Strips 835-836: Yuk-yuk- enjoying delicacy or enduring torture?

[hamishspence]

The "enjoying delicacy" argument:


After days of being in the semi plane of ranch dressing, a decent meal would be a nice change, but a gourmet Kobold delicacy, and fresh no less, seems they're only making Yukyuk want to not fight the domination.

Why would it backfire? I think someone made a lovely comment where they implied what isn't torture for one person can be terrible torture for another, but they neglected to think, that the inverse is true. You dangle a live mouse in front of a squeamish human, it is torture, you dangle that same mouse in front of a cat, and it is a plaything and possibly a meal.

Everyone has been so fixated on how they'd feel that they didn't take Kobold dietary habits into consideration.

Kobolds will eat almost anything, and old school Kobolds were described as hairless lizard-like dog men... ever seen a dog eat poo? Some of them like it. If it was revolting to Yukyuk, then he would have received a new save.
...
Maybe. His reaction is already been seen, he didn't receive a new save, so the act was not one that he would not willingly do. I still think this implies the fact that cat fecal matter is a Kobold delicacy.

the "enduring torture" argument:


This most definitely is torture.

Basically, if you remove the "magical domination" part, you could describe the process that was just followed thus:

"The prisoner, already securely bound, was tied down immobile on their back and their mouth was forced open and held open with wooden blocks. An animal was then induced to defecate into their mouths, forcing them to swallow and possibly choke to death on the feces."

Is that the description of a light-hearted "prank" or "hazing"?? :smallannoyed: Is that nothing but "toilet humor"?

Because that's exactly what was done, except with invisible magical bindings and blocks instead of visible, physical ones. It sounds like something out of the horrors of a concentration camp, not good-natured little kiddies participating in a harmless prank.

Opinions?

[Dark Matter]

"His silent screams are a symphony I cannot share".

[SaintRidley]

"His silent screams are a symphony I cannot share".

This only reflects V's particular view on the matter, not anything about Kobold eating habits.


Unless we see Yuk-Yuk say that he enjoyed his time as a litterbox once his domination is over, I'm going to err on the side of torture while keeping the delicacy door open.

[ThePhantasm]

This only reflects V's particular view on the matter, not anything about Kobold eating habits.

No, I think it means V can hear YukYuk's mental screams, which means that YukYuk is certainly not enjoying himself. Otherwise V's statement is nonsensical.

EDIT: I guess it depends on what V means by "share." I assumed it meant "share with Belkar" but perhaps it means V himself can't share in the screams. The descriptive "symphony" seems to indicate the former, but I concede the ambiguity.

[Themrys]

No, I think it means V can hear YukYuk's mental screams, which means that YukYuk is certainly not enjoying himself. Otherwise V's statement is nonsensical.

V could just lie to Belkar. Unlikely, but possible.

[ThePhantasm]

V could just lie to Belkar. Unlikely, but possible.

I can't imagine a single reason why (s)he would do so in this situation. Care to enlighten me?

[Goosefarble]

Yeah, somehow, given the setup, I very much doubt it's hilarious good luck for Yukyuk. There is nothing in the strip suggesting that he's enjoying it, and everyone else's reactions and lead-up dialogue suggest it's going to be hell for the Kobold.

Plus, I hate to be one of those people who always always points out how Rich doesn't stick to the rules but... Rich doesn't stick to the rules. The whole "will save" thing is a moot point.

[Steward]

Even if he did use that rule, there's no guarantee that the kobold would make his saving throw.

[Bastian]

Is this thread serious?

The first position is untenable - I thought it was a provocation at best.
There is no reason why Belkar and V should reward Yuk-yuk with a delicacy. They are clearly punishing him with more than a hint of personal satisfaction.


"The subject was roused from sleep by a shrill sound in the middle of the night and consequently made to be attacked by countless angry bees, possibly risking anaphylactic shock and death." Does this look a prank to you? Well, it is not. Belkar tortured V.

