Elan's Alignment - Heading South?

[Kurashima]

Surely just took several notches towards neutral, if not further, by allowing his dad to drop to his near death from an airship, regardless of his reasoning. As he said in his speech, "I'm the good twin".

Even if his father is still the most evil man on the face of the planet, does intentionally allowing him to fall when he could easily have saved him, not count as an evil act, or taking into consideration the fact he knew he would survive, definetely not the act of a character with a good alignment?

[Blisstake]

Nah, Tarquin deserved far worse. Killing him would have been entirely within the good alignment.

[Kish]

No. Nor would it have negatively impacted Elan's alignment had he grabbed Roy's greatsword and lopped his father's head off--though it would have indicated a difference in how Elan viewed what it means to be good.

Considering that he did know Tarquin would survive, the suggestion goes from merely wrong to goofy. I absolutely defy you to find anywhere in any non-humorous D&D work where it suggests that letting a horrible monster take a little damage is incompatible with a Good alignment. (I also defy you to find anywhere that it says that killing is incompatible with a good alignment, when the people you kill are a direct and active threat to you and/or other people, which, as it happens, Tarquin was. Or anywhere where it suggests that Tarquin being Elan's biological father is in any way relevant to Elan's alignment.) Good characters kill people far less vile than Tarquin routinely in D&D. (I have to wonder if you've been reading the whole comic with the belief that Elan, Celia, and maybe Durkon were the only good characters in it, with Roy, Haley, and the vast majority of the cast being evil, especially all the paladins.)

And as Elan said, he's not a twin anymore.

[NerdyKris]

Also, the entire point of his line is that he KNOWS Tarquin can survive the fall. It was the equivalent of tripping him and running away. Painful, but completely non lethal. He did it with full knowledge that his dad wasn't going to die from it.

[Porthos]

No. Nor would it have negatively impacted Elan's alignment had he grabbed Roy's greatsword and lopped his father's head off--though it would have indicated a difference in how Elan viewed what it means to be good.

Considering that he did know Tarquin would survive, the suggestion goes from merely wrong to goofy. I absolutely defy you to find anywhere in any non-humorous D&D work where it suggests that letting a horrible monster take a little damage is incompatible with a Good alignment. (I also defy you to find anywhere that it says that killing is incompatible with a good alignment, when the people you kill are a direct and active threat to you and/or other people, which, as it happens, Tarquin was. Or anywhere where it suggests that Tarquin being Elan's biological father is in any way relevant to Elan's alignment.) Good characters kill people far less vile than Tarquin routinely in D&D.

And as Elan said, he's not a twin anymore.

I could see someone who took an exceptionally absolutist outlook from a sourcebook like Book of Exalted Deeds saying that Elan might not be Exalted or Saintly anymore (If Elan was Exalted/Saintly in the first place [which he wasn't, I'm just going for the most strict of strict possibilities here]). Depending on just how genuniue they felt Tarquin's offer to surrender was. Rejecting mercy, and all that. But that would take a pretty hardcore read of that book, from what I remember.

Aside from that, what everyone else said. Letting Tarquin get inconvenienced isn't going to change Elan's alignment in the slightest. Wouldn't even qualify as an evil act that would cause a Paladin to Fall, IMO*.

* Whether or not it would 'grossly violate' their hypothetical Code, is an entirely different (and unanswerable) matter.

[RedMage125]

It shows a great failing of understanding to think that EVERY action a character takes affects their alignment. Elan allowing his dad to drop off the airship...was it a Good act? No. But it wasn't an objectively Evil one, either. He knew his dad would survive, he knew his dad's allies could rescue him after 1 day at the most, and there was a driving need to move forward and go on with the party's mission to save the world.

Elan acted in what HE FELT was in the best interests of Good, even if it meant committing a morally Neutral act. This is entirely in keeping with the tenents of Chaotic Good. He followed his own moral compass.

So no, I do not think Elan's alignment is in any danger of changing at all.

[Gift Jeraff]

Elan previously wanting to keep his family and prisoners alive--regardless of how horribly evil they were--is only indicative of Elan's personal views on what it means to be good and does not necessarily reflect the values of the Good alignment in general.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't see why Elan's alignment would change. Killing in itself is neither a good or evil act, so that wouldn't change anything (not to mention he knew Tarquin would live). I don't think the fact that it was done deliberately would matter either. Tarquin had threatened to kill Haley, the rest of the Order, burn down the Mechane, and cut of Elan's hand. When he offered to be captured, he said he would try to manipulate Elan. Elan really had no choice but to remove him.

[Dissection]

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that Elan blew up Dorukan's Dungeon, which had good-aligned goblin teenagers in it?

[Kish]

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that Elan blew up Dorukan's Dungeon, which had good-aligned goblin teenagers in it?
Multiple times.

My comment previously has been along the lines of Elan being too stupid to understand what he was doing. However, since the last time it came up, Word of the Author comments on the moral culpability of Thog and the Empress of Blood...have led me to the just-realized conclusion that that was an inappropriate degree of lenience to show Elan.

Elan's original concept included "cheerfully, well-meaningly more dangerous to be around than Belkar." If I were to assess the original Dungeon of Dorukan strips through the established moral framework of OotS now, I would feel obligated to give him the same "Amoral and destructive - Chaotic Evil" tag as Thog. I would say...best not to think about anything from Dungeon Crawlin' Fools too much. Whatever alignment Elan was as of strip #935, or strip #200 for that matter, nothing has happened in #936 that would change it.

[Mike Havran]

I would say that Elan started so far in the "north" that basically any moral developement has to lead southern from there. But there was nothing wrong or non-good about what he did in the latest strip. I think that if this was Elan at his worst, it simply undercuts how Good person he actually is.

[jogiff]

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that Elan blew up Dorukan's Dungeon, which had good-aligned goblin teenagers in it?

I don't think that he had evil intent. I think it just hadn't properly occurred to him that the self-destruct rune would actually hurt living things (including himself and his friends).

However, I do think that refusing a deal with Tarquin does show less than goodness on Elan's part. Not because he didn't try to help Tarquin, but because Tarquin offered a compromise that would have helped immensely in the greater fight against a much worse evil (Xykon).

He put his own hate (however justified) ahead of the greater good.

[Math_Mage]

Multiple times.

My comment previously has been along the lines of Elan being too stupid to understand what he was doing. However, since the last time it came up, Word of the Author comments on the moral culpability of Thog and the Empress of Blood...have led me to the just-realized conclusion that that was an inappropriate degree of lenience to show Elan.

Elan's original concept included "cheerfully, well-meaningly more dangerous to be around than Belkar." If I were to assess the original Dungeon of Dorukan strips through the established moral framework of OotS now, I would feel obligated to give him the same "Amoral and destructive - Chaotic Evil" tag as Thog. I would say...best not to think about anything from Dungeon Crawlin' Fools too much. Whatever alignment Elan was as of strip #935, or strip #200 for that matter, nothing has happened in #936 that would change it.
I disagree that DCF!Elan is comparable to Thog, Belkar, or EoB, in that the latter all demonstrate Evil intent. The Giant's comments have been that stupidity does not excuse Evil actions with Evil intent. Evil actions with Stupid intent may or may not be excused.


However, I do think that refusing a deal with Tarquin does show less than goodness on Elan's part. Not because he didn't try to help Tarquin, but because Tarquin offered a compromise that would have helped immensely in the greater fight against a much worse evil (Xykon).

He put his own hate (however justified) ahead of the greater good.
You assume that Tarquin's offer is trustworthy and therefore an unqualified benefit. Recent events demonstrate that this should not be taken for granted.

[Mike Havran]

I don't think that he had evil intent. I think it just hadn't properly occurred to him that the self-destruct rune would actually hurt living things (including himself and his friends).

However, I do think that refusing a deal with Tarquin does show less than goodness on Elan's part. Not because he didn't try to help Tarquin, but because Tarquin offered a compromise that would have helped immensely in the greater fight against a much worse evil (Xykon).

He put his own hate (however justified) ahead of the greater good.
Um ... I wouldn't take Tarquin's promises that seriously.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I took Elan's comment that he's not a twin anymore just to mean that he doesn't just think of himself as simply, naively 'good'. I took it to mean that he realizes that good an evil aren't so simple as that.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Elan was always evil, since he blew up the Dungeon of Dorukan, killing untold numbers in it; and causing countless second-edition monsters to go extinct. Vaarsuvius only killed one-fourth of a species, Elan made who-knows-how-many go extinct.

I doubt Nale killed as many.

Also, remember those azurites who died because Elan threw the water-regenerating monsters overboard? OR the time where Elan was talking to Durkon and V while the ship was being attacked, and he didn't mention it until the end of the strip, leaving the low-level azurites to die while his mid-level friends were distracted, even when said azurites had sent him to specifically get said mid-level friends?

Like his father, ELan is an insidious manipulator of politics and a war-causer; given how he ruined the last, best, hope for peace for the troglodytes, in spite of Sir Francois's noble efforts. HE also told thieves how to steal Sir Francois's priceless stuff and heirlooms, leaving him in poverty. And he failed to count to one hundred properly.

[snikrept]

I am guessing that buried in there somewhere is a joke about gameworld mechanics and how falling a vast distance is not a big threat to a character with a lot of hitpoints. Tarquin can probably soak 20d6 with ease. Elan basically just let Tarquin go. Pulling him up -- taking him prisoner -- would have been more harsh.

[HendoJ]

I am guessing that buried in there somewhere is a joke about gameworld mechanics and how falling a vast distance is not a big threat to a character with a lot of hitpoints. Tarquin can probably soak 20d6 with ease. Elan basically just let Tarquin go. Pulling him up -- taking him prisoner -- would have been more harsh.

Pretty much yes. 20d6 would average out to about 70hp I think? I can't imagine Tarquin having less than 150.


In terms of past evils, etc...

Intent matters, if there's no intent you're more likely negligent. Negligence can certainly be terrible, but it isn't evil.

[Geordnet]

Refusing to rescue Tarquin was a purely Neutral act -and would have been so even if Elan had expected his father to die from the impact. Inaction is, after all, the ultimate neutrality. (Neutral is not Nice; just take a look at the animal kingdom.) Besides, Tarquin got himself into that predicament as a direct consequence of deliberate Evil acts; falling to his death would merely be reaping what he'd sown.

Now, if Elan had taken pleasure in watching him fall, that is another matter...

[Ridureyu]

Yes, Elan's alignment is now Southern Good. I expect him to develop a taste for mint juleps quite soon.

[jogiff]

Um ... I wouldn't take Tarquin's promises that seriously.

That's not the issue. The issue was Elan's reason for turning it down. "I don't want you to get what you want! Forget it!"

It wasn't "I don't trust you!"

[StoryKeeper]

I think Elan's becoming less naive, but dropping his father off the ship certainly wasn't an evil act. He knew his father would survive the fall. He simply refused to naively pull a possibly epic-level bad guy up onto the ship where he could threaten or harm people. Dropping him from the ship wasn't really any more evil than punching someone in the stomach to keep them from threatening those around you.

His line about not wanting his father to get what he wants and his line about not being the "good twin" are both indicators that Elan, while still a good guy, has grown up enough to realize what it means to be good rather than just blindly doing saturday morning cartoon style good acts.

[Procyonpi]

My comment previously has been along the lines of Elan being too stupid to understand what he was doing. However, since the last time it came up, Word of the Author comments on the moral culpability of Thog and the Empress of Blood...have led me to the just-realized conclusion that that was an inappropriate degree of lenience to show Elan.

There's a huge difference between Thog / the EoB and Elan. All Rich said was basically that their INT scores aren't low enough for them to be unable to make moral judgments, not that every character in the strip is smart enough to predict every consequence of their actions and is as morally culpable for the unintended ones as the intended ones. Both Thog and the EoB have on multiple occasions committed premeditated (or at the very least intention) murder of good-aligned characters, which is something Elan would never dream of doing.

[NerdyKris]

I am guessing that buried in there somewhere is a joke about gameworld mechanics and how falling a vast distance is not a big threat to a character with a lot of hitpoints. Tarquin can probably soak 20d6 with ease. Elan basically just let Tarquin go. Pulling him up -- taking him prisoner -- would have been more harsh.

Maybe, but it's been constantly established, especially in this latest battle, that the characters can take superhuman amounts of abuse. I don't think it's a joke anymore (Like the fire in the inn for example). I think it's just a facet of the characters at this point. Much the way that Wolverine surviving a lot of damage isn't a joke (well, except when it is, obviously), it's just part of his abilities.

[Jay R]

Nope. Elan's common sense - heading north.

[RossN]

I do think Elan is shifting alignment, but more in that he is shifting from Chaotic Good to Neutral Good.

[Fish]

Elan has always been stupid. However, because he is growing less stupid, he is no longer Stupid Good.

