather outright stated that intent was a matter of opinion, so arguing that Roy wasn't trying to kill her is a dead-end argument, neither of us can know. I won't tell you that you're wrong, I'll just tell you that you can't be proven right.

hamishspence

2009-07-07, 11:42 AM

It wasn't interpreted that way by many people at the time- we see no cut line through the air, unlike with Miko's cuts, and it leaves what could be a bruise rather than a gouge.

See Discussion Thread Index- strip 408, for details of the argument.

However, its a bit borderline- could be interpreted both ways.

thepsyker

2009-07-07, 01:13 PM

If you think it was incapacitation, then Roy acted brashly... but not necessarily wrongly. He ended up exacerbating the situation, but was merely acting on the (incorrect) premise that Miko was too delusional to talk down, so he made the decision to attack since neither Belkar nor Hinjo would be able to deal with her if she went after them next.

Seeing as how when Hinjo did try to talk her down he wound up almost being killed for it, what exactly is the basis for the claim that she could have been talked down?

Edit: ok, I see this was answered while I was writing this, so never mind :End edit

On topic, I have to say from what little I understand of police and rules regarding the use of lethal force, if one were to kill someone in front of them they would be authorized to use lethal force. As in such a situation where you have someone standing there with a drawn weapon who has just demonstrated their willingness to kill they would qualify as being imminent danger, I think that would especially for Roy seeing as how the killer had just murdered an old man for, in part, his association with Roy. But, then that situation would be if everyone was armed with guns, the police procedures might be different if they were armed with melee weapons.

Still, I'm going to come down on the side of those saying that that last attack was meant to be non lethal, because frankly a blow with the edge of a sword that has enough force behind it to throw a full grow person across a room is going to cut the person in half, before its going to throw them across a room.

Berserk Monk

2009-07-07, 01:51 PM

She killed a ruler of a nation and was attacking a paladin that was trying to peacefully arrest her.

Less stupid question: are half the things Belkar does morally right?

SadisticFishing

2009-07-07, 01:54 PM

She killed a ruler of a nation and was attacking a paladin that was trying to peacefully arrest her.

Less stupid question: are half the things Belkar does morally right?

Equally stupid question.

No. Virtually none of them are.

Samurai Jill

2009-07-07, 03:05 PM

Incorrect... for two reasons.

1) When we are in combat, our brain reverts to a fight-or-flight instinctual state...
In case you didn't notice, Miko was already in a far from cool-and-rational frame of mind, (and arguably already 'in combat', for all psychological intents and purposes.) I'm not assuming that Roy is clairvoyant, I'm assuming his insight into Miko's personality was astute enough to conclude that she was past the point of persuasion (or at least that the risks of diplomacy outweighed the statistical benefits.)

No. The first attack is drawn at a slashing angle. I'll give you that the "baseball" attack might have been with the flat of the blade, but we very clearly see that the initial strike was with the edged side.
The art style is composed entirely of 2-dimensional stick figures. How, exactly, is the artist supposed to represent any kind of striking?

And again, you're arguing intention, which cannot be proven. I believe I rather outright stated that intent was a matter of opinion, so arguing that Roy wasn't trying to kill her is a dead-end argument, neither of us can know.
If Roy had genuinely wanted her dead, then she would be, because she lost. Until you can come up with compelling evidence that Hinjo's feelings on the subject, or anything else, caused him to change plans midway, I am going to assume capture was his priority.

hamishspence

2009-07-07, 03:45 PM

Given that Roy had beeen referring to her as "off her rocker" and that he'd seen Durkon, the only member of the Order she respected, try, back when she was trying to kill Belkar- and fail,

its fair to conclude he knows his chances of persuading her to do anything are about nil.

The only person he's seen able to talk her down is Shojo- and she's just killed him.

David Argall

2009-07-07, 05:48 PM

a cleave hits miko with enough force to render her unconscious or close enough for a wall to finish the job, and she doesn't at the very least have a huge gash where the blade punched through,
I have provided a dozen examples, from only some of the strips, of clear wound "mistakes". And we have dozens more where we simply don't know if they were errors or not. Absence of a wound mark simply can not be taken as evidence there was no wound. Our artist simply does not bother with that level of precision.

pow, is an easy sound effect, the cigar is just a cigar, its the sound that a heavy blunt iron instrument, like the flat of a blade, makes against metal armor when slammed into it really hard.
More precisely, it is the sound of anything being hit really hard, and here the scene wants to show Miko being hit hard. It does not matter whether the hit is non-lethal or lethal. The scene calls for Roy to make a really powerful hit, and thus "Pow!" is the correct sound, whether the blow is lethal or not.

A given situation does not always require an answer from both Good v Evil and Law v Chaos.
By the logic of D&D, yes it does. When you chart something on a two-dimensional space, it requires both dimensions to locate it. One dimension merely gives you a line, not a point.

This is one such situation. There is no inherent good or evilness in his response. It's a question of ethics, not his morals.
Roy is going up and trying to bash Miko's head in. This seems rather obviously an evil act, unless we find reasons to justify it. So yes, it is a question of morals and ethics.

Killing your liege based on delusion and something you think you overheard is not the same thing as killing someone who just murdered the chaotic-good lord of the land right in front of your own eyes.
And arresting a criminal is not the same as attacking your ex-girlfriend who has been very annoying.

This is what she knows... her conclusion is quite understandable... anyone with the same facts would conclude the same thing.
Well, not quite. Anyone with her information has grounds to suspect, but not to conclude. As Roy says, Miko leaps to a conclusion here. Ordering Roy's arrest [since Shojo was already going to jail] would have been a reasonable tactic. Slicing Shojo was going beyond her facts.

The very fact that Miko didn't stand down after Hinjo talked to her would indicate that reasonable efforts at diplomacy would have failed- because, after all, they did-
This is confusing would have and did. Hinjo's effort to get Miko to surrender failed -barely- despite Roy's attack. So when we assume Roy didn't attack, we have to assume Hinjo's chance of success would have been notably greater. We can't say it is a lock cinch that Miko would have surrendered because reality is complicated, and a plus can turn out to be a minus, but our default assumption has to be that Hinjo could have talked Miko down if Roy had not attacked.

The very fact that Miko survived- never mind what Hinjo said, he's not the boss of Roy- should be taken as a reasonable sign that Roy was taking prisoners.
We are deep in drama here, where the fact of massive damage simply does not kill. Miko, for example, survives being smashed thru a wall, and knocked for about a mile, and having a horse land on her afterwards. Miko's survival has nothing to do with non-lethal damage.

Here's the hard part that I have with the situation. It's okay for her to have to think but it's not ok for Roy to attack her?
What's the problem? When she is thinking, she is not attacking. Why attack her and goad her into attacking?

I have to say from what little I understand of police and rules regarding the use of lethal force, if one were to kill someone in front of them they would be authorized to use lethal force.
They would be authorized to use necessary force, which can be lethal only in extreme cases. If surrender or capture can be achieved without lethal force, lethal force is not authorized. If surrender or capture can be achieved without force, no force at all is authorized. The cop often gets away with slugging an irritating prisoner, but he is violating the laws and can get called on it.

Let us imagine a bar fight. John kills Sam. Now Alex decides that this was murder and kills John. Joe thinks John had the right to attack, and that would make Alex a murderer, and so Joe kills Alex. Carl has the opposite position and then kills Joe. Then Bill, David, Eddie, Frank.... weigh in. We end up with a roomful of bodies, and we don't even know who was at fault in the first place.
This is insane, but it follows logically from saying Roy has the right to just up and attack Miko. And it is precisely what Roy says he is doing. Roy is quite simply in the wrong here.

As in such a situation where you have someone standing there with a drawn weapon who has just demonstrated their willingness to kill they would qualify as being imminent danger,
We have been over this before, several times. To quote...

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/martial_arts/110256/3

The key word is "immediate." If a guy takes a swing at you, you can block it and counter punch. If it stuns him, you must stop and back away, even if he's still snarling and yelling that you're a dead man and it's obvious he's going to take another swing at you once he figures out where you are.

She killed a ruler of a nation and was attacking a paladin that was trying to peacefully arrest her.
You are getting the two attacks confused. The 2nd attack, when Miko was attacking Hinjo, seems to be universally accepted as proper, with questions only on whether Roy was using lethal or non-lethal damage.
The first attack was when Roy attacked a Miko who was just standing there.

I'm not assuming that Roy is clairvoyant, I'm assuming his insight into Miko's personality was astute enough to conclude that she was past the point of persuasion (or at least that the risks of diplomacy outweighed the statistical benefits.)
Roy's experience of Miko was grossly inferior to Hinjo's. Hinjo considered it entirely reasonable to try to talk with her, despite Roy having angered her further. We have no reason to consider Roy's insights to be valid here.
Nor do we have any signs that Roy made any such insights. Roy makes not claim of self defense, or arrest. Instead we just hear anger and attacks.

The art style is composed entirely of 2-dimensional stick figures. How, exactly, is the artist supposed to represent any kind of striking?
Which is the point. Our artist doesn't aspire to any such degree of accuracy, and we can not conclude these actions are non-lethal from the artwork. We can conclude from the simple fact of using a great big sword that the vast majority of Roy's attacks are intended to be lethal, and so it is up to those claiming non-lethal to show why.

If Roy had genuinely wanted her dead, then she would be, because she lost.

Different situations, at least in Roy's eyes.
Roy seems to follow the common faulty idea that there is a difference between murdering a helpless person and murdering one with a weapon in his possession. So he can not attack Miko once she is down and out. That is too obviously just murder.

Until you can come up with compelling evidence that Hinjo's feelings on the subject, or anything else, caused him to change plans midway, I am going to assume capture was his priority.
And how is there grounds for assuming capture was ever his priority? All he says is that he wants to beat her up.

theinsulabot

2009-07-07, 05:54 PM

I have provided a dozen examples, from only some of the strips, of clear wound "mistakes". And we have dozens more where we simply don't know if they were errors or not. Absence of a wound mark simply can not be taken as evidence there was no wound. Our artist simply does not bother with that level of precision.

More precisely, it is the sound of anything being hit really hard, and here the scene wants to show Miko being hit hard. It does not matter whether the hit is non-lethal or lethal. The scene calls for Roy to make a really powerful hit, and thus "Pow!" is the correct sound, whether the blow is lethal or not.

so you have chosen to completely ignore the evidence of the lines, and the additional evidence in which pow is used to represent bludgeon damage then. evidence i might add, you originally claimed didn't exist, as you said pow had never been used for any other sound effect.

Jagos

2009-07-07, 07:10 PM

What's the problem? When she is thinking, she is not attacking. Why attack her and goad her into attacking?

Her thinking is already flawed. She jumped to a conclusion, killed someone (that was innocent of the crimes she accused him of) and needs to think of why that's a bad thing as a paladin?

Not like thinking would have made it any better or worse but dang...

I have provided a dozen examples, from only some of the strips, of clear wound "mistakes". And we have dozens more where we simply don't know if they were errors or not. Absence of a wound mark simply can not be taken as evidence there was no wound. Our artist simply does not bother with that level of precision.

Even in the last thread, we went over those differences of Roy's cleave attacks, slices, and flat blades. I think there's been enough precision to look and see the difference in a bludgeon attack and otherwise. Especially when the "Pow" of Roy being stunned by Miko is similar to the "POW" of Miko sent flying by Roy.

SmartAlec

2009-07-07, 07:32 PM

The first attack was when Roy attacked a Miko who was just standing there.

She wasn't just standing there. This is D&D rules, remember. She attacked Shojo in the surprise round, and killed him. Then the standard round began. Hinjo went first, and he ran past Miko to try and get to Shojo. Then it was Roy's turn, and he attacked Miko. Then it was Miko's turn, and she attacked back.

As for the whole 'lethal-non lethal damage' thing, it doesn't hold up. People in the real world don't have hit points. You can hit someone as hard as you like with anything you like in D&D and in OOTS and as long as they have enough hp to absorb the blow, it's never going to be lethal. Every attack Roy made was non-lethal by real-world standards.

Yogi

2009-07-07, 07:46 PM

In the Dungeons and Dragons-verse

1) You can deal lethal damage to someone and still not be trying to kill them. People like Miko have lots of HP and even if she drops into the Negatives there's still people around that can stabalize her.

2) When someone attacks your party, there is no need to negotiate before unleashing lethal damage. If Generic Gobln #453 attacks your party with lethal damage, it is perfectly reasonable to respond in kind without asking to see if we really want to work things out first.

3) In Real life, if someone (such as the police) has their gun pointed at you, they can kill you just by pulling the trigger, so shouts of "drop your weapon" might actually be effective. In D&D, high level antagonists have fat stacks of HP to burn through and generally don't surrender unless they are in danger of actually running out of HP.

In real life, if you see someone murder someone else, it's not illegal to go and subdue that person. Yeah, you're going to have to actally walk towards that person to subdue him, but that's how subduing violent criminals work.

Ytaker

2009-07-07, 09:24 PM

3) In Real life, if someone (such as the police) has their gun pointed at you, they can kill you just by pulling the trigger, so shouts of "drop your weapon" might actually be effective. In D&D, high level antagonists have fat stacks of HP to burn through and generally don't surrender unless they are in danger of actually running out of HP.

More importantly, it doesn't cause bleeding. In real life, there are lots of cases of people taking a bullet hit and not even noticing it till several minutes later. In real life, when two gun slingers fought, chances are one would fire first, wound, and the other would take the hit, slowly take aim, and shoot the other. DnD doesn't recognise the fact that sword and gun injuries often cause internal bleeding which will slowly but surely kill you.

Sword dueling in the past had a fairly high mortality rate because both fighters would pull their sword out of the earth, stab each other, and cause non fatal but infected wounds. That isn't incorporated into dnd because it would mean that heroes would frequently die just because the goblins don't clean their swords.

Of course, in d20 modern, if a shot rolls high enough, it can instantly reduce you to -1 health. But, it's rare.

thepsyker

2009-07-07, 10:01 PM

I might have missed this, but I was thinking about this at work and it struck me that the most damning piece of evidence against Roy's actions being inappropriate is that it was not even mentioned in passing during his interview in the afterlife. It seems like if his actions had been inappropriate they would have made some passing mention to it, even just saying that he needs to try to cut back on the use of excessive force. It seems odd to me that they would mention the fact that he is a bit to sarcastic for their liking numrous times and not once mention that he had acted inapropriately in his handling of the Mikio situation, especially to the degree that some are trying to portray it, i.e. an unjustified assault or, as some seem to see it, attempted murder. Those seem to be the kinds of things that the lawful good folks would take issue with, even if its just to give him a chance to explain himself like they the did with some of his other actions.

David Argall

2009-07-08, 02:37 AM

so you have chosen to completely ignore the evidence of the lines, and the additional evidence in which pow is used to represent bludgeon damage then.
No, I have pointed out that this evidence is weak. It depends on the artwork of a strip that prides itself on brand X artwork. Where the art does not have clear plot purpose [and it doesn't here], we have no reason anything more than minimal attention was paid to it.

evidence i might add, you originally claimed didn't exist, as you said pow had never been used for any other sound effect.
That claim, I do have to withdraw.

She wasn't just standing there. This is D&D rules, remember. She attacked Shojo in the surprise round, and killed him. Then the standard round began. Hinjo went first, and he ran past Miko to try and get to Shojo. Then it was Roy's turn, and he attacked Miko. Then it was Miko's turn, and she attacked back.
Now really. Can't you see how you are twisting the rules and the situation?
Going just by the rules, Miko had time to pick up her sword. That means her turn had passed before Roy moved to attack.
The picture of course is even clearer. Miko is just standing there, back to Roy and Belkar. She simply has no awareness of them. She may well get into a killing mood against them very quickly, but right there, she is not doing a thing.

As for the whole 'lethal-non lethal damage' thing, it doesn't hold up. People in the real world don't have hit points. You can hit someone as hard as you like with anything you like in D&D and in OOTS and as long as they have enough hp to absorb the blow, it's never going to be lethal. Every attack Roy made was non-lethal by real-world standards.
You are trying to have things both ways. If we are counting hps, we abide by D&D rules, and they say that attacks with swords are assumed lethal, no matter how few or many hp the target has. If we talk reality, swords are defined as lethal weapons and the fact the victim survives does not change that definition.

1) You can deal lethal damage to someone and still not be trying to kill them.

Irrelevant. If you shoot someone, intending only to wound, you would routinely be charged with murder if the fellow died. It would be entirely up to you to prove a lack of intent to kill. And the judge might well rule it did not matter. Your act was so reckless that an intent to kill is assumed, whether or not it existed.
The same applies under D&D rules. Just because you think the victim still has 40 hp, you escape no blame if you give him 30 and it turns out he only had 20, or if he had 40 and somebody else also gives him 20.

2) When someone attacks your party, there is no need to negotiate before unleashing lethal damage. If Generic Gobln #453 attacks your party with lethal damage, it is perfectly reasonable to respond in kind without asking to see if we really want to work things out first.
But if the goblin jumped back, and said "Ops! I'm not supposed to be attacking you. Peace?", the fact he had already attacked you does not justify your attacking him. [The fact he is lying thru his fangs would, but if he pulls off the bluff, you have no right to hit him for having hit you.]

3) In Real life, if someone (such as the police) has their gun pointed at you, they can kill you just by pulling the trigger, so shouts of "drop your weapon" might actually be effective. In D&D, high level antagonists have fat stacks of HP to burn through and generally don't surrender unless they are in danger of actually running out of HP.
Now D&D is an attempt at a simulation. That means a difference between the rules and "real life" is game flaw. The story is also a simulation, using D&D rules in part. When we again see differences, it is flaw, and not to be used as an excuse for the difference.

In real life, if you see someone murder someone else, it's not illegal to go and subdue that person. Yeah, you're going to have to actally walk towards that person to subdue him, but that's how subduing violent criminals work.
Whacking somebody with a big sword is not subduing. Nor is saying you want to beat somebody up. Quite simply, Roy is not trying to subdue.

I might have missed this,
Yes, you did.

but I was thinking about this at work and it struck me that the most damning piece of evidence against Roy's actions being inappropriate is that it was not even mentioned in passing during his interview in the afterlife.

We know flat out that we did not see all of Roy's interview. We see only part of one part. We also do not see any events for well over half of Roy's adult life. You really want to argue that Roy has been as pure as the driven snow over such long periods? And only in the past year or so has been engaged in several questionable escapades?
What we see are simply the items that are plot interesting [and any real deva would have had a good deal more to say about several of them than we see on camera]. Accordingly, we can not assume that something was not discussed simply because we do not see it.
Recall here too that we are discussing "real life" morals here, not the story. We are arguing whether Roy was justified, not whether he caught any flak for the action. Thus the comic might show Roy as a mass murderer, and as the ideal LG, but we would not accept that position despite what the strip said. Accordingly, our writer is not a privileged voice. He can decree that Roy goes to Heaven, but he has to convince us that is reasonable. What is in the comic is effectively no different that what anyone posts in this thread. It is just an argument that must be considered on its own merits, or lack of them.

LuisDantas

2009-07-08, 06:45 AM

We know flat out that we did not see all of Roy's interview. We see only part of one part.

And what we do see includes [url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html]#490, panel 10.

Not that we really needed it, for it is so obvious from the strip proper that Roy did not intend to kill Miko at any point, up to and including their fight after Shojo's murder, while Miko flat out stated her intent to kill several times, and quite clearly was unhinged during that fight, while Roy was not.

We also do not see any events for well over half of Roy's adult life. You really want to argue that Roy has been as pure as the driven snow over such long periods?

Again, see #490, panel 10.

And only in the past year or so has been engaged in several questionable escapades?

The Deva makes a point of mentioning his treatment of Elan and Belkar, but no comment about Miko. What'd'y'think that could mean?

Myself, I don't see how a supposed murder attempt from Roy could happen off-screen while being relutant to rescue Elan was her first complaint.

What we see are simply the items that are plot interesting [and any real deva would have had a good deal more to say about several of them than we see on camera].

Much as a real Paladin would have lost her powers much sooner, I suppose?

Yogi

2009-07-08, 07:26 AM

Irrelevant. If you shoot someone, intending only to wound, you would routinely be charged with murder if the fellow died. It would be entirely up to you to prove a lack of intent to kill. And the judge might well rule it did not matter. Your act was so reckless that an intent to kill is assumed, whether or not it existed. The same applies under D&D rules. Just because you think the victim still has 40 hp, you escape no blame if you give him 30 and it turns out he only had 20, or if he had 40 and somebody else also gives him 20.There's no such thing as "shooting to wound" except in the movies. This is because in real life, a bullet will deal crippling and possibly fatal injuries no matter where it hits. Not so in D&D where the only hit point that matters is the -10th one. And Roy KNOWS Miko has lots of HP, he's fought her before.

But if the goblin jumped back, and said "Ops! I'm not supposed to be attacking you. Peace?", the fact he had already attacked you does not justify your attacking him. [The fact he is lying thru his fangs would, but if he pulls off the bluff, you have no right to hit him for having hit you.]Ah, that's an interesting tactic.
*Attack*
"Whoops, didn't mean to do that."
*Attack again*
"Sorry, my bad."
*Repeat until entire party is dead, 1d6 damage at a time.*

That's just an amusing aside though, since Miko didn't jump back, and attempt to make peace. In fact, she picked up her weapon that was knocked from her hand.

Now D&D is an attempt at a simulation. That means a difference between the rules and "real life" is game flaw. The story is also a simulation, using D&D rules in part. When we again see differences, it is flaw, and not to be used as an excuse for the difference.This is the OotS-verse here. People know the D&D rules exist and DO act as if they exist. This has been evident in pretty much all the strips to date and is not debatable. People in OotS know about game rules and act accordingly. Some of them even know about STORY rules and act accordingly. Miko knows she has HP, knows how much HP she has left, knows the relative level of her opponents, and acts accordingly to that information.

Whacking somebody with a big sword is not subduing. Nor is saying you want to beat somebody up. Quite simply, Roy is not trying to subdue.See above.

Random832

2009-07-08, 07:50 AM

Ah, that's an interesting tactic.
*Attack*
"Whoops, didn't mean to do that."
*Attack again*
"Sorry, my bad."
*Repeat until entire party is dead, 1d6 damage at a time.*

This is why that won't happen:
*+10 circumstance bonus to sense motive on second attempt*
*+20 bonus on third attempt*
*+40*
etc.

hamishspence

2009-07-08, 12:21 PM

And arresting a criminal is not the same as attacking your ex-girlfriend who has been very annoying.

Once again- at no point was Miko Roy's girlfriend.

As I pointed out before- all thats needed is a belief that Miko will attack, and evidence that this is a "reasonable belief" It doesn't have to actually be the case.

Plus, whoever said D&D automatically follows real-world cop and civilian rules?

There may be an intermediate area, between ancient and modern, with a few allowances for gaming principles, that D&D occupies.

Historically speaking, persons who caught people in the act of serious crimes, were frequently legally permitted to take the law into their own hands. Border laws in Elizabethan times, for example.

And in this case, the evidence seems more strongly in favour of non-murderous intentions by Roy, than of a deliberate attempt at murder.

Jagos

2009-07-08, 12:26 PM

Don't forget how cowboys have lawlessness ruling the land in the 1800s. Made things a looot simpler when everyone held a gun. ;)

And in this case, the evidence seems more strongly in favour of non-murderous intentions by Roy, than of a deliberate attempt at murder.

Especially given the fact that Roy could have probably killed Nale twice already but has always put him up for a jail cell instead of outright killing him. Being LG, Roy would probably have tried to capture Miko as the case has been stated.

FujinAkari

2009-07-08, 01:26 PM

This is really a clear-cut issue, the fight (the initial fight) is described very well.

1) Roy attacks Miko while she's flat-footed and unresisting using a 2-handed slash from above. The artwork makes it clear that this is using the blade's edge.
2) Roy attacks Miko, but fails to penetrate her armor. Once again, we see the 2-handed slash from above.
3) Roy skewers Miko through the chest. This is very obviously an edged attack.
4) Roy's attack is parried by Miko, but once again we see the 2-handed vertical slice.

None of these attacks look remotely like the cleaving, horizontal strike, which may actually be non-lethal, they are very clearly drawn to show which edge Roy is employing.

In addition to this, Roy flat out states why he is attacking Miko: "All that matters to me is you killed the only other person who was actively trying to stop this stupid end-of-the-world thing; which means I am kicking your fallen ass RIGHT NOW!"

Do you see anything about detaining or subduing? I don't. Roy explicitly states his reason, and his reason is because he's pissed off. He's not acting out of defense of others or a moral good, he's acting out of anger, and this is why he isn't morally justified.

The correct path was Hinjo's path, Roy just wanted to make Miko suffer, and does not appear to care whether he kills her or beats her into subjugation. While I agree with many of you that he likely isn't intentionally trying to kill her, I see no evidence that he is doing anything to prevent that, as spelled out above.

So thats why I feel it is morally unjustified. You are welcome to disagree, but you will have to disagree with evidence, not speculation, if you hope to counter.

P.S. LuisDantas, this is how you write an argument. You have a bad habit of simply stating your opinion as factual without actually supporting it, such as
Not that we really needed it, for it is so obvious from the strip proper that Roy did not intend to kill Miko at any point, up to and including their fight after Shojo's murder

Just because you -say- it is obvious doesn't make it true :P

And to counter the rest of your post... Roy's attack is a CG thing to do. Vengeance can be either Chaotic or Evil, depending on the specifics, so since this Vengeance was motivated by active crime, it wouldn't register as an evil act. You will notice we have been using the term "immoral" rather than "evil" and, at least for me, I treat a Moral action as one which conforms to both the Lawful and Good axises of Roy's alignment.

I would never describe this as an evil act.

David Argall

2009-07-08, 02:04 PM

And what we do see includes [url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html]#490, panel 10.
OK, let's consider that panel.

“I see very few truly Evil acts…nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-o-meter.”

So we see that Roy has done evil acts, some of them "truly evil" [whatever that means in LG terms], but none of them rank really high on the scale here. So this can be taken as evidence [of a limited sort] that Roy's action was not a major sin, but it does not tell us it is not a sin.

it is so obvious from the strip proper that Roy did not intend to kill Miko at any point, up to and including their fight after Shojo's murder,
Just how is this non-lethalness in the least obvious? Man attacks with big lethal sword and does nasty damage with it. That is obvious intent to kill on its face.

The Deva makes a point of mentioning his treatment of Elan and Belkar, but no comment about Miko. What'd'y'think that could mean?
Several possibilities. One of them is simply that they had not gotten to Miko yet. She All of the other events are prior to the throne room incident. So attacking Miko is simply lower on the stack.

Myself, I don't see how a supposed murder attempt from Roy could happen off-screen while being relutant to rescue Elan was her first complaint.
Because the decision is plot-related. The story has ditching Elan as a bad act by Roy and one he agonizes over. So therefore it gets discussed some more. Belkar in a good party causes questions about why he is tolerated there, and so the interview addresses that. By contrast, we have large percentages here cheering Roy on. It is pretty much only the pedantics like myself who are pointing out this attack is illegal, immoral, and unwise.
Your claim would seem to be that if this were attempted murder, it would be too important not to be discussed at length, but this is incorrect. While roy has no grounds to justify his action, he has several pleas for mitigation. Temporary insanity [rage] is certainly one of them and Miko was a criminal who needed capture and punishment. Even tho her capture was only an accidental result of his attack, one still has to give points for that.

Now we can note here that in fact, Elan was the 4th complaint, not the first, and while the first three are dismissed with a sentence each, they are all real moral and legal crimes, which no "real" deva would take so casually. [Impersonating a king is often classified as high treason, and a death penalty offense.] That would mean that the attack on Miko most likely would also have been covered in an equally dismissive manner, and that our deva's judgment on moral matters is highly suspect.

There's no such thing as "shooting to wound" except in the movies.
Obviously there is such a thing. The fact that it is almost always a bad idea does not mean it is not tried, nor that there is never [instead of quite rarely] a time when it is a good idea.

This is because in real life, a bullet will deal crippling and possibly fatal injuries no matter where it hits. Not so in D&D where the only hit point that matters is the -10th one.
You are making too much of an artificial distinction. A weapon can [not will] do long term damage in reality, while in the game, it is often routinely fixed quickly. However, our normal expectation is that one recovers from a wound in reality. It may take weeks instead of days [or rounds if a cleric is handy], but if one hears that Joe got shot and survived, one assumes Joe will be back to normal. And the game also features [rare] permanent damage too. Level draining is much the same as a crippling wound, and we have vorpal blades around.

And Roy KNOWS Miko has lots of HP, he's fought her before.
"But officer. I knew she would survive the blow..."
Officer: "I suppose that is why you hit her several times..."

No, this idea that lethal attacks are not lethal attacks is just nonsense. Roy attacks several times with his lethal weapon, and would have continued to attack if Miko had not run away. We have an open and shut case of attack with intent to kill.

Miko didn't jump back, and attempt to make peace. In fact, she picked up her weapon that was knocked from her hand.
You are thinking too late here. Once Miko had killed Shojo [and fallen], she then did nothing threatening, which means she was "offering" peace.

This is the OotS-verse here. People know the D&D rules exist and DO act as if they exist. This has been evident in pretty much all the strips to date and is not debatable. People in OotS know about game rules and act accordingly. Some of them even know about STORY rules and act accordingly. Miko knows she has HP, knows how much HP she has left, knows the relative level of her opponents, and acts accordingly to that information.

Largely irrelevant. People only partly act according to D&D rules here. They are frequently and casually violated. Cherrypicking rules to justify something that would not be accepted in game or reality just does not fly.

Random832

2009-07-08, 02:11 PM

You are thinking too late here. Once Miko had killed Shojo [and fallen], she then did nothing threatening, which means she was "offering" peace.

Picking up her weapon is a threatening action. You can argue that Roy's not a legitimate authority, but in general this should not be a different discussion than if she'd pulled a gun.

Boaromir

2009-07-08, 02:14 PM

I dunno, I kind of wanted to jump in and throw my thoughts out here, but I'm utterly lost in this thread now. What are we arguing again?

SadisticFishing

2009-07-08, 02:18 PM

Do you know anything about D&D rules?

Non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon exists. Roy is the type to use it, we all know it.

Your argument is baseless, at this point.

LuisDantas

2009-07-08, 03:04 PM

P.S. LuisDantas, this is how you write an argument.

Not really; following the plot and using the webcomic as canon is a far superior way, really.

But you are welcome to disagree, it is not like I will care... :smalltongue:

hamishspence

2009-07-08, 03:28 PM

Now we can note here that in fact, Elan was the 4th complaint, not the first, and while the first three are dismissed with a sentence each, they are all real moral and legal crimes, which no "real" deva would take so casually. [Impersonating a king is often classified as high treason, and a death penalty offense.] That would mean that the attack on Miko most likely would also have been covered in an equally dismissive manner, and that our deva's judgment on moral matters is highly suspect.

"no real deva would take so casually"

Isn't that stating something as if it was fact, when we've seen the strip show otherwise?

Roy didn't even impersonate the king- he took advantage of a case of mistaken identity. Which is what the accusation is- "Taking gifts meant for a king?"

And "our deva's judgement on moral matters is highly suspect" Not in OoTS universe, unless there is proof to show otherwise.

Kaytara

2009-07-08, 03:29 PM

What if we take a look at this from another angle?

To those arguing that Roy was justified in initiating the fight against Miko... Suppose that Kubota was in Miko's place, instead. Being the smug snake he is, he would naturally be pressing assault charges afterwards. What do you think Roy's chances in court would be? Would the prosecution or his lawyer have a harder time?

For my part, I already stated my views. The attack was unjustified and unwise, because there was no possible thing to gain and everything to lose by attacking then, rather than later, if Miko DID become aggressive again.

LuisDantas

2009-07-08, 03:33 PM

What if we take a look at this from another angle?

To those arguing that Roy was justified in initiating the fight against Miko... Suppose that Kubota was in Miko's place, instead. Being the smug snake he is, he would naturally be pressing assault charges afterwards. What do you think Roy's chances in court would be? Would the prosecution or his lawyer have a harder time?

That is pretty much Vaarsuvius situation, minus his admission of lacking knowledge of true reasons for attacking Kubota.

Even so, it would still be wrong for either Roy or V to attack Kubota (or Miko) unless there was some evidence of current physical danger.

Miko had a sword in hand; Kubota did not.

So no, a bound and unarmed Kubota is in no way fair game, while an armed and dangerous Miko (or Kubota) might be.

Kaytara

2009-07-08, 03:37 PM

That is pretty much Vaarsuvius situation, minus his admission of lacking knowledge of true reasons for attacking Kubota.

Even so, it would still be wrong for either Roy or V to attack Kubota (or Miko) unless there was some evidence of current physical danger.

Miko had a sword in hand; Kubota did not.

So no, a bound and unarmed Kubota is in no way fair game, while an armed and dangerous Miko (or Kubota) might be.

*sigh* Okay, sorry, I'll specify. By "Kubota", I mean someone willing to exploit political and legal loopholes, not necessarily his exact situation of holding or not holding a weapon.
(Seeing as there are classes that fight weaponless, I don't see what the big deal is about holding a physical weapon, anyway.)

Roy's act was left unaddressed in the comic except for an off-hand comment by Hinjo. Miko herself would never stoop to using legal tricks to bring Roy to justice. My question is what a person who IS willing to use legal tricks would be able to achieve. So, those defending Roy's actions, what do you think are Roy's chances of being proven innocent?

hamishspence

2009-07-08, 03:44 PM

Even if he got acquitted of attempted murder, and assault, a civil action might work- since it requires more evidence to prove that unnecessary harm was not done.

People have been convicted in civil actions of the same act they were acquitted of in criminal actions.

Optimystik

2009-07-08, 03:46 PM

Miko had a sword in hand; Kubota did not.

Nitpick: He never needed one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0592.html)

Jagos

2009-07-08, 05:30 PM

The correct path was Hinjo's path, Roy just wanted to make Miko suffer, and does not appear to care whether he kills her or beats her into subjugation. While I agree with many of you that he likely isn't intentionally trying to kill her, I see no evidence that he is doing anything to prevent that, as spelled out above.

So thats why I feel it is morally unjustified. You are welcome to disagree, but you will have to disagree with evidence, not speculation, if you hope to counter.

No, I don't think there was a "correct" path to take. Roy's path was to beat her into submission. Based on the fact that he could have killed past villains (Nale, Sabine come to mind) but in fact allowed them to be taken into custody and the fact that his last sentence was:

... is NOW a good time for battering things into submission?

I'm of the opinion that he at least wanted to knock her out. Morally, Miko was a dangerous girl that had beaten him at least twice before. I doubt highly that he was going to allow her to think of who else to kill. I mean, with Miko and Belkar in the same room, and no Shojo protecting Belkar, it would have been only a matter of time before Belkar was the next target.

Point being, Roy wanted to step up to the plate and knock her out. I believe that given his alignment and everything else, he wanted her to pay for her crimes but knowing she's dangerous, Roy would attack full force but when the time comes (and given his better STR modifier) he would knock her out.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-08, 06:06 PM

Kubota was a similar position - except it was Roy instead of Elan. Roy would have knocked him out, and in court brought up the poison ring. GG, no re.

Then again, I can totally see Roy killing Kubota.

Jagos

2009-07-08, 06:15 PM

On what grounds?

I doubt he would have.

David Argall

2009-07-08, 08:15 PM

Picking up her weapon is a threatening action. You can argue that Roy's not a legitimate authority, but in general this should not be a different discussion than if she'd pulled a gun.
It isn't really. Your holding a gun does not make you threatening. Now your aiming the gun or declaring your intent to use it can be, but the mere holding, which is all we see Miko doing prior to Roy's attack, is not threatening as far as any claim of self defense is concerned. You are not deemed threatened by the armed cop, and not by the armed Miko.

Isn't that stating something as if it was fact, when we've seen the strip show otherwise?
By definition, the strip can show nothing of the sort. It presents a picture of a deva. It does not present proof that that picture is accurate.

Roy didn't even impersonate the king- he took advantage of a case of mistaken identity. Which is what the accusation is- "Taking gifts meant for a king?"
Roy would need a very good lawyer to beat a rap of impersonation. He takes the gifts by means of pretending to be the king. Strictly, he can try to claim that nothing he said was a claim of being the king, but he is obviously on very thin ice. Just a little fumble in wordage one time, and he crosses the line into impersonation.

And "our deva's judgement on moral matters is highly suspect" Not in OoTS universe, unless there is proof to show otherwise.
But we are not in the OOTS universe in particular. We are discussing the nature of Good and Law, which spans all of D&D, as well as beyond it.

with Miko and Belkar in the same room, and no Shojo protecting Belkar, it would have been only a matter of time before Belkar was the next target.

But Roy ordered Belkar to stop Miko. So Roy did not have protection of Belkar as a motive.

Point being, Roy wanted to step up to the plate and knock her out. I believe that given his alignment and everything else, he wanted her to pay for her crimes but knowing she's dangerous, Roy would attack full force but when the time comes (and given his better STR modifier) he would knock her out.

Which seems to amount to saying it wouldn't be nice to kill Miko and since Roy is a nice guy, he wouldn't do what he was obviously doing.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-08, 08:18 PM

Obviously? He's taken people hostage many, many times before. You're completely incorrect about the character if you think he was planning on killing Miko.

But obviously you cannot be swayed.

By the way, if someone LOOKS like they're going for a weapon, in a specific context, you are completely within your rights to treat it as assault. Someone leans forward and looks like they're going for a gun - kick them in the nuts and headbutt them in the nose.

LuisDantas

2009-07-08, 09:12 PM

*sigh* Okay, sorry, I'll specify. By "Kubota", I mean someone willing to exploit political and legal loopholes, not necessarily his exact situation of holding or not holding a weapon.

Ok, then it is very much a matter of how much trust one has on the current legal system and how willing one is to be branded an outlaw if need be.

Going by Azure city standards, I would say no, it is not acceptable to attack Kubota unless he offers clear and immediate danger.

(Seeing as there are classes that fight weaponless, I don't see what the big deal is about holding a physical weapon, anyway.)

To keep holding a weapon is to refuse to surrender, and therefore good grounds for applying force when it would otherwise be uncalled for.

Roy's act was left unaddressed in the comic except for an off-hand comment by Hinjo. Miko herself would never stoop to using legal tricks to bring Roy to justice.

True, but then again, Miko was never too big on following or respecting laws, despite her own opinion on the matter. On the other hand, she was not big on trusting others (or legal systems) either. So it would be very much out of character for her, while very much on-character for Kubota.

My question is what a person who IS willing to use legal tricks would be able to achieve. So, those defending Roy's actions, what do you think are Roy's chances of being proven innocent?

Since Hinjo was a witness and, at that moment, also the rightful ruler, that is akin to ask how likely Hinjo is to retain his leadership status.

So, again, it comes down to how trustworthy Azure City's institutions are. From what we have seen, probably not a whole lot unless one restrain himself to the Paladins and a few other select groups (such as the Katos). After all, Kubota _had_ a sizeable following, as did other unfriendly noble houses.

But that would never be enough to justify all-out physical fight against Kubota, anyway - only to create a splinter group of Azurites at worst, but most likely simply imprison him once his schemes were exposed.

Had Roy jumped against Kubota, sword in hand, he would clearly be in the wrong. Unless he had reason to fear for the physical integrity of himself or someone else, I guess; it could be defensable just after the poisoning of Therkla, for instance.

Nitpick: He never needed one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0592.html)

Not exactly, since he did run out of poison.

