"Friends on the Western Continent" [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Psyren

2013-04-02, 03:20 AM

I was rereading some strips and came across something a little interesting, and I didn't know whether it had been noticed/discussed at length yet.

We know that Ian Starshine ran off to "Tyrinaria," leaving Haley behind, because his sister Ivy (and brother-in-law Geoff) asked him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0770.html) to come and help overthrow Tarquin. Ivy has been smuggling him food in prison, so she must have truly requested his aid.

So it seems legit at first... but then I reread an older strip from Greysky, where Bozzok mentions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0609.html) that getting Ian out of the way was his idea. And that he did it by writing to "some friends on the Western Continent." Furthermore, Bozzok mentioned that his friends were the ones who wrote something to Ian to make him "rush off," though even he didn't know what it was.

Putting those two side-by-side... it's almost as though Ivy, or Geoff, is in cahoots with Bozzok. If both Bozzok and Ian are telling the truth, then one of the two family members (Ivy or Geoff, or both) has to be the "friend" that Bozzok wrote to, who then subsequently dangled an impossible mission in front of Ian to get him out of Greysky City. And they all knew he'd go for it, due to how highly he values family above all else.

One last dangling thread from the former strip - Ian mentions that every single time he escapes, Tarquin manages to find him and drag him back to prison. There could be a couple of reasons for this, but the one factor I can guess is common to all of his escape attempts is likely that he brings Geoff with him - after all, Geoff is family. So my theory is that Geoff is selling him out - undermining his escapes and keeping him incarcerated and thus far away from Greysky while Bozzok solidifies his rule. Thus, I think Geoff is the likely contact Bozzok has on the Western Continent. I further theorize he's doing this anonymously, since Tarquin doesn't appear to remember who they are (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html) or why they're important, so it's not as if he's personally invested in keeping either of them locked up. (In fact, were he personally invested in keeping Ian locked up, he'd probably never have written the ransom note (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0131.html) to tip Haley off in the first place.)

A final prediction: Ian's current mindset is that you can't trust anyone but family. If there is in fact a traitor in his family, that might finally break down the walls he's built and make him realize how foolishly he's been treating Haley. (Especially if someone outside his family - Elan? - has to step in to save him.)

Assuming I'm right, Ian is still in danger; his latest escape attempt included Geoff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0815.html) after all.

Thoughts?

Morquard

2013-04-02, 03:34 AM

Hate to break it to you, but this theory isn't new.

AFAIK it's the most accepted theory that Geoff is there with Ian in the dungeon to make sure he stays in the dungeon, by foiling is escape plans (or getting them captured again after).

If Ivy or Geoff are Bozzok's friends, or maybe even Tarquin or that other guy (who back then wrote him the message, forgot the name) isn't as clear, but it seems evident that Ivy and/or Geoff are somehow involved.

And yeah, finding out it has been family that has been betraying him all along, maybe at the same time as finding out that it was the "evil spawn of the tyrant" that saved him, makes him realise that family bonds are not absolute.

Silverionmox

2013-04-02, 03:50 AM

While linking a few obvious hints, I wonder: what's in it for Geoff? At that rate he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

Living Oxymoron

2013-04-02, 04:31 AM

Your theory really makes sense, but I always thought that Ian couldn't escape the prison because of the manual (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0766.html).

B. Dandelion

2013-04-02, 06:18 AM

There's also Geoff reacting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html) to Belkar's mentioning of Bozzok. He seemed alarmed, asked if Bozzok had sent him, and then although it's hard to tell, I thought he came off as less-than-thrilled at Belkar's clarification that they hadn't killed him after they defeated him.

It'd make sense that Geoff would have preferred they killed him. Presumably if Bozzok were dead they could stop with the current setup, which Geoff of all people cannot be happy with for obvious reasons. Honestly, what we know about the situation so far seems to smack more strongly of coercion on that end, contra to Bozzok's talk of "friends".

Mike Havran

2013-04-02, 06:57 AM

I'm not so sure about this theory.

First, it would make Geoff a complete moron. Why should he willingly waste his entire life in prison? If Bozzok holds him over something, why not just kill Ian and be with it? If he's treacherous enough to betray Ian in the first place, he can also arrange his death. I don't think Bozzok would mind. Or why doesn't Geoff even side with Ian and go after Bozzok? Together, they could stand a chance. There may well be some really noble reason why Geoff treats himself so miserably, but I believe that would be wayy too much depth for him.

Second: I may be wrong in this since I haven't got the Origin yet, but is there really an open war between Bozzok and Ian? So far, we only know Ian doesn't like Bozzok and Bozzok thinks Ian threatens his position within the Guild. But why should we assume that there is other foul play, except for Bozzok's ulterior motive, involved?

What about this:

Bozzok honestly has a few friends on the western continent, Geoff and Ivy being in the same group as them. He keeps in touch with some of them and they keep complaining about this Tarquin guy that is in high position near all of those everchanging rulers way too often. They keep asking Bozzok if he would be so kind and assist them with some skilled rogues who can help them to overthrow Tarquin's scheme, or at least assasinate him.

Bozzok sees a perfect opportunity to get rid of Ian. He can't give him a direct order because that would make Ian suspicious. But he writes back to the Western continent and recommends Ian as the best guy for the job, expert in tyranny owerthrowing and yadda yadda. He also tells them not to mention his name to Ian, for whatever reasons. They agree. What's more, they learn that he has a family here: Geoff and Ivy. They write their next letter to Ian, begging him for help. He accepts and here we are. Geoff doesn't quite get why Ian is so pissed at Bozzok, but he knows better than to dispute with him about it.

As for why they can't escape, duh: It's Tarquin's prison we're talking about here. If anything, he will have his people among the prisoners and stuff.

Finagle

2013-04-02, 07:56 AM

While linking a few obvious hints, I wonder: what's in it for Geoff? At that rate he would spend the rest of his life in prison.
I thought it was pretty clear that Bozzok has something on Geoff. As in, he's intimidating him or is threatening someone that he loves. If Geoff doesn't help Bozzok to keep Ian in prison, then Geoff will pay somehow. He was crestfallen to find out that Bozzok wasn't dead.

Tarquin has already shown that he has a tracking rune on the flying carpet. Presumably there is also one on Ian's loincloth or sandals or something.

SoC175

2013-04-02, 10:30 AM

While linking a few obvious hints, I wonder: what's in it for Geoff? At that rate he would spend the rest of his life in prison.Maybe the rest of his life is what's in it for him. Spend it in prison and prevent this guy from escaping or be killed right here right now.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-02, 11:07 AM

Bozzok sees a perfect opportunity to get rid of Ian. He can't give him a direct order because that would make Ian suspicious. But he writes back to the Western continent and recommends Ian as the best guy for the job, expert in tyranny owerthrowing and yadda yadda.

I'm not sure about that given that Bozzok said he didn't know what his "friends" had written to Ian in order to get him to leave in such a hurry. Had he recommended Ian specifically for that job, he would have had a pretty good idea of what they wrote because he set them up to write it.

However it does occur to me Ivy and Geoff may have only cooperated with Bozzok to the point of writing the letter that got Ian to come to the western continent, while the business about not being able to escape from prison is actually unrelated. Bozzok wanted Ian out of the way, I don't think he cared why or how, so being caught up in politics some thousand miles away would do the job as well as being locked up in a prison some thousand miles away. Then Ian had the spectacularly dumb idea of letting himself get captured, and found he couldn't get out of it. Geoff wouldn't want to cop to his cooperation with Bozzok because it would still be a betrayal of sorts to have brought him over at Bozzok's urging, but he wouldn't be actively working to keep himself in prison just to make Ian stay there too.

