What made Tsukiko so misanthropic?

[CaDzilla]

She seems to have based her philosophy on why the undead are good on the fact that the living are a-holes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) What event happened to make her fetishize unlife?

[zimmerwald1915]

She seems to have based her philosophy on why the undead are good on the fact that the living are a-holes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) What event happened to make her fetishize unlife?
We don't know. The Giant probably never considered it important enough to specify.

[Keltest]

We don't know. The Giant probably never considered it important enough to specify.

Certain tidbits of information, like her getting kicked out of a lot of wizarding schools, suggest to me that it was in some way her own fault for how people treated her. Maybe she was always ah... forward with herself to people, and decided that since society didn't adapt to her, she would leave it behind. Plus, she comes off as a bit of a nut, even if she is capable of functioning through it.

[Angelalex242]

I think she's simply meant to be a parody of all the twitards in the world who think 'playing' with the undead is just wonderful.

[Nilehus]

I think she's simply meant to be a parody of all the twitards in the world who think 'playing' with the undead is just wonderful.

I agree. I'd add she's a parody of that one kind of Mary Sue that is always right, no matter what, no matter how much prior evidence there is against her.

In her own campaign, it would've ended up being an undead paradise, where she was the beloved queen. In (semi) reality... It didn't end so well for her playing with monsters with no free will that are literally fueled by Evil.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'd imagine that she found the living to be fairly distasteful, so she turned to Undead for love. The parody answer works well too.

[Gift Jeraff]

Unlike the undead, the living don't have "controlled by an evil necromancer" or "born of dark energies" (not counting fiends) as an excuse for their behavior.

[ti'esar]

Much as with Nale's hatred of Malack, I've always been torn between Tsukiko having a semi-legitimate/serious reason for her hatred of the living and it just being something completely ridiculous. I think the bulk of the evidence points to the latter, though.

[Keltest]

Much as with Nale's hatred of Malack, I've always been torn between Tsukiko having a semi-legitimate/serious reason for her hatred of the living and it just being something completely ridiculous. I think the bulk of the evidence points to the latter, though.

Unlike Nale, who could have a very legitimate reason to dislike Malack (even if that reason is "he's dead and dangerous.") I don't think there is any way that Tsutsiko's hate could be portrayed as anything other than unreasonable, if for no other reason than its hypocrisy.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I always just assumed that she had a series of bad encounters with people that left her with a tragically warped world view. Betrayed by people she cared about. Cheated on, maybe. Stuff like that.

[Keltest]

I always just assumed that she had a series of bad encounters with people that left her with a tragically warped world view. Betrayed by people she cared about. Cheated on, maybe. Stuff like that.

That would explain a "people suck" mentality, but doesn't really provide the leap towards "Undead are the opposite of people, therefore they must be great!" that requires one to ignore reality to hold.

[Darth Paul]

Necrophilia is a real-life thing (blech, ick, yuk). She just took it one step farther for parody purposes. When even Xykon was squicked out by her (:xykon: "I'm not one of those disgusting biophiliacs") then clearly she was off the deep end, sanity-wise.

What pseudo-Freudian psychobabble reasons made her that way? We will never ever know. Clearly her definition of "logical thought" was not the same as the rest of the world's, although she had a certain specious "if A=B then Not-A = Not-B" chain of reasoning going on. This may well have something to do with why she was expelled from all those fine schools.

In the end, it's probably futile for us to try to understand how Tsukiko got the way she was. The best we can do is to say that her insanity was (hopefully) unique, and must have had some highly unique circumstances to bring it about.

[Finagle]

(:xykon: "I'm not one of those disgusting biophiliacs")
That's the part I never got. Xykon shot her down right there. There was no possibility of Tsukiko becoming Xykon's girlfriend, ever. He said it right to her face! :smallannoyed: That sort of thing breaks believability for me.

Even before he became a lich, Xykon expressed a lack of interest in sex. He was hornier when he was younger, but old age caught up to him. After becoming a lich...well lacking sex organs would make him really disinterested in the opposite sex.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That's the part I never got. Xykon shot her down right there. There was no possibility of Tsukiko becoming Xykon's girlfriend, ever. He said it right to her face! :smallannoyed: That sort of thing breaks believability for me.

Even before he became a lich, Xykon expressed a lack of interest in sex. He was hornier when he was younger, but old age caught up to him. After becoming a lich...well lacking sex organs would make him really disinterested in the opposite sex.

It doesn't seem terribly unbelievable to me that someone would obsess over someone else even if they know that person doesn't want to be with them.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

It doesn't seem terribly unbelievable to me that someone would obsess over someone else even if they know that person doesn't want to be with them.
Agreed, Tsukiko probably thought Xykon was hiding his true feeling for her, that he'd come around eventually, etc...

Hmm, I think I just squicked myself out. :smalleek:

As for the reason, it could be something serious (let's be honest, it's not like humanity can't do terrible things), something minor but potentially psychologically damaging (the family pet died and her parents buried/cremated it rather than pay for it to be raised), or even self-inflicted ("You dare to tell me I can't do/have something? I hate you and all living beings!).

Or she could just be a parody of Bella from Twilight. :smallwink:

[Angelalex242]

It is certainly not necessary for someone to reciprocate one's feelings for one to have fairly strong feelings for somebody.

Every time somebody gets arrested for stalking a Hollywood star is a case in point.

Thus, Xykon's feelings on the matter are pretty irrelevant, and if she could beat his saving throws, I don't doubt for a moment she'd cast control undead, or at least hold undead, to have her merry way with him. Let's not forget Tsukiko is still Evil with a capital E, and worthy of Book of Vile Darkness Vile Feats at that. (Lichloved is the thematic Vile Feat she really should have, as it's nearly the point of her character...along with the prerequisite, of course. Despite the name, it doesn't require sleeping with a Lich. Any undead will do, even Vampires, which means Bella and Buffy also qualify for that feat...) Things like consent aren't necessarily a high priority for her.

[Tiiba]

A weird chain of thoughts led me to this: if Tsukiko had to help create a lich, one step would be her doing something so squicky that the subject's skin would crawl off his back and out the door.

[137beth]

The tragedy of Tsukiko is that she kept the wights, who she claimed to love, enslaved from their creation until her death. She oppressed undead just as much as she oppressed Thahn via Dominate Person (more, actually, since she kept the wights enslaved for a lot longer).

[Reathin]

Personally, I think she might have started out with an unhealthy interest in the undead, people shunned her for it, and that lead her to reinforce her opinion that undead are her preference. She came up with "logic" to support her position (ie. the whole insane antithesis thing she had) and it was consistently kept stable by the fact that her creations did what she wanted them to, including act out the roles needed for emotional support (of a variety of types) she wasn't getting from the living.

