Can people just read Start Of Darkness already?

[Antacid]

Reading the sticky thread for the latest comic was a painful reminder for me that a fair whack of the fanbase has missed out on a lot of background detail, of the kind that would make Rich's literary intent in comics like #707 much clearer. To summarise:

1) Goblinoid races are not inherantly evil in the OotSverse, although--

2) A fair proportion of the game world's population reflexively acts as if D&D alignment = morality, because--

3) One of Rich's overarching intentions with the comic is to satirise the absurdity of the classic D&D alignment system, and the whole idea of morality as a game mechanic.

So f'd up situations with racist elves and goblins on moral crusades are there for a reason. Don't want to be pedantic, just reminding people that the deviations from canonical D&D are intentional.

Also, more SoD sales = more money for Rich, which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing.

[Deca]

How are racist elves deviations from D&D canon?

[Ancalagon]

It's not that simple... if people, for example, think that it's ok to "kill something just because it's evil"... SoD won't change that.

[Morithias]

How are racist elves deviations from D&D canon?

Pretty true, the first character trait that's personality wise described about elves in almost ANY book is that they're "arrogant".

Yeah, that's right, the main personality for elves is being racist. For every other race or people in the real world it's bad, but for elves it's "an interesting social trait".

As for the main question. A lot of us don't have a ton of money, so we can't just buy that book whenever we want. Technically we could download it, but I doubt Rich would approve of that, assuming one could find a copy of such an unknown book. (Face it outside of the people who read OOTS almost no one knows the book even exists)

[Mastikator]

Goblinoids aren't inherently evil in canon D&D, they're usually lawful evil. Just FYI.

But yeah, Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic are weak words and poor concepts to describe races and cultures and individuals. At least have the clarity to say that goblinoids are fascists and cruel, that elves are arrogant racists, that dwarves are stoic and greedy and honest, that orcs are aggressive and brutal, that humans are powerhungry and selfish. (or at least, they tend towards these personality traits, be it for cultural or racial reasons)
When you have mutually exclusive versions of an alignment, you know the alignment is meaningless.

[Moriarty]

I think we mainly need to consider the actions in the comic under different definitions of "good" and "evil" than we would in our world.

to quote RC, "On the side of Evil, as defined by our opposition to those who choose to call themselves Good" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html)

so far the only charakters we have seen in the comic which I would consider "good" with real world definitions would be Roy, Durkon and Elan, which are the only ones willing to negotiate with the "usually evil" aligned humanoid races.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Pretty true, the first character trait that's personality wise described about elves in almost ANY book is that they're "arrogant".

And yet they are also traditionally Chaotic Good. Never made sense to me.

[Antacid]

It's not that simple... if people, for example, think that it's ok to "kill something just because it's evil"... SoD won't change that.They won't necessarily figure out that Rich doesn't endorse that viewpoint by reading SoD (there have been plenty of hints in the main comic after all, and that hasn't helped) but it'd make it harder to miss at least.

[Querzis]

Its not like goblins are always evil in real D&D either. Beside, this was always a misconceptions from the player, not from the books. No D&D book ever say you can kill anything evil for no reason, in fact, the book of vile darkness make it clear that being evil does not mean you deserve death and that if you kill sentient being for absolutely no other reason then the fact that you think they are evil, its a pretty good indication that you are evil yourself. A paladin who cast detect evil on random peasants, discover two of them are evil and kill them on the spot will fall.

Anyway Antacid, you forgot the most important part of SoD: Gods are bastards. The gods deciding you havent done anything evil doesnt mean anything when they are all evil bastards themselves.

[Draconi Redfir]

i would LOVE to read SoD. problem is that i can never find it. so dont blame me for not reading SoD. it ain't my fault.

[The MunchKING]

And yet they are also traditionally Chaotic Good. Never made sense to me.

"Arrogant" Is not "Murderous rascists/specists".

[The MunchKING]

i would LOVE to read SoD. problem is that i can never find it. so dont blame me for not reading SoD. it ain't my fault.

You can order it from this very webpage...

[Kish]

The MunchKING's right. "Arrogant" is certainly a negative quality, as "Greedy" is. Yet, people are much more likely to question the moral validity of elves having Chaotic Good alignment tendencies than the moral validity of dwarves having Lawful Good ones.

Oversaturation is something I understand, though. It's why I hate humans in D&D so much. (I do note, however, that quite often anti-elf people stray into exactly the same attitudes they decry in elves. Example: In Baldur's Gate 2, the villain was an elven wizard who was punished for a great crime by being "stripped of his elven immortality and exiled." A lot of players assumed, "They made him no longer an elf? Then they made him human!" and then got ticked off about the elves supposedly thinking "the worst thing you can do to someone is make him human"--not realizing that the entire concept of Irenicus being human came from the player, not from the elves.)

Then there's the Dragonlance books, in which almost all elves are Informed Attribute Good and actually evil because Weis and Hickman were trying to make a ridiculously contrived point about "excessive good" being corrupting.

Then, of course, there are goblinoids, with whom a lot of people seem very much to want to turn "they have Neutral Evil/Lawful Evil alignment tendencies" into "every last one of them is Evil and should be killed on sight."

[derfenrirwolv]

I believe you are incorrect in saying that they're non evil. Recall the two Hobgoblin task masters explaining why they need to whip the slaves for evil flavor. While the flavor part was a joke, the substance and declaring themselves to be evil seem to have been actual.

[waterpenguin43]

i would LOVE to read SoD. problem is that i can never find it. so dont blame me for not reading SoD. it ain't my fault.

I agree with a passion.

[Dilettante]

And yet they are also traditionally Chaotic Good. Never made sense to me.Man, I've always found the most arrogant people I know are ones that are pretty individualistic and refuse to follow the rules. :smallcool:

[The MunchKING]

I agree with a passion.

http://www.giantitp.com/GIPOTS99.html

[Oslecamo]

http://www.giantitp.com/GIPOTS99.html

Some of us just don't trust net buying that much. If I can't pay it with paper money or credit card on hand, then no. Not gonna send any of my valuable data to the net even if it costed just 1 dollar and it came with a free Starcraft 2 beta key.

[Ancalagon]

I believe you are incorrect in saying that they're non evil. Recall the two Hobgoblin task masters explaining why they need to whip the slaves for evil flavor. While the flavor part was a joke, the substance and declaring themselves to be evil seem to have been actual.

So, I now assume that all elves are evil? As the elven commander and his assistent are clearly evil and also say how they always claim that "only a dead goblin is a good goblin".
So I deduct: All elves are equal(ly) evil.

[Mercenary Pen]

So, I now assume that all elves are evil? As the elven commander and his assistent are clearly evil and also say how they always claim that "only a dead goblin is a good goblin".
So I deduct: All elves are equal(ly) evil.

I bet not evil. They'll probably be True Neutral or (more likely) Chaotic Neutral, the traditional "evil jerk in all but alignment" alignment choices.

[JoseB]

Some of us just don't trust net buying that much. If I can't pay it with paper money or credit card on hand, then no. Not gonna send any of my valuable data to the net even if it costed just 1 dollar and it came with a free Starcraft 2 beta key.


Then go to your local comic shop (or the closest one you can find) and ask them to order it for you. Many people have bought their copy of SoD in that way.

[Draconi Redfir]

Then go to your local comic shop (or the closest one you can find) and ask them to order it for you. Many people have bought their copy of SoD in that way.

... i honestly did not know i could do that. though im more comfterble just finding it on the shelves, i'll need to ask the guys who run the store if they can do that next time im there.

[LuisDantas]

Gicko: it is certainly possible in many bookstores to ask for a book that they do not have in stock. Happens all the time and most attendants will be quite willing to arrange that.

Moriarty: it seems to me that it is unrealistic, either in a D&D world or in the real world, to expect people (or goblinoids, or even orcs) to actually describe themselves as "evil". The D&D rules may be somewhat stereotypical and lazy in claiming whole races to be "evil", but to have characters actually claiming to be evil is a step further removed from reality yet.

Although I guess "good" and "evil" could end up being thought of as quasi-political terms in such a world, much like we talk of left and right wings, or even different schools of metaphysical/religious thought.

Interesting thought. Which still does not validate the idea that "it is ok for good characters to kill supposedly evil characters on sight", of course.

[SoC175]

"Arrogant" Is not "Murderous rascists/specists". Which doesn't stop them from being so in almsot all official settings

[TinSoldier]

"Arrogant" Is not "Murderous rascists/specists".Right, but "murderous racist/speciesist" certainly does imply some amount of "arrogant".

[Morithias]

Right, but "murderous racist/speciesist" certainly does imply some amount of "arrogant".

Let's put it this way. One of my friends plays up the "better than you cause I'm an elf quality" so much, I created an epic necromancy spell based on OOTS.

The spell? Genocide. Kills all creatures of the ranger subtype it is cast on. Every creature that could be called "Humanoid (Elven)" dead.

Needless to say the fact I had said spell ready meant he was quick to stop up playing it so much. Pretty much like an elf. Only arrogant and better when they're not backed into a corner and about to be killed, then they're all about 'diplomacy'.

I've always seen the Devils as Baator as better than elves. They may be "Always Lawful Evil" but at least they keep their words.

[Querzis]

"Arrogant" Is not "Murderous rascists/specists".

Well, if we get rid of the «murderous» then yes it actually is exactly like that because while normal humans are arrogant about being strong/smart/beautiful or something, I always saw elves being described as arrogant about being elves. They rarely have anything to brag about except for the fact that, you know, they are elves. Honestly I dont even have anything against normal arrogance. You think you're great because you're the strongest or smartest guy around? Well as long as you're right I sure dont have any problem with that. But elves think they are great for absolutely no other reason then the fact that they are elves. Now thats really annoying.

[Morithias]

Well, if we get rid of the «murderous» then yes it actually is exactly like that because while normal humans are arrogant about being strong/smart/beautiful or something, I always saw elves being described as arrogant about being elves. They rarely have anything to brag about except for the fact that, you know, they are elves. Honestly I dont even have anything against normal arrogance. You think you're great because you're the strongest or smartest guy around? Well as long as you're right I sure dont have any problem with that. But elves think they are great for absolutely no other reason then the fact that they are elves. Now thats really annoying.

Very good point. It's basically the equivalent of someone saying that they're a better person than someone else cause they're Caucasian.

Note: I do not mean that as a racist mark towards any minority figures. If people read these things as they were written rather then jumping to conclusions I wouldn't even have to write these disclaimers.

[Optimystik]

Some of us just don't trust net buying that much. If I can't pay it with paper money or credit card on hand, then no. Not gonna send any of my valuable data to the net even if it costed just 1 dollar and it came with a free Starcraft 2 beta key.

Most major banks have a service called "Shopsafe" or some other such term; whereby they generate a one-time use fake credit card number tied to, but distinct from your real account.

You can use that to shop online with impunity, because the vendor never knows its not a real credit card number and it ceases to function after your transaction is complete.

[joeaverage]

Alignment is a bit like sports teams. In one corner we have Team Evil, in the other Team Good. With the neutrals selling weapons to both sides.

You shouldn't expect the other side to suddenly turn to yours in the middle of a game. If you do expect that you might be setting yourself and your team up for failure, and is it really a good act to create a world where Team Evil won?

[veti]

Pretty true, the first character trait that's personality wise described about elves in almost ANY book is that they're "arrogant".

Yeah, that's right, the main personality for elves is being racist. For every other race or people in the real world it's bad, but for elves it's "an interesting social trait".

Am I the only one who thinks that the statement "Elves are arrogant" is, itself, pretty racist? How can anyone not be racist, in a world where races have "traits" that are defined for them in thoroughly racist terms?

The SRD describes goblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) as "cowardly" but credits them with "malicious ingenuity". Under "hobgoblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm)", the only racial trait I can see is "Hobgoblins hate elves".

Racism isn't just a character trait, positive or negative - it's written into the damn' rules.

[Morithias]

Am I the only one who thinks that the statement "Elves are arrogant" is, itself, pretty racist? How can anyone not be racist, in a world where races have "traits" that are defined for them in thoroughly racist terms?

The SRD describes goblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) as "cowardly" but credits them with "malicious ingenuity". Under "hobgoblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm)", the only racial trait I can see is "Hobgoblins hate elves".

Racism isn't just a character trait, positive or negative - it's written into the damn' rules.

It's pretty clear you didn't look very hard. Under "combat" it says they have a strong grasp of strategy and tactics. They are militaristic. Living for war and believe strongly in strength and progress as desirable traits for them and their leaders.

True it does say they hate elves, but given the history that would be the equivalent of a modern day person saying "The United States of America hates Iraq terrorists".

[veti]

It's pretty clear you didn't look very hard. Under "combat" it says they have a strong grasp of strategy and tactics. They are militaristic. Living for war and believe strongly in strength and progress as desirable traits for them and their leaders.

True it does say they hate elves, but given the history that would be the equivalent of a modern day person saying "The United States of America hates Iraq terrorists".

And it's pretty clear that you - oh never mind, I can't be bothered.

What "history"? I may be wrong, I haven't read everything in the SRD, but I thought the DM was still allowed to write their own world history.

"Iraqi terrorists" are not a group defined by race. "Elves" are. To say any more on that subject would be straying too close to real-world politics. But you haven't addressed my point, which is that the rules themselves literally enforce racism. It's a bit harsh to go blaming individual characters, or whole races, or even DMs, for it when it's written into the rules they're using.

[Capt Spanner]

I'd love to read it, but can't find any copies in the UK :smallfrown:

[Cleverdan22]

Well, this is more back to the OP's thing than the whole alignment battle. In more recent comics, ideas and topics that have been expanded on in SoD have been cropping up. I'm wondering if its about time he releases those comics or something, as having read SoD, I'm viewing the more recent comics in a slightly different light.

[Just_Ice]

Am I the only one who thinks that the statement "Elves are arrogant" is, itself, pretty racist? How can anyone not be racist, in a world where races have "traits" that are defined for them in thoroughly racist terms?

The SRD describes goblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) as "cowardly" but credits them with "malicious ingenuity". Under "hobgoblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm)", the only racial trait I can see is "Hobgoblins hate elves".

Racism isn't just a character trait, positive or negative - it's written into the damn' rules.

Personally, I see "hating elves" as a positive trait.

[Player]

What if were to cheap to get it? :smallamused:

[multilis]

I wish more people would read the white book by Saruman the Brave and Grima the Wise. Reveals the truth about the conspiracy of rings, how the Elf and Nazgul ring slaves were in league.

Also good is the shorter prequel, "The Hero" with the adventures of Smaug the Mighty and his friend.

Smaug the Mighty Dragon,
Lived by the Lake,
And together with his human friend,
Adventures they would take.

Little hero Grima love that rascal Smaug...

***

Of course these books are the *true* story, rather than those fraud books by that liar Stormcrow Gandalf.

[Nimrod's Son]

I'd love to read it, but can't find any copies in the UK :smallfrown:
Forbidden Planet (http://forbiddenplanet.com/) is usually stocked to the gills with OotS books. They have stores in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Coventry, Croydon, Liverpool, Newcastle and Southampton.

[Komitadji]

What if people didn't find it important enough to spend $20 on? I mean, no offense, but the webcomic posted here is a self-contained story. Shelling out cash for add-ons is a luxury, not a necessity.

[doodthedud]

SoD costs money. i do not have this at the moment.

[Nimrod's Son]

Well, there's always libraries...

[doodthedud]

So, I now assume that all elves are evil? As the elven commander and his assistent are clearly evil and also say how they always claim that "only a dead goblin is a good goblin".
So I deduct: All elves are equal(ly) evil.

I don't understand. How are they evil?

[imp_fireball]

And yet they are also traditionally Chaotic Good. Never made sense to me.

The fey-like wood elves/night elves are chaotic good, I'd say, but LotR's high elves are definitely lawful good.

[Herald Alberich]

I don't understand. How are they evil?

He posted a flawed argument to make a point. You cannot assume that all elves are evil because of the actions of Team Peregrine in the latest strip.

Likewise, you cannot assume all hobgoblins are evil because of the actions of the slavers in #511 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html).

[doodthedud]

He posted a flawed argument to make a point. You cannot assume that all elves are evil because of the actions of Team Peregrine in the latest strip.

Likewise, you cannot assume all hobgoblins are evil because of the actions of the slavers in #511 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html).

No, I don't understand how he can say Team Peregrine's actions are evil. And act like that is OBVIOUS.


Yo, I totally heard not killing your enemies just because they can't stop you from doing so is totally a good thing to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxb630ipsbs
Oh wait. As soon as the helpless prisoner gains an advantage, he brutally kills the guy.

It's kill or be killed, a tiny resistance army versus an overwhelming hobgoblin one. They are soldiers, they must do what they must do.

[factotum]

I'd love to read it, but can't find any copies in the UK :smallfrown:

Get it imported from Ookoodook, then--that's what I did.

[Draconi Redfir]

Am I the only one who thinks that the statement "Elves are arrogant" is, itself, pretty racist? How can anyone not be racist, in a world where races have "traits" that are defined for them in thoroughly racist terms?

The SRD describes goblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) as "cowardly" but credits them with "malicious ingenuity". Under "hobgoblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm)", the only racial trait I can see is "Hobgoblins hate elves".

Racism isn't just a character trait, positive or negative - it's written into the damn' rules.

we're are you getting that? i'm not finding ANYTHING even remotely related to elves on that hobgoblin page.

[Herald Alberich]

No, I don't understand how he can say Team Peregrine's actions are evil. And act like that is OBVIOUS.


Yo, I totally heard not killing your enemies just because they can't stop you from doing so is totally a good thing to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxb630ipsbs
Oh wait. As soon as the helpless prisoner gains an advantage, he brutally kills the guy.

It's kill or be killed, a tiny resistance army versus an overwhelming hobgoblin one. They are soldiers, they must do what they must do.

Oh, I see. Well, as the 25 pages in the main thread, plus a few other threads, will attest, it's not that obvious to everyone. I tend to agree with you, but I also don't think the act was anywhere near Good (Neutral exists, too), and while it may have been necessary, he didn't go about it in a strictly-business fashion, which rubs a lot of us the wrong way.

[doodthedud]

Oh, I see. Well, as the 25 pages in the main thread, plus a few other threads, will attest, it's not that obvious to everyone. I tend to agree with you, but I also don't think the act was anywhere near Good (Neutral exists, too), and while it may have been necessary, he didn't go about it in a strictly-business fashion, which rubs a lot of us the wrong way.

It's safe to assume that while the hobgoblin has low chances of being a plant, since the attack was almost certainly unexpected, but that he would, in fact, try to barter for his freedom or perhaps warn his fellow hobgoblins. This would mean the goblin is trying to trick you. If you encountered someone who you were fairly sure was trying to trick you to sell out you and by now, probably a few hundred others, you would not likely be happy with him. It's more a turning it around in his face kinda thing. It's not "Yay, we're gonna be frien...KILL!", it's more making him think you've fallen for a trap he set, but then turning it around on him at the last second. You think he's a despicable fiend, so you want to make him think he's won then show him he's lost.

[Rhapsody]

What if people didn't find it important enough to spend $20 on? I mean, no offense, but the webcomic posted here is a self-contained story. Shelling out cash for add-ons is a luxury, not a necessity.

This. As much as I love reading OotS, it's not enough to make me cough up money for it.

[Ancalagon]

Why not? You said you "love" it. Just see it as a donation for the author of something you love - and you also get an awesome book for it that fills in a lot of "story".

If you see it this way, you'd donate like 0.042 $ per comic (and you get SoD "for free")...

[LuisDantas]

This. As much as I love reading OotS, it's not enough to make me cough up money for it.

Apparently Rich planned for the webcomic to be more self-contained than it ended up being. The very existence of this thread is witness to how hard it is to make his points about alignments and racism/speciecism in the webcomic proper.

It's a bit depressing, really. First Belkar is decreed "Neutral" by many fans, then Familicide is "Not Evil", followed by claims that killing Crystal somehow is "not murder", and now it is not evil to kill a prisoner needlessly.

Scary.

[LuisDantas]

Why not? You said you "love" it. Just see it as a donation for the author of something you love - and you also get an awesome book for it that fills in a lot of "story".

If you see it this way, you'd donate like 0.042 $ per comic (and you get SoD "for free")...

There is such a thing as people who have Internet access, but no cash to spare, you know. Not everyone can responsibly choose to spend almost twenty dollars (or a fair bit more, if you are overseas) on a book that is, after all, purely recreational.

Myself, I would spend about thirty dollars (postage included). Minimum pay for a 44-hour in Brazil amounts for just over two hundred dollars, so SoD ends up costing about three whole work days for many Brazilians. I know of so many people that simply can't make ends meet already (Brazil has a criminally bad distribution of wealth) that it is completely irrealistic to expect more than just a tiny percentage of Brazilian fans to buy the book.

It is rather sad, but that is how things are. Anyone who likes the webcomics and has the means is by all means encouraged to buy the books. But alas, not everyone CAN.

[Ancalagon]

If you simply cannot afford something than you simply cannot afford something. In that case, everything else is moot anyway.

As I do not know if we are talking about the price for an hour's work or a month's work, I cannot assume either.

What is written about "money for things you like but that you don't need for a lliving" is of course only valid if that money comes from a pool of cash you CAN spend on "things you like but that you don't need for a living".
And I think you can throw 30$ in the direction of something you "love" (unless you need it for a living).

[Antacid]

I'd love to read it, but can't find any copies in the UK :smallfrown:Do you have an internet connection?

[salinan]

It's a bit depressing, really. First Belkar is decreed "Neutral" by many fans, then Familicide is "Not Evil", followed by claims that killing Crystal somehow is "not murder", and now it is not evil to kill a prisoner needlessly.

Scary.
My apologies if I scare you, but I'll argue those last two.

The bonus strips in DStP put Crystal's death in a bit more context, and with that knowledge I'm inclined to consider it self defense. Or would you be happy to leave a known threat with standing orders to kill you behind you while you try to concentrate on saving the world? It might be a bit of a distraction, is my thinking.

As for the prisoner killing in 707, I maintain that method aside, the death was necessary. The hobgoblin saw too much, and there was too much danger of him escaping or doublecrossing them (on the very slim chance that he was sincere) for the resistance to leave him alive. Be it a knife across the throat or a fall from a great height, he was doomed. The resistance is in a precarious position - they can't afford any risks.