Though then we'd have to explain how Ian is always recaptured through some other means.

Rogar Demonblud

2013-04-02, 11:27 AM

The letter was written by Myron Shrewdanker, who's currently stationed with the Weepies.

Gift Jeraff

2013-04-02, 11:56 AM

Bozzok was referring to his relative, Thog, who was still on the Western Continent at the time. He doesn't know what he wrote to Ian because he could barely understand it. Duh.

Psyren

2013-04-02, 01:31 PM

Hate to break it to you, but this theory isn't new.

I figured it might not be (the forums being what they are, just about every plot twist has been predicted and vivisected at this point) but I hadn't seen this particular discussion anywhere - at least lately - so I thought I'd make a thread anyway. :smallsmile:

While linking a few obvious hints, I wonder: what's in it for Geoff? At that rate he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

I was wondering this too. Perhaps Bozzok has something on Ivy?

Your theory really makes sense, but I always thought that Ian couldn't escape the prison because of the manual (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0766.html).

That's just it though, he did escape the prison, multiple times. He would just get caught outside of it.

Though I wouldn't put it past Tarquin to have some kind of fugitive-catching tips in his genre-savvy booklets as well, I still believe this to be foul play.

Tarquin has already shown that he has a tracking rune on the flying carpet. Presumably there is also one on Ian's loincloth or sandals or something.

I'm not so sure. Tarquin didn't seem to know Ian from a hole in the ground, and he certainly doesn't need any ransom money from Haley. That ransom note seemed almost like a form letter. "To whom it may concern, your {loved one} has been incarcerated by {current name of Empire} for unspecified crimes. Please remit to us {standard fee} or s/he will be imprisoned for the duration of his/her natural life."

@ Rogar - I knew Myron was one of Tarquin's associates but couldn't remember which one - excellent catch. So back when the ransom note was written (while the empire was Tyrinaria rather than TEoB, Myron must have been stationed with Tarquin. By process of elimination, Myron Shewdanker must be the one with the lower half of his face obscured by the scarf - he is with Tarquin here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html) (2nd panel), and then stationed with the Weepies later on (chronologically anyway) here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html) (9th panel.)

I'm not so sure about this theory.

First, it would make Geoff a complete moron. Why should he willingly waste his entire life in prison? If Bozzok holds him over something, why not just kill Ian and be with it? If he's treacherous enough to betray Ian in the first place, he can also arrange his death. I don't think Bozzok would mind. Or why doesn't Geoff even side with Ian and go after Bozzok? Together, they could stand a chance. There may well be some really noble reason why Geoff treats himself so miserably, but I believe that would be wayy too much depth for him.

You have a point - arranging for Ian's assassination once he's out of the way on a war-torn continent would probably be a lot simpler. For Geoff to be a traitor yet inconvenience himself to keep Ian alive (and for Bozzok to not want him dead, for that matter) is indeed odd behavior.

But then, Bozzok does seem to know that Ian is alive and incarcerated long-term, and he seems to consider that an acceptable outcome regardless. (Or at least, he doesn't seem upset that Ian's not dead yet.) So maybe Ian's death isn't a high priority for him.

Bozzok didn't seem to want Haley dead all that much either provided she stayed away. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0580.html) Maybe he felt like he owed them a debt of some kind?

Mutant Sheep

2013-04-02, 01:35 PM

Wile this theory isn't new, I suggest we rename the title of the thread to "Is Ivy a Plant?".:smallamused:

Psyren

2013-04-02, 01:52 PM

Wile this theory isn't new, I suggest we rename the title of the thread to "Is Ivy a Plant?".:smallamused:

I see what you did there, and would approve if I weren't groaning so loudly :smallbiggrin:

Ellye

2013-04-02, 03:45 PM

Uh, I've always seem it as quite clear that Bozzok is threatening Geoff in some way. Geoff is intimidated and would rather spend the rest of his days living in jail instead of, well, not living.

dps

2013-04-02, 04:47 PM

There are other possibilities. Bozzok may just be assuming that Ian left because of a letter written by Bozzok's friends, when in fact he left because of a completely different letter written by Ian's family. And Geoff may have just been relieved that Bozzok hadn't sent Roy and Belkar to kill him and Ian.

Bulldog Psion

2013-04-02, 06:56 PM

I'm not sure what's going on with the Ian/Geoff part of the story, but there's definitely some deep, dark secret buried in there somewhere, and Geoff seems to be one of its focal points in some way.

Zmeoaice

2013-04-02, 09:48 PM

It is also possible that Geoff isn't part of this, and Ivy betrayed both of them.

Procyonpi

2013-04-02, 09:54 PM

This has only been speculated, like, a bazillion times.

Living Oxymoron

2013-04-02, 10:32 PM

It is also possible that Geoff isn't part of this, and Ivy betrayed both of them.

So that would be even worse, because Ivy is Ian's sister.

Copperdragon

2013-04-03, 07:45 AM

What confuses me about this theory is this: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0779.html

Why does Geoff react like he does when he's in league with Bozzok. Does he seem to hope they got sent from him? Does he fear it?

While I do think he might be the traitor this scene confuses me and it opens the possibility he is indeed innocent and does not know. Also, what would be in for him? Sitting in prison all the time? Whatever it is, Geoff is either pressed or tricked into staying in prison and if he was pressed, why isn't he telling Ian?
I more think he is tricked into staying in prison and it's actually Aunt Ivy who's the traitor (and Geoff always informs her about escape plans to prepare her and she then spills the beans to the Empire).
Why? Well, who knows?

On the Metalayer: I also think for Ian to see that "Family" isn't as good as he thinks it *has* to be his sister that betrays him, not the "guy who married in". If it was Geoff, he could have the excuse "Well, he is not family by blood", which would render the point made here moot.
Ian is going to learn that "Family" can be untrustworthy than anything while the blood related spawn of his worst enemy is actually the Good Guy.

Silverionmox

2013-04-03, 08:04 AM

It's also trivial to let someone send a fake letter to Ian with an invitation from his sister. Once he has arrived his anti-tyrant compulsion kicks in, et voilà.

Kish

2013-04-03, 08:09 AM

Why does Geoff react like he does when he's in league with Bozzok. Does he seem to hope they got sent from him? Does he fear it?
I didn't think that was ambiguous...or anything but extremely suspicious.
"What, Bozzok sent a party of adventurers without telling me? Am I about to get thrown under the bus?"
"What, you fought Bozzok? Are you here to bring our scam--and my life--to an end?"
"...You somehow fought Bozzok and parted company with him without killing him or learning anything about what I've been up to? Whew."

Copperdragon

2013-04-03, 08:36 AM

I didn't think that was ambiguous...or anything but extremely suspicious.

The more and the more often I read it, the more ambiguous it gets, I think. When reading it first I had your impression, namely that he works with Bozzok and now fears he gets replaced or at least "stuff happens that was unforseen". He also seems to consider Bozzok near unbeatable, even unfightable - given his reaction but he also is very surprised someone fought him, won, but now both parties still live. You can call him "suspicious" but also highly confused. And that is where my confusion starts.
Geoff seems to be too surprised there to let us concluce anything in a reliable way.

