On "justice" and hatred

[-Sentinel-]

Whenever characters who are supposed to be the good guys commit morally questionable (or outright evil) acts in the comic, I take a keen interest in the moral debates that ensue: many people have insightful views on the matter, even those I strongly disagree with. I am however occasionally depressed and disturbed by some users' amount of bitterness and hatred directed at the characters. I think it often rises to unhealthy levels considering that A) it's just a webcomic for crying out loud, B) it's completely against the spirit of justice and morality that those people allegedly embrace.

I won't name names, but someone once said that he would like to see the extermination of most of the Elven race in retaliation for Vaarsuvius' infamous familicide. Now, I fully agree that V's act was a despicable crime, but isn't it a bit hypocritical (not to mention hateful) to call for a genocide in retaliation for a genocide? Isn't that kind of like saying that supporters of death penalty should be lined up and shot? This is not a mentality of justice; it's a mentality of vengeance, and it sickens me.

More recently, the Elves' treatment of the goblin prisoner in strip 707 got us a comment along the lines of: "More evidence that Elves should serve as target practice for Dwarfs." Excuse me, but how does that make the Dwarfs morally superior to the Elves?

And today again, a user "killed" a random elven couple in retaliation for the (unseen) killing of a goblin couple in strip 708. Hooray for justice.

I'm aware that this is only a fictional universe and that none of us are bitter and hate-filled KKK types in real life, and I also know how hard it is to interpret an Internet user's actual state of mind just by what he posts on a forum. Yet, I just can't shake the feeling that some of the users who call for brutal retaliation do so with genuine anger and mean every word of it. I'm usually open to other people's opinions, but I find that such outbursts of hatred add nothing useful to the morality debates.

I, myself, have a strong dislike of Belkar for his evil actions (I also think he's a bit annoying as a character, but maybe it's just me). However, I would never call for a jihad against halflings in retaliation for his cold-blooded murder of the random gnome in strip 539. I even cling to the faint hope that Belkar finds the path to redemption before the end. Not to be self-righteous or anything, but I think it's the right attitude to adopt towards protagonists who commit evil acts.

In short: Please, let's keep moderate opinions in morality debates, and don't post them unless they're constructive. Some users around here seem just too full of rage for their own good.

[Occasional Sage]

Vengeance and justice are often interchanged. Separating them successfully is, in my mind, one of the main tasks of society.

[Kish]

Now, I fully agree that V's act was a despicable crime,
That's puzzling. You seemed mystified by the idea that anyone would want him/her to pay for it earlier.

[Katana_Geldar]

Can I point out that:

a) This is war, Azure City is at war with the Goblins and the Elves are allies
b) In war, people die and sometimes needlessly.

Not to condone it or anything, as I think it's reprehensible, but this is what happens.

[John Cribati]

That's puzzling. You seemed mystified by the idea that anyone would want him/her to pay for it earlier.
No, it would be perfectly alright for V to pay for it, but a killing a thousand elves for the actions of 1 elf would be no better than the Familicide.

[Kish]

No, it would be perfectly alright for V to pay for it, but a killing a thousand elves for the actions of 1 elf would be no better than the Familicide.
:smallsigh: You're not the person I was addressing. So I'll rephrase with more emphasis. Sentinel expressed the opinion that it's shocking that anyone wants Vaarsuvius to pay at all for what s/he did.

[SandroTheMaster]

What is the point of discussing morality, when it sure won't change anyone's opinion.

See the morality in "Super-Hero world", where normally every "good" hero simply will not kill. Ever.

For some people it is just wrong for these heroes to let repeat mass-murderers of the like of the Joker or Carnage live, who'll invariably get loose again and kill a ***kload of people again. Something that's obvious to most except the most genre-blind of heroes.

For others, they agree with the heroic mentality that if the hero kills, he'll forever stain their moral principles and can't be considered a hero anymore, but a villain.

And strangely enough, there's never middle ground. At least, only a few people will ever accept middle ground.

Personally, my opinion is that if a prison has a reasonable capability of keeping the people inside, there's no reason for death penalty. And if it functions as a revolving door, a good line could be made on repeat murderers. But that's just me, and I'm sure one side will consider me a monster and the other will consider me softie who doesn't deserve to live...

[Draconi Redfir]

i say just forget all the morality issues. its a webcomic pepole, just becuse one elf killed one hobgoblin dosent mean that elf is evil. it just means that he's a bit of a raceist duche.

alignments as i see them:

humans: good

Elves: neutral

goblinoids: "evil" but only through the eyes of non-goblinoid races

Xylon: totally evil

TGwaH/O-Chul/Redcloak: awsome.

[-Sentinel-]

Now, I fully agree that V's act was a despicable crime, That's puzzling. You seemed mystified by the idea that anyone would want him/her to pay for it earlier.
That's kind of my point: some people seem to think that any evil act must be met with a fitting (or even disproportionate) retribution, and I hate this idea that I often associate with moral absolutism. Despite my deeply ingrained cynicism about people and the world in general, I much prefer when evil people are redeemed, even though I know it's clearly impossible for many of them (for example Xykon, whose destruction should serve not as a karmic punishment but simply as a way to make the world better). Must be my liberal mindset: rehabilitation over punishment, utilitarian view of justice, and all that. In my opinion, cosmic justice is neither necessary nor desirable, and certainly not realistic.

[SandroTheMaster]

Elves: neutral



Whoa there guy. The "holier-than-thou" brigade will skin you alive for suggesting that a cynical elf killing an almost-certainly-evil hobgoblin may be non-evil.

[Kewpa]

This should be stickied, haha.

I'm getting sick of all the "is this action morally justified" threads. I hope it's just a trend, but it's really not necessary to nitpick at everything that is done. Just enjoy the comic for what it is. You should be spending your time on more worthwhile pursuits.

Um, "you" is not directed at anyone, for clarity's sake.

[DeltaEmil]

goblinoids: "evil" but only through the eyes of non-goblinoid racesThey whip slaves because it's funny and makes them laugh. Also, they like killing humans and drinking the blood of innocents. They're definitely evil without any quotation marks.

They might all have a reason why to hate the player-character races, but they're not going out of their way to change this notion about them. In fact, they like to reinforce all these prejudices. Yet, they could live another lifestyle if they wanted. One particular goblin in Start of Darkness proved it.

[Zevox]

Can I point out that:

a) This is war, Azure City is at war with the Goblins and the Elves are allies
b) In war, people die and sometimes needlessly.

Not to condone it or anything, as I think it's reprehensible, but this is what happens.
True, but as you say, that doesn't mean is should be condoned or accepted. Quite the contrary, the fact that it is something that actually happens makes it all the more imperative to acknowledge that it is wrong and that all possible efforts should be made to prevent it.

Zevox

[Draconi Redfir]

They whip slaves because it's funny and makes them laugh. Also, they like killing humans and drinking the blood of innocents. They're definitely evil without any quotation marks.


oooorrrr they just have a diffrent culture then we do. you dont call the chinese evil becuse they eat dog (not ment to sound racest). you dont call the amaricans evil for owning over ten deadly weapons in there homes. and you dont call us canidians evil becuse we like beating pepole up in the hicky rink. its all just diversity of cultures.

[Kewpa]

oooorrrr they just have a diffrent culture then we do. you dont call the chinese evil becuse they eat dog (not ment to sound racest). you dont call the amaricans evil for owning over ten deadly weapons in there homes. and you dont call us canidians evil becuse we like beating pepole up in the hicky rink. its all just diversity of cultures.

I would hardly call torturing people culture.

All of that is entirely different.

[-Sentinel-]

This seems to be turning into yet another moral debate... It certainly wasn't my intention.

I wanted to talk about moral debates in general, and how people take them way too seriously and often come across as bitter and hateful when they wish horrible fates to characters who commit evil acts.

[Katana_Geldar]

Apologism is not the answer.

[Maximum Zersk]

This seems to be turning into yet another moral debate... It certainly wasn't my intention.

I wanted to talk about moral debates in general, and how people take them way too seriously and often come across as bitter and hateful when they wish horrible fates to characters who commit evil acts.

Give the forumers pie, and they WILL turn it into a debate on whether or not eating it is morally justified.