[onthetown]

Not all of us can order it from our comic shops. The one comic shop in town that ordered any book you wanted at any time just closed around here. The other two don't do "special orders" unless they have a lot of people asking for the stock. I don't do internet buying because I have no credit card (yet). Yes, there are such things as adults without credit cards. I don't do PayPal through my debit card because I have no money to spare, and I don't want to give in to temptation.

My copy of No Cure for the Paladin Blues, I found by chance at the comic shop that closed. I found Origin and DCF together a few months later but I was broke and still am.

In other words... No, it's really not that easy for some of us to get webcomics in print. As much as I love OotS, I happen to love groceries, my car, my horse, electricity, internet connection, and all those other things that bills pay for more.

[Jayabalard]

Also, more SoD sales = more money for Rich, which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing.Actually, while I'm sure that a lot of people agree on this, it gets a resounding "meh" from a not insignificant number of people.

[Optimystik]

The bonus strips in DStP put Crystal's death in a bit more context, and with that knowledge I'm inclined to consider it self defense. Or would you be happy to leave a known threat with standing orders to kill you behind you while you try to concentrate on saving the world? It might be a bit of a distraction, is my thinking.

How has Haley prevented that, exactly? She fully expects Bozzok to raise Crystal, who now has double the reason to go after her. Haley's act was revenge, pure and simple.


As for the prisoner killing in 707, I maintain that method aside, the death was necessary. The hobgoblin saw too much, and there was too much danger of him escaping or doublecrossing them (on the very slim chance that he was sincere) for the resistance to leave him alive. Be it a knife across the throat or a fall from a great height, he was doomed. The resistance is in a precarious position - they can't afford any risks.

Was it pragmatic for the racist elf to kill the equally racist yet unarmed hobgoblin? Perhaps. Was it evil? Going with definitely on that one.

Even a necessary evil is still evil, and we don't even know if killing that prisoner was necessary.

[salinan]

How has Haley prevented that, exactly? She fully expects Bozzok to raise Crystal, who now has double the reason to go after her. Haley's act was revenge, pure and simple.
I believe Haley's words were IF Bozzok raises her. So in her mind at least it's not guaranteed. And if he does, well Haley has at the very least given herself a head start - i.e. a little breathing room.


Was it pragmatic for the racist elf to kill the equally racist yet unarmed hobgoblin? Perhaps. Was it evil? Going with definitely on that one.

Even a necessary evil is still evil, and we don't even know if killing that prisoner was necessary.
You'll notice I said "method aside". I was responding to the assertion that the killing was unnecessary, not trying to defend the method used.

[Serpentine]

And I think you can throw 30$ in the direction of something you "love" (unless you need it for a living).I have about $-20 in my account right now. I have no idea what Rhapsody, nor anyone else's, money situation is, and neither do you. I'm a little offended that you think you can make such statement about what we "can" - perhaps, by extension, "should" - spend our own money on. I love chocolate. That doesn't mean I spend every penny I have spare on it. There's a new gaming shop in town, which probably sells the oots books. When I have money again, I may choose to spend in on them. Maybe I won't. I still enjoy the comic anyway, and there's plenty of other things I need and want to spend my money on. Whether I do or not, you have no right to pass judgement on me for it.

[Conuly]

Well, there's always libraries...

Obviously your local library rocks.

[Ancalagon]

I have about $-20 in my account right now. [...]

Calm down, it's just an internet forum and stuff. If you don't have the money, then you don't have it. Simple as that. If you don't feel like coughing it up for this specific reason, that is something else. And THAT is what Rhapsody wrote and that is to what I replied.
Simple as that, no more, no less.


This. As much as I love reading OotS, it's not enough to make me cough up money for it.

Serpentine, please don't forbid me replying to things people wrote addressing *exactly* what they wrote.
He said he "loves" OotS, but not enough to cough up money for it. I asked "why" and remarked "If you love it, it should be worth it and btw, it'd only be 4.2 cents per already published post"? That's all.

[Nimrod's Son]

Obviously your local library rocks.
It doesn't have to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlibrary_loan)

[Serpentine]

Serpentine, please don't forbid me replying to things people wrote addressing *exactly* what they wrote.
He said he "loves" OotS, but not enough to cough up money for it. I asked "why" and remarked "If you love it, it should be worth it and btw, it'd only be 4.2 cents per already published post"? That's all.That would be the part I object to. Who are you to say what he "should" or should not spend his own money on?

edit: Because I have no doubt that someone will have a go at me for being too emotional and/or defensive, and quite rightly, I'll start over again:


And I think you can throw 30$ in the direction of something you "love" (unless you need it for a living).Sir, I resent the apparent implication here that you have some right to dictate what a person, whose financial circumstances you don't know and which is irrelevant to the freedom of one to spend one's own money as they wish, "should" spend their money on. I request that you retract or rephrase this statement. Recommendations of purchases is one thing, guilting or shaming someone into buying something is quite another.

[Optimystik]

I believe Haley's words were IF Bozzok raises her. So in her mind at least it's not guaranteed. And if he does, well Haley has at the very least given herself a head start - i.e. a little breathing room.

Head start or not, she's still, to use your phrase, "left a known threat with standing orders to kill her behind her while she tries to save the world." In fact, the standing orders had changed thanks to Hank, but Haley's now given Crystal a great reason to ignore the Guild's moratorium on trying to kill her completely.


You'll notice I said "method aside". I was responding to the assertion that the killing was unnecessary, not trying to defend the method used.

The assertion you replied to said the killing was evil, not that it wasn't necessary. Necessity was your own invention.

[WreckedElf]

3) One of Rich's overarching intentions with the comic is to satirise the absurdity of the classic D&D alignment system, and the whole idea of morality as a game mechanic.

Is there a quote from Rich on this somewhere? Forum post or commetary in a book maybe? I'm not disagreeing with the statement, just wondering if that is officially confirmed.

[Ancalagon]

That would be the part I object to. Who are you to say what he "should" or should not spend his own money on?

I'm not argueing with you. It seems to be a very touchy subject for you and you'll turn everything I say into "You arrogant prick tells everyone what they have to do with the money they don't have, you insentive clod", while I did not.

I stated my opinion, independent of circumstances.

And you argue FOR others, you have no idea if he DOES NOT have the money or if what he LITERALLY said is true (he does not like OotS enough to spend money on it). You simply don't know.

But as I said: I will leave it at this: Do whatever with your money what you wish. I'm telling neither you or anyone else what they should do. For the rest: I already said what I had to say.

Apart from that: you really should calm down.

[Serpentine]

you have no idea if he DOES NOT have the money or if what he LITERALLY said is true (he does not like OotS enough to spend money on it). You simply don't know.Neither do you.
Moving right along...

Once I have enough money, I'll look into buying it.

[Ancalagon]

Neither do you.

... which is why I took his statement literally...

[salinan]

Head start or not, she's still, to use your phrase, "left a known threat with standing orders to kill her behind her while she tries to save the world."
Lets see - Crystal is at least delayed, and possibly out of the picture entirely, versus immediately on her trail had Haley left her alive. Which is the better scenario for Haley here...


In fact, the standing orders had changed thanks to Hank, but Haley's now given Crystal a great reason to ignore the Guild's moratorium on trying to kill her completely.
Eh? Do you have DStP? If so, I suggest that you check again.

The order for Crystal to kill Haley was after Haley's reinstatement in the guild, and was still in effect when they left Grubwiggler's. Given that Haley skipped without paying the guild the agreed upon amount of gold, I strongly suspect she'd be guild enemy no.1 anyway.


The assertion you replied to said the killing was evil, not that it wasn't necessary. Necessity was your own invention.
Once more. I responded to the part where he asserted that it was unnecessary. Since the "evil" followed from it being unnecessary, there was no need for me to argue that bit. Note, once again, that I am referring only to the act of killing the hobgoblin, not the method used.

[Optimystik]

Lets see - Crystal is at least delayed, and possibly out of the picture entirely, versus immediately on her trail had Haley left her alive. Which is the better scenario for Haley here...

I'm not saying that what Haley did wasn't pragmatic. That doesn't make killing someone while naked and not an active threat not be murder though.


Eh? Do you have DStP? If so, I suggest that you check again.

The order for Crystal to kill Haley was after Haley's reinstatement in the guild, and was still in effect when they left Grubwiggler's. Given that Haley skipped without paying the guild the agreed upon amount of gold, I strongly suspect she'd be guild enemy no.1 anyway.

There's still a lot of daylight between defending yourself from an assassin with lethal force, and shooting/stabbing the same assassin while she is naked and leaving the shower.

Again, pragmatic, but still murder.


Once more. I responded to the part where he asserted that it was unnecessary. Since the "evil" followed from it being unnecessary, there was no need for me to argue that bit. Note, once again, that I am referring only to the act of killing the hobgoblin, not the method used.

His post (quoted in yours) did not mention "necessity" at all. Only evil.

[salinan]

I'm not saying that what Haley did wasn't pragmatic. That doesn't make killing someone while naked and not an active threat not be murder though.
Haley is effectively performing a preemptive strike. She knows Crystal is out to get her. A preemptive strike like that falls in my definition of self defense.

Maybe it doesn't fit yours. In which case we'll have to agree to disagree.


His post (quoted in yours) did not mention "necessity" at all. Only evil.
My apologies. The word he used was "needlessly". I figured it was close enough to "unnecessary" to run with. Anyway, that's the point I was debating.

[Optimystik]

Haley is effectively performing a preemptive strike. She knows Crystal is out to get her. A preemptive strike like that falls in my definition of self defense.

A pre-emptive strike can't BE self-defense, by definition. It means you're attacking, not defending.


Maybe it doesn't fit yours. In which case we'll have to agree to disagree.

Or that of any ethical/legal system, so okay.

[Ancalagon]

Haley is effectively performing a preemptive strike. She knows Crystal is out to get her. A preemptive strike like that falls in my definition of self defense.

Preemptive strikes can also be murder - using a "clean" word for it does not change the fact it's plain murder.

Laws are pretty tricky about what is murder. In general, it's "killing someone, but in the evil way or by evil motives". To shed some light on the issue, let's check out what murder is (because that is what I think about).
I'm using the german example but I think the us (or anyone else's) definition would be similar:
Murder is if you kill someone (badly translated):
first the "motive"
* for lust of murder,
* for sexual reasons,
* for greed,
* or other "lower" reasons,
* to make another crime possible or to cover one up,

second is "how"
* in cattines,
* cruel,
* a danger to public safety.

If ANY of these are true, then it's murder. While your specific law might vary, I think it's obvious why things are as they are. You are not just killing someone, but you are doing it for "lower" reasons or in a mean way.
In this case, Haley deliberatly went for Crystal when she was unprepared, she surprised her, she shot without warning... to "cattiness" is true in all cases. I'd say it was murder.

If it was necessary or legit or whatever is a totally different question.

[salinan]

A pre-emptive strike can't BE self-defense, by definition. It means you're attacking, not defending.
Oh for the love of -

The tactic is a preemptive strike. The strategy is self defense. Happy now?

[Asta Kask]

I have about $-20 in my account right now. I have no idea what Rhapsody, nor anyone else's, money situation is, and neither do you. I'm a little offended that you think you can make such statement about what we "can" - perhaps, by extension, "should" - spend our own money on. I love chocolate. That doesn't mean I spend every penny I have spare on it. There's a new gaming shop in town, which probably sells the oots books. When I have money again, I may choose to spend in on them. Maybe I won't. I still enjoy the comic anyway, and there's plenty of other things I need and want to spend my money on. Whether I do or not, you have no right to pass judgement on me for it.

Couldn't you mooch of your boyfriend? :smallsmile:

[Ancalagon]

Oh for the love of -

The tactic is a preemptive strike. The strategy is self defense. Happy now?

No, "self defense" is not used in that regard. "Self defense" ONLY applies in a specific threat-scenario. You cannot pre-emptive-self-defend yourself.

Self defense if some guy wants to bash your skull in and you manage to evade that. By hitting, hurting, or killing him.

Shooting some guy right now who screams "Tomorrow I will kill you" or after he tried to kill you yesterday are both NOT self defense.

[salinan]

For my final attempt to get across the meaning of what I am saying (which I suspect you already know, and are simply arguing for the sake of it) - I give you anticipatory self defense. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Tips-and-Tricks-For-Anticipatory-Self-Defense&id=1791353)


What is anticipatory self-defense?
The principle of anticipatory self-defense is based on prevention. Instead of waiting for a dangerous situation to arise, it's much better to try to anticipate what might happen and prepare for it than to find solutions when the situation is already occurring. That way, danger may be averted and a difficult situation defused.

It can mean attacking prior to being attacked.

[Optimystik]

It can mean attacking prior to being attacked.

Putting aside for the moment that this guy isn't much of a source for ethical behavior, your article emphasizes that such techniques are to be used only to provide yourself with a means of safe egress. In other words, you knock out the guy who's blocking the door so you can get away; you don't ambush him while he's naked and slit his throat because he might come after you at some unspecified point in the future.

Second, Haley failed to do what the article required of her:


Anticipatory self-defense is not about acting out an immediate counter attack. It's important to try to see if a confrontation can be avoided through physical evasion or verbal contact. If not, only then should physical self-defense techniques be used.

Haley did neither of these things.

Finally, we have the most telling factor: Belkar's approval, which proves that what Haley did is questionable at best.

[doodthedud]

No, "self defense" is not used in that regard. "Self defense" ONLY applies in a specific threat-scenario. You cannot pre-emptive-self-defend yourself.

Self defense if some guy wants to bash your skull in and you manage to evade that. By hitting, hurting, or killing him.

Shooting some guy right now who screams "Tomorrow I will kill you" or after he tried to kill you yesterday are both NOT self defense.

A pre-emptive strike is used to keep you, or someone else, safe. If someone is going to attack you and you stop them before they can, be it seconds before they do or hours before they do, it is still a defensive thing to do. It is in response to a very real threat.

[salinan]

In other words, you knock out the guy who's blocking the door so you can get away; you don't ambush him while he's naked and slit his throat because he might come after you at some unspecified point in the future.

Second, Haley failed to do what the article required of her:
Bear in mind that the article I linked to is guidelines for anticipatory self defense for a particular martial art - I couldn't find a decent definition. The guidelines given are for the practice of that particular martial art. They are not a hard and fast definition of what steps are required for an action to be classified as anticipatory self defense. There are other explanations of anticipatory self defense situations, including wartime ones, but I'm not going to link to them - google if you're interested. Suffice to say, the general principle is the important part, and is essentially the bit I quoted.


Finally, we have the most telling factor: Belkar's approval, which proves that what Haley did is questionable at best.
Her actions were morally grey, yes. I'm not arguing against that. It's not important to my argument though.

[Optimystik]

A pre-emptive strike is used to keep you, or someone else, safe. If someone is going to attack you and you stop them before they can, be it seconds before they do or hours before they do, it is still a defensive thing to do. It is in response to a very real threat.

The word "threat" implies uncertainty. There is a chance that the danger will not materialize, or that it won't prove as hazardous as you believe.


Bear in mind that the article I linked to is guidelines for anticipatory self defense for a particular martial art - I couldn't find a decent definition.

Nor will you, if you are continuing to claim that killing someone who might come after you counts as self-defense.


Her actions were morally grey, yes. I'm not arguing against that. It's not important to my argument though.

My point in referencing its morality is that she put a black mark on herself for no real gain. She's only made Crystal more likely to come after her, not less. And again, the post you quoted and were disputing referred to it as "murder," a judgment I fully agree with.

[veti]

we're are you getting that? i'm not finding ANYTHING even remotely related to elves on that hobgoblin page.

Then you need to read it more carefully...


Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hobgoblin.htm)

These creatures have a strong grasp of strategy and tactics and are capable of carrying out sophisticated battle plans. Under the leadership of a skilled strategist or tactician, their discipline can prove a deciding factor. Hobgoblins hate elves and attack them first, in preference to other opponents.

[Sholos]

I think you're confusing fluff with hard rules. Remember, the combat section isn't a hard ruling on how monsters fight; it is there to give the DM the "standard" fluff about how they fight. In Greyhawk, hobgoblins hate elves. It's part of the setting. Kind of like the fact that most elves live in forests and have a dislike of cities. Kind of like how dwarfs are taciturn and like drinking. These are setting descriptions, nothing more.

Now, dwarfs. Dwarfs get an actual bonus against a specific enemy type. That's racism built into the rules.

[Oslecamo]

I think you're confusing fluff with hard rules. Remember, the combat section isn't a hard ruling on how monsters fight; it is there to give the DM the "standard" fluff about how they fight. In Greyhawk, hobgoblins hate elves. It's part of the setting. Kind of like the fact that most elves live in forests and have a dislike of cities. Kind of like how dwarfs are taciturn and like drinking. These are setting descriptions, nothing more.

And what is D&D, but a combination of fluff and rules?

Sure, you can have hobgoblin wise peacefull sages living in urban cities and discovering technology while elves are a fanatic desert civilization. But you would be applying rule 0 there, not following the books.

[Sholos]

And what is D&D, but a combination of fluff and rules?
A combination of fluff, rules, and a healthy dose of DM guidance as well as player input. Otherwise you may as well go play Monopoly.


Sure, you can have hobgoblin wise peacefull sages living in urban cities and discovering technology while elves are a fanatic desert civilization. But you would be applying rule 0 there, not following the books.

Rule 0 is a rule from the books.

[Felyndiira]

Since the topic has already derailed into a morality argument, can I insert a reflective strawman of sorts into the debate?


Dr. Righto: I promise you, Zatharina Hero, I will get my revenge on you! I'm going to murder everyone you love, then everyone they love, then rape their corpses and defile them and stuff their souls in dolls so that they'd watch what I do to them! I swear it upon my life!

Zatharina: Oh geez, Dr. Righto, I'd love to kill you to protect my family, but since you're totally defenseless right now, that would be murder! So, I guess I'll just stop you every time you try that and hope I'm lucky enough to succeed every time! It's totally the right thing to do, and I don't want a blotch on my record of good, do I?

*Dr. Righto goes and does horrific acts to Zatharina's family*

Zatharina: Evil Dr. Righto! How dare you! I have come to avenge my family and rid the world of your plague!

Dr. Righto: I surrender.

Zatharina: What?

Dr. Righto: I surrender. You can't kill a defenseless man, can you? Now, put me in prison or whatever it is you good guys do and let's call it a day, will you, so that I can escape later and desecrate what remains of your family?

Zatharina: I guess it would be murder if I killed you while you're defenseless in your room. Okay, I guess I'll just put you in prison and hope you don't escape and desecrate more of my loved ones, since killing you would be a blip on my good-a-dar, right?

[doodthedud]

Since the topic has already derailed into a morality argument, can I insert a reflective strawman of sorts into the debate?

lol. Lawful Stupid :P

[doodthedud]

The word "threat" implies uncertainty. There is a chance that the danger will not materialize, or that it won't prove as hazardous as you believe.


But in this case, the threat is very likely and decides the fate of hundreds of people. The 'evil' thing to do would be to ignore it and let people die because of it.
You can't put an overarching rule over anything, everything is situational, as is the pre-emptive strike. Sometimes, it could be entirely unnecessary, I mean, if you got a death threat from an idiot teenager in a chat room, you wouldn't track them down and kill them because they threatened you, but if you have a very real potential enemy, who would be in a good position to cause the deaths of hundreds of people, you have to act.

[Friv]

Since the topic has already derailed into a morality argument, can I insert a reflective strawman of sorts into the debate?

You can, but I should note that it relies entirely on the existence of comic-book logic which allows villains to constantly escape after being caught. In the real world, people very rarely escape from maximum-security prisons, and when they do there's generally a lot of notice that it happened and their potential targets are warned about it. I can't recall the most recent time that's made the news (and God knows it would make headlines pretty much everywhere).

Frankly, if Zatharina kills Doctor Righto, he'll just be summoned from Hell with entirely new powers, kill all of her family and enslave their souls, and mock her for having broken her code to kill him. If she doesn't, he'll break out of jail and kill her family. She's pretty much screwed regardless because her writer is a jerk.

[LuisDantas]

But in this case, the threat is very likely and decides the fate of hundreds of people. The 'evil' thing to do would be to ignore it and let people die because of it.

Are we still talking about Haley murdering Crystal? Because it is quite a stretch to claim that killing Crystal was necessary to go after the Gates and the Snarl. As Optymistik quite correctly pointed out, that will only make Bozzok and Crystal MORE eager to cross paths with Haley again.

What Haley did only makes sense if understood as the catharsis that it probably was. From either a tactical or strategic standpoint, it is temporary relief at absolute best.


You can't put an overarching rule over anything, everything is situational, as is the pre-emptive strike. Sometimes, it could be entirely unnecessary, I mean, if you got a death threat from an idiot teenager in a chat room, you wouldn't track them down and kill them because they threatened you, but if you have a very real potential enemy, who would be in a good position to cause the deaths of hundreds of people, you have to act.

And that is not at all the situation being discussed, since even assuming that Bozzok will not ressurrect Crystal (not at all a safe bet), Bozzok himself - as well as most of the Guild, really - will only feel more motivated to kill Haley on sight now. Alive, she is a continous source of shame for the Guild, and a bad precedent to boot. So for them it is now more imperious than ever that she pay for her offenses.

[doodthedud]

Are we still talking about Haley murdering Crystal? Because it is quite a stretch to claim that killing Crystal was necessary to go after the Gates and the Snarl. As Optymistik quite correctly pointed out, that will only make Bozzok and Crystal MORE eager to cross paths with Haley again.

What Haley did only makes sense if understood as the catharsis that it probably was. From either a tactical or strategic standpoint, it is temporary relief at absolute best.



And that is not at all the situation being discussed, since even assuming that Bozzok will not ressurrect Crystal (not at all a safe bet), Bozzok himself - as well as most of the Guild, really - will only feel more motivated to kill Haley on sight now. Alive, she is a continous source of shame for the Guild, and a bad precedent to boot. So for them it is now more imperious than ever that she pay for her offenses.

I am talking about the elf on the roof with the hobgoblin, not at all about Haley. Sorry for the confusion, it was what I thought the pre-emptive strike discussion was talking about.

