OOTS #285 - The Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 3

Alfryd

2006-02-24, 09:08 AM

This post is monstrous and ungainly in it's extent. But I have a day off.

I would argue that she's getting worse, which is—in fact—development. Before, she was merely abrasive and rude, and maybe a little too devoted to duty. Now, she's bordering on a complete psychotic break. It's just not development in the direction you were hoping for...
She doesn't like them, but she doesn't consider killing them and brings them back to trial. Belkar and the rest have now brought it back, and pushed it to the point of her wanting to kill Good and Neutral characters. She's been pushed beyond what had been a line she didn't cross.
That's certainly true. The more I think about it, the more... desperate her reaction seems to have been. It's also odd how the OotS reactions to her assault seems... somewhat subdued. Perhaps they've come to expect no better, but they don't seem... angry, as such.

uh oh... I was hoping Miko would be punished and forced to travel with the OotS... but it looks more and more like blackguard territory...
I CURSE YOU, GREENHILT! I CURSE YOU UNTIL MY DYING BREATH!
Yeah, I'm kinda leaning that direction too.

...okay, i'll put my 2 francs into the discussion about miko.
Few things. Smiting Belkar was CG, not LE. She does not believe the OotS are evil (I should think,) merely that they should and will be punished for siding with Belkar. Beware the most obvious turn of events, humour hinges upon novelty. There is still a very far stretch for Miko from Blackguard status. She has performed actively good deeds and may well seek the approval and company of others. These are not typical Blackguard traits.

Miko's kinda cute when she's angry...
Yes, yes she is.

Well, she was set aflame, used as a pincushion and possibly more, which we didn't see due to the trial, by Belkar. No wonder she is ready to explode.
Oh, I completely understand her reaction emotionally- lord knows what Belkar was saying off-panel- but understanding isn't justification. I largely understand Belkar's reaction emotionally too, but that doesn't mean his standards haven't sunk. I am saddened that events have come to such a pass. It is waste.
But I appreciate the thought.

Well, That got me off of Mikos side. Before she was annoying and judgemental, but against evil, not the Order. I don't see how her actions in this comic do anything for the plot.
Patience. To err is human, to forgive divine. The lack of present resolution may, in itself, be significant.

I'm surprised it took Shojo so long to stop Miko.
I think Shojo is used to giving Miko a certain degree of individual license.

Why does he not sharply rebuke her for taking on the whole Order right there in front of him? He "requests" that she go to her quarters? He openly commends her for doing her duty and notes how tough it was for her to do it?
I think Shojo agrees with her completely.
No. I think Shojo understands her reaction completely, and wants to protect her. At the same time, he knows that Belkar should be given due process and that the OotS don't deserve to be slaughtered by a long shot. He's saying what he needs to calm her, reassure her, and remind Miko of her proper duty. Shojo, in brief, has better Wis than first impressions would suggest.

I wonder if we just saw a titanic clash of two LG characters with completely different views of the world speaking right past each other.
Not quite. I think the group might, just conceivably, be clued in that, at some level, Miko enjoyed their company. After all, Miko's first reaction after being attacked by V was to talk him out of intervening by saying Belkar was no business of zers. She's simultaneously trying to avoid having to attack the group and trying to exclude Belkar from it's ranks. But Roy makes a point that the honeymoon is definitively over. After that, the final rejection in favour of Belkar makes her snap, to the point where it seems she's almost suicidally enraged.

Look at Miko. She's shaking. She's so torn just then, hesitating, filled with fury and righteousness and wrath, barely holding onto the goodness inside her. Not doing exactly what she wants to do and striking him down because she knows it is wrong.

She's definitely dancing on the edge of sanity, which is not exactly unheard of in a Paladin (NWN, anyone?), but she's getting pretty scary. I'm glad she's been sent to her room... but I don't think it will help much. She seems like a brooder to me, and getting sent to your room is nothing but more time to brood on the injustices she perceives.

She actually does stop and think, and almost looks...completely shellshocked. Like his words struck a chord in her, and completely knocked her off balance for a handful of heartbeats, but then she realized all the things she's had to put up with, and they overcame her logic. She really is running on emotion right now.

Poor Miko... "You will suffer a great loss for choosing Belkar over Miko. This I swear." This is a cry for help if I ever heard one. What greater insult than to pick Belkar over anyone.

Jilted lover indeed. She has many reason to hate the OotS now, and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I am in more or less complete agreement here.

Miko seemed to have no doubts she could beat them any day, but again, pride goeth before the fall.

But they would have dropped her this go around.
Oh, no question. That's the disturbing part. She *probably* knows this, even if rage has clouded her judgement.

Mikos speach at the end was very chilling.
It is possible she was to some extent, as the Giant has put it, 'randomly overreacting for the sake of humour.' But yes, it was a little creepy.

Because the Giant says so. Paladin must be Lawful Good. Miko is still a Paladin. Therefore Miko must be Lawful Good.
I guess that explains... nothing.

Getting in his/her way? How about ambushing your group without warning and telling you you'll all be executed unless you surrender...and probably also be executed if you surrender, actually?
I don't think Miko had any expectation this would become her 'group' at the time.

Having read the Giant's description of the second Miko/Order battle, I would have to say the Order would have killed her out of hand without at least a little railroading (i.e. Belkar failing two Fort Saves in a row, the surprise round.)
You forget that Miko was able to pick the place and time for her first tactical engagement, and that always gives a significant advantage. That's not railroading. The rain and tanglefoot bag essentially took out V, Belkar was out, Haley was mostly useless, Elan was useless, that just leaves Roy and possibly Durkon to content with at hand. Roy lacked his primary weapon and was lower-level with fewer attacks, and got his ass thoroughly whupped before Miko even broke out Lay on Hands or other divine spells. Had Durkon been healing, of course, that's another matter. Are you saying Durkon's an NPC?

Unless in your gameworld the god of Orcs made them evil by nature (which is what Tolkien did, for example), which is a reasonable way of playing them. This "nurture beats nature" argument is barely settled in the real world, it has no sensible grounds for being adopted in a fantasy background.
Not really. Morality and ethics revolve around the issue of consent, and what you are by nature you have no choice about. Arguably, good or evil 'by nature' is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying that you're morally responsible for having to breathe.

I think that becoming a lich destroys all of your humanity, making you incapable of doing good.
The baelnorn, I seem to recall, is a variety of potentially benevolent guardian undead elven lich. Bit of an obscure reference, I'll grant. There are plenty of reasons for the vast majority of undead to be evil, without resorting to 'I inject your karma with pure distilled Evil' kind of crap.

Evil just needs a bit of therapy. Where's the flavour in that?
Well, it's the situation in our world, and apparently it raises enough problems to be 'interesting.'

Lesser of two Evils is sometimes the only path to Good.
Oh, constantly.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm accountable to God alone, and society seems to be more an excuse for people to exalt themselves above their fellow humans.
From A Man for all Seasons.

"Arrest Him."
"Why?"
"That man's bad."
"There's no law against that."
"There is, God's law."
"Then God can arrest him."
"And while you talk he's gone!"
"And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law!"
"So now you give the Devil benefit of law!"
"And what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
"Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut those down- and you're just the man to do it!- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes- I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

I'm sure I can expect some rather "vocal" disagreement with this, to put it mildly, but I invite it nonetheless. It will do nothing but prove me right.
At once so open-minded and so arrogant.

Paladins by (d&d) deffinition are religious fanatics. FANATICS ARE DAMGEROUS
All power is dangerous. That doesn't mean it isn't beneficial.

Miko doesn't have a history of double-checking facts before smiting anyway.
She double-checks when practical.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Ignorance of *secret law* has to be. The OotS were fully justified in defending themselves. This doesn't mean Miko wasn't fully justified in attacking them. It's all a matter of incomplete information.

How was attacking the OOTS grossly violating her personal code of conduct?
On previous occasions she had some justification for bringing the order to heel by force. Her only pretense now is taking down Belkar, which in itself was either unjustified or only tenuously justified, and certainly not enough to cover cutting down non-evil characters who get in your way.

She attacked UNLAWFULLY the OOTS for preventing her from commiting an UNLAWFUL, EVIL act.
No, she evilly attacked the OotS for preventing her commiting a good, but grossly chaotic act. Luckily, the action was stopped before anything serious occured.

You know, I think Miko almost fell. V's scorching ray saved her.
Quite possibly correct.

I doubt there was much of a plan on Belkars part. He just didn't want to die a senseless death, i don't think he's the guy to fret about his own death.
Regardless of planning, he did execute the neccesary sequence, and I think the circumstances warrant suspicion.

...You can't "fake" being completely impaled in the last comic, but he's standing in this one with no apparent healing, so he must be at 0.
But you can *fake* being unconscious while in positive HP. It's far more likely.

...there's no way you can cite his comments in #206 as evidence that he planned to "martyr" himself just to see Miko fall.
It should now be evident that is more or less exactly what he intended when the time came, at least.

That would allow for her character development to continue. She's on the edge right now. A little more kindness from Durkon, and maybe some easing up by Roy, and she might start to make some friends.
Hmm... too easy. Character development does seem to be occuring in this strip, but it's realistically slow. I think we're looking at months or years for Miko to soften up significantly, if it happens at all.

"The Path to hell is paved with good intentions"
And what is the road to Elysium paved with? Malice?

I have to say, I honestly feel sorry for Miko... heck, I pity her actually. Not just because she's got no friends and nobody likes her (which is her own fault, really)... but because she's so blinded by her own righteousness that she can't see that there's more to the world than just black and white.
Blame is for God and children. Obviously, lacking any other social support is due to a fault in her, but that doesn't mean she chose things that way.

One of the first things that drew me to liking Miko was that I could see myself in her somewhat.
Hmm. Let me see. I had a somewhat isolated childhood, tend to half-inadvertantly alienate people, am prone to bursts of pride and temper and long with all my being to do only Good, once I figure out what the hell that is, exactly. Hmm.

Alfryd

2006-02-24, 09:15 AM

"I never met a primate in such need of being getting laid like you"
I believe the correct line is "White Man in most dire need of a blow job."

She might have not been the best for Roy, but boy does she need a bf.
All in due time. There are certain obligatory rituals- dinner, flowers, sweeet, sweet chocolates- that must be enacted first, and I imagine a paladin would be particularly touchy on the subject.

I still say that guard was an idiot and deserved to die. I mean come on! He gave him an openning a mile wide.
Comments like this *really* tick me off. Under what purview of moral circumstance does stupidity deserve agonizing death?

I missed the Javert connection there, but that fits really well.
Ooh, Le Miserables. I am cultured!

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 09:20 AM

I know jack **** about palladins. I know slightly more about samurai. And Jin is my favorite character on Samurai Champloo.

You drew a nice picture with your post, after all Miko acts more like a samurai than a paladin. On the other hand, if she had acted totally samurai, defending her honor etc., she would have acted against being a paladin. Samurais tend to be zealots when it comes to their honor.
Miko tend to be a zealot when it comes to Law, forgetting good.

Both is to a certain amount "stick-up-the-ass".
I do so prefer the Ninja Code of Honor. Much more room for wiggling. You insult my honor and my family? Fine. I'll tell you to stop, once. If you don't, you'll never know what hit you when you drop to the ground dead. Maybe you'll get to sleep and never wake up again. Who knows. You had it coming. ;D

Oh my, I'd like to play in Rokugan again... *sniff*

Lasombra

2006-02-24, 09:46 AM

te-he

gotta love belkar

nagora

2006-02-24, 09:56 AM

Not really. Morality and ethics revolve around the issue of consent, and what you are by nature you have no choice about. Arguably, good or evil 'by nature' is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying that you're morally responsible for having to breathe.

Half true. One's own morality and guilt etc. are about choice. However, one's experience of others' morality is not. If an orc band breaks into your house and slits your daughter's throat because they think it's funny, you are unlikely to take the stance that it's your own fault for not buying a better door. Your experience is that the orcs are evil because they do evil things, not because they choose or do not choose to do them.

There are plenty of reasons for the vast majority of undead to be evil, without resorting to 'I inject your karma with pure distilled Evil' kind of crap.

I'd say that the state of being undead is evil in and of itself, since Good is the promotion of life and welfare. Undead is a perversion of life and so are evil. As the rules say:

"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life"

Undead are a debasement if life and therefore are evil, QED.

You can certainly argue a relativist vision of evil but D&D isn't that sort of system. Once you go down that road the aligment system is meaningless. But it's your gameworld, not mine and not WotC's.

From A Man for all Seasons.

"Arrest Him."
"Why?"
"That man's bad."
"There's no law against that."
"There is, God's law."
"Then God can arrest him."
"And while you talk he's gone!"
"And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law!"
"So now you give the Devil benefit of law!"
"And what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
"Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut those down- and you're just the man to do it!- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes- I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."
At once so open-minded and so arrogant.

Superb quote, and oh-so applicable today. Sadyly not applicable to the Sapphire Guard since they are a theocratic society and are under "god's law", not Man's.

And what is the road to Elysium paved with? Malice?

I have been there and I can tell you it's paved with Sugarpuffs.

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 10:26 AM

I'd say that the state of being undead is evil in and of itself, since Good is the promotion of life and welfare. Undead is a perversion of life and so are evil. As the rules say:

"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life"

Undead are a debasement if life and therefore are evil, QED.

You can certainly argue a relativist vision of evil but D&D isn't that sort of system. Once you go down that road the aligment system is meaningless. But it's your gameworld, not mine and not WotC's.
.

Oh well, the alignment system IS a relativist vision of evil. And it's not meaningless.
Undead are not necessarily evil themselves. Liches are, according to the rules.
I'm gonna quote myself from another thread on the topic of good/evil:

<snip>
Another Example: Mummies are Usually lawful evil. You can check that in the SRD. Now, what does a Detect Evil spell reveal when you use it on a Mummy?
Moderate Evil Aura (8 HD) Undead.
It doesn't matter if the Mummy once was a LG Fighter who was mummified to Protect the Tomb of an old LG ruler.
Funny thing: Protection from Evil will NOT work on the LG Guardian Mummy. Think about it.
Objectivity? Nope sorry, does not work here.
One spell that "detects" evil works, another one, that "protects" you from the exact same "evil" does not work. If you can explain that to me with objectivity, feel free to do so.

They've put mummies back to what they were in 2nd Ed. They can even talk, Mummy Lords actually have class levels in Cleric and can cast spells. Have a look at the 3.5 SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm

I picked mummies because it's one of the few undead monsters that is NOT flagged as always evil. And as they can speak, they have to be sentient. Int 6 is very low, and they might be somewhat slow on their wits, but that's all.
<snip>
Anyways, with the Undead Type you can create undead of every alignment if you like. You're the GM, you decide. ;)
<snip>
Edit: Question that remains:
Is a Paladin allowed to kill a LG aligned Mummy without consequences? His detect Evil might say so, but there's evil magic at work, doing good... I'd really like to see some Black&White GM/Player solve that. :D

I also remember my favorite undead the "Revenant", who was not necessarily evil. A zealot paladin like Miko would have been a perfect Revenant. Driven by their own will and their strong belief that something is still amiss and they GOT to fix that, they are given the chance to put things right. They rise from their graves and do what they think is necessary to fulfill their task. Once it is done, they finally die.
That worked both ways. Fanatical do gooders as well as fanatical evildoers "could" return to finish their work.

But that's 2nd Ed rules, they got kicked out in 3.0 and did not yet return in an official book I own. Perhaps they are covered in the Librim Mortis but I don't have that one.

Arkon

2006-02-24, 10:27 AM

The obvious question in this thread:

Why is Belkar urging Miko to attack him?

There are only a few answers posted so far (and all common theories, so no spolier), and all of them are a bit of a stretch!

1) Belkar is actually not evil and wants the satisfaction of Miko smiting him and realizing he isn't evil.

2) Belkar is antagonizing Miko until the end.

3) Belkar is attempting to get Miko to turn to evil by killing him.

The answer is simple:

4) He is a bad motherfXXXer. He basically says, come on make my day! For Blekar it is not what would Thor do but What Would Dirty Harry Do basically. Ok, maybe he's down maybe he will die, but that doesn't mean he is scared.

5) He's using reverse pyschology in order to get her to not kill him.

Karkadinn

2006-02-24, 11:34 AM

What are you babbling about? First, why would the Giant give Belkar a red crayon in this situation? Well, lessee .. Belkar has a red crayon. We've seen him use it several times. There's nothing that says it would have been taken from him if he was searched anyway, and he also held on to his lead sheet; it seems the only things taken were weapons and magic items.

I grant you this point.

Lastly, if it wasn't blood, Belkar was obviously trying to make it look like blood (he can Craft Disturbing Mental Images), and he had to have been doing the high drawing mostly with his Ring of Jumping.

Oh, come on. Crayon made to look like blood? Firstly, Belkar being Belkar, why wouldn't he just use blood? You can't seriously tell me he has any respect for the dead when he wore his last great enemy's head as a hat. Secondly, looking at this from the pov of the characters, there is no way you can make red crayon on a wall look reasonably like blood, fresh or dried.

