Elan might have killed some innocents

[Obnoxious Hydra]

I recently went on an archive binge and reread everything in a random order, and I recently reread the first hundred or so strips, and something struck me.
When Elan blew up Dorukan's castle, presumabaly nothing escaped except for the OOTS and the Flumphs: left in the castle were a few monsters, and a large group of good alligned Goblin minors who had helped our heroes.

So, when Elan blew up Dorukan's crib, it's highly likely that he caused the death of several young Goblins who weren't evil (well, other then that one guy who turned on them, but oh well).
While it's unlikely to be revisited in the comic, would this act of.. well, what could be considered evil have any impact on Elan's future? Say, when he dies, could it affect what afterlife he goes to? Of course, the situation when Roy died could just happen again ("good things, but bad things, but you're trying so okay"), but it seems like a pretty big slip up on Elan's part.


:haley: "They're teenagers not children/not really good just rebellious."

They were probably mid or early teenagers, in my opinion, going by stature and personality (they didn't really strike me as 16 or up), so they were still minors if not true children.
Even if it was just a phase they were going through, and their true allignment was somewhere still south of True Neutral, they were still innocent and had helped the Order, even if they weren't true goodies.


SOD spoiler


:confused: "Couldn't you just apply this argument to all the Goblins, as they were all conscripted by Xykon?"

I guess, but even though all the other Goblins were conscripts, they were all openly hostile to the OOTS even if they were unwilling to be there, unlike the teenagers.

[Ron Miel]

When Elan blew up Dorukan's castle, presumabaly nothing escaped except for the OOTS and the Flumphs: left in the castle were a few monsters, and a large group of good alligned Goblin minors who had helped our heroes.

Possible, but I think there were probably emergency exits opening up all over the castle.

Note that medusa (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0087.html)was later seen again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html). At least, it looks like the same one.

[RNGgod]

I think it quite possible that he did. Interesting point.


While the whole V-genocide arc is obviously much more important to the story and much, much worse, I think we should take it as a sign of the current arc's impact on all of us that what no one noticed at the time now takes on new significance as we stop thinking of random monsters as totally expendable.

[Kish]

Elan has always been more dangerous to be around than Belkar.

[multilis]

An evil wizard makes a dead man's switch device, so that if he is killed or not allowed to rule the world by the hero, some innocent good aligned goblin kids also die.

The hero kills the evil wizard to save the world. The hostages die as result? Did the hero kill those kids?

...

For the love of Snarl, it is not Elan's fault that the goblin kids were hostages! The only hope for the world is Snarl and his New World Order. Elan hit the self destruction to help save the world.

(And if you give in to a hostage taker to save innocents, that only means more will take hostages in future. In order to save 10 you condemn 20, to save 20 you condemn 40, and so on.)

[JavaScribe]

While it's unlikely to be revisited in the comic, would this act of.. well, what could be considered evil have any impact on Elan's future? Say, when he dies, could it affect what afterlife he goes to? Of course, the situation when Roy died could just happen again ("good things, but bad things, but you're trying so okay"), but it seems like a pretty big slip up on Elan's part.


There is a fine line between being a child minded numbskull and actually being evil.

When Elan blew up Dorukan's fortress, it was because that's what usually happens when dysfunctional heroes take over the villain's fortress, and thus the thematically correct thing for a bard to do. If he realized innocent people might get hurt, he wouldn't have done it. He wasn't considering the consequences, however blatantly obvious they may be. Elan's impulsiveness is the main thing that makes him considered chaotic.

[Chessgeek]

An evil wizard makes a dead man's switch device, so that if he is killed or not allowed to rule the world by the hero, some innocent good aligned goblin kids also die.

I'm assuming that's a hypothetical, not a reference to the Dungeon of Dorukan?

As for the OP, I doubt that this can be considered an act of evil, especially when considering how many evil creatures were killed from the same event. Neutral, perhaps, but as far as I understand it, that wasn't a terribly evil action.