Basically, my belief is that she was stuck in a self-perpetuating loop, but she was the one that was ultimately responsible for starting it.

[Yanisa]

The tragedy of Tsukiko is that she kept the wights, who she claimed to love, enslaved from their creation until her death. She oppressed undead just as much as she oppressed Thahn via Dominate Person (more, actually, since she kept the wights enslaved for a lot longer).

And the irony being that she seems to hate Humans, Azurites and/or the Law for oppressing her. (#446 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html))

[evileeyore]

It doesn't seem terribly unbelievable to me that someone would obsess over someone else even if they know that person doesn't want to be with them.
You don't get out much do you?

The world is full of crazy people. Luckily for most of us, it's got a lot more not-quite-so-crazy people.

[snowblizz]

Personally, I think she might have started out with an unhealthy interest in the undead, people shunned her for it, and that lead her to reinforce her opinion that undead are her preference. She came up with "logic" to support her position (ie. the whole insane antithesis thing she had) and it was consistently kept stable by the fact that her creations did what she wanted them to, including act out the roles needed for emotional support (of a variety of types) she wasn't getting from the living.

Basically, my belief is that she was stuck in a self-perpetuating loop, but she was the one that was ultimately responsible for starting it.

This was also my reading of the situation. Too interested in Necromancy* to be accepted by society and it went downhill from there.

*I decided to go with the Necromancy thing first to preserve my sanity

[Bulldog Psion]

Personally, I think she might have started out with an unhealthy interest in the undead, people shunned her for it, and that lead her to reinforce her opinion that undead are her preference. She came up with "logic" to support her position (ie. the whole insane antithesis thing she had) and it was consistently kept stable by the fact that her creations did what she wanted them to, including act out the roles needed for emotional support (of a variety of types) she wasn't getting from the living.

Basically, my belief is that she was stuck in a self-perpetuating loop, but she was the one that was ultimately responsible for starting it.

Yes, that seems like the most logical explanation. As such, I'd say she's thoroughly demented, but not an illogical character. If undead really could be created, I'd bet there would be quite a few folks just like her. Unfortunately. :smalleek:

It gives her an added bit of verisimilitude that she's repulsive and dangerous, but also extremely tragic.

[CaDzilla]

And the irony being that she seems to hate Humans, Azurites and/or the Law for oppressing her. (#446 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html))

Another bit of irony is that she has the same black/white outlook as the paladins on undead, only reversed

[martianmister]

I don't think there is any way that Tsutsiko's hate could be portrayed as anything other than unreasonable, if for no other reason than its hypocrisy.

Severe childhood traumas (like sexual abuse) can turn people to extreme types of Paraphilia.

[Keltest]

Severe childhood traumas (like sexual abuse) can turn people to extreme types of Paraphilia.

Im not contesting that its possible for one to be attracted to, well, anything. But if you examine her stance on people, its a shallow justification for her actions against the people of Azure city that wont hold up to even the slightest amount of logical examination. Heck, even the MITD called her on it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html)

I think this conversation sums it up best.

"Trust me, paladins aren't happy unless theyre forcing you to be just like them."

"Really? Because it seemed like he wanted me to decide for myself how to act."

"Right, exactly like he does! He's doing it already!"

[veti]

Courtesy of the Great Index, I'll just drop this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?212381-Wouldn-t-people-like-to-buy-a-book-about-the-lives-of-Haerta-Ganonron-and-Jephton/page2&p=11686399#post11686399) in here. I think it's applicable.

I don't think Suki will ever have a canonical backstory. If you care, you'll have to make it up for yourself.

Personally, I don't much care. I presume she had some bad experiences as a teenager (who doesn't?), some rejection, either not enough or too much discipline (pick whichever one floats your own prejudices...) - and we got the character we saw. But exactly what happened? Unless you're looking for fanfic, there's no answer to that.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

You don't get out much do you?

The world is full of crazy people. Luckily for most of us, it's got a lot more not-quite-so-crazy people.

Umm, perhaps you misread my post. I said that it wasn't terribly unbelievable, i.e. fairly believable.

[evileeyore]

Umm, perhaps you misread my post. I said that it wasn't terribly unbelievable, i.e. fairly believable.
Man. I did that like three times yesterday.

My Mark I eyeballs need to get a tune up.

[Darth Paul]

Umm, perhaps you misread my post. I said that it wasn't terribly unbelievable, i.e. fairly believable.


Man. I did that like three times yesterday.

My Mark I eyeballs need to get a tune up.

Or else you meant to reply to the post just above Jazdan's, which was:


That's the part I never got. Xykon shot her down right there. There was no possibility of Tsukiko becoming Xykon's girlfriend, ever. He said it right to her face! :smallannoyed: That sort of thing breaks believability for me.

Has happened to me as well.

[evileeyore]

Or else you meant to reply to the post just above Jazdan's, which was:

Has happened to me as well.
I think it was a conflation of the two and I read his "unbelievable" as "believable". I distinctly recall it, so it must have been an eye-brain interface malfunction.

I do those in reverse (brain-mouth and brain-writing) all the time due to mild dysgraphia and aphasia.

[Pokonic]

She probably got kicked out of all those wizard schools for her general behavior and fascination with the undead, which is probably a no-no in general for the Azurites (it probably wouldn't be out of the question to say that she was probably the best necromancer in the city at the time of the attack). She's also a Mystic Theurge, and the only evil god in the Azurite pantheon is Rat. That which might also be a bit of an issue with the regular clerics of the pantheon, because they tend towards Good alignments and invoke the entire group when they do their magics, so it's not out of the question that she was locked up partially because, to use a metaphor, she was the one drow in the elf village.

She is such a special snowflake, even her choice deity is the outcast one. :smalltongue:

[Keltest]

She probably got kicked out of all those wizard schools for her general behavior and fascination with the undead, which is probably a no-no in general for the Azurites (it probably wouldn't be out of the question to say that she was probably the best necromancer in the city at the time of the attack). She's also a Mystic Theurge, and the only evil god in the Azurite pantheon is Rat. That which might also be a bit of an issue with the regular clerics of the pantheon, because they tend towards Good alignments and invoke the entire group when they do their magics, so it's not out of the question that she was locked up partially because, to use a metaphor, she was the one drow in the elf village.

She is such a special snowflake, even her choice deity is the outcast one. :smalltongue:

My recollection is that word of Giant is that she also worships the 12 gods as a pantheon.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

My recollection is that word of Giant is that she also worships the 12 gods as a pantheon.

Yes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?239187-Questions-on-the-OotS-religion&p=13053125#post13053125). Also, Rat has not been confirmed as the only Evil Southern god, and isn't even certainly Evil.

