Why doesn't Soon know where Girard's Gate is?

[Thursus]

This question has probably come up before, but the thread might not be active because I couldn't find anything. So I apologize if this is redundant.

Back when Soon, Girard, Serini, et al. decided to split up and guard each gate on their own, weren't they together each time they discovered a rift that the gates would eventually lock up?

They were adventuring together to find each rift right? So at some point in time each of them was physically at each gate? Does that mean that Soon just didn't know where on the map they were when they were on the Western Continent? So he had no way of checking that Girard didn't lie?

[Metastachydium]

It's because delegating all the mapmaking duties to the guy who took two levels of ranger wasn't a very hot move (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0694.html).

[Fyraltari]

This question has probably come up before, but the thread might not be active because I couldn't find anything. So I apologize if this is redundant.

Back when Soon, Girard, Serini, et al. decided to split up and guard each gate on their own, weren't they together each time they discovered a rift that the gates would eventually lock up?

They were adventuring together to find each rift right? So at some point in time each of them was physically at each gate? Does that mean that Soon just didn't know where on the map they were when they were on the Western Continent? So he had no way of checking that Girard didn't lie?

Windy Canyon is in the middle of the desert. So is the point whose coordinates Girard gave him. If Soon did check those coordinates on a map he'd have been liked "Yup, checks out."

[facw]

As others have said, Girard mapped it incorrectly for Soon, and apparently he didn't check. Beyond that, it's not impossible Soon did have the knowledge to actually find it, but didn't pass that information on since he had pledged not to interfere with Girard's gate, leaving the Sapphire Guard to have to get the location from more limited sources.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, he clearly did not mention the name "Windy Canyon" or any description of it.

[Mike Havran]

Soon probably made clear at some point that he either sucks at reading coordinates or trusts his party completely. Girard just rolled fake coordinates randomly instead of putting more thought into the fabrication. And the surroundings of the fake spot do look fairly different from the canyon, so if Soon had indeed broken his promise and headed for Girard's gate, he would have soon noticed something is amiss.

[Werbaer]

And the surroundings of the fake spot do look fairly different from the canyon, so if Soon had indeed broken his promise and headed for Girard's gate, he would have soon noticed something is amiss.
Or assumed an illusionist is nearby hiding the gate from the world.

[Gurgeh]

I'm not sure why this question keeps on popping up given the comic itself has addressed it more than adequately. Girard didn't do a special fake map for Soon and only Soon - he falsified all of the Order's maps and gave the true location of the gate to Serini, specifically. Soon trusted the information that his comrade had given to the team - something entirely in-character for him - and didn't do any double-checking or other investigation because he had no need to; he was sticking to the terms of the bargain and had no intention of interfering with the gate unless it had already been destroyed.

The "Windy Canyon is a place name, how can you possibly be mistaken about it" angle is pretty flaky, too, given that decades have passed since the Scribblers' adventuring days and the name only ever comes up from secondary sources; in fact, the only source of the name comes from Tarquin relating a third-hand rumour from his ex-wife. It's entirely possible that the name was given after the Draketooths had set themselves up - quite possibly in response to their own illusions, at that.

So much of this seems to be built on assuming that Soon was someone he clearly wasn't. Girard's approach may not have been enough to fool someone who wasn't willing to assume good faith in the defence of the fabric of the world, someone who was driven by misanthropy and consistently assumed the worst of his allies - but since Soon Kim was... not that kind of person, it was enough to fool him - and, by extension, his successors in the Sapphire Guard.

[Fyraltari]

Soon probably made clear at some point that he either sucks at reading coordinates or trusts his party completely. Girard just rolled fake coordinates randomly instead of putting more thought into the fabrication. And the surroundings of the fake spot do look fairly different from the canyon, so if Soon had indeed broken his promise and headed for Girard's gate, he would have soon noticed something is amiss.

Girard wasn't planning on it fooling Soon for long though. It was mostly a way to get some advance warning Soon was coming for him.

[Morquard]

The "Windy Canyon is a place name, how can you possibly be mistaken about it" angle is pretty flaky, too, given that decades have passed since the Scribblers' adventuring days and the name only ever comes up from secondary sources; in fact, the only source of the name comes from Tarquin relating a third-hand rumour from his ex-wife. It's entirely possible that the name was given after the Draketooths had set themselves up - quite possibly in response to their own illusions, at that..

I just want to add to this point (not arguing your point, agreeing with it): A cartographer, a person who's job it is to know the names and location of places, didn't know and didn't care about a whole COUNTRY from two years ago, because nobody does. It wasn't even an obscure one. It was the predecessor of the Empire of Blood, one of the four major powers on the continent. What makes anyone think anyone could point out a specific canyon that may or may not have been there 2 years ago, much less sixty, and that may or may not have changed its name 300 times in between?

[Fyraltari]

I just want to add to this point (not arguing your point, agreeing with it): A cartographer, a person who's job it is to know the names and location of places, didn't know and didn't care about a whole COUNTRY from two years ago, because nobody does. It wasn't even an obscure one. It was the predecessor of the Empire of Blood, one of the four major powers on the continent. What makes anyone think anyone could point out a specific canyon that may or may not have been there 2 years ago, much less sixty, and that may or may not have changed its name 300 times in between?
The country is a political entity it was formed and lasted 11 months. Nobody really remembers the names because they keep changing and being toppled.

The canyon is a natural (probably) formation. It's not going to change names constantly.

Edit: especially when it's in the middle of the desert and not in the territory of either of the Vector Legion's three empires.

[Thursus]

I'm not sure why this question keeps on popping up given the comic itself has addressed it more than adequately. Girard didn't do a special fake map for Soon and only Soon - he falsified all of the Order's maps and gave the true location of the gate to Serini, specifically. Soon trusted the information that his comrade had given to the team - something entirely in-character for him - and didn't do any double-checking or other investigation because he had no need to; he was sticking to the terms of the bargain and had no intention of interfering with the gate unless it had already been destroyed.

The "Windy Canyon is a place name, how can you possibly be mistaken about it" angle is pretty flaky, too, given that decades have passed since the Scribblers' adventuring days and the name only ever comes up from secondary sources; in fact, the only source of the name comes from Tarquin relating a third-hand rumour from his ex-wife. It's entirely possible that the name was given after the Draketooths had set themselves up - quite possibly in response to their own illusions, at that.

So much of this seems to be built on assuming that Soon was someone he clearly wasn't. Girard's approach may not have been enough to fool someone who wasn't willing to assume good faith in the defence of the fabric of the world, someone who was driven by misanthropy and consistently assumed the worst of his allies - but since Soon Kim was... not that kind of person, it was enough to fool him - and, by extension, his successors in the Sapphire Guard.

I guess one of the things I'm not considering is just how massive this continent is, and that Soon is not from there. Maybe I'm just taking all of our tech for granted here on Earth, where you can pin a location immediately and know where you are all the time. It must be very different when you're in a new place that doesn't have a lot of markers, and you are trying to navigate with maps.

[arimareiji]

Girard wasn't planning on it fooling Soon for long though. It was mostly a way to get some advance warning Soon was coming for him.

I get why he would be like that, but to me it seems really messed up that Girard would be in the mindframe "I need advance warning when Soon comes to try to steal or break or do whatever to my Gate".

[Shadowknight12]

I get why he would be like that, but to me it seems really messed up that Girard would be in the mindframe "I need advance warning when Soon comes to try to steal or break or do whatever to my Gate".

Seems like a reasonable precaution when dealing with a paladin who goes on to become the sole leader of a nation.

[arimareiji]

Seems like a reasonable precaution when dealing with a paladin who goes on to become the sole leader of a nation.

If I were Girard, I hope I'd stop to think:
1) What would Soon gain by "having" my Gate, let alone breaking it?
2) If Soon doesn't have nasty motives, what would cause him to seek me out? No matter how much I hate him, I hope "He might need to warn me about something I don't know" would occur to me.

...then again, Girard might (like many humans) have a really bad case of the subconscious ego-defense mechanism "Since I'm an expert in X (in his case, illusions) nothing that anyone knows that I don't could really be that important".

[Gurgeh]

Seems like a reasonable precaution when dealing with a paladin who goes on to become the sole leader of a nation.
I wasn't expecting my "people are talking down a weird version of Soon who lives in their heads and never appeared in the comic" angle to crop up so quickly but here we are.

Just so we're clear: Soon Kim was never the ruler of Azure City. He transferred the leadership of the Sapphire Guard to the ruler of Azure City before he died. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html)

[Fyraltari]

I get why he would be like that, but to me it seems really messed up that Girard would be in the mindframe "I need advance warning when Soon comes to try to steal or break or do whatever to my Gate".
The page we're shown that is called "Paranoia will destroy ya" for a reason.

Seems like a reasonable precaution when dealing with a paladin who goes on to become the sole leader of a nation.
Soon never lead no nation. Even Girard never accused him of that.

If I were Girard, I hope I'd stop to think:
1) What would Soon gain by "having" my Gate, let alone breaking it?

Girard believed that Soon was an authoritarian control freak who wouldn't trust anyone but his lackeys with the safety of the Gates. In Girard's, in Soon's mind, Soon would be doing everyone a favor while actually stroking his own ego.

Also it's possible Girard thought Soon wanted him dead that much over their mutual dislike.

[arimareiji]

The page we're shown that is called "Paranoia will destroy ya" for a reason.
Indeed, I get why he would be like that. But I still think it's really messed up.

Girard believed that Soon was an authoritarian control freak who wouldn't trust anyone but his lackeys with the safety of the Gates. In Girard's, in Soon's mind, Soon would be doing everyone a favor while actually stroking his own ego.

Also it's possible Girard thought Soon wanted him dead that much over their mutual dislike.
Not everyone knows, but Girard is a refugee from when Snarl destroyed the universe of movie theater snacks. He was the theater's projection (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection)ist. (^_~)

[Dion]

Remember the end of the movie Fargo where Steve Buscemi buries a bunch of money in the snow, and we realize he has absolutely no idea where he is and he’s never going to find the money again?

He’s probably “near the 112th fence post on pine lane near mud lake, in northern minnesota”. Which describes no less than 100 places.

Much like a canyons called “windy canyon” in a continent spanning desert can be almost anywhere.

[Shadowknight12]

If I were Girard, I hope I'd stop to think:
1) What would Soon gain by "having" my Gate, let alone breaking it?
2) If Soon doesn't have nasty motives, what would cause him to seek me out? No matter how much I hate him, I hope "He might need to warn me about something I don't know" would occur to me.

1) Girard didn't think Soon would break the Gate, he thought Soon would eventually decide that only he knew what was best to defend them, which we know was true from their fight back in the day.
2) That is one big "if" there.


Just so we're clear: Soon Kim was never the ruler of Azure City. He transferred the leadership of the Sapphire Guard to the ruler of Azure City before he died. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html)

Leader of his personal armed forces, then.

[Vahnavoi]

Related, "Windy Canyon" is an extremely generic name.

