Outlogicked by Elan?

[Caelis]

Wait, hold on.

How exactly did Elan outlogick Haley? I really don't see what that last argumentative move ("You don't trust him partly because of how he acts when lives are at stake") refers to. Nor do I understand how it is a relevant argument. Haley's arguments for not trusting T seem pretty solid to me, with him being the military leader in an obviously evil dictatorship and all. :smallconfused:

[Gray Mage]

Wait, hold on.

How exactly did Elan outlogick Haley? I really don't see what that last argumentative move ("You don't trust him partly because of how he acts when lives are at stake") refers to. Nor do I understand how it is a relevant argument. Haley's arguments for not trusting T seem pretty solid to me, with him being the military leader in an obviously evil dictatorship and all. :smallconfused:

Haley's argument is flawed because it uses circular logic. T can't be trusted because of how he acts, but he acts like that because she didn't tell him what was at stake because he can't be trusted. Elan pointed this out.

[ninja_penguin]

I don't particularly do logic arguments much, so i'm not 100% sure I'm doing this right.

But, all things considered, I think Elan's argument is thus:

1. My dad might not be bad because he is helping us.
2. You don't trust my dad because of how he is acting when lives are at stake.
2a. We have not specifically told my dad that lives are at stake.
3. You don't want to tell my dad that lives are at stake because you don't trust him because of how he is behaving.

So Elan's point is a logic circle of 'I don't want to tell him because I don't trust him, because of how he's behaving when I haven't given him all the information'.


That's my take, anyway. I'm sure somebody else could pinhole that if they needed to.

[NerfTW]

Read Elan's line right before it. Haley's using circular logic.

She doesn't trust him because of how he acts when lives are at stake.
But she's not telling him that lives are at stake because she doesn't trust him.
Since she won't tell him that lives are at stake because she doesn't trust him, she doesn't trust him because he's delaying their seeing Girard.

They have no idea where Girard is. For all they know, he and Tarquin are best buds, and Tarquin is going to invite him to come over in a few days. We the readers, and Haley, don't believe that at all, but her reason for not trusting him is because he's not being more urgent in a matter that he doesn't know is urgent.

[Crisis21]

Read Elan's line right before it. Haley's using circular logic.

She doesn't trust him because of how he acts when lives are at stake.
But she's not telling him that lives are at stake because she doesn't trust him.
Since she won't tell him that lives are at stake because she doesn't trust him, she doesn't trust him because he's delaying their seeing Girard.

They have no idea where Girard is. For all they know, he and Tarquin are best buds, and Tarquin is going to invite him to come over in a few days. We the readers, and Haley, don't believe that at all, but her reason for not trusting him is because he's not being more urgent in a matter that he doesn't know is urgent.

Isn't it great when a supposedly unintelligent party member points out the obvious flaws in a more intelligent member's logic? :smallbiggrin:

[Themrys]

Haley is drunk and therefore unable to get out of her circular logic circle.

There are a lot of reasons not to trust Tarquin. Even though he doesn't know that lives are at stake, he does know it is an important quest...where almost always lives are at stake. That he doesn't want to discuss it at all before the end of his three-day festival, is a reason not to trust him.

[Shpadoinkle]

Let's try explaining it like this.

1: Your fridge is broken.
2: Your landlord doesn't know your fridge is broken because you haven't told him that.
3: You don't want to tell him because you don't know what he'll be like when he knows he has to replace a major appliance, which will likely cost a lot of money.
4: Because your landlord doesn't know anything is wrong, he's acting like nothing's wrong.
5: You're mad at your landlord because he's acting like nothing's wrong even though something is- something you are in a position to tell him, but haven't.
6: Because you haven't told him something he has no way of knowing, you're unjustifiably mad at your landlord for no reason.

[Crisis21]

Haley is drunk and therefore unable to get out of her circular logic circle.

There are a lot of reasons not to trust Tarquin. Even though he doesn't know that lives are at stake, he does know it is an important quest...where almost always lives are at stake. That he doesn't want to discuss it at all before the end of his three-day festival, is a reason not to trust him.

We haven't said that Haley is wrong to mistrust Tarquin. The guy is a general in an evil empire after all. However, the reasons that Haley has so far given to mistrust Tarquin are inherently flawed because she is basing part of that mistrust on actions Tarquin has taken that might be different if she were more forthcoming (the way he is acting in regards to a quest that has global consequences despite the fact that he is unaware of said global consequences because Haley doesn't trust him based on the way he is acting).

