Were the Ogres Innocent Victims?

[dancrilis]

The recent discussion on the plight or lack thereof of the goblins in the 1205 discussion got me thinking about how different groups have been interacted with which brought me to the ogres.

On 211 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html) we are introduced to an Ogre tribe by way of an old woman telling us that they are 'lootin' our land attackin' travelers' she follows this up by calling them a 'Buncha savages', she then cuts to the heart of her problem and explains that they kidnapped her husband.

The Order and Miko accept this at face value and begin the quest to deal with the ogres.

When they locate the ogres in 214 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html) they ogres are doing nothing obviously evil (or have done anything obviously evil recently) - the Order begins to form a plan to slaughter them while they sleep with no negotiation or discussion at all but Miko has a different plan - she declares herself the enemy of the Ogres and asks them to ready for battle.
The ogres informed that they are to be killed prepare for battle as requested 215 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html) but still allow the paladin to strike the first blow.

Members of the Order sneak past the ogres to rescue the missing husband 218 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0218.html), who other then being tied up seems to not be suffering at all.

With the battle joined the Order kills the remaining ogres 219 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0219.html) and return to the farm 222 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0222.html) where we learn that the farmer was not hurt (panel 3) and had gotten himself captured deliberately so he could have some time alone (panel 7).

Essentially the ogres seemingly did nothing deserving extermination - this was never raised again (Roy's interview for the mountain springs to mind).

This can also be contrasted with dealing with human bandits 167 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0167.html) where it seems the order was much more inclined for non-lethal force - despite the humans being actively engaged in poor behaviour.

So to the topic title - should we merely accept that the ogres had it coming and that this is not a stain on the Order (and Miko) or were the ogres victims of PC aggression for no better reason than they were not members of a standard PC race and not regarded as noteworthy by the powers of law or good - potentially justifing:

Redcloaks claim that goblins (and presumedly others) were created to be nothing but XP by the Gods.

[Doctor West]

Innocent victims, no. They did kidnap a commoner, after all... for whatever reason. I'll chalk that one up to early installment weirdness. And no, that certainly does not mean that every ogre in the world that ends up on the wrong side of an adventurer had it coming. However, it's definitely a valid point that the Order was far quicker to employ lethal force on that job than when dealing with the human bandits who attacked them first. In that sense, yes, the Order + Miko probably did behave differently because they weren't dealing with a PC race, and we can't even blame it on Miko.

That said you probably shouldn't take the disgruntled old husband's statement, in the midst of an argument, that he got kidnapped on purpose to get away from his wife at face value. :smalltongue:

[Lombard]

Well, obviously if you're going to get kidnapped on purpose, you have to have somebody willing to kidnap you. At best I think you could argue entrapment.

[Emanick]

According to the old woman (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html), the ogres have been "lootin' the land and attackin' travelers." This isn't just a case of an isolated kidnapping. They are an active threat to humanoid life, so I don't see a problem with the Order fighting back on, um, "humanoidanity's" behalf. In an ideal world, they would have been nonlethally subdued and jailed instead, but I don't imagine that that was a realistic possibility.

And yeah, I don't buy that the old guy got himself kidnapped on purpose just so he could have some peace and quiet. Seriously, who does something like that? I assume it was an absurd rationalization of his.

[denthor]

If the ogres had said we surrender or we do not want fight then yes.

If I challenge you to a fight, you prepare for a fight, then you lose. Am I evil?

If you win are you evil?

[Worldsong]

I'd say that under close scrutiny it's true that the ogres did not appear to deserve the lethal treatment they received. In fact Miko actually behaved better than the Order in those circumstances, since she challenged them to a fight and they accepted whereas the Order wanted to kill them as many of them as possible before they realized they were under attack. As a rule killing enemy combatants is more acceptable than killing people who aren't even aware there's a fight going on, even if they're your enemies.

That said as pointed out prior the woman who gave the Order the quest claimed that they'd done more than just kidnap her husband so if she was honest about that claim they were actually engaging in harmful behaviour and can't be treated as fully innocent victims.

Also while Rich has made it clear that he's opposed to discrimination against monster races such as goblinoids or ogres that doesn't mean the protagonists have to follow his ideals perfectly. I imagine that if that scenario happened more recently it would be addressed that the Order was a bit quick to assume the worst but by this point it'd be awkward to bring it up.


If the ogres had said we surrender or we do not want fight then yes.

If I challenge you to a fight, you prepare for a fight, then you lose. Am I evil?

If you win are you evil?

Oh dear, we're in danger of entering the discussion whether soldiers are automatically Evil or not. That's treacherous territory.

[Aidan]

On the one hand as shown in On the Origins of PCs, as seen by the tribe of Orcs, sometimes when Non-PC races do something as innocent as entering a town to get snacks from the store, they are assumed to be attacking and a threat to the town.

I agree with the notion that most adventuring parties, the Order included, are more aggressive towards Non-PC groups. That being said, they did kidnap a man (I sort of doubt that he really got himself captured, that fight has them call each other names, and generally insult one another, I read the line in question more as "at least when I got captured I got some peace and quiet").

Yes, the Ogres are victims of societal mistreatment and it is certainly true that the Order killing them where they did not kill the bandits is evidence of them having a bias against Ogres, but for the crimes of kidnapping a man, and raiding and pillaging in the area, they are almost certainly guilty.

Overall, they may be victims, but they are not innocent.

[el minster]

This is a classic example of human supremacy

[Psyren]

I believe the larger point of the enlightened approach to sapients that the Giant (and, more recently, WotC) is taking steps to incorporate in their respective works, is that you can't and shouldn't tell a creature's alignment simply by looking at their entry in a monster manual. That doesn't mean individual instances of monsters where redemption is impossible or impractical can't exist - just that you should treat them as exactly that, individuals, rather than judging them by their entire race.

Put another way - THOSE giants kidnapped a commoner to devour it simply because they were evil and strong enough to do so. Just like these thri-kreen are violent and habitual slavers. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0683.html) Not every fight with sapient creatures needs to start with the good guys going "please lay down your arms and turn yourselves in to the nearest authority."

[Hekko]

If the ogres had said we surrender or we do not want fight then yes.

