Morality in OotS [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Porthos

2010-11-19, 02:18 PM

Wait! People actually thought Thog

Without tempting fate, yes. The general argument basically falls down to:

Thog is too stupid to be evil.

Really. Honest. That's almost it in entirety. Oh, sure, they bring up the Fun Loving Personality. And they bring up the Bonding With Elan. But it almost always boils down to People Who Are Stupid Can't Be Evil.

Why they never turn around and claim Elan can't be good for the same reason is beyond me.

...

Well, actually it isn't. But I'd have to go into a lot of Real Life Philosophy and Morals to really explore the double standard here. And I just can't be bothered today to phrase it in ways that are CoC acceptable. :smallamused:

Anyway, it's irrelevant coz in DnD things that have an INT of three or higher get an alignment slapped on them, "fair" or not. So by the rules of DnD, Thog is clearly Chaotic Evil, if far closer to the Chaotic side than the Evil side. Or, to put it in Planescape terms, Thog is just one bad day away from a one way ticket to Pandemonium.

As for Belkar? That had died down for a time. But it's seen a bit of a resurgence since the lifting of the Mark of Justice.

Pre Mark of Justice was almost entirely centered on: I find Belkar's antics amusing, therefore he can't be evil.

When pressed about all of the evil things Belkar had done, a liberal dose of handwavium would be applied. Along with a good deal of "LALALALALALA Ican'thearyou LALALALALALALA" :smallbiggrin:

Post Mark of Justice has been slightly more nuanced. People will point to lack of overtly evil acts and say, "See. His Fake Character Growth is turning into Real Character Growth. He'll be Chaotic Neutral any day now. Just you wait."

This ignores the more subtle evil that Belkar's been up to. As well as the fact that Belkar is still pretty much wallowing in his evilness. He's just trying to keep it to himself for the most part.

Hawk7915

2010-11-19, 02:24 PM

Some people seem to suffer some serious dissonance with enjoying a character who does bad things, and thus try to explain away bad things as "not that bad". Hence why so many people argue that Belkar isn't Chaotic Evil (up until the point that Rich finally, explicitly, once and for all said he was in-strip), why Thog isn't really evil, and now why Tarquin isn't evil.

Tarquin is a man who keeps slaves, conquers and oppresses kingdoms, forces women to marry him against their will at the very best case scenario and then kills them, and just now has had escaped slaves burned alive to make a neat light show. He's also a man who seems to sincerely love his family, and who is funny, clever, and charming. This is one of the running themes of OoTs in general...good characters can be antagonistic (Miko Miyazaki) or snarky, obsessive, and selfish (Eugene Greenhilt). Evil characters can be insanely funny and entertaining (Xykon, Belkar), tragic and sympathetic (Redcloak), and capable of love and affection (Tarquin).

The real thing that throws me, honestly, is how even though all the evil characters except Thog have done things arguably just as vile (if not more so) than the big bad Lich himself, no one even tries to argue that Xykon isn't evil or feels any sort of dissonance towards him. Designated villainy? Bias towards undead making it impossible to identify with him as some might identify with the "positive" traits of Belkar, Thog, Redcloak, and Tarquin?

Yendor

2010-11-19, 02:26 PM

Without tempting fate, yes. The general argument basically falls down to:

Thog is too stupid to be evil.

Really. Honest. That's almost it in eternity. Oh, sure, they bring up the Fun Loving Personality. And they bring up the Bonding With Elan. But it almost always boils down to People Who Are Stupid Can't Be Evil.

I think you mean "entirety". Hey! It's an anagram! I never noticed that before.

And even Elan knows they're on different ends of the alignment spectrum. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html)

Porthos

2010-11-19, 02:34 PM

The real thing that throws me, honestly, is how even though all the evil characters except Thog have done things arguably just as vile (if not more so) than the big bad Lich himself, no one even tries to argue that Xykon isn't evil or feels any sort of dissonance towards him. Designated villainy? Bias towards undead making it impossible to identify with him as some might identify with the "positive" traits of Belkar, Thog, Redcloak, and Tarquin?

People have sorta kinda tried. But the Ball of Insanity kinda trumped all of that. :smallamused:

One amusing thing though. When Rich was writing Start of Darkness one of his goals was to write a backstory to Xykon without giving him even a glimmer of "softening". While he intentionally put a (somewhat) sympathetic spotlight on Redcloak's motivation, he just wanted to make Xykon completely repellant.

And even here he didn't quite succeed. I say that because when SoD first came out, a couple of people (thankfully only a couple) said that SoD "showed" that Xykon wasn't completely at fault for his evil acts. Or that he had something of an excuse for his Start of Darkness (even if most of the things that followed were his fault).

And what was this "excuse" that helped "explain" Xykon's decent into depravity?

It was the fact that Wizards looked down (and mocked) Sorcerers as not being the equal of themselves. And that Xykon had to put up with insults during his life.

Yep. The fact that Xykon had to put up with people saying bad things about him made him, apparently, somewhat sympathetic to people. And thus explained why he started to go down a bad road.

The mind boggles.

Thankfully, it was only one or two people. But it just goes to show that if you give a fictional character even the slightest glimmer of humanity, there will be people who will latch on to it and go in all sorts of wild directions.

I think you mean "entirety". Hey! It's an anagram! I never noticed that before.

Spellchecker error. :smalltongue:

Thanks. Fixing.

Zevox

2010-11-19, 02:52 PM

And even here he didn't quite succeed. I say that because when SoD first came out, a couple of people (thankfully only a couple) said that SoD "showed" that Xykon wasn't completely at fault for his evil acts. Or that he had something of an excuse for his Start of Darkness (even if most of the things that followed were his fault).

And what was this "excuse" that helped "explain" Xykon's decent into depravity?

It was the fact that Wizards looked down (and mocked) Sorcerers as not being the equal of themselves. And that Xykon had to put up with insults during his life.

Yep. The fact that Xykon had to put up with people saying bad things about him made him, apparently, somewhat sympathetic to people. And thus explained why he started to go down a bad road.

The mind boggles.
*twitch* Indeed it does. Really, because a couple of people looked down on him, some readers found Xykon sympathetic? The single biggest mass-murderer in the comic? They guy who snapped because he lost the ability to taste bad coffee? And after reading that speech he gave Redcloak at the end of SoD?

Wow, some people really will believe anything and latch onto any excuses to support it.

Zevox

Gift Jeraff

2010-11-19, 03:02 PM

It was the fact that Wizards looked down (and mocked) Sorcerers as not being the equal of themselves. And that Xykon had to put up with insults during his life.

Yep. The fact that Xykon had to put up with people saying bad things about him made him, apparently, somewhat sympathetic to people. And thus explained why he started to go down a bad road.

And here I was thinking the coffee scene made him seem more sympathetic. :smallamused:

Porthos

2010-11-19, 03:07 PM

Really, because a couple of people looked down on him, some readers found Xykon sympathetic? The single biggest mass-murderer in the comic? They guy who snapped because he lost the ability to taste bad coffee? And after reading that speech he gave Redcloak at the end of SoD?
Well, there's always Poe's Law to take into account. But this doesn't exactly trip my Poedar, as it were.:smallamused:

Maybe sympathetic wasn't the quite word for that exact post. But he specifically mentions the bit about Rich not wanting to "devillianify" Xykon, and how he thinks that SoD did indeed do that a bit.

Even so, I think that there are others in that thread which are stronger than that post. But I can't be bothered to comb through it.

And here I was thinking the coffee scene made him seem more sympathetic. :smallamused:
Tragic fits more, I think. But I understand the point. :smallamused:

Stmr5000

2010-11-19, 03:26 PM

Porthos

2010-11-19, 03:29 PM

All that aside, I don't see anything extraordinarily wrong with today's little display.

Torture is Bad, m'kay.

Stmr5000

2010-11-19, 03:33 PM

Torture is Bad, m'kay.

Undeniably. And I did say that Tarquin does some evil stuff in the past, I was referring to the light show specifically.

Shale

2010-11-19, 03:35 PM

Burning people alive isn't torture?

Porthos

2010-11-19, 03:37 PM

Undeniably. And I did say that Tarquin does some evil stuff in the past, I was referring to the light show specifically.

Burning people to death is torture. Torture that results in death, yes. But torture nonetheless. The fact that it was for Entertainment Purposes just drop kicks it well over the Moral Event Horizon. This is straight out of Nero and Caligula.

And last time I checked, leaders weren't taught to emulate those two.

As for the rape comment before, Sex Without Consent is, by definition, rape. Torturing someone into marrying you means, by definition, consent can't be given. So calling Tarquin a rapist is entirely justified.

Hawkeye

2010-11-19, 03:38 PM

All that aside, I don't see anything extraordinarily wrong with today's little display.

*twitch*

So that means that nailing people down and setting them on fire is not 'extraordinarily wrong'?

Damaris

2010-11-19, 03:39 PM

Also, how is Tarquin punishing slaves because it helps keep in place his repressive government *not* evil? And would these slaves really be that happy to escape somewhere into the mountains with their bare lives if their enslavement wasn't so bad?

Porthos

2010-11-19, 03:41 PM

*twitch*

So that means that nailing people down and setting them on fire is not 'extraordinarily wrong'?

They're slaves. They deserved what was coming to them.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a35/BuckGodot/Icons/icon_sarcasm.gif
/Do I have to post that disclaimer?

Psyren

2010-11-19, 03:41 PM

1) Slaves escaping is clearly a crime in the EoB.
2) Slaves are important enough to the infrastructure that it is in General T's interest to prevent escape.
3) Punishment is an important crime deterrent.
4) The punishment needs to be severe enough to make sure that the other slaves get the point.

1) That is a question of law, not morals.
2) [citation needed]
3) See (1)
4) "If I'm brutal enough to group X, groups Y and Z will stay in line" is textbook Evil.

cho_j

2010-11-19, 03:47 PM

And before people go on about slavery, keep in mind, this is not necessarily the American system, which was very bad. In fact, for the majority of history, slaves didn't do that bad, to the point that some slaves owned slaves themselves.

Well, the historical fact here is true— in many African societies, for instance, slavery was the economic equivalent to the European land-ownership system. Because these societies didn't believe in owning land, they owned people, and the wealth the people produced went to their owner, rather than the wealth the land in Europe produced going to its owner. Those slaves, far from always being the downtrodden, beaten, horrifically treated kind you got in the New World, could be soldiers, governors (if their owner was a king) and so on.

BUT, that has absolutely no bearing on the slaves in the Empire of Blood. Seriously, chains around the neck, very glad to be saved by V and Haley, under the rule of a nation with its own death squad and whose beauty queen mauled her opponents... these slaves ARE of a very exploited, terribly treated variety. I'm not going to argue that slavery in and of itself is always bad, but the way these slaves are being treated IS.

It is irrelevant to this debate that sometimes in history, people have been treated fine as slaves, because the slaves we see in the comic are not being treated well.

Somewhere

2010-11-19, 03:48 PM

I find it interesting that people automatically assume that those slaves are being burned alive.
For all we know, the soldiers could just slit their throats first, then do that nailing and burn stuff.

No, I'm not saying Tarquin isn't evil. No, I'm not saying that today's comic is a mark of not-evil.
What I am saying: The recapture and killing of escaped prisoners is FACT.
How they're killed is ASSUMED.

And for the record, it's the recapture and killing that I find that's yet another mark in the Lawful Evil column. How the killing is done is irrelevant to me.

Stmr5000

2010-11-19, 03:50 PM

Burning people alive isn't torture?

No, it isn't. It's execution, and executions play an important role in society.

*twitch*

So that means that nailing people down and setting them on fire is not 'extraordinarily wrong'?

Wrong? Delectably so. Extraordinarily wrong? Not really. He's enforcing his laws. That is, of course, the purpose of government, to unsure that order is maintained.

As for the rape comment before, Sex Without Consent is, by definition, rape. Torturing someone into marrying you means, by definition, consent can't be given. So calling Tarquin a rapist is entirely justified.