[137beth]

Yes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?239187-Questions-on-the-OotS-religion&p=13053125#post13053125). Also, Rat has not been confirmed as the only Evil Southern god, and isn't even certainly Evil.

I'm AFB right now, but I thought someone in SoD (Redcloak or Right-Eye?) referred to
The gods who initially sided with the Dark One as "some of the evil gods". Rat was included in that group, which would indicate he was evil. Again, I'm away from my books, so I could be misremembering something.

[Porthos]

My guess is one day she followed a link on the internet and found the 'glory' that is /b/. :smalleek:

She just wasn't prepared mentally for it. :smallamused:

Whatever faith she had in humanity was shattered that day. Is it any wonder that she turned out the way she did? :smallfrown:

[Aquillion]

Honestly, I don't think it has to be anything so complicated.

She's attracted to undead. This is a basic part of who she is. And everyone else hates her for it and treats it like a horrible disgusting thing, so she ends up returning the favor and hating them just as thoroughly.

That doesn't justify her being so murderous, of course, but if you want to imagine a sympathetic backstory for her, it's not hard to see her falling in love with some sentient undead being or another, only to find society condemning her and her lover destroyed. It's easy to see how that could embitter her into the character we see today.

[Sartharina]

Severe childhood traumas (like sexual abuse) can turn people to extreme types of Paraphilia.It doesn't have to have any source, and the idea that all 'abnormal' thoughts are caused by trauma is absurd.

My attraction to big cats certainly hasn't come from any childhood trauma (Because I've never had any - at least nothing that counts. Closest I can remember is not being allowed to buy a pikachu toy I really wanted with money I saved up for myself when I was 6 because I never told anyone I wanted it before I saw it in the store, even though I'd been wanting it since I saw it in a magazine several months prior - and it left me not spending my money on ANYTHING for the next twelve years... maybe) - but still. I wouldn't call that any sort of trauma. Just different but still natural variance in neurochemistry.

[evileeyore]

I'm AFB right now, but I thought someone in SoD (Redcloak or Right-Eye?) referred to
The gods who initially sided with the Dark One as "some of the evil gods". Rat was included in that group, which would indicate he was evil. Again, I'm away from my books, so I could be misremembering something.
You are correct sir.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'm AFB right now, but I thought someone in SoD (Redcloak or Right-Eye?) referred to
The gods who initially sided with the Dark One as "some of the evil gods". Rat was included in that group, which would indicate he was evil. Again, I'm away from my books, so I could be misremembering something.

Not exactly. It is only Tiamat and Loki who are conformed as "evil". Rat is one of the Dark One's allies, but it is possible he s only neutral and not Evil. It is more likely that he is Evil, but it is technically not confirmed.

[martianmister]

and the idea that all 'abnormal' thoughts are caused by trauma is absurd.

Where did I said that?

[Sartharina]

Where did I said that?
Implied with your suggestion that childhood abuse results in paraphillia in this discussion.

[martianmister]

Implied with your suggestion that childhood abuse results in paraphillia in this discussion.

"Traumas can turn people to extreme types of Paraphilia"
=/=
"all 'abnormal' thoughts are caused by trauma"

[Angelalex242]

I actually think Thundercats is responsible for many of the furries out there, myself.

But that is sufficiently off topic for me to want to drop it.

Anyways, she's simply a parody, and treats others the way she is treated. If everyone around you tried to kill you, eventually you'd start trying to kill them back, out of self defense if nothing else.

[Darth Paul]

If everyone around you tried to kill you, eventually you'd start trying to kill them back, out of self defense if nothing else.

While that may be true, it's pure bogus in Tsukiko's case. Given what we know, she was in prison for Unnatural Acts of Wizardry (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html), not murder, so nobody had tried to kill her and she hadn't tried to kill anybody (that we know of). She was a Dr. Frankenstein analogy who looked much hotter in a dress.

Now whether she felt that she was being persecuted... well, clearly she did, but objectively, I don't know that I can agree with her. I'm probably letting my opinion be influenced by the fact that the first thing she did upon meeting her city's invaders was volunteer for Team Evil, murder everyone on the tower parapet, and animate their corpses (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html). When you consider that the only reason she was in a position to do that was because Lord Hinjo gave her freedom in exchange for her defending the city, well, where exactly was she being oppressed, again?

[SiuiS]

That would explain a "people suck" mentality, but doesn't really provide the leap towards "Undead are the opposite of people, therefore they must be great!" that requires one to ignore reality to hold.

Now imagine you're a sad, lonely, neglected and emotionally hurt 14 year old who happens to be able to not only 'make' new friends but also puppeteer them into being the loving supportive people you always felt were missing from your life.


We all go through the Mary Sue phase. It's. A valuable phase that keeps us going through the slings and arrows of a reality that really doesn't give a **** about you. But we eventually outgrow it for a variety of reasons, all of which can be thwarted by access to necromancy (or enchantment). Pain is a catalyst for growth, when it isn't indulged. She doesn't grow.


"Traumas can turn people to extreme types of Paraphilia"
=/=
"all 'abnormal' thoughts are caused by trauma"

It's a quirk of the human psyche to default to apophatic logic; if the default is that trauma is a cause of paraphilia, it is assumed the default is trauma is the cause of paraphilia, and that all paraphilia has a cause, this being established as trauma.

Doesn't matter if it's true or even logical. It's what people will unconsciously process unless there is more evidence. This is why we have to specifically spell out that all paraphilia is not caused by trauma, and that paraphilia may not be caused by anything at all, really. Nothing personal, it's just literally necessary to establish this. Humans assume any information given is complete information unless they hit a snag in processing.

[NerdyKris]

I don't think Tsukiko is a tragic character at all. I don't think she is a lonely person seeking family through abnormal means.

I think Tsukiko doesn't like living people because she can't control them. If her love of the undead was real love, she'd be creating free-willed undead, not wights that obey her commands. She doesn't want to find someone who lovers her for who she is, she wants to MAKE them love her. She has a very self centered view of the world, in that everyone who doesn't like her only hates her because she's a necromancer.

Essentially, she's that one person you know that is convinced the whole world is against them while they drive everyone away and refuse to address their own faults. Tsukiko's fault is that she needs absolute control over the people she "loves". She surrounds herself with mind controlled minions that tell her she's right and smart and the best person in the world. It's an undead echo chamber.

There was no trauma, and there was no conspiracy against her. She's simply a self centered individual who refuses to accept anyone she can't control completely.

[Bulldog Psion]

I don't think Tsukiko is a tragic character at all. I don't think she is a lonely person seeking family through abnormal means.