And, as JavaScribe mentioned, Elan didn't knowingly try to kill them, he didn't even knowingly destroy the dungeon true, he knew, but I really doubt he considered the damage it would do. Really It seems to be a stupid act more than anything. Which makes sense with Elan, since his alignment leans towards Stupid Good more often than not.

[ThePhantasm]

And, as JavaScribe mentioned, Elan didn't knowingly try to kill them, he didn't even knowingly destroy the dungeon. Really it seems to be a stupid act more than anything. Which makes sense with Elan, since his alignment leans towards Stupid Good more often than not.

Technically not true, given that he knew that the rune said "Castle Self-Destruct" and seemed to think it was a good idea to "activate the self destruct rune and leave."* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html)

[Gift Jeraff]

It's okay it was morally j

[Dr.Epic]

I think Roy's done worse, and he's somehow still good.

[SowZ]

Agreed that is was a bad thing to do, interesting point about killing innocents, but no it could not affect Elan's afterlife. He has a happy ending, after all. Besides, if Elan is part of a group that personally saves the existence of the gods themselves, I doubt they will condemn him for an act of ignorance with some evil outcomes.

[EmperorSarda]

Here is thing though, even though the goblin teenagers were "good" at the time, they weren't really good. Roy managed to get into lawful good heaven because he was trying, he wasn't giving up. The goblin teenagers themselves didn't care about actually being good, it was more about cheesing their parents off. Perhaps this is one of those times that being good was actually an evil act, because of their intent.

So the goblin teenagers are not as innocent as they may have actually been. Besides, since when are teenagers innocent of anything?

[Steward]

An evil wizard makes a dead man's switch device, so that if he is killed or not allowed to rule the world by the hero, some innocent good aligned goblin kids also die.

The hero kills the evil wizard to save the world. The hostages die as result? Did the hero kill those kids?

...

For the love of Snarl, it is not Elan's fault that the goblin kids were hostages! The only hope for the world is Snarl and his New World Order. Elan hit the self destruction to help save the world.

(And if you give in to a hostage taker to save innocents, that only means more will take hostages in future. In order to save 10 you condemn 20, to save 20 you condemn 40, and so on.)

I don't consider Elan a murderer or somehow evil, but I don't think that this particular thing is a good defense for him. If you know that there's a hostage situation and your first move is to essentially nuke the entire place, even before your teammates have even had a chance to loot the place, that's just plain stupid and irresponsible.

Elan didn't stand up to any hostage-takers out of principle or to prove a point or even because he was a bad person or because he hated goblins; he just wasn't thinking. He does that a lot.

[factotum]

The supposedly "good aligned" Goblins kidnapped Haley and also betrayed the Order's plan to Xykon--I don't think they were really good aligned, they were just rebelling against their Evil upbringing (as teenagers do).

[ManuelSacha]

Oh no, not this again.

[ti'esar]

Oh no, not this again.

I don't recall ever seeing this before, honestly.

Unless you mean the more general topic.

[Obnoxious Hydra]

Here is thing though, even though the goblin teenagers were "good" at the time, they weren't really good. Roy managed to get into lawful good heaven because he was trying, he wasn't giving up. The goblin teenagers themselves didn't care about actually being good, it was more about cheesing their parents off. Perhaps this is one of those times that being good was actually an evil act, because of their intent.

So the goblin teenagers are not as innocent as they may have actually been. Besides, since when are teenagers innocent of anything?


The supposedly "good aligned" Goblins kidnapped Haley and also betrayed the Order's plan to Xykon--I don't think they were really good aligned, they were just rebelling against their Evil upbringing (as teenagers do).


As far as we know, they were completley innocent: just because they were born Goblin and probably had an evil allignment (despite the "phase") doesn't mean they had commited a bunch of evil acts before they helped the order.
Sure, they were acting good because it annoyed their parents, but they were still acting good nevertheless.

Also, it was only that one kid who kidnaped Haley and betrayed the Order. The rest of them were in some other part of the passage and had nothing to do with it, and they managed to find out that the one other teenager who was with them wasn't in on the plot.

