Julio, Tarquin and his 9 Wives

[The Pilgrim]

Panel 1, #932 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html):

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/6719/scoundrel.png "I was running out of ways to crash your wedding and rescue your bride anyway"

So... does this mean that Tarquin's prolific number of ex-wives is not due to a psychopatic tendency to murder them, but rather to the fact that Julio rescues them and Tarquin only gets to keep those who voluntary engage with him (like Penelope)?

[Gift Jeraff]

Hopefully. Though I'm also betting Sabine was one of them and left voluntarily when she was reassigned to manipulate Nale.

[bguy]

Panel 1, #932 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html):

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/6719/scoundrel.png "I was running out of ways to crash your wedding and rescue your bride anyway"

So... does this mean that Tarquin's prolific number of ex-wives is not due to a psychopatic tendency to murder them, but rather to the fact that Julio rescues them and Tarquin only gets to keep those who voluntary engage with him (like Penelope)?

Wouldn't Julio likely have rescued those women before they actually married Tarquin? (From a dramatic standpoint it kind of defeats the point of crashing a wedding, if you don't actually prevent the wedding from happening.) Which in turn would mean that the women Julio rescued wouldn't actually be among Tarquin's wives since he never actually married them.

[King of Nowhere]

Yeah, I also interpreted that tarquin would have had much more than 9 wives if julio hadn't intervened.
I wouldn't know about killing them: turned out he didn't kill penelope, he never tried to kill elan's mother, and we know at least some of his wives actually liked him, and he reciprocated.
Yes, sometimes tarquin can display petty revenge, but other times he don't mind if people appear to get the best of him. he's pretty difficult to predict in that regard.

[The Pilgrim]

he never tried to kill elan's mother

We can't be sure about that. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

It is worth noting that apparently Tarquin either gives up pursuing "wives-to-be" once they get a certain distance away from him, or his ability to track them down is eclipsed by Julio's ability to keep him from tracking them down while enabling them to have normal lives.

[Mike Havran]

Wouldn't Julio likely have rescued those women before they actually married Tarquin? (From a dramatic standpoint it kind of defeats the point of crashing a wedding, if you don't actually prevent the wedding from happening.) Which in turn would mean that the women Julio rescued wouldn't actually be among Tarquin's wives since he never actually married them.I think that whether Julio escaped with the brides before or after Malack said the usual phrase, Tarquin still counted them as his wives. Bigger numbers sound better :smallamused:

[Michaeler]

Tarquin told Elan that, prior to meeting him, he had taken extreme measures to avoid having another child in case they turned out like Nale.

At the time, a lot of us assumed this meant murder, but now I wonder if it meant preventing the exchange of sexual fluids by means of, not a condom, but by cultivating a nemesis who will never fail to rescue your intended bride on the wedding night?

It fits his M.O.

[Kish]

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Tarquin's evil here. He didn't plan for the slaves Haley and Vaarsuvius rescued to get away (and indeed, they didn't get away) and as many of his nearly-wives as have gotten away, I'm sure got away without his approval on any level.

[Chronos]

I'm now picturing Malack droning on about wuv, twoo wuv.

[Ramien]

I'm more curious about:

Was Virginia from Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails one of Tarquin's brides-to-be? All we know about her is that she came from a desert town and Julio Scoundrél rescued her from an 'evil villain.'

[Kish]

It's neither as obvious a reference as, "So the Boots of Speed were totally powerful, but they were, like, lime green...dye these lime green boots" nor as much of a stretch as "I bet Girard is Tarquin." It would fit perfectly for her to be one of Tarquin's rescued brides; it would also fit perfectly for her to have been rescued from something else, Rich didn't bother to think of what.

[The Giant]

The intent of the dialogue is that Julio is rescuing the bride on the wedding day, right before the ceremony. Thus, they aren't numbered among Tarquin's nine wives. Those would be the ones he actually did marry, either because Julio wasn't there to rescue them or because they were willing to marry him for other reasons (like Penelope married him primarily for his money/power). There's no telling how many more may have been saved by Julio, though.

As for why Tarquin didn't track them down, I would imagine it was something like him considering them "damaged goods" once they ran off with Julio, who is himself a womanizer of some note. Which leads us to...


I'm more curious about:

Was Virginia from Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails one of Tarquin's brides-to-be? All we know about her is that she came from a desert town and Julio Scoundrél rescued her from an 'evil villain.'

Yes.

And you should label spoilers, as in, "This spoiler is for Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales." Otherwise someone might click on it not know it was an actual spoiler.

[The Pilgrim]

Question Answered.

Thank you very much, Giant. :smallsmile:

[Sir_Leorik]

The intent of the dialogue is that Julio is rescuing the bride on the wedding day, right before the ceremony. Thus, they aren't numbered among Tarquin's nine wives. Those would be the ones he actually did marry, either because Julio wasn't there to rescue them or because they were willing to marry him for other reasons (like Penelope married him primarily for his money/power). There's no telling how many more may have been saved by Julio, though.

Really? Not even a ball-park estimate? Or do we have to track down back issues of Julio Scoundrel's comic book to find out the answer? :smallbiggrin:

[allenw]

QUOTE=bguy;16469294]Wouldn't Julio likely have rescued those women before they actually married Tarquin? (From a dramatic standpoint it kind of defeats the point of crashing a wedding, if you don't actually prevent the wedding from happening.) [/QUOTE]

***SPOILER FOR "THE GRADUATE" (1967)***
There are exceptions. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e98QjOuq-wU)

[Ramien]

Yes.

And you should label spoilers, as in, "This spoiler is for Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales." Otherwise someone might click on it not know it was an actual spoiler.

My apologies, I'll make the correction.

[ti'esar]

I thought there was something suspiciously vague about that "evil villain" reference.

[Bulldog Psion]

The intent of the dialogue is that Julio is rescuing the bride on the wedding day, right before the ceremony. Thus, they aren't numbered among Tarquin's nine wives. Those would be the ones he actually did marry, either because Julio wasn't there to rescue them or because they were willing to marry him for other reasons (like Penelope married him primarily for his money/power). There's no telling how many more may have been saved by Julio, though.

As for why Tarquin didn't track them down, I would imagine it was something like him considering them "damaged goods" once they ran off with Julio, who is himself a womanizer of some note.

So, he really is some kind of creepy rapist-serial killer who disposed of many of his previous wives ... :smalleek:

For a second there, with "Julio to the rescue," I thought that he hadn't had the chance to live with most of them, and thus the "mysterious circumstances" weren't quite as sinister as they appeared. Now, it looks like it's officially confirmed that they were.

Gah. What a slimy, slimy creature Tarquin is. :smalleek:

[Dark Matter]

So, he really is some kind of creepy rapist-serial killer who disposed of many of his previous wives ... :smalleek:Unclear... although he's 0 and 2 for the two we know about.

Weirdly it's possible he's not to *blame* (at least by his standards) for any of them. It's possible he married someone too evil and they tried to take over. Or too Good and they tried to do something about him. And he's obviously got a ton of enemies, a lower level hanger on kind of spells "target".

On the other hand, every time we think we've hit bottom on how Evil he is, we discover we hadn't.

He's a fun character, I like him. Hopefully one day we'll see his head on a post or something much worse.

[Zerozzz0290]

So, he really is some kind of creepy rapist-serial killer who disposed of many of his previous wives ... :smalleek:

For a second there, with "Julio to the rescue," I thought that he hadn't had the chance to live with most of them, and thus the "mysterious circumstances" weren't quite as sinister as they appeared. Now, it looks like it's officially confirmed that they were.

Gah. What a slimy, slimy creature Tarquin is. :smalleek:

Sorry but we only know of one of Tarquin's ex-wives to have died of "mysterious circumstances" and we allready know it wasn't Tarquin, those were indeed mysterious circumstances, I don't think Malack is high level enough to detect a Familycide Spell:smallcool:

[Bulldog Psion]

Sorry but we only know of one of Tarquin's ex-wives to have died of "mysterious circumstances" and we allready know it wasn't Tarquin, those were indeed mysterious circumstances, I don't think Malack is high level enough to detect a Familycide Spell:smallcool:

Fair enough. Still, out of the 9, one got away alive and one was killed by V. That leaves 7 others unaccounted for -- and that's a LOT of spouses for one person to go through in part of one human lifetime. :smalleek:

Not saying he did them all in, but it's certainly suspicious, and not out of the bounds of possibility that he killed at least a few of them.

[Kish]

Considering that a nonzero number of them were tortured into marrying a lech who didn't hesitate to kill anyone they cared about, I'd say there's a real possibility some of them killed themselves, too.

This is a depressing subject. Tarquin is a walking, talking depressing subject, and I will never understand why anyone would want to see anything but the most horrible fate any character in the comic experiences befall him.

[Chronos]

Quoth Dark Matter:

He's a fun character, I like him. Hopefully one day we'll see his head on a post or something much worse.
And I will wave, like this.

[Muenster Man]

This is a depressing subject. Tarquin is a walking, talking depressing subject, and I will never understand why anyone would want to see anything but the most horrible fate any character in the comic experiences befall him.

Because to me, that's approaching Tarquin-level cruel. I would prefer it if he was thoroughly beaten and killed with no chance of resurrection... without watching him suffer needlessly. A nice dose of humiliation before death would be acceptable, though :smallwink:

And he isn't completely insufferable, apparently. Some of his wives seemed to like him, although that means little since there isn't too much information on what they were like. And this is assuming there isn't a ton of information about them in any of the books I don't have.

[brionl]

Fair enough. Still, out of the 9, one got away alive and one was killed by V. That leaves 7 others unaccounted for -- and that's a LOT of spouses for one person to go through in part of one human lifetime. :smalleek:

Not saying he did them all in, but it's certainly suspicious, and not out of the bounds of possibility that he killed at least a few of them.

Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times, and I'm pretty sure she didn't kill any of them.

[Amphiox]

Well, other than murdering them, Tarquin could have utilized that other time-honored method by which tyrants disposed of women they were tired of: divorce and stuffing them into a convent.

[Mike Havran]

Every time I read posts wishing for Tarquin's cruel and unusual death, I wonder how smugly content could Tarquin be, knowing that the spirit of his own sadistic deeds, both real and hypothetical, actually permeates the fourth wall and creates a resounding echo in the minds of other sapient beings.

[Otomodachi]

And, so, you see Julio will definitely end up killing Tarquin because

all his wives have finally run out.

:P

[rodneyAnonymous]

That leaves 7 others unaccounted for -- and that's a LOT of spouses for one person to go through in part of one human lifetime.

I partly disagree. That is a lot of spouses for one person to go through, but because of social conventions, not because it would have to take a long time. We are given the impression that many (if not most) of Tarquin's marriages were short.

[Bulldog Psion]

And, so, you see Julio will definitely end up killing Tarquin because

all his wives have finally run out.

:P

That pun is so horrible that it actually made me laugh. Did you, by any chance, take the Dashing Swordsman PRC? :smallbiggrin:

[The Pilgrim]

Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times, and I'm pretty sure she didn't kill any of them.

Her third husband died under "mysterious circumstances".

Duhn, duhn, duhn...

[JCAll]

Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times, and I'm pretty sure she didn't kill any of them.

Only on the inside.

[Elystan]

I actually feel sorry for tarquin. He has to torture or manipulate all his wives into marriage, or they're only in it for the money/power. With an ego like his that has to hurt.

[Kish]

Every time I read posts wishing for Tarquin's cruel and unusual death, I wonder how smugly content could Tarquin be, knowing that the spirit of his own sadistic deeds, both real and hypothetical, actually permeates the fourth wall and creates a resounding echo in the minds of other sapient beings.
So you're saying Tarquin is the equivalent of one of those idiots on the Internet who acts like a twit and, when someone reacts with anger, shrieks, "I made you react! I'm so cool and powerful!"

I hate to defend him, but I doubt he deludes himself that angering people is that hard. Then again, he's apparently under the impression that unless he kills Roy, Elan might not bother to come back to stop him, so maybe he actually is.

In more detail, at least for me, actively finding a villain repulsive has very little to do with how the villain is presented, and everything to do with how real her/his victims feel. I couldn't say Tarquin is objectively more evil than, say, Whiss Valeur. (http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Paula-Volsky/dp/product-description/0553560220) But that book never really brought Whiss's victims to life for me (and also I found pretty much every viewpoint character in it repulsive, not just Whiss), and so my primary reaction to Whiss's death was "eh." To what extremely limited extent my negative reaction to Tarquin (which is pretty much just like my reaction to Xykon at the end of Start of Darkness) speaks to any character's presentation in OotS, it speaks to Amun-Zora's relatability and to my ability to empathize with "the person I'm in love with has just been casually murdered by this thug who is now planning more tortures for me," not anything about Tarquin except his sheer willingness to commit vile deeds; primarily it speaks to the fact that Rich has not written a horrible dystopia-world where burning 20+ slaves alive for trying to escape is something a lot of characters would have done.

The question is, why are you posting in a thread about the character being a serial rapist that you find it strange and noteworthy that some readers have strong negative reactions to him?

I actually feel sorry for tarquin. He has to torture or manipulate all his wives into marriage, or they're only in it for the money/power. With an ego like his that has to hurt.
It might, if he really began to understand love...but I don't believe he does and, thus, "I want your money and power" falls on his ears exactly like Haley saying "I love you" falls on Elan's.

[Sunken Valley]

The intent of the dialogue is that Julio is rescuing the bride on the wedding day, right before the ceremony. Thus, they aren't numbered among Tarquin's nine wives. Those would be the ones he actually did marry, either because Julio wasn't there to rescue them or because they were willing to marry him for other reasons (like Penelope married him primarily for his money/power). There's no telling how many more may have been saved by Julio, though.

As for why Tarquin didn't track them down, I would imagine it was something like him considering them "damaged goods" once they ran off with Julio, who is himself a womanizer of some note.



Did Julio save the woman who Tarquin froze the feet of?

[The Pilgrim]

Did Julio save the woman who Tarquin froze the feet of?

Tarquin listed her as one of his "previous wives".

So I suppose that unless Julio saved her after the ceremony, the answer is "nope".

[Kish]

Tarquin listed her as one of his "previous wives".

So I suppose that unless Julio saved her after the ceremony, the answer is "nope".
Does it really matter? If one posits that Tarquin actually married at least one of the women he forced to "agree" to marry him, and one posits that Julio rescued at least one of the women Tarquin forced to "agree" to marry him (both of which seem pretty clearly established at this point), it's certain that at least one woman who had been tortured by Tarquin escaped and at least one woman who had been tortured by Tarquin actually made it to the marriage-and-rape parts.

[The Pilgrim]

Does it really matter? If one posits that Tarquin actually married at least one of the women he forced to "agree" to marry him, and one posits that Julio rescued at least one of the women Tarquin forced to "agree" to marry him (both of which seem pretty clearly established at this point), it's certain that at least one woman who had been tortured by Tarquin escaped and at least one woman who had been tortured by Tarquin actually made it to the marriage-and-rape parts.

Yeah, but you know how it works: "Hooray! the people whose names I know are saved!!!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0784.html)

[Otomodachi]

That pun is so horrible that it actually made me laugh. Did you, by any chance, take the Dashing Swordsman PRC? :smallbiggrin:

Sadly, I took the third edition version, Cheesy Dork, and my DM won't let me update to 3.5. Thanks though. :)

[David Argall]

While being in range of Tarquin does not make for a long life span, murder of his wives as a standard policy does not fit. Tarquin has always been very big on family. Nale tried to kill him several times as well as doing all sort of other crimes, and Tarquin was begging him to be a good boy in the future. It was only when Nale said he was not family that things got sharp and pointy.
This would also apply to a wife. While trying to leave him might have unfortunate results, he would still consider killing her as akin to suicide. She is part of him, and to be treasured [tho not necessarily in ways she approves of].
And there are obviously much easier ways to deal with the situation. A forced abortion would be easy enough, as would variously personal measures.
Now we do have a lot of wives to account for, too many to accept natural causes as the main cause. However we have several alternatives to anything lethal. While the text does not make it certain, it would seem he was the one seeking the divorce from Elan's mom. So it is no stretch to think he tired of most of these brides [who may well have tired of him long before that] and a divorce was arranged with little difficulty.
Just because a man is a villain does not mean he always does the evil thing.

[Cerussite]

While being in range of Tarquin does not make for a long life span, murder of his wives as a standard policy does not fit. Tarquin has always been very big on family. Nale tried to kill him several times as well as doing all sort of other crimes, and Tarquin was begging him to be a good boy in the future. It was only when Nale said he was not family that things got sharp and pointy.
This would also apply to a wife. While trying to leave him might have unfortunate results, he would still consider killing her as akin to suicide. She is part of him, and to be treasured [tho not necessarily in ways she approves of].
And there are obviously much easier ways to deal with the situation. A forced abortion would be easy enough, as would variously personal measures.
Now we do have a lot of wives to account for, too many to accept natural causes as the main cause. However we have several alternatives to anything lethal. While the text does not make it certain, it would seem he was the one seeking the divorce from Elan's mom. So it is no stretch to think he tired of most of these brides [who may well have tired of him long before that] and a divorce was arranged with little difficulty.
Just because a man is a villain does not mean he always does the evil thing.