To give some contrast and comparison, my country has 38 lakes called "Holy lake". It also has 13 lakes and three towns called "Big Lake", and 8 lakes called "Water Lake" (more if you count those called "Little Water Lake" or "Big Water Lake").

We also have three places literally called "Hell".

In order for "Windy Canyon" to be at all distinctive, it would have to be one of very few canyons on the entire continent. A more realistic expectation would be for there to be hundreds of places with that name or equivalent in other languages.

[Fyraltari]

Related, "Windy Canyon" is an extremely generic name.

Passage Pass, The Wooden Forest, The Sunken Valley, Gorge Ravine, Cliffport...

Most of the places in this comic have extremely generic name as a running gag.

[Vahnavoi]

Passage Pass, The Wooden Forest, The Sunken Valley, Gorge Ravine, Cliffport...

Most of the places in this comic have extremely generic name as a running gag.

I can't consider it a running gag because, as I hoped to demonstrate, real place names are exactly that generic. To add to the list, we have over 60 lakes and over 10 towns called "Roach Lake". Then there's at least one that's literally "Lake Lake".

[Resileaf]

I can't consider it a running gag because, as I hoped to demonstrate, real place names are exactly that generic. To add to the list, we have over 60 lakes and over 10 towns called "Roach Lake". Then there's at least one that's literally "Lake Lake".

There's also the fact that a lot of rivers on the British islands are called the equivalent of River River because when the Romans had native guides show them around, they'd ask them the name of the rivers they passed by, but the natives didn't have names for those so they'd just say "It's a river" (in their own language), and the Romans would nod and mark it 'River (native language) River (Latin)' on their maps.

[Vahnavoi]

That process is how we ended up with a different lake with a name that etymologically means "Lake Lake" as well. All that's missing is a clueless English-speaking tourist coming to ask what it's called and ending up calling it the equivalent of Lake "Lake Lake" or "Lake Lake" Lake.

[Metastachydium]

To add to the list, we have over 60 lakes and over 10 towns called "Roach Lake".

You have ten towns infested by AQUATIC roaches?

[Fish]

The Scribblers criss-crossed the continents looking for all the gates they could find. Soon’s idea of how they arrived at that gate could be very vague. Or it could be very specific in a not-very-helpful way.

A modern-day example of finding the Grand Canyon: “It’s a geological formation in central Arizona, north of the town of Williams on Route 66, which is near Interstate 40. Or just find the mouth of the Colorado River in the Gulf of California and go upriver. You can’t miss it. Any map in the last 50 years will use the same geographical place names.”

What it would have actually been like for Soon, searching for the Grand Canyon: “Let’s see, we went to that one little town with that Spanish church, and that guy in the cantina told us about the great big cliffs. We thought that was worth investigating, so we went in the direction of that one river, you remember, the one with the two trees, and that little pond. We made camp there. Anyway, we met that caravan and they said it was farther north, but by a lot, so Dorukan teleported us, and we went back to that one trading post where we bought all those boats, yeah? And we sailed downriver for a bit, and we found some cliffs, and we searched around there with magic for a few weeks, but we didn’t get any leads. So we used the Rope of Climbing to reach the top of the cliffs, covered our boats and supplies with branches, and headed south, and that’s when we passed that one broken-down wagon, and he said we were really close, if we followed that line of sagebrush down that gully toward the southwest.”

[Vahnavoi]

I surmise those towns were right next to one the Roach Lakes, so the name of the lake also became name of the town. I could be wrong - for all I know they could all be names that for distinct reasons.

You are correct in the sense that roaches (the fish) are god damn everywhere. Common roach is locally third most common fish and found in most lakes.

[Metastachydium]

I surmise those towns were right next to one the Roach Lakes, so the name of the lake also became name of the town. I could be wrong - for all I know they could all be names that for distinct reasons.

You are correct in the sense that roaches (the fish) are god damn everywhere. Common roach is locally third most common fish and found in most lakes.

Fair. (In my defense, it sounded funnier (or a lot less funny, depending on the angle one views it from) to assume that the roaches in question are not the fish.)

[Vahnavoi]

I had a chuckle out of imagining a school of roaches drowning a town into a lake.

[Metastachydium]

"Oh no, the roaches are all over the kitchen again!"

[Crimsonmantle]

That process is how we ended up with a different lake with a name that etymologically means "Lake Lake" as well. All that's missing is a clueless English-speaking tourist coming to ask what it's called and ending up calling it the equivalent of Lake "Lake Lake" or "Lake Lake" Lake.Pendle Hill in Lancashire is literally Hillhill Hill. Welsh the first time, English but ground down and merged into the first word the second time, hence added again for clarity (and because the name Pendle had come to denote a slightly wider area.)

[Dion]

Pendle Hill in Lancashire is literally Hillhill Hill.

Similarly, Torpenhow Hill apparently means “hill hill hill hill”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill

Names are crazy. And in places with few people, they can change more often than we think.

[pearl jam]

Similarly, Torpenhow Hill apparently means “hill hill hill hill”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill

Names are crazy. And in places with few people, they can change more often than we think.

I'm imagining someone who speaks too many languages trying to come up with which word for "hill" is the one they want just then. :smallbiggrin:

[Rrmcklin]

Seems like a reasonable precaution when dealing with a paladin who goes on to become the sole leader of a nation.

Doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable, especially when it's established that Girard has literally no idea how someone like Soon actually thinks. His actions were guided by the version of Soon his overly-paranoid brain created, not by the actual person.

[Jasdoif]

Passage Pass, The Wooden Forest, The Sunken Valley, Gorge Ravine, Cliffport...

Most of the places in this comic have extremely generic name as a running gag.Or at least, deliberately keeping the setting at the bare minimum.




Although in comparing the two works, I suddenly wonder what politics are like outside of the Empire of Blood. We had some ideas of what it was like in what used to be Azure City, but other than those two locales, unless I missed something, we really don't know about any politics in any other human nation or any of the four "allies" Hinjo tried to muster or anything of that sort. Of course I understand the reason we don't know this is because it's not ultimately important to the story you're telling, but it might be an interesting thing for book commentary or to speak about at a convention. Not super detailed or anything, just an idea of how many human/elven/dwarven nations there are, their attitudes towards each other, any major wars or other events that defined why the Stickverse is as it is.In order to write that, I'd have to decide it all first, and I have little or no interest in it. Not that I couldn't find it in my heart to write a story with detailed politics, but that OOTS is so clearly not that story that I can't imagine hammering the square peg into that particular round hole.

The world of OOTS is ultimately a paper-thin Anyworld, except for those specific things that influence the plot directly like the creation story or Tarquin's scheme. There's a reason why most of the place names in the comic are things like "Wooden Forest" and "Barren Desert," and it's to intentionally de-emphasize the specifics of the world.



Maybe, but it occurs to me that a well-developed setting can generate more than one story. Consider Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance -- if the setting is developed well enough, it can spawn not only multiple stories but even a franchise with different authors and modules.

I'm not a professional author. But I have to wonder whether the "leave it undefined until I absolutely need it" school provides the greatest dividends when you're writing a single one-off work, while a "define the setting first" approach allows greater opportunities for revisiting and expanding on the earlier work.

You may not have noticed, but the OOTS world is the most ridiculous paper-thin placeholder for a setting possible while still getting a large-scale story told. It's intended to be Everysetting, to a degree; default D&D with no particularly wild deviations. Because the setting isn't important to me; the characters are. I don't care about nitpicky political details or cultural quirks or any of that stuff—I just need places they can go and do their stuff. If I want to write another story, I'll make another world—one that fits the tone of that story as well as the generic vanilla world I'm using in OOTS fits for a comedic satire of the fantasy genre.

[Peelee]

Remember the end of the movie Fargo where Steve Buscemi buries a bunch of money in the snow, and we realize he has absolutely no idea where he is and he’s never going to find the money again?

Well now I don't need to watch the movie.

[MReav]

Passage Pass, The Wooden Forest, The Sunken Valley, Gorge Ravine, Cliffport...

Most of the places in this comic have extremely generic name as a running gag.

They were scraping the bottom of the idea barrel when they came up with self-aware stick figure fantasy parody. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1140.html)

[Gurgeh]

1) Girard didn't think Soon would break the Gate, he thought Soon would eventually decide that only he knew what was best to defend them, which we know was true from their fight back in the day.
Emphasis is mine, to point out that this is not established by the text. Let's look at the relevant strip (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html) and see what it says:


The party agreed that the gates could not be allowed to fall into the hands of evil, but they disagreed on how best to defend them.
Soon disagrees with Dorukan's initial suggestion, and Girard immediately throws a pithy retort. Matters escalate, and Serini intervenes before violence can break out. She proposes that each surviving member of the Order takes sole charge of the defences of one gate, and that nobody will interfere with any of the other gates.


They agreed, and swore an oath to that effect.
So: Soon Kim, a man who has been consistently, rigidly honourable - to a fault, some might say - made a promise to not interfere with any of the other gates, a promise that Girard himself acknowledges in the illusion trap's message. We know that Soon - and the Sapphire Guard - never interfered with any of the other gates until the destruction of the gate in Azure City released them from their oaths. So - Soon's behaviour is entirely consistent with his characterisation in the comic, and entirely inconsistent with Girard's expectations.


Doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable, especially when it's established that Girard has literally no idea how someone like Soon actually thinks. His actions were guided by the version of Soon his overly-paranoid brain created, not by the actual person.
Once again, emphasis mine, to reiterate the point. Shadowknight, as best I can tell you have done exactly what Girard did; you're talking about a character that does not exist in the text. Whatever his faults, Soon Kim was honest, honourable, and kept his word. Like the other Scribblers, Soon promised not to interfere with any of the other gates, and the text makes it clear that he kept his promise - to the extent of making all of his subordinates swear a similar oath of non-interference.

[Shadowknight12]

Whatever his faults, Soon Kim was honest, honourable, and kept his word. Like the other Scribblers, Soon promised not to interfere with any of the other gates, and the text makes it clear that he kept his promise - to the extent of making all of his subordinates swear a similar oath of non-interference.

Personally, I find it quite funny that this entire argument hinges on "one person not changing his ways for the rest of his life", which is a risky gamble to take when any sort of traumatic event could have occurred to Soon in the following decades after the Scribblers split up, and we know from his backstory that he is quite motivated into action by traumatic events.

Girard distrusting Soon isn't a mistake, it's a reasonable precaution when dealing with paladins (which is proven right when Soon and his paladins go on to massacre and slaughter those they deem a threat), and it's a safeguard in case a) the Soon that Girard knew isn't as honorable as he appeared, or b) the Soon that Girard knew stops existing in the next several decades and is replaced by a Soon with a different set of priorities.

[Peelee]

Girard distrusting Soon isn't a mistake, it's a reasonable precaution when dealing with paladins

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?

[Metastachydium]

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?

Paladins are Lawful Good and therefore you have to protect yourself from them with deathtraps. This is a universal truth.

[Shadowknight12]

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?

