OOTS #1274 - The Discussion Thread [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-27, 11:30 AM

If later there's a reveal showing this to be Sabine, then the scene is showing that Sabine is interested in saving the world and willing to do it in ways that suit her alignment, and cares enough to push to have it done even with someone of opposite alignment. IOW, if it's Sabine and Sabine is conning Roy, her goal is probably saving the world and not revenge on the Order of the Stick.

The hesitation over "my ... family's burden" is usually a sign that the character (Sabine or Julia) wanted to say something else first. If it's Sabine, there are a lot of good reasons why she would change her mind over what she says, for example because her real motives would give her away.

If later there's a reveal confirming it's Julia, I dunno, other things. Mostly the same.

Also, this scene sets up how Roy feels about monstrous children. If there are any other monstrous children in the story, that's going to pay off later.

ericgrau

2023-01-27, 11:35 AM

This reminds me. Where's the obligatory undead/other santa monster? Wait, It probably happened a long time ago and I forgot, right? My memory's a little fuzzy on this.

pendell

2023-01-27, 11:36 AM

Tzardok

2023-01-27, 11:38 AM

Agreed. That plus the "up here" comment, come on, it's definitely Eugene.

Cliffport being on top of cliffs, "up here" would seem to be logical parlance. Or maybe it's just north of her hometown.

Rodin

2023-01-27, 11:41 AM

"my... family's burden".

I'm taking that as more evidence that this is actually Eugene, who meant to say "my burden".

Yep. I'm fully convinced now.

Looking back from the start of the conversation:

1) Roy says Eugene knows when he's alone, ergo Julia does too. Julia says "Oh. That's obviously what it was." This can be taken as a "Sure, let's go with that" from Eugene.

2) We then have the freak out reaction about how Roy knew that, which makes much more sense if it isn't Julia. Eugene reacting that way about getting out-magic-knowledged by Roy would fit.

3) Then we have Julia being surprised about how much Roy learned at fighter school. Fits for Julia, but it fits even more for Eugene who saw the whole thing as a waste of money and his son throwing his life away. Eugene is in the odd position of being impressed by Roy.

4) Immediately after, Julia is worried about not remembering Roy's admittance day. The real Julia would have jumped straight to snark - Eugene thinks he has slipped up and Roy has figured out he isn't Julia.

5) The "sacrificing a child" argument reads like its an argument between Roy and Eugene directly.

6) "That's easy for you to say!" could be Julia saying she has to pick things up after Roy dies...but it makes more sense for it to be Eugene referring to the Blood Oath. Roy dies, Roy goes to the afterlife. Eugene is still stuck in the clouds.

7) "Being stuck up here" indicates being up in the clouds.

8) The hesitation and word swap on "my family's burden" along with feeling useless. Again, sounds very Eugene.

9) And finally, the crack about Roy being hit in the head too often. Could easily be Julia, but it's exactly the sort of quip I'd expect out of Eugene.

---------

If it was just one or two of the above, I'd say that yeah...we're reading too much into it. But there's a lot of odd notes to this conversation. Weird touches where unimportant bits of the dialogue are being highlighted and the facial expressions aren't quite right.

It's Eugene.

bunsen_h

2023-01-27, 11:43 AM

Agreed. That plus the "up here" comment, come on, it's definitely Eugene.

Either it's Eugene screwing up enough to be strangely obvious, or it's someone trying to trick Roy into thinking that it's Eugene masquerading as Julia.

A question for Roy's conscience. He's not going to use a child as bait in his battle plan when the risk is high the child will be killed. Fair enough.

So what if Sunny was a full-grown adult? Would you feel the same way, or would you use our friend Sunny as bait then?

What if we substitute Belkar for Sunny? Bait or no?

I'm just trying to find out if his moral compass allows him to use allies as sacrificial pawns at all, and if he is, what his guidelines are.

My guess is that it would come down to "is this person mature enough to meaningfully consent to what I'm asking of them".

Wintermoot

2023-01-27, 11:44 AM

IMO, the line "Being Stuck Up here, unable to contribute in any meaningful way to something's that's my... family's burden" indicates strongly that this is Eugene. the "Up Here" referencing the cloudy wasteland he lives in and the "my... family's burden" was almost saying "my burden" before catching himself. The easy willingness to use Sunny as bait and unable to understand Roy's reluctance. That's a very Eugene attitude.

I don't know what's changed in Eugene to get him to feel more responsible and trying to help. Something beyond just "if I don't do something then I'll be stuck here forever" I hope. It's possible it's like the vampire durkon. Eugene is spending days and week's watching his Son's adventures and growing as a person from watching how he works.

Or maybe he's the "vessel" that Sabine was sent to get.

Larspcus2

2023-01-27, 11:46 AM

If Sunny makes an appearance in the battle at all, disabling the anti-magic field will be team Evil's top priority. Redcloak will try to murder Sunny with the first spell he can cast. Xykon will do the same if he's fighting seriously, or if he's enranged by the thought of antimagic. Arguing over whether it's moral to expose Sunny to danger from the bugbear sidekick is missing the forest for the trees.

Murk

2023-01-27, 11:47 AM

I'm just trying to find out if his moral compass allows him to use allies as sacrificial pawns at all, and if he is, what his guidelines are.

Presumably, adults wouldn't be "pawns" because they can responsibly consent to the sacrifice, as volunteers.
Whereas children can't responsibly consent as volunteers, because they're children, and they'll do whatever their mom tells them to. Which would indeed make them sacrificial pawns.

We've seen before Roy is not opposed to volunteers sacrificing themselves, so that seems to be the main guideline.

hroþila

2023-01-27, 11:48 AM

This strip is a serious blow to the Sabine/Vessel Julia camp, but we'll (I'll) pull through. I agree Julia sounds suspicious here with the "up here" and the "my... family's burden" thing though, that seems to fit Eugene too well.

I giggled a bit because Julia's reasoning comes up with some frequency here, notably when someone was arguing that Roy should just hack through Kudzu if that was what it took to defeat Vamp Durkon and save the world. Like how do you even begin to decide whether it's actuallly necessary or whether you're just sacrificing babies for a fleeting tactical advantage.

Boys younger than her served as drummers in our civil war; wars have been decided by combatants about her age.
And that's bad.

Fergurg

2023-01-27, 11:56 AM

I'm with Julia on this one. If the debate was between putting Sunny in harm's way or everybody dies - including Sunny - then it's a clear answer of put Sunny in harm's way.

But it's actually worse than that. The debate is between putting Sunny in harm's way vs everybody that has ever lived has their existence annihilated. No afterlife, just fed to the Snarl. The worst-case scenario of putting Sunny in harm's way, Sunny's death, is still better for her than annihilation.

Peelee

2023-01-27, 11:58 AM

enq

2023-01-27, 11:59 AM

Alright, I'm on team "It's Eugene" now. Too many slips, and I feel the "Eugene wouldn't have said x" camp aren't considering well enough what Eugene trying to pretend to be Julia would say. So sayeth I.

Remember that time you were wrong? Man, it sucked, didn't it! You wouldn't want to be wrong again. Therefore, do not disagree with me. :belkar:

Reboot

2023-01-27, 12:01 PM

E again to add: I don't see things Roy's way WRT his sister. Boys younger than her served as drummers in our civil war; wars have been decided by combatants about her age. She's more than old enough to fight as an active combatant.
Leacing aside the whole real-world part that woukd probably get me red-texted...

...she was pretty low level back in Cliffport, much lower even than Minrah, and there's no reason to think she's been power-levelling since at school. She probably couldn't contribute much more than cannon fodder

locksmith of lo

2023-01-27, 12:03 PM

oh it's totally Eugene... "up here" and "that's my... family's burden" etc... dead giveaway, pun intended. :smallbiggrin:

Barstro

2023-01-27, 12:07 PM

Interesting that the same new evidence that pushes me to the “Eugene” camp has convinced others that it is Julia.

I look forward to the final reveal.

wilphe

2023-01-27, 12:18 PM

Psepha

2023-01-27, 12:18 PM

I'm think I'm leaning towards the "It's Eugene" side of the argument. It's not conclusive - it's still close enough that these could all be easily explained coincidences and it's really Julia, but there's enough here to make me seriously consider Eugene as the identify of the caller.

Sienar

2023-01-27, 12:20 PM

I'm in the Eugene camp but one thing that is keeping me from fully setting up a tent and digging a fire pit and a latrine is that Roy seems to be oblivious to this not being Julia. We just had a long arc where Roy is convinced that Durkula is Durkon until the vamp makes multiple personality errors. Is he just that oblivious or just doesn't know his sister that well to pick up on all the clues?

crayzz

2023-01-27, 12:21 PM

Y'know, it didn't occur to me at the time, but in 1272l (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1272.html) Julia asks "How did you know I was about to call?" which is a weird thing to ask since presumably her spell wouldn't give her any information on what Roy was doing prior to the call, and so she wouldn't have heard his conversation with Bloodfeast minutes prior.

That said:

1) Roy says Eugene knows when he's alone, ergo Julia does too. Julia says "Oh. That's obviously what it was." This can be taken as a "Sure, let's go with that" from Eugene.

2) We then have the freak out reaction about how Roy knew that, which makes much more sense if it isn't Julia. Eugene reacting that way about getting out-magic-knowledged by Roy would fit.

3) Then we have Julia being surprised about how much Roy learned at fighter school. Fits for Julia, but it fits even more for Eugene who saw the whole thing as a waste of money and his son throwing his life away. Eugene is in the odd position of being impressed by Roy.

4) Immediately after, Julia is worried about not remembering Roy's admittance day. The real Julia would have jumped straight to snark - Eugene thinks he has slipped up and Roy has figured out he isn't Julia.

5) The "sacrificing a child" argument reads like its an argument between Roy and Eugene directly.

6) "That's easy for you to say!" could be Julia saying she has to pick things up after Roy dies...but it makes more sense for it to be Eugene referring to the Blood Oath. Roy dies, Roy goes to the afterlife. Eugene is still stuck in the clouds.

7) "Being stuck up here" indicates being up in the clouds.

8) The hesitation and word swap on "my family's burden" along with feeling useless. Again, sounds very Eugene.

9) And finally, the crack about Roy being hit in the head too often. Could easily be Julia, but it's exactly the sort of quip I'd expect out of Eugene.

(1) makes sense, but (2) as a follow up from (1) doesn't. "Sure, lets go with that" is a reasonable tactic for Eugene to use to move past an awkward topic, but getting flustered when Roy says he was making stuff up isn't. Getting flustered makes more sense for Julia, who's upset she basically got tricked into saying random made up nonsense was "obvious" magical knowledge.

(3) and (9) are both consistent with Julia. You could make the argument that they're even more consistent with Eugene, but they're not really evidence of it being Eugene over it being Julia. You can make the same argument for (5), but we don't really know much about Julia's sense of ethics so I'd say (5) is weak evidence for Eugene.

I think (4), (6), (7), and (8) are the only indications of it actually being Eugene that are worth considering.

WoodStock_PV

2023-01-27, 12:22 PM

Ok. So I reread all of Julia's dialogue since the Mechane scene and while at first it seemed to be just Roy having a conversation with his sister this last comic really got me thinking it's not her. At this point I'd be a bit surprised to find out it was actually Julia all along.

Eugene seems to be the best candidate. I think an Illusionist would invest at least a few points into bluff, disguise or some other social skill to better utilize his powers.. Also, Eugene maitained a facade while hunting Xykon with his party of adventurers and managed to fool his whole family, so he probably could fake his way into this conversation. Why would he need to deceive his son? That I don't know. Any insight or help he could lend would taken into account by Roy as far I know.

Some people said it could be Sabine, but I don't know.. I think she would be trying harder to influence his actions, but maybe she's just trying to gather intel? But why would that be necessary since the IFCC can just see their every action?
I know she's bound to return and she has the skillset to impersonate someone, but what would be the IFCC goals with this charade?

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-27, 12:22 PM

alceryes

2023-01-27, 12:24 PM

I don't get it. In the previous panel, Roy talked about Sunny's benefit to the party, specifically it's antimagic ray, but when Julia actually starts constructing a plan with Sunny, Roy goes all, "Don't include the children!"
She hadn't even gotten into specifics of where the rest of the party would be and how much danger Sunny would actually be in yet.

You can't have it both ways, Roy! :smallconfused:

hroþila

2023-01-27, 12:27 PM

pendell

2023-01-27, 12:29 PM

What's the benefit to Eugene of disguising himself as Julia, as opposed to appearing to Roy in his true form?

I concede that Eugene could indeed pull off such a disguise. He did it in Azure City. The difference is the disguise was needed so he and Lord Shojo could pull off a farce of a trial, thereby using the paladins to bring the party to Azure City while also ensuring the party would not be found guilty and killed.

I just don't see a rationale for Eugene to disguise himself in this instance; Roy doesn't respect Julia any more than he respects Eugene. What's more , Julia's words so far are entirely consistent with what a true neutral young magic user would say.

Roy is fine with using Sunny, Roy is not fine with singling Sunny out for particularly dangerous tasks that would put them in unnecessary and unreasonable danger.

Seems reasonable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-27, 12:33 PM

What's the benefit to Eugene of disguising himself as Julia, as opposed to appearing to Roy in his true form?

I concede that Eugene could indeed pull off such a disguise. He did it in Azure City. The difference is the disguise was needed so he and Lord Shojo could pull off a farce of a trial, thereby using the paladins to bring the party to Azure City while also ensuring the party would not be found guilty and killed.

I just don't see a rationale for Eugene to disguise himself in this instance; Roy doesn't respect Julia any more than he respects Eugene. What's more , Julia's words so are are entirely consistent with what a true neutral young magic user would say.

Roy made it quite clear (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html) he has no desire to talk to him unless he has useful information to convey. Eugene is bored and wants to talk; here, he'd be skirting the issue by pretending to be Julia, which gives him enough information he can at least have a conversation about tactics, one of the subjects Roy does allow him.

GW

Doug Lampert

2023-01-27, 12:35 PM

Ok:

So 1273 was the "It's not Julia it's Sabine" strip

And 1274 is the "It's not Julia it's Eugene" strip

Can we open a book on who it will be instead of Julia instead of 1275?

My money is on "It's not Julia it's one of the Flumphs", with a hedge on "It's not Julia it's That Guy With The Halberd"

Or, as we're going for insane fan theories "It's not Julia it's Serini" because she is testing out what the groups ethical limits are before deciding to really help them or not

Nonsence, it is blatantly obvious that this is Redcloak's Niece.

I'm finally understanding the Eugene argument. The Geekery thread says he's Lawful Good, is that consistent with sacrificing Sunny? I guess we're already discussing that. I think his cynical nature gives him more leeway to have sacrifice-sunny-to-save-the-world moments, I'm just not certain if it's enough.

IIRC we've had other lawful good characters argue for destroying the world now so as to save everyone's soul from the snarl.

The ends usually don't justify the means, but there are very few actual absolutes. Uncounted hundreds of millions die and their very souls are devoured is a pretty extreme justification.

Meanwhile, on the other side, if Sunny is killed fighting then, Sunny's soul goes on to its reward, and Sunny may be one of the luckier people who are alive at this time as most of the rest don't get that much.

The only reason Roy may have a point, is that there is, as yet, no reason to think that using Sunny as bait is actually neccessary. But Roy will almost certainly use Sunny in whatever plan he does come up with, because he needs all the help he can get.

Quinton250

2023-01-27, 12:38 PM

Psyren

2023-01-27, 12:38 PM

Oh gods it really is Eugene isn't it.

I really hope not but... why???

Mike Havran

2023-01-27, 12:39 PM

Hrrm. This does sound like Julia's usual self. I can see that Roy needs some foil since every other member of the Order have one (Minrah, Haley-Elan, Blackwing, Scruffy). And I also understand the need to make us remember Julia as more than just a spoiled brat.

On the other hand, it's high time for IFCC to enter the game and this being their move would be a twist Giant likes to make. So I still bet on the "something's wrong here'.

A question for Roy's conscience. He's not going to use a child as bait in his battle plan when the risk is high the child will be killed. Fair enough.

So what if Sunny was a full-grown adult? Would you feel the same way, or would you use our friend Sunny as bait then?

What if we substitute Belkar for Sunny? Bait or no?

I'm just trying to find out if his moral compass allows him to use allies as sacrificial pawns at all, and if he is, what his guidelines are.
Haley did convince Roy (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0840.html)to use a mentally enslaved prisoner as a trap detonator, but I think he's grown since then and now would only send a willing adult into a position of a bait.

Frozenstep

2023-01-27, 12:40 PM

I'm finally understanding the Eugene argument. The Geekery thread says he's Lawful Good, is that consistent with sacrificing Sunny? I guess we're already discussing that. I think his cynical nature gives him more leeway to have sacrifice-sunny-to-save-the-world moments, I'm just not certain if it's enough.

But it's still a lot of character growth for him. If later there's a reveal showing this is Eugene, there is going to be an explanation for why he's suddenly able to work with his son without what we're used to seeing from Eugene... even if he struggles sometimes.

I mean, he once suggested Roy do nothing about vampire Durkon, just allow the world to end, because that would kill Xykon, and let all the dwarves go fight dragons to die and avoid Hel. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html)

What's the benefit to Eugene of disguising himself as Julia, as opposed to appearing to Roy in his true form?

I concede that Eugene could indeed pull off such a disguise. He did it in Azure City. The difference is the disguise was needed so he and Lord Shojo could pull off a farce of a trial, thereby using the paladins to bring the party to Azure City while also ensuring the party would not be found guilty and killed.

I just don't see a rationale for Eugene to disguise himself in this instance; Roy doesn't respect Julia any more than he respects Eugene. What's more , Julia's words so are are entirely consistent with what a true neutral young magic user would say.

Seems reasonable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think the first time Julia contact Roy was legit, and Roy...actually had a reasonable conversation with Julia, and that was noticed. (Or maybe that was also Eugene, and he saw it went a lot better?). Either way, Eugene hasn't had much luck with convincing Roy of much, maybe he's just trying a different strategy.

Sienar

2023-01-27, 12:42 PM

What's the benefit to Eugene of disguising himself as Julia, as opposed to appearing to Roy in his true form?

He's just doing as Roy requested, pawning these visits off to Julia.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html

hroþila

2023-01-27, 12:44 PM

alceryes

2023-01-27, 12:46 PM

Roy is fine with using Sunny, Roy is not fine with singling Sunny out for particularly dangerous tasks that would put them in unnecessary and unreasonable danger.

Do we know that's what Julia was recommending...?
Roy didn't even let her get there.

Of course, this also shows sibling dynamics. I cut my sisters off all the time. :smallbiggrin:

pendell

2023-01-27, 12:46 PM

Haley did convince Roy (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0840.html)to use a mentally enslaved prisoner as a trap detonator, but I think he's grown since then and now would only send a willing adult into a position of a bait.