I agree with most of this, but my preferred explanation is that, if Julio couldn't manage to save them before the wedding ceremony, there's nothing preventing Julio from running off with them AFTER the wedding :P

[Mike Havran]

So you're saying Tarquin is the equivalent of one of those idiots on the Internet who acts like a twit and, when someone reacts with anger, shrieks, "I made you react! I'm so cool and powerful!"

I hate to defend him, but I doubt he deludes himself that angering people is that hard. Then again, he's apparently under the impression that unless he kills Roy, Elan might not bother to come back to stop him, so maybe he actually is.

In more detail, at least for me, actively finding a villain repulsive has very little to do with how the villain is presented, and everything to do with how real her/his victims feel. I couldn't say Tarquin is objectively more evil than, say, Whiss Valeur. (http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Paula-Volsky/dp/product-description/0553560220) But that book never really brought Whiss's victims to life for me (and also I found pretty much every viewpoint character in it repulsive, not just Whiss), and so my primary reaction to Whiss's death was "eh." To what extremely limited extent my negative reaction to Tarquin (which is pretty much just like my reaction to Xykon at the end of Start of Darkness) speaks to any character's presentation in OotS, it speaks to Amun-Zora's relatability and to my ability to empathize with "the person I'm in love with has just been casually murdered by this thug who is now planning more tortures for me," not anything about Tarquin except his sheer willingness to commit vile deeds; primarily it speaks to the fact that Rich has not written a horrible dystopia-world where burning 20+ slaves alive for trying to escape is something a lot of characters would have done.

The question is, why are you posting in a thread about the character being a serial rapist that you find it strange and noteworthy that some readers have strong negative reactions to him?
I'm not really saying that, because I wouldn't say those reactions stem from "anger" - I suspect it's actually something much more persistent, sinister and unpleasant. Usually, I don't feel the need to accent my desire to vitness a horrible end of such "troll" who angered me years ago every time the opportunity arises. Nor do I intend to throw a party in case he dies (but maybe that's just me).

I can understand that some characters feel repulsive. But I don't understand the perspective that the more suffering such character receives on-screen in response, the more "just" will it be; especially in the world which has its very foundations based on the idea that one's eternal place of rest is shaped by his/her deeds while being mortal on the Material Plane. The whole desire to read a strip (which is generally supposed to be funny and safe for reading) which would satiate such negative emotions strikes me as a need to ventillate the blackened pressure because this time, an acceptable target has been found.

As to why did I choose this thread...it just happened that way, no deep intentions. I could have easily written it elsewhere because really, such reactions are on display in just about any thread that's about Tarquin... and in many more that aren't.

[Kish]

I'm not really saying that, because I wouldn't say those reactions stem from "anger" - I suspect it's actually something much more persistent, sinister and unpleasant. Usually, I don't feel the need to accent my desire to vitness a horrible end of such "troll" who angered me years ago every time the opportunity arises. Nor do I intend to throw a party in case he dies (but maybe that's just me).

I can understand that some characters feel repulsive. But I don't understand the perspective that the more suffering such character receives on-screen in response, the more "just" will it be; especially in the world which has its very foundations based on the idea that one's eternal place of rest is shaped by his/her deeds while being mortal on the Material Plane. The whole desire to read a strip (which is generally supposed to be funny and safe for reading) which would satiate such negative emotions strikes me as a need to ventillate the blackened pressure because this time, an acceptable target has been found.
Well, I obviously cannot prove that my negative reaction to the serial rapist and mass-murderer is about him being a serial rapist and mass-murderer, not about "Yay, an acceptable target for my random hatred!" And I do not need your approval.

[Mike Havran]

Well, I obviously cannot prove that my negative reaction to the serial rapist and mass-murderer is about him being a serial rapist and mass-murderer, not about "Yay, an acceptable target for my random hatred!" And I do not need your approval.And the good news is, you have no real reason to care :smalltongue:

And as much as I don't agree with many of your comments I do appreciate that you damped down the flame a bit.

[Dark Matter]

...it's certain that at least one woman who had been tortured by Tarquin escaped and at least one woman who had been tortured by Tarquin actually made it to the marriage-and-rape parts.Yeah, but his personal life is so low on the scale of his (mind numbingly large) evil deeds that there's almost no point in mentioning it.

He's "Affably Evil" (see Tropes), it's basically a given that his personal life has been pretty decent... meaning when he's not murdering/enslaving/torturing vast numbers of people (or building the social machinery for the same), he's a nice guy. :smalleek:

We don't *need* to look for evil in his personal life, he's so Evil that civilization might actually better off with him alive, because when he dies he'll go to Hell where he might end up running the place.

[CaDzilla]

Yeah, but his personal life is so low on the scale of his (mind numbingly large) evil deeds that there's almost no point in mentioning it.

He's "Affably Evil" (see Tropes), it's basically a given that his personal life has been pretty decent... meaning when he's not murdering/enslaving/torturing vast numbers of people (or building the social machinery for the same), he's a nice guy. :smalleek:

We don't *need* to look for evil in his personal life, he's so Evil that civilization might actually better off with him alive, because when he dies he'll go to Hell where he might end up running the place.

That's what all the warlords say, just look at Ganonron,terror of a thousand planes. Also, Ganonron was/is Lawful Evil, nut his soul is owned by a chaotic evil demon. Tarquin's probably going to a place of infinite layers where every layer is worse than the others, sort of like an onion

[Klear]

Tarquin told Elan that, prior to meeting him, he had taken extreme measures to avoid having another child in case they turned out like Nale.

Ouch.

But anyway, we know that Tarquin had no problem with divorce at some point. That happened before his current plan for world domination though, and it can be assumed that a lot of (if not all) of his subsequent marriages were political ones, so divorce may not have been such an appealing option.

[Tass]

As for why Tarquin didn't track them down, I would imagine it was something like him considering them "damaged goods" once they ran off with Julio, who is himself a womanizer of some note.

But both Penelope and Amun-Zora had been with others before him.

[Shale]

Possibly the "damage" wasn't from being deflowered but from being rescued. They got away from him once, with another lady-killer (albeit more metaphorical) to boot - someone who, if he slept with them, did so consensually. So even if he gets them back, they're incomplete conquests in two ways - they got away and they picked someone else over him.

[Jay R]

Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times, and I'm pretty sure she didn't kill any of them.

No flaming letters or publicly disemboweling chickens either, so what does this have to do with Tarquin?

[brionl]

No flaming letters or publicly disemboweling chickens either, so what does this have to do with Tarquin?

It shows that it's possible to be married many times w/o having to kill off your former spouses. Mickey Rooney was also married 8 times, and he had 9 kids. Not everybody has to found a whole new church just to get a divorce either.

[denthor]

I smell a book in the making:smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

It shows that it's possible to be married many times w/o having to kill off your former spouses. Mickey Rooney was also married 8 times, and he had 9 kids. Not everybody has to found a whole new church just to get a divorce either.

I know, but we were discussing Tarquin. Examples of people who would not make 200-foot tall flaming letters by burning slaves simply don't apply.

Yes, I agree. There are lots of people totally unlike Tarquin.

[AKA_Bait]

Are we ignoring the possibility that he might still be married, technically speaking or even not, to some of his wives?

[Ghost Nappa]

Are we ignoring the possibility that he might still be married, technically speaking or even not, to some of his wives?

I hadn't even considered that possibility. :smalleek:

[Dark Matter]

I know, but we were discussing Tarquin. Examples of people who would not make 200-foot tall flaming letters by burning slaves simply don't apply.Yeah, but it's seriously unclear whether Tarquin making a public political statement about slave's rights translates into him being willing to kill people close to him.

It took a *lot* for him to kill Nale. He's *still* not willing to kill Elan.

Similarly he's got two wives who didn't die by his hand and he personally would have been better off if they had.

If Elan's mom had died he would have had two sons to raise. This was even a choice he could have made years after the divorce.

Similarly his most recent wife was basically in the act of leaking seriously important information to a traitor. *Maybe* he didn't know this... but he's got the resources that he should have.

[David Argall]

Are we ignoring the possibility that he might still be married, technically speaking or even not, to some of his wives?
Pretty much. Tarquin talks about his wife, and we hear nothing about other wives at the same time. Of course, Tarquin is not the type to allow legal technicalities to block his plans. But all the [limited] evidence we have suggests a one-wife-at-a-time model.

[Jay R]

Yeah, but it's seriously unclear whether Tarquin making a public political statement about slave's rights translates into him being willing to kill people close to him.

It took a *lot* for him to kill Nale. He's *still* not willing to kill Elan.

They are his blood. His wives aren't.


Similarly he's got two wives who didn't die by his hand and he personally would have been better off if they had.

If Elan's mom had died he would have had two sons to raise. This was even a choice he could have made years after the divorce.

See, I understand that. By raising them separately and not telling them, it increases the potential dramatic tension if they ever encounter each other as adults (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html).

It also enabled Tarquin to say, "Elan - I am your father. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0723.html)"

Story matters to Tarquin.


Similarly his most recent wife was basically in the act of leaking seriously important information to a traitor. *Maybe* he didn't know this... but he's got the resources that he should have.

And even if he had decided to kill her, it's possible that she died too suddenly for it to happen.

The conclusion is not forced in either direction, and your opinion is as valid as mine is. I'm just less willing to give the benefit of the doubt about unnecessary killings to a man who said, "But you can't make an omelette without ruthlessly crushing dozens of eggs beneath your steel boot and then publicly disemboweling the chickens that laid them as a warning to others. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html)"

[malloyd]

Pretty much. Tarquin talks about his wife, and we hear nothing about other wives at the same time. Of course, Tarquin is not the type to allow legal technicalities to block his plans. But all the [limited] evidence we have suggests a one-wife-at-a-time model.

On the other hand, as dictator of a desert kingdom, a harem scene would fit right in to the dramatic plot by which the heroes penetrate his security to overthrow him. He might want one just for that.

[The Pilgrim]

He's "Affably Evil" (see Tropes), it's basically a given that his personal life has been pretty decent... meaning when he's not murdering/enslaving/torturing vast numbers of people (or building the social machinery for the same), he's a nice guy. :smalleek:

Except when a family member ignores his commands.

Leaving aside the tortured and soon-to-be-raped woman in #757 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html), and leaving aside his treatment of Nale...

...Tarquin's murdering look on Elan while he shakes the boy back in #930 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0930.html) isn't screaming "Daddy of the Year".

So, it looks like Tarquin is, in his private life, much like he is in the public. In either scenarios he pretends to be polite but it doesn't take much to trigger the monster.


It took a *lot* for him to kill Nale. He's *still* not willing to kill Elan.

"I will kill you if you refuse to submit to my will. But do not worry, I will give you a few number of chances to correct your behaviour before doing it (though I will likely hurt you or your friends each time, before finally killing you). I'm such a nice guy in my personal life..."

No.

[Mike Havran]

On the other hand, as dictator of a desert kingdom, a harem scene would fit right in to the dramatic plot by which the heroes penetrate his security to overthrow him. He might want one just for that.Probably not. Allowing a harem scene is a no-no for any Evil Overlord.

[The Oni]

No, remember, he likes drama but he isn't suicidal. He gave Evil Overlord List Training Sessions to his prison guards.

[Trillium]

Leaving aside the tortured and soon-to-be-raped woman in #757 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html), and leaving aside his treatment of Nale...


It isn't rape if it is consensual. And Tarquin ALWAYS gets consent first!

[The Pilgrim]

It isn't rape if it is consensual. And Tarquin ALWAYS gets consent first!

Forgive me for not finding the fun in jokes about rape.

[T-O-E]

I partly disagree. That is a lot of spouses for one person to go through, but because of social conventions, not because it would have to take a long time. We are given the impression that many (if not most) of Tarquin's marriages were short.

He makes them tell him a story each night. If they try to pull any cliffhanger crap they get beheaded.

[CaDzilla]

It isn't rape if it is consensual. And Tarquin ALWAYS gets consent first!

Forced consent is not consent. Any wife that he forced into a consummated marriage was raped. I think Xykon is also hinted to have raped a virgin in SoD

[Lexible]

Forgive me for not finding the fun in jokes about rape.


Pilgrim, you aren't alone in that opinion here.

[Sith_Happens]

I imagine that at least some of Tarquin's wives were casualties of the continent's political climate, particularly the "coup ever few years" part (even if those are all engineered).

[Liliet]

Forced consent is not consent. Any wife that he forced into a consummated marriage was raped.
No way you can convince T of that.

[Porthos]

Leaving aside the tortured and soon-to-be-raped woman in #757 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html), and leaving aside his treatment of Nale...

I am now going to presume that this was one of the women that Julio managed to save. It's now in my headcanon until told otherwise.

Still makes Tarquin a person willing to commit rape though.


It isn't rape if it is consensual. And Tarquin ALWAYS gets consent first!

No. Just... no.

What everyone else said on the subject I'll echo.

[CaDzilla]

Just thought up the best way for Tarquin to be defeated
Groin attack with a sharp object. He will lose any reason to attempt rape again and most people will remember this better than his military

[David Argall]

I am now going to presume that this was one of the women that Julio managed to save. It's now in my headcanon until told otherwise.
We seem to have been told otherwise pretty clearly. Tarquin in 757 says several of his wives have gotten cold feet... And our author tells us that Tarquin does not call the rescued ladies his wives.



It isn't rape if it is consensual. And Tarquin ALWAYS gets consent first!



No. Just... no.

True, Tarquin does not get a not guilty verdict on this point, but he can argue for a lesser penalty on the grounds the crime could have been worse. [Tho I am not sure Tarquin is actually that much better off if we whack off an inch for each offense instead of all at once.]

[Jay R]

Just thought up the best way for Tarquin to be defeated
Groin attack with a sharp object. He will lose any reason to attempt rape again and most people will remember this better than his military

That's not justice; it's revenge.

Justice is having him arrested, tried, and convicted - as a minor accomplice in the Empress's crimes.

[Mike Havran]

That's not justice; it's revenge.

Justice is having him arrested, tried, and convicted - as a minor accomplice in the Empress's crimes.I'm not sure if there are any universal Laws of Material Plane according to which he could be tried. And I'm also not sure whether he actually broke the local imperial laws of EoB - he was making them, after all.

So, the judgement will happen in form of the afterlife, I guess.

[Ramien]

I'm not sure if there are any universal Laws of Material Plane according to which he could be tried. And I'm also not sure whether he actually broke the local imperial laws of EoB - he was making them, after all.

So, the judgement will happen in form of the afterlife, I guess.

Or he's fifth against the wall when the revolution comes... Nobody involved cares about him enough to make him first, but he's still part of the regime and has to go.

[Jay R]

Justice is having him arrested, tried, and convicted - as a minor accomplice in the Empress's crimes.

I'm not sure if there are any universal Laws of Material Plane according to which he could be tried. And I'm also not sure whether he actually broke the local imperial laws of EoB - he was making them, after all.

So, the judgement will happen in form of the afterlife, I guess.

I think you missed my main point. Justice is for his final end to come, not as a climactic battle in which he is the main villain, but in a dull, boring courtroom, with him in the role of minor accomplice.


Or he's fifth against the wall when the revolution comes... Nobody involved cares about him enough to make him first, but he's still part of the regime and has to go.

Unfortunately, for the past several revolutions, he's been on the side of the revolution, bringing down the regime.

But you and I certainly agree on the crucial aspect - treat him like a minor character.

[BaronOfHell]

If one is to assume that only 3 people of TT ever changes position, and it's always the same 3, and that T & Laurin is in the same group, then the groups are clearly: Malack, Miron & Jacinda contra Laurin, SPG, Tarquin.

Though personally I don't think their system of changing around is rigid, so probably any combination is possible. I think the main reason Laurin did not attend to any of T's weddings where Scoundrel appeared was because she's against being there on some level. But it can be many things, dislike of weddings, dislike of what T does, dislike of getting married, general disinterest, etc.

Or it may just be pure coincidence, or that some of the team members very rarely, if at all, work together. Maybe T himself does not get married when working with Laurin, or happens to have been married on all those occasions.



I am now going to presume that this was one of the women that Julio managed to save. It's now in my headcanon until told otherwise.

We seem to have been told otherwise pretty clearly. Tarquin in 757 says several of his wives have gotten cold feet... And our author tells us that Tarquin does not call the rescued ladies his wives.

Fortunately as readers we're free to decide what we want to happen in regard to any undisclosed event, despite whatever intentions the author has.


That's not justice; it's revenge.

Justice is having him arrested, tried, and convicted - as a minor accomplice in the Empress's crimes.

Justice is all his wrong doings being undone. What justice is there in knowing those who hurt you gets hurt themselves? Does it help your situation on any other level than the superficial emotional one?

That's what I think is pretty great about D&D. No matter how many Tarquin slaughters, there'll always be a life without Tarquin waiting them on the other side, and they know it.

[Ramien]

Unfortunately, for the past several revolutions, he's been on the side of the revolution, bringing down the regime.

But you and I certainly agree on the crucial aspect - treat him like a minor character.

Which is why the next revolution will have to come from somewhere else, perhaps starting while Tarquin is paying attention to other matters.

