Roy's judgement in Celestia- which acts should we expect were covered offscreen?

[hamishspence]

When Roy was judged in Celesta, we only saw some acts being judged, and there was a time gap between two strips- with association with Belkar being followed with Roy relating an adventuring story to the deva.

So, in that gap, which acts should we expect were covered offscreen?

What was covered onscreen (not always in any detail) were:

Dangling the oracle out of a window
Resisting arrest
Accepting gifts intended for a king
Abandoning a friend to an uncertain fate
Associating with an evil character
Conspiring to keep secrets from an order of paladins
Deceiving followers in order to get their help in pursuing his own goals
Enjoying verbally lambasting allies and enemies excessively.

Things I think might have been covered offscreen:

Attacking Miko immediately after Shojo's death
Abandoning prisoners in the forest with no knowledge of what would happen to them.

Can you think of others?

[Jagos]

Talking with orcs rather than just killing them.

It is indeed mentionable.

[hamishspence]

true, especially under a consequentialist:

"Any act commited by people you chose to spare when you could have permissibly killed them, are your fault"

rationale.

This is one of the reasons why Associating With Belkar was brought up- because, since Roy is Belkar's commander, that rationale actually makes sense.

Killing the sleeping goblins in DCF may possibly count as "possible unnecessary violence"

[King of Nowhere]

true, especially under a consequentialist:

"Any act commited by people you chose to spare when you could have permissibly killed them, are your fault"

rationale.


While I tend to agree with the principle, if not the letter, of said rationale, clearly it is not accepted in the ootsworld, otherwise sparing Nale's life in the dungeon of Dorukan would have been enough to send Roy to the nine hells

[Optimystik]

Judging by the levity between them after the cut, they couldn't have been covering anything too serious or too damaging to his record. In addition, we can assume that the most serious events occurred on-camera for maximum dramatic effect. So to answer your question, nothing of consequence.

[Catch]

Anything that matters would have been shown. Imagining off-screen events is a useless exercise, and in this case, it's to apply canonical judgment to issues someone finds personal. You can't prove it, nor can you logically infer that such an issue was or wasn't discussed.

This, of course, is directly related to the "Was Roy Justified" thread, and in terms of logical proofs, what you assume the Deva to have said or not said is completely irrelevant.

[Optimystik]

I think I see where hamish is going with this. Our strict Deva would be unlikely to be so cheerful with Roy just after discussing a black mark on his record.

Further, we have her explicit comment: "I see very few truly evil acts... Nothing here even merits a blip on the malev-o-meter."

Based on those two facts, we have three possibilities:

1) The items weren't discussed, due presumably to them being inconsequential.
2) The items came up and were dismissed shortly thereafter, again due to them being inconsequential.
3) The items came up and were issues for the Deva, but Roy easily explained them away; again, this points to them being inconsequential.

So no matter how you look at it, the items in hamish's post (tying up the bandit prisoners, CDG-ing the sleeping goblins, and attacking Miko) were not important to Celestia, and therefore not evil.

Whether this merits its own thread is another discussion entirely...

[hamishspence]

That is roughly what I was getting at- with the point being that:

Acts were discussed offscreen.
It is possible (however unlikely) that some of them were "truly evil acts that still do not merit a blip on the malev-o-meter".
Some of the "objectionable" acts of Roy on strip may fall into this category.

This thread is something like a preliminary to "Was X act which was not brought up onscreen morally justified" type threads-

first we discuss which acts are actually questionable enough that:

"It was brought up by the deva offscreen" becomes a reasonable hypothesis

then- we choose whether or not to create a thread of its own for the specific act.

And it shouldn't be phrased in the "Was X morally justified" fashion, otherwise people will complain about copycat threads.

"was roy doing the right thing by doing X" is a typical variation.

You can probably think of others.