If I challenge you to a fight, you prepare for a fight, then you lose. Am I evil?

If you win are you evil?

To play ogres' advocate, if the ogres had been treated poorly and unfairly by humans, they would have not thought refusing the fight would work. They probably see humans as bloodthirsty monsters and therefore considered the fight inevitable.

[dancrilis]

Put another way - THOSE giants kidnapped a commoner to devour it simply because they were evil and strong enough to do so.

You, I, The Order and Miko have no knowledge of what they wanted with the commoner - it is possible that they were looting his seemingly worthless dirt and he said 'hey can you take me with you for a day' and an Ogre said 'ok' tied him up put him in a cave and forgot about him.

In fact that matches the information we have better then the kill and eat him idea - that seems to be you having an unfair anti-Ogre sentiment where you are judging them based on stereotypes.

[KorvinStarmast]

When one establishes the unambiguous criteria for innocence, one can perhaps answer the title question.
I don't think that this has been done, though.

[Aidan]

You, I, The Order and Miko have no knowledge of what they wanted with the commoner - it is possible that they were looting his seemingly worthless dirt and he said 'hey can you take me with you for a day' and an Ogre said 'ok' tied him up put him in a cave and forgot about him.

In fact that matches the information we have better then the kill and eat him idea - that seems to be you having an unfair anti-Ogre sentiment where you are judging them based on stereotypes.

Based on the information given, we don't have any well supported theories about why they kidnapped him. The only evidence for him asking them to take him was in an argument where the next lines say that the man is half chicken and the woman is a witch. I'm willing to give the same degree of truthfulness to all of those claims, which is to say, I believe all are false.

The other thing is, would the Order and Miko have an anti-ogre bias?

Yes, and the bias exists because that was the Gods intention when they put the various XP races on the world. They made it so the XP races had nothing, so that many would be forced to rely on pillaging and looting to get by, thus making them threats for heroes to vanquish.

I am not unwilling to admit that a tribe of Ogres could be good, but while we have only a little bit of evidence to suggest that they are evil, we have no evidence that they were good. By an eyewitness account they have been looting the land and attacking travelers. They also kidnapped someone, regardless of why, and kept him tied up in a cave that was guarded by a (seemingly) stronger ogre.

When compared to the human bandits was it fair that the Ogres died and the bandits lived?
No

However this is not a comparison between an altruistic tribe of ogres and pillaging humans, it is a comparison between two groups that committed evil acts. If in some alternate universe, when they are fighting the raiders, they kill those attacking them, I doubt that that would have had any repurcussion alignment wise.

[BaronOfHell]

but for the crimes of kidnapping a man, and raiding and pillaging in the area, they are almost certainly guilty.


I don't know why, but it made me think back to Miko: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0174.html

I guess at least Miko collected testimonies from several witnesses, but she certainly didn't need that when it came to a tribe of ogres.

[dancrilis]

Yes, and the bias exists because that was the Gods intention when they put the various XP races on the world. They made it so the XP races had nothing, so that many would be forced to rely on pillaging and looting to get by, thus making them threats for heroes to vanquish.

We have one source for that and I am not sure it is trustworthy (it might be) - but it should be noted that what might be considered 'XP races' do have there own gods, and the source we have has no way of having direct knowledge if the claim is true (nor does that sources source).

[Psyren]

You, I, The Order and Miko have no knowledge of what they wanted with the commoner - it is possible that they were looting his seemingly worthless dirt and he said 'hey can you take me with you for a day' and an Ogre said 'ok' tied him up put him in a cave and forgot about him.

In fact that matches the information we have better then the kill and eat him idea - that seems to be you having an unfair anti-Ogre sentiment where you are judging them based on stereotypes.

"They moved into the area last week, and they've been lootin' our land and attacking travelers" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html) = judging them by their actions, not their creature type.

[Worldsong]

"They moved into the area last week, and they've been lootin' our land and attacking travelers" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html) = judging them by their actions, not their creature type.

I believe the counterargument to that would be that we only have the old woman's word for it.

Basically if the OotS had some additional evidence in the form of other witnesses collaborating the lady's story or actual signs of raiding and killing then yes, the OotS+Miko would have been fully justified in at least treating the ogres as a problem which had to be dealt with, with wiping out their camp being a valid solution.

[Psyren]

I believe the counterargument to that would be that we only have the old woman's word for it.

Yes, but Haley had pretty good Sense Motive even then. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I'll take her account at face value. Her testimony is evidence that the ogres were a threat, and we were shown nothing to contradict that.

[Finagle]

Power disparity. The ogres were powerful, the commoners were not. By taking the side of the commoners, OOTS was punching up, and thus on the side of good. The ogres were punching down.

Punching down is a concept in which you're assumed to have a measurable level of power and you're looking for a fight. Now, you can either go after the big guy who might hurt you, or go after the little guy who has absolutely no shot. Either way, you've picked a fight, but one fight is remarkably more noble and worthwhile than the other. Going after the big guy, punching up, is an act of nobility. Going after the little guy, punching down, is an act of bullying.

[dancrilis]

"They moved into the area last week, and they've been lootin' our land and attacking travelers" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html) = judging them by their actions, not their creature type.

Judging them by word of their precieved actions actions - the old woman might have fully believed what she said, but she made no mention of deaths, or the interactions which she constituted as looting or attacking - she didn't even ask them to drive the Ogres off much less kill them.


Yes, but Haley had pretty good Sense Motive even then. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I'll take her account at face value. Her testimony is evidence that the ogres were a threat, and we were shown nothing to contradict that.
So if Haley says it is fine to wipe out a group of people who she has never met based on the word of someone she just met that is good enough for you.


Power disparity. The ogres were powerful, the commoners were not. By taking the side of the commoners, OOTS was punching up, and thus on the side of good. The ogres were punching down.

Punching down is a concept in which you're assumed to have a measurable level of power and you're looking for a fight. Now, you can either go after the big guy who might hurt you, or go after the little guy who has absolutely no shot. Either way, you've picked a fight, but one fight is remarkably more noble and worthwhile than the other. Going after the big guy, punching up, is an act of nobility. Going after the little guy, punching down, is an act of bullying.