[Kish]

And Rich mentioned that the goblin teenager Elan intimidated did actually have a good alignment here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559967&postcount=4).

Again, Elan has always been more dangerous to be around than Belkar. It was only because of sheer luck that he didn't get the paladin he formerly served as herald killed; he certainly could not have come closer to doing so, on many occasions, if he had been trying (setting aside the fact that if he'd been trying it would mean he's evil and Sir Francois would have killed him the first time he came close). This is very unlikely to be the first time he's killed innocents.

[Jay R]

We don't know if they died.

Elan didn't know if they died.

Redcloak, the only goblin we're sure about survived.

His goal was to destroy the gate, which turns out to be crucial.



The prosecution doesn't have a case.

[ThePhantasm]

We don't know if they died.

Elan didn't know if they died.

Redcloak, the only goblin we're sure about survived.

His goal was to destroy the gate, which turns out to be crucial.

The prosecution doesn't have a case.

By that logic the prosecution would never have a case, because the explosion likely burned up their remains if they were caught in the blast, so no corpses would ever be found.

It is reasonable to assume that they did not make it out, and are therefore dead. It isn't as if there was an alarm going off saying "Self Destruct Sequence Initiated. 10... 9..."

Redcloak made it out only by escaping through a secret tunnel before the self-destruct rune was even activated. The teenagers had no reason to leave that we are aware of.

Furthermore, if they are ever seen alive later, it is only by their own pure blind luck that they weren't in the dungeon at the time. The fact remains that Elan put their lives in grave danger either way you cut it.

[JavaScribe]

His goal was to destroy the gate, which turns out to be crucial.


His goal was not to destroy the gate. He knew nothing about the gate. His "goal" was to destroy everything around them because that's what disfunctional heroes are supposed to do when they defeat the main bad guy. He's a bard. He lives to do things the way they are supposed to go in stories.

He later admits to his father that destroying the gate was a bad idea and might not have done it had he known better.

[sims796]

Eh, they're gobbos, who cares.

[Kish]

Rich Burlew, for starters.

[sims796]

Cool for that gobbo lover. The filthy little savages. The goblins, not the author.

[ThePhantasm]

Cool for that gobbo lover. The filthy little savages. The goblins, not the author.

You might want to read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718471&postcount=108) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120).

[sims796]

Uh...cool. What, cause the author is going in this angle, that means I must instantly like those dung hurlers?

Doesn't mean I'll like goblins 'cause I was told too. Show me all the inspirational posts you can find, it'll cement my hatred of those flea-bitten mongrels all the better. Dirty brutes. Sooner they're wiped off this (...er, that) Earth, the better.

As Awesome McBadass once said, "the only good goblin...is a dead goblin", then immediately made a reference involving spatulas, which got me in the mood for a burger. That was nice.

Glorious Elven Master Race.

[ThePhantasm]

Uh...cool. What, cause the author is going in this angle, that means I must instantly like those dung hurlers?

No, it just means that your opinion of the story that you are reading goes against the grain of one of said story's long-running themes.

Also, funny how you characterize his posts there as "inspirational." I'd say a more proper descriptor is "argumentative," i.e. as in presenting a reasoned argument. Which I think makes quite a bit of sense.

Also "Awesome McBadass" wasn't quite so awesome or mcbadass when he got imploded...

[sims796]

No, it just means that your opinion of the story that you are reading goes against the grain of one of said story's long-running themes.

Also, funny how you characterize his posts there as "inspirational." I'd say a more proper descriptor is "argumentative," i.e. as in presenting a reasoned argument. Which I think makes quite a bit of sense.

Again, that's...cool?

I don't like the little bastards. Kill 'em whenever I get the chance. I know that it's a major theme in the story that Rich is trying to present. That's all well and good, I guess. Don't see what that has to do with my hatred of all things goblin.

I'm not making an argument, and I'm not debating this. I don't get this forum's habit of turning everything into a debate, though I apologize if you weren't trying too.