[hamishspence]

Judging Roy as harshly as possible- assuming that people are right whenever they condemn Roy and wrong whenever they give him the benefit of the doubt,

and using the sourcebook that defines certain acts as evil enough to send a Lawful character to the Nine Hells even if their alignment is still Lawful Good (If done in enough amounts) (Fiendish Codex 2)

and assuming that the Malev-o-meter only registers really serious evil acts

then Roy still probably doesn't have enough to get sent down.

Abandoning Elan could, at worst, be characterized as "betraying an ally for personal gain" (2 point Corrupt act)

Attacking Miko could be characterized as "inflicting gratuitous injury" (3 point corrupt act)

Dangling the oracle could be characterized as "Intimidating torture" (any torture that does no damage) (1 point corrupt act)

Talking Hinjo into reducing the charges against Belkar could be characterized as "perverting the course of justice for personal gain" (3 point corrupt act)

Total is 8- still short of the total needed to move Roy out of LG afterlife, if his alignment is still LG.

Note that these are extreme characterizations- it is highly unlikely that the acts were considered as serious as this.

[toysailor]

I never really did like the fact that he abandoned Elan back in the woods. Sure, we shouldn't judge people based on just a single action, but I really had difficulty seeing Roy as "Good" after that.

[hamishspence]

And the main reasons he didn't go the the Neutral afterlife based on that act alone were:

He changed his mind, and went back to rescue Elan.

He learned his lesson fully- never abandon a fellow party member- to the extent of being willing to make sacrifices and take risks- exemplified by being willing to put himself under a (hopefully temporary) curse, rather than risk Elan dying.

It is also the only act the Deva mentions as capable of changing his afterlife destination just on its own.

[Mugen Nightgale]

Showing the judgement of Roy's(or anyone else for that matter) entire life time would be boring and pointless. Rich probably showed to us what matters plot-wise and comedy-wise.

[hamishspence]

Seems a reasonable hypothesis- the question is- why some things that certain people claim were far more morally wrong than Roy's abandoning Elan, were left out?

Possibly, because including them would not further the plot.

But also, possibly, because these people are vastly overrating the moral wrongness of these acs.

[David Argall]

Well, an obvious subject would be sex. It is hard to find a culture that does not have all sorts of rules on the subject and we have no reason to deem Roy any sort of virgin. It would be amazing if Roy doesn't have some sins in this area.

Kin relationships are possible here. Roy's relations with his father are obviously defective and worthy of considerable criticism. His relations [or rather lack of them] with Julia might come up. Granted, she seems quite satisfied with a quite long distant relationship, but Roy is presumably her guardian, and he may have only seen her once during the past 5 years or more.

We already know his other adventuring comes under review, and we have no reason to think his several years of that are sinless. His college years are also likely to be of interest despite his spending a lot of time studying and in the library.



Re: Roy's judgement in Celestia- which acts should we expect were covered offscreen?
true, especially under a consequentialist:

"Any act commited by people you chose to spare when you could have permissibly killed them, are your fault"
Of course this works both ways and acts of benefit would thus be to your credit, and acts they would have done if you had not killed them also have to be counted for or against you too.
However, the main qualification here is that all of these acts have to be in some degree predictable. What you have no way of knowing, you can not be blamed or blessed for. [Of course your failure to know can be a sin in and of itself, but there are plenty of facts you effectively can't learn.]

Now we have Roy sending Nale and Thog off to jail, followed by their escape and the death of some obscene number of people. It is highly likely that killing him would have saved a lot of lives [Possibly Sabine would have gotten him raised, but that is only a possibility, one Roy can hardly be blamed for overlooking.], but how would Roy know this? He knows very little of Nale at this point and while that little is not to Nale's credit, it does not suggest he is a major menace. One assumes the jail will hold him and one does not kill when one can avoid it. So we can't really blame Roy much.