It's a class mandated to be Lawful, which as Haley herself says (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html), have an unfortunate tendency of thinking their way of thinking is The Right Way, and trying to impose it on others. This goes double for Lawful Good folk, who are convinced by virtue of their Goodness that their way is not only Right, but also Good.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Emphasis mine. Paladins are supposed to refuse aid to people who would use it for chaos (regardless of whether it might be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral ends, which are by definition not evil), and also are compelled to punish those who are even a "threat" to innocents, which means they are encouraged to act before any harm has been done, on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Presumably this is intended to encourage paladins to protect the innocent before they are harmed, but it seems like a bad idea to command them to take preemptive action on mere "threats".

Furthermore, paladins are harshly punished not only for committing evil acts or ceasing to be Good, but for ceasing to be Lawful as well, and for "grossly violating" their code of conduct, so they are incentivized to adhere to it as strictly as possible.

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.

[Peelee]

"Paladins must be Lawful and follow a strict, rigid code, so they are inherently unpredictable and you have no idea how they will act" is certainly one of the more novel assertions I've seen on this site.

[arimareiji]

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.
(emphasis added)

Thus Serini's legitimate worry about (paraphrased) "Okay, you don't intend to destroy all of existence, but what if you decide that your code requires everyone to die honorably rather than let Xykon win?"

As far as she knows, that's easily one of the most dangerous land mines on the playing field. Primarily because it might not take much to trigger it, and she can't predict every situation that would trigger it.

[Shadowknight12]

"Paladins must be Lawful and follow a strict, rigid code, so they are inherently unpredictable and you have no idea how they will act" is certainly one of the more novel assertions I've seen on this site.

Wasn't there a famous fictional pirate who said something about honesty? :smalltongue:


(emphasis added)

Thus Serini's legitimate worry about (paraphrased) "Okay, you don't intend to destroy all of existence, but what if you decide that your code requires everyone to die honorably rather than let Xykon win?"

As far as she knows, that's easily one of the most dangerous land mines on the playing field. Primarily because it might not take much to trigger it, and she can't predict every situation that would trigger it.

Exactly.

[Fyraltari]

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?
Well, see, Paladins are punished when they break their Oath. If they were trustworthy, there wouldn't be any need for that. Therefore one should never trust a paladin, unlike, say a Rogue whose class never punishes them for backstabbing people.

Wasn't there a famous fictional pirate who said something about honesty? :smalltongue:
And immediately contradicted himself.

[Timy]

It's a class mandated to be Lawful, which as Haley herself says (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html), have an unfortunate tendency of thinking their way of thinking is The Right Way, and trying to impose it on others. This goes double for Lawful Good folk, who are convinced by virtue of their Goodness that their way is not only Right, but also Good.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Emphasis mine. Paladins are supposed to refuse aid to people who would use it for chaos (regardless of whether it might be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral ends, which are by definition not evil), and also are compelled to punish those who are even a "threat" to innocents, which means they are encouraged to act before any harm has been done, on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Presumably this is intended to encourage paladins to protect the innocent before they are harmed, but it seems like a bad idea to command them to take preemptive action on mere "threats".

Furthermore, paladins are harshly punished not only for committing evil acts or ceasing to be Good, but for ceasing to be Lawful as well, and for "grossly violating" their code of conduct, so they are incentivized to adhere to it as strictly as possible.

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.


(emphasis added)

Thus Serini's legitimate worry about (paraphrased) "Okay, you don't intend to destroy all of existence, but what if you decide that your code requires everyone to die honorably rather than let Xykon win?"

As far as she knows, that's easily one of the most dangerous land mines on the playing field. Primarily because it might not take much to trigger it, and she can't predict every situation that would trigger it.



Wouhaou...

I am amazed...

You really are trying to argue that following a code make a bunch of people not trustworthy because they could decide that their code could make these people take bad decisions ?

As opposed let say to people acting without any code and who therefore will never take bad decisions ?

[Shadowknight12]

As opposed let say to people acting without any code and who therefore will never take bad decisions ?

This is something I never said, it seems you're inventing a point to argue at.

[Gurgeh]

It's a class mandated to be Lawful, which as Haley herself says (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html), have an unfortunate tendency of thinking their way of thinking is The Right Way, and trying to impose it on others. This goes double for Lawful Good folk, who are convinced by virtue of their Goodness that their way is not only Right, but also Good.

Gotcha, you have a pathological dislike of paladins and have allowed it to colour your interpretation of the text. Note that in the same strip, Haley characterises Girard as "a paranoid fool who will suffer just to spite someone" - and had not long before (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0697.html) stated, in pretty much the same way as Roy, that Girard genuinely did not understand Soon:


Sure, if you grasp how paladins think. Mr. Booby trap here clearly doesn't, or he wouldn't have bet on one to break his oath.

The "code of conduct means they've gotta do XYZ or they'll fall, and the desire to not fall will drive every single decision they make" angle also feels like a dead end, since oathbreaking is a pretty clear violation of the paladin's code.

[Timy]

This is something I never said, it seems you're inventing a point to argue at.


With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.

And so, here you imply what exactly ? that druid/monk/etc also need to be kept at arm length ?

[Fyraltari]

And so, here you imply what exactly ? that druid/monk/etc also need to be kept at arm length ?

Keep everybody at arm's length, you fool! Don't you know there's a pandemic happening? Now is not the time to be hugging strangers!

[Shadowknight12]

Note that in the same strip, Haley characterises Girard as "a paranoid fool who will suffer just to spite someone"

Haley is completely correct: Girard was a paranoid fool. In addition to that, he was a horrible person in general.


that Girard genuinely did not understand Soon

As I said before: trusting that a person will never change, instead remaining incorruptible and adhering to an oath until his death, is a very dangerous gamble. People are tricky and they can change, oftentimes when subjected to external events.

Saying "Girard didn't know Soon" is missing the point. The point is that "trusting you know someone" is a dangerous gamble to make when you are safeguarding one of the cornerstones of reality. It doesn't matter if Girard was right or wrong about Soon, keeping paladins away from Gates is a reasonable precaution regardless of how much you think you know someone.


And so, here you imply what exactly ? that druid/monk/etc also need to be kept at arm length ?

Depends on the individual case.

[Fyraltari]

Shadowknight, that would make sense had Girard not trusted anycof his teammates. But he gave the correct coordinates to Serini. If there were such a risk that Soon would do a 180° and try to seize control of Girard's Gate, why weren't there one that Serini would do the same?

[Shadowknight12]

Shadowknight, that would make sense had Girard not trusted anycof his teammates. But he gave the correct coordinates to Serini. If there were such a risk that Soon would do a 180° and try to seize control of Girard's Gate, why weren't there one that Serini would do the same?

I don't think he should've done that, tbh, as it led to Serini's diary getting found by Xykon.

When I agree with Haley that Girard was a "paranoid fool" I mean to say that his paranoia kept him from making rational decisions and that his foolishness, ironically, came from being too trusting (and it came back to bite him in at least two different ways). Though in fairness, every Scribble member was flawed, so I wouldn't expect Girard to do any better than any of the others.

[arimareiji]

Wouhaou...

I am amazed...

You really are trying to argue that following a code make a bunch of people not trustworthy because they could decide that their code could make these people take bad decisions ?

As opposed let say to people acting without any code and who therefore will never take bad decisions ?

People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

[Timy]

Shadowknight, that would make sense had Girard not trusted anycof his teammates. But he gave the correct coordinates to Serini. If there were such a risk that Soon would do a 180° and try to seize control of Girard's Gate, why weren't there one that Serini would do the same?

Or any of the people in his clan for that matter...


People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

Is not "ethics" a code you follow ?

[Metastachydium]

Gotcha, you have a pathological dislike of paladins and have allowed it to colour your interpretation of the text. Note that in the same strip, Haley characterises Girard as "a paranoid fool who will suffer just to spite someone" - and had not long before (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0697.html) stated, in pretty much the same way as Roy, that Girard genuinely did not understand Soon:
The "code of conduct means they've gotta do XYZ or they'll fall, and the desire to not fall will drive every single decision they make" angle also feels like a dead end, since oathbreaking is a pretty clear violation of the paladin's code.

No, no, no, you don't get it. You see, because of the code all paladins are under the explicit obligation that they must protect the innocent by punishing and harming people who did nothing wrong, i.e. the innocent. If they don't punish the innocent they will fall!


People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

That's hardly of relevance here. Paladins must be Lawful Good to begin with, or else they cannot swear their oath, so they are not Good because of taking the oath, but rather vice versa: they take the oath because they are Good.

[arimareiji]

Is not "ethics" a code you follow ?

Not in the sense of "If X then I absolutely must do Y", no. If I obey a code that requires me to never flee a battle, that can run completely counter to ethics if the nominal enemy I'm battling has been lied to, and there's no way they'll listen to me mid-battle but if they have time to think about it then they'll reconsider.

At least to my mind, ethics are fluid decision-making... which I'll admit is very vulnerable to human biases and fallacies, so it requires a great deal of mindfulness to not degenerate into self-serving behavior. A code, morals as imposed by society, etc, is following decisions that have already been made.

[Fyraltari]

People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

"Ethics" is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with moral judgment. In common parlance, "ethics" and "morals" are interchangeable. Could you explicit the distinction you make between the two? Because I don't understand your position, as is.

[arimareiji]

That's hardly of relevance here. Paladins must be Lawful Good to begin with, or else they cannot swear their oath, so they are not Good because of taking the oath, but rather vice versa: they take the oath because they are Good.
I was trying to answer the question that was asked, that I had quoted, to the best of my ability. My apologies that it's not an answer to whatever question you have in mind, but I don't think it's possible to do both at once.

[Timy]

Not in the sense of "If X then I absolutely must do Y", no. If I obey a code that requires me to never flee a battle, that can run completely counter to ethics if the nominal enemy I'm battling has been lied to, and there's no way they'll listen to me mid-battle but if they have time to think about it then they'll reconsider.

At least to my mind, ethics are fluid decision-making... which I'll admit is very vulnerable to human biases and fallacies, so it requires a great deal of mindfulness to not degenerate into self-serving behavior. A code, morals as imposed by society, etc, is following decisions that have already been made.

If I understand correctly, you are just saying that for you, neutral good is better than lawfull good.

Why not.

But why paladins specifically would be worse than any other lawfull good people ?

I'll edit my post to explain why I say this :
You are saying that it is better to do what you think is better in opposition to what you have been told is better (no matter who told that).

So, you can do basically anything you want if YOU think it is better.

[arimareiji]

"Ethics" is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with moral judgment. In common parlance, "ethics" and "morals" are interchangeable. Could you explicit the distinction you make between the two? Because I don't understand your position, as is.

Done already just above your post, but Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics) has an interesting discussion of it as well.

Ethics vs Morals: Is there a difference?

Ethics and morals are both used in the plural and are often regarded as synonyms, but there is some distinction in how they are used.