[Phoenix Xul]

I would love to say I'd never seen so much over-analyzing of a one-off joke, but this IS the OotS forum...

[Ave]

He received a new save, he failed it.
Or he received a new save, V recast the spell.

Why did they bring him around is a bigger fault.

[curtis]

I can't imagine a single reason why (s)he would do so in this situation. Care to enlighten me?

Disclaimer: I strongly believe that it was torture, as anything else just seems silly. However, if it WAS a delicacy (or at least something YukYuk wouldn't object to) I can see why V would lie. Maybe V's enjoying her shiny new crossbow-wielder, and if Belkar knows his "torture" isn't really working, he may resort to more deadly measures.

[ThePhantasm]

Is this thread serious?

The first position is untenable - I thought it was a provocation at best.
There is no reason why Belkar and V should reward Yuk-yuk with a delicacy. They are clearly punishing him with more than a hint of personal satisfaction.

"The subject was roused from sleep by a shrill sound in the middle of the night and consequently made to be attacked by countless angry bees, possibly risking anaphylactic shock and death." Does this look a prank to you? Well, it is not. Belkar tortured V.

Your tone seems to suggest that various posters can't tell a prank from torture. But no one suggested in this thread that what was done to YukYuk was a prank. Far from it, the theory that you just strawmanned suggests that YukYuk enjoyed Scruffy's little delivery in spite of V and Belkar's intentions.

The argument is not over whether V and Belkar intended to torture YukYuk. They certainly did. The argument is over whether the result was torture or whether YukYuk enjoyed it. I maintain the former option, as I see you do, but your argument doesn't seem applicable here really. (Similarly Bulldog Psion's comment in the first post doesn't really address Sweet_Goddess' argument)


Disclaimer: I strongly believe that it was torture, as anything else just seems silly. However, if it WAS a delicacy (or at least something YukYuk wouldn't object to) I can see why V would lie. Maybe V's enjoying her shiny new crossbow-wielder, and if Belkar knows his "torture" isn't really working, he may resort to more deadly measures.

I've seen no indication that V gives a whit.

[curtis]

I've seen no indication that V gives a whit.

Well as seen in the most recent strip, V's kept YukYuk around, meaning he presumably wants him there. If he does want him there then why not lie in order to protect him?

[Peelee]

No, I think it means V can hear YukYuk's mental screams, which means that YukYuk is certainly not enjoying himself. Otherwise V's statement is nonsensical.


So you believe it more likely that V cast a spell allowing him telepathic communication with the kobold more likely than that he has simply taken dramatic license to say a line he thought was funny?

From the SRD on Dominate Person:
By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.

So V could, by concentrating fully on the spell (which it does not appear he is doing), receive full sensory input of having a cat crap in his mouth. It does seem like V could tell whether the kobold really was mentally screaming, but I really, REALLY doubt he would employ that aspect of the spell at this moment. I think V is just using artistic license to say a line.

[hamishspence]

So V could, by concentrating fully on the spell (which it does not appear he is doing), receive full sensory input of having a cat crap in his mouth.

Exactly how would one tell if V is spending a standard action on "concentating"?

it's a purely mental thing, and after all, Talking Is A Free Action- he could be concentrating and talking to Belkar at the same time.

[Math_Mage]

So you believe it more likely that V cast a spell allowing him telepathic communication with the kobold more likely than that he has simply taken dramatic license to say a line he thought was funny?

From the SRD on Dominate Person:

So V could, by concentrating fully on the spell (which it does not appear he is doing), receive full sensory input of having a cat crap in his mouth. It does seem like V could tell whether the kobold really was mentally screaming, but I really, REALLY doubt he would employ that aspect of the spell at this moment. I think V is just using artistic license to say a line.

More to the point, if he WERE using that aspect of the spell, the kobold's silent screams most certainly WOULD be a symphony V could share. So...yeah.

[ThePhantasm]

So you believe it more likely that V cast a spell allowing him telepathic communication with the kobold more likely than that he has simply taken dramatic license to say a line he thought was funny?