It's fine to have an opinion, but to straw-man a perfectly plausible line of reasoning in such a ridiculously abrasive manner only makes yourself come across as narrow-minded and pig-headed.

Yeah, because I'm the only one being abrasive here. ;D

reimero

2006-02-24, 11:35 AM

Heyas,

Belkar had previously stated that trying to get away with stuff under a paladin's eye was "big leagues" and he made no secret of the fact that his goal was not only to best her, but to cost her her paladin status.

I think he was gambling that she was out of control and that if she killed him, he would actually have won.

Supagoof

2006-02-24, 11:35 AM

Fantastic Comic. I think I just had an Evilgasm....

Belkar - you are the man! or the half of man, really. Taunting Good until the day you die. Beautiful.

Miko - Wow, you're samurai really shows itself. Follow the code young paladin. Follow the code.

V - amazing line. "You're dumber than a table" - I love it.

Roy - Yay, Roy is developing into quite the leader. First rescuing Elan (and the rest of Oots) from the sorceress, then defending Belkar.

Superb comic Giant (like they all aren't anyway ;))

xrestassuredx

2006-02-24, 11:53 AM

Secondly, looking at this from the pov of the characters, there is no way you can make red crayon on a wall look reasonably like blood, fresh or dried.

Well, there's nothing that says it even does look like blood, from the POV of the characters. The only mention of whatever drawing medium was used has been on these forums. Until something definitive comes from the comic, which may very wel never happen, anything said here is just speculation.

nagora

2006-02-24, 12:12 PM

Oh well, the alignment system IS a relativist vision of evil.

That's hard to understand when there's a page defining what good and evil mean. Seems fairly absolutist to me.

Aeek

2006-02-24, 12:16 PM

Well, there's nothing that says it even does look like blood, from the POV of the characters.

Its stick-figure blood. What's stick figure blood? Crayon!

Vampire_Boy

2006-02-24, 12:28 PM

That's hard to understand when there's a page defining what good and evil mean. Seems fairly absolutist to me.

Each person will make their own perceptions on the 'page defining what good and evil mean', just as people interpret Bible so very differently, their own morality and experience cannot be just pushed aside conveniently, it influences our every judgment and perception. Accept and deal with it. ;)

Sanctu

2006-02-24, 12:32 PM

Ah, and just before the thread goes away...

I've read a lot, many people wondering why Belkar is setting things up and seems to say he wants Miko to kill him.

My opinion... not sure if it's a spoiler, pretty sure not because I'm not speculating, but just to be safe and for respect:

Very much like the way Belkar sprang from his cell and gave a little speach, of which I can still "hear" in my head: "It's like my birthday, but instead of cake there's dead humans..."

This is the same thing. Look how happy is he as he goads her. Look at how disappointed he is when he's "saved" by the Scorching Ray. After a long, hard taunting and chase, Belkar has succeed, perhaps even more than he could have expected and dreamed, in getting Miko where he wants her: at the point of killing him in pure, unbridled rage... and right in front of her leige, the Order, the Paladins and cummoners and the being of pure Law and Good. To breakher mentally, possibly so badly that she looses her paladin abilities... AND SHE'S RIGHT THERE! And in front of everybody. It's worth it; it's worth it in spades to him. You can see it in his expression.

I've never been a huge fan of Belkar. I'm usually not a fan of the evil in the party. But he fits in a party of D&D adventurers extremely well, and in ways I've seen all through my role-playing career, from other characters, the game itself, and myself. When he shines in the comic, it's very brightly indeed.

theKOT

2006-02-24, 01:00 PM

Hmm. Let me see. I had a somewhat isolated childhood, tend to half-inadvertantly alienate people, am prone to bursts of pride and temper and long with all my being to do only Good, once I figure out what the hell that is, exactly. Hmm.
Come on. I meant that I sometimes attempt to enforce my views upon others. "Could see some of myself in her" does NOT mean "had a similar story" or "I am exactly the same". I could relate with the way she was acting, not her story or attitude.

nagora

2006-02-24, 01:01 PM

Each person will make their own perceptions on the 'page defining what good and evil mean'

They can but if they disagree with the DM's interpretation then, for this gameworld, they're wrong. Deal with it, as you say.

mckaskle

2006-02-24, 01:15 PM

Well, there's nothing that says it even does look like blood, from the POV of the characters. The only mention of whatever drawing medium was used has been on these forums. Until something definitive comes from the comic, which may very wel never happen, anything said here is just speculation.
While this is true, that guard is still clearly dead (great big X's for eyes), so whether or not he drew a mural in blood, we saw him kill that guard.

Zarquon

2006-02-24, 01:33 PM

I wouldn't put it quite as harshly. But tonight I didn't even notice that Haley shot at Miko because I've gotten to the point that I just block Haley out since I can't understand her and don't have time or patience to decode her. I read the panels of the other characters and avoid hers.

I think I've figured out why the Giant has Haley speaking "cryptically." It's to drive people to the Forums! It's certainly worked for me!

Z

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 01:34 PM

That's hard to understand when there's a page defining what good and evil mean. Seems fairly absolutist to me.

Did you read what I said?

Define a LG Guardian Mummy for me. Good? Evil? And define it using core rules... seems next to impossible to me. ;)

Zarquon

2006-02-24, 01:40 PM

Each person will make their own perceptions on the 'page defining what good and evil mean', just as people interpret Bible so very differently, their own morality and experience cannot be just pushed aside conveniently, it influences our every judgment and perception. Accept and deal with it. ;)

Okay, that's true enough, but it doesn't make the D&D definitions of Good & Evil relativist. By your line of thinking, the Bible is relativist, the Constitution is relativist, the law is relativist, everything is relativist. "Relativist" does not mean "open to interpretation." "Absolutist" does not mean "must mean the same thing to everyone." "Good is fundamentally different from evil" is an absolutist stance. Period.

battleburn

2006-02-24, 01:43 PM

Miko will not join the linear guild because of
http://giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=203

They explained that Nale is the evil one and she will find that out in no time when she meets them. 1 simple check will find that nale is evil, as for lawfull or chaotic, others should say something about that, I don't have a lot of experience with D&D.
I play White Wolf's Vampire.

Anyway, I hope not 30 people have allready said that :S

nagora

2006-02-24, 01:49 PM

Did you read what I said?

Define a LG Guardian Mummy for me. Good? Evil? And define it using core rules... seems next to impossible to me. ;)

A LG mummy is, by the rules, a contradiction in terms. One or more of the rules for alignment, protection from evil, detect evil, or the rule that allows a LG mummy at all, is wrong. Since the idea of a Good mummy is silly, I'd say that is the mistake and throw it out. But you might prefer to rule that the detect evil rule is wrong and throw it out.

Either way I think it's obvious that there's a problem with the rules here, and that's an objective observation!

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 02:09 PM

A LG mummy is, by the rules, a contradiction in terms. One or more of the rules for alignment, protection from evil, detect evil, or the rule that allows a LG mummy at all, is wrong. Since the idea of a Good mummy is silly, I'd say that is the mistake and throw it out. But you might prefer to rule that the detect evil rule is wrong and throw it out.

Either way I think it's obvious that there's a problem with the rules here, and that's an objective observation!

Thanks, that' just what I was pointing at. So the rules are flawed concerning Evil/Good.
As I said in 2nd Ed there were even more good/neutral aligned undead.
Mummies were always evil in 3.0 but got changed back in 3.5 to their former: "Yeah, evil in most times, but not always".
So... I really DOUBT that it was not done on purpose. I'd rather take it as a proof that "evil" is not always "evil" and that "evil" is not the same as "evil"...

For me it's not a contradiction. What else should you use to guard your tomb? Nothing? Why should good Kings NOT have some eternal guardian while evil ones fill their tombs freely with Sword Wraiths and worse Undead Creatures?

But as it concerns rules, you can do what you like, throw out the good undead.
I had another example where the rules simply don't work as black and white, but it slipped my mind... oh well, when it comes back I'll post it. ;)

The System simply does not work without houseruling as most of us know. :) Meaning: Some houserules may try to establish a true good/evil definition while others allows shades of gray, like mine.
My Players can never trust a !!LOW LVL!!! Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos whatever... either they use common sense or high lvl magic to reveal "truths".
Actually that leads to more RPing and less hack'n'slashing in my group. So that's just fine with me. Players tend to be much more careful when they are not sure what exactly is going on. ;)

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 02:13 PM

I have a reason to think that Belkar MIGHT have used Crayon and MIGHT have not even actually killed the guard (but let him at -3 HP or something, stable).
And I say MIGHT.

Hear me out:

Belkar would love nothing more than to see Miko fall.

Miko would fall if she stroke down an innocent.

Belkar would, in this scenario, be innocent of what Miko is killing him for.

Ergo, Miko would kill a person for nothing (being evil gives nobody the right to kill you; DOING evil may).

Instant loss of paladinhood.

Mind you, I don't BELIEVE this hypothesis, but it COULD be possible. Not because Belkar is good, but because he's evil and smart about it.

xyzchyx

2006-02-24, 02:17 PM

being evil gives nobody the right to kill you...In D&D, it does. Really. It's not a good idea to try to apply our real world concepts of morality to the alignment system of D&D because it will always fall apart.

Doug_Lampert

2006-02-24, 02:17 PM

A LG mummy is, by the rules, a contradiction in terms. One or more of the rules for alignment, protection from evil, detect evil, or the rule that allows a LG mummy at all, is wrong.

Not true, Mummy's have a listed alignment of always evil. Now READ the description in the MM of what the alignment terms mean. ALWAYS is defined for this purpose to actually mean almost all, there are explicitely allowed to be exceptions. This is required since the creatures with alignment are, at least in theory, capable of moral choice and thus can choose to act differently.

And detect evil pinging on all undead DOESN'T guarantee that they are evil. Detection detects evil AURAS, which non-evil creatures can have (neutral cleric of an evil diety, outsider with [Evil] subtype but without the evil alignment, anyone with protection from good cast on them). That it also pings on all undead is listed separately from pinging on evil, so it would ping on a hypothetical good mummy, but that's not a problem in the rules, it's a problem for anyone who assumes that Detect Evil does more than it says it does.

I don't believe in, or use, good undead, but there's nothing inherent to the rules that makes them a contradiction.

DougL

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 02:21 PM

In D&D, it does. Really. It's not a good idea to try to apply our real world concepts of morality to the alignment system of D&D because it will always fall apart.

If a Paladin uses Detect Evil on a LAWFUL Evil trader, then slays him in the middle of the marketplace, he will be punished. He could, yes, fall, as well. Why? Because said trader could be selling his stuff normally, bound by the guild not to cheat on trading, and WISH to be a SOB, but unable to do so.

Sanctu

2006-02-24, 02:21 PM

Reading through, and seeing several people who are so annoyed or otherwise at Haley seems strange and off putting. "I didn't even notice that Haley shot at Miko because I've gotten to the point that I just block Haley out since I can't understand her " and "this is getting old Giant" (said by different people).

Do you also hate the comics that have little or no speach? Would you abandon friends and family memebers and/or have difficulty paying attention to them if they stopped speaking, or stopped speaking coherantly? Why visit that friend in the hospital if they can't speak or write?

I know it's not as simple as this. I know that in, say, a role-playing situation playing a mute character gets old, old to the point where I've seen GM's themselves intervene to correct the problem. And I know that reading a comic is not the same as having friends and family. But there is a layer of frustration that seems unfounded, and rather boggling to me.

Granted, I am one of the people who takes the time to decode Haley's speach. But I still read through the comic without doing so first and get a feeling of what she is doing, seeing her emotions and reactions and the like. It's a unique perspective getting to see it and having to guess, just like the other characters would if they were paying attention. Then I translate it and see. In your cases, you are people who come and post here, you could look simply look it up. (Something I did once myself because I didn't want to take the time.)

I sympathize that you find it annoying. I really do. But it seems a tad extreme to me to then simply ignore the character entirely or get upset about it.

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 02:23 PM

Not true, Mummy's have a listed alignment of always evil. Now READ the description in the MM of what the alignment terms mean. ALWAYS is defined for this purpose to actually mean almost all, there are explicitely allowed to be exceptions. This is required since the creatures with alignment are, at least in theory, capable of moral choice and thus can choose to act differently.

Yeah, you better READ. Dang.. Here again:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm

Stop waving around your 3.0 rules, they are out of date. Or I wave my 2nd Ed rules around, where mummies are also not necessarily evil... *sigh* Makes not much sense does it?

Actual Version is: Mummy: Usually LE.
D&D 3.5, MM page 190 for your reference.

Gregor_LeBlaque

2006-02-24, 02:24 PM

Define a LG Guardian Mummy for me. Good? Evil? And define it using core rules... seems next to impossible to me. ;)

I'll take a stab at this. A LG Guardian Mummy is a good-aligned (thus protection from evil does not protect against it) creature given life by evil (Animate Dead or some variant thereof, Evil descriptor) magic. Detect Evil detects the evil of the magic, not the creature, which is why it registers undead as evil regardless of the creature's alignment.

The D&D definitions of good and evil are still absolute in this case. Their being absolute just does not mean that paladins can safely go off half-cocked killing every creature that makes their DE sensor go ping. See also: http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=202

EDIT: And of course in the time it took me to type two paragraphs six more replies appeared, including one that said basically the same thing :P

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 02:29 PM

I'll take a stab at this. A LG Guardian Mummy is a good-aligned (thus protection from evil does not protect against it) creature given life by evil (Animate Dead or some variant thereof, Evil descriptor) magic. Detect Evil detects the evil of the magic, not the creature, which is why it registers undead as evil regardless of the creature's alignment.

The D&D definitions of good and evil are still absolute in this case. Their being absolute just does not mean that paladins can safely go off half-cocked killing every creature that makes their DE sensor go ping. See also: http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=202

Is the mummy good, or is the mummy evil according to D&D rules?
You did not clarify that. I also know the DE does ping, I came up with the example because of that. Still, no clarification done yet, as I said, I think it's impossible according to the rules.
Definite answer to this is only possible using houseruling... which was my intent to prove from the beginning. Because it shows that good/evil are NOT absolute in themselves but under the solemn definition of the GMs houserules.

xyzchyx

2006-02-24, 02:30 PM

nagora

2006-02-24, 02:33 PM

Thanks, that' just what I was pointing at. So the rules are flawed concerning Evil/Good.

Or is it concerning undead?

I think that it's a question of what sort of game you want to play. D&D for me has always been a nice simple game of high romance: knights in shining armour, evil villains, strange gods and uncharted lands to, er...chart, I suppose.

The alignment system has always been a big part of that. What's the fun in fighting orcs if you have to keep asking yourself if they are simply misunderstood? They're goons. Save the complexity for their masters.

I can and do play that sort of morally complicated game, but not with D&D and certainly not with any sort of alignment system. I think that black and white aspect of D&D is exactly what aligment is there to foster. If anybody and anything can be any aligment, then what is the point of having aligments?

I always have ambivalent characters and races, and in fact usually run orcs as being capable of being neutral instead of evil, a hold over from the days of Judges Guild really. But I do alway have some races at every level of challenge who are evil, pure and simple. This gives the players the sadisfaction of being able to justly "let-rip" after a bad week at work every now and then. As the PC's go up in level they find that there is always some evil left to fight, goblins, gnolls, drow, Mind Flayers, demons, devils and so forth.

Sometimes it's nice to know your characters are doing the right thing, just as sometimes it's fun to have a quandry thrown at you. It is after all supposed to be escapism.

And a LG person animated as undead should welcome death as his/her very existance has become an affront to Goodness. Good is not served by Evil, even if you really, really, pretty please, want a mummy to guard your tomb.

Gregor_LeBlaque

2006-02-24, 02:35 PM

The mummy is a good-aligned creature that has had an evil spell cast upon it. Even if it was willing in life, one evil spell/act does not an alignment shift make.

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 02:39 PM

The mummy is a good-aligned creature that has had an evil spell cast upon it. Even if it was willing in life, one evil spell/act does not an alignment shift make.
So you say that the Mummy is a good creature and detect evil gives false input. Thanks, you just fueled my arguments instead of washing them away. I wanted someone to put them at rest. :)

Gregor_LeBlaque

2006-02-24, 02:42 PM

It's only false input if you presume "Detect Evil" = "Detect Whether Creature's Alignment is Evil".

That's not the spell's name, nor its effect.

Doug_Lampert put it quite nicely, I thought, but you dismissed his comments because he quoted 3.0 instead of 3.5 in paragraph 1.

... skipping paragraph 1 ...

And detect evil pinging on all undead DOESN'T guarantee that they are evil. Detection detects evil AURAS, which non-evil creatures can have (neutral cleric of an evil diety, outsider with [Evil] subtype but without the evil alignment, anyone with protection from good cast on them). That it also pings on all undead is listed separately from pinging on evil, so it would ping on a hypothetical good mummy, but that's not a problem in the rules, it's a problem for anyone who assumes that Detect Evil does more than it says it does.