Morals often describes one's particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong:
[examples]

While ethics can refer broadly to moral principles, one often sees it applied to questions of correct behavior within a relatively narrow area of activity:
[examples]

In addition, morals usually connotes an element of subjective preference, while ethics tends to suggest aspects of universal fairness and the question of whether or not an action is responsible:
[examples]

Edit:Adding reply


If I understand correctly, you are just saying that for you, neutral good is better than lawfull good.

Why not.

But why paladins specifically would be worse than any other lawfull good people ?

"Better" and "worse" are terribly-imprecise words that lend themselves too easily to one's personal preferences.

I believe that refusing to let ethics get in the way of strict "morality" and "law" can lead to horrific decisions. And "ethics" unmoored from any strict principles can also lead to horrific self-serving rationalizations. It's impossible to say which is going to be the case without specific details, such as "Is it right to destroy the world to prevent the Bad Guy from ruling it?"

[Metastachydium]

I was trying to answer the question that was asked, that I had quoted, to the best of my ability. My apologies that it's not an answer to whatever question you have in mind, but I don't think it's possible to do both at once.

The question, as I understood it was if
1. following a code makes people less trustworthy in general and
2. (implicitly, based on context) if paladins are less trustworthy because they follow a code.
That code based behaviour can lead to nasty stuff is not an answer to either question as far as I'm concerned, since it doesn't make code-based behaviour inherently/usually shady (1) and it irrelevant to the ongoing discussion about paladins because paladins do not forgo ethics in the name of morals for the aforesaid reason (2).
But, perhaps, we are not talking about the same thing and I merely considered a side discussion part of the main discussion, in which case I'll readily apologise for the inconveniences caused.

[Dion]

1. following a code makes people less trustworthy in general.

In general, I believe it does.

In practice, “codes” are almost never used to limit behavior. Codes are almost always used to justify behavior.

Nothing in earth is more dangerous or less trustworthy than someone with justification.

[Metastachydium]

In general, I believe it does.

In practice, “codes” are almost never used to limit behavior. Codes are almost always used to justify behavior.

Nothing in earth is more dangerous or less trustworthy than someone with justification.

That's a fairly cynical approach, to put it mildly. Lots of people have actual, very strong convictions that guide their actions. That's not necessarily a good thing (and very often it can lead to, khm, unpleasant consequences), but that doesn't mean that these convictions are clever ploys devised to facilitate some shady agenda rather than genuine beliefs.

[arimareiji]

The question, as I understood it was if
1. following a code makes people less trustworthy in general and
2. (implicitly, based on context) if paladins are less trustworthy because they follow a code.
That code based behaviour can lead to nasty stuff is not an answer to either question as far as I'm concerned, since it doesn't make code-based behaviour inherently/usually shady (1) and it irrelevant to the ongoing discussion about paladins because paladins do not forgo ethics in the name of morals for the aforesaid reason (2).
But, perhaps, we are not talking about the same thing and I merely considered a side discussion part of the main discussion, in which case I'll readily apologise for the inconveniences caused.
If you disagree with the answer I provided to the question that I was responding to and quoting, that's absolutely fine and normal.

Edit: clarity of wording

[Rrmcklin]

It's a class mandated to be Lawful, which as Haley herself says (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html), have an unfortunate tendency of thinking their way of thinking is The Right Way, and trying to impose it on others. This goes double for Lawful Good folk, who are convinced by virtue of their Goodness that their way is not only Right, but also Good.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Emphasis mine. Paladins are supposed to refuse aid to people who would use it for chaos (regardless of whether it might be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral ends, which are by definition not evil), and also are compelled to punish those who are even a "threat" to innocents, which means they are encouraged to act before any harm has been done, on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Presumably this is intended to encourage paladins to protect the innocent before they are harmed, but it seems like a bad idea to command them to take preemptive action on mere "threats".

Furthermore, paladins are harshly punished not only for committing evil acts or ceasing to be Good, but for ceasing to be Lawful as well, and for "grossly violating" their code of conduct, so they are incentivized to adhere to it as strictly as possible.

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.

It seems to me that you're engaging in some pretty circular thinking there, and I have to raise and eyebrow at you decide to interpret the word "threaten" as being in purely hypothetical terms (which could be possible given certain context) instead "has not caused harm yet, but has expressed intention or based on context is much more likely to so if not stopped before hand" as I imagine most people would interpret that word and phrasing.

None of which is to say the type of paladin or people you describe don't even exist but, again, the question was if Girard had any reason beyond his own paranoia to assume these things about Soon and the story seems to go wit "no, he did not".

[Vahnavoi]

The discussion gets saner if you know how the ethical system put forward by AD&D rules is meant to work.

Put simply: the conflict between Law and Chaos is not "rigid" versus "flexible". It's large organized groups versus the benefit of individual, AKA collectivism versus individualism. Thus, say, conflict between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is not just "unflexible good person" versus "flexible good person", the people involved genuinely follow conflicting ethics, for example Altruism versus Objectivism.

Chaotic people, like Girard, are not actually less zealous about their principles as any kind of a rule; they just have different principles. Principles which, if projected onto a Lawful person, would make that person's action look stupid, self-deceptive, self-sabotaging and inauthentic. No Chaotic person doing such a projection would believe a Lawful person could honestly follow something like a Paladin's code - they would assume the Lawful person is only following the code because they falsely believe it will benefit them, and will break their code if confronted with the truth. The train of thought going "codes don't really control behaviour, they are only used to justify them" is an example of such projection.

[Shadowknight12]

No Chaotic person doing such a projection would believe a Lawful person could honestly follow something like a Paladin's code - they would assume the Lawful person is only following the code because they falsely believe it will benefit them, and will break their code if confronted with the truth.

This is a misrepresentation of Chaotic people even within your own framing. Chaotic people aren't inherently egoistical and self-interested, unable to comprehend concepts like "altruism". It's possible that a Chaotic person fully understands the paladin's code and Lawful people in general, and still believe that they cause more harm than good, because of their fundamentally different principles.

[Peelee]

Far be it from me to speak to the entire alignment, but Girard clearly did not understand Soon's code.

[Shadowknight12]

Far be it from me to speak to the entire alignment, but Girard clearly did not understand Soon's code.

It's been stated multiple times in the thread, yes. I was responding specifically to the blanket categorization in that post.

[Riftwolf]

Just a thought, not sure if anyone's said it before, but...
Soon did know.
If Soon had followed Girard's co-ordinates, he would've gone 'wait a minute, this is nowhere near where we were before. There was a canyon near the rift, I'm sure of it.'
But Soon didn't go, because Soon never broke his Oath.
Neither did any member of the Sapphire Guard, who might have picked up landmark clues (such as a nearby canyon) from written lore.
The Order were working from third hand knowledge, knowledge that Soon and the rest of the Sapphire Guard trusted to be right because Soon had once trusted Girard and didn't think he'd deceive him like that. Because he's Lawful, and doesn't like the idea of lying, and Good, so he believes people he trusts are trustworthy.
The Order also didn't start looking for the Gate until 99% if the Sapphire Guard were dead or in hiding (Thanh was still alive at that point), which severely limits the available intelligence the Sapphire Guard could pass on.

[Vahnavoi]

This is a misrepresentation of Chaotic people even within your own framing. Chaotic people aren't inherently egoistical and self-interested, unable to comprehend concepts like "altruism". It's possible that a Chaotic person fully understands the paladin's code and Lawful people in general, and still believe that they cause more harm than good, because of their fundamentally different principles.

You are reading a part to my argument that isn't actually there. Specfically, I did not claim every Chaotic person would project their principles on others - I only described what happens if they do.

It is indeed possible a Chaotic person would not do such a projection - but Girard in the comic is not a good example of such a person. Serini might be.

But more generally, it is not enough to comprehend altruism, one has to genuinely believe people are actually altruistic to believe an argument founded on that claim. Don't let the fact that the argument is about ethics distract you. To give a contrasting example: I fully comprehend homeopathy, but don't believe in any of it, so would reject any argument based on it as nonsense.

The reverse is equally true: even if a Chaotic person isn't inherently egoistical and self-interested, it's perfectly possible for them to believe that they themselves, and people in general, are. This is also shows the inherence argument is irrelevant: it doesn't matter if people are inherently or actually anything, the only thing necessary for a projection to happen is belief that people are.

[Peelee]

It's been stated multiple times in the thread, yes.

And yet you called his actions reasonable. While a character in the comic who is shown to understand paladins calls him a paranoid fool and clearly does not think his actions were reasonable.

As I see it, we are not supposed to think he was reasonable. We are supposed to think he was incredibly misguided and massively unreasonable. And I, for one, do see him that way, and cannot reconcile his incredibly flawed thought process as "well that seems reasonable".

[Rrmcklin]

At most, you could say there's a scenario in which a reasonable person might still decide it's better not to trust Soon (or any of the others) with the true location of the gate. That is not, however, the same thing as saying that Girard's actions themselves were reasonable because we know they were not made by a person with a particularly rational framework or impression of the person he was judging.

And that does matter - if someone shots a person because they have a petty grudge against them, but unbeknownst to them the other person was also a murderer who was about to try and kill them too, that does no retroactively make shooting them over the petty grudge reasonable.

[Kish]

I get why he would be like that, but to me it seems really messed up that Girard would be in the mindframe "I need advance warning when Soon comes to try to steal or break or do whatever to my Gate".
Well yes. That's probably why the strip where he assumes the one member of the Order of the Scribble who didn't break the oath is there to violently seize his Gate, and proceeding on that assumption he blows up the heroes of the comic, is titled "Paranoia Will Destroy Ya."

Edited to add, in response to some other posts in this thread: Oh for...

Girard was paranoid. Girard fundamentally misunderstood paladins in general and Soon in specific. Girard's perspective was both stupid and completely unreasonable. If you really think otherwise I can only suggest you reread the handful of strips under discussion...and then take off your "paladins bad" glasses and reread them again.

That says nothing about Chaotic people in general; the Chaotic Haley accurately summarized Girard's errors, including pointing out that "Mr. Booby Trap" clearly didn't understand paladins. It only says something about Girard.

[arimareiji]

Well yes. That's probably why the strip where he assumes the one member of the Order of the Scribble who didn't break the oath is there to violently seize his Gate, and proceeding on that assumption he blows up the heroes of the comic, is titled "Paranoia Will Destroy Ya."

Edited to add, in response to some other posts in this thread: Oh for...

Girard was paranoid. Girard fundamentally misunderstood paladins in general and Soon in specific. Girard's perspective was both stupid and completely unreasonable. If you really think otherwise I can only suggest you reread the handful of strips under discussion...and then take off your "paladins bad" glasses and reread them again.

That says nothing about Chaotic people in general; the Chaotic Haley accurately summarized Girard's errors, including pointing out that "Mr. Booby Trap" clearly didn't understand paladins. It only says something about Girard.
In a semi-echo of what you said about Chaotic people in general, this is not true of every CN character -- but wacky behavior happens often enough that in some circles CN is affectionately nicknamed "Chaotic Stupid".

[Shadowknight12]

And yet you called his actions reasonable. While a character in the comic who is shown to understand paladins calls him a paranoid fool and clearly does not think his actions were reasonable.