It's Julia trying to do the convincing here, not Haley. Haley would have a better chance at convincing Roy because she's better at fast-talking.

I must express my disappointment that we will not see Julia in combat, simply because this means we will never here the immortal line "Do it to Julia!" spoken in dungeon room 101. :smallamused:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-27, 12:49 PM

IIRC we've had other lawful good characters argue for destroying the world now so as to save everyone's soul from the snarl.

Yeah, okay, I'm sold. Eugene could make that suggestion.

Still holding out on character growth, though... with the caveat that sometimes growth is sideways rather than forwards.

Jay R

2023-01-27, 12:55 PM

A question for Roy's conscience. He's not going to use a child as bait in his battle plan when the risk is high the child will be killed. Fair enough.

So what if Sunny was a full-grown adult? Would you feel the same way, or would you use our friend Sunny as bait then?

What if we substitute Belkar for Sunny? Bait or no?

I'm just trying to find out if his moral compass allows him to use allies as sacrificial pawns at all, and if he is, what his guidelines are.

I can't speak for Roy, but no, I wouldn't use an adult as a sacrificial pawn, either. But I would accept it if an adult chose to be sacrificial bait in order to save the world. That's not a pawn; it's an adult making his or her own moral decision.

E again to add: I don't see things Roy's way WRT his sister. Boys younger than her served as drummers in our civil war; wars have been decided by combatants about her age. She's more than old enough to fight as an active combatant.

That was true in the Middle Ages, and even as recently as the 19th century. But despite the somewhat medieval structure of this world, the social values in this strip aren't from previous centuries. Rich has made no secret of the fact that he has changed his approach even during the writing of the strip, to keep up with current trends.

To me it's quite clear why Eugene would do this (if he's indeed impersonating Julia), but not so clear why The Giant would. I don't see what kind of value it'd add to the story or how it'd play into the main plot or any existing subplot. That's usually how it goes with plot twists until they actually happen, though.

Yup. I didn't understand what Miko capturing the Order was going to add to the story, or O-Chul's capture, or Nale and Tarquin's relationship, or the bloodwart tea, or the familicide spell, or or a bunch of others. We're not supposed to figure it all out in advance.

Relax and enjoy the ride. Rich is driving.

Doug Lampert

2023-01-27, 12:58 PM

Yeah, okay, I'm sold. Eugene could make that suggestion.

Still holding out on character growth, though... with the caveat that sometimes growth is sideways rather than forwards.

Mind you, having pointed out that there are LG justifications for doing extreme things in this situation, I don't think that's Eugene's thing. He's had at least one chance to make that sort of argument, and did not do so.

At least in the case of the whole RC/X/Snarl affair, I think that Eugene is out for what's best for the greater me, rather than what's best for everyone else. But not all actions by a LG character have to be the best possible LG actions or be justified exclusively in terms of alignment.

Doug Lampert

2023-01-27, 01:08 PM

That was true in the Middle Ages, and even as recently as the 19th century. But despite the somewhat medieval structure of this world, the social values in this strip aren't from previous centuries. Rich has made no secret of the fact that he has changed his approach even during the writing of the strip, to keep up with current culture.

The US military allows enlistment at 17. It isn't common, and given training times, it's very unlikely that any 17 year olds are seeing combat in the modern military. But 17 is old enough to volunteer and take the oath.

Julia is 17 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1193.html).

If you don't like the military, there are states where 17 is old enough to volunteer as a police cadet and ride along with sworn officers carrying out their duties (which can include getting shot at).

I believe that both of these require a high-school diploma or equivalent (although when I was in highschool one of the other students was a cadet, so it wasn't required then), so Julia probably doesn't qualify, but Julia is old enough to volunteer to risk her life.

Edited to add: Note here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html), where Durkon has the then 16 year old Julia follow him into combat rather than stay where it's safe and then the next (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0354.html) strip, where he sends her off into danger and combat without any adult supervision. In tOotS world, Julia is old enough to put into combat in an emergency; and the potential end of the world is in fact an emergency.

rasborry

2023-01-27, 01:29 PM

It's Julia. I bet all the little suspicious things are just meta red herrings.

Jacky720

2023-01-27, 01:29 PM

But it's actually worse than that. The debate is between putting Sunny in harm's way vs everybody that has ever lived has their existence annihilated. No afterlife, just fed to the Snarl. The worst-case scenario of putting Sunny in harm's way, Sunny's death, is still better for her than annihilation.
Keep in mind that that scenario is strictly limited to if they fight at the gate and break it. If everyone dies, it still takes a couple weeks for the ritual while the gods flush this world away.

Y'know, it didn't occur to me at the time, but in 1272l (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1272.html) Julia asks "How did you know I was about to call?" which is a weird thing to ask since presumably her spell wouldn't give her any information on what Roy was doing prior to the call, and so she wouldn't have heard his conversation with Bloodfeast minutes prior.
I mean, it was about the same thing with her first call. I think it's plausible that she can start listening before she starts talking. It would avoid a lot of awkward interruptions.

Roy made it quite clear (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html) he has no desire to talk to him unless he has useful information to convey. Eugene is bored and wants to talk; here, he'd be skirting the issue by pretending to be Julia, which gives him enough information he can at least have a conversation about tactics, one of the subjects Roy does allow him.

GW
I'm confused. If he wanted to have a conversation about tactics, and that is a topic Roy allows him, why the deception? It would be more useful if he wanted to have a personal conversation, but of course Julia has different personal shared experiences with Roy. I'm sure there are five other categories of conversation that impersonation would help with, but the caller isn't doing those.

Corian

2023-01-27, 01:36 PM

I'm going to throw in this epileptic tree: It's the IFCC controlling Eugene to do an illusion of Julia! Everybody happy?

More seriously: Narratively, hard to believe the IFCC is not involved, but despite the many slips, there's also a lot that feels like Julia to me. Sonny as bait is what a True Neutral would do. Being defensive about how much she doesn't understand is exactly right. Uneven growth is what teens do. So... not throwing my lot behind any theory.

gatemansgc

2023-01-27, 01:36 PM

roy truly showing what it means to be lawful good here

Crusher

2023-01-27, 01:45 PM

Huh. Ok. Not how I expected that to go.

I'm honestly still having trouble believing that's Julia but I'm now at a loss as to who else it might be. I guess she's had a gigantic amount of personal growth over the last couple months and it was important we see it and get a recap on the recent action. It hasn't felt like a potential final goodbye (at least, not so far), so I'm guessing Julia (and maybe some magic research?) will be important later.

No, darn it. I just don't think that's Julia. She was a bratty, aggressively snarky True Neutral teen not that long ago and it just feels weird her brisk character growth that resulted in her feeling an enormous sense of personal responsibility and evaporated 90% of her snark also left her confused that sacrificing a child might be a step too far. Like, I really can't see the Julia from Cliffport advocating this. She didn't even go with "its an aberration, does it *really* count as a child?" which would make sense, she just went hard to "The world is ending, you do what you gotta do." Suggesting she's growing up, but potentially in a NE/LE direction, perhaps?

Maybe its Sabine and the IFCC are doing the projection somehow? I don't even buy that myself. Sigh. I just don't get it.

Edit - I guess Eugene remains a dark horse candidate, but I just can't see him actually apologizing to Roy like that.

Edit2 - Ok, just got through reading everyone else's posts and re-read the last couple strips. I'm now in camp Eugene, the 3rd to last panel in this one did it for me.

Windscion

2023-01-27, 02:29 PM

Reporting to camp Its Eugene. As GW pointed out, Roy isn't receptive to Eugene's advice, and he might think he can control advise Roy more effectively by posing as Julia. Also, he has been sidelined, and is likely mad bored.

MoiMagnus

2023-01-27, 02:33 PM

Fyraltari

2023-01-27, 02:37 PM

Roy's brother was killed by their father because his warnings were ignored. Is it any surprise the concept of letting children enter dangerous situations is touchy to him?

ZhonLord

2023-01-27, 02:47 PM

Roy's brother was killed by their father because his warnings were ignored. Is it any surprise the concept of letting children enter dangerous situations is touchy to him?

And Julia wasn't born in time to have memory of that situation, so she has no means by which to understand Roy's feelings in that matter. Plus, as she said quite a long time ago, "I'm True Neutral. I go both ways."

faustin

2023-01-27, 03:44 PM

Damn, Roy was not joking here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1192.html). Julia really took after their father.

Kish

2023-01-27, 03:55 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-27, 04:01 PM

I'm confused. If he wanted to have a conversation about tactics, and that is a topic Roy allows him, why the deception? It would be more useful if he wanted to have a personal conversation, but of course Julia has different personal shared experiences with Roy. I'm sure there are five other categories of conversation that impersonation would help with, but the caller isn't doing those.

Because he didn't have any new information to provide; he first needed some from Roy so that he could discuss tactics.

There is also the obvious subtext that his own son would rather not talk to him at all, so as an illusionist shaky on the meaning of both "Lawful" and "Good", he might have thought that this might avoid any further unpleasantness (while still getting him the attention fix he wants).

GW

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-27, 04:15 PM

If Roy is to be damned, he'll be damned for what he truly is.
If I may offer a bit of word smithing...damned for who he really is
Up to you if you like the blue pencil or not. :smallsmile:

Eugene is bored and wants to talk; here, he'd be skirting the issue by pretending to be Julia, which gives him enough information he can at least have a conversation about tactics, one of the subjects Roy does allow him.
Which makes[URL="https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1192.html"] this 'last panel' (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html)an unintentional discovery by Roy.

To me it's quite clear why Eugene would do this (if he's indeed impersonating Julia), but not so clear why The Giant would. I don't see what kind of value it'd add to the story or how it'd play into the main plot or any existing subplot. In support of your point, getting Roy (green hat) to call out "ends does not justify the means" (ever) is a parallel to Redcloak (green skin) leaning into "ends justifies the means" thematically.

But I would accept it if an adult chose to be sacrificial bait in order to save the world. That's not a pawn; it's an adult making his or her own moral decision. That's what the Order and Roy are doing, with a slight tweak in wording: they are risking their lives to save the world. They may or may not end up sacrificing their lives as Kraagor did.

The US military allows enlistment at 17. It isn't common, and given training times, it's very unlikely that any 17 year olds are seeing combat in the modern military. But 17 is old enough to volunteer and take the oath. My dad did that back in 1945. It was a lot more common before the major draw down in the 90's and the military could afford to start being a little pickier in their entrance methodology. I had a number of sailors in my squadrons who enlisted (parent/guardian release required, and it was in their service records) at 17.

Note here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html), where Durkon has the then 16 year old Julia follow him into combat rather than stay where it's safe and then the next (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0354.html) strip, where he sends her off into danger and combat without any adult supervision. In tOotS world, Julia is old enough to put into combat in an emergency; and the potential end of the world is in fact an emergency. And she shot up a giant caterpillar, didn't she? (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0354.html) :smallcool:

While I did bet a quataloo on Eugene, if that isn't Julia, I think that this strip leans more toward "It's Julia" than not.

Ruck

2023-01-27, 04:26 PM

Sabrini

Did Sabine and Serini merge?

I'm finally understanding the Eugene argument. The Geekery thread says he's Lawful Good, is that consistent with sacrificing Sunny?

I don't think he's Lawful Good at all, myself, and I'm surprised that thread came to that as a definite conclusion.

Well, This seems like a big emotional moment between brother and sister, it'd be kinda weird to have that and then reveal Julia as an imposter. But I'm still doubting things.

Why would she say "up there"?

Oh, there you are Dad. I didn't see you hiding in my sister's entire personality like that. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1192.html)

Until I saw how few people had shifted their positions, I thought this was where Rich went all the way to as good as saying it.

So that I can be on the record: That's Eugene. Not Julia. Not Sabine. Not Serini pretending to be Julia pretending to be Eugene pretending to be Julia. 100% Eugene.

I can definitely buy it at this point. What has me curious is whether this was the case in her last appearance as well.

Kish

2023-01-27, 04:50 PM

I can definitely buy it at this point. What has me curious is whether this was the case in her last appearance as well.
I'd say not. In her last appearance she was acting like Julia, including taking friendly jabs at Roy and rolling with his. In this one, the mind behind her image is unambiguously someone who has no comprehension of Roy taking a jab and not meaning "I sincerely hate you."

Also, in her first appearance she criticized Eugene.

Because he didn't have any new information to provide; he first needed some from Roy so that he could discuss tactics.
My answer would actually be: Because the last time Eugene offered a solution that seemed perfectly reasonable to him, Roy refused flatly to consider it and called it a "charming pro-omnicide hot take." And Eugene, having the moral sense of someone who definitely does not belong in Celestia, decided this was clearly about Roy's silly grudge against him for pointing out the objective inferiority of his class choice a few times and not, e.g., "letting all the dwarves die for your convenience is horrifying," and that if he just presented the same perfectly reasonable and rational types of ideas in an appearance that doesn't inspire Roy's hostility, Roy would give them the consideration they're due.

dancrilis

2023-01-27, 05:29 PM

The ends don't justify the means. Ever.

What if the means aren't that bad (maybe a bit pricey) and the ends are good?

i.e spend a diamond to bring a friend back to life.

Doesn't such a end justify such a means?

To take things to the (potentially ridiculous) extreme saying 'The ends don't justify the means. Ever.' would seem to be to say that no ends ever justify any means, which seems to lead to mass starvation as the end of having food would not justify the means of putting in the effort to get food.

The Geekery thread says he's Lawful Good, is that consistent with sacrificing Sunny?

Yes and no - it depends on your DM.

One DM might have a lawful good king faced with an invasion of demons conscript every able-bodied person, and children might make good scouts if they are small size and thereby have benefits to stealth even knowing that some would almost certainly get caught by the enemy - another DM might think that only an evil king would even use conscription regardless of age or threat etc.

On the topic I am now leaning towards Eugene - just some of the comments here seem like him to me.

InvisibleBison

2023-01-27, 05:50 PM

What if the means aren't that bad (maybe a bit pricey) and the ends are good?

i.e spend a diamond to bring a friend back to life.

Doesn't such a end justify such a means?

To take things to the (potentially ridiculous) extreme saying 'The ends don't justify the means. Ever.' would seem to be to say that no ends ever justify any means, which seems to lead to mass starvation as the end of having food would not justify the means of putting in the effort to get food.

There's nothing morally problematic about expending or producing resources. If the means aren't immoral, they don't need to be justified, and so the notion of "the ends justify the means" doesn't apply.

Peelee

2023-01-27, 05:51 PM

Until I saw how few people had shifted their positions, I thought this was where Rich went all the way to as good as saying it.

So that I can be on the record: That's Eugene. Not Julia. Not Sabine. Not Serini pretending to be Julia pretending to be Eugene pretending to be Julia. 100% Eugene.
Panel 11 is what's killing it for me. I don't see Eugene acting that way, with a sincere smile as a response to Roy shooting the idea down permanently and then accepting the apology. That being said, I won't be surprised if it's Eugene. I just reverted back to thinking it's legit Julia. If it's not, it's definitely not anyone else.

Also, as to your first point of the author all but saying it, Roy should be smart enough to pick up on that if that's the case. Again, won't be surprised if it does turn out to be Eugene, but I'm going with optimism for now.

I'd say not.
Agreed for the reasons listed. And also for the reasons for you list at the end about Roy shooting down Eugene's genocidal plan, that's why I don't trust the apology and smile here to be him.

What if the means aren't that bad (maybe a bit pricey) and the ends are good?

i.e spend a diamond to bring a friend back to life.
That doesn't need justification at all.

dancrilis

2023-01-27, 05:54 PM

There's nothing morally problematic about expending or producing resources. If the means aren't immoral, they don't need to be justified, and so the notion of "the ends justify the means" doesn't apply.

At times people need to justify expanses etc, there is no need for a moral component to require a justification.

Also expending vital resources could have a moral compenent and producing certain resources could have a moral component.

For instance expending souls or producing undead - could be seen through a moral lense.

That doesn't need justification at all.
Your party might have more the one dead friend or there might be a starving family who could do with the money from the diamond - a justification could be requested even if you think one is not needed, and any topic could have someone saying 'I don't need to justify X'.

elros

2023-01-27, 06:09 PM

I admit I am biased because I think that Eugene will somehow sacrifice himself to stop Xykon or the Snarl, so I am inclined to believe that the apparition is Eugene. He is just too stubborn to show himself or apologize to Roy, even though he is proud of him.

That said, no way it is Sabine!

Kish

2023-01-27, 06:09 PM

Also, as to your first point of the author all but saying it, Roy should be smart enough to pick up on that if that's the case.
And he should have been smart enough to realize that Belkar was killing people whenever he was out of Roy's sight, that he should let the deva finish rather than waving them off with "you're not saying anything I don't already know," and that if Haley was standing in front of him trying to get something through to him "really, move before I have to Bull Rush you" was not the best response. But, as Greg pointed out (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1002.html) here, Roy can be amazingly stupid for an essentially intelligent person.

Crusher

2023-01-27, 06:38 PM

At times people need to justify expanses etc, there is no need for a moral component to require a justification.

Also expending vital resources could have a moral compenent and producing certain resources could have a moral component.

For instance expending souls or producing undead - could be seen through a moral lense.

Your party might have more the one dead friend or there might be a starving family who could do with the money from the diamond - a justification could be requested even if you think one is not needed, and any topic could have someone saying 'I don't need to justify X'.

"Ends not justifying the means" doesn't mean you have to selflessly give everything you own to someone more destitute than yourself, even if you had a very good use for the resources yourself. That is way, way, way above and beyond the call of duty.

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-27, 06:38 PM

Panel 11 is what's killing it for me. I don't see Eugene acting that way, with a sincere smile as a response to Roy shooting the idea down permanently and then accepting the apology.

No, but he is pretending to be Julia. He might have it easier to pretend to give an apology when he is pretending to be someone else.

GW

Kish

2023-01-27, 06:43 PM

No, but he is pretending to be Julia. He might have it easier to pretend to give an apology when he is pretending to be someone else.

GW
Indeed; appearing as someone else would be wholly pointless if Eugene was just going to get that person put on Roy's "don't listen to" list as well. I also think there's a very real chance that Eugene heard the first fourteen words Roy said in the eleventh panel and was genuinely moved to smile, before Roy clarified that Julia's age was any part of what he was saying.

Ruck

2023-01-27, 07:14 PM

I admit I am biased because I think that Eugene will somehow sacrifice himself to stop Xykon or the Snarl

I don't think "self-sacrifice" is in Eugene's vocabulary.

And he should have been smart enough to realize that Belkar was killing people whenever he was out of Roy's sight, that he should let the deva finish rather than waving them off with "you're not saying anything I don't already know," and that if Haley was standing in front of him trying to get something through to him "really, move before I have to Bull Rush you" was not the best response. But, as Greg pointed out (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1002.html) here, Roy can be amazingly stupid for an essentially intelligent person.

