PDA

View Full Version : Was OotS good?



Trixie
2009-12-26, 08:01 PM
To clarify - OotS as in "Order of the Scribble". Since we lack knowledge on their actual actions (cough doing something so horrible the rest of the party wants to kill you cough), I compiled a short list of things known about their alignments:

Soon. Bad deeds notwithstanding, he pretty much had to be LG when they began their quest as a Paladin. He could have been a Paladin of Tyranny/Freedom, but seeing as his followers were stereotypical LGs, it is not very likely.

Lirian. Stereotypical blond-haired elf, complete with birds singing in background and spring reigning where she walked. It would be a wonderful subversion if such character was evil, but alas, she seems to be pretty good, as was...

Dorukan. Well, typical wizard. Was he good? We have no idea, but seeming as the creatures he summoned were of good subtype, celestials saw no problem in serving him and his lair was full of sigils exploding people "not of pure heart" it would be pretty damn strange if he was anything other than good. Which good, though? Since he and Lirian were the best fit possible, it is very likely they had the same alignment. Druids need to be Neutral, so both were likely to be NG (TN being far less likely).

Serini. Light hearted, good natured Halfling. Rogue might be of any alignment, but since she was the only one to try to save soon-to-be-vaporized-Soon instead of drawing her blades (and she considered taking a level in Paladin) she also rings as good. Now, why the Paladin doesn't set her on LG? Because it's fairly unlikely alignment for Rogue, and while for most people it isn't immediately obvious Paladin must be LG, it's pretty much a given he has to be Good, with capital 'G'. Serini might have misremembered that part, of was talking about Paladin of Freedom (which would be CG). Other Paladin variants (CE/LE) are extremely unlikely.

Kraagor. Not Lawful, not Evil. That's pretty much it. Half of the remaining alignments are good, though.

And, finally...

Girard. Well, despite all arguments of haters, he can't be evil for the same reasons as Kraagor (Soon would have fallen if he associated with evil character for so long, nor he would be accepted in majority-good party).

Lawful? No restrictions, but it would have been weird given his anti-authority figures speech. Still, I went back, re-read all strips with him, and it seems he had problem with religious and secular leaders ("power corrupts"), not with being lawful in general. Thus...

Well, it is possible he was actually LG :smalltongue:

Further argument for some of the above:


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Okay, slim possibility of LG Girard. He does seem closer to CG. Still, if Haley (with random stealing/killing/maiming of people - she shoot someone only to have answer V was already in the process of providing two seconds sooner, even if we disregard the whole shower incident) might be CN (and some even try to argue for CG), Miko/Eugene are/were (by word of Rich) LG, V is of any neutral alignment (duh, after last events that is a bit dubious) - then I fail to see why Girard cannot be any of the non-lawful, non-evil alignments. He, as of now, is practically saint compared to these 4 examples. Of course, this might be a case of too little data, but if 4 out of 5 good (as demonstrated above) remaining OotSers were willing to stand on his side in the confrontation with Soon, well, there was something very wrong with Soon or very good on Girard's part. No one supported Soon, which would be like for all OotS standing with Belkar or Haley against Durkon (though they would have many good arguments against him, I don't see this happening).

And before you ask - yes, Girard had Dorukan's support, Lirian stood with Dorukan and Serini, while seemingly neutral in this never bothered to inform Soon the whole oath was manufactured essentially only to save his life (as the other 4 remained in contact - the oath was there only to "ease swallowing of the bitter pill"), nor that he has wrong coordinates (for a whole century). And if Girard's comments (about bet and "good luck trying to get the real set of coordinates from her") are not outright lies, she was just as pissed on Soon as the rest of them were.

Ok, did I missed anything, or this is the sum of knowledge we have now? Anything I missed? Any comments? :smalltongue:

Callista
2009-12-26, 10:27 PM
I'd put Girard at CN, Serini at CG, Kraagor LN--best guesses.

But we don't know enough about them to tell for sure. I'm almost certain they were non-evil, for the reason you mentioned; Soon wasn't stupid enough that he wouldn't know if he were working with an evil person, nor does he strike me as the sort to rationalize something like that upon learning the truth. If there had been an evil Scribble member, they would have been summarily kicked out of the party, or else Soon would have left, the second he kicked his first figurative puppy.

There's no knowing whether their alignments changed since they split apart, though. That big fight, the aftermath, and all of the time since may have changed the surviving party members of the Scribble.

snikrept
2009-12-26, 10:30 PM
Kraagor was a Barbarian. How is that Lawful?

Raging Gene Ray
2009-12-26, 10:34 PM
I'd put Girard at CN, Serini at CG, Kraagor LN--best guesses.

Kraagor couldn't be Lawful. Barbarian. Lirian would have to be NG. Druids have to be at least partially Neutral, and she seems more of the hippy cuddly animal druid than the survival of the fittest druid.

Soon - definitely LG. I'm putting Girard at CN with possibly turning to CE later in life until we get more information. Serini...definitely some form of Good. She seems to want to be the peacemaker - wanting LG and CG to just get along...so I'd take a wild guess and put her at NG.

We really don't know much about Serini's Lawful-Chaotic tendencies other than she's a rogue.

Dorukan...the only thing I can guess is not Evil, not Chaotic (just because wizards tend to stay away from Chaos...interferes with long lonely nights of study).

doliest
2009-12-26, 10:43 PM
Giriad seems likely to be CG, maybe CN in later life; Kraagor...could be anything out of those four.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-26, 10:53 PM
Well, it seems Kraagor's death factionalized the OotS for whatever reason. This means Kraagor must have gotten along with, at very least, both Soon and Girard. Which would mean Kraagor was Good(Soon) and did not like authority(Chaotic? Neutral?). So I imagine Kraagor is either CG or NG.

Renegade Paladin
2009-12-26, 10:58 PM
Apart from nonlawful (barbarian) and nonevil (associates with a paladin), we really don't have any data on Kraagor. He's the least-revealed character in the Order of the Scribble, by far; all we know about him is that he valued brute strength and that he died in the sealing of the final rift.

Optimystik
2009-12-26, 11:05 PM
Could you have worded the title any more misleadingly?

As for the Scribble, I don't think any of them were evil back when they were saving the world. What they've become since then (particularly Girard) is another matter.

Soon's goodness has pretty much been vindicated after their adventures too - unless "Fading to the celestial realms" means "to be summarily judged and reassigned."

Thanatosia
2009-12-27, 01:53 AM
Girard pretty much has to be Chaotic Nuetral.

He can't be evil because he was in a party with SOon for so long

He can't be good because he is willing to potentialy kill innocents in a vindictive trap, even if the odds of such happening are relatively low

And his absolute distrust of authority pretty much screams Chaotic.

Mystic Muse
2009-12-27, 01:58 AM
There. fixed thread title so it's less misleading.

Kraagor doesn't have to be nongood. he just has to be non evil. Also, if Kraagor was evil it might not matter. It only matters if the Paladin associates with somebody he knows to be evil. although I guess it's doubtful Soon NEVER cast detect evil on his teammates.

also, lets not get into a "what's Girard's alignment?" argument again.

Here's the REAL question though.

were they morally justified? *RUNS*

Starscream
2009-12-27, 02:23 AM
Well, it seems Kraagor's death factionalized the OotS for whatever reason. This means Kraagor must have gotten along with, at very least, both Soon and Girard.

Serini was also seen sobbing at his grave, and she is the one who dedicated her gate as a tomb for him, so apparently she was fond of him as well.

Curiously, her diary sketch of him is labeled "Mean! Grr!", so either she was making a good natured joke, or she initially wasn't a fan of his but grew to like him as they traveled on.

Who knows, maybe his alignment even changed over the course of their campaign. It happens. Perhaps he was N or CN to begin with (If he had been evil Soon would have fallen for associating with him as has been pointed out), and he became NG or CG.

That might have explained why a (most probably good from the paladin multiclassing plan) party member would develop a better opinion of him as time passed.

Zevox
2009-12-27, 02:40 AM
Well, boiling it down to what we can definitely say and what my personal expectation is, I'd say:

All - Not evil, associated with a Paladin.

Soon - Definitely Lwaful Good. He was a Paladin, and did not fall (or at least, was not fallen when he died).

Lirian - Could be Neutral Good, or Lawful/True/Chaotic Neutral. I'd guess Neutral Good, but that's strictly a guess.

Dorukon - Could be anything non-evil. I won't even take a guess, there's just too little that hints at anything alignment-related in what we've seen of him.

Serini - Could be anything non-evil. Happy-go-lucky attitude implies good to me. I'd err more towards chaos than law on that axis, but there's not much to go on for that either.

Girard - Could be anything non-evil. Most likely chaotic, given his articulated distrust for authority figures. Could be good or neutral - that part's an unknown at this point.

Kraagor - Non-evil and non-lawful. I won't even take a guess; he's all but a total blank as far as information goes.

Zevox

Mystic Muse
2009-12-27, 02:43 AM
to answer this question, I demand an order of the Scribble prequel! (after the current storyline of course)

magic9mushroom
2009-12-27, 05:04 AM
Soon: Guaranteed Lawful Good. Paladin in good standing.

Girard: Any non-evil, most likely CG or CN. Associated with Soon and did not fall him, hates "powermongers", quite willing to engage in vigilante acts (the nuke).

Serini: NG/CG/N/CN, most likely NG or CG. Associated with Soon and did not fall him (non-evil), rogue without levels of paladin (non-lawful), broke up the fight between Soon and Dorukan/Lirian/Girard, was thinking about going paladin.

Alternatively, LG if she took paladin levels (there is a feat that allows you to keep rogue advancement). But I doubt it.