[Sir_Leorik]

Forced consent is not consent. Any wife that he forced into a consummated marriage was raped. I think Xykon is also hinted to have raped a virgin in SoD

He outright tells Redcloak and Right-Eye that he kidnapped a virgin when he was young. The scene isn't exactly played for laughs, but there's a reason Xykon switched to lurking in singles bars and offering to buy a cup of coffee for women he found attractive. (Of course Xykon's plans for getting them to accept his offer often involved Xykon showing the woman a fancy bauble he'd stolen from one of his many murder victims, so YMMV.)

[Sir_Leorik]

That's not justice; it's revenge.

Justice is having him arrested, tried, and convicted - as a minor accomplice in the Empress's crimes.

The Empress is a figurehead. This is Tarquin's Empire, not hers. Who's going to arrest him? The city guards, palace guards and his own soldiers are terrified of what disproportionate retribution Tarquin might inflict on their loved ones. Remember that scary lizardfolk judge who sentenced Roy and Belkar? I can't imagine he'd do anything against Tarquin. Even if most of these NPCs don't know that Tarquin is the ruler of a puppet Empire, they fear what he's done over his long career while serving many different kings, queens, emperors, empresses and other sundry despots. Tyrants my be deposed, but somehow Tarquin is always there. And Tarquin counts on this fear to keep those who aren't in the know from trying anything. Tarquin is happy to occasionally play the servile general if it keeps up appearances, but he's the boss.

The only way to beat him is through an element of total Chaos, someone who evokes feelings of liberty (or liberating someone's valuables), someone who doesn't care about rules, but is smart enough to not get themselves locked in a prison for four years and is trusting enough to work with others. Like a skypirate with a loyal crew who don't mind some publicity when deposing a tyrant, as opposed to a master thief with personal trust issues. In short, this is a situation tailor made for Julio Scoundrel. Unfortunately he's kind of Chaotic Neutral, and he needs special motivation to get off his tuchus and help out.

[CaDzilla]

The Empress is a figurehead. This is Tarquin's Empire, not hers. Who's going to arrest him? The city guards, palace guards and his own soldiers are terrified of what disproportionate retribution Tarquin might inflict on their loved ones. Remember that scary lizardfolk judge who sentenced Roy and Belkar? I can't imagine he'd do anything against Tarquin. Even if most of these NPCs don't know that Tarquin is the ruler of a puppet Empire, they fear what he's done over his long career while serving many different kings, queens, emperors, empresses and other sundry despots. Tyrants my be deposed, but somehow Tarquin is always there. And Tarquin counts on this fear to keep those who aren't in the know from trying anything. Tarquin is happy to occasionally play the servile general if it keeps up appearances, but he's the boss.

The only way to beat him is through an element of total Chaos, someone who evokes feelings of liberty (or liberating someone's valuables), someone who doesn't care about rules, but is smart enough to not get themselves locked in a prison for four years and is trusting enough to work with others. Like a skypirate with a loyal crew who don't mind some publicity when deposing a tyrant, as opposed to a master thief with personal trust issues. In short, this is a situation tailor made for Julio Scoundrel. Unfortunately he's kind of Chaotic Neutral, and he needs special motivation to get off his tuchus and help out.

There could always be a slaad present to cause chaos. Its very existence is dedicated to ****ing **** up.

[Sir_Leorik]

There could always be a slaad present to cause chaos. Its very existence is dedicated to ****ing **** up.

Slaad represent a different sort of Chaos. The kind you get when Bugs Bunny mixes it up with the Tasmanian Devil, multiplied by Kaiju.

[CaDzilla]

Slaad represent a different sort of Chaos. The kind you get when Bugs Bunny mixes it up with the Tasmanian Devil, multiplied by Kaiju.

And the problem with siccing that on Tarquin would be?

[Ramien]

And the problem with siccing that on Tarquin would be?

The collateral damage would be horrendous, and not something that most people would say is acceptable?

[CaDzilla]

The collateral damage would be horrendous, and not something that most people would say is acceptable?

Not if he's in the desert. Although, the slaads would probably turn it into broken glass or something

[Kish]

Slaad represent a race of humanoid toads that randomly bully and smash while officially not being evil* because someone at WotC couldn't be bothered to think of "exemplar of chaos" as not meaning "dumb thug."

*Except on the numerous occasions when they actually are evil; there are, of course, no published occasions when they're good.

[Liliet]

Just thought up the best way for Tarquin to be defeated
Groin attack with a sharp object. He will lose any reason to attempt rape again and most people will remember this better than his military

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000

[Sir_Leorik]

And the problem with siccing that on Tarquin would be?

Slaad attack by infecting their target with spores or mutagen, in order to create rival salad. (Red Slaad create Blue Slaad, Blue Slaad create Red Slaad, except when either creates a Green Slaad by infecting a spellcaster). Tarquin's got a lot of troops, and unleashing Slaad on Tarquin's army is like inviting Gremlins to play at Wild Water Kingdom at night. That's actually a better description of Slaadi actually: a Gremlin crossed with a Battletoad that doesn't fear sunlight.


Slaad represent a race of humanoid toads that randomly bully and smash while officially not being evil* because someone at WotC couldn't be bothered to think of "exemplar of chaos" as not meaning "dumb thug."

The blame for the Slaadi should be placed firmly on TSR, during the period when EGG stopped minding the store for a minute to go to Hollywood. Slaadi first appeared in the AD&D Fiend Folio.


*Except on the numerous occasions when they actually are evil...

Like 4E? :smallwink:

[veti]

Justice is all his wrong doings being undone. What justice is there in knowing those who hurt you gets hurt themselves? Does it help your situation on any other level than the superficial emotional one?


Justice for Tarquin would take the form of a pathetic and anonymous death - from thirst in the desert, from drowning in an ocean, from being mugged and left in a ditch by a (surprisingly high-level) thief who didn't even know who he was. His last thoughts would be "This can't be happening! Not to me! Where's my climactic aargh."

I want him to suffer the ultimate humiliation: dying off-panel. Thus proving for all time that he's less important than Nale, or Malack, or even Jirix.

[Kish]

Like 4E? :smallwink:
I don't actually consider "acknowledging that the slaadi have always been evil-with-a-neutral-label" a point in 4ed's favor--not when they had the option of rewriting them as actual exemplars of chaos instead. Or would have, had they not removed all chaotic non-evil alignments.

But this has little to do with D&D, and still less to do with Julio, Tarquin, or the nine wives of either of them.

[Sir_Leorik]

But [Kish's complaints about the Slaadi] has little to do with D&D, and still less to do with Julio, Tarquin, or the nine wives of either of them.

Has Julio Scoundrel ever actually been married? He was the Mummy Queen's consort, but does that count as a marriage? He doesn't really strike me as a "let's get legally married" kind of guy.

[CaDzilla]

What makes Julio CN instead of CG?

[martianmister]

What makes Julio CN instead of CG?

1. Rich said so. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15667889#post15667889)

2. He doesn't seem to care about morality of his actions.

[Ramien]

What makes Julio CN instead of CG?

Things like having a children in almost every port that he can't bother to care enough about to decide who gets his heirlooms, destroying Azure City catapults while delivering Elan to his destination... things like that. He's not actively malicious, but he's not particularly concerned about others, either.

[b_jonas]

The intent of the dialogue is that Julio is rescuing the bride on the wedding day, right before the ceremony.

Oh! That explains how come Laurin doesn't know Tarquin knows Julio. I was wondering how come she's never met him on Tarquin's weddings where I presume she was invited. Thank you for the clarification.

[Deliverance]

What makes Julio CN instead of CG?
Well, there's the whole thing about being a world-famous sky pirate, just to start with the most obvious point. When he's not busy stealing the jewely of attractive young heiresses, who are shamefully lax with securing their most valuable jewelry, that is.

When your living is made harming other people by stealing from them, it is really hard to be a good person overall.

[The Pilgrim]

When your living is made harming other people by stealing from them, it is really hard to be a good person overall.

Robbin Hood is the Parangon of CG.

Guess what alignment Haley is.

I don't remember that the Rogue Class has any alignment restriction regarding Good.

I'm not going to discuss morality here, but from a D&D perspective, stealing from the rich has never been a big hurdle in the Good-Evil scale. Specially if you give 75% to the poor after reasonable expenses.

[Deliverance]

Robbin Hood is the Parangon of CG.

Robin Hood opposed the tyranny of a usurper and his henchmen, helping an oppressed populace. He's the archetype of the noble rebel against an unjust system, and a good example of how hard it is to be good while living a life of crime; It is in the context of the system he is rebelling against that his actions are considered good. Performing the same acts of brigandry and murder against a just overlord and his men would by most be considered evil or at best neutral, even if he gave away part of the loot to others once he'd covered his own expenses.

Julian Scoundrel is a sky pirate and a lovable rogue.



Guess what alignment Haley is.

Chaotic Good-ish originally. After her association with Elan, rebel leader experience, and actively working on becoming a better person, I'd say that she's almost certainly Chaotic Good now.



I don't remember that the Rogue Class has any alignment restriction regarding Good.

It doesn't. The rogue class covers any number of personality types and is suited for any number of jobs with different ways of using the class abilities and different focus on which are important.

Note that I said "it is really hard" to be good overall when you make your life through stealing, not "it is impossible". There's a non-subtle distinction.



I'm not going to discuss morality here, but from a D&D perspective, stealing from the rich has never been a big hurdle in the Good-Evil scale. Specially if you give 75% to the poor after reasonable expenses.
Since there's nothing in the few strips Scoundrel has on the web that indicates that Scoundrel is the sort of person who only steals from the rich to aid the poor rather than a person who's primary reason for making a living through crime is selfish, I have to ask: Is this something that is stated in the kickstarter-only backstory?

I am perfectly willing to believe that Scoundrel can be CG, I'm just saying that based on what is in the main strip, I find CN more likely, because CG is hard to be for somebody who makes his living through stealing and Scoundrel's actions are a decidedly mixed bunch that don't make me think of him as a good man.


EDIT: I must note, though, that Elan considers Scoundrel to be a good father figure to balance an evil father figure, and while Elan has shown himself to be spectacularly poor at assessing other people's character (or to be kinder to him, his sunny temperament makes him assume people are good until reality grinds away his illusions), it might be a case of bardic savvy and being right, here.

[The Pilgrim]

Robin Hood opposed the tyranny of a usurper and his henchmen, helping an oppressed populace. He's the archetype of the noble rebel against an unjust system(...)

Wrong.

Robbin Hood as a noble who battles against an usurper, is a bowdlerization from the 16th century onward, in which the criminal backstory that pretty much defines the archetipe is almost removed. That interpretation of Robbin Hood in D&D terms would be NG or even LG, but never CG.

Originally (and still how most people views the character), Robbin Hood was just a pleb who wasn't opposing any particular tyrant, just standard feudal order. He did not give a damn about who the king was or whose ethnicity the nobles had. He was just living in the forest, outside the feudal order, stealing from the tax collector and givin back to the taxed people. He was the archetype of a popular hero who steals from the oppresive ruling class and gives back to the exploited poor. In D&D terms, the parangon of CG.


Chaotic Good-ish originally.

Which doesn't means "I'm Chaotic Neutral-ish", but "I have that complex about not being good enough" and "I'm not as pure CG as someone like Elan". Which doesn't barrens her from having always been CG. After all, it's beyond doubt that Roy is nowere as "pure" LG as someone like O-Chul or Hinjo. But he still makes it to Mount Celestia.


It doesn't. The rogue class covers any number of personality types and is suited for any number of jobs with different ways of using the class abilities and different focus on which are important.

Note that I said "it is really hard" to be good overall when you make your life through stealing, not "it is impossible". There's a non-subtle distinction.

Respecting social order and private propierty is more on the law-chaos axis than in the good-evil one. The circunstances surrounding the robbery are what sets the particular action as good or evil, not the act of robbing per se.


Since there's nothing in the few strips Scoundrel has on the web that indicates that Scoundrel is the sort of person who only steals from the rich to aid the poor rather than a person who's primary reason for making a living through crime is selfish, I have to ask: Is this something that is stated in the kickstarter-only backstory?

I am perfectly willing to believe that Scoundrel can be CG, I'm just saying that based on what is in the main strip, I find CN more likely, because CG is hard to be for somebody who makes his living through stealing and Scoundrel's actions are a decidedly mixed bunch that don't make me think of him as a good man.

Julio Scoundrél is CN as stated by The Giant. My point was not about what alignment Julio was, but against your claim that he is CN because "he steals".

In a fantasy world full of evil people and tyrants, it's not more difficult to be Good through a life of stealing than it is to remain Good doing any other kind of job. Specially if your job is adventuring, which by itself (go to dungeon, use brute force to grab treasure, loot the corpses) isn't very different from what a robber does. It's just a matter of having standards and choosing "legitimate" targets.

[Deliverance]

Respecting social order and private propierty is more on the law-chaos axis than in the good-evil one.

Yes, but harming other people - which stealing always does, as it always has a victim - is more on the good-evil axis than the law-chaos one.

I see the choice of whether to steal or not to be a question of whether you are fine with harming others to benefit your own goals more than it is a question of whether you respect social order and private property, though in order to steal in the first place, you must be willing to do both.



The circunstances surrounding the robbery are what sets the particular action as good or evil, not the act of robbing per se.

I disagree, partially, and agree, partially. The circumstances surrounding the robbery are what can make the overall effect (i.e. the net outcome) be considered good or neutral despite the harm done to the victim, but the act of deliberately harming somebody else by stealing from them is evil.

Then again, it is years since I played D&D - what's the current official word on this issue, if there is one?



In a fantasy world full of evil people and tyrants, it's not more difficult to be Good through a life of stealing than it is to remain Good doing any other kind of job.

I would think that it is significantly more difficult.

There are lots of jobs where your actions have a minimal chance of harming anybody. Bricklaying, for instance. Stealing, on the other hand, harms the victim of your theft, so to maintain a life of theft as a good person, you have to be considerably more choosy in selecting your victims and what you do with the proceeds of your job than a bricklayer has to be in agreeing to jobs and spending his wages.

The bricklayer may end up building something that somebody else can choose to use to do harm: the thief does harm with every theft, and the question is always whether the good that follows from his actions outweigh the evil.

And how do you pick your targets? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there's no level-appropriate evil guy with ill-gotten gains to steal from to maintain your own life and help others (since stealing from somebody merely on the grounds that he is evil surely surely isn't the act of a good person unless talking Miko-levels of alignment blindness), do you choose to starve or to steal from somebody else?

For the thief, there'll be plenty of temptation in his job to take the easy path and expand his target selection or be less discriminate about how he goes about his thefts or how he spends his gains, and if he gives in to that temptation enough, then, whatever else he may be, he's not good.

[The Pilgrim]

Yes, but harming other people - which stealing always does, as it always has a victim - is more on the good-evil axis than the law-chaos one.

You don't need to physically harm someone in order to steal him. And if you define "harm" as just taking away some property, even if you have a really good reason to do so, or/and the robbed person has plenty of it, or/and adquired it via questionable ways... then your definition of "harming" implies that, for example, Taxing is an inherently evil action.


I see the choice of whether to steal or not to be a question of whether you are fine with harming others to benefit your own goals more than it is a question of whether you respect social order and private property, though in order to steal in the first place, you must be willing to do both.

By your definition, adventuring is, thus, inherently evil, as you are going to harm (kill, in fact) many sentient beings in order to benefit your own goals.

Even if you take arms to rescue an abducted woman from the hands of a serial rapist, you are performing an inherently evil act because you are beneficing your goals at the expense of harming others.

Running a Goverment is an inherently evil action, as any ruler must constantly take decisions that benefits someone's interests at the expense of someone else's.

Good is about respecting other people as persons, and you can respect other people but not respect that they have a right to amass wealth.


Then again, it is years since I played D&D - what's the current official word on this issue, if there is one?

Last time I cheked, they had basically blown up the Alignment System and reverted to "Law is good, Chaos is evil". But everybody hates 4ed, so...


There are lots of jobs where your actions have a minimal chance of harming anybody. Bricklaying, for instance. Stealing, on the other hand, harms the victim of your theft, so to maintain a life of theft as a good person, you have to be considerably more choosy in selecting your victims and what you do with the proceeds of your job than a bricklayer has to be in agreeing to jobs and spending his wages.

The bricklayer may end up building something that somebody else can choose to use to do harm: the thief does harm with every theft, and the question is always whether the good that follows from his actions outweigh the evil.

While I agree that a thief has more chances to do evil related to his work than a bricklayer, that's not a problem limited to the thief's profession. A police officer, for instance, faces the temptation of abusing his position every day. Any accountat faces the constant temptation of tampering the accounts for his own benefit. Any merchant faces the temptation of cheating with the trades to get a higher profit. Even the humble bricklayer may face the tempation of performing a crappy work to end faster, or use lower quality materials and bag in some extra money.


And how do you pick your targets? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there's no level-appropriate evil guy with ill-gotten gains to steal from to maintain your own life and help others (since stealing from somebody merely on the grounds that he is evil surely surely isn't the act of a good person unless talking Miko-levels of alignment blindness), do you choose to starve or to steal from somebody else?

Introduce a famine (which were quitte common in medieval times) and the question between starving or taking what you need at the expenses of others becomes one that anyone must face, not just a thief.