Yeah, one of Roy's biggest faults, or maybe his biggest, is that he's intelligent enough that he always thinks he's the smartest person in any room he's in and there isn't anything he can learn from anyone else.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-27, 07:38 PM

I don't think "self-sacrifice" is in Eugene's vocabulary. Rich has surprised us before ... but I'll bet the under. The various head canons tossed about in re a Belkarian sacrifice are as, even more, likely.

But I'll drift a bit further off topic and propose this: V has expressed to Roy a desire to atone for the familicide.
Maybe the supreme sacrifice will be accomplished by V.

Peelee

2023-01-27, 07:54 PM

For instance expending souls or producing undead - could be seen through a moral lense.
So could eating an orange but I'm not going to bother entertaining that either.

And he should have been smart enough to realize that Belkar was killing people whenever he was out of Roy's sight, that he should let the deva finish rather than waving them off with "you're not saying anything I don't already know," and that if Haley was standing in front of him trying to get something through to him "really, move before I have to Bull Rush you" was not the best response. But, as Greg pointed out (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1002.html) here, Roy can be amazingly stupid for an essentially intelligent person.

Yeah, one of Roy's biggest faults, or maybe his biggest, is that he's intelligent enough that he always thinks he's the smartest person in any room he's in and there isn't anything he can learn from anyone else.
Fair.

No, but he is pretending to be Julia. He might have it easier to pretend to give an apology when he is pretending to be someone else.

GW
Except the "he's Eugene" theory is predicate on that he is not doing a good job of pretending to be Julia. Which isn't to say he's going to mess up on everything, but an apology and a seemingly-genuine smile after seem like they should be beyond Eugene's acting scope. Or at least would be vying with his ego.

theNater

2023-01-27, 08:45 PM

My answer would actually be: Because the last time Eugene offered a solution that seemed perfectly reasonable to him, Roy refused flatly to consider it and called it a "charming pro-omnicide hot take." And Eugene, having the moral sense of someone who definitely does not belong in Celestia, decided this was clearly about Roy's silly grudge against him for pointing out the objective inferiority of his class choice a few times and not, e.g., "letting all the dwarves die for your convenience is horrifying," and that if he just presented the same perfectly reasonable and rational types of ideas in an appearance that doesn't inspire Roy's hostility, Roy would give them the consideration they're due.
But Roy doesn't give such ideas any more consideration coming from Julia than from Eugene. So now the question is why Eugene would maintain the illusion after seeing it doesn't work.

That said, I'm less firm on it being Julia than I was before. Panel 10 is just weird enough to make me wonder.

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-27, 09:41 PM

To me it's quite clear why Eugene would do this (if he's indeed impersonating Julia), but not so clear why The Giant would. I don't see what kind of value it'd add to the story or how it'd play into the main plot or any existing subplot. That's usually how it goes with plot twists until they actually happen, though.

Okay, so, having one example doesn't equate to having confidence that Rich is pursuing that example, but what if Rich were going for the storyline where the son who wants his father's respect only earns it after giving up on wanting or needing his father's respect? Movies with this subplot usually have a scene of the father looking on as the son lives an independent life, never communicating his respect to the son but letting the audience know that the son helped the father grow. Eugene is already set up for that, looking from afar is his thing.

If Rich were doing that, and if this is Eugene disguised as Julia, then the Giant could be setting Eugene up to learn that Roy has a different personality and different ideas when he's not burdened by their relationship. There's friction right now because Eugene is still burdened by the relationship, but he's trying, darn it, whatever his motives for trying are.

If this is what Rich is doing, he wants us to see these scenes so that Eugene doesn't pop up in the denouement and say, "I forgive you, son," with nothing behind it.

On the other hand, maybe Rich wants the opposite of that. Or maybe he wants 95% of that then subvert it hard at the end. I could write just as long a post about Sabine, but probably not about "It's just Julia" since that's a null hypothesis and null hypotheses are hard to defend positively.

WanderingMist

2023-01-27, 09:42 PM

Yeah, one of Roy's biggest faults, or maybe his biggest, is that he's intelligent enough that he always thinks he's the smartest person in any room he's in and there isn't anything he can learn from anyone else.

I wonder which parent he got that from. Also, given how much of a trainwreck the party was to start with, this was, in fact, true for a good portion of the strip.

137beth

2023-01-27, 11:31 PM

Wow, it's really nice to see a healthy(ish) sibling dynamic in this world!

OvisCaedo

2023-01-27, 11:45 PM

The couple instances of odd language do seem reminiscent of Eugene... But even if it is the real Julia, this strip at least felt like a lot more meaningful character development and interaction!

woweedd

2023-01-28, 12:13 AM

I don't think "self-sacrifice" is in Eugene's vocabulary.

Yeah, one of Roy's biggest faults, or maybe his biggest, is that he's intelligent enough that he always thinks he's the smartest person in any room he's in and there isn't anything he can learn from anyone else.

Probably in part gotten from Eugene. Both in terms of Eugene also considering himself the smartest man in every room everywhere, and also in how the incident almost certainly played a part in imparting on Roy his unwillingness to trust other people's competence. After all, his dad was an adult who was supposed to be in charge, supposed to know better. Roy accepted that, because he was 6, and, well...That incident imparted on Roy a firm understanding that people, even people in authority over him, could screw up massively if he wasn't willing to tell them when they were doing something bad, hence his unwillingness to trust in someone else knowing what they're doing. Also, ya know, given what his party was like for most of the comic...Can you blame him?

wilphe

2023-01-28, 12:37 AM

Yeah, one of Roy's biggest faults, or maybe his biggest, is that he's intelligent enough that he always thinks he's the smartest person in any room he's in and there isn't anything he can learn from anyone else.

Examples?

I have never got that vibe from Roy - he knows he has decent mental stats but not the best. He might have had that in the early DCF days before the rest of the party had character growth and couldn't be relied on - but that's a long time ago now.

Even at the siege of Azure City he's prepared to listen to Haley about the shell game

If anyone in the order gave me that vibe to me it would be pre-familicide V

Windscion

2023-01-28, 12:55 AM

Y'know, I am more and more wondering if "Pawn these visits off on Julia!" went wrong somehow.

Ruck

2023-01-28, 01:12 AM

Examples?

Kish literally offered several significant ones already in the post I was responding to.

danielxcutter

2023-01-28, 01:17 AM

It's less being stupid and more finding new lush fields of idiocy in the highlands of smartness.

Arin

2023-01-28, 02:08 AM

Here's a fun thought exercise: if the other characters were debating this scene...

:elan: would guess that it's Julia; the tone of the scene to this point requires it to be genuine.
:haley: would insist that it's not Julia, seeing another shell game in progress, and insist the most likely culprit as Serini, testing Roy's commitment to "the best solution for the most people", even if it goes against his personal preferences. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1256.html)
:durkon: would just cast True Seeing, obviously, but if that wasn't prepared then he'd probably insist that people judge the words themselves rather than focus on who is saying them - something that would have helped immensely when he was the one who needed to be sniffed out.
:belkar: would say it's not worth the risk to even think about it and insist on blocking Roy's mind from the spell.
:vaarsuvius: wouldn't publicly take a side at all, still somewhat paralyzed by prior major mistakes in his own recent past.
:xykon: wouldn't have to guess because if it is Eugene, one look at the crown would end up dispelling the glamour.

I'm with Elan.

And on the subject of child sacrifice when literally weighed against the fate of multiple worlds - worlds which happen to include billions upon billions of children, including the one to be sacrificed anyway - it's something of a no-brainer. To even consider how I would feel about it is inherently selfish, because my guilt-wracked conscience is not worth countless lives, and short-sighted, because not using every tool at one's disposal is essentially the same as choosing to imperil everyone. I'd rather sacrifice one and look him in the eleven eyes while I do it than coldly sign a trillion anonymous death warrants.

wilphe

2023-01-28, 03:26 AM

Kish literally offered several significant ones already in the post I was responding to.

One seems to be giving a lot of weight on something Greg said to get under his skin, which while it wouldn't be an effective taunt if there wasn't something to base it on its very far from his entire personality.

He was always a good person - part of his arc is learning to be an effective leader and understanding how to use the talents of those about him. Haley at Azure City, Elan at Windy Canyon (DCF era Roy would never have let Elan loose to trip over the plot)

The Deva is more about him being impatient to get back (which is not the same thing as thinking he's too smart to have to listen to anybody)

Ruck

2023-01-28, 03:29 AM

Fair.

He has at least become aware of this and seems to be improving, although I think Kish's examples are pretty significant. (The one with the deva always stands out to me-- a literal servant of Celestia is telling you they have something important to say and to just stop and listen, and more than once you're like "No, I know what you're going to say; I don't need to listen to you.")

Panel 11 is what's killing it for me. I don't see Eugene acting that way, with a sincere smile as a response to Roy shooting the idea down permanently and then accepting the apology. That being said, I won't be surprised if it's Eugene. I just reverted back to thinking it's legit Julia. If it's not, it's definitely not anyone else.

Panel 10 is what has me thinking Kish et. al. may be correct, between "up here" and the delay on "my... family's burden."

Okay, so, having one example doesn't equate to having confidence that Rich is pursuing that example, but what if Rich were going for the storyline where the son who wants his father's respect only earns it after giving up on wanting or needing his father's respect? Movies with this subplot usually have a scene of the father looking on as the son lives an independent life, never communicating his respect to the son but letting the audience know that the son helped the father grow. Eugene is already set up for that, looking from afar is his thing.

If Rich were doing that, and if this is Eugene disguised as Julia, then the Giant could be setting Eugene up to learn that Roy has a different personality and different ideas when he's not burdened by their relationship. There's friction right now because Eugene is still burdened by the relationship, but he's trying, darn it, whatever his motives for trying are.

If this is what Rich is doing, he wants us to see these scenes so that Eugene doesn't pop up in the denouement and say, "I forgive you, son," with nothing behind it.

On the other hand, maybe Rich wants the opposite of that. Or maybe he wants 95% of that then subvert it hard at the end. I could write just as long a post about Sabine, but probably not about "It's just Julia" since that's a null hypothesis and null hypotheses are hard to defend positively.

What would Roy need Eugene's forgiveness for?

As far as what this part of the story is about, I agree that Roy has moved past wanting or needing Eugene's respect, but I have my doubts it's going to go in this direction, because everything I've seen of Eugene suggests that his respect is not even a particularly desirable thing to have.

faustin

2023-01-28, 05:13 AM

Do we know enough about Julia to judge if her current support of using an innocent child (even a beholder) as bait is "out of character"?

danielxcutter

2023-01-28, 06:24 AM

Could she have even known Sunny was an actual child?

Ruck

2023-01-28, 06:39 AM

Do we know enough about Julia to judge if her current support of using an innocent child (even a beholder) as bait is "out of character"?

Doubtful, but at her age, she might still not feel right about that.

Could she have even known Sunny was an actual child?

Don't know, but "So?" in response to finding that out doesn't speak well of "her."

Broadly: It could be confirmation bias, but I went back and read the first Roy-Julia conversation and then the second, and it does feel different to me. Besides the possible slip-ups, she's more aggressive, more intent on talking strategy, less willing to razz Roy. I'm leaning more toward Eugene in disguise.

Verdruss

2023-01-28, 07:34 AM

Two different points in favor of the "Eugene"-Camp, the first one way worse than the other:

1) When I first read the strip, I thought the last line of Julia was a reference to Roy falling to his death, his head being cracked wide open. I don't think that Julia knew the exact details of Roy's death (does she even know about his death?) but Eugene definitely would because he watched. I know, probably it's just a "fighters get hit in the head a bunch" but maybe MAYBE there is also some other slip-up there.

Second and better point imo: Roy told Julia in their first conversation that it is not about the bloodoath anymore, it's about saving the entire world, nay, their whole existence. It seems really weird for Julia to focus in panel 10 on the family burden. She never cared about that. Why would she now care about it, now that the world is at stake? She never seemed like the "I have to make amends for my fathers wrongdoings" person and taking responsiblity for something that her father did doesn't feel really Juliaish for me.

To be honest: My bet is really IFCC using Eugene. Just because Eugene wants Xykon dead and doesn't care about anything else.

woweedd

2023-01-28, 07:47 AM

Examples?

I have never got that vibe from Roy - he knows he has decent mental stats but not the best. He might have had that in the early DCF days before the rest of the party had character growth and couldn't be relied on - but that's a long time ago now.

Even at the siege of Azure City he's prepared to listen to Haley about the shell game

If anyone in the order gave me that vibe to me it would be pre-familicide V
Roy does have a bad habit of overestimating how much he understands what's going on. The whole situation with Vampire Durkon was a good example. Or this (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html) or, for that matter, him utterly brushing off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) the Deva trying to warn him about V's deal with the devil (and demon and daemon). Roy's assumption that he knows what's going on has often led him to overlook stuff he really should pay attention to.

Gurgeh

2023-01-28, 07:54 AM

Not to mention the high plot-relevant time Roy outsmarted himself (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html) by consistently knocking back the Oracle's (likely genuine) attempts to help.

WanderingMist

2023-01-28, 08:07 AM

or for that matter, him utterly brushing off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) the Deva trying to warn him about V's deal with the devil (and demon and daemon). Roy's assumption that he knows what's going on has often led him to overlook stuff he really should pay attention to.
That's just Roy being impatient, not him thinking he's smarter than the Deva. If they hadn't literally been in the process of Resurrecting him, he would have listened.

Not to mention the high plot-relevant time Roy outsmarted himself (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html) by consistently knocking back the Oracle's (likely genuine) attempts to help.

Considering what happened the first time Roy went to the Oracle (Xykon being located in his throne room, for those who don't remember), it's obvious why he did what he did was not out of any sense of intelligent superiority, but rather practicality. While Roy did outsmart himself, it was only because a previous experience told him he needed to outsmart the oracle to get any useful information.

Kish

2023-01-28, 08:36 AM

Kish literally offered several significant ones already in the post I was responding to.
I'm also blinking at the "even" there. Apparently listening to Haley is going above and beyond.

woweedd

2023-01-28, 08:49 AM

I'm also blinking at the "even" there. Apparently listening to Haley is going above and beyond.
Also, the point Haley is making there IE Roy's willingness to accept the situation as presented at face value rather then contemplate deception unprompted, is itself kinda part of his habit of thinking he knows more then he does.

wilphe

2023-01-28, 09:05 AM

"Even" in the sense of relatively early in everyones' character development

I remind you that at the very start (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html) Roy feels he has to stay up or night because he thinks Haley, Belkar & Elan are too greedy, psychotic or stupid to be left alone on watch.

He's at first glad when Elan gets captured by the bandits because he thinks he is useless (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html), and he doesn't go back to help him because he has changed his mind and now thinks Elan is crucial to the team

From there to "actually thinking they have valid input and soliciting it" is a journey

Also, the point Haley is making there IE Roy's willingness to accept the situation as presented at face value rather then contemplate deception unprompted, is itself kinda part of his habit of thinking he knows more then he does.

She's calling them out for being Lawful, not for intellectual arrogance

Consideringg what happened the first time Roy went to the Oracle (Xykon being located in his throne room, for those who don't remember), it's obvious why he did what he did was not out of any sense of intelligent superiorty, but rather practicality. While Roy did outsmart himself, it was only because a previous experience told him he needed to outsmart the oracle to get any useful information.

Yeah, and he is not a super genius who started with INT 18 (probably), even so he realised very fast the implications when Elan talked about the Three Gates

Peelee

2023-01-28, 09:10 AM

Panel 10 is what has me thinking Kish et. al. may be correct, between "up here" and the delay on "my... family's burden."

Oh, that raised my eyebrow the second I read it, too.

Broadly: It could be confirmation bias, but I went back and read the first Roy-Julia conversation and then the second, and it does feel different to me. Besides the possible slip-ups, she's more aggressive, more intent on talking strategy, less willing to razz Roy. I'm leaning more toward Eugene in disguise.
Went back and reread myself, too, and you're right. And the biggest thing that jumped out at me was Julia completely balking at the idea of helping in any way other than giving advice to start with and now being frustrated that giving advice is the only way she can help. In the span of what, eight hours or so?

So yeah, Eugene makes the most sense.

Shining Wrath

2023-01-28, 10:17 AM

Stuck up here? Advocating using a child as bait? That's not Julia, that's Roy's dad.

Dellmarcus

2023-01-28, 10:39 AM

dancrilis

2023-01-28, 10:55 AM

Why though?

If Eugene shows up as Eugene then Roy and him will argue, if he shows up as Julia then him and Roy can strategise.

Also he is bored and has nothing better to do.

Frankly if it is Eugene (which I think it likely is) then I am somewhat on the fence as to if Roy has figured it out or not - Roy does gets to benefit from the knowledge of an experienced adventurer who actually wants to help his quest while he can set the terms for that help.

Laurentio III

2023-01-28, 11:01 AM

My guess is that it would come down to "is this person mature enough to meaningfully consent to what I'm asking of them".
My take, too. Consent is a big thing for lawful character, either evil or good. If a person agrees, it's a deal. But to agree, they has to be able to understand what they agreed to. Even if, for LE character, "understand" is a little blurry.

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-28, 11:04 AM

What would Roy need Eugene's forgiveness for?

He wouldn't. I put that out as a line stereotypical of a plotline with many, many variations, not a specific prediction.

It fits Eugene because Eugene blames Roy for the death of his second son and for becoming a fighter instead of a wizard (which up to this point has been a sleight in his eyes.)

Eugene forgiving Roy might enrage Roy, because Roy feels he did nothing wrong. That's why one option for this plotline is Roy doesn't find out it's Eugene. It could all be a nod to the audience. But not the only option.

It would be an even happier ending if Eugene realized the grudges he holds towards Roy were unfounded, but that's also not the only option.

Why though? What's the point in having Eugene pretending to be Julia talking to Roy?

What if seeing Roy get into Heaven just because he was trying, combined with all the time between the last time we saw Eugene for certain and the first time we potentially saw Eugene posing as Julia, helped Eugene conclude that he should continue pursuing his blood oath, even after death?

Roy is in it to save the world, Eugene, if this is Eugene, would be in it to fulfill his blood oath, which still counts as growth compared to his previous method of sniping at Roy over it.

Pretending to be Julia seems natural for a Eugene that is taking his blood oath more seriously, realizes he's in conflict with his son, and has a past example of impersonating others.

Quinton250

2023-01-28, 11:14 AM

Why though? What's the point in having Eugene pretending to be Julia talking to Roy? What's the narrative importance of that? I know that this could be laying the groundwork for something, but I just can't see what that is. Having Julia game-planning with Roy makes a lot of sense as this is the run up to the end, but I can't see any reason for Eugene to be talking to Roy from his waiting room in the afterlife...

