An awesome (but highly unlikely) idea

[enderlord99]

The elf guy who threw the hobbo off the building will be killed by a Bugbear Arclich that says "You're right. I'm dead; the Supreme Leader's brother is dead; an Evil elf will soon be dead too."

[Bastian Weaver]

I don't think he's Evil. Prone to unnecessary violence, yes, but not Evil.

[Thanatosia]

If not for the minor detail that the elf who threw the Hobbo off the building has already been killed by the Supreme Leader and burried under a mountain, I don't see what's so unlikely about that.

[Peelee]

If not for the minor detail that the elf who threw the Hobbo off the building has already been killed by the Supreme Leader and burried under a mountain, I don't see what's so unlikely about that.

Psh. That's almost insignificant. I doubt anyone would notice.

[CharityB]

What is this thread about? :smallbiggrin:

[Kish]

I don't think he's Evil. Prone to unnecessary violence, yes, but not Evil.
You are correct. With a little counseling from a priest, he underwent a recent alignment shift to True Neutral.

[Narren]

You are correct. With a little counseling from a priest, he underwent a recent alignment shift to True Neutral.

Ehh, I think I would have done the same thing in those exact circumstances. I guess that means I'm evil? I've also put my life at risk numerous times to save complete strangers, so maybe I'm just inconsistent.

I probably wouldn't have taunted the hobgoblin, though. I don't think that makes the commander evil, soldiers ib wartime often dehumanize their enemy as a defense mechanism. Or in this case, I guess it would be dedemihumanizing them. Or would it be dehumanoidizing them?

[Bulldog Psion]

The elf guy who threw the hobbo off the building will be killed by a Bugbear Arclich that says "You're right. I'm dead; the Supreme Leader's brother is dead; an Evil elf will soon be dead too."

Huh? :smallconfused:

[Kish]

Ehh, I think I would have done the same thing in those exact circumstances. [...] I probably wouldn't have taunted the hobgoblin, though.
You just contradicted yourself.

[Narren]

You just contradicted yourself.

Maybe I was unclear. I would have probably killed the hobgoblin. Taking him with the group could easily get people killed, and leaving him behind would provide intelligence to the enemy. But I probably wouldn't taunt him first. I don't think it was evil, just unnecessary

[Bulldog Psion]

Maybe I was unclear. I would have probably killed the hobgoblin. Taking him with the group could easily get people killed, and leaving him behind would provide intelligence to the enemy. But I probably wouldn't taunt him first. I don't think it was evil, just unnecessary

Yes, it is an unfortunate truth that prisoners are an enormous burden to their captors -- a burden that commandos likely cannot sustain if they hope to survive. It would be nice if it was always possible to take prisoners, but there are certain circumstances where it would be basically suicidal, and Team Peregrine was in those circumstances.

The taunting was unnecessary, but I can't really see it as justification for the frantic, venomous loathing that has been directed at the elf commander by certain portions of the community here. Unless Thahn himself were present, that hobgoblin was doomed simply by force of necessity.

[Occasional Sage]

Ehh, I think I would have done the same thing in those exact circumstances. I guess that means I'm evil? I've also put my life at risk numerous times to save complete strangers, so maybe I'm just inconsistent.

I probably wouldn't have taunted the hobgoblin, though. I don't think that makes the commander evil, soldiers ib wartime often dehumanize their enemy as a defense mechanism. Or in this case, I guess it would be dedemihumanizing them. Or would it be dehumanoidizing them?

I would prefer "dehumanoidizing" personally; it sounds less like stuttering.

[The Pilgrim]

Yes, it is an unfortunate truth that prisoners are an enormous burden to their captors -- a burden that commandos likely cannot sustain if they hope to survive. It would be nice if it was always possible to take prisoners, but there are certain circumstances where it would be basically suicidal, and Team Peregrine was in those circumstances.

It was not, since in that mission they were taking 112 prisoners back home, and two leaders of the human Resistance saw no problem in taking the hobbo also. And by the words of one of those two leaders, it's implied that the Supreme leader of the Resistance wouldn't approve the Elf's course of action.

In a mission involving taking 112 strangers to your headquarters without caring to check any of them, having taken the hobbo wasn't a burden they couldn't take.

Knocking him out and leaving him behind was also an option. It's not like the Resistance were burning the corpses, retrieving their arrows, or doing anything to clean their traces. Tsukiko already knew the main faces of the human resistance, and Redcloak didn't even need to cast a "speak with dead" to know that there where elven commandos supporting them.

So, no, killing the Hobgoblin was not a necessity, in any way. And killing people just because it's more convenient for you despite knowing that you will have to lie to the Paladin about it, was already labeled as something utterly evil by Elan, more than a hundred strips before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html).

[QDI]

But was it morally justified?

Hum... I think we are moving away from the real question: what would a Bugbear Arclich look like?

[Kish]

Maybe I was unclear.

No, you were clear, you just contradicted yourself.

You would not have glibly said, "Good goblins are dead goblins" and laughed with your lieutenant about that being your tagline. Therefore you would not have done what the commander did. "I don't think what he did was evil" is a statement of opinion. "I don't think killing the hobgoblin was evil" is a statement of opinion. "I don't think killing the hobgoblin was evil, I'm going to breeze over everything he said, and I particularly don't think the bit where Rich has him paraphrase a real-world horrible racist is meant to mean anything" is something else.

[Narren]

It was not, since in that mission they were taking 112 prisoners back home, and two leaders of the human Resistance saw no problem in taking the hobbo also. And by the words of one of those two leaders, it's implied that the Supreme leader of the Resistance wouldn't approve the Elf's course of action.

In a mission involving taking 112 strangers to your headquarters without caring to check any of them, having taken the hobbo wasn't a burden they couldn't take.

Knocking him out and leaving him behind was also an option. It's not like the Resistance were burning the corpses, retrieving their arrows, or doing anything to clean their traces. Tsukiko already knew the main faces of the human resistance, and Redcloak didn't even need to cast a "speak with dead" to know that there where elven commandos supporting them.

So, no, killing the Hobgoblin was not a necessity, in any way. And killing people just because it's more convenient for you despite knowing that you will have to lie to the Paladin about it, was already labeled as something utterly evil by Elan, more than a hundred strips before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html).


Taking that hobgoblin would have been a potentially lethal burden. You would need to bind him guard him, and when you're trying to protect and move 112 malnourished slaves, you can't afford any distractions. And leaving him there had it's own risks. A live witness will yield much better intelligence than a speak with dead spell. The slain hobgoblins didn't see much, he did. He saw the command structure, their numbers, the direction they left in, and who knows what else. Maybe they could have captured him or left him ans suffered any consequences, but I wouldn't risk everyone's life on it.

[Narren]

No, you were clear, you just contradicted yourself.

You would not have glibly said, "Good goblins are dead goblins" and laughed with your lieutenant about that being your tagline. Therefore you would not have done what the commander did. "I don't think what he did was evil" is a statement of opinion. "I don't think killing the hobgoblin was evil" is a statement of opinion. "I don't think killing the hobgoblin was evil, I'm going to breeze over everything he said, and I particularly don't think the bit where Rich has him paraphrase a real-world horrible racist is meant to mean anything" is something else.