Rather than respond to that loaded question, I'll just note that there was an entire second half to my post that you chose to ignore.

Second, my assumptions generally operate on story first, rules second, just as I think Rich's writing tends to operate. I think it is more likely that Rich is using artistic license against what you might expect from the SRD, rather than that V is using artistic license, which makes less sense to me. But I noted the ambiguity; I'm not sure what more you want me to say.

[Bastian]

Your tone seems to suggest that various posters can't tell a prank from torture. But no one suggested in this thread that what was done to YukYuk was a prank. Far from it, the theory that you just strawmanned suggests that YukYuk enjoyed Scruffy's little delivery in spite of V and Belkar's intentions.

The argument is not over whether V and Belkar intended to torture YukYuk. They certainly did. The argument is over whether the result was torture or whether YukYuk enjoyed it. I maintain the former option, as I see you do, but your argument doesn't seem applicable here really. (Similarly Bulldog Psion's comment in the first post doesn't really address Sweet_Goddess' argument)


My tone suggested that various posters were not willing to make the difference between a single, deliberate, cruel punishment/act of revenge from an act of torture as normally implied.

My provocation (I wouldn't dare to call it an argument) was aimed at showing that 'similar' episodes in terms of damage/pain/debasement inflicted have already happened in the strip and have been classed as 'pranks'.
But I should have answered Bulldog Psion's comment in the other thread (or at least quote his text) and not in this one. I apologize.

Maybe my sentence would be less ambiguous if rephrased in this way:
'There is no reason why Belkar and V should reward Yukyuk with something they thought to be a delicacy for him'.

Hope the fresh intake of caffeine has helped me in clarifying.

[ThePhantasm]

'There is no reason why Belkar and V should reward Yukyuk with something they thought to be a delicacy for him'.

Yes, but that's not the point of contention here. As far as I can tell no one disagrees with you on that point.

[Peelee]

Exactly how would one tell if V is spending a standard action on "concentating"?

it's a purely mental thing, and after all, Talking Is A Free Action- he could be concentrating and talking to Belkar at the same time.

Point conceded. Fortunately, the rest of it easily still stands without that part.


Rather than respond to that loaded question, I'll just note that there was an entire second half to my post that you chose to ignore.

The second half of your post was regarding what V meant by "share," which was irrelevant to my response, which only addressed whether or not V actually did hear mental screams. Hence my cutting them off for ease of addressing that.


Second, my assumptions generally operate on story first, rules second, just as I think Rich's writing tends to operate. I think it is more likely that Rich is using artistic license against what you might expect from the SRD, rather than that V is using artistic license, which makes less sense to me. But I noted the ambiguity; I'm not sure what more you want me to say.

Ahhhh, I thought you were simply noting ambiguity in the whole "I cannot share" sentiment, not in how the statement was taken as whole. My bad.

[hamishspence]

More to the point, if he WERE using that aspect of the spell, the kobold's silent screams most certainly WOULD be a symphony V could share. So...yeah.

The unspoken words that might clarify the statement could have been

"His silent screams are a symphony I cannot share with you, I can only tell you of it."

[Bastian]

Yes, but that's not the point of contention here. As far as I can tell no one disagrees with you on that point.

Looks like I am suffering a permanent penalty to my INT score.
I feel a renewed respect for Elan's mental acuity in this moment.

So the point that is being argued is the possibility that, due to a uniquess in Kobold physiology, Yukyuk is experiencing the ingestion of cat feces as somewhat a gourmet dish? Despite V's line?

[hamishspence]

So the point that is being argued is the possibility that, due to a uniquess in Kobold physiology, Yukyuk is experiencing the ingestion of cat feces as somewhat a gourmet dish? Despite V's line?

At the time, V's line was dismissed with:


V's silent screams comment was for dramatic effect, he doesn't actually hear Yukyuk's thoughts.

Personally I'd say that the assumption that present-day kobold dietary habits are like that is a pretty huge assumption- and that the default presumption should be otherwise, unless major evidence to the contrary turns up.