[Silverraptor]

Talking about morals in general will inevitably turn into a moral debate of itself. We don't know why, it just does. It's for the best that someone doesn't start threads like these in the first place.

[veti]

See the morality in "Super-Hero world", where normally every "good" hero simply will not kill. Ever.

For some people it is just wrong for these heroes to let repeat mass-murderers of the like of the Joker or Carnage, who'll invariably get loose again and kill a ***kload of people again. Something that's obvious to most except the most genre-blind of heroes.

Have you read "The Dark Knight Returns"? Best Batman story ever. When the Joker escapes, Batman begins to blame himself. (So do a few other people, but that's a separate plotline.) As he counts the dead, he adds them to the total - "All the people I've killed - by letting you live" - and resolves that this time, he is going to kill the clown.


Personally, my opinion is that if a prison has a reasonable capability of keeping the people inside, there's no reason for death penalty. And if it functions as a revolving door, a good line could be made on repeat murderers. But that's just me, and I'm sure one side will consider me a monster and the other will consider me softie who doesn't deserve to live...

It's interesting to realise that prison (as a treatment for criminals) is a fairly recent invention. In medieval times you'd be beaten or humiliated for minor infractions, ranging up to branding, torture, exile or death for major crimes. You might be locked up for a day or two before someone got around to administering your proper punishment, but that was about it. Medieval dungeons were strictly for political prisoners, not common criminals.

The modern idea of a prison, as we've seen it in Azure City (and we have reason to believe Cliffport works on similar lines), was invented roundabout the 17th century, and didn't become common until the 19th. Originally they were meant to be for rehabilitation, but it didn't take long for the "retributive" aspect to take over.

My point is - in this "presumed medieval" setting, it's really quite an extravagance to devote time and energy to keeping people locked up. Frankly I'm surprised the hobgoblins even have a prison. Though maybe it's a job-creation scheme.

[DeltaEmil]

oooorrrr they just have a diffrent culture then we do. you dont call the chinese evil becuse they eat dog (not ment to sound racest). you dont call the amaricans evil for owning over ten deadly weapons in there homes. and you dont call us canidians evil becuse we like beating pepole up in the hicky rink. its all just diversity of cultures.I'd do if they start whipping and owning slaves again and drink blood from innocent people literally. It's pointless to try excusing that with claiming that "it's a cultural thing".

[Zxo]

This seems to be turning into yet another moral debate... It certainly wasn't my intention.

I wanted to talk about moral debates in general, and how people take them way too seriously and often come across as bitter and hateful when they wish horrible fates to characters who commit evil acts.

I think that exactly because this a stick figure comic with lots of humor, we feel comfortable exaggerating, role-playing a member/supporter of a faction in an in-universe style sometimes... If people say stuff like "kill all elves" it's because they know it's not totally serious.

[Beowulf DW]

"Stay on target."-Gold Leader, deceased

Morality debates concerning works of fiction are inevitable. It doesn't matter what medium the work is put forth in; if it's popular enough, people will debate the morality of the characters.

Why? Because fiction stems from life. It is a reflection, however distorted, of our own problems and emotions. When people percieve injustice occurring in a work of fiction, they tend to get angry because they can't do anything about it, which leads to some rather extreme reactions due to frustration.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Zevox]

Give the forumers pie, and they WILL turn it into a debate on whether or not eating it is morally justified.
Yeah, pretty much. The majority of the threads posted here turn into morality debates of some kind sooner or later. That this one was talking about such debates, and mentioned some recent ones specifically, right from the outset only ensured it would fall into the "sooner" category.

Zevox

[Turkish Delight]

Web comic or no, the mentality being criticized is the one that tends to underlay the escalation of atrocities in real life. One side does something horrible, so the other side feels itself justified in doing something horrible in return ("Remember !"), leading to the first side getting worked into moral outrage in turn and committing yet more atrocities in retaliation, and so on [I]ad infinitum.

In other words, don't get too upset. It's just human nature at work.

[martinkou]

Hatred is not necessary. War is business. If winning a war requires the extermination of a whole race, so be it. No emotion involved. If there's a need to be merciful, plan the war effort to be as efficient as possible so the opponent's pain is minimized.

[SandroTheMaster]

Have you read "The Dark Knight Returns"? Best Batman story ever. When the Joker escapes, Batman begins to blame himself. (So do a few other people, but that's a separate plotline.) As he counts the dead, he adds them to the total - "All the people I've killed - by letting you live" - and resolves that this time, he is going to kill the clown.



It's interesting to realise that prison (as a treatment for criminals) is a fairly recent invention. In medieval times you'd be beaten or humiliated for minor infractions, ranging up to branding, torture, exile or death for major crimes. You might be locked up for a day or two before someone got around to administering your proper punishment, but that was about it. Medieval dungeons were strictly for political prisoners, not common criminals.

The modern idea of a prison, as we've seen it in Azure City (and we have reason to believe Cliffport works on similar lines), was invented roundabout the 17th century, and didn't become common until the 19th. Originally they were meant to be for rehabilitation, but it didn't take long for the "retributive" aspect to take over.

My point is - in this "presumed medieval" setting, it's really quite an extravagance to devote time and energy to keeping people locked up. Frankly I'm surprised the hobgoblins even have a prison. Though maybe it's a job-creation scheme.

First: No, I did not read this piece from Batman mythos. I doubt he goes through with it, though. And if he does, I'm sure the coincidence machine will turn it into something horrifying (like Batman escalates and starts killing pickpocketers).

Second: Though I'm not one to object to historical lessons, even one I already know, I wasn't commenting on the prisons of the comic or medieval times but on the morality of Death Sentences and Prisons, in real life and related to comic-book worlds. I'm just grateful that my country doesn't have death penalty in peace times, but I wouldn't mind voting in favor of an exception for a real-life Joker...

[zimmerwald1915]

One side does something horrible, so the other side feels itself justified in doing something horrible in return ("Remember [insert name of moral outrage here]!"),
Don't forget the "if we don't retaliate, they'll just keep [moral outrage]-ing again and again" justification.:smallfrown:

[Jagos]

Hatred is not necessary. War is business. If winning a war requires the extermination of a whole race, so be it. No emotion involved. If there's a need to be merciful, plan the war effort to be as efficient as possible so the opponent's pain is minimized.

...

Yeah. And how do you stop a war from happening? Better yet, if it ever does, how do you take away those feelings of "efficiency" that make you a cold calculating killing machine?

Hatred may not be necessary, but it sure clouds one's minds to the realities be it within the situation or after it's long gone. Point is, when will those emotions that aren't supposed to get involved supposed to come back when the enemy is defeated?

Unless we're turning this into T4: Redemption, I doubt I can fully agree with your methodology.

[Warren Dew]

Please, let's keep moderate opinions in morality debates

Now, where would be the fun in that?

[zimmerwald1915]

Now, where would be the fun in that?
Making fun of the lone, "preserved" moderate voice from one side or the other of the spectrum?

[Draconi Redfir]

i think the reasion who pepole on forums constently debate weather or not something is moraly justifiable is rather simple:

pepole. like. arguements.


in real life, getting into an arguement can cauze frendships to crumble, and fights t obreak out. but on the internet? you dont actually know anyone, so its no problem. not to mention your opinions will be visible for years to come, and if you make a mistake, you can quickly correct it before anyone notices.

[martinkou]

...

Yeah. And how do you stop a war from happening? Better yet, if it ever does, how do you take away those feelings of "efficiency" that make you a cold calculating killing machine?

Hatred may not be necessary, but it sure clouds one's minds to the realities be it within the situation or after it's long gone. Point is, when will those emotions that aren't supposed to get involved supposed to come back when the enemy is defeated?

Unless we're turning this into T4: Redemption, I doubt I can fully agree with your methodology.

I made another post that went into real world politics, deleted.

But still, since you talked about movies - when's the last time you saw a villain not screw up because he did something stupid? I always have a feeling that movie/comics authors are unable to come up with a good case to defeat an actual cold calculating killing machine, thus having to resort to the villain doing something stupid to let the heroes win.

Or even worse, resort to deus ex machina. It just feels lame.

[Turkish Delight]

Hatred is not necessary. War is business. If winning a war requires the extermination of a whole race, so be it. No emotion involved. If there's a need to be merciful, plan the war effort to be as efficient as possible so the opponent's pain is minimized.

