Regarding a certain character's recent death... [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Regarding a certain character's recent death...

IOwnTheSpire

2014-06-15, 03:45 PM

BirdHarvester

2014-06-15, 03:49 PM

Nale tried to kill Haley back in Azure City... I think her response was pretty reasonable considering.

Keltest

2014-06-15, 03:49 PM

I think after the third or fourth time that someone tried to kill me, I would find it incredibly difficult to sympathize with someone who mourned them when they died. Props to Elan for sticking to family, but he was going far beyond anything that could be reasonably expected of a person after all that Nale had put them through. Thinking poorly of Haley for not mourning Nale like Elan says to me that youre not understanding the reasons for Elan's grief.

Nilehus

2014-06-15, 03:55 PM

It's hard to comfort or even support someone when they're mourning a person that has repeatedly tried to kill the two of you for absolutely no reason.

Haley is human. Sure, she could've waited, but Nale really was an awful, awful human being. They tend to ruin civility.

Kish

2014-06-15, 04:02 PM

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-15, 04:34 PM

Haley was there to comfort him, but she was also pointing out to Elan that Nale was still a terrible human being who was mourned by very few. I know that I would be unable to find much sympathy or even false sympathy after the person who tried to kill me numerous times was killed.

Angelalex242

2014-06-15, 04:46 PM

Elan mourning Nale right there was actually Exalted class good. Right up there with Zidane going back for Kuja in Final Fantasy 9.

For normal good, however, Haley's reaction is perfectly reasonable. I had no sympathy for Nale either.

evileeyore

2014-06-15, 06:01 PM

Elan mourning Nale right there was actually Exalted class good.
Not really. Elan mourning the death of Nale had nothing to do with Good, but everything to do with emotions. He'd been carrying around this hope of someday redeeming Nale and then having that fantasy brother he'd always wanted. Mourning Nale's death was more about mourning the death of that hope.

Now, if Elan mourned every lost life, then I'd say your argument could hold water, in that case mourning the loss of life could be construed as Good.

theNater

2014-06-15, 06:45 PM

I was rereading the comic where Elan is mourning Nale, and Haley's response was... well... not really what I'd expect from a girlfriend. If my brother had been stabbed to death by my father, and my girlfriend told me he deserved it, I'd dump her on the spot. I lost a good deal of respect for Haley in that moment, because whether you think Nale deserved to die or not, when his brother is sad and in pain, you should comfort him.
She is comforting him.

Remember, Elan lives in a world where a regular part of his job is killing people who deserve it. Helping Elan see that Nale's death is an acceptable course of events, even if it's not the one he would have preferred, is a form of comfort she can offer. It's not a form of comfort I'd recommend for use in the real world, or even for everybody in the OotSverse, but for Elan it makes sense.

Cavenskull

2014-06-15, 08:20 PM

Hello, new user here. Wasn't sure what to use for the title, but anyways...

I was rereading the comic where Elan is mourning Nale, and Haley's response was... well... not really what I'd expect from a girlfriend. If my brother had been stabbed to death by my father, and my girlfriend told me he deserved it, I'd dump her on the spot. I lost a good deal of respect for Haley in that moment, because whether you think Nale deserved to die or not, when his brother is sad and in pain, you should comfort him.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
So you'd dump your girlfriend over saying that your extremely homicidal brother deserved to die, but you wouldn't disown that same brother after he tried to murder you, your girlfriend, and everyone else you cared about? And that's just the personal parts. That doesn't begin to address the fact that he's an unrepentant murderer who slaughtered scores of people at Cliffport, killed multiple outsiders, and interfered with a quest where the fate of the world was at stake. Haley had like a billion good reasons for utterly hating Nale, and Elan knew it.

And as others had mentioned, Haley IS comforting him. Nale's death wasn't some sort of horrible injustice, and Haley was just reminding Elan that the world is a better place without Nale in it. That's not some sort of abstract concept either. With Nale gone, that means no more stabbing Elan, no more trying to seduce and murder his girlfriend, and no more getting framed and incarcerated while everyone he loves is hunted down to be killed.

Darth Paul

2014-06-15, 09:42 PM

Remember that Haley has had a lot (a LOT) of problems because of dishonesty and keeping secrets. She made a commitment to be honest with Elan. If, at that moment, she had agreed with Elan that Nale (in her opinion) did not deserve his death {which was very quick, without any of the psychological/physical torture that he inflicted on any of his own intended and actual victims}, then she would have been lying to him. Even just staying silent might have seemed like she agreed with him. And a single lie, or unspoken truth, about something this important could set her back on the old path again.

And frankly, I'm not sure I can take any more cipherspeak at this point.

Cavenskull

2014-06-15, 10:50 PM

Vba ibj'x xuljm vba ndj udjikg djvpbzg nlsugz csgdm? Qgkk, quv ibj'x qg sax xudx xb xug xgcx? Lr vba ndj zgdi xulc, vba mjbq lx'c d xbxdkkv kgtlxlpdxg cahcxlxaxlbj nlsugz, dji hg cazg xb izljm vbaz bydkxljg!

DaggerPen

2014-06-15, 11:33 PM

Darth Paul

2014-06-15, 11:34 PM

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-16, 05:29 AM

ChristianSt

2014-06-16, 06:50 AM

I'd be much published if someone was to translate this.

"You don't think you can handle anymore cipher speak? Well, why don't we put that to the test? If you can read this, you know it's a totally legitimate substitution cipher, and be sure to drink your ovaltine!"

"You're despicable."

(it is possible that this is not the intended text, but it works very well, so imo that is unlikely.)

thereaper

2014-06-16, 07:55 AM

"You don't think you can handle anymore cipher speak? Well, why don't we put that to the test? If you can read this, you know it's a totally legitimate substitution cipher, and be sure to drink your ovaltine!"

"You're despicable."

(it is possible that this is not the intended text, but it works very well, so imo that is unlikely.)

Well, it appears that someone in this thread is awesome.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-16, 01:39 PM

"You don't think you can handle anymore cipher speak? Well, why don't we put that to the test? If you can read this, you know it's a totally legitimate substitution cipher, and be sure to drink your ovaltine!"

"You're despicable."

(it is possible that this is not the intended text, but it works very well, so imo that is unlikely.)

Thank you! Clearly, I cannot handle any cipher speak. :smalltongue:

banana-for-ever

2014-06-16, 03:08 PM

I think as the others too. Nale did deserve to die, and probably should have been killed way before to prevent further crimes. Even so, Elan's mourning of his brother is legitimate and positive. With such a childish personality, not having these emotions while living with death and killing as part of a lifestyle would probably lead to someone pretty twisted.

Angelalex242

2014-06-16, 06:42 PM

Suddenly, I wonder if somebody put up a cipher speak translator online somewhere.

Kinda like the Al Bhed (Final Fantasy 10) translators, since that too is a Cipher

DaggerPen

2014-06-16, 07:22 PM

Suddenly, I wonder if somebody put up a cipher speak translator online somewhere.

Kinda like the Al Bhed (Final Fantasy 10) translators, since that too is a Cipher

*whistles innocently*

I think there are at least three of them. The one I used worked like a charm, too.

Chronos

2014-06-17, 10:42 AM

Keltest

2014-06-17, 11:28 AM

It's also very well established that Haley is not a nice person. Elan surely knows her well enough to know this, and to accept her despite it. Would I want a girlfriend as insensitive as Haley? Well, probably not. But then, I'm not Elan, either, and she really does complement him well.

I think Haley is a very nice person - when circumstances allow it. She is an adventurer after all, and you don't become a successful adventurer by smiling all the time and letting people take advantage of you all the time. Not even Elan went quite that far.

Bulldog Psion

2014-06-17, 12:20 PM

These people live by much harder imperatives than your average modern person. While saying something like that about someone who'd just died in a hospital in our world would probably be "dump time," this was an honest assessment of a homicidal nutcase and enemy combatant in a situation where violence had just ended and more violence was likely to explode at any moment.

So, no, I don't see anything wrong with Haley's response, nor do I think Elan should have dumped her. He knows the score -- actually, he shows that he knows it more deeply than any of them when he has the insight "What if it had been me? Raised here? Would I be the jerk and he be the hero?"

But that's a topic for another discussion. :smalltongue:

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-17, 12:30 PM

137beth

2014-06-17, 12:37 PM

I would totally support your decision, for as long as it would take me to seduce your super-hot girlfriend.

Sounds like something Tarquin would say.
Are you Tarquin in disguise?

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-17, 12:48 PM

Sounds like something Tarquin would say.
Are you Tarquin in disguise?

I can understand your confusion, as a complete mastery of disguise is only ONE of the skills that Tarquin, the devilishly handsome mastermind, is so deservedly famous for. Oh, and did I mention subtlety?

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-17, 01:55 PM

I can understand your confusion, as a complete mastery of disguise is only ONE of the skills that Tarquin, the devilishly handsome mastermind, is so deservedly famous for. Oh, and did I mention subtlety?

Actually, now you sound a bit like Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0397.html)...

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-17, 08:43 PM

Actually, now you sound a bit like Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0397.html)...

Well, while you're trying to make up your mind which villain I sound more like, do you mind if I seduce IOwnTheSpire's girlfriend? I'm kind of on the clock, here....

orrion

2014-06-17, 08:46 PM

You have tunnel vision syndrome, OP.

You're taking the isolated event of Nale being killed and reacting to Haley's comments as if the previous 900 comics didn't happen.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-17, 08:49 PM

Well, while you're trying to make up your mind which villain I sound more like, do you mind if I seduce IOwnTheSpire's girlfriend? I'm kind of on the clock, here....

No, no, not at all. Also, I wasn't the one who said you sounded like Tarquin. :smallbiggrin:

evileeyore

2014-06-17, 09:48 PM

Well, while you're trying to make up your mind which villain I sound more like, do you mind if I seduce IOwnTheSpire's girlfriend? I'm kind of on the clock, here....
Really? Asking permission? That's not very villainous of you.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-17, 10:11 PM

Really? Asking permission? That's not very villainous of you.

He's a very genteel villain. Either that, or he doesn't care what my answer is and will proceed to do what he wants.

evileeyore

2014-06-17, 11:32 PM

He's a very genteel villain. Either that, or he doesn't care what my answer is and will proceed to do what he wants.
Probably just a distraction then, keep you here whilst he makes his move.

Sootle and sneaksy like.

Darth Paul

2014-06-18, 01:05 AM

You're taking the isolated event of Nale being killed and reacting to Haley's comments as if the previous 900 comics didn't happen.

Thanks, orrion, for saying in very elegant terms what I was struggling to come up with, but could not, and therefore didn't even try to say in my earlier post.

Also, nice avatar. :smallyuk:

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-18, 05:28 AM

Probably just a distraction then, keep you here whilst he makes his move.

Sootle and sneaksy like.

Well, he did warn us of his amazing subtlety earlier, so we probably should have expected that.

Quild

2014-06-18, 09:58 AM

As I see it, the thing is that Elan actually agrees with Haley.

Elan does not mourn what Nale was, he mourns his twin brother. He mourns what Nale could have been, he's sorry for the life Nale had. He blames circumstances that made Nale this way, not Nale himself.

I think the way Elan broke the illusion trap (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0889.html) shows that Elan himself don't think much about Nale.

lazydemon

2014-06-18, 03:47 PM

"Good" is not "nice."