I don't believe in, or use, good undead, but there's nothing inherent to the rules that makes them a contradiction.

DougL

xyzchyx

2006-02-24, 02:45 PM

The mummy is a good-aligned creature that has had an evil spell cast upon it. Even if it was willing in life, one evil spell/act does not an alignment shift make.One casting of an evil spell does immediately not shift the alignment of a good aligned cleric to evil, true... but as casting Animate Dead is considered an evil act, what motive would a Good Aligned cleric have for casting it? Especially since the same effect could probably be accomplished without the use of undead at all (golems, for example). If Animate Dead was cast by an evil cleric on a formerly good aligned creature, the alignment of the creature being animated appears to shift correspondingly (because in fact the good aligned spirit of the original creature is not inhabiting that body anymore... it's just a shell being animated by dark magic).

aaronbourque

2006-02-24, 02:58 PM

Is the mummy good, or is the mummy evil according to D&D rules?
. . .

A LG mummy . . . would be Good, and ping as both Good and Evil.

Because the Alignment rules are not as simplistic as too many people seem to think.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 02:59 PM

It's only false input if you presume "Detect Evil" = "Detect Whether Creature's Alignment is Evil".

That's not the spell's name, nor its effect.

Never said so. Still means the alignment system in itself is not absolute. Belkar is as evil as is the LG mummy.

I'm dropping out of this discussion now, I made my points clear and gave an example that black/white definition of the rules do simply not work. If still someone thinks he can prove me wrong, feel free to do per Message.

Just for the record: I'm very afraid of Black/White roleplayers, that's the reason why I protest so vehemently against anyone saying good/evil is clearly defined. A black/white roleplayer I actually knew totally snapped and transfered his ideas to the real world. He acted like Miko and even injured people, in the name of doing "good".
Osama Bin Laden is another perfect example where the black/white path leads you...
If you really want to be that way, even if only in a game, you give me the creeps and I don't want to know you.

Chronomancer

2006-02-24, 03:00 PM

. . .

A LG mummy . . . would be Good, and ping as both Good and Evil.

Because the Alignment rules are not as simplistic as too many people seem to think.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque

Thanks Aaron. You made me post a happy last post in this thread. :)

nagora

2006-02-24, 03:07 PM

vehemently against anyone saying good/evil is clearly defined.

It's hard to have any sympathy with that view when the game rules do define good and evil, as they apply in the game, very clearly indeed in something like two paragraphs. I think what you mean is that you don't like the definitions.

Kish

2006-02-24, 03:08 PM

Never said so. Still means the alignment system in itself is not absolute. Belkar is as evil as is the LG mummy.
Erm, no. Certainly not in terms of actions, but since you haven't been talking about actions here at all, not even in terms of magical detection methods. You see, while both will radiate an amount of evil energy determined by their hit dice (the mummy because of the force animating it, Belkar because he's a vicious little psychopath), Detect Good will detect an equal amount of good energy from the mummy, and none at all from Belkar.

The same way both spells will go off if, say, cast on a good person holding an evil magical item. What you're still either missing or ignoring is that "whether that person is evil" is one of several things Detect Evil detects. There is no contradiction in it finding evil on a lawful good mummy, any more than there is in it finding evil on Roy. Roy is not evil, the mummy is not evil; Xykon's crown is evil, and the force animating the mummy is evil.

Ghull_Ka

2006-02-24, 03:14 PM

:'(

I mourn.

I lost respect for Miko each time she lost her temper. Each time the mask cracked. When she let them see they'd gotten to her.

I guess I identified with her. It's nice to see a strong female character in fiction. Not only that, but an authorative one, and one who isn't just, like, subcommander to the Evil Overlord Nemesis or some crap like that. Beyond that, I like characters like Miko. Quiet, unpredictable, dispassionately violent. The fact that she's female was just icing on the cake.

I know jack **** about palladins. I know slightly more about samurai. And Jin is my favorite character on Samurai Champloo.

*sigh*

The swearing blood and vengance, too, is a common samurai thing. It's just that when I play a samurai in games, I prefer to be the one who waits for other people to swear blood and vengance on me and my entire family, calls me a cowardly honorless dog for not defending my name, then proceeds to calmly whip them profoundly in the inevitable honor duel.

What I liked about Miko was her control. A lot of what Roy and the others said and did to Miko within the first few days of their meeting was, by Rokugani standards, vulgar, insulting and disrespectful to the point of "Honorless dog, how dare you dishonor my name in this way, I demand that we enguage in bloody limb-severing combat immediately so that I may kill you or die in battle rather than allow your insult to smear my family's name!"

And she kept a straight face throughout. When she acted oblivious, I assumed she was engauging in typical doublespeak- attempting to communicate "Your crude advances are making me incredibly uncomfortable. Please stop this now." To even acknowledge that the advances were being made would only have deepened the insult.

Another moment I saw as a classic instance of doublespeak- the lockpicking incident. Being deliberately obtuse in order to "do the wrong thing because it's right." She knows and understands Durkon to be honorable. She also knows that they picked the damn lock, but out of respect and for the sake of avoiding conflict, she ignores it.

This does not sound dumb if you're just coming out of a 6 month Lo5R campaign.

Geeze. I could go on. I'm mourning for Miko, for my perception of her, for who she was, who she could have been, and who she will now become.

I'm probably also judging her too harshly. She's spent an entire night fighting for her life, is hopped up on pain and adreneline. Saying I've lost all respect for her because she couldn't keep her cool? Because she lost her temper, she loses my approval?
(I lost a lot of it after her speech and reaction to Roy after the inn incident.)
That's not fair of me. But it's how I judge people. I'm a control freak.
thing is, after a night like that, hell even after a game session like that, I'd probably spend the rest of the night in my room shaking and crying. If I were Miko, or if I were playing her character, that's what I'd be doing now. But then I have severe emotional issues.

... hey... that reminds me of someone...

I loved this post. Here's a big virtual hug @ you, SCV. :)

RMcL

2006-02-24, 03:25 PM

Just a quick correction here : Spanish Inquisitions are not knights, they're ninjas.

Because...."Nobody expect the Spanish Inquisition"

Not taking a skill point in basic math mandatory too.

Talking of corrections, we are back to trying to fit real life into classes again, and the application of the ninja class to the inquisition is questionable. Too be speccifically accurate, they were most likely thugs and unscrupulous swordsman, who attacked in numbers under cover of darkness. The fiction of all of them being very competant swordsmen and fighters is quetionable. More reliable accounts and note indicate that people simply dissappeared and were tortured, or were extorted or otherwise duressed into compliance with the ever changing RC point of view, id est, that all monies should reside at the vaticans immediate disposal.

The idea of the hollywood and literary inquisition is quite improbable. However, as a concession, the ninja class fits the romanticised variety quite well.

Forgive me if there are any religous types in the audience. I have nothing but envy for those of you with real faith. But i have a strong distaste for religion which is a business enterprise, and is entirely seperate from belief and faith.

Lloyd

2006-02-24, 03:35 PM

Since we're talking about Miko and allignment and everything, I thought I'd bring this up. Forgive me if it's been mentioned before.

In comic #209, last pannel, when Miko and Elan are talking about whether or not she took levels in the Samauri class, she said: "Truly, this journey shall be the greatest challenge to my allignment yet."

Perhaps a bit of foreshadowing from the Giant?

Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much.

Bork

2006-02-24, 03:39 PM

You clearly suffer from an extreme deficiency of Monty Python.

Talking of corrections, we are back to trying to fit real life into classes again, and the application of the ninja class to the inquisition is questionable. Too be speccifically accurate, they were most likely thugs and unscrupulous swordsman, who attacked in numbers under cover of darkness. The fiction of all of them being very competant swordsmen and fighters is quetionable. More reliable accounts and note indicate that people simply dissappeared and were tortured, or were extorted or otherwise duressed into compliance with the ever changing RC point of view, id est, that all monies should reside at the vaticans immediate disposal.

SirEdward

2006-02-24, 03:59 PM

Talking of corrections, we are back to trying to fit real life into classes again, and the application of the ninja class to the inquisition is questionable. Too be speccifically accurate, they were most likely thugs and unscrupulous swordsman, who attacked in numbers under cover of darkness. The fiction of all of them being very competant swordsmen and fighters is quetionable. More reliable accounts and note indicate that people simply dissappeared and were tortured, or were extorted or otherwise duressed into compliance with the ever changing RC point of view, id est, that all monies should reside at the vaticans immediate disposal.

The idea of the hollywood and literary inquisition is quite improbable. However, as a concession, the ninja class fits the romanticised variety quite well.

Forgive me if there are any religous types in the audience. I have nothing but envy for those of you with real faith. But i have a strong distaste for religion which is a business enterprise, and is entirely seperate from belief and faith.

That first quote was from Monty Python, describing a rather ludicrous encounter with Inquisitors who prefered to torture their victims with fluffy pillows and comfy chairs.

The real Spanish Inquisition was more a means of the king of Spain and his nobility to extort large amounts of money from those of Jewish descent.

Amalthea

2006-02-24, 04:17 PM

Wizzardman

2006-02-24, 04:29 PM

From A Man for all Seasons.

"Arrest Him."
"Why?"
"That man's bad."
"There's no law against that."
"There is, God's law."
"Then God can arrest him."
"And while you talk he's gone!"
"And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law!"
"So now you give the Devil benefit of law!"
"And what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
"Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut those down- and you're just the man to do it!- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes- I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

Thanks, Alfryd. You just added to my list of favorite quotes of all time.

Solara

2006-02-24, 04:34 PM

IIRC, using Animate Dead is considered an evil act. There is little reason, if any, for a good aligned cleric to do it. Further, Animate Dead places the animated creature directly under the control of the cleric that animated it (no saving throw), so its alignment is therefore correspondingly altered.

Free willed undead are created by other means, and again, require dabbling in the dark arts to become.

Excellent points. Pity the guy you were arguing with dropped out of the discussion before replying to them... Maybe they were too excellent? :P

Nagora, I enjoyed your post, too. All in all this is turning into one of those rare alignment discussions that doesn't annoy and/or bore the heck out of me. :)

Alfryd

2006-02-24, 04:36 PM

KOT:

Come on. I meant that I sometimes attempt to enforce my views upon others. "Could see some of myself in her" does NOT mean "had a similar story" or "I am exactly the same". I could relate with the way she was acting, not her story or attitude.
I was talking about myself, you insensitive ass. Don't you feel awkward now. ;)
Note: contrary to initial appearances, this is not a flame. This is an oft-employ'd literary technique known as sarcasm. My prior posting which occasioned the above comment, on the other hand, was competely literal, hence the term 'I.'

GeekDaddy

2006-02-24, 04:41 PM

Meanwhile, back in the Courtroom soundstage...

QUIET ON THE SET!

Cue lights...

Cue fog machine...

Cue dancing camels...

Dancing camels!?!? Who ordered dancing camels? Get them out of here!

Places everyone!!!

OOTS On Trial, Scene 22, Take 1 <CLAP!>

Annnnnd....

ACTION!

Spuddly

2006-02-24, 04:45 PM

Belkar is undeniably CE. Why does anyone even hint at disputing this?

And does intention matter to a Paladin? If you're robotic good, does that still count as lawful good? If you do good out of compulsion to your lawfulness, not from the heart, does it still count? If Miko's full of bloodlust, anger and hate, yet never quite makes it to slaughtering the innocent, does it count?

Holy_Knight

2006-02-24, 04:53 PM

So you don't think being Lawful makes any difference to one's attitude to the relative importance of the individual Vs society?

It might, but that wasn't the question. The question was how people would act in that given situation, and I'm contending that the stance you described as the Chaotic Good one would actually just be the Good one--the law and chaos axis wouldn't change it.

Supagoof

2006-02-24, 04:54 PM

Now the question I have to ask is, would Miko be able to battle the Oots again given her current state? Take into fact that Belkar was down and out just a few seconds ago, and Durkon may or may not helping this time (don't know if he would attack unless attacked, or if he would join in because he believes tis Thor's will.)

That is question for debate, alignment schmalignment, or at least give it a rest for awhile. The true beauty of the game is that there is no right answer.

Mike_G

2006-02-24, 05:09 PM

great stuff, but i was really hoping Miko would turn from the good just a little bit :)
!

So...

"I pray that the twelve gods allow it to be my hand that strikes the final blow so that I might feel your warm, sin stained blood spilled rightfully on the cold, hard ground."

...is good? :-/

Holy crap. Belkars "I love the sound Ogres make when they hit the ground" must be saintly. She gets as much visceral pleasure from violence as he does from blood murals and kidney collection.

If that's good, well, to quote the Bard Billy Joel, I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

I can't even write what I think Miko is acting like in this forum. It rhymes with the second word of this paragraph, though.

nightfire8199

2006-02-24, 05:12 PM

the new comic will be awesome!!! (well no matter what it will be awesome its Oots fer goodness sake!)

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 05:21 PM

I can't even write what I think Miko is acting like in this forum. It rhymes with the second word of this paragraph, though.

She's acting like a pant? Like a rant? Like an ant? Like a gant? Like a sant? Or a want?

:D

Supagoof

2006-02-24, 05:24 PM

Perhaps can't with a U, so it rhymes like most hip hop.

Alfryd

2006-02-24, 05:25 PM

You don't want the ones who admit it. It's a game. If they start off admitting how crazy they are, there's no fun.
I keep telling people, the next generation should be grown in vats by the government so that we can finally divorce the functions of dating and reproduction and not have to worry about this 'emotional commitment' stuff.

Miko's Achille's Heel is the fact that she is right , she has let the fact that she is an exemplary person blind her to the fact that other people can take a different path down the LG route and still end up at the same place.
More or less, yes.

I think the phrase many are looking for to describe Miko is an intransigent bitch.
I think Miko's ultimate bitchiness has been somewhat exxaggerated. See No.s 1 & 2 in the Miko FRC.

I don't think the ray was intended to kill her, just get her attention.
I don't think any of the OotS actually intended to kill Miko here. She may have forgotten they're in a courtroom, but they haven't.

"I pray that the twelve gods allow it to be my hand that strikes the final blow so that I might feel your warm, sin stained blood spilled rightfully on the cold, hard ground."

...is good?
Technically speaking, it's not quite evil either. It is is a tad worrisome, though.

I can't see any reason [for Belkar]to regard attempting to escape as anything other than self-defence.
The fact it involved killing a person with such a vast level handicap that harmlessly disabling them would be almost trivial?

So you don't think being Lawful makes any difference to one's attitude to the relative importance of the individual Vs society?
Not neccesarily. But perhaps the relative importance of *one* individual vs. society.

If an orc band breaks into your house and slits your daughter's throat because they think it's funny, you are unlikely to take the stance that it's your own fault for not buying a better door.
If a tornado breezes through the place and causes flyign debris to decapitate your offspring, you're hardly going to call the tornado evil. The whole point is that the orcs could have reasonably avoided doing harm to you. If they can't, they're not responsible.

Undead are a debasement of life and therefore are evil, QED.
Then you are confusing the *action* of becoming undead, or remaining undead, with a permanent shift of alignment. This is only one evil action (or persistent action,) that can be readily be countered by other benevolent deeds. The problem is most forms of undead are either driven mad by the trauma of transition, had to go to extreme lengths to achieve their undeath and hence were probably evil to start with, gain sustenance from preying on the living (which tends to sap their morals,) have no independant decision-making ability and are simply an extension of some unscrupulous necromancer's bidding, or find that the powers granted by undeath, or accumulated over time, just go to their head. Also, the lack of hormones tends to strip away many of the associations of affection established in life (though, theoretically, so would many negative emotions.)

Sadly not applicable to the Sapphire Guard since they are a theocratic society and are under "god's law", not Man's.
Ah, but Shojo's secular and religious duties are, theoretically, seperate offices and spring from different institutions. Though I doubt anyone is too pushed about it.

If anybody and anything can be any aligment, then what is the point of having aligments?
I think the idea of Law/Chaos being fundamental aspects of damage systems and so forth should be thrown out. Good/Evil interactions should be restricted exclusively to divine spells which draw their power from a higher being able to perceive such matters, in theory, objectively. Many G/E spell descriptions should be carefully reworked to rigorously define their conditions of effect, and incorporate both intent and fact. Otherwise, alignment would simply serve as a description, like gender, eye colour, or height. Actually, I have issues with those too. Hey, about those HP?

ivanmckilliagin

2006-02-24, 05:26 PM

This was probably already mentioned, but I wont filter through 35-odd pages to find out, but here I go:

Haley fires her arrow, and we see it leave her bow with a nice little speed-line behind it. However, when we look at the bow, we see an arrow already nocked. It seems unlikely that, even with the rapid shot feat, that she would be able to nock another arrow while her first was only 5-6 feet away from her.

Anyone else notice this?

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 05:27 PM

Perhaps can't with a U, so it rhymes like most hip hop.

Like a caun't? Like an aunt? Like a jaunt? Like a shaunt?

