Poll: V or I?

[Dr.Zero]

In another thread, I saw a reference to V and I.
It was debated a couple of times already, but more than debating it again, I want to have a poll.

Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?

A brief explanation can be given, but it is not needed.

I start casting my vote: V.
Why? well, while I. had surely some reasons to hold a grudge over V's attitude during the decades, during that specific crisis he was a stubborn idiot who didn't accept not even the idea V could have some good reasons (and V surely had some, that time) to keep the splicing running. V's plan didn't work completely (even if he managed to solve the Azurite problem and to free the Paladin), but it had a chance to work.

Results:
01: DrZero: V., #1
02: KovinStarmast: V., maybe, in doubt I wait for counting it, #5[0x01]
03: hropila: I., #11
04: The Pilgrimi: I., I suppose, #13
05: Shadowknight12: I. #14
06: Emberlily; I., #15
07: Precure: V., #22
08: Crusher: I., #30
09: burpbot: I., #43
10: Fergie0044: I., #51
11; Kish; I., #58

V.: 2 [0x01:maybe 3]
I. : 8

On a side note: bolding the vote might be of help.

[Cicciograna]

For some reason, I read those as Roman numerals, and for the love of the Twelve Gods I couldn't understand what the five and the one were.

[dancrilis]

Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?


During the crisis there was no conflict between the two of them - there was only a conflict once the crisis had been resolved.

[enq]

To hopefully save someone else from having to decipher things:

ABD = Ancient Black Dragon
V = Vaarsuvius (ok, you hopefully knew that one)
I = Inkyrius

[KorvinStarmast]

V, since V is the PC and V needed to protect the family.

But it did lead to a divorce (during (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0678.html) BRitF (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0679.html)), so maybe 'who is right' isn't quite as important as 'what is right' in a case like this.

[woweedd]

I don't think it really matters much in that instance. V keeping the power after saving them wasn't the issue at play. Remember, Inky was already backing out before V gave any answer, because their hesitation confirmed something that had, clearly, been a source of tension in their relationship for a while: That V, frankly, cared more about arcane power then about their marriage.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think it really matters much in that instance. V keeping the power after saving them wasn't the issue at play. Remember, Inky was already backing out before V gave any answer, because their hesitation confirmed something that had, clearly, been a source of tension in their relationship for a while: That V, frankly, cared more about arcane power then about their marriage.
The panel in #679 being evidence in support of your last sentence (I finally found that and added the link in my answer).

[Fyraltari]

The whole point of the scene is that Vaarsuvius was lying to themself about the resons why they took the deal in the first place.
V claimed they only took the deal to save their family but the fact that they didn't end it after said family was safe is proff enough that it wasn't true.
The Archfiends offered V another way out of their predicament (yes it wouldn't have worked but V thought it would have and that's what mattered) and V refused it because it involved forsaking their pride. V had spent their entire marriage ore concerned about their own search for power than their spouse and children's well-being. Even during the battle, they were more concerned with taking revenge on the black dragon for humiliating them in their mage-duel (up to bringing them back from the dead and comitting genocide to flex their new magic-muscles) than the effects on their infant children.


Quite frankly, I'm surprised this is in question in the first place.

[Darth Paul]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this is in question in the first place.

If there's one thing we've proven here, it's that everything is in question. (Suddenly I'm tempted to start a thread questioning whether Roy is really the leader of the OOtS, but I just know such a thread already exists somewhere....)

[Metastachydium]

Tinfant children

(We have seen both kids speak, so they cannot technically be infants.)


If there's one thing we've proven here, it's that everything is in question. (Suddenly I'm tempted to start a thread questioning whether Roy is really the leader of the OOtS, but I just know such a thread already exists somewhere....)

(I'm pretty sure I've argued somewhere that Tarquin was right and Elan is the true leader of the Order: he blew up Dorukan's Gate on purpose and the Order is pursuing his vague and ominous agenda ever since.)

[hroþila]

Inkyrius was absolutely right.

Even before V refused to drop the splice, what Inkyrius had seen was V prioritizing sadistic revenge over the immediate well-being of their children. They did so while looking like a monster. Inkyrius reacted in a very appropriate way, and in my opinion they actually displayed remarkable even-handedness and reasonableness by listening to V at all.

[Riftwolf]

For some reason, I read those as Roman numerals, and for the love of the Twelve Gods I couldn't understand what the five and the one were.

That's how I read it too. V or I in what context? V potatoes with a Sunday roast is too many, but I is too few. If you got a tin of Roses with only I penny toffees, you'd be livid. or 54-1-500, if you prefer.

[The Pilgrim]

As already pointed out, the critical point is V refusing to giving up the soul splice after saving her family.

Up to that point, V could - and managed to - excuse her actions as a sacrifice for saving her loved ones. And Inkyrius let her get away with that excuse, as flimsy as it sounded.

After V refused to stop the soul splice, though, Inkyrius came to the logical conclussion that V was a power-hungry wizard who would stop at nothing on her mad pursue for absolute arcane power, including selling her soul or exposing her family to danger.

Therefore, suing for divorce in order to protect his kids from an evil influence and a certain danger to their integrity was the right thing to do, as far as Inkyrius knows.

If V had explained him the whole story*, and Inkyrius had got the whole picture, well, then maybe he would have come to a different conclussion. But, alas, V did not.

...

* And don't tell me she had not the time for it. All she needed to do was sending him to the nearest comic-book store (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0580.html), and he could read all the stuff himself (at least, all the stuff published at that point).

[Shadowknight12]

Inkyrius was completely correct when they said (paraphrased) "if this was truly for the sake of us, then end this before you cast another cantrip."

[Emberlily]

Inkyrius was absolutely right.

Even before V refused to drop the splice, what Inkyrius had seen was V prioritizing sadistic revenge over the immediate well-being of their children. They did so while looking like a monster. Inkyrius reacted in a very appropriate way, and in my opinion they actually displayed remarkable even-handedness and reasonableness by listening to V at all.

100% agreed. And V being the one in the wrong is what makes the event and its fallout so much more interesting and emotional than the alternative.

If you do see Inkyrius as the one in the wrong, does the scene where we see V looking mournfully at a picture of them as the punchline to Eugene's setup about the merits of seeking magic vs family fall flat for you?

[arimareiji]

I vote for C, communication... something V has been sorely lacking in, which led I to decide C was no longer relevant. With good reasons, a pretty big one being "Dismissing the wounds of I and their children's broken legs as being unimportant, compared to zombifying a black dragon just to make it watch a quarter of its kin on the planet be killed".


That's how I read it too. V or I in what context? V potatoes with a Sunday roast is too many, but I is too few. If you got a tin of Roses with only I penny toffees, you'd be livid. or 54-1-500, if you prefer.

Hey, don't make me bring out the Latin nerdery. (^_~)

Flavius walks into a bar after a hard day. "Bartender, give me a martinus."
Bartender: "Don't you mean 'martini'?"
Flavius: "You're right, make it a double."

[Cicciograna]

But it did lead to a divorce (during (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0678.html) BRitF (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0679.html)), so maybe 'who is right' isn't quite as important as 'what is right' in a case like this.

By the way, speaking of these strips, I never really understood the reason behind all the chicanery, on the part of the wizard with the turban, to give Vaarsuvius the summons. Why provoking them like he did?

[Fyraltari]

(We have seen both kids speak, so they cannot technically be infants.)
Right. How would you describe them then?

I was completely correct
Can we come up with another nickname for Inkyrius? That sentence took me an embarassingly long time to parse.


Flavius walks into a bar after a hard day. "Bartender, give me a martinus."
Bartender: "Don't you mean 'martini'?"
Flavius: "You're right, make it a double."
The next day Flavius walks into the bar, holds two fingers up and yells "Bartender, five beers!"

By the way, speaking of these strips, I never really understood the reason behind all the chicanery, on the part of the wizard with the turban, to give Vaarsuvius the summons. Why provoking them like he did?
I think he wanted to trick Vaarsuvius into identifying themselves aloud (so he can record them doing so and so, in fine V can't deny having had the papers delivered to them). I'm not 100% sure why he felt the need to trick them rather than going "Hello, I am looking for an elf wizard called Vaarsuvius." If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Inkyrius thought V would be much less willing to agree to the divorce than they actually were and told the man so.

[KorvinStarmast]

By the way, speaking of these strips, I never really understood the reason behind all the chicanery, on the part of the wizard with the turban, to give Vaarsuvius the summons. Why provoking them like he did? So that Vaarsuius self identifies (#678). The delivery of a summons IRL is kind of difficult if the person you are looking for isn't easy to find or is trying to avoid the summons, and so on. (In the US anyway, where Rich is from).

(I was once subjected to an improper summons being served to my address (old one) and not to me ...)

I have seen in a few movies and detective shows someone delivering flowers who is actually trying to serve a summons to someone ...

[Shadowknight12]

Can we come up with another nickname for Inkyrius? That sentence took me an embarassingly long time to parse.

I have edited the post with the full name, for clarity's sake.

[Mike Havran]

I think he wanted to trick Vaarsuvius into identifying themselves aloud (so he can record them doing so and so, in fine V can't deny having had the papers delivered to them). I'm not 100% sure why he felt the need to trick them rather than going "Hello, I am looking for an elf wizard called Vaarsuvius." If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Inkyrius thought V would be much less willing to agree to the divorce than they actually were and told the man so.That does not explain why the messenger just didn't ask something like ''Are you Vaarsuvius? I bring a message for Vaarsuvius from Inkyrius.'' And in case Inkyrius already gave the statement for divorce that his mate is a power-hungry killer, the wizard's behavior was next to suicidal.

As for the OP, I think both were right. Their relationship was already in the toilet (Inky wasn't sure (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0629.html) about V's whereabouts? Really? V didn't even bother to chat with her family via Sending like Durkon did with his mom?) and the crisis only cleared the table.

[Precure]

V
I sounds like an author tract.

[arimareiji]

That does not explain why the messenger just didn't ask something like ''Are you Vaarsuvius? I bring a message for Vaarsuvius from Inkyrius.'' And in case Inkyrius already gave the statement for divorce that his mate is a power-hungry killer, the wizard's behavior was next to suicidal.

As for the OP, I think both were right. Their relationship was already in the toilet (Inky wasn't sure (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0629.html) about V's whereabouts? Really? V didn't even bother to chat with her family via Sending like Durkon did with his mom?) and the crisis only cleared the table.
I'd think it's disadvantageous to add "from Inkyrius"... but you're absolutely right about the process server's actual stratagem being semi-suicidal as it is (and practically suicidal with a power-hungry killer). That's bugged me for a while.

I agree their relationship was more-or-less in the toilet (or at least on the inner edge of the seat, leaning over to peer in) -- and I severely doubt V had been keeping close touch -- but I don't think periodic Sendings are necessarily excluded by what Kyrie tells the kids. They ask when V is coming home, and even V mid-Sending might have given a similar answer (given that V can't teleport).


V
I sounds like an author tract.
Yes, but there are other possibilities. *villain cackle*

Everyone knows the paladins set out to destroy knowledge about the Gates... but decades ago, the Sapphire Guard also had a secret mission to track down and burn all copies of a book written by their commander in his youth.

It imagined his previous life as a student in a Japanese girls' school, and was titled Shojo, I (https://www.cbr.com/best-shoujo-ai-anime-myanimelist/).