While the given reasons may be flawed, that does not necessarily mean that there aren't sound reasons to mistrust Tarquin. The lack of information on both sides of the issue (the Order really doesn't know any more about Tarquin than he does about them) is part of what is muddying the waters here. Trusting Tarquin may either be completely necessary, or a humongous mistake (or somewhere in between). We don't know enough to judge.

[Themrys]

I agree that Elan has outlogicked Haley.
Because she was drunk. Which shows, why you shouldn't drink alcohol.

Trusting T. would be wrong in every case. It could be a good idea to tell him more than Haley wants to tell him. But trust him...no, I don't think so.

[Gray Mage]

I agree that Elan has outlogicked Haley.
Because she was drunk. Which shows, why you shouldn't drink alcohol.

Trusting T. would be wrong in every case. It could be a good idea to tell him more than Haley wants to tell him. But trust him...no, I don't think so.

Of course that telling him about the gates is too much. Their connection with Durkon on the other hand is unecessary and dangerous to lie about IMO.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think Elan outlogicked haley because she was drunk. She was using the same arguments as sober. You could think about it as elan rolling a 20 on an int check, or haley rolling a 1. Even if Elan is dumb, he can still be rigth from time to time.
Of course, as sober Haley could have pointed out many other good reasons to not trust tarquin, but I think the point of those dialogues is to prove that haley isn't untrustful because of all the good reasons, but becuase she still have to overcome her trust issues. Of course, it is also played out for laugh.

[BlueWizard]

I trust Haley's instincts. Isn't that why Roy has her as 2nd in command. :haley:

[Zevox]

I trust Haley's instincts. Isn't that why Roy has her as 2nd in command. :haley:
No, actually, she's second-in-command because she got Elan, Belkar, and V to agree that she should be - by promising not to steal their possessions in the middle of the night. Oh, and because she figured she could have Roy pay her more that way. (See: On the Origin of PCs)

Zevox

[Ron Miel]

Erm, Zevox, you really should put things like that in spoiler boxes. I've not read OOTPCs yret, and you may have ruined a good joke for me.:smallfrown:

[blackjack217]

at least :haley: is not outlogicked by :thog:

[Obani]

But didn't you just say Thog was a mastermind? I'm confused... MAEK UP UR MAHND, WOMAN!

:smalltongue:

[blackjack217]

But didn't you just say Thog was a mastermind? I'm confused... MAEK UP UR MAHND, WOMAN!

:smalltongue:
three things
1. I'm A guy
2. I never said he is a smart mastermind
3. sexist not funny

[Lord Bingo]

I agree that Elan has outlogicked Haley.
Because she was drunk. Which shows, why you shouldn't drink alcohol.

Is that a logic argument..?

Moralistic banter aside, even though Haley's ability to reason might have been affected by alcohol at the time of this specific argument certainly Elan's ability to spot a flaw in Haley's argument had nothing to do with alcohol per se.
Haley's distrust of Tarquin arose when (or soon after) he pushed her out of a window. History have shown Haley to be distrustful of strangers as well as friends and this argument reveals that flaw when she tries to justify it to Elan with her faulty argument.

[faustin]

Poor Haley..... EVEN Elan can realize her lies are only worsening their circunstances.
Yeah.... all readers can see Tarquin and malack are bad guys, but Haley´s plan is doing nothing to help, but also prevents them to rescue Roy and Belkar from the circus ring.

[Morph Bark]

Isn't it great when a supposedly unintelligent party member points out the obvious flaws in a more intelligent member's logic? :smallbiggrin:

Of course. Happens to me all the time.

...IN GAME! IN GAME I MEANT! Actually not since I am never a player and am not talking about in game at all. =X

[Crisis21]

Of course. Happens to me all the time.

...IN GAME! IN GAME I MEANT! Actually not since I am never a player and am not talking about in game at all. =X

Really? Are you certain? :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Darth Hunterix]

1. I'm A guy
3. sexist not funny

That two statements contradict each other.

[Morph Bark]

Really? Are you certain? :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

No. I mean yes! I mean... GAH!


That two statements contradict each other.

Not really.

Although I don't really see what was sexist about that statement.