The blood oath was the catalyst for the story in this entire strip, it makes sense that we would circle back to it even if the stakes have become much higher since. While I don't think it's necessary to know exactly why the Giant chose to make Eugene pretend to be Julia right now to believe that it *is* Eugene that Roy is talking to, there are a few possibilities:
The Giant intended the story to go one way when Roy vowed to no longer speak to Eugene and has since changed course, this is a way to bring Eugene back in contact with Roy.
The Giant wants Eugene to come to respect Roy and trust in him to know how to deal with the world ending threat at hand, rather than have him show up after Roy saves the world with a "Thanks, I guess you weren't as useless as I thought". By pretending to be Julia, he is forced to talk to Roy in a (slightly) more loving way to maintain the ruse, and Roy speaks to him thinking he is Julia. This allows Eugene to see what a healthy relationship could look like for him, and also leads to him having open conversations with Roy that allow him to see how capable and intelligent he is. In the future, there could be a moment where Roy looks to Julia for advice and "Julia" responds by revealing she is Eugene and saying he trusts Roy to do what's right.
The complete opposite could be true, and Eugene is selfish til the end. Perhaps "Julia" nixes a viable idea for dealing with Xykon because it would only take him off the board rather than defeating him (getting pulled into the world within the Snarl for example). Roy realizes it was Eugene he was talking to, changes course, and the day is saved but Eugene remains locked out of the afterlife. While Roy survives the battle, he is unsure if he will be allowed back into the afterlife when he dies because this time around he won't be able to say he did everything in his power to end the blood oath. Roy is okay the fact that he would have been better off staying dead the first time because he isn't as selfish as his dad.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-28, 11:34 AM

It's less being stupid and more finding new lush fields of idiocy in the highlands of smartness. You seem to have been watching a couple of the groups I play D&D with. :smallbiggrin:

To be honest: My bet is really IFCC using Eugene. Just because Eugene wants Xykon dead and doesn't care about anything else.
An intriguing thought, but first, walk me through Eugene's connection with the IFCC and how they get him onto their team. He's trying to get into Celestia, and hangs out on a cloud at Celestia's doorstep.
They are very much in the other direction and are planning a war on Celestia, and maybe some of the other planes as well. Not seeing it, but I'd like to see how you put that together.

Wintermoot

2023-01-28, 11:37 AM

The blood oath was the catalyst for the story in this entire strip, it makes sense that we would circle back to it even if the stakes have become much higher since. While I don't think it's necessary to know exactly why the Giant chose to make Eugene pretend to be Julia right now to believe that it *is* Eugene that Roy is talking to, there are a few possibilities:
The Giant intended the story to go one way when Roy vowed to no longer speak to Eugene and has since changed course, this is a way to bring Eugene back in contact with Roy.
The Giant wants Eugene to come to respect Roy and trust in him to know how to deal with the world ending threat at hand, rather than have him show up after Roy saves the world with a "Thanks, I guess you weren't as useless as I thought". By pretending to be Julia, he is forced to talk to Roy in a (slightly) more loving way to maintain the ruse, and Roy speaks to him thinking he is Julia. This allows Eugene to see what a healthy relationship could look like for him, and also leads to him having open conversations with Roy that allow him to see how capable and intelligent he is. In the future, there could be a moment where Roy looks to Julia for advice and "Julia" responds by revealing she is Eugene and saying he trusts Roy to do what's right.
The complete opposite could be true, and Eugene is selfish til the end. Perhaps "Julia" nixes a viable idea for dealing with Xykon because it would only take him off the board rather than defeating him (getting pulled into the world within the Snarl for example). Roy realizes it was Eugene he was talking to, changes course, and the day is saved but Eugene remains locked out of the afterlife. While Roy survives the battle, he is unsure if he will be allowed back into the afterlife when he dies because this time around he won't be able to say he did everything in his power to end the blood oath. Roy is okay the fact that he would have been better off staying dead the first time because he isn't as selfish as his dad.

All of this is a spectacularly worded post that mirrors my own thoughts on why Eugene is doing this. It's a growth opportunity and road toward redemption for him, but more importantly for Roy's overall arc. Roy's arc needs to end with either a> earning the acceptance and respect of his father or b> realizing fully how he never needed it and finally letting go of that thread of his past.

given that Elan's father issue story line ended with B> I'm thinking that Roy's will end with A>

Peelee

2023-01-28, 11:38 AM

The Giant intended the story to go one way when Roy vowed to no longer speak to Eugene and has since changed course, this is a way to bring Eugene back in contact with Roy.

When did he vow this? It was definitely not during the last time he talked with Eugene (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html).

bunsen_h

2023-01-28, 12:20 PM

I felt like this strip went out of its way to make it blatantly clear Roy was talking to Eugene (for this specific conversation at the very least, if not all along), I'm not sure how anyone is interpreting it any other way. Why would Julia's relative geographical position related to Roy even matter if it wasn't a slip up from Eugene? Why the pause in "my.... family's burden"? It was clearly meant to be Eugene stopping himself from saying "my burden". Even the facial expression Roy makes in the last panel is meant to make it abundantly clear he has missed the obvious tell from "Julia" that he is in fact dealing with Eugene. That face is most often made by Elan, and almost always when he is saying something foolish (See comics 1178, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1197, 1230 for recent examples).

My money's still on "it's too obvious; it's some third party trying to convince Roy that it's Eugene impersonating Julia".

Your party might have more the one dead friend or there might be a starving family who could do with the money from the diamond - a justification could be requested even if you think one is not needed, and any topic could have someone saying 'I don't need to justify X'.

See also: Sigdi using her money to raise five dead miners who were strangers to her.

Do we know enough about Julia to judge if her current support of using an innocent child (even a beholder) as bait is "out of character"?

"I'm True Neutral. I go both ways." (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) Though we don't know about how she'd feel about the specific issue of using a child as bait.

Kish

2023-01-28, 12:44 PM

I think she might propose it, but she'd do so understanding that Roy wouldn't agree and why. So she'd go straight to "the whole world is at stake." The "So?" and needing the entire concept of morality explained to her is much more in line with Eugene's brand of "Lawful Good."

Wintermoot

2023-01-28, 12:55 PM

My money's still on "it's too obvious; it's some third party trying to convince Roy that it's Eugene impersonating Julia".

Man that is... a very convoluted scenario. Props if it turns out, but I think that's a few layers too deep into the onion.

Stibbons

2023-01-28, 01:06 PM

I'm getting here late, but has the idea of non-Julia/non-Eugene entity been (as much as possible) conclusively ruled out?

There's been a "green aura" observer since at least the destruction of Girard's gate. I don't know _how_ it could have happened, but I get the feeling one of the Eastern Gods has survived, and the prospect of ending the snarl is _just_ enough to lure them out of hiding.

If so - any guesses on who?

Peelee

2023-01-28, 02:05 PM

Quinton250

2023-01-28, 02:06 PM

When did he vow this? It was definitely not during the last time he talked with Eugene (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html).

Yeah, I misremembered things when I said he vowed not to talk to him. Roy just made it clear that if Eugene had no information to share, he didn't want to talk to him. He also made it clear after Eugene left that he didn't want to get any more visits from his Dad.

Doug Lampert

2023-01-28, 02:30 PM

Wintermoot

2023-01-28, 02:58 PM

I'm not clear on how Julia talking to Roy game-planning makes more sense than Eugene.

The green observer is explained here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?271162-Scrying-Beacon-(-698)&p=14733248#post14733248).

Well then, this mystery person pretending to be Julia MUST BE ZZ'DRITI!

wait, Zz'driti was killed and disintigrated.

Then it must be Zz'driti's twin sister Dr'tiziz, who has come hunting those responsible for the death of her twin brother. No other less convoluted theory makes sense!

Fish

2023-01-28, 03:07 PM

It’s not Eugene.

It’s Kirk Lazarus, playing Sabine, disguised as Eugene, who is pretending to be Julia.

Yes, it’s the dude playing the dude disguised as the dude pretending to be the other dude.

Tzardok

2023-01-28, 03:41 PM

Well then, this mystery person pretending to be Julia MUST BE ZZ'DRITI!

wait, Zz'driti was killed and disintigrated.

Then it must be Zz'driti's twin sister Dr'tiziz, who has come hunting those responsible for the death of her twin brother. No other less convoluted theory makes sense!

Yes, Zz'dtri is dead. That means, he's in the hands of the IIFC. That means, he's the vessel they were talking about. It's Sabini possessing Zz'dtri's dead soul pretending to be Julia on the IIFC's orders. What else.

Kish

2023-01-28, 04:09 PM

Who is Zz'driti?

(Drizzt has six letters, only one of which is I, should you find yourself tasked with creating an anagram of it in the future.)

Crusher

2023-01-28, 04:38 PM

Yes, Zz'dtri is dead. That means, he's in the hands of the IIFC. That means, he's the vessel they were talking about. It's Sabini possessing Zz'dtri's dead soul pretending to be Julia on the IIFC's orders. What else.

I'm sorry, I just can't take a theory seriously now if it doesn't at least tangentially involve Eugene.

Tzardok

2023-01-28, 04:40 PM

I'm sorry, I just can't take a theory seriously now if it doesn't at least tangentially involve Eugene.

"Yes, Zz'dtri is dead. That means, he's in the hands of the IIFC. That means, he's the vessel they were talking about. It's Sabini possessing Zz'dtri's dead soul pretending to be another well-known dead soul pretending to be Julia on the IIFC's orders. What else."

Better? :smallbiggrin:

Peelee

2023-01-28, 05:08 PM

Yeah, I misremembered things when I said he vowed not to talk to him. Roy just made it clear that if Eugene had no information to share, he didn't want to talk to him. He also made it clear after Eugene left that he didn't want to get any more visits from his Dad.

He made it clear that he didn't want to be distracted while preparing to fight the vampires. And I would argue he never wanted visits from his dad except for use as a Xykon warning beacon but that never stopped Eugene before.

Khay

2023-01-28, 05:15 PM

Do we know enough about Julia to judge if her current support of using an innocent child (even a beholder) as bait is "out of character"?

Once we start assuming that Sending Julia might be an impostor, we only really have the Cliffport strips to work with. We know she's True Neutral, and that she takes after Eugene. That would be consistent with an "ends justify the means" philosophy.

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-28, 05:29 PM

When did he vow this? It was definitely not during the last time he talked with Eugene (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html).

I could see someone confusing Roy making Eugene swear to leave his family alone (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0500.html) with vowing not to speak with him, if only after some unspecified future point.

Peelee

2023-01-28, 05:44 PM

I could see someone confusing Roy making Eugene swear to leave his family alone (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0500.html) with vowing not to speak with him, if only after some unspecified future point.

A.) that deal takes effect after Xykon is destroyed and Eugene enters the afterlife. Neither of which have happened yet.
2.) Even if we ignore A, the numerous times Eugene talked to Roy between them should presumably have caused considerable confusion to anyone thinking there was such a vow well before now.

Alex Warlorn

2023-01-28, 06:47 PM

Okay... it's definitely Roy's dad using one of his illusions.
And since he doesn't have to maintain his facade of somehow being better than his son... for a second he FINALLY opens up.
The stoic archetype keeps their cards close to their chest, but that's because they're in life and death situations where opening up ISN'T an option and keeping your head clear!
He finally admits he hates himself for saddling his family with his quest.
Also, Roy's words "I'll be dead and won't be my problem anymore"... it's selfish. Roy makes good points about something not being a needed sacrifice, but just EASIER (treating innocent Sunny like an expendable pawn)... but saying "I'll be dead and not my problem anymore" is just selfish.

The question is if Roy realizes his father's deception and is just playing along so his dad can let it out.

Wall Chess

2023-01-28, 06:57 PM

Ok, I've been following the past few comics' threads, and I may have missed it on the posts about the previous Julia-convo, but:

Has anyone proposed the possibility of Julia being dead this entire time? She's not hacking the Blood Oath, she's just doing the exact same thing as Eugene. I think (probably because I'm biased) that this argument holds greater weight than it being Eugene or Sabine, coercion, or something else. The only hiccup that I see is that she said "I'm dead, jk" and said that it would totally be cliche anyway.

#1191-1196 (First convo)
- Doesn't know who Belkar is
- Willingly dunks on Eugene with Roy
- Distressed about the world being destroyed
- Knows about the Blood Oath
- Doesn't react to Roy's joke about her being Eugene

#1272-1274 (Second, and current convo)
- Still upset about the world being destroyed

...After further review I think it's pretty plausible that it's just Eugene, for some reason. Don't know why that is.

The above are mainly points that point towards it being Julia. As for her being dead...
- "Being stuck up here" (#1274)
- Being upset about the world ending (#1274) - if she died, and the world is destroyed, she can't come back. What's more, none of her friends can contact her again, being in different afterlives.
- Being around before the call, invisible (#1272)
- Brings up being dead and refutes the possibility, as a red herring (#1191)
- Using the Blood Oath for communication (#1192) - admittedly this is because I, personally, think her explanation is fishy. I don't think it's true evidence.
- Says she can't help directly (#1193) - again, not much evidence but I'm still putting it on the list.

...Well now, after rereading the comics more thoroughly, you've got me one foot in the Eugene camp.

Ruck

2023-01-28, 08:03 PM

WanderingMist

2023-01-28, 08:57 PM

Major problem with the Eugene theory: Eric.

Julia has no context for why Roy would be against using a child as bait even if for the greater good, Eugene very much would know. And I have a new theory anyway.

It's actually Roy's Archon who is having Eugene disguise itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still in the Julia camp for the most part, if only because I think Julia is more interesting as a character than Eugene.

Peelee

2023-01-28, 09:00 PM

Ruck

2023-01-28, 09:13 PM

Major problem with the Eugene theory: Eric.

Julia has no context for why Roy would be against using a child as bait even if for the greater good, Eugene very much would know.

There's a difference between knowing and caring. Eugene has been shown to be shockingly callous.

Also, I don't think you really need specific context as for why a Lawful Good hero would be opposed to using a child as bait in combat.

Wraithfighter

2023-01-28, 11:22 PM

Assuming that there's no shenanigans about Julia or anything, I find Panel 7, and also Panel 10, to be honestly the most interesting thing to think about here.

Because Julia is kinda right here. This whole situation is way, way bigger than Roy's own personal morality. His decision in how to fight the battle will shape the lives of everyone on the planet, as well as other planes most likely, and no one else has a say in it.

For Julia, her life, her entire future is on the line here, and she's seeing her brother hamstring his own efforts to save the world in order to protect one child from harm. She's not wrong to be frustrated by that, or to feel helpless. After all, and we really shouldn't ignore this point, if the good guys lose and Xykon secures the final gate, Sonny is going to die anyway, along with millions of other innocent children when the Gods blow up the world (assuming that Xykon doesn't manage to do something worse than that, which is entirely possible).

I've played Paladin-types before, whose response to the "would you kill an innocent child to save the world" question is a resounding "If there's no other way? Yes", because of that factor. And, no question, good on Roy for not going "well situation's dire better betray all our principles at the drop of the hat" either, absolutely looking for a way to get that golden victory is the right thing to do, because there usually is another option out there.

But I also just can't blame Julia for getting frustrated about this. The world's literally on the line, a lot of things go on the table at that point...

No good @ names

2023-01-28, 11:58 PM

I must express my disappointment that we will not see Julia in combat, simply because this means we will never here the immortal line "Do it to Julia!" spoken in dungeon room 101. :smallamused:

1984? At this time of the year, at this time of day, at this part of the country, localised entirely within this thread?

theNater

2023-01-29, 12:08 AM

Because Julia is kinda right here. This whole situation is way, way bigger than Roy's own personal morality. His decision in how to fight the battle will shape the lives of everyone on the planet, as well as other planes most likely, and no one else has a say in it.

For Julia, her life, her entire future is on the line here, and she's seeing her brother hamstring his own efforts to save the world in order to protect one child from harm.
Reminder that Julia is fully onboard with Roy's "protect one child from harm" stance when she is the child in question (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1193.html).

Feeling helpless and frustrated are certainly reasonable reactions, but they don't justify hypocrisy.

Wraithfighter

2023-01-29, 01:09 AM

Reminder that Julia is fully onboard with Roy's "protect one child from harm" stance when she is the child in question (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1193.html).

Feeling helpless and frustrated are certainly reasonable reactions, but they don't justify hypocrisy.

First, her reaction there is mostly fear to the notion of getting involved in a combat sense. That's entirely understandable for a seventeen year old human that's, what maybe 2nd level? If she's lucky? Sunny has several hit dice on her and a ton of special abilities, on an objective strategic level Sunny is massively more suited to this fight than she is, and even then, acting in fear at the notion of fighting a Lich is the sign of a sane woman, not a hypocritical jerk. There's no exploration of what her attitude would be if she were told that, in fact, her specific skill set were exactly what was needed to play a pivotal role in the conflict (something that Sunny's anti-magic eye certainly counts as).

Secondly, I really wish people would stop harping on hypocrisy as the biggest sin in the universe. Its not good, yeah, I get it, but it's also a pretty universal thing for humanity. Find me someone that isn't a little hypocritical, and I'll show you someone that's either a complete monster, or a corpse. Someone else not seeming hypocritical at all is just a sign that you don't know them very well, and if you're more angry at a person's hypocrisy than the thing they're actually doing that's hypocritical, maybe you should reexamine your priorities.

In any case, the only thing Julia's saying is that, if sacrificing a child would save the world, it should be on the table. Nothing about her reaction to maybe helping fight Xykon personally being "oh f*** I need to change my pants" makes that remotely hypocritical.

Reboot

2023-01-29, 01:55 AM

First, her reaction there is mostly fear to the notion of getting involved in a combat sense. That's entirely understandable for a seventeen year old human that's, what maybe 2nd level? If she's lucky?

She was third level as far as Roy knew in #485 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html).

Now, Sending (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sending.htm) is normally a 5th level Sor/Wiz spell (i.e., character level 9 or higher), but - presuming it's her - she did say she'd lowered the spell level of her blood oath-fuelled version in #1192 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1192.html). Still, even a 3rd level spell would require her to be character level 5 (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard). And since she's cast it twice in one day (again, presuming it's her), she'd need another level to cast it the second time unless she was an Evocation specialist like V.

Wraithfighter

2023-01-29, 01:58 AM

danielxcutter

2023-01-29, 03:27 AM

Wizards get Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat at 1st level, and I don't think the crafting time is that long. Also, high casting stat (usually) results in bonus slots, and that assumes she's not a specialist in whatever school Blood Oath Sending is.

theNater

2023-01-29, 04:40 AM

There's no exploration of what her attitude would be if she were told that, in fact, her specific skill set were exactly what was needed to play a pivotal role in the conflict (something that Sunny's anti-magic eye certainly counts as).
There's no exploration of it because her participating directly was never on the table. She's willing to send a child to die in a way she won't even consider dying herself.

danielxcutter

2023-01-29, 05:18 AM

For what it’s worth, Roy *is* quite solidly Good, and that’s not counting his personality traits and experiences as well.

theNater

2023-01-29, 06:50 AM

For what it’s worth, Roy *is* quite solidly Good, and that’s not counting his personality traits and experiences as well.
Oh, yeah, Roy is definitely staking out the Good position here, while Julia's "if Xykon kills someone I've never met, that's no skin off my nose" attitude still technically counts as Neutral, I think.