I think Tsukiko doesn't like living people because she can't control them. If her love of the undead was real love, she'd be creating free-willed undead, not wights that obey her commands. She doesn't want to find someone who lovers her for who she is, she wants to MAKE them love her. She has a very self centered view of the world, in that everyone who doesn't like her only hates her because she's a necromancer.

Essentially, she's that one person you know that is convinced the whole world is against them while they drive everyone away and refuse to address their own faults. Tsukiko's fault is that she needs absolute control over the people she "loves". She surrounds herself with mind controlled minions that tell her she's right and smart and the best person in the world. It's an undead echo chamber.

There was no trauma, and there was no conspiracy against her. She's simply a self centered individual who refuses to accept anyone she can't control completely.

So, you're arguing in favor of causeless effect? :smallconfused:

[Keltest]

So, you're arguing in favor of causeless effect? :smallconfused:

:smallconfused: The cause in that scenario is that she is a self-centered individual with a tenuous grasp on reality.

[Kish]

I believe NerdyKris is arguing, rather, that Tsukiko was fundamentally a more Lawful version of Xykon, her neuroses about the undead (creatures who she could create and have mind controlled by default) coming not from loneliness or pain but from a simple failure to appreciate any distinction between I have the power to take what I want by force and I have the right to take what I want by force, her loathing for the living fueled primarily by her inability to maintain Dominate Person on all of them that she ever had to interact with and, thus, their retaining the ability to contradict her.

I am neither endorsing this viewpoint nor disagreeing with it; I don't think the comic provides enough evidence either way, or that even Rich ever bothered to figure it out.

[Jay R]

Much as with Nale's hatred of Malack, I've always been torn between Tsukiko having a semi-legitimate/serious reason for her hatred of the living and it just being something completely ridiculous. I think the bulk of the evidence points to the latter, though.

Any hatred of all the living is, at best, completely ridiculous. She doesn't know all the living, and lots of people would have been helpful to her.

Hatred of Group X is irrational, for any value of X large enough that you haven't met all of them.


That's the part I never got. Xykon shot her down right there. There was no possibility of Tsukiko becoming Xykon's girlfriend, ever. He said it right to her face! :smallannoyed: That sort of thing breaks believability for me.

I promise you, 100% guaranteed, that there are people who keep hanging around and hoping after they've been told there is no possibility of a relationship.

Really. Absolutely. This happens.

[NerdyKris]

I believe NerdyKris is arguing, rather, that Tsukiko was fundamentally a more Lawful version of Xykon, her neuroses about the undead (creatures who she could create and have mind controlled by default) coming not from loneliness or pain but from a simple failure to appreciate any distinction between I have the power to take what I want by force and I have the right to take what I want by force, her loathing for the living fueled primarily by her inability to maintain Dominate Person on all of them that she ever had to interact with and, thus, their retaining the ability to contradict her.

I am neither endorsing this viewpoint nor disagreeing with it; I don't think the comic provides enough evidence either way, or that even Rich ever bothered to figure it out.

That's what I trying to get across, thank you.

[halfeye]

Hatred of Group X is irrational, for any value of X large enough that you haven't met all of them.
While I tend to agree with that feeling in general, there is an exception where membership of X is restricted to those who do Y, if Y is abhorent, then *all* members of X are abhorent.

[veti]

While I tend to agree with that feeling in general, there is an exception where membership of X is restricted to those who do Y, if Y is abhorent, then *all* members of X are abhorent.

I disagree. I'm not going to get into examples, for obvious reasons, but I don't believe there is any behaviour so abhorrent that you can't make meaningful moral distinctions between different people who do it. There's people who enjoy causing suffering, those who don't enjoy it but accept it as natural, those who never think about it but just do what everyone else does, and people who do it but feel bad about it, and may try by various degrees to mitigate or minimise the harm it causes. To simply tar all these people as "abhorrent" denies the validity of the moral struggles of part of the group, and makes enemies of people who could be allies.

And that's before considering that every individual in each of these groups will also have a huge range of other, unrelated, opinions, behaviours, instincts and values, which will make them more or less pleasant/moral people.

Okay, here's one example I will go into. The ancient Greeks owned slaves. There's still a difference between Athenian society (which practised "democracy" of a sort, and people were enslaved for debt) and Spartan (which practised a highly regimented form of fascism, and staged regular wars against neighbouring Greek states for the sole purpose of gaining new slaves). And individual people, within both societies, would have run the gamut from "intolerable" to "really quite decent".

[ti'esar]

Any hatred of all the living is, at best, completely ridiculous. She doesn't know all the living, and lots of people would have been helpful to her.

Hatred of Group X is irrational, for any value of X large enough that you haven't met all of them.

By "semi-legitimate", I just meant some kind of mistreatment that could conceivably give her a more serious reason for hating the living then just something silly or ridiculous (which is what most of the evidence points to).

[Darth Paul]

I disagree. I'm not going to get into examples, for obvious reasons, but I don't believe there is any behaviour so abhorrent that you can't make meaningful moral distinctions between different people who do it. There's people who enjoy causing suffering, those who don't enjoy it but accept it as natural, those who never think about it but just do what everyone else does, and people who do it but feel bad about it, and may try by various degrees to mitigate or minimise the harm it causes.

Can't disagree more strongly. I'll reserve most of my examples for PM if anyone wants to hear about them, but one that comes to mind is torture. Sir Samuel Vimes (Terry Pratchett's Discworld series) summed up my views on why torture is unacceptable for any reason and by anybody (I'm paraphrasing); because if you'll do it for a good reason (gathering information to save lives), then eventually you'll do it for a bad reason (because it's easier than investigating). Essentially, you can't do what the Bad Guys do and still call yourself the Good Guy.

[warrl]

Can't disagree more strongly. I'll reserve most of my examples for PM if anyone wants to hear about them, but one that comes to mind is torture. Sir Samuel Vimes (Terry Pratchett's Discworld series) summed up my views on why torture is unacceptable for any reason and by anybody (I'm paraphrasing); because if you'll do it for a good reason (gathering information to save lives), then eventually you'll do it for a bad reason (because it's easier than investigating). Essentially, you can't do what the Bad Guys do and still call yourself the Good Guy.

But I don't think the argument is going that far.

A person who tortures criminals caught in the act in order to learn the identities of their co-conspirators is evil.

A person who, upon being handed such a criminal, sends someone to fetch the criminal's children, and then tortures the children in front of their parent, is also evil.

Yet I see room to draw a moral distinction between them.

[Nilehus]

Tsukiko's a grown woman that never outgrew her teenage anger. She never had to, since she can make the laws of physics shut up and sit down.

My guess is she got mad the first time someone told her "But if you use that spell, you'll accidentally kill someone!" After all, who are they to tell her what she can't do?