All I know is that all this time spent typing can be spent on far more goblin-killing related activities. And a few missing goblin offspring is a step in the right direction!

EDIT: You take that back! He imploded in the most awesomely, McBadassed-ry way ever.

[Chessgeek]

I'm not making an argument, and I'm not debating this. I don't get this forum's habit of turning everything into a debate

That is an outright fabrication! This forum never leads to debate! I demand that you find some evidence to support your position!

[sims796]

That is an outright fabrication! This forum never leads to debate! I demand that you find some evidence to support your position!

Can't tell if green means lie...or red means truth...

Better shoot you in the foot to be sure.

[Peelee]

Doesn't mean I'll like goblins 'cause I was told too.

Goblins are a fictional creation, typically depicted as evil.

So basically, you dislike goblins 'cause you were told to.

[sims796]

Goblins are a fictional creation, typically depicted as evil.

So basically, you dislike goblins 'cause you were told to.

Ah, but you're wrong! My hatred of goblins has nothing to do with their alignment, and everything to do with them being goblins!

[Gift Jeraff]

Goblins probably raided and slaughtered the homeland of the trolls, that's why he hates them.

...I'm talking about the fantasy creatures, of course.

[sims796]

Goblins probably raided and slaughtered the homeland of the trolls, that's why he hates them.

...I'm talking about the fantasy creatures, of course.

Y'know, I was just thinking this before I read it. Actually, it was more along the lines of "trolls must eat well in this site". Everybody goes crazy when you go against the B-man's story.

But it's no trollin'. I just hate gobbos. In every form of media.

...

Cept two. That Goblins comic is pretty good, and one Raine Benares novels, though those "goblins" seemed a lot more like Darkelves to me.

[Peelee]

Y'know, I was just thinking this before I read it. Actually, it was more along the lines of "trolls must eat well in this site". Everybody goes crazy when you go against the B-man's story.


....except they don't. It's not going against his story, it's debating a thought out and rational argument with "lalala I can't hear you." If you have any rebuttals against it that aren't "but, they're goblins. And goblins are bad because they're goblins. Goblins!" you'd probably be taken slightly more seriously.

[sims796]

{{scrubbed}}

[Peelee]

Or maybe by proving my reasons stupid.

Pretty much that was all I was going for. And so long as you know, I'm good.

[sims796]

{{scrubbed}}

[Chessgeek]

I don't need to explain myself, I don't have to offer you any insight, and you cannot "win" this debate. How can you? By proving that I don't hate goblins? Or maybe by proving my reasons stupid. I'll give you that win. My reasons are stupid for hating goblins. I still do. Whatcha gonna do about it? Debate me to death?

People are trying to convince you otherwise in order to make the story more enjoyable. Some are a bit more...agressive...than others, but ultimately the goal felt by those who responded was to help you enjoy this comic.

[martianmister]

Okay, curiosity will kill the cat. Why do you hate them so much?

[Obnoxious Hydra]

{{scrubbed}}

[sims796]

People are trying to convince you otherwise in order to make the story more enjoyable. Some are a bit more...agressive...than others, but ultimately the goal felt by those who responded was to help you enjoy this comic.

But I never stated I hated the comic, I just said that I hated goblins. That doesn't even relate to me hating the comic, just want the gobbos to lose. Of course, in due faction, people decided that they needed to have an argument over that statement out of an admitted sense of fulfillment.

This isn't a church people, no need to try to convert me. I expected Kish to pile me up with the mountain of useless text, but he surprised me. You hit the nail on the head with that confusingly satirical post. I say one thing, and have to completely prove why I feel as such.

[Peelee]

{{scrubbed}}

Sorry.

So back on track, and to address something you originally wrote that looks to have been overlooked, I'd be very surprised if the dead Goblin kids had any effect on Elan's afterlife background check. While his actions did pretty much doom them, it wasn't through any intent or malice on his part. That doesn't confer complete innocence on him, but it would greatly lessen the offense, I'd imagine

[Chessgeek]

But I never stated I hated the comic, I just said that I hated goblins. That doesn't even relate to me hating the comic, just want the gobbos to lose. Of course, in due faction, people decided that they needed to have an argument over that statement out of an admitted sense of fulfillment.

