What alignments are feasible for Enor & Ganji?

[hamishspence]

In order to avoid further derailing the "why didn't Belkar take credit" thread.

Relevant arguments:

Argments againt their being evil:

They are bounty hunters who catch criminals for the reward offered. They only go against the bad guys. (Elan was a mistake, they thought he was Nale)

Ganji has a personal code that prevents him from either committing fraud against the government, or knowingly taking an innocent person.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html

When forced to fight each other, Ganji offers to sacrifice his life to save Enor, and Enor is unwilling to accept.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0783.html

Based on this, I think Ganji is Lawful Good, and Enor is True Neutral, but mostly does LG actions under Ganji's influence.

Counterarguments against Ganji being Lawful Good

Lawful Good = feel bad for slaveowners, attack someone for asking a question (yes yes, Roy might have been someone out for revenge), and then wish bloody revenge on someone who is asking to work together?


Gannji's lack of desire to screw over the government indicates a Lawful alignment, but not necessarily a good one. The fact that he is willing to be a bounty hunter for an evil government in itself indicates (though does not itself prove) a neutral or evil alignment. He also has not demonstrated any concern for whether or not the people he's hunting are guilty or innocent (only whether or not they are the people the wanted poster asks for).

Being dumb doesn't make one good or innocent. If they have an Int score of 3 or above, they are responsible for their actions, except for a handful of poorly-explained anomalies (the Tarrasque and mindless undead, for example). Enor, dumb as he is, definitely has an Int score above 3. Besides, Lawful Good characters typically don't try to screw over a government for personal gain (they might screw over an evil one to help other people, but not themselves).

Oh, and being evil doesn't mean you can't have friends or love. Look at Belkar, Tarquin, Thog, Nale, Sabine, and the Ancient Black Dragon.

We have seen no evidence of a Good alignment for either Enor or Gannji. The few scraps of evidence we do have points to either Neutral or Evil. Personally, I lean towards LN for Gannji (mainly due to the speech) and TN for Enor, but that's neither here nor there.

[RLivengood]

I agree with the "Gannji is lawful neutral, Enor is true neutral" theory. Their willingness to collect bounties for evil governments and attacking Roy because he asked them a question has convinced me that they're not good, but they never did anything particularly evil, especially compared to some other characters.

[ScrapperTBP]

I'd say:
Gannji: Similar to Roy. NG with Chaotic tendancies. I wouldn't say Lawful. he only like governments because it is his source of income.
Enor: True Neutral. Acts like Gannji because he can't act on his own.

[Mr. Snuggles]

Gannji is Lawful Neutral for sure. It's the prototypical bounty hunter alignment. Gannji was right on the spot with the complicated paperwork for the entry papers and knew all the laws about "related retributive acts". I wouldn't call him good because he apparently cares for nothing but Enor.

Enor, who knows what alignment he has. He's too dumb and just does what Gannji says. I'd call him Chaotic of some sort because his idea to collect random people and try to pass them off as mistaken identity.

[Gift Jeraff]

They both seem Lawful Neutral to me, with Gannji leaning towards Evil.

[Whiffet]

We haven't seen enough them to be sure, but I'd say Gannji is is Lawful Neutral and Enor is True Neutral. I'm more sure about Gannji than Enor.

[King of Nowhere]

gannji, I've seen no real evidence of him being good or evil. He works for slaver nations, but consider that different cultures have different values. If you went in the ancient world, you'd find a lot of nice people that, when inquired about slavery, would answer "yes, there are slaves; what's wrong with that?". Just like the guard that considered perfectly normal the idea that thog got sentenced to life for peeing on the sidewalk.
But I don't really see why gannji should be good, either. He didn't gave me the "i must capture those criminals to protect the community" vibe. So I'll peg himn to neutral. Does his job, think it's an honest job, won't do bad stuff not even for personal profit, but won't go out of his way to help others, either.
As for law/chaos, I don't see why many here consider him lawful without much argument. He files paperwork, but in the eob is a survival necessity to stay alive. Even the most hardcore anarchist would take care of paperwork under threat of being sent to gladiatorial games, without being any less chaotic. He don't want to commit fraud, but that may just be unwillingness to commit a bad act. I don't want to kill people, and there is a law against killing people, but just because i respect that law, it don't make me lawful. And just because I don't want to kill people, it's not enough to be good.
In fact, I see gannji as more tending toward chaos; he looks like he don't care much about what happens around him, as long as he's not concerned. He probably don't mind the shifting government, or any struggle where he and enor aren't directly involved. But I reckon that there is no real proof of him tending toward chaos anyway, so I'd say neutral.
For enor, is difficult to tell beecuase he does what gannji tell him. He's smart enough to realize he's dumb, and he trusts gannji to take the better decisions. I don't think wee had any good tip on his alignment. he may be a paragon of good, that just does what gannji says because he trust him. Or he may be a nest of evil, who don't do evil because he trust gannji to know better. I wouldn't guess on enor.

[dps]

My best guess is that the apparant consensus is correct: Ganji is Lawful Neutral, and Enor is True Neutral. However, I don't feel highly confident about that. Really, both could be of almost any alignment.

[Kish]

A better question would be: what have they ever done that indicates an Evil alignment?

You mean, other than attacking Roy for asking a perfectly reasonable question, refusing to work with him and planning his death, and their fine profession of beating people unconscious and transporting them across international boundaries (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html)? Besides those?

Their instinctive sympathy for the striking slavers.


They are bounty hunters who catch criminals for the reward offered. They only go against the bad guys.

You know, if there was a single syllable anywhere in the comic that indicated they knew or cared what "Nale" and companions had done--which there isn't--"They only go against the bad guys" would still be utter faff. In the presence of such an indication, you could accurately say, "In the single bounty case we know of, they took a bounty on a group of villains comparable in morality to the group of villains which employed them. They never indicated any interest in the morality of their targets, only in money."


Ganji has a personal code that prevents him from either committing fraud against the government, or knowingly taking an innocent person.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html

Your link supports the first claim you make for his code. Not the second.


When forced to fight each other, Ganji offers to sacrifice his life to save Enor, and Enor is unwilling to accept.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0783.htmlWhich you cited again, claiming it "has good all over it" a few posts after that one, as if Rich Burlew had never written an article deconstructing the idea that evil characters can't have friends.

gannji, I've seen no real evidence of him being good or evil. He works for slaver nations, but consider that different cultures have different values.

Of all the claims made about the D&D alignment system all across the Internet, "It works with cultural relativism" is one I've never seen, and hope never to see.

Besides, the Empire of Blood isn't merely a slaver nation but a nation which flaunts EVIL EVIL EVIL in ways that would say bad things about the quality of any work with a fourth wall. Countries in D&D have alignments. The Empire of Blood has an extremely obvious alignment, and that alignment isn't True Neutral.

[Leecros]

He works for slaver nations, but consider that different cultures have different values. If you went in the ancient world, you'd find a lot of nice people that, when inquired about slavery, would answer "yes, there are slaves; what's wrong with that?". Just like the guard that considered perfectly normal the idea that thog got sentenced to life for peeing on the sidewalk.

Perspective doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong though. In certain situations yes, you are correct. Things such as some traditions and etiquette, things that change over time may become more or less acceptable. However, with certain things, things like Slavery and Human Sacrifice... Just because Hypothetical Nation A were pro-slavery, then generations later they realize "Hey...this is wrong" , it doesn't make the past generations 'right' for having slaves just because it was the cultural norm.

[bronnt]

Perspective doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong though. In certain situations yes, you are correct. Things such as some traditions and etiquette, things that change over time may become more or less acceptable. However, with certain things, things like Slavery and Human Sacrifice... Just because Hypothetical Nation A were pro-slavery, then generations later they realize "Hey...this is wrong" , it doesn't make the past generations 'right' for having slaves just because it was the cultural norm.

When you're talking about from a cultural standpoint, perhaps. But saying one person was more or less evil for living in a slave culture, even though there's no evidence that he owns slaves himself, would be an example of really poor evidence.

As for their sympathy for striking slave-drivers....when something is played purely for laughs, I'm unsure about how much, exactly, to read into it. And that most especially goes for last-panel gags.

[zimmerwald1915]

When you're talking about from a cultural standpoint, perhaps. But saying one person was more or less evil for living in a slave culture, even though there's no evidence that he owns slaves himself, would be an example of really poor evidence.
I don't think anyone's blaming Ganjii and Enor for living in a slave society. First off, we don't know, though it's certainly probable, that slavery is widespread all over the human/lizard lands of the Western Continent. Second, we don't actually know where Ganjii and Enor live, if they live in one place for any length of time at all. What people are pointing out is that Ganjii doesn't seem to have any qualms about working for a slave power, or indeed buttressing the rule of the slave masters by capturing and turning over to them people they have branded criminal and dangerous to their regimes.


As for their sympathy for striking slave-drivers....when something is played purely for laughs, I'm unsure about how much, exactly, to read into it. And that most especially goes for last-panel gags.
I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss the portrayal of the striking slave drivers as a "last-panel gag". The narrative that organized labor is Evil runs through the whole of OotS, not just the EoB arc. The Greysky Thieves Guild, for instance, is described as a "labor union" in Dungeon Crawling Fools, and then portrayed in Don't Split the Party as mafia-like, entirely unsympathetic, and worthy of wholesale massacre. Personally, I find the message that organized workers are parasitic on the rest of the laboring population, as well as the "actual" (well, it's fictional, but you know what I mean) parasitism of the slave drivers in this case, offensive, but that's neither here nor there.

[Kish]

As for their sympathy for striking slave-drivers....when something is played purely for laughs, I'm unsure about how much, exactly, to read into it. And that most especially goes for last-panel gags.
When the point of the laugh is how deranged the speaking character's sense of morality is?

[Jaros]

I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss the portrayal of the striking slave drivers as a "last-panel gag". The narrative that organized labor is Evil runs through the whole of OotS, not just the EoB arc. The Greysky Thieves Guild, for instance, is described as a "labor union" in Dungeon Crawling Fools, and then portrayed in Don't Split the Party as mafia-like, entirely unsympathetic, and worthy of wholesale massacre. Personally, I find the message that organized workers are parasitic on the rest of the laboring population, as well as the "actual" (well, it's fictional, but you know what I mean) parasitism of the slave drivers in this case, offensive, but that's neither here nor there.

I hearily disagree. I think the joke is less "unionised workers are evil" and more "evil workers are unionising". It's not that unions are bad but that these are thieves and slavedrivers unions.

[zimmerwald1915]

I hearily disagree. I think the joke is less "unionised workers are evil" and more "evil workers are unionising". It's not that unions are bad but that these are thieves and slavedrivers unions.
Distinction without a difference. Only evil workers have been shown to unionize or organize in any meaningful fashion. The end is the same; the organization turns out evil, whether that evil comes from the form of the organization or the prevailing alignment of its members.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Distinction without a difference. Only evil workers have been shown to unionize or organize in any meaningful fashion. The end is the same; the organization turns out evil, whether that evil comes from the form of the organization or the prevailing alignment of its members.

When you say "Only evil workers have been shown to unionize or organize in any meaningful fashion", do you mean organised groups such as the Sapphire Guild or the Azure City Resistance? Or perhaps Team Peregrine or The Order of the Scribble? Even the OOTS can't be described as evil, despite Belkar's efforts.

You could make the same argument for Marching Bands being portrayed as evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html), since all the examples we have of them that we have seen or heard of in comic have all been evil.

[zimmerwald1915]

When you say "Only evil workers have been shown to unionize or organize in any meaningful fashion", do you mean organised groups such as the Sapphire Guild or the Azure City Resistance? Or perhaps Team Peregrine or The Order of the Scribble? Even the OOTS can't be described as evil, despite Belkar's efforts.
1. A state's covert operations team (applies to both the Sapphire Guard and Team Peregrine) isn't a labor union.
2. Neither is a national liberation group.
3. Neither is an adventuring party (applies to both the Orders of the Stick and Scribble).

I apologize, this is a bit of a tangent.

[raymundo]

The second part of this post is still legit, though. The comic only portraying the evil "labor unions" does not mean there are no good ones. It just means the negative portrayal of the two evil ones stand out enough for you to (apparently) be offended by it.


I think being offended by this is quite odd, but this may be perfectly reasonable for your particuliar biographical background so I will not judge on it.

[Cizak]

You mean, other than attacking Roy for asking a perfectly reasonable question, refusing to work with him and planning his death, and their fine profession of beating people unconscious and transporting them across international boundaries (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html)? Besides those?