[Aquillion]

Tsukiko's a grown woman that never outgrew her teenage anger. She never had to, since she can make the laws of physics shut up and sit down.

My guess is she got mad the first time someone told her "But if you use that spell, you'll accidentally kill someone!" After all, who are they to tell her what she can't do?I don't know. Her anger appears to be pretty directly connected to their attitude towards undead, so my assumption is that it was based on that.

[halfeye]

Okay, here's one example I will go into. The ancient Greeks owned slaves. There's still a difference between Athenian society (which practised "democracy" of a sort, and people were enslaved for debt) and Spartan (which practised a highly regimented form of fascism, and staged regular wars against neighbouring Greek states for the sole purpose of gaining new slaves). And individual people, within both societies, would have run the gamut from "intolerable" to "really quite decent".
You're still thinking about groups as neighbourhoods. I'm talking about groups that are self selecting by activities, and those are a different thing. The members of the self selecting groups may live amongst other people, or they may only do that so long as they are undetected in their activities. Obviously there are self selecting groups that are completely innocuous, and it is right that they should be left alone to do whatever it is that they do. The self selecting groups that are abhorent are entirely a different matter.

What is abhorent may vary between cultures, and that is a valid concern, but everyone is a member of some culture, and every culture abhores something, though what that something is will vary between cultures.

[Darth Paul]

But I don't think the argument is going that far.

A person who tortures criminals caught in the act in order to learn the identities of their co-conspirators is evil.

A person who, upon being handed such a criminal, sends someone to fetch the criminal's children, and then tortures the children in front of their parent, is also evil.

Yet I see room to draw a moral distinction between them.

Yes, there is a line between "evil", "more evil", and "holy crap, that's evil", but all of the above are still evil. I guess that's why we have (in real life) varying sentences from a few years to life in prison to the death sentence, depending on location. (I also disagree with the last one, topic for another thread...)

Where does Tsukiko fall on this spectrum? I feel that murdering the people who were nominally on her side a minute ago, then animating their corpses to serve Team Evil as undead slave warriors, merits a "Holy crap, that's evil!" But maybe she suffered from Compulsive Zombie-Creating Disorder and therefore has a reason for her actions. I still think Evil is Evil in her case, especially since she was never shown as acting as anything but her own free-willed agent throughout the story (accepted Hinjo's deal freely, switched sides freely, worked for Xykon freely). She doesn't even have Redcloak's "serving a master" as an explanation for why she does what she does, since she entered that service voluntarily, where Redcloak is more bound to the wheel at this point.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

You're still thinking about groups as neighbourhoods. I'm talking about groups that are self selecting by activities, and those are a different thing. The members of the self selecting groups may live amongst other people, or they may only do that so long as they are undetected in their activities. Obviously there are self selecting groups that are completely innocuous, and it is right that they should be left alone to do whatever it is that they do. The self selecting groups that are abhorent are entirely a different matter.

What is abhorent may vary between cultures, and that is a valid concern, but everyone is a member of some culture, and every culture abhores something, though what that something is will vary between cultures.
I think I agree with this. If there is a group entirely defined by doing this abhorrent act, and all members do it, then they are probably abhorrent. Of course, like you say, what I consider abhorrent and what others consider abhorrent are different, and not every group that does something does something abhorrent.

Edit: It is a good point that just because the act is abhorrent doesn't mean that the person is. I was considering that when so wrote this post, and I was a little unsure about writing it. I guess I will add that in, so consider my above words nullified.

[Psyren]

That's the part I never got. Xykon shot her down right there. There was no possibility of Tsukiko becoming Xykon's girlfriend, ever. He said it right to her face! :smallannoyed: That sort of thing breaks believability for me.


Would she be the first young person to pine after someone powerful and charismatic who has rejected her?

[veti]

You're still thinking about groups as neighbourhoods. I'm talking about groups that are self selecting by activities, and those are a different thing.

The example I used, as it seemed relatively non-political, was neighbourhood-based, but I'm applying the same argument to your self-selecting groups as well.

I'm saying there's a difference between people who revel in being evil, and those who regret or are ashamed of it, even if they ultimately do many of the same things. Particularly if the latter group actively try to mitigate the harm they know they're doing.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I agree that there are no exceptions, not even "if all members of Group X do Action Y..." Maybe some of them don't like it but feel like they must, or nobody's ever explained to them why that is bad and why they should stop (and they would). Lots of possibilities. Making generalizations about an entire group based on some individual members of that group is almost never a good idea. Not even if being part of that group necessarily means they have definitely taken Action Y or hold Belief Z, which you justifiably denounce.

For example, I was recently given several humanist and non-dogmatic reasons why cloning is bad, and consequently I do not consider myself part of the "proponents of cloning" group anymore. It would be kind of sad if someone had decided I am abhorrent because they think cloning is abhorrent and I was part of that group at the time they made the decision. Another example: I think hunting animals (especially for sport, but even for food) is abhorrent, but I don't hate all hunters (who necessarily have gone hunting), and it would be irrational of me to do so.

[halfeye]

The example I used, as it seemed relatively non-political, was neighbourhood-based, but I'm applying the same argument to your self-selecting groups as well.

I'm saying there's a difference between people who revel in being evil, and those who regret or are ashamed of it, even if they ultimately do many of the same things. Particularly if the latter group actively try to mitigate the harm they know they're doing.
There can be many self selecting groups, and most of them are harmless, but there are a few that must qualify for the all the members of this group are disgusting category.

To keep the discussion simple, let's talk about a group of those who revel in "evil". It's not the case that they might be "evil" with regrets, these are the group made up by excluding those guys (or gals), do you see how I'm suggesting this group member selection by activity works now?

[Keltest]

There can be many self selecting groups, and most of them are harmless, but there are a few that must qualify for the all the members of this group are disgusting category.

To keep the discussion simple, let's talk about a group of those who revel in "evil". It's not the case that they might be "evil" with regrets, these are the group made up by excluding those guys (or gals), do you see how I'm suggesting this group member selection by activity works now?

That seems incredibly contrived. Yes, it fits your example, but only because you explicitly said "They took specific action to make sure they fit my example." I at least understand your point, but I disagree on the grounds that it just isn't that simple. You could just as easily say that the group in question is "The group of people who all meet the conditions for being reviled." and call it a day. Youre deliberately trying to exclude the possibility of there being people in the group who don't meet the conditions, which defeats the purpose of the conversation.

[rodneyAnonymous]

While I tend to agree with that feeling in general, there is an exception where membership of X is restricted to those who do Y, if Y is abhorent, then *all* members of X are abhorent.