I said I wasn't going into this, but since you insist, allow me to point out that only marriage was ever indisputably mentioned. Anything that occurs as a result of that marriage is purely left to the imagination.

ZakRenning

2010-11-19, 03:51 PM

I think that Tarquin is such a nice guy!!! He is just as sweet and loyal and kind as... well... as Xykon! Haha truly he is a awesome character... but it is because he is a bastard.:smalltongue:

Porthos

2010-11-19, 03:51 PM

It's also irrelvant because Rich is on record that slavery is evil in his campaign.

Or at the very least, he has said that selling people into slavery is evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559967&postcount=4). If selling people into slavery is evil, then it stands to reason that the institution of slavery is evil as well.

Again, at least in OotSland.

Damaris

2010-11-19, 03:52 PM

Wrong? Delectably so. Extraordinarily wrong? Not really. He's enforcing his laws. That is, of course, the purpose of government, to unsure that order is maintained.
So a government enforcing laws can never do wrong? No matter the kind of government and the kind of laws?

Gift Jeraff

2010-11-19, 03:55 PM

No, it isn't. It's execution, and executions play an important role in society.
What if they survive the burning? Does it become torture then?

Porthos

2010-11-19, 03:56 PM

No, it isn't. It's execution, and executions play an important role in society.

Without going into Real Life, even in the countries that have legalized capital punishment, I will point out that many types of execution have been declared "inhumane" or "cruel and unusual".

Thus, it follows, that some forms of execution are "worse" than others.

===

Still all of this is irrelevant because I think it is pretty clear that Rich is saying in his campaign/strip/story that Tarquin is reprehensible. With today being the evil cherry on top of the evil sundae.

If you think differently, or if you think such things are just peachy, you are of course free to disagree. But I think it is pretty clear where the vast majority of the board stands. :smallamused:

Psyren

2010-11-19, 03:56 PM

Stmr, you keep confusing Law and Good. They are not the same thing.

Porthos

2010-11-19, 03:57 PM

So a government enforcing laws can never do wrong?

That pretty much is the credo of the Lawful Evil government. :smallsmile:

Hawk7915

2010-11-19, 03:58 PM

Alright, so it's clear that Tarquin is very like Nale in that he does whatever it takes to get what he wants. He tortures at least one woman to get her to marry him (though the claims of rape are unproven, not that I'm opening that can of worms again), betrays cities and people he's worked with, and generally relies on brutality and deception to get his way.

All that aside, I don't see anything extraordinarily wrong with today's little display. Let's look at the facts.

1) Slaves escaping is clearly a crime in the EoB.
2) Slaves are important enough to the infrastructure that it is in General T's interest to prevent escape.
3) Punishment is an important crime deterrent.
4) The punishment needs to be severe enough to make sure that the other slaves get the point.

So what did Tarquin do that any responsible leader wouldn't? I mean yeah, he spoiled the effect for Elan by telling him how the light show works.

And before people go on about slavery, keep in mind, this is not necessarily the American system, which was very bad. In fact, for the majority of history, slaves didn't do that bad, to the point that some slaves owned slaves themselves.

I posted in the main thread for the comic as well, but a quick recap on my arguments against this:

1) D&D morality is such that there is absolute good and evil. Yes, yes, there have been societies in the real world that used slaves and it was perfectly normal and was it evil I don't know. But in D&D, having so little respect for human dignity, life, and freedom as to enslave someone against their will is wrong.

2) Related to above. Law does not = Good, especially in D&D society. That's why we have a lawful evil alignment; for people who's codes of conduct are tyrannical, oppressive, and vicious.

3) On deterrence: The slaves were tortured to death in the mountains, miles from the city. No one but Tarquin or the soldiers (and Elan) knows or could know. Only word of mouth will make this a deterrent, and without "the body" won't be effective. For all the slaves know, the guards are just saying they killed all the escapees in the mountains and burned their bodies for a display because they failed; the slaves really did escape and they can too! A deterrent would be public execution, or the hanging of the dead bodies near slave quarters "as a warning". What Tarquin did was wholly, unapologeticlly cruel and evil for evil's sake.

Sigh.

Kaytara

2010-11-19, 03:58 PM

As for the rape comment before, Sex Without Consent is, by definition, rape. Torturing someone into marrying you means, by definition, consent can't be given. So calling Tarquin a rapist is entirely justified.

If Tarquin were just after sex, consent or no, he would just keep sex slaves. No, marriage strikes me more as a political tool first and foremost. There is no evidence that sex is part of the equation. One doesn't equal to the other unless getting heirs is a priority.

FoE

2010-11-19, 03:59 PM

The notion that Tarquin isn't Evil because he's following his society's precepts is flat-out ridunkulous. The Empire of Blood is a puppet state manufactured by Tarquin; all of its laws were created by him and his patsies. By that vein of logic, nothing that Tarquin does can be considered Evil, because his word is ultimately what governs "morality" in the EoB.

In any case, the "moral relativism" argument goes out of the window when you consider this is a D&D setting, and morality is governed by a higher power — the gods themselves. By the standards of the deities of that realm, what Tarquin has done is unrepentingly evil.

Damaris

2010-11-19, 04:09 PM

Porthos

2010-11-19, 04:18 PM

If Tarquin were just after sex, consent or no, he would just keep sex slaves. No, marriage strikes me more as a political tool first and foremost. There is no evidence that sex is part of the equation. One doesn't equal to the other unless getting heirs is a priority.

If marriage gives the veneerer of respectability to having sex, though...

In fact, we don't even know if he has "sex slaves" or even has sex outside of marriage. Sure that strip we all know about implied it. But later events showed that nothing happened.

My take is Tarquin either A) doesn't have sex outside of marriage/engagement or B) he gets a different type of "thrill" out of having sex with someone that he has crushed the will out of.

I would point out that having nine wives (with an eye on a tenth) sure does seem to point to the "I'll use marriage as a way of having legal sex - and when I tire of her, I'll move on to someone else" theory.

Is it proven? Well no. But unless I see some strong evidence to the contrary, that's the story I'm sticking to. :smallwink:

JonestheSpy

2010-11-19, 04:30 PM

Actually, I'd say it's pretty obvious that you can discuss modern western values in relation to the strip, because the OoSworld IS pretty much modern America, with just different scenery. They talk like Americans, they make modern cultural references all the time, etc. Archfiends hang around the watercooler and keep photos of being drunk in college. Young male dragons read dragon porn magazines. Sylphs get law degrees, while the other lawyers walk around in modern suits.

Their mindset is clearly modern Western civilization, not medieval or whatever. And that's fine - it's a comedy based on satirizing a very modern western game, and though the strip has become much more of a dramatic story, that doesn't change the initial premise.

So the idea that we can't judge actions in the strip by modern standards is a total load of hooey.

pendell

2010-11-19, 04:39 PM

Pretty much, yes.

"we don't have enough evidence of evil acts done by him, to be certain he hasn't changed alignment since the strip 50 flashback"

I was one of the people making that argument. I flipped over to 'okay , he's evil' when he betrayed the bounty hunters to the court system.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell

2010-11-19, 04:49 PM

Alright, so it's clear that Tarquin is very like Nale in that he does whatever it takes to get what he wants. He tortures at least one woman to get her to marry him (though the claims of rape are unproven, not that I'm opening that can of worms again), betrays cities and people he's worked with, and generally relies on brutality and deception to get his way.

All that aside, I don't see anything extraordinarily wrong with today's little display. Let's look at the facts.

1) Slaves escaping is clearly a crime in the EoB.

2) Slaves are important enough to the infrastructure that it is in General T's interest to prevent escape.

If the EOB's laws conflict with universal morality as defined by D&D core, then the EOB's laws are evil and enforcing them is an evil act. This is where the chaotic good alignment comes from -- it is possible for a society to become evil. In such a society, it is not possible to be both lawful and good at the same time.

3) Punishment is an important crime deterrent.

4) The punishment needs to be severe enough to make sure that the other slaves get the point.

It doesn't take a great deal of punishment to deter crime, or so I've heard studies say. Taking away people's bread ration deters crime. Making them work in the fields instead of in the house is a deterrent. Flogging them is a deterrent.

Killing people -- most importantly , killing people in an exceptionally cruel scale -- is, for the sake of deterrence, on a scale of spanking a baby with an axe. It's the sort of punishment which in Braveheart would be reserved for traitors to the crown, not for escaped slaves.

Burning people alive for escaping from slavery, even in a slave society, is a punishment grossly out of proportion to the crime, excessively cruel, and therefore an evil action in the D&D 3.5 universe.

So what did Tarquin do that any responsible leader wouldn't?

A responsible leader in a slave culture would have captured them and returned them to their masters so they could then be an economic asset again. It would then be up to the masters to punish the slaves, which for a first offence would probably be flogging and/or bread and water for an extended period of time.

Execution would be reserved for the leader of the slave gang, as an example to the rest, but not the entire group.

And before people go on about slavery, keep in mind, this is not necessarily the American system, which was very bad. In fact, for the majority of history, slaves didn't do that bad, to the point that some slaves owned slaves themselves.

There are slave cultures in the world today. Unless you have been a slave in one of them, I doubt you can speak with any authority as to just how bad it can be. I can't either, but I have dealt with organizations attempting to stop that.

Somehow I don't think the EOB is one of the more pleasant places in the multiverse to be a slave.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Kish

2010-11-19, 06:05 PM

No, it isn't.

...Wow.

I said I wasn't going into this,

If you didn't want to open the can of worms, you shouldn't have done so. "I'm not going to open this can of worms, but here's the can opener," doesn't play well.

but since you insist, allow me to point out that only marriage was ever indisputably mentioned. Anything that occurs as a result of that marriage is purely left to the imagination.
And no one in the comic actually said that Tarquin and the ambassador aren't from Bizarro World and, therefore, don't mean the opposite of everything they seem to be saying. It's about as relevant as the fact that no one explicitly said that Mr. "Your father can still bathe an ape" doesn't balk somewhere between coerced-by-torture marriage and coerced sex. You are arguing for an absurdity, in between saying you don't want to argue the matter.

Kaytara

2010-11-19, 06:45 PM

What political reasons would he have for marrying the ambassador of some conquered city though?

I would point out that having nine wives (with an eye on a tenth) sure does seem to point to the "I'll use marriage as a way of having legal sex - and when I tire of her, I'll move on to someone else" theory.

Is it proven? Well no. But unless I see some strong evidence to the contrary, that's the story I'm sticking to. :smallwink:

Marriages are pretty much the standard way for sealing alliances.

A marriage would support the facade of diplomatic relations with whatever nation they need "diplomatic" relations with at the time. Meaning that, once the bride starts getting too uncooperative or a new "alliance" becomes necessary, the previous bride gets scrapped to make room for the new one.

Tarquin has ninjas ready to kill anyone mid-word who so much as utters an ill word about their fasci-.... fascinatingly fabulous Empire. Worrying about his sex life having a "veneer of respectability" doesn't seem like something he'd be concerned about, IMHO.

Sure, it's possible he gets off on establishing his power through rape or crushing the will of female prisoners, but that's a pretty specific character trait that doesn't automatically come with just being "evil". (I mean, look at Belkar. Do we have any evidence he's the rapist type?) Since the explanation of marriage as a political tool fits the amount of scheming and manouevring he puts into politics otherwise, I'll be sticking with that in the absence of other evidence.

Zevox

2010-11-19, 10:33 PM

So what did Tarquin do that any responsible leader wouldn't?
He condones slavery and executed people by burning them alive. Those are two things I'd certainly not ascribe to "any responsible leader." Among others.

Zevox

Damaris

2010-11-20, 03:52 AM

That pretty much is the credo of the Lawful Evil government. :smallsmile:
Well, that *is* pretty convenient if you're also the one *making* the laws. :smallbiggrin:

Marriages are pretty much the standard way for sealing alliances.
A marriage would support the facade of diplomatic relations with whatever nation they need "diplomatic" relations with at the time. Meaning that, once the bride starts getting too uncooperative or a new "alliance" becomes necessary, the previous bride gets scrapped to make room for the new one.