Jay R

2014-06-18, 05:43 PM

dps

2014-06-18, 09:17 PM

Kish

2014-06-18, 09:20 PM

I don't really think it would be fair to dump someone for his brother either.

(Now, if he presented it as, or meant, "My brother is a sadistic serial killer, but you better never say anything mean about him or I'll dump you," then yeah.)

Jay R

2014-06-19, 12:45 PM

I don't really think it would be fair to dump someone for his brother either.

Don't worry. He's not going to dump Haley. He loves her perky round eyes.

Angelalex242

2014-06-19, 01:03 PM

Emperordaniel

2014-06-19, 02:54 PM

Also, let's not forget the relevant prophecy.

Elan:Will this story have a happy ending?
Kobold Oracle: For you, yes.

Since Elan is highly unlikely to be happy without Haley, that means she's probably safe. However, the rest of the order of the stick aren't by any means safe.

I wouldn't necessarily bet on the rest of the Order not being safe "by any means" myself, personally; remember how Elan was all in tears when Roy died during the Battle of Azure City? And that was when he thought Roy was going to be raised by the next day - now if Roy were killed permanently without any means of resurrection, I can't imagine Elan enjoying his ending all that much.

Just a matter of opinion though, so feel free to poke all the holes you want in my hypothesis. :smalltongue:

Emanick

2014-06-19, 03:17 PM

I wouldn't necessarily bet on the rest of the Order not being safe "by any means" myself, personally; remember how Elan was all in tears when Roy died during the Battle of Azure City? And that was when he thought Roy was going to be raised by the next day - now if Roy were killed permanently without any means of resurrection, I can't imagine Elan enjoying his ending all that much.

Just a matter of opinion though, so feel free to poke all the holes you want in my hypothesis. :smalltongue:

Yeah, my assumption has always been that Elan, Haley and Roy are all going to end the story alive and reasonably happy. Elan cares too much about his girlfriend and best friend to consider an unhappy ending for them a happy one, IMO.

I can see him being happy if something unpleasant happens to Belkar, V or Durkon, though.

Unisus

2014-06-19, 03:37 PM

We should not forget - Elan is a bard and so he has an eye for the whole story. I actually could see him having a "happy ending" by dying with the certainty of having saved the world.

Emanick

2014-06-19, 03:56 PM

We should not forget - Elan is a bard and so he has an eye for the whole story. I actually could see him having a "happy ending" by dying with the certainty of having saved the world.

While I think you're right that Elan would find that kind of ending satisfying on some level, I think he also probably differentiates between happy endings and tragic ones.

Keltest

2014-06-19, 04:17 PM

We should not forget - Elan is a bard and so he has an eye for the whole story. I actually could see him having a "happy ending" by dying with the certainty of having saved the world.

I think youre confusing victory for a happy ending.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-19, 06:14 PM

Wait, who said that Haley wasn't extremely safe?

Unisus

2014-06-20, 04:07 AM

I think youre confusing victory for a happy ending.

Not really - i just don't see why we should let Disney define what a happy ending has to look like.

There are enough examples where someone dies happily, knowing they have achieved what they wanted to. A happy ending does not neccessarily contain a "they lived happily ever after".

Angelalex242

2014-06-20, 05:32 AM

Disney DOES define what a happy ending looks like, typically.

"And they lived happily ever after."

The further you get from 'lived happily ever after' the more bittersweet the ending. If it goes far enough, it can even become a sad or downer ending.

In short, if Elan dies, that's not a happy ending. If Haley dies, he'd mourn her forever, so not happy. If Roy dies...well, the last time that happened, he sang a bard song that made everyone INCLUDING GOBLINS cry. So we can't count that happy either.

Unisus

2014-06-20, 05:43 AM

I don't agree with Disney being the one instance to define what a happy ending is.

For example the fairytale of the little mermaid, written by H. C. Andersen, has a happy ending in giving the little mermaid the chance to gain an immortal soul. The fairytale of the tin soldier by the same autor has a happy ending in joining the soldier and the dancer together in their death, forming a heart. It's just Disney who tells us that such things can not be happy endings.

ti'esar

2014-06-20, 05:52 AM

Not really - i just don't see why we should let Disney define what a happy ending has to look like.

There are enough examples where someone dies happily, knowing they have achieved what they wanted to. A happy ending does not neccessarily contain a "they lived happily ever after".

Well, no, that sort of is exactly what a happy ending means. What you're discussing is a narratively satisfying ending. Some characters may have unconventional opinions on what a happy ending would involve, but Elan is probably the least likely of any of them to do so - he's a child at heart in many ways, after all. (Heck, even the characters who do have unconventional opinions on what makes for a happy ending would probably still find an ending where they didn't die to be preferable).

Darth Paul

2014-06-20, 09:09 AM

Keltest

2014-06-20, 09:32 AM

I wouldn't consider anyone but Haley and Elan safe. I can certainly visualize a last panel where everyone else has died heroically saving the world from Xykon and the Snarl. Elan and Haley are watching the sun set. Elan gets the last line of the comic as he tells Haley: "If you're happy, I'm happy."

And thus Elan gets his happy ending.

That seems unlikely to me. Elan values all of his friends, not just Haley. If he is a lone survivor (or he and Haley) he would consider it tragic, not happy.

Unisus

2014-06-20, 09:34 AM

Well, no, that sort of is exactly what a happy ending means. What you're discussing is a narratively satisfying ending. Some characters may have unconventional opinions on what a happy ending would involve, but Elan is probably the least likely of any of them to do so - he's a child at heart in many ways, after all. (Heck, even the characters who do have unconventional opinions on what makes for a happy ending would probably still find an ending where they didn't die to be preferable).

So "The Little Mermaid" by H. C. Andersen, where the mermaid dies and gets her wish for an immortal soul granted has no happy ending, but "The Little 'Mermaid" by Disney, where Ariel marries Eric, has one? Followed by a decade of separation from her family, because some witch want's to steal her baby... now that's what i don't see as a happy ending...

I think the problem is that most people can not imagine that someone can die happy.

Darth Paul

2014-06-20, 09:46 AM

That seems unlikely to me. Elan values all of his friends, not just Haley. If he is a lone survivor (or he and Haley) he would consider it tragic, not happy.

Part of Elan's arc is that he is maturing (not too much, or he just wouldn't be Elan). He is going to learn that sacrifices are neccesary and accept them as part of the heroic life. And I think that he will eventually put Haley first, because she is his true love.

Didn't say that was the ending I wanted, just one that I can envision... and it fits with the prophecy.

Keltest

2014-06-20, 09:51 AM

Part of Elan's arc is that he is maturing (not too much, or he just wouldn't be Elan). He is going to learn that sacrifices are neccesary and accept them as part of the heroic life. And I think that he will eventually put Haley first, because she is his true love.

Didn't say that was the ending I wanted, just one that I can envision... and it fits with the prophecy.

That doesn't mean he would LIKE it if that happened though.

Darth Paul

2014-06-20, 06:23 PM

Kish

2014-06-20, 06:44 PM

So "The Little Mermaid" by H. C. Andersen, where the mermaid dies and gets her wish for an immortal soul granted has no happy ending, but "The Little 'Mermaid" by Disney, where Ariel marries Eric, has one?

Yes.

I didn't need Disney to tell me to think, the first time I read Andersen's tale, years before the Disney version came out, "Wow, that's depressing."

Followed by a decade of separation from her family, because some witch want's to steal her baby...

"A sequel can do a takeback on a happy ending" is quite different from "The ending of the first story wasn't happy."

now that's what i don't see as a happy ending...

I think the problem is that most people can not imagine that someone can die happy.
To what extent the ending of Andersen's story wasn't overtly tragic, it was so because Ariel transformed into one of the daughters of the air, with her goal of actually having a soul in sight, rather than dying. If you must impose "what happened later?" on the Disney movie, think about this: In Andersen's tale, the Little Mermaid's largely-ignored family were separated from her forever, and eventually turned into seafoam when they died soulless. There is no possible, "Is this a happy ending?" test that will rate the original story's ending as more happy than the Disney movie, except--the one you appear to be using--treating death and its attendant inability to suffer further as the only true happiness, which might convince Teenage Haley but is unlikely to impress Elan.

Keltest

2014-06-20, 06:49 PM

You're 100% right, Keltest. But another part of maturity is realizing we can't get perfect happiness out of life. That's why I can imagine him someday putting Haley's happiness as central to his own, and being happy just because she is.

In that case, I think youre misjudging Haley a lot too. She isn't perfect by any means, but if all her friends (which she has a hard time making) except one died, she would be devastated. She already has abandonment issues because of her mother, let alone some of the only beings from outside her family that she got to know and genuinely like.

ti'esar

2014-06-20, 07:23 PM

At the very least, I would think it's self-evident that Disney's version of the Little Mermaid has a happier ending then Andersen's.

Nilehus

2014-06-20, 07:32 PM

The plucky comic relief sacrificing himself seems a lot more bittersweet than outright happy.

Besides which, Haley's happiness is Elan's happiness. Haley being left alone after his death, probably pretty devastated by his death, wouldn't make him happy. Nor would her dying with him.

evileeyore

2014-06-20, 08:32 PM

At the very least, I would think it's self-evident that Disney's version of the Little Mermaid has a happier ending then Andersen's.
It's not happier for me. So happiness is subjective.

Unisus

2014-06-21, 04:25 AM

...

So if survival is such an important point on having a happy ending, what would be the "happier" ending of tangled, if there had not been the marvelous life-giving teardrop? Eugene being dead and Rapunzel being free or Eugene living and Rapunzel being enslaved for the rest of her life? The two of them obviously disagree on that point, Eugene never seeing survival as the main criteria.

Maybe i have an odd conception of what constitutes a happy ending, but i'm not the only one. I agree that for children the Disney version of a happy ending is easier to grasp, but in my opinion maturing gives more insight in the higher goals a character may have, so happy ending is no longer restricted to "they lived happily ever after" for me.

Kish

2014-06-21, 08:39 AM

You seem to be treating "happy ending" as the only possible goal for a writer. To what extent imagining a "no teardrop" ending to Tangled is relevant, any more than imagining a "no Love's First Kiss" ending to the Disney Sleeping Beauty/Snow White tale, it would indicate that the writer was going for a sad ending.

I would add that approaching the OotS story the way you're approaching stories renders Elan's question meaningless, since apparently no story ever has a sad ending.

ti'esar

2014-06-21, 09:05 AM

So if survival is such an important point on having a happy ending, what would be the "happier" ending of tangled, if there had not been the marvelous life-giving teardrop? Eugene being dead and Rapunzel being free or Eugene living and Rapunzel being enslaved for the rest of her life? The two of them obviously disagree on that point, Eugene never seeing survival as the main criteria.

Maybe i have an odd conception of what constitutes a happy ending, but i'm not the only one. I agree that for children the Disney version of a happy ending is easier to grasp, but in my opinion maturing gives more insight in the higher goals a character may have, so happy ending is no longer restricted to "they lived happily ever after" for me.

As I said earlier (and as Kish seems to be getting at now), you really seem to be confusing happy endings with narratively-satisfying endings. It might help if you replaced "happy" with "optimal" - yes, survival isn't Eugene's highest priority, but unless you're seriously attempting to argue that he's suicidal, it's clear that the ending where he lives is still preferable.

Unisus

2014-06-21, 11:55 AM

But elan does not get an "optimal" ending - Therkla died in his arms, which made him very sad. Elan getting an optimal ending would mean that the people Elan cares for will not be harmed.