[Kish]

There's a huge difference between Thog / the EoB and Elan. All Rich said was basically that their INT scores aren't low enough for them to be unable to make moral judgments, not that every character in the strip is smart enough to predict every consequence of their actions and is as morally culpable for the unintended ones as the intended ones. Both Thog and the EoB have on multiple occasions committed premeditated (or at the very least intention) murder of good-aligned characters, which is something Elan would never dream of doing.
Elan=too dumb to realize that explosions kill? Well, I guess so (he did it to himself too, after all). That being the case, however, I have to wonder about his classification as smarter than Thog.

[NerdyKris]

I could have sworn the Giant said at some point that we should simply assume everyone got out, because he didn't think of that when he wrote the explosion scene.

The Order managed to make it from the throne room to the outside AND had time to hang around a few seconds. And this was after a multi day dungeon crawl to reach it in the first place. It's not inconceivable that there were plenty of one way escape routes for the goblins and monsters. (The stairs Celia used, and the route the Order used) Especially given that Dorukan built it and wouldn't want his allies being stuck inside if the failsafe is needed. After all, we saw the flumphs alive and well outside.

[Rodin]

I've always considered DCF to be in the same boat as the early Discworld books - broad strokes canon. The events in them happened, but don't sweat the details because the characters in the book are not the same characters as the ones that eventually emerge as fully-realized people.

As to Elan, his actual alignment hasn't shifted but his outlook certainly has. Previously, he was idealistic almost to a fault. Now, he's more ruthless and willing to get his hands dirty when the need arises.

Which is, I think, a good thing for a person on a quest to save the world. Hard decisions may need to be made.

[137beth]

Elan, along with his alignment, are absolutely not heading south. The furthest south his alignment went was Azure City, during which time he was Southern Chaotic Good.
Now, the mechane is flying north, and soon Elan will return to being Northern Chaotic Good.

[Math_Mage]

That's not the issue. The issue was Elan's reason for turning it down. "I don't want you to get what you want! Forget it!"

It wasn't "I don't trust you!"
Distinction practically without a difference. It's been firmly established to this point that Tarquin getting what he wants is generally bad for people. Just because what Tarquin claims to want looks good to Elan doesn't mean Elan has any reason to deviate from his heuristic that "What Tarquin wants = Bad," because Elan doesn't trust Tarquin.

[FujinAkari]

Um ... I wouldn't take Tarquin's promises that seriously.

I would.

Tarquin has very few redeeming qualities, but one of them is that he will stick to the letter of his promises.

[Tiiba]

Nope. Elan's common sense - heading north.

That's, like, THE SAME THING as becoming evil.

[Porthos]

I would.

Tarquin has very few redeeming qualities, but one of them is that he will stick to the letter of his promises.

Considering Tarquin all but said he would be a Hannibal Lecter type prisoner, I don't exactly find this point reassuring. :smallwink:

[Kish]

Yeah...I think the question is not, would he have screwed over Elan if Elan had gone with any of his suggestions or, indeed, if Elan had shifted out of "you fall off airship now, GOODBYE, DAD" mode for a second, but how would he inevitably have screwed over Elan if Elan had gone with any of his suggestions or, indeed, if Elan had shifted out of "you fall off airship now, GOODBYE, DAD" mode for a second.

Beyond that, complaining that Elan didn't look at the big picture may be expecting Elan to be more Lawful than he's ever been. It may be expecting him to have higher Wisdom than he ever has. It may (as I, and I believe Math_Mage and Porthos, argue) be expecting him to have lower Wisdom than he ever has. But it's certainly not a complaint about him showing less goodness than he ever has.

[Ridureyu]

When I think of how cruel Elan was to poor, sweet Tarquin, it makes me angry.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

We have enough pragmatism and ruthlessness. I think we need more innocence.

[Amphiox]

If there is a scale of goodness, on which Elan has slipped, he has slipped no more than from something around a 95 to something around a 93....

[The Grim Author]

Tarquin has very few redeeming qualities, but one of them is that he will stick to the letter of his promises.

Imagine if Tarquin had a prisoner, and then said to the prisoner, "I won't kill you" -- followed by torturing him until the prisoner begged for death. And then Tarquin, when reminded that he had said he wouldn't kill the prisoner, responds, "I did, didn't I? And he's still alive, even though he clearly wants to die. I'm keeping my word. I won't kill him, but you'd be surprised both by what someone can live through and with how easy it is to drive someone to suicide."

The point is, sticking to the letter of his promises can go horribly, horribly wrong in the eyes of the one he's making the promise to.

[The Giant]

No. Nor would it have negatively impacted Elan's alignment had he grabbed Roy's greatsword and lopped his father's head off--though it would have indicated a difference in how Elan viewed what it means to be good.

This. Elan's willingness to accept surrenders before is a result of his alignment, but it is not the only possible interpretation of his alignment. This time, he chose a second, equally Good option. Shifting from one valid interpretation of Chaotic Good to another is not grounds for an alignment change, because there's no such thing as "degrees" of Goodness. You're either Good, or you're not.

For example, Elan doesn't steal from people because he feels bad about it. If he suddenly decides to start stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, he doesn't change alignment at all because he's changed from one way of looking at CG (the Elan way) to another way (the Robin Hood way). It may seem like a huge shift from a character development angle, but alignment-wise, it's all the same.

[Breccia]

Even if his father is still the most evil man on the face of the planet, does intentionally allowing him to fall when he could easily have saved him, not count as an evil act, or taking into consideration the fact he knew he would survive, definetely not the act of a character with a good alignment?

No.

There will always be questions regarding alignment and dealing with powerful opponents who surrender. Let's review some options:

a) Execute him on the spot
Killing Tarquin, especially if they keep 100% of his body to prevent his return, would be the closest thing the Order could do to end his tyrannical influence. Considering how powerful he is, and how he spent the last, what, hour or so, trying to murder the PCs (most of them, at least) this could be called self-defense: possibly the ONLY time killing someone has no alignment issues. However, leaving aside whether Elan can actually kill Tarquin on his own with his weapon recently sundered, the death penalty is pretty defendably lawful, but not necessarily good. Arguably, killing someone in a weakened position just so you don't have to deal with him later could possibly be lawful evil. (Hey: I did say there will always be questions Alignment is tricky.)

There's also the issue with the Empire of Blood with both Malack and Tarquin permanently removed. What happens next? Is the administrative situation solid enough that things would continue for a while largely intact? Or, under the (CE?) childish dragon without guidance, would there be increasing disorder leading to riots and mayhem?

b) Imprisonment
Tarquin has more or less control of the surroundings for hundreds of miles in all directions. With the possible exception of Reptilia, nobody nearby could be relied on to be both willing and legally allowed to take him. It's not like they have a "Get Into Jail Free" coupon to Azure City's anti-magic cells anymore. And even past that, Tarquin is highly intelligent and charismatic, has (if not limitless) massive funding, and high-level party members, including at least one teleporter and at least one assassin, who would probably spring him. Imprisonment is definitely a lawful concept (subjugating the few in favor of the many), but in this case, not necessarily a good one. There is the forseeable result of Tarquin escaping, possibly killing some people on the way, and returning to his palace to continue his literal reign of terror.

c) Cripple him
Effectively useless, given the heal spell and other high-powered divine magic.

d) Banish to another plane
See b) above. Admittedly, it would probably take longer for his party to find him and rescue him, but there's no way to be sure he'd never come back...without banishing him to a death trap dimension, which is just execution.

e) Forced enslavement or domination
Again, this is probably lawful more than anything else, but it's hard to defend the "good" here. And, again, there's the strong likelihood of him being sprung.

f) Taking his possessions
I suppose it could be possible to not just strip Tarquin of his magic items, but also force him to hand over a large chunk of his treasury as well. This would make it much harder for Tarquin to either continue fighting the Order, or oppress his people. The Order could potentially Robin Hood the money to the people as well. Sounds Chaotic Good at first, but there are still issues here. Firstly, what's the fine for mass murder? I don't think setting a gold value on human life is a good act. Second, what if Tarquin routinely uses that money to pay for things like infrastructure or defense? Reptilia or the elves could invade, killing untold innocent citizens.

g) Torture him
Not in any way defendable as good.

h) That Thing That Happened

The end result is basically this: there is no specific right way to handle a powerful opponent who surrenders. None of the options are 100% good, especially in this case. Elan chose a method that would allow them to continue to their destination, saving the entire planet, forever, while preventing Tarquin from meaningfully stopping them. I think he did alright.

EDIT: Aaaaaaaaaaand the Giant posted while I was writing this, making this response kinda moot.

[oppyu]

This. Elan's willingness to accept surrenders before is a result of his alignment, but it is not the only possible interpretation of his alignment. This time, he chose a second, equally Good option. Shifting from one valid interpretation of Chaotic Good to another is not grounds for an alignment change, because there's no such thing as "degrees" of Goodness. You're either Good, or you're not.

For example, Elan doesn't steal from people because he feels bad about it. If he suddenly decides to start stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, he doesn't change alignment at all because he's changed from one way of looking at CG (the Elan way) to another way (the Robin Hood way). It may seem like a huge shift from a character development angle, but alignment-wise, it's all the same.
How does this work with characters like Haley (commonly regarded to be less Good and more Chaotic than Elan; she even describes herself as Chaotic Goodish) or Miko (more Lawful and less Good than Roy, according to Roy)?

[HeeJay]

I do think Elan is shifting alignment, but more in that he is shifting from Chaotic Good to Neutral Good.

I disagree. Elan has become more pragmatic, but that's not incompatible with being Chaotic - just think about Lord Shojo.

(By the way, I think the most blatantly Lawful act Elan has done in the comic was staying committed to Haley in the Therkla arc. But he's still as Chaotic as they come.)

[Scow2]

a) Execute him on the spot
Killing Tarquin, especially if they keep 100% of his body to prevent his return, would be the closest thing the Order could do to end his tyrannical influence. Considering how powerful he is, and how he spent the last, what, hour or so, trying to murder the PCs (most of them, at least) this could be called self-defense: possibly the ONLY time killing someone has no alignment issues. However, leaving aside whether Elan can actually kill Tarquin on his own with his weapon recently sundered, the death penalty is pretty defendably lawful, but not necessarily good. Arguably, killing someone in a weakened position just so you don't have to deal with him later could possibly be lawful evil. (Hey: I did say there will always be questions Alignment is tricky.)
From a Moral Standpoint, "He Needed Killing" is a perfectly valid excuse to straight-up murder someone and have it count as a Good act. It just happens to be heavily frowned upon because there's very little way to prove that "He needed killing" was both true and the motivation of the murder. According to the BoED, it's not just self-defense that justifies killing - It's also justified to protect others, or avenge greater wrongs.

[SaintRidley]

How does this work with characters like Haley (commonly regarded to be less Good and more Chaotic than Elan; she even describes herself as Chaotic Goodish) or Miko (more Lawful and less Good than Roy, according to Roy)?

I think those probably come down to the fact that they're stated by the characters. Those are their takes on the situation, and not necessarily indicative of their reality.

[factotum]

How does this work with characters like Haley (commonly regarded to be less Good and more Chaotic than Elan; she even describes herself as Chaotic Goodish) or Miko (more Lawful and less Good than Roy, according to Roy)?

Hayley may describe herself as "Chaotic Good-ish", but the rules presumably plant her firmly in the Chaotic Good alignment--otherwise she'd be Chaotic Neutral, and wouldn't have any grounds for claiming to be Good-ish. The fact is, with only nine possible alignments, of course there's going to be a huge range of potential viewpoints and personalities in each one, which is what the Giant is saying--Elan's actions are still Chaotic Good, they're just taken from a slightly changed view.

[Scow2]

I took the Giant's statement to say that "If you're chaotic good, taking Chaotic Good actions" (Such as dropping a despot off an airship) will not change your alignment, no matter how radically different your action is from your previous interpretation of Chaotic Good.

[The Giant]

How does this work with characters like Haley (commonly regarded to be less Good and more Chaotic than Elan; she even describes herself as Chaotic Goodish) or Miko (more Lawful and less Good than Roy, according to Roy)?

Facts about cosmological forces are largely unrelated to what people feel about themselves and others. Haley feels she is not "Good enough" based on a complex set of personal experiences and insecurities; the universe still dumps her in the Chaotic Good box, next to Elan and Shojo.

[Rodin]

I'm guessing getting my experience of D&D from videogames is giving me the wrong impression of alignment here. I always assumed that there was a sort of points-value system going on behind the scenes.

E.g, you could have a True Neutral Warrior character who just had a revelation and converted to Lawful Good, and a Cleric who had been Lawful Good all their lives. The Warrior would be considered significantly less Lawful Good than the Cleric, and would have to be significantly more careful with their actions to prevent from "slipping" and getting immediately cast back into True Neutral. The Cleric meanwhile would have a lot more leeway in the actions they could commit before changing alignment, but would have a much heavier roleplaying burden on justifying why their character suddenly started punting puppies.