Yeah, but my point was, why would he need to seal and alliance with the "Free City of Doom"? He owns that city by now, and not even through his current empire; I just don't see any reason for establishing a connection between the Empire of Blood and that city.
(Not saying that we've got a full explanation for why he's marrying these women, mind; though personally I think it's just a familly-friendly way of saying that he *does* rape them.)

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 04:43 AM

No, it isn't. It's execution, and executions play an important role in society.

Torture does not always exist simply for interrogation- it can be used as a punishment for crimes, as well.

Any form of execution that is exceptionally torturous (such as being burned alive) might qualify as "Death By Torture".

As to whether they're burned alive, Tarquin's phrasing does seem to imply it- as if, by setting them on fire, the "rebellious little ...." willl get their comeuppance.

Which would make little sense if they're already dead.

I was one of the people making that argument. I flipped over to 'okay , he's evil' when he betrayed the bounty hunters to the court system.

So was I- hence my phrasing that the argument made sense during the first few strips of Tarquin.

Ashen Lilies

2010-11-20, 04:49 AM

You don't bother nailing dead people down.

pendell

2010-11-20, 06:08 AM

Y'know, I've been thinking about this overnight, and I think there may be a way that this is -- while still cruel and evil -- a rational act, rather than simply gratuitous cruelty for the sake of brutality.

The precedent that occurs to my mind is the rebellion of Spartacus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus). He led a slave revolt against Rome. When the war was over and the slaves were captured, the prisoners were crucified at every milepost from Capua, where the rebellion began, to Rome itself. Crucifixion, incidentally, is among the most painful ways to die and this war -- the third servile war -- was called the Gladiator War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War).

Why did the Romans do this?

Well, you must remember that in Roman society slaves outnumbered masters by a LOT. In fact, in every slave society I can remember slaves outnumber their masters by a LOT. In every slave society, the slaves always have the power to sweep away the masters like a horse throwing a rider, or a herd of cattle to overrun the few cowboys and hands assigned to keep them orderly.

Hopper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlWZZSD4irM) explains it all.

Thus, every slave society I am aware of survives by inculcating psychological despair in the slaves. They do this by a heavy doctrine of race-based, caste-based, or something similar sense of inferiority -- that the slaves are lesser creatures than the masters, and it is utterly hopeless to win. Any incident where a slave defies a master -- or worse, where a slave kills a master -- weakens these psychological chains, threatens the very foundations of slave society itself.

Which is why no slave society can tolerate armed rebellion or defiance in the slightest measure. Which is why such defiance, when it occurs, is punished in truly graphic and heinous ways, even in countries which ostensibly had prohibitions against 'cruel and unusual punishment' built into their basic laws.

We do know guards were assaulted (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html) during the slaves' escape. It is possible Tarquin is not aware that outsiders were involved -- he may think that this is a slave revolt or something similar fostered within the EOB itself. And even if he is aware that outsiders are involved, he absolutely must prevent the other slaves in the EOB from getting ideas. Otherwise those slaves might very well do what Tarquin would certainly do in their place, which is revolt and kill the masters, pay back every slash of the whip, every tear, every petty cruelty stored up for generations in one savage night of hate.

When the Romans crucified a man at every milepost on the road, they didn't do it because they were movie villains who got their jollies from killing people. They did it because I believe they thought the alternative was death for themselves and their families in their beds. This is why the Egyptians drowned untold Hebrew boys in the river. This is why, in my country, abolitionists were murdered and teaching slaves to read was a crime.

Does this justify or excuse Tarquin's actions? IMO, no. But it renders them understandable and rational in their context. But far from justifying his actions, I believe it explains precisely why slavery is -- in D&D terms because we can't talk real world -- a universal evil. Because to maintain a slave society is to maintain a situation where a certain class of human beings is permanently degraded , permanently kept in chains physical and psychological. The masters foster despair, when the greatest gift humans can be given is hope. This was true even in Rome where slavery was not race-based. The same tools of repression, psychological inferiority, supremacy myths, and savage cruelty were used because the institution they upheld was the same -- that a vast sea of humans should be commanded and mastered by a minority.

So it is possible that Tarquin's actions were understandable and rational in his context. That doesn't make his actions justified or righteous. It simply means that he lives in an evil society -- a society he himself created. Because he has been the dominant force in this kingdom for who knows how many years, he himself must be made to take a large share of responsibility both for this institution and for the cruelty by which it is upheld.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 06:41 AM

So you're saying Tarquin is between Redcloak and Xykon in Evil. He doesn't really seem to do evil for a good cause but nor is he a childish impulse driven sociopathic idiot like Xykon who does it for the evulz. He does it cos its the smartest thing to do, the easiest way to get what he wants.
Anyway, since the title of the threas says 'in OOTS' we can quite clearly say taht at the very least Rich, ie GOD thinks Tarquin is Evil

SPoD

2010-11-20, 06:46 AM

Yeah, but my point was, why would he need to seal and alliance with the "Free City of Doom"? He owns that city by now, and not even through his current empire; I just don't see any reason for establishing a connection between the Empire of Blood and that city.
(Not saying that we've got a full explanation for why he's marrying these women, mind; though personally I think it's just a familly-friendly way of saying that he *does* rape them.)

He proposed to her BEFORE he owned the Free City of Doom. He likely has a diplomatic Plan B similar to his military one, and if she had accepted, he would have used Sending to contact his men and say, "Hey, never mind the betrayal." Instead, the Empire of Blood would be seen as the brave friends who helped them, their captain/ambassador would marry the general, ties would be established, and the city would be absorbed harmlessly and with less risk of exposing the connection between the EOB and the EOT.

But she turned him down, so he said, "Screw it, Plan A it is." He only wants to marry her now for spite and/or personal gratification.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 06:57 AM

He said that "the worst of the violence could have been avoided" if she accepted his offer. Thats pretty ambigous but it implies that the takeover would've still gone down

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 07:10 AM

Does this justify or excuse Tarquin's actions? IMO, no. But it renders them understandable and rational in their context. But far from justifying his actions, I believe it explains precisely why slavery is -- in D&D terms because we can't talk real world -- a universal evil. Because to maintain a slave society is to maintain a situation where a certain class of human beings is permanently degraded , permanently kept in chains physical and psychological. The masters foster despair, when the greatest gift humans can be given is hope.

For those that are interested in the sources for slavery in D&D being considered an evil institution, whether or not individual slaveowners are Evil:

Evil characters and creatures debase and destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
(these do have issues over what counts as "debasing" and what counts as "unacceptable oppression of others")

FRCS pages 86-87: Slavery
Few of the human kingdoms and cities of the Heartlands permit slavery within their borders. Indentured servitude and serfdom are relatively common practices that approach the brutality of slavery in some lands, but even the most wretched serf or servant is considered a human being, not property.

Conditions of slavery vary wildly between different lands. Slaves in Mulhorand outnumber the free citizens- and, not surprisingly, the life of a slave in Mulhorand is little worse than the life of a peasant in most other lands. Slaves in Thay and Unther endure far harsher treatment, both by callous masters and a society that considers them to be nonentities.

Regardless of the conditions, most Heartland humans find slavery extremely distasteful at the very least, and more than a few consider it an abomination in the sight of the gods.
Given that Mulhorand is ruled by a paladin, and Lawful Good deities like Horus have considerable influence, this may imply that an element of tolerance of slavery is not incompatible with a Good character that can't commit Evil acts.

BoVD page 9: Bringing Despair
Evil creatures often enjoy spreading pain and misery to others. Some do this because breaking the spirits of others makes them feel superior; others sow despair for the sheer joy it brings them.
Here, "bringing despair" is considered an evil act in general- though extra weight seems to be placed on enjoying it.

BoED page 11: Being ahead of your time
On the other hand, your campaign world might more closely reflect the realities of life in Earth's Dark or Middle Ages. Perhaps women are not viewed as men's equals or even sentient beings in their own right, slavery is widespread, testimony from serfs is only acceptable if extracted through torture, and humans of a certain skin tone (let alone nonhumans) are viewed as demonic creatures.

It is vitally important to remember one thing: these factors don't change anything else said in this chapter (or in The Book of Vile Darkness) about what constitutes a good or evil deed. Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil.
Here, it's very clear that the institution of slavery itself, is considered evil.

Champions of Ruin page 5: Tradition/There Is No Evil

One potential cause for evil is simply following the norms and standards of your ancestors and society. Evil is defined by society, not by the inherent laws of gods or nature. What might be considered the darkest taboo in one place might be a perfectly acceptable practice somewhere else. For example, slavery is illegal in many parts of Faerun but is fairly common in Thay, where even a good person might keep a slave or two simply because it is a societal norm.

Characters might use this philosophy to justify their actions, and they could very well be correct, depending on their individual circumstances.
This is given as an example of a philosophy that can end up leading to an evil alignment- but also allows for a great deal of nuance.

Cityscape page 148: Slavery
The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in a campaign.
Reiteration of what BoED says.

4E Dark Sun Campaign Setting page 197: Slavery and Alignment
Keeping slaves is not compatible with a good alignment, but doing so does not necessarily make a character evil. Most slave owners are unaligned. Overseers who treat their slaves brutally are definitely engaging in evil acts that should outrage good characters.
The question is whether anything can be reasonably done about the situation. Given how commonplace slavery is on Athas, good characters can't reasonably attempt to free every slave they meet, nor should they recklessly challenge slave owners who are too powerful to overcome.
Good characters should be anguished by the abundance of human misery in civilized areas, however, and they should be dedicated to aiding however they can short of attempting suicidal actions.
This is (possibly because of the edition change?) the harshest of all- under this, one cannot be a slaveowner and good (either Good or Lawful Good)- whereas previously there was an element of "Good people might be able to own slaves and still be Good."

SPoD

2010-11-20, 07:27 AM

This is (possibly because of the edition change?) the harshest of all- under this, one cannot be a slaveowner and good (either Good or Lawful Good)- whereas previously there was an element of "Good people might be able to own slaves and still be Good."

Definitely because of the edition change. In 4E, the existence of "Unaligned" has made it so that being Good means having an active commitment to doing Good acts and such. You can't be Good just by never doing evil acts and being generally nice to people, you have to be part of Team Good, going out and doing good deeds because you're Good, etc. To have an alignment is a choice, and if you choose Good, you can't keep slaves.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 07:31 AM

I dunno I'd say that slavery is never good and always an evil action since at the very least it is 'opressing' others. Even if you give them stellar care and treatment, they are slaves and cannot leave. Thats oppression

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 07:34 AM

You can't be Good just by never doing evil acts and being generally nice to people, you have to be part of Team Good, going out and doing good deeds because you're Good, etc.

It might not be quite that far for all such alignments though. Some Evil characters aren't especially "committed to evil"- they're just gits. In Dark Sun and in Faerun, quite a few NPCs are evil but not especially concerned with "the Force of Evil"- they're just self-centred and ruthless.

Jarlaxle is one in Faerun.

And all the Sorcerer Kings are, in Dark Sun.

Some such characters might even believe they're doing the best they can for others.

And in 4E, there's no way for the PCs to know the alignment of any NPCs.

I dunno I'd say that slavery is never good and always an evil action since at the very least it is 'opressing' others. Even if you give them stellar care and treatment, they are slaves and cannot leave. Thats oppression

True. But "killing others" for good reasons (and usually "hurting others" in the process of killing them), is a staple of D&D adventurers, even paladins.

Which raises the question of what would make "oppressing others" different.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 07:38 AM

:smalleek: Jarlaxle is not evil. He is Chaotic Neutral on legs, wearing a funny hat. If ever there was a reason to dislike 4ED

Thats a good damn point hamishspence. But you can justify killing them since theres an afterlife and pain isn't represented via HP. Which is why torturing isnt good but killing is.

Lord_Gareth

2010-11-20, 07:40 AM

:bigeek: Jarlaxle is not evil. He is Chaotic Neutral on legs, wearing a funny hat. If ever there was a reason to dislike 4ED

You didn't read the same books I did, friend. Jarl is evil. He's just ruthless evil, as opposed to "AHAHAHAHAHA I'M SO BADLY WRITTEN!" evil.