[Dr.Epic]

I trust Haley's instincts. Isn't that why Roy has her as 2nd in command. :haley:

She's second in command because she got everyone else in the order to vote for her to be that. As for Haley not letting Tarquin's know, I'm kind of on the fence on her decision.

[Souhiro]

Okay...

Many people tries to simpatize with the evil guys in the comic, since Start of Darkness; But I don't know how can it be done (The only one nearly to be sympahetic is Right Eye: Xykon is a complete monster, Redcloak is a slug and every goblin who accepts RedCloak as her boss is a slug to another slug)

But witouout trying to fall in that topic, I think that while Tarkin is Evil, and isn't above conquer, plunder and tirany; in the pace of this story he can be "The Lesser Evil"; since he has opossed Nale (A worker from the IFCC and ex-agent of Xykon) and, altough he has his own agenda, I'm pretty sure that his plans includes staying alive and protecting himself, his interests, and -if it's possible- his beloved son from a complete monster epic lich and his super-poweful goblin slave.

You know, even Vader cares about his son. If instead of Luke, he would have battled another lousy wanna-be-jedi in Bespin, he would have killed him wihout hesitation


So, I think that Tarkin WILL be needed in this arc, and his cooperation will be essential to the plot. Haley is right about not trusting him 100%, but I thing he can be a 80% reliable.

[Scarlet Knight]

Isn't it great when a supposedly unintelligent party member points out the obvious flaws in a more intelligent member's logic? :smallbiggrin:

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

[Zen Monkey]

Haley is just meta-gaming, changing her actions because she thinks that she has spotted a villain. He hasn't really done anything all that villanous, but she has guessed him to be the villain of this story arc and is acting according to that.

Damn cheating players :smalltongue:
(I know, they don't have players, etc)

[Stmr5000]

Haley is just meta-gaming, changing her actions because she thinks that she has spotted a villain. He hasn't really done anything all that villanous, but she has guessed him to be the villain of this story arc and is acting according to that.

Damn cheating players :smalltongue:
(I know, they don't have players, etc)

They may not have players, but I think that is part of the reason. Haley's trying to be genre savvy, and it's probably going to come around to bite her. Otherwise, why spend so much time highlighting it?

[Kish]

I don't get it. Everyone in the comic agrees that Haley never trusts anyone. She doesn't trust Tarquin and Malack. Why would this be her "trying to be genre savvy" rather than her behaving exactly like herself? It makes sense to look further for an explanation for someone's behavior when they're behaving uncharacteristically, not when they're behaving extremely characteristically.

[The Pilgrim]

at least :haley: is not outlogicked by :thog:

There is still a lot of OOTS left for that to happen.

[Cerlis]

I think "Haley is doing the right thing by not trusting elan's dad, for all the wrong reasons" is the best conclusion. Drunk or not, what she voiced here was her main and true feelings. She doesn't trust anyone(not including recent character development as regards to certian OotS members who have gained her trust). You got to admit that the fact she chooses not to trust anyone, protect(ed) herself from even the man she loves and the fact that Tarquin threw her out a window (with knowledge that her ally had a featherfall spell ready might i add) all show that Haley is being irrational.

Tarquin is evil, as is Malack. They serve an evil empire and put themselves above others. I dont think i've seen anyone in any of the Tarquin/Malack conversations point out that when the cleric found out they wheren't Nale and his associates he gave the queen permission to eat them. I.E. throwing innocents to a horrible fate.

Tarquin is Evil, Malak is evil. Tarquin and Malack cant really be trusted. Haley is distrusting distrustful people for all the wrong reasons. And i see no reason why (under current circumstances) Tarquin and Malak would become villians.

Based on the personality of the two (not alignment) i'd put it more likely that should the Order of the stick betray their trust (yes, I did just say that) they might even be inclined to secretly let them go while openly hunting them down tooth and nail ("Im still your friend but if you want to live I suggest you not step foot in my kingdom again).

[Stmr5000]

Please not that I'm not trying to pull the lame tactic of question a small detail of a large arguement, this is purely out of curiosity. Where is it said Malack is evil? People keep saying it, but I thought only Tarquin was "confirmed" as LE, implying his alignment hasn't changed over the years.

[Maxios]

Malack is probably just of neutral alignment of some sort.