I guess we just have to agree that we disagree on that topic.

Kish

2014-06-21, 01:01 PM

I'm at a loss for what you think Rich's purpose in writing the question was, if you think it amounted to, "Will the ending of this story be badly written?"

(I'm also mystified that you apparently think the answer to "Will this story have a happy ending?" cannot possibly relate to both Elan's happiness and the story's ending; either it means "will the end of the story be a well-written tragedy if it's a tragedy?" or it means, "will the rest of my life go without my ever experiencing anything sad?")

elros

2014-06-21, 04:26 PM

Haley is kind of cold-hearted and cruel to her enemies, as seen when she murdered an unarmed Crystal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0648.html). Haley has never been a paradigm of good alignment, which is consistent with how she was raised by her father and what was expected of her by the Thieves' guild. Part of the reason she likes Elan is that he is really is good, and that he brings out the best in her.

evileeyore

2014-06-21, 05:55 PM

Haley is kind of cold-hearted and cruel to her enemies, as seen when she murdered an unarmed Crystal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0648.html).
That act was neither cold-hearted nor cruel. It was pragmatic and deserved.

You want cold-hearted and cruel? When she decided to abandon Belkar after he murdered the Oracle. He was sick and there was obviously no way he'd be able to care for himself. Did he deserve punishment? Yes. Did he deserve to be abandoned to die slowly of dehydration and starvation?

You decide.*

* My answer is no, she should have just rendered judgement and killed him or turned him over to the Kobolds for justice, but neither way led to comedy or drama, so actual intelligent Good aligned action was tossed to the wayside.

Keltest

2014-06-21, 06:16 PM

That act was neither cold-hearted nor cruel. It was pragmatic and deserved.

You want cold-hearted and cruel? When she decided to abandon Belkar after he murdered the Oracle. He was sick and there was obviously no way he'd be able to care for himself. Did he deserve punishment? Yes. Did he deserve to be abandoned to die slowly of dehydration and starvation?

You decide.*

* My answer is no, she should have just rendered judgement and killed him or turned him over to the Kobolds for justice, but neither way led to comedy or drama, so actual intelligent Good aligned action was tossed to the wayside.

Haley is Chaotic Good. That alignment includes people who are more than willing to do evil unto evil, so long as it ends there. A paladin would be unable to abandon Belkar. A rogue would be (and was) entirely within character to do so, even a good one.

evileeyore

2014-06-21, 07:07 PM

Haley is Chaotic Good. That alignment includes people who are more than willing to do evil unto evil...
Good should never include those whom are fine with doing evil for any reason. Doing evil (when necessary) and then feeling guilty and/or atoning for it? Yes.

Never one who could commit evil with out needing to think about it.

Again had she turned him to the nearest authority (the Kobolds), or even executing him herself* would have still been a non-Evil act. Abandoning him was not Good, and doing so when he could neither defend nor care for himself made it Evil.

I am not in any way saying her alignment should slip. Not for one act. And as far as I'm concerned that was her only Evil act.

* A Chaotic ignoring Authority, or even simply deciding that as his leader she was the Authority (because Kobolds can't be trusted on account of having a different skin covering).

elros

2014-06-21, 07:16 PM

You want cold-hearted and cruel? When she decided to abandon Belkar after he murdered the Oracle. He was sick and there was obviously no way he'd be able to care for himself. Did he deserve punishment? Yes. Did he deserve to be abandoned to die slowly of dehydration and starvation?
That is a better example, but I still think Haley's killing of Crystal was pretty bad. I heard that the supplemental material in "Don't Split the Party" shows a lot more of the Haley-Crystal antagonism, and some people have said that it justified Haley's behavior. Unfortunately, I don't have that book :smallfrown:

Keltest

2014-06-21, 07:27 PM

Good should never include those whom are fine with doing evil for any reason. Doing evil (when necessary) and then feeling guilty and/or atoning for it? Yes.

Never one who could commit evil with out needing to think about it.

Again had she turned him to the nearest authority (the Kobolds), or even executing him herself* would have still been a non-Evil act. Abandoning him was not Good, and doing so when he could neither defend nor care for himself made it Evil.

I am not in any way saying her alignment should slip. Not for one act. And as far as I'm concerned that was her only Evil act.

* A Chaotic ignoring Authority, or even simply deciding that as his leader she was the Authority (because Kobolds can't be trusted on account of having a different skin covering).

Im a bit confused as to why you think Belkar would be unable to do anything for himself. There was a village a few minutes away, and its not like he was incapable of waking at the time or anything. Yeah, a Kobold village, but we haven't seen any indication that he would have been mobbed or anything like that. Perhaps more importantly, Belkar had just killed someone out of the blue for the second time in a month. Cutting all ties with a person who goes around murdering people without thought for both morality and practicality of it is a perfectly reasonable action for any alignment.

And that wasn't even the first time that Belkar had acted like that. If someone goes around licking electric sockets, even a paladin would eventually give up on trying to stop them if they were that determined to hurt themselves.

Nilehus

2014-06-21, 07:38 PM

Yeah. The fact that Belkar's random murders finally had some consequences for him didn't oblige Haley to take care of him. She didn't order him to kill the Oracle. Her leadership of him was in name only. Belkar did whatever he wanted, and told Haley to stuff it when she said anything.

Cutting her losses and leaving him there was the only halfway intelligent option.

Cizak

2014-06-21, 07:38 PM

Kish

2014-06-21, 08:05 PM

That is a better example, but I still think Haley's killing of Crystal was pretty bad. I heard that the supplemental material in "Don't Split the Party" shows a lot more of the Haley-Crystal antagonism, and some people have said that it justified Haley's behavior. Unfortunately, I don't have that book :smallfrown:
Ignoring Don't Split the Party completely, I side-eye anyone who finds Haley's behavior of killing poor, defenseless, vicious, sadistic Crystal to compare unfavorably to Roy's behavior here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html).

If that describes you, consider yourself side-eyed.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-21, 08:17 PM

Belkar was still well enough to walk and argue with Haley at that point, and Haley had no way of knowing how sick the curse was going to make him. I can't see any logic in how killing him would have been Good while telling him to bug off isn't.

I agree with this. If Haley had told him to go away, he could have found shelter somewhere before he finally became to sick to move. Haley had no way of knowing what the effects of the Mark would be in the long run, so she couldn't be to blame if he died after she left him. Killing him, on the other hand, would have definitely, well, killed him, and I would find that act far Eviler.

Rodin

2014-06-21, 08:39 PM

Ignoring Don't Split the Party completely, I side-eye anyone who finds Haley's behavior of killing poor, defenseless, vicious, sadistic Crystal to compare unfavorably to Roy's behavior here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html).

If that describes you, consider yourself side-eyed.

Well, I tend to throw out most stuff from DCF when it comes to making morality judgements about the characters. And the earlier you go, the less valid it becomes.

Without DStP's bonus strips, I found Haley's ambush of Crystal rather shocking. Murdering someone in cold blood (even a sworn enemy) is not something you see protagonists do very often in any medium, and it's certainly uncommon in relatively optimistic high fantasy stories - and when it does happen, it tends to be the token "evil" guy that does it. Having Haley do it was legitimately stunning, since it came completely out of the blue.

Once we learned the context about Crystal already breaking the truce and attacking Haley, it became completely justified for Haley to respond in kind.

elros

2014-06-21, 09:13 PM

Kish

2014-06-21, 09:25 PM

Wouldn't know. Hate GRRM and all his works.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-21, 09:39 PM

Wouldn't know. Hate GRRM and all his works.

Asking out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate why?

Kish

2014-06-21, 10:01 PM

Two things I can say.
1) Literally every Game of Thrones character is either someone who has done horrible things, or someone who has been a victim of horrible things. Most are both. Contrary to the frequent claims of his fans, this does not accurately reflect "that time in history," not that there's actually a time in history that looks anything like Game of Thrones at more than an extremely cursory glance.
2) A relatively recent controversy involving the TV show led to GRRM himself explicitly stating that a particular scene from one of his books was meant to be not-rape. In other words: That a woman can say no multiple times, have her thus-expressed wishes physically overridden, and still have the result be consensual sex, if she "changes her mind" partway through it.

(And because I'm somewhat concerned about what will happen now, let me point out for the record that I am not the one who brought up GRRM.)

warrl

2014-06-21, 10:25 PM

So if survival is such an important point on having a happy ending, what would be the "happier" ending of tangled, if there had not been the marvelous life-giving teardrop? Eugene being dead and Rapunzel being free or Eugene living and Rapunzel being enslaved for the rest of her life? The two of them obviously disagree on that point, Eugene never seeing survival as the main criteria.

Well, in my version Rapunzel realized she was on track to be a Disney Princess, get married, and go live in a tower for the rest of her days. A rather nicer (and more populated) tower than the previous one, granted, but still...

So when the guards were chasing them through town she told Eugene to jump onto a ship and hide, which he did... just as the ship was sailing off. Then she headed up the road to take up a career as a D&D Bard. Carefully avoiding that city because she strongly suspected that the king and queen were her parents, and if that were ever proven, zip, she'd be in the tower forthwith. An option to keep open for later... possibly much later.

evileeyore

2014-06-21, 11:32 PM

Belkar was still well enough to walk and argue with Haley at that point, and Haley had no way of knowing how sick the curse was going to make him.
Exactly, I mean how could Haley know he get sicker and sicker and sicker until he couldn't hurt anyone except, oh yeah, she was told this at the same time the entire party was.

Also, knowing he'll get sicker and sicker and seeing how it is already affecting him, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out he'll quickly need care. He won't be able to hunt and the next closest major city is Greysky and Haley knows what would happen to him if he made it that far.

Thus, Q.E.D. abandoning him is decidedly not Good, I'm arguing it to be Evil.

Yeah. The fact that Belkar's random murders finally had some consequences for him didn't oblige Haley to take care of him.
I'm not saying it does. But abandoning him is not a Good act, in fact knowing how sick he'll become it is an Evil one.

That's all I'm saying.

She made her choice. Has she done enough good acts to balance the one* Evil choice she made (but didn't get to carry out)? Maybe.

* Don't even get me started on the alignment of someone who repeatedly steals from her own party. Just don't.

Nilehus

2014-06-22, 12:07 AM

Considering how clear Belkar had made it that he did not respect Haley at all, much less think of her as a teammate or a leader, I believe her responsibility to him was absolved waaay before that.

He was the person jumping up and down on Haley's back while she was swimming, metaphorically. And when he slipped and fell, and grabbed onto her ankle to try and pull himself up, she shook him loose rather than be dragged down with him.

Rodin

2014-06-22, 12:30 AM

I'm still struggling with the "not helping an unrepentant murderer who is reaping the punishment for being an unrepentant murderer is Evil" bit.

I would class it as Chaotic Neutral or just simply Neutral myself - she sees no need to bring him to justice, but she washes her hands of him and refuses to have anything more to do with him. If he dies, he dies, if he doesn't, he doesn't.

Haley is not responsible for Belkar's screw-ups.

Unisus

2014-06-22, 03:02 AM

Well, in my version Rapunzel realized she was on track to be a Disney Princess, get married, and go live in a tower for the rest of her days. A rather nicer (and more populated) tower than the previous one, granted, but still...

So when the guards were chasing them through town she told Eugene to jump onto a ship and hide, which he did... just as the ship was sailing off. Then she headed up the road to take up a career as a D&D Bard. Carefully avoiding that city because she strongly suspected that the king and queen were her parents, and if that were ever proven, zip, she'd be in the tower forthwith. An option to keep open for later... possibly much later.