Onyavar

2023-01-29, 07:42 AM

Yep. I'm fully convinced now. [...] It's Eugene. Exactly.

Or, as we're going for insane fan theories "It's not Julia it's Serini" because she is testing out what the groups ethical limits are before deciding to really help them or notI had the idea shortly, but dismissed it as insane as well. It would fit Serini's need to know who's trustworthy NOW, but the setup would be too long for her. She had previously decided that she would eliminate the Order as a player from the plot.

To be honest: My bet is really IFCC using Eugene. Just because Eugene wants Xykon dead and doesn't care about anything else.
Yes that would be a neat twist, and seeing what Eugene has all done, consorting with demons would totally fit his path: He was bored, frustrated, isolated and a celestial leper anyway (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1048.html). the only remaining question is, what would the IFCC want him to do that positively effects their plans to triumph over good?

MornShine

2023-01-29, 08:19 AM

This seems out of character for both Eugene and Julia. Primarily, neither seem like they would be so flustered in 1272, especially because both have some idea of what's going on with the Blood Oath.

The dialogue on probably-Julia's end lacks the wit and sarcasm of her earlier interactions, or the bite of Eugene's. After Roy's "Zero progress..." line, this person seems slow on the uptake and leaves a perfect opportunity to slip in an insult on the table.

The "my... family's burden" and "stuck up here" comments seem to imply this is actually a god.

Admittedly, introducing a new character this late is suspect. But they're clearly testing Roy's morals; they know he's been visited by green-glowing Julia, but not about the Blood Oath nor Roy's entrance exams.

Food for thought: the Gods of the East had a green quiddity in the crayons.

Tzardok

2023-01-29, 08:22 AM

This reminds me of a guy who tried to justify that the Monster in the Dark is actually some remnant of the Eastern Gods. That means it's the MitD disguised as Julia contacting Roy. Also fits with the slight slowness.

WanderingMist

2023-01-29, 09:03 AM

Secondly, I really wish people would stop harping on hypocrisy as the biggest sin in the universe. Its not good, yeah, I get it, but it's also a pretty universal thing for humanity. Find me someone that isn't a little hypocritical, and I'll show you someone that's either a complete monster, or a corpse. Someone else not seeming hypocritical at all is just a sign that you don't know them very well, and if you're more angry at a person's hypocrisy than the thing they're actually doing that's hypocritical, maybe you should reexamine your priorities.

Hypocrisy falls under the umbrella of pride, which has long been considered the worst of sins. Being hypocritical means someone thinks that the rules they espouse don't apply to them. If you're more angry at the thing they're doing than the hypocrisy, then you've failed to understand that their current action is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. Yes, people are bound to be a little hypocritical from time to time, but they can change when called out on it, while a true hypocrite will twist the rules rather than admit they aren't living up to the standards they preach.

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-29, 09:54 AM

Secondly, I really wish people would stop harping on hypocrisy as the biggest sin in the universe.

"I want my side to win, and your side to lose"
"Isn't that a bit hypocritical?"

is a great line I heard recently about hypocrisy.

First Julia wanted Roy to save her, now she wants Sunny to save her. That's consistent.

CountDVB

2023-01-29, 10:10 AM

Honestly, I'm holding any real judgments on who is who with this whole situation until later since I am not sure. I am gonna go with Occam's Razor and say it is Julia. But yeah, exploring the various aspects of what it means on the alignment.

Roy raises a valid point over on if anyone else wanted to go and save the world, they can be happy to step up, but no one else has so he's doing how he thinks it could be done. While granted, very few people know about it thanks to the complexity of the secret, but still.

Peelee

2023-01-29, 10:57 AM

"I want my side to win, and your side to lose"
"Isn't that a bit hypocritical?"

is a great line I heard recently about hypocrisy.

I'm gonna need you to explain that because I don't see anything in there about hypocrisy.

Tzardok

2023-01-29, 10:59 AM

I'm gonna need you to explain that because I don't see anything in there about hypocrisy.

I guess that's the point. If I understand the quote correctly, it's about people calling things hypocritical that aren't hypocritical at all.

Peelee

2023-01-29, 11:01 AM

I guess that's the point. If I understand the quote correctly, it's about people calling things hypocritical that aren't hypocritical at all.

That's not a great line about hypocrisy, though. That's effectively jsut saying "no it isn't".

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-29, 11:27 AM

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

I'm hoping it will make more sense to Wraithfighter because he seems jaded about claims of hypocrisy. Not sure I can explain it because I'm jaded about claims of hypocrisy, but:

"Julia-the-child is okay with someone saving her life, but not okay with someone saving Sunny-the-child's life. Isn't that hypocritical?" fits the I-win-you-lose pattern.

I see the pattern crop up a lot in online arguments, and the line pokes fun at the pattern, but if the listener doesn't see the pattern much (or doesn't care) it does sound like I'm saying, "No, it isn't."

Kish

2023-01-29, 11:32 AM

I think the ox is saying that since Julia never said "you can't endanger me, I'm a child!" just "what, no, I'm not volunteering to get involved!" there is no hypocrisy in her suggesting using Sunny as cannon fodder.

You know, if the latter was Julia, which it's not, it's totally Eugene.

bunsen_h

2023-01-29, 12:03 PM

Secondly, I really wish people would stop harping on hypocrisy as the biggest sin in the universe. Its not good, yeah, I get it, but it's also a pretty universal thing for humanity. Find me someone that isn't a little hypocritical, and I'll show you someone that's either a complete monster, or a corpse. Someone else not seeming hypocritical at all is just a sign that you don't know them very well, and if you're more angry at a person's hypocrisy than the thing they're actually doing that's hypocritical, maybe you should reexamine your priorities.

My usual objections to someone being hypocritical involve them using political or social influence to take a prominent stand against a thing that I think is entirely unobjectionable, and which they themselves are doing. A common example is the politicians and religious leaders who stir up anti-LGBTQ prejudice while themselves not only indulging in exactly that kind of activity, but also taking advantage of their advanced resources to try to hide it. I don't care that they're LGBTQ; I care that they're hurting innocent people in the course of falsely claiming legitimacy in a group of people who have harmful prejudices.

Khay

2023-01-29, 12:22 PM

So here's something semi-related that I noticed going back over the last three comics: Bloodfeast's movements. He seems to have a preference for staying fairly close to Roy, about one head's length away, but the exceptions are interesting.

In 1272, he starts running down the corridor, then stops and turns back around when Roy sits down. Bloodfeast's stopping point is just before the point where Julia appears in panel 5. He moves around a bit but mostly keeps a consistent distance to Roy (one head's length).

In 1273, he follows Roy when he moves down the corridor. He's walking in panel 9, but doesn't close the distance to Roy - he again stops just before reaching the spot where Julia is standing.

In panel 1 of 1274, we see he's closed the distance to Roy again - but only after Julia has moved past Roy. We don't see him in panel 6 or 7 at all, but presumably he's standing just off-screen, which means he's again not closing the distance to Roy because Julia is "in the way."

Could just be an art thing to avoid overlapping characters, but Bloodfeast really seems to be acting like something is physically occupying the space where Julia's "Sending phantom" is. It would be very funny if that turned out to be a hint towards... something.

Wowlock

2023-01-29, 01:01 PM

Either Julia is showing the Eugene side of her or Eugene is trying to be 'helpful' in his own way but hides as Julia because he is a coward that cannot face his problems without deception.

As for Roy's conscience, it is better to go out being true to yourself. As he said, there aren't anyone else stepping up to the plate to save the world and even the Gods just plan to 'reset'

PontificatusRex

2023-01-29, 02:25 PM

Ooh, that's Eugene all right. Definitely trying to communicate with Roy without falling into their old patterns. I think we're finally seeing him show some vulnerability because he's hiding behind Julia's face. Looks like Dad is getting some character development too.

Onyavar

2023-01-29, 02:39 PM

So, what might happen next page? They say goodbye, and Roy tells her: by the way, next time don't show up in disguise?

theNater

2023-01-29, 02:57 PM

First Julia wanted Roy to save her, now she wants Sunny to save her. That's consistent.
Yes, her desires are consistent. But she's lying about it in this strip, claiming that her desire is to save the world, at any cost, rather than just herself. And for some reason, many people in this thread seem to want Roy to engage with her lie as if it was an honest position.

Vrock_Summoner

2023-01-29, 03:01 PM

I'm really torn on the "This is secretly Eugene" theory. On the one hand, so many parts of the dialogue really strongly point to the possibility, to the point it almost loops around to looking like a red herring for how obvious it is.

On the other hand, while the literal construction of dialogue has hints of Eugene's presence, "THAT'S EASY FOR YOU TO SAY!" as a mask-slip moment feels emotionally super out of character for Eugene, doesn't it? I mean, he might have a slight preference for Roy successfully killing Xykon, but he said it himself on the boat trip towards Dwarven land, he's really not invested in avoiding the gods exploding the world. And he knows they'll do that if Xykon wins! He has no reason to be any less chill about the outcome now than he was in that conversation. The level of anger and anguish displayed here doesn't seem like someone trying to slightly speed the timetable on something they've already been waiting years for, they sound like someone who's genuinely freaked out by the idea of the world ending.

Or maybe Eugene had some offscreen character development and really cares what happens to his kids now. I'unno.

Riftwolf

2023-01-29, 03:31 PM

arimareiji

2023-01-29, 03:45 PM

So, what might happen next page? They say goodbye, and Roy tells her: by the way, next time don't show up in disguise?

Now I want this theory to be true, just to see Roy make a crack about not knowing Eugene was into cosplaying teenage schoolgirls. (^_~)

(precedent (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html), panel 6)

Wraithfighter

2023-01-29, 03:56 PM

My usual objections to someone being hypocritical involve them using political or social influence to take a prominent stand against a thing that I think is entirely unobjectionable, and which they themselves are doing. A common example is the politicians and religious leaders who stir up anti-LGBTQ prejudice while themselves not only indulging in exactly that kind of activity, but also taking advantage of their advanced resources to try to hide it. I don't care that they're LGBTQ; I care that they're hurting innocent people in the course of falsely claiming legitimacy in a group of people who have harmful prejudices.

This is a good example of this, because of the whole "if your biggest problem is the hypocrisy" part.

Would them stirring up anti-LGBTQ prejudice suddenly become better if they weren't taking part of that kind of activity?

Yes, its an added bit of bad that they're doing, again, not saying "hypocrisy is not bad at all" here. But the main point is that they're being horrible for stirring up that prejudice in the first place. That's the worst part, that's the horrible part, them being LBGTQ themselves is the cherry on top.

And again, as for Julia? I've seen nothing to indicate that, if her skills were required to save the world, she would hide away from it. That question has not been posed, its not remotely fair for her to be sneered at as a hypocrite for being terrified of fighting a bloody Lich.

Larsaan

2023-01-29, 04:17 PM

Alternately, the reason "Julia" was flustered at the idea of physically contributing was that she was actually Eugene, who is barred from doing anything of the sort.

Fish

2023-01-29, 04:30 PM

"Well, then I guess I'll be dead and it won't be my problem any more!"
"That's easy for you to say!"

Yes. Definitely Eugene. Because Eugene is dead, and it is still his problem.

Ruck

2023-01-29, 04:36 PM

This is a good example of this, because of the whole "if your biggest problem is the hypocrisy" part.

Reminds me of this great clip (RIP):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljaP2etvDc4

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-29, 04:49 PM

Yes, her desires are consistent. But she's lying about it in this strip, claiming that her desire is to save the world, at any cost, rather than just herself. And for some reason, many people in this thread seem to want Roy to engage with her lie as if it was an honest position.

So I've considered Julia as Julia, Eugene, and Sabine, and I think my opinion is that this line is troubling for every alignment... and therefore does not favor any particular candidate. Julia remains the null hypothesis, but I'm still in the Eugene camp, because of other evidence.

Crusher

2023-01-29, 05:53 PM

"Yes, Zz'dtri is dead. That means, he's in the hands of the IIFC. That means, he's the vessel they were talking about. It's Sabini possessing Zz'dtri's dead soul pretending to be another well-known dead soul pretending to be Julia on the IIFC's orders. What else."

Better? :smallbiggrin:

Yes!

Sounds good now.

silver-alex

2023-01-29, 05:56 PM

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-29, 06:31 PM

Reminder that Julia is fully onboard with Roy's "protect one child from harm" stance when she is the child in question (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1193.html)
. Is that enlightened self interest, or just self interest? Given that she is an overindulged and spoiled teenager, I'll go with the latter.

I think the ox is saying that since Julia never said "you can't endanger me, I'm a child!" just "what, no, I'm not volunteering to get involved!" there is no hypocrisy in her suggesting using Sunny as cannon fodder. She's a wizard. They use others as a matter of course. (In her family).

"Well, then I guess I'll be dead and it won't be my problem any more!"
"That's easy for you to say!"
Yes. Definitely Eugene. Because Eugene is dead, and it is still his problem. OK, that's not a bad point for making my one quataloo bet look a little better.

Wraithfighter

2023-01-29, 06:43 PM

Reminds me of this great clip (RIP):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljaP2etvDc4

Aye, that's a fantastic clip to emphasize the point. "He might have been a horrible human being that victimized a large number of people, but at least he was ideologically consistent about it!" isn't something anyone should be thinking...

theNater

2023-01-29, 07:35 PM

Yes, its an added bit of bad that they're doing, again, not saying "hypocrisy is not bad at all" here.
While hypocrisy isn't the worst of it, it's uniquely annoying because of the way it destroys conversations.

You can't convince the hypocrite to change their position through evidence and reason, because they already know their position is wrong. They'll just keep repeating debunked talking points and/or pretending to be unaware of the obvious. Sometimes they'll pretend they could be convinced, but only to waste other people's time.

If you ignore them or dismiss them out of hand, they'll throw a tantrum; insisting that their bad-faith positions be given the same respect and consideration as other people's good-faith positions, and pretending not to know the difference. Sometimes they'll even imply that nobody is arguing in good faith, just to muddy the waters.

If you point out their hypocrisy, they throw a whole different tantrum; treating it as a personal attack rather than the simple factual observation that it is. They're just trying to win sympathy because, again, they know that can't argue their position on the merits.

In the end, you really just have to converse around them, which is a pain in the neck when all you're trying to do is have a nice little discussion.

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-29, 08:56 PM

I literally created this account so I could reply, something I never done before, just to say that this is obviously Eugene. The strongest hint is not just that "Julia" says "being stuck up here.." and ".. my.. family's duties... I feel so useless", but right after that, Roy corrects her saying that since he's at the north pole, he's higher than everyone else, thus "up here" doesnt makes sense.

And what's "julia's" reaction? A snarky remark about how she's glad to provide a brain that hasn't been hit so much. That snarky remark is what seals the deal for me. It's Eugene saying "wow, after the 'up here' comment and the heartfelt mention of the blood oath, Roy didn't realize it's me. My boy may be dumb. I'm glad that at least I can use my brains to give him insights".

Welcome! I can actually hear Eugene saying that, and I don't know what his voice sounds like. Maybe a little like Redd Foxx

Doug Lampert

2023-01-29, 11:17 PM

She was third level as far as Roy knew in #485 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html).

Now, Sending (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sending.htm) is normally a 5th level Sor/Wiz spell (i.e., character level 9 or higher), but - presuming it's her - she did say she'd lowered the spell level of her blood oath-fuelled version in #1192 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1192.html). Still, even a 3rd level spell would require her to be character level 5 (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard). And since she's cast it twice in one day (again, presuming it's her), she'd need another level to cast it the second time unless she was an Evocation specialist like V.

As a default, always assume all effectively all full casters built as a PC get a bonus spell of every level they have spells at with. This is not hard to arrange.

An NPC built with the elite array has some trouble at exactly level 11 (worse starting array and less money), but is otherwise fine till level 15-19 where he again has trouble.

Wizards get Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat at 1st level, and I don't think the crafting time is that long. Also, high casting stat (usually) results in bonus slots, and that assumes she's not a specialist in whatever school Blood Oath Sending is.

Assuming minimum allowed caster level and a wizard.
A scroll of a level 1 to 4 spell is one day to write, in fact, you'll probably put several spells on the scroll so as to not waste time.
Levels 5 and 6 take 2 days.
Levels 7 and 8 take 3 days.
A level 9 scroll takes 4 days.

arimareiji

2023-01-30, 01:09 AM

I literally created this account so I could reply, something I never done before, just to say that this is obviously Eugene. The strongest hint is not just that "Julia" says "being stuck up here.." and ".. my.. family's duties... I feel so useless", but right after that, Roy corrects her saying that since he's at the north pole, he's higher than everyone else, thus "up here" doesnt makes sense.

And what's "julia's" reaction? A snarky remark about how she's glad to provide a brain that hasn't been hit so much. That snarky remark is what seals the deal for me. It's Eugene saying "wow, after the 'up here' comment and the heartfelt mention of the blood oath, Roy didn't realize it's me. My boy may be dumb. I'm glad that at least I can use my brains to give him insights".

I'll admit that I was solely joking when I said I want this theory to be true so we can get Roy busting on Eugene for cosplaying as a magic-wielding girl (maybe "Next time try a better disguise, Sailor Moon").

But you definitely have a point... "up here" (and Roy taking the time to call it out), i.e. possibly "in the clouds", actually has me considering it not only plausible but even "not-unlikely".

Riftwolf

2023-01-30, 04:37 AM

Did Sabine and Serini merge?

Hold on.... If (Sab)ine, Se(rin)i and Juli(a) merge we get

Sabrina the Teenage Witch! It all fits! Melissa Joan Hart will defeat the Snarl!

faustin

2023-01-30, 05:47 AM

Julia is basically Riley from Inside Out, with Eugene, Sabine, Redcloak's niece and the others acting as her Emotions.

Thecommander236

2023-01-30, 05:53 AM

That's definitely Eugene using an illusion spell, not Julia.

Ravus

2023-01-30, 07:30 AM

First, Roy would probably never use an innocent as bait (with high chance of death) without asking for their consent first. Maybe in the extreme case where the bait has to not know that they're a bait or he doesn't have time to ask, he would be content being 100% convinced that they would have said yes. But sacrificing an innocent against their will is likely out of the question.

So the question is "At which point is Roy feeling ok with asking someone if they'd be willing to sacrifice themself?". And I have two guesses:
(1) Would be that impressionable peoples, children included, are a "no, it's not fair because they're don't fully understand what they agree too".
(2) Would be that Roy subconsciously categorised peoples in "those that need to be protected" and those who don't, and would never ask for a sacrifice to those that are in the first category.

