Paladin-exploding trap [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Math_Mage

2012-03-20, 01:32 PM

V's pranks were just that. Nonlethal, no collateral damage, no lasting consequences. Girard's trap was apparently intended to be lethal, and had a high potential to target innocents (though still enemies from Girard's warped perspective)--any low-level paladins that died would be on his head. So it's not really a valid comparison. V even makes that point with the "And that would be wrong" joke in the next strip.

As for it being an illusion...well, whatever it was, it blew up and sent the Order flying and did significant damage to Roy. Would the low-level paladins care if it was a shadow evocation that killed them, rather than a regular evocation?

We don't have enough information to judge Girard's alignment with certainty, of course. It's merely an attempt to analyze the available evidence. But he certainly ain't trending towards the shallow end of the alignment pool.

Jasdoif

2012-03-20, 01:33 PM

2) Girard's an illusionist. Do we know that it was a REAL explosion?Roy certainly took damage from it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html) I suppose it could be one of the illusion spells that has real effects...but I'm pretty sure an explosion with real effects would be considered a real explosion.

Merellis

2012-03-20, 01:56 PM

I can't really say having a grudge is evil. We don't know the whole story for Girard and Soon, but it is very evident that whatever happened, Kragor's death was the last straw and it left a very bad taste in Girards mouth. From there he lied about where his gate was, set up a message and trap and called it a day.

Finagle

2012-03-20, 01:57 PM

Girard certainly wasn't Good. Good people don't murder paladins and kidnap babies. Evil seems a bit far, so Chaotic Neutral he must be. Nice to see a CN character who doesn't just flip a coin to see what his character does.

Winter

2012-03-20, 02:10 PM

I don't recall a hue and cry about V being evil based on this. There probably was one, I just don't recall it.

I agree. There very probably was. Vaarsuvius always has shown selfish, arrogant and mean views, comments, and deeds that could be considered "evil streaks".
In the Darth Vaarsuvius Arc it become clear how far that would go (beyond the line and on and on and on and on...)

hamishspence

2012-03-20, 02:29 PM

DrBurr

2012-03-20, 02:34 PM

I wouldn't say a trap makes Girard evil, hes protecting a Magical Gate which in the wrong hands could destroy the world, I think Traps are fair game.

Besides if he did kill any paladins with that trap wouldn't that prove him right that they couldn't be trusted?

Dorukan's Dungeon had traps and even a room full of old monsters yet his alignment isn't being questioned

Winter Light

2012-03-20, 02:47 PM

Paladins always being Lawful Good doesn't mean paladins are always "right." Imagine, for the moment, that Miko had wound up in control of the Sapphire Guard. Perhaps she married Hinjo, Shojo died, then one day they ran out of milk so SLASH, SLASH.

If she then learned of the gates (and Girard likely didn't predict the paladins keeping information abotu the gates secret from members of their orders), and had gone on a crusade to "protect" (read: seize control of) the other gates, we'd all be talking about how clever Girard was to plan for that.

And that is more or less what he expected would happen.

Girard may have been paranoid, delusional, and a poor judge of character, but none of those make him "evil."

JSSheridan

2012-03-20, 03:04 PM

Girard's not totally wrong about how people in general will abuse power if they have enough of it. And Paladins can fall. I know that it's crazy talk and that we'll never see either in this comic. :smalltongue:

Math_Mage

2012-03-20, 03:20 PM

I recall (perhaps as early as the death of Kubota) commenting on it- suggesting it shows a pattern of behaviour.

Blowing up the stablehand (A wizard never loses their ticket) seemed more like intimidation and brutality than a "prank" to me.

Fair enough. I was thinking specifically of the back-and-forth between hir and Belkar, not other incidents, since "even used on fellow party members" was a point made in the OP.

Paladins always being Lawful Good doesn't mean paladins are always "right." Imagine, for the moment, that Miko had wound up in control of the Sapphire Guard. Perhaps she married Hinjo, Shojo died, then one day they ran out of milk so SLASH, SLASH.

She falls, what of it?

And "not always right" doesn't mean "justified in responding with lethal force."

If she then learned of the gates (and Girard likely didn't predict the paladins keeping information abotu the gates secret from members of their orders), and had gone on a crusade to "protect" (read: seize control of) the other gates, we'd all be talking about how clever Girard was to plan for that.

Leaving aside the implausibility of Miko learning of the gates AFTER going "slash slash" on Hinjo, I'm fairly certain this forum would still spend a lot of time wondering whether Girard was morally justified in laying that trap.

Girard may have been paranoid, delusional, and a poor judge of character, but none of those make him "evil."

No, but what we know of him thus far indicates a pattern of behavior that is, at best, highly questionable.

MReav

2012-03-20, 03:22 PM

Meh, I hope that like Miko's deconstruction of players who play paladins as Lawful Stupid, Girard is a deconstruction of the tendency of people nowadays to conflate "Lawful Good" with "Tyrannical Sociopath Who Would Sacrifice Free Will".

rgrekejin

2012-03-20, 06:06 PM

Blowing up the stablehand (A wizard never loses their ticket) seemed more like intimidation and brutality than a "prank" to me.

I don't think this is entirely fair. That strip was clearly a comedic strip in nature, and, as OOTS tends to do in comedic strips, switched over to Looney Toons rules rather than D&D rules. Yes, it was an intimidating gesture, but I think that you're reading too much in to what was clearly just meant as a punchline. Given that the laws of comedy, and not the laws of drama, were in effect, the stablehand was in no real serious danger. So I don't think it fits the narrative as well as it might appear.

hamishspence

2012-03-20, 06:17 PM

Given that the laws of comedy, and not the laws of drama, were in effect, the stablehand was in no real serious danger.

One can suffer an awful lot of pain while not being "in serious danger of death".

When Enor zapped Roy with lightning, there were a lot of people saying "Roy is high level and Enor knows it- Enor wasn't really trying to kill him"

Then The Giant commented in the thread- making it clear that Enor was trying to kill Roy.

While it's possible "D&D rules were being set aside in favour of comedy"- I find the possibility that V was much more psychopathic, even then, than most people perceived, an interesting one.

TheSummoner

2012-03-20, 06:20 PM

She falls, what of it?

And "not always right" doesn't mean "justified in responding with lethal force."

Girard is/was guarding one of five rifts that, placed in the wrong hands, would cause the entire world to be unmade.

He is plenty justified in the use of lethal force against threat to the gates and he set up the trap in such a way that you pretty much had to be a known or someone who got the information from a known enemy for the trap to trigger.

Kish

2012-03-20, 06:27 PM

Girard is/was guarding one of five rifts that, placed in the wrong hands, would cause the entire world to be unmade.

He is plenty justified in the use of lethal force against threat to the gates and he set up the trap in such a way that you pretty much had to be a known or someone who got the information from a known enemy for the trap to trigger.
That's quite a switch you pulled in the middle of that sentence.

He is plenty justified in the use of lethal force against a threat to the gates. Okay. He set up the trap so you have to be a known or someone who got the information from a known enemy. Okay, Girard knew Soon was his enemy, though it apparently would have been news to Soon. But since his criteria for "known enemy" is not "legitimately established threat to the Gate," the first and second halves of the sentence don't actually relate to each other. He is not at all justified in employing lethal force against anyone who got information from someone he hates personally.

TheSummoner

2012-03-20, 06:30 PM

Are you claiming that a known enemy isn't considered a threat?

Someone should tell Roy that. Perhaps he, Xykon, and Redcloak could sit down and discuss what to do involving the "Plan to capture a gate and hold the world hostage" thing over tea.

Fish

2012-03-20, 06:34 PM

Maybe Girard was Chaotic Neutral. There's a lot of ground between "possibly not a Good act" and "definitely an Evil act," not to mention whether a character of any alignment must always and only act in accordance with the letter of the alignment.

Really, what's the point of these alignment threads?

hamishspence

2012-03-20, 06:37 PM

"Enemy" in this case seems to be more "person whom I hate" rather than "person who is physically hostile to me".

The two having opposed worldviews doesn't change the fact that they have the same overall goal- protecting the world by protecting the gates.

doodthedud

2012-03-20, 06:46 PM

That's quite a switch you pulled in the middle of that sentence.

He is plenty justified in the use of lethal force against a threat to the gates. Okay. He set up the trap so you have to be a known or someone who got the information from a known enemy. Okay, Girard knew Soon was his enemy, though it apparently would have been news to Soon. But since his criteria for "known enemy" is not "legitimately established threat to the Gate," the first and second halves of the sentence don't actually relate to each other. He is not at all justified in employing lethal force against anyone who got information from someone he hates personally.

You're assuming that Girard hates Soon, but recognizes that he is still a loyal defender of the rifts.
Girard sees Soon as a power-hungry nutcase who trusts no-one's views on "safety" but his own.
As such, he found it likely that Soon would decide that only HE was capable of defending the gates, and would attempt to take them over himself, being the power-hungry nut he is.
Girard thus expected Soon to break their agreement and try to forcibly take over all the gates, including Girard's. Hence, Girard gave Soon and Soon alone, the wrong coordinates, while giving Serini the real coordinates. He trusted the rest of the party to some degree....or at least he trusted Serini.