[martianmister]

Wrong.

Robbin Hood as a noble who battles against an usurper, is a bowdlerization from the 16th century onward, in which the criminal backstory that pretty much defines the archetipe is almost removed. That interpretation of Robbin Hood in D&D terms would be NG or even LG, but never CG.

Wrong.

D&D's "CG paragon" version of Robin Hood is based on bowdlerization of the original character. Original Robin Hood was neither good nor would care about poor people.

[Sir_Leorik]

Robbin Hood is the Parangon of CG.

Guess what alignment Haley is.

I don't remember that the Rogue Class has any alignment restriction regarding Good.

I'm not going to discuss morality here, but from a D&D perspective, stealing from the rich has never been a big hurdle in the Good-Evil scale. Specially if you give 75% to the poor after reasonable expenses.

In AD&D and in 2E, the Thief class could not be Lawful Good, but otherwise could be Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, with many 2E products encouraging a Zorro-like (if not Robin Hood-like) approach to the Thief class.

In 3.X and 4E there are no restrictions on the Alignment of a Rogue. However there the emphasis on the Rogue Class is more towards a character from "Mission Impossible" or a Tom Clancy novel, than towards larceny.

[David Argall]

You don't need to physically harm someone in order to steal him. And if you define "harm" as just taking away some property, even if you have a really good reason to do so, or/and the robbed person has plenty of it, or/and adquired it via questionable ways... then your definition of "harming" implies that, for example, Taxing is an inherently evil action.
Excellent, you are learning something [or at least are approaching that revelation].



By your definition, adventuring is, thus, inherently evil, as you are going to harm (kill, in fact) many sentient beings in order to benefit your own goals.
And you will find any number of authorities who point out that our typical adventuring party is on very shaky moral grounds.



Even if you take arms to rescue an abducted woman from the hands of a serial rapist, you are performing an inherently evil act because you are beneficing your goals at the expense of harming others.
Which is why such actions are to be avoided when possible. They are basically evil. You do them only when the alternative is even more evil.



Running a Goverment is an inherently evil action, as any ruler must constantly take decisions that benefits someone's interests at the expense of someone else's.
And why should we not say that is evil?



Good is about respecting other people as persons, and you can respect other people but not respect that they have a right to amass wealth.
And what does that really mean? You are saying they can't do something that they very much want to do. That is not very respectful.



While I agree that a thief has more chances to do evil related to his work than a bricklayer, that's not a problem limited to the thief's profession... Any merchant faces the temptation of cheating with the trades to get a higher profit.
Our thief always hurts his victim. Our merchant routinely leaves the customer better off. That he sometimes does not does not change the point that you work hard to avoid the thief, and will often seek out the merchant to give him some of your money.



Introduce a famine (which were quitte common in medieval times) and the question between starving or taking what you need at the expenses of others becomes one that anyone must face, not just a thief.
If there is a famine and you take food from another, you have merely changed the name of who starves. Indeed, since the effort to steal [or to prevent stealing] distracts from getting more food, the routine result is that more are starving.

[Kish]

In AD&D and in 2E, the Thief class could not be Lawful Good, but otherwise could be Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, with many 2E products encouraging a Zorro-like (if not Robin Hood-like) approach to the Thief class.

In 3.X and 4E there are no restrictions on the Alignment of a Rogue. However there the emphasis on the Rogue Class is more towards a character from "Mission Impossible" or a Tom Clancy novel, than towards larceny.
And yet in every edition, the Thieves' Guild examples presented--all of them, or nearly all--are like the Greysky City Thieves' Guild: Organizations of selfish, ruthless, greedy criminals.

Someone didn't get a memo somewhere. If I was working on developing D&D 5ed, one of my top priorities would be making Thieves' Guilds, or whatever organizations members of the rogue class formed, had as much moral range as rogues are supposed to have.

[veti]

In AD&D and in 2E, the Thief class could not be Lawful Good, but otherwise could be Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, with many 2E products encouraging a Zorro-like (if not Robin Hood-like) approach to the Thief class.

Actually, in AD&D, thieves could be Neutral Good but not LG or, bizarrely enough, CG.

True story.

[SaintRidley]

Wrong.

Robbin Hood as a noble who battles against an usurper, is a bowdlerization from the 16th century onward, in which the criminal backstory that pretty much defines the archetipe is almost removed. That interpretation of Robbin Hood in D&D terms would be NG or even LG, but never CG.

Originally (and still how most people views the character), Robbin Hood was just a pleb who wasn't opposing any particular tyrant, just standard feudal order. He did not give a damn about who the king was or whose ethnicity the nobles had. He was just living in the forest, outside the feudal order, stealing from the tax collector and givin back to the taxed people. He was the archetype of a popular hero who steals from the oppresive ruling class and gives back to the exploited poor. In D&D terms, the parangon of CG.



You're working off the wrong definition of noble there. Not actually disagreeing with anything that you responded to with this part of your post.

[The Pilgrim]

You're working off the wrong definition of noble there. Not actually disagreeing with anything that you responded to with this part of your post.

I'm disagreeing with the part that considers relevant for Robbin Hood's legend whenever he was fighting a tyrant or a "just" overlord. Wrong. The point is that he was living outside the feudal order. His goal was not to depose an usurper and return the crown to the "legitimate" king, he just wanted to be left alone in his forest, as for him the difference between a "just" overlord and a "tyrant" was that the first had a better PR department. He did not fight for a better order, he just fought for his right to live out of the feudal world.

Of course, such open questioning of the feudal system in popular culture couldn't pass unanswered. That's why the aristocratic culture turned Robbin into an aristocrat wrongfuly dispossesed of his lands who fights a tyrant to place back the rightful king.

Folk, popular culture, on the other hand, prefered to keep the original interpretation. :smallbiggrin:

...

David Argall, I don't know if you are being serious or just poking fun, but anyway... despite your defense of the merchant class, I'll just point out how back in medieval times (and not so medieval ones) people were inclined to see merchants as just another kind of thieves. :smalltongue:

[veti]

Of course, such open questioning of the feudal system in popular culture couldn't pass unanswered. That's why the aristocratic culture turned Robbin into an aristocrat wrongfuly dispossesed of his lands who fights a tyrant to place back the rightful king.

But "the aristocratic culture" didn't start to make that change until the 16th century, when the "feudal order" was already history.

"Feudalism", as a system, had no problem with the idea of outlaws as heroes. After all, the whole premise was that everyone's loyalty was to their own direct liege-lord, and conflict between lords was taken for granted as an inherent part of the system. That's how we got the Wars of the Roses.

It wasn't until the Renaissance, and the Tudors' determined efforts to centralise royal power and legitimacy, that the concept of a "rightful king" and "true loyalty" started to become important. Then the story was retconned to account for that intellectual shift. It's no coincidence that the modern story of King Arthur first appeared about the same time.

[Sir_Leorik]

And yet in every edition, the Thieves' Guild examples presented--all of them, or nearly all--are like the Greysky City Thieves' Guild: Organizations of selfish, ruthless, greedy criminals.

Someone didn't get a memo somewhere. If I was working on developing D&D 5ed, one of my top priorities would be making Thieves' Guilds, or whatever organizations members of the rogue class formed, had as much moral range as rogues are supposed to have.

I think one of the differences is that 3.X and 4E don't force Rogues to join a Thieves' Guild to train in order to advance. They also don't hand a free Thieves' Guild to a Rogue PC at 10th level to compensate for not having real class features. As a result, Thieves' Guilds in 3.X and 4E tend to be quasi-villainous groups, such as the Greyhawk City Thieves' Guild.


Actually, in AD&D, thieves could be Neutral Good but not LG or, bizarrely enough, CG.

True story.

That's right! I completely forgot about that. It seems like a weird rule, but that's how it was in 1E.

[Kish]

I think one of the differences is that 3.X and 4E don't force Rogues to join a Thieves' Guild to train in order to advance. They also don't hand a free Thieves' Guild to a Rogue PC at 10th level to compensate for not having real class features. As a result, Thieves' Guilds in 3.X and 4E tend to be quasi-villainous groups, such as the Greyhawk City Thieves' Guild.

That is not a change (from 1ed/2ed) and thus cannot be a result of a change from 1ed/2ed.

It also doesn't address what I said at all, really. The 3.xed material for rogues presents Thieves' Guilds as a rogue's natural habitat in the same way a church is a cleric's natural habitat, but while it talks at some length about churches of all alignments and what they do to earn those alignment labels and how a cleric PC can fit into them, Thieves' Guilds are...organizations of criminals with quintessentially selfish motives, differing only in how subtle or brutal they are about their greedy goals.


That's right! I completely forgot about that. It seems like a weird rule, but that's how it was in 1E.
...but not in 2ed, which reduced the thief alignment restrictions to "cannot be Lawful Good." Not that that really fit, either; 2ed was also the source of a lot of material (which I approved of) that talked about how being a member of the thief class did not mean being a person who steals, but usually meant a pure adventurer, and for nonadventurers could just as easily mean a cop. But, apparently, not a Lawful Good cop.

[Sir_Leorik]

That is not a change (from 1ed/2ed) and thus cannot be a result of a change from 1ed/2ed.

It also doesn't address what I said at all, really. The 3.xed material for rogues presents Thieves' Guilds as a rogue's natural habitat in the same way a church is a cleric's natural habitat, but while it talks at some length about churches of all alignments and what they do to earn those alignment labels and how a cleric PC can fit into them, Thieves' Guilds are...organizations of criminals with quintessentially selfish motives, differing only in how subtle or brutal they are about their greedy goals.

The 1E/2E class called "Thief" was renamed "Rogue" in 3.X and 4E. For good or ill, a lot of the baggage from earlier editions was left behind, almost like legacy software. 3.X Rogues don't need to belong to a Thieves' Guild, nor do they need to start one. 4E Rogues have even less connection to the 1E/2E Thief class. Nevertheless, the "legacy software" remains encoded in the fluff for 3.X Rogues, and for the 4E Essentials "Thief" sub-class, linking them to Thieves' Guilds.


...but not in 2ed, which reduced the thief alignment restrictions to "cannot be Lawful Good." Not that that really fit, either; 2ed was also the source of a lot of material (which I approved of) that talked about how being a member of the thief class did not mean being a person who steals, but usually meant a pure adventurer, and for nonadventurers could just as easily mean a cop. But, apparently, not a Lawful Good cop.

If it helps, Dr. van Richten was a Lawful Good Thief in 2E; the "Ravenloft: Realm of Terror" boxed set (which contained his stats) emphasized that he learned the skills of Thieves in order to break into Vampires' tombs (and the lairs of other monstrous foes) not to burgle from law abiding citizens.

[David Argall]

back in medieval times (and not so medieval ones) people were inclined to see merchants as just another kind of thieves.
Anyone who gets some of your coin is a suspect for being a thief. it is not hard to realize we are rather prejudiced judges in such cases.

[The Pilgrim]

But "the aristocratic culture" didn't start to make that change until the 16th century, when the "feudal order" was already history.

"Feudalism", as a system, had no problem with the idea of outlaws as heroes. After all, the whole premise was that everyone's loyalty was to their own direct liege-lord, and conflict between lords was taken for granted as an inherent part of the system. That's how we got the Wars of the Roses.

It wasn't until the Renaissance, and the Tudors' determined efforts to centralise royal power and legitimacy, that the concept of a "rightful king" and "true loyalty" started to become important. Then the story was retconned to account for that intellectual shift. It's no coincidence that the modern story of King Arthur first appeared about the same time.

The end of feudalism in England was about 1688. French Revolution in 1789. For countries like Germany, Russia or most of Eastern Europe you have to wait until WWI itself to see feudalism completely removed.

So, in XVI Century Europe, Feudalism was still in and kicking. Or, if you don't want to call it "feudalism", let's call it a "system dominated by an aristocratic ruling class" instead, it's ok with me.

Yep, in feudalism loyalty is to the Lord, not the King or Country. However, Robbin Hood had no lord, and that's of course a problem.

About the rest, you make interesting points. Thanks. :)

[Sir_Leorik]

The end of feudalism in England was about 1688. French Revolution in 1789. For countries like Germany, Russia or most of Eastern Europe you have to wait until WWI itself to see feudalism completely removed.

So, in XVI Century Europe, Feudalism was still in and kicking. Or, if you don't want to call it "feudalism", let's call it a "system dominated by an aristocratic ruling class" instead, it's ok with me.

Yep, in feudalism loyalty is to the Lord, not the King or Country. However, Robbin Hood had no lord, and that's of course a problem.

About the rest, you make interesting points. Thanks. :)

Feudalism ended in France long before 1789; it was replaced by an Autocracy. The Autocracy was overthrown in 1789. Germany was not a single country until the mid 19th century, and at that point it was an Autocracy. Russia ceased being a Feudal country in the 18th century, and remained an Autocracy until 1917.

An Autocracy is a very different form of government from a Feudal Monarchy. A Feudal Monarch relies on his Aristocracy to support him, but he needs to make concessions to the Aristocracy in order to gain that support. (See for example, the Magna Carta.)

To move this back to "Order of the Stick", The Empires of Blood, Sweat and Tears are Autocracies, although in each case the Autocrat is a puppet serving the real powers behind the throne. By contrast, the Azurite society was a Feudal Monarchy, where the monarch (Lord Shojo) had to appease the nobles, or risk assassination. When Hinjo succeeded Shojo, he called for the Nobles to help defend the city, and they responded by sending their Samurai to sea aboard their yachts. Can you imagine Tarquin responding to an insult like that to his rule that didn't involve someone's entire family being murdered? By contrast, Hinjo shrugged and got back to planning how best to fend off Xykon's army without the resources the Nobles might have provided.

[The Pilgrim]

Sir_Leorik, it depends on your definition of "feudalism". You seem to identify "fedualism" with the form of goverment. I understand "feudalism" as the socio-economic system. From my point of view, feudal monarchy and absolutism (which is the proper term for a feudal autocracy) are two forms of goverment typical of feudalism, diverging on the degree of centralization of the goverment (little in a feudal monarchy, a lot in absolutism), the level of involvement of the Monarch in redistribution of wealth (which, not surprisingly, is parallel to the degree of centralization), the strenght of the emerging burguoisie class, etc... To make it short, a Feudal Monarchy belongs to a "pure" feudal socio-economic order, while Absolutism is what happens when feudalism begins to get "contaminated" by proto-capitalist elements.

Regarding OOTS, the Three Empires aren't feudal societies at all, as their economic basis is slavery, not serfdom. Vassalage don't seem to play any part in them. They are similar to real-world classic empires (like Rome, Sassanid Persia, and the like), not to medieval monarchies.

Azure City, on his part, isn't even a monarchy, so it wouldn't really be a feudal system according to your definition :smalltongue: - but it is according to mine. :smallsmile:

Anyway, the amount of historiographic debate around the true meaning of "feudalism" is so big that we better accept a broad meaning or else this thread will get destroyed. This is why I've stuck to the "official" dates for the ending of the "Ancien Régime" both for english (1688) and french (1789) tradition. :smalltongue:

[Sir_Leorik]

Sir_Leorik, it depends on your definition of "feudalism". You seem to identify "fedualism" with the form of goverment. I understand "feudalism" as the socio-economic system. From my point of view, feudal monarchy, absolutism and autocracy are all forms of goverment of feudalism, diverging on the degree of centralization of the goverment (little-to-none in a feudal monarchy, some in absolutism and a lot in an autocracy), the level of involvement of the Monarch in redistribution of wealth (which, not surprisingly, is parallel to the degree of centralization), the strenght of the emerging burguoisie class, etc...

Feudalism is simultaneously a form of government and a socio-economic system; you can't separate them, though you can analyze them separately.

In D&D terms, a Feudal Monarchy, like the Kingdom of Keoland, is an agrarian society, where most of the population are peasants (either serfs or yeomen) who work the land. They pay their taxes in a portion of their crop to local nobles. The nobles swear vassalage to the King, and in return they are granted domains in the Kingdom. Depending on how trusted or friendly they are with the King, these nobles might be granted lands near the capital city, or (if they aren't on good terms) in the Rushmoors, the Dreadwoods or near the border with Geoff. These nobles are expected to raise and maintain armies, defend the Kingdom, hunt down cultists of Vecna, and respond to incursions of Pseudonatural monsters from the Dreadwood should the Dreadwalkers fail to stop them.The economy is based on growing crops, which the Sheldomar Valley is ideal for. The Kingdom is a regional power, but is somewhat isolationist.

The Kingdom has three types of "outlaws". The first are actual brigands and thieves, whose activities are not welcome. The second are Cultists of Vecna, who are welcome no where on Oerth, but seem to come to the Rushmoors since Vecna was rumored to have been born there. Finally, there are parties of adventurers who fight monsters, look for treasure, are called in to sort out secret cults and conspiracies. Adventurers stand outside the established society of Keoland; they wield magical weapons and armor that are worth more than the wealth of some nobles, yet they are barely more important socially than a peasant.