Maybe war is business 'ideally'. In practice, war is far more often a product of miscalculation, ego and stupidity. Thus far, this has certainly proven the case in OotS.

[Beowulf DW]

Maybe war is business 'ideally'. In practice, war is far more often a product of miscalculation, ego and stupidity. Thus far, this has certainly proven the case in OotS.

Some of the truest words ever.

You win.

[martinkou]

Maybe war is business 'ideally'. In practice, war is far more often a product of miscalculation, ego and stupidity. Thus far, this has certainly proven the case in OotS.

When the Dark One was trying to negotiate peace with humans and ended up betrayed and murdered, and his fellow goblins being systematically killed by humans, did he, or the goblins have a choice of not going to war? So, you mean, the correct thing to do for the Dark One, is to just sit there and embrace the oncoming bloodbath - goblin blood?

The Dark One's War is business because by the time the first betrayal happened, the game rules are already set. If you fight, there's still a chance to survive; if you don't, all your goblin friends die. The encounter with the elf commander has already proven what "being nice and suing for peace" would result in.

[JoseB]

When the Dark One was trying to negotiate peace with humans and ended up betrayed and murdered, and his fellow goblins being systematically killed by humans, did he, or the goblins have a choice of not going to war? So, you mean, the correct thing to do for the Dark One, is to just sit there and embrace the oncoming bloodbath - goblin blood?

The Dark One's War is business because by the time the first betrayal happened, the game rules are already set. If you fight, there's still a chance to survive; if you don't, all your goblin friends die. The encounter with the elf commander has already proven what "being nice and suing for peace" would result in.

Just as an aside: Given that those were "crayon strips" from SoD, I tend to put them in the category "told by an unreliable narrator". I have the feeling that "crayon strips" (whether from the main comic or from SoD) do not tell things as they *really* happened, but as seen through the filter of the narrator. Not that they are purely propaganda or fiction... But that things may well not have been *exactly* as they are portrayed. I have the suspicion that, in both cases of "crayon strips", there is information that is either not told, or "bent" to support the world-view of the side who is narrating the story in crayons.

[martinkou]

Just as an aside: Given that those were "crayon strips" from SoD, I tend to put them in the category "told by an unreliable narrator". I have the feeling that "crayon strips" (whether from the main comic or from SoD) do not tell things as they *really* happened, but as seen through the filter of the narrator. Not that they are purely propaganda or fiction... But that things may well not have been *exactly* as they are portrayed. I have the suspicion that, in both cases of "crayon strips", there is information that is either not told, or "bent" to support the world-view of the side who is narrating the story in crayons.

Now, even if they're not exactly as portrayed. Just imagine you're one of both sides, right now.

Say, you're the elf commander from the last strip. If you allow the goblin to go with the prisoners...


If the goblin is honest, how much can he help? It's not like he can defeat Xykon or Redcloak. It's also impossible that he would know how to defeat Xykon or Redcloak. And from the experience with the goblin children back in Dorukan's Dungeon, even if he gives you genuine help in the beginning, there's still a good chance your goblin friend would defect later.
If the goblin is dishonest, the safety of the Azure City prisoners would be compromised. Even your own life would be in trouble if a high level character like Tsukiko, Redcloak, or even Xykon himself manages to track you.


So, logically, there's little upside, lots of downside. Thus, no point helping that goblin. But he's already seen you and where you're leading the prisoners to. Rational choice: kill him.

The calculation is similar if you're a goblin and you're encountering a human or an elf.

The thing is, once a war is started, it's dangerous for you to be nice to your opponent in almost all circumstances. Sure, there're still space for negotiations sometimes, when circumstances allow (e.g. there's another war threatening both factions, or when both sides are so exhausted that the war cannot continue) - just like how one would occasionally "forgive" in an iterative game of prisoner's dilemma. But otherwise, once a war has been started, the focus must be seeking to finish it as soon as possible and come out still living in the end. Anything else would put your side in a disadvantage - and if it's your life on the line, you can die.

[Turkish Delight]

When the Dark One was trying to negotiate peace with humans and ended up betrayed and murdered, and his fellow goblins being systematically killed by humans, did he, or the goblins have a choice of not going to war?

No, but the humans who murdered him and started the war certainly did. They miscalculated because of stupidity and arrogance and now it has come back to bite them hard, both in the Dark One's ascension to godhood and Redcloak's crusade.

In other words, the war was started for all the reasons I cite. But it wasn't the Dark One who started it...if we believe his version of what happened, anyway.

However, that doesn't mean war becomes much more rational just because it was forced on you. Escalating atrocities on both sides can result in wars that never truly end, if you aren't careful. If one side concludes that the other side can only be stopped through effective genocide, then the other side will in turn quickly decide that they can only be safe through waging a genocidal war. The result isn't a rational ordering of interests at all; it's the same prejudice and utter unwillingness to acknowledge 'the other' as anything but an object of loathing that has plagued the Real World since time immemorial, with both sides convinced the other side is intrinsically evil and cannot be reasoned with, leading to wars much longer and messier than they need to be.

[martinkou]

No, but the humans who murdered him and started the war certainly did. They miscalculated because of stupidity and arrogance and now it has come back to bite them hard, both in the Dark One's ascension to godhood and Redcloak's crusade.

In other words, the war was started for all the reasons I cite. But it wasn't the Dark One who started it...if we believe his version of what happened, anyway.


The reasons for the humans' betrayal were not even stated, it makes no sense to automatically assume it to be stupid. What if the goblins' are expanding to your most fertile farmland? Just let them so you can starve? Can you prove they haven't tried to negotiate some sort of agreement beforehand? If they did, can you prove that it was dropped because of stupidity rather than something natural... like, population expansion?



However, that doesn't mean war becomes much more rational just because it was forced on you. Escalating atrocities on both sides can result in wars that never truly end, if you aren't careful. If one side concludes that the other side can only be stopped through effective genocide, then the other side will in turn quickly decide that they can only be safe through waging a genocidal war. The result isn't a rational ordering of interests at all; it's the same prejudice and utter unwillingness to acknowledge 'the other' as anything but an object of loathing that has plagued the Real World since time immemorial, with both sides convinced the other side is intrinsically evil and cannot be reasoned with, leading to wars much longer and messier than they need to be.


But it happens. And it doesn't have to be forced by your opponent, it can be forced by nature - e.g. scarcity. So if it happens, what are you going to do? Complain to God that mathematics isn't "good"? And that he didn't make enough resources for both of you?

Second.. escalating atrocities. The best case for both sides, of course, is that both would just stop. But by definition, the two parties are independent. Short of throwing a huge meteor to kill everyone involved, you can't just "cause" them to stop simultaneously. If you consider the fact that you can only act on one side and that you cannot know what the other side is planning - escalating casualties is no longer so irrational. The thing is, as one side of the conflict, you can only look after your own interests. If you stop hurting the other side, the other side will hurt you more. So, if you look at wars this way, escalating casualties is actually a form of equilibrium. If one side thinks "it's inhumane" and stops, that sides gets a disadvantage.

[Closak]

Two words: Equivalent exchange.

A elf killed 25% of all black dragons.
So to make things even 25% of all elves need to die in return.

There, now it's even, go back to your lives and lets pretend this never happened hmm?

[Snake-Aes]

On the whole "hobs are evil only to nonhob cultures". D&D Evil and Good are absolute. If the entire culture is, in general, doing evil deeds, then the culture is evil.


IMPORTANT: Good != Lovable. A good community can perfectly be unforgiving on something, like repressing liberties some take for granted, just like an evil community can be totally awesome to the members of said community.

On the hobs example, they torture for fun. They like it. Doesn't make it any less evil.

[2xMachina]

Two words: Equivalent exchange.

A elf killed 25% of all black dragons.
So to make things even 25% of all elves need to die in return.

There, now it's even, go back to your lives and lets pretend this never happened hmm?

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

[Closak]

And doing nothing makes the elves think they can get away with anything without consequences.

But if they know that doing something stupid will come back to bite them then hopefully they think twice before commiting genocide, they have to be stupid to do it if they know that the exact same thing will be flung right back at them.