Sorry but this sounds like "it's okay to be bigoted if Z". I am pretty sure it's not phrased that way in your head, but please reconsider this opinion.

[warrl]

Sorry but this sounds like "it's okay to be bigoted if Z". I am pretty sure it's not phrased that way in your head, but please reconsider this opinion.

I'm bigoted against child-torturers. They all need to be locked away for a long time.

However, the definition of "a long time" may vary somewhat depending on circumstances. Perhaps in some cases it will be "for the rest of their lives, period" and in other cases "until the doctors are quite sure - to the point of accepting legal liability for mistakes - they are permanently cured of and recovered from their mental illness".

[warrl]

Sorry but this sounds like "it's okay to be bigoted if Z". I am pretty sure it's not phrased that way in your head, but please reconsider this opinion.

I'm bigoted against child-torturers. They all need to be locked away for a long time.

However, the definition of "a long time" may vary somewhat depending on circumstances. Perhaps in some cases it will be "for the rest of their lives, period" and in other cases "until the doctors are quite sure - to the point of accepting legal liability for mistakes - they are permanently cured of and recovered from their mental illness".

[evileeyore]

I'm saying there's a difference between people who revel in being evil, and those who regret or are ashamed of it, even if they ultimately do many of the same things. Particularly if the latter group actively try to mitigate the harm they know they're doing.
A pedophile is a pedophile and should be set on fire until they die.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Apparently many people share that opinion :) I still think it's wrong, though.

No group's members always deserve hatred, period, regardless of anything else, 100% of them. Maybe they desire to cause others suffering because of a disorder they can't help. Maybe they have those desires but don't act on them (which is the case with some pedophiles, who are attracted to children, but don't ever act on that attraction, because they understand it would be wrong). Maybe lots of things. Surely they shouldn't all be set on fire, with no exceptions. Also consider the things that "humanity" used to think of as a vile abhorrent choice that we have since learned is not a choice at all, or decided it's okay. Or the opposite: slavery, for example, which used to be okay (nearly everywhere in the world!) but is now abhorrent. Given what we know about humans and human history, I think it's irrational to make blanket statements like that.

[Darth Paul]

A pedophile is a pedophile and should be set on fire until they die.

Which gets into how "meeting evil with evil" is equally abhorrent.

But it may be time to change this subject lest we incur the Wrath of the Wrathful Person Who Locks Threads.

[Kish]

I believe evileeyore has always said that his alignment in D&D would be Lawful Evil, actually. (The screen name's not entirely a joke.) Thus, he can call for torture without contradicting any of his previous statements.

[Darth Paul]

I believe evileeyore has always said that his alignment in D&D would be Lawful Evil, actually. (The screen name's not entirely a joke.) Thus, he can call for torture without contradicting any of his previous statements.

I determined long ago that I'm Neutral Good with pronounced Lawful tendencies. (I wish we could live without laws, but am sadly convinced that we can't; so I try to follow the spirit rather than the letter.) Thus, my statements above are also entirely self-consistent, I think.

[evileeyore]

I believe evileeyore has always said that his alignment in D&D would be Lawful Evil, actually. (The screen name's not entirely a joke.) Thus, he can call for torture without contradicting any of his previous statements.
Pretty much.

While I am actually against torture... in the singular case of pedophilia I'm fine with it as punishment, as long as it leads to death and is relatively timely.

[Sartharina]

I think Tsukiko doesn't like living people because she can't control them. If her love of the undead was real love, she'd be creating free-willed undead, not wights that obey her commands. She doesn't want to find someone who lovers her for who she is, she wants to MAKE them love her. She has a very self centered view of the world, in that everyone who doesn't like her only hates her because she's a necromancer.
Is there any proof that the wights she creates are not free-willed, and merely obey/respect her for her role in bringing them into the world (A debt they cannot repay)? The Create Undead spell does not give any command over said undead, and although she actually uses "Tsukiko's Amazing Wight-Creating Spell", it may work in a similar manner.

The only person who exercised direct control over the wights was Redcloak, with his Command Undead ability - and even then, the wights were apologetic to her about their orders.

Wights are one of the types of free-willed undead.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Pretty much.

While I am actually against torture... in the singular case of pedophilia I'm fine with it as punishment, as long as it leads to death and is relatively timely.

Ah, so is this a cause of even Evil has standards?

[halfeye]

That seems incredibly contrived. Yes, it fits your example, but only because you explicitly said "They took specific action to make sure they fit my example." I at least understand your point, but I disagree on the grounds that it just isn't that simple. You could just as easily say that the group in question is "The group of people who all meet the conditions for being reviled." and call it a day. Youre deliberately trying to exclude the possibility of there being people in the group who don't meet the conditions, which defeats the purpose of the conversation.

Yes of course the example is contrived, the point is that it can be contrived, so such a group *can* be made up, so there must be a group for which it is true.

This whole thing started with:


Any hatred of all the living is, at best, completely ridiculous. She doesn't know all the living, and lots of people would have been helpful to her.

Hatred of Group X is irrational, for any value of X large enough that you haven't met all of them.



I promise you, 100% guaranteed, that there are people who keep hanging around and hoping after they've been told there is no possibility of a relationship.

Really. Absolutely. This happens.

From which I disagreed with the fragment:


Hatred of Group X is irrational, for any value of X large enough that you haven't met all of them.

Which is a logically coherent statement that should be able to stand on its own, but (in my opinion) is mistaken, and I have done my best to show how it is mistaken. You do not have exceptions that prove the rule in logic, in logic if there is an exception, then the alleged rule isn't a rule, and I've shown that there are exceptions to this one, contrived exceptions, but exceptions.

The world is a fabulous place, and at the edges of things is where the strangeness starts. When someone says something categorical about a large group of things, they are usually trying to simplify the borders, and the borders and edges aren't simple, they are were things get squiggly, like the edge of the Mandelbrot set. I am in my head just defending the squigglyness of this particular edge from being over straightened.

[Keltest]

Yes of course the example is contrived, the point is that it can be contrived, so such a group *can* be made up, so there must be a group for which it is true.

This whole thing started with:



From which I disagreed with the fragment:



Which is a logically coherent statement that should be able to stand on its own, but (in my opinion) is mistaken, and I have done my best to show how it is mistaken. You do not have exceptions that prove the rule in logic, in logic if there is an exception, then the alleged rule isn't a rule, and I've shown that there are exceptions to this one, contrived exceptions, but exceptions.

The world is a fabulous place, and at the edges of things is where the strangeness starts. When someone says something categorical about a large group of things, they are usually trying to simplify the borders, and the borders and edges aren't simple, they are were things get squiggly, like the edge of the Mandelbrot set. I am in my head just defending the squigglyness of this particular edge from being over straightened.