(Mr. Burlew, your entire comic is a deconstruction of the above. Please, take no offense)

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 07:41 AM

He does evil deeds a lot in the novels.

And is listed as NE in both FRCS (3rd ed) and Underdark (3.5 ed).

So "Jarlaxle is evil" is not a new idea.

Thats a good damn point hamishspence. But you can justify killing them since theres an afterlife and pain isn't represented via HP. Which is why torturing isnt good but killing is.

BoED went with "inflicting excessive suffering is evil"- great idea, but unfortunately badly implemented.

The fact that evil characters (depending on the afterlife) not only suffer a lot, but empower the Force of Evil, may be a big part of why BoED characters are supposed to at least make an effort to redeem Evil characters.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 07:44 AM

Lord_Gareth

2010-11-20, 07:46 AM

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 07:48 AM

Bullocks. There is no reason for some of his good actions. No intelligible reason anyways. Giving back the ruby necklace? Enabling Drizzt's, Entreri's and Catti-Brie's escape? Healing Regis? And then healing Drizzt? All damn noble actions. But he didn't even do them to be nice. He's just...Chaotic Neutal on legs
Im not saying he doesn't do evil. But unlike Belkar, he also does non-self involved Good actions. He's Neutral

In Heroes of Horror, a character who does minor evil acts, primarily toward good ends, and does good acts as well, can be neutral.

In Champions of Ruin, a character who regularly does not so minor evil acts- is Evil, regardless of the fact that they might have Good ends, or do Good acts as well.

So- there's a borderline.

Even Evil beings can occasionally do good acts- on a whim, or for somebody that they feel a connection to- it doesn't make them nonevil, it just means that, while Evil, they're not entirely consistent.

Which the PHB does allow for.

And Evil beings might suffer in the afterlife but they also get to become very powerful demons/devils after enough time dont they? They did in 1E (what i play). So killing them is a ticket to power in some ways. So not as evil as slavery or torture in SOME ways.

The process of transformation into a bottom-rank devil, causes them to lose all sense of identity.

And I think, given the lack of intelligence of bottom rank demons (manes, dretches) this may be the case for them as well.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 07:49 AM

He can have those emotional attachments. But he risked his life helping Drizzt and Entreri escape. If he was caught, nothing would have saved him. If Entreri found out about Drizzt's ressurection he would have killed Jarlaxle. He's not redeemed. He's not nice. Hes just random.

Some minor good acts dont stop him being evil if they were done for good reasons. But he doesnt do them for good reasons. He doesn't have a reason. He abandoned his mercenary group to run around upstairs. For no reason beyond Entreri is interesting. He's a goofball. He avoids killing humans if he can help it, though shows no compunction towards drow orcs or wererats. He doesn't like humans more, he probably kills them by the scores before the books run. He's just random.
Compared to Thog, who finds pleasure in food, killing and slavery/torture, seemingly in that order. Thats just only evil. Compared to Elan, who doesn't really have noble ideals, just doesn't like hurting people. Thats good. Jarlaxle has no rhyme or reason to his actions half the time. The other half its pragmatism. But definitly not always, not even most of the time.

Kaytara

2010-11-20, 07:52 AM

Torture does not always exist simply for interrogation- it can be used as a punishment for crimes, as well.

Any form of execution that is exceptionally torturous (such as being burned alive) might qualify as "Death By Torture".

For that matter, realistically, torture IS in fact automatically "death by torture". If the torturer is particularly skilled and knowledgeable, they may keep the victim alive for days. But the sort of painful stuff historical torture involved DID usually end with the victim's death. E.g., it was one of the ways to execute witches.

Yeah, but my point was, why would he need to seal and alliance with the "Free City of Doom"? He owns that city by now, and not even through his current empire; I just don't see any reason for establishing a connection between the Empire of Blood and that city.

He owns it all, sure. He also has to keep it that way. As he said, conquering an Empire through might is easy, losing it is even easier. He can't keep a hold of all that power through military force alone, or even primarily. He actually relies on political manipulation and pulling strings. A political marriage would fit into it. As an example, marrying Zora might help smooth over resentment in the Free City of Doom for helping the Weepies conquer it, and discourage them from attacking the Empire of Blood in the near future. Plus, if the Free City of Doom becomes allied to some other nation, the Empire of Blood becomes quasi-allied to them by proxy. Like I said, political manouevring.

Lord_Gareth

2010-11-20, 07:52 AM

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 07:53 AM

He can have those emotional attachments. But he risked his life helping Drizzt and Entreri escape. If he was caught, nothing would have saved him.

Even evildoers can risk their lives for others.

As to whether he's Chaotic- he might be someone who uses Lawful means (setting up a powerful, disciplined organization) toward Chaotic ends- hence Neutral.

It's easier to justify Neutral on the Chaos/Law axis by a mixture of the two, than Neutral on the Good/Evil axis by a mixture of the two.

Since (especially in FC2) Evil acts outweigh Good ones.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 07:55 AM

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 08:23 AM

Never said he was good, friend. Not even close. Hes Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies. He's going to Pandemonium. He's aimless and pointless and often a prick, but quite often risks his life for meaningless good. He doesn't offer himself to save the world, just a few random people he takes a fancy too. He is Chaotic. Neutral. On legs.

Eh, if evil outweighs good then he's evil on a karma scale.

The NE rather than CE bit is a little odd- but might be because he's not devoted strongly enough to Chaos to be truly Chaotic.

Plus, Pandemonium may have some CE with CN tendencies characters, as well as CN with CE tendencies. Howlers (native to Pandemonium) are listed as CE.

There isn't really a plane designed for characters who are NE with TN tendencies (which might lean slightly toward Law or Chaos).

Though, a generous interpretation of the Outlands, might allow for NE characters who reside there rather than Hades, in one of the Evil "Gate-Towns" that have gates to the Lower Planes.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 08:29 AM

He is frequently described as Lloths agent of chaos. He has to at least be CE, though i dont know 4ED alignments.

He could be CE. Its likely, just not quite as likely as CN IMHO. NE however, seem right out since he does several actions that are almost suicidal and even though they came out in the end, didn't serve him in any way. That kinda risk puts him out of pure unadulterated self interest, though doesn't kick him out of evil neccessarily, I'll concede. Of course i forget why i was arguing this in the first place

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 08:40 AM

He is frequently described as Lloths agent of chaos. He has to at least be CE, though i dont know 4ED alignments.

4E has "Evil" and "Chaotic Evil" with Chaotic Evil being exceptionally destructive, often destroying for the fun of it,

and Evil being more pragmatic- and covering everything from NE to LE.

In The Trial of Cyric The Mad, Cyric at the end appoints as his "Seraph of Lies" a servant of his that, thanks to a deity's curse, is incapable of lying.

Malik: "Seraph of Lies?! But I cannot lie!"
Cyric: "That makes you perfect."

So, Lolth's "agent of Chaos" not actually being Chaotic, but NE with TN or CN tendencies, would be a lovely irony.

Irbis

2010-11-20, 08:51 AM

Once upon a time, there were two characters in the comic. One was named Samantha, the bandit chief. The other was her father.

Rich considered Samantha to be obviously evil, and her father to be "dark side of neutral at best."

You are aware that they appeared for so short period of time and we have seen so little of their deeds that, by now, you can find more examples of evil deeds committed by Roy and Durkon than them? :smallconfused:

In other words, I wouldn't use them to seriously measure anything.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-20, 09:00 AM

Yeah but you can also find more good deeds. You really cant see anything those two did as good, and alot of it was evil, first and foremost, being bandits.

Psyren

2010-11-20, 01:07 PM

wumpus

2010-11-20, 03:17 PM

One of the things that isn't mentioned often in OotS alignment issues is Rich's treatment of the chaotic side of things. Lawful stupid paladins fit in too well and were handled by Miko. On the chaotic side of things:

Elan/Halley chaotic (stupidly) good/chaotic good (but smart enough to be forced into tough decisions)
Vaarsuvius chaotic neutral: (position certain before familicide, will likely be back if given time)
Belkar chaotic evil

Chaotic neutral is so stereotyped as "lets PCs be evil" for so long there was an actual argument that Belkar wasn't evil. To see how it is supposed to be played one merely looks to Vaarsuvius. To me, the perfect CN moment was the killing of Daimyo Kubota in strip 595 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html). While those who consider V to be CG might point out that Elan is being stupid in letting Lord Kubota have a trial, V is only concerned about removing an obstacle that will delay the story. Watching both V and Belkar shows that Belkar kills if he thinks he can get the slightest gain (like a chocolate bar, or even a funny expression on the guys face), V does not. On the other hand, V shows no interest in bringing justice (to me, chaotic justice is always personal, but D&D's definition of chaos has always been weak), just expediency.

Just my take on one of Rich's unsung threads on D&D silliness. I suppose if you allow CN as a license to do anything, subtlety is going to be lost on you.

martianmister

2010-11-20, 03:30 PM

Wait, Vaarsuvius is Chaotic Neutral?

Kish

2010-11-20, 03:35 PM

Irbis

2010-11-20, 03:39 PM

Except Word of God has sussed them out specifically.

So what? First, them being evil is at best informed ability, as we have watched them for too short amount of time to draw any sure conclusions for ourselves, second, using that handful of deeds to compare them to others is silly at best as it easily leads to conclusion anyone who appeared for a longer period in OotS is evil, having committed more evil deeds than them.

Unless you think Roy is also evil, in which case allow me to give up.

Or, to put that in simpler terms - if Rich states "Random Guard #5326 in comic 765 is the most evil CE character in the whole of OotS, sadly, due to the lack of time he appeared in only one strip", will you consider anyone CE by default as he never done anything bad on-screen?

B. Dandelion

2010-11-20, 04:40 PM

You are aware that they appeared for so short period of time and we have seen so little of their deeds that, by now, you can find more examples of evil deeds committed by Roy and Durkon than them? :smallconfused:

In other words, I wouldn't use them to seriously measure anything.

I think that was part of the point, honestly. Rich considered it self-evidently obvious that they were evil just from what he had established in that period of time. Taking the comparatively small-scale things they've done, and knowing they were considered enough to damn them in the eyes of the audience, and looking at Tarquin's far larger-scale deeds in light of that, it seems rather off to expect the author intends you to think he's anything but insanely, blatantly evil. (Which isn't to say he's a flat character, just that there's no justification for his actions that has been offscreen or is forthcoming.)

But out of morbid curiosity, what's Durkon done that stacks up to anything Sam or her dad got up to? Roy's done plenty of that which could be called dodgy, but even if you don't agree with the logic justifying his actions, it's been clearly presented by the narrative itself. With Tarquin, you pretty much have to make it up as you go along.

Dark Matter

2010-11-20, 05:24 PM

If the EOB's laws conflict with universal morality as defined by D&D core, then the EOB's laws are evil and enforcing them is an evil act. This is where the chaotic good alignment comes from -- it is possible for a society to become evil. In such a society, it is not possible to be both lawful and good at the same time.So Roy just ceased to exist when he walked into the EoB? That Paladin in Globblotopia is going to fall because he's not lawful any more?

The big thing about lawful characters is they LIKE the concept of law. They look at a situation and say "there should be a law". That is not the same thing as following evil laws because they're laws. It might force them to choose between good and law, but it doesn't have to. For example T could claim that without law and order most of the people in EoB would starve.

Put Roy in charge of EoB and he'll change the laws.
Put Haley in charge of EoB and she'll get rid of the laws.
Both of them might join a rebel movement against EoB however.

Porthos

2010-11-20, 05:31 PM

Both of them might join a rebel movement against EoB however.

Indeed.

Also: *points at sig*

Irbis

2010-11-20, 05:33 PM

I think that was part of the point, honestly. Rich considered it self-evidently obvious that they were evil just from what he had established in that period of time. Taking the comparatively small-scale things they've done, and knowing they were considered enough to damn them in the eyes of the audience, and looking at Tarquin's far larger-scale deeds in light of that, it seems rather off to expect the author intends you to think he's anything but insanely, blatantly evil.