Mike_G

2006-02-24, 05:30 PM

Like a caun't? Like an aunt? Like a jaunt? Like a shaunt?

You cracked it. She's acting exactly like an aunt.

I didn't know we could say that here.

Supagoof

2006-02-24, 05:32 PM

Like a caun't? Like an aunt? Like a jaunt? Like a shaunt?

You forgot Flaunt :D

I'm sure you get my point, but I'll walk closer to the edge,

like a punt, stunt, runt, hunt, bundt, front, .....

EDIT: Doh, I was WAY OFF. Aunt, of course. I have an aunt who acts like a Paladin. :P

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 05:40 PM

See? Told you I was a smart boy!

:P

nagora

2006-02-24, 05:51 PM

It might, but that wasn't the question. The question was how people would act in that given situation, and I'm contending that the stance you described as the Chaotic Good one would actually just be the Good one--the law and chaos axis wouldn't change it.

I think it does (although you've probably noticed that). A NG person may well take either of the approaches I gave depending on the circumstances and the individual character but I think they'd be more likely to go for the LG option; I don't think the LG and CG characters would have much choice, assuming they were both as fanatical about their alignments as a paladin is supposed to be about theirs.

Rather than me repeating what I think again, why don't you say why the LG character would not sacrifice the 500 for the greater good and a chance to mete out justice? What do you think the difference between CG and LG is?

Use illustrations, use both sides of the paper, you may not use a calculator.

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 06:09 PM

I introduce to you: the difference between law and chaos!

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=68

(And Good and Evil too.)

:P

nagora

2006-02-24, 06:13 PM

If a tornado breezes through the place and causes flyign debris to decapitate your offspring, you're hardly going to call the tornado evil. The whole point is that the orcs could have reasonably avoided doing harm to you. If they can't, they're not responsible.

Which makes no difference to the question of whether they are agents of evil who increase the amount of evil in the world. They may well be unable to choose to not be, but they still are and as such are open season for Good characters to cut down like grass before a summer fire (to mis-quote Tolkien).

The tornado example is a trap: you are asking me to think about the real world and then apply the results to a fantasy world. If the tornado is sent by an evil weather god who constantly tests the strength of the corn goddess by sending his wicked wind against her worshippers ("Strewth, that's a wicked wind! Who did that? Open a window for gawd's sake!"), then the tornado is in D&D terms evil. Likewise, orcs created by an evil god for the purposes of destroying life and bringing woe to the world are evil regardless even if that god has made it impossible for them to not be evil.

This is not the real world!

Then you are confusing the *action* of becoming undead, or remaining undead, with a permanent shift of alignment.

Choosing to become undead is an evil act. Being forced to become undead isn't but the resulting creature is inherently evil. Its soul may still be Good but if so it is a moot point since it can't exercise control over the body, so in what practical sense is the LG soul identified with the mummy?. If it could and was still Good by D&D definitions, it would seek out its own destruction. The mummy is always evil and the best you can hope for is that you can find a way to free the soul and let it die. It is an evil prison for the soul and should detect as such. IMHO.

I think it is much more logical to say that the whole concept of a LG mummy is simply an error by one of the designers than to try to jump through complex semantic hoops to justify such an anomally.

Ah, but Shojo's secular and religious duties are, theoretically, seperate offices and spring from different institutions. Though I doubt anyone is too pushed about it.

I don't either, and when dealing with the Order he has been acting as a theocrat throughout. The "crimes" were religious in nature: the laws of the gods have been broken. The state Shojo rules happens to support that view and I think we can assume that its laws include all the gods' laws as well as the more normal human stuff like not throwning stones at windows (Although, I've heard that Thor hates people who do that.)

Alfryd

2006-02-24, 06:23 PM

Which makes no difference to the question of whether they are agents of evil who increase the amount of evil in the world...
Then you are confusing Evil with Destruction. You can argue the two are equivalent for all useful intents and purposes, but we already have two perfectly good words that describe different concepts and we might as well stick to the consistent defintions that chime best with common understanding. According to which, Evil is dependant on conscious intent and consent. Otherwise, flash floods, and hell, all animals- for they live by the destruction of living tissue- might be considered fundamentally evil.

This is not the real world!
It is still bound by something resembling logic.

Choosing to become undead is an evil act.
In the same sense that killing is an evil act, yes.

...since it can't exercise control over the body, so in what practical sense is the LG soul identified with the mummy...
In what practical sense can it be considered anything other than Neutral, so?

(Although, I've heard that Thor hates people who do that.)
Out of curiosity, what had that to do with my orginal Man of All Seasons quote, which I think was in response to a different poster?

aaronbourque

2006-02-24, 06:27 PM

Quothe the Giant in a now-locked thread . . .

Comments about the current comic should be made in the Discussion Thread, stickied at the top of the page. Otherwise, we end up with 245 threads that say the same thing.
As opposed to one thread that says the same thing 245 times!??!

. . .

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque

taigen

2006-02-24, 06:29 PM

Amalthea

2006-02-24, 06:30 PM

I think it does (although you've probably noticed that). A NG person may well take either of the approaches I gave depending on the circumstances and the individual character but I think they'd be more likely to go for the LG option; I don't think the LG and CG characters would have much choice, assuming they were both as fanatical about their alignments as a paladin is supposed to be about theirs.

Rather than me repeating what I think again, why don't you say why the LG character would not sacrifice the 500 for the greater good and a chance to met out justice? What do you think the difference between CG and LG is?

Use illustrations, use both sides of the paper, you may not use a calculator.

A person is only responsible for his own, deliberately taken actions and inactions. A person is not responsible for the actions of another, the inactions of another, or occurances of chance.

When the Evil Overlord tells the hero to kill one captive, or else he (EO) will kill them all, the good option is to refuse, because the hero is not responsible for the Evil Overlord's actions, only his own. The Evil Overlord is responsible for his own actions, but because he is evil, he will probably chose to do something evil. Evil Overloards are like that.

Of course, a hero would attempt to stop the Evil Overloard from killing anyone, but a good-aligned hero would attempt to stop the EO without killing innocent people.

And, I have an example. In Stargate SG-1, Season 1, Episode: Cor-ai, Teal'c must stand trial for killing a crippled man.
Now, Apophis demanded that Teal'c kill one, or Apophis would order the death of all the prisoners. And the crippled man, knowing that in the future his village could successfully escape the Go'auld without him, essentially volunteered to be the one who was killed. And Teal'c killed him. And when Teal'c returns to that planet as a member of SG-1, he's put on trial for his crime.
Teal'c acknowledges that he made a choice, and that even though his choice saved others, it was still an evil act, deserving of punishment. Because Teal'c is Lawful.

In fact, if you ever want to think about how a neutral (or possibly even a good) person can serve an evil god, try looking at Teal'c's service with Apophis.

A Chaotic, Neutral, or Ordered (lawful) Good person might choose to kill one person to save many, but even with the best of intentions, they are still committing and evil act, and taking a hit to their alignment. But a paladin would not, because they cannot commit an evil act. If they had no other choice than to kill one prisoner to save all the prisoners, the paladin would choose himself. It's unlikely that an EO would consider this an acceptable solution though, since the only point of such an ultimatum is to cause a good person agony (and in the case of a paladin, try and cause the paladin to fall).

nagora

2006-02-24, 06:35 PM

Then you are confusing Evil with Destruction.

Evil is defined in D&D as the destruction or corruption of life. I would assume that it means the intelligently directed destruction of life, otherwise, as you say, floods would count (although, floods sent by evil gods or spirits would and should count as evil).

In what practical sense can it be considered anything other than Neutral, so?

The perversion of life that is the undeath state is actively evil, but I can imagine a neutral (apropos Good/Evil) character using it as a means to an end. A Good character never would.

Out of curiosity, what had that to do with my orginal Man of All Seasons quote, which I think was in response to a different poster?

I was just having a whimiscal thought about what human laws might be approved of by some of the more chaotic deities, ie, it was a joke.

The Thomas More/robert Bolt quote really is superb, though.

theKOT

2006-02-24, 07:11 PM

Just reread the comic again.... why does Miko think she knows their fate has been sealed? Her assumption is based on no chance for redemption.... does she really think that way?

xrestassuredx

2006-02-24, 07:14 PM

Wow.. it took some rereading... but if you can say nothing else about Belkar, he sticks to his plans...

Anyone remember this in 206?

"Plus, there is a good chance that if she associates with me, she will lose all of her paladin powers, and that would be just too funny not to try."

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=206
Gaawdd.. yes, we remember and it's been beaten to death, and it still even after being mentioned so many times does not in any way that Belkar made it his goal even unto death to make Miko lose her powers. It doesn't even mention causing her to do an evil act; and it doesn't say that Belkar even planned to actively do anything to catalyze it, just that it would be funny to try and see if she fell by associating with him. That's it.

When all's said and done, we just plain don't know what Belkar was planning, if anything at all.

... that being said, I see that you're new to the board and I don't mean any offense. It's just the fact that this topic has been brought up myriad times, every single time with someone citing that same strip as "evidence" that Belkar planned to make Miko fall, when that's not what it says at all. I don't expect you to have read through the 40 pages of this thread or the even longer volumes associated with the past 10-15 strips, but I just wanted to make that point, and to let you know it's nothing personal.

Buzzaro

2006-02-24, 07:36 PM

Be careful of the Sapphire Guard, Miko. Only through me can you achieve a power greater than any Paladin. Learn the Dark Side of the Farce and you will save your husband from certain death.

(The Supreme Chancellor AKA Darth Buzzaro)

I know its been said before, but I have been busy all week. :)

I just think it great she is going in the direction she is going in. It brings a little ray of sunshine into my dark cave... OH MAN... that just turn KENNY into stone... You Bastage!

Anyone need a lawn ornament?

geez3r

2006-02-24, 07:48 PM

Wow... I just read the entire thread and I think you guys are putting waaay too much thought into this. I'm not saying that you guys shouldn't be doing it, just that I won't be joining in other than to say that Order of the Stick is the greatest comic I've seen in a long while. Keep up the awe-inspiring work Giant!

The Giant

2006-02-24, 07:49 PM

As opposed to one thread that says the same thing 245 times!??!

The Voice of Mod: One repetitive thread is easier to moderate, and doesn't preclude people from discussing other subjects. When every thread on the front page of Comics is about the same topic, it inhibits other conversations pointlessly.

Plus, it's against the rules.

Holy_Knight

2006-02-24, 07:56 PM

Rather than me repeating what I think again, why don't you say why the LG character would not sacrifice the 500 for the greater good and a chance to met out justice? What do you think the difference between CG and LG is?

At the risk of sounding repetitive, that wouldn't really be the good thing to do. To elaborate, a paladin would consider sacrificing anyone to be unacceptable. To supposedly "serve the greater good" by condemning some people to death is to view people as numbers rather than as people, and a good charcter would for that reason reject such a course of action. A Paladin would be willing to undergo self-sacrifice, and would praise the nobility of someone who volunteered to die or risk death to save others, but it would be unthinkable to choose to sacrifice other people.

Also, I would add that the quote you gave before of "Better to die Good than to live Evil" represents the epitome of what a Paladin is supposed to embody.

As far as the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, I would say it's largely a difference of orderliness vs. disorderliness, and perhaps the extent to which one does or does not view rules in general as serving a beneficial function.

Mike_G

2006-02-24, 07:59 PM

Just reread the comic again.... why does Miko think she knows their fate has been sealed? Her assumption is based on no chance for redemption.... does she really think that way?

Because she's a raging aunt.

See earlier thread.

SirEdward

2006-02-24, 08:00 PM

Just reread the comic again.... why does Miko think she knows their fate has been sealed? Her assumption is based on no chance for redemption.... does she really think that way?

Yes, yes she does. There is a great deal of things to consider. First, she believes in an Objective Good and also carries with her a Subjective Good, as do all people. These two goods tend to match for the most part in your LG characters, and especially so for paladins.

Belkar could care less about Objective Good, as most villians and anti-heroes do, and rely on their own Subjective Good, which is notably, selfish. For Belkar, this Subjective Good is matched with Objective Evil. He believes himself in the right for killing a guard and could care less about what that means.

Where does that leave us? She believes that the OOTS has aided and abetted a known evil murderer. They have committed an act that, to her, borders on blasphemy. Considering the culture the Southern Lands are modeled after, yes, that does mean they must all die for their wickedness.

The reason why the Anti-Miko fantatics scream so loudly, is they perceive the dissonance between Objective and Subjective Good within Miko. What makes them so wrong is, that she will never betray what she knows to be Objective Good, even in the midst of her rage, This is why they don't get it. She obeyed her master's command, and therefore retired to her chambers. That doesn't mean that the OOTS is any less wicked in her subjective view, merely that she hopes to correct this subjective injustice personally.

That and she's mean, and even Elan noticed that she was mean back in #231. She also manifested her temperament in comparison to Hinjo in #265. This does not mean that she is not without the ability to be polite, kind, or even nice, as the pro-Miko fanatics are fond of showing examples of. It does, however, show her to be an intolerably self-righteous bully, who happens to stay within the bounds of LG.

nagora

2006-02-24, 08:18 PM

As far as the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, I would say it's largely a difference of orderliness vs. disorderliness, and perhaps the extent to which one does or does not view rules in general as serving a beneficial function.

And is not society a higher level of orderliness than the chaotics' individuality? Surely if one is forced into a situation where the individuals can not be saved but society can, the lawful character will take that rather than damn everyone? Given there is no third choice (including quickly finding 499 other like-minded individuals).

It is a hideous thought experiment, but it's not as rare as one might like in real life. In real life, armies retreat to regroup and return and in the process leave towns and villages to be ravaged by the enemy quite often. Were the British acting in a non-good way because they didn't fight to the last man at Dunkirk? The French and others suffered greatly at the hands of the invaders but what purpose would have been served by staying and being wiped out?

In LotR, when Gandalf fled from Dol Guldor, leaving the various prisoners there to die at the hands of the Necromancer, was he being non-Good because he did not fight a power he could not beat at the time?

Mike_G

2006-02-24, 08:20 PM

Up until the "feel the warm sin stained blood" line, I never tried to suggest she was not being LG or should lose her Paladin powers.

Just her head.

I just hate her. Now, as a character, and an antagonist, she's great, but I'd be chanting "frag the lieutenant," over and over if I had to adventure with her.

Characters like her are why I break out in hives when somebody wants to play a Paladin. I frigging hate them.

Doesn't mean they're wrong, or that I'm right. I hate spinach, too, and it shouldn't lose its powers. It's just not welcome on the Order of the Plate.

So, I'm not trying to get into a debate, or prove anything about the nature of Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil or anything. I just don't like self righteous bullies. And I like them less when they do their bullying in the name of Good and Law. An ******* state trooper may be enforcing the law, but he's still an *******.

So, my hate is pure. It is only for the individual. It is untainted by association or class or alignment.

It's a very Zen hate.

Edit: Ha. Nice filter. Except I like Dennis Leary.

Amalthea

2006-02-24, 08:21 PM

Reaver225

2006-02-24, 08:25 PM

Indeed. Looking at this from the Creation of OOTS:

Running away from a god-killing creature who just took out a similar group with no effort is not evil, it's common sense as all the gods could do is die pointlessly.

Now, if the gods had destroyed all of reality including the creatures on the planet in order to trap the Snarl BEFORE it killed the world, THAT would have been evil.

nagora

2006-02-24, 08:36 PM

Listen very very closely.
There. Is. A. Substantial. Difference. Between. Being. Powerless. To. Save. The. Helpless. And. Between. Pulling. The. Trigger. Yourself.

Is there? Put it another way: not pulling the trigger is killing everyone else as surely as pulling the trigger will kill the smaller number of people. I agree one is much harder than the other, but does that affect how Good the action is?

I did say in my original "solution" to this that the Paladin would hope the gods would give him/her strength to bear the responsibility, and that I think the paladin would view letting everyone die as running away from that responsibility.

There are plenty of examples from real life I could cite but I'm leery of getting smacked for drifting into politics. Suffice to say that not letting the enemy know what you are doing is sometime only possible by letting innocents die when your plan is revealed.

Edit: note to self: lern to spel propper.

Amalthea

2006-02-24, 08:39 PM

Is there? Put it another way: not pulling the trigger is killing everyone else as surely as pulling the trigger will kill the smaller number of people. I agree one is much harder than the other, but does that affect how Good the action is?

I did say in my original "solution" to this that the Paladin would hope the gods would give him/her strength to bear the responsibility, and that I think the paladin would view letting everyone die as running away from that responsibility.

There are plenty of examples from real life I could cite but I'm leary of getting smacked for drifting into politics. Suffice to say that not letting the enemy know what you are doing is sometime only possible by letting innocents die when your plan is revealed.
I'm going to refer you to my PREVIOUS post one page back, which you ignored, where I did address this ridiculous train of pseudologic.
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=comics;action=display;num=1140671714 ;start=577#577

nagora

2006-02-24, 08:47 PM

I'm going to refer you to my PREVIOUS post one page back, which you ignored, where I did address this ridiculous train of pseudologic.
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=comics;action=display;num=1140671714 ;start=577#577
Alright - I missed one post in this long discussion.