[BaronOfHell]

Isn't V an allusion to the fast lane careering parent who is never home? I don't necessarily think anyone is in the right, but V's actions are definitely in the wrong, and not just because they hindered more than they helped.
Despite this I feel I do understand the reason behind V's actions, and I wonder if most of us wouldn't have done the same if we thought we had an auto-victory button that only needed to be pushed for the happily ever after ending to facilitate? After all what kind of faustian bargain would it be if the reader wasn't compelled by it as well?

[Schroeswald]

What Inky does is definitely correct, from everything they know and have seen V does not care much for their family and just wants arcane power. Honestly, I do think that besides familicide there is a pretty decent argument that (if we ignore the fact that V’s motivations are clearly power) most of what V did during the soul splice was the right choice and necessary to save the world, but what V did wasn’t to save the world. V wanted to become the most powerful arcane master of all time, and prove it by destroying this dragon, doing what no one else could and reuniting the Order, and finding the biggest arcane master they know of and defeat them. The prophecy says that V said the right four words, at the right time, for all the wrong reasons, because the soul splice probably did need to be accepted, the ABD needed defeated (though not by familicide, just need to hammer in that any of the defenses I give of V are not of casting that spell), the order needed reunited, and O-Chul needed to be sent back to the azurites. However Vaarsuvius wasn’t actually thinking about any of that, V was thinking about proving how cool and powerful V is, and in the process committing genocide and inadvertently putting the world at even more risk.

[Scottzg]

I vote for C, communication... something V has been sorely lacking in, which led I to decide C was no longer relevant.


That was my read too. It doesn't matter who was right, the issue is that communication between the two had failed. Yeah, V sucks at communicating, but a good/compatible partner recognize and step up. If V was a person in our world people would figure her out pretty quick and adapt.

When they separated in-comic i just thought 'yeah good, you both suck.'

[Ruck]

Right. How would you describe them then?

Commentary from Don't Split the Party describes them as "kindergarten-aged" (so 5 or 6 in human years). Very young children, but not infants. Kudzu is an infant, for comparison.

[Personification]

Flavius walks into a bar after a hard day. "Bartender, give me a martinus."
Bartender: "Don't you mean 'martini'?"
Flavius: "You're right, make it a double."

That was awful to the point of being painful.
...
...
...
Bravo.

As to the question, Inkyrius is definitely in the right based on what they know, but Vaarsuvius is almost not in the wrong. As others have pointed out, V's choice to reunite the party and potentially kill Xykon was a morally and logically defensible one, but it is undercut by the familicide, which was neither moral nor logical and certainly added to I's stress. On top of that, in a longer term sense V is responsible for most of the problems in their relationship which are directly tied to the issue of the scene, so I've gotta say that Inkyrius is definitely in the right.

Also, where do we learn that the head plan wouldn't have worked?

[Robots]

I thought the entire point of the devil deal was that V was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. And even so, "the right thing" was the most terrible and extreme thing V could have done. They accept the deal not to save their family, but rather to gain more power. Hell, the strip they accept the deal is entitled "The Wrong Reasons"!

Solutions that don't involve them going all Darth Vaarsuvius are offered. They could have gotten Aarindarius to do it.

The entire point was that V prioritized power over their family. As Blackwing explains, V would often spend days away from home and then would blow off Inkyrius' desires to spend time with them when they actually were home. That's not the exact reason for their divorce, but it was a factor into it.

I don't know why there are arguments like "Was Inkyrius actually the one in the wrong for being horrified/angry at their spouse for neglecting them and eventually selling their soul to fiends not to save their family, but for arcane power?" when the answer to their question is spelled out clearly in the comic.

[Crusher]

Put me on team "I".

[InvisibleBison]

I thought the entire point of the devil deal was that V was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. And even so, "the right thing" was the most terrible and extreme thing V could have done. They accept the deal not to save their family, but rather to gain more power. Hell, the strip they accept the deal is entitled "The Wrong Reasons"!

I don't think this is correct. If V only accepted the deal to gain more power and not to save their family, why did they then immediately go save their family? It seems to me that V had two goals (save their family and gain power), and chose the deal rather than the alternative method the IFCC proposed because the deal allowed them to accomplish both of their goals while the alternative method only allowed them to accomplish one of their goals.

[Emberlily]

If we talk about what goal prioritization we see V do in the relevant comics, I think it's important to remember (as someone pointed out earlier) that V prioritised reanimating the dragon, enacting horrifying revenge, and then rubbing it in the dragon's face ahead of comforting their injured and terrified family. The argument gets made that V was on the clock and every moment counted, but V spent minutes on this act of vengeance instead of spending minutes helping their loved ones through trauma that V knows V's actions brought on them. V was on their way to immediately leave as soon as the dragon was disintegrated! That's the priorities we see, and that Inkyrius sees.

As for why V went first to stop the dragon and save their family, that's because that was by far the most time sensitive situation.

[KorvinStarmast]

That does not explain why the messenger just didn't ask something like ''Are you Vaarsuvius? Because Rich was setting up the joke (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0678.html) on Drawmij's Instant Summons. :smallwink: Rich does put jokes in most strips. :smallsmile:

[Mike Havran]

Because Rich was setting up the joke (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0678.html) on Drawmij's Instant Summons. :smallwink: Rich does put jokes in most strips. :smallsmile: ... nope. I still don't get it :smallconfused:

[KorvinStarmast]

... nope. I still don't get it :smallconfused:
Maybe this will clear things up. (https://www.onelegal.com/blog/you-have-been-served-process-serving-in-television/)
And Maybe This (blob:https://www.youtube.com/f5c55f55-8533-4ac9-b95d-79d87db68575)
Or even this (https://youtu.be/MVGDNErbM0Y)

[Personification]

Maybe this will clear things up. (https://www.onelegal.com/blog/you-have-been-served-process-serving-in-television/)
And Maybe This (blob:https://www.youtube.com/f5c55f55-8533-4ac9-b95d-79d87db68575)
Or even this (https://youtu.be/MVGDNErbM0Y)

But that joke doesn't actually require the fight. As far as I'm aware the only setup required is Blackwing asking how they got the paperwork filed so quickly.

[Emberlily]

Dramatically it works better since it's a character moment for both V and Blackwing, and it also leads to a fun twist in events.

In-universe, maybe that wizard saw V enter a store with a no spellcasting policy and decided to mess with them by getting them kicked out and ruining their victory with the reveal. Maybe he heard Inkyrius's side of the story and wanted to take V down a peg.

[Mike Havran]

But that joke doesn't actually require the fight. As far as I'm aware the only setup required is Blackwing asking how they got the paperwork filed so quickly.
That is why I'm confused. I get that the server needs their ''client'' to identify themselves, but no apparent reason why should they provoke them into lethal attacks.


Maybe he heard Inkyrius's side of the story and wanted to take V down a peg. If I heard the Inkyrius's side of the story the very last thing I would want is to needlesly provoke such a lunatic.

[Emberlily]

It's certainly an incredibly risky move but for mid to higher higher level characters death isn't quite as much of a risk as it would be in our world. Several jokes throughout the comic poke fun at how death is just a nuisance to adventurers. Maybe he was even prepared to pull a Belkar's-plan-for-Miko and die to cause V to suffer consequences, then get raised. [edit: His expressions in comic 677 make it seem clear to me this isn't just a business deal for him. He gets very visibly frustrated when it looks as if it doesn't work and very satisfied when it does.]

If the wizard knew about familicide, and thought V could still cast it, then yes that would be a stupid risk to take even with Raise Dead, but we don't kno that's the case.

[Personification]

It's certainly an incredibly risky move but for mid to higher higher level characters death isn't quite as much of a risk as it would be in our world. Several jokes throughout the comic poke fun at how death is just a nuisance to adventurers. Maybe he was even prepared to pull a Belkar's-plan-for-Miko and die to cause V to suffer consequences, then get raised. [edit: His expressions in comic 677 make it seem clear to me this isn't just a business deal for him. He gets very visibly frustrated when it looks as if it doesn't work and very satisfied when it does.]

If the wizard knew about familicide, and thought V could still cast it, then yes that would be a stupid risk to take even with Raise Dead, but we don't kno that's the case.

Counterpoint: The entirety of Don't Split the Party, plus V's well reasoned argument after Belkar floated the plan you referenced.

This is a stretch, but maybe the instant summons works by sending out a bulleting to a group of wizards around the world, who then stay on the lookout for their target. In that case, the provoker wasn't going after V for the purpose of getting the name, but actually was just that arrogant and self-in the store. Then, part-way through the fight they realized who they were fighting and changed tactics. It's a stretch, but it could work.

[Squire Doodad]

That is why I'm confused. I get that the server needs their ''client'' to identify themselves, but no apparent reason why should they provoke them into lethal attacks.

Hey, the vacation days aren't too good, so you have to find your amusement somewhere else

[arimareiji]

That is why I'm confused. I get that the server needs their ''client'' to identify themselves, but no apparent reason why should they provoke them into lethal attacks.
On the bright side, at least they don't try to rig it to go the other way around. :smalleek:

[burpbot]

The person in the right is I, by sheer virtue of the fact that someone with young kids to raise, not to mention a civilian spouse that couldn't protect them, should never have been out adventuring in the first place.

[KorvinStarmast]

That is why I'm confused. I get that the server needs their ''client'' to identify themselves, but no apparent reason why should they provoke them into lethal attacks. Welcome to D&D.

The person in the right is I, by sheer virtue of the fact that someone with young kids to raise, not to mention a civilian spouse that couldn't protect them, should never have been out adventuring in the first place.
Nope. Just gonna say that my wife had to shoulder the 'raise the kids' burden when I was at sea or deployed to a war periods of six months at a time or more. (Granted, I was home once the deployment or war was over, and unlike V was very involved with the family when home. Still am, even though the kids are grown up ...)

The OoTS, since strip one, has not covered a year yet. I had friends who were deployed to OEF and OIF for periods of just over a year

V was, based on the #679 comic, negligent of their shared bond - or maybe took it for granted - even when V was at home. The model seems to be "workaholic who is so focused on profession that their life balance is way out of whack." The 'takes ones spouse for granted' issue is a root cause of marital strife.

If the relationship hadn't featured that core problem, which Blackwing raised, the exception "hey, I really do have to save the world" might have been easier to swallow or accomodate. (or not) But with the habit pattern of "this magic thing comes first" having been formed over a sustained period, this incident becomes "straw that broke camel's back".

[burpbot]

Welcome to D&D.

Nope. Just gonna say that my wife had to shoulder the 'raise the kids' burden when I was at sea or deployed to a war periods of six months at a time or more.

Well, to avoid having an argument on these forums, I'll just say that I thoroughly disagree with your life choices, and I would never personally make the same choice. Though, OFC, if you're from the US, the mortality rate of soldiers in the army due to hostile action seems to be thousands of times smaller (https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_number_serve.xhtml) than the death rate of adventurers in the OOTS world probably would be, so making a comparison between your situation and V's situation is useless anyway.

[Schroeswald]

I’d like to point out that V didn’t really leave to become an adventurer, that just happened, they just kinda, left for human lands to, I dunno, study magic alone? Which didn’t help Inky get any money or save the world or protect the nation or well do anything of use to anyone but V who got to level up more. Only later, after having spent a significant time in the non elven lands, did V start adventuring, again to get more magic and levels and seemingly also not like, sending any gold back to help their family. Not a good spouse by any means

[KorvinStarmast]

the mortality rate of soldiers in the army due to hostile action seems to be thousands of times smaller (https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_number_serve.xhtml) than the death rate of adventurers in the OOTS Not a bad point; adventuring is indeed very lethal. (Particularly if one played the original and Pre 3e editions ... and IIRC, Haley's dad did state that he'd been a first edition thief) Survival rate to a level like V or Roy has achieved isn't guaranteed, and is rare.