That's kind of what I assumed was going on with Haley - being Good was hard for her, and so she was more likely to slip out of that alignment. On a numerical scale, Haley was high Chaos, low Good, while Elan was moderately low on the Chaos scale but very high on Good.

Is that just a wholly incorrect way of looking at alignment, or is there some merit to it?

[Astroturtle]

Depending on just how genuine they felt Tarquin's offer to surrender was. Rejecting mercy, and all that. But that would take a pretty hardcore read of that book, from what I remember.


Given that Tarquin suggested trying to subtly psychologically manipulate his son from his prison cell? Theres being merciful and then theres being flat out stupid.

Letting Tarquin fall can readily be justified as a Good action and a good action.

Good for sparing him, even if it stung a little.
'good' because otherwise we would've had a hundred pages of 'what to do with Tarquin', ending with Thog and the Fruit Pie Sorcerer bursting through the airship wall like the Kool Aid Man(men?) and then everything would be COMPLETE MADNESS.

[diplomancer]

I also consider that elan's reply to tarquin "and you're not the real villain" was not just a burn (awesome burn that it was... it was the shock of hearing that from his own son that caused tarquin's fingers to slip), it was also a justification for elan's letting tarquin fall.

1- the oots could not waste any more time with tarquin, the real villain is on his way to the final gate.
2- this story arc has been long enough and capturing tarquin would make it even longer
3- only real villains get the privilege of being captured by the heroes and then psychologically manipulate them from behind bars.

I think these three statements are packed inside elan's burn, and they fully justify elan's decision not to capture tarquin.

[Liliet]

I'd like to say that Elan dropping Tarquin meant that Elan became smarter... well, it's smarter than if he had gone with T's ideas, but it would be even smarter if he killed him on the spot. Once again, short-term Good gets in the way of long-term Good.

On the other hand, the dungeon of Dorukan was mentioned, and it was that one time when Elan was actually right. Had he not pressed "self-destruct", Xykon would just regenerate, return to the dungeon and keep looking for the way to access the Gate. Sooner or later, given that both he and Redcloak had unlimited time, he would have succeeded. It was the explosion that alerted the Azure city that bad things were happening and started the current chase. Had Elan not blown up the dungeon, the first book would have had no positive result at all, save for the level-ups.

And yes, there actually was valid logic behind Elan being right, it wasn't just a freaky coincidence. Logic between blowing up the enemy's base is that it's something the villain needs, it is presumably there to serve Evil goals (doubly so on case of the sorcerer lich), therefore, destroying it will likely prevent many possible bad things. And that's what happened.


Elan has an intuitive grasp of narrative casuality which, combined with his sense or right and wrong, lets him make correct decisions at times when he actually gets to making them and not just going with the flow while trying to have as much fun as possible. His character development is about making his own decisions more and more often, and about learning to choose correct tropes of the long possible list (something Tarquin hasn't mastered).

His alignment would have turned South if his motivation changed so he stopped caring for Good, But it never did.

[Breccia]

From a Moral Standpoint, "He Needed Killing" is a perfectly valid excuse to straight-up murder someone and have it count as a Good act.

I think you and I disagree on what "murder" means.

[Jay R]

Elan=too dumb to realize that explosions kill? Well, I guess so (he did it to himself too, after all). That being the case, however, I have to wonder about his classification as smarter than Thog.

Elan always knew that explosions can kill. That knowledge is inherent in his statement that "you can't jump to safety until the explosion is right behind you (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html)". It's not jumping to safety unless the explosion can kill.

----------

Oh, and on another tyopic - Tarquin had lost all perspective. He wasn't going to stop trying to kill Roy. It's quite possible that Elan saved Tarquin's life by letting him fall.

In any event, nobody is required to go out of his way to save his enemy's life during a battle. It kinda misses the point of a fight to the death, really.

[Liliet]

Elan always knew that explosions can kill. That knowledge is inherent in his statement that "you can't jump to safety until the explosion is right behind you (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html)". It's not jumping to safety unless the explosion can kill.
Yeah. I'd say Elan was smart/genre savvy enough to know that there wouldn't be any really bad damage from the explosion and no-one would die. He just left it up to his friends to care about how exactly this comes true.


----------

Oh, and on another tyopic - Tarquin had lost all perspective. He wasn't going to stop trying to kill Roy. It's quite possible that Elan saved Tarquin's life by letting him fall.

In any event, nobody is required to go out of his way to save his enemy's life during a battle. It kinda misses the point of a fight to the death, really.First if all, I'd like to point out that Elan isn't a fan of the concept of fight to death. Neither am I, by the way.

But... yeah, it's possible that Elan saved Tarquin's life. And that's what worries me in that decision. Could Elan not see the big picture again, or will it turn out to be like blowing up the Gate - the seemingly inane action that was the only right one?

[GKBeetle]

I'm guessing getting my experience of D&D from videogames is giving me the wrong impression of alignment here. I always assumed that there was a sort of points-value system going on behind the scenes.

E.g, you could have a True Neutral Warrior character who just had a revelation and converted to Lawful Good, and a Cleric who had been Lawful Good all their lives. The Warrior would be considered significantly less Lawful Good than the Cleric, and would have to be significantly more careful with their actions to prevent from "slipping" and getting immediately cast back into True Neutral. The Cleric meanwhile would have a lot more leeway in the actions they could commit before changing alignment, but would have a much heavier roleplaying burden on justifying why their character suddenly started punting puppies.

That's kind of what I assumed was going on with Haley - being Good was hard for her, and so she was more likely to slip out of that alignment. On a numerical scale, Haley was high Chaos, low Good, while Elan was moderately low on the Chaos scale but very high on Good.

Is that just a wholly incorrect way of looking at alignment, or is there some merit to it?

That's not completely incorrect, depending on your DM. I've never played any D&D videogames, but I have played Knights of the Old Republic, which does have a point-based system of alignment in it. For instance, if you steal from someone or attack an innocent person, your character gets closer to the dark side, while giving someone money or saving someone who needs help can get you closer to the light side. Since Bioware was the developer of that game as well as some very highly regarded D&D videogames, I assume the system you speak of is similiar.

Simply put, there is nothing like that spelled out in the core rulebooks for D&D (I have no idea if some supplement like the Book of Exalted Deeds does contain something like this). That is one of the reasons that alignment of characters is often a hot topic on these forums. The rules in the rulebook are more like guidelines than anything else, and different DMs can and will determine what constitutes a good, evil or neutral action differently. It is often a DM's own personal guidelines about morality that determine how they rule, or even if they care about alignment. Different DM's will put more or less effort into tracking a character's alignment.

In my opionion, the only reason that most players even care about alignment is that there are some powerful classes (paladins being the most common example) that have built in rules that care about alignment. For instance, a paladin must remain lawful good, or they lose their special paladin powers.

I've never had a DM who took more than a casual approach to player alignment, and it would generally take a really extreme action to cause one of my DM's to force me to change my PC's alignment.

[Knaight]

From a Moral Standpoint, "He Needed Killing" is a perfectly valid excuse to straight-up murder someone and have it count as a Good act. It just happens to be heavily frowned upon because there's very little way to prove that "He needed killing" was both true and the motivation of the murder. According to the BoED, it's not just self-defense that justifies killing - It's also justified to protect others, or avenge greater wrongs.

However, Tarquin is an example where there is a great deal to prove that. He's a horrible despot who's above the law and can't be taken out through legal proceedings. He's demonstrated this repeatedly, including by burning a whole bunch of escaped slaves alive while detailing his horrible motives for Elan. He's the sort of character that basically doubles as an argument for assassination as a valid political tool for some circumstances. Given that he repeatedly attacked the Order of the Stick, a sword through the face would have been entirely reasonable.

[Liliet]

It is often a DM's own personal guidelines about morality that determine how they rule, or even if they care about alignment. Different DM's will put more or less effort into tracking a character's alignment.
That's a feature, not a bug. There's no way alignment can reasonably be based on anything but a DM's own understanding of it, given how closely connected it is to personal moral/ethical values.

And that's exactly what makes it interesting.



In my opionion, the only reason that most players even care about alignment is that there are some powerful classes (paladins being the most common example) that have built in rules that care about alignment. For instance, a paladin must remain lawful good, or they lose their special paladin powers.
I don't know about the majority, but I know many people who actually care about the alignment. It's fun, it offers a variety of fun options of quickly sketching a character. It has a lot of potential for complicated character-driven narrative built into it.

I've seen a lot of advice across the web to stop using the alignment because it, specifically in the case with paladins, is silly and disruptive. Yet, for some reasons, people still use it.

Hell, the sheer number and intense of alignment threads on this forum is very telling.



However, Tarquin is an example where there is a great deal to prove that. He's a horrible despot who's above the law and can't be taken out through legal proceedings. He's demonstrated this repeatedly, including by burning a whole bunch of escaped slaves alive while detailing his horrible motives for Elan. He's the sort of character that basically doubles as an argument for assassination as a valid political tool for some circumstances. Given that he repeatedly attacked the Order of the Stick, a sword through the face would have been entirely reasonable.
Yes, this. It's not even about the Order, it's about his Empire and his steel boot and approach to making omelettes.

[Horizon]

...there's no such thing as "degrees" of Goodness. You're either Good, or you're not.

Is that really true? I think of someone like O-Chul, whose commitment to Good (and to his ruler, and to his paladinhood) is so intense that he will sacrifice his life without blinking, and compare him to someone like Haley, who describes herself as "good-ish" and is willing to steal from people if it's for a good cause, and I definitely think of O-Chul as more Good than Haley.

On top of that, what about when a character changes alignment? Someone who changes alignment from Good to Neutral would gradually become less Good until at some point they're on the Neutral side of the line.

Now, when someone dies and goes to their afterlife, they're going to wind up in one place or another; there's not a halfway house between Lawful Neutral heaven and Lawful Good heaven. But within Lawful Good heaven, you're going to find people who dedicated their entire lives to Lawful Good ideals, and people who with one or two additional Evil actions would have wound up somewhere else, right? Wouldn't the former be more Good than the latter, even though they're both Good?

Are we just using different words to describe the same ideas, or is there an important part of your concept of alignment that I've missed?

[Keltest]

Is that really true? I think of someone like O-Chul, whose commitment to Good (and to his ruler, and to his paladinhood) is so intense that he will sacrifice his life without blinking, and compare him to someone like Haley, who describes herself as "good-ish" and is willing to steal from people if it's for a good cause, and I definitely think of O-Chul as more Good than Haley.

That would be Lawful vs Chaotic. Besides which, theres more to a person's character (no pun intended) than their alignment; O-Chul is incredibly loyal, but that is not a trait bound to any alignment. Haley tends towards pragmatism somewhat, whereas the paladins so far seem to be idealists (or at least they seemed that way before Azure City fell).

[GKBeetle]

That's a feature, not a bug. There's no way alignment can reasonably be based on anything but a DM's own understanding of it, given how closely connected it is to personal moral/ethical values.

It can become a bug when a player and their DM have a conflict with regards to those same values. If a player has their character do something that they don't believe should affect their PC's alignment, but the DM disagrees and takes away their paladin's powers as a result, it can cause a great bit of conflict and discord in the play group. Something that causes what is supposed to be a fun social activity to become a fight could be construed as a bug.


I've seen a lot of advice across the web to stop using the alignment because it, specifically in the case with paladins, is silly and disruptive. Yet, for some reasons, people still use it.

I think that some players have a resistance to house rules or leaving rules out that they don't like. For a long time, I counted myself among that group of players. I felt that leaving rules out or changing the rules was akin to heresy, and that groups who did this were not playing quite right. I have since mellowed and I now understand it is more important to have fun than to always live by the exact rules of the game. I understand that if a rule is causing a problem, you should leave the rule out. If you find that was a mistake, you can always add the rule back in later, but it is much harder to put a playgroup back together that has lost interest in the game.

[Reddish Mage]

Shifting from one valid interpretation of Chaotic Good to another is not grounds for an alignment change, because there's no such thing as "degrees" of Goodness. You're either Good, or you're not.

Didn't the Deva confirm that there were beings of pure law and goodness (as opposed to Eugene, who is merely lawful good)? Also doesn't detect alignment work depending on how "strong" the alignment is.

I suppose that degree of goodness has few in game effects, but if a test required the "pure of heart," Elan might qualify whereas Haley would not. Not just because of their own opinions, the temptation to commit evil is something that Elan truly doesn't seem to have.

[Amphiox]

Is that really true? I think of someone like O-Chul, whose commitment to Good (and to his ruler, and to his paladinhood) is so intense that he will sacrifice his life without blinking, and compare him to someone like Haley, who describes herself as "good-ish" and is willing to steal from people if it's for a good cause, and I definitely think of O-Chul as more Good than Haley.