Well, one of the themes has been "goblins are people too" and a lot of people supported that position. Couple that with a very excitable forum, and you're in for a debate. You sorta set yourself up, and by continuing to argue, only worsened the issue.


So back on track, and to address something you originally wrote that looks to have been overlooked, I'd be very surprised if the dead Goblin kids had any effect on Elan's afterlife background check. While his actions did pretty much doom them, it wasn't through any intent or malice on his part. That doesn't confer complete innocence on him, but it would greatly lessen the offense, I'd imagine

Elan has an automatic entry into the Stupid Good afterlife whenever he dies, so it doesn't matter anyway.

[sims796]

{{scrubbed}}

[Gift Jeraff]

But why'd you make the comment in the first place? Did you expect the people who hate that "they're just gobbos" attitude to smile and gloss over your comment? :smallconfused:

[sims796]

{{scrubbed}}

[Velaryon]

If they disagree, then sure. But I'm not asking them to agree. I'm not asking them to review what I have said. Maybe my reasons are foolish (mind you, nobody actually tried to argue my reasons, or even ask what they were, they instead sent me links stating Rich's views, as if that was supposed to "prove me wrong"), but they're mine. I don't like gobbos, and thusfore, as a reader, I don't see what Elan has done as killing "innocents".

Actually...


Okay, curiosity will kill the cat. Why do you hate them so much?

So, while it's definitely off-topic to this thread, you've now raised the curiosity of at least two people. Why do you hate goblins?

[sims796]

Actually...



So, while it's definitely off-topic to this thread, you've now raised the curiosity of at least two people. Why do you hate goblins?

Slimy, dirty, ill-kept savages, scavengers, and all around unpleasant. Trying to play life as a "person". The nerve! They should stick to their mud-huts. The sooner they are wiped out from the realms, the better for all Elvenkind.

Didn't say they were the best of reasons, but there ya go. The man-er, sorry, Elf - with the most sense in this comic met an unfortunate end involving short range explosive spells, along with seeing his own kidneys. Still attached. And who did it? I ask? A Goblin.

[Wardog]

Slimy, dirty, ill-kept savages, scavengers, and all around unpleasant. Trying to play life as a "person". The nerve! They should stick to their mud-huts. The sooner they are wiped out from the realms, the better for all Elvenkind.

Goblins don't exist. They are fictional beings. Within the context of a story there characteristics are whatever the storyteller decides they are.

Goblins in OOTS are Rich's creation, and - by his design - they are not how you describe them.

[ti'esar]

Goblins don't exist. They are fictional beings. Within the context of a story there characteristics are whatever the storyteller decides they are.

Goblins in OOTS are Rich's creation, and - by his design - they are not how you describe them.

Amen.

12345

[Gift Jeraff]

Slimy, dirty, ill-kept savages, scavengers, and all around unpleasant. Trying to play life as a "person". The nerve! They should stick to their mud-huts. The sooner they are wiped out from the realms, the better for all Elvenkind.

Didn't say they were the best of reasons, but there ya go. The man-er, sorry, Elf - with the most sense in this comic met an unfortunate end involving short range explosive spells, along with seeing his own kidneys. Still attached. And who did it? I ask? A Goblin.Haha, I hate Redcloak, but I loved that scene.

Stupid idiot elf had it coming to him.

EDIT: Oh! I think I get it. You're being contrarian in regards to the elf hate and goblin love prevalent on these boards. Good job, I guess. :smalltongue:

[sims796]

{{scrubbed}}

[lio45]

And therefore, I don't think what Elan did counts as "killing innocents".

That's where you're wrong.

You're free to hate gnomes if you want, for any reason you want, but you hating gnomes won't make Belkar killing Solt Lorkyurg any less "killing an innocent" -- that's just a fact of the story. (But you're still free to cheer, though.)