As I see it, we are not supposed to think he was reasonable. We are supposed to think he was incredibly misguided and massively unreasonable. And I, for one, do see him that way, and cannot reconcile his incredibly flawed thought process as "well that seems reasonable".

The reason not trusting Soon is reasonable is because it doesn't matter if Girard had an accurate reading of Soon's personality or not. Assuming that a person you had a bitter, violent disagreement with is going to abide by their oath and never experience any personality-shaking events is a gamble.

Everyone saying "Girard didn't know Soon" is missing the point of why the precaution was reasonable. It didn't matter whether Soon adhered to the oath or not, the reasonable route to take is to not risk that being a factor in the first place.

[Peelee]

The reason not trusting Soon is reasonable is because it doesn't matter if Girard had an accurate reading of Soon's personality or not. Assuming that a person you had a bitter, violent disagreement with is going to abide by their oath and never experience any personality-shaking events is a gamble.

Everyone saying "Girard didn't know Soon" is missing the point of why the precaution was reasonable. It didn't matter whether Soon adhered to the oath or not, the reasonable route to take is to not risk that being a factor in the first place.

You originally used the idea that Soon was a dictator to help support that position. Though you changed the verbiage later, I cannot help but think the idea was still ingrained as a pillar on which to prop up the idea that Girard was unreasonable.

And, more to the point, a reasonable continuance of an unreasonable position is still unreasonable. It's fruit from the poisonous tree. One can be reasonable and still wrong. Girard was not (as Haley herself pointed out).

[Metastachydium]

The reason not trusting Soon is reasonable is because it doesn't matter if Girard had an accurate reading of Soon's personality or not. Assuming that a person you had a bitter, violent disagreement with is going to abide by their oath and never experience any personality-shaking events is a gamble.

Everyone saying "Girard didn't know Soon" is missing the point of why the precaution was reasonable. It didn't matter whether Soon adhered to the oath or not, the reasonable route to take is to not risk that being a factor in the first place.

So you're implying that Soon was being unreasonable or at the very least careless when he didn't specifically design a death trap in Azure City for Girard and Dorukan, and Dorukan was unreasonable/careless when he didn't create a death trap specifically designed to deal with Soon and maybe Girard? That would be a huge stretch.

[Rrmcklin]

~ snip ~

Edited to add, in response to some other posts in this thread: Oh for...

Girard was paranoid. Girard fundamentally misunderstood paladins in general and Soon in specific. Girard's perspective was both stupid and completely unreasonable. If you really think otherwise I can only suggest you reread the handful of strips under discussion...and then take off your "paladins bad" glasses and reread them again.

That says nothing about Chaotic people in general; the Chaotic Haley accurately summarized Girard's errors, including pointing out that "Mr. Booby Trap" clearly didn't understand paladins. It only says something about Girard.

To be fair, it doesn't seem like that person was talking about Chaotic people in general, just Chaotic people who are inclined to view everyone else through their world view, instead of understanding people can sincerely function under a different code of ethics. Girard was not a person who understood that, and it showed.

[hungrycrow]

The reason not trusting Soon is reasonable is because it doesn't matter if Girard had an accurate reading of Soon's personality or not. Assuming that a person you had a bitter, violent disagreement with is going to abide by their oath and never experience any personality-shaking events is a gamble.

Everyone saying "Girard didn't know Soon" is missing the point of why the precaution was reasonable. It didn't matter whether Soon adhered to the oath or not, the reasonable route to take is to not risk that being a factor in the first place.

But he didn't take those precautions with Serini, who equally could have had a radical personality change. This wasn't about properly defending the gate from betrayal or infiltration, it was about taking a potshot at Soon specifically.

And of course this reasonable precaution ended up giving the fake coordinates to people that wanted to help, and the real coordinates to the bad guys.

[Jasdoif]

The reason not trusting Soon is reasonable is because it doesn't matter if Girard had an accurate reading of Soon's personality or not. Assuming that a person you had a bitter, violent disagreement with is going to abide by their oath and never experience any personality-shaking events is a gamble.

Everyone saying "Girard didn't know Soon" is missing the point of why the precaution was reasonable. It didn't matter whether Soon adhered to the oath or not, the reasonable route to take is to not risk that being a factor in the first place.The caution was reasonable, certainly. The precaution was predicated on discussing the Sapphire Guard and the Gate (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html), revealed that Serini had the true coordinates, divulged that Girard had less than twelve weeks to develop it, and failed to kill someone significantly lower-level than Soon. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html)

This was not a reasonable countermeasure. This was Girard's ego trip, dedicated primarily to gloating about how smart Girard imagined he was, so fixated on Soon that it leaked critical information that people who were not Soon wouldn't automatically have; and still didn't have the power to reliably obliterate Soon despite that being the ostensible purpose of having an active countermeasure in the first place.

[Shadowknight12]

As I mentioned previously, I think Girard trusting Serini was a mistake. And as I also mentioned above, I'm not defending Girard as a person (I think he's quite repulsive), but "distrusting someone you had a near-violent fight with and eliminating the possibility of them finding you" is quite reasonable. Since I find myself having to repeat the same points over and over, I'm just not going to reply to anything that could be answered by something I've already posted.

[Squire Doodad]

As I mentioned previously, I think Girard trusting Serini was a mistake. And as I also mentioned above, I'm not defending Girard as a person (I think he's quite repulsive), but "distrusting someone you had a near-violent fight with and eliminating the possibility of them finding you" is quite reasonable. Since I find myself having to repeat the same points over and over, I'm just not going to reply to anything that could be answered by something I've already posted.

It was the cause of a mistake in practice, but realistically Girard trusting Serini made sense. As did not trusting Soon, at least insofar as the "random dice roll location" was involved, not the "deathtrap" part.


The caution was reasonable, certainly. The precaution was predicated on discussing the Sapphire Guard and the Gate (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html), revealed that Serini had the true coordinates, divulged that Girard had less than twelve weeks to develop it, and failed to kill someone significantly lower-level than Soon. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html)

This was not a reasonable countermeasure. This was Girard's ego trip, dedicated primarily to gloating about how smart Girard imagined he was, so fixated on Soon that it leaked critical information that people who were not Soon wouldn't automatically have; and still didn't have the power to reliably obliterate Soon despite that being the ostensible purpose of having an active countermeasure in the first place.

Yeah, that deserves more attention now that I think about it.
Girard sent Soon a random location out of paranoia; but he rigged it with a weak death trap and a lengthy gloat for his own benefit. If I had to guess, the trap was the best he could put together in short order, probably focusing on spread more than power if he's assuming Soon would bring an army. Since it visibly did hefty damage to Roy, and therefore probably got Haley and everyone else down to under 10 HP, I would say it would be enough to extinguish a legion of low to mid level Paladins.

(One could argue it was meant to be moderately survivable so Girard could find them and then hunt them down, but that's probably giving him too little credit.)

[Rrmcklin]

As I mentioned previously, I think Girard trusting Serini was a mistake. And as I also mentioned above, I'm not defending Girard as a person (I think he's quite repulsive), but "distrusting someone you had a near-violent fight with and eliminating the possibility of them finding you" is quite reasonable. Since I find myself having to repeat the same points over and over, I'm just not going to reply to anything that could be answered by something I've already posted.

Even if I agreed with your reasoning (and again, to be clear, I don't), that still wouldn't make Girard's caution "reasonable" because he was not making decisions from a reasonable frame of mind.

I feel like most people are aware of your position; the disagreement is not born out of misunderstanding.

[Kish]

Even if I agreed with your reasoning (and again, to be clear, I don't), that still wouldn't make Girard's caution "reasonable" because he was not making decisions from a reasonable frame of mind.

I feel like most people are aware of your position; the disagreement is not born out of misunderstanding.
Indeed. I think even assuming that "reasonable" and "filled with murderous hatred toward Soon" can be reconciled, the reasonable attitude would be, "He's supposed to have the coordinates in case of a dire threat to all the Gates; even if at this moment I'm having trouble imagining someone worse than him, I better not give him fake coordinates."

[Shadowknight12]

I feel like most people are aware of your position; the disagreement is not born out of misunderstanding.

If that's the case, then there's nothing to discuss: to each their own opinion. :smallsmile:

[Peelee]

As I mentioned previously, I think Girard trusting Serini was a mistake. And as I also mentioned above, I'm not defending Girard as a person (I think he's quite repulsive), but "distrusting someone you had a near-violent fight with and eliminating the possibility of them finding you" is quite reasonable. Since I find myself having to repeat the same points over and over, I'm just not going to reply to anything that could be answered by something I've already posted.

Then what about the other issue raised - that nobody else gave anyone else fake coordinates, or hid death traps at those fake coordinates? The idea that it was reasonable of Girard implies that it was unreasonable of Soon, Lirian, and Dorukan to have not done the same.

Do you wish to contend that it was unreasonable for Soon, Lirian, and Dorukan to have not done so?

[Shadowknight12]

Then what about the other issue raised - that nobody else gave anyone else fake coordinates, or hid death traps at those fake coordinates? The idea that it was reasonable of Girard implies that it was unreasonable of Soon, Lirian, and Dorukan to have not done the same.

Do you wish to contend that it was unreasonable for Soon, Lirian, and Dorukan to have not done so?

The fact that Soon still had the wrong coordinates means nobody else trusted Soon either. Dorukan and Lirian may not have noticed that Soon was deceived, but Serini knew, and chose to keep Soon in the dark. Additionally,

Dorukan claims he's had allies trying to track Lirian's soul down, and because Shojo revealed that he didn't know what actually happened to Lirian's Gate, this tells us that Dorukan didn't trust Soon or the Sapphire Guard either, not even when one of the Gates was destroyed and one of the Scribblers was soul-trapped.

Granted, we don't know whether the Draketooth and Serini were contacted by Dorukan, it's possible that he didn't contact any of the remaining Scribblers at all.

Some of the people in the party trusted each other (Lirian and Dorukan, Serini and Girard), but the one common denominator seems to be that nobody trusted Soon. While Girard may have had a personal vendetta against him that clouded his judgment, nobody else reached out to him either.

[Peelee]

The fact that Soon still had the wrong coordinates means nobody else trusted Soon either.

How, exactly, can you deduce that? Everything you said to justify it was a pure assumption and we have just as much reason to disbelieve it as we do to believe it.

[Metastachydium]

The fact that Soon still had the wrong coordinates means nobody else trusted Soon either. Dorukan and Lirian may not have noticed that Soon was deceived, but Serini knew, and chose to keep Soon in the dark.

1. We don't know that Serini knew either. All we know is that she had the right coordinates.


Additionally,
Dorukan claims he's had allies trying to track Lirian's soul down, and because Shojo revealed that he didn't know what actually happened to Lirian's Gate, this tells us that Dorukan didn't trust Soon or the Sapphire Guard either, not even when one of the Gates was destroyed and one of the Scribblers was soul-trapped.