TL:DR - According to Girard, Soon WAS an established threat to the gates. He felt it was simply a matter of time until Soon tried to steal them.

SadisticFishing

2012-03-20, 07:36 PM

It doesn't matter. None of your defending of Girard makes any sense.

If I expect someone to come knock on my door, I do not rig my door with high grade explosives. Even if I strongly dislike this person, there are far too many other things that can go wrong.

Girard is either Evil, or incredibly "close". What he did was horrifying, and stupid, and evil, and it needs to be accepted as such.

The bomb exploded, and almost took out people that were not Soon. That. Is. Evil.

"According to Girard" doesn't matter. He's being petty to the point of homicide. Being petty enough to be willing to kill IS EVIL.

Girard is a lot like Doctor Doom, actually, haha.

Belril Duskwalk

2012-03-20, 08:27 PM

If I expect someone to come knock on my door, I do not rig my door with high grade explosives. Even if I strongly dislike this person, there are far too many other things that can go wrong.

Point of order: He does not expect a large number of people to come knocking on his door. In fact, if the only person given the incorrect location of the door came knocking it would be in direct violation of their allegedly unbreakable honor. So, if Soon and those who followed after him were as bound by their word as they claimed they were, they would never come to the trap. If they don't come to the trap, they aren't in any danger at all.

Of course, this plan was somewhat short-sighted, in that it did not account for the possibility of Shojo, but there's a wide difference between no looking several decades ahead and being evil.

Kish

2012-03-20, 08:36 PM

Are you claiming that a known enemy isn't considered a threat?

Oh, jeez, I don't know. Are you claiming Crystal is a threat to the Gates? Or that she isn't a known enemy of Haley?

Someone should tell Roy that. Perhaps he, Xykon, and Redcloak could sit down and discuss what to do involving the "Plan to capture a gate and hold the world hostage" thing over tea.
Either you just claimed Soon was as bad as Xykon and Redcloak. Or you just posted an utter and complete non-sequitur.

Pick one.

Point of order: He does not expect a large number of people to come knocking on his door. In fact, if the only person given the incorrect location of the door came knocking it would be in direct violation of their allegedly unbreakable honor. So, if Soon and those who followed after him were as bound by their word as they claimed they were, they would never come to the trap. If they don't come to the trap, they aren't in any danger at all.

So, in this theory of yours, what was the point of exchanging coordinates at all? If, contrary to Hinjo's beliefs, the terms of the oath stated that even if the Gates started being systematically destroyed the orphaned guardians of the destroyed Gates were required to avoid any contact with the guardians of the remaining Gates?

Of course, this plan was somewhat short-sighted, in that it did not account for the possibility of Shojo, but there's a wide difference between no looking several decades ahead and being evil.
Not quite. The plan failed to account for anything but "Soon there to seize the Gate by force, but still unwilling to torture Serini for the coordinates."

It blew up the Order, and that was bad. If it had blown up Xykon, after the Girard illusion declared that Serini had the real coordinates? Still bad, since it would have sent Xykon right after Serini.

TheSummoner

2012-03-20, 08:51 PM

Oh, jeez, I don't know. Are you claiming Crystal is a threat to the Gates? Or that she isn't a known enemy of Haley?

Not the gates, but I'd certainly claim that Crystal is a threat to Haley. I'd say that if Haley saw Crystal coming for her and struck first, she would be smart for doing so. Likewise, Girard saw Soon as a threat. Both to himself and to his gate. His lie and his trap were a precaution incase Soon ever came calling and he took rather thorough measures to ensure that it would only be triggered by Soon or someone who got the information from Soon.

Either you just claimed Soon was as bad as Xykon and Redcloak. Or you just posted an utter and complete non-sequitur.

Pick one.

I claimed no such thing. Roy sees Xykon and Redcloak as enemies. Girard sees Soon as an enemy. Roy sees Xykon and Redcloak as threats. Girard sees Soon as a threat.

That was the comparison.

LadyEowyn

2012-03-20, 08:58 PM

I don't know if it makes Girard evil (I still think he's Chaotic Neutral; a Chaotic Evil character wouldn't give up a normal life and live out the rest of his days in relative isolation in a canyon to protect the rest of the world), but it's definitely a mark against him.

Okay, he thinks Soon is a threat to the Gate. Why? If Soon was going to use a Gate for some nefarious purpose (as some have suggested) he had his own to use; that's probably not what Girard was worried about. It's more likely that Girard feared Soon would decide only the Sapphire Guard could successfully defend the Gates, and would bring them to take control. For someone who mistrusts authority, this is a fairly reasonable belief.

So, if Soon dispatched an army of midlevel Paladins, the trap might have dealt with them fairly effectively, though it wouldn't have killed Soon himself. The trap wouldn't be likely to harm completely uninvolved civilians, due to being in the middle of the desert and being activated by a set of words that only someone associated with Soon (or possibly another Scribble member) would know.

Girard's fault was in assuming that there would never be a legitimate reason for which Soon would want to contact him (e.g.: to warn him of a new threat to the gates). When you're dealing with a potentially world-destroying menace, sabotaging the only possible chain of communication that way is reckless.

Malkyrie

2012-03-20, 09:16 PM

But cutting off the only chain of communication was explicitly what was agreed to by the scribble. Really, the failing was tying the locations together at all via Serini's journal. Had that not happened, it would have been a gargantuan task for someone to even discover another gate, much less locate/attack it. Cutting off communications even more would have been better.

But let's face it. Soon was wrong. The honor of a paladin may be unbreakable, but intelligence is still apparently a dump stat. Whether it was Soon trusting Shojo's father, or Shojo's father trusting Shojo, somewhere along the line, a paladin blew it by telling a non-paladin about the other gates. Girard left a trap that was a threat to absolutely no one except someone who only could have gotten the information from Soon's failings. And a significant number of villians (Tarquin, Nale, IFCC, etc) only have information about the gates from the failing of Soon trusting Shojo's family. And the only person who has intentionally destroyed a gate up to this point has been a member of the Sapphire Guard. And a member of the Sapphire Guard led the BBEG right to the last gate. Whatever Soon's intent, it is clear that any meddling that results from his decisions does poise a legitimate threat to the gates, and needs to be stopped.

And finally, that trap is nothing like tying explosives to a door. It is more like a lethal electric fence around a nuclear reactor. It is a protection that is only a threat to someone who doesn't belong there anyway.

veti

2012-03-20, 09:16 PM

Colour me in the camp that doesn't believe the trap was supposed to be lethal.

The explosion was huge, enough to pick Roy up and throw him some considerable distance away. Yet Vaarsuvius, Elan and Haley are all nearby when it goes off - Elan and Haley probably even closer than Roy- yet none of them are seriously damaged, despite their relatively low hit dice.

Ergo, the "boom" was some kind of homebrewed effect that looks and sounds vaguely like an explosion, but produces its effects in quite a different way. Possibly some kind of telekinesis component to throw Roy all that distance.

Another possibility is that there may be an alignment-targeting component. Elan and Haley are not shown as having any damage at all. That may be just because Durkon healed them off-panel, but it might also be that being chaotic, they weren't harmed at all. Vaarsuvius, being Neutral, took some damage, but Roy took the full whack.

That would also imply that it's not just an explosion - explosions aren't so discriminating. Possibly the damage is tailored to the target's total hit points, like a Harm spell, so that it couldn't be lethal no matter how low-level the target.

Yeah, this is all speculation. I'm just saying: what we saw of the explosion doesn't prove Girard to be evil, or even neutral.

denthor

2012-03-20, 09:26 PM

Killing Paladins in one of the core books was consider a Nuetral Evil act.

Paladins can not travel with Evil people no wiggle room with that part of the picture.

Black Dragons are some form of corner Evil I forget which one it is most likely
Chaotic(most likely given Draketooths starting alignment).

My personnal opinion is that Draketooth is C(haotic) N(uetral) at the start of his campaign. Kragors death sent him over the edge to C E(vil)

That is one of the reasons the party was so disjointed and broke apart in such hostility.

Bottom line Draketooth became Evil due to circumstances and took one of the gate to be completely alone also like a dragon would.

Belril Duskwalk

2012-03-20, 09:40 PM

So, in this theory of yours, what was the point of exchanging coordinates at all?

Primarily to get the Paladin to stop asking me for the coordinates.

If, contrary to Hinjo's beliefs, the terms of the oath stated that even if the Gates started being systematically destroyed the orphaned guardians of the destroyed Gates were required to avoid any contact with the guardians of the remaining Gates?

All members of the Scribble seem to have fallen victim to the assumption that their means of defense was inviolate. Girard probably assumed that if Soon's gate went 'krackoom' it would be because Soon's reliance on his precious paladins was vastly inferior to Girard's own methods, so it really doesn't matter to his defenses that Soon's gate was broken. It's even possible Girard intended to unmake his trap if Soon's Gate fell but died before the fall of Soon's Gate.

Not quite. The plan failed to account for anything but "Soon there to seize the Gate by force, but still unwilling to torture Serini for the coordinates."