Being a bounty hunter doesn't strike me as Evil. You are actually capturing people wanted by the government. Yes, you're doing it for personal gain but it's still bringing in dangerous people. Doesn't sound Evil to me (not Good either, though).

[Manga Shoggoth]

1. A state's covert operations team (applies to both the Sapphire Guard and Team Peregrine) isn't a labor union.
2. Neither is a national liberation group.
3. Neither is an adventuring party (applies to both the Orders of the Stick and Scribble).

I apologize, this is a bit of a tangent.

We may have a cross-cultural issue here - my first point was that "unionize or organize" does not just apply to labour unions. There are groups of workers who are organised, but not unions, and you can have unions that are not "labour unions".

But, as you say, we are starting to head off at a tangent.

[bronnt]

1. A state's covert operations team (applies to both the Sapphire Guard and Team Peregrine) isn't a labor union.
2. Neither is a national liberation group.
3. Neither is an adventuring party (applies to both the Orders of the Stick and Scribble).

I apologize, this is a bit of a tangent.

What about the Mages Guild(s)? We haven't really seen on on-screen, but Vaarsuvius is said to be a member of a particular order, and we know that there was a time when he met with a few dabblers off-panel. Rich hasn't exactly claimed that the Mages Guild is all evil.

I think you're mixing up that he's played the idea of labor unions, whose purpose is to keep people from being exploited, through two different groups of people whose purpose is the exploitation of others. It's a gag in a comic, meant to be funny, not condemning.

[zimmerwald1915]

PM'd both of you, would prefer to continue the discussion there and not in this thread, which has another topic. Again, I apologize for derailing.

[bronnt]

As for the alignments, I agree with the general consensus. Gannji seems to be lawful neutral. There's really no indications of him being either good or evil. Enor is probably True Neutral, but with possible chaotic tendencies.

[Alagaesian]

Really? I was under the impression that Ganji's speech pointed towards him being TN as opposed to LN. Though he has that personal code to make his own way in the world instead of loopholing the government, he's doing so by ambushing people, beating them up, and dragging them halfway across the continent. "Fine profession" indeed.

Not that his essentially-mercenary job paints him as Evil or Good. He captures people for money, no matter if they are Evil like Nale or some Good rebel that escaped from Tarquin's jail or something, to support himself and Enor. That strikes me as Neutral on the morality axis.

[Ron Miel]

Though he has that personal code to make his own way in the world instead of loopholing the government, he's doing so by ambushing people, beating them up, and dragging them halfway across the continent. "Fine profession" indeed.

As opposed to Roy's fine profession of invading other people's homes, killing them, and taking their treasure?

The way I see it, bounty hunter is just one form of adventurer, no worse than a dungeon crawler.

[Kish]

Being a bounty hunter doesn't strike me as Evil.

Not intrinsically, no, but...

You are actually capturing people wanted by the government.

Which government, specifically, for Enor and Gannji? The Empire of Blood. Presumably they also work for other governments sometimes, but there's no indication that they ever work for anyone less monstrous than Tarquin (or, for that matter, have done any jobs that weren't indirectly working for Tarquin).

[Ron Miel]

Which government, specifically, for Enor and Gannji? The Empire of Blood.

No government, specifically. He's a freelancer.



Presumably they also work for other governments sometimes, but there's no indication that they ever work for anyone less monstrous than Tarquin (or, for that matter, have done any jobs that weren't indirectly working for Tarquin).


No, they don't work for Tarquin.

They are recent arrivals in the Empire and this is the first bounty they have collected there. Evidence: Ganji has clearly never seen the palace before, and has to ask where to collect bounties.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html

[zimmerwald1915]

They are recent arrivals in the Empire and this is the first bounty they have collected there. Evidence: Ganji has clearly never seen the palace before, and has to ask where to collect bounties.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html
Few people would have seen the palace before. It's a new building (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0718.html), only recently become fit for the government to move in. Presumably bounties were previously collected at some other building.

[Michaeler]

How many times have we actually seen Enor act of his own volition? It seems that he is weak willed and kept under control by Gannji so his alignment could be anything. His needing to be prompted again to hurt people suggests probably not evil but I'm not confident of that.

[Kish]

No government, specifically.

...So they pull their contracts out of thin air then?

It would be nice if you would attempt to defend any of your previous claims, instead of just moving on and making new, equally unsupported arguments for why Gannji and Enor are "good."

[Ron Miel]

...So they pull their contracts out of thin air then?

Rolls eyes.

Nice strawman there.

No, they collect bounties from any government. They don't work for one SPECIFIC government.


It would be nice if you would attempt to defend any of your previous claims,

I already have. Every claim I have made has been supported by reference to specific content in the strip.



instead of just moving on and making new, equally unsupported arguments for why Gannji and Enor are "good."

In the first place, they are not "unsupported" they are backed up with evidence from the strip.

In the second place, I am NOT making arguments that they are good. My stated opinion is that they are "at least neutral." The consensus of opinion is that they are neutral, and I can accept that.

I admit I said (once) that Ganji was good and Enor neutral. That was a mistake. I should have said that Ganji is possibly good.

[sims796]

I actually agree with Ron. They seem to be freelancers, working for whatever government is willing to pay. They don't care about the lives of their mark, nor whether or not they are guilty. They just beat people up for the government. It's also pretty clear that this is their first visit in the EoB, or at the very least, they are there for business only. They saw a wanted poster, saw that is for a good amount, and made their move.

That does not scream good. At all. But there isn't enough evidence to say that they are wholeheartedly evil.

[Ancalagon]

On the other hand: "Punching people for governments because they pay and not minding anything else" also does not scream "Neutral" very loudly. It whispers it, but afterwards it says "evil".

[hamishspence]

Yes- there's a lot of varieties of Evil. Not all are overtly sadistic- some are simply willing to disregard certain moral principles, in order to achieve what they want.

[Ancalagon]

I think D&D needs characters that are evil, but not the over-the-top archvillian type of evil.

Merchants can buy food and sell to someone else well knowing that people will starve now - but if those suckers make the worse price, who cares? That is evil, not neutral. The act is evil and makes no alignment, but do stuff like that often enough and your alignment will reflect that.

Or you could be evil and still be a loving, caring family-father with true friends. Who said you have to be an ass just because you like stabbing people when no one looks or organise some money extortion gang?
Or if you do not see the difference between a valid business and organise some robber-party? All evil, but you do not have to be the insanely laughing slaughterer who wants World Dominiation or poison every well and kick every puppy you come across.

Or you could be some bounty hunter who has a real buddy he likes and you make your living off catching people and selling them to some government. The only distinction to slavery is that you only catch special people of whom you know the government wants them.

"Evil" does not have to mean (and it does not): "Always, always evil and never, ever good in any way."

Most evil people (in D&D, of course) are mostly normal people. The same as most good people are mostly normal people.

[FatJose]

I actually agree with Ron. They seem to be freelancers, working for whatever government is willing to pay. They don't care about the lives of their mark, nor whether or not they are guilty. They just beat people up for the government. It's also pretty clear that this is their first visit in the EoB, or at the very least, they are there for business only. They saw a wanted poster, saw that is for a good amount, and made their move.

That does not scream good. At all. But there isn't enough evidence to say that they are wholeheartedly evil.

Not to mention, it's Nale. His wanted poster doesn't exactly paint him as someone to bother checking for goodness. If you spent your time double checking if every bounty is actually innocent you'd starve...or be deaded by the first bad guy to see you become uncertain for even an instance. They're bounty hunters, not detectives.

[zimmerwald1915]

It's also pretty clear that this is their first visit in the EoB
Why people keep saying this is beyond me. What's clear is that this is their first visit to the palace in Bleedingham. It's also pretty clear that they've never been incarcerated in the Bleedingham Correctional Facility before. However, stepping into a building and working for an empire are two very different things, particularly when the building has been only recently constructed and some parts of it are still not fit for normal human or lizard habitation. Before the palace existed, there would still have been bounties. They would just have been distributed somewhere other than the palace, perhaps the courthouse.

[Ron Miel]

Why people keep saying this is beyond me.

Well, they display their entry papers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html). That means, at least, that they are not natives, and arrived after the country was founded. At an absolute maximum they have been here for two years.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, they display their entry papers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html). That means, at least, that they are not natives, and arrived after the country was founded. At an absolute maximum they have been here for two years.
As a US citizen you still need a US passport to re-enter the USA from a trip abroad. A fictional Lawful Evil empire might have much more draconian documentation requirements than the USA (I'm really not saying anything about that RL country's alignment). And we've seen that imperial subjects are meant to carry their documentation with them at all times. Having "entry papers" proves nothing about their nationality.

Furthermore, you have to admit that we know nothing about what Ganjii and Enor have been doing for the past two years. It's just as likely that they've worked for the Empire of Blood before as it is that they have not. The evidence that's been brought up against their ever having worked for the Empire of Blood before is hardly conclusive, and its interpretation suspect.

[Ron Miel]

It's just as likely that they've worked for the Empire of Blood before as it is that they have not. The evidence that's been brought up against their ever having worked for the Empire of Blood before is hardly conclusive, and its interpretation suspect.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

[sims796]

As a US citizen you still need a US passport to re-enter the USA from a trip abroad. A fictional Lawful Evil empire might have much more draconian documentation requirements than the USA (I'm really not saying anything about that RL country's alignment). And we've seen that imperial subjects are meant to carry their documentation with them at all times. Having "entry papers" proves nothing about their nationality.

Furthermore, you have to admit that we know nothing about what Ganjii and Enor have been doing for the past two years. It's just as likely that they've worked for the Empire of Blood before as it is that they have not. The evidence that's been brought up against their ever having worked for the Empire of Blood before is hardly conclusive, and its interpretation suspect.

The evidence is in favor of them either being abroad, or at the very least, not in ties of the EoB. While they were there, they seemed to not know about what was going on in the palace, but at the very least, they knew enough to get their payment. For all we know, they might have lived there, or worked for the EoB in the past, but the evidence is against that theory, with little evidence for it.

At the same time, I'm a tad suprised at everyone basically twisting what Evil, Good, and Neutral is. If you're saying that "most evil people are normal people and most good people are normal people", then that sounds pretty neutral to me. If you want to call them evil, it certainly isn't a stretch (while you'll be outright wrong to call them good), but there isn't enough evidence to say that they are outright evil. At best, this is a job (especially considering the mark that they were originally after was, indeed, evil). FatJose actually said it best.

[zimmerwald1915]

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Yes. Neither solution is more simple, thus neither is more likely. Occam's razor doesn't apply.

[sims796]

Yes. Neither solution is more simple, thus neither is more likely. Occam's razor doesn't apply.

Well, we have little evidence that they were working for the EoB in the past, and moer that says that this may have been their first (bounty) job there.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, we have little evidence that they were working for the EoB in the past, and moer that says that this may have been their first (bounty) job there.
We have no non-circumstantial evidence either way.

[hamishspence]

Savage Species, page 102:


Evil characters are still people. Even bad guys have feelings, emotions and loyalties. This means it is just as possible to play a well-rounded character who happens to be evil as one who happens to be neutral or good. An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way; this merely reflects they way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups, brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

The minimum standard for Good is "makes personal sacrifices to help others" and since Neutral people do this too (though generally, not for those they don't have a connection to- family, friends, "nation") the implication is that Good people are willing to make sacrifices for "strangers" of this kind.

[Ron Miel]

Neither solution is more simple, thus neither is more likely.

Wrong. They don't know where in the palace to collect the bounty. Why? There are at least 3 possibilities:

1) They have never collected a bounty from the EOB before

2) They HAVE collected a bounty from the EOB before, but that was before they built the palace, and the office was in a different place.

3) They HAVE collected a bounty from the palace before, but had their memories of the event erased by the purple pixies.

Solution #1 only requires information in the actual comic. Solution #2 or #3 require assumptions not in evidence.

[Unisus]

I'll go for the "neutral" - because, as someone else said before, this is what bounty-hunters usually are. And looking at the only case we have before us so far, they were hunting down an evil person - Nale. That they wre mislead by Elans similarity to his twin brother can hardly be hold against them.

So, as much as we know that they were, amongst others, working at least once for at least one evil government (we don't know about how many of their contracts have been with good governments), we also know that they were, amongst others, after an evil villain (we don't know about any good persons they hunted down).

I don't see any reason to give them an "evil"-stamp.

[zimmerwald1915]

Wrong. They don't know where in the palace to collect the bounty. Why? There are at least 3 possibilities:

1) They have never collected a bounty from the EOB before

2) They HAVE collected a bounty from the EOB before, but that was before they built the palace, and the office was in a different place.