[salinan]

The word "threat" implies uncertainty. There is a chance that the danger will not materialize, or that it won't prove as hazardous as you believe.
Clearly, that's up to Haley to assess. She decided the threat was sufficient to take action on. I happen to agree with her, and you don't. Oh well.


Nor will you, if you are continuing to claim that killing someone who might come after you counts as self-defense.
Oh come on. Seriously? The fact that I linked to something that describes the exact principle that I was talking about isn't good enough for you?

Fine. Then I can't convince you.


My point in referencing its morality is that she put a black mark on herself for no real gain. She's only made Crystal more likely to come after her, not less. And again, the post you quoted and were disputing referred to it as "murder," a judgment I fully agree with.
Once more, the morality of her action is not central to my argument. It's a straw man that you're trying to put forward to support your thesis that it was murder. Her action can be morally grey without it being murder.

It's difficult for Crystal to follow Haley if she's dead. I'd suggest that as the reason that Haley killed her. You seem to think it's a given that Crystal will be raised. As I've already said, Haley doesn't seem to think that's as likely as you do.

If none of that convinces you, then how about Word of God. From the DStP commentary:

I forgot when cutting these strips, that I had included a rationale for this act within them: That Crystal (and Bozzok) had no intention of letting Haley live now that the immediate danger of the previous battle was past. Crystal, in addition to being an evil assassin who killed without compunction, was actually an ongoing threat to Haley's life, truce or no truce. Viewed in this light, Haley's game of knock-knock with Crystal in the next chapter becomes a pre-emptive strike against a dangerous foe rather than pre-meditated murder.
Emphasis mine. Hey, I forgot he even said preemptive until I looked that up again. Great minds think alike. Feel free to argue with that.

[Optimystik]

Emphasis mine. Hey, I forgot he even said preemptive until I looked that up again. Great minds think alike. Feel free to argue with that.

In your haste to deliver the snark, you missed the key point of the Giant's quote. He himself admitted that he omitted important context to Haley's decision by cutting those bonus strips from the site. So finding fault with me for judging the events on their own merits is a bit irrational, don't you think?

And her actions being justified doesn't change the fact that, if Crystal is raised, she'll be more incensed than ever - which was my point to begin with. Feel free to argue with that.

[salinan]

In your haste to deliver the snark, you missed the key point of the Giant's quote. He himself admitted that he omitted important context to Haley's decision by cutting those bonus strips from the site. So finding fault with me for judging the events on their own merits is a bit irrational, don't you think?
Oh, I 'delivered the snark' after careful deliberation, thank you - I thought you thoroughly deserved it for some of the disingenuity included in your previous posts.

In my original post on this subject, I wrote


The bonus strips in DStP put Crystal's death in a bit more context, and with that knowledge I'm inclined to consider it self defense.
It's not my fault if you didn't read that, and I was assuming that anyone who argued with me had similarly read those strips and commentary in DStP.


And her actions being justified doesn't change the fact that, if Crystal is raised, she'll be more incensed than ever - which was my point to begin with. Feel free to argue with that.
Show me where I argued that IF she was raised that she wouldn't be incensed. So no, I won't argue with that. :smalltongue:

[Optimystik]

Oh, I 'delivered the snark' after careful deliberation, thank you - I thought you thoroughly deserved it for some of the disingenuity included in your previous posts.

Obviously you didn't deliberate carefully enough, as the Giant's quote has no bearing on our discussion, as I've shown.


Show me where I argued that IF she was raised that she wouldn't be incensed. So no, I won't argue with that. :smalltongue:

But if you admit that she will be incensed, then your original argument is pointless. Observe:


Or would you be happy to leave a known threat with standing orders to kill you behind you while you try to concentrate on saving the world? It might be a bit of a distraction, is my thinking.

Haley's still done that. Get it yet?
If she was really trying to keep Crystal from coming after her, she'd have burned her body and scattered the ashes in a swamp somewhere, or trumped up the cash for a Soul Bind scroll like the ABD did. But she didn't. So in the absence of some new information (like Bozzok suddenly deciding Crystal is a liability and not having her raised), Haley has not solved her problem. Dig?

[veti]

If she was really trying to keep Crystal from coming after her, she'd have burned her body and scattered the ashes in a swamp somewhere, or trumped up the cash for a Soul Bind scroll like the ABD did.

Well, she was kinda in a hurry, if you remember. She killed her and took her dagger - that's probably the biggest dent she could have put in Crystal's potential to track her down in the very limited time available.

[salinan]

Obviously you didn't deliberate carefully enough, as the Giant's quote has no bearing on our discussion, as I've shown.
Say what? You've been arguing with my interpretation of her actions throughout, and the quote is confirming that The Giant had that exact reasoning in mind when he made those strips. How on earth does that have no bearing on our discussion??


But if you admit that she will be incensed, then your original argument is pointless. Observe:
Once more, Crystal being raised is far from certain, particularly if the thieves guild doesn't have the windfall of Haleys gold to use to do so. Clearly, that's what Haley's hoping for.

However, even if Crystal does get raised, it wasn't likely to happen until Haley was well and truly gone. Haley gains breathing space.

You seem to think that Crystal being incensed (in the event that she is raised) would make her more likely to follow than if Haley hadn't killed her. Maybe, maybe not. However, the possibility that she's out of the picture entirely would make that seem a worthwhile risk to me.

Could she have made it more permanent? I'm sure she could have, had she the time. But as veti mentioned, the clock was running.

[Optimystik]

Well, she was kinda in a hurry, if you remember. She killed her and took her dagger - that's probably the biggest dent she could have put in Crystal's potential to track her down in the very limited time available.

How does having Crystal's dagger make her harder to track down? It's Chekov's Knife, if you ask me.


Say what? You've been arguing with my interpretation of her actions throughout, and the quote is confirming that The Giant had that exact reasoning in mind when he made those strips. How on earth does that have no bearing on our discussion??

Without the context of the bonus strips, Haley's killing of Crystal was indeed murder as we had no way of knowing how imminent B and C's attack would have been. Even supposing that such important context has been provided in the book, I'll reserve judgment until I read it myself.



Once more, Crystal being raised is far from certain, particularly if the thieves guild doesn't have the windfall of Haleys gold to use to do so. Clearly, that's what Haley's hoping for.

Haley's gold was to raise all the mooks that got killed in the attack. Even discounting any resources the TG may already possess, OBP's cache alone is enough to pay for Crystal, and she is the most valuable minion Bozzok has. (High enough level to threaten Haley, too stupid to threaten Bozzok.)


However, even if Crystal does get raised, it wasn't likely to happen until Haley was well and truly gone. Haley gains breathing space.

She had that anyway. Even Crystal's not dumb enough to attack the reassembled Order.

What Haley has given Crystal is a reason to bear a lifelong and all-consuming grudge. The hesitation Crystal showed last time she stood over a disabled Haley? I'm willing to be that's gone, personal rival or not.


You seem to think that Crystal being incensed (in the event that she is raised) would make her more likely to follow than if Haley hadn't killed her. Maybe, maybe not. However, the possibility that she's out of the picture entirely would make that seem a worthwhile risk to me.

I don't consider it worthwhile, because Haley put her entire alignment in jeopardy (again I point to Belkar's approving expression) just to avoid a fight she would have stood a much better chance of winning the next time around. Is putting Crystal in her place - without even the luxury of knowing it's permanent - worth spending eternity without her boyfriend? I'd say no.


Could she have made it more permanent? I'm sure she could have, had she the time. But as veti mentioned, the clock was running.

And I say, if you can't do the job right, better not to do it at all.

[salinan]

Without the context of the bonus strips, Haley's killing of Crystal was indeed murder as we had no way of knowing how imminent B and C's attack would have been. Even supposing that such important context has been provided in the book, I'll reserve judgment until I read it myself.
How many times do I have to say this?

The bonus strips in DStP put Crystal's death in a bit more context, and with that knowledge I'm inclined to consider it self defense.
I've bolded it this time, so hopefully it will stand out a bit better. I made that statement in my original post. I assumed that anyone who was willing to argue with me would do so having read the material I mentioned.

Yes, clearly, the strip in the online comics doesn't make it look good - Rich admits it himself. So do I. That's why I wrote "with that knowledge", referring to knowledge picked up from DStP.


Haley's gold was to raise all the mooks that got killed in the attack. Even discounting any resources the TG may already possess, OBP's cache alone is enough to pay for Crystal, and she is the most valuable minion Bozzok has. (High enough level to threaten Haley, too stupid to threaten Bozzok.)
The phrase "Too stupid to live" springs to mind...

It depends. We don't know the value he placed on the other members of the guild. There may be someone else who was killed that is the only one who can do <something>, where <something> is particularly prized by Bozzok. Not enough information. Therefore, I'm leaving it at "may be raised".

From a story point of view, it seems to me that the way Rich wrote that strip, that he means for that to be permanent. I.e. make up whatever reason you want for it, but she's not going to be raised.


She had that anyway. Even Crystal's not dumb enough to attack the reassembled Order.
Of course not. However, she would still have to find where they went and catch up to them.


What Haley has given Crystal is a reason to bear a lifelong and all-consuming grudge. The hesitation Crystal showed last time she stood over a disabled Haley? I'm willing to be that's gone, personal rival or not.
Seems to me like they already had that grudge. "Do I get to kill her this time? Pretty please?", "I get to kill Haaaleeey" etc.


I don't consider it worthwhile, because Haley put her entire alignment in jeopardy (again I point to Belkar's approving expression) just to avoid a fight she would have stood a much better chance of winning the next time around. Is putting Crystal in her place - without even the luxury of knowing it's permanent - worth spending eternity without her boyfriend? I'd say no.
Crystal is dangerous. Haley says so herself. What makes you think that Haley would be confident of beating her next time, let alone "have a much better chance"?

Haley's about to concentrate her energies once more on the OoTS task, and doesn't need to be looking over her shoulder every five minutes to see whether Crystal is after her or not. If Crystal follows her, she would wait for the most opportune moment to strike, when Haley is at her most vulnerable. Not a good scenario for Haley. One to avoid if possible.


And I say, if you can't do the job right, better not to do it at all.
And I say, take your opportunities when you can.

[Ancalagon]

A pre-emptive strike is used to keep you, or someone else, safe. If someone is going to attack you and you stop them before they can, be it seconds before they do or hours before they do, it is still a defensive thing to do. It is in response to a very real threat.

That is perfectly true. But it does not change the fact that if your Preemptive Strike consists of stabbing someone in the chest while he (or in this case) is totally unsuspecting of your motives... it STILL is murder.

If you exchange "stabbing in the chest" and "pushing off a roof", you also have the hobgoblin covered.

[Antacid]

Originally Posted by Antacid
3) One of Rich's overarching intentions with the comic is to satirise the absurdity of the classic D&D alignment system, and the whole idea of morality as a game mechanic.Is there a quote from Rich on this somewhere? Forum post or commetary in a book maybe? I'm not disagreeing with the statement, just wondering if that is officially confirmed.It's very much my own inference from the narrative. Even if Rich thinks the alignment system is fine for D&D (he probably uses it), the whole point of the strip has been to make jokes about the rules from the outset - this is an extension of that. What works in a game is whacky the more realistic the context you apply to it, and that creates the potential for both sophisticated irony and pure comedy.

[Optimystik]

Yes, clearly, the strip in the online comics doesn't make it look good - Rich admits it himself. So do I. That's why I wrote "with that knowledge", referring to knowledge picked up from DStP.

And as I have said repeatedly, all that quote provides is justification for Haley's actions - not proof that Crystal won't be coming back. Especially with two of Chekov's props (Haley's ponytail and Crystal's dagger) floating around in the story.

Does one of those bonus strips or the commentary show Bozzok being extremely displeased with Crystal? That's the only thing that would make it seem to me that she's less likely to be raised at some point. Otherwise, he has no reason not to want her back.


The phrase "Too stupid to live" springs to mind...
...
It depends. We don't know the value he placed on the other members of the guild. There may be someone else who was killed that is the only one who can do <something>, where <something> is particularly prized by Bozzok. Not enough information. Therefore, I'm leaving it at "may be raised".

I covered this too - Crystal's low intellect and ruthlessness makes her hit the sweet spot between useful and nonthreatening. If Bozzok keeps her dead, he has nobody left to do his dirty work.


From a story point of view, it seems to me that the way Rich wrote that strip, that he means for that to be permanent. I.e. make up whatever reason you want for it, but she's not going to be raised.

As above, that would be severe character derailment for Bozzok unless he gave us some indication of being that displeased with Crystal.


Of course not. However, she would still have to find where they went and catch up to them.

She would have had to do that even if she hadn't been killed. They teleported out of Greysky and gave no indications of their mission to the Guild. (Unless one of them let that slip in yet another bonus strip.)


Seems to me like they already had that grudge. "Do I get to kill her this time? Pretty please?", "I get to kill Haaaleeey" etc.

I covered that already too. The difference now is that, thanks to Haley's stunt, she's not going to have this kind of hesitation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0613.html) out of Crystal ever again.


Crystal is dangerous. Haley says so herself. What makes you think that Haley would be confident of beating her next time, let alone "have a much better chance"?

a) She's very unlikely to be trapped in a house a second time, as that would be narratively redundant.
b) She has very highly upgraded gear (new weapon, her boots, Crystal's jewelry)
c) The party is unlikely to be split a second time - again, narratively redundant.

And you haven't addressed the alignment issue. The angels aren't likely to care whether Haley made it possible for Crystal to be raised or not; all they'd care about is the unarmed and naked killing itself.


Haley's about to concentrate her energies once more on the OoTS task, and doesn't need to be looking over her shoulder every five minutes to see whether Crystal is after her or not. If Crystal follows her, she would wait for the most opportune moment to strike, when Haley is at her most vulnerable. Not a good scenario for Haley. One to avoid if possible.

And I still maintain that killing Crystal and leaving her body intact does not avoid that possibility - it merely delays it.


And I say, take your opportunities when you can.

A head start with a massive grudge attached isn't much of an opportunity.

[salinan]

And as I have said repeatedly, all that quote provides is justification for Haley's actions - not proof that Crystal won't be coming back. Especially with two of Chekov's props (Haley's ponytail and Crystal's dagger) floating around in the story.
...
Does one of those bonus strips or the commentary show Bozzok being extremely displeased with Crystal? That's the only thing that would make it seem to me that she's less likely to be raised at some point. Otherwise, he has no reason not to want her back.
Despite your mention of those two props (the ponytail only appeared in a single strip, didn't it? I'd forgotten about it.) I'm not convinced we'll see the TG make another appearance. Crystal is about the only interest there, and it's possible Rich has decided she's surplus to requirements at this point - "You only matter as Haley's arch-nemesis, and frankly, she's already got one of those". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0616.html)


I covered this too - Crystal's low intellect and ruthlessness makes her hit the sweet spot between useful and nonthreatening. If Bozzok keeps her dead, he has nobody left to do his dirty work.
...
As above, that would be severe character derailment for Bozzok unless he gave us some indication of being that displeased with Crystal.
How do you know that there aren't any other assassins, exactly? We haven't been shown any, true, but that's not to say that they don't exist. I'm willing to concede the likelihood that Crystal's the highest level one in the guild, but that lack of intelligence has its drawbacks as well. How many assassinations has she botched because of that? ("Hey, Blind Pete, have you seen Haley?" "No...") :smallwink: She may well not be as useful to Bozzok as you think.

Bozzok seems like the pragmatic type. I can see him cutting his losses. What exactly does he achieve if he raises Crystal and sends her after Haley? There isn't any monetary gain on offer for doing so - merely revenge, which doesn't really seem likely for him. Given how well it turned out for him to try and tag her when she came back this time, he may decide she's too much trouble to bother with, and just be happy that she's gone. What happens, for instance, if the group of adventurers Haley's clearly a part of happen to take offense to Haley being killed and decide to enact their revenge on Bozzok? He's now seen that they're capable of dealing serious damage to the guild... is that a risk he wants to take?


She would have had to do that even if she hadn't been killed. They teleported out of Greysky and gave no indications of their mission to the Guild. (Unless one of them let that slip in yet another bonus strip.)
Sure, but she's not going to be able to start searching until she's alive now, is she? And the trail may grow colder and harder to pick up the longer the delay, which would make her fall further behind.


I covered that already too. The difference now is that, thanks to Haley's stunt, she's not going to have this kind of hesitation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0613.html) out of Crystal ever again.
Story driven. She had no hesitation here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0608.html), did she? (Eee! Eee! Eee! Eee!) Incidentally, that strip also shows in the last panel that there's plenty of grudge there already.


a) She's very unlikely to be trapped in a house a second time, as that would be narratively redundant.
b) She has very highly upgraded gear (new weapon, her boots, Crystal's jewelry)
c) The party is unlikely to be split a second time - again, narratively redundant.
You're missing the picture here. Haley was lucky in GC. She spotted Crystal first. There's no guarantee she'll see her first the next time (it's considerably less likely, in fact, since Haley had the advantage of knowing that Crystal would be around there somewhere, and was trying to keep a low profile.

Tracking down and assassinating people is what Crystal does, if she's alive to do it. She'd simply keep an eye on Haley until the opportunity arises, and stab her in the back. She's not surrounded by the rest of the group every minute of the day.


And you haven't addressed the alignment issue. The angels aren't likely to care whether Haley made it possible for Crystal to be raised or not; all they'd care about is the unarmed and naked killing itself.
Hey - the angels have read DStP. Clearly anticipatory self defense. It's not a problem for them. :smalltongue:


And I still maintain that killing Crystal and leaving her body intact does not avoid that possibility - it merely delays it.
...
A head start with a massive grudge attached isn't much of an opportunity.
You continue to make your argument on this as though Crystal being raised is a foregone conclusion. I can understand why you think that, but I don't think your reasoning is sound. I'll admit the possibility exists, but I've given good reasons why it may not happen, and additionally, I believe Rich would weaken that part of the story if Crystal did get raised. (Something like how Mikos death would be cheapened if she got resurrected.)

[factotum]

Well, she was kinda in a hurry, if you remember. She killed her and took her dagger - that's probably the biggest dent she could have put in Crystal's potential to track her down in the very limited time available.

Haley knew they were heading off to the Western Continent. It's going to be quite difficult, or at least cost a lot of money, for Bozzok to head over there with sufficient force to be confident of taking down Haley and all her companions, so it would presumably take a pretty big slap in the face to make him do it. Now, whether we consider her just skipping out in the first place to be enough to make that happen, it should be obvious that it's MORE likely to happen if she skips out and kills one of the highest-level members of the Guild on the way out! In the first instance she's just stolen from the Guild, in the second instance, revenge has to be sought.

[Ancalagon]

Haley knew they were heading off to the Western Continent.

In Haley's line of thought that might be correct. But unless she plans to stay on that continent after the gate-business is resolved... we have a flaw. How much time did she think the gate-thing can take? A week? A month? A year? No matter what, she has to assume to be "quite soon" back on the right continent as well.

And we do know she'll come back quite soon - as the story won't end with the desert-gate and she'll have to venture to the Dwarven Lands for the last gate. Welcome back on the correct continent within seven weeks of her talk with Roy (as I don't assume that Belkar will shuffle out of the story a longer time before the final battle).

[Optimystik]

Despite your mention of those two props (the ponytail only appeared in a single strip, didn't it? I'd forgotten about it.) I'm not convinced we'll see the TG make another appearance. Crystal is about the only interest there, and it's possible Rich has decided she's surplus to requirements at this point - "You only matter as Haley's arch-nemesis, and frankly, she's already got one of those". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0616.html)

Crystal is a much more personal rival for Haley than Sabine, though. Sabine only matters as her "evul opposite," and said rivalry won't last longer than the IFCC's plans for the Nale/the Order.

I have no doubts that Crystal was written out of the story for a time, but I doubt we've seen the last of her completely unless Bozzok gives me reason to think otherwise.


How do you know that there aren't any other assassins, exactly? We haven't been shown any, true, but that's not to say that they don't exist. I'm willing to concede the likelihood that Crystal's the highest level one in the guild, but that lack of intelligence has its drawbacks as well. How many assassinations has she botched because of that? ("Hey, Blind Pete, have you seen Haley?" "No...") :smallwink: She may well not be as useful to Bozzok as you think.

Bozzok seems like the pragmatic type. I can see him cutting his losses. What exactly does he achieve if he raises Crystal and sends her after Haley? There isn't any monetary gain on offer for doing so - merely revenge, which doesn't really seem likely for him. Given how well it turned out for him to try and tag her when she came back this time, he may decide she's too much trouble to bother with, and just be happy that she's gone. What happens, for instance, if the group of adventurers Haley's clearly a part of happen to take offense to Haley being killed and decide to enact their revenge on Bozzok? He's now seen that they're capable of dealing serious damage to the guild... is that a risk he wants to take?

Her idiocy hasn't been a particularly large liability for him before. Why would he suddenly decide she's too much trouble now? Especially when they're planning to bring back much weaker thieves?

I have no problem with him deciding he doesn't need her back - but we have to see this justification on-camera, otherwise it'll be an ass-pull. Crystal is Bozzok's right hand; if he doesn't say she failed him in some way, then she didn't, it's that simple.

As for considering the Order a threat, that doesn't fly either, considering your and the Giant's justification for Haley's "anticipatory self defense" was that they were going to go after her anyway. You can't have it both ways - either they were planning to attack her and the killing was justified, or they were too scared of the Order to do so and it wasn't.


Sure, but she's not going to be able to start searching until she's alive now, is she? And the trail may grow colder and harder to pick up the longer the delay, which would make her fall further behind.

I covered that by saying it would delay her.


Story driven. She had no hesitation here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0608.html), did she? (Eee! Eee! Eee! Eee!) Incidentally, that strip also shows in the last panel that there's plenty of grudge there already.

Her lack of hesitation there doesn't mean anything. She can't Death Attack Haley due to Uncanny Dodge (they are the same level) so the multiple stabs would not have been immediately fatal, merely ways to lower her HP.

And I know there's plenty of grudge there. Crystal still hesitated on the cusp of dealing the finishing blow. She's not ever going to do that again, even as brainless as she is.


You're missing the picture here. Haley was lucky in GC. She spotted Crystal first. There's no guarantee she'll see her first the next time (it's considerably less likely, in fact, since Haley had the advantage of knowing that Crystal would be around there somewhere, and was trying to keep a low profile.

Even seeing Crystal didn't stop her from getting the drop on Haley. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0607.html) So I'm not sure what difference making her wait a few days more will make.