Lirian: NG/LN/N/CN, most likely NG. Soon didn't fall, so non-evil, and druid, so not LG or CG. Not killing RC and Xykon seems to indicate Good.

Dorukan: Non-evil, most likely Good. (the sigil only unlocking for Good people wouldn't make much sense were he non-Good)

Kraagor: NG/CG/N/CN, very little in the way of further clues.

ex cathedra
2009-12-27, 05:06 AM
Oh. So, this thread isn't about a perceived difference in quality between more recent and less recent OotS comics?

Well, then.

Setra
2009-12-27, 06:58 AM
Soon: First off, he was obviously Lawful, with his steadfast belief in Honor, I don't think anyone would doubt this.

Was he good? Well... ignoring for a moment he was a Paladin, he didn't seem like a bad person when he spoke to Miko, and from what I've seen.. He really hasn't done anything evil.

Lirian: Well she as well seemed like a good person, though I haven't read SoD so I can't say for sure, but I'm going to guess NG.

Dorukan: Well aside from his outburst in the flashback, I can't say I remember seeing much of him. However as noted before, he did use good summons, and his sigils were activated by a pure heart... My guess is CG

Kraagor: Well he's non-lawful... Serini thinks of him as Mean, but Good people can be mean too.. I can only think of one line of his off the top of my head, but judging by the reaction to his death, I'm going to guess he's good, so CG or NG.

Serini: She seems like a good person... Thats about all I can really say, she was the one who calmed down the party when they were fighting, that just seems good to me. Since she was also a Rogue I'm going to guess CG.

Girard: Here's the fun one.. Well for starters, I think we can all agree he's chaotic, much like we can agree Soon is Lawful. Now before he decided to kill Paladins, he still seemed like a bit of a jerk. However as I said before, good can be mean. Still, I think of him as CN even back then. As for now? In general, attacking a Paladin is not a good act, especially with the intent to kill. However due to his past relationship, I wouldn't put him at Evil even if he had killed Soon.. mostly because it was.. how to put it.. not in his right mind, to me.

The real question is, would he kill a Paladin of the Sapphire Guard just because they were such, despite having no actual relation to Girard? Personally, I think he would. So I think he's CE now.

Kish
2009-12-27, 10:07 AM
Serini: NG/CG/N/CN, most likely NG or CG. Associated with Soon and did not fall him (non-evil), rogue without levels of paladin (non-lawful),

Rogues are not required to be non-lawful.

Asta Kask
2009-12-27, 10:16 AM
Rogues are not required to be non-lawful.

No, but given Girard's... issues with lawful characters it's probably safe to assume that he would not have handed over the true coordinates* to a lawful rogue.

*for the sake of sanity, I'm taking Girard at his word here...

Zevox
2009-12-27, 12:54 PM
No, but given Girard's... issues with lawful characters it's probably safe to assume that he would not have handed over the true coordinates* to a lawful rogue.

*for the sake of sanity, I'm taking Girard at his word here...
You might want to re-read the last couple of comics. Girard articulates a distrust for authority figures, and for Soon and his Paladins in particular. Not for lawful-aligned people in general.

Zevox

factotum
2009-12-27, 02:12 PM
Didn't Serini suggest she might take a level in Paladin? She'd have to be LG in order to do that. (OK, it might have been a joke on her behalf, but it wouldn't have been a very funny joke if everyone knew she couldn't possibly carry it out!).

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 02:16 PM
It might suggest that, though she could be planning to "behave Lawfully until her alignment changes" so to speak, then take the paladin level.

Starscream
2009-12-27, 03:32 PM
It might suggest that, though she could be planning to "behave Lawfully until her alignment changes" so to speak, then take the paladin level.

But then she needs to stay that way permanently or lose most of the benefits of the level. If all she wanted was a d10 HD, a point of BAB, and some more weapon proficiencies, she'd be better off multiclassing to fighter.

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 03:34 PM
true- I'd be surprised if she wasn't at least close to Lawful Good.

"not having the personality for it" might mean she is closer to Roy than Hinjo- Lawful Good, but only just.

ThePhantasm
2009-12-27, 04:05 PM
To clarify - OotS as in "Order of the Scribble".

Maybe this should be in the thread title so the thread doesn't seem so... generic.


Soon. Bad deeds notwithstanding, he pretty much had to be LG when they began their quest as a Paladin. He could have been a Paladin of Tyranny/Freedom, but seeing as his followers were stereotypical LGs, it is not very likely.

Soon has never done anything within the story that we can consider "bad". We've heard that he's done bad things, but never witnessed this first hand.


Girard. Well, despite all arguments of haters, he can't be evil for the same reasons as Kraagor (Soon would have fallen if he associated with evil character for so long, nor he would be accepted in majority-good party).

I'm in the "Girard was evil" camp because his arguments against Soon sound so much like Belkar's against Roy. He's not Chaotic evil, but he's not good either - he's at least something neutral.

Trixie
2009-12-27, 05:29 PM
Could you have worded the title any more misleadingly?

Well... I haven't added "Morally Justified" in there, no? :smallamused:


Soon's goodness has pretty much been vindicated after their adventures too - unless "Fading to the celestial realms" means "to be summarily judged and reassigned."

Um, let me remind you of Eugene. And Roy's mother (with a bit... "loose" moral standards). And a few other characters whose mention will turn this thread into massive flame war.


Dorukon - Could be anything non-evil. I won't even take a guess, there's just too little that hints at anything alignment-related in what we've seen of him.

Um, Sigils, choice of servants, associates, vaults (remember why Nale needed Elan?), and his lover?


Didn't Serini suggest she might take a level in Paladin? She'd have to be LG in order to do that.

Um, I discussed CG Paladins of Freedom right there in the opening post :smalltongue:


Soon has never done anything within the story that we can consider "bad". We've heard that he's done bad things, but never witnessed this first hand.

Would we know about them, anyway? 95% of our viewpoint on OotS was Shojo reciting Soon's diary, both not exactly the most trustworthy sources, and even it shows extreme reactions of the OotSers to past events.


Girard pretty much has to be Chaotic Nuetral.

He can't be good because he is willing to potentialy kill innocents in a vindictive trap, even if the odds of such happening are relatively low.

And just how the equivalent of showing off a finger (that didn't even brought mid-level fighter to 0 hp) was that evil? Let's see:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0146.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0683.html

Supposedly LG Roy and Durkon also show finger to teammate with intention to damage him, it's just that the epic characters tend to be a lot more flashy.

Oh, and one deed is not necessarily the sum of the character, especially if targeted on someone you hate. Frankly, the only reason people argue for CN/CE (IMHO) is the person who was supposed to receive beating, the same person Dorukon (also good) saw fit to kill just before they dissolved the OotS.

SoC175
2009-12-27, 06:08 PM
He can't be good because he is willing to potentialy kill innocents in a vindictive trap, even if the odds of such happening are relatively low In this case the halfing can't be good either, she filled the dungeon protection "her" gate with monsters who also don't make any difference based on the alignment of the people they eat

Thanatosia
2009-12-27, 06:46 PM
In this case the halfing can't be good either, she filled the dungeon protection "her" gate with monsters who also don't make any difference based on the alignment of the people they eat
Difference is people go into dungeons in ootsverse expecting monsters to fight, people don't go to coordinates given to them by (admitadly estranged) allies expecting a bomb powerful enough to create a gigantic mushroom cloud.

Omergideon
2009-12-27, 07:15 PM
Hmmm, this is a good set of questions but one I doubt that can be answered very easily. With the severe paucity of information we have about the scribbler's and the difficulty in pinning down alignment anyway I doubt any definitive conclusions besides a few "not this" can be found. But to have a go anyway, going in order of my certainty of their alignments.

Soon:
This is the only alignment we can be totally certain about. He is and must be Lawful Good to be a paladin. By definition this is the case and nothing we have seen him do even hints at a movement away from that alignment.

Serini:
Yep, I am pretty confident about this. I reckon she would be neutral good. Her general behaviour and attitude suggest a happy go lucky and genuinely nice person. Her concern and humaneness indicate to me she is definately good. As for the neutral, well as a rouge she is less likely to be good, and her willingness to decieve Soon suggests to me she is not lawful. But her overall closeness to Soon and the joke about becoming a Paladin would mean she cannot be too far off of good.

Lirian:
Neutral Good. I think Paladins need to be neutral regarding law/chaos and she is most likely good. She appears to show concern for others, genuine sadness at losses and stayed out of the final fight of the scribbler's. But mostly it is her actuions and dedication to the cause that convince me.

Girard:
I think he is chaotic neutral. His behaviour to me is too vindictive and revenge driven to really qualify as good. His lack of concern, general meanness and the nuke trap with the lack of trust it implies lead me to think he is neutral on good/evil. As for the order thing, well he is definately not lawful. The lack of trust of authority and law (and in a lawful good character) suggests chaotic to me. I admit he could be chaotic good and (IMO) misguided in his beliefs depending on how you intepret his actions so I am less firm about this one.

Kragoor:
He is certainly not evil, and definately not lawful but beyond that we cannot be sure. His actions and beliefs do not hint at it. And we know that the stickverse often uses as a theme that alignments can be played in many different ways (Miko/Roy/Elan or Elan/Haley for example) so any arguements about his alignment from how he interacts with the party can be seen as moot in my opinion. We know too little.

Dorukan:
Well he is not evil, probably good (the Sigils regarding those of a pure heart are my hint here) but beyond that we really have nowhere near enough information to go on.

This is my opinon from the certain (Soon) to the no clue (Dorukan). That is all I can say really.

Optimystik
2009-12-27, 08:02 PM
Well... I haven't added "Morally Justified" in there, no? :smallamused:

The purpose of this thread would've been far clearer if you had.