[Cerlis]

Please not that I'm not trying to pull the lame tactic of question a small detail of a large arguement, this is purely out of curiosity. Where is it said Malack is evil? People keep saying it, but I thought only Tarquin was "confirmed" as LE, implying his alignment hasn't changed over the years.

well one thing is there is "good" as in the alignment. And "Good" as in our perception. same with other alignments.

after considering real life situations, reading the works of the writers of book of vile darkness and Tome of Horrors I had gotten to thinking that about what was truely evil. I realized my opinion on two things. Actions can be good or evil but that doesn't not mean the person is good or evil (I would argue that Miko was Good, though her actions where increasingly Neutral and Evil).

So a Good person (say robin hood) can do an evil thing (like murder a corrupt soldier who is begging for mercy) and still be Good in his own mind and in the minds of others. Now if he did simular actions all his life his soul might register as "neutral" but he is still "a good man" and a "force of good". You could take it even further and have an evil man fight for good (Belkar perhaps?)

The thing is Malak is a nice guy, I'd say. But he does one thing that seems to be the crux of all evil, and that is to do something to satisfy yourself(greed, lust, your ideals, ect) at the expense of others. Its just a theory but i think all true evil in real life and in stories boil down to this decision.
Malak decided to feed our heroes to a Dragon when he saw no use of them, he serves an evil empire literally fed by evil. He knows that goodness is obliterated by his empire, and its built on the backs of Slaves.

I'd say how he views himself and how some could percieve him might be "neutral" but if her soul was weighed it would come out as evil.

-------
Sorry if this was to much of a tangent. (The original question was answered and we are just talking theology as regards to OotS characters so i thought it would be ok)

[hamishspence]

after considering real life situations, reading the works of the writers of book of vile darkness and Tome of Horrors I had gotten to thinking that about what was truely evil. I realized my opinion on two things. Actions can be good or evil but that doesn't not mean the person is good or evil (I would argue that Miko was Good, though her actions where increasingly Neutral and Evil).

So a Good person (say robin hood) can do an evil thing (like murder a corrupt soldier who is begging for mercy) and still be Good in his own mind and in the minds of others. Now if he did simular actions all his life his soul might register as "neutral" but he is still "a good man" and a "force of good". You could take it even further and have an evil man fight for good (Belkar perhaps?)

True- up to a point. However, there is a limit on how much evil a would-be Good person can do and still remain nonevil.

Champions of Ruin: Even neutral and good people can be driven to evil acts from time to time, but the repeated and deliberate use of many of these is the mark of an evil character.

Heroes of Horror may allow for people who do evil deeds toward Good ends, to remain Neutral- but this may depend on how evil the deeds are, and how often they do them. A Dread Necromancer who animates the dead and uses them to protect the innocent, a LN cleric of Wee Jas who uses Rebuke attempts against undead enemies in order to protect others from them- these people can still remain Neutral. But more serious evil acts may be capable of shifting a persons alignment all the way to Evil even if their ends remain Good.

[Cerlis]

True- up to a point. However, there is a limit on how much evil a would-be Good person can do and still remain nonevil.

Champions of Ruin: Even neutral and good people can be driven to evil acts from time to time, but the repeated and deliberate use of many of these is the mark of an evil character.

Heroes of Horror may allow for people who do evil deeds toward Good ends, to remain Neutral- but this may depend on how evil the deeds are, and how often they do them. A Dread Necromancer who animates the dead and uses them to protect the innocent, a LN cleric of Wee Jas who uses Rebuke attempts against undead enemies in order to protect others from them- these people can still remain Neutral. But more serious evil acts may be capable of shifting a persons alignment all the way to Evil even if their ends remain Good.

Well yes, i guess to provide example is...

you can have a character who's Alignment would register as Neutral or even Evil, because they constantly do evil things. Their cause is good and they help good people, they take neutral means or evil means.

There is You're intent, your view of the situation and the act itself.

For example to shift it the other way, Belkar can do good things, but he does them for evil reasons, so it probably doesnt shift his alignment at all. He can kill evil people all he wants and save all the good people he wants. He's still doing it for selfish reasons, so he can continue to live and make other people misserable and satisfiy his bloodlust, even if he does have to check it.

So...Malak could see himself as Neutral, but truely be evil. Or he could be evil that sees himself as neutral. Or he could be a good character who does evil cus he doesnt see it as evil and the actually amount of evil he himself performs isnt enough to affect his soul!