3) They HAVE collected a bounty from the palace before, but had their memories of the event erased by the purple pixies.

Solution #1 only requires information in the actual comic. Solution #2 or #3 require assumptions not in evidence.
Again, the only thing being unfamiliar with the palace proves is that they have never been in it before. Neither have most subjects of the Empire of Blood. Neither had any other bounty hunters before the palace was built and opened. We know the Empire of Blood has been offering bounties for at least as long as it has had a bounty out on Nale, since there is an office dedicated to their collection with records of other bounties that have been offered, so it is at least likely that there have been some bounties filled in between the posting of Nale's bounty and Enor and Ganjii's having brought Elan in.

Solution 1 requires that Enor and Ganjii never collected a bounty for the Empire of Blood before, while Solution 2 merely leaves the possibility of their having collected a bounty for the Empire of Blood before open. It does not require their having collected a bounty for the Empire of Blood. It makes fewer assumptions, not more.

[sims796]

Wrong. They don't know where in the palace to collect the bounty. Why? There are at least 3 possibilities:

1) They have never collected a bounty from the EOB before

2) They HAVE collected a bounty from the EOB before, but that was before they built the palace, and the office was in a different place.

3) They HAVE collected a bounty from the palace before, but had their memories of the event erased by the purple pixies.

Solution #1 only requires information in the actual comic. Solution #2 or #3 require assumptions not in evidence.

Exactly. Not to mention, they had teleported into town, and the interaction with Tarquin and the others shows evidence that they have never dealt with the EoB beforehand. You can debate that they might have worked for the EoB before the events in the comic, and you may have a point, since the evidence we have so far isn't concrete. However, it wouldn't be a strong argument, seeing as what we see suggest that they have never worked for the EoB.

As to what hamishspence has quoted, it's a nice quote. Someone here on this site has a sig that sums it up well - Neutral looks out for #1. Evil looks out for #1 while crushing #2. What we have seen so far (and only what we have seen) does not seem to suggest outright evil, though you wouldn't be crazy for interpreting them as such.

But yeah, Unisus said it right. They seem to know quite a bit about the Bounty Hunter game, given what Ganji's interaction with Haley was all about.

[Gift Jeraff]

So, as much as we know that they were, amongst others, working at least once for at least one evil government (we don't know about how many of their contracts have been with good governments), we also know that they were, amongst others, after an evil villain (we don't know about any good persons they hunted down).But the Western nation-states always seem to have names which suggest tyranny or anti-mammalianism. The only exceptions I see are the Coastly Coast (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) (?) and something called Justania (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html) which was conquered by Tarquin.

[sims796]

But the Western nation-states always seem to have names which suggest tyranny or anti-mammalianism. The only exceptions I see are the Coastly Coast (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) (?) and something called Justania (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html) which was conquered by Tarquin.

We also don't know if all of their business was in the Western Continent, but it's pretty safe to assume so.

[hamishspence]

Someone here on this site has a sig that sums it up well - Neutral looks out for #1. Evil looks out for #1 while crushing #2.

Another froom Cheesegear (which seems to have been deleted recently) was as I recall:

1: Standing by and doing nothing while Evil happens, isn't "selfish but Neutral"- it's Evil.
2: Only doing what interests you isn't Neutral. It's Chaotic, and possibly Evil.
3: Just because you're organized, doesn't mean you're Lawful.
4: Evil people want friends too.

[sims796]

Another froom Cheesegear (which seems to have been deleted recently) was as I recall:

1: Standing by and doing nothing while Evil happens, isn't "selfish but Neutral"- it's Evil.
2: Only doing what interests you isn't Neutral. It's Chaotic, and possibly Evil.
3: Just because you're organized, doesn't mean you're Lawful.
4: Evil people want friends too.

Another good post, but one I must disagree with. If that being the case, than what is neutral? Standing by while evil is happening sounds pretty neutral to me. Doing something about it sounds good. Helping the bad guy seems funn--I mean, evil.

[VanBuren]

Another froom Cheesegear (which seems to have been deleted recently) was as I recall:

1: Standing by and doing nothing while Evil happens, isn't "selfish but Neutral"- it's Evil.
2: Only doing what interests you isn't Neutral. It's Chaotic, and possibly Evil.
3: Just because you're organized, doesn't mean you're Lawful.
4: Evil people want friends too.

I don't agree with #1. There are a lot of reasons for not intervening. None of them are Good (or even good) but I'd say they're Neutral. Reasons like: "somebody else here is better suited to handling this than I am" or "that guy has a knife/gun/wand. If I intervene, I'll just get killed".

Those are Neutral reasons.

[dps]

we don't know about how many of their contracts have been with good governments

Why do people keep talking about contracts in this thread? Bounty hunters don't work under contract (not to the government, not normally, anyway).

[zimmerwald1915]

Why do people keep talking about contracts in this thread? Bounty hunters don't work under contract (not to the government, not normally, anyway).
Depends on the legal system. If the posting of a bounty is considered an offer by the government, the government's consideration the payment advertised, a bounty hunter's consideration the person on whom the bounty has been posted, and a bounty hunter's tender of the person on whom the bounty was posted an acceptance, and both the government and the bounty hunter are clear on the consideration, then yes there's a contract there. If, instead, the posting of a bounty is considered an invitation to make an offer, then it is the bounty hunter's bringing in of the person on whom the bounty was posted that is the actual offer itself. The government and bounty hunter would then have to agree on their respective considerations (person on whom the bounty was posted for X amount of money) and then exchange them for there to be an acceptance of the offer and a contract. There is, of course, the third type of bounty hunting, where the bounty hunter is employed by the government to hunt down a specific person and paid a wage to do so, where the consideration is the bounty hunter's labor time on the bounty hunter's part and the wage on the government's. But this last type, while featured in The Empire Strikes Back doesn't seem to apply to Enor's and Ganjii's relationship with the Empire of Blood.

[hamishspence]

I don't agree with #1. There are a lot of reasons for not intervening. None of them are Good (or even good) but I'd say they're Neutral. Reasons like: "somebody else here is better suited to handling this than I am" or "that guy has a knife/gun/wand. If I intervene, I'll just get killed".

Those are Neutral reasons.

True- But "doing nothing" doesn't just mean not intervening. I think it this context it includes not making even a resolution to report the event to people who can deal with it.

In more long term cases- it may mean- when a large group is "doing evil" those who don't protest, or emigrate, or practice civil disobediance, but simply "carry on as normal" bear some moral responsibility- they are "standing by, while evil happens".

[VanBuren]

True- But "doing nothing" doesn't just mean not intervening. I think it this context it includes not making even a resolution to report the event to people who can deal with it.

In more long term cases- it may mean- when a large group is "doing evil" those who don't protest, or emigrate, or practice civil disobediance, but simply "carry on as normal" bear some moral responsibility- they are "standing by, while evil happens".

Unfortunately, given what we know of crowd psychology, that gives the majority of humans an evil shift to their alignment. And I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to work like that.

[hamishspence]

In Fiendish Codex 2, a Lawful Evil regime is likely to teach values, have initation ceremonies, and so on, that adjust people's alignment toward LE.

Same might apply to any other Evil regime- over time, people accept that regime's ways as a price of survival in the regime, and as a result, gravitate toward the same alignment.

In the example given of a long-duration LE regime, it's reached the point where 90% of mortals living there have their souls go to Baator after death.

[Unisus]

True- But "doing nothing" doesn't just mean not intervening. I think it this context it includes not making even a resolution to report the event to people who can deal with it.

In more long term cases- it may mean- when a large group is "doing evil" those who don't protest, or emigrate, or practice civil disobediance, but simply "carry on as normal" bear some moral responsibility- they are "standing by, while evil happens".

So if doing nothing against evil makes me evil - does that mean that not hindering someone to do good makes me good?

Of course, if i am neutral and i see much evil done and don't do anything about it, this is challenging for my alignment. But if i can - from my point of view - do also as much good, then my neutrality is save.

For our bounty hunters here this means, that even if they work for evil governments, they can keep their neutrality, as long as they presume, that most people they hunt down are also evil (and as we see with Nale, you don't have to be good to get a price on your head by an evil government)

[Kish]

So, as much as we know that they were, amongst others, working at least once for at least one evil government (we don't know about how many of their contracts have been with good governments),
This is true, but how far do you suppose they'd have to travel to find a contract that wouldn't be, de facto, for Tarquin?

Unless he greatly exaggerated the success of his scheme to date, I'd say "pretty far."

So if doing nothing against evil makes me evil - does that mean that not hindering someone to do good makes me good?

No, because good and evil are fundamentally different, and you very rarely get a valid statement about one by playing fill-in-the-blank with a valid statement about the other.

[Ron Miel]

This is true, but how far do you suppose they'd have to travel to find a contract that wouldn't be, de facto, for Tarquin?

Look, in modern day USA there are real bounty hunters, who make a living by picking up criminals that skip bail, and deliver them to the US justice system for trial. Would you say that they are "working for Obama?"


Seriously, there must be many criminals in the various empires run by Tarquin. Catching those criminals and handing them over to the justice system does not make someone an accomplice to Tarquin.

[Kish]

Seriously, there must be many criminals in the various empires run by Tarquin. Catching those criminals and handing them over to the justice system does not make someone an accomplice to Tarquin.
Whether it makes them "an accomplice to Tarquin" or not, I would hope you wouldn't try to stretch so far as to claim it doesn't make them an enforcer for a fascist (and, going by the Empire of Blood, cartoonishly evil) government.

Unisus said something speculative about them working for good goverments; that was what I replied to. I get that you're, for some reason, heavily invested in them being White Hats.

[zimmerwald1915]

Look, in modern day USA there are real bounty hunters, who make a living by picking up criminals that skip bail, and deliver them to the US justice system for trial. Would you say that they are "working for Obama?"

Seriously, there must be many criminals in the various empires run by Tarquin. Catching those criminals and handing them over to the justice system does not make someone an accomplice to Tarquin.
There are a couple arguments to be made against this. One is that yes, such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. The USA has a federal system which makes things more complicated, but a bounty hunter employed by the State of New York could be considered to be working for Governor Cuomo just as a bounty hunter contracted by, I don't know, the FBI could be considered to be working for Attorney General Holder and ultimately for President Obama.

Another argument hinges on the democratic republic being an impersonal type of state. It does not necessarily depend for its organizational continuity on the continued occupancy of a given office by a given person. An empire is incarnated in the person of the Emperor or Empress, and a dictatorship is incarnated in the person of the dictator. There is little in a dictatorship over which the dictator cannot, should he choose, exercise direct personal control. For the purposes of discussing the Empire of Blood, the Empress can be considered a patsy and Tarquin a dictator. Thus, someone who works for the Empire of Blood can be said to be working for Tarquin.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Ron Miel]

Whether it makes them "an accomplice to Tarquin" or not, I would hope you wouldn't try to stretch so far as to claim it doesn't make them an enforcer for a fascist (and, going by the Empire of Blood, cartoonishly evil) government.

On the contrary, I would say that. They are NOT enforcers for the government.

Their job is to bring criminals to justice, which makes the country a little safer and better to live in.


I get that you're, for some reason, heavily invested in them being White Hats.

No I'm not. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that they are evil.

[Ron Miel]

There are a couple arguments to be made against this. One is that yes, such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. The USA has a federal system which makes things more complicated, but a bounty hunter employed by the State of New York could be considered to be working for Governor Cuomo just as a bounty hunter contracted by, I don't know, the FBI could be considered to be working for Attorney General Holder and ultimately for President Obama.

Okay, that's wrong. Bounty hunters in modern USA aren't employed by the government.

At least as far as I understand it. (I'm British, by the way)

There are private companies - bail bondsmen - that loan money to accused people in order to post bail. If the accused person skips town, and doesn't turn up for trial, the loan company pays a bounty hunter to track them down and bring them back.

They work for private companies, not the government.

[sims796]

Unisus said something speculative about them working for good goverments; that was what I replied to. I get that you're, for some reason, heavily invested in them being White Hats.
I don't get why you're hellbent on saying that we consider those two good. Nobody is saying that, or at the very least, very few people are saying that (and not the two that you are arguing with). If anything, the general consensus in this thread is that they're neutral, at best, with Ganji being Lawful Neutral.

[Kish]

I don't get why you're hellbent on saying that we consider those two good. Nobody is saying that, or at the very least, very few people are saying that (and not the two that you are arguing with).