That's why I added a "though."

"I would do what he did. I wouldn't do the last part, though." Sorry if my syntax is imperfect, I am typing on a phone.

I'm not sure I understand the last part of your post.

[faith]

No, you were clear, you just contradicted yourself.

You would not have glibly said, "Good goblins are dead goblins" and laughed with your lieutenant about that being your tagline. Therefore you would not have done what the commander did. "I don't think what he did was evil" is a statement of opinion. "I don't think killing the hobgoblin was evil" is a statement of opinion. "I don't think killing the hobgoblin was evil, I'm going to breeze over everything he said, and I particularly don't think the bit where Rich has him paraphrase a real-world horrible racist is meant to mean anything" is something else.

In point of fact he did not contradict himself, he was not logically incongruous, or in direct opposition of himself. At worst what he added was a stipulation; furthermore your first comment was about as relevant and respectful as mine.

[Occasional Sage]

The elf guy who threw the hobbo off the building will be killed by a Bugbear Arclich that says "You're right. I'm dead; the Supreme Leader's brother is dead; an Evil elf will soon be dead too."

Since 95% of liches are arcane casters, wouldn't this make Xykon irrelevant? And isn't the tension within Team Evil the root of a lot of this comic's interest?

[martianmister]

And leaving him there had it's own risks. A live witness will yield much better intelligence than a speak with dead spell. The slain hobgoblins didn't see much, he did. He saw the command structure, their numbers, the direction they left in, and who knows what else. Maybe they could have captured him or left him ans suffered any consequences, but I wouldn't risk everyone's life on it.

Why would goblins or the resistance care about these?

[Kish]

That's why I added a "though."

"I would do what he did. I wouldn't do the last part, though." Sorry if my syntax is imperfect, I am typing on a phone.

I'm not sure I understand the last part of your post.
There seem to be two general attitudes toward Commander Grease Spot.

1. Killing the hobgoblin was the right thing to do. His words are largely irrelevant.
2. The character who declared that his tag-line was "good goblins are dead goblins," a paraphrase of the similar real-world statement about "Indians," probably didn't say that because Rich wanted us all to consider that he wasn't racist. Whether killing the hobgoblin (without the racist statements) would have been the right thing to do is largely irrelevant.

[Gift Jeraff]

It'd be funny if the Commander was Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies, since that's the afterlife the Dark One seems to reside on, based on Jirix's description. An eternity of goblinoids pushing him off ledges? :smallbiggrin:

[Narren]

Why would goblins or the resistance care about these?

In this type of warfare, where you are behind enemy lines and entirely outnumbered, secrecy is extremely important. The more the enemy knows, the more he can use against you. If the hobgoblin told them how many resistance members were at the raid, then they now have a minimum number. They would also have physical descriptions and an idea of their capabilities. What happens when the bad guys raid the compound, look around, and realize that the blue haired wizard or the purple haired cleric is still running around out there (they should have been separated in cells anyways). You don't want them to know these things. In fact, I'm sure that the elves would prefer the goblins to not even know that they're there if possible. And with the elves referring to each other by rank (something RL special ops avoid doing) they would know that it's not just a random adventuring party, but the elven government.

They would know if wizards or clerics are present, and some of the spells they're capable of casting, which indicates a minimum level. It's hard to say just how much the hobgoblin saw that could compromise the group. These things may seem minor, but you don't know what could end up being used against you later. It could be a minor detail that you never noticed that gets everyone killed. Of course, everyone DID get killed, so it's kind of a moot point now.

[Flame of Anor]

What is this thread about? :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, this. It seems to be wavering between a "pointless what-if" thread, a "morally justified?" thread, and yet another "I hate Team Peregrine" thread. Do we really want/need any of those sorts of thread?

[KillianHawkeye]

The elf guy who threw the hobbo off the building will be killed by a Bugbear Arclich that says "You're right. I'm dead; the Supreme Leader's brother is dead; an Evil elf will soon be dead too."

Questions:

1) Where did this bugbear archlich come from exactly?

2) Archliches are supposed to be Good, so why would he consider Redcloak his supreme leader?

3) How can he kill somebody who's already dead and whose body has been destroyed?

4) Why would he care about the death of a single hobgoblin when practically the entire race of hobgoblins is under virtual enslavement from a maniacal lich sorcerer?

5) If he was going to do something, wouldn't he have done it by now?

[Narren]

There seem to be two general attitudes toward Commander Grease Spot.

1. Killing the hobgoblin was the right thing to do. His words are largely irrelevant.
2. The character who declared that his tag-line was "good goblins are dead goblins," a paraphrase of the similar real-world statement about "Indians," probably didn't say that because Rich wanted us all to consider that he wasn't racist. Whether killing the hobgoblin (without the racist statements) would have been the right thing to do is largely irrelevant.

Huh? I don't think #2 is really an attitude...unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[FujinAkari]

There seem to be two general attitudes toward Commander Grease Spot.

1. Killing the hobgoblin was the right thing to do. His words are largely irrelevant.
2. The character who declared that his tag-line was "good goblins are dead goblins," a paraphrase of the similar real-world statement about "Indians," probably didn't say that because Rich wanted us all to consider that he wasn't racist. Whether killing the hobgoblin (without the racist statements) would have been the right thing to do is largely irrelevant.

So, basically, it is a question of whether people should be judged based on their actions or on their words? I think basically every "alignment" or "morally justified" thread ever created (and subsequently shut down) has proven that trying to go by what people say rather than what they do is incorrect.

[Kish]

Huh? I don't think #2 is really an attitude...unless I'm misunderstanding you.
I have no clue what "not really an attitude" means, I'm afraid.

So, basically, it is a question of whether people should be judged based on their actions or on their words?

That is a way to frame it, albeit one which seems massively designed to favor Option 1.

I think basically every "alignment" or "morally justified" thread ever created (and subsequently shut down) has proven that trying to go by what people say rather than what they do is incorrect.
That's quite an assertion. Especially taken to this extent. I wonder how, in this method, one would tell that someone less powerful than Spliced-Vaarsuvius is racist; would the elf commander need enough power to actually commit genocide, since nothing he says will ever count as evidence?

[The Pilgrim]

Taking that hobgoblin would have been a potentially lethal burden. You would need to bind him guard him, and when you're trying to protect and move 112 malnourished slaves, you can't afford any distractions.

Two high-ranking members of the Human resistance view no problem in carrying him along the rest of the slaves. And since they had complete control of the field, they could certainly afford to blindfold him or knock him out.

Anyway, killing people just because it's more convenient for you, when you certainly have other options, has been stated to be evil in the comic.


And leaving him there had it's own risks. A live witness will yield much better intelligence than a speak with dead spell. The slain hobgoblins didn't see much, he did. He saw the command structure, their numbers, the direction they left in, and who knows what else.

Raise Dead.

Since the Resistance did not burnt the corpses, they had already accepted to leave "live witnesses" behind. And, Tsukiko herself has been a "live witness" of the Resistance's raids a lot of times, knew the leader's faces, knew how many of them were, etc...

That secrecy card had already been trumped, long ago.


Maybe they could have captured him or left him ans suffered any consequences, but I wouldn't risk everyone's life on it.