The ogres might not have been punching anything until the Order decided to kill them - taking the side of the big guy is fine if the little guy is not giving the full story, knowing what happened - via getting both sides of a story - might be a minor finicky little detail but it is still probably worth doing before slaughtering people.

[Boo600]

I still feel that the Order, given Haley's testimony (regarding the belief of the Commoner being true- they may have misinterpreted/assumed, and I'll note the Order didn't check), made an understandable result given "D&D morality/world," as well as the paladin pushing for it... but, while I won't demand that they be neutral here...

In power levels, I wouldn't refer to the Order attacking the Ogres as "punching up." Compared to attacking the villagers, yes, but do recall that (while Miko killed the chieftain), most of the mooks were taken out by a Fireball+Thor's Lightning combo. Yes, it only got them all at once because they were nicely grouped together, but Thor's Lightning is (according to Malack) a 3rd level spell. We KNOW Fireball is a 3rd level spell, and Vaarsuvius is an Evoker. By attacking from range, the Order possesses the power to annihilate the vast majority of Ogres with a few spells long before they get into range (none showed any ranged abilities/equipment, barring the one half-ogre).

With the chieftain weak enough for Miko to kill in one Full Attack/Flurry of Blows a la monk, (Miko is higher level than the Order, but still weak enough for Roy to nearly match after being stripped of Paladin status), he'd probably die to a few disintegrates from V. The Guard Ogre seemed higher-level, and better equipped. Given the way such societies are structured, however, I doubt that he'd be stronger (or much stronger, if so) than the chief. Add in Haley's help against the half-ogre, Durkon's bonus against ogrekind, and Miko's help...

The power difference is clear- the Order is above the Ogre Tribe. They may have been in the right, but while the numbers could have given them trouble, the balance of power was on their side.

[understatement]

I think what stands out is how they treated the bandits versus how they treated the ogres. The bandits literally kidnapped Elan and later planned to hang the rest, but they're spared. I'm not debating whether they should be or not, but there's a clear difference between how the Order dealt with ogres and how they dealth with the bandits, despite both being hostile enemy opponents.

[Aidan]

Power disparity. The ogres were powerful, the commoners were not. By taking the side of the commoners, OOTS was punching up, and thus on the side of good. The ogres were punching down.

Punching down is a concept in which you're assumed to have a measurable level of power and you're looking for a fight. Now, you can either go after the big guy who might hurt you, or go after the little guy who has absolutely no shot. Either way, you've picked a fight, but one fight is remarkably more noble and worthwhile than the other. Going after the big guy, punching up, is an act of nobility. Going after the little guy, punching down, is an act of bullying.

That is a simplistic, and in my opinion, flawed view of the world. In the event that events played out in the manner that dancrilis laid out, the Ogres would still be the big guys, the commoners would still be the little guys, but to fight the ogres would have been wrong. Power disparity, while sometimes an indicator of who is in the right and who is in the wrong, it is in no way a reliable indicator of who is in the right. Hell, with PC's a lot of random encounters are going to involve weaker creatures attacking the stronger PC's. In short power is largely irrelevant with regards to who is in the right, rather a person can be in the right no matter there power or the power of those they are facing.


Judging them by word of their precieved actions actions - the old woman might have fully believed what she said, but she made no mention of deaths, or the interactions which she constituted as looting or attacking - she didn't even ask them to drive the Ogres off much less kill them.

I am going to assume that if a woman is asking help from adventurers because her husband was kidnapped probably does not feel the need to launch into a long story about every crime they have committed since arriving. Rather she just hones in on the key points, attacking, looting, and kidnapping.



So if Haley says it is fine to wipe out a group of people who she has never met based on the word of someone she just met that is good enough for you.


When we are dealing with someone who, fights for the side of good, would has a good chance to know if she was lying, and has literally nothing to gain by going on this side-quest, I would be willing to believe that she is telling the truth if she said "nope this lady is not lying"



The ogres might not have been punching anything until the Order decided to kill them - taking the side of the big guy is fine if the little guy is not giving the full story, knowing what happened - via getting both sides of a story - might be a minor finicky little detail but it is still probably worth doing before slaughtering people.

In my view the Order had enough basis to believe that they were a fairly active threat and I do not have any problem with the Order ultimately attacking. If they had made it to the camp and saw clear signs that these ogres were not a threat to the Order or local populace like the orcs who just wanted to attend their concert, and when Roy saw them it made sense given how they were dressed. then I would have liked to see them parlay with the ogres and get there side of the story.

I do agree that the Order acting differently to Ogres as opposed to the human raiders (and that one halfling), not just in the difference of lethal force, but also in that most of the the bandits were not blamed by the Order, only there leaders were blamed. The leaders were the only ones that had any degree of punishment served to them, and even that punishment was tame. Contrast with the Ogres who were wiped out (as far as we see), but once again, that does not mean that the ogres did not do evil.

As an example, this is the difference between a teacher giving one student a stern lecture and another a week of detention, with both having misbehaved in the same ways. The issue is not so much that a week of detentions is too much or that the stern lecture was too little, its that they should have been treated the same way.

[Fincher]

Belkar tried to be fair and slaughter the human village instead, but did anyone listen? Nooo...

[Psyren]

Judging them by word of their precieved actions actions - the old woman might have fully believed what she said, but she made no mention of deaths, or the interactions which she constituted as looting or attacking - she didn't even ask them to drive the Ogres off much less kill them.


So if Haley says it is fine to wipe out a group of people who she has never met based on the word of someone she just met that is good enough for you.

Conservation of Narrative is good enough for me. If the Giant had wanted us to doubt what the woman was saying, he would have written the scene accordingly. He didn't, therefore we don't.

Even as far back as OotPCs (which occurred quite a bit before this strip), Roy applied healthy skepticism when simply asked to go take out monsters on someone's say-so, and they turned out to simply be gathering for a concert. The fact that he didn't do so here is more than enough reason to conclude he had reason to believe what this woman was saying. You'll also note that helping to kill the Ogres didn't show up in his moral review on the cloud, so that's further evidence that this woman was telling the truth.

And again, I provided another example where the Order springs into action against evil humanoids based on their actions rather than their creature type, so my underlying point is reinforced further. So to conclude - nobody is saying your Good adventuring party has to stop and hold a tribunal every time they want to roll initiative, situations that call for combat are still possible in an enlightened game.