Now that's not even remotely fair. It also accounted for 'random creature/adventurers that got lost in the wrong section of desert' and 'random person who found out the coordinates without knowing their significance.' Judging by comic 693 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html) the explosion was quadruple password protected to not go off on anybody that wasn't aware of the Sapphire Guard, Soon and Girard. And that person who was aware of all this would also need to be in the middle of a desert where they would only be if they had coordinates given to them by a person who swore not to come there, or send anyone else there either. For a person people seem intent on branding as Evil, that seems alarmingly restrained.

It blew up the Order, and that was bad. If it had blown up Xykon, after the Girard illusion declared that Serini had the real coordinates? Still bad, since it would have sent Xykon right after Serini.

And if a person knows enough to search for a gate in the middle of a desert, they've likely already gotten Serini's name just from having heard of the Scribble, which is really all Girard gave away in that message. No location, no other means of finding Serini. Sure, now they know they can go through Serini to find Girard's gate, but if they can find Serini why wouldn't they have already gone through Serini to get Kraagor's gate?

Paseo H

2012-03-20, 09:40 PM

Saw something the other day that might have been overlooked

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html

Third panel reads, in part: "Spells were readied in anger, and blades were drawn in self defense."

Assuming that's an accurate summary of events, it would be clear that Girard and Dorukan attacked Soon first.

So at the very least, he's probably not Miko-ish enough to initiate combat just because someone gave him some backsass.

Snails

2012-03-20, 10:59 PM

Snails

2012-03-20, 11:17 PM

But let's face it. Soon was wrong. The honor of a paladin may be unbreakable, but intelligence is still apparently a dump stat. Whether it was Soon trusting Shojo's father, or Shojo's father trusting Shojo, somewhere along the line, a paladin blew it by telling a non-paladin about the other gates.

And yet Soon and his followers held to the letter of the oath the longest of all the guardians. So your point is either unimportant or means the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

Paseo H

2012-03-20, 11:23 PM

eilandesq

2012-03-21, 12:29 AM

SavageWombat

2012-03-21, 01:06 AM

Fish

2012-03-21, 02:54 AM

Third panel reads, in part: "Spells were readied in anger, and blades were drawn in self defense."

Assuming that's an accurate summary of events, it would be clear that Girard and Dorukan attacked Soon first.
Among Dorukan, Soon, Girard, and even Lirian, the only one who doesn't fit is Lirian — she probably can't use a blade as a druid. And Dorukan is not a good candidate; no epic-level wizard is going to reach for a dagger in self-defense against either an illusionist/ranger or a paladin. It's not likely that an epic paladin would reach for his mighty 4th-level spells as an opening attack, either, but hey.

So the defending party appears to be Soon ... or maybe Girard. One uses a katana; the other dual-wields swords. The attacking party could be ... anybody who can cast spells, which is all of them (except Kraagor, who was dead, and Serini, who's a rogue).

And that's if you credit the story as being true; it's the story Soon passed down to his successors.

Cavenskull

2012-03-21, 04:10 AM

Besides if he did kill any paladins with that trap wouldn't that prove him right that they couldn't be trusted?
No, it wouldn't. Think of it this way, what if the roles were reversed in Strip 671 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html)? If we pretend that Kraagor's gate was the real next target, imagine that the Order of the Stick decides to go to that gate, and sends O-Chul and Lien to Girard's gate for reconnaissance. Considering what we know about Lien and especially O-Chul, I think it's a virtual guarantee that their motives are pure and that they're not going to try to conquer Girard's gate. Yet they're just as likely to set off Girard's trap as the Order of the Stick was.

Colour me in the camp that doesn't believe the trap was supposed to be lethal.

The explosion was huge, enough to pick Roy up and throw him some considerable distance away. Yet Vaarsuvius, Elan and Haley are all nearby when it goes off - Elan and Haley probably even closer than Roy- yet none of them are seriously damaged, despite their relatively low hit dice.

Ergo, the "boom" was some kind of homebrewed effect that looks and sounds vaguely like an explosion, but produces its effects in quite a different way. Possibly some kind of telekinesis component to throw Roy all that distance.

Another possibility is that there may be an alignment-targeting component. Elan and Haley are not shown as having any damage at all. That may be just because Durkon healed them off-panel, but it might also be that being chaotic, they weren't harmed at all. Vaarsuvius, being Neutral, took some damage, but Roy took the full whack.

That would also imply that it's not just an explosion - explosions aren't so discriminating. Possibly the damage is tailored to the target's total hit points, like a Harm spell, so that it couldn't be lethal no matter how low-level the target.

Yeah, this is all speculation. I'm just saying: what we saw of the explosion doesn't prove Girard to be evil, or even neutral.

It's hard to argue that Girard didn't intend the trap to be lethal. Just look at the anger in his face when he says:

"It should have been you that died in that rift, you cowardly son of a bitch. Allow me to remedy that error now. Say hello to your barnyard gods for me." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html)

And with words like that, it sure sounds like he wants Soon dead. If Girard hates Soon enough to say something like that, it would be lame to get revenge by merely scaring/injuring Soon.

If there is some sort of alignment restriction to the trap, that would be an unnecessary risk to take, especially since Girard has already confessed that he can't be 100% certain that the trap was triggered by Soon or his paladins. And in fact, the trap was indeed triggered by "the other 10%". Why set a deadly trap for the guy least likely to use a gate for evil, while sparing anyone who might actually have some sinister purpose for the gates? It's not like we're talking about Girard making an oversight here--he'd actually have to make a deliberate effort to exempt non-paladin types. After all, if Girard can't think of a legitimate reason for a PALADIN to come looking for him and his gate, who else could possibly have a legitimate reason to be there? After all, the only people who would have reason to travel to that spot are people who learned about that location from Soon or his paladins, instead of from Serini or anyone else.

What would Girard gain by letting anyone who triggered the trap live, anyway? His message shows that he gave no consideration to the possibility that someone might have a legitimate reason to be there, and considering what he thinks of Soon and his followers, he'd probably think he's doing the world a favor by killing whoever sets off the trap.

Kish

2012-03-21, 04:43 AM

Not the gates,

You moved from "Enemy" to "Threat to the Gates" in your attempt to equate "deadly force against a threat to his Gate" with "blowing up anyone he considers an enemy."

I claimed no such thing.

Non-sequitur it is then.

No one has suggested that Girard did not believe Soon was evil. What you don't seem to grasp, is that that belief is itself an indictment of Girard's mental state, not a justification for whatever Girard might want to do.

Primarily to get the Paladin to stop asking me for the coordinates.
...Let me rephrase.

The Order of the Scribble were, as part of their agreement, supposed to know how to find each others' Gates.

You are asserting (based on what evidence, I'm not sure) that Hinjo's understanding of the agreement is wrong, that the agreement stated that, even if the Gates started being destroyed, the members of the original Order and their followers were to have no contact.

In Serini's proposed compromise, why do the members of the Order of the Scribble have the coordinates for each others' Gates?

Killer Angel

2012-03-21, 04:55 AM

Point of order: He does not expect a large number of people to come knocking on his door. In fact, if the only person given the incorrect location of the door came knocking it would be in direct violation of their allegedly unbreakable honor. So, if Soon and those who followed after him were as bound by their word as they claimed they were, they would never come to the trap. If they don't come to the trap, they aren't in any danger at all.

Except it could have been done only with the part "guess what? I don't trust you so the gate isn't here. Have a nice day while I laugh".
It's the trap killing part that was certainly not good, neither neutral, 'cause it was totally unnecessary to protect the gate. It was a sort of revenge, fueled by Girard's preconceptions.

cloudland

2012-03-21, 06:08 AM

If Miko kill Soon because Miko think Soon is the bad guy, I'm sure Miko would lose her paladinhood and because non-good.
So yeah, I do not think that no matter what Girard's concept of Soon is, it's definitely a non-good action to intend to kill Soon.
The only point to make up for it is whether Girard really meant to kill Soon. I must say, that trap seems pretty weak. It deal damage to anyone who don't have tumble skill apparently... (since Elan and Haley are unaffected despite in fact being closer to the illusion of Girard when it exploded). So it probably only meant to deal fall damage. In that case, it probably won't kill most people. So it's not intended as a killing explosion, merely to show his hostility.

MReav

2012-03-21, 06:25 AM

In that case, it probably won't kill most people. So it's not intended as a killing explosion, merely to show his hostility.

Durkon was healing V in that scene, one can presume he could have healed Elan and Haley offscreen (and Haley has Evasion anyway so she could have dodged the explosion).

Most people have 1d4 +CON HP. Any damage that would physically appear on Roy would kill most people at least a half-dozen times over.

Also, consider Soon was pretty old. He was probably treading on a -6 Con Penalty from Age. Meanwhile I'm guessing Girard whipped up that trap pretty quickly because it needed to be there before the 12 week period lapsed, which, if he's an Illusionist and therefore likely ditched Evocation, probably meant that he couldn't research the trap, have it deal enough damage to assuredly kill a high-level character, and get it in place in that time, and simply aimed to do enough damage to kill any low-level paladin flunkies and potentially take out the elderly Soon.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-21, 06:43 AM

Thing is, Girard could totally be evil.