On top of that, what about when a character changes alignment? Someone who changes alignment from Good to Neutral would gradually become less Good until at some point they're on the Neutral side of the line.

Now, when someone dies and goes to their afterlife, they're going to wind up in one place or another; there's not a halfway house between Lawful Neutral heaven and Lawful Good heaven. But within Lawful Good heaven, you're going to find people who dedicated their entire lives to Lawful Good ideals, and people who with one or two additional Evil actions would have wound up somewhere else, right? Wouldn't the former be more Good than the latter, even though they're both Good?

Are we just using different words to describe the same ideas, or is there an important part of your concept of alignment that I've missed?

I think the point is that while each of us can imagine such a scale, there is no non-arbitrary way to judge one over another. Where one person puts a character on his own scale is different from where someone else might put the same character. And just as a world where everyone is super is the same as a world where no one is, having and infinite number of possible scales of goodness that anyone can use and judge solely on whim is the same as having no scale at all.

[Amphiox]

Goodness is quantum, and trying to measure the Planck Length for virtue is a fruitless exercise.

[SaintRidley]

Is that really true? I think of someone like O-Chul, whose commitment to Good (and to his ruler, and to his paladinhood) is so intense that he will sacrifice his life without blinking, and compare him to someone like Haley, who describes herself as "good-ish" and is willing to steal from people if it's for a good cause, and I definitely think of O-Chul as more Good than Haley.



As far as the metaphysiscs of the Stickverse are concerned, they're both Good. Period. Haley might think he's more Good than her, and O-Chul might think Haley less Good than him (though he doesn't seem the sort to judge), but the universe doesn't care. They're both Good, and you all just get chucked in the corresponding bin. There's no sorting by degrees happening.

See, Good and good are different. The universe doesn't do degrees of Good - you either are or aren't, no more Good or less Good about it. But it can do degrees of good. O-Chul may be a better person than Haley. Miko was a worse person than either. Belkar is certainly a worse person than any of them, and while he may be becoming a better person than he was he's still a worse person than Miko ever was.

And yet, none of that impacts their relationship to being Good. If O-Chul is a better person than Haley, and Miko was just a downright bad person, so what? They're still Good.* Belkar being a worse person doesn't make him less Good than them - he's just plain not Good to begin with. He can't ever become more or less Good than he is right now without actually becoming Good in the first place, in which case the universe will see him as Good just like the other three.

There is no more or less Good because Good is an alignment - you either have it or you don't. There's better and worse, and people within an alignment can be better or worse than each other, but it won't make them more or less Good. That's because good isn't an alignment, Good is. That's the difference.

*Miko may or may not have undergone an alignment shift upon killing Shojo. For the purposes of this post I'm talking about pre-Fall Miko, who was definitely Good, even if she was incredibly horrible as a person.

[Liliet]

As for the degrees, it's kinda complicated. I choose to view alignment axis as gradient where the change happens slowly, but there are those lines where you go from one box to the other, and those boxes are all that matters. The gradient view has no relevance to the rules, it's only relevant to my personal, and I suspect, many people's understanding of what alignment is. Thing is, it's all "house rules" at that point already (I elaborate below).



It can become a bug when a player and their DM have a conflict with regards to those same values. If a player has their character do something that they don't believe should affect their PC's alignment, but the DM disagrees and takes away their paladin's powers as a result, it can cause a great bit of conflict and discord in the play group. Something that causes what is supposed to be a fun social activity to become a fight could be construed as a bug.
That depends on how the DM and the player handle this conflict. Half the fun can come from discussing their views. And if they are friends who play together, I don't think the difference in their views is so irreconcilable that they won't find a compromise. (If they are friends but it is... yeah, they shouldn't use alignment rules.)

Alignment discussions are fun!

(I understand that it's not like that for everyone, but it CAN be like that)



I think that some players have a resistance to house rules or leaving rules out that they don't like. For a long time, I counted myself among that group of players. I felt that leaving rules out or changing the rules was akin to heresy, and that groups who did this were not playing quite right. I have since mellowed and I now understand it is more important to have fun than to always live by the exact rules of the game. I understand that if a rule is causing a problem, you should leave the rule out. If you find that was a mistake, you can always add the rule back in later, but it is much harder to put a playgroup back together that has lost interest in the game.
See, the problem with alignment is that existing rules/guidelines are often inane and contradictory, and the more material you use, the worse it is. You have to house rule anyway, deciding how alignment works in your game. For example, in my game, a paladin who took someone like Belkar in their party like Roy did for the reasons he claimed during the celestial interview, would not fall or even come close to falling (unless he let that character influence his views and actions, but that's the whole other can of worms).

And discarding alignment is so popular, it's like a variant rule more than house rule now, or at least I see it like that. Now, I would never drop alignment, it was what got me interested in DnD in the first place, but if I didn't like it, I totally would.

That's just my view, of course. I wouldn't dare speak for "many players" :smallwink:

[Seto]

As far as the metaphysiscs of the Stickverse are concerned, they're both Good. Period. Haley might think he's more Good than her, and O-Chul might think Haley less Good than him (though he doesn't seem the sort to judge), but the universe doesn't care. They're both Good, and you all just get chucked in the corresponding bin. There's no sorting by degrees happening.

See, Good and good are different. The universe doesn't do degrees of Good - you either are or aren't, no more Good or less Good about it. But it can do degrees of good. O-Chul may be a better person than Haley. Miko was a worse person than either. Belkar is certainly a worse person than any of them, and while he may be becoming a better person than he was he's still a worse person than Miko ever was.

And yet, none of that impacts their relationship to being Good. If O-Chul is a better person than Haley, and Miko was just a downright bad person, so what? They're still Good.* Belkar being a worse person doesn't make him less Good than them - he's just plain not Good to begin with. He can't ever become more or less Good than he is right now without actually becoming Good in the first place, in which case the universe will see him as Good just like the other three.

There is no more or less Good because Good is an alignment - you either have it or you don't. There's better and worse, and people within an alignment can be better or worse than each other, but it won't make them more or less Good. That's because good isn't an alignment, Good is. That's the difference.

*Miko may or may not have undergone an alignment shift upon killing Shojo. For the purposes of this post I'm talking about pre-Fall Miko, who was definitely Good, even if she was incredibly horrible as a person.

Yes, insofar as alignments are boxes, they don't do degrees : you're in the box or you're not. But that doesn't change the fact that not everyone is right in the middle of the box, where they can't slide out. O'chul is nothing but Lawful Good - Roy is Lawful Good as well, but this isn't obvious enough for the Deva not to hesitate. He falls under the same label, and O'Chul and Roy are both "Lawful Good" and not "Lawful Good extra" and "Lawful Good minus", granted. But Roy's propension to act in an unlawful manner might mean that this label is not the only one that could fit him.
In other words, even if you consider Good or Evil to be objective forces not necessarily identical with "right" or "wrong", degrees are worthless in determining your effective alignment, but they definitely aren't in determining how close you are to the standards by which another alignment is defined.

[Keltest]

Yes, insofar as alignments are boxes, they don't do degrees : you're in the box or you're not. But that doesn't change the fact that not everyone is right in the middle of the box, where they can't slide out. O'chul is nothing but Lawful Good - Roy is Lawful Good as well, but this isn't obvious enough for the Deva not to hesitate. He falls under the same label, and O'Chul and Roy are both "Lawful Good" and not "Lawful Good extra" and "Lawful Good minus", granted. But Roy's propension to act in an unlawful manner might mean that this label is not the only one that could fit him.
In other words, even if you consider Good or Evil to be objective forces not necessarily identical with "right" or "wrong", degrees are worthless in determining your effective alignment, but they definitely aren't in determining how close you are to the standards by which another alignment is defined.

Im fairly certain that's addressed by the argument that there are different kinds of X alignment. O-chul acting more like Roy for whatever reason would not make him any less lawful good, even if it would be out of character for him.

[Liliet]

Im fairly certain that's addressed by the argument that there are different kinds of X alignment. O-chul acting more like Roy for whatever reason would not make him any less lawful good, even if it would be out of character for him.

Roy's prone to acting Chaotically, so... yes, it would. It would make him less Lawful Good.

[Amphiox]

The thing about the D&D alignment system is that it was never intended to be very fine-grained, and if you poke at it enough, it will break down.

It was designed to be use for campaign and character design, and how often does any campaign or character design need to revolve around the fine-grained details of what are shades of goodness, if any? How many gamers actually care enough about such details to put primary importance to them over say, playing the game?

I don't think that theologians and moral philosophers constituted the core audience D&D was aiming for when the rules were crafted....

[Aharon]

Also, the entire point of his line is that he KNOWS Tarquin can survive the fall. It was the equivalent of tripping him and running away. Painful, but completely non lethal. He did it with full knowledge that his dad wasn't going to die from it.

Unless the "Death from Massive Damage"-rule is in effect. 20d6 averages to 70 damage, which requires a DC 15 Fort save against death. So Tarquin would have a 5% chance of dying (barring a save reroll feat/spell/whatever).
Given Elan's certainty, we now know that either the rule is not in effect or he doesn't know about the - very seldomly used - rule.

[Rodin]

Im fairly certain that's addressed by the argument that there are different kinds of X alignment. O-chul acting more like Roy for whatever reason would not make him any less lawful good, even if it would be out of character for him.

I took that to mean that there are different valid ways ways to play each alignment which would not affect you on the (imaginary, house-ruled) gradient.

In the specific case of Elan, deciding to kill the evildoer on the spot would not make him any less Chaotic Good - that's a very Chaotic Good way of dealing with a villain. Elan in the past would have chosen a different solution, but that would not make him any less Chaotic Good.

On the flip side, let's take Roy's judgement. Roy decides to work behind the backs of an entire order of Paladins in order to save the world - that isn't any kind of Lawful, and causes him to veer sharply towards Chaotic. This (and other actions like it) is what causes the deva to hesitate about putting him into the Lawful Good after-life.

I find it difficult to argue that Roy undertaking regular Chaotic Good actions is just another way of playing a Lawful Good character and that he is exactly the same alignment-wise as O-Chul. Mechanically, yes, they are both Lawful Good and there is no distinction. In every other way though, Roy is far more Chaotic and hence closer to being Neutral Good than O-Chul is.

A good example of sticking to your alignment but playing it different ways is O-Chul vs. Hinjo. Hinjo is much more focused on Law, while O-Chul is more focused on Good. Each is highly Lawful Good with virtually no Chaotic tendencies and outright zero Evil tendencies, but they both approach things differently. I suspect O-Chul would have been much more willing to give Miko a beatdown where Hinjo attempted a peaceful arrest, but it's a Lawful Good solution to the issue either way.

At any rate, my original question has certainly been answered - there is no official explanation of how to handle alignment shifts. It certainly explains a lot about the alignment debates.

I think I like working on a gradient, so that's going to continue to be my headcanon.

[Trillium]

I would like to point out that technically Elan's alignment is part of Elan and now they are both heading North, as of latest comic...

[AgentofHellfire]

Multiple times.

My comment previously has been along the lines of Elan being too stupid to understand what he was doing. However, since the last time it came up, Word of the Author comments on the moral culpability of Thog and the Empress of Blood...have led me to the just-realized conclusion that that was an inappropriate degree of lenience to show Elan.


Well, "too stupid" might be, "had no idea that thing he stepped on was a self-destruct rune" probably isn't. And the second one's possible, given that the act of him activating the self-destruct rune was done off panel, and said by Roy and Celia later on to be an accident.

And after that, the fact that Elan has next to no arcane schooling, isn't particularly bright enough to figure out what the hell that rune-looking thing was, etc.

[Liliet]

Well, "too stupid" might be, "had no idea that thing he stepped on was a self-destruct rune" probably isn't. And the second one's possible, given that the act of him activating the self-destruct rune was done off panel, and said by Roy and Celia later on to be an accident.

And after that, the fact that Elan has next to no arcane schooling, isn't particularly bright enough to figure out what the hell that rune-looking thing was, etc.

Huh. It really was off-panel. It sounded like Elan thought it was appropriate, but he could just be trying to conceal his mistake.

However, I like the option that he knew what he was doing and was right about it better.

[AgentofHellfire]

Huh. It really was off-panel. It sounded like Elan thought it was appropriate, but he could just be trying to conceal his mistake.

However, I like the option that he knew what he was doing and was right about it better.

Well, by the (insanely stringent) standards of the Good alignment, he was technically in the wrong because of the goblin teenagers that were down there, who were at least trying to be good-aligned and would've died in the explosion.

[Kish]

Insanely stringent=an excellent description of "it's wrong to commit mass murder."

Just ask Vaarsuvius. (Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility if Vaarsuvius responds to the question by bursting into tears.)

[AgentofHellfire]

Insanely stringent=an excellent description of "it's wrong to commit mass murder."