My favourite theory, which is completely unfounded, still is that both Ivy and Geoff are "in" on keeping Ian out. If I had to pick one, I'd go for Ivy right now (who tricked/persuaded Geoff somehow into living years in prison). Maybe it is along the lines of "It is the only way Ian can survive" maybe it is more "If you do not do it, then I will do X to you!!!"
What makes Geoff truly suspicious is that he does seem to have some sort of Bozzok-connection (but it could be "He ran away from him".

What I find interesting is that Bozzok talks about "friends on the western continent" and not "a friend". So right now it points to: Both.
The "evidence" is not hard at all.

Living Oxymoron

2013-04-03, 11:57 AM

Ian is going to learn that "Family" can be untrustworthy than anything while the blood related spawn of his worst enemy is actually the Good Guy.

So that would imply that he doesn't know his niece (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0681.html). :smalltongue:

Copperdragon

2013-04-03, 12:54 PM

So that would imply that he doesn't know his niece (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0681.html). :smalltongue:

... or at least was left in the dark about her dark deeds. :smalltongue:

SaintRidley

2013-04-03, 01:04 PM

The letter was written by Myron Shrewdanker, who's currently stationed with the Weepies.

Wrong letter.

Mutant Sheep

2013-04-03, 01:17 PM

I think that Geoff is at least being manipulated by Aunt Ivy (Who, as stated, is a Plant), tricking them into staying in prison. It doesn't have to be a smart plan, these aren't Chaotic GenIEvil. Just enough to keep someone as silly as Ian Starshine locked up.

Rogar Demonblud

2013-04-03, 02:58 PM

Wrong letter.

Nope. I was answering the point raised by Psyren in the parenthetical comment in the OP, and developed further by others. Myron wrote the letter to Haley about the ransom.

Psyren

2013-04-03, 03:44 PM

On the Metalayer: I also think for Ian to see that "Family" isn't as good as he thinks it *has* to be his sister that betrays him, not the "guy who married in". If it was Geoff, he could have the excuse "Well, he is not family by blood", which would render the point made here moot.
Ian is going to learn that "Family" can be untrustworthy than anything while the blood related spawn of his worst enemy is actually the Good Guy.

This is a good point, especially if Ian - trusting of family as he is - keeps Ivy in the loop as to his whereabouts every time he escapes.

It's also trivial to let someone send a fake letter to Ian with an invitation from his sister. Once he has arrived his anti-tyrant compulsion kicks in, et voilà.

Except Ivy knows he's there (she's feeding him) so you'd think she'd have told him that she didn't send for him if so. Sure he might have stayed anyway, but he would have told Haley that something was fishy if that was the case.

Wrong letter.

He meant the ransom note after Ian was captured, not the original letter from Ivy/Geoff.

SaintRidley

2013-04-03, 04:30 PM

Nope. I was answering the point raised by Psyren in the parenthetical comment in the OP, and developed further by others. Myron wrote the letter to Haley about the ransom.

Ah. I thought you were attributing Myron some other letter, not the ransom letter. My bad.

Zmeoaice

2013-04-03, 05:58 PM

So that would imply that he doesn't know his niece (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0681.html). :smalltongue:

Maybe she's related to Haley through her mother.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-03, 07:59 PM

Another thing about Geoff -- he's the one who grabbed Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0771.html) with the intent to use him as a bargaining chip against Tarquin. This seems to be a mite pro-active on the escape front for someone who would later be working to thwart his own instigated attempt.

I like the idea that Ivy could really be the one pulling the strings -- maybe Bozzok's "friends" in the plural actually referred to Ivy and some as-yet-unseen party even, rather than Ivy and Geoff -- although I think Geoff's reaction to Belkar discussing Bozzok is a little odd if he didn't know something was up.

pasta

2013-04-04, 01:07 AM

I'm thinking, maybe Bozzok's friends on the Western Continent are holding Ivy hostage - They say "Ivy" sends them food, but obviously Ian hasn't seen her directly since he's been imprisoned.

I could only imagine Geoff voluntarily keeping himself prisoner this long in order to protect his wife. It would also be a deeper twist on the "family first" belief that is hinted as Ian's downfall, than simply just being betrayed.

Copperdragon

2013-04-04, 03:35 AM

Good theory. Right now we have no mean to decide if that is it, but it'd undermine the point Ian, imo, is going to learn (trust or distrust people on who they are, not one what bloodline they share).

Olinser

2013-04-04, 08:23 AM

I thought it was pretty clear that Bozzok has something on Geoff. As in, he's intimidating him or is threatening someone that he loves. If Geoff doesn't help Bozzok to keep Ian in prison, then Geoff will pay somehow. He was crestfallen to find out that Bozzok wasn't dead.

Tarquin has already shown that he has a tracking rune on the flying carpet. Presumably there is also one on Ian's loincloth or sandals or something.

Clearly it's on his peg leg :smallbiggrin:

Olinser

2013-04-04, 08:25 AM

Living Oxymoron

2013-04-04, 09:27 AM

Also - has anybody considered that the 'place' that Ian knows

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0815.html

Might in fact actually be the Draketooth pad? After all, he was in prison for years - he probably has no idea they're all dead.

Well, although I do believe Ian knows that place, I doubt very much he got in touch with the Draketooth at some point of his life. Their cause is too great in the same time it is too delicate to be involved with rebels trying to overthrow tyrannical governments.

Zmeoaice

2013-04-04, 10:52 AM

I don't think he would have known about that unless he was a Draketooth, since it was probably protected by illusions and stuff. Although there are some people who believe that he is a member of the Draketooth Clan and wasn't killed because of Familicide.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-04, 12:03 PM

It's been suggested. I don't know. I wonder if the line actually is foreshadowing that the place Ian wants to go to is significant in and of itself, or is significant in that it's not Ivy's place only. If Ivy is tied to him being unable to escape, not going to her house is a good sign, and it doesn't have to matter narratively where he does go specifically, only where he doesn't.

Not that I'm arguing it definitely isn't important, just that it might not have to be.

Kish

2013-04-04, 12:10 PM

Olinser

2013-04-04, 01:28 PM

I do not believe we're in for an "Ian Starshine was for all intents and purposes an honorary Draketooth, thought their kidnapping scheme was perfectly acceptable, and knew all about their super-secret headquarters" revelation, because...because gah, that's why.

No, I don't believe that either.

What I DO believe is that Ian came across a secretive bunch of dudes that believed family was more important than anything else (just like him), and convinced them that Tarquin was a giant threat to the continent (and to the Gate).

Co-conspirator does not mean 'honorary Draketooth'.

Psyren

2013-04-04, 01:36 PM

Wait, I'm confused - why do we think Ian has anything to do with the Draketooths again?

Kish

2013-04-04, 01:40 PM

What I DO believe is that Ian came across a secretive bunch of dudes that believed family was more important than anything else (just like him),
Aside from what Psyren just asked, you do not quite seem to grasp the problem with "he came across a secretive bunch of dudes who, like him, only trusted people with a certain quality that he did not have for them and they did not have for him, so he allied with them (and they told him the location of their super-secret headquarters full of kidnap victims)."

Or to put it another way, it does not make any sense that a member of Team Blue who only trusts members of Team Blue and a member of Team Red who only trusts members of Team Red...would be united by their mutual xenophobia.

Olinser

2013-04-04, 02:07 PM

Aside from what Psyren just asked, you do not quite seem to grasp the problem with "he came across a secretive bunch of dudes who, like him, only trusted people with a certain quality that he did not have for them and they did not have for him, so he allied with them (and they told him the location of their super-secret headquarters full of kidnap victims)."