[dancrilis]

Even as far back as OotPCs (which occurred quite a bit before this strip)
I am curious how you are defining 'quite a bit before this strip' do you mean in universe ... or something else ...?

Because if you mean the book came out quite a bit before the strip I will just say that: I do not agree that August 2005 was not quite a bit before August 2005.


You'll also note that helping to kill the Ogres didn't show up in his moral review on the cloud, so that's further evidence that this woman was telling the truth.
One of my points in the opening post.



And again, I provided another example where the Order springs into action against evil humanoids based on their actions rather than their creature type, so my underlying point is reinforced further.
Your example of action was an active slaving raid - I hold that 'sleeping on the ground' and 'actively capturing slaves' are in fact not equivalent actions.

[Psyren]

One of my points in the opening post.

So you agree then? We are given no reason to distrust the peasant woman's account?

[skim172]

I think "I had to captured by the ogres just to get away from my nag of a wife" is meant as a tongue-in-cheek insult rather than an admission of collusion.

[dancrilis]

So you agree then? We are given no reason to distrust the peasant woman's account?

I don't know whether you have read SOD (or the last non-spoilered element of the opening post) - but it might be suffice to say that the question mark at the end of the topic title was intended to imply that it was a question rather then a assertion (I also would have changed the word order).

In answer to your question more directly:
We have no reason to trust or distruct the woman's account - and even if we take her husband as kidnapped the Order (and Miko) had not confirmed that before attacking.
If we want evidence of Ogre guilt we could say Miko declared them evil and that is good enough - but even then evil does not mean guilty, the Deva was clear that merely killing Belkar while he slept would not be acceptable as a solution for instance and he has actually killed innocent* people.

[Psyren]

I don't know whether you have read SOD (or the last non-spoilered element of the opening post) - but it might be suffice to say that the question mark at the end of the topic title was intended to imply that it was a question rather then a assertion (I also would have changed the word order).

In answer to your question more directly:
We have no reason to trust or distruct the woman's account - and even if we take her husband as kidnapped the Order (and Miko) had not confirmed that before attacking.
If we want evidence of Ogre guilt we could say Miko declared them evil and that is good enough - but even then evil does not mean guilty, the Deva was clear that merely killing Belkar while he slept would not be acceptable as a solution for instance and he has actually killed innocent* people.

Except we do have reason to trust her. I'll sum them up again for you:

- No issues with having attacked them during the Deva review
- No objections with her story from Roy, who we know empirically from OtOoPCs that he would have raised if he saw reason to object.
- No objections with helping her for free from Haley, who a commoner would have found nearly impossible to lie to.
- No presentation of the scene from the Giant as anything but a reasonable sidequest/encounter.

The burden of proof is therefore on you to prove that her account was false, which you have failed to meet.

[Tvtyrant]

No. They were an invading army attacking civilians with overwhelming numbers and force, and an open confrontation risked the OotS for no measurable gain. You aren't obligated to let people kill you to prove yourself righteous. As the Paladins say "Good, not stupid."

Terry Pratchett's 71 Hour Ahmed is a great example of this issue. If you have no civil authorities you can't arrest people, does that mean that groups are obligated to allow themselves to be ruined by attacking strangers?

[dancrilis]

Except we do have reason to trust her. I'll sum them up again for you:
I think you might be missing the point of the topic.


- No issues with having attacked them during the Deva review
This in particular misses the point of the topic - see the final section of the opening post.


- No objections with her story from Roy, who we know empirically from OtOoPCs that he would have raised if he saw reason to object.
Just because one person acts well in one way does not mean they act well in all cases - the Deva mentions that trying is what matters.


- No objections with helping her for free from Haley, who a commoner would have found nearly impossible to lie to.
How familiar are you with the Sense Motive rules? - suffice to say they do not work like that.


- No presentation of the scene from the Giant as anything but a reasonable sidequest/encounter.
You are close to the point here.


The burden of proof is therefore on you to prove that her account was false, which you have failed to meet.
There is no burden to answer ones own questions (also I didn't say her account was false).

I could have rephrased the question as 'hey are they actually guilty?' the responce 'hey you haven't proved they aren't' is not a good responce.

[Aidan]

I think you might be missing the point of the topic.


This in particular misses the point of the topic - see the final section of the opening post.


Just because one person acts well in one way does not mean they act well in all cases - the Deva mentions that trying is what matters.


How familiar are you with the Sense Motive rules? - suffice to say they do not work like that.


You are close to the point here.


There is no burden to answer ones own questions (also I didn't say her account was false).

I could have rephrased the question as 'hey are they actually guilty?' the responce 'hey you haven't proved they aren't' is not a good responce.

Except we have several piece of evidence to suggest they are guilty, contrasted with no evidence that they were not.

The overall point Psyren seems to be making in his last post is "Given what occurred in the scene itself, we have little reason to doubt that what we heard was true" which is a notion I agree with. The issue is we reject your premise that you lay out in your original post. Whether or not they were made as an XP race is not as relevant as whether or not they are a threat to locals. For instance in the the battle of Azure City, the Hobgoblins were not innocent victims because it was abundantly clear that they were an active threat to Azure City.

Adventurers killing monsters that are an active threat to the populace is not some evil act that the Gods ignore.

[dancrilis]

Except we have several piece of evidence to suggest they are guilty, contrasted with no evidence that they were not.
What evidence have we seen that justifies killing them - not heard second (third?) hand, not assumed etc.
Does having someone tied up warrant execution?
Vaarsuvius would agree later that it does (along with based on physical appearance), Elan seemed to disagree in that instance.


"Given what occurred in the scene itself, we have little reason to doubt that what we heard was true" which is a notion I agree with.
Ok - you accept that they were evil ogres and the order wiping them out was a good thing, that might be true.


The issue is we reject your premise that you lay out in your original post.
Which is fine.

However:

The idea that Goblins are a mistreated race comes largely from two areas:
1. Redcloak says they were designed that way - something neither he nor his god can know firsthand.
2. The events that occur to goblins and hobgoblins in SOD and HTPGHS.