2. Again, Dorukan didn't know what exactly what happened to the Gate and Lirian.


Granted, we don't know whether the Draketooth and Serini were contacted by Dorukan, it's possible that he didn't contact any of the remaining Scribblers at all.

3. Yes.


Some of the people in the party trusted each other (Lirian and Dorukan, Serini and Girard), but the one common denominator seems to be that nobody trusted Soon. While Girard may have had a personal vendetta against him that clouded his judgment, nobody else reached out to him either.

4. There is no indication that Serini trusted Girard (we only know the opposite was true) and we have no indication whatsoever that Lirian didn't trust Soon, while the „evidence” for the notion that Dorukan didn't trust Soon is extremely weak, to put it mildly. Not that the fact that the Scribblers didn't reach out to each other proves anything. They swore an oath not to do so.

Also, you didn't answer the question. Were all party members other than Girard unreasonable/careless when they designed no death traps for the others and made no measures to mislead them, specifically?

[Peelee]

Also, you didn't answer the question. Were all party members other than Girard unreasonable/careless when they designed no death traps for the others and made no measures to mislead them, specifically?

Af a complete guess, the implication may be that everyone gave Soon fake coordinates* and they all had death traps set up for Soon, so it was reasonable to do that against Soon and only Soon because Soon is a stinkybutt.

Just a guess, mind you.

*except Serini.

[Fyraltari]

Af a complete guess, the implication may be that everyone gave Soon fake coordinates* and they all had death traps set up for Soon, so it was reasonable to do that against Soon and only Soon because Soon is a stinkybutt.

Just a guess, mind you.

*except Serini.

Except everybody who isn't Girard. The Sapphire Guard investigated the remains of Lirian's Gate, and we know that they were in the right place since we were shown a tatter of the Crimson Mantle. Since their tracking skill being abysmall was the point of thah joke, we can conclude they had the correct coordinates. Likewise the SG's diviners were able to zero in on the remains of Dorukan's quickly enough that Eugene was still hanging around in the area so they apparently had the right coordinates for that one too.

While the Crayons of Time imply there was no lost love between Soon and Dorukan it seems clear that only Girard was hateful enough to plan to fight him to the death.

[Shadowknight12]

How, exactly, can you deduce that? Everything you said to justify it was a pure assumption and we have just as much reason to disbelieve it as we do to believe it.

We don't know what Lirian's relationship was with Soon. We know Dorukan didn't count Soon or the Sapphire Guard as among "his allies" when he investigated what happened to Lirian (we know from Shojo the Sapphire Guard had to do their own investigation separately). We also know Serini never gave Soon the right coordinates and joined a bet with Girard on whether Soon would break the oath or not (and the fact that Girard had a specific timeline of 12 weeks would indicate that Serini didn't bet that Soon wouldn't break the oath at all, but that he'd break it at a later date).


Also, you didn't answer the question. Were all party members other than Girard unreasonable/careless when they designed no death traps for the others and made no measures to mislead them, specifically?

The death trap was excessive and unnecessary, but I do believe the main reason the Scribblers failed was because of their own personal flaws, and for many of them, that fault was "trusting other people". Especially for Girard. Girard's fault was trusting his family and Serini, and specifically that trust was the undoing of the Gate's defenses. Soon trusted the honor of a paladin and it was the honor of a(n ex-)paladin that destroyed the Gate and saved Xykon and Redcloak from Soon's ghost. Dorukan's feelings for Lirian caused him to act irrationally and were the cause of his demise.

So yes, I think it was careless of the Scribbles to not be more distrustful and actively misleading. But again, the point of the story is that they are flawed people who thought they had all the answers and received an epic-level reality check as a result. I don't mind what happened to them, as they were all undone by their own hamartia.

I'm just saying that Girard had the right idea, but his execution was terrible. It's like he was hungry and decided to make himself a sandwich (a reasonable idea) but in the process burned the bread, went too far with the spices and the sandwich ended up being an inedible mess (a terrible execution).

[Squire Doodad]

Except everybody who isn't Girard. The Sapphire Guard investigated the remains of Lirian's Gate, and we know that they were in the right place since we were shown a tatter of the Crimson Mantle. Since their tracking skill being abysmall was the point of thah joke, we can conclude they had the correct coordinates. Likewise the SG's diviners were able to zero in on the remains of Dorukan's quickly enough that Eugene was still hanging around in the area so they apparently had the right coordinates for that one too.

While the Crayons of Time imply there was no lost love between Soon and Dorukan it seems clear that only Girard was hateful enough to plan to fight him to the death.

Pretty much this. I'd say the common denominator is that they all trusted Serini, not that they hated Soon. Everyone but Girard gave him the right coords.


We also know Serini never gave Soon the right coordinates and joined a bet with Girard on whether Soon would break the oath or not (and the fact that Girard had a specific timeline of 12 weeks would indicate that Serini didn't bet that Soon wouldn't break the oath at all, but that he'd break it at a later date).

Serini had to have given Soon the right coordinates because the party was able to get there. Even if it was "at the north pole", they were able to find the right spot easily.
The bet was most likely Girard saying not only would he break it, Soon would have so little self-control that he'd go ahead and snap it like a twig before 12 weeks had passed.



...but I do believe the main reason the Scribblers failed was because of their own personal flaws, and for many of them, that fault was "trusting other people". Especially for Girard.
I'll be honest, as far as morals go, "trusted people too much" is pretty iffy. Girard failed because he didn't trust anyone but his family, because he was so paranoid that his clan ended up being literally unable to protect their gate because of it (everyone died, then no one was willing to come back to life because Durkon was LG).
If anything, their weakpoint was only using their own path of defending the gate instead of, you know, having a backup plan that wouldn't be negated by Lich.

I'm not going to go into more detail about that at the moment, though, since it's a whole other rabbit hole.

[Fyraltari]

We don't know what Lirian's relationship was with Soon. We know Dorukan didn't count Soon or the Sapphire Guard as among "his allies" when he investigated what happened to Lirian (we know from Shojo the Sapphire Guard had to do their own investigation separately).
Dorukan had swore an Oath never to talk with the other Scribblers and their underlings remember? Just because je broke that Oath in regards to the love of his life doesn't mean he wouldn't keep it for the others.

We also know Serini never gave Soon the right coordinates and joined a bet with Girard on whether Soon would break the oath or not (and the fact that Girard had a specific timeline of 12 weeks would indicate that Serini didn't bet that Soon wouldn't break the oath at all, but that he'd break it at a later date).
The bet wasn't between Girard and Serini, though. It was a betting pool, meaning more than two bidders (the others were most likely Girard's cousins). It is entirely possible that Serini bet "never".




The death trap was excessive and unnecessary, but I do believe the main reason the Scribblers failed was because of their own personal flaws, and for many of them, that fault was "trusting other people".
You wanna bet that when all's said and done the conclusion of the story will be that the Scribblers' flaw was each only believing in their own way rather than working and trusting each other.

Especially for Girard.
I gotta say "the paranoiac was too trusting" is an... original position to take.

[Shadowknight12]

I gotta say "the paranoiac was too trusting" is an... original position to take.

I thought that was the whole point about Dorukan, Girard and Soon. Each of them were defeated by the very thing they trusted and relied on the most.

Dorukan believed in the power of arcane magic above all else and was defeated in a spell duel against another arcane caster.

Girard was extremely distrustful and his Gate's defenses were pierced when the few people he trusted were taken out precisely because of their familial connection (the one thing Girard thought he could trust).

Soon was on the verge of saving the Gate and defeating Xykon and Redcloak for good when an ex-paladin trying to be as honorable and paladin-y as possible (the things Soon upheld as the highest virtues) destroyed the Gate and allowed the enemies to escape.

[Squire Doodad]

I thought that was the whole point about Dorukan, Girard and Soon. Each of them were defeated by the very thing they trusted and relied on the most.

I think the word "trust" is applicable here, but not the best way to put it.

[Kish]

Yeah, going from "trusting other people" (the original claim) to "trust[ing] and rely[ing] on [something]" is not exactly not changing the assertion. Particularly, but not limited to, when, for Girard, what he trusted most was deception.

[Peelee]

We don't know what Lirian's relationship was with Soon. We know Dorukan didn't count Soon or the Sapphire Guard as among "his allies" when he investigated what happened to Lirian.
I re-read Start of Darkness just to make sure - Dorukan doesn't talk about "his allies" or investigating what happened to Lirian. Rather, he said on page 102
I've had clerics trying to resurrect her for years, and we could never find her soul.How many clerics can you count among the Order of the Scribble? How many aside from Lirian do you think could raise the dead? It sounds to me like he didn't enlist the help of any of the Scribblers because there was nothing they could do. And nobody else ever mentioned it. He never commented on "allies". He had clerics. That's it. That's all he needed, since he believed in the power of magic to withstand all else.

We also know Serini never gave Soon the right coordinates and joined a bet with Girard on whether Soon would break the oath or not (and the fact that Girard had a specific timeline of 12 weeks would indicate that Serini didn't bet that Soon wouldn't break the oath at all, but that he'd break it at a later date).
We don't know that Serini was part of the bet at all. Girard mentions the spell would notify "her and us", and then mentions a pool. I, for one, read that as a pool among him and his followers, not Serini. The Order did as well (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html).

Again, you have a lot of assumptions that you are taking to be true that do not have any support whatsoever of being true.

[Shadowknight12]

I re-read Start of Darkness just to make sure - Dorukan doesn't talk about "his allies" or investigating what happened to Lirian. Rather, he said on page 102How many clerics can you count among the Order of the Scribble? How many aside from Lirian do you think could raise the dead? It sounds to me like he didn't enlist the help of any of the Scribblers because there was nothing they could do. And nobody else ever mentioned it. He never commented on "allies". He had clerics. That's it. That's all he needed, since he believed in the power of magic to withstand all else.

This doesn't change anything. The clerics were his allies. When he learned that Lirian's Gate had been destroyed and she had died, he didn't reach out to Soon even though he specifically sought out divine magic. That's all I'm saying. You seem to assume that my point is "Dorukan hated Soon as much as Girard" and I never stated that. I simply said that Dorukan didn't trust Soon with the knowledge of what happened to Lirian and that's factually correct.

[Peelee]

This doesn't change anything. The clerics were his allies. When he learned that Lirian's Gate had been destroyed and she had died, he didn't reach out to Soon even though he specifically sought out divine magic. That's all I'm saying. You seem to assume that my point is "Dorukan hated Soon as much as Girard" and I never stated that. I simply said that Dorukan didn't trust Soon with the knowledge of what happened to Lirian and that's factually correct.

The fact that Soon cannot cast Resurrection (or any divine spell over 4th level) seems like it changes everything, since Dorukan specifically said he was trying to get Resurrection. A mid-level cleric would be better suited to his needs than an epic paladin. There's zero reason why he would seek assistance from a paladin, since Soon could not do anything that Dorukan needed done.

I'm not imagining that you think Dorukan hated Soon. I'm saying there is no reason to believe Dorukan distrusted Soon as you imply, and the reasoning that your asserting is baseless, as I have shown.