In this case the halfing can't be good either, she filled the dungeon protection "her" gate with monsters who also don't make any difference based on the alignment of the people they eat

We don't know nearly enough about Serini's gate to make that judgment. For all we know, she has big red signs that say "WARNING! MONSTERS!" outside.

derfenrirwolv
2009-12-27, 08:31 PM
Soon: Paladin, lawful good by default. Objections to the contrary are epileptic trees with a case of woodrot.

Durkon: Some unknown form of good. We have nothing to base his alignment on the law chaos access

Sereni: Probably CGish. She got between party members, but her wanting to be a paladin was considered a joke... as in she wasn't even close. NG would have been close to possible.

Kragor: CG. He's a barbarian, they tend to be chaotic. He willingly grappled with a being that had torn gods apart and eats souls to buy his party time to seal it away. Self sacrifice OF ONES SOUL for a higher goal is the greatest act of good i can think of.

Girard: Chaotic something. He's a master of illusions with a strong belief that law and order is a PROBLEM to be fought, not a solution. Trying to blow up soon for comming after his gate is hardly an evil act

TheSummoner
2009-12-27, 08:48 PM
We don't know nearly enough about Serini's gate to make that judgment. For all we know, she has big red signs that say "WARNING! MONSTERS!" outside.

The chances of someone wandering in there, ignoring the warning are still better than the chances of someone innocent getting ka-boomed.

Optimystik
2009-12-27, 08:59 PM
The chances of someone wandering in there, ignoring the warning are still better than the chances of someone innocent getting ka-boomed.

Low-level paladins aren't innocent?

(And keep in mind, no paladins alive in the Guard would have been around for the cleansing of Redcloak's village.)

Conuly
2009-12-27, 09:41 PM
Low-level paladins aren't innocent?

(And keep in mind, no paladins alive in the Guard would have been around for the cleansing of Redcloak's village.)

It was 35 years ago! Some might be around today... if they were young then and haven't retired yet.

TheSummoner
2009-12-27, 09:41 PM
Low level paladins in that location for ka-booming aren't. For them to look for him would be a violation of the oath. "No spying, no 'just checking in' visits, no nothing."

The exception for gates being destroyed is to let the OTHERS know through magical means if a gate fell, not a free pass to go seek the others out if your gate goes down.

Kish
2009-12-27, 09:59 PM
The exception for gates being destroyed is to let the OTHERS know through magical means if a gate fell, not a free pass to go seek the others out if your gate goes down.
Hinjo would seem to disagree with your interpretation of the Oath.

Zevox
2009-12-27, 10:00 PM
Um, let me remind you of Eugene. And Roy's mother (with a bit... "loose" moral standards). And a few other characters whose mention will turn this thread into massive flame war.
What about Eugene? He's an ass, sure, and somewhat selfish, but we don't have any reason to believe he's not lawful good when he's already been judged such (with some minor black marks) by the powers that be in the OotS world.

And what "moral standards" are you talking about with Roy's mother? Her loose sexuality? I don't see how that's a moral issue at all, especially in a world where Celestia itself counts a Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands among its attractions.

As for the implied other character, we don't know where she ended up, now do we?



Dorukon - Could be anything non-evil. I won't even take a guess, there's just too little that hints at anything alignment-related in what we've seen of him.
Um, Sigils, choice of servants, associates, vaults (remember why Nale needed Elan?), and his lover?
Associates and lover give no clue whatsoever. Characters can associate with those of different alignment from them - V and Belkar associate with the otherwise-good-aligned Order of the Stick, but that doesn't make them good, especially not Belkar. Same can be said for his relationship with Lirian - characters are plenty capable of dating/loving outside their own alignment.

Choice of servants is similarly moot. The only servants of his we know of are the Sylphs, and I don't think those are inherently good. And even if they are, it's not like a neutral-aligned wizard would want to summon up something else entirely if he knew the Sylphs could be trusted.

As for the sigils on the vault Nale wanted into (which you mentioned twice for some reason), they required someone "pure of heart." Which doesn't necessarily mean "good" - you could be good but not "pure of heart" or neutral but still "pure of heart" I'd say. And besides, it can always be that Dorukon himself could not activate them - they were in place to guard a magical artifact that was potentially dangerous, and to protect the gate. He didn't need to be able to use them himself, they just needed to keep anyone who might use those things for evil ends from doing so.


Oh, and one deed is not necessarily the sum of the character, especially if targeted on someone you hate. Frankly, the only reason people argue for CN/CE (IMHO) is the person who was supposed to receive beating, the same person Dorukon (also good) saw fit to kill just before they dissolved the OotS.
This part of your post I agree with, though. We've seen one evil act out of Girard, that is true. But one act does not an alignment make. He plainly hated Soon and blamed him for Kraagor's death, rightly or wrongly - given that, I see no reason why a chaotic good character couldn't do exactly what he did and not remain otherwise good-aligned. It will be a big black mark on his record post-death, sure, but it's not enough on its own to force his alignment to neutrality or (especially) evil.

Zevox

Shale
2009-12-27, 10:02 PM
The exception for gates being destroyed is to let the OTHERS know through magical means if a gate fell, not a free pass to go seek the others out if your gate goes down.

So what happens if they get the alarm that says Girard's gate has gone down? They send paladins to investigate the coordinates on record, just like they did for Lirian's Gate, and innocent scouts get exploded.

TheSummoner
2009-12-27, 10:27 PM
Hinjo would seem to disagree with your interpretation of the Oath.

Yes, Hinjo would, wouldn't he? Hinjo would think its ok to investigate on the basis that the oath does not apply to him anymore.

However, Serini seems to agree with me. "And we agree, no interference in the other four gates. We'll set up some sort of divination to tell us if someone else's gate is broken, but thats it."


So what happens if they get the alarm that says Girard's gate has gone down? They send paladins to investigate the coordinates on record, just like they did for Lirian's Gate, and innocent scouts get exploded.

I question if even doing that is ok by the oath... It definatly makes sence to do so... If someones going after the gates and you know atleast one has been destroyed, the smart thing to do would be to try to find out as much as you can about your enemy and the location of the destroyed gate is a good place to start looking for evidence... I suppose if the gate isn't there anymore then going to that location isn't interfering with a gate...

This is making my head hurt...

It is possible that the divination would pinpoint the real location of the gate... maybe not...

But I will grant that if Girard's gate had fallen before Soon's, and Azurre City paladins went to investigate, they would not deserve to be blown up in that scenerio.

Kish
2009-12-27, 11:00 PM
Yes, Hinjo would, wouldn't he? Hinjo would think its ok to investigate on the basis that the oath does not apply to him anymore.

However, Serini seems to agree with me.

That remains your interpretation. She does not say, "And we can't go near each others' gates even if ours are destroyed to tell each other what destroyed them."


I question if even doing that is ok by the oath...

I would question if Girard really thought about the fine details of what was and wasn't okay by the oath at any point, except that he spells out that he made no effort to follow the oath at all, so I see little to question: Of course he didn't.

TheSummoner
2009-12-27, 11:06 PM
I've said it before... the entire point of the oath seems to be to keep Soon away from the gates. Of the 5 survivors, Soon is the one who would care most about it and is the only one who took it seriously. We know that Lirian and Dorukan kept in contact (heh), and that Serini and Girard were in contact with eachother. The whole betting pool thing seems to say that they all kept in contact with eachother.

Optimystik
2009-12-27, 11:40 PM
I doubt everyone else in the party was "in" on this so-called con against Soon as you claim, otherwise Dorukan's letter to Lirian in SoD would make no sense - he could go see her anytime he wanted and wouldn't be "cursing their rashly promised oath." So clearly they at least thought the oath applied to them, even if they were willing to circumvent it under the concealing cover of Cloister on occasion.

Peregrinus
2009-12-27, 11:49 PM
I question if even doing that is ok by the oath... It definatly makes sence to do so... If someones going after the gates and you know atleast one has been destroyed, the smart thing to do would be to try to find out as much as you can about your enemy and the location of the destroyed gate is a good place to start looking for evidence... I suppose if the gate isn't there anymore then going to that location isn't interfering with a gate...

This is making my head hurt...

It is possible that the divination would pinpoint the real location of the gate... maybe not...

But I will grant that if Girard's gate had fallen before Soon's, and Azurre City paladins went to investigate, they would not deserve to be blown up in that scenerio.

It seems that this was within the Oath, considering that the Sapphire Guard had no qualm scouting out Lirian's Gate post destruction. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html)

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 12:15 AM
Eh... if theres no gate in that location anymore, you're not interfering with a gate by going to that location... makes sence to me.

Setra
2009-12-28, 12:40 AM
And just how the equivalent of showing off a finger (that didn't even brought mid-level fighter to 0 hp) was that evil? Let's see:

Oh no! It didn't kill a level 12ish fighter? Good thing everyone has at least that many hit points.

Tavar
2009-12-28, 12:58 AM
Also, that's not even considering that there are valid reasons to seek him out, or it could have been innocent civillians who happened to say the right words. Really, I'm not seeing much difference between this spell and a Landmine.

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 01:13 AM
Innocent civilians in the middle of a desert saying those specific four phrases in that specific, featureless, patch of sand and wasteland?

I doubt Girard cared about "legitimate reasons." He hated Soon. He did not trust Soon. As far as he was concerned, there wasn't a single good reason for Soon to come looking for him.

Tavar
2009-12-28, 01:17 AM
Things change. It was a featureless area when he set it up, but perhaps a trade route would eventually go through it, or a city would be built there. I mean, Girard himself acknowledged that it was a 90% chance that the person activating it was Soon or one of his paladins. So it's a 10% chance that it's a random person. Plus, even if it was one of Soon's paladins, blowing them up over a personal disagreement seems...harsh.