Now Samantha is a different story. Roy knows her to be an active menace, and one with considerable power. His solution of just leaving her tied up is almost certainly too harsh or too soft. [If Roy does not deem killing justified, leaving her where some animal might eat her is unacceptable. But if no animal does, this is simply leaving the menace free to cause additional trouble, which she tries to do almost as soon as she wakes up.] Taking her to jail is an option despite Roy's claim otherwise. [A bandit is simply a land pirate, and can be hung or otherwise punished by whoever catches him.] But if we decide Roy is right for some reason [say Roy knows all the local authorities will either be too harsh or too soft.], that means Roy must make the decision of what to do with her, and we blame him not only for those she does attack or harm, but for a statistical average of what she might kill. [We might note that Belkar's slavery idea may be a superior solution here. Samantha stays alive, a clear benefit from her view, and she has to do something that is deemed beneficial to society, a benefit for the rest of us. So at least in theory, selling her as a slave is better than killing her.] So we do blame Roy in some unsure degree for letting Samantha go.



Further, we have her explicit comment: "I see very few truly evil acts... Nothing here even merits a blip on the malev-o-meter."

Based on those two facts, we have three possibilities:
We probably have a dozen, not counting the more likely plot-centered ones such as the writer simply didn't feel like mentioning them. One example would be that the events were there and were deemed consequential, but also present were a variety of unmentioned good deeds, which just happen to balance out the bad stuff. [Indeed, these good deeds should be there. One does not become good by just not doing evil.]

[hamishspence]

[A bandit is simply a land pirate, and can be hung or otherwise punished by whoever catches him.]

Incorrect if Wikipedia is anything to go by- (A big if)

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


The land and airborne analogues of pirates, bandits and hijackers are not subject to universal jurisdiction in the same way as piracy; this is despite strong arguments that they should be. Instead these crimes, along with terrorism, torture, crimes against internationally protected persons and the financing of terrorism are subject to the aut dedere aut judicare principle (meaning prosecute or extradite).

And even then, the assumption that a private citizen may carry out a summary execution of a pirate they catch, may be an over-assumption.

Concerning slavery as an option- see the above article. Modern outlook on a slaver is that they are an "enemy of all mankind" on a par with a pirate.

BoED also takes that view- that slavery is always evil.


Well, an obvious subject would be sex. It is hard to find a culture that does not have all sorts of rules on the subject and we have no reason to deem Roy any sort of virgin. It would be amazing if Roy doesn't have some sins in this area.

And what does "Roy may have broken the rules of his culture" have to do with "Roy may have committed an immoral act?"

also, we know when Roy lost his virginity:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html

Which, I believe, was commented on earlier- and that has age at the time would have been roughly 21.

[Optimystik]

Well, an obvious subject would be sex. It is hard to find a culture that does not have all sorts of rules on the subject and we have no reason to deem Roy any sort of virgin. It would be amazing if Roy doesn't have some sins in this area.

The same culture that has a Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands? Are you really going back into THAT discussion?


We probably have a dozen, not counting the more likely plot-centered ones such as the writer simply didn't feel like mentioning them. One example would be that the events were there and were deemed consequential, but also present were a variety of unmentioned good deeds, which just happen to balance out the bad stuff. [Indeed, these good deeds should be there. One does not become good by just not doing evil.]

Good acts "balancing out the bad stuff" result in neutrality, not admission to heaven. I can't steal my neighbor's stuff and erase that misdeed by, say, nursing a random sick puppy back to health. I have to specifically atone for my misdeed towards my neighbor, i.e. by giving his stuff back and making restitution. Roy did several good deeds between abandoning Elan and his death, but the only one that counted for the deva was actually going back to save him. Certainly none of his other acts would have saved his file from the TN bin had he not; the deva says this explicitly.

[hamishspence]

The deva specifies Good (in the context of Roy) being

"regularly risking his life against the forces of evil without expecting any compensation"

This isn't the only part of being Good, but for an adventurer, this might be the most important one, since it allows them to claim they are being:

Self-sacrificing- by the risk, the frequent loss of hit points, and the frequently getting killed.

Altruistic- because people benefit from the defeated monsters and ended raids and this is a major part of why they do it.