So what you are saying is that, say, if some demon opened a gate in the middle of a village through which nine types of incurable plague are going to emerge in ten minutes time but the amulet which dispells the gate will take out the PCs and the village in a fireball, the world better hope you don't have a paladin holding that amulet.

That seems counter-intuative to me.

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 08:52 PM

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 08:53 PM

What's "Dennis Leary" replacing? *******?

EDIT: Yay, I was right! Dennis Leary is indeed replacing *******. I only wish I knew who Dennis Leary is and why is he such an ******* after all...

Deuce

2006-02-24, 08:54 PM

Here's hoping that the Giant's emergency is resolved for the best - we'll love the comic whenever you get it posted, take care of what you need to first.

nagora

2006-02-24, 08:56 PM

EDIT: Yay, I was right! Dennis Leary is indeed replacing *******. I only wish I knew who Dennis Leary is and why is he such an ******* after all...

OoooKAY, that's gone a bit surreal. Weirdo.

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 08:57 PM

Yay, I was right! Dennis Leary is indeed replacing *******. I only wish I knew who Dennis Leary is and why is he such an ******* after all...

Actually, Denis (not Dennis) Leary just wrote the song "I'm an *******", so he himself called himself an ******* in his song. It's not offensive, it's just a reference to the song he made, I think.

CarpeAmentum

2006-02-24, 08:58 PM

Just a quick correction here : Spanish Inquisitions are not knights, they're ninjas.

Because...."Nobody expect the Spanish Inquisition"

Not taking a skill point in basic math mandatory too.

What are you talking about?!?! The Inquisition had to have been bards!
*Starts Singing* The Inquisition... What a show.. The Inquisition.....

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 08:59 PM

OoooKAY, that's gone a bit surreal. Weirdo.

Well, the posting engine is the one changing ******* to Dennis Leary. It's up to you to figure out which one is ******* and which one is Dennis Leary.

Deuce

2006-02-24, 09:02 PM

EDIT: Yay, I was right! Dennis Leary is indeed replacing *******. I only wish I knew who Dennis Leary is and why is he such an ******* after all...

Well, he does do that one song . . . about how he's an "Dennis Leary" and proud of it. :)

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:04 PM

Well, he does do that one song . . . about how he's an "Dennis Leary" and proud of it. :)

Exactly! With Dennis Leary's "I'm an *******" song, it makes sense that the engine changes "*******" into "Dennis Leary".

nagora

2006-02-24, 09:09 PM

Here's hoping that the Giant's emergency is resolved for the best - we'll love the comic whenever you get it posted, take care of what you need to first.

Oh, well. In the meantime we could all do our own comic (http://www.adgame-wonderland.de/type/bayeux.php)!

Edit: Ah. Fixed close tag

The Glitter Ninja

2006-02-24, 09:13 PM

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:15 PM

Say, what else does the engine censor change, and how? Is there any reference to "lumberjack" when used to replace pejorative terms in reference to homosexuals? (Minding, I'm pro- homosexual marriage, have nothing against them, etc, it's their business, and I wish them all the happiness in the world. Unless they're my enemies, of course, but I wish all my enemies equal unhappiness and misery, regardless of sexual orientation, as well. See? I'm egalitarian. Anyways, answer me).

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:18 PM

I wouldn't mind them replacing it with "Denis Leary", since he only has one n in his name... but to replace it with "Dennis Leary" has gone too far!

Sorry, but I'm a recovering English major. Spelling complaints are part of my therapy.

Meh, it's okay, nobody will call you an ******* for correcting "Dennis Leary". I'll keep on writing like that because confusing "*******" and "Dennis Leary" is fun. Until the engine removes the second N.

Hermes

2006-02-24, 09:20 PM

Wait... so am I right in assuming that the engine is chaging ******* to Dennis Leary?

*yep, i sure am.

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:23 PM

Wait... so am I right in assuming that the engine is chaging ******* to Dennis Leary?

*yep, i sure am.

Yep, the engine is changing ******* into Dennis Leary. So, that means that, when I write "*******", it'll come out as "Dennis Leary", and everyone will read "*******" as "Dennis Leary".Also, when everyone writes "*******" it'll come out as "Dennis Leary" as well.

BOY do I have free time!

Solara

2006-02-24, 09:23 PM

Am I the only one who thinks this discussion about the 500 plague victims (or whatever the analogy was) is completely pointless?

edit: though not quite as pointless as the more recent discussion of *******s... ::)

The only way a paladin would ever be in that situation in the first palce was if they had a sadistic DM who hated paladins and was railroading the plot to force them to commit an act that would make them fall.

So the much sought-after third solution would be to simply get a new, less obviously and unreasonably biased DM.

edit again: Though the more IC solution might be to turn away from the obviously corrupted god who decreed the people should be killed, rather than, oh, I don't know, using their divine powers to cure them? If the paladin can be made immune than other people can too.

xrestassuredx

2006-02-24, 09:24 PM

I think it's probably changing the word "*******."

Let's see .. *clicks*

Edit: yup. It really should be changed to Denis, at the very least..

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:24 PM

Am I the only one who thinks this discussion about the 500 plague victims (or whatever the analogy was) is completely pointless?

The only way a paladin would ever be in that situation in the first palce was if they had a sadistic DM who hated paladins and was railroading the plot to force them to commit an act that would make them fall.

So the much sought-after third solution would be to simply get a new, less obviously and unreasonably biased DM.

You mean one that isn't an *******?

Solara

2006-02-24, 09:26 PM

Exactly.

nagora

2006-02-24, 09:29 PM

You mean one that isn't an *******?

Ha! You mean one that's just a ***** the players can push around.

Sorry.

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:29 PM

Exactly.

Yeah, I had to deal with ******* DMs. It was no Dennis Leary show, let me tell you. He was such an ******* that he could sing that Dennis Leary song in which he says that he's an ******* and he'd be right about his being an *******.

Evik

2006-02-24, 09:30 PM

OOOOOk
this tread is getting way off topic...

xrestassuredx

2006-02-24, 09:31 PM

Yeah, I had to deal with ******* DMs. It was no Dennis Leary show, let me tell you. He was such an ******* that he could sing that Dennis Leary song in which he says that he's an ******* and he'd be right about his being an *******.
I think you mean one who was such an ******* he would sing the Denis Leary song that says he's an ******* and he'd be right about being an *******..

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:32 PM

OOOOOk
this tread is getting way off topic...

That's because I'm an *******. :)

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:33 PM

I think you mean one who was such an ******* he would sing the Denis Leary song that says he's an ******* and he'd be right about being an *******...

Yes, that's what I meant: one who was such an ******* he would sing the Denis Leary song that says he's an ******* and he'd be right about being an *******...

nagora

2006-02-24, 09:35 PM

The only way a paladin would ever be in that situation in the first palce was if they had a sadistic DM who hated paladins and was railroading the plot to force them to commit an act that would make them fall.

I see no reason why the paladin would fall. As I said, plenty of people in real life and fiction have had to face the same choice. Having said that, I trust most competant groups to be able to do a "Kobayashi Maru" on a DM that tried it.

But it is mainly just a way of asking "what is the practical difference between LG and CG?" to shine some light on Miko's options, and pass the time waiting for the next strip.

Scion_of_the_Light

2006-02-24, 09:38 PM

Wow...there's like, five threads on exactly the same thing out there. This thread is going off topic. Darn...we need a new comic to refresh this all.

Solara

2006-02-24, 09:39 PM

I see no reason why the paladin would fall.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Kobayashi Maru

Geek! :P

Oh wait, you're posting on a forum for a D&D comic strip, so I guess that's already a given. My bad for stating the obvious.

Umbral_Arcanist

2006-02-24, 09:40 PM

I see no reason why the paladin would fall. As I said, plenty of people in real life and fiction have had to face the same choice. Having said that, I trust most competant groups to be able to do a "Kobayashi Maru" on a DM that tried it.

But it is mainly just a way of asking "what is the practical difference between LG and CG?" to shine some light on Miko's options, and pass the time waiting for the next strip.

Hmm, i think i'm a geek because i know what Kobayahsi maru is..... and my dog is named after it.....sorta.....we named him Kobe......yeah i'm a total geek (YES!!!)

nagora

2006-02-24, 09:42 PM

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

It's still lesser too. Being forced to do an evil act does not make you evil, surely? If you save people by doing so?

Geek! :P

Oh wait, you're posting on a forum for a D&D comic strip, so I guess that's already a given. My bad for stating the obvious.

S'ok.

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:44 PM

It's still lesser too. Being forced to do an evil act does not make you evil, surely? If you save people by doing so?

Well, I think the people that died would think you're an *******, but you'd be good, sorta.

nagora

2006-02-24, 09:48 PM

Well, I think the people that died would think you're an *******, but you'd be good, sorta.

Hmm, replying removes the filter.

Anyway, that's why we had atonement rules back in 1st ed, to remove the stain of bad things. I don't know if you young whippersnappers still have that or not with your fancy 3.5 edition and your steam-powered fancy-dan cars.

I remember before we had cling-film and Judges' Guild was the main source for scenarios and aeroplanes went on water and were called submarines...

Solara

2006-02-24, 09:53 PM

The_Weirdo

2006-02-24, 09:56 PM

Okay, no more ******* jokes.

Yes, the paladin could attone later on. And, preferably, try and find a way to ressurrect each and everyone of the dead.

Solara

2006-02-24, 10:00 PM

Anyway, that's why we had atonement rules back in 1st ed, to remove the stain of bad things. I don't know if you young whippersnappers still have that or not with your fancy 3.5 edition and your steam-powered fancy-dan cars.

I mentioned atonement, but personally I never liked it, and in the D&D based homebrew we played it was never an issue.

IMHO it shouldn't be that easy to "wash bad things away" as easily as paying a parking ticket, at least for a paladin. (Especially if those bad things involved irreversible harm to others.)

Commit an evil act and you should have to content yourself with being a LG fighter from then on. You can make a wrong choice, or even several and still be good, but you're no longer a shining paragon of virtue and you shouldn't be allowed to be Good' poster child anymore.

nagora

2006-02-24, 10:08 PM

But is the paladin being forced to do evil? If they can choose the evil Option A or evil Option B, then they can also choose to find a suitable Option C or else choose to die trying.

And I'm a little rusty on my rules, but I believe that technically, even if they were literally forced to do something that breaks their code, ie: under magical compulsion, there is still a loss of power(s) until an atonement is performed.

Harsh, maybe, but no one ever said being a Paladin was easy, or even that being run-of-the-mill good was easy.

Then you can't be saying that the paladin would simply let everyone die to avoid having to do a bit of atonement afterwards?

I feel like I'm really hammering at this (duh, because I am!) but I sometimes read posts here and wonder if anyone thinks about what the Lawful means in Lawful Good when push really comes to shove? A lot of people see the distinction between Good and Evil quite clearly, but the Law/Chaos divison often seems to just boil down to simplistic notions like "Chaos=anarchy and Law=obeying the law". I've had many a jolly adventure as a player and as a DM where the rivalry between CG and LG was the main turning point.

I play chaotic characters by and large but I think the interesting part of the CG Vs LG debate is that I can agree with both sides. The chaotic who refuses to play god for other people and goes down fighting is right but the LG who sees a long-term possibility to salvage hope from the situation, the immortality of the society even when the individual is all too mortal is right too. That's the fun of alignments!

Bakta

2006-02-24, 10:12 PM

Talking of corrections, we are back to trying to fit real life into classes again, and the application of the ninja class to the inquisition is questionable. Too be speccifically accurate, they were most likely thugs and unscrupulous swordsman, who attacked in numbers under cover of darkness. The fiction of all of them being very competant swordsmen and fighters is quetionable. More reliable accounts and note indicate that people simply dissappeared and were tortured, or were extorted or otherwise duressed into compliance with the ever changing RC point of view, id est, that all monies should reside at the vaticans immediate disposal.

The idea of the hollywood and literary inquisition is quite improbable. However, as a concession, the ninja class fits the romanticised variety quite well.

Forgive me if there are any religous types in the audience. I have nothing but envy for those of you with real faith. But i have a strong distaste for religion which is a business enterprise, and is entirely seperate from belief and faith.

Your reasoning is wrong for one reason :

First the Inquisition didn't start as Spanish at all, it was a dominican order created withe the purpose of rooting out the Cathar heresy in southern France in middle ages.

Second,...Your reasoning is wrong for two reasons

Inquisitors are monks, except with using the rack, and they had goons for that. At no time in history they were a fighting order.

Fifth....Errrr "coming back at you" *throw a smoke purple bomb and disapperar in darkness*

Shoujin Ximines

Daavi_Tues

2006-02-24, 10:50 PM

Am I the only one who noticed - in the panel where they fought; Miko was this close to tears. And for the first time; Elan was seriously focused on battle. He was going to do his best to kill this person. It's very psychological in this strip; and Miko's going a bit psychotic methinks from her speech. She'll likely hunt them. Perhaps even leave the Saphire Guard because the northerers destroyed her little girl-like perfect image of the world that everyone around her had told was right; and now her world's just shattered because she's seen that Evil IS more than just the orcs in the dungeon. It IS more than just the lich who kills his minions for fun. (not that I don't love Xykon). And Azure City, who taught her all this ****e about a fairy-tale world where Good always triumphs. It's unlikely she'll want to stay with them.

theKOT

2006-02-24, 10:58 PM

Callae

2006-02-24, 11:17 PM

First of all, let me state that anything I say here is in particular reference to D&D 3.5 RAW, not to real life in any way shape or form.

But is the paladin being forced to do evil? If they can choose the evil Option A or evil Option B, then they can also choose to find a suitable Option C or else choose to die trying.

And I'm a little rusty on my rules, but I believe that technically, even if they were literally forced to do something that breaks their code, ie: under magical compulsion, there is still a loss of power(s) until an atonement is performed.

Harsh, maybe, but no one ever said being a Paladin was easy, or even that being run-of-the-mill good was easy.

Actually, run-of-the-mill good is actually pretty easy to play, because you can commit evil "for the greater good" without much compunction, so long as evil is your last choice, "lesser of the two evils" situations. A run-of-the-mill good character can shot one person to save 100 without alignment penalities.

Paladins are slightly less easy. A paladin would be encouraged to find and option C, but if he couldn't, dying trying isn't a decent option, so they could commit the lesser evil to prevent greater evil and fall, proceeding to make proper atonements afterwards.

It's when you hit "exalted" characters that it becomes difficult, because one makes decisions based on "I will not commit evil" rather than "looking for the greater good." In exalted mindsets, inaction and action are two different things, and only actions matter, wheras in standard-good inaction is essentially an action. An exalted person would not shoot one to save 100, because he does not choose to kill the 100, someone else does.

If I left anything unexplained or partially explained here I can delve deeper in to it.

Then you can't be saying that the paladin would simply let everyone die to avoid having to do a bit of atonement afterwards?

<opinion>
If, in a campaign I ran, a paladin refused to commit a "lesser evil" in an attempt to pursue the "greater good" simply so they wouldn't fall, they would fall as far as I'm concerned because they put themself and their powers first. (And yes, I used improper grammar there on purpose, because I disagree with proper english regulations for referring to unknown genders, and would rather mix pluralities than default to a particular gender or use the awkward sounding "it's") That's part of the reason I don't use the BoED, because it (as noted above) innately requires a dedication to personal good rather than greater Good, as one who is exalted wouldn't, and shouldn't so far as the rulebook goes, commit the lesser evil because it would mean that "one more soul would be sullied." Which is complete crap as far as I'm concerned.

Thinking back, I would probably make atonement easier for a paladin who fell due to committing the lesser evil than the paladin who fell because he refused the lesser evil to stop the greater evil.

Good, AFAIC, is about being willing to make self sacrifice, and if that means you, as a paladin, fall in pursuit of the greater good, you fall, lest you fall for refusing to act and thus playing party to a greater evil.

Good, AFAIC, is not about letting others be sacrificed so you can keep your shiny powers.
</opinion>

Edit: Of course, I may have more of an anti-hero opinion of how heroes should act, as opposed to the romantic hero concept.

~C

PS- hope my first post is an acceptable one ;). I've been lurking in alignment discussion for a long time.

Bilbo27

2006-02-24, 11:25 PM

ahhh--the plot thickens, but now we must endure yet another trial, this time of Belkar. When will it end? Hopefully not soon enough. Love the Stick for rallying around their comrade.

Scion_of_the_Light

2006-02-24, 11:30 PM

Acceptable? It was more than acceptable. I love it. Remember, everyone, good is not just 'not committing evil acts'. It is, well, being GOOD. The evil should not be present, but still, it is the mark of overzeal and misunderstanding when one strives to never commit evil rather than just being good. If I were a DM for a paladin, I would be quite critical of that point. Is the paladin not acting evil, or is he acting good?