Or to put it another way, it does not make any sense that a member of Team Blue who only trusts members of Team Blue and a member of Team Red who only trusts members of Team Red...would be united by their mutual xenophobia.

They don't have to be 'united' at all, simply working towards a common goal.

Nobody said they had to TRUST each other.

The idea is no more ridiculous than the entire idea of a 'thieves guild' in the first place.

It doesn't make sense that a bunch of dudes that make their living stealing from other dudes all live together under one roof and one leader.

Psyren

2013-04-04, 02:22 PM

But what common goal is that? Why would the Draketooths care two figs about Tarquin and his empire shell game, or vice-versa?

Yeah, he married someone that a member of their clan happened to knock up at some point in the past...but that's just about the only connection they have with one another. And stepping out of the shadows to try and overthrow him for whatever reason would only reveal their existence, so they have no reason to do that.

Copperdragon

2013-04-04, 02:39 PM

They don't have to be 'united' at all, simply working towards a common goal.

So, according to your theory all paranoid conspiracy nuts should work together because they, as individual conspiracy nuts, do not trust anyone else?

I ask you: Where does this plan have a flaw?
I answer myself: They do not trust each other because they are paranoid conspiracy nuts who do not trust anyone.

Olinser

2013-04-04, 03:00 PM

So, according to your theory all paranoid conspiracy nuts should work together because they, as individual conspiracy nuts, do not trust anyone else?

I ask you: Where does this plan have a flaw?
I answer myself: They do not trust each other because they are paranoid conspiracy nuts who do not trust anyone.

Thanks for cherry-picking a quote and totally ignoring the rest (the very next sentence as a matter of fact).

I said specifically they do not HAVE to trust each other. You don't have to trust people to work towards a common goal.

It is perfectly reasonable that they would work together - and have a contingency plan ready if (or when) the other guy decided to betray them.

You think Tarquin actually trusts Nale?

B. Dandelion

2013-04-04, 03:04 PM

But they would have to trust Ian to some extent in order to give him the location of their base.

Olinser

2013-04-04, 03:22 PM

But they would have to trust Ian to some extent in order to give him the location of their base.

Who says they gave him the actual location?

More likely they gave him a spot in Windy Canyon that he would stand in and speak some kind of pass phrase, and he sits and waits for one of them to come pick him up, and which point he will be blindfolded, ear plugged, possibly Charmed/Suggested to forget what he's seeing, and escorted/teleported to the ziggurat.

So he goes to the normal point and waits, but this time, nobody shows up, so he takes a look around, and with keen thieving senses finds the entrance to the Ziggurat.

With all of the illusions the place was no doubt under when the clan was alive, it would be pretty much impossible to find the ziggurat without one of them leading him there.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-04, 03:47 PM

Olinser

2013-04-04, 03:57 PM

I think that it still qualifies as trust for them to give him directions close enough to their base that should the illusions all fall, he might be able to work his way in without aid. Even if that scenario is unlikely, I don't think we're going to find people able to stumble over the Gate because of a lack of due diligence on the "take absolutely no chances with outsiders" paranoia front. If they were willing to bring non-Draketooths into the base because they were charmed or whatever, they should have been a lot more willing to extend that kind of conditional welcome to at least a few of their spouses.

Even if they were working together I can't really see why they'd ever need to bring him in to their most secret of top secret bases. They couldn't rendezvous at Ian's place, or in town, or anywhere else but there?

An entire clan of illusionists lets their illusions fail?

Hell, even WITH most of the illusions down the only reason the OOTS found the place was because of the Power of Plot in the form of Belkar's nose. Roy said it himself - they could have wandered for weeks and not found the spot.

Presumably they had a monitoring system set up across the canyon that allowed the clan to track everybody in and around it. If he ever came even slightly close to the Ziggurat on his own, the clan could have dealt with him easily.

Also, while yes, they are paranoid to some degree, they go around giving their REAL names to people (Orrin Draketooth?), they obviously aren't THAT worried about anybody finding them.

Copperdragon

2013-04-04, 04:07 PM

I said specifically they do not HAVE to trust each other. You don't have to trust people to work towards a common goal.

Yes, I got that. And I maintain my position: We're talking about the two most paranoid, in this regard insane parties in the entire world. They do not trust each other, they will not work with each other.
Ian was rather going to die in jail than going with someone (his daughter!) who is associated with Elan.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-04, 04:14 PM

An entire clan of illusionists lets their illusions fail?

Hell, even WITH most of the illusions down the only reason the OOTS found the place was because of the Power of Plot in the form of Belkar's nose. Roy said it himself - they could have wandered for weeks and not found the spot.

Presumably they had a monitoring system set up across the canyon that allowed the clan to track everybody in and around it. If he ever came even slightly close to the Ziggurat on his own, the clan could have dealt with him easily.

Also, while yes, they are paranoid to some degree, they go around giving their REAL names to people (Orrin Draketooth?), they obviously aren't THAT worried about anybody finding them.

Kind of a bad counter-example. Orrin did give Penelope an alias, we were told specifically. She learned his real name through divination later (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html).

Kish

2013-04-04, 04:32 PM

I also note an absolute lack of evidence that they had a common goal, except, "Look! Tarquin is Lawful!" Almost as well theorize that Ian was part of the Draketooths' grand plan to bring down Azure City and Soon's Fascist Paladin Lackies. But other people have pointed that out.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-04, 05:04 PM

You know what this thread made me wonder about is whether Ian and Geoff had anything to do with the final panel in the latest strip. Like a lot of people my mind jumped straight away to the idea that before they left the palace, Tarquin had sent out word to his adventuring cohorts and we'd be seeing some action out of them. But it could work that Kilkil had been about to say before they left Tarquin had recaptured the fugitives Roy asked to be released -- one would assume hostages make for a good surprise trump card. "Blow up that Gate and your father dies," as if things don't suck enough for the Order as it is.

Mike Havran

2013-04-05, 12:57 AM

I thought the "perfect place to hole up" for Ian and Geoff was...

The Bloodstone Correctional Facility

That's the place where nobody would search for a pair of released prisoners :smalltongue:

I don't think Draketooths would give Ian their location, even if I daresay one of the Draketooths could be very well in the resistance group.

Copperdragon

2013-04-05, 03:31 AM

SadisticFishing

2013-04-05, 05:16 AM

Say it with me, everyone - "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

Olinser

2013-04-05, 07:26 AM

Why should Draketooth even care about Tarquin? He has a gate to guard and by involving himself, in whatever way, in the continental or local politics he only risks getting found, getting attention. He has no interest in that.
He has what he requires (family - and by that money (stolen) and children (stolen)) in his pyramid and beyond that he cannot gain anything by meddling with people as Ian but he can lose everything by directing attention to his people.

He's protecting he entire universe, let someone else protect the continent.

As for "trusting" someone. Girard was willing to murder anyone who might have known about Soon and the Sapphire guard just because of that knowledge. He's not "trusting" anyone - and "working with someone" also requires a certain amount of trust (in the same way as Tarquin trusts Nale to a "certain amount").

He was not willing to 'murder anybody who might have known about Soon and the Sapphire Guard.' From Girard's trap message he clearly meant to blow up Soon or 'one of his fascist paladin lackeys'. And since they were in a random spot in the desert that has absolutely NOTHING around it, the only reason somebody would be in that spot would be if they were looking for the Gate. The chances that somebody innocent would be traveling through that exact spot in the desert, and happen to nonchalantly discuss an order of paladins on a different CONTINENT, in the tiny time period when they were in hearing range of the spell, are zero.