The core point being raised, though, in the comic I cited was that even before the adventuring did begin, the 'out of balance life style' as regards the quest for arcane excellence was a feature of their relationship, which informs why Inky reached the "straw that broke the camel's back" point finally.

seemingly also not like, sending any gold back to help their family. Not seeing where you got that from. Is that your estimate, or, is there some "on screen" tidbit in the comic that informs this line of thinking?

[Gurgeh]

Not seeing where you got that from. Is that your estimate, or, is there some "on screen" tidbit in the comic that informs this line of thinking?
Yeah, I don't think Schroeswald's assertion is supported by the text. Every time the comic has brought up V's shortcomings as a partner and parent, it has been in terms of emotional and personal engagement, not in terms of material support. It is possible that there has been financial neglect on top of that, but Inkyrius doesn't bring it up when condeming V in the aftermath of the ABD's attack, and there are never any indications that the family's material needs were not being met.

EDIT: also, this:

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this is in question in the first place.
I cannot begin to wrap my head around people interpreting the relationship breakdown in a way that doesn't leave V quite thoroughly in the wrong.

[arimareiji]

I cannot begin to wrap my head around people interpreting the relationship breakdown in a way that doesn't leave V quite thoroughly in the wrong.
I haven't taken note of anyone doing so, though that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Personally, my take would be "From what we see, V's actions are thoroughly in the wrong and certainly the major (if not overwhelming) cause of the breakdown." But imo, it would be rational for people to believe V did some things right (or at least "not wrong"). And I don't think their belief would be incompatible with my take.

[Good Coyote]

The OoTS, since strip one, has not covered a year yet.

[Inkyrius says it's been six years (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0642.html) (not since the beginning of the strip, but since V left), though maybe elf years are arguably like reverse dog years.

Agreed with your point though that there was an established pattern even before they left. The six years of absence didn't help either, and probably made it seem like "it's better for the kids to have a sense of stability and just one parent, than a chance or semblance of a second one but they're always left guessing about it."


On the finances, V was fulltime devoted to an apprenticeship to Aarindarius for decades beforehand. They may or may not have received a stipend, but my interpretation is that the baker was actually supporting both of them. I don't personally think V was sending back gold, but I also don't think the lack of it was a problem for Inky. Except I guess in the sense that regularly sending back gold would at least mean regular communication.

[Fergie0044]

I

If V truly only wanted to save their family, they would have immediately dropped the soul splice at the start of #639. Everything that happened after that; familicide and threatening I in #642 showed us where their priorities really lay.

[dancrilis]

I cannot begin to wrap my head around people interpreting the relationship breakdown in a way that doesn't leave V quite thoroughly in the wrong.

For fun lets try this.

Firstly assume that Vaarsuvius was involved intensively with the search for greater arcane power prior to the relationship forming.
Secondly assume that elves live ~5 times longer then a human (figures vary but middle age, old and venerable are roughly five times the age a human would have).

Taking these together that would have Inkyrius effectively getting into a relationship with somebody hyperfocused on their career and then getting mad at them for not almost immediately putting them before said career.

This could be made worse via the adopted children - we don't know how they entered the picture, but between the idea that
1. Vaarsuvius and Inkyrius gave adoption a lot of thought and discussion and signed on knowing the costs and commitment involved.
2. Inkyrius essentially made the decision while Vaarsuvius shrugged and continued with spell research.
I don't think the second option it too unlikely (but we don't know).

[Fyraltari]

Taking these together that would have Inkyrius effectively getting into a relationship with somebody hyperfocused on their career and then getting mad at them for not almost immediately putting them before said career.

We know it took them many years (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) before they started dating, let alone married and adopted so I don't think that assesment is correct.

[dancrilis]

We know it took them many years (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) before they started dating, let alone married and adopted so I don't think that assesment is correct.

But we do know that Vaarsuvius is still a fairly young elf - based on the age given in War and XP (and listed on the Geekery trend) and given the ages of the children Vaarsuvius would not have been an adult when the children were born.

It is possible that Inkyrius and Vaarsuvius were a childhood romance which fits with 223 while still having Inkyrius focused on wanting to settle on family life and Vaarsuvius wanting to focus on career - Inkyrius could have been thinking that Vaarsuvius's statements on becoming a powerful wizard was the equivalent of a dream they would grow out of where for Vaarsuvius it was the actual plan.

Consider it like if you were a child/teenager and a friend stating they were going to discover a new planet suitable of sustaining human life - sounds like a fantasy they will grow out of, however at thirty they might have devoted over a decade of their life to astrophysics in the search for planets in the habitable zone for different stars and detailing how to spot planets within that zone and how to rule them out for habitation, written many papers on it, held conferences etc - and still be nowhere close to their goal of an actual planet that is certain to be suitable.
If you get into a relationship with that person in their late teens early/twenties it isn't their fault that you never knew they were serious about the goal they has always been upfront about - and at thirty when they have not went on holidays, not attended family gatherings etc as they were working and researching well a lot of people will sympathise with you but it isn't really the other persons fault for not changing who they were and what their goals were.

To sum up it is possible that Inkyrius didn't take Vaarsuvius's goal and commitment to that goal seriously - if so getting mad at Vaarsuvius is not entirely fair when they pursue it (getting out of the relationship however would likely be fair).

[arimareiji]

I've gone too long without directly addressing the poll question of "Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?" exactly as worded. (I've tried to touch on it, but mostly gotten lost in the weeds of "their overall relationship".)
I'm assuming the question is supposed to be limited to "with respect to their relationship", not "with respect to the morality/efficacy of V's decisions while Spliced (except inasmuch as they directly affect the relationship, such as "by being witnessed")".

Both, about different aspects. If it were possible to measure with a single unit of weight (R [rightograms] = -W [wrongograms]) and sum it up on a balance sheet, I'd lean toward Inkyrius being "more right". But I think simplifying it thus would be weighing apples against oranges, especially since I believe W ≠ -R as well as 2W ≠ R .

italicizing in keeping with the request for emphasis to make answers easier to spot. "K" for Kyrie, because "I" is too easy to mix up with a first-person pronoun.

Wrt 1) prioritizing gloating and Familicide over K and the children, and 2) committing it in front of them: V is spectacularly wrong.
Wrt the threat at the start of 641 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html): It's understandable to react with passionate fury if you think the body of your loved one is under the control of a fiend (panel 8). But 1) if an actual fiend were in control it would invite overwhelming violence, and 2) it's a heck of a way to respond to your loved one if they're in control. K is neither right nor wrong per se, but deeply misguided.
Wrt tying to explain from 641:8 to 642:3: It's futile from the start of 642 on (K gives them no real chance to do so), but V is doing something right.
In 642:4, V responds to this frustration with an implicit threat of violence. V is wrong without question.
K responds with their own explicit, absolute ultimatum. K does so based on incomplete understanding, due to shutting down V's attempts to explain. It's understandable regardless, and may be completely reasonable in the context of a fuller picture, but the question is about this specific crisis. K is wrong for both refusing to listen and the ultimatum, but not without cause.
V apologizes for disobeying the ultimatum because they "still need to fix everything", and leaves. This one bears mostly on the plot rather than their relationship, but inasmuch as it bears on their relationship it's a mixture of right and wrong. V finally does the most important right thing (backing down from ego), but too late. V is further right to the degree of probability it would have aggravated things to keep talking to someone who refuses to listen, and wrong to the degree of probability K might have backed down and listened if V had kept talking.




But we do know that Vaarsuvius is still a fairly young elf - based on the age given in War and XP (and listed on the Geekery trend) and given the ages of the children Vaarsuvius would not have been an adult when the children were born.

It is possible that Inkyrius and Vaarsuvius were a childhood romance which fits with 223 while still having Inkyrius focused on wanting to settle on family life and Vaarsuvius wanting to focus on career - Inkyrius could have been thinking that Vaarsuvius's statements on becoming a powerful wizard was the equivalent of a dream they would grow out of where for Vaarsuvius it was the actual plan.

Consider it like if you were a child/teenager and a friend stating they were going to discover a new planet suitable of sustaining human life - sounds like a fantasy they will grow out of, however at thirty they might have devoted over a decade of their life to astrophysics in the search for planets in the habitable zone for different stars and detailing how to spot planets within that zone and how to rule them out for habitation, written many papers on it, held conferences etc - and still be nowhere close to their goal of an actual planet that is certain to be suitable.
If you get into a relationship with that person in their late teens early/twenties it isn't their fault that you never knew they were serious about the goal they has always been upfront about - and at thirty when they have not went on holidays, not attended family gatherings etc as they were working and researching well a lot of people will sympathise with you but it isn't really the other persons fault for not changing who they were and what their goals were.

To sum up it is possible that Inkyrius didn't take Vaarsuvius's goal and commitment to that goal seriously - if so getting mad at Vaarsuvius is not entirely fair when they pursue it (getting out of the relationship however would likely be fair).
Well-said. We simply don't know, but that doesn't sound like an unreasonable surmise -- especially when you consider V's age, as you mentioned in the collapsed portion.

Edit: Minor reword

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, I don't think Schroeswald's assertion is supported by the text.
{snip}
I cannot begin to wrap my head around people interpreting the relationship breakdown in a way that doesn't leave V quite thoroughly in the wrong. Because V is, quite literally, saving the world at that point when the hard choice had to be made. There isn't a RL analogy for that. :smallwink:

Pick me or your career is the tension before the ABD issue arose for the family. It appears to have been a long running problem for their relationship.

Pick me or pick saving the world is what V was facing after the ABD had been dispatched with.

Inky has no concept of what level V is operating on (and cannot be blamed for that - they are a baker rasing two kids) but here's the objective fact: if the world isn't saved, then Inky and the kids simple don't exist and their souls are eaten. But Inky can't see that (again, they cannot be blamed for that lack of perception) and to add to the sadness of the case V (for whatever reasons) can't or won't spare the time to sell that objective fact to them. We the reader get to see it play out, but Inky is kept in the dark.

So V eats it - V chooses to try and save everyone else in the world and V's family (macro) rather than only the family (micro) as Priority 1. How Inky perceives that, given their track record, is "here we go again, you and your arcane power" which is only partially correct but from Inky's limited perspective completely understandable.

That's one of the prices paid for saving the world.

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

[Doug Lampert]

Because V is, quite literally, saving the world at that point when the hard choice had to be made. There isn't a RL analogy for that. :smallwink:

Pick me or your career is the tension before the ABD issue arose for the family. It appears to have been a long running problem for their relationship.

Pick me or pick saving the world is what V was facing after the ABD had been dispatched with.

No. After dealing with the ABD, V was faced with the choice of doing something to help and comfort the traumatized children, or of doing something to save the world, or of taking time out to torture a dead dragon.

V chose the third. If there was time for that, there was plenty of time for something ACTUALLY IMPORTANT and non-evil. But nope.

Then V ran away to claim to be saving the world, but actually, by V's OWN ADMISSION, to rush in and attack X solo to try to show off his power. After V LOST the power, V had a week or so to arrange to cast a sending to try to explain, which would have cost nothing from saving the world, but nope, still not showing any concern for the family.

V didn't need to choose one or the other between saving the world and talking to Inky, but in fact V did choose and chose not to talk to Inky. There was time for everything else, including plenty not done to save the world, but no time for talking to V's spouse or asking after the children V abandoned with serious injuries.

[Kish]

Inkyrius.