...except I'm fairly certain that such a level of death for innocent bystanders has been matched in pretty much every war ever.

And as for Vaarsuvius--there's a marked difference between killing everyone even vaguely related to someone you dislike to deal with a threat that had already passed, and blowing up a specific area to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.

[zimmerwald1915]

...except I'm fairly certain that such a level of death for innocent bystanders has been matched in pretty much every war ever.
If you open the spoiler box that contains Kish's signature you will probably realize that this argument isn't probably going to get you very far with him.

[Kish]

Other than the fact that that's completely irrelevant, it's definitely an argument-winner.

("Why are you arresting me? I only killed one person! Way more than that have died in every war ever!")

Edit in response to your edit: Let's not confuse Celia's courtroom argument with reality, shall we? Elan touched the self-destruct rune because it was there. "Prevent it falling into the wrong hands" is an argument Roy and Celia came up with a long time later, without even involving Elan.

[AgentofHellfire]

Other than the fact that that's completely irrelevant,

It isn't. That fight, in the Dungeons of Dorukan, was not just about individual people.


it's definitely an argument-winner.

("Why are you arresting me? I only killed one person! Way more than that have died in every war ever!")

See, that's irrelevant, for reasons I touched on in my edit already.


Edit in response to your edit: Let's not confuse Celia's courtroom argument with reality, shall we? Elan touched the self-destruct rune because it was there. "Prevent it falling into the wrong hands" is an argument Roy and Celia came up with a long time later, without even involving Elan.

Well, I was discussing the most likely way Elan could have "known what he was doing and been right". In my own opinion he most likely simply stepped on or was knocked into some weird symbol, that activated when he touched it for some reason.

[Burner28]

I do think Elan is shifting alignment, but more in that he is shifting from Chaotic Good to Neutral Good.

Not really.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, "too stupid" might be, "had no idea that thing he stepped on was a self-destruct rune" probably isn't. And the second one's possible, given that the act of him activating the self-destruct rune was done off panel, and said by Roy and Celia later on to be an accident.

And after that, the fact that Elan has next to no arcane schooling, isn't particularly bright enough to figure out what the hell that rune-looking thing was, etc.


In my own opinion he most likely simply stepped on or was knocked into some weird symbol, that activated when he touched it for some reason.
...Come on. The rune was labeled "Castle Self-Destruct (Do Not Touch Ever.) (No, not even then.) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html) in plain Common and in non-magical writing. How do I know the writing was non-magical and in Common? It, unlike the rune itself, did not glow with a dweomer. It, unlike Haley's cryptograms, was intelligible to the reader. It, unlike the Elven spoken in Ivyleaf, was not surrounded by triangular brackets. If the writing was non-magical and in Common, it had to have been there and available for Elan to read before he touched the rune. Finally, there's no joke if the rune isn't clearly labeled. "Elan blunders into a self-destruct rune by accident" isn't funny and smacks of contrivance and laziness that has never been characteristic of the Giant's writing. "Elan pushes the self-destruct rune because he thinks that's what he's supposed to do and later finds out he's wrong" at least has some kind of payoff even if the implications don't speak all that well of him.

[theNater]

...except I'm fairly certain that such a level of death for innocent bystanders has been matched in pretty much every war ever.
Why is happening in "pretty much every war ever" the standard for what Good should be? People of all alignments participate in warfare.

[BeerMug Paladin]

In regards to people committing acts that are questionable. There's a big difference between knowing something you're going to do will have specific consequences but choosing to do it anyway and simply not thinking about all the consequences of one's actions and choosing them. Elan clearly did the latter, V did the former.

Also, I was under the impression the monsters in Dorukan's dungeon simply left. After all, the flumphs were there too and they had enough time to leave before it blew up. I would probably leave a place after being compelled to go there magically as well.

[Kish]

The Order (at least the Vaarsuvius part of it) apparently expected there to be a lot of encounters they could have to gain XP still in the dungeon right before learning that Elan had set off the self-destruct rune.

[zimmerwald1915]

The Order (at least the Vaarsuvius part of it) apparently expected there to be a lot of encounters they could have to gain XP still in the dungeon right before learning that Elan had set off the self-destruct rune.
Their believing a thing does not make it so.

[Jay R]

Goodness is quantum, and trying to measure the Planck Length for virtue is a fruitless exercise.

The Planck length for virtue is discovered very quickly by the only good guy on a pirate ship.

[AgentofHellfire]

...Come on. The rune was labeled "Castle Self-Destruct (Do Not Touch Ever.) (No, not even then.) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html) in plain Common and in non-magical writing. How do I know the writing was non-magical and in Common? It, unlike the rune itself, did not glow with a dweomer. It, unlike Haley's cryptograms, was intelligible to the reader. It, unlike the Elven spoken in Ivyleaf, was not surrounded by triangular brackets. If the writing was non-magical and in Common, it had to have been there and available for Elan to read before he touched the rune.

Unless, again, Elan was slammed into it by some spell or bull-rush. Or, even after he read it, some slip-up caused him to touch it by pure physical accident. Even if he could understand the reading, that doesn't necessarily mean he had the time in that moment to read it, or even if he did, that he can't trip.


Finally, there's no joke if the rune isn't clearly labeled. "Elan blunders into a self-destruct rune by accident" isn't funny and smacks of contrivance and laziness that has never been characteristic of the Giant's writing. "Elan pushes the self-destruct rune because he thinks that's what he's supposed to do and later finds out he's wrong" at least has some kind of payoff even if the implications don't speak all that well of him.

Well, he never really found out he was wrong. There's been no time spent on that side of it, and those implications are things the Giant tends to explore if he thinks they're relevant. And meanwhile, a quick check suggests that this writing technique you speak of that the Giant would never use, has in fact been used by the Giant. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0241.html)

And in any event, I'm unsure to what extent the jokes (and the jokes in those early strips especially) are supposed to be an actual part of the world and not just, y'know, jokes.

[Liliet]

Well, by the (insanely stringent) standards of the Good alignment, he was technically in the wrong because of the goblin teenagers that were down there, who were at least trying to be good-aligned and would've died in the explosion.
It's pretty reasonable to assume that everyone escaped. Even OotS did, and they were there for the first time.

It's been mentioned that the Giant said he never intended that explosion to have such consequences and implications. Not that it's relevant (I'm a proponent of Death of the Author) but it really is weird to assume that the Order, the outsiders, were the only ones to escape. Oh wait, there were also at least Reddy and MitD.



Other than the fact that that's completely irrelevant, it's definitely an argument-winner.

("Why are you arresting me? I only killed one person! Way more than that have died in every war ever!")

Edit in response to your edit: Let's not confuse Celia's courtroom argument with reality, shall we? Elan touched the self-destruct rune because it was there. "Prevent it falling into the wrong hands" is an argument Roy and Celia came up with a long time later, without even involving Elan.
How do you know Elan touched it for that reason? He touched it because destroying the villain's base is what heroes do. He was right, because destroying the villain's base is what heroes should do. In this case it was the only way to inflict lasting damage on Xykon, even.

[Kish]

...Right. Can't be a hero if you're not also a one-person demolition company.

I see no meaningful difference between "he touched it because it was there" and "he touched it out of a conviction that destroying the villain's base is what heroes do." He most certainly did not destroy it out of a desire to do lasting harm to Xykon; he believed Xykon was destroyed at the time.

[Liliet]

...Right. Can't be a hero if you're not also a one-person demolition company.

I see no meaningful difference between "he touched it because it was there" and "he touched it out of a conviction that destroying the villain's base is what heroes do." He most certainly did not destroy it out of a desire to do lasting harm to Xykon; he believed Xykon was destroyed at the time.
You are overcomplicating it. A person who touches the switch and expects the light to turn on doesn't know how the lamp is made, they don't know where the wires are and what happens in the light bulb to make it shine; and if they have some assumptions, these assumptions are likely to be wrong. Nevertheless, they touch the switch and the light turns on, and that's all they really need to know. Elan knew that destroying a villain's base was a right thing to do because that's how stories work. And it was a right thing to do because this story worked this way, too. He was right.

[Kish]

You are overcomplicating it.

"Elan touched it because it was there" is overcomplicating it? Oh, I get it--taking any view other than a strictly consequentialist one which assumes that all the denizens of the dungeon got out is what you're calling "overcomplicating it."

[Liliet]

"Elan touched it because it was there" is overcomplicating it? Oh, I get it--taking any view other than a strictly consequentialist one which assumes that all the denizens of the dungeon got out is what you're calling "overcomplicating it."
Wait, what does my view on everyone getting out have to do with Elan's motives?

Overcomplicating it is assuming Elan should have known specifically how his actions would thwart the villain's plans and serve the ultimate Good to be reasonably sure they would.

And assuming Elan is an idiot who touches everything that is dangerous just because it's there is... well, he's still alive, isn't he?

[Math_Mage]

Arguing over the consequences of the explosion isn't going to get us anywhere, because there's a lot we aren't shown and therefore can't establish with certainty (though I'd like to note that assuming everyone got out because the Order did is wrong, since the Order was warned and we don't know that anyone else was).

In the interest of being charitable to the Giant since he's all but said he regrets a lot from DCF (can't remember if he actually said it), I'd say Elan's stupidity doesn't have a major alignment effect, and that he genuinely didn't think of all the monsters that would be killed by the self-destruct. Which is reasonable, since this is an error shared by Roy.

[Loreweaver15]

In a universe that functions partly on comedic laws of physics, yes, somebody with that sort of destructive tendency is perfectly capable of surviving. Look, Elan did a dumb. Elan's done lots of dumbs, but this particular dumb is noteworthy because of the large number of unintended consequences it led to. Are these things Elan's fault? Yes. Did he mean to cause any of them? No. Does that change his alignment in any way? Not really, no. That he was hurting the situation doesn't change that he thought he was helping, and that he thought he was helping doesn't change that he hurt the situation.


The Planck length for virtue is discovered very quickly by the only good guy on a pirate ship.

Also, made my whole day.

[oppyu]

I don't think the first couple of hundred strips stand up to this kind of scrutiny; I mean, the comic was kind of a mess back then. Roy was slaughtering sentient creatures in their sleep, Redcloak was a snivelling yes-man, the Giant was making utterly unfunny rape jokes, we had non-sequitur strips about D&D copyright law, in-game advertisements (or whatever the hell Fruit Pie the Sorcerer was supposed to be) and the Order trying to find a toilet for Belkar, and Elan's low mental stats led him to accidentally commit mass-murder. Lots of bad stuff happened back then, but I doubt anyone's going to argue that the Giant endorses shotgun weddings because he had a Good protagonist player character support it over a woman's right to choose.

Plus, criticising Elan for actions Rich clearly didn't intend him to take is like criticising the Rebellion for not realising that destroying the Death Star right over Ewok-land would lead to lots of dead Ewoks.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

n-game advertisements (or whatever the hell Fruit Pie the Sorcerer was supposed to be)

It was a parody of old in-magazine advertisements.

[Snails]

However, I do think that refusing a deal with Tarquin does show less than goodness on Elan's part. Not because he didn't try to help Tarquin, but because Tarquin offered a compromise that would have helped immensely in the greater fight against a much worse evil (Xykon).

He put his own hate (however justified) ahead of the greater good.

The fact that Tarquin sticks to the letter of his word is worthless. To Elan. Only someone with the brains of V and the instinct for lawfulness of Durkon, plus the savvy for sniffing misdirection of Haley, all in one skull, could hope to negotiate effectively with Tarquin.

You might as well say: "Yes, the contract is 19 pages and written and Elbonian, and you cannot understand a word. But the guy who wrote will stick to the letter of the contract, I promise. Obviously, you should sign the contract without reading it."

[zimmerwald1915]

Only someone with the brains of V and the instinct for lawfulness of Durkon, plus the savvy for sniffing misdirection of Haley, all in one skull, could hope to negotiate effectively with Tarquin.
So...Roy could hope to negotiate effectively with Tarquin?

[AzraelX]

Um ... I wouldn't take Tarquin's promises that seriously.
I would.

Tarquin ... will stick to the letter of his promises.
This.

I was going to point out the same thing, but I'll just quote you since you did it already.

Tarquin may be a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them. He's incredibly honest about his thoughts and feelings, even when it would have benefited him more to be dishonest, and he keeps his word under any circumstance.

I'm sure if Elan was in a situation where he was sure they would lose without Tarquin's help, he would begrudgingly accept it. But he isn't in that situation; he doesn't want or need said help, so it only makes sense that he would reject it. It has nothing to do with not believing Tarquin, and his replies make it clear that he knows Tarquin's word can be trusted.

Personally, I hope the eventual end to this comic isn't incredibly cliche and predictable, because who likes that in any story? I'd like to see an end where Tarquin still controls his huge empire. The recent events demonstrate that it's possible for Tarquin to remain in power and still be denied what he wants (and I don't personally think "we're going to make the entire world a utopia where violence is never used nor needed in any government or society anywhere" should be a goal of this adventuring party, or of the storyline as a whole).