However, they risked (and, ultimately, got killed) the lives of everyone by introducing 112 other strangers in their HQ. One of them being a polymorphed spy.

But, as those 112 strangers didn't had orange skin, it was OK to take the risk.

So, ultimately, as the own Elf Commander proved with his words, the hobbo was killed for racist reasons, not for "dire necessity of war".

[Savil]

what would a Bugbear Arclich look like?
An undead monstrosity created from a finished plot arc?

[FujinAkari]

That is a way to frame it, albeit one which seems massively designed to favor Option 1.

Probably true, but if I can be snippy, I would certainly call it less of an extreme distortion than claiming Rich built the Elves are Awesome (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html) scene in order to indicate to the reader that the elf in question was a racist.

I am getting a bit off topic here, but my dismissal of the "Horrible Racist" read has a lot to do with the way it was framed. The reaction of the sympathetic characters, the situation, and the fact that suspecting the hobgoblin of being a spy was later revealed to be dead on certainly indicates that the Elf isn't meant to be seen as racist, but practical.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, I just question the certainty you seem to have that Rich intended to be seen the way you describe :)


Two high-ranking members of the Human resistance view no problem in carrying him along the rest of the slaves.

What? No, as noted above, the only indication we have of any displeasure is that Thrahn would not have approved of the specifics of how the Hobgoblin died.

There is no indication that Thrahn and Niu (I assume she is your other high ranking person?) even knew there WAS a hobgoblin, their instructions were merely "Take the prisoners to the tunnels" and the hobgoblin was in amongst the prisoners.

[Kish]

Probably true, but if I can be snippy, I would certainly call it less of an extreme distortion than claiming Rich built the Elves are Awesome (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html) scene in order to indicate to the reader that the elf in question was a racist.

I am getting a bit off topic here, but my dismissal of the "Horrible Racist" read has a lot to do with the way it was framed. The reaction of the sympathetic characters, the situation, and the fact that suspecting the hobgoblin of being a spy was later revealed to be dead on certainly indicates that the Elf isn't meant to be seen as racist, but practical.
Every word of that is your opinion, though. Except "the fact that suspecting the hobgoblin of being a spy was later revealed to be dead on," which is just plain incorrect. We will never know if the hobgoblin who was killed was a spy. We know that there was a spy, in the prison, disguised as a human. Multiple people have argued that the message we should take from this is that the racist elf commander got the Resistance wiped out by assuming that orange skin and fangs equaled a spy and that a spy must have orange skin and fangs; I'd say that's a much more supportable argument than yours.


You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, I just question the certainty you seem to have that Rich intended to be seen the way you describe :)

And you do so without offering any explanation at all for Rich having him paraphrase a horrible racist irl.

I don't find "other characters in the comic think it" a compelling argument (and I wouldn't even if those characters didn't spell out that the paladin would find what just happened unacceptable). I never have and I never will.

[FujinAkari]

Every word of that is your opinion, though. Except "the fact that suspecting the hobgoblin of being a spy was later revealed to be dead on," which is just plain incorrect. We will never know if the hobgoblin who was killed was a spy. We know that there was a spy, in the prison, disguised as a human.

Which is... exactly what I said. The suspicion that Redcloak would intentionally imprison a spy to be saved was, in fact, dead on.

It could, and likely is, the case that this hobgoblin wasn't planted for this purpose, but the elf was right to be suspicious of the possibility, but unless the elf just starts definistrating at random, there isn't really a good way to figure out which of the humans is more than likely a spy. To figure out which of the hobgoblins just might be loyal to the hobgoblin nation? Much easier.

[snikrept]

A bugbear archlich would definitely have an badass stylin' crown. That's mandatory.

[Narren]

Two high-ranking members of the Human resistance view no problem in carrying him along the rest of the slaves. And since they had complete control of the field, they could certainly afford to blindfold him or knock him out.

I don't think it's clear that Thanh said "Send this hobgoblin along with the others, and think nothing of it!" Just my opinion, but I think it's more likely that Thanh told them to escort all of the prisoners to the tunnels, and the hobgoblin happened to be among them.


Anyway, killing people just because it's more convenient for you, when you certainly have other options, has been stated to be evil in the comic.

Where was it stated? I guess that makes Roy evil. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.htmll) Those goblins were helpless. And really...V could probably use all non-lethal spells instead of blasting everyone with fire and lightning, so s/he's probably evil too.


Raise Dead.

Since the Resistance did not burnt the corpses, they had already accepted to leave "live witnesses" behind. And, Tsukiko herself has been a "live witness" of the Resistance's raids a lot of times, knew the leader's faces, knew how many of them were, etc...

That secrecy card had already been trumped, long ago.

Tsukiko saw Haley, Belkar, and Thanh. As far as I know, that's the only time they've encountered each other. And if Redcloak would have to spend quite a bit of money raising every guard for tiny snippets of information. Most of the slain guards did not see their attackers, or if they did they did not see much. Raising that one goblin could yield some info, but how are they supposed to know which one has the most info. It would cost 60,000 gp in diamonds alone just to raise the exterior guards of this one raid, I don't think Redcloak has the resources to do this, nor does the resistance have time to destroy the bodies to prevent it.


However, they risked (and, ultimately, got killed) the lives of everyone by introducing 112 other strangers in their HQ. One of them being a polymorphed spy.

But, as those 112 strangers didn't had orange skin, it was OK to take the risk.

Well, we don't know if the spy was amongst those 112 prisoners at that raid, but it's irrelevant anyways. They did screw up, and everyone died, but that doesn't mean that they should have left live witnesses or wasted resources trying to guard a hobgoblin that will likely turn on them or try to escape.


So, ultimately, as the own Elf Commander proved with his words, the hobbo was killed for racist reasons, not for "dire necessity of war".

The elf commander might hate all goblins. He might have killed every goblin in Gobbotopia if it would have won the war. What little evidence we have on him indicates this. But that doesn't mean leaving the hobgoblin alive was a good option.

[Adanedhel]

Hmm, if I were Redcloak, what would I do,

plant a polymorphed goblin, or a non polymorphed goblin?

Advantages of the former, more difficult to detect, almost no extra suspiscion, drawbacks, probably detect magic or antimagicfield or so.

Drawbacks vs second version, if they indeed use anti-magic, the polymorphed goblin is in trouble, the nonpolymorphed is not.

What are the chances on antimagicfields? Pretty darn low if you ask me.

At the height of Azure City their primary defending point is not protected by an AMF, (see the symbol of insanity, and further spells), if at the height of his power Soon could not get arcane magic blocked out, why would ever someone care about AMF or good Arcana defences vs the last remnants of their race, it's not like they've done a good job on magic defence in the past, so sending a polymorphed spy is the only good option.

Not to mention that being evil, RC and Xykon will be far more of the idea wipe the other race, just to be sure, so why would they trust others to not do so?
Better safe then sorry aye?

[Gift Jeraff]

Haley says "Round 4" against Tsukiko and Tsukiko even knows Haley's last name. So that's not the only time they've encountered each other.

[The Pilgrim]

There is no indication that Thrahn and Niu (I assume she is your other high ranking person?) even knew there WAS a hobgoblin, their instructions were merely "Take the prisoners to the tunnels" and the hobgoblin was in amongst the prisoners.