...Then again, elves are pretty stupid :smallmad:
And arrogant...
And think they are better than everyone else...
And think they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want.
And then they get all angry and homicidal when karma comes to bite them in the ass.

The world would be a better place if the elves just dropped down and died where they stood :smallannoyed:
There would be much less genocide and race crimes that way you see.

[Snake-Aes]

And doing nothing makes the elves think they can get away with anything without consequences.

But if they know that doing something stupid will come back to bite them then hopefully they think twice before commiting genocide, they have to be stupid to do it if they know that the exact same thing will be flung right back at them.


...Then again, elves are pretty stupid :smallmad:
And arrogant...
And think they are better than everyone else...
And think they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want.
And then they get all angry and homicidal when karma comes to bite them in the ass.

The world would be a better place if the elves just dropped down and died where they stood :smallannoyed:
There would be much less genocide and race crimes that way you see.Because wiping out the elves is not a genocide or a race crime.
It's a solution, the exact same solution "they" used.

Oddly enough, "the elven race" happens to be Vaarsuvius and the Peregrine commander.

[Closak]

That's exactly the point.

The whole point is to do the exact same thing to them that they did so they can get to feel how it is to be on the receiving end of their actions.


Who knows, maybe they learn a thing or two when forced to suffer the same fate as their victims.
Point out to them that if they don't like it happening to them then they damn well should not be doing it to others.

[Snake-Aes]

The "point" you are making is that exaggerated vengeful retribution is a fine procedure. One cannot criticize such method and then apply it back.

[snafu]

On the whole "hobs are evil only to nonhob cultures". D&D Evil and Good are absolute. If the entire culture is, in general, doing evil deeds, then the culture is evil.

Yeah, but D&D Evil and Good are absolute and defined in terms of which spell you show up on: Detect Evil, Detect Good, or neither. If someone shows up on Detect Evil, he's evil, you need know no more.

So take this elf who pushed a hobgoblin off the wall, or the ones who shot down this couple who saw them escaping with the prisoners. The question isn't one of whether or not they were right to do so, or wrong to do so, or any of this complicated philosophical nonsense. The question is only: how have their actions affected their response to these two spells? Well, we have observed by experiment that killing hobgoblins out of hand does not seem to affect a person's standing as regards Detect Good. No paladin ever fell as a result of killing hobgoblins. So we can conclude that in terms of absolute D&D Good and Evil by the rules, these acts were not evil and did not harm the alignment of the person committing those acts.

People confuse Good and Evil as detected by clerical spells with Right and Wrong as described by ethicists. But to quote Jesse Custer, 'I got a feelin' they ain't quite the same thing...'

[Dark Matter]

When the Dark One was trying to negotiate peace with humans and ended up betrayed and murdered, and his fellow goblins being systematically killed by humans, did he, or the goblins have a choice of not going to war? So, you mean, the correct thing to do for the Dark One, is to just sit there and embrace the oncoming bloodbath - goblin blood?

The Dark One's War is business because by the time the first betrayal happened, the game rules are already set. If you fight, there's still a chance to survive; if you don't, all your goblin friends die. The encounter with the elf commander has already proven what "being nice and suing for peace" would result in.Betrayal? Peace? Negotiation? Those are all funny words to apply to the Dark One.

Assume the SOD rendition is correct, every word of it.

The Dark One's "negotiation" came down to "You have money and nice land, me and my people don't, give some of what you have to me/us (even though I/we're evil) or I/we will take the army I've built and go to war and invade your lands and take it."

We've seen real world leaders play that card, and we've seen countries give into it... and the results have been ugly and not conductive to long term peace.

[Snake-Aes]

Yeah, but D&D Evil and Good are absolute and defined in terms of which spell you show up on: Detect Evil, Detect Good, or neither. If someone shows up on Detect Evil, he's evil, you need know no more.

Oddly enough, this is exactly one of the aesops in this comic. And most canon d&d books that mess with alignments.


So take this elf who pushed a hobgoblin off the wall, or the ones who shot down this couple who saw them escaping with the prisoners. The question isn't one of whether or not they were right to do so, or wrong to do so, or any of this complicated philosophical nonsense. The question is only: how have their actions affected their response to these two spells? Well, we have observed by experiment that killing hobgoblins out of hand does not seem to affect a person's standing as regards Detect Good. No paladin ever fell as a result of killing hobgoblins. So we can conclude that in terms of absolute D&D Good and Evil by the rules, these acts were not evil and did not harm the alignment of the person committing those acts.

People confuse Good and Evil as detected by clerical spells with Right and Wrong as described by ethicists. But to quote Jesse Custer, 'I got a feelin' they ain't quite the same thing...'

Yes, paladins have fallen before for "just killing hobgoblins". The giant himself mentioned that we only "not see" the ones in SoD fall because it wasn't important to the story.

[Dark Matter]

Well, we have observed by experiment that killing hobgoblins out of hand does not seem to affect a person's standing as regards Detect Good. No paladin ever fell as a result of killing hobgoblins.Actually no, we have the word of god that this isn't correct.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

[Closak]

The point i'm making is that if you do something bad then the exact same thing should happen to you.

The scale being 25% of a species is merely a unfortunate coincidence that just so happens to be V's fault.
Blame him, not me, he brought this on the elves, i'm just karma's delivery boy.

Have a problem? Take it up with the concept of bad karma.
Or you know, just refrain from doing these things in the first place if you don't want to have your own crap flung back at you.

[Snake-Aes]

The point i'm making is that if you do something bad then the exact same thing should happen to you.

The scale being 25% of a species is merely a unfortunate coincidence that just so happens to be V's fault.
Blame him, not me, he brought this on the elves, i'm just karma's delivery boy.

Have a problem? Take it up with the concept of bad karma.
Or you know, just refrain from doing these things in the first place if you don't want to have your own crap flung back at you.
Two wrongs don't make one right, that sort of commonplace:Good justice does not revolve around that sort of retribution.

What you are asking of the elves for what V did to ABD is what ABD did to V's family for what V did to ABD's family. It just scales up and enbitters all on the way. Worlds ended because of that.

[Closak]

Which will lead to things becoming uneven again.

Which will result in them getting a whole lot of crap shoved down their throats so they choke on it while being lectured about how they started it and that they have no right to be pissed off when they get what they deserve.
Then they all get offed.

Sucks for them if they are to stupid to realize that the whole mess is their fault to begin with and that the whole thing would be over if they would just ACCEPT THE GODDAMN CONSEQUENCES.


Maybe it's just best to take it directly to the gods and murder them, blow up the whole damn world and remake it in a less crapsack manner without the selfish gods who screw everything up just by existing.

[Snake-Aes]

Well, if you petrified the concept that retribution must be at least equally damaging on the classic eye for eye view, then there's no point trying to convince you.

But be honest and admit that it's an evil belief. It's not good or neutral by any definition of the word. You are harming innocents in the process, and you show absolutely no concern for their well being.

[Closak]

Neither did V when he did the Familicide.

If he didn't then why should i?

I simply act in the same way to them that they act to their victims, thus resulting in their situation being as close to the original as possible, just with them being on the receiving end this time.

If they get pissed off at me then their rage is misaimed, it's V they should be going after for starting the whole mess.


And yes, i do identify myself as rather heavily Lawful Evil whenever retribution is involved.
But i'm only evil if you give me a reason to be so, like V did.

[Sholos]

Give it a rest, Closak. "An eye for an eye" is an idiotic policy that just leads to more people getting hurt. It's that kind of thinking that things like the Marshall Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) were created to combat. It's that kind of thinking that got Germany into a position where they were willing to accept anybody as leader. It's that kind of thinking that leads to revenge killings everywhere. It's stupid, shortsighted, and only leads to more evil.

Note: I don't want to get into a deep discussion of the Marshall Plan and everything behind it. Suffice it to say that one of the reasons was to avoid a similar situation as that of post-WWI.

[Snake-Aes]

Neither did V when he did the Familicide.

If he didn't then why should i?
I simply act in the same way to them that they act to their victims, thus resulting in their situation being as close to the original as possible, just with them being on the receiving end this time.

Because that would be evil. Punishing the harm of innocents by harming other innocents achieves nothing.


If they get pissed off at me then their rage is misaimed, it's V they should be going after for starting the whole mess.