Now a lot of players don't play their characters like this, but I do think these are intended to be the default "adventuring reasons" for Good aligned adventurers.

[Holy_Knight]

Seems a reasonable hypothesis- the question is- why some things that certain people claim were far more morally wrong than Roy's abandoning Elan, were left out?

Possibly, because including them would not further the plot.

But also, possibly, because these people are vastly overrating the moral wrongness of these acs.

Alternatively, because they are vastly underestimating the moral wrongness of that act.



Abandoning Elan could, at worst, be characterized as "betraying an ally for personal gain" (2 point Corrupt act)


It's way more serious than that. At that moment, Roy failed on every level--as a person, as a friend, as a warrior, and as a leader. The deva was right to point to that as the most severe offense.

[David Argall]

Incorrect if Wikipedia is anything to go by- (A big if)

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

"aut dedere aut judicare principle (meaning prosecute or extradite)" doesn't seem all that different from the simple execution of pirates. Instead of "prosecute" as with pirates, a captured bandit would be prosecuted, or sent to some country that would prosecute. So the outlaw faces prosecution for either crime. Our bandit faces a little more complicated situation than the pirate, but it doesn't seem like that practical a difference.



And even then, the assumption that a private citizen may carry out a summary execution of a pirate they catch, may be an over-assumption.
Most things are over-simplifications.



And what does "Roy may have broken the rules of his culture" have to do with "Roy may have committed an immoral act?"

The point is that the very fact that each culture has lots of sexual rules, we don't need to know the particular rules Roy lives by, or what the rules are. It is simply highly likely he has violated whatever code is relevant.



The same culture that has a Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands? Are you really going back into THAT discussion?
Probably not, but we do have the point that the Tavern is described as something Roy has a particular interest in, which suggests a considerable interest in sex.



Good acts "balancing out the bad stuff" result in neutrality, not admission to heaven.
That depends on the balance. 5-5 might result in neutrality, but 10-1 will swamp one side or the other.


I can't steal my neighbor's stuff and erase that misdeed by, say, nursing a random sick puppy back to health. I have to specifically atone for my misdeed towards my neighbor, i.e. by giving his stuff back and making restitution.
In either case, you are merely balancing. There is no net virtue from the restitution. One is merely erasing the sin. By contrast the nursing of the puppy might, if done often enough and under the right conditions, produce net virtue.
So one does not need to make any restitution for a particular sin [tho it is distinctly difficult to properly manage the balance here otherwise.]


Roy did several good deeds between abandoning Elan and his death, but the only one that counted for the deva was actually going back to save him. Certainly none of his other acts would have saved his file from the TN bin had he not; the deva says this explicitly.
Which is one of the reasons to question the competence of the Deva. However the Deva does not say that sufficient virtuous acts would not save Roy. She merely says that those he actually did were not enough.

[Mystic Muse]

"
Probably not, but we do have the point that the Tavern is described as something Roy has a particular interest in, which suggests a considerable interest in sex.



which is wrong why again?

[Porthos]

which is wrong why again?

It's not. Anymore than someone reading a book for pleasure, or someone who enjoys eating because it feels good. Or running for that matter. Or any of a half-dozen other things.

It's only bad if one presumes that doing something for pleasure is a bad thing.

Well, sex might be considered bad if you're hurting someone else's feelings or toying with their emotions. But in that case, it ain't the sex that's doing it, it is the manipulation that's bad.

As long as both parties go in with eyes wide open, theoretically it's fine. They do call it "consensual sex" for a reason, you know. :smallwink:

==

Not to say that Celestia thinks that it should be one whole long orgy party up there. They seem to take after the <Real World Religion Example DELETED> idea and think that one should "work through" their bodily desires before moving on to more spiritual stuff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0493.html).

PS: As you might imagine, when this strip went live (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html), it kinda set a small portion of the forum aflame.