What? Lets say he used slave labor to protect the gate?

Its not to that level, but he is doing some pretty henious stuff:

Kidnapping children into a cult to protect a gate and then robbing the family blind.

Thats pretty evil.

A person can still be evil even if his intentions are good.

He was willing to kill a lackey based on blind revenge.

A LG PALADIN LACKEY.

Its like hating the police chief and killing any cops he sends.

What if it wasn't Soons lackey? What if it was somebody elses lackey? Dead.

Winter

2012-03-21, 08:00 AM

This is very fast approaching "is it morally justified to abduct children from one of their parents to ensure the guarding of an item that could destroy the universe in the wrong hands?"

As such, I find the topic very interesting but given it is the question if it is "morally justified" it's a dead-end right here.

TheSummoner

2012-03-21, 08:15 AM

Comparing to the "booby-trapped door with high explosives" -

It doesn't have to be evil. It's just crazy. And we're all happy saying Girard was paranoid.

I honestly think Rich intends Girard to be CG. (Or to have been CG.) His actions are perfectly justified against someone he's convinced is a threat to the entire planet. But still loony-tunes.

We can't judge Girard's morals and ethics because he's clearly standing, morally speaking, a long way from the place we all think of as "reality".

I think it's a bit much to say that Girard was insane. Paranoid, yes. But there's a pretty significant difference between paranoia and insanity.

You moved from "Enemy" to "Threat to the Gates" in your attempt to equate "deadly force against a threat to his Gate" with "blowing up anyone he considers an enemy."

You say that as if the minor difference actually matters. A known enemy is a threat. It doesn't make one bit of difference if it's a threat to the gate itself or to Girard's person. He's fully justified in trying to defend either.

Non-sequitur it is then.

If you ignore the definition of non-sequitur and the part where I explained just how the logic follows, sure it is.

No one has suggested that Girard did not believe Soon was evil. What you don't seem to grasp, is that that belief is itself an indictment of Girard's mental state, not a justification for whatever Girard might want to do.

I'll make that suggestion right now. Or atleast I'll suggest that Girard doesn't have to believe Soon is evil and that such a belief would be irrelevent even if he did hold it.

Girard considers Soon an enemy. Girard considers Soon a threat. Soon doesn't have to be evil to be either. Soon could be (and considering he's a paladin, has to be) lawful good and still be both without it suggesting anything about Girard's alignment. It's perfectly possible for two people who are both good or even both the exact same alignment (not suggesting Girard and Soon are) to consider eachother enemies or threats to eachother.

Evil isn't one big happy family. What makes you think good/neutral has to be one?

KillianHawkeye

2012-03-21, 08:31 AM

I'm going to ignore all the back and forth and simply state the following:

Even IF you consider setting up a deadly trap in a place where it might be set off by an innocent bystander an evil act (as opposed to simple negligence), it takes more than a single evil act to change one's alignment. Neutral and even Good people are both willing and capable of committing evil acts from time to time without being in danger of losing their alignment. It's called making mistakes. Everybody does it. Girard thought he made the trap specific enough that only an oath-breaking Soon or his followers would trigger it, but he was wrong. Wrong != Evil.

Fish

2012-03-21, 09:32 AM

Girard's trap was a hundred times safer than Dorukan's rune.

term3186

2012-03-21, 11:09 AM

The explosive trap was definitely a terrible idea. Perhaps even downright evil. There are a number of scenarios in which innocents could be killed without cause. (and of course there's the 10%)! Perhaps azure city is besieged and Soon needs to call for aid. Perhaps some gates have fallen and soon needs to reached out to Girard for advice/information. Etc. etc. simply because soon (or a messenger) needs to speak with Girard doesn't mean it's for some nefarious purpose. And placing a lethal trap just to kill someone who might want to talk to you is fairly indefensible, what YOU think notwithstanding. If we go down that road you could justify Girard slaughtering all sorts of people simply because they MIGHT pose a danger to the gate.

Tha being said, one stupid, foolish act does not necessarily an evil character make.

B. Dandelion

2012-03-21, 11:13 AM

To those who defend Girard on the grounds that he might have been right about Soon coming to take over the Gates himself, I'd like to point out that if Miko's logic had been correct, killing Shojo might have been the right (or at least acceptable) thing to do as he threatened the safety of the Gate by conspiring with Xykon, and he had already demonstrated an ability to rig the courts in his favor. But hardly anyone defends that, because she wasn't right. She was deluded and egotistical, and murdered a good-aligned ally of the Gates thus significantly weakening her own side.

I think Girard is exactly the same. They were both 100% certain and 100% wrong, which led both of them to attempt murder (only Miko was successful). He's the "arrogant atheist" to Miko's "overbearing fundamentalist." If you disagree with Miko, you're an evildoer. If you disagree with Girard, you're a brainwashed moron. I think that gets him more of a pass from some people because he doesn't have institutional power behind him, making him the underdog. But they're both rather egotistical positions at the core. Miko's utterly convinced she's right, morally. Girard's utterly convinced he's right, intellectually. But they weren't.

Niesra

2012-03-21, 11:37 AM

A number of people have been saying how Girard "obviously" intended the trap to be lethal (as was pointed out, his choice of words certainly makes it appear that way, 695 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html)). However, the trap did not kill any of the order members. In fact, it does not look look like they suffered damage that was THAT extensive.

How can a trap that can only do at best moderate (at a glance) damage to mid-level characters be a lethal threat to an epic level paladin? I am not very familiar with D&D per se, so if my question makes no sense please tell me so, because right now I can only draw two conclusions:

1. Girard is stupid enough to think a trap of moderate strength will kill a paladin that is his equal (or very close) in level and such. OR

2. Girard was not intending to kill Soon, and in fact he made the trap so that even lower level paladins could survive it (the order did without that much hardship, it would seem).

I find the first one way too far fetched to be true. He only needed to ask: Can I survive this? If yes, then the trap is not strong enough. Anyhow, I think 2. is more likely. In that scenario, the trap was meant to frustrate his efforts, making him realize he probably would never find the gate, and also make him feel crappy as hell for Kragor's death.

As Girard said, it was only 90% likely it was him anyways, so I think the fact the order came out of it ok means he was very conscious about that 10% and the fact Soon might send other paladins (he says "or one of his paladin lackeys") that are not as strong. Hence he made the trap weak enough so that they would survive, but strong enough to "rough them up."

hamishspence

2012-03-21, 12:14 PM

Another possibility- Soon had very low hit points for his level. Quite shortly after the Scribble's quest, he's "an aged Soon" when he hands over the key to the Gate, to Shojo's father.

Which might mean -6 to Constitution.
If he already had a low-ish Con, he might have less hit points than Roy did.

Omergideon

2012-03-21, 12:23 PM

As said Soon would likely have been at a -4, maybe even a -6, constitution penalty due to age. That means dropping 80-120 HP just if he is level 20 compared to a young epic level character, more if he is higher.

So lets assume he averages 10hp per level due to a +4 Con bonus and an average 6hp roll per level. That is higher than average, but that is the point. By level 22 he would have some 220 hit points, plus some change. But by being older he would be losing out at level 22 on roughly 88 to 132 of those and only have between 110 and 90 hit points.

Roy, at level 14ish could have anywhere between 100 (averages 8 hp per level) and 140 (averages 10 hit points per level). So even if Soon is an epic Character with above average (Hell an amazing) consitution when young and rolled above average by the time he reaches the age to be visiting the desert he would be down to a relatively moderate number.

Hence a trap to kill an aged, but epic, Soon need not be potent enough to kill a young and fit Roy who is at a decent enough level. And that isn't even accounting for saving throws and the like.

And even at the so called "mid-level" Roy and co are significantly stronger than 90+% of the population, Paladins included. So for most people the trap would be quite deadly indeed.

BaronOfHell

2012-03-21, 12:47 PM

Paladins do not know fear. But lawful good doesn't mean lawful stupid. So I wonder if Soon would not actually be prepared for something like this.

I mean we can't really put any probability on how likely it was for the trap to damage innocents. We can trust Girards 90% probability of it being Soon, but we can't estimate what kind of preparation Soon would have made for him and his companions (or his companions alone), not to mention warnings, should he actually have seeked out the gate. So it's kind of a moot point, I think.
Then there's the 10% of it not being related with Soon Kim. I think it's quite a high percentage considering the random spot in the desert with very low flux of people and the passwords required. So maybe the 10% was actually in regard to something happening along the lines of the order. If that's the case, then Girard would probably know that someone send out to seek out the gate at a point where Soon did not break his oath would most likely be of high strength themselves.

In the end, I find it highly unlikely the trap could ever had hit anyone who weren't involved with the gates, who could not either survive the trap or were there for reasons independent of Soon Kim and as such most likely did not have the best intentions regarding the gates (Nale & co.).

So I can't really say if the act of Girard was evil. I mean, I don't even play D&D, so my initial guess of any kind of violence being evil pr. default is probably flawed. So in my opinion, we know way to little about the actual circumstances.