And, not caring about consequences doesn't make something Non-evil. In fact, that's more a quality of evil than good.

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 01:31 AM
a 90% chance it was Soon or his paladins means theres 10% chance that its not soon or his paladins. That does not mean an innocent person. If it wasn't triggered by Soon or anyone associated with him, its much more likely to be triggered by someone who extracted the information than Soon than a random innocent. Sure, its possible, but the chances of it happening are minimal.

And I'd say its more of a case of not trusting Soon or his followers enough to care about their reason than not caring about the results of his actions.

Kish
2009-12-28, 01:31 AM
I doubt Girard cared about "legitimate reasons." He hated Soon. He did not trust Soon. As far as he was concerned, there wasn't a single good reason for Soon to come looking for him.
Exactly! He thought he was entitled to blast Soon and to presume that anyone who was there was morally equivalent to Soon--not the Soon in the world, even, but the Soon in his head. If he values incidental lives, that presumption was extremely stupid. If he doesn't, well, that answers the question about the good/evil axis of his alignment.

factotum
2009-12-28, 01:31 AM
I question if even doing that is ok by the oath...

What would be the point of even having the monitoring divination if you weren't supposed to do anything when it triggered? The only possible reason for having it there is so you can investigate what happened to the fallen Gate to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to your own.

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 02:49 AM
Exactly! He thought he was entitled to blast Soon and to presume that anyone who was there was morally equivalent to Soon--not the Soon in the world, even, but the Soon in his head. If he values incidental lives, that presumption was extremely stupid. If he doesn't, well, that answers the question about the good/evil axis of his alignment.

Theres not enough evidence to be sure that the Soon in his head and the Soon that existed in the world are not one in the same. Soon's followers are no better or worse than Soon himself. Their presence is directly because Soon (or his successor) ordered them there. Alternatively it could be someone much worse than Soon, trying to actively harness the gates for evil, rather than try to take control of them in order to protect them. There is a chance of an innocent person stumbling across it and being harmed, but its very unlikely.

Conuly
2009-12-28, 03:09 AM
What would be the point of even having the monitoring divination if you weren't supposed to do anything when it triggered? The only possible reason for having it there is so you can investigate what happened to the fallen Gate to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to your own.

Well, for all we know Girard's monitoring divination would send a special note to Soon if his gate fell going "BTW, it's not where you thought after all. Sorry!" just to deal with the "What if Girard legitimately needs help!" problem.

Optimystik
2009-12-28, 03:20 AM
Theres not enough evidence to be sure that the Soon in his head and the Soon that existed in the world are not one in the same.

Of course there is. The real Soon kept the oath until the day he died. The one in Girard's head didn't.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-28, 03:37 AM
And, not caring about consequences doesn't make something Non-evil. In fact, that's more a quality of evil than good.

"Devil! Smite Evil!" Woops. Looks like there's no one to fight the demons.
"Demon! Slay it!" Woops. No one to fight the devils.
"Aboleth! Destroy it!" Darn. Nothing to fight those pesky drow.
"Drow! Kill them!" Damn. Now who's fighting the mindflayers?

Evil cares a lot more about consequences than Good. Because a lot more Evil can be done indirectly than Good. Cause and effect, in fact, works much more in Evil's favor than Good's. Why? Because the death of a politician can send his country into turmoil and make it ripe for conquest, general slaughter and the overall spread of more Evil. However, saving the same politician only puts him in debt to his savior. It does little other Good.

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 04:21 AM
Of course there is. The real Soon kept the oath until the day he died. The one in Girard's head didn't.

Yes, Girard taking a precaution that it turned out wasn't necessary proves both him and Dorukan wrong about Soon's personality. Its so very clear.

Optimystik
2009-12-28, 04:26 AM
Yes, Girard taking a precaution that it turned out wasn't necessary proves both him and Dorukan wrong about Soon's personality. Its so very clear.

No, putting too much stock in his own presumption of Soon's personality, is what proved him wrong about Soon's personality.

As for Dorukan, I don't see what he has to do with the deception or Girard's attempted murder.

Kish
2009-12-28, 10:23 AM
Yes, Girard taking a precaution that it turned out wasn't necessary proves both him and Dorukan wrong about Soon's personality. Its so very clear.
"Taking a precaution," that's a nice way to describe setting a bomb.

As I'll keep saying however many times are necessary, Girard presumed that Soon would break the oath. We readers can know whether that judgment of Soon was accurate. Was it accurate?

As I'll also keep saying however many times are necessary, there is a 100% chance the heroes of the comic set off the bomb. What would have happened in a hypothetical world where Girard was able to predict the future with as much accuracy as the Oracle is neither here nor there.

...And no part of the comic indicates Dorukan thought Soon would break the oath or endorsed the bomb in any way. Nice try, though.

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 01:21 PM
No, putting too much stock in his own presumption of Soon's personality, is what proved him wrong about Soon's personality.

As for Dorukan, I don't see what he has to do with the deception or Girard's attempted murder.

Dorukan agreed with Girard in that Soon was an insufferable ass. The two of them were together against Soon in the aftermath of Kraagor's death.

Girard may have taken it a bit further than Dorukan ever did (to our knowledge), but that doesn't make Soon into the blameless soul everyone seems to want to paint him as.


"Taking a precaution," that's a nice way to describe setting a bomb.

As I'll keep saying however many times are necessary, Girard presumed that Soon would break the oath. We readers can know whether that judgment of Soon was accurate. Was it accurate?

As I'll also keep saying however many times are necessary, there is a 100% chance the heroes of the comic set off the bomb. What would have happened in a hypothetical world where Girard was able to predict the future with as much accuracy as the Oracle is neither here nor there.

...And no part of the comic indicates Dorukan thought Soon would break the oath or endorsed the bomb in any way. Nice try, though.

Kish, you fail probability forever. Flip a coin... just because it lands on heads (or tails) does not make it any less true that theres a 50% chance of either outcome. Just because you now know the outcome does not change chance that outcome had for happening.

Girard is not a future-psychic. There is no way he or anyone else could possibly know exactly what threats will come for his (or any other) gate at any given time in the future. The best he can possibly do is try to think up as many possibilities as he can and prepare accordingly. Just because every single thing that could go wrong doesn't happen doesn't make him wrong in preparing for them.

What would happen had the opposite been true? Had Soon attempted to take over the gates, but Girard not taken precautions against it happening? Everyone would be complaining that he was an idiot for not being ready.

Girard knew Soon. Girard knew what kind of man Soon was. Girard had seen Soon's actions firsthand and decided that Soon was a possible threat to his gate. Dorukan stood by Girard in the belief that Soon "didn't care if his allies fall as long as he avenges his dead wife." We sure as hell didn't see Lirian or Serini stepping to Soon's defense. Just because Soon never actually tried to take over Girard's gate does not make Girard wrong for preparing against the possibility that he would. Setting a bomb that more likely than not (Kish, dont even say it, probability does not work that way and I have a hard time believing you're not smart enough to know that) would have never triggered unless Soon did make an attempt at Girard's gate is a perfectly reasonably way defend his gate against that potential threat.

The only mistakes we know that Girard has made so far were trusting Serini with his gate's location and telling the one who sets off his illusion-bomb that Serini had the location. His "mistake" in the first one was having faith in his teammate, it endangered the gate in the end, but its an understandable "flaw." The second was a foolish mistake, but he believed his bomb would take care of that problem. He still would've been better to just leave them stranded in the desert with no mention of Serini though.

One more note on Soon's flawlessness and honor and how there was never ever any chance that he'd ever try to take control of the other gates... "the Sapphire Guard has been given their holy powers by the Twelve Gods of the South to protect the gates... And since the gods are not limited in their jurisdiction, neither are we." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html)

SaintRidley
2009-12-28, 01:25 PM
Except the gods are actually limited in their jurisdiction. That's why they invented clerics.

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 01:26 PM
It doesn't matter whether Shojo was accurate or not in saying that, the fact that he did (and that none of the Sapphire Guard had any objections to it) is enough to prove that they believed, as representitives of their twelve gods, that they had unlimited jurisdiction over the gates.

Kish
2009-12-28, 01:36 PM
Kish, you fail probability forever.

Ah, you've descended to actual flaming.

Flip a coin... just because it lands on heads (or tails) does not make it any less true that theres a 50% chance of either outcome.

Roll a six-sided die. That you can imagine it coming up 7 does not make it any more true that there was ever a chance of that happening.

The "probabilities support Girard because he used statistics in his message!" argument is, and has always been, utterly fallacious. Soon is not a coin. Girard based his prediction on an incorrect (note this word, it's important) character judgment of the one member of the Order of the Scribble who didn't break the oath.


Girard is not a future-psychic.

So why exactly are you attributing the ability to predict the future well enough to set a bomb based on it to him?

He's just future psychic enough to know that the possibility of his bomb and taunting message doing anything bad can be dismissed, and not enough to know that it shouldn't be dismissed? That's an oddly specific level of psychicness. Especially considering that, y'know, he was wrong.


What would happen had the opposite been true?

What would happen if Xykon was the hero of the comic? It's about as relevant.


Girard knew Soon. Girard knew what kind of man Soon was.

Ah, yes, the, "We know Girard's character judgments were right because they were Girard's character judgments, the obvious factual wrongness of his predictions based on them is irrelevant!" line of argument.