*ggg* That somehow made me remember this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtyOC6ayKoU).

evileeyore

2014-06-22, 03:17 AM

The difference between Neutral and Evil is intent.

1 - She was responsible for his actions. She kept him around, in her own words "I told you I was keeping you around because you were useful and now your usefulness has come to an end". She was his leader. She kept him around deliberately because he was a useful murder machine.

2 - There was no possibility of "if he lives, he lives". She knew he could barely stand. She knew he was too weak to defend himself (it was her third reason as to why she was ditching him). As I said, killing him (thus ensuring his evil actually came to an end would have been Neutral, maybe even Good, based on his long history), but leaving him to slowly die, that is never anything other than Evil, that is torture.

3 - As for "it was okay to wash her hands of him now", no, it wasn't. He took two actions that were against her wishes (unstated wishes at that). And she kept him around after the first murder anyway so obviously indiscriminate murder, while not what she liked, wasn't bad enough to get him kicked from Team Haley or she would have done so when he killed a completely innocent merchant.

You know what changed for her here? He stopped being a murder machine and he had no way to defend himself.

Is that still Neutral to you? Abandoning a defenseless team mate because they stopped being able to kill at your command?

zimmerwald1915

2014-06-22, 03:48 AM

orrion

2014-06-22, 11:05 AM

Nilehus

2014-06-22, 11:19 AM

Belkar was only following Haley because of the Mark of Justice and Roy's body. He made it extremely clear up to the moment the MoJ went off he didn't care about her, the team, or the mission. He even killed the one person that could have told them where they could have gotten Roy resurrected for giggles. That isn't a teammate, that's a danger to the team. That he felt the team spirit when he got smacked by karma does not change a thing.

evileeyore

2014-06-22, 02:39 PM

"Leaders are held responsible for their followers under the assumption that the leader has SOME degree of control over them. Which is not the case here: Belkar doesn't listen to me at all. I'm 'leader' in name only, so I refuse to be held accountable for his actions. I didn't hire Belkar and I'm not his jailer. I say say let fate or karma or the gods or...or whatever deal with his deeds."1
And yet she kept him around.

Why? Because she couldn't ditch him? Because she was afraid of what he'd do if she ditched him?

Doesn't really matter. She chose to keep him around and yet conveniently absolved herself of responsibility for his actions. And then when his actions finally crossed her personal line (made things harder for her directly) she choose the selfish and cruel route of abandoning him to slowly die.

Burlew might have said Harley is Good, but those weren't Good actions.

Except that, as Zimmer points out, Belkar wasn't able to kill at Haley's command because Haley had no control over his actions in the first place. In just the comics leading up to and including the Oracle Belkar killed three different beings at his own whim (the gnome Solt, the hobgoblin inspector, and the Oracle). Made all the worse when you consider that these 3 killings happens over the span of 6 comics that show Belkar.
Previous to that he did fight at her command.

The Hobgoblin? Harley praised his action which lead directly to him choosing to kill the Gnome and then being confused about why it was bad. Haley wasn't even that upset about it, she only lashed out at Belkar (throwing the candy bar away) because Celia wouldn't stop badgering her. This badgering is where Haley tries to "wash her hands" of Belkar, but actually doesn't.

She even ends that whole line of dialogue with the reinforcement of "Would I be traveling with a horrid little bastard like you if I didn't need all the help I could get?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0540.html)

So now that he has committed a murder that she actually mildly disagrees with (she got a donkey out of the deal, bonus Haley!) she decides to stick with Belkar because she needs his help.

Why is it so hard to understand she only abandoned him because in her own words "... I was only keeping you around because you were useful, and now your usefulness is as lost as your lunch."

Is it a measure of "justice"? Sure. But it's also measure of cruelty and callousness to abandon someone to a slow torturous death. That's why it was an Evil act.*

* And not her first, but definitely her worst (also, so far, her last as she's stopped stealing from her friends).

Cizak

2014-06-22, 03:21 PM

And yet she kept him around.

Why? Because she couldn't ditch him? [...] Doesn't really matter. She chose to keep him around and yet conveniently absolved herself of responsibility for his actions.

She did not choose to keep him around, because as you yourself point out, she was incabably of ditching him. He had to stay with Roy's body. Had he not needed to do that, he would have left a long time ago, and he made this (as well as his lack of respect for both Haley and the mission) clear, time and time again. So yeah, Haley absolved herself of responsability for his actions, because she had no responsability for his action. Zero. He was stuck around her while she was trying to do the actual mission.

So now that he has committed a murder that she actually mildly disagrees with (she got a donkey out of the deal, bonus Haley!) she decides to stick with Belkar because she needs his help.

Again, she decided to stick with him because he would stick to her no matter what. You think leaving him behind after the MoJ activated is so horrible, yet you seem to have no problem with her running off with Roy's body, tthus activating the mark herself.

Is that still Neutral to you? Abandoning a defenseless team mate because they stopped being able to kill at your command?

Abandoning a psychopathic murderer who was never under your command and activated the Mark of Justice himself.

orrion

2014-06-22, 03:53 PM

And yet she kept him around.

Why? Because she couldn't ditch him? Because she was afraid of what he'd do if she ditched him?

Doesn't really matter. She chose to keep him around and yet conveniently absolved herself of responsibility for his actions. And then when his actions finally crossed her personal line (made things harder for her directly) she choose the selfish and cruel route of abandoning him to slowly die.

Burlew might have said Harley is Good, but those weren't Good actions.

Question: Would you have thought it was any more Good for Haley to send Belkar away before that, knowing it would trigger the Mark?

Also, again, she didn't know the Mark would eventually kill him.

Previous to that he did fight at her command.

She couldn't even get him to help pull a cart. It's more likely that Belkar fought "at her command" against the goblins and such in Azure City because that's doing what Belkar likes doing.

If someone only does what you command when they like doing it, are they really under your command?

The Hobgoblin? Harley praised his action which lead directly to him choosing to kill the Gnome and then being confused about why it was bad. Haley wasn't even that upset about it, she only lashed out at Belkar (throwing the candy bar away) because Celia wouldn't stop badgering her. This badgering is where Haley tries to "wash her hands" of Belkar, but actually doesn't.

It's irrelevant that she praised the action after the fact since the point here is about command, and Haley didn't order him to kill the hobgoblin.

She even ends that whole line of dialogue with the reinforcement of "Would I be traveling with a horrid little bastard like you if I didn't need all the help I could get?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0540.html)

So now that he has committed a murder that she actually mildly disagrees with (she got a donkey out of the deal, bonus Haley!) she decides to stick with Belkar because she needs his help.

Or, if we're willing to look a little deeper, maybe she decided not to test whether she could kill Belkar - because that's what it would have come down to. Belkar wouldn't have been willing to just leave since that would have triggered the Mark, and Haley wouldn't have been willing to give up Roy's corpse and the cart to get rid of Belkar.

Why is it so hard to understand she only abandoned him because in her own words "... I was only keeping you around because you were useful, and now your usefulness is as lost as your lunch."

Again, though, if we look a little bit deeper, that statement can't really be taken at face value. She had to keep him around, otherwise she is triggering the Mark and leaving him to die. Or she has to kill him herself. Or give him Roy's corpse when she sends him away, but she can't do that either.

Is it a measure of "justice"? Sure. But it's also measure of cruelty and callousness to abandon someone to a slow torturous death. That's why it was an Evil act.*

Ok, but even if she had tried to get rid of Belkar earlier that too would have either triggered the Mark or resulted in Belkar's death. You apparently consider triggering the Mark Evil. Do you consider outright killing him Evil too? If so, then you've kind of worked yourself in a corner because Haley can't take an action that isn't Evil in your eyes.

Kish

2014-06-22, 04:02 PM

Do you consider outright killing him Evil too?
evileeyore did at least imply the answer to that here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17662615&postcount=71). And if the Mark of Justice really did treat Roy's body as Roy, then Haley could have disabled Belkar at any time by shoving Roy's body into one of her Bags of Holding--if she really thought it might be physically difficult for her to kill a Belkar who could neither flee too far away from Roy's body nor effectively defend himself.

(I have no opinion on the morality of Haley's failure to slaughter Belkar at the first chance she got, beyond that if it reflects badly on Haley that she did not do so, it reflects worse on Roy that he spent so much longer not doing so when Belkar didn't even have the Mark of Justice to keep his murder count relatively low.)

137beth

2014-06-22, 04:06 PM

Kish

2014-06-22, 04:12 PM

I believe evileeyore is suggesting that the proper way to deal with Belkar is quick, humane execution--with both "let him keep murdering people" and "leave him to what amounts to death by torture" being evil.

I could be wrong.

Cizak

2014-06-22, 04:16 PM

Haley had no way of knowing it would be death by torture, though. What the party was told by Roy was "he'll get sicket and sicker until he's incabable of hurting anyone." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html) That ranges from anything between "he'll get severe stomach pains" and "he'll puke himself to death".

orrion

2014-06-22, 04:19 PM

evileeyore

2014-06-22, 08:21 PM

She did not choose to keep him around, because as you yourself point out, she was incabably of ditching him.
I never said Haley was incapable of ditching Belkar. I asked that as a question, rhetorically.

She could have ditched him at any time. Could have left him with the resistance if he was so much of a hassle. Dumped him after he murdered an innocent merchant.

As Kish wrote, she could have stuck Roy T. Skellinton into a Bag of Holding. Personally I think she could have just left him with the Resistance while he was sleeping, what Belkar is suddenly going to make a Listen check? And then when the curse set in he's going to actually be able to make a Tracking check? Hah.

She choose to keep him because, as she said, she needed his help. Not because she was without options to leave him behind.

You think leaving him behind after the MoJ activated is so horrible, yet you seem to have no problem with her running off with Roy's body, tthus activating the mark herself.
I do? News to me.

You want my straight up opinions about how she could have handled it? Sure, here you go:

Good act: Do what actually almost ended up happening by accident. Stick his stupid vile behind on the cart and drag him to a city to be cured and face justice (he still hasn't faced justice*).

Neutral acts: Execute him on the spot. Turn him over to the Kobolds to be executed.

Evil act: Abandon a sickened teammate in distress because he stops being personally useful.

So... which one did she choose again?

* And she has no intention of reversing that. As I've said, Haley wasn't concerned he was a killer. She wasn't actually concerned about him facing justice. She was angered that his antics finally inconvenienced her.

Question: Would you have thought it was any more Good for Haley to send Belkar away before that, knowing it would trigger the Mark?

If as you* keep claiming "She knew he was Evil and would keep committing uncontrolled murders" then yes. She should have left him in Azure City with the Resistance. Told them in advance she was leaving a day early and that they could deal justice unto a weakened, incapacitated Belkar if they chose, and snuck away without Belkar.

But she didn't do that and we know why. She needed him. She needed someone who could be pointed at an enemy and be trusted to try to kill it.

* That's the thread's "you", not you, orrion, specifically.

Also, again, she didn't know the Mark would eventually kill him.
The Mark of Justice wouldn't have killed him. Being incapacitated and unable to fend for himself would have killed him*. As I wrote above, based on (a) what she knew of the curse and (b) the severity to which it was already affecting him, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out he'd quickly be reduced to laying in a puddle of his own waste, incapacitated, unable to fend for or defend himself. He would have simply died of dehydration passed out from nonlethal damage and lay unmoving until something came along and killed him or he died of old age**.