It's actually worse if the trail is cold. Now instead of being constantly vigilant, Haley will relax her guard, thinking Crystal dealt with; I don't think that's the case.


Tracking down and assassinating people is what Crystal does, if she's alive to do it. She'd simply keep an eye on Haley until the opportunity arises, and stab her in the back. She's not surrounded by the rest of the group every minute of the day.

All the more reason, if you're going to give her even more of a reason to come after you, to just finish the job and kill her properly.


Hey - the angels have read DStP. Clearly anticipatory self defense. It's not a problem for them. :smalltongue:

If the Giant wanted to portray Haley's actions in a purely positive light, he wouldn't have had Belkar approve of them.


You continue to make your argument on this as though Crystal being raised is a foregone conclusion. I can understand why you think that, but I don't think your reasoning is sound. I'll admit the possibility exists, but I've given good reasons why it may not happen, and additionally, I believe Rich would weaken that part of the story if Crystal did get raised. (Something like how Mikos death would be cheapened if she got resurrected.)

That's not the same thing at all. Miko served her narrative purpose, but Haley is very clearly not done with the Thieves' Guild. Bozzok is still alive, he still hates both her and her father, and by your own admission he still wants Haley dead, agreement or no agreement.

[salinan]

Crystal is a much more personal rival for Haley than Sabine, though. Sabine only matters as her "evul opposite," and said rivalry won't last longer than the IFCC's plans for the Nale/the Order.
I'm fully expecting the IFCC and Linear Guild to be there until the finish - whenever and wherever that happens to be. Rich has been pushing the rivalry between Haley and Sabine whenever he can. So while Crystal is a longer standing rival, Sabine definitely fits the category.


I have no doubts that Crystal was written out of the story for a time, but I doubt we've seen the last of her completely unless Bozzok gives me reason to think otherwise.
The thieves guild story is done. Rich might possibly revive it if he feels it's useful to him and progresses the story in some way, but I can't see it at this stage.


Her idiocy hasn't been a particularly large liability for him before. Why would he suddenly decide she's too much trouble now? Especially when they're planning to bring back much weaker thieves?
And how exactly do you know that she hasn't been a liability? Please stop tossing around these statements as though they're irrefutable facts.

Correction: when Haley was contributing to the fund, the plan was to resurrect all the thieves. Haley rescinded that offer when she left.


I have no problem with him deciding he doesn't need her back - but we have to see this justification on-camera, otherwise it'll be an ass-pull. Crystal is Bozzok's right hand; if he doesn't say she failed him in some way, then she didn't, it's that simple.
Bozzok's right hand? You're kidding. Far more likely that Hank is, I'd say. Crystal is more likely a destructive force to send in a particular direction when required.


As for considering the Order a threat, that doesn't fly either, considering your and the Giant's justification for Haley's "anticipatory self defense" was that they were going to go after her anyway. You can't have it both ways - either they were planning to attack her and the killing was justified, or they were too scared of the Order to do so and it wasn't.
Um, I was giving my take on Bozzok's possible thought processes - which Haley wouldn't have access to. She wouldn't know whether Bozzok would send someone after her or not. She was trying to ensure that if Bozzok did send anyone, it at least wouldn't be Crystal.


I covered that by saying it would delay her.
There's delay, and then there's deeeelaaaaaay. Not all delays are created equal, you know. However, I'll cut you a break. I'll drop the delay argument, since I really don't think delay was likely to be in Haley's mind.


Her lack of hesitation there doesn't mean anything. She can't Death Attack Haley due to Uncanny Dodge (they are the same level) so the multiple stabs would not have been immediately fatal, merely ways to lower her HP.
So you're saying... what. in the shower scene there she was going to stab Haley until she was almost dead, and then she would have hesitated? :smallconfused:

Again, I think that the hesitation in the other strip was simply story driven. To allow Belkar to Save The Day (TM).


If the Giant wanted to portray Haley's actions in a purely positive light, he wouldn't have had Belkar approve of them.
Rich wasn't portraying Haley's actions in a positive light. What she did was still morally questionable enough for her to be worried about telling Elan, but Elan also accepted Haley's explanation as well, which I think is unlikely if it really was murder. Don't you think?


That's not the same thing at all. Miko served her narrative purpose, but Haley is very clearly not done with the Thieves' Guild. Bozzok is still alive, he still hates both her and her father, and by your own admission he still wants Haley dead, agreement or no agreement.
Yes, Bozzok's still alive. So what? The story's not over until every last villain in the story has been killed off?

Again, the thieves guild story arc is over. The conclusion was... conclusive. And Crystal being raised is exactly the same issue as if Miko is raised. Haley killed her to stop her from being a threat. If she comes back, it severely weakens the ending of that arc, as Miko being raised would have weakened the ending of her story.

Heh - quoteathon.

[Optimystik]

I'm fully expecting the IFCC and Linear Guild to be there until the finish - whenever and wherever that happens to be. Rich has been pushing the rivalry between Haley and Sabine whenever he can. So while Crystal is a longer standing rival, Sabine definitely fits the category.

No, Nale fits that category. Sabine has no importance beyond tying him to the fiends. Hell, he could have pacted with them directly, or they could even replace her with another succubus, with no change at all to the narrative. Sabine's a glorified extra.


The thieves guild story is done. Rich might possibly revive it if he feels it's useful to him and progresses the story in some way, but I can't see it at this stage.

Even if that's true, all that means is that Crystal won't be a threat on-camera. If she falls out of consideration completely with no word from Bozzok, that's just a Brother Chuck.

(Yes, I know that Tropes Are Not Bad, but that one is.)


And how exactly do you know that she hasn't been a liability?

Uh, because he kept her around despite knowing how stupid she was? :smallconfused:


Please stop tossing around these statements as though they're irrefutable facts.

So refute them then.


Correction: when Haley was contributing to the fund, the plan was to resurrect all the thieves. Haley rescinded that offer when she left.

They still have OBP's cache, the contents of which can easily pay for one Raise Dead. Crystal is more likely to come back than nameless low-level mooks.


Bozzok's right hand? You're kidding. Far more likely that Hank is, I'd say. Crystal is more likely a destructive force to send in a particular direction when required.

Hank is far less likely actually. He is too smart for Bozzok to properly control. He's the Guild's Rasputin - as soon as deposing Bozzok is more convenient than keeping him in charge, he


Um, I was giving my take on Bozzok's possible thought processes - which Haley wouldn't have access to. She wouldn't know whether Bozzok would send someone after her or not. She was trying to ensure that if Bozzok did send anyone, it at least wouldn't be Crystal.

She didn't ensure that. "Please stop tossing around these statements as though they're irrefutable facts."


There's delay, and then there's deeeelaaaaaay. Not all delays are created equal, you know. However, I'll cut you a break. I'll drop the delay argument, since I really don't think delay was likely to be in Haley's mind.

If it wasn't, then she wasn't thinking at all, because what she did wasn't permanent by a long shot.


So you're saying... what. in the shower scene there she was going to stab Haley until she was almost dead, and then she would have hesitated? :smallconfused:

Dramatic sound effects aside, high-level characters take quite a bit more than that to take down. Even Bozzok took multiple swings (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0618.html) with a much larger weapon (wielded with both hands!) and didn't do more than scratch her - and he's at least four levels her senior.


Again, I think that the hesitation in the other strip was simply story driven. To allow Belkar to Save The Day (TM).

I agree with that. But any lack of hesitation she'll have now will be just as story-driven.


Rich wasn't portraying Haley's actions in a positive light.

That's what I said...


What she did was still morally questionable enough for her to be worried about telling Elan, but Elan also accepted Haley's explanation as well, which I think is unlikely if it really was murder. Don't you think?

Great, so all she has to do is sleep with the angels judging her too and she'll be fine.


Yes, Bozzok's still alive. So what? The story's not over until every last villain in the story has been killed off?

Maybe you like your stories with loose ends, but I don't.


Again, the thieves guild story arc is over. The conclusion was... conclusive. And Crystal being raised is exactly the same issue as if Miko is raised. Haley killed her to stop her from being a threat. If she comes back, it severely weakens the ending of that arc, as Miko being raised would have weakened the ending of her story.

It's perfectly possible for Rich to put a coda on the Thieves' Guild for good, but he hasn't. Do you honestly think finding her father won't involve them at all, considering why he ended up where he is and who is responsible? Especially with so many unresolved threads there - Bozzok still wants her dead (again, by your own admission); Haley skipped out on Hank's deal; Crystal is dead but her body is very much intact; and her father has a long overdue score to settle with the half-orc?

I'm sorry, but I just find that ridiculous.

[salinan]

No, Nale fits that category. Sabine has no importance beyond tying him to the fiends. Hell, he could have pacted with them directly, or they could even replace her with another succubus, with no change at all to the narrative. Sabine's a glorified extra.
The Linear Guild, for some considerable time now, has consisted of a core of Nale, Sabine, and Thog. The Linear Guild is the pawn of the IFCC. If they had meant Nale only, they would have referred to Nale only. They did not, so Sabine is clearly a part of their plans. I think you're possibly the only person on this board who might think that Sabine's only importance is as a (replacable) conduit to the IFCC...


Uh, because he kept her around despite knowing how stupid she was? :smallconfused:
She clearly had her uses, but that hardly means that she never screwed up. Bozzok keeping her on merely means that she was at least marginally more useful than not. How much more? Neither you nor I can say. And so neither of us can say whether he would consider the cost of raising her to be worthwhile.


So refute them then.
How can I possibly refute something where no evidence exists one way or the other? :smallmad:

All I can do is repeatedly point out that there is no evidence for that anywhere, as I've been doing - but I'd rather not have to keep asking you to stop pulling 'facts' out of thin air!


They still have OBP's cache, the contents of which can easily pay for one Raise Dead. Crystal is more likely to come back than nameless low-level mooks.
A 'mook's' level is not necessarily the defining characteristic in how useful the person is to Bozzok. As I think I pointed out before.


Hank is far less likely actually. He is too smart for Bozzok to properly control.
The traditional role of a 'right hand' is to help with the running of things. Intelligence to some degree is a requirement for that. Crystal is not qualified. We have already seen that Hank does at least some of the administrative stuff around the guild. He appears to have some rank with other members of the guild. This evidence suggests that it's likely that he is the second in command, or right hand man.


She didn't ensure that. "Please stop tossing around these statements as though they're irrefutable facts."
I said trying to ensure.


If it wasn't, then she wasn't thinking at all, because what she did wasn't permanent by a long shot.
We're back to the 'Crystal will definitely be raised' argument again, I see.

Haley at least thought that there was a good chance that she wouldn't be raised. Her language in her last speech to Crystal confirms this. "IF Bozzok raises you" she says. Clearly, she's not convinced that Bozzok will raise her.

I don't care what argument you come up with to prove that Crystal will be raised. The fact is that Haley has doubts that she will be, and that is all that I need to base her actions on. She will act on her own interpretation of the situation.


Dramatic sound effects aside, high-level characters take quite a bit more than that to take down. Even Bozzok took multiple swings (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0618.html) with a much larger weapon (wielded with both hands!) and didn't do more than scratch her - and he's at least four levels her senior.
But you seem to be saying that Crystal hesitates before the killing blow. I'm not arguing how many hits it will take to kill Haley - that's not likely to change much between then and any possible future encounter. But you seem to be suggesting that despite her frenzied attack on the shower dummy when she thought it was Haley, that she would for some reason hesitate before striking the killing blow, based on what she does when Haley is helpless. Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense to me.


Great, so all she has to do is sleep with the angels judging her too and she'll be fine.
That's an issue for when she dies. I doubt she'd give it much thought until then.


Maybe you like your stories with loose ends, but I don't.


It's perfectly possible for Rich to put a coda on the Thieves' Guild for good, but he hasn't. Do you honestly think finding her father won't involve them at all, considering why he ended up where he is and who is responsible? Especially with so many unresolved threads there - Bozzok still wants her dead (again, by your own admission); Haley skipped out on Hank's deal; Crystal is dead but her body is very much intact; and her father has a long overdue score to settle with the half-orc?

I'm sorry, but I just find that ridiculous.
I'll admit to having forgotten about Haley's dad. That may bring Bozzok back into things, should Rich go there. I'm still not entirely convinced that he will, mind, but I'll concede that I'd consider the likelihood to be higher.

However, that has nothing to do with Crystal, and in no way requires that Crystal be raised.

[Optimystik]

I'm going to try and cut down on the quoting.

If all you have are vague "no evidences" and "not necessarilies" then all we can rely on are the characters themselves. I think Bozzok would be more likely to raise Crystal than not. He can't trust Hank (Hank is smart enough to run the guild, and is in fact using Bozzok as a figurehead to line his own pockets - OtOoPCs) and he relies on having a secondary so his kills are unfair. Who better than Crystal? Too stupid to be a danger, too powerful to be useless.

And you're wrong - the "hand's" job is not to help with running, its to help with execution. I don't see Bozzok taking Hank with him to kill deserters, not and leave the Guild leadership unstaffed. As you yourself said, Hank is the administrative end - therefore Crystal is the muscle. Without her, Bozzok has to do all his killings by himself.

Also, Sabine is replaceable. There's nothing she offers the Linear Guild or the IFCC that another succubus couldn't provide. She has even less character than Durkon. She loves sex and wants to kill people; big deal.

And now I need a couple of quotes after all.


But you seem to be saying that Crystal hesitates before the killing blow. I'm not arguing how many hits it will take to kill Haley - that's not likely to change much between then and any possible future encounter. But you seem to be suggesting that despite her frenzied attack on the shower dummy when she thought it was Haley, that she would for some reason hesitate before striking the killing blow, based on what she does when Haley is helpless. Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

My argument was that she would always have hesitated before the killing blow. None of the stabs in the shower would have been the killing blow, because she can't sneak attack Haley.


I'll admit to having forgotten about Haley's dad. That may bring Bozzok back into things, should Rich go there. I'm still not entirely convinced that he will, mind, but I'll concede that I'd consider the likelihood to be higher.

However, that has nothing to do with Crystal, and in no way requires that Crystal be raised.

I find it highly unlikely Rich would bring back Bozzok and not Crystal. In addition to the reasons for needing Crystal I gave above, she's comedy gold.

[Azazel]

No D&D book ever say you can kill anything evil for no reason, in fact, the book of vile darkness make it clear that being evil does not mean you deserve death and that if you kill sentient being for absolutely no other reason then the fact that you think they are evil, its a pretty good indication that you are evil yourself. A paladin who cast detect evil on random peasants, discover two of them are evil and kill them on the spot will fall.


Morality debates aside, this post stood out to me.
It's a very common argument that paladins are allowed to make the judgement. The generally CG elves are expected to hate and kill the generally evil drow, right? I've even gotten the argument that they don't get alignment hits for the collateral damage. It just seems to me that some rules treat lorebased hatred as a free card for slaughter making supposed alignments irrelevant.

[Kish]

Morality debates aside, this post stood out to me.
It's a very common argument that paladins are allowed to make the judgement. The generally CG elves are expected to hate and kill the generally evil drow, right?

Passive voice alert. Who expects?

Lots and lots of people on forums argue that racial morality taken to the point of "see green skin, kill" is the proper approach to D&D.

Citations from D&D books? Generally absent whenever they do.

Salvatore, who for good or ill pretty much defined Forgotten Realm drow culture, made a big point of the most obvious and nonmagically measurable difference between a "usually good" race and a "usually evil" race being that the latter would kill the former's children, and the former would not kill the latter's children.

[Azazel]

Passive? Well, a lot of people I've played D&D with. Since I object, I ask.
This might not be the best place to do so but my foresight failed once again.
I'm just curious. It seems odd to me.

[Snake-Aes]

Morality debates aside, this post stood out to me.
It's a very common argument that paladins are allowed to make the judgement. The generally CG elves are expected to hate and kill the generally evil drow, right? I've even gotten the argument that they don't get alignment hits for the collateral damage. It just seems to me that some rules treat lorebased hatred as a free card for slaughter making supposed alignments irrelevant.

Well, "elves kill drow because drow are evil bastards" doesn't make their deed good. More often than not, the things "everyone does" are, plain and simple, "wrong things". Doesn't keep them from doing it in general.
Some context really has to be put there and I consider a flaw to let a writer say "usually good" and then not write them as that. In your example, a Good elf would not kill a drow for being a drow. It'd assess the threat and, confirming a troublemaker, get rid of the guy. And probably alive.

[Kish]

Passive? Well, a lot of people I've played D&D with. Since I object, I ask.
This might not be the best place to do so but my foresight failed once again.

It's probably as good as most other places.


I'm just curious. It seems odd to me.
Go with that thought.

[Azazel]

In your example, a Good elf would not kill a drow for being a drow. It'd assess the threat and, confirming a troublemaker, get rid of the guy. And probably alive.

As opposed to being Alignment Good in all aspects except for the free card of hunting and killing the dark skinned devils under the pretense that mercy invites betrayal and death? Maintaining Good whilst doing this.

[Snake-Aes]

As opposed to being Alignment Good in all aspects except for the free card of hunting and killing the dark skinned devils under the pretense that mercy invites betrayal and death? Maintaining Good whilst doing this.

That's exactly what I pointed out on the previous post. It seems extremely weak writing to portray a race as good and let them, in general, do something like that. Get out of atonement free cards are not interesting.

[Azazel]

That's exactly what I pointed out on the previous post. It seems extremely weak writing to portray a race as good and let them, in general, do something like that. Get out of atonement free cards are not interesting.

And when I suggest that I'm ridiculed. I guess I need to find new players.

Thanks guys.

[Kish]

Yes. The important thing is for everyone to be on the same page, and it sounds like that's not the case with your group.

[Ancalagon]

And when I suggest that I'm ridiculed. I guess I need to find new players.

You don't have to do that as first thing.

I have experienced quite a few players that only knew the "kick in the door playstyle" and basically all sessions would sooner or later see some serious violence. That's all they had ever played, that's all they ever knew.

Show them there are other options, show them that "violence as only mean" has consequences. Not mean ones, not ones that you as DM have to block and punish your players, but consequences that are realistic and believeable.
If your players protest (they will, even if they phrase it mildly) explain to them why happend what did happen. Don't screw up their characters at first.
Create interesting stories, maybe have one or two examples where the violence made it much, much worse.

If you create an interesting story, you might show your players that it can be a lot of fun to play this way, to make things deeper (and then the violence that can and will happen is even more powerful in terms of storytelling! If not all plots end with "we kill it", then the plots where they do have a stronger impact. Also, your game will become less forseeable, which is good).

If you get people to the point where they (players as well as characters) don't want to solve something but their characters are FORCED to do it, you have won.

As I said, I know like 3 or 4 players that only knew "let's kill it" and by showing them a broader world the games become much more interesting and even much more fun.

If all that fails... then you have to look for a new group. As was said: not the style matters but if everyone is on the same page (or at least reading the same book).

[Azazel]

Well the elf/drow and paladin smite on sight thing was the clearest example I could dig up. The issue itself extends to my own mentality vs theirs, dealing in absolutes. When I'm the DM, I try to encourage alternatives and consequence. It isn't so much a matter of players wanting violence but rather finding iron clad justification through lore and no other way to resolve the matter. Then there's the matter of interpreting "evil" PCs as being allowed to do anything in which the "kill it" option is a constantly exercised problem solver. I'd just like to know which book they read to justify their actions.

This isn't about my DMing though.
Thread related; I'd read it. It's just not avaliable in this country and shipping this stuff, paying top dollar for the effort just isn't an option with a deregulated market.

[Kish]

Ask them.

I would guess "none, it's just 'common knowledge'." You can beat them over the head with the Player's Handbook description of judging races rather than individuals being a Lawful Evil quality. And you can win if it comes down to evidence, because you have textual support and they don't. But, well, I don't think that would lead to a terribly good gaming environment regardless. In your shoes, I'd bail on the group.

[GolemsVoice]

Considering not reading SoD, it incredibly expensive to ship it overseas, like for example to Germany, and requires a credit card, which many young people without a job, like students, pupils etc. do not have.

[veti]

Well the elf/drow and paladin smite on sight thing was the clearest example I could dig up. The issue itself extends to my own mentality vs theirs, dealing in absolutes.

You could see it as "wartime vs peacetime morality". They assume there's an ongoing state of war, in which you can recognise the enemy by the colour of their skin: then, any adult Drow is fair game, even if they're sleeping, running away or whatever - the only circumstance that might save them is if they're actively surrendering, and even that won't always work.


When I'm the DM, I try to encourage alternatives and consequence.

I don't know you, but it sounds to me as if you're taking it too seriously. If I might suggest a lighter approach, there are lots of ways to punish players:
- Let them discover they've just killed their best prospect of a lead on their current McGuffin;
- Let them discover they've just killed a major plot hook, and now there's a whole subquest they're not going to get at all;
- Give them an employer or superior who doesn't share their gung-ho attitude, regards them as dangerous loose cannons, and eventually hires actual assassins to go after them (a very persuasive way of conveying "you're fired!"). Needless to say, if they try to get back at him, that would be a major adventure with him as a serious and intelligent boss.
- When making any of the above revelations, if they get indignant or upset, laugh at them. They brought it on themselves, and there is absolutely no reason why you should rewrite reality to give them another chance.

[Ancalagon]

like students

Without wanting to advertise... but you can get the Barclay-cards (Visa and Mastercard) for 10 euro per year as student (yes, in germany and both for 10 euro).
(To counter that advertisment: While it is a hell of a good deal at the moment, I probably won't stay with them once I'm done studying).

Just don't fall for their lure to spend more money than you have (i.e. actually use the credit).

So, that hurdle is solved - shipping remains some factor, though (but I thought to myself that when I was ready to spend 30$ on comic books I'm also ready to spend 40$ and went for it).
So the REAL question is not "do I want to spend 10$ on shipping?", but "would I spend the 30$ on the book in the first place?"
Answering the first question does not really help you at all, but answering the second WILL help you (you either get a clear "yes" or a "no").

Or to sum it up differently: If you can afford to spend 30$ on SoD, then, believe me, it'll also be worth 40$ - if you cannot/don't want to afford it then you do not have to ponder about the additional 10$ for shipping..

[Moriarty]

Considering not reading SoD, it incredibly expensive to ship it overseas, like for example to Germany, and requires a credit card, which many young people without a job, like students, pupils etc. do not have.