Still, a weapon is a weapon, be it poison or a sword. Knowing or having fair reason to suspect Kubota of having one at hand is a good reason to offer him no chance of using it, even if it means wielding a sword to his neck.

For instance, Elan _would_ be reasonably justified in using physical force against him, or even in rendering him unconscious outright before tying him. After all, he had just used a concealed weapon, so Elan had no moral need of assuming that he had no others, despite his explicit surrender.

Of course, had he been wielding a sword at the time, Elan would be even more justified in leaving civility aside and just beating the sob unconscious with no second thoughts.

Jagos

2009-07-08, 09:38 PM

But Roy ordered Belkar to stop Miko. So Roy did not have protection of Belkar as a motive.

No, never said that was supposed to be his motive. Given the fact that Belkar is evil (we know Miko figured it out) it would be only a matter of time before she naturally turned to him. Maybe a round or two. I'm coming to a conclusion based on the what may have happened if she had been left alone, and been allowed to think under her flawed logic.

We know she would have blamed Roy for it in some way shape or form. She did that even BEFORE she was hit by Roy. Even after Hinjo calmed her down, she said it was Roy's fault. And she had already jumped to the illogical conclusion from a few things Xykon had said, that Roy was evil. Hell, if Shojo hadn't protected everyone with a well placed "STOP" after defeating Belkar, she would have lost her powers quicker from wanting to kill him and making herself judge, jury and executioner.

Which seems to amount to saying it wouldn't be nice to kill Miko and since Roy is a nice guy, he wouldn't do what he was obviously doing.

No, It means what it says. He wanted to knock her out. Roy's more a bad boy for the LG group but I think he'd adhere to the laws of Azure when pressed as Hinjo did to not interfere. Again, Miko did a Lawfully Stupid thing in killing Shojo. To say that Belkar, (bound by the Mark) Hinjo (just lost someone dear), and Roy (no restrictions except knock her out and put her on trial) should have left someone to possibly attack again a few moments rest is questionable.

FujinAkari

2009-07-09, 04:17 AM

Not really; following the plot and using the webcomic as canon is a far superior way, really.

... which is PRECISELY what I did.

"Addition is the best way to reach the sum of things."

"No, addition is!"

Seriously?

LuisDantas

2009-07-09, 06:41 AM

Fujin, have you confused me with someone else? It sure looks that way.

Lissibith

2009-07-09, 07:07 AM

I gotta admit, if someone accused me, my friends and someone I was working with of actually working for the enemy and then proved that they had NO QUALMS about killing one of us - someone she had a much closer association with - for that, I'd feel pretty morally justified in making sure she couldn't try the same thing on me or my friends. Would I be angry? Heck yeah. But I also wouldn't be stupid enough to wait for her to pick the sword back up after she dropped it. ESPECIALLY if there's a big baddie coming our way and every person she might kill has to be either raised or counted out for the battle. And especially if her reasoning with respect to myself and my friends has been shown deficient. And especially since, you know, that whole rezzing thing means killing her isn't terribly permanent.

Was Roy fighting to kill? Maybe. But given the situation and further, the situational likelihood (at least as far as Roy should have been aware) that she'd try the same thing on Roy and his friends if given the chance, I'm not gonna dock him for it. Morally right? Arguable but probably not. Morally justifiable? Certainly.

TheCoolThatguy

2009-07-09, 07:23 AM

It isn't really. Your holding a gun does not make you threatening. Now your aiming the gun or declaring your intent to use it can be, but the mere holding, which is all we see Miko doing prior to Roy's attack, is not threatening as far as any claim of self defense is concerned. You are not deemed threatened by the armed cop, and not by the armed Miko.

To use your metaphor, if you use a gun to murder someone and hold onto the weapon, every move you make is automatically threatening because you have shown your willingness to commit a crime with that weapon. She wasn't just holding a weapon, she was holding a weapon she'd just used for murder.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-09, 07:32 AM

Why the BLEEEEEP is this even a question?

Seriously, this is belkars alignment territory.

She killed an innocent, unarmed old man. Her Liege lord at that. She was armed, dangerous, completely off of her rocker , and in case you missed it, THE GODS THEMSELVES JUDGED HER ACTION EVIL. On top of that, her first almost coherent thought was comming for Roy for tricking her into doing that

In D&D bringing high level warrior types to justice usually means beating them over the head with a sharp or blunt metal object. Repeatedly. Hinjo was occupied, and hadn't displayed any abilities as a high level character at that point. It fell to roy, legally AND morally, to make the arrest. Folks arguing that he didn't have a legal right are confusing legal and moral.

Yogi

2009-07-09, 07:56 AM

Obviously there is such a thing. The fact that it is almost always a bad idea does not mean it is not tried, nor that there is never [instead of quite rarely] a time when it is a good idea.OK, please go to any police officer or member of the military, and ask about shooting to wound. It doesn't exist. ALL shots are potentially lethal, at least in real life.
Or if you can't be bothered, just look it up on google. Here, I'll even make it easy for you.
http://www.google.com/search?q=shooting+to+wound

You are making too much of an artificial distinction. A weapon can [not will] do long term damage in reality, while in the game, it is often routinely fixed quickly. However, our normal expectation is that one recovers from a wound in reality. It may take weeks instead of days [or rounds if a cleric is handy], but if one hears that Joe got shot and survived, one assumes Joe will be back to normal. And the game also features [rare] permanent damage too. Level draining is much the same as a crippling wound, and we have vorpal blades around.

"But officer. I knew she would survive the blow..."
Officer: "I suppose that is why you hit her several times..."This isn't debatable. The characters know they are in a D&D world with D&D rules. THE OPENING POST EVEN SAYS "WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF D&D."

No, this idea that lethal attacks are not lethal attacks is just nonsense. Roy attacks several times with his lethal weapon, and would have continued to attack if Miko had not run away. We have an open and shut case of attack with intent to kill.If Roy wanted to kill Miko, she would have, you know, survived that last shot.

You are thinking too late here. Once Miko had killed Shojo [and fallen], she then did nothing threatening, which means she was "offering" peace.She picked up a weapon. Doesn't work in real life or D&D.

Largely irrelevant. People only partly act according to D&D rules here. They are frequently and casually violated. Cherrypicking rules to justify something that would not be accepted in game or reality just does not fly.Good thing your argument doesn't make sense in the game OR reality.

pjackson

2009-07-09, 09:53 AM

Roy did not try to kill Miko, even when he impaled Miko, Roy had 0 chance of killing her with one attack, Max critical damage would be 24 (max on 2d6 with x2 crit) + 5 enhancement bonus +7 (20 STR +5 x 1.5 for a two-handed weapon), for a grand total 36 MAXIMUM crity damage.

That isn't right.
Firstly we know Roy has Weapon Specialization for +2 damage, making his normal damage 2d6+14. The bonus damage is doubled by the critical giving him a MAXIMUM crit damage of 52.That is assuming he doesn't Power Attack (which we know he has as it is a prerequisite for Cleave). Say he power attacks for 6, x1.5 as he is using a 2 handed weapon and doubled again for the crit, that would give him a Max damage of 70 and a minimum of 50 (on a crit)
50 or more damage in a single hit counts as massive damage and would force Miko to save or die, though it would be an easy save - DC 15 Fort.

Note that by power attacking moderately Roy has a chance to kill with any critical hit, unless the target is immune to death from massive damage (which undead like Xykon are) or had DR his weapon can not penetrate.

The Pink Ninja

2009-07-09, 10:10 AM

Is this even a question?

She'd gone totally mad and killed an unarmed and good aligned old man.

If you do evil and think you're doing good because you're insanely self centred, you're still evil. How many other obvious villains can we think of who thought they were doing the will of the Gods or were doing the right thing?

Not to mention as the Gate incident and attack on Hinjo shows she was a danger to others.

And so what if she'd stopped attacking? She'd stopped attacking after murdering someone.

Not attacking then because she wasn't is the very definition of Lawful Stupid.

I mean does anyone seriously think she'd go away peacefully?

pjackson

2009-07-09, 11:45 AM

Not attacking then because she wasn't is the very definition of Lawful Stupid.

That just shows what a stupid term Lawful Stupid is.

Calling on her to surrender or drop her sword (after she had picked it up) would not have been stupid, and a little better than what Roy did.

Given that Miko had picked up her sword, had just committed a murder, seemed to be acting irrationally, had only been restrained from killing Belkar early by the command of the man she had just killed, and had expressed a desire to spill the blood of the OotS I think Roy could reasonable consider her a threat.
Given the way D&D works Roy was the only person present with the ability to stop her by force (Belkar has the MoJ and Hinjo was lower level). Thus he could reasonably consider himself to have the duty to stop her. That is what PCs do afterall, Lawful Good ones at least.
Overall Roy was justified in attacking, though not in enjoying it so much.

hamishspence

2009-07-09, 11:52 AM

Which is almost word for word what Hinjo says "As far as I know, Roy hasn't done anything wrong except breaking an oath he never made- and maybe enjoying the beating he just gave you a little more than is healthy"

Now, one could claim he's biased in favour of Roy, but where is the evidence?

For a paladin to pass over an "evil act of attempted murder" is very uncharacteristic.

For a deva to pass it over as "nothing that even registers a blip on the malev-o-meter" is also very uncharacteristic.

Now, which seems more likely- that both are incompetant moral judges in the comic strip?

Or, that both are judging just fine- and that it wasn't attempted murder?

(There might be other possibilities, but I can't thin k of any plausible ones offhand)

Jagos

2009-07-09, 06:30 PM

If you do evil and think you're doing good because you're insanely self centred, you're still evil. How many other obvious villains can we think of who thought they were doing the will of the Gods or were doing the right thing?

Redcloak. :)

Porthos

2009-07-09, 07:01 PM

Is this even a question?

This is nothing. I remember how the boards were like when this all went down the first time.

Fun times. :smallwink:

David Argall

2009-07-09, 07:24 PM

Obviously? He's taken people hostage many, many times before.
When? On text, he has never taken prisoners. In the dungeon, Elan took Nale prisoner and V& Elan accepted Thog's surrender. The thieves were prisoners of Durkon. In Azure City, Roy was also confronted with prisoners others had taken. He seems to approve of such actions, but he has killed a lot more than he has taken prisoner, even indirectly in his capacity of leader.

By the way, if someone LOOKS like they're going for a weapon, in a specific context, you are completely within your rights to treat it as assault. Someone leans forward and looks like they're going for a gun - kick them in the nuts and headbutt them in the nose.
Following which the cop will jail you for battery and the thug can win a suit for damages. That he might be about to attack is not enough. You have got to be sure.

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.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/martial_arts/110256/3
The key word is "immediate." If a guy takes a swing at you, you can block it and counter punch. If it stuns him, you must stop and back away, even if he's still snarling and yelling that you're a dead man and it's obvious he's going to take another swing at you once he figures out where you are.

It doesn't matter if he is standing there screaming and threatening to kill you, or if has said that he is going to come back and get you or -- in many states -- has just pointed a gun at you, demanded your wallet and is now running away -- those are not considered "immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury." Because he isn't trying to kill you at that exact moment.

Not understanding the meaning of this term will put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger everything you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time.

In theory, 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.

http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm
A person may use force against another person if he reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person.

http://www.bigbearacademy.com/self-defense-law.html
The concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is considered dubious due to common misconception of the act as murdering a person believed to someday attack with lethal force. Realistic "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fight_selfdefense.html

Begin by accepting the fact: Police tend to arrest the winner of a fight.
The reason this is so is because in about 95 percent of the cases, the winner was the "aggressor." If he was not the instigator of the fight, then he is almost always the one who went the farthest out of line and to the most extreme. And that, by legal definition, made him the aggressor -- even if he did not start it.
Perhaps the most important thing for you to realize is that when it comes to the self-defense plea, that pool has been seriously pissed in. And it has been polluted for a long, long time. Even if the guy really did just walk up and, without any provocation or forewarning, knock you off the bar stool, when the cops show up there is at least a 75 percent chance of his claiming it was "self-defense." If there was a confrontation where words were exchanged prior to blows, the odds go up to about 97 percent

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument

In the vast majority of states, the basic elements of self-defense by means of deadly force (firearms and other weapons) include:
 The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
 The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
 The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.1 Most states do not require the defendant to retreat if he is in his own home defending against someone who is unlawfully present. Law enforcement officers are not required to retreat.
 The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.
 The standards for the use of non-deadly force (bare hands and feet) and force used in the defense of property are usually similar.
 At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction.

http://dwafapp4.dwaf.gov.za/webapp/Documents/ForestFire/192.168.10.11/nvffa.nsf/4d2641997589c2e342256d72003e35fc/8ac6623a9dbe92ca42256ea700447f8302ec.html?OpenDocu ment

 If a person submits to arrest there is no need to use force.
 Arrest is not punishment but is a means to secure the attendance of the alleged offender in court.
 If the person does not submit, use only such force as is necessary to effect the arrest.
 Use minimum force – only as much as is necessary to overcome resistance to arrest.
 Your use of force must be proportionate in the circumstances – this may be determined by the type of offence.
 Any use of force must be justified as necessary to affect the arrest or justified by self-defence.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/CriminalJury/2-43.html

the use of deadly force, such as firing one's revolver, is justified only in the following circumstances:
(1) In the officer's self defense or defense of others, where he reasonably believed that he was confronted with deadly or imminently deadly force;
(2) The officer reasonably believed that the person arrested, or whose escape is sought to be prevented, committed or attempted to commit a felony that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and if, where feasible, he has given warning of his intent to use deadly physical force.4 In each case, however, the officer must have the reasonable belief that he could effect the arrest or prevent escape only by using deadly force; if lesser force was reasonable, then the use of deadly force would be unjustified.5

No, never said that was supposed to be his motive. Given the fact that Belkar is evil (we know Miko figured it out) it would be only a matter of time before she naturally turned to him. Maybe a round or two. I'm coming to a conclusion based on the what may have happened if she had been left alone, and been allowed to think under her flawed logic.
Same point. Roy orders Belkar into danger. He thus can not claim that defense of Belkar was any part of justification for his attacking Miko.
And you are saying "what may have happened if..." Self defense of self or other requires certainty, and immediate threat. So again we do not have grounds for a self defense plea.

He wanted to knock her out. Roy's more a bad boy for the LG group but I think he'd adhere to the laws of Azure when pressed as Hinjo did to not interfere.
We still have no evidence of any intent to spare her. And using a big nasty sword makes it an automatic assumption that her survival was not a goal.

To say that ... Roy should have left someone to possibly attack again a few moments rest is questionable.
Possibly, tho as we see, Hinjo did recover soon and thus could have done the job with or without Roy's help. But again, this is just trying to give Roy a motive he denies. He says he is there to beat her up, not to arrest her. It is simply assault.

if you use a gun to murder someone and hold onto the weapon, every move you make is automatically threatening because you have shown your willingness to commit a crime with that weapon.
That is simply incorrect. You know the drill. The cop pulls his gun, aims, and demands something like "Police! Drop the gun!" He does not start blazing away.

It fell to roy, legally AND morally, to make the arrest. Folks arguing that he didn't have a legal right are confusing legal and moral.
And Roy was not trying to make an arrest. He was attacking her, period.

OK, please go to any police officer or member of the military, and ask about shooting to wound. It doesn't exist. ALL shots are potentially lethal, at least in real life.
Or if you can't be bothered, just look it up on google. Here, I'll even make it easy for you.
http://www.google.com/search?q=shooting+to+wound

Your source entirely agrees with me. Shooting to wound exists, and it is almost never a good idea.

This isn't debatable. The characters know they are in a D&D world with D&D rules. THE OPENING POST EVEN SAYS "WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF D&D."

And this is not relevant. D&D rules say that Roy is using a lethal weapon and all damage is presumed lethal unless there is specific contrary evidence. The amount of damage he can administer or the number of hit points possessed by the target simply do not enter into the definition.

If Roy wanted to kill Miko, she would have, you know, survived that last shot.

I presume you meant "not survived". But we have several grounds for thinking yes she could. The most obvious is plot armor. Miko survived being slammed thru a wall and slung for about a mile, following which a horse landed on her. She walked away from that. By comparison, Roy's blow is barely a tap. We want a dramatic picture and and a live Miko. So the fact Miko should die is simply ignored.

She picked up a weapon. Doesn't work in real life or D&D.
That does not make her a clear or immediate threat, and is not sufficient for any plea of self defense.

And so what if she'd stopped attacking? She'd stopped attacking after murdering someone.
Irrelevant. You only get to attack in self defense, which is not determined by past events, or to arrest, in which case you have a requirement to demand surrender before attacking and may only use necessary force.

I mean does anyone seriously think she'd go away peacefully?
Well, she ended up trying to.

Hinjo says "As far as I know, Roy hasn't done anything wrong except breaking an oath he never made- and maybe enjoying the beating he just gave you a little more than is healthy"

[quote=hamishspence] Now, one could claim he's biased in favour of Roy, but where is the evidence?

That he is biased in favor or Roy? Right in front of us.

For a paladin to pass over an "evil act of attempted murder" is very uncharacteristic.

For a deva to pass it over as "nothing that even registers a blip on the malev-o-meter" is also very uncharacteristic.

Now, which seems more likely- that both are incompetant moral judges in the comic strip?
Both are voices of the author. So they are really only one voice. His errors on law and/or morals are voiced by both of them.
And both are pretty much cases of silence giving consent. The deva makes no direct reference to the point at all. Hinjo's statement has the weasel words "to my knowledge". It is quite possible he just did not see the original assault. The idea that Roy has done nothing that violates the civil or paladin laws suggests ignorance of how such law codes would read. About the best that can be said is that here too, Hinjo doesn't know absolutely that Roy is guilty.

Yogi

2009-07-09, 08:16 PM

Your source entirely agrees with me. Shooting to wound exists, and it is almost never a good idea.Actually, all the articles clearly state that all shots are potentially lethal, and shooting by someone is, by definition, to kill.

And since you have now added LYING to not listening to facts and ignoring the rules of the debate, you now earn a permanent place on my ignore list for having absolutely nothing worth saying.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-09, 09:38 PM

And Roy was not trying to make an arrest. He was attacking her, period.

IF that's the case... so what? If Roy had beheaded her on the spot she well and truly deserved it. She's armed*, powerful, and incredibly dangerous. Someone is obligated to waste a surprise round saying "Excuse me, psyco lady that just killed somoene, i don't suppose you'd violate everything i've ever known about you, take responsibility for your fallicious logic, and surrender quietly so we can behead you after a humiliating trial would you?" .... why?

* even with the dropped sword, she's a monk.

Jagos

2009-07-10, 04:38 AM

When? On text, he has never taken prisoners. In the dungeon, Elan took Nale prisoner and V& Elan accepted Thog's surrender. The thieves were prisoners of Durkon. In Azure City, Roy was also confronted with prisoners others had taken. He seems to approve of such actions, but he has killed a lot more than he has taken prisoner, even indirectly in his capacity of leader.

Dungeon Crawling Fools - Page D and E

How can you say he has never taken prisoners then say he did without taking a lot? That doesn't follow.

Same point. Roy orders Belkar into danger. He thus can not claim that defense of Belkar was any part of justification for his attacking Miko.
And you are saying "what may have happened if..." Self defense of self or other requires certainty, and immediate threat. So again we do not have grounds for a self defense plea.

First, Roy didn't order Belkar into danger. All he said was "Let's get involved." regarding telling Belkar that this was FUBAR. I'm not saying he needed to tell Belkar anything. So again, because I have to drive home the point:
Belkar or Roy were the next people in the room after Miko regained her confused senses to be a target based on all of the evidence given to us.

And again, we go around in a circle that basically says "Well, she just killed someone but she's not an immediate threat when she has a sword in her hand to kill an old man."

"But she's a fallen paladin that got too snippy with the Law and has no reason to become a threat when she's threatened nearly everyone in the room with blood, death, and vengeance, and the only person to stop her was the one killed."

Second, it's hard to debate on what may have happened. We have argued that even though Miko might have been a die roll away from looking more rational (and surrendering), what eventually occurred is she attacked and force had to be used. I find it amusing how I use a "What If" statement on what would have naturally occurred (with her blaming (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html) Roy for things beyond his control) and yet, somehow the logic doesn't hold except to make Miko more a victim than she is.

She didn't take responsibility for her actions, she blamed everything on the Order, she killed her liege who was good aligned, and was a person with a sword in hand when Roy attacked her. Based on all evidence, and he being a fighter, he could use force at least until Hinjo got his act together, which is exactly what happened.

Possibly, tho as we see, Hinjo did recover soon and thus could have done the job with or without Roy's help. But again, this is just trying to give Roy a motive he denies. He says he is there to beat her up, not to arrest her. It is simply assault.

Again, you're misquoting me to put words there that aren't. Those few rounds that Hinjo needed to recover and get in front of Belkar were rounds that either Belkar may have spent running or Miko fighting Roy if Roy hadn't preempted her. Again, this is a "what if" scenario that didn't occur. And with Hinjo witnessing Shojo's murder, I'm sure it isn't assault when he's witnessed the same thing and was in some way in agreeance that Miko had to be taken down. Whether through her own volition or a knockout was up to her.

hamishspence

2009-07-10, 11:28 AM

Lets examine the two cases:

Case 1:
Roy, on witnessing Shojo's murder, out of a desire to get revenge, immediately advances on Miko, and starts using lethal force. Miko, out of self-defence, responds, and when she discovers she is outclassed, flees.

Seeing Belkar, she tries to execute justice on him, but is prevented by Hinjo, who tries to talk her down. Because of Roy's attack, she is not in her right mind, and part way through surrendering, is overcome by a fit of madness and attacks Hinjo.

She continues to attack him, until Roy strikes her, again with lethal force, knocking her away from him, where she falls prone. Belkar's kick does the nonlethal damage needed to knock her unconscious. Under Hinjo's eye, Roy cannot carry out his original intention of killing her. Luckily for Roy, Hinjo does not realize, at any point, his intention to kill.

Case 2:
Roy, on witnessing Shojo's murder, out of concern for the safety of himself, Belkar, and Hinjo, as well as a desire to see Miko taken into custody immediately, advances on Miko.

Before he can try offering her a chance to surrender, or tackle her, she picks up a weapon, and continues to babble irrationally. Correctly deducing that Miko is beyond reason by him or Hinjo at this point, and knowing that her weapon and insanity make her an immediate and lethal threat, he attacks her, still with non-lethal force, to maximise chances of taking her alive.

Miko responds with lethal force to his use of non-lethal force, forcing him to escalate to ensure he will win the fight. He goads her, to increase her chances of making mistakes in her rage. Miko flees, attacks Belkar, and Hinjo intervenes.

Hinjo states,,correctly, that Roy has not actually done anything wrong in his actions- the law in Azure City permits such action by people who witness as serious a crime as murder- and tries to talk Miko into submitting. He fails.

Roy intervenes into time to prevent Miko from killing Hinjo, using either a non-lethal strike, or a modified OOTS-only version of Bull Rush, to get her away from Hinjo. She falls unconscious.

Now, of these two cases, which seems more consistant with the Giant's past writing of Roy?

(its possible there is an intermediate case- Roy attacks solely to hurt Miko, out of revenge, but with no intention of causing her to die. However it doesn't seem very likely to me)

Omegonthesane

2009-07-10, 12:01 PM

In case it sways anyone: OOTS 408, page 2, panels 3 and 4 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html) clearly show that Miko was stunned on the floor for a round or so with Roy stood over her. If he was out to kill, he'd have attacked - maybe even full attacked - before she got up.

hamishspence

2009-07-10, 12:11 PM

Another interesting question is what Roy is leaving unsaid, with the phrase

"Which means I am kicking your ass right now."

Since the internal justification is not described.

It could be:

"Which means that, since you are, irrational, have just committed murder, and picked up your weapon a moment ago, it is too risky to try and talk you down. Therefore I am kicking your ass right now"

It could be:

"Which means I am very angry and want revenge on you. Therefore I am kicking your ass right now"

It could even be "Which means, under the law of Azure City, anyone who sees you may immediately use force on you to take you into custody. Therefore I am kicking your ass right now."

It makes a difference.

SadisticFishing

2009-07-10, 12:13 PM

Which of those suits his character? This argument is ridiculous! :P

hamishspence

2009-07-10, 12:15 PM

I thought so too, but not everybody does.

My view is basically Case 2, and Justification 1 (roy does things because he thinks they are right- not necessarily because he knows they are legal.)

David Argall

2009-07-10, 03:39 PM

IF that's the case... so what? If Roy had beheaded her on the spot she well and truly deserved it. She's armed*, powerful, and incredibly dangerous.
Well, for starters, you are a large step closer to approving V's actions against Kubota and the dragons.
Of course the basic question does have serious meaning. Roy did something sinful, but how do we properly punish it? Particularly under the circumstances? I make no case that it requires massive punishment. Roy has several defenses in mitigation.
But we simply do not want people using violence when they do not have to. We may understand that urge to give that jerk what he so richly deserves, but we want that urge resisted, and resisted hard.

Dungeon Crawling Fools - Page D and E
DCF One I had overlooked. Strictly speaking it is not taking prisoners since Roy has a selfish need for them to be alive and that is the reason he takes them alive. There is no element of it being morally required to take prisoners or accept surrender. But it is definitely his action and decision.

How can you say he has never taken prisoners then say he did without taking a lot? That doesn't follow.
I discuss cases where he might be said to be taking prisoners, and point out that these are cases of other members of the party taking prisoners. Except in the sense that he is leader and thus at least partly responsible for their actions, he can not be said to be taking prisoners in these cases.

First, Roy didn't order Belkar into danger. All he said was "Let's get involved."

See 408. "Belkar. Stop her!!!"
But if we want to read into the statement what may not have exactly meant, "Let's get involved." is an absolute denial of any need for self defense of himself or Belkar. To get involved, one must start not involved, which means that if one just stands there or goes about one's business, nothing is apt to happen to you. If Roy felt any notable danger to himself or Belkar, they would already be involved.
Roy is mortal, and can easily use incorrect language, but the statement still challenges any claim of self defense.

Belkar or Roy were the next people in the room after Miko regained her confused senses to be a target based on all of the evidence given to us.

The point is that you are treating as absolute certainty what is not at all certain, certainly not certain from Roy's view. Miko has just had a major shock and is in a state of confusion. That means that she could react in a number of ways, including ways that are entirely unpredictable in advance. That does make her quite dangerous. Killing everybody within reach is definitely in the air. But so is suicide on the spot, throwing away her sword and vowing never to harm any creature again, or just breaking down and sobbing. Once we have that uncertainty, we can not claim self defense to justify that attack.

And again, we go around in a circle that basically says "Well, she just killed someone but she's not an immediate threat when she has a sword in her hand to kill an old man."
See the links on self defense. She can be doing a lot more than just holding a sword and she would still not be a proper target for self defense.

"But she's a fallen paladin that got too snippy with the Law and has no reason to become a threat when she's threatened nearly everyone in the room with blood, death, and vengeance, and the only person to stop her was the one killed."
This is grounds for arresting her, which you don't start doing by trying to bash her head in.

We have argued that even though Miko might have been a die roll away from looking more rational (and surrendering),
Stop right there. You have voided all claims of self defense. You do not have the right to "defend" yourself with violence from what Might happen. You may only do so when it is Certain to happen.

Miko had to be taken down. Whether through her own volition or a knockout was up to her.
But Roy did not give her that choice. He attacked.

Case 2:
Roy, on witnessing Shojo's murder, out of concern for the safety of himself, Belkar, and Hinjo, as well as a desire to see Miko taken into custody immediately, advances on Miko.
Out of a concern for safety, Roy advances into danger? Already we are having problems seeing this as anything but a defense lawyer's plea.
At least stick to an argument that makes sense. Roy as judge, jury, and executioner is morally and legally flawed, but at least it at least vaguely matches the facts. Roy was not acting in self defense. He was intentionally attacking.

Before he can try offering her a chance to surrender, or tackle her, she picks up a weapon, and continues to babble irrationally. Correctly deducing that Miko is beyond reason by him or Hinjo at this point,
But we can see that Miko was not certainly beyond reason at this point since she later stops to talk with Hinjo and almost surrenders.

and knowing that her weapon and insanity make her an immediate and lethal threat,
By the definition of immediate here, she is not such a threat. Immediate means this second, not when she finally gets done babbling, which may be hours or days away.

he attacks her, still with non-lethal force, to maximise chances of taking her alive.
Yet where do we see evidence of Roy doing anything but attacking her? Why should we think he is trying to take her alive?

Miko responds with lethal force to his use of non-lethal force, forcing him to escalate to ensure he will win the fight.
Essentially saying that anything that wasn't obviously lethal was non-lethal, which is the opposite of D&D rules and common sense. We just have no evidence of any such desire on Roy's part.

He goads her, to increase her chances of making mistakes in her rage.
Again what is this but pure speculation? Roy goads people all the time. Our deva notes it as a characteristic of his. We can't assign any motive to his doing so here.

Hinjo states,,correctly, that Roy has not actually done anything wrong in his actions-
By any at all likely legal code, Roy has a long list of charges that could be brought against him. [Imagine the President, or any other leader, had been caught in crime that led to his immediate removal from office with a lifetime jail sentence to follow. Now do you really think some of his co-conspirators are going to get off on the grounds they are aliens?] Hinjo may feel Roy has done nothing really morally wrong, but he has clearly violated the law, and the only doubt is how often and which particular law.

Now, of these two cases, which seems more consistant with the Giant's past writing of Roy?
Well, since we have no known instances of Roy ever using non-lethal damage and lots of cases of his using lethal, and that we have the statements of both Roy and the author that the idea was to lay the smack on Miko, case one is way the better case.

(its possible there is an intermediate case- Roy attacks solely to hurt Miko, out of revenge, but with no intention of causing her to die. However it doesn't seem very likely to me)
It is quite possible he was not concerned about being sure she died. But he was not making any efforts to make sure she lived.

In case it sways anyone: OOTS 408, page 2, panels 3 and 4 clearly show that Miko was stunned on the floor for a round or so with Roy stood over her.
It clearly shows nothing of the sort. The amount of time involved is debatable of course. Drama requires that all action stop while the lines are recited. Such time does not exist in "reality". But there is no sign here that Miko is stunned, and Roy is clearly not standing over her. In fact in 4, he is walking towards her.

If he was out to kill, he'd have attacked - maybe even full attacked - before she got up.
It is not best tactics [tho OOTS is not known for best tactics], but moving to gain an attack of opportunity when Miko gets up is hardly unknown in D&D games.
So the strip seems to read, in D&D terms, Roy makes some sort of push attack that pushes Miko away from him and knocks her down. He then moves up to her, ending his turn. Miko rises, and thus provokes. Roy swings and misses. Miko then uses a stun attack, which renders Roy unable to swing on his turn. On her turn, Miko flees and the still stunned Roy is unable to get another AoO.

Menas

2009-07-10, 04:18 PM

As for the moral justification, I think it was justified in all of the contexts listed. I also think people are reading too much into the situation.

Roy had just seen Miko, who was supposed to be a lawful good paladin, strike down the rightful ruler of the city, without regard for any law other than her own authority and position in the sapphire guard (not even taking the law of the Sapphire guard into account, just her position within it).

At this point there's no compelling evidence to suggest that Miko could be reasoned with, as she had completely gone against what were supposed to be her core beliefs. There's also no good reason to believe she wouldn't strike down anyone she deems to be a 'threat' at this point. So it's a much more sensible approach to beat her into submission than to try to reason with her. And yes, Roy was trying to subdue her, not kill her. He could have easily killed her after he knocked her out in strip 409.

Lastly, Roy knew that he was also on Miko's S*** list. So it makes sense for Roy to believe he was in danger of being attacked by Miko if he didn't act first. And, Lord Shojo was both a friend and employer of Roy's so Roy had every right to try to hold her accountable for her actions. That being said, again, he had every reason to believe it would be necessary for him to subdue Miko in order for her to be held accountable for her actions against Shojo.

At the end of strip 409, Roy makes a statement regarding how considered Hinjo's decision to try and reason with Miko a poor choice, given her state of mind at that point.

Omegonthesane

2009-07-10, 06:56 PM

And yes, Roy was trying to subdue her, not kill her. He could have easily killed her after he knocked her out in strip 409.
Or bisected her rather than thwacking her across the room with the flat of his sword. You don't get a "POW!" from a sharp thing entering you, and as I recall it's already been shown that Rich consistently portrays "POW" as a bludgeoning effect..

LuisDantas

2009-07-10, 08:08 PM

Well, for starters, you are a large step closer to approving V's actions against Kubota and the dragons.

Not at all. The only similarity between those situations is that they are violent acts commited by PCs.

Roy was acting against a dangerous and armed opponent with dubious mental sanity and known temper issues. And he attempted to defeat Miko, not to kill her - as evidenced both by his general character and by the specific circunstace that he won the fight, yet made no attempt to finish her (and he is a fighter with good feats and a +5 sword, so come on).

Were we to compare that situation with Vaarsuvius', we would need to make it so that Roy arrived at the scene AFTER Miko was defeated and unconscious. Or, worse yet, went through the trouble of putting her back in her feet and healing her to then kill her loved ones and a good chunk of her whole race just to scare her.

Of course the basic question does have serious meaning. Roy did something sinful,

Not at that point, no he did not.

Jagos

2009-07-10, 10:09 PM

See the links on self defense. She can be doing a lot more than just holding a sword and she would still not be a proper target for self defense.

You're bringing up the self defense. Roy is in a foreign land on trumped up charges at the behest of a guy that lied to a slew of Paladins and was killed for it. He's an outsider that decided to take down a fallen Paladin that decided she was the very existance of the Gods' will in the Stick Universe. Seriously, Shojo wasn't absolutely blameless for what he did but Miko had a sword in hand to kill a man she charged with treason. If no force was necessary, for a girl that was socially inept, VERY dangerous to an entire party of adventurers, and most likely to kill again for her ideals, then I can't help you and we agree to disagree on it.

The point is that you are treating as absolute certainty what is not at all certain, certainly not certain from Roy's view. Miko has just had a major shock and is in a state of confusion. That means that she could react in a number of ways, including ways that are entirely unpredictable in advance. That does make her quite dangerous. Killing everybody within reach is definitely in the air. But so is suicide on the spot, throwing away her sword and vowing never to harm any creature again, or just breaking down and sobbing. Once we have that uncertainty, we can not claim self defense to justify that attack.

A "What If" statement is meant to show only one view as pushed. It's not meant to show absolute certainty in what may have occurred, it's merely to show one possibility. I've explained how she was wrong in her assumption, and no one thought she was likely to kill Shojo for his "crimes" but she did show she was dangerous to the point of killing an unarmed old man.

And let's say a few things on harakiri/seppuku:
That is a ritual all in itself. I've only seen one example of it within the OotS and that was because the paladin in question had been a victim of the Insanity Ball and killed her fellow friends. If Miko had wanted to do a ritual suicide she probably could have done it either within the prison or sometime before destroying the gate. But she felt she wasn't wrong in what she had done. That was her problem.

Again, following what was known in hindsight (she wasn't "wrong" in her assessment of the OotS when they first met, rude to a T, strong emphasis on jumping to conclusions) she was likely to pick up the sword. There's less and less chances of her being likely to drop the sword, atone, or anything else. Miko made a choice to fight Hinjo who had reasoned with her. Even then, he had to fight her after his diplomacy check failed. She didn't have a reason to fight him other than refusing the very laws she was sworn to protect

FujinAkari

2009-07-11, 12:07 AM

Hrmmm... I'm reading a lot... but not really seeing much addressing the real issue (no offense)

Roy sees Miko kill Shojo. He then sees her drop her sword and fall to her knees. Is it then ethical for him to attack her?

No. Resoundingly no. If someone is not an active threat, then attacking them is wrong. Miko wasn't threatening -anyone-, she wasn't even armed when Roy choose to "get involved" (well, except for being 'always armed' as a monk.)

It was an act of retribution, of vengeance. It was borne of a desire to make Miko suffer, and a decision to take justice into his own hands. It was Chaotic Good, in my opinion, but not ethical. Ethically, one should always use violence as a last resort, and in self-defense... Roy didn't even try a peaceful solution.

So yeah... those are my thoughts on the matter. :)

David Argall

2009-07-11, 12:29 AM

At this point there's no compelling evidence to suggest that Miko could be reasoned with,
It is Roy, not Miko, that needs compelling evidence here. You don't get to attack somebody because they might do something. You must provide the compelling evidence that they Will! Miko does not need to provide the least evidence of her innocent intent. That is automatically assumed and Roy is under absolute compulsion to prove her to be not just dangerous, but immediately and unavoidably so.

Roy was trying to subdue her, not kill her. He could have easily killed her after he knocked her out in strip 409.
The distinction is morally dubious, but very common. Killing somebody who is just lying there is murder. Killing somebody who is still on their feet is somehow not. Roy could "morally" kill Miko in combat without qualms no matter how little chance she actually had. But once she was down and out, he deemed immoral to attack her again. [We can add to this that Roy was now under the direct view and orders of Hinjo. Marching over and finishing Miko off was just not in the cards.]

Lastly, Roy knew that he was also on Miko's S*** list. So it makes sense for Roy to believe he was in danger of being attacked by Miko if he didn't act first. And, Lord Shojo was both a friend and employer of Roy's so Roy had every right to try to hold her accountable for her actions. That being said, again, he had every reason to believe it would be necessary for him to subdue Miko in order for her to be held accountable for her actions against Shojo.

And none of this justifies marching up and whacking Miko. Again I supply the links. Neither for arrest nor for self defense are you allowed to just go up and bash somebody.

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.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/martial_arts/110256/3
The key word is "immediate." If a guy takes a swing at you, you can block it and counter punch. If it stuns him, you must stop and back away, even if he's still snarling and yelling that you're a dead man and it's obvious he's going to take another swing at you once he figures out where you are.

http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm
A person may use force against another person if he reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person.

http://www.bigbearacademy.com/self-defense-law.html
The concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is considered dubious due to common misconception of the act as murdering a person believed to someday attack with lethal force. Realistic "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fight_selfdefense.html

Begin by accepting the fact: Police tend to arrest the winner of a fight.
The reason this is so is because in about 95 percent of the cases, the winner was the "aggressor." If he was not the instigator of the fight, then he is almost always the one who went the farthest out of line and to the most extreme. And that, by legal definition, made him the aggressor -- even if he did not start it.
Perhaps the most important thing for you to realize is that when it comes to the self-defense plea, that pool has been seriously pissed in. And it has been polluted for a long, long time. Even if the guy really did just walk up and, without any provocation or forewarning, knock you off the bar stool, when the cops show up there is at least a 75 percent chance of his claiming it was "self-defense." If there was a confrontation where words were exchanged prior to blows, the odds go up to about 97 percent

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument

In the vast majority of states, the basic elements of self-defense by means of deadly force (firearms and other weapons) include:
 The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
 The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
 The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.1 Most states do not require the defendant to retreat if he is in his own home defending against someone who is unlawfully present. Law enforcement officers are not required to retreat.
 The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.
 The standards for the use of non-deadly force (bare hands and feet) and force used in the defense of property are usually similar.
 At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction.

http://dwafapp4.dwaf.gov.za/webapp/Documents/ForestFire/192.168.10.11/nvffa.nsf/4d2641997589c2e342256d72003e35fc/8ac6623a9dbe92ca42256ea700447f8302ec.html?OpenDocu ment

 If a person submits to arrest there is no need to use force.
 Arrest is not punishment but is a means to secure the attendance of the alleged offender in court.
 If the person does not submit, use only such force as is necessary to effect the arrest.
 Use minimum force – only as much as is necessary to overcome resistance to arrest.
 Your use of force must be proportionate in the circumstances – this may be determined by the type of offence.
 Any use of force must be justified as necessary to affect the arrest or justified by self-defence.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/CriminalJury/2-43.html

the use of deadly force, such as firing one's revolver, is justified only in the following circumstances:
(1) In the officer's self defense or defense of others, where he reasonably believed that he was confronted with deadly or imminently deadly force;
(2) The officer reasonably believed that the person arrested, or whose escape is sought to be prevented, committed or attempted to commit a felony that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and if, where feasible, he has given warning of his intent to use deadly physical force.4 In each case, however, the officer must have the reasonable belief that he could effect the arrest or prevent escape only by using deadly force; if lesser force was reasonable, then the use of deadly force would be unjustified.5

Again...
"It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. "

"you must stop and back away, even if he's still snarling and yelling that you're a dead man and it's obvious he's going to take another swing at you once he figures out where you are."

"Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent."

"The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. "

Saying there might be a threat someday just does not cut it.

Not at all. The only similarity between those situations is that they are violent acts commited by PCs.

[quote=LuisDantas] Roy was acting against a dangerous and armed opponent with dubious mental sanity and known temper issues. And he attempted to defeat Miko, not to kill her
Now a-poking a sword thru somebody doesn't exactly show eagerness to save her life.
b-You are jumping into a conversation, which in this case assumed that Roy was trying to kill Miko.

- as evidenced both by his general character
How many killers have you heard described as "he isn't the type to do that."? The figure is close to 100% if you listen to the killer's friends and family much. This amounts to little more than "I like Roy, so he can't be at fault."
In the case of Roy, we know that he is a killer. He has killed hundreds, even thousands, to reach his current level. He is furious in the current situation, a state of conditions that causes many to do crimes they would not normally do.
And we really don't know that much of Roy. We just have brief glimpses spread out over a year or more.

and by the specific circunstace that he won the fight, yet made no attempt to finish her (and he is a fighter with good feats and a +5 sword, so come on).
And if he did so, he would be immediately and clearly be classified as a murderer.

Were we to compare that situation with Vaarsuvius', we would need to make it so that Roy arrived at the scene AFTER Miko was defeated and unconscious.
Nope. Kubota was still "resisting arrest". He just was not doing so physically.

You're bringing up the self defense.
"Belkar or Roy were the next people in the room after Miko regained her confused senses to be a target based on all of the evidence given to us."

"it would be only a matter of time before she naturally turned to him."

"We know she would have blamed Roy for it in some way shape or form"

You are trying to argue Roy has a self defense defense.

a girl that was socially inept, VERY dangerous to an entire party of adventurers, and most likely to kill again for her ideals,

no one thought she was likely to kill Shojo for his "crimes" but she did show she was dangerous to the point of killing an unarmed old man.
And again you try to raise self defense. Again, we have the clear standards of self defense that say this is insufficient. The threat is neither that clear nor immediate.

If Miko had wanted to do a ritual suicide she probably could have done it either within the prison or sometime before destroying the gate.
Possibly, but the point here is that for Roy to claim self defense, all doubts must be resolved to show that Miko was going to attack. The possibility that she might kill herself is just another reason to doubt the threat was sufficiently certain or immediate. Roy doesn't know that Miko will not suicide, and that weakens any claim to self defense.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-11, 12:40 AM

Well, for starters, you are a large step closer to approving V's actions against Kubota

Which is not a problem as far as I'm concerned. It was well within the chaotic good alignment spectrum to recognize that the law would fail to carry out good and to do it yourself. Once again, law is not good. Chaos is not bad. From the Good vs Evil side of things there is NO difference between an adventurer who witnesses a despicably evil act killing that person, and an adventurer bringing the person back before the king, who orders his guards to tie him up and cut off his head.

The only thing that gave it a blip on the malevometer is that V did it without enough knowledge to make the decision. That is the exact opposite of Roy, who witnessed the event.

and the dragons.

Completely different scenario to the point that this is a non sequetor. V was judging those dragons based on a POSSIBLE future action that they might or might not commit at some point, not anything based on their actions. Roy was acting based on actions that he'd witnessed.

Of course the basic question does have serious meaning. Roy did something sinful, but how do we properly punish it? Particularly under the circumstances? I make no case that it requires massive punishment. Roy has several defenses in mitigation. But we simply do not want people using violence when they do not have to. We may understand that urge to give that jerk what he so richly deserves, but we want that urge resisted, and resisted hard.

.. where did you get the idea that lawfull good meant pacifism? Have you LOOKED at the paladin class? Its not Kumbaya lets talk the bad guys into eating marshmallows and smores. Its a class built around hitting evil things with large heavy objects until they are no longer a threat to all thats good and holy.

lawful good kingdoms have the death penalty. They do not hand the accused a sword and have him fight a fair fight. They tie them up, put them on the chopping block and coup de grace their head off while they're helpless. Or they die a rope around their necks and hang them until they die.

Violence is not bad. It what you DO with the violence that makes it good or bad.

Psyco lady committed cold blooded murder of an 80 year old man and her liege lord. She deserved to be attacked. That satisfied the moral requirement. You constantly argue the legal side as if it were the moral side... hint, its not.

If roy wanted her dead, she would be dead. When Hinjo wanted to talk to her, Roy allowed it. When Hinjo wanted to duel her, Roy allowed it. When
Roy knocked her unconscious while Hinjo was a helpless heap on the floor, he didn't finish her off. Roy passed on EVERY single opportunity to do what you're accusing him of doing.

This is seriously, Belkars alignment terratory of denile. That mythical world of the playground where everyone that hits for whatever reason is a bad person? It doesn't play in the real world, much less a world as violent as D&D.

An Enemy Spy

2009-07-11, 12:43 AM

She was about to kill Hinjo. Of course its justified

FujinAkari

2009-07-11, 12:45 AM

She was about to kill Hinjo. Of course its justified

That isn't the attack that is being discussed. The attack in question is when Miko was staring at her hands and her grey clothes in shocked disbelief.

Reverent-One

2009-07-11, 12:52 AM

That isn't the attack that is being discussed. The attack in question is when Miko was staring at her hands and her grey clothes in shocked disbelief.

You mean when he was helping subdue a powerful, violent criminal who had just committed murder and treason? The type of thing adventurer's do all the time?

Jagos

2009-07-11, 12:58 AM

... Okay, we'll play it your way where we go into definitions of self defense. But you missed a few things:

Reasonable Belief

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

Roy felt that he was justified in taking down someone who had committed murder. He felt it necessary, he went and attacked.

Self Defense Definitions

"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

While we can use it for Roy, Miko did cause bodily injury to someone else. By our laws (granted Texas is a little more... "lenient") Miko has no defense for killing Shojo, especially after demonstrating a commitment for bodily harm.

And if he did so, he would be immediately and clearly be classified as a murderer.

Hinjo didn't seem to think so.

And again you try to raise self defense. Again, we have the clear standards of self defense that say this is insufficient. The threat is neither that clear nor immediate.

She did pick up and look at her sword again. Clearly if she wasn't an immediate threat, she would have sat down calmly and asked for atonement. Maybe if the bonus comics of Paladin Blues hadn't painted Miko as such a loner I'd be apt to agree that she didn't need to be protected.

It was an act of retribution, of vengeance. It was borne of a desire to make Miko suffer, and a decision to take justice into his own hands. It was Chaotic Good, in my opinion, but not ethical. Ethically, one should always use violence as a last resort, and in self-defense... Roy didn't even try a peaceful solution.

Last time he did that, Miko got a Surprise Round and beat the entire OotS. I'd think the circumstance bonus had to be at least +20% on the likelihood she'd see reason.

FujinAkari

2009-07-11, 01:03 AM

You mean when he was helping subdue a powerful, violent criminal who had just committed murder and treason? The type of thing adventurer's do all the time?

Subdue implies a level of resistance which was not present. Additionally, Roy is very clear about his reasons for attack, and lawful arrest is not mentioned. Try again.

Last time he did that, Miko got a Surprise Round and beat the entire OotS. I'd think the circumstance bonus had to be at least +20% on the likelihood she'd see reason.

Roy makes it very clear that he is not afraid of Miko and is proud at how soundly he can outfight her now that he has his ancestoral weapon rather than a big stick. Claiming that he was doing it out of fear of allowing her a fair fight is ignoring his own statement as to the motive of his attack. Try again :)

Reverent-One

2009-07-11, 01:13 AM

Subdue implies a level of resistance which was not present. Additionally, Roy is very clear about his reasons for attack, and lawful arrest is not mentioned. Try again.

You're right he was clear, he was going after her because she just killed Shojo. Whatever level of resistance she was putting up at the moment doesn't really matter beyond that she was not dropping her weapon and surrendering. He's a lawful good adventurer, beating up higher level criminals and handing them to authorities, whenever said authorities are available, is what they do. As you seem to like to say "try again".

Jagos

2009-07-11, 01:16 AM

Roy makes it very clear that he is not afraid of Miko and is proud at how soundly he can outfight her now that he has his ancestoral weapon rather than a big stick. Claiming that he was doing it out of fear of allowing her a fair fight is ignoring his own statement as to the motive of his attack. Try again :)

Funny. It seems that everything is based on him being afraid of a fallen Pally that killed the only person that was trying to save the world and just made their job SUPER hard.

Now how I took my statement, it's more to believe that he would see diplomacy as something that would fail regardless. Roy isn't best at talking to someone that's beaten him twice when they were fighting against each other. Hell, he could have been angry. But the fact that her conclusions were out of touch with reality and she had killed someone already says a lot more than that +20% circumstance bonus. ;)

SadisticFishing

2009-07-11, 01:18 AM

So you guys honestly believe Roy is the sort of person that would kill someone out of frustration?

We clearly haven't been reading the same comic, and this argument is not worth continuing.

EDIT: Not because you're necessarily wrong, but because we have different premises and this argument is impossible.

Mugen Nightgale

2009-07-11, 01:29 AM

Yes, and alignment topics are old and boring.

FujinAkari

2009-07-11, 01:45 AM

You're right he was clear, he was going after her because she just killed Shojo. Whatever level of resistance she was putting up at the moment doesn't really matter beyond that she was not dropping her weapon and surrendering.

She had dropped her weapon at the point he decided to get involved, and she can't surrender unless asked too. A police officer can't pull a gun on someone walking away from them, say nothing, and then fire because the individual failed to stop, despite not being aware of the officer OR the gun.

He's a lawful good adventurer, beating up higher level criminals and handing them to authorities, whenever said authorities are available, is what they do.

The legitimate authority was about 2 feet away, and he explicitly states that Roy was wrong to be beating up Miko without attempting to talk her down. Additionally, Lawful Good adventurers beat up active criminals, they don't go into prisons and beat up the already-caught criminals. Miko wasn't resisting, thus removing Roy's justification for beating her up.

As you seem to like to say "try again".

I do like to say it, because all the defenses I hear seem to ignore the fact that Miko wasn't resisting when Roy attacked, which is really the crux of the matter. The question is whether Roy has the right to attack someone who is not threatening anyone and is not resisting in any way. To me, the answer is very clearly -no-. If you disagree, thats fine, but you need to address the actual events, not plant in circumstances to make Roy's actions justified, but the comic explicitly denies.

Now how I took my statement, it's more to believe that he would see diplomacy as something that would fail regardless. Roy isn't best at talking to someone that's beaten him twice when they were fighting against each other. Hell, he could have been angry. But the fact that her conclusions were out of touch with reality and she had killed someone already says a lot more than that +20% circumstance bonus. ;)

Possibly, in which case he gets ready to attack her and then demands her surrender. When she refuses, he has a lawful basis to strike. However, to attack her -without warning- is wrong. One tenant of morality is that violence is always rooted in defense, and Miko was not in a position to threaten anyone at the time he decided to get involved.

Yes, she was delusional, and yes, she was dangerous... but that doesn't give you the right to PRESUME resistance. Until she actually either threatens someone, or refuses to surrender, Roy had no right to escalate the situation to that of violent conflict.

hamishspence

2009-07-11, 04:02 AM

She had dropped her weapon at the point he decided to get involved, and she can't surrender unless asked too. A police officer can't pull a gun on someone walking away from them, say nothing, and then fire because the individual failed to stop, despite not being aware of the officer OR the gun.

She can. When she was struck down, her duty was to surrender immediately, not to pick up the weapon in the presence of Hinjo and Roy.

The legitimate authority was about 2 feet away, and he explicitly states that Roy was wrong to be beating up Miko without attempting to talk her down. Additionally, Lawful Good adventurers beat up active criminals, they don't go into prisons and beat up the already-caught criminals. Miko wasn't resisting, thus removing Roy's justification for beating her up.

Picking up the murder weapon immediately after committing the murder- and she wasn't "already caught"

Possibly, in which case he gets ready to attack her and then demands her surrender. When she refuses, he has a lawful basis to strike. However, to attack her -without warning- is wrong. One tenant of morality is that violence is always rooted in defense, and Miko was not in a position to threaten anyone at the time he decided to get involved.

She had a weapon- she was delusional- she is a serious threat.

Yes, she was delusional, and yes, she was dangerous... but that doesn't give you the right to PRESUME resistance. Until she actually either threatens someone, or refuses to surrender, Roy had no right to escalate the situation to that of violent conflict.

If you can't get through to someone, force is the only option. Roy (IMO) deduced that any kind of reasoning from him would not work on Miko.

He could have continued to refuse to get involved- but why exactly is this the moral course?

When person commits murder, is delusional, and picks up deadly weapon in front of you, it can be argued that the presumption goes the other way- that the immediate danger has already been proved, by the person's willingness to commit murder and then arm themselves in front of you. The situation had already been escalated to violent conflict by the person committing murder in front of Roy and then rearming themselves when struck down.

LuisDantas

2009-07-11, 08:48 AM

Now a-poking a sword thru somebody doesn't exactly show eagerness to save her life.

In the circunstances it might well save her life, anyway. If nothing else, it might conceivably have lessened the odds of Belkar deciding to take matters into his own hands.

b-You are jumping into a conversation, which in this case assumed that Roy was trying to kill Miko.

Oh. Well, if that is the premise, than there is indeed nothing to say.

How many killers have you heard described as "he isn't the type to do that."? The figure is close to 100% if you listen to the killer's friends and family much. This amounts to little more than "I like Roy, so he can't be at fault."

So we are supposed to ignore his known characterization and pretend to know nothing about him now?

Why?

And if he did so, he would be immediately and clearly be classified as a murderer.

Guess what? He isn't. Told'ya. :smalltongue:

Nope. Kubota was still "resisting arrest". He just was not doing so physically.

Unless he is a secret psi or something similar, that amounts to bragging and threats, now doesn't it? Not at all basis for applying lethal force. He WAS physically helpless, completely unlike Miko.

Possibly, but the point here is that for Roy to claim self defense, all doubts must be resolved to show that Miko was going to attack.

I guess that is true if we make seeing Miko in the best conceivable light our top priority.

The possibility that she might kill herself is just another reason to doubt the threat was sufficiently certain or immediate. Roy doesn't know that Miko will not suicide, and that weakens any claim to self defense.

Nope, it actually gives him a fair claim to be acting in defense of Miko herself; if he is angry and busy fighting him than she can't think of killing herself.

Not that I think of Miko was the suicidal type, at least not at that point. Her character is not like that, although her psychological deterioration might well make her so eventually had she not died soon enough.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-11, 09:49 AM

Unless he is a secret psi or something similar, that amounts to bragging and threats, now doesn't it? Not at all basis for applying lethal force. He WAS physically helpless, completely unlike Miko.

He wasn't resisting ARREST but he was resisting the application of Justice. On the moral spectrum there's no real difference between running away and letting your lawyers weasel you out of your just desserts.

LuisDantas

2009-07-11, 09:53 AM

He wasn't resisting ARREST but he was resisting the application of Justice.

Not in a way that immediately endangered anyone.

On the moral spectrum there's no real difference between running away and letting your lawyers weasel you out of your just desserts.

I just don't follow. Are you implying that trials and legal systems are pointless?

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-11, 10:03 AM

Not in a way that immediately endangered anyone.

So he endangered people in the long run, say, over the next 8 hours while he was going to be running his operation from the cushy house arrest he would have arranged for himself.

I just don't follow. Are you implying that trials and legal systems are pointless?

I'm saying that from a Good evil perspective (that's moral, the lawful chaotic axis would be ethical) they're of limited use. They can help to determine someone's guilt or innocene, but if you already know that (ie, a typical adventurer who knows what the bad guy did because he saw it) then yes, a trial is pointless. What would morally be the difference if Elan had run Kubota through and let him sank as opposed to taking him back for a just trial? The man engineered the death of dozens of azurites A just trial would just kill him anyway. Folks that claim that killing a helpless victim is always wrong overlook the fact that when a lawful good king sends you to the headsman, they render you helpless and THEN kill you.

theinsulabot

2009-07-11, 10:06 AM

and this folks is why i automatically withdraw from any argument lasting more then 3 pages. because at that point, the only way to win the game is to not play

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-11, 11:15 AM

and this folks is why i automatically withdraw from any argument lasting more then 3 pages. because at that point, the only way to win the game is to not play

Gordian called. They're having a little trouble with a knot

hamishspence

2009-07-11, 03:27 PM

It really depends a lot on your views of D&D, and morality.

Are good people good because they never resort to violence unless they are absolutely certain there is no other choice?

Or are they good because they restrict their violence to those who are both "obviously guilty" and "obviously evil"?

Is restricting your Violence Good, or Supid Good, when you restrict it to levels ridiculous for the setting?

I seem to recall a lot of outcry when Celia raised the "you didn't need to kill him" objection, to what she perceived as unnecessary killing of enemies when you could get past them without killing.

Roy stresses his own disapproval of unnecessary killing in Origin-
"I may have to kill evil creatures in the service of a higher duty, or self defense, but I refuse to kill them simply because its more convenient than talking to them."

So, either he's hypocritical in trying to kill Miko because its more convenient than talking to her, or somebody has the wrong idea about his intentions.

(Or possibly he's attacking her for personal revenge- again- does that fit with how he's characterized?)

FujinAkari

2009-07-11, 03:58 PM

She can. When she was struck down, her duty was to surrender immediately, not to pick up the weapon in the presence of Hinjo and Roy.

Roy choose to get involved before she picked up her weapon and made no reference to her aquiring it when attacking, therefore it is intellectually dishonest to claim Roy's attack had anything to do with Miko's being armed.

Picking up the murder weapon immediately after committing the murder- and she wasn't "already caught"

Roy choose to get involved before she picked up her weapon and made no reference to her aquiring it when attacking, therefore it is intellectually dishonest to claim Roy's attack had anything to do with Miko's being armed.

And while she wasn't 'already caught' she was kneeling at the scene of the crime making no move to resist or escape, thus denying Roy of any reason to employ force to retain her.

She had a weapon- she was delusional- she is a serious threat.

Roy choose to get involved before she picked up her weapon and made no reference to her aquiring it when attacking, therefore it is intellectually dishonest to claim Roy's attack had anything to do with Miko's being armed.

If you can't get through to someone, force is the only option. Roy (IMO) deduced that any kind of reasoning from him would not work on Miko.

You still have a responsibility to try. As I said before, you can't simply presume resistance. The moral course is to prepare for battle and demand surrender, then attack if they refuse. Hell, even Miko who -just barely- manages to stay lawful good understood (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) the need to offer a chance to surrender.

When person commits murder, is delusional, and picks up deadly weapon in front of you, it can be argued that the presumption goes the other way- that the immediate danger has already been proved, by the person's willingness to commit murder and then arm themselves in front of you.

Roy choose to get involved before she picked up her weapon and made no reference to her aquiring it when attacking, therefore it is intellectually dishonest to claim Roy's attack had anything to do with Miko's being armed.

The situation had already been escalated to violent conflict by the person committing murder in front of Roy and then rearming themselves when struck down.

Ah, I knew this was coming. People love making ad hominem arguments and trying to blame Miko for Roy choosing to attack. Miko did instigate violence incorrectly, and no one is arguing that her action was moral in any way shape or form. The question is whether Roy was correct to attack someone who was not resisting and not threatening anyone, merely because she had committed a crime.

If we imagine a police officer (which Roy isn't, but for the sake of argument...) who sees an asian woman kill an old man, then fall to her knees and start staring at her hands in shock... what do we consider the correct response of the officer to be?

Well, several things, but we do NOT consider the appropriate response to rush over and start beating the unresisting woman about the head and shoulders with a billy club since she just committed a crime, which is Roy's stated reason for attack. If an officer did that, it would be the very definition of Police Brutality.

P.S. Sorry for the copy and pasting, but it really infuriates me that people are still trying to use Miko's sword as a defense, despite Roy explicitly stating why he is attacking (it had nothing to do with Miko's sword) and making the decision to attack before she ever picked it up.

Kaytara

2009-07-11, 04:07 PM

Well-said, FujinAkari. People keep clinging to the "armed threat" argument as if Roy was actually shown caring about that, as if that were Roy's stated reason for going over there to beat her up that very moment when she was no longer doing anything anymore except for going through a very obvious moment of shock.

David Argall

2009-07-11, 05:26 PM

From the Good vs Evil side of things there is NO difference between an adventurer who witnesses a despicably evil act killing that person, and an adventurer bringing the person back before the king, who orders his guards to tie him up and cut off his head.
There are no fundamental differences. There are a number of pragmatic ones. For example we have Belkar attacking Durkon while charmed and Thant attacking Haley while dominated. In both cases, the good guy[s] know or suspect the control, but this is hardly an automatic piece of knowledge. It is easy enough to change the situation to where they had no such knowledge, in which case to punish the "criminal" would be to hurt an innocent [an odd word to use about Belkar, but yes, it applies here]. There is thus a duty to spare the attacker if possible until it can be determined if any of these exceptions apply.
Our adventurer off in the boonies is simply the best judge available. Indeed, he may be the only judge available. Taking the prisoner to a better judge can vary from extremely difficult to outright impossible. So he follows the legal standard "It is better a case be settled than that it be settled correctly." and does the best he can.
But our adventurer is an expert on violence, not on law or morals. He knows both well above the average Joe, but he is not a specialist on the subjects. Accordingly, the odds are a better decision can be made by somebody else, which creates a duty to have that somebody else do it. So when our adventurer is in or near the city, he has a duty to bring them in for trial. [A duty that can be rebutted by any of several factors, such as knowing the judge will be incompetent or corrupt, but still a duty.]

The only thing that gave it a blip on the malevometer is that V did it without enough knowledge to make the decision. That is the exact opposite of Roy, who witnessed the event.
Actually it is the reverse. V "knows" by proxy. The fingerprint on the gun convicts the killer, and the rope held by Elan convicts Kubota, and his own statements challenge any assumption he will get justice. By contrast, Roy does not know Azure City law, and thus does not know how guilty Miko actually is. [A look around the forum, and Roy's own statements, give quite a bit of support for an insanity plea for example.] He can reasonably assume Miko needs arresting, but that she needs 10 years, or life, or execution is not within his area of knowledge. And he is within easy reach of those he presumes to be competent in determining what is justice. So it is not proper for him to try to administer justice.

Completely different scenario to the point that this is a non sequetor. V was judging those dragons based on a POSSIBLE future action that they might or might not commit at some point, not anything based on their actions. Roy was acting based on actions that he'd witnessed.
That the two are identical cases is not claimed. What we have is that you have rejected a major distinction between the two cases, saying in effect that [if the facts were properly adjusted] V would be in the right to cast the spell, not that such an act was out of the question from the start.

.. where did you get the idea that lawfull good meant pacifism? Have you LOOKED at the paladin class? Its not Kumbaya lets talk the bad guys into eating marshmallows and smores. Its a class built around hitting evil things with large heavy objects until they are no longer a threat to all thats good and holy.
No D&D alignment is pacifism. All of the good alignments are strongly controlled violence. In the game, we concentrate on the violence, but that strongly controlled is there. There are a whole army of cases where we may not properly use violence.
Any time something is hurt, Good is a loser. That can easily be the least loss available, but it is still a loss. Violence is to be the last option, not the first, for any good alignment. Violence is indeed bad from the Good point of view. It will be necessary at times. As adventurers know, it can be necessary frequently. But it is still a loss and to be avoided when possible.
[We might compare evil to a cancer here, and violence to surgery. It can be the only way to save the patient's life, but the less violent cures are to be tried first, for one reason because the surgery can end up killing the patient faster, or killing one that would not have died of the cancer.]

Psyco lady committed cold blooded murder of an 80 year old man and her liege lord. She deserved to be attacked. That satisfied the moral requirement.

Not at all. Your very use of "psyco" gives us grounds for mitigation or elimination of any penalty. And what gives Roy the right or duty to impose the punishment? He is a stranger to the city and its laws. He is biased against Miko. And he has every reason to assume more competent authorities exist within easy reach. Out in the woods with nobody else to turn to, we can say Roy has a duty to administer punishment because nobody else can. Here in the throne room, that duty shrinks to making sure Miko does not escape punishment.

If roy wanted her dead, she would be dead.
Entirely exaggeration. If Roy had wanted her dead beyond anything else, including his own life or freedom, she would be dead. Once we realize that Roy has other goals that can't be sacrificed just for the sake of killing Miko, we see the statement is false.

Roy passed on EVERY single opportunity to do what you're accusing him of doing.
These opportunities effectively didn't exist. Roy could have advanced on the unconscious Miko and finished her, but Hinjo would have had to arrest him for murder and that would have very grave consequences for Roy. The "opportunity" was merely a chance to do something stupid.

You mean when he was helping subdue a powerful, violent criminal who had just committed murder and treason? The type of thing adventurer's do all the time?
He wasn't helping subdue anyone. He was beating her up, by himself. Any subdual was merely an accidental benefit.

... Okay, we'll play it your way where we go into definitions of self defense. But you missed a few things:

Quote:
Reasonable Belief

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

Roy felt that he was justified in taking down someone who had committed murder. He felt it necessary, he went and attacked.
Harry the Hose thinks he is justified in taking down that jerk who refused to pay Harry protection money. His feelings of what is necessary don't matter either.
The 1st word of interest there is "reasonably", and that word is not defined as how Roy feels when he is angry and shocked. It means as if he could have sat down for an hour and thought it over, as if he had never met Miko or Shojo.
What do we see? Miko is simply standing there. She is not making any threats. She is not even looking at anybody. It is hard to think of her at a less threatening time.
Then we have "immediately". If one can delay using force, one must. Where do we see any sign that Miko is going to do anything? Except keep on standing there?

Quote:
Self Defense Definitions

"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

While we can use it for Roy, Miko did cause bodily injury to someone else. By our laws (granted Texas is a little more... "lenient") Miko has no defense for killing Shojo, especially after demonstrating a commitment for bodily harm.

You seem to be doing some confused reasoning here. The fact that Miko was guilty of crime does not give anybody the right to assault her. There is a right to arrest her, and if she resists, to use appropriate force to make her submit. But that is the order. Roy can not use force until it is clear that Miko is resisting. Roy did not even try to arrest her, and so can't use force.

Hinjo didn't seem to think so.
Hinjo never had a chance to consider the point. Roy never committed the crime.

She did pick up and look at her sword again. Clearly if she wasn't an immediate threat, she would have sat down calmly and asked for atonement.

This is rather obvious nonsense. There are several other things she can do without being an immediate threat, starting with continuing to just stand there. And no, picking up a sword is quite clearly not enough to qualify as an immediate threat.

Why is there this absurd insistence that Roy was acting in self defense?
Roy advances to attack. To qualify for self defense, you may need to be unable to retreat. You certainly can't advance.
Roy states his motives. They deny any need for self defense.
Roy then attacks an unready Miko, giving her no chance to surrender or do anything to show she was not a threat.
That is three strikes. The plea of self defense is thrown out.

So you guys honestly believe Roy is the sort of person that would kill someone out of frustration?
Everybody is. It's just a matter of degree.

She can. When she was struck down, her duty was to surrender immediately, not to pick up the weapon in the presence of Hinjo and Roy.
a-this is too late. We are discussing whether Roy had the right to strike her down. What duties she had after being struck down are irrelevant.
b-Roy had struck her and was showing every sign of intending to strike her some more. He had made no demand she surrender to him or anyone else. At that point in time, she has a full right of self defense.

Picking up the murder weapon immediately after committing the murder-
...is not sufficient evidence of anything.
If you recall your movies, you are no doubt familiar with a shooter who babbles to the cops something like "...but he had a gun..." and the cops arrest him anyway. In this at least the movies are correct. The fact you are packing heat does not give anyone any right to attack you.

She had a weapon- she was delusional- she is a serious threat.
Again, that is simply not sufficient grounds for an attack. The threat must be immediate and definite, not something that might happen some time.
And we have that Roy simply didn't care if she was a threat or not. "The only things that matters..." Nothing here about future threats to anybody.

If you can't get through to someone, force is the only option. Roy (IMO) deduced that any kind of reasoning from him would not work on Miko.
Where do we see any sign that Roy made any such deductions at all? He tells us "The only thing that matters..." And given that Hinjo almost got thru, the idea that it's impossible to get thru is pretty suspect.

He could have continued to refuse to get involved- but why exactly is this the moral course?
Given that he made things worse, not getting involved looks like a good moral choice.

When person commits murder, is delusional, and picks up deadly weapon in front of you, it can be argued that the presumption goes the other way-

It can obviously be argued. People on the net argue the most absurd nonsense all the time.

that the immediate danger has already been proved, by the person's willingness to commit murder and then arm themselves in front of you.
"It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. "

"you must stop and back away, even if he's still snarling and yelling that you're a dead man and it's obvious he's going to take another swing at you once he figures out where you are."

"Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent."

"The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. "

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.

The situation had already been escalated to violent conflict by the person committing murder in front of Roy and then rearming themselves when struck down.
The right of self defense can be regained at any time. About all you need to do is stop fighting. It doesn't matter how much you have been fighting. It only needs to be clear you have stopped and do not pose that immediate threat. Quite clearly, Miko had done just that. It is Roy who advances and attacks.

In the circunstances it might well save her life, anyway. If nothing else, it might conceivably have lessened the odds of Belkar deciding to take matters into his own hands.
"...might conceivably have..." That should be enough right there to reject the idea, even before we read that Belkar had already declared he was not going to do anything that might set off that Mark, and he didn't, even when Miko was charging at him.

So we are supposed to ignore his known characterization and pretend to know nothing about him now?

Why?
Because we don't know that much about him for starters. Our total knowledge of him could be covered in an hour-long conversation. That's hardly enough to trust him about anything.

But what is there in Roy's character that would make him unwilling to kill Miko? Roy is a known killer. Why should he not slice off another head?

Guess what? He isn't. Told'ya.
Does not follow. A murderer has murdered at least once. He may have passed up thousands of chances to kill someone, but having murdered once, he is a murderer. No amount of missed chances changes that.

Unless he is a secret psi or something similar, that amounts to bragging and threats, now doesn't it? Not at all basis for applying lethal force. He WAS physically helpless, completely unlike Miko.
The fact you add in "physically" shows the problem. Kubota tied up is still a threat. Miko tied up is not.

I guess that is true if we make seeing Miko in the best conceivable light our top priority.
The victim hit by a weapon automatically has that status. It is up to the attacker to show the need to attack.

Nope, it actually gives him a fair claim to be acting in defense of Miko herself; if he is angry and busy fighting him than she can't think of killing herself.
We seem to be reaching the point where you are saying "No matter what the facts, Roy is justified." Assault to prevent suicide is still assault and has to meet the same standards of certainty and immediacy. All we have here is uncertainty.

LuisDantas

2009-07-11, 05:51 PM

The threat must be immediate and definite, not something that might happen some time.
And we have that Roy simply didn't care if she was a threat or not. "The only things that matters..." Nothing here about future threats to anybody.

Sure, because a high level monk-fighter who defeated you twice already and has just become unhinged and slaughtered her own liege (and recovered the sword by the time Roy reached her) is certainly not at all an immediate and definite threat, and therefore Roy would need to explicitly state if he somehow thought of her as a threat.

I mean, are you serious?

"...might conceivably have..." That should be enough right there to reject the idea, even before we read that Belkar had already declared he was not going to do anything that might set off that Mark, and he didn't, even when Miko was charging at him.

What? So you expect others to reject ideas by such flimsy arguments, while you consistently grasp at straws to keep your own?

Thanks, but no, thanks. :smallwink:

Because we don't know that much about him for starters. Our total knowledge of him could be covered in an hour-long conversation. That's hardly enough to trust him about anything.

That is a weird thing to say, since he is IIRC the single most evidenced character in the whole strip, and has had quite a few pieces of characterization already.

But what is there in Roy's character that would make him unwilling to kill Miko? Roy is a known killer.

What exactly do you mean by that? He is no more of a "known killer" than Miko herself, far as the webcomic itself can testify. Am I missing something significant?

Why should he not slice off another head?

Because he never slaughtered anyone in cold blood before, far as we can tell. Because it is out of character for him.

Does not follow. A murderer has murdered at least once. He may have passed up thousands of chances to kill someone, but having murdered once, he is a murderer. No amount of missed chances changes that.

Oh? So I guess that by your own logic Miko is a murderer and Roy has no reason to treat her differently than he would treat any other murderer.

Of course, that in no way relieves you from the responsibility of showing why Roy should be branded as a murderer to begin with.

The fact you add in "physically" shows the problem. Kubota tied up is still a threat. Miko tied up is not.

Not so. Kubota might conceivably cause problems in the future, true. That is not what is in question when one tries to justify V slaying him, however. Even leaving aside the matter that V did not know him to be guilty of anything, Kubota was not judged and was not an immediate threat, so it was not defensable in any way, including as self-defense.

We seem to be reaching the point where you are saying "No matter what the facts, Roy is justified."

That may be true in your mind. I still find it a weird and unfair thing to say, all the more considering how desperate to save Miko's face you go. That is some glaring double standard that you are using, y'know.

Assault to prevent suicide is still assault and has to meet the same standards of certainty and immediacy. All we have here is uncertainty.

Uncertainty is no reason to assume the worst conceivable motivations for Roy, much less to call him a murderer and assume murderous intent with no evidence, David.

I don't know why I even try anymore, however. So don't assume anything if I refuse to reply in the future.

Lamech

2009-07-11, 07:32 PM

Lets see here:
1) Roy decides to attack when Miko has put down her sword. It seemed to me that Miko was moving in the non-violent direction.
2) Roy seemed rather confident of victory. All he had to do was drop a couple subdual attacks on Miko, and then not power attack for enough to risk a Miko death. He used lethal force when it was not nessecary.
3) Miko disarms Roy. So instead of taking his weapon and killing him with it, she... retreats! Hmm... yeah she still seems focused on not killing people.
4) Roy orders the defenseless Belkar to stop Miko. There by showing his concern for... umm... hurting Miko? And he doesn't tell Belkar, if he can fight or not. Endangering Belkar even more.

So I'm going to say that Roy did not handle things right there. Although better than a lot of heros in fiction. (I'm looking at you goodkind.)

Omegonthesane

2009-07-11, 07:53 PM

Sure, because a high level monk-fighter who defeated you twice already and has just become unhinged and slaughtered her own liege (and recovered the sword by the time Roy reached her) is certainly not at all an immediate and definite threat, and therefore Roy would need to explicitly state if he somehow thought of her as a threat.

I mean, are you serious?
Knowing David Argall... yes he is. Though at this rate, next he'll be arguing that Roy's attack on Xykon was not morally justified because Xykon was not an immediate threat to his life.

That is a weird thing to say, since he is IIRC the single most evidenced character in the whole strip, and has had quite a few pieces of characterization already.
For some reason David doesn't like taking Word of God as... well, Word of God. He doesn't count the author's opinion as supreme in that author's universe, apparently.

What exactly do you mean by that? He is no more of a "known killer" than Miko herself, far as the webcomic itself can testify. Am I missing something significant?
Roy's killed plenty of goblins and evil beings, primarily in self-defence. Technically, he is a known killer... of evil stuff.

Because he never slaughtered anyone in cold blood before, far as we can tell. Because it is out of character for him.
Point, but Roy was furious, maybe even berserk when he attacked, because Miko had just committed crimes against the fabric of reality.

Oh? So I guess that by your own logic Miko is a murderer and Roy has no reason to treat her differently than he would treat any other murderer.

Of course, that in no way relieves you from the responsibility of showing why Roy should be branded as a murderer to begin with.
Basically, because Daffyd is defining 'murderer' as 'person has at least once, ever, in all the history of creation, slain a human or comparable intelligent being, regardless of circumstances'. That's the impression I got, anyway. Also, I recall the statistics directly contradicting "once a criminal always a criminal" but I don't know what reoffending rates are like for murderers.

Not so. Kubota might conceivably cause problems in the future, true. That is not what is in question when one tries to justify V slaying him, however. Even leaving aside the matter that V did not know him to be guilty of anything, Kubota was not judged and was not an immediate threat, so it was not defensable in any way, including as self-defense.
Legally? Of course it wasn't.
Morally? Elan should have killed Kubota himself, and ideally proceeded to flat out tell Hinjo that he had done so, with evidence of the man's crimes to hand. As far as I am concerned, the overall combination of several counts of high treason, murder, consorting with fiends on a long-term basis, and repeatedly attempting to sell your soul to the Nine Hells, is more than enough that any, any fair court that believes in execution would give Kubota the death penalty.

That may be true in your mind. I still find it a weird and unfair thing to say, all the more considering how desperate to save Miko's face you go. That is some glaring double standard that you are using, y'know.
QFT.

Uncertainty is no reason to assume the worst conceivable motivations for Roy, much less to call him a murderer and assume murderous intent with no evidence, David.
His exact words "I am kicking your fallen ass NOW" as opposed to "DIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!". Also, he had no compelling reason to give Miko nonlethal damage, so the fact she was knocked aside rather than actively stabbed in the face.

Reverent-One

2009-07-11, 07:53 PM

Lets see here:
1) Roy decides to attack when Miko has put down her sword. It seemed to me that Miko was moving in the non-violent direction.

No, he approaches her while her sword is out of hand, he does not attack until she has picked up the sword. We don't know that if she had left the sword alone and turned herself in for murdering her liege, he would have attacked.

2) Roy seemed rather confident of victory. All he had to do was drop a couple subdual attacks on Miko, and then not power attack for enough to risk a Miko death. He used lethal force when it was not nessecary.

Dealing subdual damage would have reduced his own chances of hitting, and since a person becomes unconscious in the D&D world pretty much only when they are between 0 and -10 hitpoints and doing lethal damage is a way to reach that point, what's the problem with him using it? As we see, he didn't even do enough damage to her at first for Hinjo to be able to defeat her.

3) Miko disarms Roy. So instead of taking his weapon and killing him with it, she... retreats! Hmm... yeah she still seems focused on not killing people.

and running away is the better tactical move for her, since she hasn't done much damage to Roy yet and Hinjo is nearby. She's crazy, not stupid.

4) Roy orders the defenseless Belkar to stop Miko. There by showing his concern for... umm... hurting Miko? And he doesn't tell Belkar, if he can fight or not. Endangering Belkar even more.

As for what he thought Belkar could do, I don't know. Technically, he is allowed to do non-lethal damage, but given he has no weapon, he can't do much. I'd pass this off as Roy having just taken a Monk kick to the head.

FujinAkari

2009-07-11, 08:18 PM

No, he approaches her while her sword is out of hand, he does not attack until she has picked up the sword. We don't know that if she had left the sword alone and turned herself in for murdering her liege, he would have attacked.