[eulmanis12]

It was torture.

Belkar wanted to torture YukYuk. In order to give someone something they enjoy when you are trying to torture them you would have to be at the competance level of those wear red robes, travel in threes, and arrive unexpectedly. (You know who I'm refering to, Hint NOT the IFCC)
Belkar, while not the smartest halfling in the world, is certainly highly skilled at bringing physical pain to others. He probably has a PHD in Torture. If he is trying to torture a prisoner, then he is going to succeed in causing that prisoner nothing less than the desired level of agony.

[jidasfire]

See, it's this sort of polemic hyperbole that bothers me. There is in fact quite a lot of space between delicacy and torture, which is where I think this fits.

What Belkar had Mr. Scruffy do to YukYuk was nasty, for certain, and by no means a good act. It was the equivalent of particularly nasty bullying, however, not torture.

And, I'm not saying I fully approve or would in real life, but I do know that if I happened to come across someone who shot one of my cats with an arrow or tried to feed them to his dog, well, I can't say I'd be warbling with sympathy if this happened to them.

[hamishspence]

It was the equivalent of particularly nasty bullying, however, not torture.

Torture in D&D ranges from "intimidating torture" (does no damage at all, less evil than stealing from the needy)

all the way up to "indescribable torture" (does massive damage, as evil as committing murder for sadistic pleasure).

I see this as at least qualifying for the former.

[Bastian]

At the time, V's line was dismissed with:



Personally I'd say that the assumption that present-day kobold dietary habits are like that is a pretty huge assumption- and that the default presumption should be otherwise, unless major evidence to the contrary turns up.

And major evidence to the contrary has turned out...right?

[hamishspence]

An in-strip scene showing Yuk-yuk's reaction being exactly that way would be "major evidence" and would convince me.

Otherwise, I doubt it.

[Bastian]

See, it's this sort of polemic hyperbole that bothers me. There is in fact quite a lot of space between delicacy and torture, which is where I think this fits.

What Belkar had Mr. Scruffy do to YukYuk was nasty, for certain, and by no means a good act. It was the equivalent of particularly nasty bullying, however, not torture.

And, I'm not saying I fully approve or would in real life, but I do know that if I happened to come across someone who shot one of my cats with an arrow or tried to feed them to his dog, well, I can't say I'd be warbling with sympathy if this happened to them.

Amen brother - I have been preaching it across the Playground for the last 5 posts or something.

[Bastian]

An in-strip scene showing Yuk-yuk's reaction being exactly that way would be "major evidence" and would convince me.

Otherwise, I doubt it.

That would solve the problem of cleaning the Scruffinator's sandbox....

Oh no.

I crafted a Disturbing Mental Image.

Brain bleach. Rinse and repeat.

[hamishspence]

Amen brother - I have been preaching it across the Playground for the last 5 posts or something.

And the message I've been trying to get across is- the one does not preclude the other.

"Particularly nasty bullying" and "very mild torture" can be one and the same.

Mercedes Lackey's Brightly Burning seemed to take the same tack, with the healer treating the bullying victim saying:

"I'd say he was being tortured. That's what I'd call it if it was adults, and I see no reason to call it by a lesser name in children"

though these particular children were in their later teens- older than the youngest D&D adventurers in the PHB can be.

[Bastian]

And the message I've been trying to get across is- the one does not preclude the other.

"Particularly nasty bullying" and "very mild torture" can be one and the same.

Mercedes Lackey's Brightly Burning seemed to take the same tack, with the healer treating the bullying victim saying:

"I'd say he was being tortured. That's what I'd call it if it was adults, and I see no reason to call it by a lesser name in children"

though these particular children were in their later teens- older than the youngest D&D adventurers in the PHB can be.

Indeed, and I conceded in one of my earliest posts that it couls qualified as torture in the most narrow interpretation of the term 'torture'. (With the related implications of V as a character, otherwise I would have been simply arguing semantics).

I think that what made most posters react differently is the added element of Domination.

Edit: thanks for the input and reference, will find and read the book!