And thus samurai guy and eyepatch girl were carring those orders without viewing any problem with a hobbo being among the prisoners.

[FujinAkari]

And thus samurai guy and eyepatch girl were carring those orders without viewing any problem with a hobbo being among the prisoners.

Yes, their orders were "Take the prisoners to the tunnels" and they were carrying those out. They didn't have the authority to decide whether to execute the hobgoblin, so they were taking him with them so Thrahn could decide.

Do we know what they prefered? Well, they certainly didn't seem to oppose executing the hobgoblin, so trying to construe their inability to take matters into their own hands into some facade of support for the hobgoblin seems fallicious.

Kish is correct in that in-character reactions are only that and are not a good barometer to what Rich feels, but they are a VERY good barometer to what the characters feel, and in this instance we have four sympathetic characters who approve of the action, zero who do not, and one who might disapprove of some specifics.

[The Pilgrim]

Do we know what they prefered? Well, they certainly didn't seem to oppose executing the hobgoblin, so trying to construe their inability to take matters into their own hands into some facade of support for the hobgoblin seems fallicious.

It doesn't matter what they prefered. The point is that they thought that carrying the Hobbo along was an acceptable course of action.


Kish is correct in that in-character reactions are only that and are not a good barometer to what Rich feels, but they are a VERY good barometer to what the characters feel, and in this instance we have four sympathetic characters who approve of the action, zero who do not, and one who might disapprove of some specifics.

The samurai-looking guy didn't approve the action (look at his reaction when the hobbo is thrown off), and by his words and what we know of Thanh, it's clear that he wouldn't have approved either.

Anyway, your line of argumentation is irrelevant. Back in #541 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html) we see seven characters and half a dozen roaches approving to torture O-Chul for fun, and that doesn't means the action was any less Evil. The same could be said for (SoD Spoiler): the Paladins who torched Redcloak's village.

[The Pilgrim]

Where was it stated?

#596 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0596.html), the whole point on Elan being mad on V for executing Kubota. Note when he casts an illusion of Belkar Bitterleaf as the example of someone who would support that line of thought.


I guess that makes Roy evil. Those goblins were helpless.

When that comic aired off, OOTS was still a one-joke comedic spoof of D&D. Similar scenes haven't happened after the comic became more "serious" about itself.

Anyway those goblins where part of the enemy forces, not a prisoner in chains. Later in Dungeon of Dorukan, the OOTS finds Goblin Teenagers and they don't shot them on sight because "the only good goblin is a dead goblin". They accepted their offer to collaborate.


And really...V could probably use all non-lethal spells instead of blasting everyone with fire and lightning, so s/he's probably evil too.


That's a logic fallacy and you know it. :smallwink:


It would cost 60,000 gp in diamonds alone just to raise the exterior guards of this one raid, I don't think Redcloak has the resources to do this, nor does the resistance have time to destroy the bodies to prevent it.

Raise Dead costs only 5.000 gp. Speak with Dead is free. Leaving the Hobbo behind, or carrying him along, blindfolded or unconscious, was an option that wouldn't have cost the Resistance that much effort or secrecy.


The elf commander might hate all goblins. He might have killed every goblin in Gobbotopia if it would have won the war. What little evidence we have on him indicates this. But that doesn't mean leaving the hobgoblin alive was a good option.

Leaving him behind was a Good option. Murdering him was an Evil option. Murdering him for racist reasons was an utterly Evil option. Utilitarianism has nothing to do with it.

Because, in D&D, Good involves respecting life and having concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Being Evil involves having no compassion and no qualms in killing others if it's more convenient. That comes from the basic description of "Good vs Evil" in the 3.5 player handbook.

In the recent strips, Redcloak has stated to have planned to kill the Spy and the Elder Artisan to shut them up, because it was convenient for his plans. It can be argued that, from an utilitarian point of view, Redcloak was right. However, that doesn't means that his planned actions were any less evil.

A Good person is someone who refuses to debase himself in order to achieve it's goals. An Evil one will do so without qualms. That's what tells a Hero from a Villain. Xykon explained it masterfully in Start of Darkness.

[Narren]

Hmm, if I were Redcloak, what would I do,

plant a polymorphed goblin, or a non polymorphed goblin?

Advantages of the former, more difficult to detect, almost no extra suspiscion, drawbacks, probably detect magic or antimagicfield or so.

Drawbacks vs second version, if they indeed use anti-magic, the polymorphed goblin is in trouble, the nonpolymorphed is not.

What are the chances on antimagicfields? Pretty darn low if you ask me.

At the height of Azure City their primary defending point is not protected by an AMF, (see the symbol of insanity, and further spells), if at the height of his power Soon could not get arcane magic blocked out, why would ever someone care about AMF or good Arcana defences vs the last remnants of their race, it's not like they've done a good job on magic defence in the past, so sending a polymorphed spy is the only good option.

Actually, I would first try to use just a regular goblin. If I use a polymorphed spy, and they actually use detect magic (like they should have) then they now KNOW that I'm sending in spies, and it becomes much harder to infiltrate, as they'll become even more paranoid. If you first try a regular goblin, but they kill him just to be safe, you can then try the polymorphed spy. But if that hobgoblin WAS a spy...they did it wrong. He should have pretended to be imprisoned for getting caught helping a human, and then bonded with the humans in prison. Make sure the guards beat him for betraying their kind. Maybe have the goblin help them out, kill a goblin guard or an undead or something in an escape attempt. Details would have to be hashed out, but he would need the sympathy of the other prisoners.


Not to mention that being evil, RC and Xykon will be far more of the idea wipe the other race, just to be sure, so why would they trust others to not do so?
Better safe then sorry aye?

They probably assume that the resistance has a Lawful Stupid paladin in charge, who is unwilling to do what he must to survive. I'm not saying Thanh was stupid, but bad guys always play against the good guys mercy.

[FujinAkari]

It doesn't matter what they prefered. The point is that they thought that carrying the Hobbo along was an acceptable course of action.

Yes. They follow orders and are Lawful. Was there ever any contention about this? You keep stating that they were following orders as though it were indicitive of something other than they recieved general orders and were following them.


The samurai-looking guy didn't approve the action (look at his reaction when the hobbo is thrown off), and by his words and what we know of Thanh, it's clear that he wouldn't have approved either.

The samurai guy is surprised, not angry. The angry facial expression is -entirely- different.


Anyway, your line of argumentation is irrelevant. Back in #541 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html) we see seven characters and half a dozen roaches approving to torture O-Chul for fun, and that doesn't means the action was any less Evil.

Uh... what?


in this instance we have four sympathetic characters who approve of the action, zero who do not, and one who might disapprove of some specifics.

Antagonistic characters are not sympathetic. They are literally the exact opposite*.


The same could be said for the Paladins who torched Redcloak's village in SoD.

It could be said, but that would require confusing symathetic characters and antagonistic characters. The viewer isn't meant to side with the Paladin's, the scene very clearly plays out from Redcloak's view and he is the protagonist. Now, SoD is a bit of a weird example, because we eventually get to a point where the villainous characters ARE the protagonists, and it becomes a legitimate question of who we are meant to sympathize with, if anyone.