Again, stop ascribing actions to Roy which he explicitly denies.

As I said at least 4 times in one post last page, Roy made the decision to 'get involved' before Miko ever picked up her sword. Now, unless you want to argue that Roy meant to say "Belkar, change of plans, we're going to stand here and see if Miko reaches for her weapon in which case we'll get involved." but Rich forgot to type like 75% of it, then clearly Roy chose to attack her regardless of what she would or would not do with her sword.

Again, Roy says why he's attacking Miko, its because Miko killed Shojo. You keep trying to claim it is self-defense, or because he's worried about her being an active threat, but he -says- why he's attacking her. Stop ignoring canon just because canon undermines your theory :P

Lamech

2009-07-11, 08:20 PM

No, he approaches her while her sword is out of hand, he does not attack until she has picked up the sword. We don't know that if she had left the sword alone and turned herself in for murdering her liege, he would have attacked.
He said he was getting involved before he picked up the weapon. And he gave his reason as her killing Shojo. Nor had she shown she was going to use the weapon on any one, having her back turned and all.

Dealing subdual damage would have reduced his own chances of hitting, and since a person becomes unconscious in the D&D world pretty much only when they are between 0 and -10 hitpoints and doing lethal damage is a way to reach that point, what's the problem with him using it? As we see, he didn't even do enough damage to her at first for Hinjo to be able to defeat her.
Most fighters have enough to power attack with. Roy should too. The net effect would be the subdual hits for eight less than normal damage. He seem rather confident of defeating Miko, and he would have back up. He could have easily done a round of subdual. Maybe she wouldn't have been safe from a crit, but she didn't even try.

And you misunderstand unconsiousness. If subdual damage is more than hp you go down. If its equal you can only take standard actions or somesuch. If she had more subdual than Roy could do in one shot she would be safe from death.

and running away is the better tactical move for her, since she hasn't done much damage to Roy yet and Hinjo is nearby. She's crazy, not stupid.Yes a much better move. Yeah sure. Lets see... an unarmed Roy, and Hinjo who she defeated easily. Hmm... and the halfling who just said he can't fight. Lets see, I think Miko would have got a good bit of xp there. And a cool new toy.

As for what he thought Belkar could do, I don't know. Technically, he is allowed to do non-lethal damage, but given he has no weapon, he can't do much. I'd pass this off as Roy having just taken a Monk kick to the head. ... Ignoring details you don't like. ... I guess thats a okay justification.

Jagos

2009-07-11, 08:21 PM

LuisDantas has the better argument on this one. I really am not interested in this "self defense" thing that everyone seems to be up in smoke about for the past few pages.

Point, but Roy was furious, maybe even berserk when he attacked, because Miko had just committed crimes against the fabric of reality.

Let's not forget killing the only person that was trying to save the world. ;)

We seem to be forgetting why he would attack Miko in the first place.

Zordrath

2009-07-11, 08:54 PM

To me, Roy had every justification required in such a situation. This wasn't a trial or anything, it's not about formalities like 'did she pick up her weapon before or after Roy chose to attack'.

Firstly, Roy had just been witness to murder (regicide, even) and high treason, and an act detrimental to saving the world from destruction. Therefore, he has every justification to detain Miko, something which arguably requires force, considering Miko is both very powerful and clinically insane. There's no way she would have listened to Roy telling her not to run away, as we have later seen. True, Roy didn't try it, but c'mon. He didn't try to talk Xykon out of conquering the world, either, because it would have been completely futile. Same with Miko. She sees Roy as an agent of Xykon (and at that point, she even had some very warped sort of 'evidence' for it), why does anyone assume she would have listened to him? She didn't even listen to Hinjo, trying to kill him for his attempt to be reasonable.

And yes, I think it's morally right to knock a murderer unconscious in order to bring her to justice. Miko putting her sword down after the act doesn't make her any less of an insane killer. Roy shouting at Belkar to stop her may not be a very useful action, but there's nothing wrong with the desire not to see Miko escape. I wouldn't want to see someone like her run around loose, either. One could argue that it's immoral towards Belkar, but who the hell cares about treating Belkar morally correctly, anyway? :smalltongue:

Secondly, it's completely reasonable to assume that Miko would have blamed her mistake on Roy, because she has blamed everything in the past strips on him, and has sworn to destroy the Order of the Stick. It's not so much morality but common sense that tells Roy not to wait whether Miko will indeed try to kill him just like she killed Shojo. Miko's actions later proved Roy's judgment correct: She tried to kill Belkar and even Hinjo, who had clearly done nothing but abide by the law (and was the new Lord of Azure City, which would have made his death Miko's second regicide in ten minutes).

I wouldn't have acted any different from Roy in such a situation.

(plus, it's worth noting that this situation wasnt't mentioned during Roy's evaluation in the heavens, so one can assume that in the context of the OOTS world, there was nothing wrong with what he did)

Reverent-One

2009-07-11, 09:08 PM

Again, stop ascribing actions to Roy which he explicitly denies.

As I said at least 4 times in one post last page, Roy made the decision to 'get involved' before Miko ever picked up her sword. Now, unless you want to argue that Roy meant to say "Belkar, change of plans, we're going to stand here and see if Miko reaches for her weapon in which case we'll get involved." but Rich forgot to type like 75% of it, then clearly Roy chose to attack her regardless of what she would or would not do with her sword.

Again, Roy says why he's attacking Miko, its because Miko killed Shojo. You keep trying to claim it is self-defense, or because he's worried about her being an active threat, but he -says- why he's attacking her. Stop ignoring canon just because canon undermines your theory :P

He said he was getting involved before he picked up the weapon. And he gave his reason as her killing Shojo. Nor had she shown she was going to use the weapon on any one, having her back turned and all.

Right, he was getting involved. That doesn't mean that if she didn't pick up her weapon, and instead sat down, and said "I have done a terrible thing, arrest me." he would have gone and beat her up anyway. I've never tried to claim it's self-defense, you're right, it IS because she has killed Shojo, which, given that this was the murder of an defenseless man and treason, means she deserved said beat down, unless she's wise enough to realize her mistake and turn herself in. Which she won't do, because she's Miko.

Most fighters have enough to power attack with. Roy should too. The net effect would be the subdual hits for eight less than normal damage. He seem rather confident of defeating Miko, and he would have back up. He could have easily done a round of subdual. Maybe she wouldn't have been safe from a crit, but she didn't even try.

And you misunderstand unconsiousness. If subdual damage is more than hp you go down. If its equal you can only take standard actions or somesuch. If she had more subdual than Roy could do in one shot she would be safe from death.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. My thought is this, you don't kill someone in D&D with lethal damage unless you knock them below -10, and at -1 they become unconscious (which also happens when non-lethal damage is more than current hit points). Lethal damage is easier to do than non-lethal. Given these facts, there's nothing wrong with what he did, which was do lethal damage to reduce her HP, then knock her out with a non-lethal attack.

Yes a much better move. Yeah sure. Lets see... an unarmed Roy, and Hinjo who she defeated easily. Hmm... and the halfling who just said he can't fight. Lets see, I think Miko would have got a good bit of xp there. And a cool new toy.

And Roy could just pick up his sword again, as Miko fights with her sword two handed, and/or provide flanking, grapple, or otherwise make fighting Hinjo harder. And hanging about in the throne room after you've killed the liege lord isn't quite the smartest idea around. You're right about Belkar's capabilities, which apparently Miko realizes, since she tries to go right through him.

... Ignoring details you don't like. ... I guess thats a okay justification.

More like ignoring a detail that doesn't really matter. Apparently Roy thought Belkar could do something, whether or not Roy was correct applies to Roy's tactical judgment, not moral debate.

FujinAkari

2009-07-11, 09:22 PM

This wasn't a trial or anything, it's not about formalities like 'did she pick up her weapon before or after Roy chose to attack'.

So... specifics should not matter in debates? I'm really not sure what you're getting at here... saying it shouldn't matter whether someone is armed or not when deciding whether to employ lethal force seems rather... short-sighted.

Firstly, Roy had just been witness to murder (regicide, even) and high treason, and an act detrimental to saving the world from destruction. Therefore, he has every justification to detain Miko,

Completely correct, although we can note that Miko wasn't attempting to flee, so your use of 'detain' may be somewhat suspect.

something which arguably requires force, considering Miko is both very powerful and clinically insane.

'arguably' is the key word here. What are the conditions which allow the use of force? An attempt to escape or an active threat to yourself or another both permit it, but Miko was performing neither of these actions. She was kneeling on the ground looking at her hands.

She didn't even listen to Hinjo, trying to kill him for his attempt to be reasonable.

Why are you referring to an event that hadn't happened at the time Roy attacked in the past tense?

And yes, I think it's morally right to knock a murderer unconscious in order to bring her to justice. Miko putting her sword down after the act doesn't make her any less of an insane killer.

Firstly, as a psychologist, please stop calling Miko insane. She isn't. She's delusional, but there is a VAST difference.

Secondly, Miko's "dangerousness" is irrelevant. She was unarmed, unresisting, and unthreatening. Saying that she deserved to be attacked here is the same as saying that Roy would have been justified entering her cell and beating her up, because she's JUST AS much a delusional killer there as she is in this moment, and also not threatening or resisting.

(plus, it's worth noting that this situation wasnt't mentioned during Roy's evaluation in the heavens, so one can assume that in the context of the OOTS world, there was nothing wrong with what he did)

Why would the Deva make special mention of it? The Deva states that Roy routinely acts chaotically in the pursuit of lawful good aims, and this isn't any different. His goals are lawful (the punishment of crime and the containment of criminals) but his actions (taking justice into his own hands and initiating conflict) are chaotic.

There is no reason to suspect special mention of this, anymore than we should expect the Deva to specifically talk about Decieving Shojo about the relevance of traveling to Greyport (Chaotic) in order to rescue your younger sister whom you promised to take care of before your father died (Lawful)

Right, he was getting involved. That doesn't mean that if she didn't pick up her weapon, and instead sat down, and said "I have done a terrible thing, arrest me." he would have gone and beat her up anyway.

Ok... read what you wrote... this is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen. It equates to "Well, Roy is justified because Miko could have prevented it by surrendering!"

Yeah, that sounds like "She made me hit her because she wouldn't stop talking."

There are certain conditions that must ethically be met before the use of force is allowed. Namely: Force must be used defensively, either as an answer to force (self-defense) or to prevent future force (detaining a fleeing criminal.)

Miko was not threatening anyone, and she wasn't fleeing the scene. There was nothing to force Roy's hand, he attacked because he wanted to, and that is what makes his action immoral.

I've never tried to claim it's self-defense, you're right, it IS because she has killed Shojo, which, given that this was the murder of an defenseless man and treason, means she deserved said beat down

This is exactly the unethical mindset which Roy is employing. In a Lawful Good Society (from which ethics are based), individuals do not have the ability to decide what is deserved, that is for the courts.

Reverent-One

2009-07-11, 09:53 PM

This is exactly the unethical mindset which Roy is employing. In a Lawful Good Society (from which ethics are based), individuals do not have the ability to decide what is deserved, that is for the courts.

Hmm, I used a poor choice of words there, because he's not giving her the beat down as punishment for her crime, but to get her to where said punishment can be decided. This can only happen if she surrenders, or they take her by force. As Roy knows Miko admitting she was wrong and surrender is about as likely as Belkar becoming a pacifist, he goes straight for the taking her in by force. Much like what is done here by actual law enforcement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html). And it should be noted that while Hinjo would rather try the talking method first, he doesn't condemn Roy or say Roy did anything wrong by not. His only complaint is that Roy may have enjoyed it a bit too much.

EDIT: I see you actually edited in two quotes from me, not just the one, but as they pretty much boil down to the same thing, I'd just be repeating myself.

Forealms

2009-07-11, 09:59 PM

This is getting awfully unfriendly...

But I'll throw my two cents in anyway. This is just how I see it.

Miko accused Shojo and the OotS of being evil and compromising the security of the city (and so on). Miko's first response is to execute Shojo for treason. As I see it, none of the OotS (or anybody similarly accused) would stand by and wait for someone who has proven themselves willing to use lethal force* when provoked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) (assuming people allow that she was "provoked" by her supposed enlightenment about who the real evildoers were) to lay bare their intentions. They will use force to subdue (and possibly kill) the person who poses that threat before they can do any more damage.

And, for all we know, Roy wasn't intending to kill her, just subdue her. (Though, admittedly, you could use the same argument to say that Roy planned on killing her and drinking her blood.)

Morally justified? That's debatable, but I would say that it was a smart move and in keeping with his Lawful alignment.

*She says "Make peace with your gods," so I'm assuming she intends to use lethal force.

Jagos

2009-07-11, 10:35 PM

This is exactly the unethical mindset which Roy is employing. In a Lawful Good Society (from which ethics are based), individuals do not have the ability to decide what is deserved, that is for the courts.

Funny...

That's exactly what Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) did when she threatened the Order...

Lamech

2009-07-11, 11:14 PM

Right, he was getting involved. That doesn't mean that if she didn't pick up her weapon, and instead sat down, and said "I have done a terrible thing, arrest me." he would have gone and beat her up anyway. I've never tried to claim it's self-defense, you're right, it IS because she has killed Shojo, which, given that this was the murder of an defenseless man and treason, means she deserved said beat down, unless she's wise enough to realize her mistake and turn herself in. Which she won't do, because she's Miko.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. My thought is this, you don't kill someone in D&D with lethal damage unless you knock them below -10, and at -1 they become unconscious (which also happens when non-lethal damage is more than current hit points). Lethal damage is easier to do than non-lethal. Given these facts, there's nothing wrong with what he did, which was do lethal damage to reduce her HP, then knock her out with a non-lethal attack. Lets say Roy hits a max of say... 23 with his greatsword sans power attack. (2d6+5+6), and Miko's at 9 hp. Roy attacks, and Miko sucks a little over average damage. Miko goes from healthy to dead in one shot. Oops. Now if Roy inflicts 24 points of subdual on Miko and Miko is at 25 and Roy hits for max Miko goes from healthy to knocked out.

Attacking with leathal damage risks killing Miko, starting with subdual does not.

And Roy could just pick up his sword again, as Miko fights with her sword two handed, and/or provide flanking, grapple, or otherwise make fighting Hinjo harder. And hanging about in the throne room after you've killed the liege lord isn't quite the smartest idea around. You're right about Belkar's capabilities, which apparently Miko realizes, since she tries to go right through him.

Err...

3) Miko disarms Roy. So instead of taking his weapon and killing him with it, she... retreats! Hmm... yeah she still seems focused on not killing people.
So explain how he would have disarmed Miko? Using only his bare hands. Now explain why he didn't do that in fight one and two. To grapple Miko he would provoke an AoO which would probably get him smacked. And an opposed grabble check, which he would probably lose.

Anyway the most important thing about her retreating is she was NOT about to kill anyone.

More like ignoring a detail that doesn't really matter. Apparently Roy thought Belkar could do something, whether or not Roy was correct applies to Roy's tactical judgment, not moral debate. He could slow her down by blocking the door. It would force Miko try a tumble attempt or bull rush him. Might slow her down. But it puts an unarmed person in danger. Shows a lack of concern for protecting people.

Hmm, I used a poor choice of words there, because he's not giving her the beat down as punishment for her crime, but to get her to where said punishment can be decided. This can only happen if she surrenders, or they take her by force. As Roy knows Miko admitting she was wrong and surrender is about as likely as Belkar becoming a pacifist, he goes straight for the taking her in by force. Much like what is done here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html)by actual law enforcement. And it should be noted that while Hinjo would rather try the talking method first, he doesn't condemn Roy or say Roy did anything wrong by not. His only complaint is that Roy may have enjoyed it a bit too much.Notice the opening with subdual? Actual law enforcement doesn't start with leathal damage.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-11, 11:19 PM

{Scrubbed}

Reverent-One

2009-07-11, 11:36 PM

Lets say Roy hits a max of say... 23 with his greatsword sans power attack. (2d6+5+6), and Miko's at 9 hp. Roy attacks, and Miko sucks a little over average damage. Miko goes from healthy to dead in one shot. Oops. Now if Roy inflicts 24 points of subdual on Miko and Miko is at 25 and Roy hits for max Miko goes from healthy to knocked out.

Attacking with leathal damage risks killing Miko, starting with subdual does not.

Which is why when she was low on health and that risk existed, he used subdual damage.

Err...

Well, Roy's weapon is a greatsword, correct? So if she was going to use his, she would have to drop her sword. And while at other times she wields two swords, during this entire encounter, she wields her sword with two hands as well. So even if she had kept fighting, it seems unlikely she would have taken his sword.

So explain how he would have disarmed Miko? Using only his bare hands. Now explain why he didn't do that in fight one and two. To grapple Miko he would provoke an AoO which would probably get him smacked. And an opposed grabble check, which he would probably lose.

If he absolutely had no weapon, he'd try it anyway. Better than doing nothing. A disadvantaged disarm/grapple attempt is better than nothing.

And again, hanging around in the throne room of the liege lord you just killed is generally not a smart thing.

Anyway the most important thing about her retreating is she was NOT about to kill anyone.

Except Belkar, or any guards/paladins/ect who got in her way after her crime was revealed. Or are you suggesting people who are capable of capturing a murderer should not do anything and put other's lives at risk?

He could slow her down by blocking the door. It would force Miko try a tumble attempt or bull rush him. Might slow her down. But it puts an unarmed person in danger. Shows a lack of concern for protecting people.

Or it shows a temporary overestimation of Belkar's capabilities. Which of those two possibilities fits Roy better?

Notice the opening with subdual? Actual law enforcement doesn't start with leathal damage.

Ahhh, so your only moral quandary here is not that he attacked Miko, but that he didn't start with non-lethal damage. Despite the fact that his method is entirely reasonable and it did, in fact succeed in capturing her without killing her. And that Hinjo himself didn't say Roy did anything wrong other than enjoying it too much.

FujinAkari

2009-07-12, 12:57 AM

Hmm, I used a poor choice of words there, because he's not giving her the beat down as punishment for her crime, but to get her to where said punishment can be decided. This can only happen if she surrenders, or they take her by force. As Roy knows Miko admitting she was wrong and surrender is about as likely as Belkar becoming a pacifist, he goes straight for the taking her in by force.

And this is precisely his mistake. He can't presume resistance, which is precisely why Hinjo chastises him.

Much like what is done here by actual law enforcement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html).

We can note that the cops in question are pursuing a criminal who has already fled once, rather than a criminal kneeling quietly after having dropped her weapon. Additionally, said cops do -not- employ their own weapons.

And it should be noted that while Hinjo would rather try the talking method first, he doesn't condemn Roy or say Roy did anything wrong by not. His only complaint is that Roy may have enjoyed it a bit too much.

He rather specifically says that Roy needs to stay out of the conflict because they need to talk it out rather than leap straight to violence. You're right in that Hinjo doesn't say Roy was -wrong-, and thats because he isn't, he merely says that Roy isn't following the ideal path.

As I've said before, Roy is acting unethically, but not evilly or illegally. He is acting Chaotic Good, whereas ethics require Lawful Good behavior.

This is getting awfully unfriendly...

But I'll throw my two cents in anyway. This is just how I see it.

I can see where you are coming from, but your post is largely opinion so it is difficult to directly refute. However, my stance is largely based in the opinion that no ethical system will ever allow someone to attack another person who is both unarmed and unresisting. Period.

*She says "Make peace with your gods," so I'm assuming she intends to use lethal force.

For note, Rich has specifically stated that this strip should not be read as a personal threat. Miko means that the OOTS is evil and will eventually prove themselves as such, and she hopes that it is her blade that is allowed to bring them to justice, not that she is going to specifically hunt them down.

Lamech

2009-07-12, 01:32 AM

Which is why when she was low on health and that risk existed, he used subdual damage.

Well, Roy's weapon is a greatsword, correct? So if she was going to use his, she would have to drop her sword. And while at other times she wields two swords, during this entire encounter, she wields her sword with two hands as well. So even if she had kept fighting, it seems unlikely she would have taken his sword.... ... ... ... Miko has a sheath. She pulled her sword out of it. One action to put hers away one to grab Roy's.

If he absolutely had no weapon, he'd try it anyway. Better than doing nothing. A disadvantaged disarm/grapple attempt is better than nothing.

And again, hanging around in the throne room of the liege lord you just killed is generally not a smart thing.(I would recomend assist another actually.) But it they would still probably lose. Had Miko continued to attack she probably would have killed them all. But she ran, showing that when Roy attacked her she was NOT about to kill anyone, something you need for self-defense.

Except Belkar, or any guards/paladins/ect who got in her way after her crime was revealed. Or are you suggesting people who are capable of capturing a murderer should not do anything and put other's lives at risk? Wait whose lives would be at risk? The people who eventually try to capture her? Because being Miko has no ranged attacks and the OotS has full casters. The battle would go like this:
V: Forcecage
Miko: Glare

Or it shows a temporary overestimation of Belkar's capabilities. Which of those two possibilities fits Roy better?I think disragard for Belkar's health fits better. (Belkar isn't all that much of a nice person.) The whole not telling Belkar if he could fight or not kind of cements it. He wanted Belkar to risk his life to slow down Miko. Risking Belkar's life isn't a huge moral problem, but that leaves Hinjo the only other person Roy could claim to be defending. And Hinjo rather nicely provoked an AoO, so thats gone too. And Roy attacked so self-defense is out the window as well. Of course, this is in addition to the fact that she didn't attack when she had a good chance. (Disarmed Roy)

Ahhh, so your only moral quandary here is not that he attacked Miko, but that he didn't start with non-lethal damage. Despite the fact that his method is entirely reasonable and it did, in fact succeed in capturing her without killing her. And that Hinjo himself didn't say Roy did anything wrong other than enjoying it too much.My problems are really two-fold. One he started off with an attack instead of asking for surrender. And two he used more force than needed. Subdual should have been his opener.

He should have tried to capture her first. (As presumably shown by all those links of Davids.) The police had already done that, but Nale fled. Presumably "Nale" would try to escape again. Again another area were the situations don't match up.

Roy's goal was goodish. Stopping someone who justed killed a person he trusted. But he went about it the wrong way. Compared to a lot of fiction heroes what Roy did was totally normal. Roy should have said something to the effect of put down/away your weapon and go with Hinjo. If Roy was on trial he would have a fairly easy time getting off.

David Argall

2009-07-12, 03:10 AM

Sure, because a high level monk-fighter who defeated you twice already and has just become unhinged and slaughtered her own liege (and recovered the sword by the time Roy reached her) is certainly not at all an immediate and definite threat,
That is correct. In fact you have admitted it.

and therefore Roy would need to explicitly state if he somehow thought of her as a threat.
Not especially. But what we do have is his explicitly saying what his motives are and they do not include any evidence that he considered her a threat.

That is a weird thing to say, since he is IIRC the single most evidenced character in the whole strip, and has had quite a few pieces of characterization already.
I still do not see you saying what those characteristics are that mean he would not kill Miko.

He is no more of a "known killer" than Miko herself, far as the webcomic itself can testify. Am I missing something significant?
Quite possibly, since there is no claim that Miko is not a killer. Saying he is no more a killer than Miko is damming with faint praise.

Because he never slaughtered anyone in cold blood before, far as we can tell.
See strip 11.

Because it is out of character for him.
Why?

Of course, that in no way relieves you from the responsibility of showing why Roy should be branded as a murderer to begin with.
I have no such responsibility since I have not said he is a Murderer. He is in the wrong in this incident, but since Miko survived, the charge is not murder.

Not so. Kubota might conceivably cause problems in the future, true. That is not what is in question when one tries to justify V slaying him, however. Even leaving aside the matter that V did not know him to be guilty of anything, Kubota was not judged and was not an immediate threat, so it was not defensable in any way, including as self-defense.
V, and we, did know him to be guilty. The matter of what charge was just paperwork.

Uncertainty is no reason to assume the worst conceivable motivations for Roy, much less to call him a murderer and assume murderous intent with no evidence.

It is, however, a reason to say Roy was not justified in any claim of self-defense [which he didn't make.]

Though at this rate, next he'll be arguing that Roy's attack on Xykon was not morally justified because Xykon was not an immediate threat to his life.

Well, you certainly can not justify Roy's attack on Xykon by claiming self defense. Xykon was entirely unaware of Roy, to Roy's frustration, and had no plans that Roy was aware of that threatened Roy. Rather, Roy would argue that Xykon was a criminal and there was no way to administer justice, except by Roy's actions.

he approaches her while her sword is out of hand, he does not attack until she has picked up the sword. We don't know that if she had left the sword alone and turned herself in for murdering her liege, he would have attacked.

Well, if we take the movie cliche, he would have ordered her to pick up the sword and prepare to swing it. Some heroes get rather brutal in forcing the villain to "attack" so they can pretend it was a fair fight.

Lets see... an unarmed Roy, and Hinjo who she defeated easily. Hmm... and the halfling who just said he can't fight. Lets see, I think Miko would have got a good bit of xp there. And a cool new toy.
Stunning fist is only good for one round, meaning Roy would be picking up his sword the next round and resuming beating up Miko. So Miko was indeed wise to flee. Now she might have tried picking up Roy's sword while he is stunned, but it is not her preferred weapon and it is not impossible she would have rejected such an option as illegal theft.

Roy had every justification required in such a situation. This wasn't a trial or anything, it's not about formalities like 'did she pick up her weapon before or after Roy chose to attack'.

Firstly, Roy had just been witness to murder (regicide, even) and high treason, and an act detrimental to saving the world from destruction. Therefore, he has every justification to detain Miko, something which arguably requires force,
Arguably requires force is not sufficient. To use force, one needs to demonstrate its necessity, not that it might be useful.
And, as has been mentioned, Roy makes no attempt to detain Miko. He just attacks her.

There's no way she would have listened to Roy telling her not to run away, as we have later seen. True, Roy didn't try it, but c'mon.
a-There was indeed a chance she would have listened to a proper approach.
b-If there was not chance of her listening, the option of just standing there ready becomes much more reasonable. Just wait for Hinjo to recover and take care of the problem.

He didn't try to talk Xykon out of conquering the world, either, because it would have been completely futile. Same with Miko.
Not same. Roy was in a battle when he fought Xykon. There was no time to persuade Xykon, unless he made time. Miko, by contrast, was just standing there. There is a presumption of time to make the plea.

why does anyone assume she would have listened to him? She didn't even listen to Hinjo, trying to kill him for his attempt to be reasonable.
That was after Roy had soured the milk. Since Miko almost surrendered to him, it is easy to think that if Roy had just stood at the exit to block her escape, Hinjo could have talked her down.

And yes, I think it's morally right to knock a murderer unconscious in order to bring her to justice.
But again, where is the evidence that he intended to bring her to justice? All that we can see is that he intended to beat her up.

(plus, it's worth noting that this situation wasnt't mentioned during Roy's evaluation in the heavens, so one can assume that in the context of the OOTS world, there was nothing wrong with what he did)
We have gone over this before. We know we didn't hear all of Roy's evaluation, and so can not say that anything was not mentioned. Moreover, we are not asking what the laws are in the OOTS world. We are asking if the actions are moral, period. Would a real Roy be allowed to act this way? Our writer's opinion, and that of any of his voices in the comic, is simply one opinion, and not an expert one either.

Hmm, I used a poor choice of words there, because he's not giving her the beat down as punishment for her crime, but to get her to where said punishment can be decided.
Now where does he say that? He just says he is going to beat her up. No announcement he is going to cart her off to jail afterwards. No announcement she was even going to be alive afterwards.

This can only happen if she surrenders, or they take her by force. As Roy knows Miko admitting she was wrong and surrender is about as likely as Belkar becoming a pacifist, he goes straight for the taking her in by force. Much like what is done here by actual law enforcement.
And look how that worked out. The criminal mastermind escaped and they beat up and arrested the innocent victim. By the text as given, if they had simply stood there and demanded that "Nale" surrender instead of attacking immediately, Elan would have revived and spoken enough to completely ruin Nale's plan.

And it should be noted that while Hinjo would rather try the talking method first, he doesn't condemn Roy or say Roy did anything wrong by not. His only complaint is that Roy may have enjoyed it a bit too much.
Hinjo ordered Roy to stay out of it, which is a rather clear criticism of his getting into it in the first place.
Hinjo's statement that Roy had not done anything wrong is full of weasel words. Just how much he was being deceptive and how much he just lacked solid evidence of Roy's several crimes is debatable, but at the time, his goal was to arrest Miko, not to get distracted by Roy's actions.

They will use force to subdue (and possibly kill) the person who poses that threat before they can do any more damage.
You confuse two different conditions here.
Immediately after an assassination/crime, it is common enough to try to swarm the criminal because one can't tell if the danger is over or not. This is emergency action and you take action based on your immediate best guess.
So tackling/slicing Miko as she attacks Shojo or immediately after that is routine.
But when time, a very short time, has passed, one can see that it is too late to save Shojo, and that Miko is not making any immediate efforts to attack others. The emergency is over and emergency measures are no longer allowed. One must now follow the model of informing Miko that she is under arrest and that she is to drop her weapon and come quietly. One can no longer try to beat her up unless she does that, and being "certain" she will not surrender is not good enough.

And why exactly is a judge 10 miles away and hours after the event better able to determine that than a party of adventurers with access to spellcraft checks, sense motive checks, detect magic, AND who witnessed the event?

Well, because the judge will likely be more competent in each of these factors [except eye-witnesses, who are notably often wrong.] The party's sense motive checks are terrible, and a real party would not likely be all that much better. Our judge can easily be +5/+10 better on the check than the party. The judge, as a specialist in such things, would also have the better magic items to determine facts, etc.

Someone else with LESS information about what happened. NOT more.
Depending on circumstances, they may well have more.

She committed an evil act, she deserved to be punished for it, Roy had more than enough information to act on (since he SAW it happen) and he acted. Interjecting laws into that is an irrelevant interjection of your own veiwpoint that law is good.
Actually, my view is that law is evil, but here we ask why Roy had to act. Why should he administer the punishment? We see that Azure City will be punishing Miko [or so everybody in the room assumes]. That would happen no matter what Roy does, so his attempt at punishment merely results in a double punishment, which is a sin against good just as is her not being punished at all. Out in the boonies where there is nobody else around to do Justice, Roy must act, but here there are other who can and will act, and so Roy has a much more limited right to punish.

If she's gone crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball spell and thus not responsible for her actions she's a danger to everyone around her and needs to be put down like a rabid dog.
You put down a rabid dog because it will bite. We have no such certainty Miko would.

If she knowingly murdered shojo then she deserves to die.
You still haven't explained "Why Roy?" We have competent authorities available and willing to act. Why is it Roy's duty to carry out punishment?

Judging someone based on their actions and behavior is not bias.
That depends on the actions in question, and Miko has made a great many that anger Roy without being relevant to the crime in question here.

Roy stood aside when Hinjo asked him to.
When Hinjo ordered him to.

Roy could have killed Miko and then walked out.
And then Hinjo would have issued an arrest warrant and Roy & party would have had to flee town, leaving the gate vulnerable to Xykon. No, no matter how much Roy wanted Miko dead at that point, it simply was not worth it.

Hinjo himself (You know, the non fallen PALADIN who's in charge of azure city? One of the experts you were talking about before?) didn't think Roys attack on Miko was morally wrong.
Hinjo does not say this. He made a weasel worded statement that merely allowed him to focus on the immediate problem, Miko, and not be diverted.

Hinjo listed Roys wrongs as breaking an oath he never made, and ENJOYING the beating he gave Miko, not giving it.
"To my knowledge", and we have reason to suspect his knowledge is distinctly limited.

Its also refuted by the fact that a being of pure law and good tm didn't find any problem with it in Roys interview for the afterlife.
We know we don't know that.

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 03:34 AM

We have reason to suspect his judgement is distinctly limited"- why?

Shojo's "deceptions of the paladins" (pretending to be senile) have absolutely nothing to do with Roy. Deceiving them over the gate issue is more serious, but its an offence against the Sapphire Guard, not the city.

The Deva cities Roys cooperation with Shojo in this as evidence of Chaotiic behaviourr, not Evil behaviour.

And "since Miko survived- the charge isn't murder"

No- its attempted murder. Is it in the least bit plausible that Hinjo would not even mention it afterwards, nor the Deva cover it "onscreen" if this was indeed the act that Roy committed?

as for Roy's decision to advance- Miko's arming herself- Roy's attacking- it is not clear what would have happened if Miko hadn't picked up the weapon.

"Why Roy?" No paladins in the Room besides Hinjo, who is lower rank than Miko, shown in Miko's announcement just as she was killing Shojo. In effect, he's the only nearby chacater who stands a high probability of beating Miko.

Paraphrasing Eugune "He is the highest level character in the room- its his battle to win"

And when I say "When she was struck down, it was her duty to surrender" I mean- "when her own pantheon lifted her up, stripped her of her powers, struck her down, knocking her weapon out of her hand"

At this point, picking up a weapon shows serious lack of judgement.

FujinAkari

2009-07-12, 03:45 AM

No- its attempted murder. Is it in the least bit plausible that Hinjo would not even mention it afterwards, nor the Deva cover it "onscreen" if this was indeed the act that Roy committed?

Exceedingly plausible. The Deva said Roy has spent his adult life trying to live Lawfully "except that he often veers towards Chaos in the execution of your perceived responsibilities." This is no exception. It is clear (to me) that Roy -intends- to see that a blatent criminal is brought to Justice but, rather than allow the legitimate authorities to handle the situation... or even demand her surrender... he takes it upon himself to met out Justice and bring penalty directly to her, a decidedly Chaotic maneuver.

Hinjo isn't going to mention Roy acting chaotically... Roy isn't a Paladin, and what he's doing isn't illegal. Hinjo has no reason to hold him to a Paladin's standards.

The Deva isn't going to make specific note of it, Roy lives his -whole life- like that, and there are a lot of things the Deva doesn't specifically talk about.

So yes, exceedingly plausible.

Edit: Also note, my position isn't that Roy was intentionally trying to kill Miko, just that he wasn't attempting to avoid that eventuality and was unneccessarily fighting with her to begin with. Yes, that is a position I have somewhat refined since the beginning of this thread, although not much. As a result, David will likely have his own defense to post :)

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 03:49 AM

Not if, as it was claimed earlier, it is the "evil act of unneccessary violence- specifically attempted murder"

That would come up, morally, for both of them. Unless Hinjo missed it completely, and the Deva considers it Chaotic, not Evil.

Chaotic Good is not "more evil than LG, but not evil enough to be Neutral"

Given that "anger is sinful" and "unneccessary violence is evil" then, to explain it not coming up, we end up with claims that "the deva isn't as good a moral judge as a "real" deva would be" or that Roy's act was "truly evil, yet not enough to register a blip on the Malev-o-meter"

That is, when the Malev-o-meter is not being derided as a "one-strip joke"

FujinAkari

2009-07-12, 03:58 AM

Chaotic Good is not "more evil than LG, but not evil enough to be Neutral"

As I said, my argument isn't the same as David's, so I will leave him to render his own defense, but I do want to address this:

The issue here is one of morality, and morality is Lawful Good. Chaotic Good actions would be immoral but not evil (lying, which Roy does often, can be a Chaotic Good act but it decidedly immoral)

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 04:03 AM

Again- not in D&D. as long as an act is not evil, its not immoral. CG doesn't just mean "less moral than LG, but more moral than Neutral" and morality isn't solely LG, as Celia points out in her final speech at the trial.

morality in D&D is twofold- doing Good acts, and not doing Evil acts.

Even BoVD says "Lying is not necessarily evil, but it is risky."

and in a War & XPs bonus strip, the two paladins lie to Miko, then say "Its only a minor violation- we'll atone in the morning." Then they consider the possibility of actually doing what they said they would do.

in 2nd ed, Law-Chaos axis is called ethical axis- acting Chaotic isn't immoral, its unethical. Though this doesn't really apply to real-world definitions of morals and ethics.

In either case- the act is serious. If it comes up in a Book 4 bonus strip, described as evil, I will accept that my reading of Roy's actions was wrong. However, given the importance attached to it (attempted murder) I find it unlikely that it will come up in bonus strip when it did not come up in the main strip.

When the Deva cities Roy's Chaotic behaviour, its tricking the paladins (and his own party) that are cited, not "attacking people unneccessarily"

FujinAkari

2009-07-12, 04:41 AM

Again- not in D&D. as long as an act is not evil, its not immoral. CG doesn't just mean "less moral than LG, but more moral than Neutral" and morality isn't solely LG, as Celia points out in her final speech at the trial.

... did you just try and cite a lawyer as an expert on morality?

in 2nd ed, Law-Chaos axis is called ethical axis- acting Chaotic isn't immoral, its unethical. Though this doesn't really apply to real-world definitions of morals and ethics.

Ethical: [eth-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

I fear I don't see the distinction between being immoral and unethical. They are synonyms.

When the Deva cities Roy's Chaotic behaviour, its tricking the paladins (and his own party) that are cited, not "attacking people unneccessarily"

Those are examples, not an exhaustive list.

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 04:45 AM

D&D morality- OOTS morality-- not necessarily real world morality. How good Celia's understanding of morality is, has yet to be shown. She comes across as Lawful, but defends Elan's Chaotic behaviour (because thats what she was hired to do)

Yes- they are synonyms- the point is, at least in past editons of D&D, they weren't treated that way- moral behaviour was the Good-Evil axis, and only the Good-Evil axis.

Their choice of "ethical" for the Law-Chaos axis, is odd, maybe "conformist" might be better, but either way, that is the term they chose.

FujinAkari

2009-07-12, 04:58 AM

I have never heard of that rule, but if we are strictly defining the question as "Was Roy's attack on Miko Evil?" then the answer is -no-. It was Chaotic Good.

I consider it Unethical, but thats using my definition (the real world definition) of unethical, since I haven't heard of yours (the D&D definition) and am having a really hard time wrapping my head around it :)

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 05:06 AM

if you can find 2nd ed PHB, you'll see the Law-Chaos axis labelled the Ethical axis.

In BoED, it stresses CG's are "strong willed individualists who tolerate no oppression" but they are in no way "worse" than LGs, alignment-wise. Each of the Three Good Alignments is Good in its own fashion.

I would have labelled Roy's act Neutral (his motives probably Good in part, the justification for the act a bit borderline, his concern for the Law unknown, since we don't know whether Azure City law permits adventurers to act in this fashion toward criminals caught in the act.)

The Goodness and Lawfulness of the act (or lack of) wasn't mentioned in the War & XPs commentary.

We'll have to see, when Book 4 comes out, if it will rate a mention in the commentary on Roy's Judgement (if there is one) or the Bonus Strips.

Maybe we should list the questions that need answering.

1: was Roy's act unnecessary?
2: Did he believe it was necessary at the time and was this belief reasonable?
3: Does D&D OOTS "standard law" allow adventurers to act as Roy did?
4: Does Azure City law allow Roy to act as he did?
5: If act was unneccessary, is it Evil, Chaotic, or neither?
6: Does belief matter, if it is reasonable belief?
7: Hinjo says "to my knowledge, Roy hasn't done anything wrong" is this true?
8: When Hinjo speaks of "anything wrong" does he only mean Evil acts?
9: The deva says "I see very few truly Evil acts"- does this qualify?
10: The deva does not specifically bring Roy's act up onscreen- why?