Um, Rich knows their backstory, their alignment, because he created them in the first place. We don't. We know so little about them using them as yardstick can be used on anyone to ping them evil,

Yes, they're bandits. So, we could guess they're evil - but what makes them different from Haley, who is just a bit more refined sort of bandit? Is she evil, too? After all, she steals from her own party and commits acts of random brutality, making her worse than Samantha.

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 05:39 PM

So Roy just ceased to exist when he walked into the EoB? That Paladin in Globblotopia is going to fall because he's not lawful any more?

I think the original intent may have been "a LE society makes it very hard for LG beings to appear from it- the upbringing, and the norms of the society, would mitigate against it".

That said, while rare, I could see it happening. Scyllua Darkhope was a Paladin of Tyr despite being native to the LE city Zhentil Keep.

Then she was corrupted when she confronted Lord Orgauth, the fiend disguised as a human, who was effectively ruling it at the time. He surrendered, offered to help put right the damage he'd done, she listened to him, and he started leading her down the dark path.

Which ended with her killing him, and the Zhentarium enrolling her, despite the fact that as a paladin she'd been trying to destroy the organization.

Porthos

2010-11-20, 06:18 PM

After all, she steals from her own party and commits acts of random brutality, making her worse than Samantha.

Stole. Past tense.

She's had a bit of a change of outlook in the last 600+ strips.

Pyron

2010-11-20, 06:30 PM

Um, Rich knows their backstory, their alignment, because he created them in the first place. We don't. We know so little about them using them as yardstick can be used on anyone to ping them evil,

Yes, they're bandits. So, we could guess they're evil - but what makes them different from Haley, who is just a bit more refined sort of bandit? Is she evil, too? After all, she steals from her own party and commits acts of random brutality, making her worse than Samantha.

Well, according to the bandit guards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0156.html), Samantha is known to torture and maim her own men, and kidnap attractive men so she can have her way with them.

I don't recall Haley doing anything like that.

Kish

2010-11-20, 06:31 PM

I am skeptical that Haley would balk at stealing from the rest of the party now, but Rich is on record as considering theft chaotic, not evil, anyway. (I don't agree with him, but I'm not the author.)

The "worse than Samantha" comparison wouldn't hold up anyway. I mean, when has Haley castrated another party member?

...Never mind. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html)

Porthos

2010-11-20, 06:44 PM

I am skeptical that Haley would balk at stealing from the rest of the party now,

Here's the thing. It was well established that Haley would never leave an unattended gold piece alone. Yet she leaves a pair of somewhat valuable rubies on the ground, without a second thought. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0469.html) No angst. No looking back at them. No comments about them, whatsoever.

She also has to be talked into searching the Oracle's Tower for treasure. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0568.html) And even then, she says "only enough to help pay for Roy's Resurrection". And once the Oracle shows that he's a bit hard to steal from, she balks entirely without the slightest bit of saddness or exasperation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html) at leaving all of those goodies behind.

And, to top it all off, she's secure enough to joke around with Roy over the concept of screwing the mission, just for a few gold pieces. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html) (The title of the strip, But Seriously, She Won't should be taken into account :smallwink:).

I agree that she was once Chaotic Neutral. But over the course of the comic, I think she has shown enough growth to be straight Chaotic Good now. Her actions in the Empire of Blood are just the final nail in the coffin for me.

I think that Rich's handling of a gradual, but smooth, change when it comes to Haley has been pretty darn good, actually. I don't deny for a moment that she was a less-than-stellar role model at the beginning of the strip. But now? Well, I personally have been convinced. But YMMV, as the saying goes.

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 06:51 PM

I agree that she was once Chaotic Neutral. But over the course of the comic, I think she has shown enough growth to be straight Chaotic Good now. Her actions in the Empire of Blood are just the final nail in the coffin for me.

I think that Rich's handling of a gradual, but smooth, change when it comes to Haley has been pretty darn good, actually. I don't deny for a moment that she was a less-than-stellar role model at the beginning of the strip. But now? Well, I personally have been convinced. But YMMV, as the saying goes.

Seems like a reasonable conclusion. The main thing that cast a little doubt for me, was what she did to Crystal.

And after seeing Don't Split The Party, and hearing what Crystal has done in the past (when she talked to Elan about it), that may not be enough to keep her from being CG.

Porthos

2010-11-20, 06:59 PM

And after seeing Don't Split The Party, and hearing what Crystal has done in the past (when she talked to Elan about it), that may not be enough to keep her from being CG.
Yeah, I think Rich blew it there a bit (by not including it in the main comic, but holding it back for the book), storytelling wise.

The thing for me, and I was just re-reading it a few days ago, is that Haley was almost certainly smart enough to realize thatBozzok was ordering Crystal to kill Haley and so the deal was already off.

And even if she wasn't smart enough to realize that, Crystal had already repeatedly broken "the deal". So I can't begrudge her that much for talking out Crystal when she knew she had the chance.

Regardless, even if one thinks that sneak attacking a mortal foe is less than ideal. Or if even if one thinks that a pre-emptive strike is still bad (although not as bad as premeditated murder), I will say that I never claimed that Haley was a candidate for being Exalted. :smalltongue:

hamishspence

2010-11-20, 07:02 PM

Regardless, even if one thinks that sneak attacking a mortal foe is less than ideal. Or if even if one thinks that a pre-emptive strike is still bad (although not as bad as premeditated murder), I will say that I never claimed that Haley was a candidate for being Exalted. :smalltongue:

Hence my phrasing that one morally dubious act might not keep Haley from being Good (chaotic good).

Irbis

2010-11-20, 07:28 PM

I am skeptical that Haley would balk at stealing from the rest of the party now, but Rich is on record as considering theft chaotic, not evil, anyway. (I don't agree with him, but I'm not the author.)

In that case, I'd agree with you, as stealing can be as bad as maiming.

Here's the thing. It was well established that Haley would never leave an unattended gold piece alone. Yet she leaves a pair of somewhat valuable rubies on the ground, without a second thought. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0469.html) No angst. No looking back at them. No comments about them, whatsoever.

Um, that's not a proof. Last time we see her in that panel, she was standing over them, off-panel. She could have easily grabbed them. If she didn't, did she even knew about them, considering they look like Xykon's "eyes", and he definitely doesn't have any rubies in them?

She also has to be talked into searching the Oracle's Tower for treasure. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0568.html) And even then, she says "only enough to help pay for Roy's Resurrection". And once the Oracle shows that he's a bit hard to steal from, she balks entirely without the slightest bit of saddness or exasperation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html) at leaving all of those goodies behind.

All that proves is that she is not stupid. It is like saying Belkar's reluctance to kill after false character growth makes him good :P

And, to top it all off, she's secure enough to joke around with Roy over the concept of screwing the mission, just for a few gold pieces. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html) (The title of the strip, But Seriously, She Won't should be taken into account :smallwink:).

And yet, once they get to the desert, she gleefully steals from kids. A petty sum for her, a big sum for them.

I agree that she was once Chaotic Neutral. But over the course of the comic, I think she has shown enough growth to be straight Chaotic Good now. Her actions in the Empire of Blood are just the final nail in the coffin for me.

Like killing people in the shower, or murdering EoB guards in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html)? She had her blackjack, they were no threat to her, yet, she killed them fully knowing they would never be raised. That's Belkar-class behaviour. Hell, it isn't that different from Tarquin's orders from the last strip.

Yes, ever since I've seen that scene in Austin Powers or since I've started reading Watch by Pratchett I consider such casual killing one of the worst deeds hero can commit.

GC? Lowest part of the CN, maybe.

Dark Matter

2010-11-20, 08:36 PM

And yet, once they get to the desert, she gleefully steals from kids. A petty sum for her, a big sum for them.Kids who are professional thieves and who were trying to steal from her. Belkar would have killed them.

Like killing people in the shower...You mean killing one specific person. The problem is by OOTS rules, that situation could ONLY be resolved by one of them killing the other. That's their fate, or destiny, or whatever. Haley can't even just leave her there because she's always going to be the same level and they're always going to have that fated link. Further I'm hesitant to call it "murder" since she knew she'd be raised right away.

...or murdering EoB guards in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html)? She had her blackjack, they were no threat to her, yet, she killed them fully knowing they would never be raised. That's Belkar-class behaviour. Hell, it isn't that different from Tarquin's orders from the last strip.No threat? You mean other than them trying to kill her? Self defense isn't murder, and she can't exactly tie them up so they can be taken to jail. If they were raised (we don't know) then those same guards could easily be the ones burning the slaves. Sorry, if you're going to be a minion for the EoB, then you're painting a target on yourself.

Further Belkar does this sort of thing to everyone, all the time, no target needed.

Porthos

2010-11-20, 09:29 PM

IAnd yet, once they get to the desert, she gleefully steals from kids. A petty sum for her, a big sum for them.

And a valuable lesson that those thieves should watch who they steal from. Not anything wrong with it at all.

Unless you think all kids are innocent, by defintion.

murdering EoB guards in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html)?

...

You seem to have a different defintion of murder than I do. So I think I am pretty close to bowing out of this part of the conversation lest it become one of those threads (i.e. the rightly infamous [and more importantly interminable] 'Morally Justified' threads).

She had her blackjack, they were no threat to her, yet, she killed them fully knowing they would never be raised. That's Belkar-class behaviour.

Huh. Killing guards while escaping an evil empire, after being unjustly captured, is Belkar Level Evil.

Right. Got it.

Hell, it isn't that different from Tarquin's orders from the last strip.

Huh.

Yes, ever since I've seen that scene in Austin Powers or since I've started reading Watch by Pratchett I consider such casual killing one of the worst deeds hero can commit.

Well, we all bring different defintions of evil to the table I suppose. But I find it hard to believe baseline DnD (which is what we're talking about here) would view such a thing as a Tarquin Level Moral Event Horizon. But, as always, YMMV.

GC? Lowest part of the CN, maybe.

Well, so too is the entire Order, including Elan, I suppose. But I guess you already intimated that when you said that Roy and Durkon had done worse things than Samantha.

Can't say I agree. But there you are.

=============

EDITED IN UPON REFLECTION:

In an (perhaps futile) attempt to head off this thread from becoming one of those dreaded Morally Justified Threads, I'd like to ask you a question, Irbis:

Do you think Rich is trying to portray Haley in a different light in strips 181-759 than he did with her in strips 1-180? Do you think Rich is trying to do anything with Haley to make her more, for the lack of a better word, "Good".

Not succeeding, mind you. But do you think Rich is trying to do that? And, for purposes of this question, lets include the extra scenes in Don't Split the Party.

Yes, I am well aware of 'Death of the Author'. But I would simply like to know if you think if Rich is trying to make Haley more "Good". And if not, what do you think he is trying to do with the character?

wumpus

2010-11-20, 09:51 PM

Vaarsuvius' original alignment is and was unestablished. The fiends heavily implied it was Something Neutral. The board game calls it "Arrogant Neutral."

Nothing in the comic or other promotional materials has ever called it Chaotic.

Vaarsuvius is easily as chaotic as Elan. I admit, my problem is that D&D simply doesn't define law and chaos very well (if 4E wanted to streamline the alignments, I would have removed law and chaos and formalized exalted and vile). V's goal is "ultimate magical power" (presumably after getting a preview of ump, there is now a new goal of "penultimate magical power", hopefully with a lower price tag attached). This is a completely personal goal, concerns only V (to the point of dropping hubby like a rock after this was pointed out). V remains neutral, while pursuing a goal strictly for herself, is typically unwilling to either harm or help others without reason.

I have never had the slightest hint that V cares anything about society, the honor of organization, or any other lawful ideals. While a neutral might act within them for convenience, V seems as oblivious to such things a 'e* is to gender. I am convinced that V is CN.

*I also seem to be in the minority of those who think V has no gender at all. V's player (not possible since Rich has since stated that the OotS PCs do not have players) never wrote a gender down on the character sheet. Ever since, V acts consistent with that blank line.