He was exactly correct as to who was there and what they were doing. The people in that spot saying those words WERE looking for the Gate, and they WERE working for the Sapphire Guard.

He was only wrong in their motivation.

Copperdragon

2013-04-05, 11:29 AM

He was not willing to 'murder anybody who might have known about Soon and the Sapphire Guard.' From Girard's trap message he clearly meant to blow up Soon or 'one of his fascist paladin lackeys'.

He did not care about collateral damage. Not about mules, carriers, hired cartographers, hired mages, friends, spouses, no one. He did not care.
And eve if he did: What he attempted was still murder (of Soon and "facist paladin lackeys"). You might have an argument with someone but putting an IED into your own driveway in case that guy comes along is still murder of the guy triggers it.
So I repeat: Giarard was willing to murder anybody who might know about this (he just assumed Soon would be standing next to them).

And since they were in a random spot in the desert that has absolutely NOTHING around it, the only reason somebody would be in that spot would be if they were looking for the Gate. The chances that somebody innocent would be traveling through that exact spot in the desert, and happen to nonchalantly discuss an order of paladins on a different CONTINENT, in the tiny time period when they were in hearing range of the spell, are zero.

Zero? Last time I looked, this comic actually shows us the chance is far from zero. Hint: It was the protagonists of this story who triggered the IED.

He was exactly correct as to who was there and what they were doing. The people in that spot saying those words WERE looking for the Gate, and they WERE working for the Sapphire Guard.

Yes, then he tried to murder them without caring at all about context.

He was only wrong in their motivation.

Well, I think that is A LOT to be wrong about, no? "Good" and "Evil" is basically only about the motivation.

All this aside: You're still wrong about assuming Girard would work with (as that requires a certain degree of so far unspecified trust) anyone, in specific with Ian.

Olinser

2013-04-05, 11:57 AM

{scrubbed}

Copperdragon

2013-04-05, 12:19 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} They are in the middle of a desert, with absolutely nothing near them, no road, no passage, no cities, and no reason ANYBODY would be passing through it, much less discussing Soon, the Sapphire Guard, and Girard.

Nice caps you have there. That aside, read carefully: That comic we are discussing here about shows you are wrong.

If you want to go with the IED analogy, fine - this is the equivalent of giving false intelligence to an enemy about a secret research facility in the middle of the Sahara desert 100 miles from the nearest road/travel route, and planting an IED at that location that requires somebody to say the phrase, 'secret research facility' to detonate.

You're picking up the wrong part of the analogy. The part I talk about is "Whoever put it there didn't care at all about collateral damage". It was only about the target, no matter how or why the target came or who they brought with them.

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Just for the record: If I complain about that above, you've probably broken a forum rule. I read perfectly well and understand perfectly well what you attempt to tell me - I just disagree with you that you have a point. My disagreement does not have anything with me being too dumb to read or being too dumb to understand you.

I said there is zero chance anybody INNOCENT would trigger that spell.
Don't try to pretend that the OOTS are 'innocents'. They are there because they got the coordinates from the Sapphire Guard, and were looking for the Gate.

The Order was innocent. They're there because they want to do what Giarard wanted to do as well: Protect the gate. They came from the Sapphire Guard and learned the location from them, but if you consider that to be "Guilt" I'm going to ask: "Uhhh... seriously?"
The point is not where they came from, but what they wanted. They did not do anything of the stuff Girard assumed they'd want - and as such he was wrong in blowing them up.

Girard was totally accurate in his prediction of what they were looking for and where they got the information.

Good. But as I pointed out before, which is the point I am talking about here, he did not care at all why they were there. He did not fear that someone from the Guard would come. He was afraid someone from the Guard would come and take his Gate away. The second part is the intent, it is what matter here. It is what you are totally neglecting and you only focus on the first part ("Someone with connections to the Sapphire Guard came") for the sake of... yes, why are you doing it? To be right, even if it has no relevancy at all for the topic we are supposed to talk about?
If that is what you want, then yes, you are right. The Order was "guilty" as hell, it was totally correct to attempt to murder them. Now what?

You can reasonably argue that he was an idiot for thinking Soon was a threat - but you can't argue that he didn't care about TRULY innocent people.

Again, I'm still puzzled of your understanding of what "guilt" or "innocence" mean.

As closing words I repeat the question I asked above: What are you arguing for?

Olinser

2013-04-05, 12:39 PM

Nice caps you have there. That aside, read carefully: That comic we are discussing here about shows you are wrong.

You're picking up the wrong part of the analogy. The part I talk about is "Whoever put it there didn't care at all about collateral damage". It was only about the target, no matter how or why the target came or who they brought with them.

Just for the record: If I complain about that above, you've probably broken a forum rule. I read perfectly well and understand perfectly well what you attempt to tell me - I just disagree with you that you have a point. My disagreement does not have anything with me being too dumb to read or being too dumb to understand you.

The Order was innocent. They're there because they want to do what Giarard wanted to do as well: Protect the gate. They came from the Sapphire Guard and learned the location from them, but if you consider that to be "Guilt" I'm going to ask: "Uhhh... seriously?"
The point is not where they came from, but what they wanted. They did not do anything of the stuff Girard assumed they'd want - and as such he was wrong in blowing them up.

Good. But as I pointed out before, which is the point I am talking about here, he did not care at all why they were there. He did not fear that someone from the Guard would come. He was afraid someone from the Guard would come and take his Gate away. The second part is the intent, it is what matter here. It is what you are totally neglecting and you only focus on the first part ("Someone with connections to the Sapphire Guard came") for the sake of... yes, why are you doing it? To be right, even if it has no relevancy at all for the topic we are supposed to talk about?
If that is what you want, then yes, you are right. The Order was "guilty" as hell, it was totally correct to attempt to murder them. Now what?

Again, I'm still puzzled of your understanding of what "guilt" or "innocence" mean.

As closing words I repeat the question I asked above: What are you arguing for?

There is no collateral damage. They are in an empty desert, and the only people in range of the explosion are there with the people that he just identified as his enemies, and thus, working for his enemies.

Girard cares very much why they were there. He knows EXACTLY why they are there. They are there because the Sapphire Guard sent them to look for the Gate.

They are there in explicit violation of the agreement that the Order of the Scribble set in place to not interfere with each other's Gates, regardless of circumstances.

Girard (and the others) had a monitoring device that tells him the status of the other's Gates. If he wanted the details of what happened, he would have sent somebody to check them out.

He doesn't want (or NEED) somebody that failed to protect his own Gate to come try to help him.

Hell, the only reason that there IS a threat to the Gates in the first place is because Serini was dumb enough to write down the coordinates to all of the Gates.

Copperdragon

2013-04-05, 01:01 PM

There is no collateral damage. They are in an empty desert, and the only people in range of the explosion are there with the people that he just identified as his enemies, and thus, working for his enemies.

You mean the people he wrongly identified as enemies?
That aside, again, it was pure luck on his side there was no other collateral damage (see above for the list of possible innocents, even if Soon would have been standing there).

Girard cares very much why they were there. He knows EXACTLY why they are there. They are there because the Sapphire Guard sent them to look for the Gate.

No, you are wrong. I want to scream this in caps as I have written it before.
But I am going to explain it. Girard did not fear "someone from the Sapphire Guard may come and visit". He feared the Sapphire Guard would come and move him away from the gate and seize it for them. He feared what the Guard might do when they come and he was so stupid that the only thing he could imagine they could come for was to drive him out.
He feared that. And that is why he planeted his bomb. He did not really fear the Guard because they wear shiny armour or have strange mustaches, but because they would take his gate away.
Even if I have outlined that twice already, you keep ignoring it. It is about the intent Girard assumed the guard would have. This is what the bomb was all about. This is where he has been horribly (and stupidly) wrong. This is where you are wrong.