Kaytara

2009-07-12, 06:50 AM

Jagos

2009-07-12, 07:55 AM

Even if we assume for sake of argument that the basic idea of Roy attacking Miko after she killed Shojo was justified, I've still to see a Roy-defender explain why it was so important for him to act then and there, immediately. Attacking her because she might do something violent next? Then why couldn't he wait until she actually tried to do that? All three remaining people in the room were powerful and high on hit-points, there was no reason to strike pre-emptively. No reason not to wait until she actually advanced on anyone else in a menacing way before attacking.

I can't speak for anyone else but we've seen Roy be taken down by Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html) twice. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html) Law aside, Miko was wrong in making things harder and I can't follow the letter of the law when the spirit of it says "The b--** needs to be taken down." As a leader type, and one that takes responsibility for other's actions (such as Belkar), Roy is who we look at to fight for what's right. Yes, he sometimes gets it wrong but it seems more and more as if he's a vicious killer, from people saying he was wrong in fighting Miko, for not trying to talk to Miko first when circumstances prove otherwise. I believe I feel the same way, in that I would look more to take down and make some type of citizens arrest of Miko if I had that type of power, law be damned.

There were several good reasons to attack her without waiting, but those reasons would have stayed just as good if he'd actually waited for her to force his hand, instead. By contrast, there is at least one good reason NOT to attack her without waiting - namely, because doing so would severely damage the diplomatic ground.

At the conjecture, Roy might be LG but I don't think he cares about Azure law since he was forcibly brought here by the very same person that's just fallen.

Even if we decide that it's not a big deal, the fact that Roy attacked Miko at that point instead of letting Hinjo sort it out says a great deal about him, and nothing good. It's completely consistent with his stated motivation of wrath against Miko - a sort of "She killed Shojo! NOW can I finally beat her up?" He wasn't reflecting on the situation and deciding whether she deserved beating up. He already wanted to beat her up and was just looking for a semi-valid excuse to do so. In short, rationalisation, not rationality.

But that wouldn't fit with Roy being a "take action" kinda guy. They chose not to get involved and someone got killed. Choosing to get involved may not remedy the situation but maybe some good will come out of it such as taking down a Fallen Paladin.

And I don't see what the deal is with Miko having picked up her weapon. It's quite obvious that the action is a purely instinctual, dazed one. She mumbles and then picks up her weapon, all while staring into the air. The gesture did not speak of any change in her demeanour. Arguing that she was a threat because OMG she had a weapon!!! is deriving your proof from basic outlines rather than the whole detailed picture with all of its subtleties.

It more or less goes with her characterization. She thought she was an avatar of the gods. Before that moment, she had been working for Shojo. By declaring she was above the law and directly in touch with the gods, she came up to be not only delusional but armed and dangerous. I doubt Roy was afraid of her, but piecing together all the parts of Miko's puzzle surely told him, "I'm not taking any chances"

LuisDantas

2009-07-12, 08:05 AM

Even if we assume for sake of argument that the basic idea of Roy attacking Miko after she killed Shojo was justified,

It wasn't really, although it was understandable and a far cry from a "murder attempt".

But it was nonetheless probably a mistake, and more than likely influenced by Roy's anger towards Miko.

Although I must say, after re-reading #408, that Miko looks even more dangerous and unhinged than I remembered her as being. I am not as certain that the situation could have been handled better anymore.

I've still to see a Roy-defender explain why it was so important for him to act then and there, immediately.

Pride probably was the main motivating factor; he has quite a chip on his shoulder about Miko at this point.

There is guilty as well; after all, he failed to prevent Shojo's death, despite knowing full well that Miko was not to be trusted.

But also, albeit less decisively, there is the fact that Miko was still a clear and present danger; heck, she nearly killed Hinjo even after being hurt by her altercation with Roy.

A good argument can be made that attacking Miko was the wrong thing to do, sure. But an equally strong argument can be made that it was the act that saved both his and Hinjo's lives. We simply do not have suficient evidence that she could reasonably be expected to calm down, particularly since she went through the trouble of grabbing her fallen sword again at that time.

For all we know she might have decided to strike at Roy then, had he not acted first.

Attacking her because she might do something violent next? Then why couldn't he wait until she actually tried to do that?

Maybe he could. But I can't very well blame him for not wanting to run that risk. IIRC there are some combat reasons not to, as well.

All three remaining people in the room were powerful and high on hit-points,

Miko had defeated Roy and Belkar twice already by that point. When she had orders not to kill them, to boot. And were joined by the four other members of the OOtS.

Much as I value Hinjo, and recognize that she is less powerful after her fall, at that point she is also more dangerous than ever, possibly even berkerk.

So no, I don't think there is much of a case to be made that she is no match for Hinjo, Belkar and Roy together. Particularly because I don't expect her to even care about that, even before becoming fully unhinged.

there was no reason to strike pre-emptively. No reason not to wait until she actually advanced on anyone else in a menacing way before attacking.

I respectfully disagree. And besides, regaining her sword makes even the pre-emptive nature of Roy's attack arguable at best.

There were several good reasons to attack her without waiting, but those reasons would have stayed just as good if he'd actually waited for her to force his hand, instead. By contrast, there is at least one good reason NOT to attack her without waiting - namely, because doing so would severely damage the diplomatic ground.

Yes, that would be a good reason. But available evidence suggest that it would be both dangerous and pointless to count on it. It might work, but it would be risky.

Even if we decide that it's not a big deal, the fact that Roy attacked Miko at that point instead of letting Hinjo sort it out says a great deal about him, and nothing good.

Less than I originally believed, however. I tend to find his failure to protect Shojo far more blameworthy, myself. He acted too little, too late.

It's completely consistent with his stated motivation of wrath against Miko - a sort of "She killed Shojo! NOW can I finally beat her up?"

Sure. And he makes that claim himself. Quite understandable, really.

He wasn't reflecting on the situation and deciding whether she deserved beating up. He already wanted to beat her up and was just looking for a semi-valid excuse to do so. In short, rationalisation, not rationality.

True... but had he been more rational, I believe he WOULD have attacked Miko pre-emptively and perhaps saved Shojo.

On the other hand... come to think of it, there is no telling how Hinjo and even Shojo himself would react to that. She WAS nominally a Paladin, after all, and had her powers and items to witness that. Technically Roy would have no business attacking her, despite that being probably the one right thing to do before Shojo was slain.

Roy was in a lose-lose situation, I guess.

And I don't see what the deal is with Miko having picked up her weapon. It's quite obvious that the action is a purely instinctual, dazed one.

Sure. And that is part of the problem: she is not acting rationally at that point, but instead running with her killer instincts, as she has just proven.

Her conversation with Hinjo in #409 actually shows that she is far more dangerous due to her irrational, instinctive drives. Heck, that is how she began to fight Hinjo despite knowing rationally that it was both wrong and borderline suicidal to do so.

She mumbles and then picks up her weapon, all while staring into the air. The gesture did not speak of any change in her demeanour. Arguing that she was a threat because OMG she had a weapon!!! is deriving your proof from basic outlines rather than the whole detailed picture with all of its subtleties.

I simply don't see how. You're assuming a degree of self-control in Miko that we simply don't see indicated.

LuisDantas

2009-07-12, 08:22 AM

That is correct. In fact you have admitted it.

Nope. I stated it out aloud so that the absurdity would be made evident.

Not especially. But what we do have is his explicitly saying what his motives are and they do not include any evidence that he considered her a threat.

Do you truly expect combats to include explicit claims of finding the opposite side a threat as a standard feature?

"Xykon, you are a threat to me. Prepare to be smitten!"

Did not think so.

I still do not see you saying what those characteristics are that mean he would not kill Miko.

Yes, you do not see.

Next.

Quite possibly, since there is no claim that Miko is not a killer. Saying he is no more a killer than Miko is damming with faint praise.

It is also an obvious, even gross understatement. But I did so anyway, to your benefit.

Since it was ineffective, I will refrain from attempting so in the future.

See strip 11.

That is a strip were soldiers for an Evil Overlord are attacked in their stronghold. What is your point again? How does that make Roy a murderer?

I have no such responsibility since I have not said he is a Murderer. He is in the wrong in this incident, but since Miko survived, the charge is not murder.

Keep backpedalling. Eventually you will reach shore, I am sure.

V, and we, did know him to be guilty. The matter of what charge was just paperwork.

V flat out stated that he knew no such thing, but instead went by a not-even-educated guess. That is no excuse for murder.

For that matter, we don't even know for sure whether Kubota would be acquited. In fact, you claimed not long ago that his death was needed because he was a danger due to his probably acquital.

It is, however, a reason to say Roy was not justified in any claim of self-defense [which he didn't make.]

People don't usually claim self-defense when they are facing known armed homicidals.

Strange. Or not.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 08:33 AM

{Scrubbed}

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 08:48 AM

Even if we assume for sake of argument that the basic idea of Roy attacking Miko after she killed Shojo was justified, I've still to see a Roy-defender explain why it was so important for him to act then and there, immediately. Attacking her because she might do something violent next? Then why couldn't he wait until she actually tried to do that? [quote]

Its a lot easier to bring someone that wants you dead to justice when You have three feet of steel sticking out of their ribcage than when the situation is reversed.

Miko is not the sort of opponent Roy can play games with. If he wants to bring her down, he needs to hit her with everything he has. That means hitting first so he can hit last.

[QUOTE]
All three remaining people in the room were powerful and high on hit-points, there was no reason to strike pre-emptively. No reason not to wait until she actually advanced on anyone else in a menacing way before attacking.

Miko managed to take down all FIVE members of the order of the stick, one of whom was a high level wizard, twice. Roy didn't have that kind of backup this time. One extra attack either way could easily make the difference between life and death.

There were several good reasons to attack her without waiting, but those reasons would have stayed just as good if he'd actually waited for her to force his hand, instead. By contrast, there is at least one good reason NOT to attack her without waiting - namely, because doing so would severely damage the diplomatic ground.

I think Roy had very good reason for concluding that that ground was highly infertile. Miko had completely lost it, and accused the oots with being in leage with xykon. She was willing to kill her own liege lord for that, she was probably willing to kill Roy for that as well.

Even if we decide that it's not a big deal, the fact that Roy attacked Miko at that point instead of letting Hinjo sort it out says a great deal about him, and nothing good. It's completely consistent with his stated motivation of wrath against Miko - a sort of "She killed Shojo! NOW can I finally beat her up?" He wasn't reflecting on the situation and deciding whether she deserved beating up. He already wanted to beat her up and was just looking for a semi-valid excuse to do so. In short, rationalisation, not rationality.

Roy's pretty clear on why he's sticking his big honkin greatsword into Miko. She killed the only person trying to solve this end of the world thing.

And I don't see what the deal is with Miko having picked up her weapon. It's quite obvious that the action is a purely instinctual, dazed one. She mumbles and then picks up her weapon, all while staring into the air. The gesture did not speak of any change in her demeanour. Arguing that she was a threat because OMG she had a weapon!!! is deriving your proof from basic outlines rather than the whole detailed picture with all of its subtleties.

You don't see the problem with someone that just crossed the border into psyco's ville picking up a weapon while looking at the sky and mumbling?

Here's the whole picture for you. Morally, Miko deserved an on the spot execution. Anything she got short of that is, quite frankly, in her favor, not a moral atrocity. Neither Hinjo nor the interveiwing Diva had a problem with the "pre emptive" attack.

Jagos

2009-07-12, 08:48 AM

Oddly appropriate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html)

Miko was one of a kind in her delusions.

Kaytara

2009-07-12, 09:02 AM

You still haven't answered my basic question: Why now? Suppose she would have stood around for ten seconds and THEN attacked. Why not attack her at that juncture, instead?

When I said that the three guys are high on hit points I didn't mean that they can take Miko down, I meant that they are in no danger of being one-shotted by her. With Shojo there was a strong reason to stop her before she even got within arm's reach of him, because he's an old and fragile aristocrat. That is not the case with Roy, Hinjo and Belkar. Thus, Roy could have afforded to only attack her when she made it clear that the use of lethal force was necessary. While she was still standing around, wondering what went wrong and actually forced to reflect on her actions, there was no need to attack.

Ideally, Roy would have stepped back and Hinjo would have approached with the same diplomatic speech he gave her in the comic. With the difference being that she would have been still in shock and actually wondering about it, rather than fresh from fighting for her life under Roy's onslaught.

Had Roy not attacked, would Miko have listened? We simply don't know. And no, saying that she wouldn't have because she can't admit her mistakes isn't right, because we hadn't seen her deal with something as major as the Twelve Gods themselves giving her a big slap to the face. However, one thing about basic psychology is that if you get someone riled up for a fight, they're less likely to respond to reason and diplomacy. Whatever Hinjo's chances of getting her to surrender were, there can be no doubt that Roy's hasty attack damaged them. Considering that, despite Roy's attack, she was a hair's breadth away from surrendering anyway, I think it's a stretch to say that she simply wouldn't have surrendered because that's the kind of person she is.

It's perfectly true that Roy's reaction was very understandable after everything Miko had put them through. That just means we can forgive him and not hold it against him in the future. Doesn't make it any less of a tactical error.

Sure. And that is part of the problem: she is not acting rationally at that point, but instead running with her killer instincts, as she has just proven.

Killer instincts? Miko is a trained warrior. If you lose your sword, you pick it up. After years of training, it should become automatic. Sorry, I still don't see how her mindlessly picking up her dropped weapon again serves as an excuse to attack her now rather than five seconds later if or when she actually chooses to make herself a threat again.

EDIT: I present a similar situation for comparison. Comic201 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html). Miko's Smite Evil doesn't work and she stops and wonders why. When Durkon jumps in, offering to explain, she stops attacking and listens to him. She is still holding her sword. She MIGHT start attacking them again. She had just nearly killed Roy and injured the others. To say that Roy was right in attacking her in the throne room is to say that he would've been right to attack her then, when she was standing there wondering why the Smite Evil didn't work.

Jagos

2009-07-12, 09:59 AM

You still haven't answered my basic question: Why now? Suppose she would have stood around for ten seconds and THEN attacked. Why not attack her at that juncture, instead?

Before I address this I gotta wonder... Why do we have a time limit? Is it based on conventions of modern morality or morality of the Middle Ages that this is partially based on? Just curious.

Judging from the actions seen, she was given at least 3 rounds to reflect. If we compare to the devious Kubota who gave up at the first sign of trouble, it's more than enough time for her to have considered surrender. I mean if we go into detail about the entire thing, it probably would take longer to type out than the action on screen. I think that is more than enough time to reflect with it being a time for action right then.

Ideally, Roy would have stepped back and Hinjo would have approached with the same diplomatic speech he gave her in the comic. With the difference being that she would have been still in shock and actually wondering about it, rather than fresh from fighting for her life under Roy's onslaught.

Yes but even the Giant admits that the ideal situations don't always occur with the Order. And judging from Roy's characterization (as I stated earlier) he is the type to take down a threat, which Miko had just made herself.

Had Roy not attacked, would Miko have listened? We simply don't know. And no, saying that she wouldn't have because she can't admit her mistakes isn't right, because we hadn't seen her deal with something as major as the Twelve Gods themselves giving her a big slap to the face.

It isn't just the fact that Roy attacked her. I think of this less as a die roll and more as if she were a living person. With everything we saw of her background, the isolation, the need to feel more powerful and important than others, the whole "Holier-than-thou" attitude, it was very, VERY doubtful that she would listen to even Hinjo when she so completely refuted the laws because they were tainted.

Considering that, despite Roy's attack, she was a hair's breadth away from surrendering anyway, I think it's a stretch to say that she simply wouldn't have surrendered because that's the kind of person she is.

But this is also forgetting the fact that "The enemy" changed the laws for 47 years and she took it upon herself to enact Judgement of the Gods. It's very hard to reason with someone who believes they are above the law. Also, let's not forget that Hinjo was the acting body of Azure in this regard. I would think he would feel a moment of grief since he had to lose his uncle to a Fallen murderer. Since he feels that Roy wasn't wrong in his portrayal of justice, I can't really refute it being a justification of why Roy can take on Miko.

Miko's Smite Evil doesn't work and she stops and wonders why. When Durkon jumps in, offering to explain, she stops attacking and listens to him. She is still holding her sword. She MIGHT start attacking them again. She had just nearly killed Roy and injured the others. To say that Roy was right in attacking her in the throne room is to say that he would've been right to attack her then, when she was standing there wondering why the Smite Evil didn't work.

The circumstances were different. If anything, I would say the second battle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=291639#post291639) is a circumstance that is fairly similar. If Roy hadn't surrendered, she may have killed others. Clearly, Roy would be bound by the very same issues if she HAD surrendered but it's more than likely that she wouldn't have.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 10:00 AM

Kaytara

2009-07-12, 10:48 AM

It's not a time limit, it's a matter of justification. Her moving to attack them would be an action that warranted lethal action over diplomacy. At the point where she hadn't moved to attack them, diplomacy is preferred over lethal action. Simple as that. What is the problem???

And derferinwolv.... Let's analyze this...

Scenario 1: Miko stands in a daze. Roy attacks her without provocation and lands a surprise hit. The fight starts.

Scenario 2: Miko stands in a daze. Hinjo tries to talk her into surrendering and fails. The fight starts.

Scenario 3: Miko stands in a daze. Hinjo tries to talk her into surrendering and succeeds. Miko comes quietly.

There are two differences between scenario 1 and 2. The first is that, in scenario 2, the diplomatic attempt has already failed when the fight starts and they KNOW that scenario 3 cannot come to pass. Whereas, in scenario 1, they don't know whether she would have come quietly or not if they hadn't attacked first.

The second difference is that Roy gets to land an extra surprise hit in scenario 1 before the fight starts.

That's... it. Note that there is no need to wait until one of them is 20 hitpoints down before it's okay to attack Miko. All they need to do is wait for her to make the situation hostile and beyond hope of solving diplomatically.

Basically, you are "gambling" against Miko's sanity and potential redemption and actively endangering yourself and the other people in the room by deliberately and at that time needlessly making the situation hostile again for the sake of... one extra hit. Um, yeah.

Never mind that the argument of "Well, her seeing reason is very very very unlikely, so it's okay to attack her just so that we stand a marginally higher chance of killing her before we run out of hitpoints" seems very... amoral... to me. Lawful Good is supposed to be better than needlessly attacking someone just because it might be more practical. Yes, Roy was angry and pissed at her, and so on. We're not discussing whether it was in-character, we're discussing whether it was right and whether it was wise. Considering that his attack damaged their chances of having her surrender and resolving the situation peacefully, without anyone risking injury or death, it's highly doubtful that attacking her first was more practical, anyway.

I also don't see where this idea of Roy as an "action guy" comes from. He's been shown willing to talk instead of fighting often enough. His encounter with the orcs in Origins comes to mind. Even though they had already attacked and injured them, he was willing to talk, even though he was denying himself ample opportunity to drain them of hitpoints in case they DID keep attacking him. The only difference is that with Miko, it was personal and he was mad at her. Which is presumably why he attacks her. It's why he SAYS he attacks her. How can it not be why he attacks her?

I would also like to point out that Miko HAS shown the trait of being willing to listen to reason. She listened to Durkon in 201, for one thing. And she admitted that her intelligence-gathering had been "flawed". What is this myth that she is fundamentally, intrinsically incapable of listening to reason and admitting her mistakes?

Jagos

2009-07-12, 11:14 AM

I would also like to point out that Miko HAS shown the trait of being willing to listen to reason. She listened to Durkon in 201, for one thing. And she admitted that her intelligence-gathering had been "flawed". What is this myth that she is fundamentally, intrinsically incapable of listening to reason and admitting her mistakes?

If you read 201 about Durkon, he seemed wiser than the others. She respects her elders and is Lawful about all of the major things.

But if she had been one to listen to reason, she would not have killed Shojo. Her wisdom isn't all that much better than Roy's and yet she seemed to believe herself infallible.

And since we have seen Miko, where does she admit one mistake? She didn't want to atone for killing Shojo because again, the courts were tainted by "The Enemy" (Shojo). When Miko declared that the Gods had spoken to her, and even after she had fallen, with Hinjo taking away each reason, she still nearly killed him AND attacked him first. Also, Hinjo was the authority that had placed her under arrest and she would not submit. That was a choice that she had made. The resounding "NO" tells us that she refused the logic given for her own preconceived notion.

Lastly, I again point to circumstances. If he has already lambasted Miko and it lead to him being dragged to Azure City in chains, would he be likely to go for a diplomacy check? He may not be apt for action when diplomacy is preferred but Roy at least knows when the reverse is needed.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 12:16 PM

It's not a time limit, it's a matter of justification. Her moving to attack them would be an action that warranted lethal action over diplomacy.

She already HAD attacked one of them. Dead guy, on the throne?

At the point where she hadn't moved to attack them, diplomacy is preferred over lethal action. Simple as that. What is the problem???

Effective diplomacy might be prefered. But you're trying to make the case that 1) diplomacy would have been effective and 2) Roy had reason to believe that diplomacy would work.

From Roys knowledge of what was going on (which is where you have to draw moral justification from) diplomacy DEFINITELY was not going to work. Was Roy correct? I think the fact that Hinjo tried and failed to talk her down makes a very good case that she was too far gone for diplomacy to work. From a factual perspective, diplomacy was not going to work.

From a justification perspective, Roy had no reason to believe diplomacy would work. He'd seen Miko implicate him despite the huge leaps of logic she had to make to do so. He had no faith in diplomacy working , and had a justification for his lack of faith. Miko doesn't hesitated to kill someone she thinks is guilty. She thought Shojo was guilty, she killed him. She still thought Roy was guilty, she was going to kill him.

And derferinwolv.... Let's analyze this...

Scenario 1: Miko stands in a daze. Roy attacks her without provocation and lands a surprise hit. The fight starts.

Thats a gross mischaracterization. Killing the person you're working for is sufficient provocation.

Scenario 2: Miko stands in a daze. Hinjo tries to talk her into surrendering and fails. The fight starts.

Scenario 3: Miko stands in a daze. Hinjo tries to talk her into surrendering and succeeds. Miko comes quietly.

That's... it. Note that there is no need to wait until one of them is 20 hitpoints down before it's okay to attack Miko. All they need to do is wait for her to make the situation hostile and beyond hope of solving diplomatically.

Which, according to you, would be when she attacks first.

Basically, you are "gambling" against Miko's sanity and potential redemption and actively endangering yourself and the other people in the room by deliberately and at that time needlessly making the situation hostile again for the sake of... one extra hit. Um, yeah.

That one hit should be around 10 to 20% of her hps. A signifigant advantage.

Trying to figure out the relative advantages and disadvantages of the hit would be

% chance Miko would attack * [ (chance the surprise round would make the difference between total victory defeat) + (chance surprise round would make the difference between flawless victory and someone else dying) + (chance surprise round would keep her from fleeing) VS

%chance Miko would listen to reason (I can't type that without snorting) * (and this is the important part i think you're leaving out) The chance that the attack will make the difference between a successful diplomacy attempt and a failed diplomacy attempt.

Roy wasn't attacking Miko when Hinjo failed to talk her down. They'd left combat.

When Miko and Hinjo started to duel, what would have happened if Miko had had 20 extra hit points? Roy couldn't have intervened at the last minute He would have come in, hit Miko, and then Miko would have finished off Hinjo.

Never mind that the argument of "Well, her seeing reason is very very very unlikely, so it's okay to attack her just so that we stand a marginally higher chance of killing her before we run out of hitpoints" seems very... amoral... to me. Lawful Good is supposed to be better than needlessly attacking someone just because it might be more practical.

She bisected her lawful liege lord and the ruler of azure city in a time of crisis. Thats treason AND murder. She deserved the death penalty. I don't know where people get the idea that lawful good has to be either Psyco or wishy washy with nothing in the middle. In other words, She had it coming, give it to her.

Yes, Roy was angry and pissed at her, and so on. We're not discussing whether it was in-character, we're discussing whether it was right and whether it was wise.

Well, those are two different things. Moral justification is not wisdom. Quite frankly, a lot of wise decisions are usualy comprimises with morals.

The level of anger is in and of itself can be a moral justification for violence. I think Roy had an odd sort of respect for the old man, and seeing him cut down made Roy ticked enough to start bashing the guilty party. Sometimes people deserve what they get.

I also don't see where this idea of Roy as an "action guy" comes from. He's been shown willing to talk instead of fighting often enough. His encounter with the orcs in Origins comes to mind. Even though they had already attacked and injured them, he was willing to talk, even though he was denying himself ample opportunity to drain them of hitpoints in case they DID keep attacking him. The only difference is that with Miko, it was personal and he was mad at her. Which is presumably why he attacks her. It's why he SAYS he attacks her. How can it not be why he attacks her?

No. The difference is that he realized the orcs were acting in a logical and reasonable manner (for orcs) and that those actions made peace possible. (mezzanine seats a sign of weakness!) Miko's actions were not and did not.

I would also like to point out that Miko HAS shown the trait of being willing to listen to reason. She listened to Durkon in 201, for one thing. And she admitted that her intelligence-gathering had been "flawed". What is this myth that she is fundamentally, intrinsically incapable of listening to reason and admitting her mistakes?

Miko changed over her run on the comic. Part of it was, i think, a touch of flanderization, and some of it was Belkar pushing her over the edge, but I think mostly it was the fact that the order called her whole life into question. These were people running around doing good, but didn't need a druid consultant to help with their constipation.

The idea that she was unable to listen to reason came from her actions. She described the improbable setup and web of lies and believed so strongly in it that she was willing to kill over it. Once someone enters the point where their "logic" is circular there's no arguing with them. All statements, facts, and events will merely be read so as to confirm whats inside the circle. Miko's refusal to surrender to hinjo shows that she'd hit that point, and i don't think it was Roys 20 hps of damage that did that.

Lets also not forget that Roy is a fighter. When you have a hammer, your problems tend to look like nails.

Kaytara

2009-07-12, 01:06 PM

Of course, Miko deserves to get beaten up. But it's not as simple as that. Belkar undeniably deserves the death penalty, but even the Lawful Good deva agrees that simply slitting his throat is not the way to go.

Besides, there's also the point David made about double punishment. After killing Shojo, Miko would have gotten "beaten up" in some manner regardless of what Roy did. Besides, what makes you think that Roy is interested in administering justice there rather than just venting his anger, as he flat-out states?

From Roys knowledge of what was going on (which is where you have to draw moral justification from) diplomacy DEFINITELY was not going to work. Was Roy correct? I think the fact that Hinjo tried and failed to talk her down makes a very good case that she was too far gone for diplomacy to work. From a factual perspective, diplomacy was not going to work.

That makes absolutely NO sense at all to me, sorry. Roy made things worse by attacking, Hinjo almost convinced her to surrender, so logically, if Roy hadn't attacked her she... still wouldn't have surrendered? Huh?

An analogy: You're jumping across a pit. You gain speed. Just before making the jump, you stumble and lose a bit of your momentum. You almost make the jump and fall about an inch short of the other side. There's no way to be sure, but to me there's a very high chance that, were it not for the stumble, you might have made the jump. And here, there's a certain chance that, were it not for Roy hastily moving in to "batter things into submission", Hinjo might have managed to convince Miko.

Roy wasn't attacking Miko when Hinjo failed to talk her down. They'd left combat.
My whole point is that immediately after Miko fell, when she was standing and wondering what went wrong, was THE moment for diplomacy. If ever was a moment when Miko was close to realising her mistakes, that was IT, that moment there. She was standing there trying to understand what went wrong, wondering aloud. If Hinjo had approached her at that moment and tried to gently prod her towards the reasonable conclusion, I strongly doubt she would have attacked him - he was a fellow paladin and a friend, after all. Instead, Roy attacks her. She already thought that Roy was working for the enemy. Her Fall made her actually start to reconsider things. The sheer redundancy of Roy's attack at that time couldn't have helped his case.

By contrast, the moment later when Hinjo talks to her, AFTER Roy's attack, no longer has the advantage of catching her in contemplation mode rather than rage mode.

And lastly... Yes, she killed Shojo. But she wasn't trying to kill anyone anymore. She was no longer actively provoking the use of lethal force. She was standing there in a daze wondering aloud about how this could happen. It's obvious that TALKING to her at this moment is preferable to HITTING her. The only reason not to talk is if you're so impatient and pissed off that you just want to hurt her, which is pretty much the case with Roy.

Lamech

2009-07-12, 01:07 PM

The idea that she was unable to listen to reason came from her actions. She described the improbable setup and web of lies and believed so strongly in it that she was willing to kill over it. Once someone enters the point where their "logic" is circular there's no arguing with them. All statements, facts, and events will merely be read so as to confirm whats inside the circle. Miko's refusal to surrender to hinjo shows that she'd hit that point, and i don't think it was Roys 20 hps of damage that did that.

Improbable set up? She concludes (correctly I might add) that the order of the stick was conspiring with Shojo, commiting some crimes that are apperantly bad enough to get a monarch removed from office.

She also takes knows that the order of the stick claimed to defeat Xykon, and Xykon was unharmed. If someone said to me "I killed the mafia hitman after you" and then it turned out said hitman was unharmed, I would conclude the person lied and was working with said mafia hitman. Concluding that Xykon worked with the OotS is a reasonable conclusion.

Now her final conclusion was Shojo was working with Xykon. If the mafia was working with a terrorist group, one might conclude that the person who lied about killing the assassin was on good terms said terrorist group. Thats obviously flawed. Of course, a person who just had a number of revalations shatter there world might cause them to skip it. Of course, going into minor crazy territiory here.

Of course, she decided to take the job of judge, jury and exicutioner with out attempting any investigation. Which is were she goes real crazy. Nor did she listen to reason very well. Roy didn't help with that; she might have had she not been attacked. We don't know and neither did Roy. Nor in fact did Roy know if Xykon had tampered with her mind. (Fun fact: falling from a code violation doesn't require free will.)

Carnivorous M.

2009-07-12, 01:28 PM

Just a random comment here? Miko had just killed Lord Shojo, after wearing at the Order's patience for goodness knows how long after she randomly jumped out of nowhere to kill them, and she had pretty much announced her intentions to kill all the Order; plus, if allowed to go on that way, she might decide that the entire Sapphire Guard was in on it, and go slaughter a bunch of grunts--and possibly a few random innocent bystanders as well.

However, I don't think he was thinking all that through at the time; what was going through his head at that time was probably something along the lines of "OH MY GOD YOU JUST KILLED YOUR OWN EIGHTY-YEAR-OLD RULER, YOU FREAKIN' BITCH! RAAAAAARGH!" So it was most definitely the right thing to do, but he was also definitely influenced a good deal by how much he hated Miko.

My analysis: it was on the whiter side of the gray area. Okay, so that turned out to be more than a random comment. Sue me. :P

Jagos

2009-07-12, 01:45 PM

Hmmm... I decided to read the Diplomacy skill (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) and see what could have went better for Hinjo or Roy at a given circumstance.

The base DC for any Diplomacy check is equal to the 15 + level of the highest-level character in the group that you are trying to influence + the Wisdom modifier of the character in the group with the highest Wisdom. High-level characters are more committed to their views and are less likely to be swayed

The DC for the Diplomacy check is based on three factors: who the target is, the relationship between the target and the character making the check, and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal proposed.

Roy first:

Target is Miko, who has average Wisdom (11 by the geekery thread). Their relationship is +7 since they don't really have a good relationship. If he had proposed her surrender, there is no good risk/reward ratio. So add +10. Honestly, he might as well have beat her into submission. A DC +17? I'd take to beating her as well.

Now Hinjo.

Again, target = Miko. Their relationship is -5 since they are both Paladins (I'm gonna avoid talking about Shojo for obvious reasoins) of Azure City. He knows about Atonement and had no weapons and must have a few ranks in Diplomacy. Don't forget the fact that he had the best chance since he was in charge of Azure City. So -10 on the DC.

Hinjo still had the best chance to convince her that she was wrong and yet somehow, he rolled a Natural 1.

Of course, she decided to take the job of judge, jury and executioner with out attempting any investigation. Which is were she goes real crazy. Nor did she listen to reason very well. Roy didn't help with that; she might have had she not been attacked. We don't know and neither did Roy. Nor in fact did Roy know if Xykon had tampered with her mind. (Fun fact: falling from a code violation doesn't require free will.)

I doubt it. Roy may not have helped but he'd had enough experience with her to know she was too much of a challenge to his authority to accurately listen to anything he would say. That's mostly, I believe, the crux of the argument. Roy understandably attacked out of anger of Shojo being killed after allegations of conspiracy. She's been shown to be overzealous and all in all, a "good" person with no attempts to care for others outside of her Detect Evil spell. To say she would listen to reasoning when she believes the way she does, that Xykon conspired with Shojo to destroy Azure, is to try to get her to feel something that is a strong leap of faith for her and her logic.

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 01:49 PM

Hinjo says "it will be up to the courts to determine what will happen next"

But its not clear how serious either "feigning senility" or "lying to the Sapphire Guard" are.

It could be, that after being tried by the magistrates, Shojo would simply be removed from his position as Sapphire Guard leader, while remaining in his position as Ruler of the City. Since his father, the previous ruler Lord Ronjo, wasn't head of the Sapphire Guard till after Soon Kim died.

Since they left him in his place after he has apparently "gone senile" and had not taken away his authority, what exactly was the crime?

Only when Miko brings up her "The order, Xykon, and Shojo are all in league" theory, does Hinjo say anything about removing him.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 03:28 PM

.

Besides, there's also the point David made about double punishment. After killing Shojo, Miko would have gotten "beaten up" in some manner regardless of what Roy did. Besides, what makes you think that Roy is interested in administering justice there rather than just venting his anger, as he flat-out states?

It made no sense to me, as many of davids "points" tend to. She's going to be either executed of forcibly arrested. Does it really matter if they batter her into submission all at once or half now and half later? Boo hoo hoo you're violating the rights of a murderer.

That makes absolutely NO sense at all to me, sorry. Roy made things worse by attacking, Hinjo almost convinced her to surrender, so logically, if Roy hadn't attacked her she... still wouldn't have surrendered? Huh?

That there was no way in hell Miko was going to surrender. There was no way she was going to admit fault. No, Roy can't make that situation worse.

Lets say its a DC 40 diplomacy check to talk miko down. If hinjo's max diplomacy bonus (even with modifiers for being her liege lord) is +15, then roys -2 for attacking her is meaningless because Hinjo can't talk her down no mater what.

My whole point is that immediately after Miko fell, when she was standing and wondering what went wrong, was THE moment for diplomacy.

From who? Roy? With a +2 from charismia, NO ranks in diplomacy and a -8 penalty because Miko thinks he's in league with Xykon? Hinjo was occupied cradling the body of his uncle, who'd just been revealed to be sane after a VERY lengthy "absence" from hinjo's life.

If ever was a moment when Miko was close to realising her mistakes, that was IT, that moment there. She was standing there trying to understand what went wrong, wondering aloud. If Hinjo had approached her at that moment and tried to gently prod her towards the reasonable conclusion, I strongly doubt she would have attacked him - he was a fellow paladin and a friend, after all.

He was a fellow paladin and friend 12 seconds latter when she decided to shishkabob him.

Instead, Roy attacks her. She already thought that Roy was working for the enemy. Her Fall made her actually start to reconsider things. The sheer redundancy of Roy's attack at that time couldn't have helped his case.

And can't hurt it. She fell. The GODS told her "You were wrong". What does she decide? That They have a special plan for her! That she is so important that her being tricked must be part of some grand design... to the point that she's willing to commit regicide... AGAIN.. to go out and do it. That level of crazy didn't happen from a few slashes from Roy.

By contrast, the moment later when Hinjo talks to her, AFTER Roy's attack, no longer has the advantage of catching her in contemplation mode rather than rage mode.

He caught her in fear "ruuuun awaaaaay" mode.

And lastly... Yes, she killed Shojo. But she wasn't trying to kill anyone anymore. She was no longer actively provoking the use of lethal force. She was standing there in a daze wondering aloud about how this could happen. It's obvious that TALKING to her at this moment is preferable to HITTING her. The only reason not to talk is if you're so impatient and pissed off that you just want to hurt her, which is pretty much the case with Roy.

Or you think that you've got 3 seconds before she snaps completely and starts hacking at the people she NAMED as responsible for leading the attack on her city. In order to say that Roys attack wasn't morally justified, you have to

1) State why Roy can't morally execute her on the spot (without using a legal argument) She deserved to die. I don't see what on earth some "double punishment" is supposed to have to do with anything. She's going to be beaten up and locked up whether its roy or the saphire guard.

2) Show that Roy's decision to pre emptively attack Miko was unjustified. In order to show this, you don't just have to show that Miko wasn't going to attack until Roy did (which you haven't managed to do) but that Roy couldn't reasonably conclude the opposite... that she was going to attack. Based on what Roy has seen of her, he reached a conclusion. You can second guess it all you want, but it remains a reasonable conclusion no matter how you look at it.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 03:33 PM

Improbable set up? She concludes (correctly I might add) that the order of the stick was conspiring with Shojo, commiting some crimes that are apperantly bad enough to get a monarch removed from office.

They weren't doing anything that was against azure city law, just against soons oath.

She also takes knows that the order of the stick claimed to defeat Xykon, and Xykon was unharmed. If someone said to me "I killed the mafia hitman after you" and then it turned out said hitman was unharmed, I would conclude the person lied and was working with said mafia hitman. Concluding that Xykon worked with the OotS is a reasonable conclusion.

Sure... IF you don't live in a D&D world where people can come back from the dead... ESPECIALLY liches, as Miko should know.

Now her final conclusion was Shojo was working with Xykon.

Let me see if i can point out the glaringly obvious crazy in this idea.

Shojo was working with Xykon... to take over a city... that Shojo already ruled?

. Nor in fact did Roy know if Xykon had tampered with her mind.

She has high saves and was acting... pretty much like herself. There was no reason to suspect mental influence.

Olorin Maia

2009-07-12, 03:44 PM

Boo hoo hoo you're violating the rights of a murderer.

1) State why Roy can't morally execute her on the spot (without using a legal argument) She deserved to die. I don't see what on earth some "double punishment" is supposed to have to do with anything. She's going to be beaten up and locked up whether its roy or the saphire guard.

2) Show that Roy's decision to pre emptively attack Miko was unjustified. In order to show this, you don't just have to show that Miko wasn't going to attack until Roy did (which you haven't managed to do) but that Roy couldn't reasonably conclude the opposite... that she was going to attack. Based on what Roy has seen of her, he reached a conclusion. You can second guess it all you want, but it remains a reasonable conclusion no matter how you look at it.

I disagree with three things that you have said (quoted for reference). First of all, even though Miko is a murderer, she still has rights that deserve to be upheld. She is still a person, and deserves to be given fair treatment. After all, there wouldn't be an atonement spell if there was never a need for it.

Second of all (your number 1), ignoring the morality of the death penalty, it is always a "good" thing to err on the side of caution. There would be no detriment if Roy waited to try to talk with Miko; the people there were strong enough to easily stop her if she went super crazy again. Again, I bring up the point about the atonement spell; she shouldn't be killed because the gods created this spell, and as such perceived a time that it could be used (as in here). Thus, it would be immoral to kill her on the spot without giving her a chance for redemption.

Finally, I believe this to be your strongest point. However, I simply disagree with your statement about proving that Miko wouldn't attack again. While Roy could have (and possibly did) believe that she would attack, I believe that it is moral to defend (yourself and others) and therefore allow the attack to occur.

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 03:50 PM

I think DA's claim was- you can kill someone, if the law would kill them, but you can't beat them up, because the law doesn't prescribe beatings up.

Odd.

Plus, based on the "miko's insane therefore the law can't execute her" theory, any attack by Roy is in breach of the precribed punishment.