If Vaarsuvius meant to say, "I made this bargain because I can do so much good with the power!" they should have said that, not "I made this bargain because of the dragon's imminent threat to you and our children, who I am completely uninterested in arranging healing for!" "Okay, I'll take your word for that, threat over, you can let it go now" was an entirely reasonable response, and it's (minimally) to Vaarsuvius' credit that they didn't try to snow Inkyrius into believing their thought processes were actually even close to the ones Dr. Zero keeps describing for them.

Edited to add:



Also, where do we learn that the head plan wouldn't have worked?
Either when we look at anything Qarr has ever said and done and realize that he is most certainly not the "will keep the letter of his word, even about such a vague promise as 'I'll help you,' even if it becomes suicidal" robot that the IFCC describe...

...or when Spliced-Vaarsuvius arrives back at the fleet and discovers that Durkon isn't there, causing the plan to break down at the "teleport Vaarsuvius' head to the fleet and assume Vaarsuvius will be resurrected within a round" step.

(There's also, redundantly, the "Spliced-Vaarsuvius finds out that, contrary to what the archfiends said, it's going to take Durkon ten minutes to resurrect Roy, and storms off to face Xykon alone" potential breakpoint if it somehow survived until then.)

[KorvinStarmast]

No. After dealing with the ABD, V was faced with the choice of doing something to help and comfort the traumatized children, or of doing something to save the world, or of taking time out to torture a dead dragon.

V chose the third.
Come on, man, lighten up. How many chances to you get to torture an ancient dragon? :smallbiggrin:

You do offer a decent take on the situation.

I somewhat disagree with your point on V not going off to save the world. V does (did?) in fact "go out to (try and)save the world" (and nearly getting killed by Xykon in the process, hubris being a thing) and is still pursuing that aim - there is nothing else holding V to the Order, and Roy, other than that shared sense of purpose. (first raised in that meeting in Azure City when Roy tears up the contracts).

I am not going to go so far as to say that this is a purely noble purpose on V's part - since I think it is (and is intentionally written to be) at least a little bit self serving on V's part. This assessment is informed by V's discussion with Roy after the wrap up in BRitF: the old "here is my sin, what do I do now?" conversation. V's tentative conclusion seems to me to be that "there may be no atonement, but there might be a chance for atonement/redemption if I first save the world ..."

Before V got-ass-handed-to-self by Xykon and then discovered what they had done, V's attitude was (as I read the character) far more selfish: "My arcane power will be sufficient to save the world" {as a part of OoTS team anyway} which has since shown to be a serious case of overconfidence and arrogance. (See Thor's discussion with Durkon about needing Reddie or an equivalent).

[Ionathus]

The whole point of the scene is that Vaarsuvius was lying to themself about the resons why they took the deal in the first place.
V claimed they only took the deal to save their family but the fact that they didn't end it after said family was safe is proff enough that it wasn't true.
The Archfiends offered V another way out of their predicament (yes it wouldn't have worked but V thought it would have and that's what mattered) and V refused it because it involved forsaking their pride. V had spent their entire marriage ore concerned about their own search for power than their spouse and children's well-being. Even during the battle, they were more concerned with taking revenge on the black dragon for humiliating them in their mage-duel (up to bringing them back from the dead and comitting genocide to flex their new magic-muscles) than the effects on their infant children.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this is in question in the first place.

(Emphasis mine) Yes, this exactly! Add my voice to the "Was this really ever up for debate?" column.

Nobody's really pointed this out explicitly, but it seems like some commenters are weighing this as an isolated situation and not as the culmination of an entire marriage full of neglect and obsession with the arcane. It is very possible for Vaarsuvius's decision (to hold onto the power even after the ABD was dead) to be objectively the best choice to help the Order and the Azurites and ultimately contribute to saving the world, while still also happening to fit V's desire for ultimate arcane power. Maybe if a different elf were married to Inkyrius and did the same thing, they wouldn't react so strongly because they didn't immediately (and accurately) assume that "this is what you have always really wanted. More than you ever wanted me."


I don't think this is correct. If V only accepted the deal to gain more power and not to save their family, why did they then immediately go save their family? It seems to me that V had two goals (save their family and gain power), and chose the deal rather than the alternative method the IFCC proposed because the deal allowed them to accomplish both of their goals while the alternative method only allowed them to accomplish one of their goals.

They didn't just accept the deal because it gave them two things instead of one: they accepted the deal because otherwise they "would have to admit that your magic had failed you yet again (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0634.html)."

Vaarsuvius didn't just want to save their family. They wanted to be the one who did it. They wanted to be vindicated in their decision to leave in the first place (see V's reasoning on the first panel here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0630.html)). They wanted the power fantasy. V was, essentially, acting like a mall ninja (https://www.reddit.com/r/mallninja****/) who fantasizes about getting some real-world practical value out of all the chintzy knives and swords they've sunk their money into.


That is why I'm confused. I get that the server needs their ''client'' to identify themselves, but no apparent reason why should they provoke them into lethal attacks.

It's entirely possible that the Drawmij guy wasn't even trying to provoke a fight. He might've known about V's tendency to boast of their arcane power, and was hoping for V to bellow out "Fool! I am no mere warlock! I am the powerful wizard Vaarsuvius and you will not disres--" "Served." "*Ribbit* and witnessed"

To my understanding, you just have to identify yourself and take the paper. Or at least, in the joke tropey version found on tv shows.

[Precure]

I thought the question was "Who was right during the ABD crisis," about the ultimatum given by I to V: "If you get these powers to save us, give up them right now." It's not a question about whether I was right to divorce them, or who was more right during their hypothetical past lives, which we know very little of it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought the question was "Who was right during the ABD crisis," about the ultimatum given by I to V: "If you get these powers to save us, give up them right now." It's not a question about whether I was right to divorce them, or who was more right during their hypothetical past lives, which we know very little of it. There was a TV show in the US (a few decades ago, IIRC) where the theme was "Can this marriage be Saved?" and I think that (once we get the context offered by Blackwing and the point about "for the last six years" from Inkyrius ...) I'd have to go with "no" - unless V stops being an adventurer. Given that V is an integral part of OoTS, V can't stop being an adventurer. But even without the ABD event, I'd say that marriage was headed for split city ... except I have no good basis for whatever the general elven point of view is on 'how patient do you have to be with your partner if you both live to be 700 yeas old, on average?"
For Imkyrius, that - the ABD moment - was the last straw on a bale-of-hay sized collection of straws perched on an anemic camel's back. :smallcool:

[Precure]

Yeah, V's career path was not compatible with marital and parental duties I wanted. Their relationship was on destination to divorceville, with or without ABD.

[Emanick]

They're both wrong. The whole scene shows two individuals who are not only failing to communicate, but to an extent don't even seem to be trying. No wonder they don't seem to have kept in touch via Sendings (although I admit we don't really have any firm evidence on this either way).

I don't think this shows that V and Inky are fundamentally incompatible, because a failure to communicate can ruin practically any relationship. In elven terms, V's adventuring career will probably end very soon, so that in itself is not an insurmountable obstacle. They could pick up where they'd left off if they were both committed to trying to understand what information they were missing.

Indeed, this lack of facility with open communication seems to be a longstanding issue for the two of them - after all, V notes that "it took my mate and I many years to acknowledge our feelings for each other."* Some people are just bad at that kind of thing. It doesn't mean they're wrong for each other - it does, however, mean that they're likely to have a rocky time when it comes to interpersonal issues in general.

* There are other explanations for this besides just "We aren't good at communicating/sharing our feelings," but in light of the rest of the comic, I think that one makes the most sense.

[Dr.Zero]

I thought the question was "Who was right during the ABD crisis," about the ultimatum given by I to V: "If you get these powers to save us, give up them right now." It's not a question about whether I was right to divorce them, or who was more right during their hypothetical past lives, which we know very little of it.


I've gone too long without directly addressing the poll question of "Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?" exactly as worded. (I've tried to touch on it, but mostly gotten lost in the weeds of "their overall relationship".)

Yes, and yes.
They were clearly badly coupled, one pursuing some romanticism, the other pursuing mostly his career (so much to be oblivious that to send the children away wasn't meant as a gift from I to V, to let V work in peace).
But the question was, indeed, not about that, but about the specific behaviors during the ABD crisis.

[KorvinStarmast]

But the question was, indeed, not about that, but about the specific behaviors during the ABD crisis. The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.

(On the other hand, it wasn't a bad illustration of the concept of being 'drunk with power' or 'drunk on power' ...)

It wasn't necessary that Inkyrius decree that this was the straw that broke the camel's back (though that position is understandable) - with elven lives being centuries long, and elves having a different view on life for a variety of reasons (the nice GiTP post some years back on 3.5 D&D "So you want to be an elf" is a good illustration of that), how they view mating relationships and romance and love are likely to be different from how humans view such things.

The author made that choice. Since the readers are all humans, it is certainly an accessible choice for the readers, and for some it may even resonate a bit with RL experience or various tropes/story forms that have currency.

[woweedd]

There was a TV show in the US (a few decades ago, IIRC) where the theme was "Can this marriage be Saved?" and I think that (once we get the context offered by Blackwing and the point about "for the last six years" from Inkyrius ...) I'd have to go with "no" - unless V stops being an adventurer. Given that V is an integral part of OoTS, V can't stop being an adventurer. But even without the ABD event, I'd say that marriage was headed for split city ... except I have no good basis for whatever the general elven point of view is on 'how patient do you have to be with your partner if you both live to be 700 yeas old, on average?"
For Imkyrius, that - the ABD moment - was the last straw on a bale-of-hay sized collection of straws perched on an anemic camel's back. :smallcool:
I mean, yes. I have a feeling that was a large part of why Inky put up with V spending so long in human lands. For an elf, who, in the OOTS, are still in their infancy at 20 years and such, a couple years in human lands is basically like going on a camping trip for a weekend. No, the problem wasn't that. It was that V didn't care about Inky as much as they did the search for ultimate arcane power. I would have been fine with their mate's search for arcane power, but, in doing it, they neglected their partner's emotional needs, and, eventually, with this whole incident, confirmed they cared about magic far more then their marriage.

[hroþila]

The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.
I haaaaaaaaaate this with this many a's.

[Fyraltari]

I haaaaaaaaaate this with this many a's.

Wasted opportunity to put 8 "a" in there.

[arimareiji]

Wasted opportunity to put 8 "a" in there.
That's because hroþila's true nature is that of a lover, not a h8r. (^_~)

[Ruck]

The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.

(On the other hand, it wasn't a bad illustration of the concept of being 'drunk with power' or 'drunk on power' ...)

It wasn't necessary that Inkyrius decree that this was the straw that broke the camel's back (though that position is understandable) - with elven lives being centuries long, and elves having a different view on life for a variety of reasons (the nice GiTP post some years back on 3.5 D&D "So you want to be an elf" is a good illustration of that), how they view mating relationships and romance and love are likely to be different from how humans view such things.

The author made that choice. Since the readers are all humans, it is certainly an accessible choice for the readers, and for some it may even resonate a bit with RL experience or various tropes/story forms that have currency.


I haaaaaaaaaate this with this many a's.

Once we start dismissing the implications of characters' actions with "the author made this choice," discussing them becomes meaningless. The author made all of the choices for all of the characters in the entire story. If we're not treating them like characters with agency who make decisions and take actions that have consequences, then there's no point in discussing who was in the right or what have you, because the answer to everything is "because the author decided it."

[Emanick]

But the question was, indeed, not about that, but about the specific behaviors during the ABD crisis.The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.