The thing is, its basically a tautology. "They are in the group because they are in the group." Kind of thing. You effectively said "People who are abhorrent are abhorrent." That's not an exception, that's just redundant.

[halfeye]

The thing is, its basically a tautology. "They are in the group because they are in the group." Kind of thing. You effectively said "People who are abhorrent are abhorrent." That's not an exception, that's just redundant.
No, not quite. "People who do abhorent things are abhorent" is more or less it, and that's not a tautology because you can say the opposite, and effectively some people here seem to be saying that (that phrase would be something like "Not all people who do abhorent things are abhorent", which I am suggesting may be mistaken).

[Keltest]

No, not quite. "People who do abhorent things are abhorent" is more or less it, and that's not a tautology because you can say the opposite, and effectively some people here seem to be saying that (that phrase would be something like "Not all people who do abhorent things are abhorent", which I am suggesting may be mistaken).

That's not what people are saying though. Its more like "Considering all people who do X action to be equally abhorrent without knowing any other factors is wrong."

[halfeye]

Is there any proof that the wights she creates are not free-willed, and merely obey/respect her for her role in bringing them into the world (A debt they cannot repay)? The Create Undead spell does not give any command over said undead, and although she actually uses "Tsukiko's Amazing Wight-Creating Spell", it may work in a similar manner.

The only person who exercised direct control over the wights was Redcloak, with his Command Undead ability - and even then, the wights were apologetic to her about their orders.

Wights are one of the types of free-willed undead.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html

What the one wight says is:


We're sorry Old Mistress Master gave us an order.
Which suggests that she used to give them orders.

[halfeye]

That's not what people are saying though. Its more like "Considering all people who do X action to be equally abhorrent without knowing any other factors is wrong."

That does depend though on how abhorent the activitiy is, I would suggest, and I'm also suggesting that there are activities which are abhorent enough that anyone who performs them would be abhored.

I chose the phrase "perform an activity" rather than "feel an urge to perfom an activity" exactly because there is no ambiguity about doing something, we can't (and perhaps shouldn't) know what's in someone's head, but actions are facts.

[evileeyore]

Ah, so is this a cause of even Evil has standards?

"A man got have a code." Omar, The Wire

[Kish]

Is there any proof that the wights she creates are not free-willed, and merely obey/respect her for her role in bringing them into the world (A debt they cannot repay)?
They sure didn't act like they had the mental stats they had during life, did they? "Am I getting shoes soon? Can I have his shoes?" And wights should have still been just as smart; there's no Intelligence or Wisdom penalty for becoming a wight. (Might be a Wisdom bonus even, though I'm not looking it up right now.)

They acted, in fact, almost exactly like Thrall Durkon.

[Jay R]

The entire political discussion is off-topic, unless somebody can come up with something terrible all living people in the OOTS-verse have done. We're talking about Tsukiko, remember?

I brought up the point specifically to show that in this specific case, the decision is arbitrary and irrational, because Tsukiko has not met every living person.

It follows that whatever happened to her, her reaction to it is way out of proportion.

[Miriel]

Can't disagree more strongly. I'll reserve most of my examples for PM if anyone wants to hear about them, but one that comes to mind is torture. Sir Samuel Vimes (Terry Pratchett's Discworld series) summed up my views on why torture is unacceptable for any reason and by anybody (I'm paraphrasing); because if you'll do it for a good reason (gathering information to save lives), then eventually you'll do it for a bad reason (because it's easier than investigating). Essentially, you can't do what the Bad Guys do and still call yourself the Good Guy.
Slipery slope fallacy.


A pedophile is a pedophile and should be set on fire until they die.
A pedophile is someone attracted to children. A child molester is someone who abuses children. I will agree that the act of abusing children is horrible. However, not all pedophiles act upon their attraction (which would almost always be rape, because of the lack of informed consent), and not all child molesters are pedophiles in the first place. Saying that people who are attracted to children are horrible people implies that they are horrible people for their thoughts (attraction), as opposed to their acts (child abuse/rape).


No, not quite. "People who do abhorent things are abhorent" is more or less it, and that's not a tautology because you can say the opposite, and effectively some people here seem to be saying that (that phrase would be something like "Not all people who do abhorent things are abhorent", which I am suggesting may be mistaken).
Behaviour is not the same thing as people. It's better not to characterize people as abhorrent, because even otherwise nice or decent people can do abhorrent things. Saying that abhorrent/evil things is caused by abhorrent/evil people is rejecting everything abhorrent/evil on select people, as opposed to recognizing that abhorrent/evil things can be done by anyone, and that the world we live in is complex and not black and white.

V is a case in point. They are not abhorrent, but they did a very abhorrent thing under any standard of abhorrence. Yet the context in which they did this abhorrent thing and their reaction to this abhorrent thing are important too if you must assess their overall character.

To come back to Tsukiko... I don't think we will ever know why she became like that, and it probably doesn't matter. 1) She seems to be in the "unrepentedly evil" category, with Belkar and Xykon, so we will never know because the Giant doesn't want to explain why these people are how they are. 2) She's dead, so that's it for her character development.

[Jay R]

"Speaking of Tsukiko," he attempted valiantly, "her hatred of the living is clearly not based on anything all the living do."

[Koo Rehtorb]

Maybe she's annoyed by the sound of breathing.

[Darth Paul]

"Speaking of Tsukiko," he attempted valiantly, "her hatred of the living is clearly not based on anything all the living do."

I'm going with the idea that she may have a teeny tiny shred of rationality, since there is one thing all living people except Suki do. They regard dead people as either A) dead or B) undead abominations.

Tsukiko regards them as simply "Living Impaired." Therefore, all other living people are predjudiced against the Living Impaired.

No, I take that back. She regards all of their time alive as being just preparation for their time as undead, which she sees as an improvement.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Maybe she's annoyed by the sound of breathing.

That's it! Wights don't snore.

[Sartharina]

They sure didn't act like they had the mental stats they had during life, did they? "Am I getting shoes soon? Can I have his shoes?" And wights should have still been just as smart; there's no Intelligence or Wisdom penalty for becoming a wight. (Might be a Wisdom bonus even, though I'm not looking it up right now.)

They acted, in fact, almost exactly like Thrall Durkon.When they come back as Wights, they come back as Wights, with Wight stats and Wight personalities. They are not the person they were before. Wights are a creature, not a template. (They might still be powered by the soul of the person they were before, but are not that person anymore).


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html

What the one wight says is:


Which suggests that she used to give them orders.She gave them orders, yes, but there's no evidence there that the order she gave them were compelled by anything other than their personal convictions that serving her is right - and they apologize to her because Redcloak's orders are compulsions, while they happen to merely be devoted to her for creating them.