If she's insane, or at least "not a rational, sane paladin anymore" (the Giant contrasts her reaction with that of a "rational, sane paladin, in War & XPs), then, by arming herself, that plus her insanity plus her proof of her willingness to murder, makes her "an immediate and lethal threat"

as the Tom Clancy book Teeth of the Tiger puts it, when the FBI agent shoots a murderer the moment they pick up their knife, several feet away.

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 03:52 PM

There would be no detriment if Roy waited to try to talk with Miko; the people there were strong enough to easily stop her if she went super crazy again.

Were they? Miko is higher level than Roy (as illustrated by her crushing the party- twice) and higher level than Hinjo. And Belkar is no help. And none of the other paladins or spellcasters are in the room.

Olorin Maia

2009-07-12, 04:03 PM

Jagos

2009-07-12, 04:05 PM

Let me see if i can point out the glaringly obvious crazy in this idea.

Shojo was working with Xykon... to take over a city... that Shojo already ruled?

Let's also remember that he wanted to rule it with an iron fist....

After ruling said city for 47 years, even though he had been working with the Paladins (along with behind their backs) for that time.

Yes, Shojo was a real bastard. ;)

Jagos

2009-07-12, 04:12 PM

Yes, but now not only has Miko lost her paladin powers, but Roy has his ancestral sword with its nice +5 bonus. She doesn't have her paladin mount, and if Belkar activated the Mark saving Hinjo, there is no way that he wouldn't remove it (which he promises to do later if he behaves himself during the battle). I think that there was no danger, even if Miko was a higher level, as shown by her getting easily beaten.

Uhmmm... She wasn't "easily" beaten. Hinjo decided on Diplomacy and Roy battered it into submission. Roy's ideal won on this exchange.

Again, I bring up the point about the atonement spell; she shouldn't be killed because the gods created this spell, and as such perceived a time that it could be used (as in here). Thus, it would be immoral to kill her on the spot without giving her a chance for redemption.

Hinjo mentioned this but Miko didn't want to atone. Even when the gods were against her, she felt that she was in the right. We don't know if she would have had a chance to redeem herself since she basically killed herself with her irrational thinking. I doubt if it hadn't been for the War, that Miko would have changed anything that she had done even at Soon's urging.

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 04:12 PM

I think that there was no danger, even if Miko was a higher level, as shown by her getting easily beaten.

Miko successfully escapes Roy, and without her powers, is more than an match for Hinjo with them.

There was danger, even if it was not a case of "somebody is certain to die if Miko gets the initiative."

Now, if Roy had concentrated on Hinjo- snapping him out of his grief and focusing him on dealing with Miko, it might have looked better than trying to do it all himself. But Roy is a bit arrogant when it comes to NPCs.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 04:19 PM

.

I disagree with three things that you have said (quoted for reference). First of all, even though Miko is a murderer, she still has rights that deserve to be upheld. She is still a person, and deserves to be given fair treatment. After all, there wouldn't be an atonement spell if there was never a need for it.

There wouldn't be a raise dead spell if they didn't need it either.
Exactly what "fair treatment" is a murderer entitled to that precludes them from getting smacked around? "Oh yeah, we can take an ax and chop off his head, but don't call him names or hit him!"

Second of all (your number 1), ignoring the morality of the death penalty, it is always a "good" thing to err on the side of caution.

No. No it is NOT always good to error on the side of caution. Sometimes, that will get you and or innocent people KILLED. If anything, Roy acted far too cautiously in not attacking Miko sooner.

There would be no detriment if Roy waited to try to talk with Miko; the people there were strong enough to easily stop her if she went super crazy again.

If thats the basis of your argument, it falls apart right there.

Miko had beaten Roy, Haley, Elan, V, and belkar twice. The second time with some assistance from Durkon

Miko is fallen, but as roy and hinjo aren't evil, she looses almost no relevant class abilities. She still has a high BAB, str, and probably magic equipment.

She no longer has windstriker, but Belkar is out of the fight anyway

There is no way that roys +5 sword and hinjo= Haley, elan, and most importantly V. The three in the room (only two able to fight) were nowhere NEAR safe from her.

Again, I bring up the point about the atonement spell; she shouldn't be killed because the gods created this spell, and as such perceived a time that it could be used (as in here). Thus, it would be immoral to kill her on the spot without giving her a chance for redemption.

If she's truley repenetant she would have surrendered, sword being swung at her or no, she would never consider that she was wrong.

Finally, I believe this to be your strongest point. However, I simply disagree with your statement about proving that Miko wouldn't attack again. While Roy could have (and possibly did) believe that she would attack, I believe that it is moral to defend therefore allow the attack to occur.

... no. There is nothing moral about Reducing your ability to stop evil by allowing it to get in the first smack when you fight it. Thats lawfull stupid. Its something you might do when you're assured of victory, NOT something you do going into a loosing situation like with miko

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 04:22 PM

Miko is fallen, but as roy and hinjo aren't evil, she looses almost no relevant class abilities. She still has a high BAB, str, and probably magic equipment.

Probably not much magic equipment, what with, in War & XPs, it being clarified that Sapphire Guard members wear special magic items that lose power if worn by someone who is not a paladin in good standing. Which is why the whole colour change.

Still dangerous though.

On the defensive bit- in a sense, yes- you can't attack someone who hasn't committed a crime, unless they are about to. But Miko has committed a crime, a very serious one- which allows everyone around her to "go hostile" on her- in response.

(Primarily because of her instability, her weapon, and her dangerous combat skills- all three put together make trying to talk her down a high risk.)

Kaytara

2009-07-12, 04:32 PM

Eh, I pretty much agree with Olorin there.

Yes, she just committed murder. Suddenly she has no rights? Are we allowed to torture her, as well?

The double punishment isn't when and where she gets beaten up. Her punishment is whatever the courts decide on, whether it's execution or incarceration or labour. Getting her face bashed in by an angry fighter isn't on the plan unless she forces it to be by resisting arrest, which she didn't do at that time because Roy never tried to arrest her in the first place.

Lets say its a DC 40 diplomacy check to talk miko down. If hinjo's max diplomacy bonus (even with modifiers for being her liege lord) is +15, then roys -2 for attacking her is meaningless because Hinjo can't talk her down no mater what.
You are arbitrarily assuming that the DC is high enough to make your argument work. If it is DC 20 or 30, the entire argument is blown to bits. And we have no reason to assume it is that high. We simply don't know. What we are reasonably certain of because that's just how basic interaction and psychology work is that Roy did make things worse by attacking when he should have talked or let Hinjo talk. Unless you're serious when you say that Hinjo's was so preoccupied with cradling his uncle's body that he wouldn't have recognised the need to deal with Miko.

Show that Roy's decision to pre emptively attack Miko was unjustified. In order to show this, you don't just have to show that Miko wasn't going to attack until Roy did (which you haven't managed to do)
Well, no. I'm no trans-reality future psychic. How am I supposed to show or prove something that exists only in a possible Alternate Universe? All I can do is make a reasonable guess, and my guess is that Miko was too busy trying to understand what the hell was going on and how she could have been wrong about Shojo and what it meant about everything else to even pay attention to Roy, much less attack him.

but that Roy couldn't reasonably conclude the opposite... that she was going to attack. Based on what Roy has seen of her, he reached a conclusion. You can second guess it all you want, but it remains a reasonable conclusion no matter how you look at it.
Sure, it's a reasonable conclusion. Someone unstable has a weapon, so they might use it. Reasonable. But it may still be more reasonable to think that, since they're not moving towards you, actively threatening you or even looking at you, they aren't going to attack you in the immediate future and thus there is no immediate need to advance on them and hit them with a big sword.

(Primarily because of her instability, her weapon, and her dangerous combat skills- all three put together make trying to talk her down a high risk.)

A high risk of what, exactly? Of her responding with slashing damage? The reaction that is inevitable if you skip the talk and attack straight away?

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 04:40 PM

High risk of trying to escape, high risk of attacking Belkar. Both of which she started doing anyway.

Sure, it's a reasonable conclusion. Someone unstable has a weapon, so they might use it. Reasonable. But it may still be more reasonable to think that, since they're not moving towards you, actively threatening you or even looking at you, they aren't going to attack you in the immediate future and thus there is no need to advance on them and hit them with a big sword.

If Roy's primary intentions were rendering Miko safe to take into custody, waiting till she starts becoming more dangerous, is a dereliction. As it is- in a sense, he waited too long already, by the time he reached her, she was already armed. He should probably have rushed the moment she started falling, grappled her, and yelled for help from Hinjo and Belkar.

That is, if such a "preemptive striking arrest" isn't objectionable to some of the people here.

Instead, he advanced more slowly, he spoke to Belkar first, and as a result- she armed herself.

its possible these were not his primary intentions, revenge was. However, I'm a bit doubtful of this notion.

If Roy talks to her, and she hits first- thats a significant increase in the chance that she wins the fight with him through first to knockout.

Kish

2009-07-12, 04:51 PM

Exactly what "fair treatment" is a murderer entitled to that precludes them from getting smacked around? "Oh yeah, we can take an ax and chop off his head, but don't call him names or hit him!"
http://www.bailyes.com/miranda_rights.htm

Speaking to the general rather than specific case (I'm not touching the Miko/Roy situation, just the scorn you're directing toward the idea of a murderer having rights), when a country's laws provide for someone who breaks the law to forfeit all rights and consideration, we call that country a banana republic or a dictatorship, and its ruler a monster.

hamishspence

2009-07-12, 05:05 PM

I'm agreed on that much- question is, when trying to arrest someone as dangerous and unstable as Miko, does it make more sense, for a "D&D Good" person to ask them to surrender first (or wait for someone else to)?

Or, is in more in keeping, for them to take the armed murderer down, fast?

(remember even without a weapon Miko is a threat (Monk) with it in hand, she's a bigger one)

(One of the reasons I objected to V's behaviour was that it was a violation of the rights of a prisoner- but Miko at this point wasn't a prisoner, but an armed threat)

grolim

2009-07-12, 07:46 PM

Ok just stumbled on this thread and somethings to observe.

Quote:
Sure, it's a reasonable conclusion. Someone unstable has a weapon, so they might use it. Reasonable. But it may still be more reasonable to think that, since they're not moving towards you, actively threatening you or even looking at you, they aren't going to attack you in the immediate future and thus there is no immediate need to advance on them and hit them with a big sword.

At that point Miko was NOT someone unstable with a sword not threatening you. She was someone unstable with a sword who HAD ALREADY KILLED SOMEONE, to me if someone kills a person I am inclined to believed they are quite capable of and at that time may well probably be about to try and kill someone else.

As far as the since when can you ignore the rights of a murderer? Depends on the situation. Many times police take out hostage takers when they get the clean shot even if they arent actively trying to kill somoene at that instant. Why? Because the rights of the innocent hostages to not be killed MUST take precedence over the right of the criminal to be peacably taken into custody. No sympathy for the criminal in these instances since they are in the situation of their own making and free will.

She was armed, armored, undeniably nuts, had commited murder anything goes at that point in a game or real world.

Others posted nothing lost by trying to talk her down, I disagree.

The way I see it here are the possible outcomes.
1. She is talked down and arrested.....best possible

2. She is beaten down and arrested...next best possible

3. Escapes armored armed and crazy....worst possible

The question is do you risk the worst possible for a shot at the best possible? Or do you take what you can get?

Now some would say IF she did try to escape she could easily be caught but by who?
The only people near that could have a chance against her were in that very room so anyone else she came across at best would be a bloody smear on the wall.

David Argall

2009-07-12, 08:22 PM

We have reason to suspect his judgement is distinctly limited"- why?
Well, being completely fooled by Shojo for years when Haley is able to unmask him in hours is hardly a good sign. Granted, Shojo fools a lot of other people, but we are still seeing an upper limit here. W&XP 310B has Shojo describing Hinjo as naive and idealistic. Then we have Hinjo's bad judgment as general.
Going to the Roy case, we see a host of possible or definite charges to bring against Roy. Conspiracy with the ex-ruler to violate his terms of office [generally classed as treason if it is not directly outlawed], involvement in fixing a trial, breaking Belkar out of jail... Hinjo is either extremely blind or he is pushing that "To my knowledge" for all he can. Either way, we can't trust his judgment.

Deceiving them over the gate issue is more serious, but its an offence against the Sapphire Guard, not the city.
Not a defense for Roy. Either way, it is an offense Hinjo should be arresting Roy for.

Is it in the least bit plausible that Hinjo would not even mention it afterwards,
One possibility that we haven't covered this time is that Hinjo simply did not see Roy attack Miko. He was busy checking his uncle's body, and could easily have been completely unaware of the fight at first. And once it started, he would have no easy way to know who started it.

nor the Deva cover it "onscreen" if this was indeed the act that Roy committed?
The Deva did not cover onscreen a huge number of events a real Deva would, many of which it is rather obvious she should cover. Silence does not give consent here.

"Why Roy?" No paladins in the Room besides Hinjo, who is lower rank than Miko, shown in Miko's announcement just as she was killing Shojo. In effect, he's the only nearby chacater who stands a high probability of beating Miko.

This presumes a need to beat Miko, which is already in question. It might support a duty to support Hinjo when he tries to arrest her, but it does not produce a duty for Roy to put himself front and center, and not at all to start administering punishment.

And when I say "When she was struck down, it was her duty to surrender" I mean- "when her own pantheon lifted her up, stripped her of her powers, struck her down, knocking her weapon out of her hand"
This argument proves too much. If we say Roy is justified in attacking when she does not instantly surrender without anyone demanding her surrender, we are saying the cop on the corner can just blaze away.
But we see the reverse. The cop says "Police! Put the gun down!", and repeats the order as frequently as seems necessary. In some cases, that has involved aiming at the target for hours, and not shooting.
You use violence only when necessary, and only the violence necessary. As long as Miko is making no immediate threat and might surrender, Roy can not properly attack, and that remains true no matter how clearly or often she has been told to surrender.

At this point, picking up a weapon shows serious lack of judgement.
A serious lack of judgment is not grounds for attack. The number of people in this country who display serious lacks of judgment is about 300 mil, and growing.

We'll have to see, when Book 4 comes out, if it will rate a mention in the commentary on Roy's Judgement (if there is one) or the Bonus Strips.

Why should it? There really isn't that much space for bonus strips and commentary, and we are talking about something referring back almost a hundred pages.

Maybe we should list the questions that need answering.

1: was Roy's act unnecessary?
Where violence is concerned, the question is "was the violence necessary?" Unless it was, it was wrong. And there seems no reason to deem it necessary.

2: Did he believe it was necessary at the time and was this belief reasonable?

He did not care. He makes no mention of any such necessity, and denies it is important.

3: Does D&D OOTS "standard law" allow adventurers to act as Roy did?
Standard law would say not, and we use standard law unless we are directly told of different rules.

4: Does Azure City law allow Roy to act as he did?
Same point.

5: If act was unneccessary, is it Evil, Chaotic, or neither?
Roy is acting in defiance of the law, which makes it chaotic, and any time you hurt somebody, you have a base presumption of evil.

6: Does belief matter, if it is reasonable belief?
Yes, but how much depends. For many cases, even reasonable belief is not enough.

7: Hinjo says "to my knowledge, Roy hasn't done anything wrong" is this true?

Depends on the definition of "to my knowledge". It could be strictly true, but Hinjo has plenty of evidence to arrest Roy on the spot and decide just what charges later.

8: When Hinjo speaks of "anything wrong" does he only mean Evil acts?
Unlikely, and unimportant.

9: The deva says "I see very few truly Evil acts"- does this qualify?
What is "this"? If we are discussing attacking Miko, Roy can plead temporary insanity, and somewhat good intentions since Miko was guilty of crime. But this does not clear Roy. Since we don't know the definition of "truly evil" here, we have difficulty in saying which side this act falls on.

10: The deva does not specifically bring Roy's act up onscreen- why?
For the same reason the Deva only brings up a half dozen events despite Roy having been adult for a decade, plot needs. The writer only wanted to discuss two events and everything else got ignored.

And I don't see what the deal is with Miko having picked up her weapon.
Self defense is about the only plea that allows Roy to walk without a stain on his record. So a Roy-defender must latch on any evidence, no matter how weak, that supports a claim of self defense. The obsession with it merely shows how weak the claim is.

we've seen Roy be taken down by Miko twice.
That was before Roy got his sword back [which means at least +6 to hit and +7 to damage] and Miko became an ex-paladin. We also have Roy express no fear that he can't take Miko. No getting Hinjo to help or calling for the guards or...

I believe I feel the same way, in that I would look more to take down and make some type of citizens arrest of Miko if I had that type of power, law be damned.
Now the "law be damned" is a confession that Roy is in the wrong here. But there is a crucial difference between "take down" and "citizen's arrest". Roy has a full right to arrest, but can't use violence until she resists that arrest.

At the conjecture, Roy might be LG but I don't think he cares about Azure law since he was forcibly brought here by the very same person that's just fallen.
Irrelevant and wrong. If he does not care about Azure City law, he does not care about enforcement of that law, which is what he is doing when he attacks Miko. But Since Roy had made a deal with Shojo, he had forgiven the method he came to Azure City, and thus was bound by Azure City law.

But that wouldn't fit with Roy being a "take action" kinda guy. They chose not to get involved and someone got killed. Choosing to get involved may not remedy the situation but maybe some good will come out of it such as taking down a Fallen Paladin.
When you are the "take action" sort, you are under a duty to take the right action. You gain no immunity from blame for having done something stupid.

It more or less goes with her characterization. She thought she was an avatar of the gods. Before that moment, she had been working for Shojo. By declaring she was above the law and directly in touch with the gods, she came up to be not only delusional but armed and dangerous. I doubt Roy was afraid of her, but piecing together all the parts of Miko's puzzle surely told him, "I'm not taking any chances"
In other words, picking up the sword was a trivial event.

[quotre=LuisDantas]
Do you truly expect combats to include explicit claims of finding the opposite side a threat as a standard feature?

"Xykon, you are a threat to me. Prepare to be smitten!"[/quote]
Of course not. Xykon was not a threat to Roy. To Roy's frustration, he didn't know a thing about him, and didn't care. Roy was only close enough to be hurt by him because he wanted to be. No threat law or morals recognize. What he was was a criminal who needed to be punished, and Roy spends 110 explaining that and verifying that Xykon was guilty.

[quotre=LuisDantas]
Yes, you do not see.[/quote]
Which seems to be another way to dodge the question.
Just what are those charactistics of Roy that mean he would not kill Miko even tho he has killed hundreds, and is attacking her?

[quotre=LuisDantas]
That is a strip were soldiers for an Evil Overlord are attacked in their stronghold. What is your point again? How does that make Roy a murderer?
[/quote]
The claim was "he never slaughtered anyone in cold blood". In 11, Roy kills the helpless, who are unable to hurt him. He has no excuse of emergency or rush. That is a cold blooded killing. We can argue whether he was justified, but he has clearly slaughtered people in cold blood.

[quotre=LuisDantas]
V flat out stated that he knew no such thing, but instead went by a not-even-educated guess. [/quote]
Not guess. Established fact of the laws of the strip.

[quotre=LuisDantas]For that matter, we don't even know for sure whether Kubota would be acquited. In fact, you claimed not long ago that his death was needed because he was a danger due to his probably acquital.[/quote]
No. His death was just needed. Since he might be acquitted, V has a reason to do that now.

[quotre=LuisDantas]People don't usually claim self-defense when they are facing known armed homicidals.[/quote]
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fight_selfdefense.html

"Perhaps the most important thing for you to realize is that when it comes to the self-defense plea, that pool has been seriously pissed in. And it has been polluted for a long, long time. Even if the guy really did just walk up and, without any provocation or forewarning, knock you off the bar stool, when the cops show up there is at least a 75 percent chance of his claiming it was "self-defense." If there was a confrontation where words were exchanged prior to blows, the odds go up to about 97 percent"

Eye witnesses are usualy joe schmoes off the street who are not used to the adrenaline rush of a violent situation. Adventurers live on it.
That does not mean they are not under the influence of the adrenaline.

It would be the rare judge that has better magic items/spells than a party

Quite the contrary. The party probably has almost zero magic items of use in a trial situation. A +5 sword of awesome is great in getting the lout to the trial, but pretty worthless in telling if he is guilty or not. The judge is not bothering with magic armor, shield, rings of teleport or invisibility... And the party does not want permanent Zones of Truth or bonuses to Sense motive, or divination spells... Pretty much, unless you are the epic level adventurer and the judge is 1st level, the judge has the more useful magic.

This is, again, a matter of law. This is an argument for adventurers being limited in their actions on a general basis, NOT on this one. Are there any facts in dispute in this case? No. Is a judge going to find any facts? No. Is a judge going to add anything in this particular case? No. Is a judge going to be required for MORAL justification? No.
Wrong. To point to two issues that might come up in a trial of Miko.
We have loads of claims she was crazy. You don't punish the insane. It's a waste of effort. You just make sure they can't cause trouble [which can mean killing them, but that is not punishment, merely a recognition that they can't be allowed loose and there is no way to keep them from getting loose.] So Miko's punishment could be drastically reduced, or even eliminated, if she is found insane.
Alternately, we have Miko talking about her early relations with Miko. Was this in fact her actual motive? That she felt horribly betrayed on a personal level, in effect like his dumping her, and she just made up her fantasy about a grand conspiracy in the hopes of justifying her personal crime? That could seriously limit any call for mercy.
Neither of these points are anything Roy has any serious ability to judge, especially in the heat of the moment. Accordingly we do not want Roy to try to judge. We want him to arrest Miko and turn her over to those who are competent at making such decisions.

You're appealing to law again. From a moral standpoint the only thing that matters is that SOMEONE does the right thing. In this case, Roy was present, willing, and most importantly ABLE to
But by what we can tell, he didn't do the right thing, and he had good reason to doubt he would do the right thing.

And Who's going to act? Dear gods, have you even READ this fight? Miko was going to kill her liege lord... AGAIN, rather than own up to her actions. Who was Hinjo going to call in?
O'Chul is around somewhere, as well as those 40+ veteran paladins that tried to stop Xykon. And nothing stops Roy from aiding them. He is just not suited or required to take the lead role.

Your only rationale for saying that Roy can't lay the smack down is because he's not a representative of the state... a LEGAL argument.
Roy would not be allowed to lay the smack down even if he was a prepresentative of the state. The cop on the corner has to obey the same rules as Joe Blow, tho the cop can usually expect a more favorable jury if he gets tried at all. As a cop, Roy would still need to arrest Miko first, and could only use violence when she resisted [and not always even then].

She was willing to kill Roy, hinjo, AND belkar in order to make her escape.

You are mixing events again. We are asking about her attitude just as Roy attacked, when it seems likely she could have been persuaded to surrender, not later after he had increased her fury.

He's not required to, but without appealing to law as opposed to morals you can't tell me why it matters who dishes the punishment out.
We have already noted one difference. Roy's punishment will be additional punishment, meaning Miko will be punished more than Roy feels is proper.

No. No it is not. The "actions in question" don't matter. You're allowed to judge people based on them.
That depends on the actions and the subjects to be judged. I can be screaming mad at the jerk making a move on my daughter, but I am not to let that influence my decision about whether he was robbing a bank

And what evidence do you have that Roy wanted Miko dead?
Any time you use a deadly weapon, you are assumed to be trying to kill. You may not actually be trying, but even when you are not, you are acting in a very dangerous manner, and so it is entirely up to you to show you were not trying to kill.
We of course have Roy stabbing deep into Miko, and we have a long list of cases of where Roy did use deadly force with intent to kill. There are no definite exceptions. [A possible case is Thog in Cliffport, but we do not know if Roy swung there at all, and Roy was following the direction of the cops, meaning we can't take it as Roy's judgment as what he should do when he is on his own.]

As regards to this incident? No. No we do not. Hinjo KNOWS Roy Attacked Miko.
Not clear. When Roy attacked, Hinjo was still with his Uncle, and his attention was unlikely to be on either Roy or Miko. He could easily miss the start of the fight, and thereafter, he merely sees a fight.

Not only did he specifically list Roys fault as ENJOYING the beating instead of giving it, but he immediately hired Roy as his personal bodyguard.
A fighter who has shown his eagerness to stop assassins, and who is not connected with any of the nobles who might send assassins? Sounds like a good choice, even if he is a little overeager to lay down the smack.

... Yes, we do. The Diva that interviewed him knew all of his actions up to and including his permanent record in high school. She called Roy on his quips, but she NEVER called Roy on attacking miko, attacking first, or being too willing to kill when there was another option.
We do not see her doing so, but we know we did not see the entire interview because we see part of one subject. There is thus a chance right away that this was handled off camera.
When we note that only a half dozen issues are even mentioned, and only two of them for even a sentence, we have even more evidence that a great many subjects were discussed off camera.

In order to give your "argument" any credence, we need to assume

-Roy wanted Miko dead.
-We need to ignore all contraindications to this.
It's fairly easy to ignore nothing.

-That Roy didn't reasonably think Miko was going to be a threat to him and or belkar
Not needed. To justify violence, Miko needs to be an immediate and definite threat, which a Miko standing around staring at nothing in particular is not. A Miko charging Belkar is.

-That Hinjo, a paladin, lord of the land, and legally qualified judge thought that there was something wrong with Roy attacking Miko but instead chose to make a "Weasel statement" about roys snarky comments.
Again not needed. It is merely one of several ways we can explain his action.

-That a being of pure good and law let him into heaven with such a black mark on his soul
She seems a good deal more upset about what is not a crime at all, and ignores actual crimes. Her judgment seems quite questionable.
And nobody has said this is such a major crime. Roy has several pleas for mitigation.

Why do we have a time limit?
We don't, but violence later is better than violence now. If there is ability to delay the killing and hurting, there is reason to. If Miko is just going to stand there, great. She can stand there for days. There is no reason to disturb her.

And judging from Roy's characterization (as I stated earlier) he is the type to take down a threat, which Miko had just made herself.
If he gets the credit for when his actions are right, he gets the blame for when they are wrong.

it was very, VERY doubtful that she would listen to even Hinjo when she so completely refuted the laws because they were tainted.
But we do know she almost listened to him despite Roy making her angry. The odds she would have surrendered if Hinjo had approached and Roy had stayed as reserve seem quite good.

But this is also forgetting the fact that "The enemy" changed the laws for 47 years and she took it upon herself to enact Judgement of the Gods. It's very hard to reason with someone who believes they are above the law.
All irrelevant. She knew all this either way, and almost surrendered. If we remove a big reason for her not to surrender, the presumption is that she would have surrendered.
Let us do some casual math. Hinjo tries a diplomacy check. Miko's resistance is +2 for enemy laws, +5 for being above the law, & +3 for enacting judgement. Now we add +5 for Roy attacking her and we get +15 to the DC Hinjo must beat, say a total of DC30. Hinjo rolls and manages a 29. No luck.
Now we take a passive Roy. The DC is reduced to 25, and Hinjo's 29 would achieve her surrender. Perhaps Hinjo would not have rolled as well this time, but we can only guess about that, and so our presumption is that Roy's attack made it much less likely Hinjo could succeed.

The circumstances were different.
Of course they are different. Everything is always different. But the basic point remains. Critics of Miko keep saying Miko would never or always do X, and we point out that in fact Miko had done it or had refused to do it, and the reply is that things are different. In essence it turns out that the certainty that is the basic of the argument is destroyed. The justification for Roy vanishes.

And since we have seen Miko, where does she admit one mistake?
201 seems to qualify. She acknowledged that Roy was not evil.

She already HAD attacked one of them. Dead guy, on the throne?
Which does not justify violence in the current situation. It justifies being ready for violence, but does not of itself demand violence. Once Miko stops attacking, there are no longer grounds for attacking her. There are grounds for arresting her, but not for attacking until she resists that arrest.

Effective diplomacy might be prefered. But you're trying to make the case that 1) diplomacy would have been effective and 2) Roy had reason to believe that diplomacy would work.

From Roys knowledge of what was going on (which is where you have to draw moral justification from) diplomacy DEFINITELY was not going to work.

There is no evidence that Roy even considered diplomacy.

the fact that Hinjo tried and failed to talk her down makes a very good case that she was too far gone for diplomacy to work.
But it almost worked, and that was after Roy made things worse. So no, we can't assume diplomacy won't work.

Thats a gross mischaracterization. Killing the person you're working for is sufficient provocation.
Right then. It is not sufficient provocation once Miko stops fighting and starts standing around. [Obviously, at some point the provocation ends. You do not have the right to beat up the guy who insulted you 20 years ago. Do you have a better standard of when? Different than when she stops provoking?]

The level of anger is in and of itself can be a moral justification for violence.

Absolutely not. You are just encouraging people to get angry so they can attack someone.

Lets also not forget that Roy is a fighter. When you have a hammer, your problems tend to look like nails.
That of course is saying Roy was guilty.

Hinjo says "it will be up to the courts to determine what will happen next"

But its not clear how serious either "feigning senility" or "lying to the Sapphire Guard" are.
Since the charges involve Shojo being immediately removed from office and a lifetime in jail, they are pretty serious charges.

It could be, that after being tried by the magistrates, Shojo would simply be removed from his position as Sapphire Guard leader, while remaining in his position as Ruler of the City.
It could be, but all of our evidence says Shojo was going to spend the rest of his life in the slammer, as leader of nothing.

Since they left him in his place after he has apparently "gone senile" and had not taken away his authority, what exactly was the crime?
Doesn't matter. They were really steamed about it, and Shojo was not willing to answer Raise Dead to face the charges.

Only when Miko brings up her "The order, Xykon, and Shojo are all in league" theory, does Hinjo say anything about removing him.
Strictly speaking, Hinjo never said Shojo was to be removed, but before Miko had said a word, his words and actions said that was going to be an automatic result.

Olorin Maia

2009-07-12, 09:17 PM

That is an insanely long post. I am impressed. Let me quote and respond in points. (forgive me in advance if i get ninja'd.)
A quick note: I agree with you, and here are some things that I disagree with.

Depends on the definition of "to my knowledge". It could be strictly true, but Hinjo has plenty of evidence to arrest Roy on the spot and decide just what charges later.

No, no, no. Hinjo is lawful; whats more, he isn't lawful to a fault. He would not abuse the system like this (after all, he is charged to uphold the system). Hinjo would need to know exactly why Roy was being charged, and immediately.

o Miko's punishment could be drastically reduced, or even eliminated, if she is found insane.

Also wrong. A successful insanity plea does not mean the punishment is reduced or eliminated; simply that they get the care that they need, however long that takes, and more often than not they are forcibly detained at a mental health center (that is trained for dangerous people) for far longer than they would have their prison sentence.

Any time you use a deadly weapon, you are assumed to be trying to kill.

This is only true in reality; it seems far more likely that in D&D, when there are resurrection and raise dead spells, and hit dice, that a deadly weapon would be used to incapacitate, and a raise dead spell used to fix any error that occurred during the arrest.

These are simply the things that I think your post was inaccurate about; I actually agree with your sentiment and 90% of what you wrote. This quote sums up the failure of everybody else's argument, IMO.

But it almost worked, and that was after Roy made things worse. So no, we can't assume diplomacy won't work.

Morally, unnecessary violence is wrong. I don't think anyone can argue against this successfully. Hinjo almost succeeded in getting Miko to calm down and stop fighting. Had Roy not attacked Miko, the chances of that happening would have been even better. SO; Roy attacking led directly to unnecessary violence, and thus was an immoral act.

Excellent post David; I am quite in awe.

LuisDantas

2009-07-12, 09:50 PM

You still haven't answered my basic question: Why now? Suppose she would have stood around for ten seconds and THEN attacked. Why not attack her at that juncture, instead?

Because it would not be strategically sound, nor acceptably safe. Roy's emotional involvement aside, the right thing to do was still beating Miko senseless at the first possible opportunity; there was no reason to take chances.

It all comes down to her being a known killer in a dangerous mental state, really.

When I said that the three guys are high on hit points I didn't mean that they can take Miko down, I meant that they are in no danger of being one-shotted by her.

They are not? Why, and how can you be so sure?

And why should they run the risk of being attacked at all at that point, anyway?

With Shojo there was a strong reason to stop her before she even got within arm's reach of him, because he's an old and fragile aristocrat. That is not the case with Roy, Hinjo and Belkar. Thus, Roy could have afforded to only attack her when she made it clear that the use of lethal force was necessary.

That would be a few seconds earlier, when Shojo was still alive.

While she was still standing around, wondering what went wrong and actually forced to reflect on her actions, there was no need to attack.

True enough, but no one had any means of knowing how long that state would last, nor in what mental shape she would leave it. The only things we have to go by are her decision to grab the sword again and her failure to surrender to Hinjo a short while later. Both suggest that Roy did what he had to, although it is conceivable - not very likely, but conceivable - that Miko would react significantly better to Hinjo if Roy hadn't attacked her first.

Ideally, Roy would have stepped back and Hinjo would have approached with the same diplomatic speech he gave her in the comic. With the difference being that she would have been still in shock and actually wondering about it, rather than fresh from fighting for her life under Roy's onslaught.

Maybe. Or maybe she would be even more dangerous. It is a toss-up.

Had Roy not attacked, would Miko have listened? We simply don't know. And no, saying that she wouldn't have because she can't admit her mistakes isn't right, because we hadn't seen her deal with something as major as the Twelve Gods themselves giving her a big slap to the face. However, one thing about basic psychology is that if you get someone riled up for a fight, they're less likely to respond to reason and diplomacy.

Of course, that argument may be used to excuse Roy at least as well as it can be used to help Miko. Miko was the one who attempted to kill Roy literally on sight, on what turned out to be a direct challenge to her explicit orders. And she was the one who had just killed her liege, so the blame for setting up a confrontation is entirely hers - and at least doubly so.

Whatever Hinjo's chances of getting her to surrender were, there can be no doubt that Roy's hasty attack damaged them.

True. But a good case can be made that at the same time their chances of survival improved. Hinjo had a hard enough time surviving Miko's attack as things happened, after all.

Considering that, despite Roy's attack, she was a hair's breadth away from surrendering anyway,

Was she? The one thing that points in that direction is the moment when she considered giving Hinjo her sword, isn't it?

I wouldn't call it as being a hair's breadth away from surrendering. For one thing, she stepped back with no discernible provocation at that time. Roy certainly did not attack her again, at the very least. Seems to me that surrendering her sword was a rote action that her instincts negated almost instantaneously.

I think it's a stretch to say that she simply wouldn't have surrendered because that's the kind of person she is.

You are entitled to think as you like, but the available evidence of her personality suggests that to be exactly the case, so I don't see how it would be a stretch.

It's perfectly true that Roy's reaction was very understandable after everything Miko had put them through. That just means we can forgive him and not hold it against him in the future. Doesn't make it any less of a tactical error.

Agreed. But after rereading #408 I wonder if it was a tactical error at all. It could be, but I now doubt it, while I did not before.

Killer instincts? Miko is a trained warrior. If you lose your sword, you pick it up. After years of training, it should become automatic. Sorry, I still don't see how her mindlessly picking up her dropped weapon again serves as an excuse to attack her now rather than five seconds later if or when she actually chooses to make herself a threat again.

I guess it is a matter of what we believe to be more significant and meaningful. She was very obviously under conflicting impulses at that moment.

Sure, she is trained to have her sword with her at all times - no argument there. BUT she is also supposed to be conditioned to follow the will of the 12 Gods at all times, and they had clearly stated their disapproval of her action, so grabbing the sword back was implicitly a challenge to their judgment. By that light I think it is in fact very meaningful, and an early hint of how her hubris is so much stronger than her piety and religious sincerity.

I recognize that your reading is not in conflict with the published strips. But I don't think it is particularly attuned to them either.

EDIT: I present a similar situation for comparison. Comic201 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html). Miko's Smite Evil doesn't work and she stops and wonders why. When Durkon jumps in, offering to explain, she stops attacking and listens to him. She is still holding her sword. She MIGHT start attacking them again. She had just nearly killed Roy and injured the others. To say that Roy was right in attacking her in the throne room is to say that he would've been right to attack her then, when she was standing there wondering why the Smite Evil didn't work.

Sorry, Kaytara. I like your arguments, but this one is not very good. After all, Miko was an unknown quantity at that time (it was literally their first encounter, after all). And as you point out yourself, at that time Miko DID stop attacking BEFORE killing anyone.

And you are also forgetting (or perhaps disagreeing?) that keeping one's sword in hand is less indicative of imminent danger than grabbing it back from the floor.

LuisDantas

2009-07-12, 10:22 PM

Do you truly expect combats to include explicit claims of finding the opposite side a threat as a standard feature?

"Xykon, you are a threat to me. Prepare to be smitten!"
Of course not. Xykon was not a threat to Roy.

I beg your pardon?!?

(...)

Yes, you do not see.
Which seems to be another way to dodge the question.

If you will. Of course, some questions are worth dodging, others don't even reach that level of significance.

Thing is, at some point one simply does not mind any more. It is not like we did not give your a fair chance, after all. At this point I reply to you when I feel like, because there is not much of a real point anyway.

Just what are those charactistics of Roy that mean he would not kill Miko even tho he has killed hundreds, and is attacking her?

Truth be told, at that situation he had the right to kill Miko.

But he is not a murderer, as you unwillingly evidenced yourself by failing to produce any better evidence in the contrary than a strip where he is killing Xykon's Goblin soldiers at their own stronghold.

Quite why you think that suggests that he would want to kill Miko I can only attempt to guess. But I will just call it as the non-sequitur it is and call it a day.

That is a strip were soldiers for an Evil Overlord are attacked in their stronghold. What is your point again? How does that make Roy a murderer?

The claim was "he never slaughtered anyone in cold blood". In 11, Roy kills the helpless, who are unable to hurt him.

Sure, if you consider armed soldiers assembled for duty "helpless", I guess.

(Why would you, anyway?)

He has no excuse of emergency or rush. That is a cold blooded killing. We can argue whether he was justified, but he has clearly slaughtered people in cold blood.

Except that he hasn't. Have you even read the strip that you offered? Roy was attacked with Unholy Blight a moment later. One tends to rush in battle when under fire from an enemy Cleric, you know. But anyway, there is no need for an excuse to begin with, so...

V flat out stated that he knew no such thing, but instead went by a not-even-educated guess.
Not guess. Established fact of the laws of the strip.

Which strip? Some fanfic, I suppose? Certainly not the canon, published ones.

[quotre=LuisDantas]For that matter, we don't even know for sure whether Kubota would be acquited. In fact, you claimed not long ago that his death was needed because he was a danger due to his probably acquital.
No. His death was just needed. Since he might be acquitted, V has a reason to do that now.[/quote]

So now Vaarsuvius is above the law and has power of judge and/or jury? I must have missed that strip. Apparently so did everyone else but you.

[quotre=LuisDantas]People don't usually claim self-defense when they are facing known armed homicidals.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fight_selfdefense.html

"Perhaps the most important thing for you to realize is that when it comes to the self-defense plea, that pool has been seriously pissed in. And it has been polluted for a long, long time. Even if the guy really did just walk up and, without any provocation or forewarning, knock you off the bar stool, when the cops show up there is at least a 75 percent chance of his claiming it was "self-defense." If there was a confrontation where words were exchanged prior to blows, the odds go up to about 97 percent"
[/QUOTE]

Wow. What a non-sequitur.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 10:35 PM

Eh, I pretty much agree with Olorin there.

Yes, she just committed murder. Suddenly she has no rights? Are we allowed to torture her, as well?