Edit: Darn you internet! This post is directed to Callae

Holy_Knight

2006-02-24, 11:58 PM

And is not society a higher level of orderliness than the chaotics' individuality? Surely if one is forced into a situation where the individuals can not be saved but society can, the lawful character will take that rather than damn everyone? Given there is no third choice (including quickly finding 499 other like-minded individuals).
*snip*

A couple things here. First, the whole idea of orderliness would not even come into play here, because the decision to sacrifice the innocents would not be good. That's part of what I've been saying--the whole law/chaos distinction wouldn't even arise, because the Chaotic Good character and the Lawful Good character would do the same thing. You seem to be assuming that because there is a difference in the alignments, that must necessarily manifest itself as a difference in actions or assessments of situations. That is not necessarily true, and I'm saying that this is a situation in which persons of both alignments would make the same choice. (I'll grant there may be others where the two would make different choices.)

Second, there is no society without individuals, and faiure to notice that simple fact is the cause of a lot of flawed thinking. It also illustrates the fundamental error with thinking of "the interest of society" as opposed to the interest of individuals, because society simply is multiple individuals.

I will say also that I agree with most of what Amalthea has been saying, and willl add the following: Some actions are and should be unthinkable, regardless of the end they are designed to promote. If the only way to stop the entire world from blowing up was for me to molest a child, the world would blow up. This is not a matter of numbers, nor of some calculus of weighing lives, which is essentially dehumanizing and wrong.

Similarly, I offer this example from Dostoevsky. In The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan asks Alyosha whether he would consent to the creation of an Earth which was a paradise for almost every single person--with the sole condition that it was maintained by the eternal torture of a baby. Alyosha says "no", and I maintain that such is the only answer that a good person could give.

Now, all that being said, the number of people affected by a decision clearly has some role to play in determinations of morality. I still hold, however, that such must play a much smaller role than many people imagine it to, and still stronger, that it is never suitable as the primary justification for such.

Amalthea

2006-02-25, 12:45 AM

gadren

2006-02-25, 01:42 AM

I hope this hasn't already been asked, but does 285 count as Wednesday's strip or Friday's strip?

Euphemism

2006-02-25, 01:45 AM

The only way a paladin would ever be in that situation in the first palce was if they had a sadistic DM who hated paladins and was railroading the plot to force them to commit an act that would make them fall.

So the much sought-after third solution would be to simply get a new, less obviously and unreasonably biased DM.

edit again: Though the more IC solution might be to turn away from the obviously corrupted god who decreed the people should be killed, rather than, oh, I don't know, using their divine powers to cure them? If the paladin can be made immune than other people can too.

Actually, I love Paladins, but I feel far too many people take on the mantle thinking it's a far different job. I had the party encounter this darkened Paladin after watching one player roll Paladin after Paladin in various games only to barely follow the path. So I thought I'd show him and the rest of the party what the path can entail when a world conspires to eliminate your choices.

Again, since this seems to be missed, this was an NPC, and thus some contrivance is necessary for a story.

EDIT: There are reasons why the 'easy way out' for Paladins (healing, immunity, etc) wouldn't work, and I've mentioned them before. If your argument is a mechanics one, please feel free to utilize one of the contact buttons at the bottom of the thread and I'll explain the howfores.

EDIT AGAIN: The resulting discussion on the nature of Good in an Evil world is precisely the response I tried to generate from my players. Glad to see many of you think the topic is also worthwhile.

theKOT

2006-02-25, 01:45 AM

I hope this hasn't already been asked, but does 285 count as Wednesday's strip or Friday's strip?
Wednesday's. Fridays will be late due to an emergency.

Solara

2006-02-25, 01:58 AM

Great post Holy Knight, you just said everything I'd have liked to say, only better.

And now I'm going to bed, I guess I'll have to find out what happens to Belkar tomorrow...

Scion_of_the_Light

2006-02-25, 02:16 AM

A couple things here. First, the whole idea of orderliness would not even come into play here, because the decision to sacrifice the innocents would not be good. That's part of what I've been saying--the whole law/chaos distinction wouldn't even arise, because the Chaotic Good character and the Lawful Good character would do the same thing. You seem to be assuming that because there is a difference in the alignments, that must necessarily manifest itself as a difference in actions or assessments of situations. That is not necessarily true, and I'm saying that this is a situation in which persons of both alignments would make the same choice. (I'll grant there may be others where the two would make different choices.)

Second, there is no society without individuals, and faiure to notice that simple fact is the cause of a lot of flawed thinking. It also illustrates the fundamental error with thinking of "the interest of society" as opposed to the interest of individuals, because society simply is multiple individuals.

I will say also that I agree with most of what Amalthea has been saying, and willl add the following: Some actions are and should be unthinkable, regardless of the end they are designed to promote. If the only way to stop the entire world from blowing up was for me to molest a child, the world would blow up. This is not a matter of numbers, nor of some calculus of weighing lives, which is essentially dehumanizing and wrong.

Similarly, I offer this example from Dostoevsky. In The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan asks Alyosha whether he would consent to the creation of an Earth which was a paradise for almost every single person--with the sole condition that it was maintained by the eternal torture of a baby. Alyosha says "no", and I maintain that such is the only answer that a good person could give.

Now, all that being said, the number of people affected by a decision clearly has some role to play in determinations of morality. I still hold, however, that such must play a much smaller role than many people imagine it to, and still stronger, that it is never suitable as the primary justification for such.

Hmm...very true in a lot of ways. But, it must be understood that those acts of total evil are quite few. Many acts, including murder, are justifiable for the greater good. But, that does not make the deeds themselves better, obviously. If you kill somebody to save a million others, it does not make the act of killing somebody 'better'. You still are committing an evil act. BUT, compared to the death of a million, in is a grim necessity.

Of course, this draws one into the debate of what is actually good. If good any deed that is beneficial to general socitey? I do not think so. Then, of course, what is good? Is there a universal good? Etc, etc. Now, these talks of morality and all are quite stimulating and very good, but are the relevant to the comic? Well, probably...

He_Saw_Me_Roll_It

2006-02-25, 03:03 AM

I will say also that I agree with most of what Amalthea has been saying, and willl add the following: Some actions are and should be unthinkable, regardless of the end they are designed to promote. If the only way to stop the entire world from blowing up was for me to molest a child, the world would blow up. This is not a matter of numbers, nor of some calculus of weighing lives, which is essentially dehumanizing and wrong.

This is what I refer to as Superman morality.

The problem with the Superman code is that has nothing to do with what is best for the world and the people in it, it just says "Morality consists of not doing anything icky". Fortuntely for Superman he can get away with this, partially because he is Superman and partially because the authors of Superman comics don't put him in no-win situations very often.

The problem with this "morality", as you have aptly pointed out yourself, is that it can justify a person allowing billions of innocent people to die because they personally do not want to get their hands icky. In my opinion this makes a person a wuss not a hero, because in the real world sometimes the best choice is an icky one.

Referring to moral calculations as dehumanising and wrong is silly because in the real world we have to engage in such calculations all the time. We have to allocate resources to things like hospitals, roads, food safety and so forth, and since we only have finite resources some people will die that we could have saved, because we think the money could be better spent elsewhere. It can be no other way. Even justified wars like WW2 inevitably kill enormous numbers of civilians.

Back on topic, Miko gets this, even though she misapplies it sometimes. She is willing to do icky things if it will lead to the greater good for everyone. For all her faults she is not a moral wuss.

SpaceCoyoteVega

2006-02-25, 04:29 AM

Ghull Ka, thanks for hug :)

If you're a girl, could we date? P
that's really sweet of you, but Aaron B.'s right. I would not make good girlfriend material at this point in time. thanks though :)

Finally- the following is relevant to the argument at hand, as it involves magical genocide and summary execution of minors, also it mentions samurai: http://www.themidlands.net/archive.php?date=2004-08-21

(and it also has some girl not-Samurai / politicians etc. who are way nastier than Miko)
(Midlands is an awesome comic :))

Charity322

2006-02-25, 04:36 AM

Great post Holy Knight, you just said everything I'd have liked to say, only better.

And now I'm going to bed, I guess I'll have to find out what happens to Belkar tomorrow...

Nah I reckon this is the perfect time to switch to Xykon or the Linear Guild and leave us all in suspense. ;D

Edit: Or not. :P

nihil8r

2006-02-25, 04:51 AM

a) wtf is the elf talking about in panel 12 of 286

b) how would killing belkar make miko lose her paladinhood when belkar is AN ESCAPED MURDERER???

c) HOW WOULD KILLING BELKAR MAKE MIKO LOSE HER PALADINHOOD WHEN BELKAR IS AN ESCAPED MURDERER???

D) HOW WOULD KILLING BELKAR MAKE MIKO LOSE HER PALADINHOOD WHEN BELKAR IS AN ESCAPED MURDERER???

zimri

2006-02-25, 05:39 AM

well among everything else in the 284 and 285 threads let's toss this in.

Her mission was to deliver the OOTS to Shojo for trial

OR

Pronounce summary judgment and summarily execute them.

see that middle part you know the OR not the AND

Barring any other discussion as to the lawful or goodliness of killing a seemingly defenseless Belkar in a room full of paladins, clerics, her liege and a BOPLAG, or discussion as to the rightness or wrongness of extracting enraged revenge as a matter of law and goodness, her duty to deliver him was complete. He is in Shojo's jurisdiction now.

Holy_Knight

2006-02-25, 06:39 AM

This is what I refer to as Superman morality.

The problem with the Superman code is that has nothing to do with what is best for the world and the people in it, it just says "Morality consists of not doing anything icky". Fortuntely for Superman he can get away with this, partially because he is Superman and partially because the authors of Superman comics don't put him in no-win situations very often.

The problem with this "morality", as you have aptly pointed out yourself, is that it can justify a person allowing billions of innocent people to die because they personally do not want to get their hands icky. In my opinion this makes a person a wuss not a hero, because in the real world sometimes the best choice is an icky one.

Referring to moral calculations as dehumanising and wrong is silly because in the real world we have to engage in such calculations all the time. We have to allocate resources to things like hospitals, roads, food safety and so forth, and since we only have finite resources some people will die that we could have saved, because we think the money could be better spent elsewhere. It can be no other way. Even justified wars like WW2 inevitably kill enormous numbers of civilians.

Back on topic, Miko gets this, even though she misapplies it sometimes. She is willing to do icky things if it will lead to the greater good for everyone. For all her faults she is not a moral wuss.

First, the word "icky" is so inadequate here as to be comical. Molesting a child or torturing a baby is not just "icky". "Reprehensible" would be a fitting description, as would perhaps "diabolic".

On that note, the problem with your criticism is that you try to act as if the reasons to not do such things are just a matter of squeamishness or distaste--and they're not. It's the nature of those actions and what they are that makes (or should make) them unthinkable.

As for the moral calculations, the kind which I was talking about in fact ARE dehumanizing and wrong. There is a big difference between :

1. Letting some hospitals be underfunded because of limited resources; and

2. Killing and harvesting organs from people in a small town, because it allows you to save a greater number of people's lives in a big city.

True, the first thing is not dehumanizing, but the kind of situations I was talking about are analogous to the second type, which definitely are dehumanizing.

In contrast to what you argued, I'm going to say that the truth is just the opposite--it is only the Superman Morality, as you call it, which considers what is best for the world and the people in it. Justifying atrocities done to some people because of a benefit to a larger number of people inherently ignores the value of a person. It reduces people to numbers, dictates that lives are essentially interchangeable, and implies that we have the right to make such decisions about the worth of lives--and all of those ideas should be rejected. I say, then, that the term "Superman Morality" is appropriate, because it is the proper attitude of a hero. The real wusses are the ones who will accept the idea of inflicting misery on a minority for the sake of a majority; only a courageous person has the strength to value every individual and act accordingly.

On that note, I'll go one step further on what I said before:

Not only would I not molest a child to save the world from blowing up, but if I found out that someone else was willing to make that bargain, I would stop them.

...Finally, on a (much, much) lighter note, there is a Superman story where he is allowed to spend one day to try to do everything he can to end world hunger... and it doesn't go as well as you might expect. I wish I could remember the exact title, but I think you would enjoy reading it.

--HK

This is what I've been trying to say. Unfortunately, I've been on some nasty antihistimines and decongestants, so I communicate my points even worse than usual.

I really dislike using the word Lawful in the alignment axes. I prefer to use the word Ordered, because it communicates a clearer opposition to Chaos. Lawful gets confusing because people associate it with obeying laws of society. Ordered is much more appropriate for an alignment axis that is basically a measure of how organized your behavior is.

(I apologize for any misspellings, but it's late, and that and medicine have made me sleepy. And the V key on my laptop fell off, so typing is difficult. Goodnight.)

I agree, and I thought you did a good job expressing yourself, antihistamines notwithstanding. :)

Great post Holy Knight, you just said everything I'd have liked to say, only better.

And now I'm going to bed, I guess I'll have to find out what happens to Belkar tomorrow...
Thanks!

nagora

2006-02-25, 08:33 AM

As for the moral calculations, the kind which I was talking about in fact ARE dehumanizing and wrong. There is a big difference between :

1. Letting some hospitals be underfunded because of limited resources; and

2. Killing and harvesting organs from people in a small town, because it allows you to save a greater number of people's lives in a big city.

True, the first thing is not dehumanizing, but the kind of situations I was talking about are analogous to the second type, which definitely are dehumanizing.

The analogy is false. In the earlier examples, the people are ALL going to die anyway if no action is taken. In your example they were not going to be killed and harvested if no action was taken.

In contrast to what you argued, I'm going to say that the truth is just the opposite--it is only the Superman Morality, as you call it, which considers what is best for the world and the people in it. Justifying atrocities done to some people because of a benefit to a larger number of people inherently ignores the value of a person.

Not inherently, but it can. "Atrocities" is a loaded word.

It reduces people to numbers, dictates that lives are essentially interchangeable, and implies that we have the right to make such decisions about the worth of lives--and all of those ideas should be rejected.

That is the (fanatical) CG approach, certainly. LG of course does think it has the right to make those decisions - that is what Law is all about, the weighing of the scales of justice and all that. LN and LG set the relative weights differently from LG, but they all do it. That's why Miko and Shojo think they can kidnap people and put them on trial. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that and it happens all the time in the real world.

I say, then, that the term "Superman Morality" is appropriate, because it is the proper attitude of a hero. The real wusses are the ones who will accept the idea of inflicting misery on a minority for the sake of a majority; only a courageous person has the strength to value every individual and act accordingly.

Again, you are writing the CG manifesto, not the LG. LG are people like the ones who sank the public ferry in Norway to prevent the development of the Nazi atom-bomb. They killed some of their own, some of the Nazis and some of the general public but they prevented the LE empire from obtaining the ultimate weapon of the day. Were they Good? Yes, of course they were! Was it an evil act? Yes, but a much much better one than not doing it.

On that note, I'll go one step further on what I said before:

Not only would I not molest a child to save the world from blowing up, but if I found out that someone else was willing to make that bargain, I would stop them.

You are widening the thought experiment into places it was not meant to go. There are millions of examples of the original scenarios in the real world; examples where molesting a child would save the lives of other people are, I would submit, totally fictional and choosen as a straw-man.

...Finally, on a (much, much) lighter note, there is a Superman story where he is allowed to spend one day to try to do everything he can to end world hunger... and it doesn't go as well as you might expect. I wish I could remember the exact title, but I think you would enjoy reading it.

I did, long ago. It wasn't bad.

Alfryd

2006-02-25, 08:44 AM

...in the panel where they fought; Miko was this close to tears. And for the first time; Elan was seriously focused on battle. He was going to do his best to kill this person...
Given he was relieved Miko 'wasn't upset,' I don't know about this. I don't think any of the order wanted to kill Miko if it could be avoided. Otherwise, I agree.

It does, however, show her to be an intolerably self-righteous bully...
From merriam-webster:
"Bully-
...a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker."
You might call Miko browbeating, but not often blustering per se, and habitual cruelty toward the weak doesn't hold up at all.

Evil is defined in D&D as the destruction or corruption of life. I would assume that it means the intelligently directed destruction of life...
And again, the question of intelligent direction does not enter into matters of compulsion- ie. what you do 'by nature.' Even floods sent by evil gods are not evil, the evil gods are evil. Otherwise it's like saying that a sword is evil, if wielded by an evil person. You *can* define things that way, it just doesn't transmit any further useful information. Just call the wielder, or the god, evil, and the instruments neutral. Because they are. Likewise, don't call an orc driven by racial instinct toward violence to be evil, call whatever intelligent being implanted that instinct evil. This doesn't mean you shouldn't kill the orc in self-defence, but that's another matter.

There. Is. A. Substantial. Difference. Between. Being. Powerless. To. Save. The. Helpless. And. Between. Pulling. The. Trigger. Yourself.
According to certain honour systems, perhaps, but in terms of basic moral consequence, no. Conspicuous inaction is just as culpable as conspicuous action. Failure to serve the greater good becuse you believe it will blemish your personal 'moral' record is ultimately a selfish and deluded decision.

