Complaint (707)

[Miyako]

That wasn't very moral, and if someone were impressionable, look out ethics.
Given the situation, I can see why someone would feel the need to do something so ruthless.

Personally, I want to have higher standards.
There is a good reason that courtesy exists in war.

To read 'elves are awesome' is to suggest 'Being an evil jerk is awesome!'

There's a good chance if it makes you feel sick, there was a better way.

Just something Miyako thought about. Try not to worry too much, and always do the right thing (as determined by your own responsible self). :smallcool:

[Morty]

What gave you the impression this course of action is somehow condoned and/or encouraged by the newest strip? :smallconfused:

[Dilettante]

There's a very long and intense debate over whether the Elf's actions were evil or not in the regular thread for the strip. The majority opinion as of last night was that it was indeed an evil act, if only because the hobgoblin was tricked into false hope rather than the killing itself.


To read 'elves are awesome' is to suggest 'Being an evil jerk is awesome!'Well, yeah. There's a reason audiences love rooting for the villain, and why girls sometimes fall for bad boys. Being an evil jerk can be pretty cool, in the sense that "as long as it's fiction, it's awesome."

[Faleldir]

How do you know the elf is an evil jerk? Did you cast Detect Evil? Real-world morality is as relevant to fantasy as real-world physics.

[Kish]

How do you know the elf is an evil jerk? Did you cast Detect Evil? Real-world morality is as relevant to fantasy as real-world physics.
Glad you pointed that out. Now those of us who may have been deluding ourselves that Roy Greenhilt is the "hero" and will win in the end can realize that he cannot possibly have any moral authority, and the equally-neutral skeleton, whatever his name is, will clearly win because he has so much more raw power.

(I do seem to notice a very odd trend in whom the author seems to expect the audience to side with in all fantasy books I've read. Must be a coincidence.)

[Ancalagon]

I think it's understandable why they did it.

But they seemed to enjoy what they do and they did it in a very evil way.

It was not a "possible (but maybe not necessary!) evil", it was a "possible (but maybe not necessary!) evil, done in a very evil way".

[Faleldir]

Stop putting words in my mouth.
1. It's possible to be good and be a jerk.
2. We know the alignments of some characters because it was explicitly stated in canon.
3. The hero doesn't always win.

[Kish]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment If you go to this site, you will note that--predictably--every word of it is taken from "real-world morality."

Why is Xykon evil? The reason asserted by you is: Because someone in the story said he is, no one ever contradicted them, and for no other reason. Why is Roy good? Apparently the deva was wasting her time; he was always good by fiat and examining his actions in terms of "real-world" morality was fundamentally wrongheaded.

"Real-world morality has nothing to do with fantasy morality" is a preposterous statement, with all the validity of "2+2=17."

[2xMachina]

Unfortunately, RL morality is also BS.

Had a moral course in Uni. And this is what we were thought:

Kant: If it's done for Duty, it's morally right. Even if the duty is genocide. You like donating? Nope, not moral, since it's not your duty.
Egoism: Whee! Do what's best for yourself. Including murder etc.
Utilitarianism: Best for majority. Genociding minorities are fine, so long it makes the majority happy.

And there's the view that premarital sex is morally wrong etc.

Sorry, but I say screw morality. We can never agree on the same fixed system.

[snikrept]

Keep in mind those two resistance leaders in the last panel exclaiming "elves are awesome" were perfectly willing to kill each other (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0533.html) not long ago for similarly well-thought-out reasons, while attending a peace treaty no less, so they're not exactly the paragons of openmindedness.

You'd sort of expect a couple of fanatical loonies to enjoy that sort of behavior to their enemies exhibited by the elven commander.


EDIT to me these guys sort of fit an ideological role similar to the Fremen in the Dune books. The reader is supposed to sympathize with them since they've been massively wronged by someone else, and they fight on the side of the hero-protagonists, but honestly, they're fanatic psychopaths blinded by their beliefs whom you would not want to come near in real life.

[Faleldir]

By real-world standards, Roy would be evil. He isn't.

[Murdim]

Well, yeah. There's a reason audiences love rooting for the villain, and why girls sometimes fall for bad boys. Being an evil jerk can be pretty cool, in the sense that "as long as it's fiction, it's awesome."
As for me, I "rooted" for the elf commander, not because I see him as a "cool villain" or a "bad boy", but because he did the most sensible thing to do. Even supposing that he isn't a spy, which is quite likely... to buy into the hobgoblin's proposal of cooperation would still be not only reckless because of the high chance of defection, but also either completely stupid or totally immoral, depending on whether or not he understood exactly what kind of individual this hobgoblin was.

Why did the hobbo get into jail, and why does he want to support the Azurite resistance ? Not because he wants to do the right thing, or because he cares about the humans. No, and he's very clear about it : he absolutely hates goblins, and wants to take his revenge against them, even if it means allying with the good guys. He's not a valuable ally or a potental force of Good ; just an "enemy of my enemy", someone who is by all means even worse than what the resistance is fighting against... an effing monster even by goblinoid standards, ready to participate in the murder of his own kin in order to satisfy his sadistic, racist, thoroughly evil goals. Knowing this, to ally with him would be cynical beyond pragmatism, and a definitive indication of well-intentioned extremism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist).