[Kish]

Roy has no ranks in Sense Motive and while he aspires to be Lawful his instincts are significantly more Chaotic than Durkon's, so...no. :smalltongue: Vampire Durkon might be able to though.

[Math_Mage]

So...Roy could hope to negotiate effectively with Tarquin?
Well, it's established that Roy has neither the instinctive lawfulness of Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0733.html), nor the savvy for sniffing misdirection of Haley. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html)

[Seto]

Im fairly certain that's addressed by the argument that there are different kinds of X alignment. O-chul acting more like Roy for whatever reason would not make him any less lawful good, even if it would be out of character for him.

Actually, the way I see it, the reason why there are several valid ways to play each alignment (I mean, besides the fact that characters also have a personality that has nothing to do with their alignment strictly speaking) is : because you can put an strong emphasis on Lawful, a strong emphasis on Good, a good equilibrium between both, a mild emphasis on either etc... So it is a question of degrees. Especially when Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are objective energies : your soul can be kinda tainted by Evil, or be tainted a lot. It can reek of Law, or just have a slight lawful perfume.

All of which doesn't change the fact that ultimately, whatever your combination is between emphasis, strong, mild, equilibrium and whatnot, the result, your alignment that is, will still mechanically be the same and you'll be in the same box.

[Lamech]

Letting Tarquin Fall: He let an evil rapist mass murder go. It was the best option. In all honesty their is no guarantee they would have been able to capture/kill Tarquin without lasting damage and reduced ability to save the world. A more idealistic Elan would have tried to kill/capture/ally with his father.

DoD and the Self-Destruct Rune: Elan truly believe in narrative physics. He assumed all the good guys would escape, and it would inflict lasting damage on team evil. Even had he wrong it still would have been a good act. Being mistaken about some fact is a perfect excuse for actions that kill people.
Real World Example: You turn on your car with a remote. An assassin has added a car bomb. The explosion kills a bunch of bystanders. Assuming you had no knowledge of the assassin no (reasonable) person would blame you.

Elan happened to be right about the self-destruct, but that is inconsequential when it comes time to judge Elan.

Elan has been solidly good. Really this isn't even that much of a variation is his normal manner of operation. He's a bit less cheerful, but he never really went in for killing family. He's letting his father go.

[Boring McReader]

I don't think the first couple of hundred strips stand up to this kind of scrutiny; I mean, the comic was kind of a mess back then. Roy was slaughtering sentient creatures in their sleep, Redcloak was a snivelling yes-man, the Giant was making utterly unfunny rape jokes, we had non-sequitur strips about D&D copyright law, in-game advertisements (or whatever the hell Fruit Pie the Sorcerer was supposed to be) and the Order trying to find a toilet for Belkar, and Elan's low mental stats led him to accidentally commit mass-murder.

It wasn't a mess. It was a parody strip with a plot, instead of a plot strip with parodies. The tone and humor wasn't much different apart from the shift of emphasis. Redcloak is still a sniveling yes-man, only we understand his true intentions better and he has less patience with keeping up the act. We have non-sequitur strips about meme ads, blood plasma TV, soul in-boxes, and thumb recaps. There are jokes about living kobold litter boxes. They've gotten rarer, but it's a slow, steady dropoff to match the increasingly serious challenges facing the party.

Re-reading OOTS, it's surprising how tightly the early strips hold together after the first few pages. All the character personalities and rules of the world were established very early. Stakes and story were added later without breaking what came before. For me, the biggest shift comes after the Order destroys the dungeon. Up until the last few pages, Book 1 is a straightforward dungeon crawl. After that, the whole world opens up.

Without arguing over the differences between individual elements (please, let's not), we can agree that the strip has always had long-term goals and tone-breaking asides. We can also agree the author's goals and interests have shifted, and his dramatic storybuilding has grown with his characters. It was a good D&D rules comic when it started, and it's a good D&D-inspired epic now.

[Gift Jeraff]

Roy has no ranks in Sense Motive and while he aspires to be Lawful his instincts are significantly more Chaotic than Durkon's, so...no. :smalltongue: Vampire Durkon might be able to though.

Yes, only Vampire Durkon can use his mouth to properly negotiate with Tarquin. They might even get a new ally out of it!

[Scow2]

Now, when someone dies and goes to their afterlife, they're going to wind up in one place or another; there's not a halfway house between Lawful Neutral heaven and Lawful Good heaven. But within Lawful Good heaven, you're going to find people who dedicated their entire lives to Lawful Good ideals, and people who with one or two additional Evil actions would have wound up somewhere else, right? Wouldn't the former be more Good than the latter, even though they're both Good?Technically, there IS somewhere between Lawful Good and Neutral Good in Standard D&D - The Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia are the "Full Lawful Good", while "Lawful Neutral" go to Mechanus... but there's also the Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia between the two.


Arguing over the consequences of the explosion isn't going to get us anywhere, because there's a lot we aren't shown and therefore can't establish with certainty (though I'd like to note that assuming everyone got out because the Order did is wrong, since the Order was warned and we don't know that anyone else was).You mean you didn't see the extended off-panel Spaceballs-esque Self-Destruct countdown and warnings?

The order got out. The villains got out. Even the Flumphs got out. There's no reason to suspect everyone else didn't get out.

[hamishspence]

Technically, there IS somewhere between Lawful Good and Neutral Good in Standard D&D - The Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia are the "Full Lawful Good", while "Lawful Neutral" go to Mechanus... but there's also the Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia between the two.

Yup. And between LG Celestia and NG Elysium, is Bytopia.

[warrl]

It was designed to be use for campaign and character design, and how often does any campaign or character design need to revolve around the fine-grained details of what are shades of goodness, if any? How many gamers actually care enough about such details to put primary importance to them over say, playing the game?

I have one character where, both while building him and while playing him, I frequently considered his alignment and the alignment of the nation he's from. It was important to numerous character-design and characterization decisions.

I have other characters that, even after playing them for a while, I have no idea what their alignment is.

[Jay R]

Elan's alignment did not go down. Elan's father went down.

[Liliet]

I have other characters that, even after playing them for a while, I have no idea what their alignment is.
True Neutral?

I'd say that when it's tough to tell which alignment a character is, it means they are balanced on one or both axis and can be safely placed into Neutral.

[cheesecake]

I didn't read all the comments.

We all need to remember what Lein said. "GOOD NOT STUPID!" or whatever it was, lawful not stupid? Not going through the archives.

His father is an evil man, has killed who knows how many people, and allowed terrible things to happen.

If he would of killed him, shoved him off a cliff, sat him on fire, ect ect he would still be good. Let him fall when he knew he would survive does nothing to change Elan's alignment.

If he would of pulled him up who is not say he wouldn't of tried to kill them all again!

[sr123]

I think the real question is "Can Elan's actions and motives be characterized within the Alignment System?", to which the answer has been "no" since pretty much the second book. As has been said many times, the Alignment System is really more for beginner- or hackslash-D&D stuff.

When you kill sentient beings for a living, there's going to be mostly moral grey (even (especially?) for paladins). Funny how Elan's alignment is only called into question when he doesn't kill someone (c.f. discussion on Kubota (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html)).

It's happening to me in my gaming group right now: I'm neutral and the good characters are yelling at me for not killing an easily-trounced bounty hunter (the contract may very well be legit from the Elf government -- we don't know yet).

[drazen]

Tarquin may be a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them. He's incredibly honest about his thoughts and feelings, even when it would have benefited him more to be dishonest, and he keeps his word under any circumstance.

Tarquin, to Roy: "Consider this an audition. Accompany my son on his mission to apprehend his brother. If he comes back alive, I'll give you both permanent positions. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0817.html)

Elan survived the mission, and Tarquin tried to kill Roy anyway. So Tarquin apparently does NOT adhere to the letter of his agreements.

[Kish]

He tried to give Roy and Belkar permanent positions--in graves.

That said, Tarquin has demonstrated himself to be dishonest to the point of being made of lies (the aforementioned positions in graves, the very clear and completely dishonest implication that he was sending troops to help the Free City of Doom, everything he said about wanting to help Elan capture Nale) and not above outright lying on those rare occasions when he can't play his preferred word game, so I don't understand in the least why "Tarquin is honest" keeps coming up. If you cast True Seeing and looked at him, he'd blow away like smoke.

[RNGgod]

There seems to be some continued belief that Tarquin's gambit with the Free City of Doom was totally cool and just plain awesome because he technically delivered on his promise, man!

It's almost like people just decided to stop absorbing any information about Tarquin starting immediately afterwards.

[Jay R]

Tarquin, to Roy: "Consider this an audition. Accompany my son on his mission to apprehend his brother. If he comes back alive, I'll give you both permanent positions. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0817.html)

Elan survived the mission, and Tarquin tried to kill Roy anyway.

To be fair, he did (eventually) offer Roy a permanent position. "Why doesn't my group fund a whole legion of adventurers, and we'll put you buddy Roy in charge of the all? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html)"

[Snails]

Tarquin may be a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them. He's incredibly honest about his thoughts and feelings, even when it would have benefited him more to be dishonest, and he keeps his word under any circumstance.

Someone who orders others to lie is still a liar, exactly like someone who hires a hitman is a murderer.

Ask Ganji/Enor or Ian about how Tarquin's brand of "honesty" actually works.

[Loreweaver15]

Tarquin's gambit with the Free City was cool and awesome, not because it was honest, but because it was effective and competent villainy. I enjoy characters who lie well :P

[Liliet]

To be fair, he did (eventually) offer Roy a permanent position. "Why doesn't my group fund a whole legion of adventurers, and we'll put you buddy Roy in charge of the all? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html)"
Yeah, when hanging off the airship. That looks like the best way to negotiate with him... and pulling him up from there would reflect negatively on his adequate-negotiating ability.

[Shale]

Tarquin says things which can be parsed as true. That's not the same thing as being honest.

[Rodin]

Tarquin is also exactly the sort of person who would tell 999 truths for the sole reason of making the lie "dramatically shocking".

[Amphiox]

I have one character where, both while building him and while playing him, I frequently considered his alignment and the alignment of the nation he's from. It was important to numerous character-design and characterization decisions.


But how fine-grained was the classification system for goodness that you needed for your considerations? Did you need to invent a rainbow spectrum of specific "shades" of good, gooder, and goodest, and rigidly define what acts go where within that spectrum, or were your considerations more free flowing, organic, and instinctive than that?

[Liliet]

But how fine-grained was the classification system for goodness that you needed for your considerations? Did you need to invent a rainbow spectrum of specific "shades" of good, gooder, and goodest, and rigidly define what acts go where within that spectrum, or were your considerations more free flowing, organic, and instinctive than that?
I'm not the person you are talking to, but if I were him, I'd just go with the nine alignment boxes and leave everything else instinctive and intuitive :smallsmile:

[drazen]

He tried to give Roy and Belkar permanent positions--in graves.

That said, Tarquin has demonstrated himself to be dishonest to the point of being made of lies (the aforementioned positions in graves, the very clear and completely dishonest implication that he was sending troops to help the Free City of Doom, everything he said about wanting to help Elan capture Nale) and not above outright lying on those rare occasions when he can't play his preferred word game, so I don't understand in the least why "Tarquin is honest" keeps coming up. If you cast True Seeing and looked at him, he'd blow away like smoke.

But Roy was also offered the choice of refusing the position if he didn't like the terms. So even if the position was in a grave, Roy could refuse it.

I think Tarquin flat out lied and broke his word on this one, until he was hanging on to the airship with no support.

[BroomGuys]

Tarquin, to Roy: "Consider this an audition. Accompany my son on his mission to apprehend his brother. If he comes back alive, I'll give you both permanent positions. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0817.html)

Elan survived the mission, and Tarquin tried to kill Roy anyway. So Tarquin apparently does NOT adhere to the letter of his agreements.

Well technically, Elan didn't come back yet. Tarquin intercepted them before they returned to Bleedingham anyway, which was probably built into his plan; since he was going to get directly involved with the battle for the gate, he could scope out any reason not to hire Roy and, if he saw one, kill him before they made it back.

This might be more of a stretch than some of Tarquin's other technical truths, I admit. In any case, as has been said, his adherence to the letter of his promises has nothing to do with any honest intentions, and he's clever enough that there could be a loophole in everything he ever says, so putting any stock in any kind of relationship between Tarquin's words and the truth is clearly a mistake.

[drazen]

Well technically, Elan didn't come back yet. Tarquin intercepted them before they returned to Bleedingham anyway, which was probably built into his plan; since he was going to get directly involved with the battle for the gate, he could scope out any reason not to hire Roy and, if he saw one, kill him before they made it back.