If we're going to compare "outlaws" in D&D, we're always going to come back to adventurers. Even ones who are Lawful Good might find themselves skirting the rules of society because they are needed to battle powerful Demons, Liches or Giant Space Hamsters.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a311/estelindis/hinjo.gif"Adventurers, O-Chul. They work better on their own." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html)


Azure City, on his part, isn't even a monarchy, so it wouldn't really be a feudal system according to your definition :smalltongue: - but it is according to mine. :smallsmile:

I'm pretty sure that not only is Azure City a monarchy, it is very much a feudal monarchy, complete with scheming nobles and samurai. Daimyo Kubota had to have Hinjo assassinated before he could try to have himself appointed the new lord.


Anyway, the amount of historiographic debate around the true meaning of "feudalism" is so big that we better accept a broad meaning or else this thread will get destroyed. :smalltongue:

That's why I'm sticking to "Greyhawk" examples. :smalltongue:

[The Pilgrim]

I'm pretty sure that not only is Azure City a monarchy, it is very much a feudal monarchy, complete with scheming nobles and samurai. Daimyo Kubota had to have Hinjo assassinated before he could try to have himself appointed the new lord.

Of course, I was just kidding. :smalltongue:

Now back to adventurers and their status, the original argument I was replying to was:


Originally Posted by CaDzilla
What makes Julio CN instead of CG?


Orignially Posted by Deliverance
Well, there's the whole thing about being a world-famous sky pirate, just to start with the most obvious point. When he's not busy stealing the jewely of attractive young heiresses, who are shamefully lax with securing their most valuable jewelry, that is.

When your living is made harming other people by stealing from them, it is really hard to be a good person overall.

The argument given is that stealing is an action that always "harms" other people, so a stealer has it difficult to be more good than, say, a bricklayer.

The problem is that the humble bricklayer, as important the social value of his work may be, is no adventurer. So if we are talking about adventurers, then let's talk about the activities of adventurers.

And I find interesting that, for some people, an adventurer whose primary job is steal, has it more difficult to be a good person than an adveturer whose primary job is, say, killing.

I found interesting that, for some people, the act of stealing jewelry from a young heiress makes more difficult for Julio to be "good" than, say, Lawful Good Fighter Roy Greenhilt whose job involves beheading goblins in their sleep.

So, my claim is, that Julio Scoundrél is not CN instead of CG because his activities involve stealing. That's par for the course for any adventurer. He is CN instead of CG because of the intent of his actions (more inclined to self-glorification and, well, score, than caring for other people or advancing a good cause) and for the fact that he seems not to care about what happens with the maidens after he "knows" them (specially the part were he seems to not take much responsibility for the children he has in every port).

Th.rough Julio seems to be an altruistic guy, he is primarly an individualist, and that takes precedence over giving himself to others. So, for example, a Good adventurer would have run to the rescue at Elan's first call, he wouldn't have need a direct call to his Ego.

[David Argall]

The argument given is that stealing is an action that always "harms" other people, so a stealer has it difficult to be more good than, say, a bricklayer.

The problem is that the humble bricklayer, as important the social value of his work may be, is no adventurer. So if we are talking about adventurers, then let's talk about the activities of adventurers.

And I find interesting that, for some people, an adventurer whose primary job is steal, has it more difficult to be a good person than an adveturer whose primary job is, say, killing.

I found interesting that, for some people, the act of stealing jewelry from a young heiress makes more difficult for Julio to be "good" than, say, Lawful Good Fighter Roy Greenhilt whose job involves beheading goblins in their sleep.
This is a difference between the difficult and the [nearly] definitionally
impossible. Roy's killing the goblins is morally shaky, but he can claim self defense of a sort. He can also say he is choosey in his victims. Our thief can't validly make either claim. Adventuring is often is pretty often "kill some guys and take their stuff", but that is just "pretty often", not "the definition". The adventurer needs some excuse the thief doesn't need to worry about.
Our thief harms someone, and that is our net social balance. What the thief gains, somebody else loses, and the very fact the thief stole it says it is less valuable in the hands of the thief than with the owner.
Our adventurer kills someone, but this can be someone that needed killing. There is the chance of social profit here. There is also a major chance of social loss, but that is just a chance. Unlike the case of the thief, it is not a certainty. Our adventurer takes grave moral risks, but his actions can benefit us.

[veti]

Roy's killing the goblins is morally shaky, but he can claim self defense of a sort. He can also say he is choosey in his victims. Our thief can't validly make either claim.

Whyever not? The "gentleman thief" who only steals from those who can well afford the loss is not only a popular trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GentlemanThief), it's actually recognised (in the Ravenloft setting) as a core moral differentiator - the difference between "major" and "minor" theft is the effect of the loss on the victim.

As for "self defence" - for Roy to claim that, he would have to argue that he has a morally compelling need to pass through the goblins' home, which overrides their right to defend their property. If you're going to allow that (which seems more than "shaky" to me), then the thief can make a similar claim that the rich became that way by profiting from the labour of the poor, and their goods are no more "rightfully theirs" than the dungeon is "rightfully" the goblins'.

The chance of "social profit" is every bit as real for the thief as it is for the adventurer.

[Jay R]

Whyever not? The "gentleman thief" who only steals from those who can well afford the loss is not only a popular trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GentlemanThief), it's actually recognised (in the Ravenloft setting) as a core moral differentiator - the difference between "major" and "minor" theft is the effect of the loss on the victim.

My thief's moral code explicitly states, "He will never steal from the poor; they have no money."

[David Argall]

Whyever not? The "gentleman thief" who...
When you talk about the "gentleman thief", you are acknowledging that the generic thief is no gentleman. [The same point can be made if we are discussing large cats and lions. For many purposes, they might be much the same, but if we start discussing manes, we quickly reach conclusions that are invalid about big cats.]



only steals from those who can well afford the loss is not only a popular trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GentlemanThief), it's actually recognised (in the Ravenloft setting) as a core moral differentiator - the difference between "major" and "minor" theft is the effect of the loss on the victim.
Here again, we are saying the "good" thief is different from the generic thief. But we are comparing "Thief" and "adventurer". The fact that some thieves are potential good guys does not change the basic definition.



As for "self defence" - for Roy to claim that, he would have to argue that he has a morally compelling need to pass through the goblins' home, which overrides their right to defend their property.
No need is needed, only innocent passage. More important, it was not their property. They had merely stolen it. You of course can argue the point, but the fact of arguing is conceding the point. Our thief has no defense.and so a bad defense ranks over no defense.



If you're going to allow that (which seems more than "shaky" to me), then the thief can make a similar claim that the rich became that way by profiting from the labour of the poor, and their goods are no more "rightfully theirs" than the dungeon is "rightfully" the goblins'.
They can make a claim only in the sense that anyone can make a claim. The rich & poor made a deal [or rather, lots of them], and both sides profited. While the thieves made no such deal, and intended to take all the profit.



The chance of "social profit" is every bit as real for the thief as it is for the adventurer.
Not at all. ignoring the rare cases, there is no chance of the thief producing a social profit. Whatever the thief gains, somebody else loses. Now the adventurer is not so limited. Of course he does often behave like a thief and there is no social profit. But there is a variety of ways for the adventurer to produce a social profit. Say they go hunting for one case. Or they dig up treasure. Or just go exploring...

[Jay R]

By the way, while a "gentleman thief" may have morals or scruples (and often does), the phrase only means a well-bred, upper-class thief. The defining aspect is that he has formal manners.

A decent, caring thief from the ghetto is not a gentleman thief. A selfish, hurtful thief with upper class manners is.

[The Pilgrim]

Our thief harms someone, and that is our net social balance. What the thief gains, somebody else loses, and the very fact the thief stole it says it is less valuable in the hands of the thief than with the owner.
Our adventurer kills someone, but this can be someone that needed killing. There is the chance of social profit here. There is also a major chance of social loss, but that is just a chance. Unlike the case of the thief, it is not a certainty. Our adventurer takes grave moral risks, but his actions can benefit us.

But thieves don't accumulate the stolen wealth. They use it to provide themselves with goods and services. You are thus failing to aknowledge the social value that the economic impact of a thief's actions generates as invigorator of the market's cycle.

Let's analyze the biggest act of robbery ever perpetrated by the OOTS: The so-called "Starmetal Quest".

On that day, the Order tresspassed a private property with the intent of alienating the valuables from a private residence. By extracting the Starmetal and the Dragon's hoard, they commited, beyond any doubt, a clear act of burglary.

The robbery was aggravated by, at least, three factors: 1) Use of Violence, 2) Commitment of First Degree Murder, and 3) the victim being underage.

There are no mitigating circumstances, as Roy didn't need the starmetal to repair his blade. And even if he did, he could have just retrieved it while the teenage dragon was under the effects of suggestion, and leave the cave, not taking the hoard.

I've not told this to discuss the morality of that action. That matter wasn't even worth a mention for the Deva during Roy's review, and a LG Paladin approved the murder as :miko: "just and necessary". Though the same agent of Law refered to the hoard as "filthy lucre" and "tainted gold", as they were unlawfully obtained.

I've told this to discuss the social and economic value of the action. According to your economic views, you arge that the value of both the Starmetal and the Dragon's hoard was diminished due to the act of robbery.

However, that's not correct. Both items where in "dead hands", stored away from the market cycle. By extracting them, the Order were about to return huge amounts of liquid into the market, thus invigorating the economic life of the city luckly enough to get the input. We have already witnessed the huge economic boost of such actions in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html). In the end, the Hoard was destroyed before being flushed into the market, but that was unrelated to the act of it's robbery.

Regarding the Starmetal, while stored by the Dragon it remained an useless chunk of mineral. By stealing it, Roy was able to use it to transform an useless broken blade into a powerful +5 GreatSword, also generating work and revenue for the azurite master smith. It's beyond doubt that Roy's act of robbery increased the amount of wealth in society.

Now, let's adress Julio Scoundrél. He stole the jewelry from an aristocratic lady. And, unlike the OOTS's robbery, he commited it with no violence, no additional charges of murder, and no harm to any child.

As he doesn't looks like the type that will keep the jewels just to stare at them in his private chambers, or wear them around, he will sell the items for liquid cash. Since it was stolen jewelry, he will have to sell it far away from where it was stolen, thus adding value to the jewelry just because it will be considered an exotic item. The amount of wealth in the market is, thus, not decreased by his robbery, but, in fact, increased.

His operations involve the employment of a sizeable crew for his ship, thus his economic activity generates jobs for the populance. With the revenue obtained, he has to pay wages and provide his crew with basic needs (food, clothes), services (taverns, brothels), equipment and maintenance for his ship. He, thus, generates demand, and invigorates the economic life in the places that provide him with the required goods or services.

Now back in Azure City, the Lady will have to buy back new jewelry, thus increasing the demand for Fine Jewelry an generating work and jobs for the populance.

So, all in all, Thieves are important factors of wealth redistribution, and provide a sensible social value as economic invigorators by inserting liquid cash into the market cycle and thus promoting the flux of money.

[Sir_Leorik]

Of course, I was just kidding. :smalltongue:

Sure you were! :smalltongue:


So, my claim is, that Julio Scoundrél is not CN instead of CG because his activities involve stealing. That's par for the course for any adventurer. He is CN instead of CG because of the intent of his actions (more inclined to self-glorification and, well, score, than caring for other people or advancing a good cause) and for the fact that he seems not to care about what happens with the maidens after he "knows" them (specially the part were he seems to not take much responsibility for the children he has in every port).

Th.rough Julio seems to be an altruistic guy, he is primarly an individualist, and that takes precedence over giving himself to others. So, for example, a Good adventurer would have run to the rescue at Elan's first call, he wouldn't have need a direct call to his Ego.

I think that Julio is Chaotic Neutral because his main goals in life are inherently selfish. He seeks to live free of the laws of men, gods or Mummy Queens, and while he rescues maidens in peril and plays mentor to Elan, he won't willingly put himself in jeapordy to save someone else unless there's a reward involved. He's a mercenary, just like Han Solo in the first "Star Wars" (before Chewbacca chewed him out, pardon the pun) or Indiana Jones in "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom".

As selfish as Julio Scoundrel is, he's a hero, not an anti-hero. If there is a possibility of a reward, even a kiss (or more) from a maiden fair, Julio and the crew of the Mechane will rush to the rescue. But he needs the incentive of "fortune and glory" to get moving.

[Sir_Leorik]

But thieves don't accumulate the stolen wealth. They use it to provide themselves with goods and services. You are thus failing to aknowledge the social value that the economic impact of a thief's actions generates as invigorator of the market's cycle.

Let's analyze the biggest act of robbery ever perpetrated by the OOTS: The so-called "Starmetal Quest".

On that day, the Order tresspassed a private property with the intent of alienating the valuables from a private residence. By extracting the Starmetal and the Dragon's hoard, they commited, beyond any doubt, a clear act of burglary.

The robbery was aggravated by, at least, three factors: 1) Use of Violence, 2) Commitment of First Degree Murder, and 3) the victim being underage.

There are no mitigating circumstances, as Roy didn't need the starmetal to repair his blade. And even if he did, he could have just retrieved it while the teenage dragon was under the effects of suggestion, and leave the cave, not taking the hoard.

If I could point out a few mitigating circumstances:

1) The location in question, the swamps beyond Wooden Forest, were not part of any Lawful government. They were a "No-Man's Land", with no one enforcing any laws. A place where the strong rule, and weak are turned into small purple lizardy things. So technically, the OotS could not be found guilty of Breaking and Entering, Burglarly in the First Degree, First Degree Murder, Unlawful Wizardry, Assault, Attempted Murder, or Impersonating a Future Psion, because there are no laws in Wooden Forest.

2) The YABD attacked the Order, not the other way around. You could argue self-defense, but the Order's attorney will present an affirmative defense that the Order didn't know for sure that the cave was inhabited. For all they knew, the Annis Hag that hexed V was the keeper of the Starmetal. Also, see point one.

3) I've actually brought up the point about the Suggestion in the past. V could have told the YABD to give them the Starmetal (a worthless hunk of metal) and then they could have left. V's ego was the main issue, not the Starmetal, that led to the YABD getting disintegrated. Also, see point one.


I've told this to discuss the social and economic value of the action. According to your economic views, you arge that the value of both the Starmetal and the Dragon's hoard was diminished due to the act of robbery.

However, that's not correct. Both items where in "dead hands", stored away from the market cycle. By extracting them, the Order were about to return huge amounts of liquid into the market, thus invigorating the economic life of the city luckly enough to get the input. We have already witnessed the huge economic boost of such actions in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html). In the end, the Hoard was destroyed before being flushed into the market, but that was unrelated to the act of it's robbery.

Didn't most of the ABD's hoard get destroyed when the inn exploded? :smallconfused:


Regarding the Starmetal, while stored by the Dragon it remained an useless chunk of mineral. By stealing it, Roy was able to use it to transform an useless broken blade into a powerful +5 GreatSword, also generating work and revenue for the azurite master smith. It's beyond doubt that Roy's act of robbery increased the amount of wealth in society.

Now, let's adress Julio Scoundrél. He stole the jewelry from an aristocratic lady. And, unlike the OOTS's robbery, he commited it with no violence, no additional charges of murder, and no harm to any child.

As he doesn't looks like the type that will keep the jewels just to stare at them in his private chambers, or wear them around, he will sell the items for liquid cash. Since it was stolen jewelry, he will have to sell it far away from where it was stolen, thus adding value to the jewelry just because it will be considered an exotic item. The amount of wealth in the market is, thus, not decreased by his robbery, but, in fact, increased.

His operations involve the employment of a sizeable crew for his ship, thus his economic activity generates jobs for the populance. With the revenue obtained, he has to pay wages and provide his crew with basic needs (food, clothes), services (taverns, brothels), equipment and maintenance for his ship. He, thus, generates demand, and invigorates the economic life in the places that provide him with the required goods or services.

Now back in Azure City, the Lady will have to buy back new jewelry, thus increasing the demand for Fine Jewelry an generating work and jobs for the populance.

So, all in all, Thieves are important factors of wealth redistribution, and provide a sensible social value as economic invigorators by inserting liquid cash into the market cycle and thus promoting the flux of money.

That still doesn't make theft a Lawful act. Lawful (as well as most Neutral) societies frown on theft. Lawful Evil characters will make big shows of cracking down on thieves, even if they're on the take or stealing from the till. Neutral Good and True Neutral societies view thieves as leeches sponging off the hard labor of others. And Chaotic Good societies view theft as a violation of civil liberties. Of course any thief, pirate, buccaneer or scoundrel worth her salt knows the trick to being a Thief, Rogue, Scoudrel, etc.: don't get caught! And if you do get caught have a good escape route! And if that fails hire a good lawyer! And if that fails, hope that the DM is going to let the other PCs bust you out of the stocks before the magistrate shedules your hanging!

EDIT:
Which reminds me: never steal from the other members of your party. No matter how tempting it is, leave their possessions in their pockets, packs, etc. You want them to want to rescue you!

[CaDzilla]

Now, let's adress Julio Scoundrél. He stole the jewelry from an aristocratic lady. And, unlike the OOTS's robbery, he commited it with no violence, no additional charges of murder, and no harm to any child.

As he doesn't looks like the type that will keep the jewels just to stare at them in his private chambers, or wear them around, he will sell the items for liquid cash. Since it was stolen jewelry, he will have to sell it far away from where it was stolen, thus adding value to the jewelry just because it will be considered an exotic item. The amount of wealth in the market is, thus, not decreased by his robbery, but, in fact, increased.