* At the time of writing this I hadn't double checked the rules on Starvation and Dehydration. So I let it stand, but 'corrected' my later sentence. For comedy sake.

** Have I mentioned in this forum how much I hate D&D?

I would like to take this moment to point out, The Mark of Justice used in the strip vastly overpowers the way it is supposed to work in the actual game.

She couldn't even get him to help pull a cart. It's more likely that Belkar fought "at her command" against the goblins and such in Azure City because that's doing what Belkar likes doing.
It's just as likely he was perfectly fine going along with her plans because he could kill the undead and sometimes do extremely funny things with nonlehtal damage.

There is no evidence either way (except that he did actually go along with her plans and attack undead and throw an angry cat at someone's soft unprotected face - score one for Belkar!).

It's irrelevant that she praised the action after the fact since the point here is about command, and Haley didn't order him to kill the hobgoblin.
False. She gave him no orders concerning the Hob, but she praised his action. If your "superior" gives you no orders but does praise actions you take of your own initiative, then they are in fact implicitly telling you "That thing I praised, keep doing it".

Again, though, if we look a little bit deeper, that statement can't really be taken at face value. She had to keep him around, otherwise she is triggering the Mark and leaving him to die. Or she has to kill him herself. Or give him Roy's corpse when she sends him away, but she can't do that either.
Except she can. She has an abundance of options. She chooses to keep him around.

Possible actions Haely could have taken off the top of my head:

1 - Leave Roy and Belkar with the Resistance.
2 - Stick Roy in a BoH and tell Belkar to take a hike.
3 - Stick Roy in a BoH and let the one reminaing Paladin enact the awaited justice on Belkar for murder.

If taking Belkar when she left Azure City was so horrible, she had options. It wasn't so horrible, she chose to keep him and make use of him.

You apparently consider triggering the Mark Evil.
Where do you get that idea? let me spell out for you exactly what I consider to be Evil about what happened:

ABANDONING A TEAMMATE IN DISTRESS WHEN HE STOPS BEING PERSONALLY USEFUL IS AN EVIL ACT.*

She was fine having him along until he did something that personally inconvienced her and stopped being useful.

* The Deva even backs me up "Abandoning a friend to unkown fate." would have been a black mark and caused Roy's file to be "chucked into the True Neutral bin".... and Roy shows many, many, many times that he is Lawful and Good. Has Haley ever taken a Good action? Ever?

Never mind, I searched it out and she did indeed do one Good deed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html) and it appears that she'd be more in line with doing good for the common folk if this whole "Save the World" quest weren't in the way.

Do you consider outright killing him Evil too?
Execution would not be Evil. I did spell that out in a previous post, it would be Neutral, maybe even Good (based on his long history of Evil).

I have no opinion on the morality of Haley's failure to slaughter Belkar at the first chance she got, beyond that if it reflects badly on Haley that she did not do so, it reflects worse on Roy that he spent so much longer not doing so when Belkar didn't even have the Mark of Justice to keep his murder count relatively low.
I'm not saying she needed to kill him as soon as Roy dropped. Hell, I'm the one arguing she needed to do what actually occured: Drag his sick little butt to the nearest town for either (a) curing (so he's useful again) or (b) some proper justice.

All I'm saying is.. well, it's in all caps just above.

....so you think it was Evil for her to keep Belkar around, but then as soon as she (tried to) get rid of him it was selfish and cruel? :smallconfused:
I can see why you're confused, you're projecting your opinions onto things I never wrote.

It was... not Good to keep him around and try to act like his actions weren't her responsibility. It's not Evil. Just not Good. It is also consistently Chaotic, but that's not what's being debated.

If she indeed did keep him around and he continually flaunted her wishes (and kept murdering innocents) then continued association would be, not Good. Indeed if keeping him around were in some way aiding his actions, then yes, it would even be Evil (that's not what was happening).

She praised his killing the hob, as that was in line with the mission, and she kinda chided and partially punished him for murdering the merchant, so she was trying to curtail his actions. She was trying (ineffectually) to limit his Evil. Her failure to limit him doesn't make her actions Evil, just failures. If she kept on failing and he kept on murdering then eventually, yes, not killing him or doing something a bit more extreme would have been Evil.

I believe evileeyore is suggesting that the proper way to deal with Belkar is quick, humane execution--with both "let him keep murdering people" and "leave him to what amounts to death by torture" being evil.

I could be wrong.
Exactly.

In fact had he not had his epiphanal dream sequance and become a team player, I suspect Roy and company would have been done with him.

Though... I don't really have any "oomph" in the "death by slow starvation" argument after reviewing the actual rules. It's still Evil, but only because she'd have been leaving him to slip into a coma and maybe die, but only if something else came along and finished the job. Like a wild animal.

Have I mentioned how much I hate D&D?

Roy already asked the Deva whether he should have done that, and her answer was no.
Her answer was "No, but..." and she was cut off. I suspect that's because before Roy died, Belkar's actual mischief quotient was being kept rather well under wraps. He had what, one "slip up" under Roy's watch? And that technically wasn't even under Roy's watch as he was under the jurisdiction of the Paladins and Azure City.

Under Haley's watch he had two deliberate murders in as many days. She really should of just killed him before leaving the Resistance.

Also for everyone saying "Belkar couldn't leave on his own", you are wrong.

Evil's Little Helper could have crushed most of Roy's skeleton into dust, saving the skull to be turned into a decorative drinking vessel and left with a bag of bone dust and nifty commemorative cup any time he wanted to.

Now, can you figure out why he didn't? And no "Because he didn't think of it" isn't the answer.

Keltest

2014-06-22, 09:04 PM

eeyore, in that large post, you never actually established what made Belkar her teammate when it has been established that the only reason that she let him tag along was because it was a better option for her than leaving him. You keep saying that its evil to abandon a teammate in distress, but Belkar was part of the team in name only at that point. She didn't abandon a teammate, she gave him a dismissal notice a month after he stopped showing up for work.

evileeyore

2014-06-22, 10:02 PM

eeyore, in that large post, you never actually established what made Belkar her teammate when it has been established that the only reason that she let him tag along was because it was a better option for her than leaving him.
Don't see as how I should have to, they were on the same team. He's been a member of the team since before this web comic officially started. Legally binding member for most of a third of it.

You can disagree that he was a loyal, good, or competent teammate all you want. But he was on the team and he chose to stay there despite having the option to leave many times (there was only a very brief time period in which leaving would have been beyond his capacity - when he was freshly marked and Roy was still alive).

You keep saying that its evil to abandon a teammate in distress, but Belkar was part of the team in name only at that point.
Fine.

It's Evil to abandon a helpless person in distress because they inconvenienced you.

She didn't abandon a teammate, she gave him a dismissal notice a month after he stopped showing up for work.
That is radically disproportionate to what actually occurred.

Darth Paul

2014-06-22, 10:29 PM

But Haley is Good. And whatever she says about Belkar, and however she reacts to his behavior, and however far past her breaking point he pushes her (admittedly pretty far in the arc we're discussing), I think she does consider him a friend, deep down- which is why she covers for him, makes so many excuses for him, and keeps him around long after it would have been objectively "Good" to dump him. Everybody knows someone who has had a friend or family member who was bad news, but who they inexplicably defended even though the rest of the world could see how vile they were. The Order are Haley's substitute family, and Belkar is part of it, so she defends him as long as she possibly can- until he finally cheeses even her off for the last time.

That's the way I see it, at least.

ti'esar

2014-06-22, 10:55 PM

It's Evil to abandon a helpless person in distress because they inconvenienced you.

I can't help but notice that you're omitting the fact that the "inconvenience" in question consisted of stabbing an unarmed person to death because he was annoying. And this after Belkar had already straight-up murdered someone not many strips earlier.

Jay R

2014-06-22, 11:05 PM

And yet she kept him around.

Why? Because she couldn't ditch him? Because she was afraid of what he'd do if she ditched him?

Doesn't really matter.

Yes, it does matter. The truth is that she did decide to ditch him. She ditched him because he killed somebody she needed. She couldn't count on him. He'd been on the fence between asset and liability, and he dove headfirst down the liability side. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html)

She really did, and she didn't change her mind. She just had it erased by the Oracle's spell.

Any conclusion drawn based on the notion that she wouldn't ditch him is simply false.

evileeyore

2014-06-22, 11:30 PM

But Haley is Good.
Eh...

She was Good. We have Word Of God on that, and back then, she'd only been comedically selfish*.

She probably still is Good. Her only actions that (to me) really fall outside Neutral actions were her aiding the Dirt Farmers (Good) and ditching Belkar (Evil)**. Everything else was so-so. Not Good, but far from Evil.

So yeah, she probably is still Good.

* As much as I've made hash about it, I do recognize 'things done for comedy sake'. However they quickly became Cerebused into a larger Plot Point for Haley and stopped being "for teh lulz". However, she also stopped stealing from the party at that time. Ehhh... it's a wash for me. But a PC in my game would've gotten dinged for it.

** She did it twice, but I'll cut her slack since it was basically the same action.

That's the way I see it, at least.
That's not exactly where I'm coming from. I don't think she considered him a friend, she never defended his actions (except the once with the Hob - but really Celia was a bit naggy).

I think she considered him an unfortunate traveling companion, an unwanted teammate, a dangerous psychopath barely held in restraint by Roy. She even considered him a dangerous asset, until he did that thing that me and the thread are debating the alignment of.

I can't help but notice that you're omitting the fact that the "inconvenience" in question consisted of stabbing an unarmed person to death because he was annoying. And this after Belkar had already straight-up murdered someone not many strips earlier.
Well yeah. It doesn't come into play with that sentiment.

If you want to deal the fact that he had straight up murdered a dude, then you need to advocate for justice. Justice is not torture. It isn't discarding someone who might be able to wiggle his way free from the curse and then go right on murdering more dudes. It's dealing with the psychopath right then and there.

Either lock him up or execute him.

But leaving him to suffer an unknown fate is a black mark on the ole Permanent Record.

Yes, it does matter. The truth is that she did decide to ditch him. She ditched him because he killed somebody she needed. She couldn't count on him. He'd been on the fence between asset and liability, and he dove headfirst down the liability side. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html)

She really did, and she didn't change her mind. She just had it erased by the Oracle's spell.

Any conclusion drawn based on the notion that she wouldn't ditch him is simply false.
I'm not sure you understood the context of what you're responding to.

She didn't ditch him previous to the Oracle murder. I was responding to someone claiming Haley wasn't Belkar's leader because "blah, blah, blah". My response was made to highlight that she chose to keep him around when he was useful and (as you agree) not ditch him till he inconvenienced her. That for all her "hand washing" she was choosing to keep him available.

Yes, after the Oracle's murder she straight up decides he has to go....

... which is Evil. :smallwink:

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-22, 11:32 PM

Actually, we have more recent Word of God that she is Chaotic Good, and I very much doubt that anything has changed in the past 20ish strips to change that.

Nilehus

2014-06-22, 11:50 PM

This discussion is going in circles at this point. For the record, though, they're Chaotic. Contracts tend to mean as much to them as the paper they're printed on. Chaotic types tend to care more about earned loyalty than they do contractual loyalty.