Now the Ogres are accused of the crimes of looting, attacking, kidnapping - two of which we do not see and one of which was called into doubt by the person kidnapped (who confirms that they were not harmed at all).

The goblins are (to memory) in every instance attacked because of the Crimson Mantle - an artifact we know* was designed to lead to potentially the end of the world which they use in The Dark One's name to attempt to blackmail the gods.

If the Order's attacks on the Ogres are justified (because they have been told that the Ogres are bad) then the Guards attacks on the Goblins are also presumedly justified (and likely moreso - as they have been told the Goblins threaten the planet) - and Redcloak's justification in following The Plan may be wrong.
However if the Order's attacks on the Ogres are not justified and merely overlooked by the forces of Law and Good as they do not care for the XP races - well that shows that Redcloak is fairly justified in his support of The Plan.

The reason I raised the topic was that I had effectively been arguing that Redcloak was not justified as we see no justification for The Plan baring the responce to The Plan (i.e The Plan itself - and maybe The Dark One - is the bane of the goblin people).
The Ogres were the best counterpoint I could think to support that The Plan was justified - which I think there is a decent case for.

It seems most people are effectively siding with the Order in there analysis - which is where I also think I naturally sit, but I find it helpful to examine ones own position at times.

*to the extent we know anything about it.

[Psyren]

I could have rephrased the question as 'hey are they actually guilty?' the responce 'hey you haven't proved they aren't' is not a good responce.

It is when you combine it with "we have multiple reasons to believe they are actually guilty." So for the third time, the burden is back on you.


Except we have several piece of evidence to suggest they are guilty, contrasted with no evidence that they were not.

The overall point Psyren seems to be making in his last post is "Given what occurred in the scene itself, we have little reason to doubt that what we heard was true" which is a notion I agree with. The issue is we reject your premise that you lay out in your original post. Whether or not they were made as an XP race is not as relevant as whether or not they are a threat to locals. For instance in the the battle of Azure City, the Hobgoblins were not innocent victims because it was abundantly clear that they were an active threat to Azure City.

Adventurers killing monsters that are an active threat to the populace is not some evil act that the Gods ignore.

Correct.

[Jasdoif]

The recent discussion on the plight or lack thereof of the goblins in the 1205 discussion got me thinking about how different groups have been interacted with which brought me to the ogres.

On 211 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html) we are introduced to an Ogre tribe by way of an old woman telling us that they are 'lootin' our land attackin' travelers' she follows this up by calling them a 'Buncha savages', she then cuts to the heart of her problem and explains that they kidnapped her husband.

The Order and Miko accept this at face value and begin the quest to deal with the ogres.

When they locate the ogres in 214 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0214.html) they ogres are doing nothing obviously evil (or have done anything obviously evil recently) - the Order begins to form a plan to slaughter them while they sleep with no negotiation or discussion at all but Miko has a different plan - she declares herself the enemy of the Ogres and asks them to ready for battle.
The ogres informed that they are to be killed prepare for battle as requested 215 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html) but still allow the paladin to strike the first blow.

Members of the Order sneak past the ogres to rescue the missing husband 218 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0218.html), who other then being tied up seems to not be suffering at all.

With the battle joined the Order kills the remaining ogres 219 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0219.html) and return to the farm 222 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0222.html) where we learn that the farmer was not hurt (panel 3) and had gotten himself captured deliberately so he could have some time alone (panel 7).

Essentially the ogres seemingly did nothing deserving extermination - this was never raised again (Roy's interview for the mountain springs to mind).

This can also be contrasted with dealing with human bandits 167 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0167.html) where it seems the order was much more inclined for non-lethal force - despite the humans being actively engaged in poor behaviour.

So to the topic title - should we merely accept that the ogres had it coming and that this is not a stain on the Order (and Miko) or were the ogres victims of PC aggression for no better reason than they were not members of a standard PC race and not regarded as noteworthy by the powers of law or good - potentially justifing:

Redcloaks claim that goblins (and presumedly others) were created to be nothing but XP by the Gods.
Well, like you say: the ogres did accept Miko's offer of a battle. We see no questioning of why Miko wants to vanquish them, nor attempting to dissuade her, nor discarding her words as unworthy of their attention. One can argue about the aggressive nature of this sort of conflict resolution, but there's certainly self-determination on the part of the ogres involved. Since they chose to engage in deliberately lethal activity, and died as a result of such deliberately lethal activity...to what extent are they really victims, innocent or otherwise?

[dancrilis]

It is when you combine it with "we have multiple reasons to believe they are actually guilty." So for the third time, the burden is back on you.

I am not sure your point here - none of the reasons seem to be a clear cut 'kill the criminal'.

Imagine the following (similiar situation different actors).
Villager: Help an evil witch cursed my fields and stole my daughter.
Witchhunter hunts down and kills witch without further investigation.
Then the witchhunter finds a young girl tied up in the witches hut.

Was the witchhunter justified in killing them, does finding the girl make them retroactively justified - they likely feel they are a good judge of character and they felt the villager had no reason to lie to them, and they found the girl (even if she said she got captured delibrately), their god (who may or may not care about witches) has not stripped them of spells and doesn't question them on it later.

There is a solid arguement that the witch is guilty and deserved to die - the located child acting as the best arguement for that.
I just don't think that arguement is ironclad (and certaintly not before the child was found) - and it is possible that the witchhunter could be out of line if we knew more of the story.

I am not saying that you are wrong for standing with the witchhunter (or the Order) - it is where I would normally stand I think, but as listed in the above post questioning things to see if you are viewing them fairly is not wrong.

So in brief - we likely agree that 'Order (and Miko) were right', but where I am thinking 'likely - and they should have done more investigation first' you seem very certain that those Ogres deserved to die no more questions needed.


Well, like you say: the ogres did accept Miko's offer of a battle. We see no questioning of why Miko wants to vanquish them, nor attempting to dissuade her, nor discarding her words as unworthy of their attention. One can argue about the aggressive nature of this sort of conflict resolution, but there's certainly self-determination on the part of the ogres involved. Since they chose to engage in deliberately lethal activity, and died as a result of such deliberately lethal activity...to what extent are they really victims, innocent or otherwise?
This is a fair point (and we don't know if any discussion occured when the ogres were readying themselves) - but I think that if someone comes to you and announces their intention to do you harm and you choose to engage (Ogres may have poor impulse control or lack diplomacy to consider alternatives) and they kill you it is still likely that you were a victim (particularly if all this occurs in what might be your garden where they woke you from sleeping).