Actually, I've seen exactly one person say that. That person's posting name was Ron Miel and him saying it is why this thread was started, as you can observe by reading the first post. He backed off a little since then, to arguing that they're neutral-aligned characters who make the various dictatorships a better place by hunting criminals while totally not working for the governments(s). That's why I said "White Hats," instead of "good-aligned."

Not that "bringing 'criminals' to 'justice' in Tarquin's dictatorships makes them a little safer and better to live in" is a significantly better claim than just "Gannji is Lawful Good."

...And yes, I know the general consensus in this thread is that they're nowhere north of neutral. If that wasn't the case I would throw up my hands in despair at the entire thread.

[sims796]

Actually, I've seen exactly one person say that. That person's posting name was Ron Miel.

Not that "bringing 'criminals' to 'justice' in Tarquin's dictatorships makes them a little safer and better to live in" is a significantly better claim than just "Gannji is Neutral Good."

Oh, I see, he said that in a different thread, and the first page quote. My bad. I've only noticed his second page comment. Coulda sworn it was someone else who claimed those two to be good.

[zimmerwald1915]

They work for private companies, not the government.
Read the qualifier. What I said was if they are employed by a government agency, then through the principle of chain of command they can be said to be working for the chief executive. What I did not say was that all bounty hunters were employed by government agencies and thus could all be said to be working for the chief executive. And that's not the only bit of intellectual dishonesty involved here. The American situation you're describing and the situation in the Empire of Blood are very different, and the analogy not sound. The bounty on Nale was posted by the Empire of Blood itself, not by a private company. It was paid by the Empire of Blood itself, not by a private company. Ganjii and Enor are freelance bounty hunters, not bail bondsmen.

Furthermore, you've done nothing to address my other point about the dissimilarity of democratic republics and dictatorships in regard to the importance of the person of the chief executive.

[Ron Miel]

Actually, I've seen exactly one person say that. That person's posting name was Ron Miel and him saying it is why this thread was started, as you can observe by reading the first post.

My statement was that they are "neutral at minimum"

See my first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12044570#post12044570)on the subject.


I think that Ganji MIGHT be good. See the word MIGHT there. But I agree with the consensus that they are more likely neutral.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

[Ron Miel]

Read the qualifier. What I said was if they are employed by a government agency ...

What you said was "such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. "

And it was that specific statement that I disagreed with.

[zimmerwald1915]

What you said was "such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. "

And it was that specific statement that I disagreed with.
And it was that specific state that I then qualified. Cherrypicking sentences out of paragraphs, short paragraphs at that, isn't that intellectually honest either.

[Ron Miel]

I'm not going to exchange insults with you. Either stick to the topic or leave the thread.

[bronnt]

Okay, that's wrong. Bounty hunters in modern USA aren't employed by the government.

At least as far as I understand it. (I'm British, by the way)

There are private companies - bail bondsmen - that loan money to accused people in order to post bail. If the accused person skips town, and doesn't turn up for trial, the loan company pays a bounty hunter to track them down and bring them back.

They work for private companies, not the government.

As an American citizen with a passing understanding of the legalities, that sounds entirely accurate. A bounty hunter is a private employee, not at all a servant of the head of state.

Of course, in any democracy or republic with universal suffrage, no one is directly employed by the head of state. Public employees don't work for anyone except the people of their jurisdiction. It's the most basic of civics concepts.

[Kish]

Of course, in any democracy or republic with universal suffrage,
You know, I didn't respond to the question about whether bounty hunters in the United States are "working for Obama" for at least two reasons. One was the no-politics rule, but the other was that you'd have to move way beyond Tarquin's influence to find a democracy or republic with universal suffrage.

[thereaper]

My statement was that they are "neutral at minimum"

See my first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12044570#post12044570)on the subject.


I think that Ganji MIGHT be good. See the word MIGHT there. But I agree with the consensus that they are more likely neutral.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

Let's do a checklist.

- They do not appear to care about the guilt or innocence of the people they capture. <--- Indicates neutral or worse

- They do not appear to care about making the world better by capturing criminals. <--- Indicates neutral or worse

- They care about themselves. <--- Inconclusive, as all alignments are capable of this

- They care about each other, to the point that they are willing to die for one another. <--- Inconclusive, as all alignments are capable of this, so long as it is for someone very close to them (Good characters extend this behavior beyond those they are close to)

- They care about money, and it appears to be the driving force behind all that they do. <--- Leans neutral, though any alignment can make it work.

- They take jobs for an obviously evil empire. <--- Indicates neutral at best. Good characters would not work for an evil empire, unless it was for a good cause (money typically does not count, and it is Enor and Gannji's only known motive).

- Sympathizing with slave drivers. <--- Clearly a joke, so does not necessarily indicate evil. However, one would not expect such a joke to be made using a Good character.

- They allow targets to get away because the money to danger ratio isn't high enough <---Normally means nothing, but kills any hope of their bounty hunting being for the Goodness (since a bounty hunter who hunts criminals for the good of the community wouldn't be stopped for such a reason)

- Does not like fraud. <--- Indicates lawfulness.

- Attacks people with little to no provocation. <--- Indicates neutral at best, leans towards evil.

We have exactly 0 Goods, 0 "neutrals at minimum", a couple inconclusives, and a bunch of "neutral at best"s.

So, unless there's something I'm missing, that indicates Neutral at best, not Neutral at minimum.

[hamishspence]

I think that Ganji MIGHT be good. See the word MIGHT there. But I agree with the consensus that they are more likely neutral.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

Actually, it was the second post I was thinking of- that doesn't have a "might" in it:



Based on this, I think Ganji is Lawful Good, and Enor is True Neutral, but mostly does LG actions under Ganji's influence.

[Narren]

As an American citizen with a passing understanding of the legalities, that sounds entirely accurate. A bounty hunter is a private employee, not at all a servant of the head of state.

Of course, in any democracy or republic with universal suffrage, no one is directly employed by the head of state. Public employees don't work for anyone except the people of their jurisdiction. It's the most basic of civics concepts.

Bounty hunters are employed by bail bondsman (actually, they usually ARE the bail bondsman) but their authority to take the person into custody and turn them over to the local authorities comes from the courts. Just wanted to muddy up the analogy a bit more. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

In fiction settings (Star Wars in particular) they tend to be closer to professional kidnappers.

Who sometimes target people "Wanted by the law" but as often, target people on behalf of various criminal organizations.

Or simply those who have ticked somebody off enough to have them "post a bounty" about them.

[Ron Miel]

They do not appear to care about the guilt or innocence of the people they capture.

Simply wrong. Ganji explicitly refuses to make his living by taking innocent people.



They do not appear to care about making the world better by capturing criminals ... They care about money, and it appears to be the driving force behind all that they do.

Compare Haley and treasure.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html)
You agree that Haley is Chaotic Good, right?





- They take jobs for an obviously evil empire.

No they don't. This has been explained to you at length. Collecting a reward is NOT the same as working for the empire, or showing any support for it.



- Sympathizing with slave drivers.

No proof of that.

The guard, who is actually Sabine in disguise if you noticed, expresses sympathy for the slave drivers. Some people keep attributing her words to Ganji for some reason.

Ganji only says that the situation is unfair. There's no indication what he means by this, he might mean that the strikers are unfair.

You are reading far too much into a single line, where it isn't even clear what he meant.

And finally, compare Haley on slavery panel 5 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html). Haley is still Chaotic Good, right?



- Attacks people with little to no provocation. <--- Indicates neutral at best, leans towards evil.

Go back and look at the actual strip.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0729.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html

They were trying to enjoy a nice quiet meal after a hard day, they got hassled by a complete stranger who wouldn't leave them alone. They gave him a mild electric shock, that didn't even hurt hi, and then tried to leave. "Come on, out the back door"

It's perfectly clear that Roy is more to blame for the fight than either Enor of Ganji. He even admits that he is the one that caused it to spiral out of control.

[hamishspence]

5d6 lethal electrical damage (standard for a half-dragon) is not exactly a "mild shock, that didn't even hurt"- it's simply Roy's extreme toughness (from being a high level character) that protects him).

It's about half as much damage as lightning bolts from a thunderstorm do in D&D.

[Ancalagon]

Their job is to bring criminals to justice, which makes the country a little safer and better to live in.

Criminals, sure. Or freedom fighters, rebells, intellectuals, critics, people who are related the just named, everyone someone powerful does not like and pays for, ...

You did not get their job right. It is not to "bring criminals", it is to "bring everyone someone pays for, for whatever reason".

Also your RL example is a rather bad one: the US is basically the only country on this blue planet that has official, government-approved private bounty hunters. *yuck*

Enough of this illegal RL comparison, as it is not bringing us any further anyway.

Enor and Ganji are dragging anyone to everyone as long as it gives enough shinies and does not involve too many pointies.

[Ron Miel]

Roy caused the situation to escalate out of control. He admits as much. Enor and Ganji were trying to slip out the back door.

This is not much of an indication that they are evil.

[hamishspence]

Roy admitted (by responding to violence with violence) he caused the situation to escalate out of control- thus drawing in third parties.

But the ones initiating the violence, were Enor & Ganji.

While it could be claimed "Man, that is so unfair, I hope it works out for them" is about the slaves, in-context, it seems more plausible that it's about the slave drivers.

[Ancalagon]

We are actually not talking about "initiating violence", they tried to kill Roy.

How likely is it some "Average Joe" survives 5d6? Zero? Close to that, yes.

[Ron Miel]

And a third possibility is that he thinks thae unionh is being unfair by delaying the building, and hopes that it all works out for the builders.

In context that seems a good possibility of what he meant. Although it's still ambiguous.

And Haley was much more explicitly willing to sell Samantha into slavery. Haley is Good, isn't she? One line, one single offhand remark, from either Haley or Ganji does not make a good indicator of alignment.

[Kish]

Roy admitted (by responding to violence with violence) he caused the situation to escalate out of control- thus drawing in third parties.

But the ones initiating the violence, were Enor & Ganji.
There is no ambiguity about what happened in the inn. Roy asked a perfectly reasonable question, to which Enor and Gannji responded with violence. This is agreed on by Roy and Gannji.

[Ancalagon]

And Haley was much more explicitly willing to sell Samantha into slavery. Haley is Good, isn't she? One line, one single offhand remark, from either Haley or Ganji does not make a good indicator of alignment.

Haley, especically in the beginning, has always shown some neutral or even evil tendencies when it comes to money she could claim as her own and if it was not confirmed she was good, we could surely argue if she was neutral. And that remark would be a big case here. We also know she is pretty snarky, so we do not know if she really was serious (I think she was).

In regard to the NPCs we argue about here there are very few good indicators, some neutral, some evil. So it still seems the verdict "evil or dark side of neutral" isn't that bad.

[hamishspence]

We are actually not talking about "initiating violence", they tried to kill Roy.

How likely is it some "Average Joe" survives 5d6? Zero? Close to that, yes.

I actually said something along those lines about V's use of Explosive Runes on various people, including the half-orc looking after the horses.

[Unisus]

In defense for Haley i have to say, that while she showed enough of her greedy nature to give her that "does anything for money"-stamp, she had a somehow goodreason for this greed: she was collecting the ransom for her father. It may not be very "good" to sell someone into slavery to free a loved relative, but i think there are few people who would not put the welfare of their loved ones over that of any other.

The unwillingness of Ganji to take innocent people from the street to claim bounties set on others is no sign for his alignment in the g/n/e-line, but only for his lawfulness - he does not even say anything against taking innocents, he only mentions the fraud.

[Ron Miel]

... he does not even say anything against taking innocents ....

Neither does he say anything to indicate that he WOULD take innocents.

Why are people assuming that he would?

[Unisus]

Right, but what he actually says implies that he is at least more offended by the thought of fraud than by the thought of beatimng innocent people up.

[bronnt]

In defense for Haley i have to say, that while she showed enough of her greedy nature to give her that "does anything for money"-stamp, she had a somehow goodreason for this greed: she was collecting the ransom for her father. It may not be very "good" to sell someone into slavery to free a loved relative, but i think there are few people who would not put the welfare of their loved ones over that of any other.

Of course, Haley later mentions that she has no intention of actually paying the bounty-she meant to lure them out so that she could get her father and keep the money. So her greed isn't entirely justifiable.

Anyway, Good is a spectrum-not all Good characters are equally good. If you imagine good/bad is a moving scale, with 0% good being pure evil characters like Xykon, 50% being neutral, and 100% being a righteous paladin (like Hinjo or O-Chul, take your pick), then she's probably around 60% mark. Haley does have a tendency, no matter where she is, to try to rescue slaves without concern for herself.