His operations involve the employment of a sizeable crew for his ship, thus his economic activity generates jobs for the populance. With the revenue obtained, he has to pay wages and provide his crew with basic needs (food, clothes), services (taverns, brothels), equipment and maintenance for his ship. He, thus, generates demand, and invigorates the economic life in the places that provide him with the required goods or services.

Now back in Azure City, the Lady will have to buy back new jewelry, thus increasing the demand for Fine Jewelry an generating work and jobs for the populance.

So, all in all, Thieves are important factors of wealth redistribution, and provide a sensible social value as economic invigorators by inserting liquid cash into the market cycle and thus promoting the flux of money.

The "jewelry" he was referring to was virginity

[David Argall]

But thieves don't accumulate the stolen wealth. They use it to provide themselves with goods and services. You are thus failing to aknowledge the social value that the economic impact of a thief's actions generates as invigorator of the market's cycle.
This is quack economics, very popular quack economics since the audience can hope to get part of the loot, but still nonsense. The goods and services the thief provides himself are now not available to the parties that would have gotten them. Net result approximately zero on this point .



Let's analyze the biggest act of robbery ever perpetrated by the OOTS: The so-called [B]"Starmetal Quest".

On that day, the Order tresspassed a private property with the intent of alienating the valuables from a private residence. By extracting the Starmetal and the Dragon's hoard, they commited, beyond any doubt, a clear act of burglary.
Not at all. The party was completely unaware of this being in any sense private property when they entered. They would not be trespassing until they were told to leave [which they never were, incidentally]. The dragon hoard was, to their knowledge, ownerless, and thus no crime to take.

The robbery was aggravated by, at least, three factors: 1) Use of Violence, 2) Commitment of First Degree Murder, and 3) the victim being underage.[/QUOTE]
The last is easiest to deal with as we are told the dragon was young adult, not underage. The others fall under self defense for one thing.



There are no mitigating circumstances, as Roy didn't need the starmetal to repair his blade. And even if he did, he could have just retrieved it while the teenage dragon was under the effects of suggestion, and leave the cave, not taking the hoard.
The ability of the party to escape was in severe doubt. The dragon was faster moving and presumably more aware of the area. Also the party had a right to be in the area and not be attacked. So we remain at self defense.



According to your economic views, you arge that the value of both the Starmetal and the Dragon's hoard was diminished due to the act of robbery.

However, that's not correct. Both items where in "dead hands", stored away from the market cycle.
“Dead hands” are called “savings” when they are yours.



By extracting them, the Order were about to return huge amounts of liquid into the market, thus invigorating the economic life of the city luckly enough to get the input. We have already witnessed the huge economic boost of such actions in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html).
The main change in 122 was that prices went thru the roof.



Regarding the Starmetal, while stored by the Dragon it remained an useless chunk of mineral. By stealing it, Roy was able to use it to transform an useless broken blade into a powerful +5 GreatSword, also generating work and revenue for the azurite master smith. It's beyond doubt that Roy's act of robbery increased the amount of wealth in society.
It is very doubtful that any such increase in wealth can be traced to any “robbery”. Work is definitionally something you don’t want to do, and is a cost. You of course want the paycheck that comes along with it, but that too is a cost.
But that “useless” mineral in fact had several benefits. It was security just by sitting there. And it pleased the owner just by being there. We can argue it was more useful as a +5 sword, but in that case, it was at least theoritically possible to just buy the starmetal and do without the robbery entirely. And the robbery gives a major chance of a wrong answer. With purchase, buyer and seller agree there is a better use for the item. With a robbery we have disagreement, and we know the robber is prejudiced in his judgment. The chance of mistake, and social cost, is far higher.



Now, let's adress Julio Scoundrél. He stole the jewelry from an aristocratic lady. And, unlike the OOTS's robbery, he commited it with no violence, no additional charges of murder, and no harm to any child.
We know none of this. In fact, on the point of harm to a child, there is a very good chance some or all of the young ladies were underage, and certainly harmed.



As he doesn't looks like the type that will keep the jewels just to stare at them in his private chambers, or wear them around, he will sell the items for liquid cash. Since it was stolen jewelry, he will have to sell it far away from where it was stolen, thus adding value to the jewelry just because it will be considered an exotic item.
If true, the owner can move it, and get all that added value without any robbery.



His operations involve the employment of a sizeable crew for his ship, thus his economic activity generates jobs for the populance. With the revenue obtained, he has to pay wages and provide his crew with basic needs (food, clothes), services (taverns, brothels), equipment and maintenance for his ship. He, thus, generates demand, and invigorates the economic life in the places that provide him with the required goods or services.
The demand stays the same. The price just goes up.



Now back in Azure City, the Lady will have to buy back new jewelry, thus increasing the demand for Fine Jewelry an generating work and jobs for the populance.
Particular jobs are generated, but not net jobs. We now have more work for the jeweler, but now the lady is short of money and so she lays off the dressmaker, and net jobs change very little.

[The Pilgrim]

I think that Julio is Chaotic Neutral because his main goals in life are inherently selfish. He seeks to live free of the laws of men, gods or Mummy Queens, and while he rescues maidens in peril and plays mentor to Elan, he won't willingly put himself in jeapordy to save someone else unless there's a reward involved. He's a mercenary, just like Han Solo in the first "Star Wars" (before Chewbacca chewed him out, pardon the pun) or Indiana Jones in "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom".

As selfish as Julio Scoundrel is, he's a hero, not an anti-hero. If there is a possibility of a reward, even a kiss (or more) from a maiden fair, Julio and the crew of the Mechane will rush to the rescue. But he needs the incentive of "fortune and glory" to get moving.

Agreed.

(Through, IMHO, the Indy of the second movie is the one that acts mostly due to his good nature. In the other movies, his incentive to go on the adventure is to help a father figure (literal in Last Crusade), so he has a rather personal involvement in the affair. In Temple of Doom, he steps into some 3rd World village while doing something else, and accepts to rescue some children he is in no way related to).


If I could point out a few mitigating circumstances:

1) The location in question, the swamps beyond Wooden Forest, were not part of any Lawful government. They were a "No-Man's Land", with no one enforcing any laws. A place where the strong rule, and weak are turned into small purple lizardy things. So technically, the OotS could not be found guilty of Breaking and Entering, Burglarly in the First Degree, First Degree Murder, Unlawful Wizardry, Assault, Attempted Murder, or Impersonating a Future Psion, because there are no laws in Wooden Forest.

Doesn't works that way. If you kill someone on international waters, you are still suitable of being charged with Murder by either your own nation, the victim's nation, the nation in which the ship is registered, the nation the parting port belongs to, or the next nation you step in next, to name a few possibilities.

So, even if we accept the Swamp was really in "No-Man's-Land", that's no excuse. If you commit a crime in a place where there is no jurisdiction, you aren't free from charge but, on the contrary, you have become a target for almost any jursidiction in the world.


Didn't most of the ABD's hoard get destroyed when the inn exploded? :smallconfused:

Yes. That's why I wrote "In the end, the Hoard was destroyed before being flushed into the market, but that was unrelated to the act of it's robbery. "


That still doesn't make theft a Lawful act. Lawful (as well as most Neutral) societies frown on theft. Lawful Evil characters will make big shows of cracking down on thieves, even if they're on the take or stealing from the till. Neutral Good and True Neutral societies view thieves as leeches sponging off the hard labor of others. And Chaotic Good societies view theft as a violation of civil liberties. Of course any thief, pirate, buccaneer or scoundrel worth her salt knows the trick to being a Thief, Rogue, Scoudrel, etc.: don't get caught! And if you do get caught have a good escape route! And if that fails hire a good lawyer! And if that fails, hope that the DM is going to let the other PCs bust you out of the stocks before the magistrate shedules your hanging!

Never claimed that theft can be a Lawful act. But within the framework of a Fantasy World were Good and Evil are objective, it's not too difficult to live a life of Good piracy, just like it's not too difficult to live a life of Good adventuring. Just pick your targets and hold some standards.


Which reminds me: never steal from the other members of your party. No matter how tempting it is, leave their possessions in their pockets, packs, etc. You want them to want to rescue you!

And they won't understand, even if you claim that your robbery is justified as "Good Roleplaying", they resentful pricks. :smallmad:

[allenw]

The "jewelry" he was referring to was virginity

While that's one interpretation, I see no reason to assume Julio wasn't speaking literally. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html) Granted, some heiresses may have lost/given their virginities to Julio shortly *before* he nicked their jewelry.

[veti]

1) The location in question, the swamps beyond Wooden Forest, were not part of any Lawful government. They were a "No-Man's Land", with no one enforcing any laws. A place where the strong rule, and weak are turned into small purple lizardy things. So technically, the OotS could not be found guilty of Breaking and Entering, Burglarly in the First Degree, First Degree Murder, Unlawful Wizardry, Assault, Attempted Murder, or Impersonating a Future Psion, because there are no laws in Wooden Forest.

True, but I don't think quibbling about jurisdiction gets you very far with the Alignment Police. If V had cast Familicide while still on the desert island, do you think she'd get a pass on the grounds that there was no law there?


2) The YABD attacked the Order, not the other way around. You could argue self-defense, but the Order's attorney will present an affirmative defense that the Order didn't know for sure that the cave was inhabited. For all they knew, the Annis Hag that hexed V was the keeper of the Starmetal. Also, see point one.

Between the dragon and the order, we don't know who was the first to launch an attack or what warnings or dialogue may have happened before combat began. It's just not in the record.


3) I've actually brought up the point about the Suggestion in the past. V could have told the YABD to give them the Starmetal (a worthless hunk of metal) and then they could have left. V's ego was the main issue, not the Starmetal, that led to the YABD getting disintegrated. Also, see point one.

If the Order had any objection to V killing the dragon, they sure didn't mention it either before or after the event. I'd say they were accessories before, during and after the fact.


Didn't most of the ABD's hoard get destroyed when the inn exploded? :smallconfused:

I've often wondered about that. You can't "destroy" gold just by heating and blowing it up. You can melt it and scatter it, and it'll be a lot of work to reassemble it into usable form, but it's still a nice bonus for the owner of what was formerly the inn, that now s/he's the owner of a literal gold mine instead.


When you talk about the "gentleman thief", you are acknowledging that the generic thief is no gentleman. [The same point can be made if we are discussing large cats and lions. For many purposes, they might be much the same, but if we start discussing manes, we quickly reach conclusions that are invalid about big cats.]

Irrelevant. I don't think anyone has called Julio a "generic" thief, and you weren't talking about a "generic" thief, you were making a statement that you claimed applied to all thieves by definition. Which is balderdash.


No need is needed, only innocent passage. More important, it was not their property. They had merely stolen it. You of course can argue the point, but the fact of arguing is conceding the point. Our thief has no defense.and so a bad defense ranks over no defense.

"Innocent passage" on what grounds? If the dungeon was considered public space, then the goblins had every bit as much right to be there as the order. If the dungeon was considered someone's private space, then whose? The order had never heard of Dorukan at that time, all they knew was that a lich called Xykon had moved in. For all they knew, he might have bought it fair and square from the lawful owner, or he might even have built it himself.

And on a factual note, the goblins hadn't stolen anything, Xykon had done that. The goblins were just doing an honest day's work as his low-grade security guards.


They can make a claim only in the sense that anyone can make a claim. The rich & poor made a deal [or rather, lots of them], and both sides profited. While the thieves made no such deal, and intended to take all the profit.

What "deal" did the rich and poor make? In this weird fantasy world of yours, when exactly did the rich landowner ask the humble peasant if he was OK with working all hours to pay the rent in exchange for... what, not getting stabbed or robbed? Modern legal systems have a name for that kind of "deal".


Not at all. ignoring the rare cases, there is no chance of the thief producing a social profit..

Julio is a rare case. "Ignoring the rare cases", there is no chance of rolling above 18 on a d20. What's the basis here for "ignoring the rare cases"?

[Kish]

For all they knew, he might have bought it fair and square from the lawful owner, or he might even have built it himself.
In fact, Elan summoned plot exposition which said (that the Order believed that) Xykon had created the dungeon.

[Sir_Leorik]

Agreed.

(Through, IMHO, the Indy of the second movie is the one that acts mostly due to his good nature. In the other movies, his incentive to go on the adventure is to help a father figure (literal in Last Crusade), so he has a rather personal involvement in the affair. In Temple of Doom, he steps into some 3rd World village while doing something else, and accepts to rescue some children he is in no way related to).

Funnily enough, "Temple of Doom" actually occurs chronologically before "Raiders". In "Temple" Indy is a mercenary archaeologist, trading ancient Chinese artifacts to wealthy criminals, and not planning to help the villagers recover the Sankara Stone until he sees the level of depravity Mula Ram's Thuggee Cult has sunk to. By contrast, in "Raiders" he is motivated by patriotism, in "Last Crusade" by searching for his father, and in "Crystal Skull" by vengeance and a desire to clear his name. (When you look at "Crystal Skull" in that light, ignore Shia LaBeuf's performance, the nuclear test and the soldier ants, "Crystal Skull" becomes much more enjoyable. :smallamused:) The chronology of Indy is: Young Indy (in "Last Crusade") who's very idealistic; mercenary Indy in "Temple", interested only in "fortune and glory"; slightly less mercenary Indy at the beginning of "Raiders", who becomes less cynical by the end of "Last Crusade".


Doesn't works that way. If you kill someone on international waters, you are still suitable of being charged with Murder by either your own nation, the victim's nation, the nation in which the ship is registered, the nation the parting port belongs to, or the next nation you step in next, to name a few possibilities.

So, even if we accept the Swamp was really in "No-Man's-Land", that's no excuse. If you commit a crime in a place where there is no jurisdiction, you aren't free from charge but, on the contrary, you have become a target for almost any jursidiction in the world.

Well there are several legal issues here.

1) Wooden Forest is not part of any nation. The ABD and her son are not citizens of a nation. I don't know what sort of legal redress the ABD might have had if she had gone to the Elven Homelands and filed a grievance against V, or to Hinjo and done the same.

2) As seen with the Bandit Camp, they remained beyond the law's reach in Wooden Forest. They would probably have been subject to the law if they ever set foot in a nearby nation, but as Chaotic individuals, they probably would try to evade pursuit, avoiding the main highways, and dealing with the scum and villainy that populate most Thieves' Guilds.

3) There needs to be proof that a crime has been committed. Evidence needs to be gathered, witnesses questioned. It's hard to do that when the alleged perpetrator and victim are not around.


Never claimed that theft can be a Lawful act. But within the framework of a Fantasy World were Good and Evil are objective, it's not too difficult to live a life of Good piracy, just like it's not too difficult to live a life of Good adventuring. Just pick your targets and hold some standards.

You mean to be a Privateer? :smallwink:


And they won't understand, even if you claim that your robbery is justified as "Good Roleplaying", they resentful pricks. :smallmad:

Nope. Not even if you explain at the beginning of the session to the other players how your PC grew up on the streets of Hillsfar, begging and picking pockets just to have enough money for a loaf of bread for herself and her baby brother, was later diagnosed with acute kleptomania, and has learned that she isn't pure Halfling, but is 1/8 Kender. Even then they want to tar and feather your PC. :smalltongue:


True, but I don't think quibbling about jurisdiction gets you very far with the Alignment Police. If V had cast Familicide while still on the desert island, do you think she'd get a pass on the grounds that there was no law there?

I think the difference, Alignment-wise, between V Disintegrating the YABD and V casting Familicide, is one of intent. V was responding in self-defense to the YABD. Yes, she could have avoided violence, but I think V was not violating the True Neutral Alignment by doing so. Familicide was different; there V was acting out of pure malice, committing genocide just to show the ABD that V wasn't afraid of the ABD or her kin, and showing herself that her Arcane Might was unmatched. In the "Ravenloft" campaign, casting Familicide would qualify as an "Ultimate Act of Darkness", an automatic failure of a Dark Powers Check, possibly qualifying V for automatic Darklord status. Killing an enemy monster? A "Ravenloft" DM who makes a player roll a Dark Powers Check for that is a jerk, lording his power over his players.


Between the dragon and the order, we don't know who was the first to launch an attack or what warnings or dialogue may have happened before combat began. It's just not in the record.

Guess again. The YABD cast Darkness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0181.html), and while Haley was trying to get the group to flee, it slashed Elan and used it's Breath Weapon on the rest of the group (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0182.html), except V, whom it initially ignored. So there's the answer: the YABD initiated hostilities, did not give the OotS a chance to run away, and it attacked Elan first.


If the Order had any objection to V killing the dragon, they sure didn't mention it either before or after the event. I'd say they were accessories before, during and after the fact.

Accessories to what? They didn't know the cave was inhabited until they were within melee range of a Young Adult Black Dragon!

[Sir_Leorik]

The "jewelry" he was referring to was virginity

That just calls for a certain "Doctor Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog" that no doubt violates the Forum's rules!

Captain Hammer: "The "hammer" is my..."