Merellis

2012-03-21, 01:42 PM

Also have to think of how long it's been there, Girard was betting on no less than 12 weeks after he had set up the trap for Soon to show up or to send his Paladin's over.

Meaning this could have been set up in anger as well. You can argue all you want on whether this was evil or not, but you need to understand that there is a lot of animosity between Girard and Soon, even if most of the animosity seems to be on Girards side. So while unreasonable for a rational person, this could have been very reasonable to do in Girard's opinion.

Also, the only people who would be standing at those exact co-ordinates are those who knew them, beyond the halfling and Girard who knew where the true gate was. And why would someone who know's those co-ordinates, talking about Soon and knows about the Rifts be there? Most likely an Oathbreaker, and if talking about Soon, most likely one of Soon's lackeys or the coward himself.

Though, this could all be speculation, all we know is that Kragor died with the last Rift and from there everything splintered.

Niveus Candidus

2012-03-21, 01:50 PM

Well, I believe very strongly that the Desert Trap qualifies as an evil act.

However, that does not necessarily mean Girard would be of evil alignment. In fact, if I had to bet on the question I would most definitely place my money on CG.

Being of an alignment does not mean one cannot make an error in judgement.
I do not see the evil in the act. Oh, Girard wanted to kill Soon, but he didn't go hunt him down to murder him off. Illusionist/Ranger (Ugh) instead made one of the safest traps ever in a D&D campaign. In order to kill Soon, Captain Blue had to find an exact coordinate in the sandy wastes of a desert that he swore to avoid, and then speak a list of keywords aloud. So the baboom was not exactly caused by some murderous deathtrap slaying the museum's new janitor every week.

What it was, however, was stupid. Girard, or at least the fruit of his poorly optimized yet strangely epic loins, was alive by the time the first two gates went down. One might think the desert guardians would have contacted one of the other gate-watchers, or at the very least shut off the Soon-killing trap.

Unless, and much more likely, Girard died shortly after his gate's founding and no one left even knew about the invisible, purple diamond bomb.

Skull the Troll

2012-03-21, 02:03 PM

They kidnap babies. Anyone (like me) who is a parent, stamps EVIL on his forhead with a big sharpie marker. Everything else is collateral.

Skull the Troll

2012-03-21, 02:04 PM

[QUOTE=Niveus Candidus;12934507

Unless, and much more likely, Girard died shortly after his gate's founding and no one left even knew about the invisible, purple diamond bomb.[/QUOTE]

Plenty of people knew, there was a betting pool going.

Niveus Candidus

2012-03-21, 02:06 PM

They kidnap babies. Anyone (like me) who is a parent, stamps EVIL on his forhead with a big sharpie marker. Everything else is collateral.
They kidnap their own babies. Subtle distinction. To verify as evil, we would need to know the familial unit and the environment the tikes are stolen to. Being raised to defend a gate that protects reality is likely seen as a honor by the kin.

MReav

2012-03-21, 02:14 PM

They kidnap their own babies. Subtle distinction. To verify as evil, we would need to know the familial unit and the environment the tikes are stolen to. Being raised to defend a gate that protects reality is likely seen as a honor by the kin.

You're overlooking the other parent, who has just lost their child (and less importantly their possessions), and had been betrayed by someone they loved but ultimately was just using them.

Me, I think Girard's act against Soon was evil, because he wasn't obligated to leave a damn thing in the desert, and just left the paladins fruitlessly searching for days, months, years or more.

Fish

2012-03-21, 02:19 PM

Maybe they couldn't shut it off short of setting it off.

Maybe they knew that it existed, but not where.

Maybe they assumed the other Gates fell because of Soon ("Aha! He's started the attack!")

veti

2012-03-21, 02:35 PM

Killing Paladins in one of the core books was consider a Nuetral Evil act.

I have never understood why killing a paladin should be considered morally any worse than killing, say, a baker or a peddlar. I can understand why other paladins would treat it more seriously - but why "absolute morality" should make such a distinction is just baffling.

If, during their initial encounter, the OOTS had got the better of Miko and killed her without ever figuring out who she was - would that have been an evil act? What makes her any different from the bandits they fought earlier?

It's hard to argue that Girard didn't intend the trap to be lethal. Just look at the anger in his face when he says:

"It should have been you that died in that rift, you cowardly son of a bitch. Allow me to remedy that error now. Say hello to your barnyard gods for me." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html)

There's a considerable difference between "being angry with someone" - even "being absolutely beside yourself with fury at someone" - and "wanting to kill them". (Unless your name is Belkar, I guess.)

What would Girard gain by letting anyone who triggered the trap live, anyway?

The trap is an expression of his anger at Soon and a way of emphasising his "sod off" instruction. The equivalent of slamming your door in the salesman's face. But as mentioned above, there's a huge difference between "making a statement" - even an emphatic statement - and trying to kill someone. One of these things is compatible with being a generally good guy, the other isn't.

As said Soon would likely have been at a -4, maybe even a -6, constitution penalty due to age. That means dropping 80-120 HP just if he is level 20 compared to a young epic level character, more if he is higher.

Your maths is completely wrong. -6 to CON (venerable age) is only -3 per die to hit points. So that's a maximum of -60 to HP at level 20.

And nobody's mentioned a paladin's boosted saving throws, which should considerably improve his chances of surviving the trap compared with (ooh, to take an example purely at random) Roy's.

Doug Lampert

2012-03-21, 02:39 PM

Comparing to the "booby-trapped door with high explosives" -

It doesn't have to be evil. It's just crazy. And we're all happy saying Girard was paranoid.

Callus disregard for the wellfare of others is listed as evil in the PHB. If you are paranoid enough to set a lethal boobytrap that has any meaningful chance of hitting an innocent (and Girard himself estimated that it did) then you are committing a clearly evil act in cold blood.

The kidnapping and theft are also points against Girard.

What are the points in favor? He doesn't want the universe destroyed? Well, so WHAT, neither do 99.99% of the evil people in the world!

We've got two clearly evil acts, and the meaningful evidence for non-evil is that he'd previously travelled with a paladin.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-21, 02:41 PM

Maybe they couldn't shut it off short of setting it off.

Just say a keyword and run like heck.

Maybe they knew that it existed, but not where.

Girard had exact locations

Maybe they assumed the other Gates fell because of Soon ("Aha! He's started the attack!")

Divination.

Fish

2012-03-21, 02:47 PM

That assumes Girard and Co did anything the sensible way. Obviously, the entire Order of the Scribble was horrifically un-optimized in their strategy.

1. Girard may not have told his followers where the dummy location was. Why would they need to know?
2. Divination wouldn't have worked on Dorukan's Gate. Lirian's may have used similar protection. In any case, the gods weren't handing out free tourist brochures to the curious.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-21, 02:53 PM

1. Girard may not have told his followers where the dummy location was. Why would they need to know?

A completly innocent dude/s would have died.

2. Divination wouldn't have worked on Dorukan's Gate. Lirian's may have used similar protection. In any case, the gods weren't handing out free tourist brochures to the curious.

Only the exact throneroom was blocked. The rest was seeable.

Math_Mage

2012-03-21, 03:19 PM

I think it's a bit much to say that Girard was insane. Paranoid, yes. But there's a pretty significant difference between paranoia and insanity.

You mean the part where his paranoia caused him to take unjustifiable actions to defend against his paranoid projection of Soon?

You say that as if the minor difference actually matters. A known enemy is a threat. It doesn't make one bit of difference if it's a threat to the gate itself or to Girard's person. He's fully justified in trying to defend either.

Kish's point is that you originally justified Girard's actions as defending the Gate, but then made Soon a threat to the Gate only because he is Girard's personal foe.

As a threat to Girard's person, it's equally incredible. It is unreasonable to determine that anyone who triggers the trap must be a threat to Girard just because he got information about Girard's/the Gate's location from Soon.

If you ignore the definition of non-sequitur and the part where I explained just how the logic follows, sure it is.

But the similarity ends there. Roy originally goes after Xykon as a personal foe and all-around evil guy. He then realizes Team Evil has SOME kind of evil agenda for the Gates and decides to oppose them on that basis. Girard hates Soon as a personal foe, but there's no basis for supposing Soon has some kind of evil agenda for the Gates. Since this is all about your contention that there's no material difference between 'personal foe' and 'threat to the Gate,' the difference here breaks your analogy.

I'll make that suggestion right now. Or atleast I'll suggest that Girard doesn't have to believe Soon is evil and that such a belief would be irrelevent even if he did hold it.

For what it's worth, Elan would disagree. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0672.html) "He is my enemy, therefore I am justified in treating him as Evil" definitely falls somewhere south of Neutral on the alignment map.

I mean we can't really put any probability on how likely it was for the trap to damage innocents. We can trust Girards 90% probability of it being Soon, but we can't estimate what kind of preparation Soon would have made for him and his companions (or his companions alone), not to mention warnings, should he actually have seeked out the gate. So it's kind of a moot point, I think.
Then there's the 10% of it not being related with Soon Kim. I think it's quite a high percentage considering the random spot in the desert with very low flux of people and the passwords required. So maybe the 10% was actually in regard to something happening along the lines of the order. If that's the case, then Girard would probably know that someone send out to seek out the gate at a point where Soon did not break his oath would most likely be of high strength themselves.