They are there in explicit violation of the agreement that the Order of the Scribble set in place to not interfere with each other's Gates, regardless of circumstances.

Girard did not attempt to murder people because they violated such an agreement. He attempted to murder (or kill, if that is more to your liking) anyone standing there (including the mulse and hired swords and hired people who carry stuff, and... anyone else) because he feared the are coming for him. And he even placed a bet it would happen within weeks or months!
As I said like a dozen times before: You neglect intent completely and that is why you are (and have been all along) completely wrong.

Girard (and the others) had a monitoring device that tells him the status of the other's Gates. If he wanted the details of what happened, he would have sent somebody to check them out.

You're mixing stuff up. The other gates have not been discussed so far unless you brought it up. Why did you bring it up? What are you trying to tell me with this?
And the ability to check the other gates if he wanted to is independent of the monitoring device.
Also, you're bringing up the device in the same sentence with "They could find out details". Are you trying to tell me the devices were a mean to find out details? They were not, they only show "Gate is down" or "Gate is still up". For finding details, he had to send someone. For all we know, he did not do that.
(And if he did or did not do that has nothing to do with this thread or this discussion we have right now or with the monitoring devices).

He doesn't want (or NEED) somebody that failed to protect his own Gate to come try to help him.

Again, he's neglecting intent and context.
But that aside: Yes, you're telling me a good reason the Draketooths would not want to work with anyone of the others who lost their gate. This is a correct assumption. Sadly, it has no bearing at all for this thread or our current discussion, as Girard set up his murder-bomb before he knew someone would come because their gate had fallen to a super-powerful-epic-foe-you-could-not-defend-against. Girard did not even account for the chance Soon might come because his own gate got destroyed, he only assumed Soon would come to fight him over the gate.

Hell, the only reason that there IS a threat to the Gates in the first place is because Serini was dumb enough to write down the coordinates to all of the Gates.

Yes, correct. I agree. To 100%. But this is totally irrelevant what we are talking about. In this thread as well as in this discussion.

Again, I please ask you to address the questions I posed in my (previous) posting. The ones in general ("What are you arguing for?") as well as in specific ("What are you argue for here?" or "Why are you bringing that up now?")
Ignoring specific questions that someone asked to find out what you want to communicate (I really have no idea and bringing up new issues, factually correct but without any bearing to what we talk about, did not make it better) is not helping.

Olinser

2013-04-05, 01:21 PM

I'm about to give up on you, because you clearly don't seem to grasp the concept that just because you are a Lawful Good Paladin, doesn't mean you aren't Girard's enemies. I'll try one more time then.

You mean the people he wrongly identified as enemies?
That aside, again, it was pure luck on his side there was no other collateral damage (see above for the list of possible innocents, even if Soon would have been standing there).

And I've tried at least twice to point out. There are no merchants. There is no caravan. There are no spouses. They are in the middle of a freaking desert. By Roy's map, no road or trade route goes through said desert. Nobody has any reason to enter it and come to that exact spot unless they are looking for the Gate.

If they are looking for the Gate, they are Girard's enemies, or with Girard's enemies. Their motivations are irrelevant, they are his enemies, there is no possible reason that anybody from the Sapphire Guard could have to come visit him that Girard cares about.

No, you are wrong. I want to scream this in caps as I have written it before.
But I am going to explain it. Girard did not fear "someone from the Sapphire Guard may come and visit". He feared the Sapphire Guard would come and move him away from the gate and seize it for them. He feared what the Guard might do when they come and he was so stupid that the only thing he could imagine they could come for was to drive him out.
He feared that. And that is why he planeted his bomb. He did not really fear the Guard because they wear shiny armour or have strange mustaches, but because they would take his gate away.
Even if I have outlined that twice already, you keep ignoring it. It is about the intent Girard assumed the guard would have. This is what the bomb was all about. This is where he has been horribly (and stupidly) wrong. This is where you are wrong.

I agree. And I'll repeat, because you don't seem to understand: There is no reason Girard can imagine that he needs anybody from the Sapphire Guard to help him.

If he were still alive, he'd have even LESS reason to want their help, because their incompetence let their own Gate be destroyed.

In addition to being his enemies, yhey are their because they are either A) Incompetent or B) Malicious. Either way, he doesn't need them.

Girard did not attempt to murder people because they violated such an agreement. He attempted to murder (or kill, if that is more to your liking) anyone standing there (including the mulse and hired swords and hired people who carry stuff, and... anyone else) because he feared the are coming for him. And he even placed a bet it would happen within weeks or months!
As I said like a dozen times before: You neglect intent completely and that is why you are (and have been all along) completely wrong.

You're mixing stuff up. The other gates have not been discussed so far unless you brought it up. Why did you bring it up? What are you trying to tell me with this?
And the ability to check the other gates if he wanted to is independent of the monitoring device.
Also, you're bringing up the device in the same sentence with "They could find out details". Are you trying to tell me the devices were a mean to find out details? They were not, they only show "Gate is down" or "Gate is still up". For finding details, he had to send someone. For all we know, he did not do that.
(And if he did or did not do that has nothing to do with this thread or this discussion we have right now or with the monitoring devices).

Again, he's neglecting intent and context.
But that aside: Yes, you're telling me a good reason the Draketooths would not want to work with anyone of the others who lost their gate. This is a correct assumption. Sadly, it has no bearing at all for this thread or our current discussion, as Girard set up his murder-bomb before he knew someone would come because their gate had fallen to a super-powerful-epic-foe-you-could-not-defend-against. Girard did not even account for the chance Soon might come because his own gate got destroyed, he only assumed Soon would come to fight him over the gate.

Yes, correct. I agree. To 100%. But this is totally irrelevant what we are talking about. In this thread as well as in this discussion.

Again, I please ask you to address the questions I posed in my (previous) posting. The ones in general ("What are you arguing for?") as well as in specific ("What are you argue for here?" or "Why are you bringing that up now?")
Ignoring specific questions that someone asked to find out what you want to communicate (I really have no idea and bringing up new issues, factually correct but without any bearing to what we talk about, did not make it better) is not helping.

And you are the one ignoring the direct quote from Girard himself. "It should have been you that died in that rift. Allow me to remedy that error."

He's trying to kill Soon and his minions because he has a grudge against him and thinks he is his enemy. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

You're the one that started this whole discussion by trying to claim that Girard's willingness to 'murder anybody' would prevent him from trusting somebody else.

Girard's consideration of Soon and his paladins as his enemy, and willingness to dispose of them, has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to trust or work with anybody else, specifically Ian.

Hell, Ian being a rogue is a mark in his favor, because paladins wouldn't associate with him in the first place.

dps

2013-04-05, 02:16 PM

You don't read very well. I said there is zero chance anybody INNOCENT would trigger that spell.

Don't try to pretend that the OOTS are 'innocents'.

We don't have to pretend. It's a fact: "Roy hasn't done anything wrong other than breaking an oath he never made".

EDIT:

Oh, and:

Hell, Ian being a rogue is a mark in his favor, because paladins wouldn't associate with him in the first place
doesn't make sense unless you're arguing that Ian is Evil.

hamishspence

2013-04-05, 02:30 PM

Oh, and:

Hell, Ian being a rogue is a mark in his favor, because paladins wouldn't associate with him in the first place
doesn't make sense unless you're arguing that Ian is Evil.