[multilis]

To me Tsukiko makes sense, no big mystery, lots of similar in real life.

She had an interest in necromancy. World we live in has lots of "death goth" fans.

People disliked her interest in necromancy... people heavy into extreme goth and death get similar reactions in real life from others, especially in a society that would match the one she was in - paladin capital, etc.

Negative energy= evil, undead=evil... paladins... not hard to see how she would have conflict with the "police".

If people dislike her, she naturally also dislikes them.

Also not hard for someone who is head of a cult that brainwashes others to unquestionably obey to "love" the followers. Heads of cults often have large groups of children with many wives/lovers, etc.

Not hard to imagine someone of strong goth mentality in world where undead look and act like people and who dislikes regular people to turn to undead for love. Not that different than for example "Stepford wives", people making robots as a lovers. In our world there are *many* people trying to make robots and NPC virtual people lifelike enough to act as pets and replacement family even when results are poor. In her world necromancers have succeeded much better than ours.... just using dead bodies and magic as building blocks rather than metal and power supplies.

As far as hypocrisy goes... real world is full of it, so why strange in OOTS world? It is like wondering why leader of a cult, or a mafia boss is a hypocrite.

(If anything it might be a surprise there are not more like T given how much "death goth" we have in our world where dead bodies are lifeless and how people often act when given a form of absolute power over others. Long list of movies and TV shows and webcomics with main characters having undead lovers. Much easier to play fantasy world when undead act human like around you compared to "suspension of disbelief" with TV show, book, webcomic or DnD game.)

Buffy the vampire slayer, Twilight, True Blood, etc... extremely common for the living heroes of shows that involve undead to want sex with an undead.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That's it! Wights don't snore.

I think this may be the best reason I've seen for Tsukiko's attraction to Undead.

[CaDzilla]

When they come back as Wights, they come back as Wights, with Wight stats and Wight personalities. They are not the person they were before. Wights are a creature, not a template. (They might still be powered by the soul of the person they were before, but are not that person anymore).


It becomes a template if they can get the emancipated spawn PrC. However, Tsukiko made them herself, so they're stuck as monsters

[Kish]

When they come back as Wights, they come back as Wights, with Wight stats and Wight personalities. They are not the person they were before. Wights are a creature, not a template. (They might still be powered by the soul of the person they were before, but are not that person anymore).
Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that your assertion that wights have all their stats rerolled rather than imported from the living characters is correct.

It's quite an odd coincidence that all Tsukiko's "free-willed" wights came out so stupid and acted just like Thrall Durkon, isn't it?

[Keltest]

Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that your assertion that wights have all their stats rerolled rather than imported from the living characters is correct.

It's quite an odd coincidence that all Tsukiko's "free-willed" wights came out so stupid and acted just like Thrall Durkon, isn't it?

That's a rather bold assertion, given that weve only see one (Maybe two, its hard to tell) wight speak when it wasn't for sure controlled.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, however your sample size isn't large enough to stand on its own.

[Nilehus]

Just reading the comic, I always thought that Tsukiko controlled her wights. Very simple minded, very malleable, and acting exactly the same as before when they're sucking the life out of Old Mistress doesn't strike me as free-willed and independent. It strikes me as controlled.

For free-willed, intelligent undead, I'd look at Malack, Xykon, and Xykon's brothers. There is a world of difference between the two groups.

[Miriel]

Also, the wights obeyed Tsukiko exactly in the same way as they obeyed Redcloak in 830 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html).

[Jay R]

Whatever else it might be, a disapproval of all living beings, by a living being, is clearly hypocritical. (Unless she disapproves of herself just as strongly.)

[multilis]

Just reading the comic, I always thought that Tsukiko controlled her wights. Very simple minded, very malleable, and acting exactly the same as before when they're sucking the life out of Old Mistress doesn't strike me as free-willed and independent. It strikes me as controlled.

For free-willed, intelligent undead, I'd look at Malack, Xykon, and Xykon's brothers. There is a world of difference between the two groups.
"Jump overboard". "Weeeeee!" - Dominated... Belkar describing thrall/dominated Durkula "He had to order you not to drink it all!" - A dominated undead still has some free will and personality that is noticeable by outsiders, that is how Belkar could tell it was not his former ally as thrall.

BSDM type sex often involves discipline/domination to "get rid of free will", make person a "love slave who unquestionably obeys". Some in real life see a "love slave" or "stepford wife" as an ideal lover. A popular TV show that I haven't watched, but know a few details thanks to internet... "legend of the seeker", has lots of "dominating" and loss of willpower and people cheer for the dominatrix's that love their slaves. Lots of other similar type TV shows and movies on youtube as well and people so happy about that sort of love in comments section.

[CaDzilla]

"Jump overboard". "Weeeeee!" - Dominated... Belkar describing thrall/dominated Durkula "He had to order you not to drink it all!" - A dominated undead still has some free will and personality that is noticeable by outsiders, that is how Belkar could tell it was not his former ally as thrall.

BSDM type sex often involves discipline/domination to "get rid of free will", make person a "love slave who unquestionably obeys". Some in real life see a "love slave" or "stepford wife" as an ideal lover. A popular TV show that I haven't watched, but know a few details thanks to internet... "legend of the seeker", has lots of "dominating" and loss of willpower and people cheer for the dominatrix's that love their slaves. Lots of other similar type TV shows and movies on youtube as well and people so happy about that sort of love in comments section.

So what you're saying is that Tsukiko was engaged in an incestuous, BDSM relationship with her "children". And by extension, all undead that create spawn have this relationship. This was definitely not what Rich had in mind. Especially with the wholeNot that kind of dominated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html) joke

[Mastikator]

Whatever else it might be, a disapproval of all living beings, by a living being, is clearly hypocritical. (Unless she disapproves of herself just as strongly.)
She never showed any evidence of having the emotional maturity of beyond a 10 year old, so she may not even be aware of how hypocritical (and ridiculous) her world view was.

[halfeye]

So what you're saying is that Tsukiko was engaged in an incestuous, BDSM relationship with her "children". And by extension, all undead that create spawn have this relationship. This was definitely not what Rich had in mind. Especially with the wholeNot that kind of dominated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html) joke
The thing about throw-away jokes is that they don't mean anything.

There is the other meaning of "Mistress" to consider too.

[Keltest]

The thing about throw-away jokes is that they don't mean anything.

There is the other meaning of "Mistress" to consider too.

Never discount the power of a throwaway joke.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Never discount the power of a throwaway joke.

I agree. Just because something is a throwaway joke doesn't mean that it has no meaning whatsoever. Magical domination has very little to do with that other kind of dominating.