I don't know wether posting a link to a shop would count as advertisment, so you got a pm.

[salinan]

If all you have are vague "no evidences" and "not necessarilies" then all we can rely on are the characters themselves.
Oh, very nice. I see what you did there. You're trying to make it look like I'm the one who has no arguments, when it's me that's been shooting down your arguments for lack of evidence.

I've presented my arguments. I'm happy with them. You're yet to convince me that you have anything of substance to oppose them. And I don't see how you can seriously oppose my arguments without having read DStP as I've mentioned four times now.


And you're wrong - the "hand's" job is not to help with running, its to help with execution. I don't see Bozzok taking Hank with him to kill deserters, not and leave the Guild leadership unstaffed. As you yourself said, Hank is the administrative end - therefore Crystal is the muscle. Without her, Bozzok has to do all his killings by himself.
Oh gods. Thanks for the laugh.

When most people refer to 'execution' in reference to a business, they actually mean running the business - i.e. giving orders, keeping the business running smoothly, etc. - not execution as in killing people! It's where the word 'executive' comes from. Executives aren't usually the boss (although the CEO usually fills that role for large companies,) but are there to help with the tasks I mentioned.


Also, Sabine is replaceable. There's nothing she offers the Linear Guild or the IFCC that another succubus couldn't provide. She has even less character than Durkon. She loves sex and wants to kill people; big deal.
Well gee, by that yardstick, Roy is replacable. There's nothing he offers the Order that another decent hero couldn't provide.

Sabine is a fairly major character in this story. As I said previously, I think you must be the only one on this board who wouldn't be surprised if Sabine suddenly disappeared to be replaced by a different random succubus.


My argument was that she would always have hesitated before the killing blow. None of the stabs in the shower would have been the killing blow, because she can't sneak attack Haley.
And I simply can't see your reason for thinking that. Yes, yes, I know - she hesitated before the killing blow before Belkar rescued her. And I'm still saying that's story driven so that Belkar can save her. I've pointed out she's had no problem attacking with intent to kill. Whether she's going to kill her in one blow or a thousand, I don't care - she was attacking her viciously, and I can't see that she would have hesitated before killing her.

I'm not going to convince you though, I know. So lets just drop it. It's not important unless Crystal is raised, and somehow has more of a grudge than she already has, and somehow this is enough to overcome this strange problem of 'hesitating before the killing blow' she has.


I find it highly unlikely Rich would bring back Bozzok and not Crystal. In addition to the reasons for needing Crystal I gave above, she's comedy gold.
No, Belkar is comedy gold. And we know that Rich will be killing off Belkar permanently fairly soon. (Unless you want to join the diehards - literally - who are insisting on undead/insert-favourite-reason-here Belkar to somehow avoid the prophecy...) What makes you think that he would do that to Belkar, and not to Crystal - who happens to be a much more minor character than Sabine, I might add.

Hey - Shojo died. And yet... Hinjo continued to appear! Imagine that! So I wonder if that might mean... yes, yes, I think it might... Bozzok might be able to appear without Crystal in tow! Eureka! A breakthrough!

[Optimystik]

Oh, very nice. I see what you did there. You're trying to make it look like I'm the one who has no arguments, when it's me that's been shooting down your arguments for lack of evidence.

Weren't you the one saying neither of us had evidence?
Which leaves us with the characters themselves, and what they are likely to do. You've yet to give me a convincing reason why Bozzok, still wanting Haley dead (as I've repeatedly pointed out, this is your admission) and very much alive himself, would leave Crystal out of the picture when he so favors unfair fights.


Oh gods. Thanks for the laugh.

Um, I wasn't referring to execution in the headsman sense. I meant "getting one's hands dirty" - something neither Hank nor Bozzok are likely to do, based on their characters.


Well gee, by that yardstick, Roy is replacable. There's nothing he offers the Order that another decent hero couldn't provide.

There is that whole oath (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0298.html) thing. Not to mention that nobody else's dad had their master killed by Xykon. If you can't see the narrative difference between Roy and Sabine, then I can't help you.


Sabine is a fairly major character in this story. As I said previously, I think you must be the only one on this board who wouldn't be surprised if Sabine suddenly disappeared to be replaced by a different random succubus.

For Pete's... I never said she was likely to be replaced. Only that she could be, with nary a ripple.


And I simply can't see your reason for thinking that. Yes, yes, I know - she hesitated before the killing blow before Belkar rescued her. And I'm still saying that's story driven so that Belkar can save her.

You keep` citing "story driven" when it suits your argument, yet ignore it when it's not. Didn't it ever occur to you that Haley's failure to deny Crystal a way of returning could be just as "story driven?"


I'm not going to convince you though, I know. So lets just drop it.

At this point, I'm inclined to agree.
And please, don't lump me in with the people that don't think Belkar is as good as gone. Mmkay?

[salinan]

Weren't you the one saying neither of us had evidence?
For the subjects you keep insisting on raising, yes.


Which leaves us with the characters themselves, and what they are likely to do. You've yet to give me a convincing reason why Bozzok, still wanting Haley dead (as I've repeatedly pointed out, this is your admission) and very much alive himself, would leave Crystal out of the picture when he so favors unfair fights.
Crystal isn't the only person in the world who can kill Haley. Hell, Bozzok seems more likely to do a better job himself. He was, after all, the one who sent her down for the count in Blind Pete's place. We haven't, in fact, seen Crystal have much effect at all on Haley besides breaking her bow.

Anticipating that you're going to argue that she provided the flank, then any character with a few levels can do the same job. A hired fighter would be better for it, in fact.


Um, I wasn't referring to execution in the headsman sense. I meant "getting one's hands dirty" - something neither Hank nor Bozzok are likely to do, based on their characters.
'Getting ones hands dirty' is the job of the rank and file - something that Bozzok and Hank would order someone to do. It's not the job, as you've shown, of someone with authority in the guild, which is what a right hand has - they are the second in command.


There is that whole oath (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0298.html) thing. Not to mention that nobody else's dad had their master killed by Xykon. If you can't see the narrative difference between Roy and Sabine, then I can't help you.
My apologies, I picked the one character the whole story hinges on. I'll change my choice to Haley then.

Yes, Sabine doesn't have the importance of Roy in the story - few characters do. But she is at least as important as Nale.


You keep` citing "story driven" when it suits your argument, yet ignore it when it's not. Didn't it ever occur to you that Haley's failure to deny Crystal a way of returning could be just as "story driven?"
I have cited 'story driven' once, with good reason to do so - Rich even refers to it in the bleedin' strip! "Damn it! See, THIS is why you don't take your time killing the heroes!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0613.html)


And please, don't lump me in with the people that don't think Belkar is as good as gone. Mmkay?
Then don't make arguments that invite, nay, literally beg the comparison.

[Optimystik]

Crystal isn't the only person in the world who can kill Haley. Hell, Bozzok seems more likely to do a better job himself. He was, after all, the one who sent her down for the count in Blind Pete's place. We haven't, in fact, seen Crystal have much effect at all on Haley besides breaking her bow.

Anticipating that you're going to argue that she provided the flank, then any character with a few levels can do the same job. A hired fighter would be better for it, in fact.


And who in the Guild would that be? Clearly nobody in Bozzok's mook gallery was high enough to do the same thing. And anyone Haley's level without Crystal's stupidity would be a threat to Bozzok.
Second, given that her bow is her signature weapon, breaking it is a much more major event than you're letting on.
Third and final, Crystal will always be her level ("if not higher" - unlike, well, anyone else) and can even sneak up on her.


'Getting ones hands dirty' is the job of the rank and file - something that Bozzok and Hank would order someone to do. It's not the job, as you've shown, of someone with authority in the guild, which is what a right hand has - they are the second in command.

The rank and file don't have the levels to do everything the Guild needs, such as killing deserters like Haley. That's why they're rank and file.


My apologies, I picked the one character the whole story hinges on. I'll change my choice to Haley then.

You mean the deputy leader of the Order? The one who already has her own sidequest in the continent the Order is currently on? She's as unimportant as Sabine? :smallconfused:


Yes, Sabine doesn't have the importance of Roy in the story - few characters do. But she is at least as important as Nale.

You might be right there - I don't know enough about the Linear Guild to know how important they are except as tools of discord for the IFCC (which they could achieve by other means.)


I have cited 'story driven' once, with good reason to do so - Rich even refers to it in the bleedin' strip! "Damn it! See, THIS is why you don't take your time killing the heroes!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0613.html)

He also referred to not slitting the bad guy's throats, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) remember? Yet the same character later did exactly that. Characters change. What makes one hesitate at one point in the story can vanish later, given sufficient reason - and Crystal, assuming she returns, has plenty of reason.


Then don't make arguments that invite, nay, literally beg the comparison.

If I made my posts responsible for every nonsensical leap of logic someone could make upon reading them, I'd never get to post anything. :smallconfused:

[amanojaku]

Sure, as soon as you send me 25$ to buy it.

[salinan]

And who in the Guild would that be? Clearly nobody in Bozzok's mook gallery was high enough to do the same thing. And anyone Haley's level without Crystal's stupidity would be a threat to Bozzok.
Second, given that her bow is her signature weapon, breaking it is a much more major event than you're letting on.
Third and final, Crystal will always be her level ("if not higher" - unlike, well, anyone else) and can even sneak up on her.
1) I never said anything about using people from within the guild. In fact, I even suggested the possibility of hiring a fighter.
2) I'll grant you that it was a fairly major setback for Haley. But breaking her bow is a long way from defeating her.
3) Hire a ninja. Everyone in the comic seems to have a tough time seeing them even when they're standing in plain sight.


The rank and file don't have the levels to do everything the Guild needs, such as killing deserters like Haley. That's why they're rank and file.
You were the one who originally called Crystal 'Bozzok's right hand'. I've been showing you exactly what 'right hand' means - it doesn't mean what you think it does. Maybe you meant something else?

Here, I'll help you. Perhaps you meant enforcer? If so, the I'd agree that she could fit that role. But the role of enforcer doesn't carry any authority itself. An enforcer takes their orders and carries them out.


You mean the deputy leader of the Order? The one who already has her own sidequest in the continent the Order is currently on? She's as unimportant as Sabine? :smallconfused:
None of that is important to the story. Anyone can be deputy leader. The sidequest? Unimportant. Wouldn't be missed as far as the main story goes if it were never shown. (I'd forgotten about it, remember? I doubt I'm the only one.)


You might be right there - I don't know enough about the Linear Guild to know how important they are except as tools of discord for the IFCC (which they could achieve by other means.)
There's another thing in the DStP book I wish you could see. It's a 'cast of characters' page. It shows all the important characters in the story, and their inter-relationships. Amongst the ones you would expect, and various others, it shows, individually, the members of the Linear Guild - consisting of Nale, Sabine, and Thog. It does not show any of the thieves guild crew. Not one.

Now, take from that what you will. It at least says to me that Sabine is more important as a character than any of the thieves guild members, including Crystal. For me, it also leaves me with a fair bit of doubt that we'll see the thieves guild take any further part in the story. I.e. their story is done.


He also referred to not slitting the bad guy's throats, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) remember? Yet the same character later did exactly that. Characters change. What makes one hesitate at one point in the story can vanish later, given sufficient reason - and Crystal, assuming she returns, has plenty of reason.
Sorry, but on a quick scan I can't see what you're referring to.


If I made my posts responsible for every nonsensical leap of logic someone could make upon reading them, I'd never get to post anything. :smallconfused:
Right. Well, let's take you through my 'nonsensical logic' then.

- You referred to Crystal as 'comedy gold' - a tag which many people on this forum associate with Belkar, and which Belkar uses to refer to himself, even (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0610.html).
- You're making the argument that because she's funny, she deserves a continuing role in the story - an argument I've seen more than once from the people who don't want Belkar to die.

Put them together, you're making exactly the same argument as the Belkar-death-deniers. As I said, your statements literally begged the comparison.

[doodthedud]

That is perfectly true. But it does not change the fact that if your Preemptive Strike consists of stabbing someone in the chest while he (or in this case) is totally unsuspecting of your motives... it STILL is murder.

If you exchange "stabbing in the chest" and "pushing off a roof", you also have the hobgoblin covered.

Well if you insist, then I suppose I'd just have to say that in these cases, murder is entirely the right thing to do.

[Zxo]

Sure, as soon as you send me 25$ to buy it.

The point of this thread is not necessarily to buy the book (although I absolutely recommend it to people who can afford it), but to make yourself familiar with the events described there before you start discussing topics where background information from SoD is very important and may dramatically affect the point of view or interpretation. SoD was discussed here so many times, with spoilers, that you can get the entire plot summary by doing a few forum searches. This of course doesn't compare to the experience of reading the book, but at least gives you the facts to consider when discussing the Plan, the Sapphire Guard and lots of other topics.

[Ancalagon]

Well if you insist, then I suppose I'd just have to say that in these cases, murder is entirely the right thing to do.

No, it isn't.

[Sholos]

No, it isn't.

What if the only reason they're not expecting it is that they don't know that you know that they're trying to kill you?

Also, @Optimystik, why do you think Crystal hesitated in the first place?

[denthor]

Reading the sticky thread for the latest comic was a painful reminder for me that a fair whack of the fanbase has missed out on a lot of background detail, of the kind that would make Rich's literary intent in comics like #707 much clearer. To summarise:

1) Goblinoid races are not inherantly evil in the OotSverse, although--

2) A fair proportion of the game world's population reflexively acts as if D&D alignment = morality, because--

3) One of Rich's overarching intentions with the comic is to satirise the absurdity of the classic D&D alignment system, and the whole idea of morality as a game mechanic.

So f'd up situations with racist elves and goblins on moral crusades are there for a reason. Don't want to be pedantic, just reminding people that the deviations from canonical D&D are intentional.

Also, more SoD sales = more money for Rich, which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing.


No I can not read!!! :smalltongue:

[Ancalagon]

What if the only reason they're not expecting it is that they don't know that you know that they're trying to kill you?

A) "No, it isn't" in that short form is a Monty Python reference.

B) Ughh, you did read the bonus comics in Origins?

Apart from B) it does not change the fact that just stabbing someone in the chest without anymore warning at all might be a "preemptive strike" but just using that nice euphemism does not free it from the fact that it is "murder".
Which, hum, is the entire point here: it is murder.

"Preemptive Strike" is just a nice word for "Han shot Greedo in cold blood" and
"collateral damage" is just a nice word for "The pregnant woman got blown to bits". Wrap in nice words all you want it does not change the fact what something "is".

If that "something" is the only option or at least a valid option is not touched at all by this.

[Harr]

Massively obnoxious and inconsiderate thread-jacking from a couple certain people non-withstanding, I happen to just have finished reading the SoD book. My impressions off the top of my head (avoiding any actual spoilers):

- The Giant takes a looser, and I mean A LOT!! looser, approach to silliness and funny references in the books. A lot of it is funny, but it definitely strays into the "reference just for the sake of having a reference" territory. For example, when RC just randomly tells RE to watch his feet because he just Swiffered the floor. Um... why... why??

- On the other hand, the dialogue itself I found to be a lot better, more natural and funnier than regular OOTS. Removing the limitation of a single strip at a time resulted in a huge improvement in that area IMO.

- It was extremely interesting seeing Xykon as an old man and seeing the change between just absent-minded and non-caring kind of evil (before he was a lich) and real, deliberately EVIL kind of evil.

- RE's final plan was as awesome as anything my players have ever come up with and I would have liked for it to have worked (even if it, you know, kinds of ends the entire story right then and there).

- I always thought the demonic roaches came from the MitD. Turns out they don't. Interesting.

- Lirian has to qualify as the stupidest most brain-dead person in the entire OOTS world for how she handled Xykon and RC. Really, you couldn't check on them even ONE FRICKIN' TIME in the entire four months?? Really? Talk about deserving your fate.

- RC... wow. Talk about conflicting emotions about this character. So much that pushes me to root for him, yet so much that makes me despise him as well. I did learn one interesting thing though: That those particular people on these forums who seem to take great delight in calling him a coward in as many different ways as possible with such confidence and finality aren't really doing anything but regurgitating Xykon's final speech from this book. And here I was thought I'd been reading some half-way original thoughts... geez people :smallconfused:

- MitD is pure awesome. "Time for things to get serious..." Nuff said :smallwink:

- I'm not sure if Eugene is really as bad of a father as he's made out to be. Certain decisions he made really made it seem like he was trying.

- Finally, I agree with MitD, the cover art would have been about 100000 times better if it had had the right character on it. This one just smacks of "oh, they're too slow to figure it out, just dumb it down." I find it unsatisfying to look at after having read the story.

So that was it pretty much... Interested in hearing impressions from other people who just recently read it.


PS: Seriously guys, take it to PMs FFS :smallsigh:

[veti]

- The Giant takes a looser, and I mean A LOT!! looser, approach to silliness and funny references in the books. A lot of it is funny, but it definitely strays into the "reference just for the sake of having a reference" territory. For example, when RC just randomly tells RE to watch his feet because he just Swiffered the floor. Um... why... why??

I see that as illustrating the domesticated, everyday, Just-Reg'lar-Folks-Like-Us nature of the goblins when they're left unmolested. It's a domestic detail with absolutely no relevance to the Dark One or the Plan or any of those big picture issues, it shows that goblins, left to themselves, will worry about much the same things as peaceful humans.


- It was extremely interesting seeing Xykon as an old man and seeing the change between just absent-minded and non-caring kind of evil (before he was a lich) and real, deliberately EVIL kind of evil.

That's true. There's some interesting psychoanalysis to be done there. My initial thought is that the key is in Xykon's speech, can't remember where it is, about debasing himself for power. Having satisfied himself that he is willing to go as far as he possibly can in that direction, he now feels driven to prove his own evilness at every opportunity, to confirm to himself that he did the right thing (because if his self-image cracks even for a second, he'd suddenly be looking at himself through the eyes of a non-monster).


- Lirian has to qualify as the stupidest most brain-dead person in the entire OOTS world for how she handled Xykon and RC. Really, you couldn't check on them even ONE FRICKIN' TIME in the entire four months?? Really? Talk about deserving your fate.

Aww, c'mon - you never made a mistake?


- I'm not sure if Eugene is really as bad of a father as he's made out to be. Certain decisions he made really made it seem like he was trying.

Meh. As father material, I think he's about average. He's not Father of the Year, but he's not actually abusive either.

[LuisDantas]

That's true. There's some interesting psychoanalysis to be done there. My initial thought is that the key is in Xykon's speech, can't remember where it is, about debasing himself for power. Having satisfied himself that he is willing to go as far as he possibly can in that direction, he now feels driven to prove his own evilness at every opportunity, to confirm to himself that he did the right thing (because if his self-image cracks even for a second, he'd suddenly be looking at himself through the eyes of a non-monster).

Xykon reminds me a bit of Lestat from the Anne Rice vampire books.

Both turn the bravado on full-time because they can not affort NOT to. Xykon, specifically, seems to me to be as pitiful as he is despicable. I get the feeling that he is not so much easily bored as under a constant need of distractions that keep him occupied and therefore unable to fully grasp what a loathsome being he has turned himself into.


(About Eugene) Meh. As father material, I think he's about average. He's not Father of the Year, but he's not actually abusive either.

In the web strips he is quite clearly abusive. I wonder if he looks any better in SoD and OOtP.

Of course, if Alice Miller is right (and I would say she is) an "average" father may very well be abusive. Quite often it is only the presence of another, more compassive person that spares them from graver consequences of their negligence and aggression.

Yes, I went off-topic.

[veti]

Xykon, specifically, seems to me to be as pitiful as he is despicable. I get the feeling that he is not so much easily bored as under a constant need of distractions that keep him occupied and therefore unable to fully grasp what a loathsome being he has turned himself into.

Hmmm. You think there's an inner core of humanity somewhere, which he knows about on some level and actively works to distract and suppress? Come to think about it, that's pretty much what my idea boils down to as well. Of course we may be giving him too much credit, just because we can't comprehend his truly monstrous nature.


In the web strips he is quite clearly abusive. I wonder if he looks any better in SoD and OOtP.

Of course, if Alice Miller is right (and I would say she is) an "average" father may very well be abusive. Quite often it is only the presence of another, more compassive person that spares them from graver consequences of their negligence and aggression.

You and I, and very likely Alice Miller, maybe have different ideas of what constitutes "abusive". But this is wandering off-topic, I'm just trying to defend my assessment of Eugene.

[Herald Alberich]

Meh. As father material, I think he's about average. He's not Father of the Year, but he's not actually abusive either.

His tombstone in Origin gets it right:


Master Wizard
Devoted Husband
Passable Father

Plus, I get the impression he was much more attentive to Julia, because she actually showed interest in the magical arts. Which doesn't make it any better, of course, and she got :roy: "spoiled rotten".

[lio45]

A) "No, it isn't" in that short form is a Monty Python reference.

B) Ughh, you did read the bonus comics in Origins?

Apart from B) it does not change the fact that just stabbing someone in the chest without anymore warning at all might be a "preemptive strike" but just using that nice euphemism does not free it from the fact that it is "murder".
Which, hum, is the entire point here: it is murder.

"Preemptive Strike" is just a nice word for "Han shot Greedo in cold blood" and
"collateral damage" is just a nice word for "The pregnant woman got blown to bits". Wrap in nice words all you want it does not change the fact what something "is".

If that "something" is the only option or at least a valid option is not touched at all by this.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Most of us will agree that killing Crystal was pre-emptive murder... but there's no way around the fact it was murder.

Murder can be pragmatic. For another example in the strip, look no further than the demise of Kubota and Good Elan's good disapproval of V's pragmatism.

[amanojaku]

In most RPGs when you take an enemy as a disadvantage to get points, you can only get rid of the disadvantage enemy by spending the XPS needed to buy off the disadvantage. Even if you manage to kill the enemy (The GM wasn't on his toes) the GM is justified in sending you a new enemy equal to the old one until you buy off the disadvantage.

So, maybe haley just spent the points needed to buy off her enemy disadvantage, and therefore killing crystal was just a game mechanic. I mean, crustal existed solely because the haley character took the enemy disadvantage to get points, and if she paid off the points then the character no longer had any valid existence.