However, the scene you picked has a very clear truth to it: We are meant to sympathize with Redcloak and not with the Paladins who are committing Evil acts (albeit for Good reasons)

* - Well, ok, not technically, but functionally speaking the vast vast majority of stories will focus a protagonist who is also sympathetic, making the antagonist the functional opposite. There are the occasional evil-focused story (SoD) where the protagonist (Xykon) is not portrayed sympathetically.

[Adanedhel]

FujinAkari, I disagree with that last comment,

SoD has a sympathetic (arguably) character on focus, who during the course of the story falls from what could have been a hero for the goblind race into darkness, hence Start of Darkness, in my opinion, SoD's protagonist ain't Xykon, but Redcloak.

(I though the Giant had posted something similar here, and that I got that from him, but I might be mistaken at that, so prefer to give it as my own opinion, because I can agree with it rather then guessing he wrote it, and by missing using wrong arguments, and by lack of a better translation of Dutch pretending to know his ideas)

This does not mean however that an antagonist cannot be sympathetic, or that a protagonist must be sympathetic. As an example check God of War (I know it's a computer game, but really)(if I were a braver person I would say Belkar, but I'm not that brave :p ), as a counterexample (sympathetic antagonist) Lirian should do the trick :)

EDIT: a protagonist is just the center of the story, the person(s) around whom the tale is told
an antagonist is by the same token someone who has conflicting goals with the protagonists, and as such tends to come into conflict with said protagonist, in and by itself these terms mean nothing in sliding scales of good/evil, or jerk/sympathetic

[Gift Jeraff]

(I though the Giant had posted something similar here, and that I got that from him, but I might be mistaken at that, so prefer to give it as my own opinion, because I can agree with it rather then guessing he wrote it, and by missing using wrong arguments, and by lack of a better translation of Dutch pretending to know his ideas)Yeah, Rich said Redcloak is really the main character of SoD (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11686399&postcount=36).

[FujinAkari]

FujinAkari, I disagree with that last comment,

SoD has a sympathetic (arguably) character on focus, who during the course of the story falls from what could have been a hero for the goblind race into darkness, hence Start of Darkness, in my opinion, SoD's protagonist ain't Xykon, but Redcloak.

(I though the Giant had posted something similar here, and that I got that from him, but I might be mistaken at that, so prefer to give it as my own opinion, because I can agree with it rather then guessing he wrote it, and by missing using wrong arguments, and by lack of a better translation of Dutch pretending to know his ideas)

This does not mean however that an antagonist cannot be sympathetic, or that a protagonist must be sympathetic. As an example check God of War (I know it's a computer game, but really)(if I were a braver person I would say Belkar, but I'm not that brave :p ), as a counterexample (sympathetic antagonist) Lirian should do the trick :)

EDIT: a protagonist is just the center of the story, the person(s) around whom the tale is told
an antagonist is by the same token someone who has conflicting goals with the protagonists, and as such tends to come into conflict with said protagonist, in and by itself these terms mean nothing in sliding scales of good/evil, or jerk/sympathetic

Its strange... you start off by saying you disagree with me, and then you go and post a whole lot of stuff that is exactly the same as what I posted.

I said that the sympathetic character is typically (but not always, see the asterisk) opposed to the antagonistic character... and you agree from what it looks like... so why are you arguing with me? :P

Yes, there are exceptions... but they are exactly that, the exceptions. The functional definition can still be applied with a rare exception :)

Edit: And yes, Redcloak is the MAIN character of SoD, but I would still list Xykon as one of the protagonists. And I would say (and Rich confirms in the introduction) that Xykon is -not- portrayed sympathetically, whereas Redcloak is, thus I used Xykon for my example.

[Adanedhel]

I clarified in my edit the main point, which is simply that pro/antagonist has no bearing on good/evil or sympathetic/antipethetic, that sympathetic and good protagonists are more common has absolutely no beiring on the idea, similar as to how blondes more regularly have blue eyes, it's not like blond means having blue eyes and brown hair means having brown eyes, as they should say, the exception denies the law :)

[The Pilgrim]

Yes. They follow orders and are Lawful. Was there ever any contention about this? You keep stating that they were following orders as though it were indicitive of something other than they recieved general orders and were following them.

The fact that they were following those orders is indicative of the fact that not killing the Hobbo was an acceptable course of action for the members of the resistance.


The samurai guy is surprised, not angry. The angry facial expression is -entirely- different.

The Samurai Guy is shocked, and at no point express support for the Elf's actions. Unlike Eyepatch Girl, he expresses his concern about the moral issues of what had just happened.


It could be said, but that would require confusing symathetic characters and antagonistic characters.

The Elf Commander was not portayed as a sympathetic character. Neither Eyepatch Girl was never portayed as much sympathetic (remember that she used to call Haley a treacherous, regicide harlot).

In fact the only real sympathetic character in the scene is Thanh, who is the one implied to disapprove the Elf's action.


However, the scene you picked has a very clear truth to it: We are meant to sympathize with Redcloak and not with the Paladins who are committing Evil acts (albeit for Good reasons)

it's highly debatable that we are meant to sympathize with the Elf Commander's murdering of the Hobbo. The real sympathetic character in the scene (the one that later gets to die like a hero and not like an idiot) is implied to not having sympathized with the action.

In my opinion, that scene was probably set up to plant a shadow on the Elf Commander so that we can later digest better his Implosion into oblivion.

[Narren]

The fact that they were following those orders is indicative of the fact that not killing the Hobbo was an acceptable course of action for the members of the resistance.

And the fact that they approved of the commander throwing the hobgoblin off the roof is indicative of the fact that throwing the hobgoblin off the roof was an acceptable course of action for members of the resistance.




The Samurai Guy is shocked, and at no point express support for the Elf's actions. Unlike Eyepatch Girl, he expresses his concern about the moral issues of what had just happened.

Yeah, he seems a little surprised at first. And he didn't express concerns about the moral issues. He didn't say "Oh man, that was totally wrong!" He expressed that the paladin may disapprove of the "petty details of this sort of thing."



The Elf Commander was not portayed as a sympathetic character. Neither Eyepatch Girl was never portayed as much sympathetic (remember that she used to call Haley a treacherous, regicide harlot).

In fact the only real sympathetic character in the scene is Thanh, who is the one that doesn't approve the Elf's action.

Thanh doesn't approve or disapprove of the commanders actions...he doesn't even know about them. As far as we know, he never even knew that the hobgoblin existed.



In the Hobbo's execution, we are never meant to sympathize with the Elf Commander. More on the contrary, that scene was probably set up so that we wouldn't feel bad with the Elf's Implosion, later.


Possibly, but I still felt bad for every resistance member that was brutally slaughtered. It was their fault, perhaps, for not magically checking every newcomer and organizing into independent cells, but I still felt bad for them. SOD ===> I also felt bad for the goblin village that the paladins slaughtered so many years ago. Worse, in fact, since most of them weren't even combatants. Well...I supposed many of the freed slaves weren't either. But if I was behind enemy lines in Azure City, I would consider every hobgoblin I met to be hostile just in the interest of survival.