Was Roy torturing her? No. He was trying to batter her with his sword. Was he going to batter her to death or unconsciousness? Given how he didn't kill her when she was lyinig on the floor unconscious i think its a given that if the situation allowed he had no problem with her being arrested rather than killed.

The double punishment isn't when and where she gets beaten up. Her punishment is whatever the courts decide on, whether it's execution or incarceration or labour.

This is a LEGAL argument. Not a MORAL one. You lawful good and lawful neutral types seem to mix them up.

Getting her face bashed in by an angry fighter isn't on the plan unless she forces it to be by resisting arrest, which she didn't do at that time because Roy never tried to arrest her in the first place.

If I kill a senior citizen with a butcher knife in front of a cop, drop the knife, and then bend down to pick it back up, that cop is going to turn me into swiss cheese. Or at the very least try to taser me, pepper spray me, and beat my head in with a nightstick. This is not double jeopardy or double punishment.

You are arbitrarily assuming that the DC is high enough to make your argument work.

With your pit example you arbitrarily assumed that the DC was 1) low enough to matter and 2) That whatever the penalty for Roys attack was was the deciding factor in Miko not attacking.

If it is DC 20 or 30, the entire argument is blown to bits.

Not really. If its a -2 Then the surprise round swing has to give a 10% chance of finishing miko off before she kills someone or before she wins or before she escapes.

Also, as far as justification, if Roy reasonably THINKS the DC is in the 40's he can act.

Unless you're serious when you say that Hinjo's was so preoccupied with cradling his uncle's body that he wouldn't have recognised the need to deal with Miko.

You're calling my honesty into question... when we SAW Hinjo run past miko, ignore her, screaming Uncle! And, for a few seconds at least, DO exactly what i said?

Well, no. I'm no trans-reality future psychic. How am I supposed to show or prove something that exists only in a possible Alternate Universe?

How is Roy?

Since you're putting that burden on Roy, either you believed Elan when he said Roy is a future Psychic or you expect everyone else to have that power. Roy is a good man doing the best he can with the information he has, not an omniscient psychic. If you don't know what Miko would have done without the pre emptive attack , How was Roy supposed to know that a preemptive attack would make a diplomacy check that he didn't know was coming worse? Remember, when Roy attacks, Hinjo had already walked past Miko to his uncle. Unless you're suggesting ROY make the diplomacy check?

All I can do is make a reasonable guess, and my guess is that Miko was too busy trying to understand what the hell was going on and how she could have been wrong about Shojo and what it meant about everything else to even pay attention to Roy, much less attack him.

And Roy's reasonable guess was that Miko had gone off the deep end and wasn't comming back any time soon. He acted on it. You're entitled to your reasonable guess, Roy is entitled to his.

Sure, it's a reasonable conclusion. Someone unstable has a weapon, so they might use it. Reasonable. But it may still be more reasonable to think that, since they're not moving towards you, actively threatening you or even looking at you, they aren't going to attack you in the immediate future and thus there is no immediate need to advance on them and hit them with a big sword.

3 seconds IS the immediate future.

A high risk of what, exactly? Of her responding with slashing damage? The reaction that is inevitable if you skip the talk and attack straight away?

A high risk of killing people.

Lamech

2009-07-12, 10:42 PM

Of course not. Xykon was not a threat to Roy.I beg your pardon?!?

Xykon was no threat to Roy until Roy attacked Xykon's dungeon. And since Xykon was waiting for a good adventure to come to him, the only way he would become a threat is by a foolish good adventurer. In fact he came very close to winning because of Roy; if Elan had touched the gate (he was a few seconds away, if Haley had been slower or the path had been blocked he would have), Xykon might have very well began a mop up with meteor swarms and the MitD.

Parlity

2009-07-12, 11:07 PM

True. But a good case can be made that at the same time their chances of survival improved. Hinjo had a hard enough time surviving Miko's attack as things happened, after all.

Roy took Miko down easily. Hinjo, Roy, and Belkar against the fallen Miko were not in serious danger.

Was she? The one thing that points in that direction is the moment when she considered giving Hinjo her sword, isn't it?

She stopped attacking when Hinjo intervened. That is one other thing.

What about Miko makes you loathe the character enough to not want to see positive aspects that are portrayed in the comic? She is more sad or pathetic to me.

I wouldn't call it as being a hair's breadth away from surrendering. For one thing, she stepped back with no discernible provocation at that time. Roy certainly did not attack her again, at the very least. Seems to me that surrendering her sword was a rote action that her instincts negated almost instantaneously.

She did not step back. She suddenly attacked Hinjo after being a finger's length away from surrendering. Link to comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)

Kaytara

2009-07-12, 11:14 PM

Because it would not be strategically sound, nor acceptably safe. Roy's emotional involvement aside, the right thing to do was still beating Miko senseless at the first possible opportunity; there was no reason to take chances. ...

And why should they run the risk of being attacked at all at that point, anyway?

Take chances of what, precisely? The worst thing she can do is attack them. Which is exactly what they're forcing her to do if they attack her first.

They are not? Why, and how can you be so sure?
Miko fought them. She failed to one-shot them, despite being very mad. Therefore, she couldn't.

That would be a few seconds earlier, when Shojo was still alive.
Yes, Roy should have attacked then. But he blew it. Shojo is no longer a factor in determining whether to attack Miko right away or talk to her first.

True enough, but no one had any means of knowing how long that state would last, nor in what mental shape she would leave it.
As I said, what she might have done after that mental state had passed can't be any worse than what she did anyway when Roy attacked her.

The only things we have to go by are her decision to grab the sword again and her failure to surrender to Hinjo a short while later. Both suggest that Roy did what he had to, although it is conceivable - not very likely, but conceivable - that Miko would react significantly better to Hinjo if Roy hadn't attacked her first.
Hm, I'd give better odds than merely conceivable. For one thing, at that point there was animosity between Miko and Hinjo because the latter had just stopped her from killing her loathed enemy Belkar. Without Roy's attack earlier, Hinjo's diplomatic attempt would have occurred while she was still standing there, before she had had a chance to go at Belkar.

Maybe. Or maybe she would be even more dangerous. It is a toss-up.
How can she be more dangerous than the murderous rage she went into when Roy attacked her? If all diplomacy fails, she either goes murderous now, or a bit later. The difference is that with the latter situation diplomacy has already failed and attacking her has proven necessary and thus moral.

Of course, that argument may be used to excuse Roy at least as well as it can be used to help Miko. Miko was the one who attempted to kill Roy literally on sight, on what turned out to be a direct challenge to her explicit orders. And she was the one who had just killed her liege, so the blame for setting up a confrontation is entirely hers - and at least doubly so.
I think you're overcomplicating matters. :smallconfused: Roy attacked when it was not necessary. From the perspective of morality and not psychology, what does it matter what the history between them is?

True. But a good case can be made that at the same time their chances of survival improved. Hinjo had a hard enough time surviving Miko's attack as things happened, after all.
I disagree, because a diplomatic attempt had a chance of resolving the situation without further violence, without anyone getting hurt. A not unreasonable chance. Tossing that chance out the window for the sake of one extra hit that may help in a fight that you initiated seems reckless.
Besides, we are still discussing Roy's action here, and his stated reason is that he wants Miko to get what's coming to her, whatever that means. He doesn't actually say anything about removing her as a threat. His reasoning is "You killed Shojo, so now I'll beat you up", almost in those exact words.

Was she? The one thing that points in that direction is the moment when she considered giving Hinjo her sword, isn't it?

I wouldn't call it as being a hair's breadth away from surrendering. For one thing, she stepped back with no discernible provocation at that time. Roy certainly did not attack her again, at the very least. Seems to me that surrendering her sword was a rote action that her instincts negated almost instantaneously.
Well, she listened to Hinjo talk and then mumbled about how confused she was. I'd say she was trying to mull it over. I honestly can't say what sort of cogs and gears screwed up in her mind at that time, but the fact that Hinjo was actively siding with a ruthless murderer and a person who had just beaten her up out of spite couldn't have helped. (And yes, "He is a murderer just like you and both of you will go to jail" IS "actively siding" in Miko land. She's delusional, remember?)

Agreed. But after rereading #408 I wonder if it was a tactical error at all. It could be, but I now doubt it, while I did not before.
Well, as I said, if a murderer is standing there in a daze, provoking it into attacking you seems pretty error-y to me. It's like throwing a rock at a vicious dog that has just mauled someone and is now sitting idly on the ground. You might take it down, but what you're certain to do is get its attention and make it really angry.

I guess it is a matter of what we believe to be more significant and meaningful. She was very obviously under conflicting impulses at that moment.

Sure, she is trained to have her sword with her at all times - no argument there. BUT she is also supposed to be conditioned to follow the will of the 12 Gods at all times, and they had clearly stated their disapproval of her action, so grabbing the sword back was implicitly a challenge to their judgment. By that light I think it is in fact very meaningful, and an early hint of how her hubris is so much stronger than her piety and religious sincerity.
That's a very nice psyche-analysis, but IMO it doesn't excuse Roy. You don't get to attack people with swords just because they show subtle signs of their greatest flaws.

I recognize that your reading is not in conflict with the published strips. But I don't think it is particularly attuned to them either.
I was just pointing out why I don't think someone picking up a weapon is that big a deal in a pseudo-Medieval adventuring world. These are people that carry weapons with them 24/7. The gesture of picking up a dropped weapon - especially when they can see and hear that she is quite obviously in shock and is not actually plotting her next kill - shouldn't be used as grounds for immediate attack with no attempt to talk, IMO.

Sorry, Kaytara. I like your arguments, but this one is not very good. After all, Miko was an unknown quantity at that time (it was literally their first encounter, after all). And as you point out yourself, at that time Miko DID stop attacking BEFORE killing anyone.
An unknown quality - yes, he didn't know her personality and, em, "reluctance" to admit mistakes. (Although, as I pointed out, Miko admitted that her intelligence-gathering abilities were crap and that Roy was neither evil nor allied with someone guilty of the crimes Nale was guilty of.) But still.. Just because he was completely freakin' certain that Miko wouldn't surrender no matter what gives him no grounds to choose violence over diplomacy while the latter is still technically an option. It's not his call to make.

And you are also forgetting (or perhaps disagreeing?) that keeping one's sword in hand is less indicative of imminent danger than grabbing it back from the floor.
Less indicative, but it is just a matter of degree. This argument seems to imply that picking up a dropped sword (and then not doing anything with it) is far enough over the line to provoke violence while keeping it unsheathed isn't. I don't see why the line would be drawn there.

Jagos

2009-07-12, 11:32 PM

One possibility that we haven't covered this time is that Hinjo simply did not see Roy attack Miko. He was busy checking his uncle's body, and could easily have been completely unaware of the fight at first. And once it started, he would have no easy way to know who started it.

Doubtful. Even though failing a Listen check is a running gag, I don't think it would be failed in this regard on suge a huge part of the plot.

Going to the Roy case, we see a host of possible or definite charges to bring against Roy. Conspiracy with the ex-ruler to violate his terms of office [generally classed as treason if it is not directly outlawed], involvement in fixing a trial, breaking Belkar out of jail... Hinjo is either extremely blind or he is pushing that "To my knowledge" for all he can. Either way, we can't trust his judgment.

I didn't know you were an expert on Azure law.

Seriously though, Roy acted to the best of his ability. Why would any Paladins put him on more charges when he acted mostly like they would do at one of their own? We have Hinjo as the second most powerful Paladin of Azure City. On top of that, I'm sure with Shojo as his guide he would know the laws of Azure City nearly as closely as a judge or anyone else. I'm thinking he'd be similar to an FBI agent or even CIA where they are needed to execute the law. Granted Shojo felt he was naive but even Shojo is circumspect since he feigned madness to rule as he saw fit.

And the trial fix? Wasn't Roy's idea. FYI. ;)

This argument proves too much. If we say Roy is justified in attacking when she does not instantly surrender without anyone demanding her surrender, we are saying the cop on the corner can just blaze away.
But we see the reverse. The cop says "Police! Put the gun down!", and repeats the order as frequently as seems necessary. In some cases, that has involved aiming at the target for hours, and not shooting.
You use violence only when necessary, and only the violence necessary. As long as Miko is making no immediate threat and might surrender, Roy can not properly attack, and that remains true no matter how clearly or often she has been told to surrender.

Funny. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html) That's not what happened (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html) to Elan. They took him down and even whacked him. And that was after a murder... Hmmm...

Depends on the definition of "to my knowledge". It could be strictly true, but Hinjo has plenty of evidence to arrest Roy on the spot and decide just what charges later.

But he has the higher problem of a murderer on his hands and no backup. I would think that's a higher priority than Roy, who's done his best to follow everything he's been asked, who beat up Miko for said murder.

So a Roy-defender must latch on any evidence, no matter how weak, that supports a claim of self defense. The obsession with it merely shows how weak the claim is.

Or the fact that someone's main argument is dismissing all evidence to come to their own conjectures. It's as if no one can say anything remotely relevant without a Phoenix Wright Objection being thrown. Oh well. Such is the internet. :)

Now the "law be damned" is a confession that Roy is in the wrong here. But there is a crucial difference between "take down" and "citizen's arrest". Roy has a full right to arrest, but can't use violence until she resists that arrest.

You seemed to have missed my comment on the letter of the law versus the spirit. In essence, Roy followed the spirit which says that Miko won't listen to reason and she'll more or less attack if he decided to parley. But given the fact that Elan seemed to be taken down by cops without a right to arrest and Hinjo didn't declare Miko under arrest for those few moments, I'd say he probably wanted to take her down. Let's also remembered he commented on "battering things into submission." More than likely that's what he had in mind with Miko. Still, he was probably taking the adventurer's way of arrest. Which I just explained.

When you are the "take action" sort, you are under a duty to take the right action. You gain no immunity from blame for having done something stupid.

I doubt highly it's the wrong action to accept that Miko is a person that can't be reasoned with when it hasn't worked in the past. And with more ranks in Intimidate than Diplomacy and a higher Int and Wis score, he can always try to do the right thing. But the right thing to one person more than likely isn't the right to others. Kinda like how we don't agree that Roy should have taken Miko down because we're seeing modern rules applied to his wanting to prevent her from escaping, making their job harder and possibly a little vengeance.

But Since Roy had made a deal with Shojo, he had forgiven the method he came to Azure City, and thus was bound by Azure City law.

Ok, so how is he supposed to know every last detail within ~ 3 months? And I'm being lenient on their stay in Azure.

In other words, picking up the sword was a trivial event.
A trivial event that says she's armed. She's guilty of treason and at the very least 2nd degree murder. Why take a chance that she may escape?

Irrelevant and wrong.
Incorrect. The circumstance bonuses that I was discussing lead from Roy's past experiences with Miko. All the sentence described is that he didn't like Miko and his past experiences affected his decisions in the fight. I do want to say that Roy isn't controlled by his emotions as Miko seemed to be but it didn't help that she had tendencies that Roy noted all through their journey together.

Of course they are different. Everything is always different. But the basic point remains. Critics of Miko keep saying Miko would never or always do X, and we point out that in fact Miko had done it or had refused to do it, and the reply is that things are different. In essence it turns out that the certainty that is the basic of the argument is destroyed. The justification for Roy vanishes.

Yet again, you are missing a part of my argument, dissecting it so that you can see only the part you want and misrepresenting what I posted.

The battle in question wasn't similar to the one with Miko and Roy in the throne room. The second battle where Roy grudgingly surrenders because his entire party lost (all thanks to a Surprise Round that they didn't expect) was similar to what was being discussed. I won't say anything further because now it seems your part is irrelevant.

But we do know she almost listened to him despite Roy making her angry. The odds she would have surrendered if Hinjo had approached and Roy had stayed as reserve seem quite good.

We don't know that she would have listened. But if you could have gotten Hinjo to expect his uncle to die or not to grieve, then we can safely say that it was the best corse of action. Until then, Roy keeping her busy, as the highest Good leveled PC decided to take matters into his own hands and beat her into submission. His justification is still to take her down because Shojo was killed but in the end, it's better than letting her escape.

Let us do some casual math. Hinjo tries a diplomacy check. Miko's resistance is +2 for enemy laws, +5 for being above the law, & +3 for enacting judgement. Now we add +5 for Roy attacking her and we get +15 to the DC Hinjo must beat, say a total of DC30. Hinjo rolls and manages a 29. No luck.
Now we take a passive Roy. The DC is reduced to 25, and Hinjo's 29 would achieve her surrender. Perhaps Hinjo would not have rolled as well this time, but we can only guess about that, and so our presumption is that Roy's attack made it much less likely Hinjo could succeed.

By the gods, did you not read my post earlier? I already did that math with the Giant's calculations. And I even did one for a d100 that was me joking around in the other thread! We actually agree that Roy didn't help everything, in the die roll, but did what he thought was right and morally justified to do. As one to see Shojo perish that affected his mood as well as everyone else in the room. But seriously, there was NO point in Roy trying a diplomacy check if he already knew it wouldn't work.

She acknowledged that Roy was not evil.

No, she acknowledged that her information gathering was flawed, not that she, Miko the Infallible, was wrong. And judging from her information gathering with Xykon, she recanted on that belief to say that Roy was evil yet again. As she had always known IIRC.

Not guess. Established fact of the laws of the strip.

Hold the phone... You're using the strips as established fact but also stating that Hinjo and even the author's words are not to be trusted?

Sorry that doesn't compute...

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-12, 11:35 PM

Quite the contrary. The party probably has almost zero magic items of use in a trial situation.

Thank you for that strawman. I specified spells as well. The party has relatively easy access to zone of truth at the least. You’re also assuming most judges in the OoTS verse have level appropriate magic items and are level 10+. None of those are known.

Wrong. To point to two issues that might come up in a trial of Miko.
We have loads of claims she was crazy. You don't punish the insane.

Yes, you do. You either lock them away in prison … I’m sorry, a mental institution, or if they’re in the middle of committing a violent act you shoot them the same way you would a criminal. What precisely is the difference between locking someone in a cell and locking them in a padded room?

It's a waste of effort. You just make sure they can't cause trouble [which can mean killing them, but that is not punishment, merely a recognition that they can't be allowed loose and there is no way to keep them from getting loose

OH! So its ok to kill them as long as we don’t CALL it punishment?

Alternately, we have Miko talking about her early relations with Miko. Was this in fact her actual motive?

Look, when some nutjob has just picked up a sword after using it to kill a helpless old man is NOT the time to delve into their ?”Lifetime: Why men are evil” movie of the week flashback.

But by what we can tell, he didn't do the right thing, and he had good reason to doubt he would do the right thing.

If you have good reasons to think that, you haven’t been sharing them. Do you see the circular reasoning here?

O'Chul is around somewhere

O chul is, at this point, halfway between the palace and the Inn.

as well as those 40+ veteran paladins that tried to stop Xykon. And nothing stops Roy from aiding them. He is just not suited or required to take the lead role.

Yes, something stops Roy from aiding them. THEY WEREN”T THERE.

Roy would not be allowed to lay the smack down even if he was a representative of the state.

If I kill a helpless old man with a butcher knife, drop it, the second I pick it back up a cop has the legal and moral right to turn me into swiss cheese.

You are mixing events again. We are asking about her attitude just as Roy attacked, when it seems likely she could have been persuaded to surrender, not later after he had increased her fury.

No, I’m not. I’m saying that her level of crazy was not signifigantly influenced by Roy’s attack. She was crazy enough to kill everyone in the room whether Roy attacked her or not. A moral condemnation requires that you disprove this, something i highly doubt you know how to do.

We have already noted one difference. Roy's punishment will be additional punishment, meaning Miko will be punished more than Roy feels is proper.

This is inane. I suppose you object to police shooting tasering people because its punishing them twice in addition to sending them to jail?

Any time you use a deadly weapon, you are assumed to be trying to kill. You may not actually be trying, but even when you are not, you are acting in a very dangerous manner, and so it is entirely up to you to show you were not trying to kill.

Now this is a very interesting dance of logic you’re displaying here.
Either you view the events via the rules of the real world where Roy’s swing could kill Miko in one shot… but then you say that the order can wait for Miko to act first because they are high level with lots of hit points. You dance from real world to D&D rules at your convenience.

Let’s get some consistency .

If it’s a real world where any attack with a deadly weapon is an intent to kill, then Miko’s retrieval of her sword means she’s ready to kill at a moments notice. That means she needs to be killed now before she kills someone else.

If it’s a D&D world with Hit points, you can whale on a high level character without the risk of killing them. So beating on Miko with a two handed sword means MUCH less than doing so in the real world.

Not clear. When Roy attacked, Hinjo was still with his Uncle, and his attention was unlikely to be on either Roy or Miko. He could easily miss the start of the fight, and thereafter, he merely sees a fight.

If you’re going to make these statements, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Roy yelled out loud that he was starting the fight. The balls in your court to provide some evidence that Hinjo didn’t know about the attack.

A fighter who has shown his eagerness to stop assassins, and who is not connected with any of the nobles who might send assassins? Sounds like a good choice, even if he is a little overeager to lay down the smack.

A sentiment Hinjo never shares. Can you, the poster boy for sophism, demonstrate that Hinjo thought Roy was too eager to start swinging? Beside of course, with the presupposition that Roy is too eager to swing and Hinjo's judgement has to be right and therefore Hinjo agrees with you?

We do not see her doing so, but we know we did not see the entire interview because we see part of one subject. There is thus a chance right away that this was handled off camera.

When we note that only a half dozen issues are even mentioned, and only two of them for even a sentence, we have even more evidence that a great many subjects were discussed off camera.

So anything I don’t know is meaningless, but anything you don’t know but need to know to prove your point is fact?

It's fairly easy to ignore nothing.

You ignore and make up a lot to ignore that Roy let Miko live. In order to read things your way, you have to ignore Roy standing down, Roy not finishing off Miko off panel, and you have to assume that the guards arrived just after Miko went down.

Not needed. To justify violence, Miko needs to be an immediate and definite threat, which a Miko standing around staring at nothing in particular is not. A Miko charging Belkar is.

Justify violence to who? You? The law? Those are not moral standards of justification. Definite threat by your definition is an oxymoron, because the future isn't KNOWN and you're not allowed to act until you know it.

Again not needed. It is merely one of several ways we can explain his action.

It’s the only way you can explain the action ACCORDING TO YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS. It’s a very unlikely explanation, which makes your presuppositions equally unlikely.

She seems a good deal more upset about what is not a crime at all, and ignores actual crimes. Her judgment seems quite questionable.

The judgment of a BEING OF PURE LAW AND GOOD with a rulebook that is literally 40 feet high writ with flaming letters, a primordial being who’s very essence is carved out of the raw existence of Lawful good… a being qualified to judge the immortal souls of the dead and decide their fate for all eternity has questionable judgment?

Game over. You loose. There are no words to describe the inanity you have to sink to in order to reach this conclusion. You are doing exactly what I accused Miko of doing. You have a presupposition, any and all evidence is crammed in so it fits that presupposition even when it doesn’t make sense. Roy and Hinjo had no more chance of arguing rationally with Miko than I do with you. Your logic is circular. You assume a lawful neutral Kumbaya violence is bad attitude, and read everything in order to MAKE anything violent as bad… including the judgment of a Celestial Diva.

Kaytara

2009-07-12, 11:50 PM

Was Roy torturing her? No. He was trying to batter her with his sword.
The difference is marginal, in the ends only. Both involve causing pain and injury.

This is a LEGAL argument. Not a MORAL one. You lawful good and lawful neutral types seem to mix them up.
Me, Lawful? Hell no, I'm Chaotic all the way. :smalltongue:
But why is that a legal argument? Evil deeds are punished, sounds like morality to me. More to the point, the punishment has some relation to the severity of the evil deed. Courts are just intended as a means of ascertaining and enforcing the exact amount of punishment to be meted out.

If I kill a senior citizen with a butcher knife in front of a cop, drop the knife, and then bend down to pick it back up, that cop is going to turn me into swiss cheese. Or at the very least try to taser me, pepper spray me, and beat my head in with a nightstick. This is not double jeopardy or double punishment.
Ummm, no. I'm certainly no legal expert, but in that particular scenario... The cop is holding a gun, the murderer a knife, and the citizen is already dead. The proper response is clearly to aim at the murderer with your gun and demand him to drop the knife again and surrender.

With your pit example you arbitrarily assumed that the DC was 1) low enough to matter and 2) That whatever the penalty for Roys attack was was the deciding factor in Miko not attacking.
You are incorrect. I did not assume that the DC was low or that Roy's attack MUST have been a deciding factor. I stated that it can be either, it can be anything. I have stated numerous times that we don't know, and therefore it is possible, while you were assuming that the DC was so high that it was NOT possible.

Also, as far as justification, if Roy reasonably THINKS the DC is in the 40's he can act.
Just being so damn sure isn't enough. It would be if there appeared to be no other way, but at that time it seemed that Miko could be attacked later as easily as then.

You're calling my honesty into question... when we SAW Hinjo run past miko, ignore her, screaming Uncle! And, for a few seconds at least, DO exactly what i said?
For a few seconds at least, yes, presumably while checking his life signs or something. After that, he likely stood up and turned his attention to Miko again. We know he did so at some point, because he must have watched at least part of the fight to comment on how much Roy had enjoyed it. Therefore, at some point he turned towards Roy and Miko and found them fighting, at which point it was already too late to be diplomatic. Had Roy waited for - what, ten, twenty seconds? It can't take long to see that a bisected man is beyond help - Miko would have Hinjo's undivided attention again.

How is Roy?

Since you're putting that burden on Roy, either you believed Elan when he said Roy is a future Psychic or you expect everyone else to have that power. Roy is a good man doing the best he can with the information he has, not an omniscient psychic. If you don't know what Miko would have done without the pre emptive attack , How was Roy supposed to know that a preemptive attack would make a diplomacy check that he didn't know was coming worse? Remember, when Roy attacks, Hinjo had already walked past Miko to his uncle. Unless you're suggesting ROY make the diplomacy check?
Why are you over-complicating the issue? You try to talk to people before you use violence and using violence instead of talking makes it harder to get them to listen to you later. You don't need to be a future psychic to know that, just have a minimum amount of experience of dealing with people.

Of course, that's moot. Roy couldn't have planned for an upcoming Diplomacy check because he didn't WANT one to come - not from him or anyone else. His stated motivation is beating her up.

And Roy's reasonable guess was that Miko had gone off the deep end and wasn't comming back any time soon. He acted on it. You're entitled to your reasonable guess, Roy is entitled to his.
The difference being that I don't use my reasonable guesses as basis to beat the living hell out of someone. Not when talking is an option, anyway, however unlikely it may seem to him.

3 seconds IS the immediate future.
No, the immediate future is when someone is about to attack you right this instant and you must act NOW in order to stop them.

A high risk of killing people.
And this risk is supposed to be smaller if you attack her right away instead of trying to talk to her first??? :smallconfused:

Kish

2009-07-12, 11:52 PM

This is inane. I suppose you object to police shooting tasering people because its punishing them twice in addition to sending them to jail?
At this point, I'm wondering if you're even aware there is such a thing as "police brutality," which is a crime. And remains a crime, even if the victim is convicted of mass murder, cannibalism, malice, impiety, and bad taste.

Proper law enforcement procedures in the real world have little or nothing to do with Roy and Miko.

Olorin Maia

2009-07-12, 11:55 PM

Roy is a good man doing the best he can with the information he has, not an omniscient psychic.

Actually, he is not doing the best he can with the information that he has. He is using this as an excuse to fufill his personal motives.

How could this have happened? (other irrelevant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html))

Here's a thought:Who the Hell cares? All that matters to me is that...Which means I am kicking your fallen ass RIGHT NOW!

Roy's motives are not to detain someone that committed murder; his motives are very personal, vengeful, selfish motives. These are not the definition of good-they would be neutral or evil, as they involve attacking someone.

Only after Roy attacks Miko does she move in for the attack. It seems to me (and obviously we all will disagree) that a good person would not attack someone without direct provocation, when they are having an emotional meltdown. Yes, Miko is very dangerous, yes, she should definately be stopped before she kills again and if she attacks someone first, but looking at the panels it seems to me that she is not doing this...she is freaking out over how she misread the gods, and then Roy attacks, and then she blames the OotS and goes loco again.

I know we're all looking at the same strip (as I type this I realize that I haven't looked at the beginning of this topic in quite some time and I may not actually be looking in the right place) and we are all putting different weight on Miko's mental instability. If she is freaking out so much, why isn't Roy even trying to get her to calm down? It would be my initial instinct that you prepare yourself for battle, but before instigating a fight that is possibly unnecessary, you talk it out, try to get her to see that she should think, and not act. Roy doesn't give her this chance, and instead forces her hand, which in her messed up mind means fight until there is no one else to fight.

Another thing that people have pointed out (in other threads) is that the PC's know what their die rolls are. Roy would very easily have seen the last time that he fought her that if he was wielding his sword his +6 to hit and +7 to damage (Those are right now, thanks Kish!) would have been enough to overwhelm Miko. Roy isn't surprised when he is beating Miko gravely in page 2 panel 2; he does not say, "hey, look at that! now that I have my sword I'm easily beating you! That's a surprise!" he does say "Now that I have my sword I'm much stronger." His facial expressions also seem to be quite clear; smug, then determined. Nowhere in this battle does it show us his confusion about why he can so easily win when he struggled so mightily before.

Note: I have not read the entire thread. I apologize if these arguments have been previously debated and shot down, and if so, I will shut up until I have read the thread and come back with a coherent, original argument instead of spewing things that everyone is sick of reading.

Kish

2009-07-12, 11:58 PM

Another thing that people have pointed out (in other threads) is that the PC's know what their die rolls are. Roy would very easily have seen the last time that he fought her that if he was wielding his sword his +7 to hit and +6 to damage (I think those are right, a +5 sword and weapon specialization, right?)
Flip them. +5 sword is +5 to hit and +5 to damage. Weapon Focus (a prerequisite for Weapon Specialization) is +1 to hit. Weapon Specialization is +2 to damage.

Boaromir

2009-07-12, 11:58 PM

This argument proves too much. If we say Roy is justified in attacking when she does not instantly surrender without anyone demanding her surrender, we are saying the cop on the corner can just blaze away. But we see the reverse. The cop says "Police! Put the gun down!", and repeats the order as frequently as seems necessary. In some cases, that has involved aiming at the target for hours, and not shooting. You use violence only when necessary, and only the violence necessary. As long as Miko is making no immediate threat and might surrender, Roy can not properly attack, and that remains true no matter how clearly or often she has been told to surrender.

Actually, if you take a look at this specific example, but make it a hostage situation with modern day mechanics, you'd find the actual opposite. Actually, in all fairness, you can't compare it to modern day tactics in this manner, because the exact same situation has almost no chance of EVER coming up.

Once a criminal or fugitive or whatever you want to call it EXECUTES the ONLY hostage left, I'd hope that the STANDARD action would be either blow them away or shoot them as to incapacitate them IMMEDIATELY. You can't really comment on what should be done after police witness a murder such as that because that situation should never truly come up(if it did, I'd honestly question the officers ability to keep me safe). Also, it's really silly to compare it honestly, since we have guns which are basically insta-kills, and Miko would probably have been dead three or four seconds after she executed Shojo if this were to happen today.

Kaytara

2009-07-13, 12:02 AM

Nice analysis, Olorin. In the midst of all of the arguments around the details, it's good to see someone devote a nice, lengthy post to the concept that Roy didn't care about self-defence or pre-emptive strikes and was just attacking her because he hated her and saw a chance to beat her up and get away with it.

Olorin Maia

2009-07-13, 12:18 AM

No, I’m not. I’m saying that her level of crazy was not signifigantly influenced by Roy’s attack. She was crazy enough to kill everyone in the room whether Roy attacked her or not. A moral condemnation requires that you disprove this, something i highly doubt you know how to do.

Now this is a very interesting dance of logic you’re displaying here.
Either you view the events via the rules of the real world where Roy’s swing could kill Miko in one shot… but then you say that the order can wait for Miko to act first because they are high level with lots of hit points. You dance from real world to D&D rules at your convenience.

Let’s get some consistency .

If it’s a real world where any attack with a deadly weapon is an intent to kill, then Miko’s retrieval of her sword means she’s ready to kill at a moments notice. That means she needs to be killed now before she kills someone else.

If it’s a D&D world with Hit points, you can whale on a high level character without the risk of killing them. So beating on Miko with a two handed sword means MUCH less than doing so in the real world.

The judgment of a BEING OF PURE LAW AND GOOD with a rulebook that is literally 40 feet high writ with flaming letters, a primordial being who’s very essence is carved out of the raw existence of Lawful good… a being qualified to judge the immortal souls of the dead and decide their fate for all eternity has questionable judgment?

I know I'm going to get ninja'd but I might as well start.

First; a look at the comic makes it seem to me that when Roy attacked the first time, Miko was indeed, calm enough to use diplomacy. It looks to me that only after Roy attacks (with the weird green thing--does that affect her at all, or only undead?) that she spazes and is too crazy to talk to. As the comic is our only evidence, looking at the comic I see two expressions on Miko; utter confusion first (panels 1236), and then pain and confusion (panel 8) and only then rage in panel 9. To me, any time before 6 would be a good time to talk, and after that there is no hope for diplomacy because Miko is gone.

I totally agree, we really need consistency. For my posts, I am going with D&D rules because I like the two axis for judging something, and that's what the characters know and understand, and are acting under the assumption of. If you prefer something else, lemme know.

I tend to give more credence with your real world analysis because a one-hit kill sword (or gun or even knife) leaves no options for talk at this point; Miko could probably kill anyone quickly in the real world, although I still don't know if I totally agree.

And as for your analysis of the argument about the being of pure law and good: spot on, perfectly done, flawless victory. That is the weakest argument that is consistently put forth. I think that in the comic itself, it is an acceptable act, although I do not agree with your basic premise.

You assume that Rich has the same view as a being of pure law and good, and obviously that is not quite true. In this case, I believe that Roy's actions were not "good" and thus must have either a) been covered off-panel by the being of pure law and good, or b) the author of the comic has a different idea of "good" morality than I do, and the being of pure law and good has been corrupted by the storytellers ethics. That is perfectly fine, but I think that we cannot argue as if the deva is actually a being of pure law and goodness, as it is simply a construct in a webcomic.

And thanks Kaytara; I feel like we're all ganging up on derfenrirwolv, and I don't mean to be; hopefully you don't feel that way either defenrir.

Here's to more well reasoned posts that we can all tear apart!:smallbiggrin:

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-13, 12:58 AM

The difference is marginal, in the ends only. Both involve causing pain and injury.

Ok, so Roy effectively Tortured hundreds of goblins? Where is the moral outrage at Roy Coup de gracing helpless goblins back in #11 ? Thats torture!

No. Causing pain and injury isn't enough to qualify as torture. Torture is done to a helpless opponent above and beyond what is necessary in order to get information or for the fun of inflicting pain. By your definition, every soldier ever involved in combat is a torturer. Thats not what the word means, and it cheapens the horror of the act.

Me, Lawful? Hell no, I'm Chaotic all the way.
But why is that a legal argument? Evil deeds are punished, sounds like morality to me. More to the point, the punishment has some relation to the severity of the evil deed. Courts are just intended as a means of ascertaining and enforcing the exact amount of punishment to be meted out.

Its because you're relying on a court to determine what is right for you. That's only as good as the court making the decision, and there's no reason to believe that a court knows that more than anyone else unless you're lawful. Courts have other motives besides good, such as proof, president, and law that can get in the way of doing the right thing.

Ummm, no. I'm certainly no legal expert, but in that particular scenario... The cop is holding a gun, the murderer a knife, and the citizen is already dead. The proper response is clearly to aim at the murderer with your gun and demand him to drop the knife again and surrender.

If the knife is on the ground and i bend to pick it up, yes the cop is supposed to give a warning , but if I keep going for it I'm a dead man.

You are incorrect. I did not assume that the DC was low or that Roy's attack MUST have been a deciding factor. I stated that it can be either, it can be anything. I have stated numerous times that we don't know, and therefore it is possible, while you were assuming that the DC was so high that it was NOT possible.

No, i said IF. The odds of the circumstance penalty from Roys attack affecting the diplomatic outcome have to take into account the possibility that the DC is so high that the affect of the circumstance penalty is automatically nothing. (averaging in a few 0's along with 5% * the numeric value of the penalty)

Strictly from a rationale point of view, its a little unfair of Roy to even consider there WOULD be a diplomacy check. Hinjo was busy with his uncle. If he'd spend one more second with that, Miko would have escaped. You're relying on Roy's future psycic powers to know that Hinjo isn't going to spend 1 second more than he did cradling his uncles dead body.

Do you think there's ANY chance ROY could have talked Miko down? I don't. Without that, the comparison becomes

[% chance Hinjo will snap out of his grief before Miko escapes] * [%chance that the attack would make the difference between success and failure on the diplomacy check]

vs

% chance that The attack will do some good.

Just being so damn sure isn't enough. It would be if there appeared to be no other way, but at that time it seemed that Miko could be attacked later as easily as then.

No. Once you loose a surprise round its gone.

Quote:
You're calling my honesty into question... when we SAW Hinjo run past miko, ignore her, screaming Uncle! And, for a few seconds at least, DO exactly what i said?
For a few seconds at least, yes, presumably while checking his life signs or something. After that, he likely stood up and turned his attention to Miko again. We know he did so at some point, because he must have watched at least part of the fight to comment on how much Roy had enjoyed it. Therefore, at some point he turned towards Roy and Miko and found them fighting, at which point it was already too late to be diplomatic. Had Roy waited for - what, ten, twenty seconds? It can't take long to see that a bisected man is beyond help - Miko would have Hinjo's undivided attention again.

How much damage can Miko dish out in 10-20 seconds? She managed to take out the order in about 32 seconds.

Hinjo had to have heard Roy. He shouted (all caps) I'm kicking your fallen ass right now! followed by what was probably a loud arrrrgg! from miko.

Of course, that's moot. Roy couldn't have planned for an upcoming Diplomacy check because he didn't WANT one to come - not from him or anyone else. His stated motivation is beating her up.

Roy didn't plan for the diplomacy check because he didn't know it was comming and had no reason to suspect it was coming. What possible evidence do you have that Roy was delibrately trying to sabotage a future diplomacy check that 1) He didn't know was comming and 2) went along with when the possibility was brought up?!?

The difference being that I don't use my reasonable guesses as basis to beat the living hell out of someone. Not when talking is an option, anyway, however unlikely it may seem to him.

You're not an adventurer. You don't die if you stand there for too long trying to come up with a decision making model.

3 seconds IS the immediate future.

No, the immediate future is when someone is about to attack you right this instant and you must act NOW in order to stop them.

So if someone with a knife is advancing on someone with a gun how close do they have to get before you can shoot? I mean, the person MIGHT decide at 6 feet out that they don't realy want to do this. Can you judge them at 12 feet for what they MIGHT try to do at 3?

Quote:
A high risk of killing people.
And this risk is supposed to be smaller if you attack her right away instead of trying to talk to her first???

Yes, because she can't kill people when she's dead or incapacitated. The attack gets her closer to that.

Lets try to do this with numbers.

What are the odds that Hinjo would be able and willing to snap out of it between "UNCLE!" and Miko's escape or Roys death?

What are the odds that a diplomacy check was possible?

What were the odds that a diplomacy check would be successful?

What was the circumstance penalty for Roys attack?

vs

What % of her hit points did the attack deal?

What were her chances of killing someone within one hit?

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-13, 01:10 AM

At this point, I'm wondering if you're even aware there is such a thing as "police brutality," which is a crime. And remains a crime, even if the victim is convicted of mass murder, cannibalism, malice, impiety, and bad taste. .