[Themrys]

What Belkar had Mr. Scruffy do to YukYuk was nasty, for certain, and by no means a good act. It was the equivalent of particularly nasty bullying, however, not torture.

Particularly nasty bullying IS torture, more often than it is not. Just because something doesn't hurt physically, this doesn't mean it doesn't harm the soul of the person you're doing it to.

It seems you have never been at the receiving end of particularly nasty bullying.

[SadisticFishing]

Wait, people are arguing that having an animal defecate in your mouth is just... bullying?

Geeze, what kind of high school did YOU go to? Picture it happening for a moment.

This is an unsolvable question, but there is a very good point here - kobolds can eat virtually anything organic. So according to the 3.5 rules in Races of the Dragon, this was probably just an unpleasant meal.

But it was definitely friggin' torture.

[Bastian]

Particularly nasty bullying IS torture, more often than it is not. Just because something doesn't hurt physically, this doesn't mean it doesn't harm the soul of the person you're doing it to.

It seems you have never been at the receiving end of particularly nasty bullying.

Oh, I have in my time. I have also lived long enough to put the mental scarring it provokes in perspective. Please know that I am in no way dismissing bullying as trivial.

Alas, I will try to make my point

If you were forced to choose by, lets's say, a sadist who keeps you prisoner, among one of the following options, what would you (or the other posters) choose?

a) lose a phalanx
b) lose a finger
c) lose a hand
d) lose a forearm
e) lose your whole arm

I think that you, me, and everybody else, given the choice, would go for a)
They all are mutilations, but there's a different level of pain and shock involved. Excuse my being extremely terrestrial, I am trying to anchor my reasoning in empiric evidence.

Now, there is a enormous difference between a) and e).
As there is between what O-Chul endured for months and what Yukyuk was subjected for...a half a minute?

Would you really use the same term to describe the two different acts, context and motivations? You could, on a purely semantic level, true.
On a purely semantic level, both Roy and Belkar are killers. But I am not sure you'd call Roy a killer, but maybe you'd be inclined to do it with Belkar.

[Bastian]

Wait, people are arguing that having an animal defecate in your mouth is just... bullying?

Geeze, what kind of high school did YOU go to? Picture it happening for a moment.

This is an unsolvable question, but there is a very good point here - kobolds can eat virtually anything organic. So according to the 3.5 rules in Races of the Dragon, this was probably just an unpleasant meal.

But it was definitely friggin' torture.

Not me - I argued that it was an act of cruel revenge but I would not use the word 'torture'. See previous post.

Yeah, right, feces are organic but not really nutritious so we can safely assume that Yukyuk experienced...wait...are we really arguing over this? :smallconfused:

[SoC175]

Oh, I have in my time. I have also lived long enough to put the mental scarring it provokes in perspective. Please know that I am in no way dismissing bullying as trivial.

Alas, I will try to make my point

If you were forced to choose by, lets's say, a sadist who keeps you prisoner, among one of the following options, what would you (or the other posters) choose?

a) lose a phalanx
b) lose a finger
c) lose a hand
d) lose a forearm
e) lose your whole arm

I think that you, me, and everybody else, given the choice, would go for a)
They all are mutilations, but there's a different level of pain and shock involved. Excuse my being extremely terrestrial, I am trying to anchor my reasoning in empiric evidence.

Now, there is a enormous difference between a) and e).
As there is between what O-Chul endured for months and what Yukyuk was subjected for...a half a minute?

Would you really use the same term to describe the two different acts, context and motivations? You could, on a purely semantic level, true.Yes, and on more than just a purely semantic level. Even merely ripping out a finger nail deserves exactly the same term. It's torture and it doesn't become something else just because there's even more drastic torture possible

[Bastian]

Yes, and on more than just a purely semantic level. Even merely ripping out a finger nail deserves exactly the same term. It's torture and it doesn't become something else just because there's even more drastic torture possible

The post served the aim of showing through a crude example that there is indeed a more or less objective scale.