Just to be clear, you have me quoted as saying that, but it's actually Dr. Zero who said it. Not that it matters terribly.

[Rrmcklin]

I don't think there's any ambiguity here - given the context of their relationship, what had just transpired, and establishing that V had made a Faustian deal with literal fiends, that I was willing to talk at all is being more accommodating that many.

Yes, their response wasn't the most generous, but it can easily be argued that V had lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when it came to such things.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just to be clear, you have me quoted as saying that, but it's actually Dr. Zero who said it. Not that it matters terribly. I am so sorry, I screwed up the multiquote.

[arimareiji]

I don't think there's any ambiguity here - given the context of their relationship, what had just transpired, and establishing that V had made a Faustian deal with literal fiends, that I was willing to talk at all is being more accommodating that many.

Yes, their response wasn't the most generous, but it can easily be argued that V had lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when it came to such things.
In case it throws anyone else off as far as it did me, I believe "I" is meant to represent Inkyrius rather than being a first-person pronoun.


(*reads* "given the context..., that I was willing to talk at all is..."
*thinks* "Whoa, wait... who sent Rrmcklin a passive-angrygram that made them respond in kind? :smalleek: I don't see it..."
*realizes* "Oh, never mind, my mistake.")

[Precure]

On a somewhat relevant discussion point, I never understand why there is always a talk about familicide when I and V's fight become a discussion point, even though there is actually nothing that indicates I care about it or even noticed it beforehand.

[WanderingMist]

They are both right, and that is crux of the problem.

Vaarsuvius is right because there is no reason to not try and stop Xykon while they have such power at their disposal, and to dismiss it right then and there would be a waste.

But Inkyrius is right about V's general character. Had Xykon no longer been a threat (presume that Soon had in fact succeeded before Miko's intervention), would V have given the power up upon defeating the dragon and Inkyrius' ultimatum, or would V still have had "to fix everything"?

[hroþila]

You guys are talking like there was no cost to keeping the splice. There was - extra accrued time, the consequences of which could very well be fatal to the Order's quest to save the world. If the possibility of defeating Xykon made V right in selling their soul, why didn't V try to do that before the ABD showed up? If Xykon's defeat justified any extra accrued time after killing the ABD, why didn't V wait for the party to be at full strength and ready, to maximize the chances of defeating Xykon?

The answer is simple - V did it to fix every problem personally and to best Xykon, not to save the world, and they tried to rationalize it all along the way. Which Inkyrius (and the IFCC, I might add) rightly called them out on.

[Precure]

You guys are talking like there was no cost to keeping the splice. There was - extra accrued time, the consequences of which could very well be fatal to the Order's quest to save the world.

V didn't know it back then.


If the possibility of defeating Xykon made V right in selling their soul, why didn't V try to do that before the ABD showed up?

If V did it to fix every problem personally and to best Xykon, not to save their family and the world, why didn't they try to do that before the ABD showed up?

[hamishspence]

Because nobody had offered a proper "soul for arcane power swap", prior to ABD showing up.

[Rrmcklin]

The point remains that if we're working under the logic that every second counts then V. still wasted time on pointless revenge and rubbing said revenge in the face of an already neutralized foe.

Self-aggradizement may not have been the only reason they did everything they di, but it was very clearly the most important one by a wide-margin, whatever else they tried to tell themselves in the moment.

[dps]

I thought the entire point of the devil deal was that V was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. And even so, "the right thing" was the most terrible and extreme thing V could have done. They accept the deal not to save their family, but rather to gain more power. Hell, the strip they accept the deal is entitled "The Wrong Reasons"!


Too many people these days simply don't know right from wrong, even when it is literally spelled out for them.

[hroþila]

V didn't know it back then.
No, but it's not like V thought it wouldn't matter either. Pacts with the devil are frowned upon for a reason.

If V did it to fix every problem personally and to best Xykon, not to save their family and the world, why didn't they try to do that before the ABD showed up?
Because V needs to be able to rationalize it.

[Dr.Zero]

No, but it's not like V thought it wouldn't matter either. Pacts with the devil are frowned upon for a reason.

Because V needs to be able to rationalize it.

As far as V knew, the deal was that his soul was going spend that time in hell after his death.
So he knew there was a price, but he thought it was a price he was going to pay personally, with some nasty torture or whatever they do to souls to have fun in hell.

[Rrmcklin]

As far as V knew, the deal was that his soul was going spend that time in hell after his death.
So he knew there was a price, but he thought it was a price he was going to pay personally, with some nasty torture or whatever they do to souls to have fun in hell.

And that's on them for assuming fiends would be so straightforward.

[Misery Esquire]

Well, let's see. V and I would be VI, which is 6 in Arabic numerals. Comic 6 has 6 word-starting C's - CCCCCC would be better written as DC, but it still tells us to go to Strip 600. In Strip 600, Roy learns to disrupt spellcasting - a vital part of V's character (to them, at least) - and references that they had told a similar joke in strip 100. In strip 100, there is a Devil(lish) Dean judging a goblin's application to Evil Ivy League. V fell from grace because of a triple Faustian pact, and caused I to ask V Y?

Tripling 100 to 300 brings us to another goblin-centric (Redcloak) strip, in which Redcloak is offering Xykon three choices - just as V sold out to three Lower Planes creatures. Azure City is the big name drop here, and when we check the various numbers mentioned 315 brings us to an Azure City skyline where Roy and Celia are romantic. But also discovering that there's trouble involved in the abilities available to one side of the relationship. Celia also mentions feeling like more than an entry in the Monster Manual, which V later references to the Black Dragon as well, at the peak of their... Excessive choices, that cause I to question their relationship.

Therefore, their relationship trouble was not only foreordained, but foreshadowed as well. Either that, or I just had a lot of fun tying together random coincidences.

[KorvinStarmast]

Therefore, their relationship trouble was not only foreordained, but foreshadowed as well. Either that, or I just had a lot of fun tying together random coincidences. Makes perfect sense to me. :smallcool:

[Mike Havran]

Therefore, their relationship trouble was not only foreordained, but foreshadowed as well. Either that, or I just had a lot of fun tying together random coincidences.Eh, it's not really too different from other forum theories. :smallamused:

[Potatopeelerkin]

I reckon they were both in the right in some ways, and both in the wrong in others. Though I think V's position is a little more justified if only because they were acting on more complete information. Inkyrius' suggestion to give up the power there and then was not viable. The whole Xykon/Snarl thing has world-shattering consequences that would definitely put them back in danger. Forget defeating Xykon- even getting back to the party would be difficult if V let go of the power then (as, to V's knowledge, would be finding Haley, Belkar and Roy), and the OOTS clearly needs them all.

I tend to think it doesn't really matter if it was for the wrong reasons. Did V squander the potential? Kind of. But they still managed to achieve a lot of good with it- just not as much as they could have otherwise. The fact V's pride got in the way of achieving all that they could doesn't negate the very valid successes they did have.

Of course, the Familicide spell itself was undoubtedly evil. But that wasn't the part Inkyrius had a problem with.

[Bundin]

Im in the "how is this up for debate?!" camp, for the same reasons as previously mentioned.
V wanted to justify their actions and choices by saving Inky and kids, which technically worked until the threat was neutralised. When choosing not to drop the splice at that moment, it became painfully clear that their motives were a lot less pure than that. No time taken to try and explain things to Inky, even on a superficial level, not a moment spared for the children. While they did want to save their family, that was a secondary concern, as shown immediately after.

Enter the next justification: "I am willing to suffer through personal hardship because the world needs saving!". Sounds pretty noble, right. Unfortunately, it is equally untrue as the "have to save them" spiel. If it was only remotely true, V would have spent time to explain, to talk, to comfort, to show them that they are not just the monster that just killed, reanimated, tortured, and finally disintegrated a dragon.

V was an utter @$%#!)&# at that moment, personal growth only entered the equation much much later.

Their actions might have been somewhat justifiable, at least from a saving the world perspective, but V was never honest to himself or to Inky. Conclusion: Inky was absolutely right, having just witnessed what V said and did. "The end justifies the means" does not apply when one is not honest about what the end is, exactly.

[Potatopeelerkin]

No time taken to try and explain things to Inky, even on a superficial level, not a moment spared for the children. While they did want to save their family, that was a secondary concern, as shown immediately after.

Enter the next justification: "I am willing to suffer through personal hardship because the world needs saving!". Sounds pretty noble, right. Unfortunately, it is equally untrue as the "have to save them" spiel. If it was only remotely true, V would have spent time to explain, to talk, to comfort, to show them that they are not just the monster that just killed, reanimated, tortured, and finally disintegrated a dragon.

V has been pretty well established as being bad at comforting people, expressing their emotions and understanding those of others, and has low charisma in general. I don't think the fact that they didn't effectively know how to connect with Inkyrius at that moment is evidence that they didn't care, or that their wellbeing wasn't a primary concern.

I got the impression V's concern over their family, (and also Haley), was completely genuine, and that's why they completely fell apart during DSTP (as opposed to at any other time during the adventure). Their pride just compels them to believe they're the smartest and most competent, and therefore the only one really capable of saving anyone/fixing anything. So they see more personal power as the answer, since it precludes the need to depend on anyone else. And letting go of that power at that moment felt impossible, since there was still so much left to fix.

[Reathin]

I can understand I's stance, but ultimately my opinion is closer with V's. The information she possessed at the time was:

1. She has utterly enormous, cosmic power for a VERY LIMITED TIME, with no realistic way to re-acquire even an appreciable fraction of it once lost.
2. Xykon is an epic level contender (with high level support) and there isn't enough time to bridge that gap before he could complete the gate ritual and conquer/ruin the world.
3. Agreeing to I's proposal that she let go of those powers and stick around to resolve their (very real) family issues would be to functionally damn the lives of everyone Xykon's would go on to oppress.

Were their ulterior motives, regarding V's enormous pride? Absolutely. Inky even called her out on it pretty explicitly. I sympathize and even ultimately agree with him that he was never V's primary priority. What I cannot agree with is allowing hundreds of thousands, likely millions, to suffer and dye horribly under an undead tyrant with serious boredom issues when the Splice was, bar none, the strongest a member of the Order was ever likely to be. Inky didn't have the full context of course, so not judging that as such, but still, V took a gamble and lost, but with all that was on the line? I think it was the better option.

[Mike Havran]

I can understand I's stance, but ultimately my opinion is closer with V's. The information she possessed at the time was:

1. She has utterly enormous, cosmic power for a VERY LIMITED TIME, with no realistic way to re-acquire even an appreciable fraction of it once lost.
2. Xykon is an epic level contender (with high level support) and there isn't enough time to bridge that gap before he could complete the gate ritual and conquer/ruin the world.
3. Agreeing to I's proposal that she let go of those powers and stick around to resolve their (very real) family issues would be to functionally damn the lives of everyone Xykon's would go on to oppress.

Were their ulterior motives, regarding V's enormous pride? Absolutely. Inky even called her out on it pretty explicitly. I sympathize and even ultimately agree with him that he was never V's primary priority. What I cannot agree with is allowing hundreds of thousands, likely millions, to suffer and dye horribly under an undead tyrant with serious boredom issues when the Splice was, bar none, the strongest a member of the Order was ever likely to be. Inky didn't have the full context of course, so not judging that as such, but still, V took a gamble and lost, but with all that was on the line? I think it was the better option.
1. Saving lives was not V's priority either. V even said that explicitly after Xykon noted V didn't have any heroic vibe and V responded ''My power exceeds yours!''
2. Xykon was far cry from even going on with his world conquest at that point, and was basically chilling his ass bone under a gateless rift. If anybody threatened millions to suffer, it was V on a spliced power trip.
3. V could muster control of the splices for weeks, as elves don't need to sleep.