[Jasdoif]

(and we don't know if any discussion occured when the ogres were readying themselves)Much like if Roy said off-panel during the trip "Ideally we'll rescue the old man without having to kill anyone, but we can't take for granted that we can subdue them; so we'll plan for attack just in case we have to attack" and Miko unilaterally eliminating the opportunity; thus the ogres not coming up during Roy's interview with the deva because it came up during Miko's.

"What if something that changes the entire thing happened off-screen" has its uses for envisioning alternate scenarios for compare-and-contrast, but it doesn't go very far on its own.

[Dion]

Why are we discussing the Ogres collectively, as if they possessed a unitary hive mind?

Only the leader agreed to fight Miko. Why would it be ok to kill all of the other ogres that didn’t agree to fight Miko?

[dancrilis]

Much like if Roy said off-panel during the trip "Ideally we'll rescue the old man without having to kill anyone, but we can't take for granted that we can subdue them; so we'll plan for attack just in case we have to attack" and Miko unilaterally eliminating the opportunity; thus the ogres not coming up during Roy's interview with the deva because it came up during Miko's.

"What if something that changes the entire thing happened off-screen" has its uses for envisioning alternate scenarios for compare-and-contrast, but it doesn't go very far on its own.

Exactly - there may be moral outs for the people involved but we have no reason to assume that there are.

[Psyren]

...
Witchhunter hunts down and kills witch without further investigation.
...

This is an assumption you're making and why we're unlikely to agree on this topic. Just because no further evidence was shown on panel does not mean there isn't any. Given what we know of Roy, Haley, the scenario itself, and yes, the entire judgment system presided over by the Astral Deva, the woman was shown to not be lying - period.


Exactly - there may be moral outs for the people involved but we have no reason to assume that there are.

We have every reason to assume that there are.

EDIT: Wait, I'm pretty sure this is just another not-so-thinly veiled "were the Order morally justified" thread.

[Keltest]

EDIT: Wait, I'm pretty sure this is just another not-so-thinly veiled "were the Order morally justified" thread.

Good catch. I retract my involvement. Apologies to anybody who was actually going to reply to me.

[Worldsong]

Good catch. I retract my involvement. Apologies to anybody who was actually going to reply to me.

You can't stop me, I have the power of the internet!

[dancrilis]

This is an assumption you're making and why we're unlikely to agree on this topic. Just because no further evidence was shown on panel does not mean there isn't any. Given what we know of Roy, Haley, the scenario itself, and yes, the entire judgment system presided over by the Astral Deva, the woman was shown to not be lying - period.
...

also I didn't say her account was false
Seperately - her account was not shown to be 'not lying' anymore then it was shown to be 'her lying' - but on the balance I would lean towards 'not lying', it doesn't however change anything.


We have every reason to assume that there are.

You are free to believe that - if you feel that 'I know this person and he wouldn't do bad things' is all you need to give them a pass that is a fine stance that many people have and might normally be correct - I just don't think it is always correct.



EDIT: Wait, I'm pretty sure this is just another not-so-thinly veiled "were the Order morally justified" thread.
It isn't, but as mentioned you do not seem to understand the point of the topic (or perhaps as I mentioned I might be missing your points).

[Psyren]

You are free to believe that

Thanks, I do.


It isn't, but as mentioned you do not seem to understand the point of the topic (or perhaps as I mentioned I might be missing your points).

What is the point of your topic? That comics need to show every detail to support a character's statements? Because, good luck with that.

[dancrilis]

What is the point of your topic?

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.

[Keltest]

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.

They still have free will, and that edge cuts both ways. Assuming the story youre talking about is Start of Darkness, its important to remember that, as the name suggests, villains with tragic backstories are still villains. If its wrong to kill them out of hand simply for being "monsters" then theyre also fully accountable for what they do with themselves.

[Jasdoif]

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.So basically, you're questioning whether the bureaucratic deva is as biased as her "employer" in this regard; thus her accounting can't be taken at face value, since if she were biased then her account would be expected to be biased as well?

[dancrilis]

So basically, you're questioning whether the bureaucratic deva is as biased as her "employer" in this regard; thus her accounting can't be taken at face value, since if she were biased then her account would be expected to be biased as well?

Depending on the use of the word 'biased' yes (I suppose).

I am not accusing her of not being a being of Law and Good - and she has a book to follow which I suspect she is following faithfully - but might that book have a partial omission for killing outclassed ogre bandits that it does not have for killing outclassed human bandits (for instance), and might this result in adventurers being more merciful to humans then ogres, after all even those who are not faithful still grew up in a society where that book might be something of a guide to correct behaviour.


They still have free will, and that edge cuts both ways. Assuming the story youre talking about is Start of Darkness, its important to remember that, as the name suggests, villains with tragic backstories are still villains. If its wrong to kill them out of hand simply for being "monsters" then theyre also fully accountable for what they do with themselves.

Which leads us to the opening post as it was laid out.

[Keltest]

Which leads us to the opening post as it was laid out.

You phrase it like a question, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. If the ogres are responsible for their actions, theyre responsible for their actions. Like... i dont understand why you need anything more than that. Its possible for them to have been victimized in the abstract while still meeting a just fate in the specific circumstances.

[Dion]

What about that one Ogre who always hung back at every fight and dreamed of running away to be a dentist?

Why was it acceptable to kill that one innocent ogre when he didn’t do any of the evil things all the other ogres did?

[KorvinStarmast]

What about that one Ogre who always hung back at every fight and dreamed of running away to be a dentist?

Why was it acceptable to kill that one innocent ogre when he didn’t do any of the evil things all the other ogres did? Have you reead "How the Paladin Got His Scar" yet?

[Dion]

Have you reead "How the Paladin Got His Scar" yet?

No. Does it deal with the problem of “what happens if there is a trolley with five ogres on their way to work as dentists and it’s heading toward a cardboard box full of fuzzy kittens. Are you allowed to throw a switch and send the trolley off a cliff?”