[ThePhantasm]

On another note, I don't believe Rich mentioned anything about those gobbo kids. While logically, it stands to reason that they were turned into a green smuge on the floor (heh), for all we know they could have left for some other reason earlier, free to become a menace to the society of elven kind.

Kish cited Rich in this very thread as saying that at least one of the Goblin teens was Lawful Good. Thus, the idea that said teen went off to become a menace to elves, particularly after he aided the OOTS (which had an elven party member), seems very, very unlikely. Why, you'd have to be prejudiced against Goblins to think such a thing. :smalltongue:

I don't want to "debate" your opinion with you, given that you seem to be taking said debate very seriously. But I half to admit I don't understand some of your statements in this thread. Apologies if the following bothers you (it isn't meant to). These are just things that I'm having difficulties wrapping my head around:

For one thing, you seem highly annoyed that people are "arguing" against your opinion, but you facilitate the argument with your responses. It takes two to tango, after all.

Second, you said earlier that you realize your reasoning for your opinion "might not be the best," but it is still your opinion. While I'm all for free expression of opinions and am by no means wishing to quell your ability to do so, I have to say that, as a person who always feels that he has good reasons for his opinions, the idea that one can have a personal dichotomy between opinion and reasoning is difficult for me to grasp.

Third, you argue that your opinion is not as crazy as some of the other opinions on this forum. This may be true, but how does it benefit you to say this? What is the argument here? Is it "yeah, my opinion is crazy, but not as crazy as those guys' opinions, so there!"? I don't see how that does your opinion any favors.

Just my two cents.

[sims796]

Kish cited Rich in this very thread as saying that at least one of the Goblin teens was Lawful Good. Thus, the idea that said teen went off to become a menace to elves, particularly after he aided the OOTS (which had an elven party member), seems very, very unlikely. Why, you'd have to be prejudiced against Goblins to think such a thing. :smalltongue:

I don't want to "debate" your opinion with you, given that you seem to be taking said debate very seriously. But I half to admit I don't understand some of your statements in this thread. Apologies if the following bothers you (it isn't meant to). These are just things that I'm having difficulties wrapping my head around:

For one thing, you seem highly annoyed that people are "arguing" against your opinion, but you facilitate the argument with your responses. It takes two to tango, after all.

Second, you said earlier that you realize your reasoning for your opinion "might not be the best," but it is still your opinion. While I'm all for free expression of opinions and am by no means wishing to quell your ability to do so, I have to say that, as a person who always feels that he has good reasons for his opinions, the idea that one can have a personal dichotomy between opinion and reasoning is difficult for me to grasp.

Third, you argue that your opinion is not as crazy as some of the other opinions on this forum. This may be true, but how does it benefit you to say this? What is the argument here? Is it "yeah, my opinion is crazy, but not as crazy as those guys' opinions, so there!"? I don't see how that does your opinion any favors.

Just my two cents.

Well, I did apologize to you in particular if you weren't trying to debate it.

For one thing, your right. I did respond back. But did you pay attention to what exactly I was arguing against? If you look at say, Peelee's post, you'll see that he figured I wanted my position to be taken seriously. I did not. Or should I say, I did not care. I wasn't trying to start a debate. He, however, most certainly was. Kish pointed out that my views does not correlate to the author's views. I said that he's right, but I didn't really care (said the same to you when you said that more directly). Too many people wanted to debate, tried to debate, then got mad when I really wasn't interested.

Basically, if mud's gonna get slung around, I ain't the only one gettin' out dirty.

As for the second, feel free to disagree. I didn't say my opinions were iron-clad, just that I don't care to have a back and forth about it. If you find my reasons ridiculous, by all means. That's not really gonna change how I feel. I despise goblins, even in this comic. Actually, especially in this comic, and I love it when they are taken down. I don't see Elan offing those goblins as bad, cause' I don't see them as innocent. Merely because they are gobbos. If you have cause to disagree, cool.