:smalltongue:

[David Argall]

Between the dragon and the order, we don't know who was the first to launch an attack or what warnings or dialogue may have happened before combat began. It's just not in the record.
While the evidence is not complete, the available evidence is that the dragon attacked first, without allowing the party any chance to retreat or otherwise avoiding killing.



If the Order had any objection to V killing the dragon, they sure didn't mention it either before or after the event. I'd say they were accessories before, during and after the fact.
They were not accessories before, having no knowledge of the dragon. During and after are at least possible, but we would still need to show a crime.



Irrelevant. I don't think anyone has called Julio a "generic" thief,
Calling someone a thief is calling them a generic thief unless you put the distinction right up front.



and you weren't talking about a "generic" thief, you were making a statement that you claimed applied to all thieves by definition. Which is balderdash.
Which is factual. A necessary part of being a thief is making somebody unhappy. That is not a requirement of being an adventurer.



"Innocent passage" on what grounds? If the dungeon was considered public space, then the goblins had every bit as much right to be there as the order.
Which still negates any basic blame on the party.




And on a factual note, the goblins hadn't stolen anything, Xykon had done that. The goblins were just doing an honest day's work as his low-grade security guards.
The goblins had been raiding the area around the castle and making a pest of themselves.



What "deal" did the rich and poor make?
A variety of “you work in factory & you get money”.



In this weird fantasy world of yours, when exactly did the rich landowner ask the humble peasant if he was OK with working all hours to pay the rent in exchange for... what, not getting stabbed or robbed? Modern legal systems have a name for that kind of "deal".
The name would be “routine”.



Julio is a rare case. "Ignoring the rare cases", there is no chance of rolling above 18 on a d20. What's the basis here for "ignoring the rare cases"?
The rare cases are for example... Thief breaks into house, and accidentally exposes treasure forgotten by distant ancestors. Net is that the homeowner is better off for the robbery. But forgotten treasures are far rarer than robberies, and the thieves don’t expose them very often either. [& they usually take them when they do expose them.] So while there is a theoretical chance of the robber benefiting you, it is too small to bother with when you are considering how to deal with robbers.

[The Pilgrim]

This is quack economics

You have done nothing but quack economics thus far, so don't raise that complaint. You don't want to throw stones when you live in a glasshouse.

I mean, I assumed we were having a light-hearted fun conversation the very moment you:

1) Adhered to the thought that taxes are inherently evil.

2) Defended that the inherent value of an item decreases for the mere act of stealing it. Like if I grab 10 bucks from the guy next to me in the bus, the bill will magically be worth less than 10 bucks.

3) Have defended, in the same post, that the Dragon had no right to defend his property, and that said property was rightfully his.

4) You are aplying modern quack economics to a feudal fantasy setting.

If you are telling me that you seriously believe in what you are writing, then the scope of our debate transcends the objectives of this thread and board. But, anyway, if you want to have a serious debate with me, please refrain from making claims like:


The rich & poor made a deal [or rather, lots of them], and both sides profited. While the thieves made no such deal, and intended to take all the profit.

The rich and the poor make a deal in the same sense as a robber assaulting someone at gunpoint and the victim make a deal.

In the second case, the robber has a gun pointed to the victim, and the victim has the "freedom" to either surrender his pocket money or die from a gunshot.

In the first case, the rich is pointing a massive weapon called "unequal socio-economic structure" at the head of the poor. And the poor, deprived of means to sustain himself, has the "freedom" to surrender the gross vaule of his work in exchange for a subsistence wage, or starve to death.

The second scenario is called violence. The first one, structural violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence).

But don't reply already, there is still more. Because, if the issue of the "free contract between employer and employee" is shady in the context of modern economics, it becomes plain ludicrous if applied to a feudal society. A serf is born a serf, and is indentured by birth to work for his Lord. He doesn't even gets to choose exploiter. He his bonded to the land and can't even legally leave it.

Concepts like the "freedom" for a worker to choose job, or the possibility to rise from the status of wage-slave through hard work and luck, are introduced with the industrial revolution. They were mostly alien to feudalism, where a serf was supposed to remain a serf and don't even move from his place of birth.


“Dead hands” are called “savings” when they are yours.

The main change in 122 was that prices went thru the roof.

But that “useless” mineral in fact had several benefits. It was security just by sitting there. And it pleased the owner just by being there.

A powerful beign that accumulates wealth and does nothing with it other than stare at it or sleep over it, is actually performing a harmful action for everyone, as the valuables aren't being used to create more wealth, and the market circuit is deprived from coin, thus hampering transactions and stagnating the economy.

By stealing the valuables and attemting to flush them back into the market system, the robbers were dynamizing the economic life and thus provinding a social benefit for everyone.

It's like a Lord who owns almost all the land in a region but refuses to put it in production. Either the peasants will soon occupy the fields and farm them as they need the crops to avoid starvation, or a neighboring Lord who has put his resources to work will raise an army and invade him.


If true, the owner can move it, and get all that added value without any robbery.

But the owner did not move it. That's the work of a merchant. Or, in this case, the private entrepeneur known as Julio Scoundrél. The fact that he paid 0 to the original owner is only relevant to the distribution of benefits, but not to the value of the transaction.


We know none of this. In fact, on the point of harm to a child, there is a very good chance some or all of the young ladies were underage, and certainly harmed.

I think we can dismiss this possibility as, The Giant being The Giant, he would never have featured a rapist as anything less than "evil", much less as a "Good Father Figure" to Elan.

Anyway, if we are going to discuss something about the comic, then let's discuss things that actually happened, not free speculation.

...

Sir_Leorik, as I can't post twice in a row, and I don't want to mess two conversations in the same post, you'll have to wait for someone else to post before I can resume our spirited debate. :smallsmile:

[Sir_Leorik]

You have done nothing but quack economics thus far, so don't raise that complaint. You don't want to throw stones when you live in a glasshouse.

@The Pilgrim: I stopped trying to use logical arguments against Argall a long time ago.


I mean, I assumed we were having a light-hearted fun conversation the very moment you:

1) Adhered to the thought that taxes are inherently evil.

Oddly enough, there is a real world group that believes that. And I shall say no more, lest the thread be locked.


3) Have defended, in the same post, that the Dragon had no right to defend his property, and that said property was rightfully his.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a D&D monster defending its hoard, but the basic premise of D&D has always been about delving into dungeons and attacking what lives there. The Giant has been subverting that idea, but in this case the OotS weren't acting out of malice. I think that if they had known there was a Black Dragon guarding the starmetal, they would not have marched in heedless of danger. (At the very least they might have turned V back to her normal form.)


Sir_Leorik, as I can't post twice in a row, and I don't want to mess two conversations in the same post, you'll have to wait for someone else to post before I can resume our spirited debate. :smallsmile:

Why not use the multi-quote function? Also, I'd like to think I provide more scintillating (and saner) conversation than a certain forum member who will go unnamed. :smallwink:

[Kish]

Personally, I don't have a problem with a D&D monster defending its hoard, but the basic premise of D&D has always been about delving into dungeons and attacking what lives there.
While this is technically true, you're using it to imply something that is not. The basic premise of the earliest D&D modules amounts to, "This area is full of evil NPCs who are menacing the surrounding areas in some active way; go stop them." At no point in the game's history has its premise been, "Go through a dungeon, eradicate all life there, and don't ask any questions about why."

[David Argall]

I mean, I assumed we were having a light-hearted fun conversation the very moment you:

1) Adhered to the thought that taxes are inherently evil.
You are taking money from someone by force. Of course it is evil.



2) Defended that the inherent value of an item decreases for the mere act of stealing it. Like if I grab 10 bucks from the guy next to me in the bus, the bill will magically be worth less than 10 bucks.
Very standard economics, and very clear. That guy on the bus was willing to do something for that $10 you were not. Say he got it for mowing a lawn. Society is now ahead by a mowed lawn. But when you take that $10, you weaken or destroy his willingness to mow lawns and society loses that benefit. Now you will spend the $10 on something, but so would have he. There is no net social benefit there. Probably there is a loss since there is a tendency to waste easy money.



3) Have defended, in the same post, that the Dragon had no right to defend his property, and that said property was rightfully his.
You do not have an unlimited right to defend your property. In particular you do not have a right to kill anyone who might have an interest in it. The dragon had no way to know the party was going to violate his ownership. He might suspect it, but he could not know it. Accordingly, his rights of defense are limited by this limited knowledge.



The rich and the poor make a deal in the same sense as a robber assaulting someone at gunpoint and the victim make a deal.

In the second case, the robber has a gun pointed to the victim, and the victim has the "freedom" to either surrender his pocket money or die from a gunshot.

In the first case, the rich is pointing a massive weapon called "unequal socio-economic structure" at the head of the poor. And the poor, deprived of means to sustain himself, has the "freedom" to surrender the gross vaule of his work in exchange for a subsistence wage, or starve to death.
But the poor is not deprived of what he never owned. And the worker's work does not have a set value. Even if the boss sells the final product for $100 and the worker only gets $1, the worker can profit from selling his labor. And using more common figures, that is what he does.



Concepts like the "freedom" for a worker to choose job, or the possibility to rise from the status of wage-slave through hard work and luck, are introduced with the industrial revolution. They were mostly alien to feudalism, where a serf was supposed to remain a serf and don't even move from his place of birth.
I don't recall we are discussing serfdom, but it neither started nor ended in the Middle Ages, which had substantial numbers of non-serfs.



A powerful beign that accumulates wealth and does nothing with it other than stare at it or sleep over it, is actually performing a harmful action for everyone, as the valuables aren't being used to create more wealth, and the market circuit is deprived from coin, thus hampering transactions and stagnating the economy.
This is based on a theory of idle capacity, which turns out not to exist in the normal market. It is also based on a theory that some gang of experts can identify idle capacity, which turns out to be quite difficult, with much "idle capacity" being actually in use. [For example, seeds are just sitting on a shelf, but they are not idle, because if you put them to use, say in a soup, you can't plant the seeds, nor grow more, in the future.] Indeed, it is pretty much impossible for any group of experts to consistently outperform a hatpin in identifying idle capacity. [The same point can be seen at the race track, where "nobody beats the ponies", no matter how expert.]



By stealing the valuables and attemting to flush them back into the market system, the robbers were dynamizing the economic life and thus provinding a social benefit for everyone.
Again, this social benefit does not exist. The thief merely transfers spending, not increases it. What extra spending the thief does is matched by the reduced spending by his victim.



It's like a Lord who owns almost all the land in a region but refuses to put it in production.
Now why would he do that? If we are assuming there is something useful to be done with the land, why wouldn't he be doing it? That's his money he is missing out on.
The answer is that he doesn't. The unused land is actually in use, and routinely in better use than the thieves have in mind.



But the owner did not move it. That's the work of a merchant. Or, in this case, the private entrepeneur known as Julio Scoundrél. The fact that he paid 0 to the original owner is only relevant to the distribution of benefits, but not to the value of the transaction.
Part of the value of the transaction is the cost of the transaction. Scoundrel views these costs at about zero when in fact they are very high. So his decision to rob will be wrong in a great many cases [& when right the owner would be making the same decision. So then too, Scoundrel is not socially useful.]



I think we can dismiss this possibility as, The Giant being The Giant, he would never have featured a rapist as anything less than "evil", much less as a "Good Father Figure" to Elan.

Scoundrel is a terrible father figure, completely neglecting his actual kids for this stranger, and fostering dependency in that stranger. We can argue that Tarquin is worse, but when Elan calls him a good father figure, we have absolute proof of Elan's incompetence as a judge.

[Sir_Leorik]

While this is technically true, you're using it to imply something that is not. The basic premise of the earliest D&D modules amounts to, "This area is full of evil NPCs who are menacing the surrounding areas in some active way; go stop them." At no point in the game's history has its premise been, "Go through a dungeon, eradicate all life there, and don't ask any questions about why."

Unfortunately, in the earliest published adventures the dividing line is kind of thin. "B2: Keep on the Borderlands" and the "G1-3: Against the Giants" modules are good examples. In both cases the players can choose to use stealth and a minimum of violence or they can Bull Rush into the enemy encampment and allow the alarm to be sounded, forcing the PCs to kill everything that moves, possibly setting the Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain on fire in the process. (Apparently that happened the first time EGG ran "G1".) It depends on the players as well as the DM; a good DM will narrate a scene with enough detail to allow the players the opportunity to make smart moves. A poor DM will either give too little detail or too much. (Having "passive" Spot/Listen or Perception numbers for all of the PCs allows the DM to tailor what she narrates to the players, possibly sharing more with the player of a more Perceptive PC.)

Also, in EGG's "Castle Greyhawk" campaign, the original players were adventurers pretty much exploring the ruins of a dungeon for the sheer thrill of it. Especially Rob Kuntz' PC, Lord Robilar, who should be the poster child for Chaotic Neutral PCs. :smallwink:

[Kish]

Unfortunately, in the earliest published adventures the dividing line is kind of thin. "B2: Keep on the Borderlands" and the "G1-3: Against the Giants" modules are good examples.
They are good examples--for a reason which you continue to ignore. In both of them, the situation is clearly: Find out why the inhabitants of this place have recently started menacing their neighbors.

Whether any individual group of adventurers chose to do that with or without slaughtering every hill giant in the hill giant steading has less to do with the difference between that situation and the death of the young adult black dragon than simply the fact that the Order slaughtered a sapient (teenaged) being who, based on their utter lack of any indication that he was there prior to actually meeting him, was most definitely not menacing his neighbors.

[Ridureyu]

So essentially, unless all purchases are voluntary - as in, you can take the product, but you only pay if you WANT - then it is a forcible exchange of money, and thus "evil."

But based on ANOTHER thread, it is standard good parenting to stab your child and say, "you made me do this!"

[orrion]

You are taking money from someone by force. Of course it is evil.

That's not a tax; that's extortion.

[The Pilgrim]

Funnily enough, "Temple of Doom" actually occurs chronologically before "Raiders". In "Temple" Indy is a mercenary archaeologist, trading ancient Chinese artifacts to wealthy criminals, and not planning to help the villagers recover the Sankara Stone until he sees the level of depravity Mula Ram's Thuggee Cult has sunk to. By contrast, in "Raiders" he is motivated by patriotism, in "Last Crusade" by searching for his father, and in "Crystal Skull" by vengeance and a desire to clear his name. (When you look at "Crystal Skull" in that light, ignore Shia LaBeuf's performance, the nuclear test and the soldier ants, "Crystal Skull" becomes much more enjoyable. :smallamused:) The chronology of Indy is: Young Indy (in "Last Crusade") who's very idealistic; mercenary Indy in "Temple", interested only in "fortune and glory"; slightly less mercenary Indy at the beginning of "Raiders", who becomes less cynical by the end of "Last Crusade".

I differ about Indy's motivation in Raiders. When he is contacted by Army Intelligence, he initially is reluctant to accept the task, and excuses himself by saying that the real expert is Ravenwood. It's only when the officers tell him that Ravenwood is already involved and suspected to be a nazi sympathizer that Indy accepts. He is thus, in my oppinion, primarly motivated by helping a father figure (and his daughter, who happens to be an ex).

The formula is Crusade is very much the same. Indy is reluctant to accept Donovan's request and excuses saying that his father his the real expert. He only accepts when Donovan tells him that he already did and he's the man who dissapeared.

In addition to personal involvement (help professor Ravenwood, score with the professor's daughter), in Raiders he seems secondary motivated by his own professional curiosity, rather than any patriotism. Thats why he bought Belloq's speech and surrendered despite being pointing a totally anachronic Panzerfaust at the Ark. If he had been motivated by patriotism, he would have fired.



Well there are several legal issues here.

Well, Black Dragons being usually CE, they aren't gonna resort to legal courts anyway. But if the Order had killed, say, an azurite citizen, and the victim's family had presented the case in the azurite courts, the Order would probably have been charged with murder as soon as they stepped into Azure City.

The crime being commited outside your jurisdiction is only a problem if there is another jurisdiction ruling over the place where the cirme was commited. If it was commited on a place with no jurisdiction over it, it becomes a free-for-all.

Additionaly, there also exists this thing called "Universal Jurisdiction", wich allows those states that recognize it to purse criminals regardless of the territorial jurisdiction where the crime was commited. The most known example of it's usage in our days is to pursue perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity (V, we are looking at you). But the legal principle is older than feudalism.

In-comic, Shojo could legally prosecute the Order for the destruction of Dorukan's Gate, send an agent, snatch them and drag them in chains to Azure City to stand trial... despite the Order being foreign citizens, the "crime" being commited on foreign territory, and the prosecuted being in foreign lands. And the stick-in-the-ass Paladins did not raise any complaint.

Likewise, Soon also found Lawful to unleash a genocidal crusade against goblinoids.

So the matter of respect for territorial jurisdictions seems very loosely enforced in the OOTS world (except perhaps in Cliffport).


You mean to be a Privateer? :smallwink:

Well, being a Privateer involves licking the boots of some King, being told what, where, when, how and for how long you can plunder, and usually also having to surrender a cut to your patron. Too much legal babble for a chaotic individual.