Just ever so slightly. :smalltongue:

So this might be dangerous waters here. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

Our bandit faces a little more complicated situation than the pirate, but it doesn't seem like that practical a difference.

The practical difference is that foreigners can't "enforce their own law" on the bandit- they are bound by local law. Whereas for the pirate, they aren't- whoever captures them doesn't need to worry about extradition as a rule.

Also the term "Enemy of all mankind" cannot be applied to the bandit.

Its a common trope in fantasy that if you don't have actualy jurisdiction over an enemy, or justification for killing them (since the bandits didnt actually succeed at killing them) you tie them up and let them work their way free.

Matthias does this to the enemy soldier pursuing him in the woods in Redwall- ambushing him, ties him up, then goes on with his mission, rather than killing him.

The soldier does get eaten by a wild animal, halfway through releasing himself.

There may be a little moral dissonance for us, but its an accepted trope in fantasy setting morality.



The point is that the very fact that each culture has lots of sexual rules, we don't need to know the particular rules Roy lives by, or what the rules are. It is simply highly likely he has violated whatever code is relevant.


Again, "violating rules" is chaotic, not Evil, unless clear harm is shown. And why is it "highly likely"? What evidence do we have about Roy's personality that suggests this?

The main problem with "if a solution exists, it is your duty to attempt it" is it fails to take into account the risks involved.

If the probability of the solution not working is (in Roy's reasonable estimation) very low, and the consequences of it failing are worse (for example, a dead Hinjo, a Miko on-the-run in Azure City, etc) he has a duty not to take a stupid risk.

In the original discussion thread for strip 408, one of the key features under discussion was the fact that Miko was armed, facing away from Roy (which means he can't read her expressions, so will have trouble anticipating what she will do) and facing toward Hinjo,

who is the new lord of the city, and has his back to her. Thus, if her mental instability (which is a reasonable condition for Roy to infer, even if he is not an expert) leads her to attack Hinjo or Roy, he won't know until it is too late.

As previously mentioned, the idea that Miko will:

"do nothing at all if noone interferes, because she is in shock, for a long enough period for Roy and Hinjo to get help"

is a massive stretch-

should Roy bet Hinjo's life on it by running to get the other paladins?
Or bet his own life by trying to alert Hinjo to go and do it- while Miko is in the way?
Or send the person the paladins's belive is in jail to do it?

All these courses are extremely risky.

[hamishspence]

In either case, you are merely balancing. There is no net virtue from the restitution. One is merely erasing the sin. By contrast the nursing of the puppy might, if done often enough and under the right conditions, produce net virtue.
So one does not need to make any restitution for a particular sin [tho it is distinctly difficult to properly manage the balance here otherwise.]


Fiendish Codex 2 explicitly states you do need to make restitution.

Committing "acts of virtue" is utterly meaningless, if the number/seriousness of "unrestituted acts" is enough to send the lawful person to Baator.

You could save a million lives, and if you had not made actual restitution in some way for, say, 2 acts of murder, you would still go there.

Not everybody likes this, since it can sometimes be very hard to "fix the murder"- and a generous DM might rule that the sacrifice of own life for no other reason than to save others, might count.

This rationale may be the one that is used for Darth Vader. Many people complained that all he did was sacrifice his life for a relative- he didn't actually fix anything.

[Kurald Galain]

Killing the sleeping goblins in DCF may possibly count as "possible unnecessary violence"

Actually, from SOD we know that the only reason goblins were created by the gods in the first place, is so that they can be killed by adventurers for the experience points

[hamishspence]

Or at least, we strongly suspect, especially if Redcloak's info is reliable-

and there is the obnoxious paladin in Origin:
-who says of orcs "they're listed as Chaotic evil, so we can kill them without alignment penalties"

[Katana_Geldar]

Yes, but that same Paladin...

...was willing to send Durkon on a suicide mission simply because he was sick of him. Somehow, I'd consider this a violation

[hamishspence]

Given OoTS's fourth-wall breaking style, it could be counted as an example of

"The sort of thing a Player would say"

Roy against Miko might also be covered- "you just did a horrible, criminal, potentially world endangering thing- I get to kick ass."