[EmperorSarda]

There is a difference between the Hobgoblin prisoner and the hobgoblin village that was slain in SoD though. For one, the hobgoblin prisoner is a soldier. All hobgoblins, except for the rare kid brought, are soldiers. They aren't an innocent villager.

Second, the hobgoblin prisoner only expressed dislike of Redcloak, the goblin. Meaning he is loyal to his army, his people, and would be a hindrance in plans against the hobgoblins.

Simple fact of the matter is that it is war. Death happens. Killing the hobgoblin was not an evil thing. It was necessary. The hobgoblin could not be taken with, and thus could not be left alive.

He knew the risks of being a soldier. If it was wrong to kill him, it was wrong to kill all the prison guards too.

[SoC175]

Yes, it is an unfortunate truth that prisoners are an enormous burden to their captors -- a burden that commandos likely cannot sustain if they hope to survive. It would be nice if it was always possible to take prisoners, but there are certain circumstances where it would be basically suicidal, and Team Peregrine was in those circumstances. Leave him in his cell, done. He saw nothing that an opponent with a lot of spellcasters couldn't already be assumed to know.

Simple fact of the matter is that it is war. Death happens. Killing the hobgoblin was not an evil thing. It was necessary. The hobgoblin could not be taken with, and thus could not be left alive.

He knew the risks of being a soldier. If it was wrong to kill him, it was wrong to kill all the prison guards too.Except that we hold ourselves to higher standards than that. What he did would be considered a war crime per Geneva Conventions

[t209]

Too bad Rich dropped a bridge on the resistance. I was hoping that they would meet Stormcloaks esque Monglian Death Seekers (with Scimtar, Chainmails and beards).

[hamishspence]

There is a difference between the Hobgoblin prisoner and the hobgoblin village that was slain in SoD though. For one, the hobgoblin prisoner is a soldier. All hobgoblins, except for the rare kid brought, are soldiers. They aren't an innocent villager.

In War & XPs, we find out (in a bonus strip) that Xykon mobilized 90% of the hobgoblin nation to attack Azure City. So they're not "all soldiers" in that sense- many are likely to be civilians, camp followers and the like.

The "hobgoblin couple" referred to here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html

may be an example of this sort of thing.

[Fish]

I think the purpose of the incident was not to make a statement about goodness or evil but to show how the resistance was being careful, and not being Lawful Stupid — but Redcloak outwits them anyway, using their precautions against them.

I wouldn't read any more into it. Another discussion of the morality of the Elf Commander will just get locked.

[EmperorSarda]

In War & XPs, we find out (in a bonus strip) that Xykon mobilized 90% of the hobgoblin nation to attack Azure City. So they're not "all soldiers" in that sense- many are likely to be civilians, camp followers and the like.

The "hobgoblin couple" referred to here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html

may be an example of this sort of thing.

But we don't know. What we do know is that he is prejudiced against Redcloak for being a goblin, but from what he said there is no inclination that he would help the resistance expel the hobgoblins from the city. Soldier or not, he still would be a liability.

[The Pilgrim]

And the fact that they approved of the commander throwing the hobgoblin off the roof is indicative of the fact that throwing the hobgoblin off the roof was an acceptable course of action for members of the resistance.

Your argument is pointless: As you have just accepted that carrying the Hobbo was an acceptable course of action for the Resistance, you have, thus, removed from the debate any utilitarian or "dire necessity of war" justification of the murder of the Hobbo.


Yeah, he seems a little surprised at first. And he didn't express concerns about the moral issues. He didn't say "Oh man, that was totally wrong!" He expressed that the paladin may disapprove of the "petty details of this sort of thing."

His inmediate reaction to the murder was to realize that they would have to hide it from the Paladin. Thus acknowledging it as contrary to a Good alignment.


Thanh doesn't approve or disapprove of the commanders actions...he doesn't even know about them. As far as we know, he never even knew that the hobgoblin existed.

The words of the samurai guy imply that Thanh would disapprove. Otherwise there would be no sense in The Giant investing a baloon speech in it. Law of Conservation of Detail.


But if I was behind enemy lines in Azure City, I would consider every hobgoblin I met to be hostile just in the interest of survival.

No half-decent D&D DM would allow you to keep a Good alignment after murdering chained prisoners and making an habit of spelling sociopath and racist one line jokes when killing people.

Half-decent DM are rare, though. That's why The Giant has invested so many panels spoofing the "if it doesn't have pale skin it's ok to slaughter it" adventurer type.

[Narren]

Your argument is pointless: As you have just accepted that carrying the Hobbo was an acceptable course of action for the Resistance, you have, thus, removed from the debate any utilitarian or "dire necessity of war" justification of the murder of the Hobbo.

No...I never said that it was an acceptable course of action. I'll break it down.
1. Thanh said to take all of the prisoners directly to the tunnels.
2. Two members of the resistance found a hobgoblin amongst the prisoners.
3. They followed their orders, and led the hobgoblin away with the rest of the prisoners.

Just taking the hobgoblin without at least taking some precautions was a stupid move. Just because two resistance members didn't think it through, does NOT make it an acceptable course of action for the resistance.

If the actions of these two members mean that taking the hobgoblin is"an acceptable course of action for the Resistance" then that means that the two elves throwing him off the ledge is "an acceptable course of action for the Resistance." Saying that it's acceptable because they did it becomes a circular argument.




His inmediate reaction to the murder was to realize that they would have to hide it from the Paladin. Thus acknowledging it as contrary to a Good alignment.

First of all, I never said that this action was "good." On the alignment scale, I'd place it at neutral. Second of all, just because of shouldn't tell the local paladin about it, doesn't make it evil (or even non-good). Paladins are beyond good...they're beyond Lawful Good. They have to maintain a strict code that is NOT conducive to fighting a guerrilla war. There are plenty of good actions that could be taken that are not honorably, and thus should be kept from the paladin. Haley even tells him to ask Niu what to do whenever it comes time to be sneaky.

Incidentally, Niu hid from Thanh that she had taken a level in rogue. Does that make her evil? Because she didn't want the paladin to know about it?




The words of the samurai guy imply that Thanh would disapprove. Otherwise there would be no sense in The Giant investing a baloon speech in it. Law of Conservation of Detail.

Yes....they do. And? I never said Thanh would approve. I said that it isn't clear that Samurai Guy actually disapproves, he was just surprised and didn't want to tell Thanh. We can't know for sure, but Thanh might very well do the Lawful Stupid thing and let the hobgoblin live, which could easily come back to bite them. Or maybe he could come up with a better solution that none of us have? Who knows?



Any half-decent D&D DM wouldn't allow you to keep a Good alignment after murdering chained prisoners and making an habit of making sociopath and racist one line jokes when killing people.

Half-decent DM are rare, though.

I never said the Commander was Good. I'd place him at Lawful or True Neutral, from what I saw. Killing the hobgoblin was the only safe solution I saw...but the racist one-liner was completely unnecessary, and did set a tone for the Commander. To play devil's advocate, many soldiers do try to dehumanize (for lack of a better word) the enemy, to make the fact that they're killing them easier to swallow. That's why there are always derogatory nicknames for whoever it is they're fighting, it's a defense mechanism.