For a joke we could have had haley walk up to crystal with a big smug smile, then inform her she'd just paid off the points she got for the enemy disadvantage and watch crystal suddenly die from something like slipping in the shower, fall down a flight of stairs, or just keel over with no obvious cause of death.

BTW, the bitch was going to kill haley, and mutiliated her hair first. She had it coming for A. doing what she did to haley and B. not killing haley but having to torture her first by butchering her hair.

[salinan]

@Harr - While you are technically correct, and I hereby offer my apologies to everyone for my part in hijacking the thread, a couple of things:

1. It seems reasonable to assume from context that your opinion in the opening remark of your post was directed at the discussion I was involved in, and possibly at me directly - as such, I take offense at the wording of it, and would ask that you kindly keep such opinions to yourself in future.

2. I humbly suggest that Roland would appreciate that, in future, should you be bothered by something like a thread-jacking or any other issue like that, that you take it to a moderator, rather than self moderating.

Thank you.

[Raging Gene Ray]

In the web strips he is quite clearly abusive.

:smalleek: That word you're using...I don't think it means what you think it means.

When I hear "abusive parent," I think beating, exploitation...certainly not general snarkiness. Eugene is not a good father, but I don't think he's particularly worse than Horace or Roy.

[LuisDantas]

Hmmm. You think there's an inner core of humanity somewhere, which he knows about on some level and actively works to distract and suppress?

Humanity is such a vague concept. Either way, I would rather call it a core of animal instinct, because the drive to feel sensual pleasure is not particularly human.

[LuisDantas]

:smalleek: That word you're using...I don't think it means what you think it means.

When I hear "abusive parent," I think beating, exploitation...certainly not general snarkiness. Eugene is not a good father, but I don't think he's particularly worse than Horace or Roy.

Roy is a grown-up now, but what we have seen of Eugene dealing with him does indeed put him safely into abusive territory.

Besides, there is a reason why Roy went to the lenghts of blackmailing his own father's ghost out of seeing his mother's.

Granted, we have no evidence of physical abuse, and I would assume that there was none. That does not necessarily make Eugene any better a parent, however.

[Morthis]

:smalleek: That word you're using...I don't think it means what you think it means.

When I hear "abusive parent," I think beating, exploitation...certainly not general snarkiness. Eugene is not a good father, but I don't think he's particularly worse than Horace or Roy.

I don't think Eugene would physically abuse Roy, but abuse can be emotionally as well. Even so, I'm not sure I would classify what Eugene did as emotional abuse. During Roy's childhood, it seems like Eugene pretty much just didn't give a damn about Roy. That makes him a terrible parent, but not abusive. It seems like their bickering back and forth mostly picked up when Roy was older.


In the web strips he is quite clearly abusive. I wonder if he looks any better in SoD and OOtP.

I really don't think he does. He doesn't care about any of Roy's hobbies and will not take an interest in anything Roy does. Roy plays a sport as a child, and Eugene won't even remember the name or the most basic concept of what you do in the sport. To him soccer, basketball and baseball are all the same thing, some sport involving a ball and he doesn't know or care beyond that because he considers sports a complete waste of time, even if his son is both good at it and interested in it. I'm not sure how anyone can interpret that as putting him in a better light.

[veti]

Granted, we have no evidence of physical abuse, and I would assume that there was none. That does not necessarily make Eugene any better a parent, however.

Hmm. If you're saying, as you appear to be saying, that a parent who physically abuses their child is no worse than one who doesn't, then I think your definition of "abuse" might need a little more thought.

Yes, there's such a thing as emotional abuse, but there's zero evidence of that between Roy and Eugene. The father wants his son to follow in his footsteps, and when Roy takes quite different interests, Eugene loses interest in him. (Good lord, that's such a common plotline I'm sure there's a TV Trope about it.) Nobody would call that good parenting, but it's also not abuse. Just neglect.

[LuisDantas]

Hmm. If you're saying, as you appear to be saying, that a parent who physically abuses their child is no worse than one who doesn't, then I think your definition of "abuse" might need a little more thought.

Physical action is one of many factors that enter into abuse. Ironically enough, it is sometimes a relief of sorts, because it is clear evidence that the parent went too far in some ways. Purely psychological abuse may be much more insidious and harder to heal.



Yes, there's such a thing as emotional abuse, but there's zero evidence of that between Roy and Eugene.

You are discounting the rather obvious hints that come from Roy's own attitude to his father. Why so?


The father wants his son to follow in his footsteps, and when Roy takes quite different interests, Eugene loses interest in him. (Good lord, that's such a common plotline I'm sure there's a TV Trope about it.) Nobody would call that good parenting, but it's also not abuse. Just neglect.

Different strokes, I guess.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Based on the title of the thread:

Can people stop presuming I have the spare money to buy a prequel book to a comic that I read on the internet when I'm already poor?

[Elfey]

In the web strips he is quite clearly abusive. I wonder if he looks any better in SoD and OOtP.

Of course, if Alice Miller is right (and I would say she is) an "average" father may very well be abusive. Quite often it is only the presence of another, more compassive person that spares them from graver consequences of their negligence and aggression.

Yes, I went off-topic.

He's not shown to hit his kids, is shown to provide for them, and doesn't call them names. That's passable. But he's a jerk to them and is very self involved. He got them committed to a blood feud on more or less a drunken whim and never spent much time with them unless it was about magic.

He's not a real abuser, but he's lousy to them and a jerk. Roy has an added bit because of Eric. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html

Roy blames his father for his brothers death, that combined with his father's arrogance means they won't ever heal. And to be honest, I take Roy's side.

[Sholos]

He's not shown to hit his kids, is shown to provide for them, and doesn't call them names. That's passable. But he's a jerk to them and is very self involved. He got them committed to a blood feud on more or less a drunken whim and never spent much time with them unless it was about magic.

He's not a real abuser, but he's lousy to them and a jerk. Roy has an added bit because of Eric. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html

Roy blames his father for his brothers death, that combined with his father's arrogance means they won't ever heal. And to be honest, I take Roy's side.

Are you kidding? Eugene takes every opportunity to attack and belittle Roy's chosen walk of life. Every time they're together, he makes a crack about how useless Roy is. It's that's not being verbally abusive, I don't know what is.

[veti]

Are you kidding? Eugene takes every opportunity to attack and belittle Roy's chosen walk of life. Every time they're together, he makes a crack about how useless Roy is. It's that's not being verbally abusive, I don't know what is.

Well, we could argue about what an appropriate definition of "abuse" should or should not include, but since a large majority of us are not mental-health professionals, and have at most a handful of data points that we know about, it would really be a very pointless debate. Can we agree on two things?

There is "no consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse)" about the definition of emotional abuse. Therefore, whether Eugene's behaviour crosses the line is a matter of judgment, not objective definition.
There is no evidence of Eugene physically abusing anyone, or allowing others to do so.

[Elfey]

Are you kidding? Eugene takes every opportunity to attack and belittle Roy's chosen walk of life. Every time they're together, he makes a crack about how useless Roy is. It's that's not being verbally abusive, I don't know what is.

During Roy's adulthood yes, and after Roy stood up and switched from magic to fighter school he's been horrible. SOD shows some of the prior era, where he wasn't much better, and was arrogant and horrible, but didn't seem to be putting him down.

Not good and not supportive once he left magic, but I wouldn't say abusive until death and he was screwed.

[Digitality]

I guess I'll throw in with the argument Salinan and Optimystik are having.

A perceived threat is much different from an actualized threat. Haley murders Crystal based on a perceived threat at a future time. This is the most violent course of action she can take to resolve the issue. It directly conflicts classical heroic virtues. Any justice system worth it's salt would deem it murder, and not self defense since there is no actual threat at the time, and Haley strikes first.

Anticipatory self defense relies on perception of events around you, and being able to prepare for worst case scenarios when they happen, or just before they occur. It also suggests evasion or avoidance before confrontation, since they are much safer tactics in general to your individual well being. It is not moral license to act first in a violent manner against a perceived threat.

There is no such thing as "preemptive self defense". In legal terms that's called "premeditated murder". Especially when enacted against an unarmed, and defenseless target. There are no two ways about it. There is nothing virtuous, or righteous, or morally good in striking down the defenseless.

Is the murder justifiable? Yes. Does that make it not murder? No, it's still murder. People can find a reason to justify anything they do after all. Even the purposed "bad guys" in most stories have overarching reasons for their actions. In fact, most evil characters don't inherently perceive themselves as being evil. (Jacqueline Carey has a good two-book series The Sundering which creates a great deal of sympathy for the supposed "evil side")

Haley's actions were potentially practical for her own sake though. That's a given. They may or may not benefit her in the future. The action was also bordering on being sociopathic. Haley basically subverted justice and took it into her own hands to mete out punishment on Crystal.

I think in your case Salinan, you sympathize more with Haley's character and in that way are driven to establish a defense for her actions. That simply because she is a protagonist that her goals and the means by which she attains them are permissible and altogether redeemable.

I understand the appeal of pragmatism. It works, and is far more convenient than living up to the standards of classical heroic morals. How many times do we watch some hero and say to ourselves "Just kill the guy and get him out of the way already!" after all? For a true heroic figure, however, the ends do not always justify the means. Heroes are heroes because they triumph in the face of "evil", without subverting their principles. This is one of the key elements of Tolkien's works by the way.

[Nimrod's Son]

Finally, we have the most telling factor: Belkar's approval, which proves that what Haley did is questionable at best.
Given that Belkar finds Crystal annoying and unattractive, plus the fact that he's already fought her but held off on the killing so that Haley could finish the job, I think he'd have the same satisfied smile if Haley had killed her fairly in the most sportsmanlike of duels. He doesn't even comment; he's shown smirking in a single panel. I wouldn't read too much into that.

Personally, having read DStP I think Haley probably made the right choice. It wasn't necessarily the PERFECT way of resolving things, sure, but given the circumstances it was about the best she could do.

I'd say it's pretty likely that Bozzok will return at some point, but I can quite easily imagine that the next time we see him he'll give a nice curt little speech on why he's decided that Crystal was not worth raising. That's by no means a given, of course, but I consider it as likely as not.


Massively obnoxious and inconsiderate thread-jacking from a couple certain people non-withstanding
Oh, come off it. That was a fairly interesting tangent in a largely redundant thread. Hardly worth getting stroppy about.


Based on the title of the thread:

Can people stop presuming I have the spare money to buy a prequel book to a comic that I read on the internet when I'm already poor?
:smallsigh: Can people stop replying to threads when they've only read the title?

We've already done the "But I can't afford it!" bit, and even suggested some ways that you can read it for little to no expense. The thread title says does say "read" (not "buy") after all.

[Sholos]

I guess I'll throw in with the argument Salinan and Optimystik are having.

A perceived threat is much different from an actualized threat. Haley murders Crystal based on a perceived threat at a future time. This is the most violent course of action she can take to resolve the issue. It directly conflicts classical heroic virtues. Any justice system worth it's salt would deem it murder, and not self defense since there is no actual threat at the time, and Haley strikes first.
You're right. There is a difference, and if you've read DStP and think that Crystal wasn't an actualized threat, then there's nothing to say. If you haven't read it, be assured that Crystal made several attempts on Haley's life before getting herself killed.


Anticipatory self defense relies on perception of events around you, and being able to prepare for worst case scenarios when they happen, or just before they occur. It also suggests evasion or avoidance before confrontation, since they are much safer tactics in general to your individual well being. It is not moral license to act first in a violent manner against a perceived threat.
Again, you're right, but it also assumes that you can go to a higher authority for protection if you know somebody's out to get you. Haley doesn't have that luxury.


There is no such thing as "preemptive self defense". In legal terms that's called "premeditated murder". Especially when enacted against an unarmed, and defenseless target. There are no two ways about it. There is nothing virtuous, or righteous, or morally good in striking down the defenseless.
In the sense of, "I think that person might want to hurt me, therefore I'm going to get them first," then of course there's not. That's not what happened here. Here it was, "This person has attacked me before, only not killed me because of extraordinary circumstances, and has made several attempts on my life afterwards." I think removing the threat is a valid action.


Is the murder justifiable? Yes. Does that make it not murder? No, it's still murder. People can find a reason to justify anything they do after all. Even the purposed "bad guys" in most stories have overarching reasons for their actions. In fact, most evil characters don't inherently perceive themselves as being evil. (Jacqueline Carey has a good two-book series The Sundering which creates a great deal of sympathy for the supposed "evil side")
Having a reason doesn't make something justified. It means you have a reason, and maybe even makes the acts understandable. For something to be justified, however, it has to be, as the word suggests, just.


Haley's actions were potentially practical for her own sake though. That's a given. They may or may not benefit her in the future. The action was also bordering on being sociopathic. Haley basically subverted justice and took it into her own hands to mete out punishment on Crystal.
I probably would have agreed with you before having read the book. The book makes it very clear, however, that Crystal and Bozzok have no plan to let Haley leave again peacefully, which makes a sudden strike very valid if Haley wants to get out alive. Also, I'll mention that in that particular city, there is no real "justice" to pervert. No one is going to come down hard on the Thieves' Guild for what they do.


I think in your case Salinan, you sympathize more with Haley's character and in that way are driven to establish a defense for her actions. That simply because she is a protagonist that her goals and the means by which she attains them are permissible and altogether redeemable.
Well, I can't speak for Salinan, but I know that I am pretty immune to the protagonist = "can do no wrong" line of thought.


I understand the appeal of pragmatism. It works, and is far more convenient than living up to the standards of classical heroic morals. How many times do we watch some hero and say to ourselves "Just kill the guy and get him out of the way already!" after all? For a true heroic figure, however, the ends do not always justify the means. Heroes are heroes because they triumph in the face of "evil", without subverting their principles. This is one of the key elements of Tolkien's works by the way.
Yeah, because I'm sure Aragorn would have been okay with someone actively trying to do him harm. Especially if said person had already once before made an honest effort to kill him and almost succeeded. Also, you'll notice that all the bad guys in LOTR are either killed or completely removed from power by the time the heroes are done with them. Haley was only able to do that to one of her villains.

[Jayabalard]

There is "no consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse)" about the definition of emotional abuse. Therefore, whether Eugene's behaviour crosses the line is a matter of judgment, not objective definition.That's some really selective reading there, from a citation from a book about childhood emotional abuse. So, while there may not be a consensus on what defines "emotional abuse" as a whole, that doesn't mean that there is no consensus about specific forms of psychological abuse.

[Digitality]

You're right. There is a difference, and if you've read DStP and think that Crystal wasn't an actualized threat, then there's nothing to say. If you haven't read it, be assured that Crystal made several attempts on Haley's life before getting herself killed.


Again, you're right, but it also assumes that you can go to a higher authority for protection if you know somebody's out to get you. Haley doesn't have that luxury.

That assumes that there is no degree of law enforcement in the OOTS world. Which we have clearly seen firsthand to be otherwise. It isn't that she didn't have the option, it's more to point that she chose a violent option out of convenience. That is a very good sign of moral decay.



In the sense of, "I think that person might want to hurt me, therefore I'm going to get them first," then of course there's not. That's not what happened here. Here it was, "This person has attacked me before, only not killed me because of extraordinary circumstances, and has made several attempts on my life afterwards." I think removing the threat is a valid action.

Actualized threats are "current and present" not past, not future. Something is presently creating a very real danger to your well being in an immediate situation that you might not be able to escape alive from. It doesn't extend from "I made it out of this, regardless of the circumstances required, so now it's time for payback." Was Crystal a potential threat? Yes, and possibly a large one. Actualized... not when she was murdered in cold blood.


Having a reason doesn't make something justified. It means you have a reason, and maybe even makes the acts understandable. For something to be justified, however, it has to be, as the word suggests, just.

What is just is often relative to the mind of the individual. Justification is very clearly defined as being the reasoning behind an action. It's what the word implies in and of itself. The explanation, the enlightening of circumstance giving credence to the act. Anyone can justify anything they want, however they can rationalize it. Doesn't mean we have to agree with an individual's justification. At times they can even seem completely warped and tinged with madness.


I probably would have agreed with you before having read the book. The book makes it very clear, however, that Crystal and Bozzok have no plan to let Haley leave again peacefully, which makes a sudden strike very valid if Haley wants to get out alive. Also, I'll mention that in that particular city, there is no real "justice" to pervert. No one is going to come down hard on the Thieves' Guild for what they do.

No, there was no law in that particular area. You're right there. I imagine there is some generalized consideration of righteousness and good in the OOTS world though. However, it still means that, of all possible courses of action, Haley chose to murder a defenseless rival/enemy. I won't deny that I would probably take the same course of action. I'm pragmatic at heart myself. (Hell, I liked the fact that Han Solo shot Greedo first. :smallbiggrin:) I'm also objective when I analyze things.

The threat, however built up it had become, was only perceived at the time Haley decided to act. She killed Crystal out of convenience. While C was completely defenseless. Then she robbed her. I can see nothing good in this at all.

It works for Hayley if Crystal stays dead, and it's a favorable outcome for the OOTS and their end goal if Crystal never gets in their way again. It's not a "heroic" action though. I don't dislike her character for doing it. I'm just not one to pretty it up and try to say it's anything other than what it was. A murder in cold blood.


Yeah, because I'm sure Aragorn would have been okay with someone actively trying to do him harm. Especially if said person had already once before made an honest effort to kill him and almost succeeded. Also, you'll notice that all the bad guys in LOTR are either killed or completely removed from power by the time the heroes are done with them. Haley was only able to do that to one of her villains.

Then I think you missed a large part of Tolkien's ideologies that were woven into his writing. The good side is constantly given the means to take shortcuts. Tested time and again. Bilbo had the opportunity to slay Gollum at one point but stayed his hand. Frodo even remarks on this being a poor decision on Bilbo's part, yet later, given the same chance he does the same thing. Boromir's ultimate demise is due to his being a pragmatic man, and not a heroic one, though I'd say he redeems this in his death. There is a constant ongoing struggle of the principles of his characters being tested.

Tolkien also saw a huge failure in the part of the Allies during WWII when they made compromises with Stalin, and even worse, when they unleashed the Atomic Bomb on the Japanese. They chose pragmatic solutions over virtue. He was a strong adherent to the belief that good ends do not justify the use of evil means to get there.

[Shale]

Law enforcement...in Greysky? Did you see that city?

[Elfey]

The other issue with law enforcement in such an environment is this isn't the real world where a criminal may be tough, but even with body armor and everything else can be put down with effort by a good police officer without some uber powerful single guy showing up to do it.

Here, if a PC goes on a rampage, a standard cop isn't taking him down.

[Ancalagon]

Here, if a PC goes on a rampage, a standard cop isn't taking him down.

Actually, that's not true. Even the DMG spells it out. PCs are powerful but that's known. So a town might have one magical scroll or magic item for "just that case" that they'll get out "just in that case".

Compare it with a RL SWAT-team or other special units showing up. If a guy seems really bad and tough (or armed, for that matter. Where's the difference between "five levels" and a "flame thrower"?) normal cops won't go there anymore. They'll call a special team - and they handle it.
Why should it be different in such a world? There surely won't be a specially trained police force above the normal forces but who says the town is totally unprepared for a "powerful being"?

At least in bigger towns a "rampaging PC" could not get away with it only because everyone else is five levels lower.

[lio45]

Out of curiosity, I have a serious question for anyone who considers that Haley did not murder Crystal:

Could you show us the exact definition of "murder" that you're using? (Some kind of link to a source would be appreciated.)

I'm using what I would consider the common definition of the word and there's no way around the fact that it's murder. Sure, in the context, you could point out that murdering Crystal then and there was a good strategic decision, and that it contributed to making the perpetrator safer... you'd probably be right, but it's still murder.

[Nimrod's Son]

Sure, in the context, you could point out that murdering Crystal then and there was a good strategic decision, and that it contributed to making the perpetrator safer... you'd probably be right, but it's still murder.
Well, yeah. But in a city where a guild of thieves has more authority than the police force (hell, does Greysky even HAVE a police force?), well, you've gotta adjust your priorities a little.


Hell, I liked the fact that Han Solo shot Greedo first.
So did I. And anyone who disagrees deserves to be shot without warning from underneath a table.

[Sholos]

That assumes that there is no degree of law enforcement in the OOTS world. Which we have clearly seen firsthand to be otherwise. It isn't that she didn't have the option, it's more to point that she chose a violent option out of convenience. That is a very good sign of moral decay.
No, it assumes that there is no degree of law enforcement in Greysky, something that I don't think is a bad assumption. Haley has nobody to help her out with Crystal at the time.


Actualized threats are "current and present" not past, not future. Something is presently creating a very real danger to your well being in an immediate situation that you might not be able to escape alive from. It doesn't extend from "I made it out of this, regardless of the circumstances required, so now it's time for payback." Was Crystal a potential threat? Yes, and possibly a large one. Actualized... not when she was murdered in cold blood.
So, if someone earnestly tries to kill you, has expressed a desire to kill you several times, has the backing of another, more powerful person who would also gladly see you dead, and can quite possibly/probably take you in a fair fight, you're only allowed to fight back in the times when they are actively trying to kill you?


What is just is often relative to the mind of the individual. Justification is very clearly defined as being the reasoning behind an action. It's what the word implies in and of itself. The explanation, the enlightening of circumstance giving credence to the act. Anyone can justify anything they want, however they can rationalize it. Doesn't mean we have to agree with an individual's justification. At times they can even seem completely warped and tinged with madness.
I disagree with your definition, but I don't think that matters so much as knowing what you mean, which is an obvious truth.


No, there was no law in that particular area. You're right there. I imagine there is some generalized consideration of righteousness and good in the OOTS world though. However, it still means that, of all possible courses of action, Haley chose to murder a defenseless rival/enemy. I won't deny that I would probably take the same course of action. I'm pragmatic at heart myself. (Hell, I liked the fact that Han Solo shot Greedo first. :smallbiggrin:) I'm also objective when I analyze things.
Her other courses of action were to what, wait around to get attacked again by a more prepared Guild?


The threat, however built up it had become, was only perceived at the time Haley decided to act. She killed Crystal out of convenience. While C was completely defenseless. Then she robbed her. I can see nothing good in this at all.
If someone has attacked you several times and is planning on killing you, then the threat is not merely perceived. It is actually there. Sure, she wasn't trying to kill her at that very moment, but I don't think that's a reason not to take steps to prevent future attacks.