Roy has had Vaarsuvius act as bait in the fight against the vampires (strip 1117, cannot link because my post count is low), so we know that he's ok with it to some extent.
The most relevant factor here is that V is not a child, but rather an adult who signed up for it. On top of that, it's going to be easier for a Lawful character to accept that a military commander has the right to impart dangerous orders to the people under his command.

I wonder how Roy would feel about putting Elan in a similar spot. My gut instinct tells me that it would bother him - it's conceptually no different from any party member (otherwise Elan should have no business being in the OotS at all), but it would still trigger Roy's big-brother protectiveness.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 07:32 AM

Peelee

2023-01-30, 07:53 AM

I don't care if this is Julia or somebody else. But pointing out that killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is acceptable to Roy, but killing one child he knows about is not - because of his selfish desire to maintain his cognitive patterns - is really good.

Nope.

Five people are dying. You can kill one healthy person and use the organs to save the five. Is killing that person good? No.

Millions of anonymous children will be killed by Xykon and Redcloak. Roy is trying to stop them. No matter what Roy chooses he will never have killed the anonymous children. You are shifting the burden to Roy to try to show how killing a child is good. It's not.

danielxcutter

2023-01-30, 07:59 AM

Roy has had Vaarsuvius act as bait in the fight against the vampires (strip 1117, cannot link because my post count is low), so we know that he's ok with it to some extent.
The most relevant factor here is that V is not a child, but rather an adult who signed up for it. On top of that, it's going to be easier for a Lawful character to accept that a military commander has the right to impart dangerous orders to the people under his command.

I wonder how Roy would feel about putting Elan in a similar spot. My gut instinct tells me that it would bother him - it's conceptually no different from any party member (otherwise Elan should have no business being in the OotS at all), but it would still trigger Roy's big-brother protectiveness.

Also, V was buffed out the ass and would have taken almost no damage from the Chaos Hammer anyways, so that's probably a factor.

Saint-Just

2023-01-30, 09:35 AM

Nope.

Five people are dying. You can kill one healthy person and use the organs to save the five. Is killing that person good? No.

Millions of anonymous children will be killed by Xykon and Redcloak. Roy is trying to stop them. No matter what Roy chooses he will never have killed the anonymous children. You are shifting the burden to Roy to try to show how killing a child is good. It's not.

This analogy doesn't work because Sunny is not "healthy" in that situation, he is "dying" too.

Moreover, Roy doesn't say that it is right not to risk Sunny in that situation, he just refuses to engage with the premise. His argument about lack of perfect information (he doesn't know whether sacrificing Sunny is the only way to resolve the situation satisfactory) is much more pertinent to most RL situation than abstract rule-based reasoning (doesn't matter whether that reasoning leads you to conclude sacrificing someone else is right or wrong).

Peelee

2023-01-30, 09:40 AM

This analogy doesn't work because Sunny is not "healthy" in that situation, he is "dying" too.

Ok, let's go with a more accurate version, then. Is it good to kill one sick person to save five sick people? it is possible to save all the people without killing any of them and killing the one is no guarantee that you can save the five.

That makes it even worse.

Faldrath

2023-01-30, 09:48 AM

I don't think it's Eugene for one single reason: Eugene would never apologize the way "Julia" does in panel 9. I don't think he'd be a good enough actor for that. True, he impersonated the celestial back in Azure City, but that was "easy" for him because it was supposed to be a powerful being that makes decisions. But all we've seen of Eugene in the strip suggests apologies for his behavior are beyond him.

FireJustice

2023-01-30, 09:49 AM

the writting is so big in the wall.

Julia wasn´t Julia since.... the first case of "moddified" sending spell

the only thing that it makes many doubt its eugene is how "she" apologizes 1274, that is really weird

woweedd

2023-01-30, 10:24 AM

I don't care if this is Julia or somebody else. But pointing out that killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is acceptable to Roy, but killing one child he knows about is not - because of his selfish desire to maintain his cognitive patterns - is really good.
Killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is not acceptable either, that's, ya know, why he's currently one of the main people trying to prevent their deaths. But killing one child, by direct action, is ALSO unacceptable as far as he's concerned. Certain tactics are morally off limits, regardless of the broader stragetic value. It's the cost of being a Good person.

Ravus

2023-01-30, 10:38 AM

Also, V was buffed out the ass and would have taken almost no damage from the Chaos Hammer anyways, so that's probably a factor.

An important one as well - Roy's portrayed (at least in recent strips) as the type to take strong responsibility for people under his command.

However, I get the impression that he would not have sent out Sunny instead of V even in that same exact situation, with that same protection.

Crusher

2023-01-30, 11:08 AM

Killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is not acceptable either, that's, ya know, why he's currently one of the main people trying to prevent their deaths. But killing one child, by direct action, is ALSO unacceptable as far as he's concerned. Certain tactics are morally off limits, regardless of the broader stragetic value. It's the cost of being a Good person.

Right. And the response (which Julia makes) is "What if you HAVE to sacrifice the child to save everyone else?" and Roy's rebuttal is "That might be the easiest and most obvious option, but I don't accept that its the ONLY one and I'm willing to die trying to find other solutions."

pendell

2023-01-30, 11:21 AM

Ok, let's go with a more accurate version, then. Is it good to kill one sick person to save five sick people? it is possible to save all the people without killing any of them and killing the one is no guarantee that you can save the five.

That makes it even worse.

Seems accurate. We don't have any plans yet to tackle Xykon, and no indication that sacrificing a team member would actually help matters. Julia went directly to sacrificing a team member because she's true neutral; Roy is more hesitant because he's lawful good.

We haven't yet seen that this is a trolley problem where the only way to save every life in the world is to sacrifice a child's life. There may be other possibilities which allow all of them to survive, and I think we need to explore those options first.

Still, Roy has to answer this question: Is Sunny a combatant or not? If Sunny is, then Roy has to accept there's a very real possibility that Sunny will be killed or injured going up against an epic level lich.

And if Roy's not cool with that, he's going to have to ask Sunny to sit this one out. But I don't think either Sunny or Serini will accept that.

I also wonder how Roy is coming to grips with the fact that the Order is probably going to take casualties in this fight.

ETA: I guess what's getting me is this quote from The Killer Angels. It's attributed to R.E. Lee, but of course this is entirely fictional dialogue. The real R.E. Lee didn't say this but the sentiment holds up pretty well.

"To be a good soldier you must love the army. But to be a good officer you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love. This is...a very hard thing to do. No other profession requires it. That is one reason why there are so very few good officers. Although there are many good men."

...
"We protect ourselves out of military necessity, not do not protect yourself enough and must give thought to it. I need you. But the point is, we are afraid to die. We are prepared for our own deaths, and for the deaths of comrades. We learn that at the Point. But I have seen this happen: we are not prepared for as many deaths as we have to face, inevitably as the war goes on. There comes a time..."

...
"We are never prepared for so many to die. So you understand? No one is. We expect some chosen few. We expect an occasional empty chair, a toast to dear departed comrades. Victory celebrations for most of us, a hallowed death for a few. But the war goes on. And the men die. The price gets ever higher. Some officers...can pay no longer. We are prepared to lose some of us." He paused again. "But never ALL of us. Surely not all of us. But...that is the trap. You can hold nothing back when you attack. You must commit yourself totally. And yet ,if they all die, a man must ask himself, will it have been worth it?”

I guess what's bothering my about this whole line of discussion is that, while it's still wrong to deliberately order someone to certain death if it can be avoided, the fact is that if you're accepting someone as a combatant then you also have to accept there's a very real chance you're going to give that person orders which will result in their death.

And if Roy isn't willing to give such orders to Sunny, he needs Sunny not to fight in this battle at all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Fish

2023-01-30, 11:28 AM

Killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is not acceptable either, that's, ya know, why he's currently one of the main people trying to prevent their deaths.
Correct. And, lest we forget, it’s the entire pantheon of gods who are doing all of the killing. And the threat exists because Roy has been left to solve, with his mortal tools, a problem the gods refused to solve themselves. {scrubbed}.

Wintermoot

2023-01-30, 12:02 PM

I guess what's bothering my about this whole line of discussion is that, while it's still wrong to deliberately order someone to certain death if it can be avoided, the fact is that if you're accepting someone as a combatant then you also have to accept there's a very real chance you're going to give that person orders which will result in their death.

Not getting into whether I believe in this sentiment or in your above quote because it would be a distraction.

-IF- you take this as a given, then it's also true that the responsibility of the commander is not just 'be willing to expend resources" but rather "be capable of expending resources intelligently, capably and morally"

There are myriad ways to use Sunny without "use her as bait" or "send her into a situation where she has a high probability of death"

To many times do I see people stop at the "a commander must be willing to sacrifice his resources" without getting to the "capably, intelligently and morally" Which misses the point.

The strongest commander isn't simply "capable of sending his troops to death", but rather ONLY does so when it's the intelligent, logical and moral thing to do in that situation.

And if you DON'T believe that their is a moral responsibility on the shoulders of the commander with the power to "expend resources" then I'm hopeful you are not in a position to expend any resources.

arimareiji

2023-01-30, 12:22 PM

I don't care if this is Julia or somebody else. But pointing out that killing millions of anonymous children by inaction is acceptable to Roy, but killing one child he knows about is not - because of his selfish desire to maintain his cognitive patterns - is really good.

There are a number of good arguments to be made against this perspective, some of which have been made already. But I'm also glad this was pointed out, because one of the good arguments for it is "We all need reminders from time to time that in-group bias is a terrible look." Saving A, or letting A get away with blatant shenanigans because A is someone we know and/or like - whereas we'd let B die, or condemn B for even a hint of the same - is a path paved with good intentions.

JNinja

2023-01-30, 12:28 PM

Wow everyone’s distracted with the Julia/Eugene/etc debate and no one has yet commented on the similarity to https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html

arimareiji

2023-01-30, 12:42 PM

Wow everyone’s distracted with the Julia/Eugene/etc debate and no one has yet commented on the similarity to https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html

You've got me dreadfully curious - I don't understand the similarity you see (theme, plot point, subtext, etc), but I'd like to. The stuff that's not immediately obvious is often the most rewarding.

Edit: Never mind, I think I get it now. The events of that strip had too much of my attention, so I didn't get Haley:Belkar::Roy:Julia?.

pendell

2023-01-30, 01:28 PM

N
-IF- you take this as a given, then it's also true that the responsibility of the commander is not just 'be willing to expend resources" but rather "be capable of expending resources intelligently, capably and morally"

There are myriad ways to use Sunny without "use her as bait" or "send her into a situation where she has a high probability of death"

To many times do I see people stop at the "a commander must be willing to sacrifice his resources" without getting to the "capably, intelligently and morally" Which misses the point.

Fair point. A commander who stupidly and wastefully throws lives away, in addition to the moral issue, is also making problems because those people who were killed aren't there for future battles. It hastens the point when the offensive culminates and you have to wait for the units to refit and replace. Wasteful officers, especially at the lower levels, also have to worry about going to sleep lest they find they have a grenade as a bunkmate.

I take it as given that Roy won't get his people killed unnecessarily. Really, that should be a sine qua non of any capable commander in stick-verse, even of a Tarquin. It's one reason Roy's more capable than Julia -- because he's willing to put some thought into how he risks his people, rather than going immediately to "sacrifice the ally" as his first choice. Julia's statement to that effect reminds me of Xykon stating that there's no problem which can't be solved with endless minions. Which is not just evil but also stupid, especially when your minions are not endless but can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Counterbalancing that is the fact that for all the "capable, intelligent, moral" modifiers you've still got to win. Because if you lose it means the lives spent were spent for nothing. And there's no way that expenditure, however small, can be justified as capable, intelligent, or moral if all it does is get people killed.

Even so... to my mind "reject Julia's plan because it puts a team member at unnecessary risk" is a good answer. "reject Julia's plan because it puts a child in danger" isn't. Because if your concern is putting a child in danger, that child shouldn't be a combatant in the first place; there's no way you can fight this without putting Sunny at significant risk of life and ... um, tentacle? Eye-stalk?

So I think Roy's giving the right answer but for the wrong reason.

And if you DON'T believe that their is a moral responsibility on the shoulders of the commander with the power to "expend resources" then I'm hopeful you are not in a position to expend any resources.

I do, in fact, believe a commander has the responsibility to spend their people as parsimoniously, capably, and intelligently as possible -- with the understanding that with all those qualifiers it still means you're going to get a lot of people killed. And if I can go my whole life without having to make that kind of decision for-real, I will die content.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

JNinja

2023-01-30, 01:37 PM

Edit: Never mind, I think I get it now. The events of that strip had too much of my attention, so I didn't get Haley:Belkar::Roy:Julia?.

Yes - specifically the “We won’t kill a child unless we absolutely have to.” Could be interesting to compare and contrast, I unfortunately have other things I should be doing with my time first

Tubercular Ox

2023-01-30, 01:55 PM

Wow everyone’s distracted with the Julia/Eugene/etc debate and no one has yet commented on the similarity to https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html

I did! Hi, it's nice to meet you.

Also, this scene sets up how Roy feels about monstrous children. If there are any other monstrous children in the story, that's going to pay off later.

To me it looks like the Monster in the Dark is on a path to putting the party in a moral quandary, as opposed to physical or other, but a moral quandary in which we're going to know which side some characters are on.

And maybe Sunny thrown in, too.

PontificatusRex

2023-01-30, 02:02 PM

Very interesting discussion. It seems to me that Propbably-Eugene was suggesting seriously Amanda Waller level tactics and strategy: Throwing lives away in pursuit if your goal as the default instead of the last resort, because you don't actually value those lives.

Even so... to my mind "reject Julia's plan because it puts a team member at unnecessary risk" is a good answer. "reject Julia's plan because it puts a child in danger" isn't. Because if your concern is putting a child in danger, that child shouldn't be a combatant in the first place; there's no way you can fight this without putting Sunny at significant risk of life and ... um, tentacle? Eye-stalk?

So I think Roy's giving the right answer but for the wrong reason.

Hmm, I see the point but still hard disagree. A child is not likely to have the same risk assessment abilities as an adult, and is more likely to do what they are told because they are in the habit of obeying parents and other adults. They can't give consent the way an adult can.

There is a big difference between "This child has powerful abilities that could make the difference between the world ending or not (and has previous combat experience) so we are going to have them take part in the battle" vs "We are setting up this child as a pawn to sacrifice as an opening strategic move". Even a chlidlike adult such as Elan is going to have a better idea of what they're setting themselves up for unless they are being deceived about the level of risk, which brings us back to Amanda Waller - style tactics and definitely deep side of the alignment pool behavior.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 02:27 PM

Nope.

Five people are dying. You can kill one healthy person and use the organs to save the five. Is killing that person good? No.

Millions of anonymous children will be killed by Xykon and Redcloak. Roy is trying to stop them. No matter what Roy chooses he will never have killed the anonymous children. You are shifting the burden to Roy to try to show how killing a child is good. It's not.
Yep. You should not kill one healthy person for five people, because of ontological defence of the innocent.
But you clearly should kill him for million people, because no amount of innocence can outweigh a million people's lives.
It's just in numbers. I cannot say the clear boundary, but it is perfectly clear for all rational people that literal million of lives outweigh one.

And, yes, this analogy is manipulative because it's not one vs five, it's one vs five plus one.

A commander who stupidly and wastefully throws lives away, in addition to the moral issue, is also making problems because those people who were killed aren't there for future battles.
Of course. That's why using Sunny as bait should be discussed purely on strategic merits, and not on the "oh my god a child that I know can die" merits.
It's completely possible that the way to save most people is not to use him as bait. But it needs to be discussed in this terms.

Peelee

2023-01-30, 02:35 PM

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 02:40 PM

Nope. You can kill him. I won't. That's a line I won't cross, man. Not gonna kill an innocent.

Well, then you are killing a million of innocent people by inaction, just to keep your cognitive patterns safe.
I, on the other hand, would prefer to have 999 999 people live. If I am willing to sacrifice myself to save a million people, then I'm obliged to sacrifice my sanity and my feeling-of-scale cognitive bias.

If we are talking about five people, the "innocence" defence should work, because you are undermining the foundations of the society by choosing to kill an innocent man. But you absolutely should risk undermining them a bit in order to save 1 000 000 people.
I'm obliged to not give real-life examples on this forum, but spies in the middle of the last century were making such decisions - and if they did not, then we may not be talking right now.

hroþila

2023-01-30, 02:41 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 02:42 PM

Yep. You should not kill one healthy person for five people, because of ontological defence of the innocent.
But you clearly should kill him for million people, because no amount of innocence can outweigh a million people's lives.
It's just in numbers. I cannot say the clear boundary, but it is perfectly clear for all rational people that literal million of lives outweigh one.

And, yes, this analogy is manipulative because it's not one vs five, it's one vs five plus one.

Good grief. When you find yourself being told you are wrong by Robert Heinlein, it might be time to reconsider your priors:

"Are a thousand unreleased prisoners sufficient reason to start or resume a war? Bear in mind that millions of innocent people may die, almost certainly will die, if war is started or resumed."

I didn’t hesitate. "Yes, sir! More than enough reason."

" ‘More than enough.’ Very well, is one prisoner, unreleased by the enemy, enough reason to start or resume a war?"

I hesitated. I knew the M. I. answer — but I didn’t think that was the one he wanted. He said sharply, "Come, come, Mister! We have an upper limit of one thousand; I invited you to consider a lower limit of one. But you can’t pay a promissory note which reads ‘somewhere between one and one thousand pounds’ — and starting a war is much more serious than paying a trifle of money. Wouldn’t it be criminal to endanger a country — two countries in fact — to save one man? Especially as he may not deserve it? Or may die in the meantime? Thousands of people get killed every day in accidents... so why hesitate over one man? Answer! Answer yes, or answer no — you’re holding up the class."

He got my goat. I gave him the cap trooper’s answer. "Yes, sir!"

" ‘Yes’ what?"

"It doesn’t matter whether it’s a thousand — or just one, sir. You fight."

"Aha! The number of prisoners is irrelevant. Good. Now prove your answer."

I was stuck. I knew it was the right answer. But I didn’t know why. He kept hounding me. "Speak up, Mr. Rico. This is an exact science. You have made a mathematical statement; you must give proof. Someone may claim that you have asserted, by analogy, that one potato is worth the same price, no more, no less, as one thousand potatoes. No?"

"No, sir!"

"Why not? Prove it."

"Men are not potatoes."

The value of a human life is not "somewhere above five other lives but definitely less than a million lives". The statement is incoherent in the face of it.

It is immoral to sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, no matter the gains to be made by doing so.

Grey Wolf

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 02:42 PM

Utilitarianism is a perfectly defensible ethical philosophy, but it's definitely not the be-all and end-all of ethics, and it's a bit weird to pretend there aren't other perfectly defensible schools of thought.

If we are talking about small numbers, like five people - absolutely.
If we are talking about the whole world being blown up?.. Nope.