If, in a campaign I ran, a paladin refused to commit a "lesser evil" in an attempt to pursue the "greater good" simply so they wouldn't fall, they would fall as far as I'm concerned because they put themself and their powers first.
Bingo.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Yes, but it's the lesser evil. So choosing it is good. The intent and the deed are seperate.

...so they could commit the lesser evil to prevent greater evil and fall...
Killing, in itself, has to be a choice of the lesser of two evils. Paladins don't fall for doing so.

If the only way to stop the entire world from blowing up was for me to molest a child, the world would blow up.
Then you would have commited a far greater evil. You can blame whoever or whatever set up that choice, but this is a Lawful inhibition, not a Good inhibition. You have declared a rule that in 99.9% of all conceivable circumstances, will protect the greater good, but guess what- this is in the 0.1% where it won't. *Obviously*.
Now, naturally, *allowing* people to make this kind of decision, in the general sense, may well lead to a widespread moral corruption that would occasion greater evil, but that is an issue of ethics, and is quite seperate.

Similarly, I offer this example from Dostoevsky...
Better known as a strawman. In the present world, I can virtually guarantee, the equivalent to 'torture' of a baby occurs pretty well every moment of the day, and probably to many more than one specimen.

Justifying atrocities done to some people because of a benefit to a larger number of people inherently ignores the value of a person.
Condemning atrocities done to some people because of a benefit to a larger number of people inherently ignores the value of people.

Commit an evil act and you should have to content yourself with being a LG fighter from then on.
I don't think that's an entirely realistic expectation.

ivanmckilliagin

2006-02-25, 01:58 PM

Well, im not an expert on alignment(i <3 CN) but the BoED has some pertinnet info on this topic. I dont have it with me,but it mentioned sacrificeing your paladinhood to do whats right,even if it requires an evil act. thought that it was a good reference.

Holy_Knight

2006-02-25, 04:55 PM

The analogy is false. In the earlier examples, the people are ALL going to die anyway if no action is taken. In your example they were not going to be killed and harvested if no action was taken.

Actually, I said this in reference to my own examples, which weren't meant to be directly analogous to yours. This was simply a clarification of the difference between dehumanizing and non-dehumanizing kinds of sacrifices, as He Saw Me Roll It's remarks were implying that they were all the same. I think that the basic point can still be applied, but I'll come back to this later.

Not inherently, but it can. "Atrocities" is a loaded word.

Well, no, atrocities do inherently ignore the value of a person. I think what you're really meaning is that there may be certain kinds of sacrifices for the greater good which do not constitute atrocities, a point which I agree with (as per my distinction above). The point I made still stands, however.

That is the (fanatical) CG approach, certainly. LG of course does think it has the right to make those decisions - that is what Law is all about, the weighing of the scales of justice and all that.

Again, you are writing the CG manifesto, not the LG.

Again, I'm not sure why you think that this is a specifically Chaotic Good stance, and I disagree with your assessment of what Lawfulness entails. I think that both Lawful Good and Chaotic good characters would agree with what I said. In that vein, the difference between the two might be in terms of how best they think that can be preserved, with Lawful Good people thinking that there needs to be enforceable rules to make sure that people's rights are protected, while Chaotic Good characters think that rules by nature end up restricting rights too much rather than protecting them. (Somewhat analogous to differing political views on the proper extent of governmental power.) That difference of preferred methodology does not entail that there is a difference in ultimate value, nor less does it entail that a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good character would necessarily disagree on what was right in a given situation.

LG are people like the ones who sank the public ferry in Norway to prevent the development of the Nazi atom-bomb. They killed some of their own, some of the Nazis and some of the general public but they prevented the LE empire from obtaining the ultimate weapon of the day. Were they Good? Yes, of course they were! Was it an evil act? Yes, but a much much better one than not doing it.

As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details of this example, I won't comment on it. If you could flesh out more specifics, I'd be happy to address it.

You are widening the thought experiment into places it was not meant to go. There are millions of examples of the original scenarios in the real world; examples where molesting a child would save the lives of other people are, I would submit, totally fictional and choosen as a straw-man.

This is not a straw man at all. It's given to demonstrate the limits of utilitarianism and to illustrate the idea of the unthinkable. The issue is whether there is any line which it is unacceptable to cross in the pursuit of "the greater good". If there isn't, then scenarios like the one I described are in fact advocated by that theory. If there is, then you accept my assertion that at some point it is unjustifiable to commit wrongs for the sake of the greater good. The fact that there are more realistic scenarios from the world only reinforces my point.

Now, to go back to the D&D example, I will reiterate that I think the Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters would react in the same way: They would do everything that they could to evacuate the village, generate a containment field of some sort around the portal, and otherwise think of an alternate solution to the problem. If nothing else could be done, then whether or not they would use the amulet to destroy the portal would depend on other details of the situation that you have not specified. (Notably, whether there is reason to believe that other such portals could be created should the one in question be destroyed, and whether there is or is not reason to believe that the plagues were truly incurable.) Again, though, I don't think that there would be a significant difference in how the CG and LG people would act.

Then you would have commited a far greater evil. You can blame whoever or whatever set up that choice, but this is a Lawful inhibition, not a Good inhibition. You have declared a rule that in 99.9% of all conceivable circumstances, will protect the greater good, but guess what- this is in the 0.1% where it won't. *Obviously*.

No, I would not have committed evil. The position you advocate is essentially that it's okay for someone to make the decision to destroy one life if it preserves a sufficient number of other lives, and that is misguided. Your supposed goal is the welfare of "people", which means "multiple persons", and thus it amounts to obliterating a person's welfare in order to preserve (more) persons' welfare. Which is why, as I said, it dehumanizes people and reduces them to numbers. It's not "the amount saved outwieghs the damage to one", the whole idea of it being possible to outweigh something like that is inhuman.

Now, naturally, *allowing* people to make this kind of decision, in the general sense, may well lead to a widespread moral corruption that would occasion greater evil, but that is an issue of ethics, and is quite seperate.
Given that this entire discussion is about ethics, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Better known as a strawman. In the present world, I can virtually guarantee, the equivalent to 'torture' of a baby occurs pretty well every moment of the day, and probably to many more than one specimen.

This is not a strawman, and when I explain the context of the reference you will understand why. Ivan and Alyosha are discussing God and the Problem of Evil. Essentailly it boils down to whether a truly Good God would create a world where people unjustifiably suffer. Ivan is willing to accept that perhaps adults all deserve suffering because they have all sinned, but innocent children suffer as well, who have not done anything wrong--and this he cannot accept. He then asks Alyosha whether, if he were God, he would be willing to create a paradise for everyone else on the condition that a baby had to be tortured to do it. Alyosha says "no", which is exactly what I have been saying. That is a clear case of sacrificing one person for the greater good--a PARADISE for everyone else founded on the misery of one innocent person--and I say that to do so would be evil.

nagora

2006-02-25, 05:53 PM

Again, I'm not sure why you think that this is a specifically Chaotic Good stance, and I disagree with your assessment of what Lawfulness entails

I'll have one more stab at this. Starting at the idea that Lawful characters prefer organisation, ask why that is? The answer, I think, is that they see organisation as a way to achieve more. The LG character sees a team, indeed a country, working together as being capable of feats of all sorts for increasing the common weal which individuals could not or would find very much harder. In war the combat unit, whether of knights or a platoon of grunts can survive the loss of some members and still get the aim achieved. And that is the crux of what I'm saying is the difference.

A Lawful outlook, whether Evil or Good (for clarity I think we'll leave LN out of it for now) seeks to build an organisation which will carry out those other Good or Evil aims even when some members fall by the wayside. Thus, the idea of sacrificing the individual to achieve a higher goal is part of the makeup of such characters; it is the Lawful part of their alignment. Organisations can achieve more than individuals because individuals can be lost knowing someone will carry the torch on.

I think in real life humans are much more lawful than chaotic. I think the reason there seems to be more role players who play chaotic characters is actually because we're escaping from normal life and in normal life the vast majority of people would take what I outlined as the LG solution, and do so in the military and medical professions every day of the year (except bank holiday Mondays in Scotland).

In fact, in other words, I think it is the CG character who is the real fanatic in the examples, bordering on the psychotic. Certainly sociopathic. But in a game I can play such a character because there are no real consequences and I get to look at the philosophical implications.

In that vein, the difference between the two might be in terms of how best they think that can be preserved

Indeed. The Lawful person looks at what can be carried forward, what can be salvaged in the hope that whatever that is can try to atone/avenge the evil and prevent it ever happening again. The long-term, organised, group-think view that is more resiliant than the chaotic's "individuality at all costs" view.

with Lawful Good people thinking that there needs to be enforceable rules to make sure that people's rights are protected, while Chaotic Good characters think that rules by nature end up restricting rights too much rather than protecting them.

Again right. But in the Lawful view, what happens if the individual says that s/he has a right to be free of your rules and ignores them, say by enslaving someone? Ultimately, if s/he pushes it, the lawful view is that the many outweigh the few and the rules will be enforced. Hard.

That difference of preferred methodology does not entail that there is a difference in ultimate value

It does, insofar as it means they value some things differently: individuals and society.

nor less does it entail that a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good character would necessarily disagree on what was right in a given situation.

Not necessarily no, but the scenarios put forward have been picked to find the place where they diverge.

As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details of this example, I won't comment on it. If you could flesh out more specifics, I'd be happy to address it.

The Germans had a heavy-water plant in Telemark in Norway. The water (which is needed as part of building an A-Bomb) had to be transported back to Germany. The location and the geography basically ruled out an allied military attack but at one point the railroad cars would be loaded onto a ferry to cross one of the country's deepest lakes. This was the only real chance to eliminate the whole lot in one go but the ferry was used by the local pedestrians too.

It was impossible to tell anyone in the town because there might be a spy, even if not the locals might simply not use the ferry that day and thus raise suspicions. Therefore, bombs were planted on the ferry and detonated in the middle of the lake killing everyone on board including local junior-school children going to school. The action was a massive blow to the Nazi war-effort and, as you may have noticed, they never did develop the atomic bomb.

It was made into a film called "The Heroes of Telemark", although they tried to make the moral choice a little more sympathetic by having some of the team die on the ferry. In fact they did not and what followed was one of the most incredible, and bizarre, chases in history.

There are many examples of this situation from war. Slaves die in wars against slavery; prisoners-of-war die in raids to rescue them. But the survivors are free.

This is not a straw man at all. It's given to demonstrate the limits of utilitarianism and to illustrate the idea of the unthinkable. The issue is whether there is any line which it is unacceptable to cross in the pursuit of "the greater good". If there isn't, then scenarios like the one I described are in fact advocated by that theory. If there is, then you accept my assertion that at some point it is unjustifiable to commit wrongs for the sake of the greater good. The fact that there are more realistic scenarios from the world only reinforces my point.

You are right, I was being squeamish. While I'd like to think I could allow 500 people to die to save the world if absolutely I had to, I don't think I could go as far as you suggested. But I think I would be allowing evil to win because of my own moral cowardice rather than doing the right thing. Particularly if, as I said, the action being demanded was going to happen even if I refused.

Now, to go back to the D&D example, I will reiterate that I think the Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters would react in the same way: They would do everything that they could to evacuate the village, generate a containment field of some sort around the portal, and otherwise think of an alternate solution to the problem. If nothing else could be done, then whether or not they would use the amulet to destroy the portal would depend on other details of the situation that you have not specified. (Notably, whether there is reason to believe that other such portals could be created should the one in question be destroyed, and whether there is or is not reason to believe that the plagues were truly incurable.)

I could add details to cover that but I think we're into Captain Kirk territory now.

Ivan and Alyosha are discussing God and the Problem of Evil. Essentailly it boils down to whether a truly Good God would create a world where people unjustifiably suffer.

The trouble in D&D terms is that there are many gods and they are normally neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and clearly are not in OotS.

Ivan is willing to accept that perhaps adults all deserve suffering because they have all sinned, but innocent children suffer as well, who have not done anything wrong--and this he cannot accept. He then asks Alyosha whether, if he were God, he would be willing to create a paradise for everyone else on the condition that a baby had to be tortured to do it. Alyosha says "no", which is exactly what I have been saying. That is a clear case of sacrificing one person for the greater good--a PARADISE for everyone else founded on the misery of one innocent person--and I say that to do so would be evil.

But a closer analogy would be "I'm going to torture this baby and then all the other babies in the world/village/whatever. Would you rather torture just one yourself and then I'll go away? No third option. The clock is ticking."

And, you know, that's the sort of thing Evil does. It wants to put Good into positions like that and sadly in the real world it often succeeds. That's why some people kill themselves even when everyone around them is saying that they did the right thing.

Alfryd

2006-02-25, 07:22 PM

Which is why, as I said, it dehumanizes people and reduces them to numbers. ...the whole idea of it being possible to outweigh something like that is inhuman.
The idea that no amount of people's welfare could possibly outweigh the needs of 1 person is insane. This is why selfishness is considered a vice. And humanity is overrated.

Given that this entire discussion is about ethics, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
You said it would be Evil, ie. a moral question, rather than Chaotic, which is an ethical question.

...Essentailly it boils down to whether a truly Good God would create a world where people unjustifiably suffer.
No.

...He then asks Alyosha whether, if he were God, he would be willing to create a paradise for everyone else on the condition that a baby had to be tortured to do it...
Ah, so in addition to being a strawman, it's a non-sequitur!

...I say that to do so would be evil.
Yes, but the alternative is almost certainly greater evil. Where by 'almost', I means the unlikelihood is negligible.

A Lawful outlook ...seeks to build an organisation which will carry out those other Good or Evil aims even when some members fall by the wayside.
That's not neccesarily the case. A code of conduct might specify a 'leave no man behind' rule which would prevent them ahcieving a goal, whereas agents operating independantly with a common goal could be more effective.

It does, insofar as it means they value some things differently: individuals and society.
Just to be clear, this is not an inherent aspect to the Law/Chaos axis, the difference is the degree of behavioural restrictions that apply to the means a person will seek to achieve their ends. (The ends are specified by good/evil.) The most important difference is that Laws grant impartiality at the expense of inflexibility. And this could work either way.

There are many examples of this situation from war.
In particular what was called the Ultrasecret, the fact that the British code-breakers had regular access to German communications using the enigma machine, had to be used with great discretion simply to avoid tipping off the Germans to it's existence. This often meant that troops and resources were sacrificed in great numbers, even when available intelligence could have allowed them to circumvent the dangers posed by enemy forces. Yet the code-breakers at Bletchley park are believed to have shortened the war in Europe by 2 years. That could well be several million lives saved. Tough call.

nagora

2006-02-25, 09:06 PM

That's not neccesarily the case. A code of conduct might specify a 'leave no man behind' rule which would prevent them ahcieving a goal, whereas agents operating independantly with a common goal could be more effective.

Just to be clear, this is not an inherent aspect to the Law/Chaos axis, the difference is the degree of behavioural restrictions that apply to the means a person will seek to achieve their ends. (The ends are specified by good/evil.) The most important difference is that Laws grant impartiality at the expense of inflexibility. And this could work either way.

But either way it implies a social setting for those rules. A person who lives only by their own rules is Chaotic. Both examples you gave are in fact examples of a social as opposed to individulistic context; the behavioural restrictions on the Lawful person come from outside - ie, society, and they accept them; chaotic hold that they decide on each individual case whether to accept others' rules depending on their own judgement as to whether they are right at that moment under the current circumstances. They can be a real pain about this, especially when they're right!

The tricky part is that CG characters' personally decided code of conduct can be as ridged as any LG paladin's oath of fealty to their gods or credo (look at Celtic Mythology for examples). But the thing that divides them is the CG chooses his/her code, while the LG usually joins it and sticks with it even if, as with Miko, they sometimes feel that it is hampering them from doing the right thing. She might break, and then really fall, but the Lawfulness in her is more likely to see her through this crisis than not.

Alfryd

2006-02-26, 08:59 AM

But either way it implies a social setting for those rules. A person who lives only by their own rules is Chaotic.
Not at all, provided that they *have* rules. A private, individually formulated honour code is just as Lawful as one in general circulation. The behavioural restrictions can be imposed externally or internally, it doesn't matter, both are Lawful. A Chaotic individual is a pragmatist, and will ignore any and all rules, including their own, when expedient.
(Of course, unlike the Good/Evil axis, it's impossible, in my view, to be perfectly Chaotic or perfectly Lawful. There's no upper bound on the complexity of rules, and *some* organisation in thought processes is needed just for the mind to function coherently.)

nagora

2006-02-26, 09:16 PM

Not at all, provided that they *have* rules. A private, individually formulated honour code is just as Lawful as one in general circulation. The behavioural restrictions can be imposed externally or internally, it doesn't matter, both are Lawful. A Chaotic individual is a pragmatist, and will ignore any and all rules, including their own, when expedient.
(Of course, unlike the Good/Evil axis, it's impossible, in my view, to be perfectly Chaotic or perfectly Lawful. There's no upper bound on the complexity of rules, and *some* organisation in thought processes is needed just for the mind to function coherently.)