I'm aware that there is such a thing as police brutality but I'm also aware that the arrest for a violent crime is usually pretty brutal. I'm also aware that as a matter of practicality there's usually a little leeway in the arrest and treatment of particularly heinous offenders. While i see the problem with legality of certain persons "tripping and falling against the side of the police car when getting in" there are cases where i don't mind it morally.

Olorin Maia

2009-07-13, 01:11 AM

So if someone with a knife is advancing on someone with a gun how close do they have to get before you can shoot? I mean, the person MIGHT decide at 6 feet out that they don't realy want to do this. Can you judge them at 12 feet for what they MIGHT try to do at 3?

This is an invalid argument, because when Roy attacked Miko, she was not threatening. A similar instance would be if Miko had picked up her katana and moved towards Roy (or Belkar or Hinjo), and then I doubt you would find anybody attacking Roy at all. However, a similar circumstance would be if the person with the knife picked it up and stood there shell shocked. Is an immediate attack warranted? No.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-13, 01:35 AM

First; a look at the comic makes it seem to me that when Roy attacked the first time, Miko was indeed, calm enough to use diplomacy.

Calm enough for WHO to use diplomacy?

Roy? The person with no ranks in diplomacy, an ok charisma bonus, and a whoping circumstance penalty because Miko thinks he's in league with Xykon? No. She is not calm enough for Roy to use diplomacy.

Hinjo? He can't make diplomacy Rolls at this juncture. He's busy cradling the body of his dead uncle and is effectively out of it for an unknown duration.

You're relying on Miko's gears staying stuck longer than Hinjo's, and Hinjo deciding to take the diplomatic route, and Roy even considering those possibilities while he's really really pissed.

Miko had already shown she was unwilling to turn people she thought guilty over to azure city justice and was going to be the instrument of justice herself.

Thats not the sort of risk you take for a murderer. An innocent, yes. A psyco murderer, no.

It looks to me that only after Roy attacks (with the weird green thing--does that affect her at all, or only undead?)

That's an effect of Roy being really really pissed. The blacksmith that forged it said it was harmful to undead, but who knows.

You assume that Rich has the same view as a being of pure law and good, and obviously that is not quite true. In this case, I believe that Roy's actions were not "good" and thus must have either a) been covered off-panel by the being of pure law and good, or b) the author of the comic has a different idea of "good" morality than I do, and the being of pure law and good has been corrupted by the storytellers ethics.

Or the mechanics of the story. Roy is a character within a world working on set mechanics. Those mechanics need to be taken into account when deciding morality. One of those mechanics is hit points, which means that attacking a high level character with a "lethal" weapon such as a greatsword is the equivalent of punching them.. something that will HURT, but won't kill.

In the real world, would you have any moral problem with someone reacting to the murder of someone they liked by beating the murderer over the head with a pool cue? Thats roughly the lethality of a greatsword to a high level character.

That is perfectly fine, but I think that we cannot argue as if the deva is actually a being of pure law and goodness, as it is simply a construct in a webcomic.

I think the fact that, in Roys universe, the act wasn't considered evil is moral justification for a character within that universe. In other words, you can't blame roy for acting according to the rules and time of a different universe that he's only sometimes even aware of.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-13, 01:41 AM

This is an invalid argument, because when Roy attacked Miko, she was not threatening. A similar instance would be if Miko had picked up her katana and moved towards Roy (or Belkar or Hinjo), and then I doubt you would find anybody attacking Roy at all.

... on these boards? Where belkar is chaotic good?

The point of the argument is specific to the point the other poster is making. Its pointing out that , on some level, self defence is always pre emptive.

However, a similar circumstance would be if the person with the knife picked it up and stood there shell shocked. Is an immediate attack warranted? No.

If someone picks up a knife after committing a violent crime you're allowed to shoot them. "Shell shocked" is an emotional state that can only be subjectively guessed at by other people. She doesn't have a sign that says "Please wait. Going crazy in a non violent manner. Does not compute. Does not compute Processing. Processing Processing"

For all roy knows, She's going to burst into violent action (probably towards him) any second.

Thats on top of the fact that, as far as moral justification, She deserved to be knocked up side the head with a greatsword a few times at the least because of her actions.

hamishspence

2009-07-13, 01:43 AM

If the knife is on the ground and i bend to pick it up, yes the cop is supposed to give a warning , but if I keep going for it I'm a dead man.

Tom Clancy appears to agree- in Teeth of the Tiger his cop (FBI agent) shoots the murderer the moment they grab their knife, and explains that according to the guidelines, a person with a knife within a certain range is an immediate and lethal threat, even to a person with a gun.

Admittedly the cop really really wanted to soot the murderer, and made noise in the hope that the murderer would snatch up their weapon on hearing and seeing him, but the point is that (at least according to some authors) given sufficient excuse (murderer picks up lethal wepaon in front of you) a cop need give no warning, nor wait for the murderer to start using their weapon again.

(Though certain people deride the book for "unrealistic portrayal" of cop procedure.)

Jagos

2009-07-13, 01:58 AM

Folks, let's also remember, Roy is neither a paladin nor a cop. He's an adventurer that reacted to someone getting killed in front of him. If I were in the same boat, I'd probably have done the same thing.

David Argall

2009-07-13, 04:04 AM

. A successful insanity plea does not mean the punishment is reduced or eliminated; simply that they get the care that they need, however long that takes, and more often than not they are forcibly detained at a mental health center (that is trained for dangerous people) for far longer than they would have their prison sentence.
The successful insanity defense does indeed reduce or eliminate the punishment. Now as noted, the treatment can keep one confined longer than the crime would, but the treatment is not punishment [even if the difference can look distinctly small.] But there is just no necessary connection between the crime and the time spent in treatment. You could be confined for life after a parking ticket, or be free the next day after a murder.

This is only true in reality; it seems far more likely that in D&D, when there are resurrection and raise dead spells, and hit dice, that a deadly weapon would be used to incapacitate, and a raise dead spell used to fix any error that occurred during the arrest.
D&D also defines these weapons as lethal. So your use of them is presumed to be attempted murder unless you can prove both justification for the attack and/or your use was in a non-lethal manner.

I beg your pardon?!?
Roy had never seen Xykon. He knew of only 1 person who had seen him, a total of 1 time. He had to search for years to find him. He knew of nothing that Xykon was doing that would harm him in any way.
How do you see a threat there?

Truth be told, at that situation he had the right to kill Miko.
There are very few situations where one has the right to kill, and an individual who is just standing there, in the presence of the head of government is not one of them.

But he is not a murderer, as you unwillingly evidenced yourself by failing to produce any better evidence in the contrary than a strip where he is killing Xykon's Goblin soldiers at their own stronghold.
What he is is someone who will kill deliberately and in cold blood.

Quite why you think that suggests that he would want to kill Miko I can only attempt to guess.
It challenges the claim that he would not kill a helpless Miko.

Sure, if you consider armed soldiers assembled for duty "helpless", I guess.

They are lying there, unable to do anything to stop Roy from killing them, or even be aware of the threat. That is helpless under all standard definitions.

Roy was attacked with Unholy Blight a moment later.
Which he was unaware of at the time of the killings.

Which strip? Some fanfic, I suppose? Certainly not the canon, published ones.

596. V explains it quite adequately.

So now Vaarsuvius is above the law and has power of judge and/or jury?
Any chaotic thinks so, at least in some cases. Indeed, I have quoted form BoED to show that even a paladin may decide to be judge, jury, and executioner in certain cases.

Doubtful. Even though failing a Listen check is a running gag, I don't think it would be failed in this regard on suge a huge part of the plot.
A failed listening check can be quite plot central. And this is not a major plot point at all. With a good lawyer and a friendly court, Roy might not be convicted of more than a misdemeanor.

Seriously though, Roy acted to the best of his ability. Why would any Paladins put him on more charges when he acted mostly like they would do at one of their own?
They would not. The point is simply that Hinjo's claim of Roy not having done anything can not be taken at face value.

And the trial fix? Wasn't Roy's idea. FYI. ;)
And how was Hinjo to know that? Shojo's remarks make it seem very possible he was indeed involved. Unlike Miko, Hinjo does not jump from suspicion to certainty of guilt, but there are definitely grounds for suspicion.

Funny. That's not what happened to Elan. They took him down and even whacked him. And that was after a murder... Hmmm...
And you see how well that worked. The cops beat up and arrested the victim of the crime, while letting the criminal mastermind walk away. That is not exactly an ringing endorsement of rushing to the attack.
We can speculate that Nale had some more to his master plan, but his planning has been sloppy before, and so if we just follow the text, the cops just standing at the door and ordering "Nale" to surrender would have resulted in Nale's plan falling apart. Elan would have been able to create doubt about just who was who, with the result both would have been taken in, and as we see later, Nale would have quickly been unmasked.

But he has the higher problem of a murderer on his hands and no backup. I would think that's a higher priority than Roy, who's done his best to follow everything he's been asked, who beat up Miko for said murder.
Right, which means that his statement can not be accepted as an endorsement of Roy's behavior.

I doubt highly it's the wrong action to accept that Miko is a person that can't be reasoned with when it hasn't worked in the past.
And on other occasions, it has worked.

Ok, so how is he supposed to know every last detail within ~ 3 months?

Doesn't matter. The law assumes he knows it anyway.

A trivial event that says she's armed. She's guilty of treason and at the very least 2nd degree murder. Why take a chance that she may escape?
It would appear that attacking her increases the chance she will escape. In fact, she is barely prevented from leaving the area. If she is just left to stand there, there is much more time to summons additional paladins and guards [and the high priest who apparently arrived within moments.]

The battle in question wasn't similar to the one with Miko and Roy in the throne room.
And as I said, we start this sort of cycle with a claim that Miko would always or never do X, and when confronted with evidence that she had indeed, there is this claim of a difference, which somehow was not mentioned in the original statement.
The certainty needed to defend Roy just does not exist.

Until then, Roy keeping her busy, as the highest Good leveled PC decided to take matters into his own hands and beat her into submission.
As noted many a time before, there is no evidence he was trying to beat her into submission. He said and meant he wanted to beat her up.

there was NO point in Roy trying a diplomacy check if he already knew it wouldn't work.
And there is no sign he even considered whether it would work or not.

No, she acknowledged that her information gathering was flawed, not that she, Miko the Infallible, was wrong.
Which means in turn that she acknowledged she was in error and we can not be certain she won't acknowledge an error in the current situation.

Hold the phone... You're using the strips as established fact but also stating that Hinjo and even the author's words are not to be trusted?

[quote= Jagos]Sorry that doesn't compute...
It's not even unusual. The author is mortal, and can be expected to be wrong now and then. You take the same attitude towards the author when you decline to accept Roy's word that "All I care about..."

I specified spells as well. The party has relatively easy access to zone of truth at the least. You’re also assuming most judges in the OoTS verse have level appropriate magic items and are level 10+. None of those are known.

And neither is the reverse known. But our base assumption would be of general equality and thus the judge having much better magic, and spells, for judging.

What precisely is the difference between locking someone in a cell and locking them in a padded room?
Often not much. However, the criminal is in jail for, say, 5 years. The insane may be in there for 5 minutes or 50 years, depending not on the crime, but on when some figure says he is "cured" and not on what crime he did.

Look, when some nutjob has just picked up a sword after using it to kill a helpless old man is NOT the time to delve into their ?”Lifetime: Why men are evil” movie of the week flashback.
Which is why we have a judge do it later.

If you have good reasons to think that, you haven’t been sharing them. Do you see the circular reasoning here?
Roy states his reason is to hurt Miko, a reason he should recognize as evil. His actions ended up making it harder to arrest Miko and nearly caused the death of Hinjo and/or Belkar. It very nearly caused the escape of Miko.

O chul is, at this point, halfway between the palace and the Inn.
O-Chul is back in the throne room in time to cart Miko away in 411. It would seem he is considerably closer than that.

Yes, something stops Roy from aiding them. THEY WEREN”T THERE.
They were not in the throne room. But they are obviously somewhere not too far away.

If I kill a helpless old man with a butcher knife, drop it, the second I pick it back up a cop has the legal and moral right to turn me into swiss cheese.

Nope. The cop orders you to drop it, and will continue to order that until you do, or make some movement to escape or attack. He may not shoot until you do [tho he often faces a quite friendly court if he does.]

I’m saying that her level of crazy was not signifigantly influenced by Roy’s attack.
Before he attacks, she is just standing there. After he attacks, she starts fighting. It would seem her behavior is quite influenced by his attack.

I suppose you object to police shooting tasering people because its punishing them twice in addition to sending them to jail?
The police taser people who are resisting arrest, not people who are just standing there. [And resisting arrest is an additional crime, meriting additional punishment.]

If it’s a real world where any attack with a deadly weapon is an intent to kill, then Miko’s retrieval of her sword means she’s ready to kill at a moments notice. That means she needs to be killed now before she kills someone else.

But as already noted, this is not how the real world operates. The weapon holder is not shot out of hand, but only after attempts are made to get surrender, or the weapon holder attacks.

Roy yelled out loud that he was starting the fight. The balls in your court to provide some evidence that Hinjo didn’t know about the attack.
Point, but not a major one. If we take that as when Hinjo first noticed the fight, he can be in doubt as to who started it.

So anything I don’t know is meaningless, but anything you don’t know but need to know to prove your point is fact?
Feel free to point out the logic that supports thinking what you don't know is reasonable.

You ignore and make up a lot to ignore that Roy let Miko live.
It's a trivial point. Lots of killers will not finish off a body, especially with a cop looking at them.

In order to read things your way, you have to ignore Roy standing down, Roy not finishing off Miko off panel, and you have to assume that the guards arrived just after Miko went down.
Feel free to show how any of this is unreasonable.

Definite threat by your definition is an oxymoron, because the future isn't KNOWN and you're not allowed to act until you know it.
Read the MM definition of "Always". It means "really really often", not "every time". The same applies to nearly all uses of absolutes in real life. You don't Know that he is about to attack, you merely know it, and that is the standard we accept.

It’s the only way you can explain the action ACCORDING TO YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS. It’s a very unlikely explanation, which makes your presuppositions equally unlikely.
Why is it unlikely?

The judgment of a BEING OF PURE LAW AND GOOD with a rulebook that is literally 40 feet high writ with flaming letters, a primordial being who’s very essence is carved out of the raw existence of Lawful good… a being qualified to judge the immortal souls of the dead and decide their fate for all eternity has questionable judgment?
Durn right. Look at how casually she accepts Roy's defense of fraud. We are simply looking at the writer's opinions, and they are not particularly skilled in moral theory.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-13, 04:46 AM

[QUOTE] And neither is the reverse known. But our base assumption would be of general equality and thus the judge having much better magic, and spells, for judging.

Are you schizophrenic or the queen of england, because these are NOT my assumptions. They're yours. you. Singular. You've also HAD to assume them in order to support your position, completely out of whole cloth.

In order to cast high level spells you need to be a high level caster, ie a member of a class that casts spells such as a cleric or a wizard. If that was the case, what on earth is the difference between the party cleric and the judge cleric in town?

Often not much. However, the criminal is in jail for, say, 5 years. The insane may be in there for 5 minutes or 50 years, depending not on the crime, but on when some figure says he is "cured" and not on what crime he did.

And that "cure" may very well involve execution. During the arrest process an insane person is treated exactly as a criminal.

Which is why we have a judge do it later.

Have him do your Eulogy while you're at it.

Roy states his reason is to hurt Miko, a reason he should recognize as evil.

Good people are allowed to bash evil doers upside the head with large blunt objects. Miko had just been announced and evil doer by the 12 gods themselves.

His actions ended up making it harder to arrest Miko and nearly caused the death of Hinjo and/or Belkar. It very nearly caused the escape of Miko.

OR his preemptive strike was the 20 points of damage than enabled Roy to SAVE hinjo's life and prevent her escape. I can deal with the ambiguity inherent in judging someone's actions after the event. Your ideology requires that you dictate events that you have no way of knowing. You do not know that Miko was, at any juncture, amenable to diplomacy. You do now know that she would have surrendered without Roy attacking.

O-Chul is back in the throne room in time to cart Miko away in 411. It would seem he is considerably closer than that.

411 is a minimum of 10 minutes after 410. We know this because the cleric is finishing up a resurrection spell.

They were not in the throne room. But they are obviously somewhere not too far away.

Too far away to matter.

Nope. The cop orders you to drop it, and will continue to order that until you do, or make some movement to escape or attack. He may not shoot until you do [tho he often faces a quite friendly court if he does.]

And he'll face a friendly court for the reasons I've laid out.. that someone going for a weapon is dangerous, the extra few seconds of shooting could mean the difference between your life and death, and the person you killed was a psyco killer anyway, so small loss.

Before he attacks, she is just standing there. After he attacks, she starts fighting. It would seem her behavior is quite influenced by his attack.

Her immediate behavior, you're trying to apply it to 2 minutes after the event when she was talking with Hinjo.

The police taser people who are resisting arrest, not people who are just standing there. [And resisting arrest is an additional crime, meriting additional punishment.]

Believe me, police WILL taser you if you're just standing there and not moving where they think you should be.

Resisting arrest is something that will be punished by the courts, so your whole double jeopardy goes out the window right there.

Point, but not a major one. If we take that as when Hinjo first noticed the fight, he can be in doubt as to who started it.

It is a major one. You need to have Hinjo not hear Roy shouting from 5 feet away. It shows two problems

1) Is that a paladin and legal authority had no problem with Roys attack

2) That you're willing to twist reality in order to make your presuppositions plausible. you can't handle reality as it is so you need to change it.

Feel free to point out the logic that supports thinking what you don't know is reasonable.

Specifically? Its circularity. Every time you Get to an unknown variable, you make it up so that it agrees with your presupposition, and then use it to support your presupposition.

Example: Whether or not Hinjo knew Roy started the fight. Whether the Diva called Roy on his actions. How far away the other paladins were. Whether Miko could be talked down or had snapped completely. Whether Roy would have used diplomacy if he thought it would work, why roy didn't finish off miko, why Roy backed down when hinjo intervened ... You need to make up answers that make Roy out to be a horrible person in order to reach the conclussion that Roy is a horrible person.

We know that Roy is reluctant to kill when he can avoid it. In Origins he

Stops a fight with orcs mid fight once he realizes they can be reasoned with

With the bandits instead of slitting their throats when he legally could have, he left them tied up.

He lets hinjo try to talk her down, and then doesn't finish her off.

It's a trivial point. Lots of killers will not finish off a body, especially with a cop looking at them.

Its a HUGE point. The entire crux of your argument is that Roy wants to kill Miko. The glaringly obvious contradiction of the facts with your hypothesis is that Roy DOESN"T kill miko.

Feel free to show how any of this is unreasonable.

Done and done.

Read the MM definition of "Always". It means "really really often", not "every time". The same applies to nearly all uses of absolutes in real life. You don't Know that he is about to attack, you merely know it, and that is the standard we accept.

Its obviously not the standard you accept or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Why is it unlikely?

You need to ask my why a PALADIN 1) Didn't hear a conversation 5 feet away from him AND 2) Decided to lie about hearing said conversation is simply less likely than... he heard what Roy did and realy didn't have a problem with it?

Durn right. Look at how casually she accepts Roy's defense of fraud. We are simply looking at the writer's opinions, and they are not particularly skilled in moral theory.

But you are? No.

What the writer is an expert, and is in fact the final authority on, is the characters motivations. Your .. interpretation of events requires certain motivations to be in place or they fall apart. The author is in a better position to pass judgement on Roy than you simply because all the unknowns you need to slant one way are not unknowns to him.

Would Roys actions be morally justified if

-Roy was firmly convinced he was Miko's next target?
-Roy was certain his diplomacy score was NOT going to cut it in talking down?
-Roy didn't know that Hinjo was going to snap out of it in time to try to talk miko down?
-Roy was sure miko was going to attack as soon as her synapses recconected?
-Roy would have been willing to try diplomacy if he thought it would have worked?
-Roy didn't finish off Miko because he didn't want to kill her since she'd already been beaten?

LuisDantas

2009-07-13, 05:55 AM

Roy took Miko down easily. Hinjo, Roy, and Belkar against the fallen Miko were not in serious danger.

Sorry, but that is not what I see from #408 and following strips. Hinjo was lucky to have survived Miko as things were.

She stopped attacking when Hinjo intervened. That is one other thing.

That was her duty. Heck, not killing Shojo was her duty too. And in both stances she ended up prefering the bloodthirsty way.

What about Miko makes you loathe the character enough to not want to see positive aspects that are portrayed in the comic? She is more sad or pathetic to me.

I go by the published strips. And she is indeed sad and pathetic, particularly there at the end; her final run that began with her rationalization for fleeing jail was quite disgusting for her self-delusion.

I don't think it is fair to say that I do not want to see positive aspects in her. For one thing, I called attention to how reasonable she was in #250 a while ago. It is just that she went quite downhill from there, and was very much ruined the moment she let her hubris take control of her completely after hearing of Shojo's double act.

She did not step back. She suddenly attacked Hinjo after being a finger's length away from surrendering. Link to comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)

The difference being...?

Kaytara

2009-07-13, 05:59 AM

Ok, so Roy effectively Tortured hundreds of goblins? Where is the moral outrage at Roy Coup de gracing helpless goblins back in #11 ? Thats torture!

No. Causing pain and injury isn't enough to qualify as torture. Torture is done to a helpless opponent above and beyond what is necessary in order to get information or for the fun of inflicting pain. By your definition, every soldier ever involved in combat is a torturer. Thats not what the word means, and it cheapens the horror of the act.
You're losing sight of why this was even brought up. You seem to be arguing that Roy was not violating Miko's rights in any significant way because he "only" battered her up a bit. With a sword. It was my bad for unnecessarily clinging to the comparison with torture instead of flat-out saying that unnecessarily injuring people is still violating their rights.

Its because you're relying on a court to determine what is right for you. That's only as good as the court making the decision, and there's no reason to believe that a court knows that more than anyone else unless you're lawful. Courts have other motives besides good, such as proof, president, and law that can get in the way of doing the right thing.
Which means that it's not always effective, not that it's somehow no longer an issue of morality. It just becomes a separate subject - do I trust the courts to take care of the problem? Do I trust myself to take care of the problem?

I fail to see why we're discussing this, anyway. Whether it is legal or moral makes no difference, as Roy is under an obligation to uphold both parts of his alignment.

If the knife is on the ground and i bend to pick it up, yes the cop is supposed to give a warning , but if I keep going for it I'm a dead man.
Only if the cop is a twitchy wuss. Considering that the cop is standing likely out of arm's reach and pointing a projectile weapon at you while you have only the knife? No, it's definitely preferred to keep demanding surrender and only resort to shooting if the person actually makes a violent move against you.

No, i said IF. The odds of the circumstance penalty from Roys attack affecting the diplomatic outcome have to take into account the possibility that the DC is so high that the affect of the circumstance penalty is automatically nothing. (averaging in a few 0's along with 5% * the numeric value of the penalty)
Of course. But since we don't actually know what the DC is and have no way of determining it, it becomes moot. All we know is that it's possible, because nothing says the DC can't be low enough to work. Which is pretty much what I've been saying the entire time. There's no way to be certain, but Roy's attack hurt chances of diplomacy, whatever they were.

Strictly from a rationale point of view, its a little unfair of Roy to even consider there WOULD be a diplomacy check. Hinjo was busy with his uncle. If he'd spend one more second with that, Miko would have escaped. You're relying on Roy's future psycic powers to know that Hinjo isn't going to spend 1 second more than he did cradling his uncles dead body.
Since we don't see what Hinjo does after he runs off to his uncle, he may be standing just outside the panel and watching the fight for all we know. And I repeat: he couldn't have started watching it only early enough to stop her escape, because otherwise he wouldn't have remarked on how much Roy enjoyed the whole thing.

Do you think there's ANY chance ROY could have talked Miko down? I don't. Without that, the comparison becomes ....
I think that if there WAS a chance, it was highest while she was standing there in a shock. If trying to talk was a priority (which it should be for someone unbiased), that juncture would have been the time to try it and attacking instead botched that chance.

No. Once you loose a surprise round its gone.
So what? Miko only almost killed Hinjo because he chose to make it a duel and Roy chose to let him do that until the very last moment. I think that if they'd actually worked together, they could have taken Miko down easily. In short, Miko was a lethal threat to them because they decide to make it interesting by each fighting her one-on-one.

Besides which, if they tried to talk... Yes, they would have lost the surprise round. What they would have gained is a chance to instantly resolve the situation without further violence and without further danger to themselves. If I had that chance, I'd take it over some crappy surprise round attack that is SURE to enrage her and cause further danger to myself. You argue that there is no chance at all of diplomacy working because she's just that crazy and so effectively the option isn't there at all. I think the chance was there because her universe had just collapsed and she was much more likely to consider new ideas. We'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation. But I do think that simply believing that talking wouldn't work does not absolve you from the moral and legal obligation to try talking first anyway, even if you don't think it'll be effective, and then resort to violence if necessary.

How much damage can Miko dish out in 10-20 seconds? She managed to take out the order in about 32 seconds.
While she was still a paladin and Roy was robbed of his greatest shtick. And I don't see what's wrong with actually calling Hinjo for help if Roy feels that he is in danger of being killed. Which, by the way, he didn't seem to think. He chose to "get involved" with some smug and rather justified confidence that he was a match for her this time.

Hinjo had to have heard Roy. He shouted (all caps) I'm kicking your fallen ass right now! followed by what was probably a loud arrrrgg! from miko.
Which is when he attacked, making it too late for diplomacy.

Roy didn't plan for the diplomacy check because he didn't know it was comming and had no reason to suspect it was coming. What possible evidence do you have that Roy was delibrately trying to sabotage a future diplomacy check that 1) He didn't know was comming and 2) went along with when the possibility was brought up?!?
Deliberately sabotage? Not as such. He just didn't care. "All that matters to me is that you killed this guy, which means that I'm beating you up". In short, he didn't like Miko enough to try and talk her into surrendering when he had an opportunity to beat her into submission and get away with it.

You're not an adventurer. You don't die if you stand there for too long trying to come up with a decision making model.
You don't instantly die if you try to talk to someone, either. In fact, it usually decreases your chances of dying.

So if someone with a knife is advancing on someone with a gun how close do they have to get before you can shoot? I mean, the person MIGHT decide at 6 feet out that they don't realy want to do this. Can you judge them at 12 feet for what they MIGHT try to do at 3?
Of course not. You have to keep telling them to surrender. If they start charging you with a knife then it's a matter of milliseconds, anyway, and any moment is fine. If they're just slowly advancing on you you're allowed to shoot when they're so close that the could attack next.

Yes, because she can't kill people when she's dead or incapacitated. The attack gets her closer to that.

She can't kill people if she's just been talked into surrendering and has been taken away to prison, either. The attack gets her closer to incapacitation but forfeits any chance of the above occurring.

It all comes down to you being for some reason completely certain that the chances of Miko willingly surrendering at that point were exactly zero and so Roy needn't even bother with talking. I think the chances were above zero and thus a course of action that forfeits that chance for the sake of a meager chip at her hitpoints is unjustified.

LuisDantas

2009-07-13, 06:24 AM

Actually, he is not doing the best he can with the information that he has. He is using this as an excuse to fufill his personal motives.

Roy's motives are not to detain someone that committed murder; his motives are very personal, vengeful, selfish motives. These are not the definition of good-they would be neutral or evil, as they involve attacking someone.

Attacking someone is par of course in D&D-based worlds, for people of whatever alignment. How could we have LG Fighters at all were it not so?

I take issue with your certainty about Roy's motives. Sure he had personal issues with Miko - it would be a miracle if he had not, at that point - but that in no way negates his sincere desire to detain Miko for her murder. He claims as much during the fight and he is also quite sincere about her personal issues at that same time, so I don't understand why you are sure that he is lying.

I know we're all looking at the same strip (as I type this I realize that I haven't looked at the beginning of this topic in quite some time and I may not actually be looking in the right place) and we are all putting different weight on Miko's mental instability. If she is freaking out so much, why isn't Roy even trying to get her to calm down?

Quite frankly, Roy is perhaps the worst conceivable person to attempt that, possibly worse than even Belkar. Check his lousy closing speech at #250 so that you will understand why.

We don't have thought ballons to double-check, but really, why should Roy even try diplomacy at that point? Miko would not listen to her - and I would not even blame her, I really would not.

Should Roy have instead stepped aside and let Hinjo handle the situation? Quite possibly. It would certainly make Miko less likely to snap in some degree. It might have made a significant difference, although I am now less confident on that.

In a more realistic combat setting, I would consider that by striking first Roy makes Miko a less capable fighter for the rest of the scene, thereby reducing overall dangers to himself, Belkar and Hinjo. In fact, I still do, despite being less than certain that combat mechanics do support that reading. But OOtS is not that rigorous about following combat rules anyway.

It would be my initial instinct that you prepare yourself for battle, but before instigating a fight that is possibly unnecessary, you talk it out, try to get her to see that she should think, and not act. Roy doesn't give her this chance, and instead forces her hand, which in her messed up mind means fight until there is no one else to fight.

I agree. I will even agree that it is, or at least hints of, a character flaw of his, somewhat lampshaded by #250. Roy, with fair reason or otherwise, enjoys and uses his opportunities for putting Miko down - and to his credit, as of #409 he is so very aware of that fact that he says so much out aloud for all to hear.

I won't however go the extra mile and claim that he should have given Miko that chance. That would be expecting him to risk his life on the mental stability and behavior of Miko, and by my reading Miko had forfeited her own personal safety at that point by murdering Shojo, and confirmed that choice by grabbing her sword from the floor at that time.

Another thing that people have pointed out (in other threads) is that the PC's know what their die rolls are. Roy would very easily have seen the last time that he fought her that if he was wielding his sword his +6 to hit and +7 to damage (Those are right now, thanks Kish!) would have been enough to overwhelm Miko. Roy isn't surprised when he is beating Miko gravely in page 2 panel 2; he does not say, "hey, look at that! now that I have my sword I'm easily beating you! That's a surprise!" he does say "Now that I have my sword I'm much stronger." His facial expressions also seem to be quite clear; smug, then determined. Nowhere in this battle does it show us his confusion about why he can so easily win when he struggled so mightily before.

Very true, but I don't see your point here. Roy knows, or at least truly expects, this fight to favor him decisively.

But this is not a fight for honor or fair competition to begin with; it is an effort to bring justice and safety to a situation where both are needed, so he is entitled to use whatever advantages he has as long as they don't significantly raise risks of harm for the involved people. Had he used poison, a Vorpal sword or something else that might suddenly kill her instead of gradually wearing her, I would be worried. But far as I can tell, he did not.

LuisDantas

2009-07-13, 06:53 AM

D&D also defines these weapons as lethal. So your use of them is presumed to be attempted murder unless you can prove both justification for the attack and/or your use was in a non-lethal manner.

To say so is to abuse the D&D setting and rules. That the weapons deal lethal damage has nothing whatsoever to do with using them being "attempted murder".

Despite being of course quite capable of killing someone in just one strike in the real world, under D&D rules a greatsword would have to be very unusual in order to kill someone all of a sudden. It does instead cause abstract HP damage, which can be healed with no permanent harm. So it does not matter at all if the damage dealt is considered lethal or non-lethal as far as Roy manages to avoid putting her at 0 HP or below.

And, of course, if you want to read that fight by more realistic rules (which would be reasonable in and of itself), than there is no point in talking about lethal and non-lethal weapons and damage, for there are no such things in real life.

Roy had never seen Xykon. He knew of only 1 person who had seen him, a total of 1 time. He had to search for years to find him. He knew of nothing that Xykon was doing that would harm him in any way.
How do you see a threat there?

What are you talking about? Is this an expansion on your talk about #011 earlier?

If so, it is still weird to compare the situation with #408. Completely different scenarios, and #011 is still quite useless to support your claims about Roy being "a cold-blooded murderer".

There are very few situations where one has the right to kill, and an individual who is just standing there, in the presence of the head of government is not one of them.

Luckily for Roy, #408 was a completely different situation.

What he is is someone who will kill deliberately and in cold blood.

Are you going by #011 to say so? Really?

It challenges the claim that he would not kill a helpless Miko.

Not at all, David.

They are lying there, unable to do anything to stop Roy from killing them, or even be aware of the threat. That is helpless under all standard definitions.

Oh, I think I see what you mean now. Vaarsuvius put them to sleep in #010 so a case could be made that Roy could have left them alive without any fighting.

That is very much grasping at straws, however. They are invading hostile territory. That the Goblins are sleeping does not change the fact that they were on guard duty and fully armed. By being there in that situation they were implicitly running risk of life and limb.

Which he was unaware of at the time of the killings.

So you are claiming that the Order had no idea whatsoever of who would be inside the very dungeon they were invading? Not even whether it would be Good or Evil creatures? Maybe they expected it to be a wine cellar or something and were surprised to thing an Evil Goblin Cleric inside? Why did they even enter the place to begin with, anyway?

Sorry, David, but that is basic failure to understand what a Dungeon IS. You have read #013, have you not?

596. V explains it quite adequately.

Yes, he does. On that much we agree.

They would not. The point is simply that Hinjo's claim of Roy not having done anything can not be taken at face value.

Nor does it have to, since Hinjo is in fact the legitimate authority at that point. And then there is the little matter of we having seen that he is indeed right.

derfenrirwolv

2009-07-13, 06:57 AM

You're losing sight of why this was even brought up. You seem to be arguing that Roy was not violating Miko's rights in any significant way because he "only" battered her up a bit. With a sword. It was my bad for unnecessarily clinging to the comparison with torture instead of flat-out saying that unnecessarily injuring people is still violating their rights.

Someone has a right not to be tortured. They do not have a right not to be executed. If The sword whacks were hurting so much, she can either surrender or commit sepeku, her choice.

[QUOTE]
Which means that it's not always effective, not that it's somehow no longer an issue of morality. It just becomes a separate subject - do I trust the courts to take care of the problem? Do I trust myself to take care of the problem?

You've been defining your morality by legality for some time now. IE, Roy killing Miko isn't right because she has a right to a trial and its not legal.

I fail to see why we're discussing this, anyway. Whether it is legal or moral makes no difference, as Roy is under an obligation to uphold both parts of his alignment.

because the title of the thread asks for a MORAL justification.

Only if the cop is a twitchy wuss. Considering that the cop is standing likely out of arm's reach and pointing a projectile weapon at you while you have only the knife? No, it's definitely preferred to keep demanding surrender and only resort to shooting if the person actually makes a violent move against you.

Yeah, difference between shooting someone in reality and the movies is that after you shoot the, they're still up moving and dangerous for a few seconds. Long enough to stab you. Its not wussing out to say "I want to go home to my wife and kids more than I care if someone that deserves to die, dies. Sorry" BLAM.

Of course. But since we don't actually know what the DC is and have no way of determining it, it becomes moot. All we know is that it's possible, because nothing says the DC can't be low enough to work. Which is pretty much what I've been saying the entire time. There's no way to be certain, but Roy's attack hurt chances of diplomacy, whatever they were.

No. IF the DC for diplomacy was out of hinjo's reach then Roy didn't hurt the chances at all.

Since we don't see what Hinjo does after he runs off to his uncle, he may be standing just outside the panel and watching the fight for all we know. And I repeat: he couldn't have started watching it only early enough to stop her escape, because otherwise he wouldn't have remarked on how much Roy enjoyed the whole thing.

And once again, yes he could have. Hinjo has demonstrated that he's not deaf. He could be looking strait at his uncle and still hear Roy's comments.

I think that if there WAS a chance, it was highest while she was standing there in a shock. If trying to talk was a priority (which it should be for someone unbiased), that juncture would have been the time to try it and attacking instead botched that chance.

Time for who to try it? Roy? The person miko thought was in league with Xykon?

I'm going to say THAT diplomacy check was way... way.. WAY out of Roy's range. Given the opportunity to pick between the possibility that Roy was continuing an elaborate plot through peaceful means or having to admit that She was wrong, there is NO, none zilch zero NADA chance that she would pick the latter.

So what? Miko only almost killed Hinjo because he chose to make it a duel and Roy chose to let him do that until the very last moment. I think that if they'd actually worked together, they could have taken Miko down easily. In short, Miko was a lethal threat to them because they decide to make it interesting by each fighting her one-on-one.

And she'd been de powered a good deal further that a simple fall would warrant. (probably as the plot required...) I think someone mentioned her magic items being part of her membership in the saphire guard. Did Roy have any reason to suspect that?

Besides which, if they tried to talk... Yes, they would have lost the surprise round. What they would have gained is a chance to instantly resolve the situation without further violence and without further danger to themselves. If I had that chance, I'd take it over some crappy surprise round attack that is SURE to enrage her and cause further danger to myself. You argue that there is no chance at all of diplomacy working because she's just that crazy and so effectively the option isn't there at all.

Right now. tell me. Do you think ---->ROY<----Could have talked her down when she was doing her wth moment?

I think the chance was there because her universe had just collapsed and she was much more likely to consider new ideas. We'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation. But I do think that simply believing that talking wouldn't work does not absolve you from the moral and legal obligation to try talking first anyway, even if you don't think it'll be effective, and then resort to violence if necessary.

No. Under no circumstances do you morally have to risk your life for a murderer you caught red handed.

While she was still a paladin and Roy was robbed of his greatest shtick. And I don't see what's wrong with actually calling Hinjo for help if Roy feels that he is in danger of being killed.

The problem with that scenario is, mechanically, She should have been able to take Roy and Hinjo easily.

Which is when he attacked, making it too late for diplomacy.

The idea that Roys attack made diplomacy impossible is a lynch pin of your argument, and it is also false. Talking is a free action. There's no reason they can't talk and fight at the same time. Theres no reason Roy can't stop fighting once he starts. Theres no reason to believe that it was Roys attack which caused Miko to require a beating into submission

Deliberately sabotage? Not as such. He just didn't care. "All that matters to me is that you killed this guy, which means that I'm beating you up". In short, he didn't like Miko enough to try and talk her into surrendering when he had an opportunity to beat her into submission and get away with it.

Gee, and why don't people like Psychopathic murderers who bisect unarmed octogenarians?

You don't instantly die if you try to talk to someone, either. In fact, it usually decreases your chances of dying.

I gave you the chance to plug in numbers and see if that was true.

She can't kill people if she's just been talked into surrendering and has been taken away to prison, either. The attack gets her closer to incapacitation but forfeits any chance of the above occurring.

has there been a prison in OOtS that HASN"T been broken out of within 2 pages?

She killed a lot of people after she was put in prison.

It all comes down to you being for some reason completely certain that the chances of Miko willingly surrendering at that point were exactly zero and so Roy needn't even bother with talking.

As explained before, I don't require absolute certainty. Just enough certainty so that the chances of the surprise round attack leading to a better result are greater than the chance of ---->ROY <--- talking Miko down.

Roy has no ranks in diplomacy (+0 to the roll)
Roy only has an ok charismia (say a +2 bonus)
Miko thinks Roy is in league with Xykon (-10 circumstance penalty)
Miko has an overinflated ego (+10 to the dc, target REALLY doesn't want to believe you

I think the chances were above zero and thus a course of action that forfeits that chance for the sake of a meager chip at her hitpoints is unjustified.

The chances of someone comming at you with a knife at 10 feet away will decide to stop are above 0%. You admitted though that absolute certainty wasn't required to fire, so which is it?

Yours is not a morality you can apply to a D&D setting. You'd be eaten within a week.