(Kish, dont even say it, probability does not work that way and I have a hard time believing you're not smart enough to know that)

Another flame. Reporting this is really tempting, but instead, I'll just say this: Believe me, I am no more impressed with the idiot Girard's statistics than I claim to be. If you want to think that means I'm stupid, go ahead, I really don't care.

comicshorse
2009-12-28, 01:46 PM
Posted by The Summoner

Dorukan agreed with Girard in that Soon was an insufferable ass.
And it say's that were ? Cause that seems an awfully large assumption considering all we know is that Dorukan got mad with Soon ONCE in the aftermath of a comrade's death


What would happen had the opposite been true? Had Soon attempted to take over the gates, but Girard not taken precautions against it happening?
Girard did. He gave Soon false co-ordinates which worked fine. making the bomb simply a act of revenge.
And what if Soon just wanted to talk to Girard about the defence of the Gate or the fall of the other Gates


Girard knew Soon. Girard knew what kind of man Soon was
Very debatable. Frankly from what we've seen Girard's judgemant on Soon isn't worth a damn


We sure as hell didn't see Lirian or Serini stepping to Soon's defense.

Or by that argument to Dorukan's defence as nobody defends him form the accussation that he only cares about his magic. Gee you don't think they might have had an opinion but not mentioned it ? It might even have been that Girard was a jack-ass


Setting a bomb that more likely than not (Kish, dont even say it, probability does not work that way and I have a hard time believing you're not smart enough to know that) would have never triggered unless Soon did make an attempt at Girard's gate is a perfectly reasonably way defend his gate against that potential threat.
Well (a) it's not defending the Gate its defending an empty patch of sand and (b) 'likely' is a very dangerous thing to be assuming when you're setting death-traps

Asta Kask
2009-12-28, 02:05 PM
Aren't we reaching the point where we are just regurgitating our old points louder and louder?

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 02:12 PM
Ah, you've descended to actual flaming.

Another flame. Reporting this is really tempting, but instead, I'll just say this: Believe me, I am no more impressed with the idiot Girard's statistics than I claim to be. If you want to think that means I'm stupid, go ahead, I really don't care.

I'm getting these out of the way first. "Fail probability forever" is not a flame and the second one was me specifically saying that I think you're smarter than that. You've always come off fairly intelligent to me and I have a hard time believing that you actually think that knowing the outcome to a given situation makes a potential outcome any less likely to have happened before you knew the outcome.

Rather, it seems to me you're intentionally doing it.


Roll a six-sided die. That you can imagine it coming up 7 does not make it any more true that there was ever a chance of that happening.

The world is not a die. Any number of things is possible (far more than 6 ^_^), Soon coming for the gates being among the realm of whats possible. Rolling a 7 is impossible on a 6 sided die, yes, but thats not the same as the possibility that Soon would come for Girard's gate... that'd be more similar to Girard's gate being destroyed by pudding. Normal, nonmagical, nonliving pudding.


The "probabilities support Girard because he used statistics in his message!" argument is, and has always been, utterly fallacious. Soon is not a coin. Girard based his prediction on an incorrect (note this word, it's important) character judgment of the one member of the Order of the Scribble who didn't break the oath.

And the world is not a die. I'm not taking the 90% thing as a hard fact, but there always was a possibility that Soon would come for the gate. The fact that 50 years later he didn't does not mean it was any less possible that he would. It just means one possibility out of an endless number of possibilities didn't come to be.

Furthermore, the 90% was for that specific message. Not for Soon coming in general. Whether you take that percent as fact or not, its significantly more likely for that specific message to be triggered by Soon or someone associated with him to trigger it than anyone else.


So why exactly are you attributing the ability to predict the future well enough to set a bomb based on it to him?

He's just future psychic enough to know that the possibility of his bomb and taunting message doing anything bad can be dismissed, and not enough to know that it shouldn't be dismissed? That's an oddly specific level of psychicness. Especially considering that, y'know, he was wrong.

I'm saying that your arguements seem to imply that he should've been a future psychic. That your arguements suggest hes at fault for not being a future psychic.

A bomb with very specific conditions to be triggered. A bomb that would likely lie inert unless Soon DID come. Thats a safe enough chance to take


What would happen if Xykon was the hero of the comic? It's about as relevant.

Its perfectly relevant. Girard is preparing defenses, the smart thing is to prepare for every possibility you can think of.


Ah, yes, the, "We know Girard's character judgments were right because they were Girard's character judgments, the obvious factual wrongness of his predictions based on them is irrelevant!" line of argument.

Mmm... Who was in the wrong there... Soon... or the rest of the party. I wonder. Is Soon right... or is the rest of the party right...

Shale
2009-12-28, 02:14 PM
Girard judged Soon to be the kind of person who would break his oath. That's not a probability judgment, it's an assessment of his character. It was demonstrably wrong, like judging a d6 to have seven sides.

Kish
2009-12-28, 02:31 PM
I'm getting these out of the way first. "Fail probability forever" is not a flame

Just like Girard is not an idiot. You don't get to redefine any word as you please.

and the second one was me specifically saying that I think you're smarter than that.

You are aware that saying only a stupid person would disagree with you is specifically against the rules here, right?


And the world is not a die. I'm not taking the 90% thing as a hard fact, but there always was a possibility that Soon would come for the gate.

Well, if Girard said it and you're willing to keep asserting it...


I'm saying that your arguements seem to imply that he should've been a future psychic.

When I keep saying he shouldn't have set a bomb based on what he thought he knew about the future?

That your arguements suggest hes at fault for not being a future psychic.

By all means. Quote a single argument I've made that suggests Girard should have been able to predict the future, instead of that he shouldn't have acted as though he believed he could predict the future. "Girard should have admitted what he didn't know" is something you keep ignoring, like, "None of the rest of the Order of the Scribble planted a bomb for Soon." (See below.) Narrowing the choices to, "Act based on one very specific prediction of the future, or act based on another very specific prediction of the future," masks Girard's idiocy, but it doesn't change the fact that those weren't the two choices he had.


A bomb with very specific conditions to be triggered. A bomb that would likely lie inert unless Soon DID come. Thats a safe enough chance to take

Certainly. If Girard could predict exactly what someone else (Soon, specifically) would do, and needed take no other possibilities into account.

Since that was not the case, it was an idiotic chance to take.


Its perfectly relevant. Girard is preparing defenses, the smart thing is to prepare for every possibility you can think of.

And Girard prepared for exactly one he-believed-it-was-a-possibility. So he manifestly didn't do what you're declaring "the smart thing."


Mmm... Whose in the wrong here... Soon... Girard. I wonder. Is Soon right... or is Girard right...
Fixed that for you, since only one member of the Order of the Scribble set a bomb for Soon.

Unless you mean "right specifically about Soon attempting to seize the other gates," in which case the answer is, "I concede, Soon clearly did try to seize all the Gates. Within twelve weeks, even."

TheSummoner
2009-12-28, 02:37 PM
Just like Girard is not an idiot. You don't get to redefine any word as you please.

You are aware that saying only a stupid person would disagree with you is specifically against the rules here, right?

I did not say that only a stupid person would disagree with me, I said that I think you're smart enough to know how probability works. I did not even assert that you should agree with me about Girard on that. I was merely saying that I find it hard to believe that you actually believe there was always a 100% chance of a particular outcome just because it turned out to be the one that actually happened.

Anyways, if all you're going to do is twist my wording around and put words in my mouth, I see no point in wasting my time. Its really an exercise in futility... not because I expect to convince anyone to change their mind (I know this forum well enough to know that absolutly everyone is set in their position, myself included), but because if thats what you're going to do then theres absolutly no chance in getting a worthwhile conversation/debate/whatever out of it.

Conuly
2009-12-28, 02:46 PM
Fixed that for you, since only one member of the Order of the Scribble set a bomb for Soon.

We don't know that. We still haven't seen what Serini's cooked up, and we don't *know* that the other Gates didn't have Soon-specific defenses.

Kish
2009-12-28, 02:48 PM
We don't know that. We still haven't seen what Serini's cooked up, and we don't *know* that the other Gates didn't have Soon-specific defenses.
Very well, we only know of one member of the Order of the Scribble who set a bomb for Soon, and we know there was nothing dangerous to paladins when the Sapphire Guard went to investigate Lirian's destroyed gate.

Theoretical possibilities aside, claiming as a fact that everyone in the Order of the Scribble except Soon himself agreed about Soon needin' to get blowed up real good is insupportable; exactly one member of the Order of the Scribble has expressed that belief.

mago
2009-12-28, 04:25 PM
well, i haven't been following the discussion eagerly, but about Girard, there's something i haven't seen brought up yet regarding the BOOM!.

now, firstly, i'm working from the presumption that the book was more visual than actualy dangerous, as noone of the OoTS seem hurt, but it's not that terribly important for my argument

My argument is basicaly: The placement of the bomb itself might be sligtly evil, but i belive that girard's alignment can best be decided by his actions after be bomb goes up. Imagine, for example, that the OoTS had been lower level and one of them died, or hurt badly. what did he plan to do if that would've been the case? if the answer is "teleport in, find out who they are, raise pr. magic item" then he'd be at least non-evil, possibley good. if, on the other hand he would've just portet and killed, or ignored them, then it's a whole diffrent picture. i don't think i've desribed this well, but i'm not sure i can do better right now.

oh, and for the record, i think every word he said - each and every single one of the words in his long rant - are lies. but that's just me.

Trixie
2009-12-28, 07:08 PM
The "probabilities support Girard because he used statistics in his message!" argument is, and has always been, utterly fallacious. Soon is not a coin. Girard based his prediction on an incorrect (note this word, it's important) character judgment of the one member of the Order of the Scribble who didn't break the oath.

So why exactly are you attributing the ability to predict the future well enough to set a bomb based on it to him?

He's just future psychic enough to know that the possibility of his bomb and taunting message doing anything bad can be dismissed, and not enough to know that it shouldn't be dismissed? That's an oddly specific level of psychicness. Especially considering that, y'know, he was wrong.