As for Gannji, I do have to take his unwillingness to just kidnap innocent people off the street as a sign of non-evilness. That's partially his lawful alignment, but it also seems like at least a hint that he doesn't want to do something so evil as to grab innocent and turn them into the Empress. I'll stick with a neutral alignment for him.

[Kish]

As for Gannji, I do have to take his unwillingness to just kidnap innocent people off the street as a sign of non-evilness. That's partially his lawful alignment, but it also seems like at least a hint that he doesn't want to do something so evil as to grab innocent and turn them into the Empress.
It does? Odd, then, that he didn't mention that as a moral issue at all, just talking about the fraud.

[Narren]

Of course, Haley later mentions that she has no intention of actually paying the bounty-she meant to lure them out so that she could get her father and keep the money. So her greed isn't entirely justifiable.

Yes, but she has to actually HAVE the money to lure them out with it. She just doesn't plan on letting them keep it. Keep in mind she didn't venture into the more lucrative adventurer career until she needed the money to rescue her father.




As for Gannji, I do have to take his unwillingness to just kidnap innocent people off the street as a sign of non-evilness. That's partially his lawful alignment, but it also seems like at least a hint that he doesn't want to do something so evil as to grab innocent and turn them into the Empress. I'll stick with a neutral alignment for him.

When did he show an unwillingness to kidnap innocent people? All I can recall is him being angry that he spent resources capturing Elan and then wasn't going to be compensated for it.

<edit - Never mind, I just stumbled across their conversation in the inn. I agree that it wouldn't be good or evil, but somewhat lawful.>

[VanBuren]

Neither does he say anything to indicate that he WOULD take innocents.

Why are people assuming that he would?

That's not what you've been claiming though. You've been saying that he DOES have a problem taking innocents, which isn't stated in the comic. The only objection he raised was one of fraud.

[thereaper]

Simply wrong. Ganji explicitly refuses to make his living by taking innocent people.




Compare Haley and treasure.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html)
You agree that Haley is Chaotic Good, right?





No they don't. This has been explained to you at length. Collecting a reward is NOT the same as working for the empire, or showing any support for it.




No proof of that.

The guard, who is actually Sabine in disguise if you noticed, expresses sympathy for the slave drivers. Some people keep attributing her words to Ganji for some reason.

Ganji only says that the situation is unfair. There's no indication what he means by this, he might mean that the strikers are unfair.

You are reading far too much into a single line, where it isn't even clear what he meant.

And finally, compare Haley on slavery panel 5 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html). Haley is still Chaotic Good, right?




Go back and look at the actual strip.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0729.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html

They were trying to enjoy a nice quiet meal after a hard day, they got hassled by a complete stranger who wouldn't leave them alone. They gave him a mild electric shock, that didn't even hurt hi, and then tried to leave. "Come on, out the back door"

It's perfectly clear that Roy is more to blame for the fight than either Enor of Ganji. He even admits that he is the one that caused it to spiral out of control.

Gannji explicitly refuses to make his living catching the wrong people.

He has never once demonstrated a care in the world as to whether or not the people he was catching were innocent. He is not doing it to make the community safer. He is doing it solely to make a profit.

Allow me to rephrase it, then (since I may have used the wrong words). To collect a bounty for an evil empire is to help the evil empire (since you are catching the people they want caught). A Good character would typically not do this (unless it was for a Good reason, such as catching a person they know to be evil; Enor and Gannji do not do it for such a reason).

Haley cares about making money and making the world a better place. See the dirt farmers. Enor and Gannji have not demonstrated the latter.

Do you really think Gannji was referring to anyone except the slave drivers? The context of his statement is quite obvious. The argument overall is still a weak one (as it was all for a joke), but it does help illustrate a pattern.

Roy came to them and persistently asked questions. This is not justification for the use of lethal force. Enor and Gannji started the fight. Whether or not Roy is responsible for it spiralling out of control is irrelevant, as his alignment is not in question. Enor and Gannji tried to kill him for asking too many questions. Most people would consider that an evil act. It is certainly not a good one.

Enor and Gannji have yet to perform even a single Good act, but there are several that point to them being at or near the deep end of the alignment pool. The majority of their acts indicate neutrality. That is the definition of "neutral or worse".

[Ron Miel]

Gannji explicitly refuses to make his living catching the wrong people.

He has never once demonstrated a care in the world as to whether or not the people he was catching were innocent.

Yes, obviously you are right, and I'm wrong. He doesn't actually say outright that he won't catch innocent people. Therefore we can assume that he would catch innocent people.

And that's not all.

He has never once expressed a reluctance to burn down orphanages for the insurance. Therefore we can assume that he would burn down orphanages for the insurance.

He has never expressed a reluctance to mug old ladies. Therefore we should assume that he would mug old ladies.

That's how it works in your mind, right <rolls eyes>


He is not doing it to make the community safer. He is doing it solely to make a profit.

Which basically is the same thing that motivates most "good" PC's.



Allow me to rephrase it, then (since I may have used the wrong words).

No, it's not the words. You're jut plain wrong.


To collect a bounty for an evil empire is to help the evil empire

No, it isn't. You keep saying that but it just does not make sense.

[Gift Jeraff]

Yes, obviously you are right, and I'm wrong. He doesn't actually say outright that he won't catch innocent people. Therefore we can assume that he would catch innocent people.

And that's not all.

He has never once expressed a reluctance to burn down orphanages for the insurance. Therefore we can assume that he would burn down orphanages for the insurance.

He has never expressed a reluctance to mug old ladies. Therefore we should assume that he would mug old ladies.

That's how it works in your mind, right <rolls eyes>Except neither orphanages nor old ladies were ever brought up in any strip with Gannji in it... Beating innocent people unconscious did come up, and he was against it because it would be fraud, not because he found beating up innocents morally beneath him.

[Narren]

I think people are mixing up "innocent" and "wrong person"

Ganji clearly doesn't want to intentionally bring in the wrong person for a bounty, because that's fraud. He doesn't want to "tarnish the fine profession of beating people unconscious and transporting them across international borders."

But would he care if the person was innocent of the crime, or that he was bringing the bounty in on behalf of an evil or corrupt individual/government? As long as the bounty is legitimate, of course.

Ganji also didn't seem to care that the innocent person he brought to the Empress was going to be eaten because of a case of mistaken identity. All he wanted was to make sure he got paid. And, as was mentioned, he used lethal force on Roy for pestering him.

[Kish]

Ganji also didn't seem to care that the innocent person he brought to the Empress was going to be eaten because of a case of mistaken identity.

Actually, he expressed hope that the innocent people he had brought to the Empress were being tortured to death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html).

Ron, it really doesn't work to make an assertion and, when people point out that it's not true, scream that unless they have proof that the exact opposite is true, then your assertion is so true. It's not sound.

[Ron Miel]

Ron, it really doesn't work to make an assertion and, when people point out that it's not true, scream that unless they have proof that the exact opposite is true, then your assertion is so true. It's not sound.

Which is why I object to people doing it.

[VanBuren]

Which is why I object to people doing it.

Then why are you doing it?

[Ron Miel]

I'm not. I'm doing the exact opposite.

[Emanick]

Guys, we're never going to get anywhere from a binary argument.

Ron, when most people are confronted with the idea of capturing innocent people and selling them to governments which may sentence them to death for crimes they did not commit, their primary objection will be "that's unethical." Most people, including neutral people, because I can't think of too many things more evil than that sort of behavior. The same applies even if one assumes that the innocent people would, most likely, be set free without actually being put to death - they'd still have been bloodied into submission and kidnapped against their will. A violent act doesn't have to be murderous to be evil. Gannji doesn't object that "that's unethical." He says, "Oh, I don't want to be dependent on government handouts." Such a remark implicitly suggests that he doesn't consider the idea of violently kidnapping innocent people, at the risk of their life, worthy of reproach. He doesn't reproach it; he invokes a far less important reason to object to it.

This is what other people are thinking when they consider Gannji to be disdainful of the moral wrongness inherent in beating, kidnapping and risking the lives of innocent people.

[Ron Miel]

Ron, when most people are confronted with the idea of capturing innocent people and selling them to governments which may sentence them to death for crimes they did not commit, their primary objection will be "that's unethical."

And the fact is that Ganji has said that he finds it unethical.

Oh, so you have DIFFERENT reasons for finding it unethical. And you don't like his reasons.

The distinction is meaningless.

[VanBuren]

And the fact is that Ganji has said that he finds it unethical.

Oh, so you have DIFFERENT reasons for finding it unethical. And you don't like his reasons.

The distinction is meaningless.

But that isn't what you claimed. There is no apparent issue with their innocence or guilt, but about whether or not he's committing fraud.

That isn't the same thing by a long shot.

[Gift Jeraff]

And the fact is that Ganji has said that he finds it unethical.

Oh, so you have DIFFERENT reasons for finding it unethical. And you don't like his reasons.

The distinction is meaningless.But there can be Good (not wanting to harm innocents), Lawful (not wanting to violate your personal work code), and Chaotic (not wanting to do anything government-related) reasons for finding it deplorable. The reasons are important.

[thereaper]

Yes, obviously you are right, and I'm wrong. He doesn't actually say outright that he won't catch innocent people. Therefore we can assume that he would catch innocent people.

And that's not all.

He has never once expressed a reluctance to burn down orphanages for the insurance. Therefore we can assume that he would burn down orphanages for the insurance.

He has never expressed a reluctance to mug old ladies. Therefore we should assume that he would mug old ladies.

That's how it works in your mind, right <rolls eyes>



Which basically is the same thing that motivates most "good" PC's.




No, it's not the words. You're jut plain wrong.



No, it isn't. You keep saying that but it just does not make sense.

To support your claim that Enor and Gannji are "neutral at minimum", you must demonstrate, at the very least, that they are definitely not evil, and you must do so based on the information that has been presented or the lack thereof that should have been presented (this will become important later in Exhibit C).

Even if you could prove my position incorrect, you would still have to do the above to prove your position.

I have yet to hear a single instance of either one of them performing a good act (Gannji and Enor's concern for each other does not qualify as a "good" act; as anyone would do so for someone that they loved enough; that level of concern would have to be shown towards people they were not close to in order to be called a "good" act).

I, on the other hand, must prove that they are definitely not good, in order to prove that they are "neutral at best".

Exhibit A: Good characters do not try to kill people for frivolous reasons (such as asking too many questions). Even if I went no further, this alone could potentially disprove your position. In addition, most people would likely view this as an evil act.

Exhibit B: Gannji (this does not apply to Enor for obvious reasons) wishes torture on people who he at that point knows were not even the people he was hired to catch (never mind the question of innocence). Good characters do not wish torture on people for petty reasons (if at all).

Exhibit C: A "good" bounty hunter would, by their very nature as a "good" person, demonstrate a care for whether or not the person with the bounty on them were guilty of a crime. If Enor and Gannji possessed such cares, one would not expect them to collect a bounty from an obviously evil empire (since such an empire cannot be trusted to want the person for good reasons). There could be exceptions, of course (a mass murderer like Nale being one of them), but even then, one would expect a "good" bounty hunter to do their research to make sure "Nale" did in fact do the crimes he was accused of. Enor and Gannji, by all appearances, did not. They don't appear to care to know. They never tell "Nale" that he's going to be punished for his evil deeds, or that he's a horrible monster for killing all those people. They just don't care. And even when they find out he's not Nale, they're not horrified and apologetic that they attacked the wrong person (as one would expect of good bounty hunters who wish to help the community and make some money at the same time). Not once do they apologize or show any guilt for it. And when the innocent guy is about to be fed to a dragon? They still don't care.

Exhibit D: A "good" bounty hunter would only go after people who they believed deserved to be caught (can we at least agree on that?). They would not allow such people to escape simply because the money to danger ratio was not high enough (as Enor and Gannji did). This one is particularly important, because it shows that Enor and Gannji are definitely not Good, because if they were, they would not have stopped for money reasons. Good characters give up a chase after an evil person (remember, good bounty hunters don't chase people they don't think are evil) because it's hopeless, or because they have something more important to do, not because it's no longer worth the money. Good people catch monsters whether there's money involved or not.

Exhibits B and C indicate you to be incorrect. A and D prove it.

To prove myself correct, I need only prove that Enor and Gannji are not good, and could potentially be evil (the latter does not require strong evidence, but the former does). A and D prove they are not good. D heavily indicates neutrality (B and C indicate it to a lesser degree). A indicates evil (one might argue that B does as well, though I consider it a much weaker argument than A).

[Unisus]

He has never once expressed a reluctance to burn down orphanages for the insurance. Therefore we can assume that he would burn down orphanages for the insurance.