Good grief. When you find yourself being told you are wrong by Robert Heinlein, it might be time to reconsider your priors:

Sorry, but if an argumentum ab auctoritate is valid for you, then you need to reconsider your thinking.

It is immoral to sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, no matter the gains to be made by doing so.

Yes. And you need to make an immoral choice, sacrifice your sense of morality. Your feeling of "I did bad things", your future in the psychiatric clinic does not matter when we are talking about 1 000 000 people getting to live.

I really wonder, why people don't understand that refusing to sacrifice an innocent life automatically means that you lose in any hostage situation. If you are not willing to sacrifice the hostage's life for ANYTHING, then you are obliged to, for example, make suicide on the spot if an enemy says so. Because even if you are trying to rescue them instead of complying to the demands and shooting yourself in the head, you are endangering them more - and, therefore, you are willing to make a sacrifice.

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 02:54 PM

Sorry, but if an argumentum ab auctoritate is valid for you, then you need to reconsider your thinking.
And if all I had posted was that statement, you might have a point. But I didn't. I posted an argument. That happens to have been written by someone broadly recognized as not the finest moral writer of all time. And yet he still had you beat. People are not potatoes, and you reducing them to such ends up looking like the most ridiculous mathematical equation of all time (5V < V <1000000V).

Yes. And you need to make an immoral choice, sacrifice your sense of morality.

Well, that's at least going to shorten this conversation. There is no point in trying to explain morality to someone that'll just toss it out the window when it is inconvenient.

GW

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 02:57 PM

And if all I had posted was that statement, you might have a point. But I didn't. I posted an argument. That happens to have been written by someone broadly recognized as not the finest moral writer of all time. And yet he still had you beat. People are not potatoes, and you reducing them to such ends up looking like the most ridiculous mathematical equation of all time (5V < V <1000000V).
GW

"People are not potatoes" is not an argument. Yes, they are not - for example, potatoes are plants and people are animals.
This is one of the many profound-sounding, but empty phrases.

There is no point in trying to explain morality to someone that'll just toss it out the window when it is inconvenient.
Yes, I don't think there is a point to explain that human life has value to somebody that is not willing to throw out a thought pattern in order to save a million of them.

pendell

2023-01-30, 03:03 PM

"People are not potatoes" is not an argument.

It is actually. The argument is that human life is of transcendent value , beyond price. That one cannot balance human lives in the scale as one could a sack of potatoes, a purely economic commodity.

Even so.

I think there has to be a certain element of utilitarian thinking when we're dealing with military actions. If we were to go full deontological, well, why are we killing people at all?

The entire point of war is that getting a certain number of people killed -- on both sides -- is a lesser evil than not fighting the war. The alternative viewpoint is best described as "peace at any price" -- no evil we can possibly suffer can be greater than the evil which comes from fighting a war, with the attendant deaths in action, starvation, disease, displaced persons, "collateral damage" et al.

If we're not going to accept that assertion, then we must also conclude there are times it is good to do the lesser evil in order to prevent a bigger one. That, or we must conclude that no good person can fight a war. Ergo, paladins are a contradiction in terms.

I reject the D&D rules assertion that it is not an evil act to kill an evil creature. That's a rules convention which allows paladins to cut people in two with a sword and not fall for it. And as we've seen in this very story, just because a creature is evil now doesn't mean it always will be -- evil creatures can receive redemption, good ones can fall. Killing them cuts that entire journey short.

That doesn't mean we start treating humans as disposable resources, like potatoes, as RA Heinlein points out. The deontological imprimature that every human life is of inestimable value still holds to some extent. But ... well, history is full of examples in which people made the most high-minded rules in peacetime which went by the boards in war. Case in point: Back in the 1930s it was illegal to bomb cities, or for submarines to torpedo merchant ships without warning. By 1944 both sides did this without the slightest hesitation. What was morally the correct course of action had to be put aside for the course of action which was actually effective.

I think that the intelligent person has to think about this ahead of time and build a workable moral framework for their actions. Because if we insist on building a moral framework more suitable for a fantasy world, what actually happens is that the whole things gets discarded on the altar of pragmatism once we come under serious threat. Better to have a workable system ahead of time that doesn't break under the strain.

It is immoral to sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, no matter the gains to be made by doing so.

Except that if you're going to fight a war, you are absolutely going to do this , if in no other way than as "collateral damage".

Unless you're able to get both armies off into a distant field far away from everything else -- which hasn't happened since the 19th century, I believe -- then if you fight any kind of modern war you're going to be condemning an unknown number of completely innocent civilians to death from errant bombs, starvation due to cut food supplies, freezing due to power outages, etc. etc.

You cannot fight a modern war without sacrificing the innocent. We try to minimize it. But there's no way to fight one and not sacrifice an unknown, but potentially large, number of innocents. That's doubly true if you're fighting an enemy who has no compunction about using innocents as human shields.

OTOH, if you refuse to fight, then the people who are ruthless and cruel enough to use innocents as shields get to have their way versus those who won't. An unpalatable choice, to be sure.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Peelee

2023-01-30, 03:08 PM

Well, then you are killing a million of innocent people

Nope. I'm not killing them. Whoever or whatever is killing them is. But hey, whatever makes the blood on your hands easier to cope with.

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 03:10 PM

I think that the intelligent person has to think about this ahead of time and build a workable moral framework for their actions. Because if we insist on building a moral framework more suitable for a fantasy world, what actually happens is that the whole things gets discarded on the altar of pragmatism once we come under serious threat. Better to have a workable system ahead of time that doesn't break under the strain.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

There are plenty of systems that are perfectly happy with establishing in advance how many people are worth sacrificing for the common good (and worse, which people). But it quickly becomes political, so this is hardly the place to discuss them. And as it happens, I'd rather not live in any of them, so take that as you will.

Nope. I'm not killing them. Whoever or whatever is killing them either. But hey, whatever makes the blood on your hands easier to cope with.
This is what bothers me most about the trolley problem. Why is the implication that I'm killing anyone just because I see the bloody result of some maniac tying people to railway tracks?

Also, how come it is never an option to try to derail the trolley by waiting until the front wheels take the curve, then hit the switch so the back wheels go straight?

GW

Quizatzhaderac

2023-01-30, 03:12 PM

The kerning of the ellipses first text box in panel ten is uneven, just like Redcloak's niece!

I'm filing the "up here" with the indefinite "she" from last comic, in the "I guess Julia is using a different style guide than some other posters" box.

I know I often have to resist the urge to correct someone who says "up here" without considering geography.

I'm gonna need you to explain that because I don't see anything in there about hypocrisy.When someone wrongly accurses another of hypocrisy, they make bad assumptions about what the accused's stance is, or don't engage it honestly.

One the most superficial level, the first speaker is treating their side and the other side differently. Presumably, the first speaker has reasons for preferring on side, and we'd want to examine those reasons to determine any hypocrisy.

The second speaker is assuming the first's stance is something moronic like "sides should be equal."

I guess what's bothering my about this whole line of discussion is that, while it's still wrong to deliberately order someone to certain death if it can be avoided, the fact is that if you're accepting someone as a combatant then you also have to accept there's a very real chance you're going to give that person orders which will result in their death. Emphasis mine. There is an ocean of difference between certain and possible death in how people behave.

Tabling the moral issues, good commanders almost never order people to certain death because soldiers won't follow those orders. Yes, the 300 Spartans did it, and we're still talking about it thousands of years later on other continents. IRL, Xykon's troops would have all deserted and if they didn't, they would flee once it looks remotely like they're in the sacrifice position.

Soldiers with a cause are much more likely to go in for the occasion big heroic sacrifice, but a good commander doesn't expect them all to behave like a chess game.

Circling back to Julia's suggestion: if Roy tried to use Sunny like a chess piece he'd likely either refuse or panic and leave too early. Or Serini would figure out what's happening and they'd be back to fighting her.

Also, Roy is a skirmisher leading a group of six, not a general leading thousands. Not only does that make numbers smaller, it means outcomes tend to be more lopsided. If he loses one person, that's a pyric victory. If Plan A in an attack he initiates and still involves a good chance of an ally's death, that's a terrible plan.

For comparison, only about 1 in 17 Confederates died at the battle of Gettysburg, less on the Union side.

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 03:16 PM

Also, Roy is a skirmisher leading a group of six, not a general leading thousands. Not only does that make numbers smaller, it means outcomes tend to be more lopsided. If he loses one person, that's a pyric victory. If Plan A in an attack he initiates and still involves a good chance of an ally's death, that's a terrible plan.

I mean, there is also the fantasy consideration that dying isn't exactly the unfixable condition that it is in the real world. One third of the main team has been dead for some time already. But that doesn't make putting a child in deliberate harm's way any less immoral, and that's before I even check if you can resurrect a beholder.

GW

Peelee

2023-01-30, 03:16 PM

The kerning of the ellipses first text box in panel ten is uneven, just like Redcloak's niece!
The keming looks fine to me.

When someone wrongly accurses another of hypocrisy, they make bad assumptions about what the accused's stance is, or don't engage it honestly.

One the most superficial level, the first speaker is treating their side and the other side differently. Presumably, the first speaker has reasons for preferring on side, and we'd want to examine those reasons to determine any hypocrisy.

The second speaker is assuming the first's stance is something moronic like "sides should be equal."

That's not a great line about hypocrisy, though. That's effectively just saying "no it isn't".

Tzardok

2023-01-30, 03:28 PM

Also, how come it is never an option to try to derail the trolley by waiting until the front wheels take the curve, then hit the switch so the back wheels go straight?

GW

Seen that one before in a manga. Resulted in the trolley skidding forth on both trails at once and killing all six. Was funny.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 03:29 PM

Nope. I'm not killing them. Whoever or whatever is killing them is.

I don't know of your country, but in Russia there is a crime called "willingly leaving people in danger that led to their death". If you stand at the edge of a hole in a river ice that a person had fallen into, and you have a long stick (which means you can reasonably save them without falling in the hole yourself), if you just shrug: "Nope. I'm not killing them, the frozen water is killing them", and go your own way, you are going to jail.

So no, you don't get this defense - you get defenses like "I could not reasonably save them, I could just make things worse" (which is about tactics of saving people - you should not try to help if you don't know how), but not the one you tried to hide behind.

The things I don't like about the trolley problem's second case (the one with a fat man that can be thrown on the rails), is that you have no reasonable way to know that it will be enough to stop the train AND that if you miscounted, you may make the train slip on the blood of six people instead of five, which may cause the crash, killing even more people. (And, of course, the other argument that you are certainly going to jail - it's OK to have self-preservation when we are talking about five people and not 1 000 000 people).

pendell

2023-01-30, 03:36 PM

This is what bothers me most about the trolley problem. Why is the implication that I'm killing anyone just because I see the bloody result of some maniac tying people to railway tracks?

Also, how come it is never an option to try to derail the trolley by waiting until the front wheels take the curve, then hit the switch so the back wheels go straight?

The Trolley problem is an abstraction. Of course if there's another way to solve the problem that doesn't involve any lives we should do that. The problem is, that's not always an option.

Here's the real world example I'm most familiar with (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAYMr-4n5OM).

Every warship in the world has watertight doors in case of flooding. Which is a thing that can happen when unfriendlies are throwing high explosive at you.

The problem is that, as a rule, when you seal those watertight doors you're condemning the people still in the compartment to an absolutely horrible death by drowning.

But you've got to. There isn't a clever solution that you can find to the problem in the nick of time. Either those people die, or the entire ship sinks. And if you're in a submarine that means everyone on board dies.

Lose a few, or lose everything.

Every naval officer is trained for this contingency. And it's an ugly choice, but it's happened a lot over the centuries.

That's the real world problem the trolley problem is showing in its most abstract form. It is a necessary problem to face. Hopefully, no one reading this will ever be put in a position to make that choice for-real.

here's another example (http://www.maxima-library.org/mob/b/299881?format=read). The author is Bob Mason, describing his experience as a helicopter pilot. I'll cut out the real-world example but just leave this abstract question he was asked..

Before I got into the army, they had asked me a question they asked all prospective grunts: What would you do if you were the driver of a truck loaded with soldiers, traveling very fast down a muddy road, flanked on both sides with steep drop-offs, and a small child suddenly walked into your path? Would you try to avoid her and drive off to certain death, or would you keep going and kill her? Well, everybody knew the right answer: You kill the kid. And it didn’t much matter, because the kid and the situation weren’t real anyway. So I had said, “I’d stop the truck.”
“No, no. You can’t stop the truck. It’s going too fast.”
“Well, then, I wouldn’t be going so fast down a very bad road in the first place.”
“You don’t seem to understand. It’s assumed that you have no choice but to kill either the little kid or you and your comrades.”
“Since I have no choice, I’ll go ahead and kill the kid.”
“That’s what we like to hear.”

This abstract example did have a real world application -- which you can read about in the book ,as I think it trips the real-world filter if we talk about it here.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Peelee

2023-01-30, 03:39 PM

I don't know of your country, but in Russia there is a crime called "willingly leaving people in danger that led to their death". If you stand at the edge of a hole in a river ice that a person had fallen into, and you have a long stick (which means you can reasonably save them without falling in the hole yourself), if you just shrug: "Nope. I'm not killing them, the frozen water is killing them", and go your own way, you are going to jail.

Cool! Now, which state requires you to injure someone else to prevent an injury to another? Or requires you to kill one person to prevent another one dying? Or did you think I would conveniently let you equivocate "hold a stick" to "kill someone"?

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 03:40 PM

Hopefully, no one reading this will ever be put in a position to make that choice.
I agree, and I just realized that's exactly what I hate about the position of my opponents. That the position of "you should not ever sacrifice innocent lives" is not only results in more innocent deaths, but it devalues the real people in real situations who needed to make these choices. (And this devaluing is not only making me "eww", but it makes so less people are inclined to save lives this way, which leads to even more deaths).

Cool! Now, which state requires you to injure someone else to prevent an injury to another? Or requires you to kill one person to prevent another one dying? Or did you think I would conveniently let you equivocate "hold a stick" to "kill someone"?

No-no-no, I just debunked your point that the direct origin of harmful effect matters, and the indirect origin does not ;-)
It is still YOU who are killing people in the trolley problem - either by action or by inaction. You don't get to stand there and say "this is not me, I'm absolved from responsibility".
And it really sucks.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 03:47 PM

If we are making examples from books, I would love to cite the most moral writer of the XXI century (at least, according to me) - Elizier Yudkovsky.

Harry stared up at the night sky, remembering history.

In real life, in real wars...

During World War II, there had been a project to sabotage the Nazi nuclear weapons program. Years earlier, Leo Szilard, the first person to realize the possibility of a fission chain reaction, had convinced Fermi not to publish the discovery that purified graphite was a cheap and effective neutron moderator. Fermi had wanted to publish, for the sake of the great international project of science, which was above nationalism. But Szilard had persuaded Rabi, and Fermi had abided by the majority vote of their tiny three-person conspiracy. And so, years later, the only neutron moderator the Nazis had known about was deuterium.

The only deuterium source under Nazi control had been a captured facility in occupied Norway, which had been knocked out by bombs and sabotage, causing a total of twenty-four civilian deaths.

The Nazis had tried to ship the deuterium already refined to Germany, aboard a civilian Norwegian ferry, the SS Hydro.

Knut Haukelid and his assistants had been discovered by the night watchman of the civilian ferry while they were sneaking on board to sabotage it. Haukelid had told the watchman that they were escaping the Gestapo, and the watchman had let them go. Haukelid had considered warning the night watchman, but that would have endangered the mission, so Haukelid had only shaken his hand. And the civilian ship had sunk in the deepest part of the lake, with eight dead Germans, seven dead crew, and three dead civilian bystanders. Some of the Norwegian rescuers of the ship had thought the German soldiers present should be left to drown, but this view had not prevailed, and the German survivors had been rescued. And that had been the end of the Nazi nuclear weapons program.

Which was to say that Knut Haukelid had killed innocent people. One of whom, the night watchman of the ship, had been a good person. Someone who'd gone out of his way to help Haukelid, at risk to himself; from the kindness of his heart, for the highest moral reasons; and been sent to drown in turn. Afterward, in the cold light of history, it had looked like the Nazis had never been close to getting nuclear weapons after all.

And Harry had never read anything suggesting that Haukelid had acted wrongly.

That was war in real life. In terms of total damage and who'd gotten hit, what Haukelid had done was considerably worse than what Dumbledore might have done to Narcissa Malfoy, or what Dumbledore had possibly done to leak the prophecy to Lord Voldemort to get him to attack Harry's parents.

If Haukelid had been a comic-book superhero, he'd have somehow gotten all the civilians off the ferry, he would've attacked the German soldiers directly...

...rather than let a single innocent person die...

...but Knut Haukelid hadn't been a superhero.

And neither had been Albus Dumbledore.

Harry closed his eyes, swallowing hard a few times against the sudden choking sensation. It was abruptly very clear that while Harry was going around trying to live the ideals of the Enlightenment, Dumbledore was the one who'd actually fought in a war. Nonviolent ideals were cheap to hold if you were a scientist, living inside the Protego bubble cast by the police officers and soldiers whose actions you had the luxury to question. Albus Dumbledore seemed to have started out with ideals at least as strong as Harry's own, if not stronger; and Dumbledore hadn't gotten through his war without killing enemies and sacrificing friends.

Are you so much better than Haukelid and Dumbledore, Harry Potter, that you'll be able to fight without a single casualty? Even in the world of comic books, the only reason a superhero like Batman even looks successful is that the comic-book readers only notice when Important Named Characters die, not when the Joker shoots some random nameless bystander to show off his villainy. Batman is a murderer no less than the Joker, for all the lives the Joker took that Batman could've saved by killing him. That's what the man named Alastor was trying to tell Dumbledore, and afterward Dumbledore regretted having taken so long to change his mind. Are you really going to try to follow the path of the superhero, and never sacrifice a single piece or kill a single enemy?

I think this is a much deeper example than one about potatoes. You may disagree, of course, and this exampe might be scrubbed by moderation, because I don't know the exact rules of the forum.

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 03:48 PM

The Trolley problem is an abstraction. Of course if there's another way to solve the problem that doesn't involve any lives we should do that. The problem is, that's not always an option.

Here's the real world example I'm most familiar with (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAYMr-4n5OM).

Every warship in the world has watertight doors in case of flooding. Which is a thing that can happen when unfriendlies are throwing high explosive at you.

The problem is that, as a rule, when you seal those watertight doors you're condemning the people still in the compartment to an absolutely horrible death by drowning.

But you've got to. There isn't a clever solution that you can find to the problem in the nick of time. Either those people die, or the entire ship sinks. And if you're in a submarine that means everyone on board dies.

Lose a few, or lose everything.

Every naval officer is trained for this contingency. And it's an ugly choice, but it's happened a lot over the centuries.