I will agree, though, that severing ties with him was an extremely Chaotic act.

evileeyore

2014-06-22, 11:56 PM

Actually, we have more recent Word of God that she is Chaotic Good, and I very much doubt that anything has changed in the past 20ish strips to change that.
Ah, I don't read the threads about the specific comics. Too much of it is just "YAY! YOUR AWESOME RICH!"

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, I just have nothing substantive to add.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-23, 05:58 AM

Ah, I don't read the threads about the specific comics. Too much of it is just "YAY! YOUR AWESOME RICH!"

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, I just have nothing substantive to add.

It was in a thread about Elan's alignment, actually. Or you could check the Index of Comments.

evileeyore

2014-06-23, 07:10 AM

It was in a thread about Elan's alignment, actually.
There's a debate about that? Can't imagine why.

Zarzar

2014-06-23, 07:49 AM

I've always been under the impression that Elan's slowly been making his way towards Heroic-level Good, and the death of Nale kind of clinched Elan as being more "Good" than Roy or Durkon(alive).

But, in the beginning of the comic, Elan was kind of Chaotic-"Derpy Puppy". I mean, you knew his heart was in the right place, and he was really trying his hardest; but all those acts of stupid just made for messes on the carpet that is the story.

(And in Haley's defense of not caring, Nale did spend what, a few days lying to her, seducing her, trying to play her into a ritual sacrifice with one of her sworn enemies, and then almost having Elan murder her? What's the old saying, "Hell hath no fury...?")

Emperordaniel

2014-06-23, 07:53 AM

There's a debate about that? Can't imagine why.

The forum will debate anything. Anything.

That's why. :smalltongue:

evileeyore

2014-06-23, 08:08 AM

Oh right. I should have guessed.

Kish

2014-06-23, 09:14 AM

There's a debate about that? Can't imagine why.
Semi-regularly, someone posts some variation on, "Isn't Elan Neutral Good, or even Lawful Good? He doesn't go out of his way to break the law."

Less often, someone posts some variation on, "Isn't Elan Chaotic or True Neutral? He doesn't always do [what an intelligent person would consider to be] the right thing."

Jay R

2014-06-23, 09:35 AM

There's a debate about that? Can't imagine why.

You're right. Clearly, his alignment can't be anything but Genre-Savvy Innocent.

orrion

2014-06-23, 10:29 AM

There's a debate about that? Can't imagine why.

Among other things, Elan's alignment of Good has been debated because he esploded a castle for the sake of drama without thought for the potentially hundreds of beings inside it at the time, and because he caused his father to be left alone and distressed (hehe) in the middle of a desert.

Not that I agree with the stances, but whatever.

Darth Paul

2014-06-23, 12:11 PM

Among other things, Elan's alignment of Good has been debated... because he caused his father to be left alone and distressed (hehe) in the middle of a desert.

Which is as close as Elan will ever come (barring Tarquin's reappearance in the comic) to actually taking revenge for Nale's murder.

Nicely done, orrion! You've brought us back to the original topic of the thread!

:thog: thog says yay!

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-23, 01:51 PM

There's a debate about that? Can't imagine why.

At least one person believed that letting Tarquin fall to his injury altered Elan's alignment, in the moral sense. I can't imagine why either, but clearly someone thought it was debatable. This spawned a question about how the way Haley considered her alignment reflected onto her real alignment.

Kish

2014-06-23, 01:55 PM

Yes, there is or at least was, also, the recurring, "The Order is wrong to oppose the glorious Tarquin" idea.

I didn't count it because it's not restricted to Elan.

evileeyore

2014-06-23, 02:15 PM

At least one person believed that letting Tarquin fall to his injury altered Elan's alignment, in the moral sense. I can't imagine why either, but clearly someone thought it was debatable. This spawned a question about how the way Haley considered her alignment reflected onto her real alignment.
Seriously? I'm glad I missed those.

Yes, there is or at least was, also, the recurring, "The Order is wrong to oppose the glorious Tarquin" idea.
Okay, I can see where the peeps in this thread arguing against me are coming from.

Those two ideas? I can't even see the shore that's how whacky far out they are.

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-23, 03:54 PM

Good act: Do what actually almost ended up happening by accident. Stick his stupid vile behind on the cart and drag him to a city to be cured and face justice (he still hasn't faced justice*).

Neutral acts: Execute him on the spot. Turn him over to the Kobolds to be executed.

Evil act: Abandon a sickened teammate in distress because he stops being personally useful.

If you believe that Belkar deserves justice, then going through the formality of dragging him to a city to stand trial is a very LAWFUL take on how to be good.

For that matter, turning Belkar over to the Kobolds can also be justified from a lawful good perspective. As long as you have absolutely no doubt that Belkar truly DESERVES execution for his crimes, you can rely on Kobolds to do it in a properly lawful manner.

But Haley is CHAOTIC good. She has a chip on her shoulder about "proper authorities" even when they're good guys, and there are none of those in a thousand mile radius. Her Good half wants to see justice served, while her Chaotic half wants as little heavy-handed authoritarianism involved as possible. Even executing him on the spot, which certianly isn't anything "worse than he deserves", would cast her in the role of exactly the sort of authoritarian she's uncomfortable with. So what's wrong with just leaving him there? To the extent that killing him would be more merciful, would he even appreciate it? Has he ever done anything to OBLIGATE Haley to do anything nicer than just leave him to die?

No, he has not. There was literally no GOOD reason to save Belkar, and no "chaotic reason" to otherwise dirty her hands with his entirely self-inflicted problems.

evileeyore

2014-06-23, 05:19 PM

Has he ever done anything to OBLIGATE Haley to do anything nicer than just leave him to die?

No, he has not. There was literally no GOOD reason to save Belkar, and no "chaotic reason" to otherwise dirty her hands with his entirely self-inflicted problems.
Good does not need a reason to do Good.

Good and Evil act, Neutral needs incentive.

Knaight

2014-06-23, 05:52 PM

Some of the summary of the Vector Legion's plan seems a bit off. It wasn't to have three states all fighting each other while secretly controlled by the same people. It's not even that stable. It's to have three states existing at various times in various states of conflict, while also bringing in other states every so often to topple one of the three. The new hotshot warlords coming in and overthrowing the states is part of the plan, which just makes it that much more horrible.

Darth Paul

2014-06-23, 10:03 PM

Her Good half wants to see justice served, while her Chaotic half wants as little heavy-handed authoritarianism involved as possible.

And the kid in her loves the frosted side.

I couldn't resist.....

Jay R

2014-06-23, 11:49 PM

And the kid in her loves the frosted side.

I know that she and Elan have been intimate, but I don't think there's a kid in her yet.

Darth Paul

2014-06-24, 07:59 AM

I know that she and Elan have been intimate, but I don't think there's a kid in her yet.

OOOOOoooooooooooooohhh!!!!! Plot twist detected!!!!

Timy

2014-06-24, 09:54 AM

:thog: thog says yay!

Watch you grammar !

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-24, 01:40 PM

Good does not need a reason to do Good.

When I said "there is literally no good reason to save Belkar", that's not the same thing as admitting that saving Belkar would have clearly been a good thing to do but failing to see why that would be enough of a reason for a good person to do it.

I suppose someone as soft-hearted as Elan might have "good reasons" to never effectively punish Belkar for anything, but being forgiving to a fault is not the only possible way to be Good. There is also the Good Is Not Nice approach, and from that point of view Belkar absolutely deserves to die for his crimes in the past, not to mention how it would save countless potential victims in the future. The fact that his punishment could be administered through the poetic justice of simply not offering him help he has gone so far out of his way to prove he doesn't deserve is merely the Chaotic icing on Haley's Good Is Not Nice cake.

evileeyore

2014-06-24, 02:35 PM

There is also the Good Is Not Nice approach, and from that point of view Belkar absolutely deserves to die for his crimes in the past, not to mention how it would save countless potential victims in the future.
So it isn't Evil to leave him to suffer and maybe get better and go on to kill more people.

That's your argument?

Keltest

2014-06-24, 03:00 PM

So it isn't Evil to leave him to suffer and maybe get better and go on to kill more people.

That's your argument?

No, it isn't. Not anymore than handing him to the Kobolds to be executed is. Especially because, as has been mentioned numerous times, Haley had no idea what the effects of the MoJ would be beyond what she was seeing, and Belkar was able to stand and walk and so forth without aid at the time she gave him the boot.

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-24, 04:08 PM

So it isn't Evil to leave him to suffer and maybe get better and go on to kill more people.

That's your argument?

If anyone deserves to suffer, it's Belkar. As it turns out, after Belkar got a reprieve from the memory charm, his suffering was a crucial part of his later character development.

You might have slightly more of a point that Haley's choice to leave Belkar in the hands of fate had a more-than-zero percent chance that he'd live long enough to be a danger to others in the future, but let's not forget that YOUR original idea of the "properly good" way to handle him would be to take him to a city, get him healed, and then leave him in the hands of some local authorities who probably don't have any guards over fifth level. Oh yeah, THAT'S a plan that could not possibly go wrong.

The truly hard-core Good Is Not Nice approach would be to kill Belkar while he's essentially helpless and then burn his body to make sure he can't be raised from the dead, possibly while making some grim comment about wiping every taint of evil from the face of the earth. I for one can forgive Haley for not being quite that extreme in her zeal to punish evil-doers.

Kish

2014-06-24, 04:10 PM

If anyone deserves to suffer, it's Belkar.
So...you're arguing that torture is compatible with Good? If you were arguing that it was compatible with nonevil, you might be able to make a case that wouldn't be appalling on the face of it though you'd still probably be wrong; as it is, you're boggling.

evileeyore

2014-06-24, 04:30 PM

... let's not forget that YOUR original idea of the "properly good" way to handle him would be to take him to a city, get him healed, and then leave him in the hands of some local authorities who probably don't have any guards over fifth level. Oh yeah, THAT'S a plan that could not possibly go wrong.
That there is reason number 1 or 2 that I really don't like D&D.*

But yes, fundamentally that is next best thing to the best possible Good action she could have taken (okay, actually she could also stay in the city to see to that he didn't escape before during or after his trail, argue that he needs to be executed, and await the execution). The actual best possible Good would be to convert him to Good, but that's a hard sell as being possible outside of Mind Control... and I disagree that Mind Control can ever be Good.

* It's a wash on any given day whether I hate levels or classes more, since I've seen both "done right" in other game systems.

Reason number 3 = Alignments.

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-24, 09:50 PM

But yes, fundamentally that is next best thing to the best possible Good action she could have taken (okay, actually she could also stay in the city to see to that he didn't escape before during or after his trail, argue that he needs to be executed, and await the execution). The actual best possible Good would be to convert him to Good, but that's a hard sell as being possible outside of Mind Control... and I disagree that Mind Control can ever be Good.

If you were saying all of this "in character" as a disapproving paladin I'd commend you for your pitch-perfect portrayal of the ultra-Lawful end of the Good spectrum. But since you seem to be serious, I can only imagine how spectacularly terrible you'd be at playing a rogue.

Kish

2014-06-24, 10:01 PM

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-24, 10:17 PM

So...you're arguing that torture is compatible with Good? If you were arguing that it was compatible with nonevil, you might be able to make a case that wouldn't be appalling on the face of it though you'd still probably be wrong; as it is, you're boggling.

Even if I was willing to entertain the notion that the Mark of Justice was evil, Lord Sojo is the one who placed it on Belkar, and Belkar was the one who was stupid enough to "accidentally" trigger it by not realizing that he was within the radius of a city when he murdered the Oracle completely on purpose for fun and giggles.