Actually we know very well about this one - he would not do it. If it was for the poor orphans, we have no idea, but as it would be fraud, we can be sure he would not do it.

[Ron Miel]

To support your claim that Enor and Gannji are "neutral at minimum", you must demonstrate, at the very least, that they are definitely not evil,


This statement is totally wrong.

YOU are the one making the claim that they are 'evil' it is up to YOU to prove it.

Every character should be assumed 'Not Evil' until there is proof of evil.



Even if you could prove my position incorrect, you would still have to do the above to prove your position.

No, YOU are the one making the claim, YOU have to prove it.


I have yet to hear a single instance of either one of them performing a good act

Ganji's act of self sacrifice in the arena.


(Gannji and Enor's concern for each other does not qualify as a "good" act;

Yes it does. There is no logical reason for dismissing it. You just want to ignore it because it ruins your theory.




Exhibit A: Good characters do not try to kill people for frivolous reasons

They didn't try to kill Roy, and their reasons were not frivolous.



Exhibit B: Gannji ... wishes torture on [Elan]

It's perfectly obvious that he's just saying that to upset Roy. Ganji already knows that Elan isn't being tortured, but is having a festival thrown in his honour.



Exhibit C: A "good" bounty hunter would, by their very nature as a "good" person, demonstrate a care for whether or not the person with the bounty on them were guilty of a crime. If Enor and Gannji possessed such cares, one would not expect them to collect a bounty from an obviously evil empire

This is nonsense. You keep saying it but it makes no sense.

They hunt criminals for reward. Collecting a reward from an Evil Empire does not make them supporters of the empire.

You have been told this point over and over. You have NOTHING to support your position


Exhibit D: A "good" bounty hunter would only go after people who they believed deserved to be caught (can we at least agree on that?). They would not allow such people to escape simply because the money to danger ratio was not high enough (as Enor and Gannji did).

Wrong. Literature is full of good characters who work only for pay and who won't go against the bad guys unless they get something in return.

Are you old enough to remember a TV show called The A-Team?

: In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.


They could be hired by the good guy for protection against the bad guys. And the point is, they were HIRED. And their fees were high, like about $40,000 cash, or 5% ownership of the good guy's business. Anyone without that kind of money to spare didn't get their help.

And they were certainly "good" characters.



Exhibits B and C indicate you to be incorrect. A and D prove it.

All four are total nonsense.

[Unisus]

Ok, let's put this one together: If someone states, that the two are "good or neutral, but never evil", then he has to prove the "not evil"-part. If someone states, the two are "neutral or evil, but never good", then he has to prove the "not good"-part. To mention that they "could be" evil or good needs no proof but must proven wrong by others.

And we're not in court here, where "good until proven otherwise" may be an important choice.

Actually there is no reason to protect a fictional character from a wrong assumption about his allignment.


The offer to sacrifice one self for one with more chances to survive anyway, especially in a world where death is mostly a temporary state, may not be an act of evilnes, but it also does not need a good alignment, more a reasonable mind.

All those things about "good", "neutral" and "evil" bounty hunters are very amusing, but i think nobody really wants to alter his meaning about this...


And yes, i doubt the A-Team is a team of good-alligned Characters - to be the hero of a serial does not mean to be good.
While i do accept the idea of even good characters needing money for living and therefore do work only for those who can afford the cost of an operation.

[Ron Miel]

Ok, let's put this one together: If someone states, that the two are "good or neutral, but never evil", then he has to prove the "not evil"-part.

No. It is very hard to prove a negative.



If someone states, the two are "neutral or evil, but never good", then he has to prove the "not good"-part.

Again, no. It is very hard to prove a negative.

[Unisus]

Actually, the correct formulation would be "it's impossible to prove a negative in a non-closed system"

But if it's not possible to prove something, then you can not state it as a fact. So as long as you can not prove the two not being evil, you can not state that they can not be evil. You can assume it by having indicators, but even though i think, the two bounty hunters are neutral, i have to admit that in the strips seen so far there are more indicators for them being evil than for them being good. While this is still enough for the assumption that they are neutral, a decision between good and evil would be hard to make towards good.

And still there are only two acts wich could direct towards good, one of them the hunting down of Nale, an obviously evil Character - given they hunted him down for him beeing evil, wich can be doubted - the other the offering to sacrifice, wich maybe was not so much a matter of giving one's life for another but could also have been just the voice of reasoning.

[Kish]

- the other the offering to sacrifice, wich maybe was not so much a matter of giving one's life for another but could also have been just the voice of reasoning.
While I think their friendship is sincere, the thing is, that doesn't mean they're not evil (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html), least of all in Rich Burlew's writing.

[martianmister]

Ganji's alignment is somewhere near the border between LN and LE alignments. Enor is probably somewhere near to him.

[Narren]

And the fact is that Ganji has said that he finds it unethical.

Oh, so you have DIFFERENT reasons for finding it unethical. And you don't like his reasons.

The distinction is meaningless.

No, actually the distinction is the most important part. WHAT you do doesn't matter so much as WHY you do it. If he refused to capture innocent people because it's wrong, then that's Good. If he refused to capture innocent people because it might ruin his reputation as a bounty hunter, then that's MAYBE Lawful. It's not good or evil.



Every character should be assumed 'Not Evil' until there is proof of evil.

Ok....they should also be assumed "Not Good" and "Not Lawful" and "Not Chaotic." I agree, but in the absence of direct proof, you make hunches based on the evidence presented.




Ganji's act of self sacrifice in the arena.



Yes it does. There is no logical reason for dismissing it. You just want to ignore it because it ruins your theory.

An act of self sacrifice CAN be good. Or it can be neither Good or Evil. If Ganji thought that his best bet for getting out of the situation was to have Enor kill him and later resurrect him, then it's not an act of self sacrifice. It's an act of self preservation. After all, if he killed Enor, he would later be killed by some other gladiator, and then no one wins. It was his only shot. And even if his reasons for doing so were selfless, that doesn't make it inherently good. They're friends....even evil people care about their friends (or family, or other loved ones).




They didn't try to kill Roy, and their reasons were not frivolous.

Yes...they DID try to kill Roy. They used lethal force against him. That blast did what? 5d6 damage? That does an average of 17.5 points of damage. That's way more than enough to kill most people in the world. They didn't know that Roy was a high level fighter. Therefor, they were trying to kill him. And their reasons certainly WERE frivolous. He was asking questions. That's it. No reason to respond with lethal force because someone is annoying you.

In fact, Ganji even admits it in the 3rd panel. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html





This is nonsense. You keep saying it but it makes no sense.

They hunt criminals for reward. Collecting a reward from an Evil Empire does not make them supporters of the empire.

You have been told this point over and over. You have NOTHING to support your position

I think common sense supports his position. If you hunt down and capture enemies of an Evil Empire, you are helping that evil empire. Therefor you are supporting that Evil Empire. They may not agree with the Evil Empire, they may not care about the Evil Empire, but they are furthering the Evil Empire's goals. This is not something a Good character would do. It's sketchy for a Neutral character.



Wrong. Literature is full of good characters who work only for pay and who won't go against the bad guys unless they get something in return.

Are you old enough to remember a TV show called The A-Team?

: In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.


They could be hired by the good guy for protection against the bad guys. And the point is, they were HIRED. And their fees were high, like about $40,000 cash, or 5% ownership of the good guy's business. Anyone without that kind of money to spare didn't get their help.

And they were certainly "good" characters.


Are they certainly "good" characters? Or are they just protagonists? (legitimate question, I never watched the TV show).

If they support themselves by hiring themselves out for protection, that is neither good or evil. It is how they make their living, just like a soldier or police officer. However, if they refuse to help others that need it just because they are not being paid, then they are not Good. That goes for soldiers, police officers, and the A-Team.

I never watched the A-Team, but surely they sometimes took pro bono cases to help someone in need?



All four are total nonsense.

Why? If you're going to say something is bunk, you have to explain why or you have no leg to stand on.

[Kish]

Why? If you're going to say something is bunk, you have to explain why or you have no leg to stand on.
I thought Ron couldn't astound me further, but claiming things that actually happened in the comic are "total nonsense" because they don't support his preferred conclusion managed it.

[derfenrirwolv]

While I think their friendship is sincere, the thing is, that doesn't mean they're not evil, least of all in Rich Burlew's writing.


Its in the rules. Neutral people can be "good" and self sacrificing towards their friends, neighbors and immediate family: basically their monkeysphere. Its how you treat people outside that that really matters.

[Ron Miel]

I thought Ron couldn't astound me further, but claiming things that actually happened in the comic are "total nonsense" because they don't support his preferred conclusion managed it.

The problem is that you keep on distorting things in the comic to support your claims. You claim things as happening in the comic. Most of your claims just simply did not happen.

In comic Ganji and Enor make a minor attack on Roy that doesn't harm him, then try to leave. You twist that into an attempt to murder Roy. You don't have any support for that claim, other than your own belief.

You make an assertion and, when various people point out that it's not true, you just scream that unless they prove that the exact opposite is true, then your assertion is so true. It's not sound.

[Narren]

The problem is that you keep on distorting things in the comic to support your claims. You claim things as happening in the comic. Most of your claims just simply did not happen.

In comic Ganji and Enor make a minor attack on Roy that doesn't harm him, then try to leave. You twist that into an attempt to murder Roy. You don't have any support for that claim, other than your own belief.

You make an assertion and, when various people point out that it's not true, you just scream that unless they prove that the exact opposite is true, then your assertion is so true. It's not sound.

.......I'll try again.


Yes...they DID try to kill Roy. They used lethal force against him. That blast did what? 5d6 damage? That does an average of 17.5 points of damage. That's way more than enough to kill most people in the world. They didn't know that Roy was a high level fighter. Therefor, they were trying to kill him. And their reasons certainly WERE frivolous. He was asking questions. That's it. No reason to respond with lethal force because someone is annoying you.

In fact, Ganji even admits it in the 3rd panel. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html

[Ron Miel]

Please try to understand.

They did not try to kill Roy. They gave him ONE blast, and then they tried to leave.

See that very important part there? I'll say it again.

THEY TRIED TO LEAVE



If they were trying to kill Roy, they would have stayed and blasted him over and over again.

But they didn't do that.

They tried to leave. While Roy was still alive.

Because they were not trying to kill him.

Do you understand yet, or will I have to simplify it any more?

[Narren]

Please try to understand.

They did not try to kill Roy. They gave him ONE blast, and then they tried to leave.

See that very important part there? I'll say it again.

THEY TRIED TO LEAVE



If they were trying to kill Roy, they would have stayed and blasted him over and over again.

But they didn't do that.

They tried to leave. While Roy was still alive.

Because they were not trying to kill him.

Do you understand yet, or will I have to simplify it any more?


They blasted him with a potentially lethal blast. He didn't die (or even get scratched, hardly) so they realized he was a serious threat. So they tried to flee. If they just wanted to leave, they didn't have to blast him first. They could have just left.

[FatJose]

They blasted him with a potentially lethal blast. He didn't die (or even get scratched, hardly) so they realized he was a serious threat. So they tried to flee. If they just wanted to leave, they didn't have to blast him first. They could have just left.

Everything is potentially lethal. They had to rename non-lethal weapons to less-lethal specifically because they kill people. Beanbag guns kill. Tasers kill. Mace kills. They have a very low mortality rate but it happens. Especially when the person using the weapon thinks there will be no permanent damage. It might be stretching but I would assume Roy walks around in gear that "looks" like an above 10th level fighter, so why not? Also, slapstick. Also, everyone in that bar was high level.

[Ron Miel]

If they just wanted to leave, they didn't have to blast him first. They could have just left.

No.

look at it this way.

They are bounty hunters. They catch criminals and hand them over to justice. The people they catch quite likely have friends and associates out for revenge.

So, they sit enjoying a quiet meal. They get approached by a big man in armour with a huge sword. The guy wants to know what happened to his friends.

Ganji guesses correctly that he is a comrade-in-arms of one of their captures. He doesn't know WHICH one.

WE know that Roy is the hero. Ganji doesn't. He has every reason to think that Roy is a potential threat to them.

You tell me, what should a good or neutral aligned character do in such a circumstance? Should they wait for the guy to draw his weapon and attack them? That's a good way to get themselves killed.

No, when threatened, they gotta strike first and hard. A perfectly appropriate action is to quickly blast him, for non-lethal damage, then run away before he can get up again. And that's exactly what they did.

They. Did. Not. Try. To. Kill. Him.
It wasn't frivolous either.