[Doug Lampert]

1. Saving lives was not V's priority either. V even said that explicitly after Xykon noted V didn't have any heroic vibe and V responded ''My power exceeds yours!''
2. Xykon was far cry from even going on with his world conquest at that point, and was basically chilling his ass bone under a gateless rift. If anybody threatened millions to suffer, it was V on a spliced power trip.
3. V could muster control of the splices for weeks, as elves don't need to sleep.

Oh, but V was CLEARLY desperate for time, every second counted, this is demonstrated by the way that V had plenty of time to show off by casually spending several rounds committing genocide, but couldn't spare even a single round to teleport the injured children to a healer. :)

What are the children's names again, V seems to have spent a fair number of rounds in their presence for the first time in a couple of years, as a loving parent V must have used their names at least once. Or at least done something to show how much V cares. Talking is a free action after all.

Actually, never mind, I think V did an EXCELLENT job of showing just what V cared about and what V thought was worth V's time. V's desperate lack of time is demonstrated only by V's complete failure to spend any time at all on the most important things.

[dancrilis]

Vaarsuvius's first question when the dragon was dead was to make sure that Inkyrius and the children were effectively alright - only when this was confirmed did they move to the secondary task of necromancy and genocide.

[Rrmcklin]

Vaarsuvius's first question when the dragon was dead was to make sure that Inkyrius and the children were effectively alright - only when this was confirmed did they move to the secondary task of necromancy and genocide.

I mean, if there safety actually was the primary concern there was no reason to do that last part at all. They could have also moved to get them immediate medical attention.

Really, the story seems pretty clear about Vaarsuvius's motivations, I'm not seeing the point in trying to treat their rationalizations at the time as anything other than rationalizations, when the story and character isn't even doing that.

[blunk]

Sounds like a highly-personal question that nobody here has standing to debate in public.

[hroþila]

Vaarsuvius's first question when the dragon was dead was to make sure that Inkyrius and the children were effectively alright - only when this was confirmed did they move to the secondary task of necromancy and genocide.
There's a vast gulf between not having "immediately life-threatening wounds" and being effectively alright.

[Dr.Zero]

Oh, but V was CLEARLY desperate for time, every second counted, this is demonstrated by the way that V had plenty of time to show off by casually spending several rounds committing genocide, but couldn't spare even a single round to teleport the injured children to a healer. :)

What are the children's names again, V seems to have spent a fair number of rounds in their presence for the first time in a couple of years, as a loving parent V must have used their names at least once. Or at least done something to show how much V cares. Talking is a free action after all.

Actually, never mind, I think V did an EXCELLENT job of showing just what V cared about and what V thought was worth V's time. V's desperate lack of time is demonstrated only by V's complete failure to spend any time at all on the most important things.

All this is moot, since even I. doesn't care to ask if V. can heal the kids or teleport them to a healer, I. even take the kids in his arms without thinking not even for a moment to say, "Hey, since you have this power, can you fix the kids or teleport them to a cleric?"

I. only cares about bickering with V with the "I thought I have some saying about your soul" (and that alone was soooo cringe) and "stop the splicing now... you don't love me enough" (which, mind you, I think the latter part beings true, as well the inverse: I. didn't love V, because V was the wizard interested in his studies, I. at most loves some imaginary V. created in his mind).


If we want to talk about negligent parents, both of them quite qualify, in this situation.

[Ionathus]

All this is moot, since even I. doesn't care to ask if V. can heal the kids or teleport them to a healer, I. even take the kids in his arms without thinking not even for a moment to say, "Hey, since you have this power, can you fix the kids or teleport them to a cleric?"

I. only cares about bickering with V with the "I thought I have some saying about your soul" (and that alone was soooo cringe) and "stop the splicing now... you don't love me enough" (which, mind you, I think the latter part beings true, as well the inverse: I. didn't love V, because V was the wizard interested in his studies, I. at most loves some imaginary V. created in his mind).

If we want to talk about negligent parents, both of them quite qualify, in this situation.

No, V's misbehavior is not moot because Inky didn't do X or Y or Z. Consider, perhaps, that Inky knows V is an arcane caster and therefore can't heal. Or that V is incapable of teleporting, which would certainly make their long absence more harshly felt. This is armchair D&D-style relationship diagnosis, picking apart how Inky is making "sub-optimal" conversation choices without accounting for the big picture here.

Which is that V showed up with a scary new look and loads of scary new powers, eviscerated an Adult Black Dragon in front of Inky and the kids, and then implied that they were the reason the ABD came to kill Inky & the kids. V barely gives a thought to comforting, embracing, or tending to their badly injured family after killing ABD -- instead, their top priority is to flex their new magic muscles on the most gratuitous act of magical slaughter possible.

The people justifying V's behavior are looking at this situation through a thick, thick lens of Main Character Syndrome. V was a horrible spouse and parent. You can be a horrible spouse and parent and still want to save your family from a fate worse than death.

[KorvinStarmast]

If we want to talk about negligent parents, both of them quite qualify, in this situation. I can't get on board with Inkyrius as a negligent parent: been doing the lion's share of the child rearing, has Inky.

As someone who has a share in the "Can this marriage be saved?" problem contribution - yeah, it's a two way street.

[Dr.Zero]

No, V's misbehavior is not moot because Inky didn't do X or Y or Z. Consider, perhaps, that Inky knows V is an arcane caster and therefore can't heal. Or that V is incapable of teleporting,

I. had seen just a minute before V. popping in from nowhere. So, if anything, he knows that, in that specific situation, V can teleport.
And yes, the fact I. doesn't do a thing to help the kids, makes the argument "I. is right because V didn't help the kids" completely moot.


I can't get on board with Inkyrius as a negligent parent: been doing the lion's share of the child rearing, has Inky.


I can't judge what I can't see.
I. stayed at home more time and took care for the kids -presumably- well? Maybe.
Did I. thought to find a way to heal them immediately? No.
Did I. even thought to take care or their emotional issues before starting to bicker with V.? No.
He didn't do so much better than V, in the specific situation.
(And honestly he doesn't ring as parent of the year to me,.)

[Fyraltari]

I. had seen just a minute before V. popping in from nowhere. So, if anything, he knows that, in that specific situation, V can teleport.
And yes, the fact I. doesn't do a thing to help the kids, makes the argument "I. is right because V didn't help the kids" completely moot.

Inkyrius immediately lept towards their kids as they were unnailed from the tree then tried to protect them from the fiend they believed to have possessed Vaarsuvius with a stick. And later took them in their arms, presumably to carry them to somewhere they could be treated with.

Inkyrius has no bloody context for what's happening unlike Vaarsuvius, confusion is to be expected. What's Vaarsuvius's excuse for committing genocide?

[hroþila]

Yeah the notion that Inkyrius didn't try to help or comfort the kids is patently false.
636 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0636.html)
639 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)
641 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html)
642 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0642.html)

[dancrilis]

Yeah the notion that Inkyrius didn't try to help or comfort the kids is patently false.
636 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0636.html)
639 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0639.html)
641 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html)
642 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0642.html)

In fairness:
In 636 the advise they gave the children was helpful to them also.
In 639 during the 12 seconds it would take Vaarsuvius to cast two non-quickened spells they didn't actually manage to reach the children at all.
In 641 they still hadn't picked them up (or had and put them down again) and then threatened an elf powerful enough to defeat a powerful dragon and vindictive enough to slaughter everyone related to said dragon with a stick while the children were still present.
In 642 they could have focused on 'help the kids - we will talk about this later' instead they provoked the same elf above to actual anger, then set an ultimatum, then preempted the ultimatum with jumping to the conclusion of what said a ultimatum would be.

I am not seeing them doing much helping or comforting of the kids.

Now in further fairness to Inkyrius it would have been a stressful situation so we can't expect perfect behaviour - but the same can be said about Vaarsuvius.

[hroþila]

In 636, in view of Inkyrius's subsequent behaviour, it's like super obvious that they're trying to protect the kids first and foremost. Your reading is not fair, it's beyond cynical, and it's just playing devil's advocate.
In 639, Inkyrius is released by V on the third pannel. They couldn't reach the children before that, which means they rushed to the kids literally as soon as they could.
In 641, Inkyrius is very obviously wielding that stick in self-defense and for the defense of the children. You can try to argue it was unwise, but it surely showed concern for the kids.
In 642, you're faulting Inkyrius for taking some time to speak to V and see what was going on (and potentially to save their very soul), and holding it against Inkyrius to exonerate V, i.e. the person making the children shriek in terror in that same page.

You're not being fair at all, I think.

[Fyraltari]

In fairness:
[...]
in further fairness

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[dancrilis]

In 636, in view of Inkyrius's subsequent behaviour, it's like super obvious that they're trying to protect the kids first and foremost. Your reading is not fair, it's beyond cynical, and it's just playing devil's advocate.

There subsequent behaviour cannot be used as evidence of good behaviour if said subsequent behaviour is also in question.



In 639, Inkyrius is released by V on the third pannel. They couldn't reach the children before that, which means they rushed to the kids literally as soon as they could.
Create Undead and Familicide being two spells would normally take a minimum of 1 round each - so twelve seconds after Inkyrius was released.



In 641, Inkyrius is very obviously wielding that stick in self-defense and for the defense of the children. You can try to argue it was unwise, but it surely showed concern for the kids.
I actually read it more as wielding a stick in great confusion and that confusion leading to an angry responce rather then any dedicated plan - weather to drive out demon or protect the kids.



In 642, you're faulting Inkyrius for taking some time to speak to V and see what was going on (and potentially to save their very soul), and holding it against Inkyrius to exonerate V, i.e. the person making the children shriek in terror in that same page.
I am more faulting them for putting their own feelings above the interests of the children.



You're not being fair at all, I think.
I think I am being fair to the arguement that Inkyrius 'didn't try to help or comfort the kids' note there is an arguement that they did try to comfort the kids also (comforting words, gathering them up, stepping in front of them etc)

My own personal opinion is that Vaarsuvius got drunk on power after feeling powerless for months and lashed out with that power at a target that had humiliated them and threatened their loved ones, Inkyrius meanwhile likely had years of brewing resentment and during a deeply disturbing reunion allowed that resentment out.
I don't think either of them were particularly thinking about the children at the time.

As parents in general Inkyrius comes across better as they are the one raising the kids in the formative years - but from the prespective of 'take care of the kids' they both could have handled that situation a lot better.

People seems to be willing to cut Inkyrius a lot more slack then they cut Vaarsuvius in my view.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In the context I am using it it means to be fair to the arguement.

[Dr.Zero]

My own personal opinion is that Vaarsuvius got drunk on power after feeling powerless for months and lashed out with that power at a target that had humiliated them and threatened their loved ones, Inkyrius meanwhile likely had years of brewing resentment and during a deeply disturbing reunion allowed that resentment out.
I don't think either of them were particularly thinking about the children at the time.

As parents in general Inkyrius comes across better as they are the one raising the kids in the formative years - but from the prespective of 'take care of the kids' they both could have handled that situation a lot better.

People seems to be willing to cut Inkyrius a lot more slack then they cut Vaarsuvius in my view.



I agree completely with this.

[Rrmcklin]

People seems to be willing to cut Inkyrius a lot more slack then they cut Vaarsuvius in my view.