None of this was Haley's fault, even if "fault" is the right word to use. Her only action, which is really more an absence of action, was to refuse to give more help to a psychopath who did absolutely nothing to deserve it.

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-24, 10:23 PM

If an allegedly good character of yours was saying, "He deserves to suffer," to justify leaving anyone to vomit himself to death...that's pretty spectacularly terrible at playing a good-aligned character. Regardless of class.

I'd probably OFFER to end Belkar's suffering with a quick coup de grace, but I doubt he'd appreciate it.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-24, 10:38 PM

Lord Sojo

I believe it was Lord Shojo, actually. :smalltongue:

Kish

2014-06-24, 10:54 PM

Even if I was willing to entertain the notion that the Mark of Justice was evil,

Even if I was willing to entertain the notion that torture by action vs. torture by inaction was some kind of meaningful difference in terms of how evil torture is, absolutely nothing in this post would be relevant to your defense of Haley leaving Belkar to hypothetically drown in vomit except the "inaction" part, and more importantly, I'm not. So yeah.

evileeyore

2014-06-24, 11:36 PM

If you were saying all of this "in character" as a disapproving paladin I'd commend you for your pitch-perfect portrayal of the ultra-Lawful end of the Good spectrum. But since you seem to be serious, I can only imagine how spectacularly terrible you'd be at playing a rogue.
:smallsigh:

Except I'm not talking about Law or Duty or Obligation. I'm talking about leaving someone to suffer.

If all the Mark did was remove his ability to harm others (and there was 0% he'd be able to get it removed), I'd be 100% behind abandoning him. Dumb-ass can try to live off the land (and fail) or find some place to take him in (and fail).

But that's not what it does. It causes suffering.

Therefore abandoning him to suffer (and eventually lapse into a coma*) is Evil.

That's all I'm really saying.

I'm not even judging her negatively. But she made a choice, that choice should be clearly identified for what it was.

* While you can argue she doesn't know what the Mark does initially, she had plenty of evidence when she choose to abandon him a second time. If she was still ignorant then, it was willful and chosen ignorance.

Further more, she knew he'd likely be murdered by her enemies whilst lying defenseless. Not that I'm saying that's Evil, that's at worst Neutral. Belkar does deserve death.

Just not torture. No one deserves torture.

Even if I was willing to entertain the notion that the Mark of Justice was evil...
Well that's a twist to the debate I hadn't considered.

By the RAW* the Mark of Justice does not cause suffering. Clearly the Azure City curse does. Whether the Paladins know it cause suffering or not, we don't know. But let's presume they do.

If they do then the Paladins are fine with torturing criminals, Paladins cannot perform Evil acts, Q.E.D. torture in Rich Burlew's OotS world isn't Evil.

Problem solved.

Haley's actions were Neutral or even Good.

Note: This is not the side I fall on for arguments sake.

* Rules As Written. I hate it too, but it's a thing for a reason.

None of this was Haley's fault, even if "fault" is the right word to use.
Whom has said she was at fault? Where does fault come into this?

Her only action, which is really more an absence of action, was to refuse to give more help to a psychopath who did absolutely nothing to deserve it.
That's faulty logic. Taking an action (abandoning Belkar is an action) cannot be "absence of action". Even doing nothing is still performing the action of doing.

And as I wrote earlier, Good does need a reason to act.

strijder20

2014-06-25, 06:41 AM

I believe it was Lord Shojo, actually. :smalltongue:

Wasn't it Lord Soja? Fits more with the Asian thema and such.

Keltest

2014-06-25, 07:54 AM

This thread is rapidly descending towards the depths of morally justified hell. I am now going to change the topic by pointing out that the explicit purpose of the Mark of justice was to prevent Belkar from doing things like murdering random people for the sake of it by providing very real consequences for Belkar if he ignored it. If Haley were to go and cure him right away, it would completely undermine the point of the mark, especially because (as Roy brought up in his review) Belkar isn't likely to be held by any prison that isn't tailor made specifically to hold him (and maybe not even that one!)

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-25, 08:12 AM

Even if I was willing to entertain the notion that torture by action vs. torture by inaction was some kind of meaningful difference in terms of how evil torture is, absolutely nothing in this post would be relevant to your defense of Haley leaving Belkar to hypothetically drown in vomit except the "inaction" part, and more importantly, I'm not. So yeah.

Since the memory charm tricked Haley into taking Belkar with her after all, we can say with 20/20 hindsight that taking that course of action didn't magically end Belkar's suffering. He suffered on the trip to Greysky city, and then he suffered more while old blind Pete was selling them ou.... errr, looking for a priest. As it turns out they did finally break the Mark of Justice, but Haley didn't actually know that was a forgone conclusion.

A much quicker and more certian way to end Belkar's suffering would be to just kill him on the spot. That is the answer that a robot would compute, if it took your "minimize suffering" and "inaction is just as bad as action" maxims at face value. But even in the morally-simplified D&D alignment system, Being Good is usually a bit more complicated than killing people who suffer. Even WITHIN the boundary of one alignment like "Chaotic Good" there is room to disagree over grey areas and corner cases, and it's an explicitly stated property of Lawful Good and Neutral Good that they fundamentally disagree about major issues. And yet all count as Good.

If you're uncomfortable with the notion that there's more than one way to be good, your beef isn't really with me, it's with the entire alignment system.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-25, 09:42 AM

Question for evileeyore: was it also an Evil act for Celia to stand there and support Haley's decision? I'm asking out of curiosity.

Darth Paul

2014-06-25, 10:06 AM

By the RAW* the Mark of Justice does not cause suffering. Clearly the Azure City curse does. Whether the Paladins know it cause suffering or not, we don't know. But let's presume they do.

If they do then the Paladins are fine with torturing criminals, Paladins cannot perform Evil acts, Q.E.D. torture in Rich Burlew's OotS world isn't Evil.

* Rules As Written.

The Paladins are not the ones inflicting this version of the Mark of Justice, with its... unique side effects. Lord Shojo pointed out that even though he officially was the leader of the Sapphire Guard, he himself was in no way a paladin. At all.

I think it's logical to conclude that, like so many other things Shojo did, the Mark of Justice deal was carried out behind the backs of the Sapphire Guard, who had no chance to either approve or disapprove. Shojo was Chaotic Good, but he clearly didn't see making somebody sicker than hell as "torture". He doubtless also didn't foresee Roy dying in battle and being unable to tend to a sick Belkar, with many an "I told you so!" in the event Belkar broke his leash anyway. The cleric of Loki in Greysky has seen the same curse before and somehow knows the password to break it. Shojo must have been the one to leak that password (it's unimaginable that he just stumbled on "Evolve or die" at random), so Shojo clearly used the MoJ as an "And stay out!" for any of the Thieves' Guild that he caught; they puked all the way home (probably carried there by a member of the Sapphire Guard) and never went back to Azure City. Belkar's situation was unique in that once they passed through the memory charm, nobody remembered that he had triggered the MoJ and so didn't know what to do about it.

orrion

2014-06-25, 10:15 AM

Well that's a twist to the debate I hadn't considered.

By the RAW* the Mark of Justice does not cause suffering. Clearly the Azure City curse does. Whether the Paladins know it cause suffering or not, we don't know. But let's presume they do.

If they do then the Paladins are fine with torturing criminals, Paladins cannot perform Evil acts, Q.E.D. torture in Rich Burlew's OotS world isn't Evil.

Problem solved.

Haley's actions were Neutral or even Good.

Note: This is not the side I fall on for arguments sake.

It's specifically mentioned by Hinjo during Belkar's "trial" that the Mark isn't part of Azure City's legal system, and that Shojo was acting outside of it when he used it. So, either they're ignorant of it - because it isn't used - or they're aware of it and it isn't used because of that. Hinjo is obviously somewhat familiar with it, but that doesn't mean the Paladins in general are.

Also, we don't even know whether or not the Mark results in this outcome every time, although it's likely because the Cleric of Loki said he'd seen this before.

By the way, now that I think about it and read that comic again, Belkar wouldn't have died from the Mark itself. Or at least it's not supposed to kill, as that same Cleric of Loki mentioned that it was "nasty, but non-fatal." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html)

Darth Paul

2014-06-25, 10:22 AM

By the way, now that I think about it and read that comic again, Belkar wouldn't have died from the Mark itself. Or at least it's not supposed to kill, as that same Cleric of Loki mentioned that it was "nasty, but non-fatal." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html)

Probably Undoubtedly the previous victims he met had been cared for by someone who actually knew what had happened to them and could keep them from going into a coma due to massive dehydration. "Triggered MoJ" + "Walked through Memory Charm" = "High Chance of Death".

Kish

2014-06-25, 10:32 AM

If you're uncomfortable with the notion that there's more than one way to be good, your beef isn't really with me, it's with the entire alignment system.
I'm not "uncomfortable with the notion that there's more than one way to be good." I'm aware that torture is really, really evil. No matter how many distractions you throw, no matter how far your posts get from addressing your earlier claims and no matter how pure the quality of straw in the arguments you "refute," that's still the case.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 10:35 AM

A much quicker and more certian way to end Belkar's suffering would be to just kill him on the spot. That is the answer that a robot would compute...
So?

A robot will also likely open with a pawn in Chess, doesn't make it a terrible thing.

...if it took your "minimize suffering" and "inaction is just as bad as action" maxims at face value. But even in the morally-simplified D&D alignment system, Being Good is usually a bit more complicated than killing people who suffer.
Which hasn't been anyone's argument yet. No one has calimed "Good is simple and streamlined".

Nope. Just that Good doesn't abide torture (also that executing Belkar might be a Good act).

Question for evileeyore: was it also an Evil act for Celia to stand there and support Haley's decision? I'm asking out of curiosity.
That's a tough one.

I'm going to say yes, even though she didn't say or do anything and was explicitly told to shut up when she did try to speak, mostly because later she rubs Belkar's face in it, also because as "comically" one dimensional as Celia is*, she should have insisted he be taken care of (granted later when she rubs his face in it, he's being taken care off... sooooo.... yeah).

* She recovers the chocolate bar in case some wild animal might come across it and is basically a "know it all goodie-two shoes pacifist" in a world filled with harsh realities.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 10:56 AM

It's specifically mentioned by Hinjo during Belkar's "trial" that the Mark isn't part of Azure City's legal system, and that Shojo was acting outside of it when he used it.
I've searched and can't find that comic, so if you know which one can you link it?

I'm just interested, as I figured and Evil punishment wouldn't be in the Paladin's toolbox...

Probably Undoubtedly the previous victims he met had been cared for by someone who actually knew what had happened to them and could keep them from going into a coma due to massive dehydration. "Triggered MoJ" + "Walked through Memory Charm" = "High Chance of Death".
Or the previous victims weren't traveling with companions who'd dumb them the moment they became inconveniences.

Also, I'd like to take a moment to mention, it wasn't exactly the MoJ that caused the sickness. By the RAW the MoJ just triggered the Bestow Curse and the MoJ worked exactly as it should according to the RAW. It's the Bestow Curse that was unusually potent and difficult to Remove.

That does support Darth Paul's theory that it was Shojo's way of telling criminals "Go away and do not return to Azure City" without having to execute them.

Kish

2014-06-25, 10:57 AM

I've searched and can't find that comic, so if you know which one can you link it?
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html

Keltest

2014-06-25, 11:03 AM

Probably Undoubtedly the previous victims he met had been cared for by someone who actually knew what had happened to them and could keep them from going into a coma due to massive dehydration. "Triggered MoJ" + "Walked through Memory Charm" = "High Chance of Death".