I dont think i know his alignment but I just want to say that even saying its down to the alignment of Intent vs alignment of the Act...is simplifying it to much.

Or i guess i should say, it would be best to define are we talking about his Aligment as per the alignment-ometer or his character(personality and behavior) relative to our own moral views.

[hamishspence]

you can have a character who's Alignment would register as Neutral or even Evil, because they constantly do evil things. Their cause is good and they help good people, they take neutral means or evil means.

There is You're intent, your view of the situation and the act itself.


This is pretty much what Champions of Ruin says- it's quite a common villainous archetype.


For example to shift it the other way, Belkar can do good things, but he does them for evil reasons, so it probably doesnt shift his alignment at all. He can kill evil people all he wants and save all the good people he wants. He's still doing it for selfish reasons, so he can continue to live and make other people misserable and satisfiy his bloodlust, even if he does have to check it.

BoED does state basically that "Good acts done for selfish reasons count as Neutral acts". Belkar refers to risking himself to save Hinjo as a "quasi-Good act" which may imply that he knows his reasons don't make it really good.

Good acts aren't as clearly defined though as evil acts in the splatbooks- though, as a first approximation, an act that can qualify as "making a personal sacrifice to help another person (especially if that person is "innocent") or an act that can qualify as "protecting the innocent", counts as Good. Belkar was "protecting the innocent" (Hinjo) and "making a personal sacrifice".

"Killing evil beings" doesn't really qualify as a Good act unless other things come into play (protecting others)- though BoVD does suggest killing a Fiend (evil outsider) is "always a good act". I assume this wouldn't apply to fiends that are trying to redeem themselves though.


So...Malak could see himself as Neutral, but truely be evil. Or he could be evil that sees himself as neutral. Or he could be a good character who does evil cus he doesnt see it as evil and the actually amount of evil he himself performs isnt enough to affect his soul!

True. There are people who insist that "All D&D characters know their own alignment and any character that doesn't is insane" but there isn't much evidence to support it (one rather ambiguous line in the PHB) and a lot of evidence against it (several evil characters in the splatbooks who are at least not consciously aware they are evil).


I dont think i know his alignment but I just want to say that even saying its down to the alignment of Intent vs alignment of the Act...is simplifying it to much.

Or i guess i should say, it would be best to define are we talking about his Aligment as per the alignment-ometer or his character(personality and behavior) relative to our own moral views.

The main piece of evidence to support an evil alignment for Malack is his reaction to Elan's story- that, even if he's innocent, Malack is still OK with the Empress eating him and Haley:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html

This fits with "Evil people debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit" in the PHB- while Malack is not doing it personally, he's still making the statement that will get them destroyed.

(While I don't go so far as to say all Evil people are willing to debase or destroy the "innocent"- I will say that a person willing to do so is far more likely to be Evil than Neutral.)

[Heksefatter]

Haley is out-logicked not only because she is drunk, but because (as someone else already pointed out) that her reasons for not trusting Tarquin has to do with her often irrational inability to trust others.

Furthermore, while Tarquin definitely is not someone to be trusted, I think that the OotS is being overly cautious and that it WILL come back to bite them. My guess is that Tarquin could prove valuable and that they will end up either making an enemy out of him while they do not need to or acting on bad/incomplete information, where he could otherwise have helped them.

At the very least, I think that not being more forthright with Tarquin will prove problematic in the medium term.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I think being out logicked by Elan would be what V saw in a phantasmal killer.

[Cerlis]

I think being out logicked by Elan would be what V saw in a phantasmal killer.

quoted for emphasis. Cus that is funny

[mikau013]

<snip>

The main piece of evidence to support an evil alignment for Malack is his reaction to Elan's story- that, even if he's innocent, Malack is still OK with the Empress eating him and Haley:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html

<snip>

I disagree, he just doesn't believe elan's story.

Seeing
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html

where he says that he apologises because he thought it was just another trick of nale.

[Cerlis]

He was aplologising for trying to feed him to a dragon. Evil people in stories trying to murder each other and then finding out their allies and making offhanded comments (usually for the amusement of the audience) is a common trope.

He told the dragon she couln't eat him because he was special. When he found out he wasnt Nale he decided to feed them to the dragon. And speaks later of hopeing for a tortured existance for Nale, giving good reason that that comment was not hyperbole.

Evil people can be civil, which Malak has proved to be. But my Eightball says LE like his friend Tarquin