[Narren]

Everything is potentially lethal. They had to rename non-lethal weapons to less-lethal specifically because they kill people. Beanbag guns kill. Tasers kill. Mace kills. They have a very low mortality rate but it happens. Especially when the person using the weapon thinks there will be no permanent damage. It might be stretching but I would assume Roy walks around in gear that "looks" like an above 10th level fighter, so why not? Also, slapstick. Also, everyone in that bar was high level.

Yes, beanbag guns can kill. Tasers and mace do not kill. Some deaths have been the result of situations in which these tools were used, but they were not the cause of death. However, this is terribly off topic and potentially quite derailing. I guess my point is, you can't compare real life less-lethal weapons with D&D. It doesn't really translate. When you blast a random stranger with 5d6 points of damage, you're prepared to kill him. Yes, he was wearing armor and had a sword. So does the level 1 town guard, who only has 8 hitpoints. This isn't World of Warcraft where you can automatically tell what level someone is based on their gear.

[Narren]

No.

look at it this way.

They are bounty hunters. They catch criminals and hand them over to justice. The people they catch quite likely have friends and associates out for revenge.

So, they sit enjoying a quiet meal. They get approached by a big man in armour with a huge sword. The guy wants to know what happened to his friends.

Ganji guesses correctly that he is a comrade-in-arms of one of their captures. He doesn't know WHICH one.

WE know that Roy is the hero. Ganji doesn't. He has every reason to think that Roy is a potential threat to them.

You tell me, what should a good or neutral aligned character do in such a circumstance? Should they wait for the guy to draw his weapon and attack them? That's a good way to get themselves killed.

No, when threatened, they gotta strike first and hard. A perfectly appropriate action is to quickly blast him, for non-lethal damage, then run away before he can get up again. And that's exactly what they did.

They. Did. Not. Try. To. Kill. Him.
It wasn't frivolous either.

They didn't blast him for non-lethal damage, they blasted him with a lighting bolt. That's lethal damage. Oh, and I was mistaken on the damage, it's actually 6d8. So their response to someone who is (politely) inquiring about his friends is to blast them with an average of 27 points of damage. They have no idea what level he is, so if he's less than say...level 3, he's probably going to instantly die. That attack COULD do up to 48 damage. Remember, high level characters are pretty rare. They have NO IDEA how many hitpoints Roy has, so they are prepared to kill him with that blast.

You can't just attack, and possibly kill, EVERYONE that you think could be a potential threat. Roy wasn't even being aggressive, he was nicely asking for help to find his friends. And he was met with a snarky comment and a lighting bolt to the face.

[Ron Miel]

They didn't blast him for non-lethal damage,

Oh, that's right. The damage was lethal. I forgot that Roy died again.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

Turns out the damage wasn't lethal.




So their response to someone who is (politely) inquiring about his friends ...

I explained to you at length why Roy seemed like a threat to them.

You have simply ignored it. How about trying to answer it?

[Gift Jeraff]

Oh, that's right. The damage was lethal. I forgot that Roy died again.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

Turns out the damage wasn't lethal.Lethal damage is anything that can potentially kill. I don't think you can deal nonlethal damage with a breath attack.

[Narren]

Oh, that's right. The damage was lethal. I forgot that Roy died again.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

Turns out the damage wasn't lethal.

What's the point in being sarcastic? Lethal attacks deal lethal damage. Non-lethal attacks deal non-lethal damage. I don't know if you play D&D, are you familiar with the difference?

And the attack was potentially lethal (as far as they knew). If someone shoots you with a pistol, but the bullet barely grazed you, does that mean that they were NOT trying to kill you?






I explained to you at length why Roy seemed like a threat to them.

You have simply ignored it. How about trying to answer it?

I agree with you that Roy could be perceived as a possible threat. But you can't try to kill everyone that could be a possible threat. He wasn't directly threatening them, he was asking questions about his friends. I understand treating him apprehensively, because you don't know who he is. But they could have, you know, told him they didn't know anything or start leaving. If he goes for a weapon or tries to use any kind of force against them, then blast away.

[Ron Miel]

What's the point in being sarcastic?

Because it helps to get the point across better than repeated explanations.



Lethal attacks deal lethal damage. Non-lethal attacks deal non-lethal damage. I don't know if you play D&D, are you familiar with the difference?

I used to play, haven't done so for years. D&D was never my favourite system, anyway.


And the attack was potentially lethal (as far as they knew). If someone shoots you with a pistol, but the bullet barely grazed you, does that mean that they were NOT trying to kill you?

That's how it works in the real world. But I remember enough of D&D rules to know that damage doesn't work that way in the game. You CAN hit someone for damage without killing them.








I agree with you that Roy could be perceived as a possible threat. But you can't try to kill everyone that could be a possible threat. He wasn't directly threatening them, he was asking questions about his friends. I understand treating him apprehensively, because you don't know who he is. But they could have, you know, told him they didn't know anything or start leaving. If he goes for a weapon or tries to use any kind of force against them, then blast away.

Following that advice is a good way to get killed.

You see, there are two types of story. There is the badly written type where the good guy never draws first. He only draws his gun AFTER the bad guy has drawn his. The bad guy shoots and misses, but the good guy shoots and hits.

Any cop or soldier that tried that in real life would die.

The second type of story is where the good guy draws first and shoots if the bad guy even looks like he's attempting to draw. This is much better written, and it's what cops and soldiers do in real life.

Basically, all Ganji did was to draw first against a perceived threat.

I see nothing "evil" about that.

[thereaper]

This statement is totally wrong.

YOU are the one making the claim that they are 'evil' it is up to YOU to prove it.

Every character should be assumed 'Not Evil' until there is proof of evil.




No, YOU are the one making the claim, YOU have to prove it.



Ganji's act of self sacrifice in the arena.



Yes it does. There is no logical reason for dismissing it. You just want to ignore it because it ruins your theory.





They didn't try to kill Roy, and their reasons were not frivolous.




It's perfectly obvious that he's just saying that to upset Roy. Ganji already knows that Elan isn't being tortured, but is having a festival thrown in his honour.



This is nonsense. You keep saying it but it makes no sense.

They hunt criminals for reward. Collecting a reward from an Evil Empire does not make them supporters of the empire.

You have been told this point over and over. You have NOTHING to support your position



Wrong. Literature is full of good characters who work only for pay and who won't go against the bad guys unless they get something in return.

Are you old enough to remember a TV show called The A-Team?

: In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.


They could be hired by the good guy for protection against the bad guys. And the point is, they were HIRED. And their fees were high, like about $40,000 cash, or 5% ownership of the good guy's business. Anyone without that kind of money to spare didn't get their help.

And they were certainly "good" characters.




All four are total nonsense.

I claim they are neutral at best. I must prove that claim. To do so, I must demonstrate that they cannot be good (not that they are evil, only that they are not good).

You claim they are neutral at minimum. You must prove that claim. To do so, you must prove that they cannot be evil (not that they are good, only that they are not evil).

A character who only does good things when there is money in it is not good by D&D alignment standards. They are neutral. Fiction is full of neutral (and even evil) protagonists.

Attacking someone with an attack dealing lethal damage when that person's level is not known is an attempt at killing. Whether or not one tries to escape after it fails is irrelevant. The "good" alternative is to attempt an intimidate check or leave. A "good" character would only have attacked Roy with lethal damage if Roy had attacked first.

Now, time to quote the SRD:


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

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Enor and Gannji have not shown the tendencies associated with "good" for anyone except one another. A character who is only committed enough to make sacrifices for one or two people that they know very well is not good, but neutral.

A good character shows the kind of commitment Enor and Gannji show to each other to nearly any innocent person. This kind of behavior is anathema to the way Enor and Gannji have been depicted in the comic. They care about themselves and that's about it.

They have, however demonstrated a willingness to kill when it was convenient (typically classified as evil), and shown themselves willing to help an evil empire (would you catch people North Korea put bounties on?). This alone is not enough to prove that they are evil, of course. However, I do not have to prove that they are evil. I must only prove that they are not good (see above).

Ultimately, the problem here seems to be that you have difficulty understanding the difference between good and neutral. Neutral does not simply mean your evil acts are balanced by your good ones. It indicates, well, the mindset that most real life people have. They care about themselves and maybe a few other people they are close to, but they won't sacrifice for people outside of that (and nor will they stoop so low as to do horrible things to those other people).

[AxeD]

Hey, sorry if this is a stupid question, but since enor is a half dragon, shouldn't he be the same alignment as his blue dragon parent? "Always lawful evil" or can that change?

[Studoku]

Hey, sorry if this is a stupid question, but since enor is a half dragon, shouldn't he be the same alignment as his blue dragon parent? "Always lawful evil" or can that change?
Not necessarily. Even "Always x" alignments (which I'm surprised half-dragon is) have exceptions. There's even a succubus paladin out there.

It's a shame this is the case. Unrealistic though it is for one race to all have the same alignment, it'd at least stop these ridiculous alignment debates.

[hamishspence]

While the template says "Alignment- Same as the dragon variety" the sample half-black dragon in the MM, in it's Alignment section, says "Often Chaotic Evil"

So I'd say that "Often" was left out of that bit- and should be taken into account.



Basically, all Ganji did was to draw first against a perceived threat.

I see nothing "evil" about that.

In the real world, "drawing first and shooting" against a "perceived threat" that has done as little to be threatening as Roy had at that moment, generally gets murder (or attempted murder) charges.

And in D&D, Murder is generally considered to be an evil act.

[Kish]

I explained to you at length why Roy seemed like a threat to them.

I pointed out to you that Gannji freely agrees that Roy asked a perfectly reasonable question, to which they responded with violence.

You ignored that. As, in fact, you have ignored so many things other people have pointed out to you in this thread...


You have simply ignored it. How about trying to answer it?
...that the irony here is staggering.

[hamishspence]

That's how it works in the real world. But I remember enough of D&D rules to know that damage doesn't work that way in the game. You CAN hit someone for damage without killing them.

"Damage" that has no chance of killing the victim (no matter how much is delivered) only of knocking them out, is called "nonlethal" in D&D.

It can be done with melee weapons, but not ranged weapons- unless the ranged weapons have the special "Merciful" magical trait.

It can be done with spells- but that takes a feat.

And I don't think it can be done with Supernatural Abilities (like breath weapons) at all.

[Narren]

Because it helps to get the point across better than repeated explanations.

Apparently it doesn't.



That's how it works in the real world. But I remember enough of D&D rules to know that damage doesn't work that way in the game. You CAN hit someone for damage without killing them.

Yes, you can hit someone without killing them. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But dealing an average of 27 damage to someone while having NO idea how many hitpoints they have means you are prepared to kill them. Again...if someone shoots you, but the bullet grazes your shoulder, does they mean they weren't trying to kill you?


Following that advice is a good way to get killed.

You see, there are two types of story. There is the badly written type where the good guy never draws first. He only draws his gun AFTER the bad guy has drawn his. The bad guy shoots and misses, but the good guy shoots and hits.

Any cop or soldier that tried that in real life would die.

Umm...no. You're drawing a false dichotomy. It's not "You wait for him to shoot first" or "You kill anyone that could ever pose a threat to you." No, a cop (or anyone) does not have to wait to be shot at to respond with lethal force. But they have to be able to articulate why the person they used potentially lethal force against was a threat to their life or the life of another. You CANNOT use deadly force against someone because he was asking questions about someone, even if you think they guy could be a threat. He hasn't even BEGUN to present himself as a threat.

I could be mistaken on soldiers, but I believe that the rules of engagement only allow most soldiers to use force if fired on first. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


The second type of story is where the good guy draws first and shoots if the bad guy even looks like he's attempting to draw. This is much better written, and it's what cops and soldiers do in real life.

Basically, all Ganji did was to draw first against a perceived threat.

I see nothing "evil" about that.

If Roy walked up with his hand on his hilt and was threatening them with either looks, actions, or words, then fine. That's not what happened. If Roy went for his sword and they blasted him with a prepared action, fine. That's not what happened. They attacked him unprovoked.

[hamishspence]

Umm...no. You're drawing a false dichotomy. It's not "You wait for him to shoot first" or "You kill anyone that could ever pose a threat to you." No, a cop (or anyone) does not have to wait to be shot at to respond with lethal force. But they have to be able to articulate why the person they used potentially lethal force against was a threat to their life or the life of another. You CANNOT use deadly force against someone because he was asking questions about someone, even if you think they guy could be a threat. He hasn't even BEGUN to present himself as a threat.

Yup. The last time this sort of topic was discussed in detail was the "was Roy morally justified in attacking Miko after she murdered Shojo" threads- and it was hard enough to justify Roy's action, even with a murder having being committed immediately before, and Miko having rearmed herself, being clearly unstable, and having previously announced that "everyone in this room but me and Hinjo is an agent of evil".