[Squire Doodad]

This doesn't change anything. The clerics were his allies. When he learned that Lirian's Gate had been destroyed and she had died, he didn't reach out to Soon even though he specifically sought out divine magic. That's all I'm saying. You seem to assume that my point is "Dorukan hated Soon as much as Girard" and I never stated that. I simply said that Dorukan didn't trust Soon with the knowledge of what happened to Lirian and that's factually correct.

It's also possible Dorukan just didn't think Soon would be able to help; if he'd kept in touch or at least read the news, he'd have known Soon was dead (Hojo was a child when Soon turned over control of the guard), and they were mostly Paladins in the first place. They're good at hunting things down, but not so good at actually using high-end clerical magic.

And that's before any bias or conceit comes into play, not to mention Dorukan may have thought the paladins would see it as violating their oath, and so have refused on principle despite being willing to lend aid otherwise.
It comes down to "the Sapphire Guard wouldn't have been able to help Dorukan much" far more readily than "Dorukan didn't trust Soon".

[Fyraltari]

Also Soon was significant older than Dorukan who was well into his eighties at this point.

Ninja'd, sorta.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm not imagining that you think Dorukan hated Soon. I'm saying there is no reason to believe Dorukan distrusted Soon as you imply, and the reasoning that your asserting is baseless, as I have shown.

You mean other than the fact that Dorukan was aware of Xykon camping outside of his castle for an extended period of time, clearly after his Gate, and still not bothering to contact Soon or his people about it?

I mean, I can show you every action Dorukan took that didn't involve Soon or the Sapphire Guard even though it would have been prudent to do so (and we know Dorukan didn't mind breaking the oath for Lirian), but you can say "that's just part of Dorukan's personality" and yes, that's true. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day, if you don't think this is sufficient evidence, that's fine. I didn't state my opinion originally looking for an argument, I've been simply answering questions for the sake of clarity, but I grow weary of the dogpiling.

[Peelee]

You mean other than the fact that Dorukan was aware of Xykon camping outside of his castle for an extended period of time, clearly after his Gate, and still not bothering to contact Soon or his people about it?
A.) Soon was dead at that point.
2.) Everyone swore to not interfere with the defense of another's Gate. Asking to disregard that to, of all people, the group that sees themselves bound by honor with an extremely rigid code seems.... misguided, at best.

I mean, I can show you every action Dorukan took that didn't involve Soon or the Sapphire Guard even though it would have been prudent to do so
He couldn't have asked them for help against Xykon, as shown above.

As for help with Lirian's soul/resurrection, ya know what? Here is the 3.5 Paladin spell list (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/paladinSpells.htm). Please, tell me exactly how Soon could have helped even had he still been alive. Because I've been through that whole thing and I see jack all that even an epic-level paladin could do that would be of any use to Dorukan's needs regarding Lirian.

[Shadowknight12]

Because I've been through that whole thing and I see jack all that even an epic-level paladin could do that would be of any use to Dorukan's needs regarding Lirian.

We know Dorukan didn't mind breaking the oath for Lirian, so I don't think he would've cared that he was breaking the oath if it meant getting Lirian's soul back.

The Giant mentioned that the Sapphire Guard also had clerics of the Twelve Gods. They weren't all paladins, just mostly.

And I think if an extremely powerful undead being was trying to get my Gate and possibly had the soul of my beloved trapped somewhere, an epic-level paladin with Smite Evil and very high saving throws would be extremely useful.

[Peelee]

We know Dorukan didn't mind breaking the oath for Lirian, so I don't think he would've cared that he was breaking the oath if it meant getting Lirian's soul back.
1.) That was for private time, not for defense.
B.) Dorukan seemed pretty confident he could take Xykon on his own when he attacked, and he needed no help defending the Gate from Xykon, as shown in SOD.
iii.) Even if he believed he needed help, and even if he decided to ask some of the Scribblers, and even if Soon was alive, then again, asking the one person/group of people who dedicate their lives to a rigid code of honor to do what they say and who have said that they will not try to interfere in the defense of other Gates would be a colossally odd decision to make. You keep insisting it would be fine. I do not know why.

The Giant mentioned that the Sapphire Guard also had clerics of the Twelve Gods. They weren't all paladins, just mostly.
And Dorukan would know this how? Character knowledge and audience knowledge are not the same thing.

And I think if an extremely powerful undead being was trying to get my Gate and possibly had the soul of my beloved trapped somewhere, an epic-level paladin with Smite Evil and very high saving throws would be extremely useful.
See B.) and iii.) above (again, disregarding that Soon was dead at the time).

[Shadowknight12]

You keep insisting it would be fine. I do not know why.

I just think if Dorukan had enough presence of mind to contact clerics for Lirian, it seems odd he didn't contact the most powerful assets that could conceivably be at his disposal (not just Soon's people, but also the Draketooth and Serini). He seemed to have been upset enough to face Xykon outside the safety of his castle and risk, well, exactly what ended up happening to him, but not enough to break an oath he didn't seem to care about breaking for more mundane reasons.

[Peelee]

I just think if Dorukan had enough presence of mind to contact clerics for Lirian, it seems odd he didn't contact the most powerful assets that could conceivably be at his disposal (not just Soon's people, but also the Draketooth and Serini). He seemed to have been upset enough to face Xykon outside the safety of his castle and risk, well, exactly what ended up happening to him, but not enough to break an oath he didn't seem to care about breaking for more mundane reasons.

Let's envision a scenario in which he did contact all of them off-panel:

Dorukan: There is a threat at my Gate, please help despite all of us swearing not to.

Sapphire Guard: No, we have sworn not to help.
Girard: No, I have sworn not to and I will keep to it unlike those bastard paladins.
Serini: No, I have sworn not to help.
Sapphire Guard: Hold on, how did you even get our number? Who are you even trying to call? Sending requires a target, you don't know any of us.

What, exactly, would that change for you? You could keep this headcanon if you like, since it makes no difference in the story. But insisting that Dorukan didn't trust Soon seems completely baseless to me.

ETA: Also, Dorukan did contact the most powerful assets that could conceivably be at his disposal - he Gated in a bunch of angels.

[Shadowknight12]

But insisting that Dorukan didn't trust Soon seems completely baseless to me.

I'm not insisting on anything, I'm simply answering questions asked to me. I didn't ask for you to share this opinion, you're more than welcome to think there isn't enough evidence to ascertain what Dorukan thought of Soon, but to me, the circumstantial evidence provided (including their time while adventuring together) is sufficient to get make an educated guess that I think is the likeliest option.

[Peelee]

I'm not insisting on anything, I'm simply answering questions asked to me. I didn't ask for you to share this opinion, you're more than welcome to think there isn't enough evidence to ascertain what Dorukan thought of Soon, but to me, the circumstantial evidence provided (including their time while adventuring together) is sufficient to get make an educated guess that I think is the likeliest option.

The circumstantial evidence is "they literally split up and decided to defend the Gates their own way". Why would you think that this means they will immediately ask for help from the others as soon as a danger crops up? That's like expecting a person to ask their divorced ex to cosign on a car they can't afford. No, they split up and specifically decided to not do stuff like that anymore, and even if the situation cropped up, they wouldn't ask that person, and even if they did, the other person wouldn't accept. It has an exceedingly high likelihood of failing at every step.

You are insisting that this is a likely option when it is incredibly unlikely, every piece of evidence you have put forward has either been shot down entirely or shown to be incredibly unlikely. You characterize multiple people responding in various ways as "dogpiling" rather than considering that what you think is likely may not be. There is no reason to expect that he would try to contact anyone in the Order that he wasn't boinking, no reason to expect that he would have any idea there were clerics in the Sapphire Guard, no reason to expect him to know anyone else in the Sapphire Guard, no reason to expect anyone in the Sapphire Guard to help him even if he did somehow have perfect information on them, and to top it all off, two of the three remaining people were already dead!

Suffice it to say, what you consider "the likeliest option" is mile away from what i would even consider an option, let alone even a remotely likely one.

[Shadowknight12]

Suffice it to say, what you consider "the likeliest option" is mile away from what i would even consider an option, let alone even a remotely likely one.

That's quite all right, people are allowed to disagree. :smallsmile:

[Jasdoif]

Serini had to have given Soon the right coordinates because the party was able to get there. Even if it was "at the north pole", they were able to find the right spot easily.I thought the whole bit about "all the mapmaking duties" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0694.html) meant Girard was responsible for tracking all the Gates' coordinates, putting him in prime position to falsify the coordinates for his own Gate (either to Soon specifically, or to all of the Order of the Scribble followed by an out-of-band update to Serini).

[Squire Doodad]

I thought the whole bit about "all the mapmaking duties" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0694.html) meant Girard was responsible for tracking all the Gates' coordinates, putting him in prime position to falsify the coordinates for his own Gate (either to Soon specifically, or to all of the Order of the Scribble followed by an out-of-band update to Serini).

Oh yeah, that's right. I imagine Girard only gave out fake coordinates for his own gate, with some variant of one "location" apiece, specifically a fake one for Soon, or the same incorrect one (maybe that patch in the desert has a series of spells meant to detect each of the Scribblers). The rest appear to be quite accurate.

[Rrmcklin]

To play devil's advocate a bit, I feel like interpreting their agreement as meaning the others couldn't offer assistance even if directly asked seems like a bit of a stretch. I think the assumption was that none of them would ask, and that seems to have been the case for all of them, but I'd say that's still a distinct situation from the "no taking it upon yourself to police everyone else and their methods" which seemed to be what the agreement was actually about.

[Resileaf]

I find that it's worth remembering that neither Lirian nor Dorukan asked each other to help defending the other's gate. They kept their oath not to interfere in the defense of the other's gate. They just had a backdoor in Dorukan's defenses for the purpose of boinking.

[Metastachydium]

To play devil's advocate a bit, I feel like interpreting their agreement as meaning the others couldn't offer assistance even if directly asked seems like a bit of a stretch. I think the assumption was that none of them would ask, and that seems to have been the case for all of them, but I'd say that's still a distinct situation from the "no taking it upon yourself to police everyone else and their methods" which seemed to be what the agreement was actually about.


I find that it's worth remembering that neither Lirian nor Dorukan asked each other to help defending the other's gate. They kept their oath not to interfere in the defense of the other's gate. They just had a backdoor in Dorukan's defenses for the purpose of boinking.

Wrong. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html)

And we agree, no interference in the other four gates. We'll set up some kind of monitoring divination to tell if someone else's gate is broken, but that's it. No spying, no "just checking in" visits, no nothing. We leave here today and that's it. We're done with each other.
Emphases mine.
They swore not to interfere with the others' Gates in any way and that they are done with each other.


I thought that was the whole point about Dorukan, Girard and Soon. Each of them were defeated by the very thing they trusted and relied on the most.

The word you're looking for is (over)confidence, rather than trust. In Girard's case, the mistake was not trusting his family, but rather not trusting anyone else, and more importantly being too confident that his illusions and zealots form an unbeatable defense. Dorukan didn't die and lose his Gate to Xykon because he trusted someone too much. His mistake was being too confident to even consider that he wouldn't be able to handle Team Evil on his own because magic.