Porthos

2010-11-20, 09:53 PM

V's player (not possible since Rich has since stated that the OotS PCs do not have players) never wrote a gender down on the character sheet. Ever since, V acts consistent with that blank line.

V filled out an employment form for Roy when they first met in Origins. And the gender field was indeed filled in.

But there was an ink smudge so Roy couldn't read the answer. :smalltongue:

Zevox

2010-11-21, 01:04 AM

Vaarsuvius is easily as chaotic as Elan. I admit, my problem is that D&D simply doesn't define law and chaos very well (if 4E wanted to streamline the alignments, I would have removed law and chaos and formalized exalted and vile). V's goal is "ultimate magical power" (presumably after getting a preview of ump, there is now a new goal of "penultimate magical power", hopefully with a lower price tag attached). This is a completely personal goal, concerns only V (to the point of dropping hubby like a rock after this was pointed out). V remains neutral, while pursuing a goal strictly for herself, is typically unwilling to either harm or help others without reason.

I have never had the slightest hint that V cares anything about society, the honor of organization, or any other lawful ideals. While a neutral might act within them for convenience, V seems as oblivious to such things a 'e* is to gender. I am convinced that V is CN.
On the other hand, V has never displayed any concern for chaotic ideals, such as freedom or individualism. We saw her quite emphatically fail to understand the latter with the Black Dragons, judging them as group rather than as individuals.

In my view, V, at least prior to the soul splice, was True Neutral. She had her personal goal, arcane knowledge and power. She had no particular use she wanted to put it to (Roy's quest was largely incidental, as her decision to join it was based on the speed with which adventurers level up), but was simply interested in it for its own sake. She was neither particularly altruistic nor particularly selfish or cruel. In short, she displayed no particular traits of good, evil, law, or chaos. That's one version of True Neutral for you.

Incidentally, if you wish to discuss this further, there is a "Vaarsuvius' Alignment" thread near the bottom of the current page of threads, nowhere near old enough for thread necromancy to be an issue. Seems a more appropriate place for it. (My post here is largely a reiteration of the first paragraph of my first post in that thread.)

Zevox

cho_j

2010-11-21, 03:10 AM

Yes, ever since I've seen that scene in Austin Powers or since I've started reading Watch by Pratchett I consider such casual killing one of the worst deeds hero can commit.

Which puts you in perfect agreement with (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0537.html) Celia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html). That's fine, and when it comes to some action/comedy stories, and certainly to many real life situation, I have the same opinion. But the thing about OotS is that it is set in a DnD world and thus about professional adventurers. Combat is what they DO. As much as those of us who, like Celia, are NOT adventurers don't come up against problems that can or need to be solved with violence (like, for instance, rescuing slaves from armed guards), Haley has been dealing with potentially or necessarily violent situations for years. That is the kind of hero she is.

Additionally, you could argue that Haley doesn't CASUALLY kill anyone. Outside of combat where it was pretty much an "I kill them or they kill me" type of situation (the guards, e.g.), Haley has only killed Crystal, her personal nemesis, who she had been fighting for years and who she would have to endlessly keep fighting otherwise. That's not casual killing for the sake of cheap action thrills. That's the end of a particular plot arc (or maybe not, given that Bozzok could clearly bring her back if he was so inclined).

Irbis

2010-11-21, 09:41 AM

Kids who are professional thieves and who were trying to steal from her.

Professional? How do you know that? It could be very well a pack of orphans trying to survive. Because, you know, it's a bit hard to find food or water in the desert. Yes, what they are doing isn't good, by far easier to hand wave than rich adventurer stealing from her own party. Haley had tiny justification in trying to free her father - stealing when she already has the money from people infinitely poorer than her has no justification at all.

To people saying she "taught" them something - first, it's vigilantism, second, all she "taught" them was to be hungry in hostile environment, or how to try to steal harder to actually eat something.

Belkar would have killed them.

Post-change? I don't think so. But, if the only defence of her deed is "but she didn't did anything really horrific to them!" we can agree it wasn't that good :P

You mean killing one specific person. The problem is by OOTS rules, that situation could ONLY be resolved by one of them killing the other. That's their fate, or destiny, or whatever. Haley can't even just leave her there because she's always going to be the same level and they're always going to have that fated link. Further I'm hesitant to call it "murder" since she knew she'd be raised right away.

Except... well, Haley is on the other continent now, in a powerful party. She is safe. If the assassin went after her, again, was soundly defeated, and imprisoned/killed - well, tough luck, she had it coming.

But pre-emptive killing of unarmed, not-threatening woman in a horrific way - not only it is one of the worst things the comic shown us so far, it also illustrates the character of person who did that - no good character would be capable of such thing, IMHO.

Tell me, was Nale & co executed by Roy & Elan despite also being nemesis of the party? Hell, no, they were sent to prison three times, because the people making the decision were actually good in this case. Haley was fine with 'selling them into slavery' proposal. Yeah, a paragon of goodness.

No threat?

1st level vs 14th? Yup, very much.

You mean other than them trying to kill her?

Apprehend. You know, doing their job. Even if they really tried to kill her, they had no means to do so, she had the means to incapacitate them.

Self defense isn't murder, and she can't exactly tie them up so they can be taken to jail. If they were raised (we don't know) then those same guards could easily be the ones burning the slaves. Sorry, if you're going to be a minion for the EoB, then you're painting a target on yourself.

[yawn] Let's see what Rich has to say in this matter - this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html):

A) Belkar kills one guard trying to apprehend him, which is treated by everyone like a big crime, he will be tried, has MoJ placed on him, and is forced to pay out of his own pocket for resurrection.

B) Haley kills six guards trying to apprehend her, which is not mentioned at all, she pulls her connection with Elan to avoid trial, escapes unpunished, no resurrection or damages are mentioned.

If your only defence of the deed - which to me is murder, seeing how all these guards could very well have been LG characters trying to do their job - is "they had it coming" I guess you consider Belkar "CG" as well, as his deed pales in comparison.

Do you think Rich is trying to portray Haley in a different light in strips 181-759 than he did with her in strips 1-180? Do you think Rich is trying to do anything with Haley to make her more, for the lack of a better word, "Good".

Not succeeding, mind you. But do you think Rich is trying to do that? And, for purposes of this question, lets include the extra scenes in Don't Split the Party.

If he is trying to make her 'good', then he is failing miserably. But, since I don't consider him to be a poor writer - in my opinion, he shows a girl deluding herself she is good (note she blurted '-ish!' as the lie was too great even for her), for various reasons. Maybe it's her blood forcing her to be better, if she is really opposed to Sabine in this way, as theories suggest. Maybe she wants to score Elan. I don't know.

But the point is, this is not a good character. She casually maims, steals, kills, lies, to everyone - save for Elan. She is highly egotistic, selfish persona who doesn't care about anyone. Not even about the party. That idiotic gag about brain having only lust/hate states fits her much better than Belkar.

Yes, she sometimes tried to do good things. But, the only one that really comes to mind was A) saving dirt farmers (who reminded her about her parents and besides, she wanted loot) and B) "freeing" slaves which was about as short-sighted and ill-devised as possible - as if she didn't cared about their success at all, hell, as if she didn't cared about her mission (the Snarl, by antagonizing the only person with knowledge they need in various ways). This attempt was, IMHO, very out-of-character thing for her to do (honestly, if Durkon and Elan, who have much better case of being good, do nothing, why two OotS PC that show neutral-to-evil tendencies actually care? Some ill-brained atonement attempt?) - and yet, it backfires as every "good" thing she tries to do.

Ok, the reason why these two had to free the slaves was obvious - the other 4 ootsers were busy, and the slaves were needed for the scene later - still, it is out of character for these two.

Hell, post the MoJ removal, Belkar's behaviour was better fit for society and less evil than Haley's. Compare his reluctance to do evil deeds, only killing thieves who actually attacked and wounded him, and the slavers, agreeing to Celia's proposal - to Haley's wanton murders and robbery. Sure, Belkar's still much more evil than her, but his recent behaviour is far less evil and that says something.

Porthos

2010-11-21, 11:41 AM

@ Irbis

So, I'm guessing that you don't like Haley very much. Just a guess, mind you. :smalltongue:

Even if I agreed with everything you said, which I don't, I would point out her time as a Resistance Leader (which explains, btw, why she wants to free slaves in EoB) and her attempt at saving O-Chul (on the Roy rescue mission) as times when she has been showing a regard to others over her own personal safety. But I suppose you could find fault/alternate interpretation with those as well.

Anyway, I'm afraid that, as said earlier, I'm trying to stay away from long back and forths. So I guess I will say that I disagree, strongly, with your conclusions about Haley.

But that's the thing about art, inn't? Two people can look at the same thing and come to widely different conclusions.

hamishspence

2010-11-21, 02:04 PM

But pre-emptive killing of unarmed, not-threatening woman in a horrific way - not only it is one of the worst things the comic shown us so far, it also illustrates the character of person who did that - no good character would be capable of such thing, IMHO.

We see Roy doing virtually the same thing here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html

A) Belkar kills one guard trying to apprehend him, which is treated by everyone like a big crime, he will be tried, has MoJ placed on him, and is forced to pay out of his own pocket for resurrection.

The fact that the guard wasn't trying to apprehend him? Belkar simply sprang straight from the cell and into the guard:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0261.html
Combined with the fact that the next thing Belkar did was smear the guard's blood all over the walls as a sign to Miko to follow him:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html
and it's rather more shocking.

B) Haley kills six guards trying to apprehend her, which is not mentioned at all, she pulls her connection with Elan to avoid trial, escapes unpunished, no resurrection or damages are mentioned.
Having seen what kind of government she was dealing with here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html
and found out that she and Elan would be eaten by the Empress of Blood here, without any kind of trial:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html

her response to guards trying to apprehend her was somewhat understandable. Especially since she'd been pushed out of a window, and only saved by V choosing to cast that Feather Fall, (and giving up a chance for Elan and V to escape that way).

Porthos

2010-11-21, 02:21 PM

The fact that the guard wasn't trying to apprehend him? Belkar simply sprang straight from the cell and into the guard:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0261.html
Combined with the fact that the next thing Belkar did was smear the guard's blood all over the walls as a sign to Miko to follow him:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0265.html
and it's rather more shocking.

Yes, I think it was the desecration of the body (along with the taunting of Miko) that was what most people found horrific. I know it's what made me look askance at it.

Looking over the strip, it does appear to me that Rich does seem to draw a distinction between killing and killing for personal gratification, especially if sadistic pleasure is taken for the act of killing. If Belkar had simply killed a guard, and left a note on the body I don't think people would have cared as much. Even the taunting in the message might not have been seen as condemnatory.

And while the casting of Familicide was far more controversial (obviously :smalltongue:), one of the aspects highlighted was the glee that Darth V was taking over his revenge.

And in our most recent example, people were expressing revulsion that someone would actually stake people to the ground and light them on fire, both as revenge (describing the slaves as "pricks") and as a supposedly sentimental gesture.

I think it is the depravity of the acts that puts people off more than the actual killing. That's why, I think, most people weren't expressing revulsion over Haley killing the guards. There wasn't any sadism or depravity being displayed.

Mind you, if one thinks that the killing itself is depravity, then of course one will find what Haley did there to be abominable. But if you don't, then the actions don't trigger the Outrage Flag.

hamishspence

2010-11-21, 02:28 PM

Mind you, if one thinks that the killing itself is depravity, then of course one will find what Haley did there to be abominable. But if you don't, then the actions don't trigger the Outrage Flag.

As Haley points out here:

"When you've been around the dungeon a few times, you start to see violence as an acceptable alternative to a one-way ticket on the Negative Hit Point Express."

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0537.html

Mystic Muse

2010-11-21, 02:30 PM

If your only defence of the deed - which to me is murder, seeing how all these guards could very well have been LG characters trying to do their job - is "they had it coming" I guess you consider Belkar "CG" as well, as his deed pales in comparison.

No, they couldn't have been lawful good. You can't work for a government like that and remain lawful good by D&D rules.