And finally...who says I'm trying to have my opinion respected around here? At least about this. I don't need you guys to like it. I'm not trying to change minds, and I am most certainly not trying to exchange ideas. It was just like cheeseguy joked about - people here tend to make mountains out of molehills.

Your first paragraph was fulla win, though.

[ti'esar]

That's where you're wrong.

You're free to hate gnomes if you want, for any reason you want, but you hating gnomes won't make Belkar killing Solt Lorkyurg any less "killing an innocent" -- that's just a fact of the story. (But you're still free to cheer, though.)

Amen.

Again.

[sims796]

That's where you're wrong.

You're free to hate gnomes if you want, for any reason you want, but you hating gnomes won't make Belkar killing Solt Lorkyurg any less "killing an innocent" -- that's just a fact of the story. (But you're still free to cheer, though.)

Sure, the story can paint them as good as they want. Just the simple act of them living means that they are committing an atrocious crime to Elves everywhere.

"Lawfully Good" Goblin. Heh. Pull the other one, why doncha?

[Gift Jeraff]

Would you say all this to a half-goblin/half-elf's face?

[sims796]

Would you say all this to a half-goblin/half-elf's face?

I...that doesn't make...

...

Dear God.

[Emanick]

And Rich mentioned that the goblin teenager Elan intimidated did actually have a good alignment here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559967&postcount=4).

Again, Elan has always been more dangerous to be around than Belkar. It was only because of sheer luck that he didn't get the paladin he formerly served as herald killed; he certainly could not have come closer to doing so, on many occasions, if he had been trying (setting aside the fact that if he'd been trying it would mean he's evil and Sir Francois would have killed him the first time he came close). This is very unlikely to be the first time he's killed innocents.

Kish, I think you have the wrong link. The one you provided has nothing to do with goblins. :smallconfused:

[B. Dandelion]

Kish, I think you have the wrong link. The one you provided has nothing to do with goblins. :smallconfused:

He mentions Belkar was planning to harvest the kidneys of a person with a good alignment. He's referring to this goblin kid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0101.html).

[Emanick]

He mentions Belkar was planning to harvest the kidneys of a person with a good alignment. He's referring to this goblin kid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0101.html).

Ah, gotcha.

I could have sworn I'd see that line elsewhere, but maybe I'm just thinking of the countless other times I've seen it used around the forum. Ah well. :smallsigh:

[B. Dandelion]

Ah, gotcha.

I could have sworn I'd see that line elsewhere, but maybe I'm just thinking of the countless other times I've seen it used around the forum. Ah well. :smallsigh:

Oh yeah, we had an entire organ harvesting meme going on for a while, didn't we? I'd forgotten about that little period in the board's history.

[Callista]

We have to take into account Elan's mental... er... limitations. While V might be expected to think of all the possible ramifications of a split-second decision, Elan isn't that quick a thinker. If he did kill innocents by blowing up the dungeon, he did it inadvertently, and will--if he ever realizes he did it--be absolutely shattered by the realization, though perhaps saved somewhat by understanding that he is not particularly smart and did not mean to do what he did. Elan, upon understanding that he had inadvertently killed innocents, might constantly defer to one of the others to make sure any particular decision did not kill someone... Do we really want to see our cheerful Elan moping about as badly as V is now?

[AgentofHellfire]

We have to take into account Elan's mental... er... limitations. While V might be expected to think of all the possible ramifications of a split-second decision, Elan isn't that quick a thinker.


I actually think Elan's a quicker thinker than people think. (lulrepetition)

He did, for example, "out-logic" Haley quite a bit while they were Tarquin's guests, and he does sort of think of himself as the protagonist of a standard epic--i.e. a particularly ignorant one, most often. So in my view, I think Elan isn't mentally limited so much as he is willfully ignorant of the full nature of reality. He's a "good guy" but not really good.