[pearl jam]

I'd forgotten the terms were that explicit. It seems clear then that Dorukan and Lirian simply lied when they took the oath then as they likely had no intention of keeping the full terms from the start.

[hroþila]

I think it's short-sighted to say Soon (had he been alive) couldn't possibly have helped Dorukan with the Lirian situation because he was a paladin instead of a cleric. He was epic, and a pre-eminent figure in Azure City, so he had access to vast resources well beyond his own personal abilities. Dorukan not asking Soon because of the oath, or because he didn't like him very much, or because he didn't think he'd actually be able to do anything he couldn't do himself (or, well, because he was super dead) I can totally see. Not asking Soon because he wasn't a cleric however doesn't make sense to me.

That said, it's pretty obvious that access to Resurrection spells was not the problem. Dorukan's clerics (whether they were freelancers or hired staff) could almost definitely have resurrected Lirian if she hadn't been soul-bound. But still, Soon's people might have been able to offer some new insight.

[Metastachydium]

I think it's short-sighted to say Soon (had he been alive) couldn't possibly have helped Dorukan with the Lirian situation because he was a paladin instead of a cleric. He was epic, and a pre-eminent figure in Azure City, so he had access to vast resources well beyond his own personal abilities. Dorukan not asking Soon because of the oath, or because he didn't like him very much, or because he didn't think he'd actually be able to do anything he couldn't do himself (or, well, because he was super dead) I can totally see. Not asking Soon because he wasn't a cleric however doesn't make sense to me.

There is the distinct possibility that Dorukan simply trusted Soon to stick to his oath, no matter what, and deemed that there's no point approaching him.


That said, it's pretty obvious that access to Resurrection spells was not the problem. Dorukan's clerics (whether they were freelancers or hired staff) could almost definitely have resurrected Lirian if she hadn't been soul-bound. But still, Soon's people might have been able to offer some new insight.

Wait a second. How was that even supposed to work? Ressurection needs something that was part of the resurrectee's body at the time of their death and
Lirian's body was with Xykon all the way long.

[Shadowknight12]

Ressurection needs something that was part of the resurrectee's body at the time of their death

Dorukan didn't say specifically the Resurrection spell, so if he had access to Gated angels, it's possible he had access to True Resurrection (via the Gated angels, or high level clerics that the angels recommended), which has no such requirement, but does require that if they were turned into an undead creature, that they are destroyed. Alternatively, it's possible there were blood spills or strands of Lirian's hair at the site of the battle, that Dorukan preserved for Resurrection uses.

[pearl jam]

I think it's confirmed somewhere that there is no True Resurrection available in OOTS world.

[Fyraltari]

I think it's confirmed somewhere that there is no True Resurrection available in OOTS world.

Specifically it exists, but it won't ever feature in the plot because it cheapens death too much.

[Shadowknight12]

I think it's confirmed somewhere that there is no True Resurrection available in OOTS world.

We know True Resurrection exists in the world (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) and has been a factor in characters' decision-making.

[pearl jam]

I stand corrected.

[Resileaf]

Emphases mine.
They swore not to interfere with the others' Gates in any way and that they are done with each other.


It's why I specified they didn't interfere in each other's defenses. They certainly didn't fulfill the rest of the oath, but this specific, particular part, they did.

[Peelee]

I think it's short-sighted to say Soon (had he been alive) couldn't possibly have helped Dorukan with the Lirian situation because he was a paladin instead of a cleric. He was epic, and a pre-eminent figure in Azure City, so he had access to vast resources well beyond his own personal abilities.
This would be an excellent argument if Dorukan wasn't also epic and with access to vast resources well beyond his own personal abilities. Regarding Dorukan's specific problem here, anything Soon could do Dorukan could do better (D could do anything better than S (no he can't (yes he can))). Dorukan could (and did) recruit outside help already, we know this for a fact. There is nothing Soon could have provided that Dorukan could not procure from someone else.



It's why I specified they didn't interfere in each other's defenses. They certainly didn't fulfill the rest of the oath, but this specific, particular part, they did.
Same. Heck, at this point Soon looks like the only one who did keep to the agreement in every respect. But even then, if someone says they are law abiding they probably won't see speeding as a big deal yet will still balk at murder. Even if the Scribblers had plans to boink or send secret texts about how big of a stinkybutt Soon was, they would almost certainly have not done a damn thing to help the others defend their Gates even if asked (and asking to start with seems right out).

[Squire Doodad]

This would be an excellent argument if Dorukan wasn't also epic and with access to vast resources well beyond his own personal abilities. Regarding Dorukan's specific problem here, anything Soon could do Dorukan could do better (D could do anything better than S (no he can't (yes he can))). Dorukan could (and did) recruit outside help already, we know this for a fact. There is nothing Soon could have provided that Dorukan could not procure from someone else.

A still-alive Soon might have been able to help take down an Epic Lich, but Dorukan had plenty reason to be confident about the fight and that's probably nitpicking at this point.

[Peelee]

A still-alive Soon might have been able to help take down an Epic Lich, but Dorukan had plenty reason to be confident about the fight and that's probably nitpicking at this point.

A still-alive Soon swore not to interfere wity the Gates which makes that a non-starter. Which is why I specifically restricted it to Dorukan's issue with raising Lirian.

[hroþila]

This would be an excellent argument if Dorukan wasn't also epic and with access to vast resources well beyond his own personal abilities. Regarding Dorukan's specific problem here, anything Soon could do Dorukan could do better (D could do anything better than S (no he can't (yes he can))). Dorukan could (and did) recruit outside help already, we know this for a fact. There is nothing Soon could have provided that Dorukan could not procure from someone else.
Sure, but their resources don't need to overlap, and it seems that Dorukan had exhausted his to no avail. All I'm saying is it would have made perfect sense to turn to someone else he knew to also have vast resources at his disposal and to exhaust every option to fix a problem whose importance was paramount to him. I'm not saying it's weird or out of character that he didn't do this.

[Peelee]

Sure, but their resources don't need to overlap, and it seems that Dorukan had exhausted his to no avail. All I'm saying is it would have made perfect sense to turn to someone else he knew to also have vast resources at his disposal and to exhaust every option to fix a problem whose importance was paramount to him. I'm not saying it's weird or out of character that he didn't do this.

And I'm saying that no, it doesn't make perfect sense. If you need someone to cosign on a car, are you going to ask one of your exes who said they don't want to deal with you anymore, just because that's someone you know?

Saying that it makes perfect sense to ask Soon for help just because they used to be in the same group is using specific circumstances to make the case and disregarding specific circumstances that tear apart the case. They were adventurers together, yes. But they also split the entire group and did not want to be involved with each other again (with certain specific exceptions). And while some of them cheated in small ways, the one person who was specially bound by hsi very class to not cheat or go back on his word is the absolute worst person to ask.

Ditto for the rest of the Sapphire Guard since Soon had neither the skills nor the life to do anything about it. Even assuming that Dorukan knew anything whatsoever about the Sapphire Guard, which we have absolutely zero reason to suspect.

[hroþila]

But

Dorukan not asking Soon because of the oath, or because he didn't like him very much, or because he didn't think he'd actually be able to do anything he couldn't do himself (or, well, because he was super dead) I can totally see. Not asking Soon because he wasn't a cleric however doesn't make sense to me.
"He doesn't have the right spell personally anyway" is the only reasoning I objected to.

[Peelee]

But

"He doesn't have the right spell personally anyway" is the only reasoning I objected to.

Ah, I getcha. My bad.

That initially grew out of a claim that Dorukan had "allies" that he used which did not include Soon. Said "allies" were clerics, which made sense because, in addition to everything else, they had access to magical abilities that Soon did not.

"Soon isn't a cleric" was never meant to be the main part of why Dorukan wouldn't ask him. It was just an extra bit of why he would use unafilliated clerics instead, because in addition to everything else, Soon couldn't even offer magical help that a cleric half his level could. The cherry on top, as it were.

[Jasdoif]

"Soon isn't a cleric" was never meant to be the main part of why Dorukan wouldn't ask him. It was just an extra bit of why he would use unafilliated clerics instead, because in addition to everything else, Soon couldn't even offer magical help that a cleric half his level could. The cherry on top, as it were.Could even contact an affiliated cleric (knowingly or otherwise), I think; Lirian isn't a Gate, after all, and with her Gate destroyed it wouldn't be possible to interfere with the nonexistent defense of her nonexistent Gate.

(My overall-unlikely-but-remotely-plausible scenario is that Dorukan cast wish (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) twice in the enumerated fashion to resurrect Lirian, the resurrection failed because her soul wasn't free to return; and he'd been keeping her new body from decomposing with gentle repose (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) every couple weeks, while consulting with clerics who can cast resurrection normally since 5,000XP a shot to try it himself with wish was a problem. And the creepy shrine with her unused body was destroyed when Dorukan's Gate exploded.)

[woweedd]

Because Girard was a paranoid fool who lied to him, and Soon trusted him because A. He's the trusting sort and B. I get the sense he's not exactly knowledgeable about cartography.

[Metastachydium]

and he'd been keeping her new body from decomposing with gentle repose (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) every couple weeks, while consulting with clerics who can cast resurrection normally since 5,000XP a shot to try it himself with wish was a problem. And the creepy shrine with her unused body was destroyed when Dorukan's Gate exploded.)

That definitely wasn't the case.
Lirian's body served Xykon as a zombie from her defeat to until heck knows how much after Dorukan's been killed.
That said, it might have been destroyed in the explosion if it was still shambling around at that point (but I'm tempted to assume that it was used up to trigger traps when Team Evil moved into the dungeon).

[Fyraltari]

That definitely wasn't the case.
Lirian's body served Xykon as a zombie from her defeat to until heck knows how much after Dorukan's been killed.
That said, it might have been destroyed in the explosion if it was still shambling around at that point (but I'm tempted to assume that it was used up to trigger traps when Team Evil moved into the dungeon).

The description of Wish linked upthread says it can resurect somebody whose corpse is unavailable in two csatings: one to create a second, intact but inert body and another to infise it with the soul of the departed, this new body is the one discussed in the post you replied to.

[Metastachydium]

The description of Wish linked upthread says it can resurect somebody whose corpse is unavailable in two csatings: one to create a second, intact but inert body and another to infise it with the soul of the departed, this new body is the one discussed in the post you replied to.

Okay, got it then.

[pearl jam]

The description of Wish linked upthread says it can resurect somebody whose corpse is unavailable in two csatings: one to create a second, intact but inert body and another to infise it with the soul of the departed, this new body is the one discussed in the post you replied to.

Could Wish free a soul from soul bind if you knew that was the problem?

[Jasdoif]

Could Wish free a soul from soul bind if you knew that was the problem?No; soul bind (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm) explicitly states that wish can't free the soul after it's been trapped in the gem.

[pearl jam]

rip.

thanks!