With the premise that I abhor the concept of torture itself, not every infliction of pain on another human being deserves the name of 'torture', in my book. The severity of it matters. As well as the intent and the lenght of time. What if that finger nail were not pulled out but simply broken? Would it still qualify as torture?

[SoC175]

The post served the aim of showing through a crude example that there is indeed a more or less objective scale. And all of the examples rest solely on the side of torture

With the premise that I abhor the concept of torture itself, not every infliction of pain on another human being deserves the name of 'torture', in my book. The severity of it matters. As well as the intent and the lenght of time. What if that finger nail were not pulled out but simply broken? Would it still qualify as torture?I agree that not every infliction of pain is torture, I disagree that the severity is the line of distinction.

If two persons are still fighting they are inflicting pain on each other without torturing each other. Yet less severe pain becomes torture as soon one has the other within his power and continues to inflict pain.

[Bastian]

And all of the examples rest solely on the side of torture

I agree that not every infliction of pain is torture, I disagree that the severity matters at all for the separation.

If two persons are still fighting they are inflicting pain on each other without torturing each other. Yet less severe pain becomes torture as soon one has the other within his power and continues to inflict pain.

As per docendi causa examples, I could have found better I agree.
The severity is actually part of the operative definition (Convention against Torture). If Yukyuk were subjected to that treatment every day (dependant upon Mr. S. intestinal availability) I would have no objection to say out loud 'Those two have been torturing that Kobold'. But one single instance?
It simply does not evoke the same scenario, and the same implications for character development, which is the only reason I am debating this.

Moreover, Durkon, a LG Cleric, unflinching in his duties, would for sure have stopped an act of torture. He showed no qualms about going against the party's will in the past when a matter of duty/honor/religion was involved.

[titan_monarch]

Just dropping in to offer a $0.02 regarding V's last line and the interpretation of "share":
V can't empathize with Yukyuk in this situation; (s)he cannot share Yukyuk's feelings and hence his need to scream, since V clearly doesn't mind having Mr Scruffy crap in his mouth. Whether or not V can telepathically hear Yukyuk or would share this with Belkar is irrelevant.
/drops out again

[Math_Mage]

As per docendi causa examples, I could have found better I agree.
The severity is actually part of the operative definition (Convention against Torture). If Yukyuk were subjected to that treatment every day (dependant upon Mr. S. intestinal availability) I would have no objection to say out loud 'Those two have been torturing that Kobold'. But one single instance?
It simply does not evoke the same scenario, and the same implications for character development, which is the only reason I am debating this.

Moreover, Durkon, a LG Cleric, unflinching in his duties, would for sure have stopped an act of torture. He showed no qualms about going against the party's will in the past when a matter of duty/honor/religion was involved.

Actually, I was kind of surprised to hear him just assume V/Belkar were going to kill Yukyuk. He gave the impression of not being too miffed about this idea.

[Dr._Demento]

On torture, at what point does retribution become torture? An extreme case is the classic brutal punishment for stealing, the loss of a hand. The person who committed the crime is not fighting back at the point when the hand would be removed, so is it torture? What about public humiliation, like the stockades, or just plain imprisonment? All of these things, outside of the context of a legal justice system, could be considered torture, but they all aren't.

In this light, I don't think that drawing the line at when dominance is achieved. In particular when you consider that this could very well be considered ironic punishment for shooting Mr. Scruffy.

[Flame of Anor]

Are some of you people seriously arguing that Yukyuk likes to eat poop? Because...seriously, what the heck?

[Forealms]

Edit: Totally posted this in the wrong thread.

[ti'esar]

Are some of you people seriously arguing that Yukyuk likes to eat poop? Because...seriously, what the heck?

I don't think this would have been totally out of the question for kobolds in some earlier editions, at least.

[Tom Tearcamel]

Well, the kobold in question is appropriately named Yukyuk and being force-fed fresh cat diarrhea certainly deserves more than one Yuk in my opinion. Also, Mr. Scruffy wasn't the only member of the Order who took a crossbow bolt under the arena. Never Never ever give V a reason to see you suffer. Events from threatening V's family to an embarrassing drunken kiss. I doubt that anything V was feeling through the aforementioned mental link of the dominate spell was anything other than YUCK!