B. Dandelion

2010-11-21, 03:08 PM

Haley heard Tarquin's command to the guards not to kill her but to apprehend her alive after they were already dead -- which, if they had been alive, would have been the same time they heard it. So why believe they were trying to apprehend her alive before that? If he had to give specific orders to do so in the first place, that would suggest that's not their default tactic.

I have never considered Haley a role model and still don't. But I'm glad she's not. I hate the prevalence of "Girls Need Role Models (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GirlsNeedRoleModels)". She's a deeply flawed character that I don't particularly relate to, but I don't need to. (When I'm feeling more charitable towards her, I think I could see her as a friend.) I just need to find her realistic. If she were presented as some ideal, I'd be annoyed, but I think we're supposed to see her as flawed, albeit not to the degree of thinking she's as bad as Belkar.

Nimrod's Son

2010-11-22, 12:42 AM

If the assassin went after her, again, was soundly defeated, and imprisoned/killed - well, tough luck, she had it coming.
Looks to me like she had it coming anyway.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-22, 01:32 AM

You cant blackjack someone unless its a sneak attack...or that what i assumed, she never used it as a melee weapon except as a sneak attack one.

wumpus

2010-11-22, 11:13 AM

V filled out an employment form for Roy when they first met in Origins. And the gender field was indeed filled in.

But there was an ink smudge so Roy couldn't read the answer. :smalltongue:

even better, that is exactly what is on the character sheet.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-22, 11:22 AM

even better, that is exactly what is on the character sheet.

:smallconfused: what character sheet? V's?

Da'Shain

2010-11-22, 02:06 PM

Post-change? I don't think so. But, if the only defence of her deed is "but she didn't did anything really horrific to them!" we can agree it wasn't that good :PI don't think anyone is trying to claim it was a good act, but to claim it was evil is pretty ridiculous. It's not evil to not give your money to someone. It's not evil to punish someone for attempting to pull one over on you. It's not Haley's fault if those children starve now; they chose to try and steal instead of beg, and were punished for it. It's a pretty solidly neutral act, I'd say.

But pre-emptive killing of unarmed, not-threatening woman in a horrific way - not only it is one of the worst things the comic shown us so far, it also illustrates the character of person who did that - no good character would be capable of such thing, IMHO.Are you kidding? We've seen a Lich manipulate an entire roomful of LG paladins into cutting each other to ribbons. We've seen torture prolonged by months. We've seen genocide. We've seen oppressive slavery. We've seen summary execution based merely on dramatic conventions. We've just seen people burned alive to make a gift!

How does the murder of someone who has made perfectly clear their intent to murder you in the future and proven their ability to do so even come close to any of those?

Quite frankly, you're assuming that good is dumb and incapable of making a rational decision to end a threat.

Also, why does her being a woman affect anything?

Tell me, was Nale & co executed by Roy & Elan despite also being nemesis of the party? Hell, no, they were sent to prison three times, because the people making the decision were actually good in this case. Haley was fine with 'selling them into slavery' proposal. Yeah, a paragon of goodness.Haley has a weakness for gold, which was the only reason she even considered the selling them option. Be that as it may, though, Nale & Co were not executed because the party is led by idealists, not because execution can never be a good option.

Apprehend. You know, doing their job. Even if they really tried to kill her, they had no means to do so, she had the means to incapacitate them.Anyone can get lucky. Yes, she is likely to survive -- but she doesn't know the levels of the opponents she's facing, she doesn't know whether she has the time to subdue instead of kill, and all the knowledge she has of this empire points to her being sold as a slave if she's caught at best. It's self-defense, pure and simple.

[yawn] Let's see what Rich has to say in this matter - this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html):

A) Belkar kills one guard trying to apprehend him, which is treated by everyone like a big crime, he will be tried, has MoJ placed on him, and is forced to pay out of his own pocket for resurrection.

B) Haley kills six guards trying to apprehend her, which is not mentioned at all, she pulls her connection with Elan to avoid trial, escapes unpunished, no resurrection or damages are mentioned.

If your only defence of the deed - which to me is murder, seeing how all these guards could very well have been LG characters trying to do their job - is "they had it coming" I guess you consider Belkar "CG" as well, as his deed pales in comparison.Why is it more murder if the guards were LG than if they were any other alignment?

The job of guard has risks associated with it, one of them being that, if you're trying to capture or kill someone, they're likely to respond with lethal force. I'm sorry, but that's a fact. If a guard is trying to kill you, it's not evil to kill them first, EVEN IF you've committed a crime that causes them to come after you. It's certainly not good, but self-defense makes it a neutral act.

The reason Belkar's act was treated as a crime is that it was, under the legal definition. But we're talking morally here, and to be honest, the only reason I consider that particular murder affirmatively evil is that he obviously relished doing it.

Haley's act was also a crime, legally, but she was also pardoned, again legally. Morality doesn't enter into that aspect of it.

The Pilgrim

2010-11-22, 05:07 PM

Alright, so it's clear that Tarquin is very like Nale in that he does whatever it takes to get what he wants. He tortures at least one woman to get her to marry him (though the claims of rape are unproven, not that I'm opening that can of worms again), betrays cities and people he's worked with, and generally relies on brutality and deception to get his way.

All that aside, I don't see anything extraordinarily wrong with today's little display. Let's look at the facts.

1) Slaves escaping is clearly a crime in the EoB.
2) Slaves are important enough to the infrastructure that it is in General T's interest to prevent escape.
3) Punishment is an important crime deterrent.
4) The punishment needs to be severe enough to make sure that the other slaves get the point.

So what did Tarquin do that any responsible leader wouldn't? I mean yeah, he spoiled the effect for Elan by telling him how the light show works.

And before people go on about slavery, keep in mind, this is not necessarily the American system, which was very bad. In fact, for the majority of history, slaves didn't do that bad, to the point that some slaves owned slaves themselves.

Even if we accept your arguments, Tarquin's act still registers as Evil.

The Lawful-Neutral thing to do would have been to round up the slaves, judge them, and properly execute them in public if they deservered it and the Tables of Law provided for it.

Using their suffering for personal, private amusement, that's unquestionably Evil.

I mean... looking at slaves like as cattle (or personal pets) was normal in any historical slavist society. Even then, you don't go around butchering cattle (or your pets) for amusement.

And, about history, slavery generally has worked very similar to the system of that "America" you mention. In the greek and roman world, for example, some slaves got lucky and became luxury home furniture, which in turn allowed them to eventually buy his freedom. Most slaves, however, died in droves working in the fields, mines, public construction, or manning the oars of warships.

SoC175

2010-11-23, 04:56 AM

Sure that strip we all know about implied it. But later events showed that nothing happened.
How so? For all we know they could have had sex before her flight. Being an ambassador of an evil nation send to another evil nation could be expected/trained to have sex with important officials of the host nation as part of her repertoire even while being actually married back at home. Tarquin just told her after the sex that he looks forward to their marriage and when she told him she already has a husband he told her it doesn't matter, causing her to run from his room.

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-23, 05:11 AM

The reason Belkar's act was treated as a crime is that it was, under the legal definition. But we're talking morally here, and to be honest, the only reason I consider that particular murder affirmatively evil is that he obviously relished doing it.

Haley's act was also a crime, legally, but she was also pardoned, again legally. Morality doesn't enter into that aspect of it.

Gonna disagree with you there. Go back and look at Belkar's killing of the Guard again.The Guard was a genuinely nice guy who never made the slightest threat against Belkar. Belkar surprised and killed him, despite there being no need to, he could have waited till the guard was gone and then escaped. Haley's act was resisting unlawful arrest since she was innocent of all crimes accused and the guards attacking her are part of an evil empire that has slaves and routine maiming as part of the high school curriculum. Killing evil beings that are going to kill you, as they were going to kill her before Tarquin ordered differently, is different to killing a nice bloke who was bringing you food and talked to you like a human despite being in jail, when killing him actually hindered any escape attempt

Kish

2010-11-23, 06:15 AM

How so? For all we know they could have had sex before her flight. Being an ambassador of an evil nation send to another evil nation could be expected/trained to have sex with important officials of the host nation as part of her repertoire even while being actually married back at home. Tarquin just told her after the sex that he looks forward to their marriage and when she told him she already has a husband he told her it doesn't matter, causing her to run from his room.
She told him last night she was already married. He summoned her to his bedroom this morning. She told him again she was already married.

You can construct another scenario that involves them having sex (if, for some reason, you want to), but your current scenario isn't consonant with what we've been told.

pjackson

2010-11-23, 09:04 AM

Well, you must remember that in Roman society slaves outnumbered masters by a LOT. In fact, in every slave society I can remember slaves outnumber their masters by a LOT. In every slave society, the slaves always have the power to sweep away the masters like a horse throwing a rider, or a herd of cattle to overrun the few cowboys and hands assigned to keep them orderly.

Not true of Anglo-Saxon England I believe, and certainly not true of Norman England. The Norman kings were opposed to slavery but lacked the power to abolish it, so they gradually biased the law against it, which eventually led to it ending (after a few centuries) and helped get rid of it again in 1772.

Da'Shain

2010-11-23, 09:31 AM

Gonna disagree with you there. Go back and look at Belkar's killing of the Guard again.The Guard was a genuinely nice guy who never made the slightest threat against Belkar. Belkar surprised and killed him, despite there being no need to, he could have waited till the guard was gone and then escaped. Haley's act was resisting unlawful arrest since she was innocent of all crimes accused and the guards attacking her are part of an evil empire that has slaves and routine maiming as part of the high school curriculum. Killing evil beings that are going to kill you, as they were going to kill her before Tarquin ordered differently, is different to killing a nice bloke who was bringing you food and talked to you like a human despite being in jail, when killing him actually hindered any escape attemptI'll admit that killing this guard is a much different situation, and I'd say that doing it after he'd already neutralized the guard is evil. However, I stand by my earlier position: guards take such risks as part of their job. If an escaping prisoner is forced to kill them in order to escape, I don't consider that an evil act (it's certainly not a good one, of course). It doesn't particularly matter how nice this particular guard was (although it certainly makes Belkar more of a prick), from a moral standpoint at least.

EvilJames

2010-11-23, 12:27 PM

No, it isn't. It's execution, and executions play an important role in society.

Going to have to disagree with this. Yes it is torture, it's torture to the point of execution. Just because EoB says it's OK does not meant that it is. That important role it's playing, is the enforcement of a tyrannical government. The torture is just part of what makes them a tyrannical government.

hamishspence

2010-11-23, 12:59 PM

Going to have to disagree with this. Yes it is torture, it's torture to the point of execution.

Torture isn't always an interrogation tool, sometimes its an execution method, yes.

And "Burning alive" may qualify as Death By Torture.

Dark Matter

2010-11-23, 01:38 PM

Something else to point out is Belkar never stood trial for killing that guard. The mark of justice was put on him outside the legal system. It's possible that he would have been found innocent... an odd thing to think when we're thinking of Belkar, but just the same. Keep in mind the entire imprisoning and the trial of the OOTS was extra-legal.

Of course in Belkar's mind what he was doing was murder. On the other hand, Haley probably thought she was simply defending herself... as shown by the fact that as soon as she found she wouldn't simply be put to death, she stopped.

Porthos

2010-11-23, 03:07 PM

How so? For all we know they could have had sex before her flight. Being an ambassador of an evil nation send to another evil nation could be expected/trained to have sex with important officials of the host nation as part of her repertoire even while being actually married back at home. Tarquin just told her after the sex that he looks forward to their marriage and when she told him she already has a husband he told her it doesn't matter, causing her to run from his room.

We have no reason to believe they had sex. And every reason to believe they didn't have sex.

Yes, Rich tried to make us think they did have sex. But, despite the lasting power of first impressions, it is all but certain they didn't (see the interminable argument in the discussion thread for all of the back and forth).