The elf commander did the right thing, and he did it with style. If there was even the tiniest chance the hobbo might have been well-intentionned, I would have been horrified. But I'm not. Because he was either an infiltrator, or a bloodthristy, unreliable bastard.

[Kish]

As for me, I "rooted" for the elf commander, not because I see him as a "cool villain" or a "bad boy", but because he did the most sensible thing to do.
Why are you ignoring the fact that his tag line is apparently, "The only Good goblins are dead goblins"?

I'm not saying anything about what he did. The debate over whether it was feasible to keep the hobgoblin prisoner isn't one I find nearly as interesting as the number of people arguing that Commander Vile Racist (okay, okay, Speciesist) is, um, not a vile speciesist.

[Murdim]

Utilitarianism: Best for majority. Genociding minorities are fine, so long it makes the majority happy.
No, because the harm inflicted to the minority is much, much, much more important than the benefit to the majority. So much more important, in fact, that it would still be wrong for a majority to persecute a minority for its some existence, even if the minority in question was one individual and the majority was everyone else.

Not that I'm an utilitarian myself, but... utilitarianism is certainly not nearly as disfunctional as egoism or Kantian morals.



Why are you ignoring the fact that his tag line is apparently, "The only Good goblins are dead goblins"?
Because this is the kind of things that pretty much everyone tend to say about strongly antagonistic groups, regardless of whether or not you really think that every single individual from this group is irredeemable without any possible exception ?

[Kareasint]

The elven commander may have had problems in the past where a hobgoblin or goblin turned against him at a bad time after he allowed them to live. Remember that tag line for a reason because it also could state that past experiences are the source of his current motivations. He even spelled out exactly what was possible: request for a pardon in exchange for information about the resistance.

His method was designed to allow him to lead the hobgoblin exactly where he wanted the hobgoblin without giving the mook the possibility of raising any sort of alarm.

[Kish]

Because this is the kind of things that pretty much everyone tend to say about strongly antagonistic groups, regardless of whether or not you really think that every single individual from this group is irredeemable without any possible exception ?
:smallsigh: No, it's not. You can tell that by the notable lack of Roy ever having said anything similar. It's a paraphrase of something said by one person in real life who happened to be horrifically racist. The statement's moral significance is equal to "nits make lice" as a reason for killing children, not equal to, "Rraaghh!"

[durandal89]

Unfortunately, RL morality is also BS.

Had a moral course in Uni. And this is what we were thought:

Kant: If it's done for Duty, it's morally right. Even if the duty is genocide. You like donating? Nope, not moral, since it's not your duty.
Egoism: Whee! Do what's best for yourself. Including murder etc.
Utilitarianism: Best for majority. Genociding minorities are fine, so long it makes the majority happy.

And there's the view that premarital sex is morally wrong etc.

Sorry, but I say screw morality. We can never agree on the same fixed system.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Those three options are *not* the only three moral theories in the world, and then you didn't even come close to describing those three correctly (well, except maybe egoism.) And I'll leave it to you why "These theories have implications which are clearly immoral; therefore, let's have no standard of morality whatsoever" is a more than problematic conclusion.



No, because the harm inflicted to the minority is much, much, much more important than the benefit to the majority. So much more important, in fact, that it would still be wrong for a majority to persecute a minority for its some existence, even if the minority in question was one individual and the majority was everyone else.

Not that I'm an utilitarian myself, but... utilitarianism is certainly not nearly as disfunctional as egoism or Kantian morals.

Well, in fairness, it depends on how happy it makes them...

Of course, this also assumes consequentialist utilitarianism rather than rule utilitarianism.

[2xMachina]

Yeah, I know.

It's just the stupid course. They threw a lot of things out. Simplified Utilitarianism to what I said. The other stuff are also what was being taught. Just giving a few examples.

Also, some of the moral criticism includes: does not believe in god. Thus illogical, since humans believe in god innately. Thus this moral theory fails. This was done for Egoism, and Existentialism.

Needless to say, I dislike the course, and am just throwing back what they want to hear.

But I had an assignment on Utilitarianism, so I researched about it a bit. It's not bad really. D&D doesn't agree so much though. Any means for the ends doesn't work in D&D. Supposedly evil, and a paladin would fall for it.

BTW, rangers are racist.

[SPoD]

I love a good thread predicated on the idea that the author personally supports the actions of every character he writes.

This comic is no different than if Xykon electrocuted someone and Tsukiko said, "Liches are cool!" It doesn't imply that anyone should go out and electrocute someone, or that Rich Burlew supports electrocution, or that Xykon and Tsukiko somehow aren't horrible people taking a horrible action. It's a work of fiction.

[Yukitsu]

I think it's understandable why they did it.

But they seemed to enjoy what they do and they did it in a very evil way.

It was not a "possible (but maybe not necessary!) evil", it was a "possible (but maybe not necessary!) evil, done in a very evil way".

To be fair, it may simply be that all elves talk like V, and so simply were talking for the sake of being themselves, rather than enjoying anything.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: I've already merged a similar thread into the 707 main thread. We don't do new iterations of the "is x morally justified?" for each new thread. That can be discussed in the main thread.