It works for Hayley if Crystal stays dead, and it's a favorable outcome for the OOTS and their end goal if Crystal never gets in their way again. It's not a "heroic" action though. I don't dislike her character for doing it. I'm just not one to pretty it up and try to say it's anything other than what it was. A murder in cold blood.
Who cares about being "heroic"? Being heroic is fine and dandy if you're invulnerable and can prevent other people from being hurt due to your heroic actions. I don't think Haley necessarily fits into those categories. Also, heroic actions are not the only ones in the set of actions that are okay for good guys to do.


Then I think you missed a large part of Tolkien's ideologies that were woven into his writing. The good side is constantly given the means to take shortcuts. Tested time and again. Bilbo had the opportunity to slay Gollum at one point but stayed his hand. Frodo even remarks on this being a poor decision on Bilbo's part, yet later, given the same chance he does the same thing. Boromir's ultimate demise is due to his being a pragmatic man, and not a heroic one, though I'd say he redeems this in his death. There is a constant ongoing struggle of the principles of his characters being tested.
Fine, whatever. What does this have to do with OotS? At all? It's an entirely different setting.


Tolkien also saw a huge failure in the part of the Allies during WWII when they made compromises with Stalin, and even worse, when they unleashed the Atomic Bomb on the Japanese. They chose pragmatic solutions over virtue. He was a strong adherent to the belief that good ends do not justify the use of evil means to get there.
Well, I'd have to disagree with him on the bomb, because I'm not sure sacrificing even more civilian lives as well as US soldiers' lives would have been a better thing to do.

[salinan]

Out of curiosity, I have a serious question for anyone who considers that Haley did not murder Crystal:

Could you show us the exact definition of "murder" that you're using? (Some kind of link to a source would be appreciated.)
That's an interesting question, and I'm glad you asked it. The reason I'm glad you asked it is that it exposes another interesting question in the answer.

Most dictionaries should give you the definition of murder to be something like "unlawful killing of a human being."

The question thus exposed, and something worth considering, is "what exactly is the law in the OoTS world?"

Everyone is far too quick to use the morals and values, as well as the laws, of their own society to judge the events that occur in a very different society. It's very clear to me that the OoTS world is different enough that many of our laws/morals simply would not fit, or be practical there. I'm not going to speculate on whether murder would be one, although clearly the wording at least would need to differ - or anyone could go around slaughtering elves in cold blood (not being human, of course.) Some people here would probably like to have that be the case. :smallwink:


There is no such thing as "preemptive self defense". In legal terms that's called "premeditated murder".
Nope. Self defense (preemptive or otherwise) is a reaction to a threat. It doesn't necessarily even involve killing someone. Very clearly a different beast to murder (premeditated or otherwise) which certainly does involve killing someone, and has no requirement that it be a reaction to a threat.


I think in your case Salinan, you sympathize more with Haley's character and in that way are driven to establish a defense for her actions. That simply because she is a protagonist that her goals and the means by which she attains them are permissible and altogether redeemable.
I concede the possibility, but if so, I'm unaware of any such bias, and therefore I can't comment on that. :smallsmile:

[Digitality]

No, it assumes that there is no degree of law enforcement in Greysky, something that I don't think is a bad assumption. Haley has nobody to help her out with Crystal at the time.

That's looking at it in a small window of time. The resolution to their rivalry could occur anywhere at any time later on. Not necessarily in Greysky. Even without law enforcement, there are other possible ways to resolve the issue. Killing Crystal is just the most expedient at the moment. Like has been said, tactically sound, but still a murder.


So, if someone earnestly tries to kill you, has expressed a desire to kill you several times, has the backing of another, more powerful person who would also gladly see you dead, and can quite possibly/probably take you in a fair fight, you're only allowed to fight back in the times when they are actively trying to kill you?

Legally, and even morally yeah, pretty much. Personally I wouldn't wait around for it either. My first solution probably wouldn't be retaliatory murder though.


I disagree with your definition, but I don't think that matters so much as knowing what you mean, which is an obvious truth.

"My" definition is pretty much what the word means anymore. I guess I could inflect it a bit by calling it self-justification. That term is a bit archaic in modern use though.


Her other courses of action were to what, wait around to get attacked again by a more prepared Guild?

Leave altogether, just like she did. Seek a peaceful means to ending the headhunt (unlikely, given our extended insight of the circumstance, but still possible to try). Probably some other crap. Hell I don't disagree with her course of action. It's just that I still view it as a murder.


If someone has attacked you several times and is planning on killing you, then the threat is not merely perceived. It is actually there. Sure, she wasn't trying to kill her at that very moment, but I don't think that's a reason not to take steps to prevent future attacks.

By it's very definition it was perceived. Based on past events you can make assumptions about anybody's potential future actions. Doesn't mean you'll be right. Even with knowledge that they were still going to come after her, it's still supposition until it actually happens. We can estimate, and infer a likely possibility of occurrence but there is no actual assurance that it would have gone down. The threat was very real in potential, but not a current actuality.


Who cares about being "heroic"? Being heroic is fine and dandy if you're invulnerable and can prevent other people from being hurt due to your heroic actions. I don't think Haley necessarily fits into those categories. Also, heroic actions are not the only ones in the set of actions that are okay for good guys to do.

It's kind of sad seeing how much less virtuous the world has become. Myself included of course lol. Heroes idealize cultural values. No, she doesn't have to be the iconic hero. That's fine for her character, but she is Chaotic Good. In that sense, I can see her subverting the law in the matter, due to the Chaotic part. As for being Good, cold blooded killing doesn't really fit in there. As Optimystik said, it puts her alignment in a real risk, for no real guaranteed gains.


Fine, whatever. What does this have to do with OotS? At all? It's an entirely different setting.

I brought it up to have something to draw to comparatively. Tolkien's characters are classical heroes of virtue. Virtue often clashes with pragmatism.

[Digitality]

Nope. Self defense (preemptive or otherwise) is a reaction to a threat. It doesn't necessarily even involve killing someone. Very clearly a different beast to murder (premeditated or otherwise) which certainly does involve killing someone, and has no requirement that it be a reaction to a threat.

I painted a broad stroke in relevance to our topic. Killing as a form of defense. What you say is otherwise true. Self defense does not have to include killing the threat. However, preemptive self defense does not exist (ask any decent defense attorney). By it's own meaning it infers an initialization of action, rather than reaction.

It's a very difficult topic to put into black and white terms because of timing. It's entirely situational. It's hard to say exactly when a threat becomes actualized as opposed to being simply perceived. One critical point in this though is that the threat must be active, and not passive.


In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

Justification for self-defense usually cannot be applied to actions committed after a criminal act has taken place. A rape victim who, after the rape is committed and the rapist leaves, subsequently finds and shoots the rapist, is not entitled to claim self-defense. Most other victims of assaultive offenses are similarly not entitled to this defense if they act in revenge. In all but one U.S. jurisdiction, using deadly force against a robber or burglar who is attempting to escape with property is likewise not justifiable (Texas is the only exception and holds the defendant to a high burden of proof that the action was the only means available to recover the property without a serious risk of death or serious injury).

The term is somewhat flawed. In legal terms, it is still just "self defense". The requirements for it are that the threat has already been actualized. At that point though it is no longer truly preemptive. Such as, you're attacker has lunged at you, or you're pinned in a corner and he/she has a knife drawn and coming at you.

The last part I included in rebuttal to those claiming that since Crystal has attacked Haley before she was justified in killing her later.

If you hit a guy, because he's standing in front of you looking intimidating and you think he's going to hit you first... well, then you're potentially going to be charged with battery. Self defense really doesn't apply here. Even if you perceived a threat, one wasn't imminent.

So how can you extend that sort of time frame as being even larger for Haley's sake? We have no idea how much later Crystals supposed attack would have come. Also, by such a definition, Haley's action's do not fall under self defense at all.

Now if that same guy is standing in front of you grimacing, and coming off threatening, and then he pulls his arm back to take a punch, and you have nowhere to go to get away then attacking him would be warranted. The threat is imminent because he is really going to strike you.

[deworde]

Derailed as this topic has become, can we all agree that the public library system is criminally under-rated, and one of the most advanced demonstrations of a civilised culture? Cheers.

[Spiky]

The MunchKING's right. "Arrogant" is certainly a negative quality, as "Greedy" is.

How sad, but common. Certainly a belief by the non-arrogant.

[Ancalagon]

Well, yeah. But in a city where a guild of thieves has more authority than the police force (hell, does Greysky even HAVE a police force?), well, you've gotta adjust your priorities a little.

You mean... in some situations it might be a valid option to murder someone? ;)

[Digitality]

How sad, but common. Certainly a belief by the non-arrogant.

Common probably because hubris is considered to be one of the capital vices. Not because non-arrogant people don't know any better. It's probably considered the most prominent among the 7 sins, and was the one committed by Lucifer to cause his fall from Heaven.

Arrogance has a negative overtone because it's considered an "excess" of confidence. To the point that it becomes warped. Dante Alighieri defined it as love of the self perverted into hatred of the neighbor.

It's opposing virtue is Humility.

That's not to say it's bad to have any kind of confidence in yourself though.

[Nimrod's Son]

You mean... in some situations it might be a valid option to murder someone? ;)
Well, here's a typical day in Greysky. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0574.html) When in Rome, and all that... :smallwink:

[Ancalagon]

Well, here's a typical day in Greysky. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0574.html) When in Rome, and all that... :smallwink:

Sure. But that your social background makes murder a bit more viable, excusable, or even necessary does not really change the fact it's still... murder. Which is my sole point here.

[Nimrod's Son]

"Murder" is just a word though; it's subjective. Even in real life, it's possible to deliberately kill someone and only get sent down for manslaughter, or even get away scot-free. In which case, in the eyes of the law you're not a murderer, even if you know yourself that you really are. In Greysky city that surely goes double.

And if it IS necessary, then who cares what you call it? It still had to be done.

[Ancalagon]

It's more than a word, it's a concept.

"kill" = make someone dead, in any way, for whatever reason.

A subset of that is "murder" = "kill" someone in a particularly unfair way or for "lower" reasons".

"Manslaughter" would be another subset of "kill" = you had non-low reasons and didn't do it in a particular mean (surprise, intentionally pain-inflicting) way.

Another subset would be self-defense = kill while he attacks you to protect yourself or someone else from a direct threat.

From down to top, things are considered "more bad". What Haley did was murder. Maybe justified, but it was murder. She surprised Crystal, attacked when she knew Crystal was particularly help- and defenseless, a part of her motive surely was that she "hates that bitch"... the fact that Crystal had tried to kill her before and the fact she MIGHT come after Haley does not obscure the fact (to me, to you it obviously does it) that it was murder. It (= walking to her room) surely was not self-defense.

[Digitality]

Yeah, murder is a concept. The word just gives vocalization to the idea. That's all a language is anyways. Ideas given a form that we can communicate between each other.

Even worse was that Haley was not forced to act. She made a point of going out of her way to kill Crystal, when the Oots were ready to teleport out of greysky completely.

I don't know what other concept you would apply to what she did.

[Nimrod's Son]

It wasn't self-defense in the strictest sense of the word, no, but it WAS a necessary pre-emptive strike. The fact that it may well be considered murder in real life doesn't matter to me because this isn't real-life. I strongly doubt she'd ever get convicted of it under Greysky law, at least.

As far as I'm concerned Haley going off killing sentient beings in the name of "adventure" and "gaining experience" is a much uglier matter (and much more like "murder") than taking a prime opportunity to off someone who has attempted to kill her many times before and has sworn to finish the job at the next opportunity. Let's face it, if the tables were turned and Crystal knew that Haley was going to be naked and unarmed at any point in the future, she wouldn't hesitate for a second to do what Haley did.

I never said it wasn't murder, strictly speaking. I merely said I didn't care, and that I thought Haley had taken the sensible option.

[Ancalagon]

It wasn't self-defense in the strictest sense of the word, no, but it WAS a necessary pre-emptive strike. The fact that it may well be considered murder in real life doesn't matter to me because this isn't real-life. I strongly doubt she'd ever get convicted of it under Greysky law, at least.

Only because a certain law in a certain city does not consider it murder does not change the fact it IS murder.
Also, what is the Greysky Law? In this case, it's Bozzok. And he'd surely consider it murder. So, we are again down to this: Haley murdered Crystal.

It's also not "murder in the strictest sense" or "strickly speaking". It's a plain and clear case of someone making someone dead for a combination of cheap reasons and possible dangers in the future - in a particularly mean way.

I understand if people come to the conclusion it was necessary or at least a smart thing to do - but I don't agree with people who insist it's not murder (because they like the character?).

[Nimrod's Son]

I understand if people come to the conclusion it was necessary or at least a smart thing to do - but I don't agree with people who insist it's not murder (because they like the character?).
You might want to read the last paragraph of my previous post again, in that case. :smallsmile:

[veti]

Only because a certain law in a certain city does not consider it murder does not change the fact it IS murder.

Actually, yes it does. "Murder" is a legal term. No matter what you do, if it's not illegal it's not murder.

We live in a civilised world, where when anyone kills someone else, it makes sense to presume that it's murder unless there are truly exceptional circumstances to say otherwise. Greysky City is not like that. From the little we've seen of it, it seems as if killing is a normal way of settling differences.


Also, what is the Greysky Law? In this case, it's Bozzok. And he'd surely consider it murder. So, we are again down to this: Haley murdered Crystal.

We know absolutely nothing about Greysky law. (We know more about the Thieves Guild than we do about the city government, assuming there is any.) If it's just "whatever Bozzok says it is" then that's no law at all, that's anarchy in its truest sense. And even if Bozzok does disapprove of the killing, he still might not call it murder - maybe he'll simply shrug and write it off as part of the cut-and-thrust of business as usual.

[hamishspence]

Actually, yes it does. "Murder" is a legal term. No matter what you do, if it's not illegal it's not murder.

Until the people committing the killings fall into the hands of others, who deem that their acts were murder.

An "international standard" principle- just because, for example, a country legalizes the murders of sections of its population, does not change the nature of the murders.

[lio45]

Until the people committing the killings fall into the hands of others, who deem that their acts were murder.

An "international standard" principle- just because, for example, a country legalizes the murders of sections of its population, does not change the nature of the murders.

Well, I would tend to agree with you, but on the other hand, the definition of the word IS really about the killing being "unlawful".

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/murder?view=uk

So, what if a particular cold-blooded killing doesn't break any law?

I was thinking about Belkar and the gnome last time I was reading this thread, but didn't have enough time to post about it.

When Belkar killed the gnome merchant, they were in empty territory, so presumably no law was broken. Therefore, that wasn't murder, according to the definition. But...

Hypothetical situation: back in 1805, during their expedition in what is nowadays Oregon, Lewis decides to kill Clark because he wants to take his stuff. No law was broken at the location where the act took place, but both individuals are citizens of a country whose laws would prohibit such a killing. In that scenario, assuming anyone back home heard about it, Lewis would face murder charges in the US, right?

So, even though that gnome was physically outside the jurisdiction of whatever gnomish nation he was a member of, I would imagine Belkar could be charged with his murder by those gnomish authorities (if they managed to learn what happened to the gnome merchant).

In Crystal's case, I would think Greysky City, being reasonably close to other population centers in that area, is likely to fall under some kingdom's jurisdiction, even though the city is, in practice, the worst law-less jungle. That would make Haley's act a murder, although of course no one from law enforcement will lift a finger about it.

If it's not, then there's still the possibility that Crystal wasn't born there... in that case, there is a kingdom out there which could say Haley murdered one of its citizens...

[Elfey]

Until the people committing the killings fall into the hands of others, who deem that their acts were murder.

An "international standard" principle- just because, for example, a country legalizes the murders of sections of its population, does not change the nature of the murders.

It actually matters quite a bit because there are substantial differences between a common law and civil law approach, as the civil law only recognizes the written law and only the crimes as written down with small room for interpretation by the judges. The common law however works on precedent and establishes a series of binding rules from prior decisions.

There's also a very large difference between murder and manslaughter in the law, and self defense (or better yet imperfect self defense).

Generally speaking murder is premediated and deliberate killing of a person with malice aforethought, either expressly with an intent to kill or implied malice via grevious bodily injury, a depraved heart or while in the commission of a felony. Premediated and deliberated generally means prior planning for the actions that led to death, planning to rough up a customer but they die or lying in wait to kill someone, etc.

All other killings are manslaughter. These include killings that are not premediated, but also those that are but are either provoked, or are imperfect self defense, or the result of extreme emotional distubance.

The rules get hazy from there, but basically if provocation, imperfect self defense and EED are all based on the idea you thought you were reasonable, and a jury may support you, if in your shoes, they'd do the same thing, but ultimately your use of force exceded what was reasonable. Man attacks you with his fists, while maybe reasonable to fight back with a weapon, killing may not be considered reasonable depending on the facts but might be considered adequate and reasonable under the circumstances to get manslaughter instead of murder.

[Nimrod's Son]

In an earlier post I asked the semi-rhetorical question "does Greysky even HAVE a police force?", but that was without checking the comic itself. Having looked again, it's clear that it does (first panel) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0574.html), albeit one that is clearly corrupt. So the idea that the sum total of the law is "whatever Bozzok decides" is somewhat flawed.

But meh. Haley is a seasoned killer who grew up in a city where taking the law into your own hands is the norm. She killed someone who was very clearly a persistent threat to her own life; I really can't be bothered to debate the semantics of the situation. As far as I'm concerned, she'd done much worse beforehand; whether or not she committed "murder" or not here is irrelevant. The point is she's still alive, and the threat of retribution she now faces from the Thieves' Guild is now considerably less than it has been since she first returned there... perhaps even less than since she first angered Crystal in the first place.

(I mean, I don't much doubt that if Haley had NEVER gone back to Greysky, but had happened to have been spotted by Crystal whilst in some other location, then Crystal would have been unlikely to pass up the chance to kill her from behind without warning, "just because".)

[Morthis]

Why do people keep acting as if Haley had no other choice? She could have rejoined the party, and the thieves guild wouldn't even have stood the slightest chance, assuming they could even keep following them.

She chose to kill Crystal. I'm sure the threat she posed was part of it, but it seems like their history played a big part as well. Would Haley have simply murdered someone who posed a threat to them, without that history? It seems doubtful. We certainly don't see her murdering Nale after he faked being Elan, she had plenty of reason to be angry at him there, and he obviously continues to pose a threat (a much greater one than the thieves guild does too).

[Nimrod's Son]

Why do people keep acting as if Haley had no other choice? She could have rejoined the party, and the thieves guild wouldn't even have stood the slightest chance, assuming they could even keep following them.
I strongly doubt Bozzok will bother to raise Crystal (or if he does, he'll rein her in), that's why. I think at this point he's more likely to cut his losses and accept that pursuing Haley is now more trouble than it's worth. Now Haley has sent what amounts to a very clear message that she is not to be messed with, but before he was quite adamant that she needed to be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.

Rich has gone out of his way to avoid cheapening death by providing handy resurrections in the story so far. I very much doubt he'd have included those scenes if Crystal was going to be raised immediately and get right back on her tail - whereas if she'd left Crystal alive, we'd all be expecting her to pop back up before long and put Haley in jeopardy again. This way, he's drawn as much of a line under the whole thing as can reasonably be expected in a world where death is not necessarily the end.

Of course, none of this is certain - should Crystal come back and resume her pursuit then everything I've written here becomes moot. But I really don't think that's the way Rich is going with all this. It seems to me like Crystal's part is over with just as much as Miko's is.

[Ancalagon]

Actually, yes it does. "Murder" is a legal term. No matter what you do, if it's not illegal it's not murder.

Sorry, I'm not starting this debate all over - for the third time.

This time, I just leave it at "You are wrong, really, you are"! ;)

[Dallas-Dakota]

On the original question, I'm sure somebody has already said it, some people just don't have enough money that they can easily spend on trans-atlantic ordering of comic books.

[Ancalagon]

On the original question, I'm sure somebody has already said it, some people just don't have enough money that they can easily spend on trans-atlantic ordering of comic books.

As I said before I'm not buying this reason.
I buy the reason people might not have enough money, which is perfectly understandable. But if you think you can afford to spend 30$ on a comic book in the first place I find it hard to believe you won't save a month more and spend 40$.
30$ is "a lot" for a comic book, but so is "40$". It's really the same category of "a lot".
Or save three, four months longer and buy two books to "half" the shipping.

But it's moot to discuss this point. People either decide the money they do have (if you have more this descision is easier to make) is worth such a comic book (including shipping) or not. Nothing we can discuss has a significant impact on that.

[salinan]

Sorry, I'm not starting this debate all over - for the third time.

This time, I just leave it at "You are wrong, really, you are"! ;)
...Which really doesn't win you the argument, as you well know. :smallwink:

Just because you happen to live in a society where it would be classified as murder, and there aren't many, or any, societies on earth where it wouldn't be classified as murder, doesn't mean that there is no way that it isn't murder. As veti said, murder is a legal term. If the law doesn't exist, then it simply can't be murder.

Even when laws exist, there are clear exceptions in our society where killing someone isn't murder - capital punishment being one, acts of war another. So even when a law exists, the context of the killing is important.

There are killings and methods of killing which have been common in ages past (and even some today) which we would likely consider murder these days - but they weren't considered such at the time. The simplest example probably being revenge - it was perfectly acceptable (and even expected) once upon a time in some societies to kill someone who had killed a member of your family, for example. Certainly, such killings wouldn't have been considered as murder by neutral observers of that time period, and in some cases it was a defacto part of the justice system.

This is making no comment on whether Haley's action should be considered murder or not - I don't believe we have enough information to definitively give an answer to that. It is merely my personal opinion that it is self defense, and that no court (in Greysky City at least) would convict her of murder. :smallbiggrin:

[LuisDantas]

As veti said, murder is a legal term. If the law doesn't exist, then it simply can't be murder.

Sorry, but that is not quite right. While murder is indeed a legal term, the act itself is what it is, regardless of whether there is any law to classify it as murder.

The absence of laws makes the classification somewhat arbitrary, that is all. Murder still may and will occur, although it will be very hard to reach agreements about exactly which killings shall be called murders.