This might be more of a stretch than some of Tarquin's other technical truths, I admit. In any case, as has been said, his adherence to the letter of his promises has nothing to do with any honest intentions, and he's clever enough that there could be a loophole in everything he ever says, so putting any stock in any kind of relationship between Tarquin's words and the truth is clearly a mistake.

That is a pretty big stretch, even for Tarquin.

[Doug Lampert]

Didn't the Deva confirm that there were beings of pure law and goodness (as opposed to Eugene, who is merely lawful good)? Also doesn't detect alignment work depending on how "strong" the alignment is.

No. It works on how strong the alignment aura is, and that aura doesn't actually necessarily correspond to the character's alignment and it does not at all correspond to how strongly the character is the alignment.

There's a table of what aura strengths are, and there's no modifier for "really good" or "really evil". It's mostly just why you have the aura combined with your HD (being the alignment without an undetectable alignment spell is one way to have an aura, and pretty much the weakest way to have the aura).

[Liliet]

Tarquin not keeping his word about Roy was not a stretch or a technical truth, it was that he didn't really care about keeping his word at all. I guess he'd be pretty surprised if reminded about that. Like Belkar with a restraining order: "You have a mistake there. See, I'm Chaotic." Except in Tarquin's case it would be "See, I'm Evil."

[The Pilgrim]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png "I made a promise to you, you say... Excuse me, but, are you a somebody? No? Then, what you want me to do?

[drazen]

Tarquin not keeping his word about Roy was not a stretch or a technical truth, it was that he didn't really care about keeping his word at all. I guess he'd be pretty surprised if reminded about that. Like Belkar with a restraining order: "You have a mistake there. See, I'm Chaotic." Except in Tarquin's case it would be "See, I'm Evil."

But if Tarquin is Lawful, doesn't that mean he generally adheres to his word (just that his word might be misleading)?

I always thought of Tarquin as a "letter of the law, but not necessarily the spirit of the law" kind of guy. I still think his trying to kill Roy is a direct violation of his promise to offer him a job. Where I always thought Tarquin's out would be was in Roy asking for the "right to refuse" - as in "You can refuse, and since you won't work for me, I'll just kill you." That seems like Tarquin. Saying "I will offer you a job" and then trying to kill you instead sounds more like Xykon.

Unless Tarquin's brand of LE is simply a personal code of conduct regarding his "story nonsense," as Miron calls it, I'm not sure what to make of the situation. Then again, I was never happy Tarquin got so unhinged about Elan playing a support role in the group; Elan was obviously upset about the empire and was probably coming back anyway, once the world was saved. The story could even be a spinoff series about Elan.

I guess for Tarquin, a spinoff isn't good enough, even though some spinoffs are often seen as better than the original? (Deep Space Nine, Angel, Xena are some possible examples, though YMMV of course).

[Kish]

But if Tarquin is Lawful, doesn't that mean he generally adheres to his word (just that his word might be misleading)?

I always thought of Tarquin as a "letter of the law, but not necessarily the spirit of the law" kind of guy. I still think his trying to kill Roy is a direct violation of his promise to offer him a job. Where I always thought Tarquin's out would be was in Roy asking for the "right to refuse" - as in "You can refuse, and since you won't work for me, I'll just kill you." That seems like Tarquin. Saying "I will offer you a job" and then trying to kill you instead sounds more like Xykon.

Unless Tarquin's brand of LE is simply a personal code of conduct regarding his "story nonsense," as Miron calls it, I'm not sure what to make of the situation. Then again, I was never happy Tarquin got so unhinged about Elan playing a support role in the group; Elan was obviously upset about the empire and was probably coming back anyway, once the world was saved. The story could even be a spinoff series about Elan.

I guess for Tarquin, a spinoff isn't good enough, even though some spinoffs are often seen as better than the original? (Deep Space Nine, Angel, Xena are some possible examples, though YMMV of course).
More a matter of them not fleeing the way he wanted them to. He wanted Elan crushed, Elan as Luke as the end of The Empire Strikes Back, Elan fleeing because at that time he couldn't defeat the unquestioned primary antagonist of his story, not Elan telling him, "We'll so come back and crush you! After we deal with the more important threat! And when I say we, I mean Roy's party, with me on support!"

Tarquin is obsessed with order. He's also just as evil as Xykon. He prefers to play word games to lie without speaking untruths, and he will--as demonstrated--go on about how he never said he was sending troops to help the Free City of Doom, oblivious to the fact that he's the only person in the room who thinks his word game means anything, but just as he prefers to tell himself that he loves his sons but he'll still stab them in the chest if it's that or accept they move beyond his control, if it's "outright lie or not get something I want," he'll choose outright lying every time.

[Jay R]

It's worth remembering that Tarquin knew he wasn't really negotiating with Roy, because he knew Roy really wasn't negotiating with him. He was simply putting the Order of the Stick back together without telling them he already knew they were working together.

[Snails]

It's worth remembering that Tarquin knew he wasn't really negotiating with Roy, because he knew Roy really wasn't negotiating with him. He was simply putting the Order of the Stick back together without telling them he already knew they were working together.

That sounds like "He is being deceptive so any kind of lying on my part is not actual lying." Think my DM will allow my Paladin PC to exploit that loophole?

I do not see how that matters, regardless. Read the relevant comics (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0813.html) again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0817.html) carefully. Roy was not offering Tarquin anything concrete that was not going to be followed up on -- Tarquin was coming to Roy and spelling out the deal. If certain details of context were screwy and Tarquin knew it, it is not Roy's responsibility to correct a man who is pretending to fool himself.

Tarquin, however, was just trying to put all his targets in the same basket, so he could assess more carefully before deciding whom to murder. The details did not matter to Tarquin. He knew enough already that he was considering killing Roy, deal or no deal.

[drazen]

I do not see how that matters, regardless. Read the relevant comics (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0813.html) again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0817.html) carefully. Roy was not offering Tarquin anything concrete that was not going to be followed up on -- Tarquin was coming to Roy and spelling out the deal. If certain details of context were screwy and Tarquin knew it, it is not Roy's responsibility to correct a man who is pretending to fool himself.

Tarquin, however, was just trying to put all his targets in the same basket, so he could assess more carefully before deciding whom to murder. The details did not matter to Tarquin. He knew enough already that he was considering killing Roy, deal or no deal.

In those comics, Tarquin says he appreciates a man who stands by his word. And Tarquin hadn't seen any real combat performance from Elan before Windy Canyon, so why would be be planning on killing Roy and/or Belkar at that point? It's not like Tarquin would have minded netting a couple high-level assets for his empire(s).

[Boring McReader]

Since when does working for Tarquin, even permanently, protect someone from summary execution? :smallamused: He didn't say "If you work for me, I'll never try to kill you." With Tarquin, little details like that are life-or-death.

[Boring McReader]

Surely just took several notches towards neutral, if not further, by allowing his dad to drop to his near death from an airship, regardless of his reasoning. As he said in his speech, "I'm the good twin".

Even if his father is still the most evil man on the face of the planet, does intentionally allowing him to fall when he could easily have saved him, not count as an evil act, or taking into consideration the fact he knew he would survive, definetely not the act of a character with a good alignment?

Elan isn't innocent and pure anymore. But that's because he's been transforming into a hero who fights for good outcomes, rather than an idealist who takes good actions regardless of outcome. And because Nale's death broke his incredibly strong sense of family. He hasn't lost any of his sense of what's right or wrong, but he's been hardened against bending too far for irredeemable evil.

He's still good. It's just a grittier good than before.

[Snails]

In those comics, Tarquin says he appreciates a man who stands by his word. And Tarquin hadn't seen any real combat performance from Elan before Windy Canyon, so why would be be planning on killing Roy and/or Belkar at that point? It's not like Tarquin would have minded netting a couple high-level assets for his empire(s).

I am sure that Tarquin does appreciate a man who stands by his word -- they are easier to negotiate with and less likely to see the betrayal coming.

Tarquin did cross blades with Elan on the rooftop, and he observed Roy's tactical and martial skill. Do you really think Tarquin did not suspect the truth at this point?

Tarquin was definitely not recruiting for his empire, he was recruiting for Elan persons that probably already worked with Elan. Tarquin says as much in #819.

[Liliet]

Since when does working for Tarquin, even permanently, protect someone from summary execution? :smallamused: He didn't say "If you work for me, I'll never try to kill you." With Tarquin, little details like that are life-or-death.
What this translates to is basically "With Tarquin, you are never safe, no matter how affable he is. Just stay the hell away from him, as far as possible, and preferably have a sniper rifle between you two. With you at the correct end."

[Jay R]

That sounds like "He is being deceptive so any kind of lying on my part is not actual lying." Think my DM will allow my Paladin PC to exploit that loophole?

I concede your point. I agree that Tarquin's behavior is not that of a Paladin.

[BroomGuys]

What this translates to is basically "With Tarquin, you are never safe, no matter how affable he is. Just stay the hell away from him, as far as possible, and preferably have a sniper rifle between you two. With you at the correct end."

This is a really good summary of Tarquin.

[Trillium]

What this translates to is basically "With Tarquin, you are never safe, no matter how affable he is. Just stay the hell away from him, as far as possible, and preferably have a sniper rifle between you two. With you at the correct end."

Bah, he'll just catch the bullet and stab you with it.

[AzraelX]

Read the relevant comics (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0813.html) again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0817.html) carefully.
"I'll make you a deal: Come back to my palace and talk it over with Humanoid Resources, and I'll grant you amnesty for whatever crime landed you here."

Tarquin did give Roy amnesty for the crime that landed him there, along with Belkar, Ian, and Geoff. Comic #813 only serves to illustrate just how trustworthy Tarquin is.

"If he comes back alive, I'll give you permanent positions."

Elan did not come back alive. He did not come back at all. The entire party was not only still in the desert, and also still in Windy Canyon, but they were even still at Girard's temple. There's literally no way they could have been less "back". They had come 0% back. They were certainly nowhere near having "come back", by any possible measure.

As has been stated by many people, Tarquin may be a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them.

If Elan had agreed to help Tarquin back onto the ship, Tarquin would have submissively entered himself into custody, because those were the terms of the deal. As Elan just made clear, he already knows that Tarquin's word can be trusted, it was simply that he neither wanted nor needed the help that Tarquin was offering in exchange.

[Liliet]

Bah, he'll just catch the bullet and stab you with it.
Yep, that's just the thing Tarquin's stupid enough to believe he can do. But first, a bullet is a lot faster than an arrow and the best you can do if you are that fast is shield yourself with your hand so the bullet goes through it first and hopefully loses some speed, you can't catch it unless you have something thick enough for the bullet to get stuck in it or strong enough for the bullet to bounce off it (human skin is neither); and second, how the hell do you stab someone with a bullet? o.O

[Snails]

As has been stated by many people, Tarquin may be a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them.

That is an already completely squashed argument.

Someone who hires a hit man is a murderer. Someone who orders someone else to lie is a liar. Tarquin is both a murderer and a liar. Ganji/Enor and Ian can explain it to you.

[Math_Mage]

"I'll make you a deal: Come back to my palace and talk it over with Humanoid Resources, and I'll grant you amnesty for whatever crime landed you here."

Tarquin did give Roy amnesty for the crime that landed him there, along with Belkar, Ian, and Geoff. Comic #813 only serves to illustrate just how trustworthy Tarquin is.

"If he comes back alive, I'll give you permanent positions."

Elan did not come back alive. He did not come back at all. The entire party was not only still in the desert, and also still in Windy Canyon, but they were even still at Girard's temple. There's literally no way they could have been less "back". They had come 0% back. They were certainly nowhere near having "come back", by any possible measure.

As has been stated by many people, Tarquin may be a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them.

If Elan had agreed to help Tarquin back onto the ship, Tarquin would have submissively entered himself into custody, because those were the terms of the deal. As Elan just made clear, he already knows that Tarquin's word can be trusted, it was simply that he neither wanted nor needed the help that Tarquin was offering in exchange.
No, that comic shows that Tarquin is perfectly willing to abuse the spirit of a promise while adhering to its letter. Unless you think "If he comes back, I'll give you permanent positions...if I don't manage to kill you while you're out there" counts as fulfilling the spirit of the promise.

[Scow2]

Yep, that's just the thing Tarquin's stupid enough to believe he can do. But first, a bullet is a lot faster than an arrow and the best you can do if you are that fast is shield yourself with your hand so the bullet goes through it first and hopefully loses some speed, you can't catch it unless you have something thick enough for the bullet to get stuck in it or strong enough for the bullet to bounce off it (human skin is neither); and second, how the hell do you stab someone with a bullet? o.OIn D&D, bullets, arrows, fireball beads, and everything else like that travels at the same speed: "Instantaneous". A rifle bullet is not a siege projectile, so he CAN catch and throw the bullet back like any other anti-personnel projectile. Likewise, a Sniper Rifle only does 2d10 (Maybe 4d10) damage - not enough to kill a high-level fighter.