Ah, yes, the, "We know Girard's character judgments were right because they were Girard's character judgments, the obvious factual wrongness of his predictions based on them is irrelevant!" line of argument.

Um... you have zero argument here. All you repeat ad nauseum is simple hindsight, thing that makes the best generals in the world. So, yes, Girard (and the rest of the party) were a bit wrong about this one. Not by much, as even the new leadership of the SG (Shojo/Miko) was perfectly willing to disregard oath/take over the other gates, albeit for a different reasons. Oh, and we don't know if Soon haven't contemplated armed takeover and what actually stopped him. You're willing to invent all kinds of excuses for Soon and all sorts of damning things for Girard.

To summarize: you think they were idiots because a) they did idiotic thing of preparing for every case b) they weren't owners of all OotS books - they could have read how that whole thing ended, then! :smallsigh:

Oh, and let's see, your whole argument about bombs for paladin-killin' just fell apart when V (13d4 being equal to ~5d10 - and paladin has much better ref/for saves) survived, meaning only the lowest of the low paladins would be in any danger. Frankly, such low guy would be overwhelmed by these slaves before they got in - unless they were part of actual army.


And it say's that were ? Cause that seems an awfully large assumption considering all we know is that Dorukan got mad with Soon ONCE in the aftermath of a comrade's death

And that, dear horse, was long after that death, when emotions long cooled. Hid deed must have been grave indeed.


Girard did. He gave Soon false co-ordinates which worked fine. making the bomb simply a act of revenge.
And what if Soon just wanted to talk to Girard about the defence of the Gate or the fall of the other Gates

And since when this is accomplished by sneaking bands of armed warriors instead of using sending?

Oh, and if you haven't noticed - Soon took oath on his honor of the paladin he would leave all others alone. No, not even checking in.


Very debatable. Frankly from what we've seen Girard's the entire OotS judgemant on Soon isn't worth a damn

Fix'd it for ya.


And Girard prepared for exactly one he-believed-it-was-a-possibility. So he manifestly didn't do what you're declaring "the smart thing."

Yeah, leaving huge holes in your defence is really smart thing to do.

Especially when you know firsthand how easy it is to change appearances, thus, you judge behavior, not looks and words. And this behavior, let me remind you, was a team of commandos sneaking in.

Oh, and another assumption - "one" instead of sensible "all of them".

Yeah, letting them in is a very smart thing to do! :smallsigh:


Fixed that for you, since only one member of the Order of the Scribble set a bomb for Soon.

Unless you mean "right specifically about Soon attempting to seize the other gates," in which case the answer is, "I concede, Soon clearly did try to seize all the Gates. Within twelve weeks, even."

For all we know, all of them did, as no OotSer told him he has wrong coordinates but all were perfectly willing to make very bad things happen to Soon soon (tm). :smallamused:

As for seizing, you assume all things about Girard, yet somehow all your assumptions for Soon are these of guiding grandmas through busy streets. He had the spot Kubota-like people wanted, and held to it by means other than faking senility. Know what this means?


Or by that argument to Dorukan's defence as nobody defends him form the accussation that he only cares about his magic. Gee you don't think they might have had an opinion but not mentioned it ? It might even have been that Girard was a jack-ass

Yes, yes, that's why they never mentioned anything to Soon, kept being in contact with the guys, and took part in betting pool.

Inventing much? :smallamused:


Very well, we only know of one member of the Order of the Scribble who set a bomb for Soon, and we know there was nothing dangerous to paladins when the Sapphire Guard went to investigate Lirian's destroyed gate.

I don't remember them talking about Sapphire Guard, Gates, Soon nor other things here. In fact, I remember only idiocy of (supposedly) best SG trackers failing to take any ranks in survival/spot/search and the word 'Damn!' :smallamused:


Theoretical possibilities aside, claiming as a fact that everyone in the Order of the Scribble except Soon himself agreed about Soon needin' to get blowed up real good is insupportable; exactly one three to four member of the Order of the Scribble has expressed that belief.

Another fix'.

Kish
2009-12-28, 07:18 PM
now, firstly, i'm working from the presumption that the book was more visual than actualy dangerous, as noone of the OoTS seem hurt,
Check the look of Roy (in this strip and the last one) and Vaarsuvius (in this one) again. None of the Order died; at least two of them were quite badly hurt.

comicshorse
2009-12-28, 07:29 PM
Posted by Trixie

And that, dear horse, was long after that death, when emotions long cooled. Hid deed must have been grave indeed.
We don't know that at all. In fact from the fact that members of group are at Kraagor's funeral service it argues its immediately after the event. Unless they decided to take a 6 month break before holding the service
And you can call me Comics :smallsmile:


Quote:
Very debatable. Frankly from what we've seen Girard's the entire OotS judgemant on Soon isn't worth a damn
Fix'd it for ya.

Well we don't know what the other members of the group thought of Soon (apart from ONE fight with ONE member of the group). For all we know the rest of the groups opinion on the break-up was 'thank god we don't have to put up with Girard anymore'.


es, yes, that's why they never mentioned anything to Soon, kept being in contact with the guys, and took part in betting pool.

Inventing much?
Well yes you are but I'm trying to correct that :smallsmile:. For the Xth team. Girard and Serini may have kept in touch but from the fact that Dorukan hid his relationship with Lirian its fairly obvious they took the Oath seriously and were not in contact with anyone but each other


Q
uote:
Theoretical possibilities aside, claiming as a fact that everyone in the Order of the Scribble except Soon himself agreed about Soon needin' to get blowed up real good is insupportable; exactly one three to four member of the Order of the Scribble has expressed that belief.
Another fix'.


And another assumption that has no supporting evidence

Optimystik
2009-12-28, 08:00 PM
Dorukan agreed with Girard in that Soon was an insufferable ass. The two of them were together against Soon in the aftermath of Kraagor's death.

Girard may have taken it a bit further than Dorukan ever did (to our knowledge), but that doesn't make Soon into the blameless soul everyone seems to want to paint him as.

No, I would rather imagine it's his admittance to heaven that proved him blameless.

Zevox
2009-12-28, 08:07 PM
No, I would rather imagine it's his admittance to heaven that proved him blameless.
Admittance to heaven - or rather, celestia - is based on alignment, though. Characters can be Lawful Good but not blameless. Roy had a number of black marks on his record but got in anyway, just to name one example which we have in great detail.

Zevox

Optimystik
2009-12-28, 08:19 PM
Admittance to heaven - or rather, celestia - is based on alignment, though. Characters can be Lawful Good but not blameless. Roy had a number of black marks on his record but got in anyway, just to name one example which we have in great detail.

Zevox

True, but it still proves that none of his flaws were great enough to kill him over. If indeed any are.

Zevox
2009-12-28, 08:24 PM
True, but it still proves that none of his flaws were great enough to kill him over. If indeed any are.
Oh, I agree there - I've said several times in various threads that I consider Girard's murder attempt here an evil act. I'm just pointing out that Soon could very well have been enough of an ass to explain Girard's enmity with him (short of his willingness to try killing him, anyway, but we could perhaps attribute that to excessive hatred born of blaming him for Kraagor's death) yet still have gotten into celestia.

Zevox

Optimystik
2009-12-28, 08:32 PM
It also kind of scuppers that "Soon tripped Kraagor into the rift" theory that's been floating around. That's the kind of thing that tends to keep someone out of heaven.

Zevox
2009-12-28, 08:53 PM
It also kind of scuppers that "Soon tripped Kraagor into the rift" theory that's been floating around. That's the kind of thing that tends to keep someone out of heaven.
:smallconfused: There were people who seriously suggested that? I can't imagine anyone actually believing that as a possibility. That'd be the kind of thing that would make him fall immediately.

Zevox

Solara
2009-12-28, 11:45 PM
I guess every thread is a Girard thread now.

This is getting a little tiresome, guys...can't we just pick a different character we barely know anything about and make wild assumptions about how good/evil/smart/stupid they are for awhile?

Or maybe...I dunno, wait till the Giant reveals more of what happened? He's usually pretty clear about what -he- thinks about his characters, it's just that some of us forumites love epileptic trees so much we apparently don't even feel the sledehammer.

comicshorse
2009-12-29, 04:36 AM
it's just that some of us forumites love epileptic trees so much we apparently don't even feel the sledehammer.

Okay I have to ask, what does that actually mean ?

Blas_de_Lezo
2009-12-29, 06:28 AM
Here's my bet [3.5 alignments]

Soon- no doubt. LG

Lirian- based on her druid likes, I would say she was True Neutral. Fighting against the creature that opens riffs in the universe, unbalancing it, seems quite true neutral action to me.

Dorukan- hmm. That's difficult. We don't have many sources about him, but I would bet he was LN. He seems he respected his word without twisting it (legal), but obviously wasn't evil.

Selini- seems like a 100% chaotic good to me.

Kraagor- chaotic something.

Girard- the most conflictive here in the boards. If what he said is true, he's chaotic. But obviously he's not good (tried to "kill" soon). Not evil neither, because Soon wouldn't have associated with him. So, only Chaotic Neutral is left. Seems reasonable.

Ozymandias9
2009-12-29, 11:47 AM
When I keep saying he shouldn't have set a bomb based on what he thought he knew about the future?

It's quite possible to make a decent statistical argument for something like Girard suggested (though I doubt that we are intended to believe this was quite as reasoned as that, nor would it be easy to gather the data in the time frame before the gate was moved).

To know the probability of a person activating the trap for reasons unrelated to the Gates:

The frequency of a random person passing independently (essentially, lost people+cartographers).
The frequency of trade routes in the area changing.
The number of superior alternatives should the trade route change from the current one.
The frequency of a person intentionally seeking that exact site for a non-gate related reason
The language frequency probability of someone accidentally saying the activation words.