Leave him in his cell, done. He saw nothing that an opponent with a lot of spellcasters couldn't already be assumed to know.
Except that we hold ourselves to higher standards than that. What he did would be considered a war crime per Geneva Conventions

Hmm...that would actually be a pretty good plan. I would ask the other prisoners about him before deciding what course of action to take, and if he's in solitary confinement I would have just left him. But that isn't what happened. They moved him outside with the rest of the resistance, and it's unknown how much he saw or heard at that point that could be used against them. And yes, blithely executing prisoners is against the Geneva Conventions. But an opposing army usually has the infrastructure and capability to take prisoners, the resistance (and any guerrilla group) does not.

There is a real life example of this, actually. I don't think mentioning it violates forum rules, but if it does I'll delete this part. A SEAL team in Afghanistan stumbled across a goat herder and his son. The enemy didn't know they were there, and they were scared that if they let them go, they would give away their position. They also had no means of binding them, and were unable to take them with them because the goats were following the herders everywhere and they needed to be stealthy. They talked amongst themselves about whether to release them, or whether to kill them. They released them, and less than an hour later over 100 enemy soldiers surrounded them and engaged in a firefight. After a prolonged firefight, only one SEAL barely escaped with his life. The rescue chopper that was sent in was shot down, killing 16 men.


In War & XPs, we find out (in a bonus strip) that Xykon mobilized 90% of the hobgoblin nation to attack Azure City. So they're not "all soldiers" in that sense- many are likely to be civilians, camp followers and the like.

The "hobgoblin couple" referred to here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html

may be an example of this sort of thing.

10% does not constitute "many." I would say it's unlikely to encounter a non-hostile hobgoblin if you're a resistance member, whether they're soldiers or not. And the hobgoblin couple may have been a baker and a cobbler, or they may have been two soldiers sneaking off for some nookie. Either way, I wouldn't trust them NOT to give away my position.

[SoC175]

and it's unknown how much he saw or heard at that point that could be used against them. What would that be? Even if he could later describe the entire strike force, so what?

"Yes sir, I said they were 20".
- Instead of having to pin the size resistance between 5 - n they now have to pin the resistance between 20 - n, knowing that neither 5 nor 20 is the least likely to be the minimum number with hundreds/thousands of enemy soldiers and civilians still unaccounted for after the invasion.

"There were paladins leading them."
- Surprise, surprise!

"There were some elves"
- Well, obviously they didn't really try to cover that (or just failed badly) since it's one of the first thing that Redcloak concludes from the scene of the prison break


A SEAL team in Afghanistan stumbled across a goat herder and his son. The enemy didn't know they were there, and they were scared that if they let them go, they would give away their position. They also had no means of binding them, and were unable to take them with them because the goats were following the herders everywhere and they needed to be stealthy. They talked amongst themselves about whether to release them, or whether to kill them. They released them, and less than an hour later over 100 enemy soldiers surrounded them and engaged in a firefight. After a prolonged firefight, only one SEAL barely escaped with his life. The rescue chopper that was sent in was shot down, killing 16 men. And the point is what? That's OK for our soldiers to just kill civilians who don't appreciate us invading their country hundreds of miles away from us to minimize our own casualties? In this case we could just return to good old carpet bombing enemy cities and save us the losses caused by urban warfare.

The last army who thought this was okay is one of the most reviled armies in history.

[Narren]

What would that be? Even if he could later describe the entire strike force, so what?

"Yes sir, I said they were 20".
- Instead of having to pin the size resistance between 5 - n they now have to pin the resistance between 20 - n, knowing that neither 5 nor 20 is the least likely to be the minimum number with hundreds/thousands of enemy soldiers and civilians still unaccounted for after the invasion.

"There were paladins leading them."
- Surprise, surprise!

"There were some elves"
- Well, obviously they didn't really try to cover that (or just failed badly) since it's one of the first thing that Redcloak concludes from the scene of the prison break

I noticed that he picked up on the elves when I reread it. Maybe they have distinctive arrows? That's the only evidence he was basing it on, as far as I could see.

But I mentioned earlier, actually DESCRIBING the strike force is bad. What if the base is raided, and one or two members happen to be out on an extended mission? Now Redcloak will KNOW that the blue haired wizard still isn't dead, or that the purple haired cleric is still missing. Any information can be used against you, so you need to minimize how much they receive.


And the point is what? That's OK for our soldiers to just kill civilians who don't appreciate us invading their country hundreds of miles away from us to minimize our own casualties? In this case we could just return to good old carpet bombing enemy cities and save us the losses caused by urban warfare.

The last army who thought this was okay is one of the most reviled armies in history.

The point is that war is going to produce situations in which there is no "correct" answer. But it's pretty much impossible to fully answer your question without violating forum rules (something I was afraid would happen when I brought up a RL example). I'll PM you if you really want to discuss it.

[The Pilgrim]

There is a real life example of this, actually. I don't think mentioning it violates forum rules, but if it does I'll delete this part.

I'm pretty sure that discussing Real Life constitutes a violation of Forum Rules.

And since I think so, I'll not discuss Real Life issues.

[Narren]

I'm pretty sure that discussing Real Life constitutes a violation of Forum Rules.

And since I think so, I'll not discuss Real Life issues.

Well, we discuss real life all the time. If we mention that we like to eat pizza, we just discussed real life. The only inappropriate topics about real life I could find were religion, politics (which this thread go into if we're not careful), and anything illegal, or graphic/explicit. Of course, if I'm off base, I'll scrub everything.

[The Pilgrim]

No...I never said that it was an acceptable course of action. I'll break it down.
1. Thanh said to take all of the prisoners directly to the tunnels.
2. Two members of the resistance found a hobgoblin amongst the prisoners.
3. They followed their orders, and led the hobgoblin away with the rest of the prisoners.

Just taking the hobgoblin without at least taking some precautions was a stupid move. Just because two resistance members didn't think it through, does NOT make it an acceptable course of action for the resistance.

If the actions of these two members mean that taking the hobgoblin is"an acceptable course of action for the Resistance" then that means that the two elves throwing him off the ledge is "an acceptable course of action for the Resistance." Saying that it's acceptable because they did it becomes a circular argument.

The logical fallacy you are falling in here is that you take my "taking the Hobbo: acceptable course of action" from an utilitarian point of view, and turning it into an "Murdering the Hobbo: acceptable course of action" from a Good vs Evil point of view.

Many people have argued that, from an utilitarian point of view, killing the hobbo wasn't a necessity. They had options: Take him blindfolded for interrogation/brainwash. Leave him behind. Since he was a dissenter, leaving him behind had some benefits for the Resistance (promoting division among the enemy faction). Those benefits make for the small loss of not keeping a level of secrecy that they weren't keeping to begin with.


Thanh might very well do the Lawful Stupid thing and let the hobgoblin live, which could easily come back to bite them. Or maybe he could come up with a better solution that none of us have? Who knows?

Many of us have come with better solutions.


To play devil's advocate, many soldiers do try to dehumanize (for lack of a better word) the enemy, to make the fact that they're killing them easier to swallow. That's why there are always derogatory nicknames for whoever it is they're fighting, it's a defense mechanism.