I prefer the term "private entrepeneur" for Julio. :smallbiggrin:


Nope. Not even if you explain at the beginning of the session to the other players how your PC grew up on the streets of Hillsfar, begging and picking pockets just to have enough money for a loaf of bread for herself and her baby brother, was later diagnosed with acute kleptomania, and has learned that she isn't pure Halfling, but is 1/8 Kender. Even then they want to tar and feather your PC. :smalltongue:

Funny enough, my worst case of dissonance in roleplaying preferences was an inversion of that popular trope. I was the LG character in a party of lowlife scumbags. They all complained when (after they crossed the moral horizont too many times for me to keep pretending my character was not noticing), I finally managed to get them all captured, tried and executed by the authorities of some random arbitrary civilization.

Apparently, the problem laid in the fact that I originally introduced my character as a "benevolent morally upright preacher who has joined your lot in order to help you repent and become useful members of your society", and they understood it as "free ticket for rape and murder".


Oddly enough, there is a real world group that believes that. And I shall say no more, lest the thread be locked.

I suppose when someone believes in The Amazing Invisible Hand that Governs Economy, he is a very short step from believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns or in Taxes as Instruments of Satan.

(*serious mode on* this commentary was NOT aimed at David Argall in any way *serious mode off*).


@The Pilgrim: I stopped trying to use logical arguments against Argall a long time ago.

Well, I have no quarrel with him, since I generally conduct me under a strict "what happens whithin a thread, remains within the thread" policy.

However, I tend to drop a debate when arguments contradict reality, and that's what has happened here:



Originally Posted by The Pilgrim
It's like a Lord who owns almost all the land in a region but refuses to put it in production.
Now why would he do that? If we are assuming there is something useful to be done with the land, why wouldn't he be doing it? That's his money he is missing out on.
The answer is that he doesn't. The unused land is actually in use, and routinely in better use than the thieves have in mind.

This is were the Homo Economicus crashes with reality. This happens all so often (both historically and right now in the real world) that attempting to deny it is quite... well, like attempting to arge that a 10-bucks-bill can decrease in valor for the mere act of changing hands.

The casuistic of why someone does't puts his resources to work include, but is not limited to:

- The owner being an idiot (to explain why an idiot has all that wealth in the first place, see inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance))
- Religious taboo (arguably, a derivate from the previous case)
- Political meddling
- Foreign power bribing the owner in order to make him boycott the economy of his own nation on behalf of the foreign's one (examples too numerous to list here, and too out of bounds from the forum rules).
- etc...

Giving examples of all this would get us too much out of the Forum Rules, so I'll drop the issue here.


I'd like to think I provide more scintillating (and saner) conversation than a certain forum member who will go unnamed.

Agreed.

[Ward.]

It is worth noting that apparently Tarquin either gives up pursuing "wives-to-be" once they get a certain distance away from him, or his ability to track them down is eclipsed by Julio's ability to keep him from tracking them down while enabling them to have normal lives.

I think it's most probable that tarquin just kidnaps women and lets heroes like julio rescue them if they can. He seems like the type to fold to narrative constraints and even references them when speaking to Julio (I noticed this because it seems like Julio isn't really that much a of a threat to him).

[Sir_Leorik]

They are good examples--for a reason which you continue to ignore. In both of them, the situation is clearly: Find out why the inhabitants of this place have recently started menacing their neighbors.

Whether any individual group of adventurers chose to do that with or without slaughtering every hill giant in the hill giant steading has less to do with the difference between that situation and the death of the young adult black dragon than simply the fact that the Order slaughtered a sapient (teenaged) being who, based on their utter lack of any indication that he was there prior to actually meeting him, was most definitely not menacing his neighbors.

True, but the YABD had established his hostility to the Order. The real issue is that V did not consider the YABD as anything more than a threat to remove in order to get treasure. As for the rest of the Order, Roy had demonstrated on multiple occasions that he does not target anyone just for being a "monster" or because it is easier to enter combat rather than negotiate. I could easily see a situation where Roy encountered a different monster guarding the starmetal, and he negotiated for it (possibly by fighting a different monster that was actively threatening innocent lives). I think the reason the story went in the direction it did is that the Giant wanted to comment on players whose PCs behave like V (or worse, Belkar).


Well, being a Privateer involves licking the boots of some King, being told what, where, when, how and for how long you can plunder, and usually also having to surrender a cut to your patron. Too much legal babble for a chaotic individual.

I prefer the term "private entrepeneur" for Julio. :smallbiggrin:

Didn't Julio mention in the letters column of his comic book that he and the crew of the Mechane served as Privateers during the Soggy Biscuit war, or something like that?


Funny enough, my worst case of dissonance in roleplaying preferences was an inversion of that popular trope. I was the LG character in a party of lowlife scumbags. They all complained when (after they crossed the moral horizont too many times for me to keep pretending my character was not noticing), I finally managed to get them all captured, tried and executed by the authorities of some random arbitrary civilization.

Apparently, the problem laid in the fact that I originally introduced my character as a "benevolent morally upright preacher who has joined your lot in order to help you repent and become useful members of your society", and they understood it as "free ticket for rape and murder".

I was once part of a group of players whose PCs were evenly divided between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good on one side, and Lawful Evil on the other side. The group couldn't go one session before a PvP situation developed, and the DM resolved the matter by having the party split up, with one group of players waiting outside the room while the other was playing, and then rotating back. Needless to say, the group broke up after that first session. :smallannoyed:


This is were the Homo Economicus crashes with reality. This happens all so often (both historically and right now in the real world) that attempting to deny it is quite... well, like attempting to arge that a 10-bucks-bill can decrease in valor for the mere act of changing hands.

The casuistic of why someone does't puts his resources to work include, but is not limited to:

- The owner being an idiot (to explain why an idiot has all that wealth in the first place, see inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance))
- Religious taboo (arguably, a derivate from the previous case)
- Political meddling
- Foreign power bribing the owner in order to make him boycott the economy of his own nation on behalf of the foreign's one (examples too numerous to list here, and too out of bounds from the forum rules).
- etc...

Giving examples of all this would get us too much out of the Forum Rules, so I'll drop the issue here.


There are other reasons as well:


Leaving fields fallow to prevent them from losing nutrients.
Restrictions on fishing or hunting to prevent a species from going extinct.
A divine decree to not engage in a business practice like usury, which in a D&D game would be something to pay attention to.
Guilds often form a monopoly and seek to drive any competitors from practicing their trade. Without competition there is little incentive to invest in a business or in technological advances.
Dragons hoard treasure to form beds of gold and silver coins, and sleep on them. There is a popular subversion where a dragon like Dunklezhan, from Shadowrun, invests his treasure, but the main trope is a Dragon sleeping on a bed of gold and jewels.
Many spells use gold or diamond dust as a material component. Casting those spells permanently removes diamonds and gold from the economy; theoretically that should cause the price of diamonds and gold to increase, yet it does not. Therefore casting Stoneskin or Raise Dead is a waste of resources. :smallamused:

[BlackDragonKing]

They are good examples--for a reason which you continue to ignore. In both of them, the situation is clearly: Find out why the inhabitants of this place have recently started menacing their neighbors.

Whether any individual group of adventurers chose to do that with or without slaughtering every hill giant in the hill giant steading has less to do with the difference between that situation and the death of the young adult black dragon than simply the fact that the Order slaughtered a sapient (teenaged) being who, based on their utter lack of any indication that he was there prior to actually meeting him, was most definitely not menacing his neighbors.

I have some problems with this point.

Starting with the first dungeon the Order went through, they are aware from their consultation with the Oracle that an insane, murderous lich named Xykon has taken up residence there, and the goblins are in his employ; Liches that live in isolation studying things are worrying but not a huge threat, but one that is established as being mad with power and a known murderer even when he was human would be considered a threat to all neighboring areas, and likely that includes the goblins that are in his employ.

For the Young Black Dragon, it's a more knotty matter, but the fact of the matter is the Order was looking for a rock in a cave Roy had no reason to believe was inhabited when a very large, territorial creature living there without their knowledge attacked them. The fact that the dragon HAD a horde is a pretty good indication that it or its mother was not avoiding its neighbors; even metallic dragons that feel compelled to build hordes generally acquire said hordes by attacking nearby humanoids or other dragons. The dragon's treasure would be reasonably considered the spoils of banditry in the same way it's a reasonable assumption the treasure you find in a brigand's camp was not acquired peacefully. Dragons don't generally magic piles of gp and jewels into existence, in my experience.

The fact does remain that V had the option to resolve the encounter with the dragon still living, but likely did not see the point in going out of her way to do so considering her neutral outlook gives her no reason to prioritize showing mercy on those who have attacked her and elves are already quite well established as lacking Roy's more restrained view of "monstrous races". Ergo, the Disintegrate Heard Round The World.

[David Argall]

Well, Black Dragons being usually CE, they aren't gonna resort to legal courts anyway. But if the Order had killed, say, an azurite citizen, and the victim's family had presented the case in the azurite courts, the Order would probably have been charged with murder as soon as they stepped into Azure City.
Well, that is true in the technical sense of "if someone charges you with murder, you will be charged with murder". But that the Order faced a serious chance of conviction is not clear, and the conviction would likely be based on a technicality rather than a clear crime. Recall here that the dragon said it was given permission to eat most of the party under the right conditions. That establishes hostility and intent to harm the party, and makes the defense of self defense quite powerful.



Well, being a Privateer involves licking the boots of some King, being told what, where, when, how and for how long you can plunder, and usually also having to surrender a cut to your patron. Too much legal babble for a chaotic individual.
It depends. In quite a few cases the limits were not very limiting, and the advantages considerable. A pirate is always subject to the threat of arrest and has to surrender a cut to somebody anyway. But a privateer is "legal" and can walk the streets openly and demand 100% value for his loot instead of 10%. So sometimes even very chaotic pirates become privateers [and sometimes they don't]



The casuistic of why someone does't puts his resources to work include, but is not limited to:

- The owner being an idiot (to explain why an idiot has all that wealth in the first place, see inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance))
Now a common definition of "idiot" is "he disagrees with you", and that seems to be the definition in use here. Lord Idiot is still likely to use the land if it can be usefully done so. If he can't see himself, Advisor Smart will say some form of "Let me use the land and I will pay you lots of gold", which is something Lord Idiot can understand.



- Religious taboo (arguably, a derivate from the previous case)
Which is pretty much the same thing as "idiot". We just have some "holy man" in charge [who may be in fact quite smart, but...] and Smart finds a way around the rules, say by having some disliked group do the using, or disguising in some way that does not blatantly violate the Holy word.



- Political meddling
Which is saying Lord Idiot is in fact not in charge and not the cause of the idle land.



- Foreign power bribing the owner in order to make him boycott the economy of his own nation on behalf of the foreign's one
Now I am not sure what you are talking about here [tho I suspect some very ancient errors. exposed long ago as fallacies], but this would mean that Lord Idiot is in fact using the land, as his treasury shows. He is just not using it as farmland as some others [correctly or not] want to use it.

[Kish]

True, but the YABD had established his hostility to the Order.


For the Young Black Dragon, it's a more knotty matter, but the fact of the matter is the Order was looking for a rock in a cave Roy had no reason to believe was inhabited when a very large, territorial creature living there without their knowledge attacked them.
I wish people would stop misdescribing "they met a young adult black dragon and then the scene jumped to midbattle" as "the dragon attacked them."

You don't know that the young adult black dragon--and not, say, Belkar--started the battle.

[orrion]

Now a common definition of "idiot" is "he disagrees with you", and that seems to be the definition in use here. Lord Idiot is still likely to use the land if it can be usefully done so. If he can't see himself, Advisor Smart will say some form of "Let me use the land and I will pay you lots of gold", which is something Lord Idiot can understand.

Where did 'Adviser Smart' come from? He just materialized out of thin air?

[BlackDragonKing]

I wish people would stop misdescribing "they met a young adult black dragon and then the scene jumped to midbattle" as "the dragon attacked them."

You don't know that the young adult black dragon--and not, say, Belkar--started the battle.

Darkness was cast on the party when they entered the cave. Haley probed for the edge of its area of effect to find the dragon waiting for them. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0181.html)

Does that NOT strike you as "the dragon noticed them before they noticed it"?

[Kish]

That strikes me as a goalpost-move, is what that strikes me as. You claimed the dragon attacked them first. Not noticed them. If you wish to revise your claim to, "Roy entered a cave where he, being utterly stupid, had no idea there would be a Boss for his sidequest, and was Noticed First by the young adult black dragon," you can purge it of all the claims I would object to you making, but I have my doubts about whether you can leave it a meaningful statement about moral culpability while doing so.

(And no, you don't even know that the young adult black dragon didn't try to speak first; if we must fill in things we don't know happened, "The young adult black dragon said 'Get' and didn't say the word 'out' because there was a halfling trying to stab him in the eye" fits just as well as your preferred narrative.)

[martianmister]

It would be "out of character" for Roy to attack first. And the order (minus Belkar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0909.html)) wouldn't dare to attack without his lead.

[David Argall]

Where did 'Adviser Smart' come from? He just materialized out of thin air?
He effectively can. Ignoring that lords routinely have lots of advisers, we are assuming that superior uses of the land are obvious. [Otherwise, Lord Idiot is just being sensible in not doing the useless or harmful.] So a large number of observers are able to be Adviser Smart.

[BlackDragonKing]

That strikes me as a goalpost-move, is what that strikes me as. You claimed the dragon attacked them first. Not noticed them.

Very well, then, I will go back to my original claim; the dragon noticed them before they noticed it, and is very strongly indicated to have attacked them. It cast a magical darkness spell on the party while they were not aware of its presence and was waiting for them at the edge of its area of effect; what exactly do you THINK its intent was, "oh, maybe they'll go away if they can't see?"


If you wish to revise your claim to, "Roy entered a cave where he, being utterly stupid, had no idea there would be a Boss for his sidequest, and was Noticed First by the young adult black dragon," you can purge it of all the claims I would object to you making, but I have my doubts about whether you can leave it a meaningful statement about moral culpability while doing so.

I will not revise my claim to this statement because it's a ridiculous thing to claim. It's not stupid to fail to assume that every cave with something you'd like in it has a frigging DRAGON sitting in it waiting for you because you're an adventurer any more than it's stupid to ever leave your house if you don't want to have random encounters. They entered a cave where they were surprised to find a creature known for being extremely, usually quite violently, territorial on their absolute BEST behavior.


(And no, you don't even know that the young adult black dragon didn't try to speak first; if we must fill in things we don't know happened, "The young adult black dragon said 'Get' and didn't say the word 'out' because there was a halfling trying to stab him in the eye" fits just as well as your preferred narrative.)

No, we don't know that. But seeing as the dragon pointedly ignores the party for a while to banter with Varsuuvius, Belkar ignoring all survival instincts and trying to stab it would likely not have been something it would have noticed; it ignored Haley's arrows until she got in a lucky shot on it, and our cut to battle shows the order panicked and scattered, Belkar included. Forgive me if I don't consider your preferred narrative more compelling than the one I feel makes sense.

[Dark Matter]

"Roy entered a cave where he, being utterly stupid, had no idea there would be a Boss for his sidequest...The cave and the quest was Nale's doing. The plan was pretty clearly for the Order to meet ABD, not it's kid. So no, the Dragon's existence wasn't mentioned and Roy had no clue.


(And no, you don't even know that the young adult black dragon didn't try to speak first; if we must fill in things we don't know happened, "The young adult black dragon said 'Get' and didn't say the word 'out' because there was a halfling trying to stab him in the eye" fits just as well as your preferred narrative.)Haley thought retreat was in order, and the Dragon (and the Order for that matter) seemed confident that it could kill the Order without much problem. No one is hurt in #182, the impression is it's either round one or the Dragon's surprise round.

Yeah, we can imagine Belkar (or even Roy) doing something stupid, but what we're actually shown is something else.

And actually I don't see that the Young Black Dragon had much of a choice. If the humans leave his lair's location is totally out there and, if they don't come back themselves, someone else will. He could explain to his mom he was afraid he couldn't take them and they need to move the gold, but that seems like a hard sell.

[allenw]

Very standard economics, and very clear. That guy on the bus was willing to do something for that $10 you were not. Say he got it for mowing a lawn. Society is now ahead by a mowed lawn. But when you take that $10, you weaken or destroy his willingness to mow lawns and society loses that benefit.

Isn't it at least equally likely that he will be *more* willing to mow *more* lawns, because his need for money has increased?

[orrion]

The cave and the quest was Nale's doing. The plan was pretty clearly for the Order to meet ABD, not it's kid. So no, the Dragon's existence wasn't mentioned and Roy had no clue.

Hold it, you're saying Nale/Sabine knew about the dragon?

There's no evidence of that. Nale and Sabine are banking on the rumors of dangerous stuff in Wooden Forest, but there's nothing to suggest the ABD.

[Dark Matter]

Hold it, you're saying Nale/Sabine knew about the dragon?

There's no evidence of that. Nale and Sabine are banking on the rumors of dangerous stuff in Wooden Forest, but there's nothing to suggest the ABD.Re-reading it, ya, probably... but whether or not Nale knew, Roy clearly did not.

On the other hand, no one who ever finds that cave ever comes back to talk about it, and the starmetal stories have been around for a long time.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This thread is ridiculously overrun with real world politics, however old, and grossly off-topic. Thread locked for review.