I'd imagine because one has earned it, and the other hasn't. Inkyrius is to be assumed to be a loving and caring parent, so they can be forgiven for not acting perfectly (whatever that would be) in an incredibly stressful and life-threatening situation in which they are still shown to be taking their children into account. Vaarsuvius is an admitted terrible spouse and parent who has been gone away from years.

They aren't talked about equally in these situations because their characters and mistakes aren't equal.

[Fyraltari]

Can we also acknowledge that "temporary ignores the children to work out why their mate apparently turned into a hellish genocidal monster and acknowledge that their marriage just isn't working out" and "ignores the children after six years of abscence so they can bring back a dragon from the dead to further torment them by commiting genocide" aren't comparable?

[Precure]

I think it's obvious from the strip that the kids were alright (physically at least) and doesn't need medical help. So neither I or V were negligent about that.

[Mike Havran]

I think it's obvious from the strip that the kids were alright (physically at least) and doesn't need medical help. So neither I or V were negligent about that. For me it is pretty obvious (also confirmed by ABD) that both kids had both of their legs broken, at the very least. That's probably something a parent should be slightly concerned about.

[arimareiji]

A strained metaphor of unknown utility:
Subjective discussions are like sailing in open seas.
The more common frames of reference exist, the more light there is.
The more emotive and personal investment in the topic exists, the higher the wind and waves are.
Points of voluntary agreement are like proximity to solid ground and safety. It's absolutely natural to seek them.
But the need to have others agree (when they don't) is more like the shoals.

[Dr.Zero]

Can we also acknowledge that "temporary ignores the children to work out why their mate apparently turned into a hellish genocidal monster and acknowledge that their marriage just isn't working out" and "ignores the children after six years of abscence so they can bring back a dragon from the dead to further torment them by commiting genocide" aren't comparable?

No.
For a lot of reasons.

To start with because... no, if one is a parent and his kids are laying on ground with broken legs, even just normal instincts is to take care of them. To resolve your marital issue, there is time later. (This lays on both on them)

Then, again, because I. wasn't interested at all to what V. wanted -or needed- to do, he even stopped with a harh "no" V's trying to talk, so he wasn't trying to work out any "why". I. was interested to see V. putting him at first place.

[Kish]

I think it's obvious from the strip that the kids were alright (physically at least) and doesn't need medical help. So neither I or V were negligent about that.
The dragon spelled out that they had broken limbs. So no. The question is not whether they both went "eh, they'll be just fine"; the question is whether "leave those injuries to my mate to worry about while I torture my defeated opponent and then express plans to promptly teleport away" is more or less condemnation-worthy than...

...I realized attempting to write the next part that there's no way I can summarize the "Inkyrius was more culpable" perspective that doesn't sound nakedly far beyond absurd to me, so I'm just going to stop there.

[Morty]

People seems to be willing to cut Inkyrius a lot more slack then they cut Vaarsuvius in my view.

The comparative lack of deals with fiends, genocide and sadistic gloating while torturing a defeated enemy might have something to do with it.

[Rrmcklin]

No.
For a lot of reasons.

To start with because... no, if one is a parent and his kids are laying on ground with broken legs, even just normal instincts is to take care of them. To resolve your marital issue, there is time later. (This lays on both on them)

Then, again, because I. wasn't interested at all to what V. wanted -or needed- to do, he even stopped with a harh "no" V's trying to talk, so he wasn't trying to work out any "why". I. was interested to see V. putting him at first place.

V. claimed they did this to save them. I. states that if this is true, thank you, and that also V. should immediately undo the fiendish deal. V. then immediately try to come up with a bunch of rationalizations and I. cut them off. This is perfectly understandable, despite your claims to the contrary.

I think the thing you're (willfully) missing here is that the benefit of the doubt is not guaranteed, it can be lost. V. had lost because of, well, everything.

[Dion]

The comparative lack of deals with fiends, genocide and sadistic gloating while torturing a defeated enemy might have something to do with it.

If Rich wanted to unambiguously communicate the idea “what V is doing right now is evil”, he should have given V little fangs and dressed them in an comically evil overlord outfit.

[Dr.Zero]

V. claimed they did this to save them. I. states that if this is true, thank you, and that also V. should immediately undo the fiendish deal. V. then immediately try to come up with a bunch of rationalizations and I. cut them off. This is perfectly understandable, despite your claims to the contrary.

I think the thing you're (willfully) missing here is that the benefit of the doubt is not guaranteed, it can be lost. V. had lost because of, well, everything.

The "rationalizations" ended up in: solving the Azurite problem, saving the Paladin and almost solving X problem definitely.
No the fact that I buy a knife to cut vegetables doesn't mean that I must stop to use it after doing that, if I notice then it could work for meat too.

Anyway, more or less as I hoped and suspected, the most interesting rationalizations I see are not in the comic, actually.

[Rrmcklin]

If Rich wanted to unambiguously communicate the idea “what V is doing right now is evil”, he should have given V little fangs and dressed them in an comically evil overlord outfit.

I know this is a joke, but it is still pretty impressive how clear the Giant can be about a character or action being evil, and still there can be a debate about his actual intentions. Not whether you agree with his intentions, but just what they even are.

[Doug Lampert]

If Rich wanted to unambiguously communicate the idea “what V is doing right now is evil”, he should have given V little fangs and dressed them in an comically evil overlord outfit.

200 foot tall flaming letters were probably not practical, but he could also have had V ignore his injured children to have time to commit genocide or something. That and the costume would really give it away.

Shame Rich didn't think of any that and we're left stuck with all this ambiguity.

[Ionathus]

People seems to be willing to cut Inkyrius a lot more slack then they cut Vaarsuvius in my view.


I'd imagine because one has earned it, and the other hasn't.
...
They aren't talked about equally in these situations because their characters and mistakes aren't equal.

Exactly. Some commenters have been so quick to rush forward with evidence and arguments about Inky's "misbehavior" while comically missing the point. V's and Inky's marriage was already in a horrible spot. V was already a terribly neglectful spouse and parent. Whatever nitpicks people have about Inky's decision to confront their demon-possessed spouse before setting their children's broken legs don't really change all the evidence leading up to this event, as well as the fallout (a divorce which V did not contest because they acknowledged they were the one in the wrong).


Can we also acknowledge that "temporary ignores the children to work out why their mate apparently turned into a hellish genocidal monster and acknowledge that their marriage just isn't working out" and "ignores the children after six years of abscence so they can bring back a dragon from the dead to further torment them by commiting genocide" aren't comparable?

This is the thing that boggles the mind for me. The expectation that any minor character who ever calls out a main character has to act with 100% perfect moral uprightness and make absolutely optimal decisions, or else they have no right to even sass more major characters. Hell, we just ran into this with Serini -- how many pages of argument spun off from "lightly bonking someone on the head is Evil"? All because Lien and O-Chul are the ones we're rooting for.

Honestly, I think some people fixate too much on the protagonists, and aren't willing to ever admit other viewpoints or criticisms of them, even when the author is purposefully introducing those counterpoints. After all, if you can discredit the minor NPC calling out your favorite character, you don't have to take that NPC seriously.


If Rich wanted to unambiguously communicate the idea “what V is doing right now is evil”, he should have given V little fangs and dressed them in an comically evil overlord outfit.


I know this is a joke, but it is still pretty impressive how clear the Giant can be about a character or action being evil, and still there can be a debate about his actual intentions. Not whether you agree with his intentions, but just what they even are.

On this very forum, I have read a wildly improbable and out-of-character prediction, set within a hypothetical scenario, within another hypothetical scenario, relying on loads of things to have happened offscreen on different occasions for no obvious reason, all presented with complete seriousness, just to fit somebody's personal pet theory. Nothing surprises me on here anymore.

[arimareiji]

Honestly, I think some people fixate too much on the protagonists, and aren't willing to ever admit other viewpoints or criticisms of them, even when the author is purposefully introducing those counterpoints. After all, if you can discredit the minor NPC calling out your favorite character, you don't have to take that NPC seriously.

When someone absolutely "knows" anything about a subjective matter, whether it's "Joe is a saint beyond reproach" or "Joe is evil beyond redemption" or even "I like oatmeal", good luck trying to introduce nuance. But particularly when it comes to People I Empathize With (or People I Don't), no matter what label they go under.

V is spectacularly wrong for prioritizing necromancy and Familicide over "my children's legs are broken and my mate is still wounded from being staked to a tree". Period. No action of Kyrie's can possibly cancel that out or even mitigate it. And if it were possible to integrate and derive rights and wrongs like applied mathematics*, I believe you'd get K(r)-K(w) > V(r)-V(w).
* - I don't think it is.

But similarly, if** Kyrie has been less than a perfect saint, Kyrie is responsible for their own actions. The fact a separate action of V's was (spectacularly) wrong doesn't change that, and vice versa.
** - I have neither desire nor ability to change anyone's opinion on that, thus the hypothetical.

For the record: I don't think it's possible for either K or V to be a Perfect Saint who can't be criticized, or a Damned Fiend about whom nothing good should be said. I don't think the Giant is nearly that simple of a storyteller.

[Precure]

For me it is pretty obvious (also confirmed by ABD) that both kids had both of their legs broken, at the very least. That's probably something a parent should be slightly concerned about.

Okay, I completely missed that previous line. :smalleek:

It's strange then those children were able to stand on their legs when their legs were broken by a dragon. :smalleek:

It's also strange that I and V were wasting time by discussing their marital affairs and V simply fly away instead of teleporting them to the nearest medic. :smallconfused:

[hamishspence]

They weren't standing - they were sitting up, at most, in strips 641 (panel 2) and 642 (from panel 4 onward)

[Morty]

Considering that the entire point of the scene was V being focused on their power-trip rather than their family, not teleporting the kids to a healer also doesn't strike me as at all strange.

[dancrilis]

I think there might be two discussions going on here - that Vaarsuvius's use of Familicide was evil is not in doubt, it was fairly obviously evil when it was used, but that has little to do with 'Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?'.

Inkyrius didn't mention the spell itself nor the genocide nor the necromancy - and they did fail to listen to Vaarsuvius when they wanted to explain the situation.
Vaarsuvius didn't need to cast the spell and even if they did could have (presumedly) held off on casting it for a few minutes to talk to Inkyrius first.

For the relationship failing Vaarsuvius bares most of the responsibility I would say but 'evil' has little to do with that and Inkyrius is not blameless - so my thinking is they were both wrong in general and it could be said that in that specific few minutes Inkyrius was more in the wrong for not being willing to listen.

[Dion]

Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?

I reject the question on two levels;

1. Right about... what exactly?

2. The question is based on the logical fallacy that an argument has two sides, and that one of those sides is right, and the other is wrong. It’s a meaningless question because it’s based on a false assumption.

At any rate, V literally sold their soul to fiends in front of a chorus of castrated pedophiles. I honestly don’t know how to frame an argument about that.

[dancrilis]

I reject the question on two levels;

1. Right about... what exactly?

2. The question is based on the logical fallacy that an argument has two sides, and that one of those sides is right, and the other is wrong. It’s a meaningless question because it’s based on a false assumption.

I largely agree which is why my initial responce was that there was no disagreement during the crisis itself and only afterwards, and why I have not picked a clear side as I think both are at fault based on what we see during the disagreement.

However to attempt to answer your question based on my understanding of what I think is being asked.

1. Right about... what exactly?
Effectively I take this to mean: Who within that specific interaction acted as a better spouse?

If I am right in my interpretation than you could claim the question is stacked in favour of Vaarsuvius, but again if I am right the question favouring one side or another doesn't change the question.