Rich pulled a fast one on the readership. That's all that there is here.

veti

2010-11-23, 05:29 PM

Haley's act was resisting unlawful arrest since she was innocent of all crimes accused and the guards attacking her are part of an evil empire that has slaves and routine maiming as part of the high school curriculum. Killing evil beings that are going to kill you, as they were going to kill her before Tarquin ordered differently, is different to killing a nice bloke who was bringing you food and talked to you like a human despite being in jail, when killing him actually hindered any escape attempt

What made it "unlawful" for the guards to arrest her? She was heavily armed, she was escaping from the freakin' royal palace. In what legal system would that not be considered reasonable grounds for arrest?

Even if she'd been taken there unlawfully (which she wasn't), how would the guards have been supposed to know that?

And what makes you (or her) assume that the guards were evil?

You could argue (Haley might well argue) that all guards in the EoB must be evil, because their job will routinely require them to commit evil acts. But that's an argument we haven't, as far as I've seen, actually had yet. Does it make a difference if guards are not volunteers, but coerced into the job? Is it possible for them to avoid committing evil personally, or use their position to prevent their colleagues from doing it? These things might make a difference.

Irbis

2010-11-23, 08:54 PM

The Guard was a genuinely nice guy who never made the slightest threat against Belkar.

And you know the EoB ones weren't because...?

Plus, what exactly being nice changes? If the guard was rude, does that give Belkar free hand in killing him?

Belkar surprised and killed him, despite there being no need to, he could have waited till the guard was gone and then escaped.

First, he couldn't, he had to escape while guard held the door open.

Second, what exactly was Haley's need to kill them? 1d6+1 damage with 5% chance of connecting? When she has blackjack, ability to deal nonlethal damage, and hide skill?

Something else to point out is Belkar never stood trial for killing that guard.

Never (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)? :smallamused:

Keep in mind the entire imprisoning and the trial of the OOTS was extra-legal.

Which makes Belkar even less evil than Haley, as he was escaping illegal arrest. That's why he had the charges reduced.

Haley? Escapes perfectly legal apprehension by guards who had her tagged as succubus, known accomplice of the traitor Nale - and instead of doing good thing, like Roy and Durkon did when apprehended by Miko - going with them to explain herself, she casually murders them all.

And to the other posters - sorry, no amount of spinning will make apprehension attempt "killing her", not that they were capable of doing so, nor repeating "they had it coming" will make murder of potentially LG law officers neutral in any way.

Not that killing them would have been okay even if they tried to kill her, as she already made clear she is not going to be arrested by running and was too dangerous to be left unchecked - even Paladins would have tried to kill her in that situation.

On the other hand, Haley probably thought she was simply defending herself...

Soooo~...! Thog is CG because to him, nothing is murder?

as shown by the fact that as soon as she found she wouldn't simply be put to death, she stopped.

Oh, when Thog gets cake, he also stops his random killing sprees. Let me guess, is he LG, then? :P

CrimsonAngel

2010-11-23, 09:22 PM

*cough* ... "What morality?"

Pyron

2010-11-24, 12:23 AM

Haley? Escapes perfectly legal apprehension by guards who had her tagged as succubus, known accomplice of the traitor Nale - and instead of doing good thing, like Roy and Durkon did when apprehended by Miko - going with them to explain herself, she casually murders them all.

She tried to explain herself and the fact that Elan is not Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0720.html). It feel on deaf ears and the Empress of Blood decided to just eat Elan. Knowing that the all powerful monarch just declared your execution, you really think anyone sane (no matter what alignment is on their character sheet) is going to explain themselves to the guards at that point.

And to the other posters - sorry, no amount of spinning will make apprehension attempt "killing her", not that they were capable of doing so, nor repeating "they had it coming" will make murder of potentially LG law officers neutral in any way.

How so? Honestly, if your going to make refute the claims of other people, the least you could do is to provide evidence to support it. Otherwise, it's you, not them who's is spinning the idea that guards are out to apprehend her and not kill - despite evidence to the contrary (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html).

Finally, you also keep claim that the guards are low level and thus have no ability to be a threat to Haley. If that's the case, then wouldn't these guards be no threat to any adventurer. That makes me wonder, what's keeping people like Gannji, Enor, Belkar, or anyone else from walking out of the arena.

So explain your reasoning - why are the palace guards level 1?

Lvl45DM!

2010-11-24, 09:10 AM

I don't know the rules for the blackjack and i dont know what your 5% of connecting is. But i will say that any guard who works for the EOB is evil or Neutral at best for a certainty. They were trying to kill her as evidenced by Tarquin's command to apprehend rather than kill. She was taken unlawfully by BOUNTY HUNTERS not even true guards and a red dragon threatened to eat her and Malack wouldn't listen.

Belkar is a high level combat oriented adventure who couldve busted the door open. Coup de graceing the guard who had just proven his good alingment through unneccessary kindness, when there was no need is evil. Belkar doesn't care for the OOTS and could have escaped scot free before the guard came too. Unneccessary evil. So yes being nice made a differance the EOB guards are in no way ever close to being LG and calling them LN is a stretch. If they are being coerced then let Haley go, she's a rogue its not unreasonable to assume she escaped and was unable to be caught. LE would be the default assumption so killing is so very justified when they are also trying to kill her.
Haley is CG
ish

Mystic Muse

2010-11-24, 03:57 PM

An unenchanted sap deals 1d6+strength modifier damage, nonlethal. It's possible she could have taken out the guards with that but we don't have any real idea of what the guards are capable of other than that Haley killed them, but not without taking a couple of hits and that they intended to kill her.

Zmflavius

2010-11-24, 09:34 PM

And you know the EoB ones weren't because...?

Plus, what exactly being nice changes? If the guard was rude, does that give Belkar free hand in killing him?

I think this has been mentioned twice before, but the inherent evilness of the Empire makes working for them evil. IIRC, paladins can become fallen through association with evil, but as seen in Roy's review by the deva, in OOTS-world, association with evil characters/organizations is grounds for putting alignment into question under any circumstances.

First, he couldn't, he had to escape while guard held the door open.

Second, what exactly was Haley's need to kill them? 1d6+1 damage with 5% chance of connecting? When she has blackjack, ability to deal nonlethal damage, and hide skill?

So, he could have jumped out and then ran off.

Perhaps none, but she was fighting in self-defence, against guards who were probably evil, who only received orders to take her alive after they died.

Which makes Belkar even less evil than Haley, as he was escaping illegal arrest. That's why he had the charges reduced.

Haley? Escapes perfectly legal apprehension by guards who had her tagged as succubus, known accomplice of the traitor Nale - and instead of doing good thing, like Roy and Durkon did when apprehended by Miko - going with them to explain herself, she casually murders them all.

And to the other posters - sorry, no amount of spinning will make apprehension attempt "killing her", not that they were capable of doing so, nor repeating "they had it coming" will make murder of potentially LG law officers neutral in any way.

Not that killing them would have been okay even if they tried to kill her, as she already made clear she is not going to be arrested by running and was too dangerous to be left unchecked - even Paladins would have tried to kill her in that situation.

Does escaping arrest from an evil authority make you evil?

And if we're going to make comparisons with Miko's arrest, frankly I don't think Haley wanted to get laid with any of the guards.

So, self-defence is now evil?

Soooo~...! Thog is CG because to him, nothing is murder?

Oh, when Thog gets cake, he also stops his random killing sprees. Let me guess, is he LG, then? :P

The point is, motive counts. Thog kills for the sheer enjoyment of holding an axe which connects with someone's body, while Haley was killing in self-defence.

And nobody claimed that Haley or Thog was LG.

And a final point, you have made consistent reference to the belief that her killing the guards was unnecessary and gratuitous. Does that make a group of slightly-inept adventurers of various degrees of good adventuring with a CE psychopath going through a dungeon killing people partly to satisfy an allegedly LG fighter's ego, partly because they have green skin and fangs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html), and partly just to kill evil characters and take their stuff evil?

Kish

2010-11-24, 09:41 PM

I'd just like to point out that Irbis declared Haley evil and worthy of the Nine Hells well before the guards-killing.

veti

2010-11-24, 10:42 PM

So, he could have jumped out and then ran off.

Halfling tactical movement rate: 20'. Human: 30'. Even with +10' for being a Barbarian - assuming he even knows about that ability - he can't outrun the guard. To say nothing of the (potentially) dozens of other guards who may be within earshot.

Perhaps none, but she was fighting in self-defence, against guards who were probably evil, who only received orders to take her alive after they died.

"Probably evil"... Okay, first of all - who assesses this "probably"? Secondly, how exactly does that make a difference? Good characters are (supposed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)) to have "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Not "non-evil sentient beings".

Does escaping arrest from an evil authority make you evil?

How about escaping arrest from a Lawful (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0262.html) Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html) authority - would that make you evil?

No, resisting/escaping arrest isn't evil - more chaotic - but that has nothing to do with the alignment of whoever's holding you. What's at issue is not "escaping", it's "killing people".

So, self-defence is now evil?

Does "gunning down cops as you flee from the bank" count as self-defence?

And a final point, you have made consistent reference to the belief that her killing the guards was unnecessary and gratuitous. Does that make a group of slightly-inept adventurers of various degrees of good adventuring with a CE psychopath going through a dungeon killing people partly to satisfy an allegedly LG fighter's ego, partly because they have green skin and fangs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html), and partly just to kill evil characters and take their stuff evil?

For what it's worth, I don't believe Haley is evil. I think she is, in her own words, "Chaotic Good. Ish".

But I see the entire point of OOTS as an extended essay on the subtleties and difficulties of the D&D alignment system. Haley thinks that she understands alignment, and I think her attitude would pass without comment in a 1e AD&D party, but by the logic of modern 3e "absolute morality" it looks shaky.

That's why we're forever having these morality/alignment threads that run for page after page after page of argument - because the whole freakin' point of the story is to stir up these kinds of debates.

Felixc-91

2010-11-25, 12:05 AM

So, self-defence is now evil?
Does "gunning down cops as you flee from the bank" count as self-defence?
fleeing from a bank robbery is different from fleeing from a group of people that hunted you down and arrest you for something you didn't do, and then failed to care that you didn't do it.

Mystic Muse

2010-11-25, 12:12 AM

fleeing from a bank robbery is different from fleeing from a group of people that hunted you down and arrest you for something you didn't do, and then failed to care that you didn't do it.

And, since Tarquin had to tell the guards to apprehend her, it's fairly safe to assume that they intended to kill her.

If somebody is trying to kill you, if you kill them in response, it's self defense. There are of course factors that make the act good or bad, but I don't think this qualifies as bad.

Also, I don't think Haley had a sap on her at that point, so I don't think she'd be capable of knocking the guards out.

Felixc-91

2010-11-25, 12:50 AM

Zmflavius

I think this has been mentioned twice before, but the inherent evilness of the Empire makes working for them evil. IIRC, paladins can become fallen through association with evil, but as seen in Roy's review by the deva, in OOTS-world, association with evil characters/organizations is grounds for putting alignment into question under any circumstances.

so wrong, the only reason belkar's actions and alignment had any effect on roy was because roy was his party leader.

Bulzeeb

2010-11-25, 01:09 AM

Also, I don't think Haley had a sap on her at that point, so I don't think she'd be capable of knocking the guards out.

Even if she did, it's a dead-end to argue that she should have used it to knock-out instead of kill the guards. That assumes that:

1. The guards had practically 0 chance of defeating her, proven false by the damage she took during the fight

2. Those guards were the only ones in the vicinity, and that Haley would not run into more guards later, which is proven false within a few strips when we see her being escorted by a guard, or that Haley would be able to defeat them with a sap without taking any damage, again proven false by the at least moderate amounts of damage she took from the fight.

These conditions must hold true because in that situation, one must plan to have to fight for as long as possible, and that means finishing fights while taking the least amount of damage possible. It would be one thing to avoid killing guards while attempting a solo escape. Not so when your companions' lives are likely on the line, as the EoB to that point had shown no willingness to spare any of their lives, so you have to get to your allies as fast as possible to help them escape, while remaining un-captured.

Unfortunately, not everyone can be JC Denton and knock-out an entire squad of soldiers with nothing more than a baton and a crossbow. Most of the time pragmatism takes precedence over pacifism.