Given how poor Girard's judgment has been, I don't really trust his 90% heuristic.

Fish

2012-03-21, 03:24 PM

Only the exact throneroom was blocked. The rest was seeable.
You're saying Girard could cast divination spells through Cloister?

Winter

2012-03-21, 03:54 PM

You're saying Girard could cast divination spells through Cloister?

Unlikely, but not impossible. An Epic Divination would probably have a chance to break through - and if Girard had researched one he could have tried it often to defeat the Cloister.
I find this unlikely because we do not know about Girard's abilities in regard to diviniation, developing epic spells beyond illusions, and how much time he had for finding out things before he and his allies got hit with the familicide-hammer.
It also is likely he did not start looking. He probably just thought: "Three gates are down and I cannot look at Azure City. It is CLEAR that the paladins are behind this!!!11" and did not bother about finding out more.

Gnoman

2012-03-21, 03:56 PM

I have never understood why killing a paladin should be considered morally any worse than killing, say, a baker or a peddlar. I can understand why other paladins would treat it more seriously - but why "absolute morality" should make such a distinction is just baffling.

If, during their initial encounter, the OOTS had got the better of Miko and killed her without ever figuring out who she was - would that have been an evil act? What makes her any different from the bandits they fought earlier?

The entire point of the Paladin class is to be a literal Avatar of Law and Good. Thus, killing one, even for the best of reasons, is a major reduction to the power of Law and Good on the mortal plane. As for Miko, there's a huge difference between "killing somebody, who happens to be a paladin, that is attacking you for no apparent reason" and "setting a trap to kill any paladin that comes to this location."

veti

2012-03-21, 05:14 PM

The entire point of the Paladin class is to be a literal Avatar of Law and Good. Thus, killing one, even for the best of reasons, is a major reduction to the power of Law and Good on the mortal plane. As for Miko, there's a huge difference between "killing somebody, who happens to be a paladin, that is attacking you for no apparent reason" and "setting a trap to kill any paladin that comes to this location."

Killing anyone in cold blood is an evil act. Killing anyone who is trying, without provocation, to kill you, is not. Whether the person happens to be a paladin makes not the slightest difference in either case.

The quote I was responding to said that:

Killing Paladins in one of the core books was consider a Nuetral Evil act.

That implies there's some kind of 'strict liability' model for paladins, so the fact that one is actively trying to disembowel you at the time is no excuse.

The example of "setting a trap to kill any paladin that comes to this location" implies that you think it's somehow morally worse than merely setting a trap to kill any random non-paladin who comes to this location. Speaking as a Random Non-Paladin, I find that quite offensive.

hamishspence

2012-03-21, 05:19 PM

Killing anyone in cold blood is an evil act.

I'm guessing plenty of executioners, snipers military and in the police, and so forth, would disagree.

A justified killing is justified whether it's carried out "coldly" or not- using this viewpoint.

That said "in cold blood" could be an aggravating factor for already evil acts. Fiendish Codex 2, for example, ranks "cold blooded murder" as worse than "murder" but not as bad as "murder for pleasure".

Kish

2012-03-21, 05:46 PM

You say that as if the minor difference actually matters.

If you didn't know perfectly well that the "minor difference" between "a threat to the Gate" and "anyone Girard hates for any reason" matters, you would have started with the assertion that Girard is justified in blowing up anyone he hates for any reason, instead of starting with asserting that he's justified in blowing up threats to the Gate and switching to talking about enemies.

I really wonder why you're so invested in Girard. But I'm about done indulging you, myself. Continue spinning scenarios in which Girard's ever-more-atrocious behavior is somehow justified; I shall not engage with you any further.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-21, 06:47 PM

You're saying Girard could cast divination spells through Cloister?

The rest of the castle was seeable. We know this. Once the first thing wen't down he would have known that Soon was not the fault of this.

At that very least he then could have deactivated a deathtrap in case they visit.

Math_Mage

2012-03-21, 06:52 PM

The rest of the castle was seeable. We know this. Once the first thing wen't down he would have known that Soon was not the fault of this.

At that very least he then could have deactivated a deathtrap in case they visit.

We know the castle was visible before Azure City fell. I think Fish is talking about what would happen if Girard tried to scry Azure City AFTER it fell, which is when he would have noticed something was up--and after Xykon would have started casting Cloister on the place.

Kish

2012-03-21, 07:25 PM

I'd think Girard would be, at least, curious if he was told, "The Gate guarded by your former teammate who swore that only the honor of a paladin could be trusted to protect the Gates, is now obscured by an abjuration effect that only an epic sorcerer or wizard could cast."

That's assuming the message wasn't, instead, "...is now obscured by your other former teammate's signature spell." Which would probably lead to Girard jumping to all sorts of implausible conclusions about Dorukan overrunning Soon's Gate and preparing an assault on Girard. But still.

cloudland

2012-03-21, 07:41 PM

Now that reminds me. The trap is so hard to find that you need true seeing to actually see it was there, and take lots of time to search. And paladin basically have no or low rank in search, so there is no way they could have even found it. So, that trap probably wouldn't even do anything at all to any paladin being sent there...Making it sort of a just the kind of thing Girard do just to feel good rather than meant to do any actual harm.

raymundo

2012-03-21, 08:00 PM

They kidnap babies. Anyone (like me) who is a parent, stamps EVIL on his forhead with a big sharpie marker. Everything else is collateral.

Actually, we are told from the bad guy, who is, by his own words, proud to be the villain(Elan/Tarquin, or his wife, probably not the most objective judge for this as well..), that they kidnap babies and steal the other parent's stuff. That.. that is not exactly.. a fair judgment. In my humble opinion, it is quite a worthless accusation. I wouldn't believe any word Tarquid said myself (it's possible his informations are wrong, even if he isn't lying).

Yes, that makes it kind of impossible to judge anything /anybody in this comic. It's possible the Draketooths never did anything evil (except for Girards trap in the desert [yes.. that is being discussed, but it's still evil in my book]) in their whole existence.

My resumée: Girards most definately commited an evil deed with the booby trap, but all the other information about his family is biased (imho). So it's not objective to declare him or his "family cult" evil. One evil deed does not make an evil alignment, though he may very well be on path of evilness. You people take Penelopes / Tarquins (!) / Elans (!) story too much for granted.

Forikroder

2012-03-21, 09:03 PM

heres a question, why arent people angry that Girard booby trapped his stairs? i mean soon or his paladins might walk up there

and what about the possibly lethal magical traps set up all over teh windy cavern? soon or his paladins might die from those

obviousl Girard should have shorted out all his traps and only set them up when he knew an enemy was coming jsut in case Soon or his paladins blatantly broke there oath and decided to head to a gate controlled by a person he knows full well hates him

Gift Jeraff

2012-03-21, 09:31 PM

heres a question, why arent people angry that Girard booby trapped his stairs? i mean soon or his paladins might walk up there

and what about the possibly lethal magical traps set up all over teh windy cavern? soon or his paladins might die from thoseBecause the booby trap in the desert was specifically made to hurt/kill paladins sworn to protect reality. The booby traps in Windy Canyon were not.

Flash1191

2012-03-21, 09:50 PM

And why would someone who know's [sic] those co-ordinates, talking about Soon and knows about the Rifts be there? Most likely an Oathbreaker, and if talking about Soon, most likely one of Soon's lackeys or the coward himself.

Okay, I'll bite. How exactly is Soon a coward? As far as I've seen, he has never shown himself to be cowardly in any way. In fact, as a paladin, he literally wasn't afraid of anything.

Cavenskull

2012-03-21, 09:51 PM

There's a considerable difference between "being angry with someone" - even "being absolutely beside yourself with fury at someone" - and "wanting to kill them". (Unless your name is Belkar, I guess.)
While that is true, I only pointed out the anger to reinforce Girard's words. Girard's statements were the OOTS equivalent of saying, "It's time to meet your maker". Girard's exact words only make sense in the context of wanting to kill Soon. After all, a deliberately non-lethal trap isn't going to rectify the "error" of Soon's continued existence, and it's certainly not going to give Soon the opportunity to say hello to his barnyard gods. Considering everything Girard said in the message, Soon would have every reason to treat it as a failed murder attempt. It basically gives Soon every reason to engage Girard in lethal violence instead of diplomacy. That's not a good situation for Girard to be in if the trap was only meant to be a non-lethal deterrent. And it's not like Girard could be sure Soon would never find him. Nale was able to locate Windy Valley. Considering Soon's resources and the amount of time he spent adventuring with Girard, it's quite probable that Soon could find Girard's true whereabouts faster than Nale did.