Unless theres some magical effect we don't know about included, the treatment of frequent vomiting shouldn't vary whether its caused by illness or magic (except stopping it, obviously).

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-25, 11:09 AM

That's a tough one.

I'm going to say yes, even though she didn't say or do anything and was explicitly told to shut up when she did try to speak, mostly because later she rubs Belkar's face in it, also because as "comically" one dimensional as Celia is*, she should have insisted he be taken care of (granted later when she rubs his face in it, he's being taken care off... sooooo.... yeah).

* She recovers the chocolate bar in case some wild animal might come across it and is basically a "know it all goodie-two shoes pacifist" in a world filled with harsh realities.

All right, thanks for answering. Celia seems like the sort of person who would ask for a person in Belkar's situation to be cared for, so either she didn't know what the final consequences would be for Belkar, or perhaps her dislike of Belkar overcame her normal response?

Keltest

2014-06-25, 11:18 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html

Rather than hunting down quotes, ill just quote the link to the relevant comic.

Id like to point out that while the Mark of Justice is not part of the Azure City legal system, neither is the Sapphire Guard part of any Azure City system. They're a secret organization, and their official authority as part of that organization is nonexistent because of that. Perhaps more importantly though, Shojo has no cleric or paladin levels. Someone in the Guard or the church (if theyre even more than cosmetically separate) would have had to have done it, which means that the concept would be known, even if not all of them have personal experience with it.

Besides, while the exact spell "Greater Mark of Justice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0569.html)" appears to be homebrewed, the garden variety MoJ is in the regular spell list. It would not be hard for any cleric to be familiar with the general concept.

Kish

2014-06-25, 11:19 AM

All right, thanks for answering. Celia seems like the sort of person who would ask for a person in Belkar's situation to be cared for, so either she didn't know what the final consequences would be for Belkar, or perhaps her dislike of Belkar overcame her normal response?
Rich commented in one of the books that Celia didn't always live up to her ideals in practice: When she blasted a helpless Nale and Thog with lightning, when Haley started killing thieves and her instinctive reaction was to cheer...

But I think most likely neither Haley nor Celia realized that Belkar was likely to die slowly as a result of the Mark.

(This leads to, "And therefore the problem with what Haley did was that it was cutting a still-dangerous-as-far-as-she-knew Belkar loose." The fact that I doubt Haley was knowingly leaving Belkar to a slow death does not negate the fact that, if someone argues that Haley was knowingly leaving Belkar to a slow death, that person is arguing that Haley did something really evil.)

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-06-25, 11:24 AM

Rich commented in one of the books that Celia didn't always live up to her ideals in practice: When she blasted a helpless Nale and Thog with lightning, when Haley started killing thieves and her instinctive reaction was to cheer...

That makes sense. Looking through DStP, I think the comment is: "It is important to note that this doesn't necessarily make Celia right in her views. Heck, they're not even all that consistent, considering she's been known to fly off the handle and zap people from time to time."

Keltest

2014-06-25, 11:27 AM

Rich commented in one of the books that Celia didn't always live up to her ideals in practice: When she blasted a helpless Nale and Thog with lightning, when Haley started killing thieves and her instinctive reaction was to cheer...

For that matter, who DOES live up to their ideals, completely? Besides maybe O-chul. I don't think anybody is arguing that leaving him to an unknown fate is a supremely good action, but it doesn't make Haley a neutral or evil (or even that much less good) character because she was less than merciful to someone who was at that point an enemy in all but name.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 11:38 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html
Cool, thanks!

All right, thanks for answering. Celia seems like the sort of person who would ask for a person in Belkar's situation to be cared for, so either she didn't know what the final consequences would be for Belkar, or perhaps her dislike of Belkar overcame her normal response?
My geuss? Yeah. She was upset with his antics and unable to see him properly punished, so the "karmic justice" of him being sick at "his own hands" was perfectly okay for her.

No, I don't think she'd have abandoned him if she knew it would lowly and agonizingly lead to coma... although you never know. Once in a coma he's not dead and he can't cause more harm. Of course leaving him in the wilderness to be eaten by a passing predator wouldn't sit right with her. The poor animal might get sick. :smallwink:

...it doesn't make Haley a neutral or evil (or even that much less good) character because she was less than merciful to someone who was at that point an enemy in all but name.
And no one's made that argument either.

Darth Paul

2014-06-25, 12:04 PM

Unless theres some magical effect we don't know about included, the treatment of frequent vomiting shouldn't vary whether its caused by illness or magic (except stopping it, obviously).

True, but most people throw up once or twice and get over it. Knowing that the person is under a magic spell that is actively making them sick might cause you to reevaluate the urgency of treatment. Also, neither of Belkar's companions was shown to be very skilled in Healing, so might not know the preferred treatment for vomiting. "Get the cleric" was their only plan at that point.

Keltest

2014-06-25, 01:05 PM

True, but most people throw up once or twice and get over it. Knowing that the person is under a magic spell that is actively making them sick might cause you to reevaluate the urgency of treatment. Also, neither of Belkar's companions was shown to be very skilled in Healing, so might not know the preferred treatment for vomiting. "Get the cleric" was their only plan at that point.

That depends very much on what they get. Ive gotten a stomach flu a couple times that had me throwing up a couple times a day. And they don't need to have any ranks in Healing to know that the solution to being dehydrated is to drink water, and the solution to being hungry is to eat. The biggest problem they would have is finding foods that Belkar could process without immediately throwing them back up, which they were apparently able to do based on how Belkar wasn't dead by the time they found a cleric.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 01:21 PM

That depends very much on what they get. Ive gotten a stomach flu a couple times that had me throwing up a couple times a day.
Salmonella poisoning. I couldn't even drink water without vomiting.

After 3 days I crawled to the emergency room and was on IV fluids and meds for 2 more days till I could stomach food and drink again.

Almost done in by under cooked chicken nuggets at my friends wedding... granted I wasn't the only one. Everyone had eaten some, I just ate most of them.

* Not literally. I bicycled there, I wasn't puking every other second like Belky, I'd stopped eating and drinking the day before.

Keltest

2014-06-25, 01:43 PM

Salmonella poisoning. I couldn't even drink water without vomiting.

After 3 days I crawled to the emergency room and was on IV fluids and meds for 2 more days till I could stomach food and drink again.

Almost done in by under cooked chicken nuggets at my friends wedding... granted I wasn't the only one. Everyone had eaten some, I just ate most of them.

* Not literally. I bicycled there, I wasn't puking every other second like Belky, I'd stopped eating and drinking the day before.

Right. Its not an uncommon phenomenon, and any adventurer would be able to recognize dehydration or hunger if for no other reason that its such a common issue that it probably happened to them once or thrice.

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-25, 03:33 PM

I'm not "uncomfortable with the notion that there's more than one way to be good." I'm aware that torture is really, really evil. No matter how many distractions you throw, no matter how far your posts get from addressing your earlier claims and no matter how pure the quality of straw in the arguments you "refute," that's still the case.

Hey, I don't remember YOU anywhere in the panel offering to help Belkar, so aren't you exactly as guilty as Haley of responsibility-by-inaction?

This is absurd. Go ahead and believe Haley is a black-hearted villain for not caring more that Belkar was suffering harsher-than-usual consequences for his habit of casually committing random acts of murder. I'm done caring.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 04:02 PM

Go ahead and believe Haley is a black-hearted villain for not caring more that Belkar was suffering harsher-than-usual consequences for his habit of casually committing random acts of murder.
And no one is making that argument either...

Keltest

2014-06-25, 04:08 PM

And no one is making that argument either...

Kish may not have explicitly said it, but intentionally or not its the general feeling every single one of his uncompromising and one-dimensional posts have given off.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 04:35 PM

Kish may not have explicitly said it, but intentionally or not its the general feeling every single one of his uncompromising and one-dimensional posts have given off.
Weird, that's not how I've read them.

I've read them exactly as they were written: Torture and allowing torture are Evil acts.

If Kish meant something else, I apologize for misreading him.

Knaight

2014-06-25, 04:37 PM

Kish may not have explicitly said it, but intentionally or not its the general feeling every single one of his uncompromising and one-dimensional posts have given off.

His actual position is more that if Haley were to deliberately and knowingly leave Belkar to suffer to death, which she A) didn't and b) wasn't considering then that particular action would be evil. That's not the same thing.

Keltest

2014-06-25, 04:40 PM

Weird, that's not how I've read them.

I've read them exactly as they were written: Torture and allowing torture are Evil acts.

If Kish meant something else, I apologize for misreading him.

Like I said, its the undertone, not the overt text. Kish in general tends to post very black and white in terms of alignment and morality (which, by the way, is still waiting to pounce on us), so maybe im just jaded by that.

His actual position is more that if Haley were to deliberately and knowingly leave Belkar to suffer to death, which she A) didn't and b) wasn't considering then that particular action would be evil. That's not the same thing.

If this is the case, then I am sorry for misreading your posts Kish, I agree that deliberately, knowingly, and voluntarily leaving someone to a slow and agonizing death is evil.

Dalek Kommander

2014-06-25, 05:57 PM

I've read them exactly as they were written: Torture and allowing torture are Evil acts.

Ugh, I probably shouldn't respond, but...

Haley didn't show any signs of remorse or self-doubt when she announced her decision, which was obviously carefully arrived at in a calculated, rational manner to be perfectly compatible with own moral viewpoint. If I accept for the sake of argument that her decision amounts to the sort of "torture" that is Evil with a capital E, how is she not a black-hearted villain?

Kish

2014-06-25, 06:24 PM

You're the only one here or in the comic who said "Belkar deserves to suffer" in response to the idea of his slowly vomiting himself to death. Since you apparently wish neither to reconsider your viewpoint nor to actually try to defend it, you'll have to figure out what the difference is between that statement and Haley's actions on your own.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 06:51 PM

If I accept for the sake of argument that her decision amounts to the sort of "torture" that is Evil with a capital E, how is she not a black-hearted villain?
Because one Evil act does not a black hearted villain make.

Simple?

EDIT: And no, this wasn't an invitation for someone to post the one Evil act that could turn the Goodest of Goody Goods in a black hearted villain!

Keltest

2014-06-25, 07:06 PM

Because one Evil act does not a black hearted villain make.

Simple?

EDIT: And no, this wasn't an invitation for someone to post the one Evil act that could turn the Goodest of Goody Goods in a black hearted villain!
Ive always been fond of the idea of a special hell for people who talk in the theater.

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 07:20 PM

Ive always been fond of the idea of a special hell for people who talk in the theater.
Nah, the Special Hell is for people who do what Mal didn't do with Saffron.

Silenced 9mils are for people who talk in movie theaters.

Nilehus

2014-06-25, 07:25 PM

Ive always been fond of the idea of a special hell for people who talk in the theater.

And the people that speed up like hell to pass you, cut you off, then slow to 10 below the speed limit for no reason. Normal hell is too good for them.

Darth Paul

2014-06-25, 10:20 PM

I believe we have seen that the first group of people destined for Special Hell (according to Shepherd Book) also end up as the IFCC's choir...

evileeyore

2014-06-25, 10:26 PM

I believe we have seen that the first group of people destined for Special Hell (according to Shepherd Book) also end up as the IFCC's choir...
Appropriate.