OOTS isn't featured in our world. It's featured in an Heroic Fantasy Setting where Good and Evil is an objective issue. Debasing yourself as a "defense mechanism" doesn't prevent you from becoming Evil because of it.

It's precisely what happens with Redcloak, who self-justifies every unjustificable action he takes because it is "for the Greater Good of the Goblinoids"... and has become an Evil guy precisely for doing that.

[FujinAkari]

His inmediate reaction to the murder was to realize that they would have to hide it from the Paladin. Thus acknowledging it as contrary to a Good alignment.

No, he realized that they would have to hide it from the Paladin because the action (execution without trial) was contrary to a Lawful alignment.

You keep assuming it is Evil when there is really no evidence to that and, as noted (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) evidence that it is not.

I would view it as Neutral, myself... but I accept that we are in a D&D universe and do not try to apply real-world ethics to the situation. I most certainly don't try and apply the Geneva convention to a dark age scenario :P

At the risk of repeating myself, however, you have different views of the situation and see things in your own light. That's fine. I only became involved when people started trying to claim Rich wanted them to view the Elf commander as evil because of obvious racist statements... generally speaking whenever anyone tries to prop up their argument by claiming Rich agrees with them, I'll check them pretty quickly ^^

[Kish]

No, he realized that they would have to hide it from the Paladin because the action (execution without trial) was contrary to a Lawful alignment.

Well, that's an assertion I've never seen before, I'll say that for it.

If an ironic one coming from the same person who claimed that the Resistance members being willing to take the hobgoblin to the tunnels meant only that they were Lawful. Also an unsupportable one; Thanh manifestly does not find it necessary to hold a full formal trial for each and every hobgoblin. Thanh balks at evil actions. He is not a ridiculous caricature of the Lawful alignment.



That's fine. I only became involved when people started trying to claim Rich wanted them to view the Elf commander as evil because of obvious racist statements... generally speaking whenever anyone tries to prop up their argument by claiming Rich agrees with them, I'll check them pretty quickly ^^
If you're going to congratulate yourself on the speed with which you "checked" me, it would be nice if you would actually address my asking you why you think Rich had the racist elf commander very slightly paraphrase a statement of horrific racism, instead of just ignoring every time I bring it up.

[Narren]

The logical fallacy you are falling in here is that you take my "taking the Hobbo: acceptable course of action" from an utilitarian point of view, and turning it into an "Murdering the Hobbo: acceptable course of action" from a Good vs Evil point of view.

Huh? I wasn't the one that brought Good vs Evil into anything (not that I recall, at least). My stance was that killing the hobgoblin was an unfortunate necessity of war. That's it. Anything else you're arguing against is something you've invented.


Many people have argued that, from an utilitarian point of view, killing the hobbo wasn't a necessity. They had options: Take him blindfolded for interrogation/brainwash. Leave him behind. Since he was a dissenter, leaving him behind had some benefits for the Resistance (promoting division among the enemy faction). Those benefits make for the small loss of not keeping a level of secrecy that they weren't keeping to begin with.

I don't think that leaving him behind would really cause any real division among the enemy faction. I suppose it's possible, but in my mind it wouldn't justify giving the enemy any more intelligence that they had to.



Many of us have come with better solutions.

And I've considered and disagreed with every solution that I've seen. I believe that they are all too risky, and that the lives of the prisoners and the resistance members take priority. You do not feel the same way. I think this is clear. The only solution I saw that seemed like a good one was to leave him in his cell before he saw anything that could be used against the resistance. If all he noticed was the few people who rescued him, and not all the stuff may have seen on the outside, then I would probably just leave him. But that was not an option by the time the Commander noticed his presence.



OOTS isn't featured in our world. It's featured in an Heroic Fantasy Setting where Good and Evil is an objective issue. Debasing yourself as a "defense mechanism" doesn't prevent you from becoming Evil because of it.

It's precisely what happens with Redcloak, who self-justifies every unjustificable action he takes because it is "for the Greater Good of the Goblinoids"... and has become an Evil guy precisely for doing that.

I do somewhat agree with you here, in principle. I was mostly just offering an alternative viewpoint. But I still don't believe that the one unnecessary comment that came from the Commander is enough to paint him as evil.

[Kish]

But I still don't believe that the one unnecessary comment that came from the Commander is enough to paint him as evil.
If it was something he'd just said as he shoved the hobgoblin over the edge, I would agree with you. (I'd still think evil was the way to bet, but I wouldn't consider the evidence enough to be making bets without having to.)

It's not. It was his tagline. The lieutenant immediately knew what he meant as soon as he started talking about his tagline, so he wasn't lying when he said it was.

[Narren]

Well, that's an assertion I've never seen before, I'll say that for it.

If an ironic one coming from the same person who claimed that the Resistance members being willing to take the hobgoblin to the tunnels meant only that they were Lawful. Also an unsupportable one; Thanh manifestly does not find it necessary to hold a full formal trial for each and every hobgoblin. Thanh balks at evil actions. He is not a ridiculous caricature of the Lawful alignment.

It was not an honorable action....at all. And paladins value honor, and would probably not want to see enemy prisoners treated like that. Therefor, when dishonorable actions are deemed necessary for the survival of the group, keep those actions out of view of the local paladin. Seems like common sense. And Good vs Evil never entered into it.

Thanh was never fully fleshed out, but your stereotypical paladin is known for being ridiculously rigid. Miko was an extreme example of this, but even the other paladins display it somewhat. Hinjo was going to fight to the death outside his boat, knowing full well that he could be of more use in leading his people that he could be in slaying a few more hobgoblins. Thanh was ready to kill himself when he realized that he almost struck down his lord while being dominated. Thanh was a great asset to the group, and could help rescue innocent slaves and protect the other members. However, even knowing this, he was willing to take his own life for a perceived violation of his code of honor. This means that Thanh considers his code of honor to be more important than the welfare of the group. This means, when actions are taken that may violate that code, they should be kept from him. This does NOT mean than any violation of Thanh's code = an evil action.

[The Pilgrim]

Huh? I wasn't the one that brought Good vs Evil into anything (not that I recall, at least). My stance was that killing the hobgoblin was an unfortunate necessity of war. That's it. Anything else you're arguing against is something you've invented.

It was not a necessity of war. They had options that weren't worse than murdering him. There were also a lot of utilitarian reasons to take him alive: For instance, would have given the Resistance a chance to interrogate him and gain a lot of information about their occupiers.

In any case, the Elf stated very clearly why he was murdering the hobbo, and it wasn't "unfortunate necessity of war". It was "the only good goblin is a dead goblin".


I don't think that leaving him behind would really cause any real division among the enemy faction. I suppose it's possible, but in my mind it wouldn't justify giving the enemy any more intelligence that they had to.


Leaving him behind wouldn't have given the enemy any more intelligence: Speak with Dead. That, even assuming that the hobbo who hated the Supreme Leader and who got imprisoned by the other Hobbos would be willing to collaborate with them.

[ti'esar]

Good gods, can we not just let this subject (and the elf commander) die in peace? The guy has been dead for five strips now. Let it rest.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: This seems to just be a debate on whether or not an action is morally justified. Such threads are currently not allowed.