2&3 can probably be controlled for with epic illusions to make the area less desirable as part of a trade route. 4 is presumably low, since they probably would have known if the gate was at a holy site rather than merely in a barren desert. So we're left with lost people, mapmakers and their ilk, and the probability that they will say the trigger words. That is way, way, below 10%. It's probably substantially below 1% if there's a reasonable time restriction on the time between trigger words: we have at least one word that's a name and two that have to be used together ("[...], Sapphire Guard,[...]" not "sapphire" and "guard" independently.)

Once that (small) possibility is accounted for, we have the possible people who can be visiting for gate related reasons. If Serini is the only one who got the correct coordinates, then the people who could be there are:

Soon, or someone allied with the Sapphire Guard (OOtS would seem to count)
Lirian, or someone allied therewith
Dorukan, or someone allied therewith
An enemy who extracted the location from one of the above, presmably by force.


Really, except for the paladin part, he got it pretty much right. It is someone who is willingly allied with the Sapphire Guard, which is an organization was explicitly bound by Soon's Oath. They just happen to be outsourcing.


Anyways:
Soon-- LG
Serini-- CG? Little information
Girard-- CN or CG-- Chaotic seems guaranteed, and cannot be evil.
Dorukan-- LG (He's a wizard who seems to focus on abjuration and puts great stake in his word. He builds things that can only be activated by the pure of heart. We have no proof, but he's practically tripping over fantasy tropes here).
Kraagor-- Little information
Lirian-- NG. As someone said earlier, she seems more like a "love of nature" druid than an "indifference of nature" druid or a "natural law" druid.

Kish
2009-12-29, 11:52 AM
Really, except for the paladin part, he got it pretty much right.
You left out the slightly important "there to seize my Gate" and "breaking the Oath" parts of his rant.

"Except for the paladin part" makes the bit he attributes to "heuristic magic" factually wrong. Much more importantly, he didn't just blow up a group of fascists there to seize his Gate. So, no. He's batting zero.

Shale
2009-12-29, 11:53 AM
The heuristic magic did correctly determine that the people there were sent by Soon or the Sapphire Guard to find Girard's Gate. He was just completely wrong about why.

Ozymandias9
2009-12-29, 11:59 AM
You left out the slightly important "there to seize my Gate" and "breaking the Oath" parts of his rant.

"Except for the paladin part" makes the bit he attributes to "heuristic magic" factually wrong. Much more importantly, he didn't just blow up a group of fascists there to seize his Gate. So, no. He's batting zero.

Oh that part's just twisting statistics to make them fit your beliefs. He's interpretation of the data is clearly incorrect, as is his belief that Kim Soon would break his word. He also clearly did not consider the possibility of the Sapphire Guard allying with adventurers to protect the gate (this was also likely based on his personal, jaundiced view of Soon.)

My point is that it is possible to make a statistical argument of the likelyhood of a specific person or group or persons being the ones to activate the rune without making use of those beliefs.

That is, he could arrive at a sound statistical argument that should the trap be activated, it is x% likely that it would be by Kim Soon or someone allied with the Sapphire Guard to protect the Gates.

His judgments of why that would happen would happen are his own (it would be nearly impossible to make a statistical argument for the choices of an individual-- there is rarely enough frequency data).

Asta Kask
2009-12-29, 12:10 PM
Aren't we reaching the point where we are just regurgitating our old points louder and louder?

Aren't we reaching the point where we are just regurgitating our old points louder and louder?

Kish
2009-12-29, 12:21 PM
Oh that part's just twisting statistics to make them fit your beliefs. He's interpretation of the data is clearly incorrect, as is his belief that Kim Soon would break his word. He also clearly did not consider the possibility of the Sapphire Guard allying with adventurers to protect the gate (this was also likely based on his personal, jaundiced view of Soon.)

My point is that it is possible to make a statistical argument of the likelyhood of a specific person or group or persons being the ones to activate the rune without making use of those beliefs.
Oh, certainly. Girard didn't do it, but it's certainly possible. I'm not sure whether the "heuristic magic" spell he used reported a 90% chance of it being someone who got the coordinates from Soon Kim, in which case the spell predicted the Order, or a 90% chance of it being specifically Soon or one of his paladins (the chances of Soon sending non-paladins being low), and the Order falls in the 10% predicted by the spell. Either way, I have no issue with the concept that a spell predicted a 90% chance of it being paladins of the Sapphire Guard or agents of Soon Kim, only with the way Girard proceeded to cook those statistics.


Aren't we reaching the point where we are just regurgitating our old points louder and louder?
We got there a day after strip #695 went up.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 12:24 PM
It's quite possible to make a decent statistical argument for something like Girard suggested (though I doubt that we are intended to believe this was quite as reasoned as that, nor would it be easy to gather the data in the time frame before the gate was moved).

Perhaps, but setting bombs and volunteering information based on his "statistical arguments" is idiocy.


Really, except for the paladin part, he got it pretty much right.

That's a lot like saying "Except for all those questions I got wrong, I aced the test!"

Ozymandias9
2009-12-29, 12:32 PM
Perhaps, but setting bombs and volunteering information based on his "statistical arguments" is idiocy.
Agreed. I never said it wasn't.


That's a lot like saying "Except for all those questions I got wrong, I aced the test!"
Actually, I think of it more like saying "Your essay was well written and thorough, though you failed to address this point." Such an essay can still be good (quality, not alignment), just not perfect.

Regardless, it's probably better stated thus:
His statistical inference appears only to be flawed in that he failed to consider allies of the Sapphire guard as well as members. His judgments and actions based thereupon were clearly flawed and foolish.


Either way, I have no issue with the concept that a spell predicted a 90% chance of it being paladins of the Sapphire Guard or agents of Soon Kim, only with the way Girard proceeded to cook those statistics.

Then the problem isn't with the statistics at all, but the interpretation. It wasn't a prediction of the die landing on 7. The die landed on 2-6, as expected: Girard was just very wrong about why and what that meant.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 01:23 PM
Actually, I think of it more like saying "Your essay was well written and thorough, though you failed to address this point." Such an essay can still be good (quality, not alignment), just not perfect.

He didn't miss one point. He missed the entire topic. "You are Soon and you broke your oath, just like I knew you would!" sums it up, followed by "And now you die!" Wrong on all three counts. To top it off, he throws in "By the way, Serini has what you're looking for, just in case you don't know what to do next."

Well-written? He might as well have wrote it in fecal matter.

Kish
2009-12-29, 01:29 PM
Then the problem isn't with the statistics at all, but the interpretation.

The problem is not with "90% chance of something." The problem is with, "Theres not enough evidence to be sure that the Soon in his head and the Soon that existed in the world are not one in the same," and/or the repetitions of the 90% figure attached to arguments for Girard's correctness in the conclusions he jumped to based on the statistics.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 01:41 PM
Actually, if Girard honestly wanted to kill Soon then I'm really not seeing how 1/3rd of our current OotS would have survived it at all. Soon's got XXd10+Y from his CON. Assuming he's 30th level with a CON of 20(weak, but why not?) then he'd be looking at 315 HP. Conversely, the only member of the current OotS with d10 HD for more than five levels is Roy weighing in at a mere 12-13d10+Z. Even assuming a CON of 30, Roy is pulling 186 HP. Anything that would threaten Soon would out right kill Roy.

Further, the three members of the current OotS(V, Elan and Haley) that were with Roy have lower than d10 HD(13d4+A, 13d6+B and 13d6+C). Anything that threatens Roy's life would most certainly kill at least one of them, nevermind anything that might threaten Soon's life. No, I doubt immensely that the explosion was a serious attempt to kill Soon from an epic spellcaster. Because if it were, then one of the OotS would be dead.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 02:15 PM
It's obvious nobody was going to die from this. (The last thing we need is another afterlife scene.)

But the question then becomes, why set a trap at all? He risked blowing up low level paladins, who would be around 5-7d10. It certainly would have done nothing but piss off a similarly epic-level villain. So what was the point, besides creating an unnecessary danger for any Azurite messengers?

Ozymandias9
2009-12-29, 02:23 PM
He didn't miss one point. He missed the entire topic. "You are Soon and you broke your oath, just like I knew you would!" sums it up, followed by "And now you die!" Wrong on all three counts. To top it off, he throws in "By the way, Serini has what you're looking for, just in case you don't know what to do next."

Well-written? He might as well have wrote it in fecal matter.

We're talking about different aspects of the overall conversation. I was noting that the core of the statistical prediction (that whoever activated the trap did so as a result of information ultimately sourced to Kim Soon), was basically correct. In that regard, he was merely incorrect on one point: the people activating it were adventurers allied with the Sapphire Guard and not members there of.

The actions and judgments he made from that core prediction are deplorable both in intent and effect, but that wasn't the topic of my comment.

P.S.~ Please reconsider your use of references to excrement: some people find such things unpleasant.

JonahFalcon
2009-12-29, 02:38 PM
Soon was never a paladin.

Jamin
2009-12-29, 02:44 PM
Soon was never a paladin.


Yes, he was.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 02:46 PM
We're talking about different aspects of the overall conversation. I was noting that the core of the statistical prediction (that whoever activated the trap did so as a result of information ultimately sourced to Kim Soon), was basically correct. In that regard, he was merely incorrect on one point: the people activating it were adventurers allied with the Sapphire Guard and not members there of.

"Girard." "Gate." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html)
"Sapphire Guard." "Soon." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html)

Well, what do you know. It looks like someone else knows the words needed to activate that illusion. So much for statistics.


P.S.~ Please reconsider your use of references to excrement: some people find such things unpleasant.

Such people would do well to avoid the dictionary then.