The reason:

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

So, if "the paladin's moral code" forbids certain technically nonevil acts, and Ian commits them a lot anyway, and the paladin knows- they'd eventually leave.

Olinser

2013-04-05, 03:05 PM

We don't have to pretend. It's a fact: "Roy hasn't done anything wrong other than breaking an oath he never made".

EDIT:

Oh, and:

doesn't make sense unless you're arguing that Ian is Evil.

The point is not that Roy is good. By Girard's viewpoint, through his association and relationship with the Sapphire Guard, Roy is either his enemy, or at a minimum, not to be trusted.

Ian has no such relationship. Thus, Girard's willingness to kill anybody associated with the Sapphire Guard has absolutely no bearing on whether he could work with Ian or not.

Olinser

2013-04-05, 03:11 PM

The reason:

So, if "the paladin's moral code" forbids certain technically nonevil acts, and Ian commits them a lot anyway, and the paladin knows- they'd eventually leave.

Precisely. Ian is a thief. Paladin's aren't much for the fluid transfer of items and property that thieves engage in.

Kish

2013-04-05, 03:14 PM

So, if "the paladin's moral code" forbids certain technically nonevil acts, and Ian commits them a lot anyway, and the paladin knows- they'd eventually leave.
As I said, I do not expect the revelation "Ian is enough of a rat to not object to the Draketooths' serial kidnapping scheme."

Not that he doesn't have plenty of flaws, as established. But he's not vile.

Copperdragon

2013-04-05, 03:28 PM

{scrubbed}

Olinser

2013-04-05, 04:36 PM

As I said, I do not expect the revelation "Ian is enough of a rat to not object to the Draketooths' serial kidnapping scheme."

Not that he doesn't have plenty of flaws, as established. But he's not vile.

ARGUABLY (and I don't believe this myself, but the argument could be made), it is not kidnapping since it is one of the parents taking them.

In fact, in current US law, unless one parent has explicit custody granted by a court, if one parent simply takes the kid and leaves, it is not considered kidnapping in the eyes of the law.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 04:33 AM

In fact, in current US law, unless one parent has explicit custody granted by a court, if one parent simply takes the kid and leaves, it is not considered kidnapping in the eyes of the law.

A) It is a vile and evil behavior. If the kidnapping is not, then the stealing (which is perfectly legal if they are married).

B) US law does not interest us in regard to OotS (and those cases tend to be very complicated so I think it's pointless to discuss them on a general basis), where it is not so much about "law" but "good and evil". Meeting a woman, make her fall in love with the sole purpose of making her a baby and then running away with that baby and her money is evil. Especially if it's done systematically.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-06, 04:39 AM

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 05:03 AM

I don't think the ultra-chaotic Ian Starshine would view the behavior as less terrible because someone could summon up a distinction that technically the behavior wasn't kidnapping in legal terms per se.

I think he'd view it as even worse terrible because he is not only ultra-chaotic (dissections of legal details don't interest him at all) but he is also very strong on the "family and related by blood" thing.
You stealing a child from someone you had it with must be an utterly horrible thing to do for him.

Olinser

2013-04-06, 08:55 AM

I don't think the ultra-chaotic Ian Starshine would view the behavior as less terrible because someone could summon up a distinction that technically the behavior wasn't kidnapping in legal terms per se.

In purely Orrin Draketooth's case, he took the child away from a woman that was eventually totally OK being the wife of a Lawful Evil dictator that tortures and murders to keep a country under his boot heel. It would be very easy to make the argument that they were taking the child to be raised 'properly'.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 09:03 AM

In purely Orrin Draketooth's case, he took the child away from a woman that was eventually totally OK being the wife of a Lawful Evil dictator that tortures and murders to keep a country under his boot heel. It would be very easy to make the argument that they were taking the child to be raised 'properly'.

"Raised properly" means in this case a life in the desert, among one family (which probably means "No actual marriage with kids, a free choice of life and stuff"), having a duty that is too large to bear for a person but that must be carried or the world ends?
And that is actually "worth" to send a woman into grief about her baby, not knowing where it is, if it is well, if it is sold as slave, or is dead? It must be a horribly traumatic experience to be betrayed by someone you loved like that.

And apparently, Penelope was not fine with it. "Put a few glasses of wine into her and she'd tell everyone" - that is not the reaction of someone who "got over it".

B. Dandelion

2013-04-06, 09:32 AM

Tarquin forced several of his wives into matrimony, so Penelope marrying him proves exactly nothing. All we really know of her is that she was a mother devastated by the loss of her child even years later.

Have you noticed that a defense of Girard and the Draketooths increasingly requires one to paint the other characters black? That's because there's no inherent justification for the crap he and his clan have pulled, so the only fallback is to try and paint it as a case of "paying evil unto evil", which is NOT the same thing.

Orrin Draketooth wooed and married Penelope under false pretenses, impregnated her, and then ran off with her child while also robbing her blind. It's not even as though Orrin got into that situation accidentally only to realize later that Penelope would be an "unsuitable" mother -- he lied and used her with the full intention of doing that the entire time. No one deserves that. It is just plain heartless, rotten and needlessly cruel. To say Ian would possibly not have a problem with it is to slander him.

Kish

2013-04-06, 09:56 AM

Orrin Draketooth wooed and married Penelope under false pretenses, impregnated her, and then ran off with her child while also robbing her blind. It's not even as though Orrin got into that situation accidentally only to realize later that Penelope would be an "unsuitable" mother -- he lied and used her with the full intention of doing that the entire time.
And, apparently, the Draketooths did it habitually, to maintain their "all family" dynasty.

At this point, it will be a very hard sell if Rich tries to establish that Girard/whoever was making the decisions in the Draketooth family didn't become Chaotic Evil at some point. It's not selling at all from Olinser.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 10:04 AM

... to establish that Girard/whoever was making the decisions in the Draketooth family didn't become Chaotic Evil at some point. It's not selling at all from Olinser.

I know it is very dangerous to reply to this as it could derail this thread, but: I do not think he became CE as he did it "for the good" and this entire setup screams Self Sacrifice to keep the world save, but it surely was a horribly CE act. This is beyond question, imo, and this is all that matters for this thread. Which already, as I just notice, is derailed a bit.

Ian would not stand for such a setup. Never ever.
We could argue he does not know how the Draketooths "recruited" and that he works with them, but I still very much doubt there's an Ian-Draketooth-connection. The Draketooth would not have worked with him as he is an outsider (if he was not, he'd have died in the Familicide) and Ian (even one that does not know about the Draketooth's recruitment policy) would not work with them because... well, they do not benefit him at all in staging an uprising. If he even could learn about them, which I find unlikely. Ian is a Guild Thief at heart and as such very, very citybound. He is no adventurer who finds hidden Hideouts in the Desert.

Olinser

2013-04-06, 10:47 AM

And, apparently, the Draketooths did it habitually, to maintain their "all family" dynasty.

At this point, it will be a very hard sell if Rich tries to establish that Girard/whoever was making the decisions in the Draketooth family didn't become Chaotic Evil at some point. It's not selling at all from Olinser.

I'll grant you it's Chaotic - but how is it Evil?

There is no maliciousness in the Draketooth. Their 'kidnappings,' while wrong, are motivated by a desire to maintain their family, not out of desire to hurt anybody. If they were Evil they would be KILLING their spouses, not simply leaving. After all, why would they risk somebody with a close blood tie to one of them being able to scry their location out (which is EXACTLY what happened with Penelope).