No. They will go at YOU because YOU harmed innocents with an idiotic reason to do so. AFTER that they will go and punish V accordingly.


And yes, i do identify myself as rather heavily Lawful Evil whenever retribution is involved.
But i'm only evil if you give me a reason to be so, like V did.
Evil with an Excuse is still Evil.
K, now i'm over.

[Closak]

So the elves are supposed to get away with anything they want with no consequences?

If they can do things like this without fear of retribution then they will just continue to bully and oppress the other races.
There will be more genocide and all kinds of crap simply because the elves know they can get away with it.

So leaving the matter alone won't work either, something must be done to make them pay for their crimes.



No. They will go at YOU because YOU harmed innocents with an idiotic reason to do so. AFTER that they will go and punish V accordingly.

Which is exactly what V did.
He keeps thinking that he had the right to do so.

Using the mentality that if it's okay for one person then it's okay for another i play along and do the same thing to the elves.
What right does he have to compain about it if he did the same thing first under the belief that he had the right to do so?

Congratulations V, look at the mess you just caused by thinking that you had the right to do that.

[Snake-Aes]

So the elves are supposed to get away with anything they want with no consequences?

If they can do things like this without fear of retribution then they will just continue to bully and oppress the other races.
There will be more genocide and all kinds of crap simply because the elves know they can get away with it.

So leaving the matter alone won't work either, something must be done to make them pay for their crimes.
"The Elves", on what our example said, is "Vaarsuvius". Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier, but the only elf involved in the slaughter was V. V alone should be punished for it.

[Sholos]

So the elves are supposed to get away with anything they want with no consequences?

If they can do things like this without fear of retribution then they will just continue to bully and oppress the other races.
There will be more genocide and all kinds of crap sinply because the elves know they can get away with it.

So leaving the matter alone won't work either, something must be done to make them pay for their crimes.

You keep saying, "The elves," as if "the elves" have done anything. From what I've seen, there are two elves that have done things. V and the team commander. Two. To generalize this to all elves is a mistake, and if you can't see that, then I think you can't be argued with.

[Closak]

And how exactly does one go about punishing V in a way proportionate to the genocide of a quarter of a species?

There's no way to inflict all that on a single individual, which means it get's shared with his fellow elves.

Then his fellow elves can get to chew him out for causing them to end up in that mess.

[Beowulf DW]

The point i'm making is that if you do something bad then the exact same thing should happen to you.

The scale being 25% of a species is merely a unfortunate coincidence that just so happens to be V's fault.
Blame him, not me, he brought this on the elves, i'm just karma's delivery boy.

Have a problem? Take it up with the concept of bad karma.
Or you know, just refrain from doing these things in the first place if you don't want to have your own crap flung back at you.

I don't subscribe to that idea of Karma. I refuse to believe that I am responsible for actions I could not prevent committed by someone I don't even know simply because I'm in some way related to that someone.

I believe in the Christian ideas of sin, i.e. you are responsible for your own soul, regardless of what your great-grandfather's-second-cousin-three-times-removed did 127 years ago. And before you are punished for you wrong doings, you have the chance to make amends.

What V did was horrible, but it's on his head alone.

[Closak]

Well, there is a very simple solution to this.

V will just have to ressurect every single last one of the dragons he killed.
Then he will have to replace their hoards which have no doubt been looted by now.


Wait, what do you mean you can't do that?
Well sucks for you then V, guess we just have to do the same thing to you that you did to them...FAMILICIDE!!!

[Dark Matter]

And how exactly does one go about punishing V in a way proportionate to the genocide of a quarter of a species?The quarter of an "Always chaotic evil" species.

Not "usually" but "always". Granted, there might have been some EXTREMELY rare individuals who weren't actively evil in there, and granted about the unborn dragon eggs, but the vast bulk who died were actively evil, presumably for good reason.

Also granted, we *should* be judging them on an individual basis... but if we'd done so, the end result wouldn't have been very different from what actually happened.

That's why the demons who gave V the power say it's a coin flip on whether or not they get his soul, as opposed to "it's 100% likely that they will".

[Chaelos]

See, I feel like some people here are bring in outside baggage (opinions of "elves" and "goblins", as if either were real) not related at all to the comic. That's tainting the "debate" in ways that, from where I'm sitting, is leading to a rather silly argument.

It's not just "[Character X] did something evil and should be punished"; it's "[Character X] IS A MEMBER OF [Race Y] THAT I HATE FOR MY OWN REASONS WHICH ARE TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE MATTER AT HAND! THEREFORE HIS RACE MUST BE WIPED OUT!"

Or, at least, that seems to be the crux of some peoples' arguments.

[Closak]

The crux of my argument is that 25% is 25% percent regardless of species.

If one species loses 25% because of the other then in order to even things out the offending species needs to also lose 25% of it's population.

The fact that it happens to be elves in this case is just coincidence.

[Beowulf DW]

Well, there is a very simple solution to this.

V will just have to ressurect every single last one of the dragons he killed.
Then he will have to replace their hoards which have no doubt been looted by now.


Wait, what do you mean you can't do that?
Well sucks for you then V, guess we just have to do the same thing to you that you did to them...FAMILICIDE!!!

We're supposed to make amends to the best of our ability. If V can bring all the dragons back, fine. If not, as long as s/he tries his hardest, s/he'll be fine. Don't forget that Roy was released from the blood oath because he never stopped trying.

[Chaelos]

Right. That's not what it looks like to me.



...Then again, elves are pretty stupid :smallmad:
And arrogant...
And think they are better than everyone else...
And think they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want.
And then they get all angry and homicidal when karma comes to bite them in the ass.

The world would be a better place if the elves just dropped down and died where they stood :smallannoyed:
There would be much less genocide and race crimes that way you see.

[Closak]

Yeah, i tend to wind up hating any species i feel deserves it.

The hate generally dies down once i feel that they have gotten what they had coming to them.


In this case i started hating elves because of V and began looking at all their negative traits to reinforce that hatred.
And it's true, they do think they are better than everyone else.
Which is what leads them to doing all manner of stuff in the belief that their "Superiority" justifies it.


...Okay, now i'm psychoanalyzing myself...:smalleek:

[Dark Matter]

Yeah, i tend to wind up hating any species i feel deserves it.

The hate generally dies down once i feel that they have gotten what they had coming to them.Then how do you figure that the Black Dragons didn't have it coming?

Brutal Truth Time: Ignoring the eggs, most (perhaps even all) of the Dragons had it coming, not because they're dragons, but because of the deeds they've done. That's what "always CE" means.

That's why the fiends aren't sure they'll get V's soul.

[jidasfire]

It was a valiant effort, Sentinel, but I suspect it has fallen on deaf ears. Heck, even the thread on whether people should buy Start of Darkness has turned into a moral debate right now. Still, I'll try to address your point.

I personally admire the comic and its author for creating scenes which are capable of making people debate and be uncomfortable, but there seems to be a compulsive need here on the boards, at least for many of the regulars, to justify or condemn every single action in the series. Naturally, everyone comes at these debates from different angles, with many trying to replicate a medieval or D&D mindset, while others apply a late 20th/early 21st century Western philosophy to the Order of the Stick world. Words like "necessary" and "practical" and "naturally evil" get thrown around and overblown just as much as words like "racist" and "genocide," and people start assuming the other side is insane.

Now, there have been plenty of actions taken by characters in the comic which have made me uncomfortable, and others which have made me cheer. I imagine they're quite different from those of the rest of the fanbase, just because everyone's different. For example, I cheered when V iced Kubota (dude had it coming), though I felt weird that s/he did it without knowing who he was. I was impressed when V took out the mother black dragon (though on a small level I felt bad for her), but felt kinda sick over the Familicide. I suspect this was the point. D&D has the alignment system, which directly tackles the notion of what is good, neutral, and evil in a way few other settings do. Given this, and the fact that Order of the Stick is, at least on one level, a deconstruction of the game and the inherent flaws of quantifying morals, this ambiguous stuff is going to come up.