The trap is an expression of his anger at Soon and a way of emphasising his "sod off" instruction. The equivalent of slamming your door in the salesman's face. But as mentioned above, there's a huge difference between "making a statement" - even an emphatic statement - and trying to kill someone. One of these things is compatible with being a generally good guy, the other isn't.
Since we don't know for a fact that Girard is actually a generally good guy, it could go either way. Belkar is proud to be evil, yet he's still part of a quest to save the world. And Vaarsuvius is teetering between neutral and evil at the moment. Based on that, it's definitely possible for Girard to be less than 100% good. If executing Kubota wasn't enough by itself to make Vaarsuvius evil, then Girard could conceivably use lethal force to resolve a grudge against Soon without automatically turning evil.

It really doesn't make sense to me to have a character make what I consider to be an explicit and immediate death threat, and not actually mean is--especially when making that death threat amounts to declaring war against an order of paladins. If Soon brings an army with him to go after Girard, I'm sure any claims that "It was just a joke!" aren't going to defuse the situation.

KingFlameHawk

2012-03-21, 10:54 PM

MReav

2012-03-21, 10:59 PM

Okay, I'll bite. How exactly is Soon a coward? As far as I've seen, he has never shown himself to be cowardly in any way. In fact, as a paladin, he literally wasn't afraid of anything.

Girard blames Soon for Kraagor's death. Based on Shojo's account, what appears to have happened was that Soon ordered Lirian and Dorukon to seal the rift while both Soon and Kraagor were fighting the Snarl. This act caused Kraagor to die/be unmade/be trapped in the Snarl's prison, while Soon survived. We do not see Girard in the panel, so we don't know where he was. My theory was that he got knocked out in the battle and Dorukon relayed the account to him (possibly with his own biased spin since he appeared to not like Soon either). Girard probably believed that Soon sacrificed Kraagor unnecessarily because he was too obsessed with avenging his wife/contemptuous of his own teammates and holds it against him.

He isn't necessarily correct, but that's how he sees things.

Flash1191

2012-03-21, 11:01 PM

Girard blames Soon for Kraagor's death. Based on Shojo's account, what appears to have happened was that Soon ordered Lirian and Dorukon to seal the rift while both Soon and Kraagor were fighting the Snarl. This act caused Kraagor to die/be unmade/be trapped in the Snarl's prison, while Soon survived. We do not see Girard in the panel, so we don't know where he was. My theory was that he got knocked out in the battle and Dorukon relayed the account to him (possibly with his own biased spin since he appeared to not like Soon either). Girard probably believed that Soon sacrificed Kraagor unnecessarily because he was too obsessed with avenging his wife/contemptuous of his own teammates and holds it against him.

I remember that fine. It seemed to me that Merellis was calling him a coward, not saying Girard seems him as such.

MReav

2012-03-21, 11:18 PM

I remember that fine. It seemed to me that Merellis was calling him a coward, not saying Girard seems him as such.

I assumed he was talking from Girard's perspective.

Snails

2012-03-21, 11:32 PM

Snails

2012-03-21, 11:43 PM

I do not see the evil in the act. Oh, Girard wanted to kill Soon, but he didn't go hunt him down to murder him off. Illusionist/Ranger (Ugh) instead made one of the safest traps ever in a D&D campaign. In order to kill Soon, Captain Blue had to find an exact coordinate in the sandy wastes of a desert that he swore to avoid, and then speak a list of keywords aloud. So the baboom was not exactly caused by some murderous deathtrap slaying the museum's new janitor every week.

No it was a murderous deathtrap intended for Good people who might be trying to save the world from an imminent threat to the cosmos. But why let a little thing like basic morality get in the way of a low odds chance for personal revenge?

The specificity of the word triggers cuts against your argument as well, because it probably would not have worked against Xykon at all.

Furthermore, I do not agree with "swore to avoid". You are assuming that coordinates were exchanged and monitoring devices were created for merely passive general knowledge. If you are going to argue the letter of the law, everyone but Soon violated the Oath long before the OotS appeared on the scene. What exactly does Soon's grandchild owe to those who already broke the Oath? Is he supposed to feel a need to comply to an Oath in a manner that no other party is willing to be held to?

Snails

2012-03-21, 11:49 PM

I think that there is something that most people are forgetting. The explosion was not actually part of the defense against the paladins. The defense against the paladins was the lie. In my oppinion if that was all he did then I would think that it would have been justified (He does not trust paladins) if kind of stupid (not trusting a paladin). The explosion however was not a trap, it was deliberate murder. in this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html) strip Girard says that if it is Soon at the trap he is a coward that should be dead and will be very soon (:smalltongue:). The explosion was there for the purpose of killing Soon not to defend the gate.

Also I am puting my hat into the Chaotic neutral who thinks he is good. Also I think that the Miko comparison is very appropriate as I see them as two extremes, Miko is the wrong way to play Lawful Good and Girard is the wrong way to play Chaotic Good/Neutral.

Good points.

Those who posit it is not a murder attempt are also assuming that Girard's angry words in the illusion were a gambit.

If Girard was sincere, then it was an apparent murder attempt. Any other conclusion is just making up facts out of whole cloth.

If Girard was not sincere, then the explosion cannot be justified with any facts available. Assuming it was a psyche tactic just means needing to make up facts out of whole cloth the justify the trap.

Fish

2012-03-22, 12:55 AM

Well said.

And I would add that by the "might be right" yardstick, V's casting of Familicide might not be evil either.
I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that Girard was or is automatically wrong about Soon. We are fresh from Azure City when we meet Girard, and we see him as paranoid, delusional, defensive, and possibly mad. Our version of history is theirs. Theirs may be selectively edited (to make Soon look the hero), or entirely falsified.

But as we don't know why Girard hated Soon so badly, I'm reserving judgment whether Girard is right to do so.

Omergideon

2012-03-22, 04:41 AM

Your maths is completely wrong. -6 to CON (venerable age) is only -3 per die to hit points. So that's a maximum of -60 to HP at level 20.

And nobody's mentioned a paladin's boosted saving throws, which should considerably improve his chances of surviving the trap compared with (ooh, to take an example purely at random) Roy's.

MY bad. I should have thought this through more carefully. Especially as maths is usually one of my stronger subjects. D'oh.

Still loosing 60 hit points minimum due to age, when having over 200 at that level involves both a good Con bonus and above average rolls, still means he could have had fewer hit points despite epic status than the young and fit Roy.

Though I repeat my constant refrain regarding Girard and his position. Whilst his anger and paranoia and other authority issues may fully and perfectly explain his actions, they do not Justify them. If I kill a man in anger or due to a misunderstanding of his nature it is no less wrong than if I do so in a calculating manner while fully aware of his status. Or if it is considered a lesser crime, it still carries a long and hefty jail term in the real world.

Kish

2012-03-22, 05:06 AM

MY bad. I should have thought this through more carefully. Especially as maths is usually one of my stronger subjects. D'oh.

Still loosing 60 hit points minimum due to age, when having over 200 at that level involves both a good Con bonus and above average rolls, still means he could have had fewer hit points despite epic status than the young and fit Roy.
I also wonder at the assumption that "the Order of the Stick is tattered but none are dead" doesn't represent Girard's best explosion. He was an epic illusionist, not an epic evoker. Vaarsuvius sucked up a Meteor Swarm from Xykon and wasn't even knocked out.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-22, 05:50 AM

I also wonder at the assumption that "the Order of the Stick is tattered but none are dead" doesn't represent Girard's best explosion. He was an epic illusionist, not an epic evoker. Vaarsuvius sucked up a Meteor Swarm from Xykon and wasn't even knocked out.

Its rule of cool/ Comedy Mostly.

That explosion WOULD kill off a low level Paladin Lackey or an Old soon coming for help.

martianmister

2012-03-22, 05:56 AM

cloudland

2012-03-22, 06:23 AM

I also wonder at the assumption that "the Order of the Stick is tattered but none are dead" doesn't represent Girard's best explosion. He was an epic illusionist, not an epic evoker. Vaarsuvius sucked up a Meteor Swarm from Xykon and wasn't even knocked out.

Vaarsuvius never eat a Meteor Swarm. Only O-Chu eat one and look at his condition. Vaarsuvius only get a blast damage when Xykon blast himself when that was still in Darth mode, and the other Meteor Swarm while O-chu carry Vaarsuvius missed (possibly because Xykon aimed at the wrong spot and it didn't explode near enough to get any damage). So basically the main damage Vaarsuvius took is the big chunk of wall.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-22, 06:27 AM

martianmister

2012-03-22, 06:39 AM

TheZenMaster

2012-03-22, 06:45 AM

martianmister

2012-03-22, 07:04 AM

Look at my post! The top is refering to the explosion whilst the bottom Is refering to the meteor swarm,

Which part of Girard's explosive magic is rule of cool/comedy?

Killer Angel

2012-03-22, 07:40 AM

Which part of Girard's explosive magic is rule of cool/comedy?

Rule of cool: when Haley says "it means RUN!"... it's almost exactly when you see films ala Die Hard, with Bruce Willis looking at the ticking explosive device, trying to escape, being blown away by the explosion and having in the end only a couple of bruises.
Comedy part: Belkar's comment after Roy's fall

Gurgeh

2012-03-22, 07:48 AM

Please don't patronize me for using correct terms.
Nothing that comes from TV Tropes counts as "correct terms".