[Bulldog Psion]

I actually think Elan's a quicker thinker than people think. (lulrepetition)

He did, for example, "out-logic" Haley quite a bit while they were Tarquin's guests, and he does sort of think of himself as the protagonist of a standard epic--i.e. a particularly ignorant one, most often. So in my view, I think Elan isn't mentally limited so much as he is willfully ignorant of the full nature of reality. He's a "good guy" but not really good.

This argument appears to me to give him too much credit in one way, and not enough in another. :smallwink:

[AgentofHellfire]

This argument appears to me to give him too much credit in one way, and not enough in another. :smallwink:

Given the overall portrayal of bards as aware they're in a story, though? It makes sense.

[Mutant Sheep]

Wasnt there another thread like this a good 4 months ago or so? It was the same "Elan blowed up a whole lotta people". But without the discussion on why someone dislikes green, fanged, bipedal carnivores.:smalltongue:

[LordRahl6]

As to when Elan hit the Self Destruct button in the Dungeon of Dorukan, even without taking into account the creatures and usual alignments, Elan's action pales in comparison to that of V's in two major respects. The first of these is the number of individuals involved which is by faaaaaaaaaaar fewer. Secondly Elan did not have it initially in his thoughts to kill a large number of individuals.:smallwink:

[B. Dandelion]

I actually think Elan's a quicker thinker than people think. (lulrepetition)

He did, for example, "out-logic" Haley quite a bit while they were Tarquin's guests, and he does sort of think of himself as the protagonist of a standard epic--i.e. a particularly ignorant one, most often. So in my view, I think Elan isn't mentally limited so much as he is willfully ignorant of the full nature of reality. He's a "good guy" but not really good.

That was a pretty obvious flaw in Haley's reasoning Elan was able to point out, when she was already pretty plastered. I don't think talking his way past a drunk person reasoning in circles is evidence of some willfully suppressed aspect of Elan's intelligence.

I would say Elan thinks little of his own ability to contribute and thus by extension, under-rates the degree to which he is at fault for failure. He was already working through that flaw (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0558.html) in the Therkla arc, and by the end he blamed himself for her death (without entirely understanding how (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0598.html), yet he apportioned blame to himself anyway), and as a result he was taking on an even more prepared (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html) approach so as to not find himself unable to save someone again.

His actions in Dorukan's Dungeon were in his "staggeringly irresponsible (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0075.html)" phase. You could criticize it, but it's a pattern he's been working past.

[Cuthalion]

If a Good person accidentally trips at the top of a cliff, knocks a tiny pebble down which lands on a rabbit, which runs across a road, where it makes a car swerve out of the way and at least one innocent person dying, does the person lose his Good alignment? :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

Going by BoVD, it wouldn't even qualify as an Evil act. "Causing death to innocents accidentally" isn't a problem if it's something one could not reasonably have foreseen.

If the hazard to innocents is reasonably foreseeable- and the person risks their lives anyway (out of overconfidence in themselves, etc) and innocents die as a result, it's more dubious.

"At this point they aren't exactly a murderer, but they should probably lose paladinhood".

[LordRahl6]

Going by BoVD, it wouldn't even qualify as an Evil act. "Causing death to innocents accidentally" isn't a problem if it's something one could not reasonably have foreseen.

If the hazard to innocents is reasonably foreseeable- and the person risks their lives anyway (out of overconfidence in themselves, etc) and innocents die as a result, it's more dubious.

"At this point they aren't exactly a murderer, but they should probably lose paladinhood".

This is why I believe that whatever Elan did to those in the Dungeon of Dorukan pales in comparison to V's action with "Familicide.":smallwink:

[dps]

Going by BoVD, it wouldn't even qualify as an Evil act. "Causing death to innocents accidentally" isn't a problem if it's something one could not reasonably have foreseen.

If the hazard to innocents is reasonably foreseeable- and the person risks their lives anyway (out of overconfidence in themselves, etc) and innocents die as a result, it's more dubious.


What's reasonably foreseeable to you and me may not be to someone like Elan.

[hamishspence]

The atonement spell does mention "unwitting evil acts" though- Elan's action might possibly have qualified- we don't know.