We know there are no players, but there are frequent cases of "player-think" - that is, metagaming. V on the probability of encounters is a textbook example.

[Belkster11]

Alternatively, because they are vastly underestimating the moral wrongness of that act.



It's way more serious than that. At that moment, Roy failed on every level--as a person, as a friend, as a warrior, and as a leader. The deva was right to point to that as the most severe offense.

I'd have to agree, he acted like a selfish jerk right there. I've noticed something:

We (the minority who don't like Roy because of the Elan-kidnapping thing) seem to expect Roy to be a saint just because he's a leader and the hero of the story. He's just a human and he makes mistakes. I have a feeling he'll see what Elan learned through the last three months and gain new respect for him. The last time he saw Elan before his ressurection was being an idiot and so far, Roy's seen Elan say "You're invisible!" and think the camels have humps to give THEM water. I have a feeling that Roy and Elan are about to have a huge character development with each other if a sub-plot in this book involves Lord Tyrianer/Elan's dad and Haley's dad.

[hamishspence]

There are a few who appear to not like Roy's actions because of the Miko-attacking thing, as well, but it is (probably) true, that, for most people, the abandoning of Elan was the most directly important.

Aside from the few people who claim it wasn't a morally wrong act at all, or at least, not wrong enough to be given nearly as much coverage as it was.

An example- from discussion 488:


Abandoning Elan - She makes far too much fuss in deeming this a possible valid grounds for making Roy neutral.
Now Roy does not behave well here, but observe that the rescue effort nearly killed the entire OOTS, including Elan, who wasn't in any danger until the rescue was made. [Haley might have a different opinion here, but the male members of the party would think him well off.] There is virtue to the idea of not abandoning someone, but it is obviously not without limits.

Roy would be on better grounds if he had at least made an effort to check out the actual risk and/or the actual danger to Elan before abandoning the bard, but the idea of risking everything for the rescue of one member of the team is Hollywood.

[Optimystik]

That depends on the balance. 5-5 might result in neutrality, but 10-1 will swamp one side or the other.

Alignment is a point score in Neverwinter Nights, not D&D, and not real life. I don't erase a murder by helping 10 old ladies cross the street, or even 100.


In either case, you are merely balancing. There is no net virtue from the restitution. One is merely erasing the sin. By contrast the nursing of the puppy might, if done often enough and under the right conditions, produce net virtue.
So one does not need to make any restitution for a particular sin [tho it is distinctly difficult to properly manage the balance here otherwise.

It's clear we're not going to agree, but I'd like to see you bring up all the puppies you've nursed as your murder defense in court.


Which is one of the reasons to question the competence of the Deva. However the Deva does not say that sufficient virtuous acts would not save Roy. She merely says that those he actually did were not enough.

To question the competence of the deva is to question the alignment system itself. This renders any further discussion meaningless.

[hamishspence]

Alignment is a point score in Neverwinter Nights, not D&D, and not real life. I don't erase a murder by helping 10 old ladies cross the street, or even 100.

Fiendish codex 2 does make it a points score, but only Evil and Lawful points are listed.

And in the case of "evil points" it states explicitly there is no such thing as "good points" to balance them out-

the only way to fix your afterlife destination, once the evil score is high enough (and it doesn't have to be especially high) is to atone- and atonement requires restitution, not just "more good acts"

Technically, going by Champions of Valor, it doesn't require the actual atonement spell- which is a simplification of the actual process of redemption- if the DM and the player agree, the player can roleplay the whole thing out.

Not everybody likes FC2, but it is one of the ways of getting around the silly "balance" thing with it's assumption that if a person both commits lots of serious Evil acts, and also commits lots of serious Good acts, they are Neutral and are going to a Neutral afterlife.

This was a holdover from 2nd ed, when Druids actually acted like that.