TheZenMaster

2012-03-22, 07:51 AM

Which part of Girard's explosive magic is rule of cool/comedy?

Its because DNDs rules are based around Rule of cool and OOTs rules are based on Rule of Comedy.

Together they fight crime make stories.

Why do the higher level you become you can survive more (Even rock falls and falls from huge hights)? Rule of baddass.

In combination of the rule of funny flumph rule (Flumphs insta cancel out fall damage- Even if their made of sand) prevented Roy from dying.

Flash1191

2012-03-22, 10:37 AM

I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that Girard was or is automatically wrong about Soon. We are fresh from Azure City when we meet Girard, and we see him as paranoid, delusional, defensive, and possibly mad. Our version of history is theirs. Theirs may be selectively edited (to make Soon look the hero), or entirely falsified.

But as we don't know why Girard hated Soon so badly, I'm reserving judgment whether Girard is right to do so.

We don't know why there was animosity, but we do know that he was wrong in at least one important way. Soon never broke his oath. I'll agree that we don't know enough to say Girard is unjustified in his hatred, but from what little we know about Soon, I'm comfortable saying that Girard doesn't/didn't know half as much about the paladin as he thinks he does/did.

Please don't patronize me for using correct terms.

Rule of Cool overrides DND rules. So Vaarsavius didn't die because of either possible rule interpretation (As above) or because hes an inportant plot character and dying because of rules is lame.

Then that would be Plot Power, not Rule of Cool or Rule of Funny. Make sure you have the right TVTropes term if you're going to use that as your argument.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-22, 11:25 AM

Then that would be Plot Power, not Rule of Cool or Rule of Funny. Make sure you have the right TVTropes term if you're going to use that as your argument.

Aren't those incredibly similar?

That is more of plot armor though you are correct about that.

But the explosion was a rule of cool/ funny combo.

Merellis

2012-03-22, 11:33 AM

I assumed he was talking from Girard's perspective. I was, sorry, I guess that wasn't clear.

Fish

2012-03-22, 11:34 AM

MReav

2012-03-22, 11:39 AM

Fish

2012-03-22, 11:55 AM

BaronOfHell

2012-03-22, 11:57 AM

Isn't rule of "X" or "Y" armor, supposed to describe instances where what would usually happen, does not, because of quality X or Y?

Which kind of hints at why one shouldn't take, e.g. Speak with the Death mechanics in the Dungeon of Dorukan as canon, because it's rule of funny and as such there's no need for it to follow the rules. As such it's an observation which we do not know is in accordance to the mechanics of which other observations is expected to follow.

Anyway, I don't see what we saw at the explosion which violated what should have happened. After all, we don't know what the characters did between the run scene and the explosion. So given that I certainly can't think of all possibilities and that the order have earlier encountered these explosions (at least gate explosions), I don't find it unplausible that the order was prepared for an explosion of even larger magnitude.

MReav

2012-03-22, 11:58 AM

Shojo never really knew Soon. He was a boy when Soon stepped down.

So we have no reason to think Soon would break his oath except for the man who adventured with him thought he would ... nor any reason to think he didn't, except for the cult Soon founded thinks he didn't.

Yeah, but the guy who thought he did break his word thinks the worst of him for what he is (a party leader), so we've got biased views both ways.

Cavenskull

2012-03-22, 01:25 PM

Soon never broke his oath ... as far as we know. And we know he hadn't because ... why? We don't know that either. Basically we trust Roy's assumption (because Roy is lawful too?). Soon seems not to have visited Girard, but that's no guarantee he kept his word in every respect.
Some clues that Soon didn't break his oath:

The trap in the desert exists. That by itself is not conclusive, since statements made by Durkon indicate that the trap doesn't disappear when triggered. On the other hand, Durkon was going to attempt to dispel the trap. The fact that it exists suggests that nobody ever tried to get rid of the trap.

The Order of the Stick was given the coordinates where the trap is. This is a big one. If Soon had broken his oath, he would have learned a long time ago that the location in the desert was a decoy. Soon would have no reason to pass down coordinates for a false location, especially not without warning anyone about the trap.

Kish

2012-03-22, 05:28 PM

Vaarsuvius never eat a Meteor Swarm.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/meteorSwarm.htm

You're claiming there's more than 40 feet between Vaarsuvius and the spheres of that Meteor Swarm.

As I said, Vaarsuvius ate a Meteor Swarm. All four spheres.

Soon never broke his oath ... as far as we know. And we know he hadn't because ... why? We don't know that either. Basically we trust Roy's assumption (because Roy is lawful too?). Soon seems not to have visited Girard, but that's no guarantee he kept his word in every respect.
...

There's also no guarantee that Girard's hatred of Soon isn't based on his knowledge that Soon secretly devoured the still-living brains of baby sylphs every night. It's about as relevant. The discovery that Soon actually sent a letter to Lirian the week after they split up, thereby BREAKING THE OATH, wouldn't actually make Girard's rant about how Soon was clearly there to seize the Gates any less wrongheaded, or the trap or the kidnappings any more justified.

TheZenMaster

2012-03-22, 05:41 PM

You're claiming there's more than 40 feet between Vaarsuvius and the spheres of that Meteor Swarm.

As I said, Vaarsuvius ate a Meteor Swarm. All four spheres.

A Bigbys Grasping hand at 4 meteors.

Math_Mage

2012-03-22, 05:58 PM

A Bigbys Grasping hand at 4 meteors.

V was within 40 feet, and each meteor in Meteor Swarm has a radius of 40 feet, so V ate the damage as well.

cloudland

2012-03-22, 06:16 PM

V was within 40 feet, and each meteor in Meteor Swarm has a radius of 40 feet, so V ate the damage as well.

Half damage, considering V is still in Darth V mode and still have that Protection from Spell buff which probably give enough reflex save. And it's only blast damage, so not even that much. Notice how much visible damage V took after that half-damage blast-damage-only meteor swarm? V never took a meteor swarm as a normal V, the other one aimed at V and O-Chu simply missed, and since we do not see anymore visible damage after that on both of them presumably it explode far away (say, like it fly through the hole in the almost-wall) rather than explode somewhere near.

Gurgeh

2012-03-22, 08:17 PM

Given that the area damage from Meteor Swarm only voids the bludgeoning damage (8d6 in total) while still packing 100% of the fire damage (24d6), I'm not sure that we're looking at a small amount of damage.

And I'm also not sure that Protection from Spells would have been sufficient to save V from a 9th-level spell being thrown out by an epic sorcerer lich - remember that the soul splice didn't give V any improvements to saves or primary stats, so Xykon's still got a ridiculous save DC for V to overcome. A paltry +8 would not be enough for parity, especially since Meteor Swarm is a reflex save.

zimmerwald1915

2012-03-22, 08:58 PM

Vaarsuvius never eat a Meteor Swarm. Only O-Chu eat one and look at his condition. Vaarsuvius only get a blast damage when Xykon blast himself when that was still in Darth mode, and the other Meteor Swarm while O-chu carry Vaarsuvius missed (possibly because Xykon aimed at the wrong spot and it didn't explode near enough to get any damage). So basically the main damage Vaarsuvius took is the big chunk of wall.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/meteorSwarm.htm

You're claiming there's more than 40 feet between Vaarsuvius and the spheres of that Meteor Swarm.

As I said, Vaarsuvius ate a Meteor Swarm. All four spheres.

V was within 40 feet, and each meteor in Meteor Swarm has a radius of 40 feet, so V ate the damage as well.
She ate the fire damage from all four speheres, which because the spheres were not targetted at her allowed a Ref save for half. That's 24d6 fire damage or, considering saving throws, between 12 and 144 damage. With Protection from Spells up she would find it easier than normal to make the save, cutting the damage down to between 12 and 72. Bear's Endurance (which was up until Superb Dispelling eliminated V's defenses and flight spell) would give her 28 more HP, which assuming average rolls and CON 8-9 would more than double her normal total of 22. Assuming further that Xykon rolled average on his damage dice, and V made her save, the fire damage is survivable. Barely.

Gurgeh

2012-03-22, 09:32 PM

The absolute minimum save DC for Meteor Swarm is 23, and that's assuming that the caster has no DC-relevant feats and has a paltry 19 for their primary stat. The Geekery thread has eyeballed Xykon at around 28 CHA (principally because he's got a ridiculous number of ninth-level spell slots), so that equates to a DC of at least 33, before any enhancements from miscellaneous feats or magic items which Xykon may or may not have kick in).

Given V's unremarkable dexterity and lack of any class levels that have good reflex saves, we'd be looking at no more than a +14 to his or her reflex save with Protection from Spells up, so he's only saving against Xykon's Meteor Swarm on a 19 or 20.

The moral of the story? Rich plays fast and loose with the numbers when he needs to do so in order to tell the story. Don't take the results of one combat in one part of the comic as absolute, irrefutable evidence for an argument about a completely unrelated part of the story.

Illusory Girard's dialogue all but confirms that the trap in the desert was intended to be lethal. The Order weren't annihilated by it because (if nothing else) we've already been through a big long resurrection arc and frankly it wouldn't have been very interesting to sit through another.