[arimareiji]

I think there might be two discussions going on here - that Vaarsuvius's use of Familicide was evil is not in doubt, it was fairly obviously evil when it was used, but that has little to do with 'Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?'.

Inkyrius didn't mention the spell itself nor the genocide nor the necromancy - and they did fail to listen to Vaarsuvius when they wanted to explain the situation.
Vaarsuvius didn't need to cast the spell and even if they did could have (presumedly) held off on casting it for a few minutes to talk to Inkyrius first.

For the relationship failing Vaarsuvius bares most of the responsibility I would say but 'evil' has little to do with that and Inkyrius is not blameless - so my thinking is they were both wrong in general and it could be said that in that specific few minutes Inkyrius was more in the wrong for not being willing to listen.
I think I'm pretty much in the same camp with your post.

The Familicide aspect is just plain messy. My two cents:

V casting it is horrific under any circumstances. It's understandably hard to resist as an emotive argument to show V is irredeemably Evil and thus must be wrong about anything no matter what. But it doesn't directly bear on their marriage at all.
V doing something so horribly evil in front of their children is pretty messed up as well. Let alone "killing someone else's family in front of yours". (That sounds like anime backstory, when it delves into "How someone got so broken".) But it only directly bears on their marriage, to the degree Kyrie considers "being a good parent" a sine qua non for marriage.
V prioritizing that (and gloating) ahead of taking care of their family, is a giant red light for their marriage. But technically, it's "only" spectacularly thoughtless rather than a direct injury (e.g. cheating, lying, shutting out) to it.


One last thought... I don't know if "right" is the best word. To me, it seems more like "Which one of them is the least wrong".

[Ionathus]

Effectively I take this to mean: Who within that specific interaction acted as a better spouse?

Inkyrius.


it could be said that in that specific few minutes Inkyrius was more in the wrong for not being willing to listen

This really isn't how arguments work. If I crash my car through a storefront, nearly kill someone, and then get out and try to be excessively polite with the store owner, they are not somehow in the wrong for the few minutes in which they process the accident and maybe even get (rightfully) angry at me for destroying their store and almost killing them or their patrons. Interactions aren't subdivided into seconds-long periods of time where one person is being more reasonable than the other.

At least, not in the real world. In panel-by-panel breakdowns during internet arguments, it's a lot easier to cite the 4 scattered panels where, again, somebody was momentarily rude, and somehow that means they deserve to get the "both sides misbehaved" treatment alongside the genocidal megalomaniac.

This accusation against Inkyrius is trying to frame their frustration and fear as unreasonable, while cutting away all context surrounding them, which includes:

years of spousal neglect from V
years of parental neglect from V
being attacked by the ABD because of V
V's altered personality making them unrecognizable
V's altered abilities making them unrecognizable
V's fixation on revenge, instead of their injured & terrified children
V's fixation on showing off their newfound powers
V's refusal to give up their powers, explicitly because "*I* still need to fix everything."


Vaarsuvius behaved horribly as a spouse and parent. This has been explicitly stated in the comic, multiple times, including by V themselves. Whatever momentary rudeness Inky displayed is so vastly overwhelmed by V's abhorrent behavior that it's not even worth mentioning.

[Robots]

Ionathus says it the best. Literally multiple characters state "hey V you screwed up bad because of these multiple reasons" including Vaarsuvius themself, but no, Inkyrius is the bad guy for... being justifiably afraid and angry at their spouse. Jeez.

[Darth Paul]

The question is based on the logical fallacy that an argument has two sides, and that one of those sides is right, and the other is wrong. It’s a meaningless question because it’s based on a false assumption.

Some arguments have two sides, one of which is right and the other of which is wrong. For example, let's go with some hypotheticals:

- Killing a fellow humanoid for personal pleasure is wrong; yes or no.

- Outside of war, the use of force or violence other than to defend oneself or others is wrong; yes or no. (Some would argue that war itself should not be an exception to the rule.)

- Sexual activity without consent is never permissible; yes or no.

I could go on, but you see my point. Some arguments are simply opinions, like "red wine is better than white" or "veganism is more moral than eating meat", but others are fairly cut & dried.

@Ionathus- you alluded to somone else bringing up Inkyrius' "momentary rudeness". I'm trying to remember any point where I found Inky coming across as rude. I realise this may have been how other people were characterizing something he said. Everything I recall were just some "What the hell, hero?" speeches, which were completely justified in my view. It's not rude to call someone out on turning into a personification of evil magic. Brutal honesty is not rudeness.

How do you do it politely, anyway? "Umm... I'm not sure how to put this, but...." No, it doesn't work. There's no polite way to say "You've turned into the Dark Lord of the Sith, Anakin!!" (Sorry, wrong franchise...) I mean, you can try it, but it will get you Force Choked either way...

[Ionathus]

@Ionathus- you alluded to somone else bringing up Inkyrius' "momentary rudeness". I'm trying to remember any point where I found Inky coming across as rude. I realise this may have been how other people were characterizing something he said. Everything I recall were just some "What the hell, hero?" speeches, which were completely justified in my view. It's not rude to call someone out on turning into a personification of evil magic. Brutal honesty is not rudeness.

How do you do it politely, anyway? "Umm... I'm not sure how to put this, but...." No, it doesn't work. There's no polite way to say "You've turned into the Dark Lord of the Sith, Anakin!!" (Sorry, wrong franchise...) I mean, you can try it, but it will get you Force Choked either way...

Yes, I agree with you -- I should've put sarcastic quotation marks around "rudeness". In my view, Inky was at no fault whatsoever. But to others, their reaction was somehow inappropriate, because they decided to talk to V instead of tending to their kids, or (and I kid you not) saying that Inky took too long to reach the children from when they were un-staked from the tree and when they reached the kids, 12 seconds later.

Again, that gamer mentality of taking "sub-optimal" and applying it to conversations. Pick apart any tiny little perceived misstep by the other side and use it to justify your own opinions or ignore criticism of "your" guy (in this case, V).

[Darth Paul]

Again, that gamer mentality of taking "sub-optimal" and applying it to conversations. Pick apart any tiny little perceived misstep by the other side and use it to justify your own opinions or ignore criticism of "your" guy (in this case, V).

Ah, yep, gotcha.

It's always always bothered me how some players will model and remodel every action every round, often moving their minis and then replacing them, poring over spells, trying to place an area of effect just so, taking 15 minutes to decide what to do in a nominally 6-second round. My view is that you make a decision, stick with the decision, and go with the best move that occurs to you. If it turns out that it wasn't "optimal", well, when is life optimal? It even extends to conversations with NPCs: "Oh, if the King is going to have that attitude, I won't say that." Well- you did. :smallamused:

Characters are characters, not drones. Play the character as you would react (at least the "you" that you envisoned for that character).

Yes, if I were playing a character in Kyrie's situation, I would be concerned for my children. And my primary goal would be making sure that Other Parent doesn't murder them in a fit of pique, which they look perfectly capable of doing- or even just by accident. There will be time to heal them once I know they're safe (especially in a world with Heal spells).

If I may draw a metaphor: You don't turn your back on the rabid dog, no matter how bad the weasel may have already hurt the kids. If the weasel's out of the picture, now the dog is the problem.

[Dr.Zero]

If I may draw a metaphor: You don't turn your back on the rabid dog, no matter how bad the weasel may have already hurt the kids. If the weasel's out of the picture, now the dog is the problem.

It's a great metaphor (aside for the rabid) and helps a lot to understand things:

Firstly, if you were curbstomped by the weasel, what makes you think you can face the dog which destroyed the weasel?

Secondly, if the dog was your own dog, and it killed gruesomely the weasel in an act of vengeance for attacking you (and to show off), what does make you think the dog is "rabid" or will attack you? (Aside the fact you never really understood the dog in the first place)

Thirdly, if, after killing the weasel to defend you, the dog -which is a magically talking dog- came to you already and did nothing to you, but inquiring on your status, what does make you think it will attack you later?

[Darth Paul]

Secondly, if the dog was your own dog, and it killed gruesomely the weasel in an act of vengeance for attacking you (and to show off), what does make you think the dog is "rabid" or will attack you? (Aside the fact you never really understood the dog in the first place)


I think you answered both your own questions. Knowing your own dog (or, let's go back to the original problem, your own spouse), you have a fair idea of what is or isn't normal behavior even under duress. Defending family from an attacker is one thing. Gruesomely destroying an attacker in the most vicious way imaginable is another. That would (or should) lead you to conclude one of two things- either "Something is very wrong, they are not themselves, they may be a danger to anyone as long as they're in this state", or else "I never really knew them at all if they can behave like this, can I trust them not to turn on us next?"

[Dr.Zero]

I think you answered both your own questions. Knowing your own dog (or, let's go back to the original problem, your own spouse), you have a fair idea of what is or isn't normal behavior even under duress. Defending family from an attacker is one thing. Gruesomely destroying an attacker in the most vicious way imaginable is another. That would (or should) lead you to conclude one of two things- either "Something is very wrong, they are not themselves, they may be a danger to anyone as long as they're in this state", or else "I never really knew them at all if they can behave like this, can I trust them not to turn on us next?"

It makes sense, but only as long as you take the single action by itself (ie: he popped in from nowhere, killed gruesomely, without saying a word).
But it didn't happen that way.
This is why the questions to answer were three, and not just one. ;)
Indeed, if you check out the third point in my previous post, you'll see that in the context of V who had already talked about the health of I. and the kids, there were no reason at all to think V would attack them. A lot of reasons to think: "My god, what have you become?", but not to think "Let me get the stick to defend myself from my spouse who 20 seconds before asked if we had urgent health issues".

[Darth Paul]

It makes sense, but only as long as you take the single action by itself (ie: he popped in from nowhere, killed gruesomely, without saying a word).
But it didn't happen that way.
This is why the questions to answer were three, and not just one. ;)
Indeed, if you check out the third point in my previous post, you'll see that in the context of V who had already talked about the health of I. and the kids, there were no reason at all to think V would attack them. A lot of reasons to think: "My god, what have you become?", but not to think "Let me get the stick to defend myself from my spouse who 20 seconds before asked if we had urgent health issues".

Indeed, V did inquire, while looking in the opposite direction and in possibly the least concerned way I can imagine. Here's the actual script:

V: Are your injuries or those of our children immediately life-threatening?

I: "Our" children ...Suvie?! Is that you?? Great elven gods have mercy, what happened to you-?

V: A simple yes or no will suffice.

I: Uh, no... I suppose not, but-

V: Good.
V: Because I am not done with the dragon. [proceeds to reanimate ABD's head and commits Familicide in full view of horrified family]

So, your spouse is for one thing unrecognizable to you, for another committed mass murder in front of you and your children (less than 10 yards away by the look of it), for a third has demonic voices speaking through them (which Kyrie can hear, established in 641). I don't see how utter horror is not an appropriate first reaction. And it appears fully justified, since in 642, after Kyrie says "I simply thought that I had some sort of say in what happened to your soul. I apologize for my presumption," V's first reaction is to raise their hands blazing with magic while shouting, "You stubborn FOOL!"

V is out of control. The ultimate arcane power is one thing, the emotional unbalance is another. V is drunk on the Dark Side, and Inkyrius can see it. If it were otherwise, V would indeed be able to give up the soul splice right then, after defeating the dragon. But their true motivation was not just saving their family; the whole book long V has been trying to find a way to make up for their magic not being enough to save Azure City. "[B]I still need to fix everything." The ABD just brought things to a head.