[Aidan]

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.

The point made about how XP-races were mistreated, was placing them on the edge of society, so they would be forced to raid settlements by other races. This fact is shown in the ogre scene.

The issue is, even though the ogres were placed on the planet at a disadvantage, they still controlled their actions, actions which included pillaging, raiding, and kidnapping.

Had the ogres only been picking flowers, and then the order came in, I would have a problem with that. I also have an issue with the thought that the Gods don't punish humans for murdering members of an XP-race who have not committed a crime themselves.

As the Giant said regarding the beginning of SOD



Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

If killing innocent members of an XP-race can result in the loss of paladin-powers, I'm sure it would also come up when trying to gain admittance to the afterlife. Considering Roy had no issues making it past the pearly gates, and Miko did not fall (well, didn't fall from this), I really don't see how the ogres could be just innocent victims.

In short, were the ogres put at a disadvantage from creation? yes
Does that excuse legitimate wrongdoing? no

[dancrilis]

You phrase it like a question, but it seems pretty clear cut to me.
Which is fair enough, it has been 15 years since the side quest (nearly) and it was pretty clear cut to everyone (myself included as detailed in previous posts).


If the ogres are responsible for their actions, theyre responsible for their actions. Like... i dont understand why you need anything more than that. Its possible for them to have been victimized in the abstract while still meeting a just fate in the specific circumstances.

This is why I laid it out the way I did - we are told that the Ogres have done wrong but we are never shown that they have been engaged in wrong, the one act that they have done - kidnapping - is undermined by the kidnappee (no damage, and delibrately got it done).

There is maybe(probably?) nothing more to this series of events then showing that Haley is a good person willing to help others but sick of Roy's (and based on the surrounding strips Miko's) 'everything is all about me mentality' and revealing Vaarsuvius's marriage.

But The Giant has been known to hold things in reserve for a while.

[Psyren]

This is why I laid it out the way I did - we are told that the Ogres have done wrong but we are never shown that they have been engaged in wrong, the one act that they have done - kidnapping - is undermined by the kidnappee (no damage, and delibrately got it done).

Dan, you keep harping on the fact that "the wrong wasn't shown" when you're talking about strips drawn at a time when we were lucky if they had a background at all. That is not the correct way to be thinking about that scene.

If the Giant drew that strip today, we would likely have gotten informative background details like the ones present here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html). Since it wasn't, we only have the word of the NPC, who we have no reason to disbelieve and every reason to conclude is telling the truth.

[Jasdoif]

This is why I laid it out the way I did - we are told that the Ogres have done wrong but we are never shown that they have been engaged in wrong, the one act that they have done - kidnapping - is undermined by the kidnappee (no damage, and delibrately got it done).Unless you're positing that the dirt farmer coerced the ogres into kidnapping, or that "kidnapping" necessarily requires visible physical harm, I don't see why you'd think this was undermining.

[dancrilis]

Unless you're positing that the dirt farmer coerced the ogres into kidnapping, or that "kidnapping" necessarily requires visible physical harm, I don't see why you'd think this was undermining.

I actually answered this before:

You, I, The Order and Miko have no knowledge of what they wanted with the commoner - it is possible that they were looting his seemingly worthless dirt and he said 'hey can you take me with you for a day' and an Ogre said 'ok' tied him up put him in a cave and forgot about him.

[Tvtyrant]

I actually answered this before:

Except we have direct witness testimony that this is not true, and no evidence later that this was true. Inventing a possible hypothetical and then demanding that it be proven false is not how anything works.

If I said "what if they were possessed by a Tsochari" about the OotS and then demanded you prove that wrong or they are off any moral hook involved no one would take that claim seriously.

[dancrilis]

Except we have direct witness testimony that this is not true, and no evidence later that this was true.

Can you link me to the panel with the someone directly witnessing the act?

Edit: or for that matter claiming to directly witness the act.

[Tvtyrant]

Can you link me to the panel with the someone directly witnessing the act?

Old lady literally said "they kidnapped my husband" and then husband was kidnapped. It is in fact not anyone's burden to prove that kidnappers are innocent, the kidnapped person is in fact the proof of guilt.

Also I would like your direct evidence that all characters are not possessed by evil alien worm monsters before we discuss any further burden of criminality, as that is the level of burden of proof you have established.

[BaronOfHell]

When Miko announced her presence and engaged the ogres in a fight, I don't know for sure if the fight was supposed to be lethal, but based on the weaponry I would assume so. If the Order ever intended to subdue the ogres in stead of using lethal force, this option would now have become impractical.

It could however also have been interesting if say the order had attacked from the shadows without the ogres ever getting much response off and it finally turns out there is no prisoner. Say, it is the wrong group of ogres, or something similar along those lines as an example if we want this to be about the Order, and not about some random woman lying.

What I enjoyed the most about this side plot was actually the Half-Ogre with a spiked chain. I either considered or actually made a thread where I asked if this was a possible tactic to pull off, as a usable method to defeat other opponents in melee.

[Lord Torath]

Put another way - THOSE giants kidnapped a commoner to devour it simply because they were evil and strong enough to do so. Just like these thri-kreen are violent and habitual slavers. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0683.html) Not every fight with sapient creatures needs to start with the good guys going "please lay down your arms and turn yourselves in to the nearest authority."Nah, those aren't Thri-Kreen, those are ant-men. Perhaps Apsis? Thri-kreen don't have hives, or harems. To see a thri-kreen, check my avatar. :smallwink:

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of what has been done to the Thri-Kreen as a race since Thri-Kreen of Athas (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1060738.Thri_Kreen_of_Athas) (and I absolutely LOVE that there is a GoodReads page for this!) in 1995. I do recall that somewhere along the line they lost their extended abdomens.

[Psyren]

Nah, those aren't Thri-Kreen, those are ant-men. Perhaps Apsis? Thri-kreen don't have hives, or harems. To see a thri-kreen, check my avatar. :smallwink:

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of what has been done to the Thri-Kreen as a race since Thri-Kreen of Athas (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1060738.Thri_Kreen_of_Athas) (and I absolutely LOVE that there is a GoodReads page for this!) in 1995. I do recall that somewhere along the line they lost their extended abdomens.