Ozymandias9
2009-12-29, 03:43 PM
"Girard." "Gate." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html)
"Sapphire Guard." "Soon." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html)

Well, what do you know. It looks like someone else knows the words needed to activate that illusion. So much for statistics.

"So much for statistics"? Really? That's got to be the scariest statement I've ever heard.

Anyways, in order to activate the trap, Redcloak would have to be at the false location of the gate given by Girard to at least Soon and at most the rest of the members of the order of the Scribble. Serini and Girard himself knew the actual location. Durokan and Lirian's knowledge on this matter is unknown.

Thus, Redcloak would have to find out the false location of the gate from one of the relevant parties. I believe that would fall, in my previous list, under "4. An enemy who extracted the location from one of the above, presmably by force."


Such people would do well to avoid the dictionary then.

There are plenty of words in the dictionary that I find etymologically interesting but unsuitable for general conversation. None the less, I have no interest in censoring you: it was merely a request, which (it seems) you have declined.

I suppose, though, that vitriol does make an effective (if unpleasant) rhetorical device for underscoring that refusal. So kudos on that.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 03:49 PM
"So much for statistics"? Really? That's got to be the scariest statement I've ever heard.

I agree, it's very scary to base a deathtrap that volunteers information on anything less than a 100% chance.

After all, "probability is willing to sneak into a back alley and service drama as would a copper-piece harlot," remember?


Thus, Redcloak would have to find out the false location of the gate from one of the relevant parties. I believe that would fall, in my previous list, under "4. An enemy who extracted the location from one of the above, presmably by force."

So all he would have had to do is find Shojo's corpse and Speak with Dead on it. What do you think are the odds that an Aristocrat could beat the Will save on a 15-16th-level cleric?

Shale
2009-12-29, 04:00 PM
Actually, if Girard honestly wanted to kill Soon then I'm really not seeing how 1/3rd of our current OotS would have survived it at all. Soon's got XXd10+Y from his CON. Assuming he's 30th level with a CON of 20(weak, but why not?) then he'd be looking at 315 HP. Conversely, the only member of the current OotS with d10 HD for more than five levels is Roy weighing in at a mere 12-13d10+Z. Even assuming a CON of 30, Roy is pulling 186 HP. Anything that would threaten Soon would out right kill Roy.

Further, the three members of the current OotS(V, Elan and Haley) that were with Roy have lower than d10 HD(13d4+A, 13d6+B and 13d6+C). Anything that threatens Roy's life would most certainly kill at least one of them, nevermind anything that might threaten Soon's life. No, I doubt immensely that the explosion was a serious attempt to kill Soon from an epic spellcaster. Because if it were, then one of the OotS would be dead.

Plot armor. In a comic where a warhorse falling on your head is fixed with two healing potions and a mid-level wizard survives a pair of full meteor swarms to the face, now this is an issue?

Ozymandias9
2009-12-29, 04:14 PM
I agree, it's very scary to base a deathtrap that volunteers information on anything less than a 100% chance.

I never said that that wasn't stupid. That doesn't make the statistics flawed or untrue, nor does it change the fact that Soon was in fact the ultimate source (well, penultimate if Girard is taken as the ultimate source) of the information that activated the trap.


So all he would have had to do is find Shojo's corpse and Speak with Dead on it. What do you think are the odds that an Aristocrat could beat the Will save on a 15-16th-level cleric?

He was 14th level Aristocrat. That means that he gets a base will save of 9. So 9+his Wis against a DC of 13+RC's Wis. Given how paranoid he was, I would also expect him to have taken some feats as a precaution. I would also expect the Sapphire Guard in general to have taken some precautions (perhaps they are all cremated, or they all have speak with dead cast on them weekly by a magic item burred with them).

Regardless, the answers are specified as "brief, cryptic, or repetitive" even if he fails RC's save. And this is all assuming that Speak With Dead works per SRD in Stick World, which given Eugene's comment in the Dungeon of Durokan, it might not.

Moreover, why does that matter at all? The error I see here is in Girard's gloating and pointing to the correct source of the information, not in any statistical inference or even in setting the bomb.

In fact, if "Red Cloak" or "an enemy" or "someone who isn't a member of the Order of the Scribble or an agent thereof and is collecting information about the gates from corpses" makes up any significant portion of the 10% that isn't Soon or an agent thereof, the bomb becomes a lot less questionable of an idea to me (at least from Girard's point of view, where killing Soon or his lackies is a good thing).

Keep in mind that the Gates, the Snarl, and the Sapphire Guard are all generally secrets in Stick World.

ZeroNumerous
2009-12-29, 04:31 PM
Plot armor. In a comic where a warhorse falling on your head is fixed with two healing potions and a mid-level wizard survives a pair of full meteor swarms to the face, now this is an issue?

Mid-level wizard with epic spells. A small, but very important, distinction. As for the warhorse: Falling damage caps at 20d6, and well, that's only an average of 70 damage.

Shale
2009-12-29, 04:36 PM
Having epic spells (and s/he didn't, actually, after the Maximized Energy Drain) increases your raw HP? And applies after all your buffs are dispelled and you lose the extra power, and are hit with a huge rock?

Also, having a warhorse - an animal that would weigh at least a substantial portion of a ton - fall on your unprotected head stops being falling damage and starts being the equivalent of being crushed by a descending ceiling.

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 04:48 PM
I never said that that wasn't stupid. That doesn't make the statistics flawed or untrue, nor does it change the fact that Soon was in fact the ultimate source (well, penultimate if Girard is taken as the ultimate source) of the information that activated the trap.

All right, I see what you're saying. His statistical process was fine, but his decisions weren't.

The problem is that accurate statistics are useless if the wrong decisions are based on them.


In fact, if "Red Cloak" or "an enemy" or "someone who isn't a member of the Order of the Scribble or an agent thereof and is collecting information about the gates from corpses" makes up any significant portion of the 10% that isn't Soon or an agent thereof, the bomb becomes a lot less questionable of an idea to me (at least from Girard's point of view, where killing Soon or his lackies is a good thing).

The bomb is very questionable, due to both being too weak to harm a legitimate threat and being combined with volunteered information.

Furthermore, the 90% still includes "fascist paladin lackeys" who are NOT guaranteed to be able to survive that blast.


Keep in mind that the Gates, the Snarl, and the Sapphire Guard are all generally secrets in Stick World.

Secrets that Redcloak found out about, and was willing to tell any BBEG that would listen.

Ozymandias9
2009-12-29, 06:00 PM
Furthermore, the 90% still includes "fascist paladin lackeys" who are NOT guaranteed to be able to survive that blast. Which is why I pointed out that that was from Girard's point of view (where killing Soon's lackeys is desirable). I don't endorse it, but his message seems to indicate that he probably at least considered it.

His lips could be a bit tighter in this case though: he spouted off an awful lot of information in that tirade. On that point we agree completely.


Secrets that Redcloak found out about, and was willing to tell any BBEG that would listen.

He's wearing a major artifact. His possession of the information he has came from a deity and he still didn't know where the gates were without the diary. While I think that Girard's a bit unhinged in his hatred of Soon and the Sapphire Guard, it is still fairly safe to say that if the trap is blowing someone up, its someone HE wants to die.

Incidently, I don't think Girard would qualify as good. Probably CN.

Kish
2010-01-02, 03:12 PM
"Sure, if you grasp how paladins think. Mr. Booby Trap here clearly doesn't, or he wouldn't have bet on one to break his oath."

Haley fails statistics forever.

Or something.

Gift Jeraff
2010-01-02, 08:10 PM
I can't believe people are suggesting anything but Neutral Good for Lirian and Dorukan. Lirian was too much of a "friend to ALL living things" kind of hippie to be TN (as opposed to "friend of nature and nature only"). It would only make sense for Dorukan to be the same alignment, plus they both broke the oath (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html) so that kind of hurts any argument for Lawful.

waterpenguin43
2010-01-02, 08:56 PM
My guess:
Soon: Lawful Good, pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lirian: Probably Neutral Good, not LG or CG being a druid, but possibly TN or CN, but seeing how merciful she is (Even to Xykon), I think she's good.
Girard: Chaotic Good, than went Chaotic Neutral after the whole Soon affair.
Serini: Probably Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, being the peacemaking rogue she is.
Dorukan: Likely Neutral Good, he has displayed many good tendencies along the road and wouldn't likely be chaotic (being a wizard.), and wouldn't likely be lawful (he broke the oath.)
Kraagor: Non-evil and Non-lawful, that's all we can say for now.

Ozymandias9
2010-01-02, 11:38 PM
It would only make sense for Dorukan to be the same alignment, plus they both broke the oath (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html) so that kind of hurts any argument for Lawful.

I agree entirely on Lirian. LG on Dorukan is just more of an impression for me based on characters I'm used to seeing. There's some behavior to back it up though: structured challenges, structured contingencies (a self-destruct switch rather than simply being prepared to destroy it), an almost bureaucratic dungeon with rules about the employee stairs, etc.. T His basic outlook seems to try to use structured methods to solve problems. The oath breaking is an issue, but not one that's unquestionably alignment breaking for me: much like Roy's issues, issues of Romance/Passion might be excusable under the correct circumstances. Not every LG character is Durkon.

Either way, we have too little information on him in particular: either way we're likely to end up with little more than a confirmation bias.

Optimystik
2010-01-03, 01:45 PM
"Sure, if you grasp how paladins think. Mr. Booby Trap here clearly doesn't, or he wouldn't have bet on one to break his oath."

Haley fails statistics forever.

Or something.

Imagine that! :smallamused:

Spiky
2010-01-03, 08:57 PM
Well-written? He might as well have wrote it in fecal matter.

What's the spell made from? Perhaps he did.