As to how to debate that, well, I don't know. As I said, I enjoy the fact that the story gives us things to think about that don't fit neatly into clearly right and clearly wrong, but I dislike the pissing contests that result from endless moral debates and the way they hijack every discussion, not to mention the way they pare the story down to base elements and strip it of all its fun, for me at least. Perhaps all you can do is make your points known and know that there are at least a few of us out here who agree with you. You'll just have to get used to the fact that most will either ignore you in favor of moral debate, or tell you it's the internet, so you should shut up and like it.

[Closak]

You mean the "Always Chaotic Evil" label that the rather childlike and incredibly selfish gods put on them?

The same gods who creates sentient races just so their clerics can have some more cannon fodder to butcher?

The same gods who condone slaugthering babies for the lulz?

The same gods who created the Snarl because of petty disagreements amongst themselves?

Suuuureee...Real trustworthy label right there.

Heck, for all we know the reason the fiends aren't sure about getting V's soul is because the gods thinks that genocide is okay and are willing to let V off the hook despite the atrocity simply because they think it's funnier that way.

[Kaytara]

Who knows, maybe they learn a thing or two when forced to suffer the same fate as their victims.
Point out to them that if they don't like it happening to them then they damn well should not be doing it to others.

Precisely what is it about the history of sentient beings that gives you the impression they could ever learn from anything? :smallconfused:

[Closak]

Precisely what is it about the history of sentient beings that gives you the impression they could ever learn from anything? :smallconfused:

I dunno, i guess i just have to much faith in humanity's intelligence.

Maybe i'm not pessimistic enough...

[Sholos]

You mean the "Always Chaotic Evil" label that the rather childlike and incredibly selfish gods put on them?

The same gods who creates sentient races just so their clerics can have some more cannon fodder to butcher?

The same gods who condone slaugthering babies for the lulz?

The same gods who created the Snarl because of petty disagreements amongst themselves?

Suuuureee...Real trustworthy label right there.

Heck, for all we know the reason the fiends aren't sure about getting V's soul is because the gods thinks that genocide is okay and are willing to let V off the hook despite the atrocity simply because they think it's funnier that way.

Alignment isn't assigned by the gods.


I dunno, i guess i just have to much faith in humanity's intelligence.

Maybe i'm not pessimistic enough...

Or you simply haven't studied enough psychology.

[Kaytara]

I dunno, i guess i just have to much faith in humanity's intelligence.

Maybe i'm not pessimistic enough...

Or maybe you're just illustrating the point - failing to learn or even draw conclusions from the history of mankind.

With due respect, I think this sort of stick-and-carrot way of forcing people to act morally is flawed at the core. If a person acts in a certain way because of outside pressure rather than because they have internalised that way of actions and accepted it as right for themselves, it will never work out well in the long run.

People that are developed and mature as individuals and as a society are supposed to act morally because of a genuine empathy and desire to see things handled in a way that leaves everyone happy. They aren't supposed to act morally because they're too afraid that they'll get killed if they don't.

And while you could try saying that it would at least work, no it wouldn't. Even if it prevented whatever it's supposed to prevent - which it probably wouldn't, studies show us that for various psychological reasons the possibility of a heavy punishment isn't actually an effective deterrent - you still need that empathy and good will for a society to work. If the good will isn't there, whatever mindset might have led them to major crimes will just manifest in other massive ways.

[Closak]

They made the world, they basically say "This is so and so, that race is okay to kill for the lulz because we say so, if you need justification then let's say they are always evil, now go kill them for our amusement"

Gods in a nutshell.


And besides, ever heard about this little thing about how if you are threated like a evil bastard then eventually you will become an evil bastard?
If everyone threats you like it then you will eventually become it, and since the gods say so and no one questions the gods...

Oh boy...

[Dark Matter]

You mean the "Always Chaotic Evil" label that the rather childlike and incredibly selfish gods put on them?Label? Is that what we call eating alive innocent children and then soul binding them? Just off hand I'd say it's pretty "evil".

Always Chaotic Evil means they're always chaotic evil. Live with it. Given their power the default assumption should be they've earned the "label" of "evil" by deeds such as the one ABD wanted to put into play.

Granted, we still should check... but it shouldn't be a shock if every time we check we find out that they're CE and for good reason. In fact that's the expected outcome.


The same gods who condone slaugthering babies for the lulz?They don't, and they didn't. Some of the Paladins in SOD fell. The link for that statement from god has already been posted on this thread but here it is again. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21


The same gods who created the Snarl because of petty disagreements amongst themselves?Shockingly, the good gods and the evil gods don't get along well. Similarly there are lawful/chaotic disagreements, and these don't hit the radar as "petty".

[Closak]

You know, i'm starting to think the gods themselves are the source of all these problems.

Maybe if we got rid of them things would clear out on it's own after a while?


*Prepares god-killing super-weapon of DOOM*



Label? Is that what we call eating alive innocent children and then soul binding them? Just off hand I'd say it's pretty "evil".

Always Chaotic Evil means they're always chaotic evil. Live with it. Given their power the default assumption should be they've earned the "label" of "evil" by deeds such as the one ABD wanted to put into play.

V killed the ABD's son, so V needs to suffer the same loss, which means the kids go.
And since the ABD can't ressurect her son due to the ashes being dissolved and there being no clerics high enough to cast True Ressurection then V should not get to rez them either.
Admitedly, the Soul Binding was going to far, it would have been enough to just utterly wipe out every trace of their bodies.

And going after Kyrie was also to much, V had nothing to do with the death of the ABD's mate, she should be going after the adventuring party responsible for killing him and offing THEIR mates instead of V's

[Asta Kask]

*Prepares god-killing super-weapon of DOOM*

I'm fairly certain we have one of those in the series...

[Closak]

I meant one which doesn't have a will of it's own.

As in "Fully dependant on the user"

The Snarl is rather unreliable in that it is just as likely to lash out at something other than the target.


Like this planet-destroying lazor here *Blows a god's head of with point blank shot from beefed up Death Star*

[Dark Matter]

V killed the ABD's son, so V needs to suffer the same loss, which means the kids go.Any guesses on whether the ABD's son was CE and guilty of atrocities? Any guesses on whether or not a Paladin would have agreed with killing him?

[Asta Kask]

You may also want to explain to me how killing 1/4 of the world's elves does anything to bring back 1/4 of the world's black dragons?

Oh, and if any of these dragons had ever killed a sentient being (except in self-defense) - wouldn't the dragon deserve killing?

[Zeful]

And how exactly does one go about punishing V in a way proportionate to the genocide of a quarter of a species?Obviously you are lacking in the imagination department. In D&D nothing is impossible with magic. It's possible to design a spell that would allow V to feel the pain of an entire race.


There's no way to inflict all that on a single individual, which means it get's shared with his fellow elves.

Then his fellow elves can get to chew him out for causing them to end up in that mess.
So you would stoop to his level for "justice" then? You would become the monster you so sorely hate? In such a case, how can we consider your opinion rational? What makes your justice so much better than his?

[Closak]

Any guesses on how people would react if a bunch of armed burglars burst into their home and they happened to be capable of fighting back effectively?

Well duh, of course a paladin would agree with killing him, the gods says it's fine, and why would a paladin question his god?
The so called "Always Evil" races were made for the sole purpose of adventurers having something to butcher for lulz and XP without needing to complicate matters by figuring out which party was in the right or wrong first.


Yes, chances are the kid had done a thing or two, but likely nowhere near as much a everyone is led to believe.
And unlike V they don't go around claiming to be "Good" while slaughtering everything that moves that isn't human, elf, dwarf or halfling.
They get points for being honest about that at least...unlike V :smallannoyed:


No, killing a lot of elves won't bring the dragons back, but it will even things out so that both parties have lost an equal amount (Which is what i'm aiming for, make the losses on both sides equal, and currently the dragons have much more losses than the elves, something needs to be done about that)


I will admit that if you go around killing everything that moves that isn't you just because you want their stuff then yes, you deserve a pointy object to the brain.
...Why do i get the feeling that a significant chunk of the dragons hoard was aquired in another manner than breaking and entering?
Most of it was probably taking from the corpses of people who went "Oh dragon XP kill for lulz" and attacked on sight just for being dragons (You be surprised at how many people like that there is running around, you also be surprised at how many of them get themselves killed by attacking something bigger than themselves)



It's possible to design a spell that would allow V to feel the pain of an entire race

You know...I actually like the sound of that.
Maybe i leave the elves alone if i somehow figure out how to pull this one off.
Provided it can actually be done of course.