Stealing and kidnapping are not inherently Evil - they are marks of Chaos, not Evil. Haley regularly steals and cheats, and is still Good.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 11:11 AM

If it causes innocent people suffering, or "not innocent" people excessive suffering, it tends to be considered Evil.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 12:57 PM

{scrubbed}

Mutant Sheep

2013-04-06, 01:31 PM

I was under the impression stealing was bad. Neutral it is not, and Good it is not. Taking someone else's things without asking and never giving them back=evil. Stealing their child and all their money because they get forced into marrying an evil dictator a decade down the road doesn't make it not-evil.

JavaScribe

2013-04-06, 02:21 PM

Stealing and kidnapping are not inherently Evil - they are marks of Chaos, not Evil. Haley regularly steals and cheats, and is still Good.

Well, goodish anyways. But even with her willingness to steal from neutral people, she would still refuse to do it if it caused excessive harm. Chaotic Evil is the willingness to take what you want without regard for who it hurts. How can abducting someone's child without even the slightest bit of closure do anything but destroy their life?

Kish

2013-04-06, 02:40 PM

I'll grant you it's Chaotic - but how is it Evil?[...]
What a bizarre concept of evil you have.

I wonder where you get it. Certainly not from any D&D book.

Zmeoaice

2013-04-06, 06:16 PM

Stealing and kidnapping are not inherently Evil - they are marks of Chaos, not Evil. Haley regularly steals and cheats, and is still Good.

Lawful Evil people steal and kidnap, so it's not a mark of Chaos.

Olinser

2013-04-06, 09:15 PM

Olinser

2013-04-06, 09:26 PM

Well, goodish anyways. But even with her willingness to steal from neutral people, she would still refuse to do it if it caused excessive harm. Chaotic Evil is the willingness to take what you want without regard for who it hurts. How can abducting someone's child without even the slightest bit of closure do anything but destroy their life?

Because they're taking their own child, to be raised in their traditions and follow in their footsteps. It's certainly not a GOOD act, but it's not an Evil act.

It is an act intended to continue their own family line, their traditions, and to them, uphold their duty that to safeguard something with the potential to destroy the entire world.

There are numerous orders of paladins and monks that take children at extreme young ages (too young to make a decision themselves), and raise them in their orders, sometimes forcefully. That doesn't make them Evil.

And with regards to her marrying Tarquin - she lasted MONTHS as his wife, and in the couple pictures we saw, certainly didn't seem to be in any kind of distress about being married to him - remember, she gave him a Ring of True Seeing, those things are NOT cheap or easy to come by. Not exactly the kind of thing you give as a present to somebody you were coerced into marrying.

It may very well be that Orrin married her, got her pregnant, and slowly started to see what kind of person she REALLY was. So he stuck it out until the kid was grown up enough for him to take them and leave. And left.

If they were evil, why on earth would he leave anybody alive? They know it was Draketooth that took the kid. He could have easily killed his wife, ransacked the house, scattered some blood around (or grab a random dude and baby and burn them to an unrecognizable body), and left. Obviously thieves broke in and killed the whole family.

glissle

2013-04-06, 09:31 PM

I wonder how the readers would react if it turned out that Ian's "place" was a hideout in the Windy Canyon, which he had somehow discovered was protected against scrying, but that he had no awareness of the Draketooths or the ziggurat specifically.

Back when that page was published, I figured it would be that sort of coincidence, but somehow the recent more serious tone and impending peril make that possibility less palatable to me.

Peelee

2013-04-06, 10:12 PM

There are numerous orders of paladins and monks that take children at extreme young ages (too young to make a decision themselves), and raise them in their orders, sometimes forcefully. That doesn't make them Evil.
...if its forcefully, then yes, it does. This is the case in other works of fiction as well. Jedi, for instance (I'm always up for a Star Wars comparison); Jedi are known for taking very, VERY young - infants to toddlers, at oldest. Yet in the book Outbound Flight, the moment that (spoilered, in case anyone cares to read it)Jedi Master Jorus C'baoth starts forcefully taking children to be trained as Jedi was when the other Jedi decide that he has gone too far, and needs to be dealt with.
Can you provide any examples of monastic orders or paladin orders who forcefully take children, and are demonstrably NOT evil?

Zmeoaice

2013-04-06, 10:28 PM

So Haley is Evil then? Because she takes a LOT of other people's things without asking and ever giving them back.

She's doing a lot less now, and she didn't take as much as Orrin did.

Because they're taking their own child, to be raised in their traditions and follow in their footsteps. It's certainly not a GOOD act, but it's not an Evil act.

Yes... they would be evil. They might not think they are evil, like how Malack, Tsukiko, and Redcloak don't think they are evil but they are.
Also, do we know that it was standard for the Draketooths to kidnap their children, or was it just Orrin? The only confirmation I believe was V's assumption based on Orrin's actions.

JavaScribe

2013-04-06, 11:40 PM

And with regards to her marrying Tarquin - she lasted MONTHS as his wife, and in the couple pictures we saw, certainly didn't seem to be in any kind of distress about being married to him - remember, she gave him a Ring of True Seeing, those things are NOT cheap or easy to come by. Not exactly the kind of thing you give as a present to somebody you were coerced into marrying.
So what? That doesn't mean she wasn't traumatized by the Orrin Draketooth incident. Or that it wasn't even a possibility.

How would you feel if someone married you underneath false pretenses, kidnapped your child, and as if to rub salt in the wound, stole from you? I suppose you would just get over it with no emotional wounds?

It may very well be that Orrin married her, got her pregnant, and slowly started to see what kind of person she REALLY was. So he stuck it out until the kid was grown up enough for him to take them and leave. And left.
So, it's ok to marry someone with the specific, active, intent of kidnapping her child if she just so happens to be an evil matriarch? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, the images shown in Vaarsuvius's plot exposition suggests that they do this all the time. It could be wrong, but the lack of non-red heads in the meal room suggests that they didn't tolerate any of their inlaws. I very much doubt her kindness or hostility would have made a difference. If anything, kindness would have made her a softer target.

If they were evil, why on earth would he leave anybody alive? They know it was Draketooth that took the kid. He could have easily killed his wife, ransacked the house, scattered some blood around (or grab a random dude and baby and burn them to an unrecognizable body), and left. Obviously thieves broke in and killed the whole family.
Why on earth would he do that? Do you really need to be as sadistic and pointlessly destructive as Xykon to be evil?

Zmeoaice

2013-04-06, 11:54 PM

So, it's ok to marry someone with the specific, active, intent of kidnapping her child if she just so happens to be an evil matriarch? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Isn't that what Elan's mommy tried to do? I'd say keeping a child away from someone not fit to be a parent is not a "wrong" (although we know almost nothing of Orrin's and Penelope's relationship, so the "evil matriarch" thing is just an assumption)

Also, the images shown in Vaarsuvius's plot exposition suggests that they do this all the time. It could be wrong, but the lack of non-red heads in the meal room suggests that they didn't tolerate any of their inlaws. I very much doubt her kindness or hostility would have made a difference. If anything, kindness would have made her a softer target.

That could be a possibility. There were some auburn people there, although that's probably because red hair is recessive (although maybe not in a fantasy world like this). It's still possible that the Draketooths managed to keep a secret between their offspring, or that their spouses simply didn't want to guard the gate if they found out, thus eliminating the need for kidnapping and stealing.