Ganji has none of these mitigating factors in his favour.

[Ron Miel]

I pointed out to you that Gannji freely agrees that Roy asked a perfectly reasonable question, to which they responded with violence.

A throwaway joke that doesn't invalidate the point that they felt threatened by Roy's approach.





You ignored that.

I felt it to be too trivial to be worth anhswering



As, in fact, you have ignored so many things other people have pointed out to you in this thread...

You've only said a small number of things. You keep saying them over and over. I have not ignored therm. I've pointed out olver and over why you are wrong.

But you just keep making stuff up.


...that the irony here is staggering.

true, but not the way you think it is.

[Ron Miel]

Apparently it doesn't.

apparently it does.

It helped get a message through to you, that you had previously ignored.


Yes, you can hit someone without killing them. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But dealing an average of 27 damage to someone while having NO idea how many hitpoints they have means you are prepared to kill them.

They are experienced bounty hunters. They are used to judging the threat posed by an enemy. And here's the thing. They try to knock their targets out, but leave them alive.

They are therefore able to judge how many hitpoints of damage they can do to someone without killing him.


Again...if someone shoots you, but the bullet grazes your shoulder, does they mean they weren't trying to kill you?

Already answered.

Real world injuries aren't the same as D&D injuries. In D&D you CAN shoot someone with an arrow for a small amount of damage without trying to kill them.

Plus Roy's armour and sword telegraph that he's a fighter type, able to withstand damage.


Umm...no. You're drawing a false dichotomy. It's not "You wait for him to shoot first" or "You kill anyone that could ever pose a threat to you."

Amazing, you understand "false dichotomy" but not "begging the question."

They didn't try to kill him.


You CANNOT use deadly force against someone because he was asking questions about someone, even if you think they guy could be a threat.

They didn't use deadly force.

[hamishspence]

Real world injuries aren't the same as D&D injuries. In D&D you CAN shoot someone with an arrow for a small amount of damage without trying to kill them.

Strictly, you cannot. Ranged weapons do lethal damage, and can't be adjusted to do nonlethal- not without magic. If you shoot a 1st level Warrior with an arrow you have a fair chance of doing enough damage to reduce him to negative hitpoints- after which he's fairly likely to bleed out and die in less than a minute, without healing.


Plus Roy's armour and sword telegraph that he's a fighter type, able to withstand damage.

They don't telegraph anything about his level though- the largest proportion of fighters in a D&D universe are 1st level, and 1st level fighters are almost as fragile as 1st level Commoners.


They didn't use deadly force.

They did significantly more damage than an assault rifle from DMG does- that is, in-setting, "deadly force". The fact that Roy is unusually high level does not change the fact that the vast majority of NPCs in a D&D world would have died from that much damage.

[Ron Miel]

They are bounty hunters

Their business model is based on knocking criminals down and capturing them alive.

They are experts at knowing how much damage you can do to someone without killing them.

[hamishspence]

Or-

Paralysing their targets with Strength-damaging poison bolts.

Hitting them first with several nonlethal blows, then hitting them with lethal blows till they pass out without ever reaching negative hit points.

Researching the target ahead of time so they can judge if the target is tough enough to survive at least one lethal blow.

None of which they do with Roy- all they do is open fire.

The presumption that they know Roy is high level- seems lacking in support.


They are experts at knowing how much damage you can do to someone without killing them.

In a D&D setting, damage is rolled randomly.
And characters vary enormously in hit points.

Thus- unless you know ahead of time how tough the target is- the same blow that will barely faze a high level fighter, will leave a commoner stone dead.

To put a Star Wars parallel on it- Enor's breath weapon is not something that "knocks out" . It is not something that can be "dialed down to a stun setting". It is a lethal weapon that Roy happened to be tough enough to survive.

Just like Leia surviving being shot with a blaster bolt in Return of the Jedi,doesn't change that blaster bolts are lethal- and that you don't shoot someone with a blaster bolt if you want them to survive.

[Ron Miel]

Please look at the actual comic.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0713.html

In the actual comic a lightning blast is a way of knocking out their target without killing him.

Maybe it doesn't work that way in the game rules, but that doesn't matter to what's in the comic.

[hamishspence]

The comic says nothing about it being "used to knock Roy out without killing him".

And, as a D&D comic, the presumption is that 3.5 D&D rules are in force except when proven otherwise.

What happens, is that Roy survives the hit. We cannot say that "the intent was to knock him out without killing him"- because we have no evidence of that.

We have no reason to think that they can judge Roy's level accurately based on the few seconds they see him in the strip.

[martianmister]

You can say same thing for Vaarsuvius and her/his explosive runes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html).

[hamishspence]

I did mention that in some of the V's Alignment threads- that V's use of Explosive Runes on the half-orc could easily come across as attempted murder- since he doesn't know the half-orc is tough enough to survive.

As for the use of Lightning Breath on Elan- a case could be made that that had done enough research on Nale, to judge how high level he was, what his levels were, and therefore roughly how much damage Nale would need to knock him out- and used a mix of lethal and nonlethal attacks on "Nale" (actually Elan, unknown to them) with the intention of taking him alive.

However, that case can't be made for the attack on Roy.

[Ron Miel]

The comic says nothing about it being "used to knock Roy out without killing him".

The comic directly SHOWS Elan getting a blast of lightning breath and surviving.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0713.html

You do agree, at least,l that they were trying to take 'Nale' and associates alive and not kill them, right? You understand that part?


Every scrap of evidence in the comic says that a blast of Enor's lightning breath is NOT an attempt to kill.

[Echonian]

We have no reason to think that they can judge Roy's level accurately based on the few seconds they see him in the strip.

I would have to agree with all of your points, but I would also like to comment on this one.

We do have a reason to believe that they can judge Roy's level, though not accurately is a correct statement. Gannji seemed unwilling to chase down the members of the Order he and Enor had captured beforehand due to them all surviving a Blade Barrier.

Going on that, Gannji probably would have known Roy would survive Enor's attack, but only IF he was correct and Roy was as high of level as the rest he had met earlier. This he had absolutely zero evidence for, and his attack order was based on a glorified hunch. Granted, the chance of Roy surviving based on the what Gannji did know I would place as relatively high, though not high enough that I would call the attack justified in any way.

That action seems neutral to me, going off what I consider to be a good understanding of both OotS and D&D. Not well justified, sure, but not evil. Certainly not good either.

As far as the topic of this thread goes...I could examine every single example of Gannji and Enor's actions up to this point, but others in this thread have done this already more or less. My own opinion is that both Gannji and Enor are some form of neutral, but as most characters in OotS go, they are not one-dimensional as far as alignment is concerned.

Caring about eachother when they are friends is neutral. Whether them hunting down bounties for an evil empire also makes them evil depends largely on whether Gannji (the obvious brains behind the two) does not distinguish in his targets. The only ones that we know about specifically which the two have gone after for bounties are Nale and crew...Gannji simply confused Elan for him, which is perfectly understandable considering what knowledge he had to go by.

The bottom line is that we don't have enough knowledge to definitively judge their alignments, other than to say that they are probably not "good", and probably not "evil" either. At least not strongly so.

Also, Ron: Elan was hit by that lightning breath while Enor was not really in control of his actions.

Also, whether they were "trying" to kill them isn't all that important to the question of whether they were "trying" to kill Roy; seeing as Elan, Haley, and V were attacked under entirely different circumstances (bounties vs those that they could only get into trouble for attacking should they get caught), and for entirely different reasons.

[hamishspence]

What's been pointed out (a few times) is that what will kill a low level character stone dead will have minimal effect on a high level character.

A case can be made that they know enough about "Nale" to mix lethal and nonlethal damage, and thus, knock him out without killing him.

That case can't be made for Roy.

[Ron Miel]

I Also, Ron: Elan was hit by that lightning breath while Enor was not really in control of his actions.

Also, whether they were "trying" to kill them isn't all that important to the question of whether they were "trying" to kill Roy;


Yes it is. Certain people in this thread are claiming that lightning breath is ALWAYS an attempt to kill, and that it cannot be anything else.

the argument goes:

1) lightning breath is ALWAYS an attempt to kill
2) They used lightning breath against Roy
3) Therefore they MUST have been trying to kill him
4) Only evil people would try to kill him
5) Therefore they are proved to be evil
6) QED

Simply showing that the first step in that chain is wrong, that's enough to invalidate the entire argument.

[hamishspence]

Lightning breath is always a lethal attack.

However, a lethal attack is not always used with the intent of committing murder.

If a person combines lethal attacks with nonlethal ones- on a character known to be of high level, then a case can be made that the lethal attacks were still part of a "take them alive" attempt.

However- beginning a routine with a lethal attack- is more suggestive of lethal intent.

Enor's first attack on Elan was a club attack- melee, so could have been nonlethal.

Enor's first attack on Roy (not a bounty, but a stranger) was supernatural lightning breath- known to be lethal.

[raymundo]

Actually, people in this thread try to differentiate between two damage concepts in D&D: Lethal damage and non-lethal damage. My observation is, for Ron "non-lethal damage" is equivalent to "less damage than necessary to kill an opponent". Though that is semantically correct, in D&D terms it is not. Lethal damage is a kind of damage that can kill you, if it reduces your hit points to -10. Non-lethal damage may only knock you unconscious.

Non-lethal damage is quite useful for a bounty hunters, as it allows them to go all-out until the target is unconscious. Lethal damage, though able to knock a target out as well - by reducing it hit points to 0 to -9 - has the risk of outright killing it.

I guess you were not familiar with this, as you said yourself you never played D&D much. That is why people differentiated this point so thoroughly. You were talking about different concepts.

[Ron Miel]

What's been pointed out (a few times)

And it has been answered a few times too.


is that what will kill a low level character stone dead will have minimal effect on a high level character.

A case can be made that they know enough about "Nale" to mix lethal and nonlethal damage, and thus, knock him out without killing him.

Except that their information did not apply to Elan, and they had no information at all about V and Haley.

They still managed to capture them without killing them.


That case can't be made for Roy.

They know that Roy is a comrade-in-arms to one of their marks. They can reasonably guess that he's a tough guy.

[hamishspence]

They know that Roy is a comrade-in-arms to one of their marks. They can reasonably guess that he's a tough guy.

Actually, Roy said "friends" and Gannji said "you and every other family member or comrade in arms. No can do, Sparky".

He didn't care whether it was friend, family member, or comrade in arms- he simply gave Enor the "attack" codeword.


Except that their information did not apply to Elan, and they had no information at all about V and Haley.

They still managed to capture them without killing them.

A "female rogue" and a "elf wizard" were on the Wanted poster. So they knew Nale had cohorts.

The key part is knowing that they are high level- thus- they can deliver at least one lethal blow without actual danger of death to the target.


Actually, people in this thread try to differentiate between two damage concepts in D&D: Lethal damage and non-lethal damage. My observation is, for Ron "non-lethal damage" is equivalent to "less damage than necessary to kill an opponent". Though that is semantically correct, in D&D terms it is not. Lethal damage is a kind of damage that can kill you, if it reduces your hit points to -10. Non-lethal damage may only knock you unconscious.

Non-lethal damage is quite useful for a bounty hunters, as it allows them to go all-out until the target is unconscious. Lethal damage, though able to knock a target out as well - by reducing it hit points to 0 to -9 - has the risk of outright killing it.

Any target at negative hit points (-1 to -9) is "dying"- that is, they automatically lose hit points every round, but have a chance of stabilizing.

However, a character who has taken both lethal and nonlethal damage, will usually fall unconscious before they reach negative hit points.

[The Giant]

First, Gannji and Enor are both True Neutral, though Gannji leans a little more Lawful and Enor leans a little more Chaotic.

Second, they were absolutely trying to kill Roy when Enor breathed lightning. A half-dragon's lightning breath does more lethal damage than 99% of the people in the world can withstand. However, remember that in the Empire of Blood, it would have been totally legal to kill Roy on the spot for asking about a legitimate bounty. The only reason it became an issue is because Kilkil "lost" the paperwork.

Third, Enor using it on Elan earlier was representative of the fact that Enor was under the effect of the Suggestion and had no other alternatives to continue attacking. The bounty was "Dead or Alive," and in that moment, Dead seemed doable while Alive didn't (at least to Enor's simple mind). Once the Suggestion was broken, Enor reverted to striking for nonlethal damage.

Fourth, this thread is unnecessarily hostile, and, since I just answered the main question, I'm locking it now.

Thread closed.