Point, they could be Formians, I wasn't really invested enough to go back to those discussion threads.

[dancrilis]

It is in fact not anyone's burden to prove that kidnappers are innocent, the kidnapped person is in fact the proof of guilt.

I covered that earlier also (in an analogy I will admit).

Was the witchhunter justified in killing them, does finding the girl make them retroactively justified - they likely feel they are a good judge of character and they felt the villager had no reason to lie to them, and they found the girl (even if she said she got captured delibrately), their god (who may or may not care about witches) has not stripped them of spells and doesn't question them on it later.


Old lady literally said "they kidnapped my husband" and then husband was kidnapped.
Largely irrevalant but spoiler if you want an example of why.
Imagine for a second that there is a ogre out the Dirt Farmers back garden - the wife if hagging the husband about doing something about it and fed up he says he will go talk to it, he catches it as it is leaving and he asks if it can take him with it as he wants to be away from his wife for a while - the ogre says 'ok' picks him up and starts to carry him off - the wife (who had been freeting inside not thinking her husband would even approach the ogre) looks out the window and sees him being carried off and runs for help - finding adventurers.

This story has both the husband and wife being truthful.

It also has nothing to do with what the Order know when they acted and nothing to do with why the Order acted a certain way.

[Doug Lampert]

What I enjoyed the most about this side plot was actually the Half-Ogre with a spiked chain. I either considered or actually made a thread where I asked if this was a possible tactic to pull off, as a usable method to defeat other opponents in melee.

Sort of. The half ogre with a spiked chain has 15' reach, and a bonus to trip attacks for the weapon.

With combat reflexes you can take multiple opportunity attacks.

So the target moves to 15' from you, continue forward to 10' from you and that provokes an AoO, which you use to trip. Improved trip gives you another attack. When he stands from prone (at the cost of a move action, since he already moved this is his only action for the turn) you get another attack of opportunity, and since he's used his move and his standard action, he's now stuck where he is.

You then attack, tripping, getting another extra attack from improved trip, and step back to 15' to wait for your target to stand up, which provokes and uses his move, he then charges (since he can't attack from 15'), at 10' you get an attack of opportunity, and trip (ending the charge) and getting an extra attack from improved trip. Then you attack him with your action, and step back 5'.

It's unbeatable assuming (a) that you never miss an trip when the target moves, (b) that your opponent has no reach, allies, spells, or other special powers, and (c) that you don't accidentally fall off a cliff while backing up....

There are a bunch of feats that help the build. You need exotic weapon proficiency "spiked chain", Improved trip, and combat reflexes, there are other feats that allow additional attacks of opportunity if you miss one (hold the line for a second attack when he charges from 10' to 5' to try to get an attack if you miss on the move from 15' to 10'.

Edited to add: The reason I said "sort of" at the top is that the build as presented by Rich doesn't quite work. He used spring attack to disengage without tripping, and got two attacks provoked by movement (giving him 3 attacks to Roy's 1 and not being dependent on successfully tripping at least once per round). But IIRC there's a specific rule that movement out of a threatened square only provokes one opportunity attack per foe per turn, so he'd actually be at only 2 attacks to Roy's 1.

[Tvtyrant]

I covered that earlier also (in an analogy I will admit).



Largely irrevalant but spoiler if you want an example of why.
Imagine for a second that there is a ogre out the Dirt Farmers back garden - the wife if hagging the husband about doing something about it and fed up he says he will go talk to it, he catches it as it is leaving and he asks if it can take him with it as he wants to be away from his wife for a while - the ogre says 'ok' picks him up and starts to carry him off - the wife (who had been freeting inside not thinking her husband would even approach the ogre) looks out the window and sees him being carried off and runs for help - finding adventurers.

This story has both the husband and wife being truthful.

It also has nothing to do with what the Order know when they acted and nothing to do with why the Order acted a certain way.

Which shifts the burden of guilt to the Ogres. If you commit an aggressive action you have to prove mitigating circumstances. In this case you are making up a scenario out of whole cloth that neither the Ogres nor the husband created to try and make the actions seedier then they were. If I kill someone and claim I was possessed while I did it, I have to prove I was possessed. In this case you are literally saying "you should be required to prove the guilt of a party that isn't claiming to be innocent when all evidence is against them, they did not claim to be innocent, and they are then found to have committed that exact crime."

At the point where you can invent mitigating scenarios and demand they be proven wrong, all acts are evil as there are infinite scenarios.

[Psyren]

I covered that earlier also (in an analogy I will admit).



Largely irrevalant but spoiler if you want an example of why.
Imagine for a second that there is a ogre out the Dirt Farmers back garden - the wife if hagging the husband about doing something about it and fed up he says he will go talk to it, he catches it as it is leaving and he asks if it can take him with it as he wants to be away from his wife for a while - the ogre says 'ok' picks him up and starts to carry him off - the wife (who had been freeting inside not thinking her husband would even approach the ogre) looks out the window and sees him being carried off and runs for help - finding adventurers.

This story has both the husband and wife being truthful.

It also has nothing to do with what the Order know when they acted and nothing to do with why the Order acted a certain way.

If kidnapping was their only crime this would be relevant. It wasn't. You only believe it was because the Giant didn't take time out of the story to draw everything else the woman said to the Order on the page.

[Dion]

What about he poor hypothetical dentist ogre who wasn’t evil and was hiding in the water when the OotS attacked?

Were not sure what happened to him, but it seems he probably drown!

Why was it ok for Elan to attack that ogre?

[Jasdoif]

I actually answered this before:
You, I, The Order and Miko have no knowledge of what they wanted with the commoner - it is possible that they were looting his seemingly worthless dirt and he said 'hey can you take me with you for a day' and an Ogre said 'ok' tied him up put him in a cave and forgot about him.I suppose you did say getting tied up resulted from an ogre's decision, like they were kidnapping him and he just happened to be particularly cooperative about it....Or are you positing that the dirt farmer asked the ogres to tie him up to stage a kidnapping so adventurers would kill the ogres, thus making them innocent victims of his plot?

[BaronOfHell]

@Doug Lambert

Thank you! I appreciate your explanation a lot.