[ChrisFortyTwo]

What is the point of discussing morality, when it sure won't change anyone's opinion.


I saw this and felt obligated to respond (and dissapointed that no one else has).

From reading Closak's posts, it seems that at least one person's opinion is rigid. However, the discussion of morality can indeed be a genesis for change. Morality is a heated topic, but by simply hearing opposing points of view, and weighing the premises and arguments of both sides, one can hopefully find reason to change.

I read a quote the other day:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Keynes

So, thank you, Closak, for providing "facts" which do not support any argument, and a "conclusion" which is generated by emotional response and internal rage rather than from rational. It is a fine example of what Sentinel initially proposed as the problem to discuss.

As for those debating with Closak - I wish you well. Many of you have provided strong arguments against his message of vengence, and I, for one, would encourage anyone who reads this thread and has had second thoughts about how to handle the ABD/V situation, or the Elven Insurgent Commander/Hobgoblin situation, with less emotional baggage and more thoughts toward mercy and peace. Simply put, if we can use a fictional story, and a hypothetical discussion to help us work out the social situations in our own lives in a more merciful way, then, let it be done.

Sentinel, I agree with your point, and find the idea of this discussion fascinating. Thank you for bringing it to light.

[Closak]

I saw this and felt obligated to respond (and dissapointed that no one else has).

From reading Closak's posts, it seems that at least one person's opinion is rigid. However, the discussion of morality can indeed be a genesis for change. Morality is a heated topic, but by simply hearing opposing points of view, and weighing the premises and arguments of both sides, one can hopefully find reason to change.

I read a quote the other day:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Keynes

So, thank you, Closak, for providing "facts" which do not support any argument, and a "conclusion" which is generated by emotional response and internal rage rather than from rational. It is a fine example of what Sentinel initially proposed as the problem to discuss.

As for those debating with Closak - I wish you well. Many of you have provided strong arguments against his message of vengence, and I, for one, would encourage anyone who reads this thread and has had second thoughts about how to handle the ABD/V situation, or the Elven Insurgent Commander/Hobgoblin situation, with less emotional baggage and more thoughts toward mercy and peace. Simply put, if we can use a fictional story, and a hypothetical discussion to help us work out the social situations in our own lives in a more merciful way, then, let it be done.

Sentinel, I agree with your point, and find the idea of this discussion fascinating. Thank you for bringing it to light.

*Grumble* Least i was able to help someone out *Grumble*

...*Bitchslaps V for being an idiot*

[Kaytara]

And unlike V they don't go around claiming to be "Good" while slaughtering everything that moves that isn't human, elf, dwarf or halfling.
They get points for being honest about that at least...unlike V :smallannoyed:

I dare you to provide me one quote where V calls himself Good. :smallconfused:

Also, +1 to what ChrisFortyTwo said.

Closak, may I ask what purpose "restoring the balance" by way of genocide has when one side is clearly much more powerful than the other, as individuals? If a thousand dragons lived next to a thousand elves, you think things would be "balanced out"?


Yes, chances are the kid had done a thing or two, but likely nowhere near as much a everyone is led to believe.
what the kid has or has not done is something we have ZERO information about and cannot judge, so you're arguing based on personal preference.

[Closak]

He doesn't so much outright say it as imply it.

The fact that he waltzes around in the middle of groups of "Good" aligned people without a care in the world and constantly state disgust over Belkar's actions for starters.
He at least thinks of himself as Neutral.

Thing is that when he then goes and does something WORSE than BELKAR he still thinks of himself as being "Not Evil"

Sure, be disgusted by the halfling and then go ahead and do something even worse.
How the heck can he consider himself to be anything other than evil after that one?

If he still thinks he's good or neutral then that would mean that BELKAR is also good or neutral.
And we all know how true that is.

As far as i'm concerned after that stunt V is just as bad as Xykon.
And that's saying something.

[Draconi Redfir]

V thought that the soul-splice had a chance of altering her alignment, (i.e. from neutral to evil) and so, in her mind at least, the evil actions she took were influinced by the souls she was spliced with. now that she is no longer soul-spliced, she realises that a part of her WAS responsible for the familicide incident, and as such feels guilty for it. hence her change of additude in the deasert strips.

[Roderick_BR]

Yeah, I hate hypocrisy too.
For the record, I'm one of the few paladins I know that DOESN'T smite first and ask later (even with evil-dar) :smalltongue:

[Kaytara]

He doesn't so much outright say it as imply it.

The fact that he waltzes around in the middle of groups of "Good" aligned people without a care in the world and constantly state disgust over Belkar's actions for starters.
He at least thinks of himself as Neutral.

Thing is that when he then goes and does something WORSE than BELKAR he still thinks of himself as being "Not Evil"

Sure, be disgusted by the halfling and then go ahead and do something even worse.
How the heck can he consider himself to be anything other than evil after that one?

If he still thinks he's good or neutral then that would mean that BELKAR is also good or neutral.
And we all know how true that is.

As far as i'm concerned after that stunt V is just as bad as Xykon.
And that's saying something.

The difference between V and Xykon/Belkar is that the latter have given up trying or never had an interest in trying in the first place. No truly Evil person would be horrified or disgusted by the idea that they might be becoming Evil or that another might consider them Evil. As the deva says to Roy, it's the struggle that matters.

Now let's just skip the part where you list every evilish thing V has done and I retort with all the ways the circumstances still separate him from Xykon and Belkar. Pretend we already did that, and pretend I told you to try and exercice EMPATHY for someone OTHER than the dragons, such as the victims of said dragons.

Let's get back to this:

"Closak, may I ask what purpose "restoring the balance" by way of genocide has when one side is clearly much more powerful than the other, as individuals? If a thousand dragons lived next to a thousand elves, you think things would be "balanced out"?"

I'm mostly curious just what purpose your notion of balancing things out is supposed to serve, anyway. Surely no practical purpose - it would just lead to mass extinction, after all.

[Snake-Aes]

He doesn't so much outright say it as imply it.

The fact that he waltzes around in the middle of groups of "Good" aligned people without a care in the world and constantly state disgust over Belkar's actions for starters.
He at least thinks of himself as Neutral.

Thing is that when he then goes and does something WORSE than BELKAR he still thinks of himself as being "Not Evil"

Sure, be disgusted by the halfling and then go ahead and do something even worse.
How the heck can he consider himself to be anything other than evil after that one?

If he still thinks he's good or neutral then that would mean that BELKAR is also good or neutral.
And we all know how true that is.

As far as i'm concerned after that stunt V is just as bad as Xykon.
And that's saying something.

There's something listed in every alignment-replated official text and even here that you have to remember when saying what you said: Bounds.
No one is bound to do exclusively what's listed in the alignment description. People don't shift alignments by commiting one deed. People regret what they do in moments of unclear thinking. V regrets his powerhungry madness. If V can atone, V will atone. It's made clear in the comic. V is not being a hypocrite like you claimed.

Closak, in an ideal world, you would not put your feelings ahead of your words when trying to justify your opinions in a manner to convince others. We understand or accept your feelings, but we do not agree with them. If you want to be "right", you have to provide facts. You have not done so. Your expressed methods of vengeance also happen to be exactly what the people you condemned did: overreacted, involving innocents and dumb. Proposing such "justice" is the only hypocritical deed here.

[-Sentinel-]

It was a valiant effort, Sentinel, but I suspect it has fallen on deaf ears. Heck, even the thread on whether people should buy Start of Darkness has turned into a moral debate right now.

[...]

As to how to debate that, well, I don't know. As I said, I enjoy the fact that the story gives us things to think about that don't fit neatly into clearly right and clearly wrong, but I dislike the pissing contests that result from endless moral debates and the way they hijack every discussion, not to mention the way they pare the story down to base elements and strip it of all its fun, for me at least. Perhaps all you can do is make your points known and know that there are at least a few of us out here who agree with you. You'll just have to get used to the fact that most will either ignore you in favor of moral debate, or tell you it's the internet, so you should shut up and like it.

I was not complaining about moral debates, in fact I rather enjoy them. My main gripe is that, when such debates occur, the heatedness of some of their participants threatens to melt my computer screen. Some users just seem full of vindictive anger at the actions of fictional characters and express views that, were they applied to the real world, would be perceived as downright extremist.