Time to flog that old horse again!

Lawful is described in the rules as being respectful of authority; Chaos as being resentful of being told what to do. A person who holds only to their own code of conduct is Chaotic. A person who holds to an external code of conduct, ie respects authority and its right to tell him/her what to do, is Lawful.

Not all Chaotics do have a code of personal honour, of course, but some do because they believe that the individual has nothing in this world which they can rely on EXCEPT that which they define for themselves. This tends not to be the CE philosophy, of course, but I'd contend that characters like Conan, the Grey Mouser, or Louis Wu are all Chaotic because they hold to no authority higher than their own conscience.

Now look what you've done: it's 1:10am and now I've got the urge to splice the mainsail and hoist the Jolly Rodger!

Arrrrr! Avast behind! We spit on the law, bejasus! We're free as the wind and there's not a Jack Tar here who wouldn't decend into the pits of Hell itself for his mates!

"Actually, there is one."

Oh, yes. That's right. But apart from 'im, we're as solid a crew as what ever sailed the briney blue. Set sail for Monkey Island and don't spare the exclamation marks!

Alfryd

2006-02-27, 06:05 AM

Never played, but I have gathered Escape from Monkey island was, indeed, a festival of almost harrowing hilarity.

Lawful is described in the rules as being respectful of authority; Chaos as being resentful of being told what to do...
I seem to recall that the rules described Lawful as respectful of authority, tradition, making plans, being honest & honourable, etc. It seems moderately clear to me that they're defining the alignment through frequent symptoms rather than essential cause, and this can run into problems. I'm not especially pushed, however.

zimri

2006-02-27, 06:43 AM

I want to go back in time and convince gary gygax to use "ordered" or "orderly" rather than lawful. It would make things so much clearer without changing much at all.

Holy_Knight

2006-02-27, 04:05 PM

I'll have one more stab at this. Starting at the idea that Lawful characters prefer organisation, ask why that is? The answer, I think, is that they see organisation as a way to achieve more. The LG character sees a team, indeed a country, working together as being capable of feats of all sorts for increasing the common weal which individuals could not or would find very much harder. In war the combat unit, whether of knights or a platoon of grunts can survive the loss of some members and still get the aim achieved. And that is the crux of what I'm saying is the difference.

This is true, but I'm not sure why the Chaotic good person would disagree with it. That is, there's nothing about being chaotic that makes one believe that teamwork can't be beneficial, so I wouldn't describe the difference in that way. Perhaps I'm mistaking your meaning in this paragraph, though.

A Lawful outlook, whether Evil or Good (for clarity I think we'll leave LN out of it for now) seeks to build an organisation which will carry out those other Good or Evil aims even when some members fall by the wayside. Thus, the idea of sacrificing the individual to achieve a higher goal is part of the makeup of such characters; it is the Lawful part of their alignment. Organisations can achieve more than individuals because individuals can be lost knowing someone will carry the torch on.
I'm not sure I would agree that the idea of sacrificing the individual to achieve a higher goal is necessarily part of the makeup of such characters. "Achievement" and "higher goal" are only intelligible concepts insofar as they relate to the weal of individuals, and a group is still a group of individuals. That an organization can achieve more than individuals on their own seems to me just a simple fact, rather than anything indicative of outlook. Perhaps the difference is regarding to what extent that is true, and what formsuch organization should take. For example, a lawful character might view a clear hierarchy with an established leader as more conducive to overall welfare, whereas a chaotic character might bemore likely to advocate instead a teamwork where everyone has an equal say in decisions.

I think in real life humans are much more lawful than chaotic. I think the reason there seems to be more role players who play chaotic characters is actually because we're escaping from normal life and in normal life the vast majority of people would take what I outlined as the LG solution, and do so in the military and medical professions every day of the year (except bank holiday Mondays in Scotland).

I'm not sure what to say about this--in my experience with role-playing the law-chaos axis was fairly evenly ditributed among characters in my groups, but it's possible that most people in general play chaotics. Whether that is to escape from how they normally act is, I think, more questionable--it seems just as likely that they would like to act in such ways in real life too, but think they can't get away with it.

In fact, in other words, I think it is the CG character who is the real fanatic in the examples, bordering on the psychotic. Certainly sociopathic. But in a game I can play such a character because there are no real consequences and I get to look at the philosophical implications.
This I must disagree with, on the most basic level because it is a contradiction in terms to call a good character sociopathic. A Chaotic Good person being psychotic I could see, but there's no necessary connection there.

Again right. But in the Lawful view, what happens if the individual says that s/he has a right to be free of your rules and ignores them, say by enslaving someone? Ultimately, if s/he pushes it, the lawful view is that the many outweigh the few and the rules will be enforced. Hard.
But this isn't consistent with Chaotic Good either, which would object to an individual being enslaved by another. Both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good persons would oppose that kind of action, and it wouldn't have much if anything to do with "the needs of the many".

It does, insofar as it means they value some things differently: individuals and society.
Again, I don't think this is a difference of value, because society is simply multiple individuals. The difference is located in how best to promote the welfare of said individuals.

The Germans had a heavy-water plant in Telemark in Norway. The water (which is needed as part of building an A-Bomb) had to be transported back to Germany. The location and the geography basically ruled out an allied military attack but at one point the railroad cars would be loaded onto a ferry to cross one of the country's deepest lakes. This was the only real chance to eliminate the whole lot in one go but the ferry was used by the local pedestrians too.

It was impossible to tell anyone in the town because there might be a spy, even if not the locals might simply not use the ferry that day and thus raise suspicions. Therefore, bombs were planted on the ferry and detonated in the middle of the lake killing everyone on board including local junior-school children going to school. The action was a massive blow to the Nazi war-effort and, as you may have noticed, they never did develop the atomic bomb.

It was made into a film called "The Heroes of Telemark", although they tried to make the moral choice a little more sympathetic by having some of the team die on the ferry. In fact they did not and what followed was one of the most incredible, and bizarre, chases in history.

That is a good example, thank you for giving more details. As far as my analysis, I think I'll just say this. To blow up the ferry was not a choice I would have authorized or made myself; I would have viewed it as the wrong decision. However, I do not thereby think of those who did make that choice as monsters, and I can understand why they did it, certainly. Still, I wouldn't have viewed as the morally best choice.

You are right, I was being squeamish. While I'd like to think I could allow 500 people to die to save the world if absolutely I had to, I don't think I could go as far as you suggested. But I think I would be allowing evil to win because of my own moral cowardice rather than doing the right thing. Particularly if, as I said, the action being demanded was going to happen even if I refused.

I would see it as moral courage rather than cowardice, insofar as it would be adhering to what is right despite the consequences. Having the villain give an "And if you don't, I will" clause makes it more complicated, admittedly, but I still don't think it would thereby justify one's committing of the action in question.

The trouble in D&D terms is that there are many gods and they are normally neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and clearly are not in OotS.

Right, but I was giving that as an example of the philosophical point, not as something to be hypothetically applied to D&D deities.

And, you know, that's the sort of thing Evil does. It wants to put Good into positions like that and sadly in the real world it often succeeds. That's why some people kill themselves even when everyone around them is saying that they did the right thing.
Agreed.

The idea that no amount of people's welfare could possibly outweigh the needs of 1 person is insane.

Well, since we're throwing fallacy accusations around, "question-begging epithets". Furthermore, I did not say that no amount of people's welfare could ever outweigh the needs of 1 person, I said it was wrong to treat this as the primary principle of morality, and that a person's value cannot be reduced to that sort of calculus. I also did say that there is a point in which the outweighing becomes essentially dehumanizing, but that there are some situations which do not reach this point.

This is why selfishness is considered a vice. And humanity is overrated.
If humanity is overrated, then there is serious doubt cast on the worth of "the needs of the many".

You said it would be Evil, ie. a moral question, rather than Chaotic, which is an ethical question.
Since ethics is about the justification of what is moral, the discussion involves morality and ethics.

Ah, so in addition to being a strawman, it's a non-sequitur!

No, it's neither. It's an example of the limits of utilitarianism, which makes it relevant, and it was not given as a parody of anything that someone else said, so it's not a straw man.

Yes, but the alternative is almost certainly greater evil. Where by 'almost', I means the unlikelihood is negligible.
This misses the point, which was that God (according to Ivan and Alyosha, and I happen to agree) would not do such a thing if he were truly all-good. The larger context is one of the Problem of Evil in general, but that in itself is tangental to our discussion right now.

nagora

2006-02-27, 04:22 PM

I want to go back in time and convince gary gygax to use "ordered" or "orderly" rather than lawful. It would make things so much clearer without changing much at all.

They are not the same thing. Imagine this:

You and your brother are patrolling the hills around your Daimo's estate. In the woods you see a thin trail of smoke making its way up to the sky through the thin mist of early dawn. You investigate and find a small log cabin has been made; the wood shavings still lie on the pine-needled soil; an ax protrudes from a severed trunk.

Leaving your brother to cover you with his great-bow, you advance and knock on the door, quickly stepping back in case of a sudden spear or sword thrust from inside. You place you hand on your own hilt but do not draw. In the moment as you wait your eyes take in the simple hut. Quickly made and small, it is nonetheless made with care; its proportions show the sign of an artistic mind at work. The door is smooth; the owner must carry woodworking tools such as planes and awls. What manner of a man will he be.

The answer comes quickly; the door snaps open and there stands a tall man, sword in hand. He has stepped away from the door in such a way that he can inspect you from beyond a quick thrust (you inwardly approve of his duplication of your own caution but your face remains impassive) but anyone beyond you would have to attack through you to hit him.

You nod and make the semi-ritual greetings that indicate polite but firm intent to determine the stranger's reasons for being here. He responds in a way which tells you he is no stranger to such as yourself but at the same time he manages to give the impression of a favour when he invites you in. He seems unperturbed when you call your brother in from the trees to join the two of you.

Inside appears to even an experience samurai such as yourself to be austere - how could it be anything else, if this man is a wanderer? On the floor there is a simple mat and a small table big enough for a black and red lacquered bowl, chopsticks and a small clay cup. A bottle sits beside the table. In the far left corner is a block for putting one's head on while sleeping and some furs obviously for bedding.

By the bed is a dagger in a scabbard matching the sword carried by the stranger, and a spear. Relatively few men use both. Beside these is an unstrung short bow which you feel is probably for hunting small-game rather than fighting men.

On the wall opposite the door is a beautiful piece of calligraphy on a scroll of paper almost as tall as you. You can see that the writer is an expert; the characters written in a smooth stroke and in one long movement from a single charge on ink on his brush. The characters say "All life is an illusion; I know only myself; I know only what I believe". A strange statement, you think.

The only other items in the single room are a backpack, a small wooden water barrel, and a pair of sandals, neatly arranged in the opposite corner from the bed area.

There are no windows as such but light comes in through the opening in the roof of branches made for the fire, although this is currently but a pile of ashes. Some light, however, comes from small loopholes arranged regularly around the walls, between the logs. A man could watch out from these and not be greatly exposed.

The man offers you and your brother a drink from his cup, refilling the sake from his bottle. After this, as the three site cross-legged, you begin the questions.

"What is your name?"

"Sanjuro." You raise and eyebrow at this. The proffered name is not a name at all but an age: 30. Does the stranger take a new name each year. You let it pass.

"Who is your master?"

"I kneel before no man, god, or spirit." A ronin? If he is a good man perhaps he can be enlisted. If he is not, then you must be ready for trouble.

"Then what is your province?"

"I have no province; I do not remember were I was born."

The man is adrift!

"Then what laws do you obey?"

His face clouds at once to this question, although he quickly regains his composure. "Laws are for the weak. I do as I judge fit; not as others would judge for me."

Your brother, younger by mere minutes but sometimes it feels like years, moves as if to rise, saying "A bandit, then!" Your hand gently restrains him.

'Sanjuro' glances at him and then looks back at you. "Bandits go in packs, like wolves. Or vultures, the lords of misfortune. They are my prey."

"You are within the estate of Lord Hiatsho, you are under his jurisdiction and will have to report to him. No man armed with a sword may wander freely about his lands."

The man smiles. "No man but Tiajo Mishana, self-styled bandit king."

You and your brother look at each other for a second.

"What do you know of him?"

"I know that he is reason enough for a lordling to send small patrols of men able to move quickly and quietly through the remote parts of the land he claims for himself and his master," he almost spits this last word.

Your brother bursts out, "Have yo seen him? What do you know?"

"I have seen him and I know all there is worth knowing about him. He and his gang are behind this little house of mine as we sit here talking."

You and your brother jump up and rush to the loopholes in the walls. You quickly ascertain that no one is there apart from a pony tied up behind the east wall. No one you can see. You turn back into the room and find the man standing by the door.

"Follow me," is all he says as he opens it and leaves. You do so.

Behind the little house is the pony and beside the pony are four barrels, small wooden casks about the size of a man's...head.

The swordsman taps the closest one with the end of his blade.

"That's him and his three lieutenants," he says simply.

"How?" is all you can think of to say.

"I heard that they were near here; raiding this estate and that of the next cur over," the continued insults of the rightful lords of the country are starting to needle you, but you want to hear the story.

"I came here last week to hunt them." He says it simply, but Mishana had more than fifty men!

"It went well, I was in a village only two days ago when I heard that a girl had been taken by these bandits from a nearby farm. I picked up their trail from there; a blind man could have followed it by the smell alone.

"That night I found the old fort they were using for their base. With a girl inside, they were assured to be having a party and so I waited until dark. Then I slew them."

"What!?" Your brother is astounded by the offhandedness of the claim. "That's not possible! One against fifty!"

"One against sixty-eight, " corrects Sanjuro.

"Impossible! Not even bandits would be so drunk...so foolish."

"They were not all drunk. But the guards were distracted by the idea of what they were missing; they went first. The wall is partly ruined and gave me more cover in the moonlight than it did them. I entered through the first floor of the central keep. The men in that room were asleep, probably drunk, and I killed them. The world was rid of twenty men in that way before the alarm was raised, and then it came to fighting in the corridors and rooms. The corridors negated their numbers, the rooms providing somewhere to dodge when an arrow or the occasional musket-ball appeared."

As he say this he moves his left arm slightly and you notice for the first time that a hole has been darned in the sleeve, about the size of a flintlock ball.

"They fell like grass before a flame; those who tried to escape found that someone had blocked the main door from outside. Mishana was last; his 'army' lying in piles around him, flames consuming his 'royal' castle. I took his head than those other three which have a bounty on them. The girl, barely coherent after a day entertaining the troops, I led out and back to the farm.

The only bounty on her was the gratitude of her parents and a place to sleep. I left before they awoke and had the idea that marrying her off to me would be a greater boon. Now here I am and in the morning I will leave for Kyoto and the reward for these clanless scum."

He kicks the nearest barrel, then looks at you and your brother; a flame in his eyes suddenly flares.

"And what would have become of Taijo, here, if I had not happened along? Would he have been brought to justice? Pah! Your own lord's grandfather was a bandit like him. When the other Daimo could not restrain him, they made room for him and he joined the ranks of the nobility alongside them. Laws! They are forged by the strong to constrain the weak to prevent them ganging up and becoming free. Your master will run like a dog at the beck and call of his master until the day he is strong enough to raise himself up a rung on the ladder. And his son will do likewise. Each striving to become Shogun; the man above the law."

"No man is above the law," you say, bristling at the man's words.

"I am! And so is any man strong enough to control his own destiny."

"No! You are not above the law;" you are shouting now,"you will accompany me and my brother to our lord's house and there make account of your actions to Him," your hand is on your hilt now but the swordsman simply walks away to the front of the house saying, "You will return to your master alone or not at all."

You look at your brother, mouth agape, and then run around the side of the house. The man has taken up a duelling stance; he knew what must follow next.

The cleared area is perfect for this.

You face each other.

You look into each other's eyes. You watch for a sign of what is to come next.

Breathing carefully, you drop from the normal waking mind. You no longer watch but strive to be in the moment.

Nothing happens. The bird song is gone - left behind in the levels of consciousness which are where you live your day-to-day life - the wind moves the trees, your opponent's clothes.

The suddenly it happens: the wind is moving your clothes, is moving your branches, you hear the birds once more because you are the birds, and you are your opponent. And in that moment you see the situation as a whole; you understand.

You shift your stance and bow; Sanjuro does likewise. He has won.

Your brother has seen it too. This man will not die here today by your hand. You have never seen a spirit so totally self-contained, so strong. It may one day break in some unknown storm, but its total self-assurance would flay you alive. You have doubts, some are newly gained from the man you faced, some are old. You are but a samurai, a servant of a servant of a servant of a distant master. He is almost more than a master; he is a kingdom in himself. Today is not his day for dying; and your death would achieve nothing.

You leave and return home with your tale.

SO, here's the question:

Is 'Sanjuro' Lawful or Chaotic. I'd say Chaotic.