[Ancalagon]

...Which really doesn't win you the argument, as you well know. :smallwink:

Oh, in contrast: I already had won against you when you claimed that just shooting someone without warning at all because it's more convenient was not murder. :smallwink:

Apart from that: There's no "global scale of internet discussion" where is recorded how often you win. Also, I argue and discuss on the net because it's fun and interesting. Talking about Topic#262 with Person A is interesting, doing the same thing with Person B or C can also be interesting. But if Person H shows up with Topic#262 with the same (utterly wrong) basic assumptions you have to understand it's not really that thrilling for me to get again into this topic.

Apart from that: Why should I bother to argue with someone who cannot even be bothered to read the things I wrote like ten posts earlier about the exact same points he addressed?

So I leave it as this:
sneak-attack-Haley vs. bathroom-Crystal = murder.
Ancalagon vs. Salinan (after Salinan's opening post) = 10 : 0.

I'm happy with that clear outcome but I'm very convinced you'll find someone who argues with you about Topic#262 ("Did Haley Murder Crystal"). ;)

[salinan]

Sorry, but that is not quite right. While murder is indeed a legal term, the act itself is what it is
...a morally dubious killing. I agree. I've not argued otherwise. But not necessarily murder. :smallwink:

My apologies Ancalagon, I missed your post.


Oh, in contrast: I already had won against you when you claimed that just shooting someone without warning at all because it's more convenient was not murder. :smallwink:
Except that I've never argued it in those terms.


Also, I argue and discuss on the net because it's fun and interesting. Talking about Topic#262 with Person A is interesting, doing the same thing with Person B or C can also be interesting. But if Person H shows up with Topic#262 with the same (utterly wrong) basic assumptions you have to understand it's not really that thrilling for me to get again into this topic.
Um, I am person A. You may have argued with a whole heap of others in between, but I was the person who initially raised this.


Apart from that: Why should I bother to argue with someone who cannot even be bothered to read the things I wrote like ten posts earlier about the exact same points he addressed?
Because you are clearly missing the point.

I'll spell it out for you.

Murder:n The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Note the unlawful part. The concept simply does not exist in the absence of the law defining it.

You may argue that I'm debating semantics, but the fact is that a) the definition simply doesn't support you, and b) whether it's even morally considered murder is subject to the morality of the location in which it happens. You are applying your own sense of morality to a scene in a webcomic. It's absurd, and it's the reason, in fact, that all "is <blah> morally justified" debates are absurd.

[hamishspence]

In D&D, the evilness of an act is not dependant on whether the locals consider it an evil act or not. Objective morality, not relative morality.

Thus, the opinions of the average citizen of Greysky, are irrelevant.

[Shale]

Murder:n The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Note the unlawful part. The concept simply does not exist in the absence of the law defining it.


Two words: Natural law. The existence of which is not exactly a settled topic, but to pretend that the idea of murder flatly doesn't exist without codified regulations is absurd.

[Ancalagon]

I'll spell it out for you.

Murder:n The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Note the unlawful part. The concept simply does not exist in the absence of the law defining it.

The fact is I think your defintion does not apply. In case we are in non-law areas or try to approach the question what is murder from a more global perspective it's not enough to say "kill in a non-lawful way" is murder.
In fact, manslaughter is also killing "in a non-lawful way" (you get punished for it) but it is not considered "murder".
Of course, the distinction between "murder" and "manslaughter" only applies in contexts of law where you have to determine the actual graduation of the killing in question (which is important for determining the punishment/retribution).

To spell it out: Your definition simply does not work for the question at hand.

You cannot say "Because there's no law at all you simply cannot commit murder". A tree that falls when no one is around to hear it DOES make a sound and murder when no government of any sort that defines the law is around is still murder.

[Digitality]

I'll spell it out for you.

Murder:n The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Note the unlawful part. The concept simply does not exist in the absence of the law defining it.


In response to this I can only stress the following post even further.


Two words: Natural law. The existence of which is not exactly a settled topic, but to pretend that the idea of murder flatly doesn't exist without codified regulations is absurd.

The concept of murder had to exist before a law could be applied behind it. How you can rationalize that the concept existed only after the law was created is beyond me.

Murder is more of an immoral killing than simply "unlawful" killing. Throughout most of civilized history, killing of another human being outside of war has been viewed to be wrong. Even serving as capital punishment there have always been detractors.

Beyond that, your definition applies, when we're talking within strictly legal terms. However we're not. We're discussing it from a perspective of moral values. For some reason you're challenging the moral concept of the word that most of the world holds?

When it comes to any language a word's definition is never written in stone. The only relevant definition is one that the common populace or majority understands. It's the basic concept behind language growth/divergence and the root cause of slang terminology.

If you really want to split hairs that fine, we can break it down into calling it a wrongful killing, or immoral killing. Seeing as the idea behind it is the same. Hell I see it as a downright sociopathic killing in the way it's executed.

hamishspence also points out quite rightly that the morality is objective, and not relative to individual areas and there law systems. This is reinforced by the fact that there are different afterlives for the varying alignments that have specific requirements for ascending (or descending should the case be) into them. That's reflective of real world morals (with some wiggle room given to cultural variance) being mostly uniform when it comes to the more critically important topics.

[lio45]

Because you are clearly missing the point.

I'll spell it out for you.

Murder:n The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Note the unlawful part. The concept simply does not exist in the absence of the law defining it.

So, you would be of the opinion that Belkar's killing of the gnome merchant wasn't murder either, since it wasn't unlawful and certainly not premeditated.

I understand your arguments, but I have a hard time limiting myself to such a "legal" view of the word as that definition, when applied to the strip, is shown to exclude obvious murders like Belkar's.

If that's worth anything to you, Celia --who actually HAS legal knowledge in the OotS world-- says it's a murder. First panel and sixth panel.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0540.html

So, if we all want to agree and still respect the formal definition of a murder, let's instead put it this way:

"The act is what we would normally be calling a murder, in the circumstances".

That would apply to the gnome merchant, Crystal, Kubota, and possibly others that I'm forgetting.

[WreckedElf]

... I thought this thread was about Start of Darkness?

So Haley killed Krystal while she was in the shower.. hmm.. how about we call it a "Tactical Assassination," it'll be a new D&D related technical term used to describe when the PC jumps on an opportunity for killing a currently non-hostile NPC in such a manner that they probably shouldn't let a paladin or Good aligned law enforcement know about. Using this term will avoid the more controverisal term "murder" and make it easier to justify the actions of a Chaotic Good character when debating the event with the GM or the party's paladin.

So Haley tactically assassinated Krystal because the she wasn't able to beat her in the actually combat encounter, and she didn't want to end this story arch without getting the extra XP. Perfectly sensible PC behavior. :smallwink:


And on the topic of Start of Darkness, I bought it recently and just in time to catch all the references to it in the recent updates. Quite a good read. I highly reccomend it for any Oots fan than doesn't have it yet. Though it does seem to be hard to find (round here at least). There's multiple comic-related stores around here and I only found a few copies avaible in one store, and even those almost sold out before I got around to buying one.

[hamishspence]

The "especially with premeditated malice" bit does not preclude the existance of non-premeditated murder.

Murder does not require premeditation- it's just an aggravating factor.

[veti]

The fact is I think your defintion does not apply. In case we are in non-law areas or try to approach the question what is murder from a more global perspective it's not enough to say "kill in a non-lawful way" is murder.
In fact, manslaughter is also killing "in a non-lawful way" (you get punished for it) but it is not considered "murder".

It's a multi-layered definition.
Killing: if you haven't killed, you haven't murdered. But if you have killed, you still haven't necessarily murdered.
Killing unlawfully: exactly the same statement applies: there are more conditions to be applied yet. But if you didn't break a law, it can't have been murder, no matter how immoral it was.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) offers this 18th-century definition by a famous English jurist:

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

The important part here being "under the king's peace". Even if all the other conditions are met, if the act didn't happen "under the king's peace", it wasn't murder. Of course there are all sorts of arguments to be had about exactly where the "king's peace" does and does not run, but I think Haley could mount a strong case that no such thing exists in Greysky City.


Of course, the distinction between "murder" and "manslaughter" only applies in contexts of law where you have to determine the actual graduation of the killing in question (which is important for determining the punishment/retribution).

You're the one who introduced the "manslaughter" idea. Manslaughter is also a legal term that doesn't exist in the absence of laws defining it. Like murder.


To spell it out: Your definition simply does not work for the question at hand.

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't follow from the arguments you've presented.


You cannot say "Because there's no law at all you simply cannot commit murder". A tree that falls when no one is around to hear it DOES make a sound and murder when no government of any sort that defines the law is around is still murder.

"Crime when no law is around is still crime".

This is the "natural law" argument. Good ol' Wikipedia has a good page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law) on this, too.

People have argued for centuries about what "natural law" should and shouldn't include. One quite thorough treatment is that of Thomas Hobbes, who identifies 19 "natural laws" defining such concepts as "gratitude", "accommodation" and "justice". But nowhere does it mention murder. The closest it comes is:

that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.
In other words: violence should not be a first resort, but when you do resort to it, don't expect people to hold back.

that they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator.
Haley was quite willing for that to happen, but events in DStP showed her that there was no fit Arbitrator in this case. (Two others of Hobbes' 19 laws are given to defining what makes an arbitrator "unfit".)

In short: I don't think Haley did anything that violated "natural law".


Beyond that, your definition applies, when we're talking within strictly legal terms. However we're not. We're discussing it from a perspective of moral values. For some reason you're challenging the moral concept of the word that most of the world holds?

Who is this "most of the world" that you speak of? To me, a dictionary definition is pretty good evidence that "most of the world" has a particular understanding of a word.

If you look at the Wikipedia page on "murder" that I linked to above, you'll note that it is devoted almost entirely to legal definitions, conditions and exclusions. I take that as evidence that "most of the world" understands "murder" as a legal concept, not a moral one.


If you really want to split hairs that fine, we can break it down into calling it a wrongful killing, or immoral killing. Seeing as the idea behind it is the same. Hell I see it as a downright sociopathic killing in the way it's executed.

Okay, let's do that. It was definitely a killing: no argument there. So let's take the M-word away, and then we can argue about whether any or all of those adjectives can be applied to it.

[hamishspence]

Okay, let's do that. It was definitely a killing: no argument there. So let's take the M-word away, and then we can argue about whether any or all of those adjectives can be applied to it.

It was a homicide.

But was it Justifiable homicide?

And if not, were there any factors that might mitigate it, or make it worse?

Crystal's actions in DStP- can they be deemed provocation?

Given that Haley knew she was going be be teleported a very long way away, very soon, can we say any belief that it was "necessary to prevent attack" was a reasonable belief?

[Morthis]

This whole dictionary argument is just plain silly. You're telling me a word that has become popular, but has not yet been added to a dictionary does not exist? That it does not have any meaning? All because it's not written in a book?

However, since the dictionary thing seems to be so important, I'll just comment on this.


Who is this "most of the world" that you speak of? To me, a dictionary definition is pretty good evidence that "most of the world" has a particular understanding of a word.

Since when does most of the world speak English? You use an English definition as one that most of the world holds, when that's just plain not true. Just looking up the Dutch version quickly online (moord) tells me


het opzettelijk en met voorbedachten rade een ander vh leven beroven

The only requirements for murder in that definition are that you deprived someone of life, that you did it on purpose, and that it was premeditated. All those apply to Haley, so according to a definition part of the world uses, this was in fact murder, and legal terms did not even apply to it.

I'm sure there's other languages as well for which the dictionary definition of murder does not include any references to the law.

[lio45]

It's a multi-layered definition.
Killing: if you haven't killed, you haven't murdered. But if you have killed, you still haven't necessarily murdered.
Killing unlawfully: exactly the same statement applies: there are more conditions to be applied yet. But if you didn't break a law, it can't have been murder, no matter how immoral it was.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) offers this 18th-century definition by a famous English jurist:


The important part here being "under the king's peace". Even if all the other conditions are met, if the act didn't happen "under the king's peace", it wasn't murder. Of course there are all sorts of arguments to be had about exactly where the "king's peace" does and does not run, but I think Haley could mount a strong case that no such thing exists in Greysky City.

[...]

You're the one who introduced the "manslaughter" idea. Manslaughter is also a legal term that doesn't exist in the absence of laws defining it. Like murder.

[...]

If you look at the Wikipedia page on "murder" that I linked to above, you'll note that it is devoted almost entirely to legal definitions, conditions and exclusions. I take that as evidence that "most of the world" understands "murder" as a legal concept, not a moral one.

Then how do you explain that someone with a lot of in-comic legal knowledge calls a killing done in the middle of nowhere a "murder"?

It pretty much HAS to mean that murder is considered something more than only a legal concept in the OotS campaign world...

BTW, Morthis: at first in this thread I was also operating with the official definition of murder in French (basically "killing someone on purpose", nothing in there about laws) until I decided it was worth it to double-check if the English definition was the same -- it wasn't.
Ancalagon is arguing the same point as us, so I would venture a guess that the German definition might not include the mandatory legal context.

That, though, is strictly irrelevant to the point the Anglos are bringing forth in the thread, as it's only the word's definition in the language used for the discussion that matters.

[Mystic Muse]

According to the merry murderesses of cell block 8 you can do something and have it be a murder but not a crime. :smalltongue:

reference to this song.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDRN3umyXTk

[Elfey]

Then how do you explain that someone with a lot of in-comic legal knowledge calls a killing done in the middle of nowhere a "murder"?

It pretty much HAS to mean that murder is considered something more than only a legal concept in the OotS campaign world...

BTW, Morthis: at first in this thread I was also operating with the official definition of murder in French (basically "killing someone on purpose", nothing in there about laws) until I decided it was worth it to double-check if the English definition was the same -- it wasn't.
Ancalagon is arguing the same point as us, so I would venture a guess that the German definition might not include the mandatory legal context.

That, though, is strictly irrelevant to the point the Anglos are bringing forth in the thread, as it's only the word's definition in the language used for the discussion that matters.

Alas, some of this is the difference of the laws, for those of us 'anglos' (I'm quite a mix of ancestries, and consider being called an anglo a insult, but let is slide because English is my first language and I know the common law, like the rest of native English speakers).

But the Civil and Common law definitions, which are a product of culture as much as law, are extremely different.

The basic civil law definition of murder is the intentional killing of another person.

The basic common law definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought.

Now malice aforethought is a term of art, its meaning a bit complex to say, but it covers 4 categories in the modern era: Intent to Kill, intent to cause grievous Bodily Harm, Reckless indifference (depraved Heart) and a killing during a felony. Provocation lowers malice down to manslaughter. Statues further define it, and it varies by state by state, but that's the gist.

It's actually possible to unintentionally murder someone under the common law, and intentionally kill them and not commit murder under the common law.

Under the civil law one is murder, the other is an accident (although the actual results will differ greatly on the circumstances).

But this comes down to another concept difficulty as a lawful killing, even intentional is not murder under the common law. This isn't just a legal definition, but a traditional moral decision. Self defense makes a killing lawful, and thus can not be murder. Imperfect self defense, where use of self defense wasn't reasonable, isn't murder either, but a form of manslaughter because there is no malice.

There are movements to change how the law is written. The most popular version is change crime to a 4 fold approach of purposeful, knowing, reckless and negligent as the mental levels to use. Purposeful is your purpose is to kill a person. Knowing is you know your actions are going to kill someone, but it is not your purpose, reckless is you know your acts bare a reasonable chance of killing someone, and negligent is a reasonable person knows your acts bare a reasonable chance of killing. Even this method faces modification that the killing must be unlawful and if theres a form of provocation it can be reduced.

Ultimately it's that the continental and English derived laws separated at the time of Napoleon about the law.

Heck, pre-emptive self defense is legal in some states. Normally Self defense requires a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. (Some states also require no ability to safely retreat, some don't and specifically give the right to stand your ground). That part about imminent danger is flexiable though, and in the case of battered women allow them to kill sleeping husbands because they believe they are in imminent danger of their sleeping husbands and its the only way to stay alive. Pre-emptive self defense can be legal. Usually isn't.

And lastly... Aren't the Order Agents of Hinjo? What's their force authorization? If its not unlawful, it's not murder...

[Morthis]

And lastly... Aren't the Order Agents of Hinjo? What's their force authorization? If its not unlawful, it's not murder...

See, many people in this thread have been arguing that murder is a concept that goes beyond just the law. It then turned into dictionary arguments, which as I've pointed out, is not the same across countries. The dutch dictionary version of murder does not say anything about how the law applies to it.

I also think it's important that it's easy to say unlawful killing of someone in a nation like the United States. We have clear laws regarding what murder is, so referring to the legality of it works. What about a third world country that is far more lax on murder? Would you call any kind of killing in those countries not murder, simply because the local law says it's not? I'll bet you, as soon as some Americans (or people from other civilized nations) end up getting killed there, we won't simply say "well you know there's no law against it". It will be called murder, and people will be outraged that the person who did it just gets away with it.


Heck, pre-emptive self defense is legal in some states. Normally Self defense requires a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. (Some states also require no ability to safely retreat, some don't and specifically give the right to stand your ground). That part about imminent danger is flexiable though, and in the case of battered women allow them to kill sleeping husbands because they believe they are in imminent danger of their sleeping husbands and its the only way to stay alive. Pre-emptive self defense can be legal. Usually isn't.

Really? Which states? I find it very hard to believe that a battered woman can simply kill her husband at some random point in time because of previous incidents like that.

[Elfey]

See, many people in this thread have been arguing that murder is a concept that goes beyond just the law. It then turned into dictionary arguments, which as I've pointed out, is not the same across countries. The dutch dictionary version of murder does not say anything about how the law applies to it.

See the definition I give isn't the dictionary definition, it's the legal definition, and an attempt to make clear that it reflects an actual difference in morality and way of thought between our cultures. I'm arguing that our cultures have different concepts on what is and is not murder, as at least in the common law nations there is a differences between killing and murder.



I also think it's important that it's easy to say unlawful killing of someone in a nation like the United States. We have clear laws regarding what murder is, so referring to the legality of it works. What about a third world country that is far more lax on murder? Would you call any kind of killing in those countries not murder, simply because the local law says it's not? I'll bet you, as soon as some Americans (or people from other civilized nations) end up getting killed there, we won't simply say "well you know there's no law against it". It will be called murder, and people will be outraged that the person who did it just gets away with it.

Now here's an interesting question, but it misinterpreted something I wrote. A killing isn't unlawful because it is against the law. Killings are, unless supported by the law, always unlawful. Killings can only become lawful if they are supported by the law to make them legal. An executioner is lawful when he works for the government and flips the switch per a long and lengthy legal process that supports his actions as government actions. An executioner who works for the mob killing people behind on bets is unlawful.

The idea behind the common law is that it was the natural law that exists even if nothing is written down, but that laws written down may modify them. A 3rd world county operating under no written laws still has some form of natural law most people assume. In the US and former commonwealth nations, that default is to the common law of murder.



Really? Which states? I find it very hard to believe that a battered woman can simply kill her husband at some random point in time because of previous incidents like that.

Its not some random point, the woman has to genuinely believe him to be a threat even when a sleep, and has to be backed by a jury believing her (which is quite rare). It's arguably a form of insanity, but I think Florida and North Caroline allowed it, but I know there have been changes. It's definitely debated as whether it can ever be legitimate but the one case I know well involves some truly disturbing behavior by the husband.

[Swordpriest]

This thread sure has wandered a long way from the original topic. :smallbiggrin:

With that said, my take on the matter is to wonder whether Haley's killing of Crystal was morally murder or not. I don't give a dang about the legal angle, because they're in an anarchic city where anything goes in the 'legal' sense and force is pretty much the only law.

I personally don't think that killing = murder. A soldier or warrior who kills his enemy in a combat situation isn't a murderer, he's just staying alive in a deadly situation. Similarly, if someone is being attacked by a robber and knifes them, it's not murder. There are even out-of-combat situations where killing isn't murder. For example, if a king has a scheming noble who is planning his assassination killed by crossbowmen when he comes out of his castle gate, then that's pretty much just the neutral-aligned consequence of playing a game with life-and-death stakes.

On the other hand, I think that killing needs to have a pretty strong justification -- specifically, an immediate and realistic prospect of the other person killing you, or someone you want to keep alive, in the immediate future.

The death of Crystal didn't really improve Haley's chances of survival. She was teleporting out in a matter of minutes, and the odds of Crystal being a threat to her or any of the party unless they returned to Greysky City is pretty minimal. She also did it in a pretty gloating, vicious manner, and didn't make any pretense about not stealing everything she could lay her hands on while she was about it. It wasn't grim necessity, it was pretty much taking out a snit over hairstyle comments lethally on someone who was not only non-threatening, but helpless and unsuspecting, at the time she killed them.

So, my personal opinion is, that it was morally murder (i.e. an evil act) rather than a morally neutral killing like a soldier killing an enemy soldier in combat. I'm still rather appalled by it, to tell you the truth.

That's my take, anyway. :smallwink:

[Nimrod's Son]

It wasn't grim necessity, it was pretty much taking out a snit over hairstyle comments lethally on someone who was not only non-threatening, but helpless and unsuspecting, at the time she killed them.
I'm guessing you haven't read Don't Split the Party. Or the rest of this thread, for that matter.

[Swordpriest]

I'm guessing you haven't read Don't Split the Party. Or the rest of this thread, for that matter.

Well, I haven't read the book form, although I read the online comics that make up most of the book. I presume there was some sort of bonus material therein that puts Haley's actions in a different light? If there is, please spoiler it for me here, because I'm unlikely to ever see the book, so I'm not worried about any surprises being spoiled.

As for not reading the rest of the thread -- guilty as charged, milord! :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

Well, I haven't read the book form, although I read the online comics that make up most of the book. I presume there was some sort of bonus material therein that puts Haley's actions in a different light? If there is, please spoiler it for me here, because I'm unlikely to ever see the book, so I'm not worried about any surprises being spoiled.

As for not reading the rest of the thread -- guilty as charged, milord! :smallbiggrin:
During the raid to retrieve Roy's body, Crystal commits a number of increasingly unsubtle attempts on Haley's life, ordered by Bozzok. She also kills Grubwiggler just as Haley is about to make a deal with him.

[Swordpriest]

During the raid to retrieve Roy's body, Crystal commits a number of increasingly unsubtle attempts on Haley's life, ordered by Bozzok. She also kills Grubwiggler just as Haley is about to make a deal with him.


Interesting. Thank you! :smallsmile:

With that in mind, I retract my opinion offered above.