[Trillium]

Yep, that's just the thing Tarquin's stupid enough to believe he can do. But first, a bullet is a lot faster than an arrow and the best you can do if you are that fast is shield yourself with your hand so the bullet goes through it first and hopefully loses some speed, you can't catch it unless you have something thick enough for the bullet to get stuck in it or strong enough for the bullet to bounce off it (human skin is neither); and second, how the hell do you stab someone with a bullet? o.O

Dunno, I'm not Tarquin, it's up to him to devise painful new ways to stab people with projectiles in a cool way. :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Ave]

Surely just took several notches towards neutral, if not further, by allowing his dad to drop to his near death from an airship, regardless of his reasoning. As he said in his speech, "I'm the good twin".

Even if his father is still the most evil man on the face of the planet, does intentionally allowing him to fall when he could easily have saved him, not count as an evil act, or taking into consideration the fact he knew he would survive, definetely not the act of a character with a good alignment?

He is chaotic good, not chaotic stupid.

[Liliet]

In D&D, bullets, arrows, fireball beads, and everything else like that travels at the same speed: "Instantaneous". A rifle bullet is not a siege projectile, so he CAN catch and throw the bullet back like any other anti-personnel projectile. Likewise, a Sniper Rifle only does 2d10 (Maybe 4d10) damage - not enough to kill a high-level fighter.
Yeah, the damage output thing is true, but the bullets-catching thing definitely should be houseruled. Some things are just ridiculous.



Dunno, I'm not Tarquin, it's up to him to devise painful new ways to stab people with projectiles in a seemingly-cool but really just insanely stupid and painful to watch way. :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:
Fixed that for ya.

[orrion]

"I'll make you a deal: Come back to my palace and talk it over with Humanoid Resources, and I'll grant you amnesty for whatever crime landed you here."

Tarquin did give Roy amnesty for the crime that landed him there, along with Belkar, Ian, and Geoff. Comic #813 only serves to illustrate just how trustworthy Tarquin is.

"If he comes back alive, I'll give you permanent positions."

Elan did not come back alive. He did not come back at all. The entire party was not only still in the desert, and also still in Windy Canyon, but they were even still at Girard's temple. There's literally no way they could have been less "back". They had come 0% back. They were certainly nowhere near having "come back", by any possible measure.

As has been stated by many people, Tarquin may be a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them.

If Elan had agreed to help Tarquin back onto the ship, Tarquin would have submissively entered himself into custody, because those were the terms of the deal. As Elan just made clear, he already knows that Tarquin's word can be trusted, it was simply that he neither wanted nor needed the help that Tarquin was offering in exchange.

So because Tarquin ambushed them before they had a chance to get back to his empire he's keeping his word.

Bzzzzzzt wrong.

That's just like interpreting "permanent positions" in Taruin's quote to mean "buried in a grave." It's not a realistic interpretation and is only used by people exploiting their original promise.

That makes Tarquin decidedly untrustworthy. Trustworthy people do not manipulate their promises.

[Liliet]

So because Tarquin ambushed them before they had a chance to get back to his empire he's keeping his word.

Bzzzzzzt wrong.

That's just like interpreting "permanent positions" in Taruin's quote to mean "buried in a grave." It's not a realistic interpretation and is only used by people exploiting their original promise.

That makes Tarquin decidedly untrustworthy. Trustworthy people do not manipulate their promises.
Yep. A filthy liar who doesn't keep their word and a trustworthy person you can safely negotiate with are mutually exclusive, but it doesn't mean there are no other states between them.

[Reathin]

Surely just took several notches towards neutral, if not further, by allowing his dad to drop to his near death from an airship, regardless of his reasoning. As he said in his speech, "I'm the good twin".

Even if his father is still the most evil man on the face of the planet, does intentionally allowing him to fall when he could easily have saved him, not count as an evil act, or taking into consideration the fact he knew he would survive, definetely not the act of a character with a good alignment?


Good isn't necessarily stupid (taking Tarquin on board would be INCREDIBLY dumb), nor does it require mercy to Evil at all times. If that were the case, Paladins would all be pacifists. Tarquin has zero interest in redeeming himsef. He outright admits that, if he was saved, he would attempt to sway Elan with words. Elan's recent character growth allows for the realization that (his mother aside), his family is incredibly screwed up and that "fixing" that isn't in the cards. Ignoring that in favor of blindly assisting Evil is negligent at best.

Besides, as he said, he knew Tarquin was going to live through that fall, regeneration and general toughness being what it was. Heck, leaving him alone with a long walk back home, his entire narrative-dependent worldview shattered to little pieces, could be seen as just about the only thing that might get Tarquin to do anything differently (extremely unlikely, but it's the best one can hope for given the circumstances).

So no, I don't think Elan's heading toward the deep end of the alignment pool (and personally I think he's bar nothing the least likely to go that way).

[Geordnet]

Yeah, the damage output thing is true, but the bullets-catching thing definitely should be houseruled. Some things are just ridiculous.
You mean like walking away from a 300ft fall?

I see absolutely no problem with a demigod-level strongman stopping bullets with the palms of his hands - and that's what you're looking at with level 10+. (Even 6+ could make deflecting them work.)

[Keltest]

You mean like walking away from a 300ft fall?

I see absolutely no problem with a demigod-level strongman stopping bullets with the palms of his hands - and that's what you're looking at with level 10+. (Even 6+ could make deflecting them work.)

Unless he was demi-god level invulnerable as well, it wouldn't matter how strong he was. A monk might stop/dodge/catch a bullet. A fighter would rudely get blood all over the shooter's poor bullet.

[Math_Mage]

Unless he was demi-god level invulnerable as well, it wouldn't matter how strong he was. A monk might stop/dodge/catch a bullet. A fighter would rudely get blood all over the shooter's poor bullet.
What would a fighter do in lava? Take a swim, that's what.

Yes, demigod-level invulnerability is part of the package.

[Keltest]

What would a fighter do in lava? Take a swim, that's what.

Yes, demigod-level invulnerability is part of the package.

Invulnerability meaning an immunity to damage, not an ability to take ludicrous amounts of it.

[mightycleric]

What would a fighter do in lava? Take a swim, that's what.

Yes, demigod-level invulnerability is part of the package.

Most probably wouldn't, actually. Very few fighters have good enough swim skills to overcome their armor. Walk on the surface under the lava while holding their breath, though? That's more likely (and ask for a heal spell from the cleric at the end, unless they have an item that gives them resistance 10 or so against fire).

[Scow2]

Yeah, the damage output thing is true, but the bullets-catching thing definitely should be houseruled. Some things are just ridiculous.No they aren't. Haven't you seen Kung Fu Panda 2?

[Amphiox]

You mean like walking away from a 300ft fall?

I see absolutely no problem with a demigod-level strongman stopping bullets with the palms of his hands - and that's what you're looking at with level 10+. (Even 6+ could make deflecting them work.)

I always figured that, barring special feats or equipment, if a Demi-god level fighter took a bullet to his chest, it would splatter him like any other flesh and blood creature, with a giant cavitation hole and everything. But, unlike a low level peon who drops dead from that, the high level fighter just keeps going as if it was just a paper-cut.

I mean the rules do say that the damage suffered by each before equipment effects and damage-reduction feats are taken into account is the same. That should translate to the same observable effect on their respective bodies. It's just that the guy with the deep HP pool can take that damage and just shrug it off.

[Liliet]

No they aren't. Haven't you seen Kung Fu Panda 2?
No, only the first one. And bringing up that movie does not in any way counter my point, you know.

And yeah, invulnerability to damage is one of the legit ways to interpret hitpoints, so yes, Tarquin could catch a bullet. Stabbing anyone with it, though, is still absurd.

[Jay R]

No, that comic shows that Tarquin is perfectly willing to abuse the spirit of a promise while adhering to its letter. Unless you think "If he comes back, I'll give you permanent positions...if I don't manage to kill you while you're out there" counts as fulfilling the spirit of the promise.

No, but "Elan hasn't come back from his mission of apprehending his brother, as he has neither come back nor apprehended his brother" might count as not making the offer operative.

But mostly, you seem to be upset that Tarquin isn't going to make the offer that Roy never had any intention of accepting, and established at the beginning that he could refuse.

[Kish]

No, but "Elan hasn't come back from his mission of apprehending his brother, as he has neither come back nor apprehended his brother" might count as not making the offer operative.

But mostly, you seem to be upset that Tarquin isn't going to make the offer that Roy never had any intention of accepting, and established at the beginning that he could refuse.
I can't speak for Math_Mage, but I'm guessing "upset" is the wrong word.

For my part, I don't find Tarquin being a liar upsetting, though I find the forum resistance to accepting that Tarquin is a liar mystifying. If you want to claim that Tarquin always plays his word games, that claim is refuted by him not playing his word games--they aren't Schroedinger's word games, which make it so that if the implication is true one time but the letter is false, the letter is true a second time but the implication is false, and the letter and implication are both false but the person being spoken to doesn't really care about what's being said the third time, that means none of them are lies.

[warrl]

No they aren't. Haven't you seen Kung Fu Panda 2?

Using Kung Fu Panda as an argument against ridiculousness is itself ridiculous. :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

Most probably wouldn't, actually. Very few fighters have good enough swim skills to overcome their armor. Walk on the surface under the lava while holding their breath, though? That's more likely (and ask for a heal spell from the cleric at the end, unless they have an item that gives them resistance 10 or so against fire).

Lava tends to be fairly high density - there's a pretty dramatic range, but it basically starts at over twice water. Swim skills don't come into it very much, the fighter would float, even in the heaviest of armor. That said, there are viscosity issues.

[Math_Mage]

No, but "Elan hasn't come back from his mission of apprehending his brother, as he has neither come back nor apprehended his brother" might count as not making the offer operative.
Which is the sort of word game one expects from people who abuse the spirit of a promise while adhering to its letter, as I said. That Tarquin made an empty promise and then acted to prevent its going into effect is not evidence of trustworthiness, it is evidence of untrustworthiness.


But mostly, you seem to be upset that Tarquin isn't going to make the offer that Roy never had any intention of accepting, and established at the beginning that he could refuse.
Huh? Actually, don't answer that.

[Ramien]

No, but "Elan hasn't come back from his mission of apprehending his brother, as he has neither come back nor apprehended his brother" might count as not making the offer operative.

But mostly, you seem to be upset that Tarquin isn't going to make the offer that Roy never had any intention of accepting, and established at the beginning that he could refuse.

You do realize that Tarquin made that offer solely because he knew Roy was already a member of Elan's party? He pretty much admitted that, and that part of it was just his contribution to 'getting the band back together.'

[Scow2]

And at the time, probably didn't realize Roy was the leader.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I can't speak for Math_Mage, but I'm guessing "upset" is the wrong word.

For my part, I don't find Tarquin being a liar upsetting, though I find the forum resistance to accepting that Tarquin is a liar mystifying. If you want to claim that Tarquin always plays his word games, that claim is refuted by him not playing his word games--they aren't Schroedinger's word games, which make it so that if the implication is true one time but the letter is false, the letter is true a second time but the implication is false, and the letter and implication are both false but the person being spoken to doesn't really care about what's being said the third time, that means none of them are lies.
When is the letter not true? I don't understand your point about Shroedinger's word games, because that's not the actual case as far as I can tell. It's always been the letter is true and the implication is false. When has it ever been different?

[Amphiox]

One small point re: Kung Fu Panda 2.

The technique showed there was for catching cannonballs. It required the user to cup the cannonball in his hand, spin with it, and in some instances let it roll across his body, down the arm, over the shoulders, down the other arm and into the other hand.

It might not work so well with a non-spherical and significantly smaller than palmed-sized object, like a bullet.

(Though one character was shown using the technique on a raindrop, but that was low velocity)

[Scow2]

One small point re: Kung Fu Panda 2.

The technique showed there was for catching cannonballs. It required the user to cup the cannonball in his hand, spin with it, and in some instances let it roll across his body, down the arm, over the shoulders, down the other arm and into the other hand.

It might not work so well with a non-spherical and significantly smaller than palmed-sized object, like a bullet.

(Though one character was shown using the technique on a raindrop, but that was low velocity)Same technique as the raindrop, just faster.

[davidbofinger]

Tarquin has very few redeeming qualities, but one of them is that he will stick to the letter of his promises.

Given how he dealt with the Free City of Doom, or the bounty hunters, I would call this characteristic at best an amusing quirk. It certainly isn't redemptive.

[oppyu]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png: "As promised, I will not burn this orphanage to the ground. I am a man of Law and I keep my promises. However, my army will bring the orphans to me so that I may personally execute every single one of them. Yes, even the little girl with the teddy bear. But I'll execute the teddy bear first and make her watch."