[hamishspence]

All of these things, outside of the context of a legal justice system, could be considered torture, but they all aren't.

In this era, they could quite easily be considered "sanctioned torture as punishment for crimes".

And BoED definitions of good and evil tend to be modelled on the modern era- with the idea that even evil prisoners come under the "respect for dignity" clause of Good.

it points out that torture, either for interrogation or for punishment, qualifies as evil- as does handing someone over to be tortured.

What is the point where (in D&D) inflicting pain/humiliation on a helpless victim ceases to qualify as torture? I don't know, but since there is such a thing as torture that does no hit point damage- "intimidating torture" in Fiendish Codex 2, I'd be inclined to say it can be pretty "mild".

[eulmanis12]

I would say its torture. Jokes about the Spanish Inquisition (see earlier post) aside. He made the kolbold eat poop. I think we are all overanalysing this. Its not mild bullying as some suggested. I would not rank the incidents that happened in my junior high anywhere near being forced to eat feces.

[hamishspence]

Moreover, Durkon, a LG Cleric, unflinching in his duties, would for sure have stopped an act of torture.

Depends on the interpretation of LG.

Even the paladin's code simply demands they:

"punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

So- Durkon's failure to stop this, while dubious, doesn't seem like it would "blip on the Malev-O-meter"- though it might cause his deva to at least mention it.

Roy points out that he's not obliged to stop Belkar's evil acts, and the deva says "actually, as his party leader, you do have some obligations"

But Durkon isn't party leader but fellow party member.

Other possibilities include him offscreen, quietly, asking V to put a stop to this, after he's finished vomiting.

[Bastian]

Depends on the interpretation of LG.

Even the paladin's code simply demands they:

"punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

So- Durkon's failure to stop this, while dubious, doesn't seem like it would "blip on the Malev-O-meter"- though it might cause his deva to at least mention it.

Roy points out that he's not obliged to stop Belkar's evil acts, and the deva says "actually, as his party leader, you do have some obligations"

But Durkon isn't party leader but fellow party member.

Other possibilities include him offscreen, quietly, asking V to put a stop to this, after he's finished vomiting.

I am not saying he is under obligation to stop them - I am saying that I would have expected him to protest loudly.

[hamishspence]

I suspect he did- between strips 835 and 836, but this is left offscreen because it isn't essential for us to see him protesting.

[Bastian]

I suspect he did- between strips 835 and 836, but this is left offscreen because it isn't essential for us to see him protesting.

That would be entirely in character, yes

[Sweet_Goddess]

Since the original quote for delicacy is mine, let me explain.

Torture is not the intent or the act, it is the result.

How do you torture a masochist? By not inflicting pain on them. But if you don't know someone is a masochist, you might spend hours thinking their cries of pleasure are taunts or them acting tough.

Likewise, do you really believe Belkar and V are familiar with Kobold dietary concerns?

I can give you a very real world example. At one of those really chipper, overly motivational, canvassing sales groups, if no one made a sale in the week, they had to eat a can of fish steaks in hot sauce, and do so every day after that until they made a sale. It was supposed to be a negative reinforcement, but the issue is, the one guy who failed to make a sale all week, not only doesn't dislike fish steaks in hot sauce, but actually quite adored them. The negative reinforcement is suddenly a positive one because someone likes the supposed punishment/torture.

If Yukyuk didn't enjoy eating cat waste, then he'd get a new save every time Belkar had Mr. Scruffy use the living litter box. Which, knowing Belkar, would be as often as Mr. Scruffy needs to go. The dice could not be that against him (remember, Belkar was not able to be forced to give Nale the loot from his kills, but could make him kill the Order and keep the loot for himself... if Yukyuk wouldn't want to eat it, he couldn't be made to eat it).