I said I wouldn't name names, but after all I will name one: Closak. You have obviously missed the whole point of my thread. In the very first post I talked at some length about how deeply disturbed I am by posters whose conception of justice seems to revolve around violent revenge, and as soon as you arrive, you start to argue about how 25% of the Elves should be butchered because of the actions of one of them. What's the matter with you?


Edit: The above poster has it. Moral debates, be they about webcomics or the real world, should be based on rational arguments, not emotions.

[Kish]

There's something listed in every alignment-replated official text and even here that you have to remember when saying what you said: Bounds.
No one is bound to do exclusively what's listed in the alignment description. People don't shift alignments by commiting one deed. People regret what they do in moments of unclear thinking. V regrets his powerhungry madness. If V can atone, V will atone.
As I point out whenever this claim is made, Vaarsuvius has expressed regrets for neglecting his/her familiar, alienating his/her family, indulging his/her temper in stores (after his/her supposed Big Reform), and an unspecified "all that I have done." Not a syllable that unambiguously refers to the really big thing s/he has to regret.

[Snake-Aes]

As I point out whenever this claim is made, Vaarsuvius has expressed regrets for neglecting his/her familiar, alienating his/her family, indulging his/her temper in stores (after his/her supposed Big Reform), and an unspecified "all that I have done." Not a syllable that unambiguously refers to the really big thing s/he has to regret.

Indeed, we do not see V specifically state he regrets killing those dragons. On ABD he does not and should not, as far as revenges and defending the loved ones go... but the others were overkill from her powerhungry madness, which is regreted. Most of his trend is exactly denying the offensive power of her spells, so this one believes it's much more likely that V would not have slain those dragons if he was to do it now.
Can't take it for granted, but it makes more sense than not regretting that.

[Dark Matter]

what the kid has or has not done is something we have ZERO information about and cannot judge, so you're arguing based on personal preference.We know he's a black dragon (and therefore a member of a CE species), and that his mom was seriously CE and approved of him.. :smallwink:

In real life humanity would NEVER tolerate the existence of a CE species which viewed us as food and had the power to make this view a reality. There would be government funded expeditions/efforts to exterminate them.

[Kaytara]

As I point out whenever this claim is made, Vaarsuvius has expressed regrets for neglecting his/her familiar, alienating his/her family, indulging his/her temper in stores (after his/her supposed Big Reform), and an unspecified "all that I have done." Not a syllable that unambiguously refers to the really big thing s/he has to regret.

Well, he did agree when the ABD called him a monster. But yes. However, though obviously I can't predict whether it will happen in V's particular case, I doubt it's an accident. Rich has only really started unveiling his whole "Indiscriminate killing based on alignment or species is wrong" arc, it would be entirely too soon for a main character to learn a lesson about it already. I can only assume that such a change of thinking will become a major point for the characters later on.


We know he's a black dragon (and therefore a member of a CE species), and that his mom was seriously CE and approved of him.. :smallwink:
Still no specific evidence, though. As an example, before the strip where Kyrie sends the divorce, we could have easily speculated (and some did) that V was neglectful in marriage, but it would've been ludicrous to use such an assumption as actual evidence of a separate argument (though some did). Similarly, from what we've seen the junior black dragon doesn't seem to hold "those stupid humanoids" in any special regard, but you never know.


In real life humanity would NEVER tolerate the existence of a CE species which viewed us as food and had the power to make this view a reality. There would be government funded expeditions/efforts to exterminate them.
Agreed - that is something I frequently say, albeit in a more roundabout way, whenever the idea of a species-wide genocide is condemned with such passionate, self-righteous, confident fervor. In real life, "evil" is as often as not a synonym for "a threat", with "threat" being subjective to the one dictating the term. It's only fiction that has the cartoonish evil of eating babies for breakfast and such.
So I think it strange to argue about evil and morality between humanoids and dragons as if they were equals, when they're actually in a predator-prey relationship.

[ChrisFortyTwo]

I was not complaining about moral debates, in fact I rather enjoy them. My main gripe is that, when such debates occur, the heatedness of some of their participants threatens to melt my computer screen. Some users just seem full of vindictive anger at the actions of fictional characters and express views that, were they applied to the real world, would be perceived as downright extremist.


I said I wouldn't name names, but after all I will name one: Closak. You have obviously missed the whole point of my thread. In the very first post I talked at some length about how deeply disturbed I am by posters whose conception of justice seems to revolve around violent revenge, and as soon as you arrive, you start to argue about how 25% of the Elves should be butchered because of the actions of one of them. What's the matter with you?


Edit: The above poster has it. Moral debates, be they about webcomics or the real world, should be based on rational arguments, not emotions.

I like to think that I make my own arguments without the emotional baggage, and try to encourage that in others - hence my earlier post. Now, I have reason to make the same argument in the opposite direction.

Ignoring (temporarily) Closak's earlier rants toward elves, his most recent post:



...
As far as i'm concerned after that stunt V is just as bad as Xykon.
And that's saying something.

was a well-reasoned argument, including opinions about morality (which every post involving discussion of morality has), and coming to a rational conclusion (above). In fact (and I see this as a good point) that post doesn't mention vengeance or retribution at all.

That being said - I believe there is a lot of ad hominem going on around here, and that now, after his metanoia (if you don't know the word, look it up, it's a really good word - for you Wiki searchers, use the Psychological variation), let's cut him a little slack.

Remember, if you are giving V - a fictional character - the benefit of forgiveness, try to give it to real people (yes, people on the internet are real, too).

[Manicotti]

Give the forumers pie, and they WILL turn it into a debate on whether or not eating it is morally justified.

Then let them eat cake.

[Kish]

Rich has only really started unveiling his whole "Indiscriminate killing based on alignment or species is wrong" arc, it would be entirely too soon for a main character to learn a lesson about it already.

Really? I could have sworn it started in strip #13. Or, using in-world chronology, was quite central well before that, in On the Origins of PCs.

I can only assume that such a change of thinking will become a major point for the characters later on.

We'll see.

[Asta Kask]

You know...I actually like the sound of that.
Maybe i leave the elves alone if i somehow figure out how to pull this one off.
Provided it can actually be done of course.

Can someone please dig out the Epic spell-creation guideline and create this? So we can get a stop to this, rather tedious, yammering about how elves should be slaughtered?

[Kaytara]

Really? I could have sworn it started in strip #13. Or, using in-world chronology, was quite central well before that, in On the Origins of PCs.


That's what a story having a main premise or central theme is all about. In hindsight, you can see loads of little things that fit into the big picture perfectly. But back then, would you have read that comic and immediately thought "Wow, this is totally a theme in this comic, rather than just randomly making fun of fantasy cliches"? Probably not, strip 13 is entirely too early to tell what sort of comic it's ultimately going to be.

Since then, there have been little things added to that, and a few big ones that sparked long debates. By "unveiling" the arc, I meant purposely showcasing his deconstruction of this problem and actively exploring different aspects of it, which has been building up slowly but only seems to have claimed the spotlight now.

Why would we want to use in-world chronology when talking about the story Rich is trying to tell, from a meta perspective? :smallconfused: (Don't you mean SoD rather than Origins, though?)

Can't you at least consider that you have inadequately grasped someone's point before you go all sarcastic on them? :smallconfused: It's happened before. Didn't you chew me out at some point for trying to generalise about "everyone on the forum" when I didn't even use the word in my post? :smallwink:

[Kish]

(Don't you mean SoD rather than Origins, though?)

No, I mean Roy and the orcs in OtOoPCs. Ring a bell now?


Didn't you chew me out at some point for trying to generalise about "everyone on the forum" when I didn't even use the word in my post? :smallwink:
I don't know what "the word" you refer to is. If I recognize the reference and the word you're referring to is "everyone," you used the words "no one [saw anything wrong with Vaarsuvius killing the young black dragon]," not "everyone thought it was okay," which is a very large and meaningful difference, I'm sure. And if you mean the word "forum," you didn't mention the word "forum," but if you actually meant no one in the world, that would take your assertion all the way to astounding.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Yay, more morality debates! This time with external baggage from other threads. By which I mean, thread locked.