So, yes, Belkar intends it to be Vengeance/Torture/Cruelty, and V may actually have intended it to be as well, but that doesn't make it torture.

Torture is defined by the intended victim, not by the person committing the acts.

----------------------------------------------------

As for V's comment, I really doubt he is sharing Yukyuk's thoughts at all, and even if he can feel his feelings, that means he would feel the act as well, and I really don't think he'd risk experiencing the events. His comment was a duality of his usual overly pretentious superiority and hyperbole, and him saying that "His 'Silent Screams' are a symphony, I can't share", implying "as they are sadly hidden from us both, but I too would revel in the agony we are inflicting due to my own grudge at the callously cruel cat kicking killer Kobold cretin." Just like V's 'Sleep Spell' against the Goblins, Belkar, and Elan back in Comic #10, it had less to do with the magic, and more to do with his ego.

----------------------------------------------------

Also, I agree that this is less of true torture, and more of viscous pranks/hazing, no different then what V and Belkar were doing to each other for a long time. And I have only two more words on the subject if someone disagrees with me

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

*EXPLOSIVE RUNES*

[TheSummoner]

The guy. Shot a cat. With a crossbow.

You can call what they're doing to him now torture if you like, but I call it justice and all things considered, YukYuk is getting off incredibly easy.

[2xMachina]

Rule 34. Yuk yuk could be into cat poo.

[Flame of Anor]

Rule 34. Yuk yuk could be into cat poo.

Okay, now you're torturing us.

[hamishspence]

Torture is defined by the intended victim, not by the person committing the acts.

Not in terms of determining the morality of the act, and not, it is likely, in terms of determining whether somebody is guilty of it in court.

If a person is charged with torture, proven to have committed acts that qualify as torture, and convicted, and it later turns out that the victim was a masochist and got a degree of pleasure out of it- so what?

Intent and action are more important than "how the victim feels about it at the time".

[Acanous]

There's actually some duality here. Much like "Share Pain" applying the damage to both targets independantly, this act would affect both V and YukYuk based upon themselves.

For YukYuk, it wouldn't be torture if he's a by-the-book Kobold, it would be mildly unpleasant. Like being made to eat gruel.
It Could be torture, but he did not get a save. Given the Giant's familiarity with the game (Particularly 2nd Edition) I'd say this has a decent case of being the fact.

Now, from V's perspective, it was definately torture, most certainly an evil act, and would ding against his alignment as such. Given that V has shown willingness to migrate into the evil spectrum in the past, I'd say this is some character development.

From Belkar's standpoint, this is revenge. It's evil but in character, and his alignment is evil.

From Durkon's standpoint, it's barely-justified punishment. That Kobold is their prisoner, he'd be killing them all if he could, BEFORE being made to eat poo.
Being that Belkar is the wronged party, and V is the "Jailer", Durkon voiced an objection (Being a dwarf, I'm not surprised he wanted them to just kill the kobold) but probably doesn't feel he has the authority to interfere directly.
For Durkon, it's a Lawful-neutral act. Probably counts against his alignment, but not in a big way.

[Phase]

I would like to fiercely contend the point that just because a Kobold is physically capable of digesting feces by necessity indicates he or she would enjoy it or even find it tolerable. Physical capability has never been an indicator of whether or not an individual would find something enjoyable.

Kobolds, at least in Third Edition, are capable of consuming materials from fruit, to leather, to their own damn offspring. With an overabundance of possible food sources about them, there is no indication that a Kobold would ever need to resort to their own nutrient-poor, parasite-ridden post-food (which generally smells and tastes horrible to all species due to that very same nutrient-poor and parasite-ridden nature.) Even dogs, which the OP brings into the argument as an example of a coprovore, only consume their feces during times of extreme duress, usually to the point of being either starving, or mentally unwell.

Aside from the "torture" argument (on which I don't feel qualified to comment,) there is at the very least absolutely no indication whatsoever that Yukyuk would enjoy, or even tolerate, this ordeal.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: A bit close to "morally justified" and "politics." Thread locked.