That's the real world problem the trolley problem is showing in its most abstract form. It is a necessary problem to face. Hopefully, no one reading this will ever be put in a position to make that choice for-real.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That is quite literally impossible to map to the trolley problem. There is a distinct lack of people tied to rails (e.g. there against their will), for one. For another, the scenario involves either killing everyone, or killing only a subset, rather than two distinct sets. For thirds, the person making the decision is also not a random passerby in a position to help, but someone in position of authority over the whole vessel. Possibly other issues, if I bothered to keep thinking, but I won't because any of those three already render the comparison invalid.

Cool! Now, which state requires you to injure someone else to prevent an injury to another? Or requires you to kill one person to prevent another one dying? Or did you think I would conveniently let you equivocate "hold a stick" to "kill someone"?

OK, hear me out, what if you don't have a stick, but you have a suitably thin person nearby you could use as a stick?

Grey Wolf

pendell

2023-01-30, 03:48 PM

No-no-no, I just debunked your point that the direct origin of harmful effect matters, and the indirect origin does not ;-)
It is still YOU who are killing people in the trolley problem - either by action or by inaction. You don't get to stand there and say "this is not me, I'm absolved from responsibility".
And it really sucks.

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics. The First Law, originally, was "A robot may not cause harm to a human being". Later in the stories it was amended as follows: "A robot may not injure a human being or by inaction allow a human being to come to harm".

You can't escape guilt in the trolley problem. You either kill fewer people by choice, kill more people by choice, or by inaction kill someone, because you could have acted to save them and didn't.

It's a problem that crops up in military situations, sometimes in emergencies as well (a firefighter can either pull out the screaming child on floor 2 or the widow on floor 1 before the whole building falls, but not both). Happily, it doesn't occur often in civilian life for most people.

Respectfully ,

Brian P.

Peelee

2023-01-30, 03:52 PM

No-no-no, I just debunked your point that the direct origin of harmful effect matters, and the indirect origin does not ;-)

No you didn't. You pointed out that Russia has a law against not helping save someone's life. Notwithstanding that I am not Russia, and thus am not obligated to share Russia's opinions, this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue, which is the entire part of the issue that I refuse to partake in.

So, again, is there any state which mandates you help one person by hurting another, or save one person by killing another?

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 03:52 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 03:55 PM

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics. The First Law, originally, was "A robot may not cause harm to a human being". Later in the stories it was amended as follows: "A robot may not injure a human being or by inaction allow a human being to come to harm".

[citation needed]

In fact, I think you are wrong, since the absence of the secondary clause was examined early on in one of Calvin's short stories ("Escape!", IIRC, where a mining robot was created without it so they'd stop rushing in to save humans from minor danger - to humans - that was instant fatality to robots). Now, I accept Asimov is known for revisioning his stories often & without compunction, but given that it is crucial to the, AFAIK, his very first robot story (Robbie) that the robot rushes to prevent the MC from being hurt by a third party, that it was baked in from the beginning.

GW

Peelee

2023-01-30, 03:56 PM

Yes. It's really easy to tell yourself: "I couldn't do anything, I'm powerless here, it's all their fault". This is like the bystander effect - when you are less likely to get help if there are multiple people near you. Everybody thinks that somebody else will do it, and nobody wants to do it on their own.

It's even easier to tell yourself "this other person should die." Funny thing about the trolley problem is that it's never you on the tracks.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 03:58 PM

this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue

Because it is not relevant. You said that it is not you who kill them, it's somebody else. I told you why it does not matter who kills them, you have responsibility to do something or to abstain from doing it.

Imagine the situation. We are videochatting, and I take a child in my camera's field of view, pull a knife to his neck, and order you to kill yourself with your own knife right now, or else I'm killing the child - if you do anything else, if I see any movements of your arms that are not connected to taking a knife and stabbing yourself, he is dead. To make sure you believe me, I start slowly cutting his throat.
What would you do? Woud you try to negotiate, or try to somehow call police while disguising it as searching for a knife? If you do it, you are leaving the child in danger that right now is leading to his death.

Every rational person would not kill themselves here - for many reasons, both selfish ones and altruistic ones (not calling the police might mean you leave a dangerous violent criminal uncatched). But according to YOUR logic, you are obliged to kill yourself, otherwise you are sacrificing an innocent life.

Peelee

2023-01-30, 03:59 PM

Because it is not relevant. You said that it is not you who kill them, it's somebody else. I told you why it does not matter who kills them, you have responsibility to do something or to abstain from doing it.

It is relevant. But as to what you think you proved, you did show legality when we're debating morality, so you still proved nothing.

Notwithstanding that no nation has a law requiring you to kill one person to save another.

BaronOfHell

2023-01-30, 04:00 PM

We haven't yet seen that this is a trolley problem where the only way to save every life in the world is to sacrifice a child's life. There may be other possibilities which allow all of them to survive, and I think we need to explore those options first.

Regarding the trolley problem I like Haley's explanation of the shell game (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html).

Even if the rules presented are genuine, it is more the realization of the setup.. is there a set of circumstances where you can persuade a person to actively murder someone else, e.g. by pulling a handle?
The answer ought to be no if the person's alignment is good, in my opinion.

Of course I realize inaction can be wrong as well, but it'd be like when RC tried to make O-Chul give up the secrets behind the defenses of Girard's gate, but in stead of interrogation he could just as well have tortured O-Chul by telling him they were going to drop five people off the tower roof, unless he told them to drop any other prisoner instead... apart from himself, in which case they would only drop the one he choose.

Fyraltari

2023-01-30, 04:01 PM

If we are making examples from books, I would love to cite the most moral writer of the XXI century (at least, according to me) - Elizier Yudkovsky.

I think this is a much deeper example than one about potatoes. You may disagree, of course, and this exampe might be scrubbed by moderation, because I don't know the exact rules of the forum.

This seems like a false dichotomy. Was it inevitable that the Nazi atomic research project would have succeeded had that boat not sunk?

Also, since when are we considering military officers paragons of moral strength? Armies aren't exactly known for their unwillingness to kill and harm. No offense to military folk, intended.

pendell

2023-01-30, 04:02 PM

[citation needed]

In fact, I think you are wrong, since the absence of the secondary clause was examined early on in one of Calvin's short stories ("Escape!", IIRC, where a mining robot was created without it so they'd stop rushing in to save humans from minor danger - to humans - that was instant fatality to robots). Now, I accept Asimov is known for revisioning his stories often & without compunction, but given that it is crucial to the, AFAIK, his very first robot story (Robbie) that the robot rushes to prevent the MC from being hurt by a third party, that it was baked in from the beginning.

GW

I'll concede you're probably right about this one -- I think i was remembering the 'Escape!' short story which pointed out how important that additional clause was.

Ironically, Isaac Asimov, in my view, threw this whole moral framework in the bin in Robots and Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_and_Empire) when he added his zeroth law to the equation:

0. A robot may not injure humanity, or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where such conflicts with the zeroth law.

What is "humanity"? And how do you know what does and doesn't constitute "harm to humanity"? What we've done is gone straight back to "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" utilitarianism. It means any crime is permissible to a robot in service of this extremely nebulous zeroth law. The fact this wasn't made into a villain's backstory is, to me, a missed opportunity.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 04:02 PM

It's even easier to tell yourself "this other person should die." Funny thing about the trolley problem is that it's never you on the tracks.

It is much easier for a good person to sacrifice yourself. In fact, because I'm really fat, in the second problem I would rather jump on the rails than push a fat person on them (if I somehow knew that it would be enough).
To sacrifice somebody else is much harder - that's why terrorists take hostages.

It is relevant. But as to what you think you proved, you did show legality when we're debating morality, so you still proved nothing.
You did not give any argument about why it is relevant.
And I gave an example of a law that is considered moral by most people (even you, I presume? If you think that it is ok to leave a guy in freezing water, then I don't think our moral systems can be any more different).

Peelee

2023-01-30, 04:05 PM

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Also let's move away from Nazis.

You did not give any argument about why it is relevant.
I did. Here, I'll even bold it for you:
Notwithstanding that I am not Russia, and thus am not obligated to share Russia's opinions, this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue, which is the entire part of the issue that I refuse to partake in.

It is much easier for a good person to sacrifice yourself.
Easy to say from a chair.

And I gave an example of a law that is considered moral by most people (even you, I presume? If you think that it is ok to leave a guy in freezing water, then I don't think our moral systems can be any more different).
You gave an example that cut out the entire moral element. If you think that's the same thing we don't really have anything to discuss.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 04:06 PM

This seems like a false dichotomy. Was it inevitable that the Nazi atomic research project would have succeeded had that boat not sunk?

That's the problem - it was not inevitable. But it was still a good thing to do.

Also, since when are we considering military officers paragons of moral strength? Armies aren't exactly known for their unwillingness to kill and harm. No offense to military folk, intended.

That's what the second part of the quote talks about - we all live in the bubble, shielded from this decisions, and it makes an illusion that is described in my opponents' posts. If there were no "military folk", every single one of us would be obliged to make such decisions.
I'm not praising them, of course - I'm just giving an example of one IRL sacrifice that was moral.

pendell

2023-01-30, 04:06 PM

Also, a poster above claimed less-than-full understanding of the forum rules. I am not a mod, so the most I am allowed to do is link to them (https://forums.giantitp.com/announcement.php?a=1). If there is anything that appears unclear , I'm sure a PM to one of the mods (peelee is one, and he's participating in this very conversation) will probably clear ita ll up.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 04:09 PM

this conveniently failed to include the "at another's expense" element of the issue, which is the entire part of the issue that I refuse to partake in.

I still fail to see any relevance of this. I gave many examples - the hostage ones, the (moved away from) one, and so on. If you refuse to partake in one but not in the other, it is an arbitratry decision - or you need to explain to me why it is not as much arbitrary as "I push the trolley lever if it is painted green and not push if it is pained any other color".

Easy to say from a chair.
And even easier to never rise from a chair, claiming that you are too moral for it.

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 04:11 PM

I'll concede you're probably right about this one -- I think i was remembering the 'Escape!' short story which pointed out how important that additional clause was.

Ironically, Isaac Asimov, in my view, threw this whole moral framework in the bin in Robots and Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_and_Empire) when he added his zeroth law to the equation:

0. A robot may not injure humanity, or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where such conflicts with the zeroth law.

What is "humanity"? And how do you know what does and doesn't constitute "harm to humanity"? What we've done is gone straight back to "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" utilitarianism. It means any crime is permissible to a robot in service of this extremely nebulous zeroth law. The fact this wasn't made into a villain's backstory is, to me, a missed opportunity.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Eh. As I understand it, those late Foundation series novels are not even necessarily written by Asimov. But given I didn't really get into the series (I love the first one, but after that, it goes downhill quickly). I vaguely remember that character - was it R. Olivah? - but I remember finding the whole thing rather silly and not in the style I liked. When it comes to Asimov, if it is not a short story, I don't enjoy it (the original foundation novel, for example, if more like 4/5 short stories published together).

ETA: thinking about it a bit more, my main issue is that the long forms always seemed to have some Omniscient Council of Vagueness (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOmniscientCouncilOfVagueness) running things in the background (Second Foundation! Robots with 0th law! etc), which is too conspiracy-theory-like for my liking, especially when it happens over and over.

GW

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-30, 04:14 PM

the only thing that it makes many doubt its eugene is how "she" apologizes 1274, that is really weird When you play the long con, you have to go many layers deep. :smallcool:

I take it as given that Roy won't get his people killed unnecessarily.

Even so... to my mind "reject Julia's plan because it puts a team member at unnecessary risk" is a good answer. "reject Julia's plan because it puts a child in danger" isn't. Because if your concern is putting a child in danger, that child shouldn't be a combatant in the first place; there's no way you can fight this without putting Sunny at significant risk of life and ... um, tentacle? Eye-stalk? Roy is thinking like an actual small unit commander, and Julia sees Sunny as a game piece. She is in over her head, and is guilty of something like being a back seat driver.

That, or we must conclude that no good person can fight a war. Ergo, paladins are a contradiction in terms. which leads to...

OTOH, if you refuse to fight, then the people who are ruthless and cruel enough to use innocents as shields get to have their way versus those who won't. An unpalatable choice, to be sure. But not the current case as regards Sunny, which is where this got started.

There are plenty of systems that are perfectly happy with establishing in advance how many people are worth sacrificing for the common good (and worse, which people). In stories and films, we have the 300 at Thermopylae, but as they were volunteers in the main, perhaps not a close enough example to what Roy is facing. His assumption is that dying before achieving the end means universal failure. And stopping the deities from hitting the cosmological reboot is a problem of a different scope. Everyone isn't conquered by the Snarl, everyone simply isn't anymore. (Had to edit this since the sentence came off wrong)

This is what bothers me most about the trolley problem. GW It has a lot of issues, and I'll not rehash those here.

Peelee

2023-01-30, 04:17 PM

I still fail to see any relevance of this. I gave many examples - the hostage ones, the (moved away from) one, and so on.
You provided examples of people who will kill innocents to save others. You provided no examples of it being objectively moral (or even legal, since you wanted to bring up laws).

But hey, let's take that Russian law! So let's say theres a pond and Bob is drowning in the pond. There's no stick. No boat, no flotation device, nothing. Theres just Bob, the pond, and you. Are you legally required to swim out to Bob and try to save him with nothing but your own swimming ability? Is that covered under that law?

And even easier to never rise from a chair, claiming that you are too moral for it.
Fair point. Say, are you aware that I'm actively pursuing a job where there is a very real chance I will die acting in the protection of others? Because I'm actively pursuing a job where there is a very real chance I will die acting in the protection of others. You?

Fyraltari

2023-01-30, 04:17 PM

Ironically, Isaac Asimov, in my view, threw this whole moral framework in the bin in Robots and Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_and_Empire) when he added his zeroth law to the equation:

0. A robot may not injure humanity, or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where such conflicts with the zeroth law.

What is "humanity"? And how do you know what does and doesn't constitute "harm to humanity"? What we've done is gone straight back to "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" utilitarianism. It means any crime is permissible to a robot in service of this extremely nebulous zeroth law. The fact this wasn't made into a villain's backstory is, to me, a missed opportunity.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
But that incertainty is brought up several times:
Giskard dies precisely because he can't be sure the harmed caused by modifying a human mind was necessary to help humanity. Daneel and the other telepathic robots almost never use their power for this exact reason. And Daneel sponsored both Gaia and the development of psychohistory so that laws Zero and One would merge or failing that, that he'd have hard numbers to crunch to resolve this moral conundrum.

The Zeroth Law gives him almost no freedom to disregard the First, simply because he lacks the human capacity for self-deception and can almost never justify any harm done to himself.

Also note that Asimov didn't envisage the Three Laws as a moral framework, but as the implicit basis of tool usage: A tool mustn't be harmful to use (who would use a knife that'd be all blade and no handle?), a tool mist fullfill it's purpose and a tool must resist wear and tear as well as possible.

A human abiding by these rules would be very altruistic, self-sacrificing even, but whether they would be good is another question entirely.

That's the problem - it was not inevitable. But it was still a good thing to do.
Says who? Does the possibility of many people dying really outweigh the certainty of a few people dying? Would you pull the lever if the five people only had a 50% chance of dying? 25%? 1%? What's the formula here?

That's what the second part of the quote talks about - we all live in the bubble, shielded from this decisions, and it makes an illusion that is described in my opponents' posts. If there were no "military folk", every single one of us would be obliged to make such decisions.
No?

StragaSevera

2023-01-30, 04:18 PM

Roy is thinking like an actual small unit commander
If he was thinking as an actual small unit commander, he would give the arguments that were given in this thread - about low possibility of it working and high possibility of backfiring, leading to preventable losses.
But he does not give them, that's my problem with his line of thinking.

Anyway, I think I'm going to sleep, thank you all for the discussion - even people who I heatedly argued with =-)

Grey_Wolf_c

2023-01-30, 04:22 PM

Also note that Asimov didn't envisage the Three Laws as a moral framework, but as the implicit basis of tool usage: A tool mustn't be harmful to use (who would use a knife that'd be all blade and no handle?), a tool mist fullfill it's purpose and a tool must resist wear and tear as well as possible.

I'm not so sure about that. He points out that it is a very decent set of rules for morality in the one where a (maybe) robot runs for office Earth President, so he at least thought they could be used as such.

(sorry, didn't have much luck googling the title. I can go check my Asimov Short Story collection behemoth if need be)

ETA: title is Evidence. And while the character later is President of Earth (in the Evitable Conflict, IIRC), in this one he is merely running for mayor of somewhere.

GW

Peelee

2023-01-30, 04:30 PM

Says who? Does the possibility of many people dying really outweigh the certainty of a few people dying? Would you pull the lever if the five people only had a 50% chance of dying? 25%? 1%? What's the formula here?

This is the crux of it in application to the comic. Using Sunny will not guarantee Roy a win, and not using Sunny will not guarantee Roy a loss. Given the uncertainty either way he opted against using Sunny. I have no issue with this at all.

Fyraltari

2023-01-30, 04:31 PM

Eh. As I understand it, those late Foundation series novels are not even necessarily written by Asimov.
Robots and Empire is 100% Asimov.

I vaguely remember that character - was it R. Olivah?
R. Daneel Olivaw. The R stands for "Robot" and there to tell everyone he doesn't count as a person (because Earth was afraid of robots at the time), so he prefers to go by "Daneel Olivaw".

ETA: thinking about it a bit more, my main issue is that the long forms always seemed to have some Omniscient Council of Vagueness (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOmniscientCouncilOfVagueness) running things in the background (Second Foundation! Robots with 0th law! etc), which is too conspiracy-theory-like for my liking, especially when it happens over and over.

GW
Hey, when the Second Foundation gets out-conspiracied, they drop the vagueness hard.

I get the criticism, but I like the longer stories, especially since they're not afraid to point out that, the Seldon Plan is pretty messed up when you think about it.

In stories and films, we have the 300 at Thermopylae
Ah yes, the three hundred brave warriors. And their seven thousand allies people keep forgetting about. Dying for the ideal of liberty! Liberty of nation, that is, not people, considering the eeeeeeeevil Empire marching at them gave slaves many more rights than they did.

but as they were volunteers
Were they? Leonidas certainly chose to be there, but I doubt any of them really had the choice to politely decline.

pendell

2023-01-30, 04:38 PM

This is the crux of it in application to the comic. Using Sunny will not guarantee Roy a win, and not using Sunny will not guarantee Roy a loss. Given the uncertainty either way he opted against using Sunny. I have no issue with this at all.

Agreed. For me it isn't about whether Sunny's a child or not, it's about the fact that Julia is proposing a strategy which will get a team member killed when they may be able to get the same or better result without putting Sunny at unnecessary risk. Totally onboard with Roy's decision, although my rationale is different from his.

As Kevin Stormast pointed out, Julia is treating Sunny like Sunny is a piece on a gameboard, and not even using Sunny efficiently just as a piece. It's the kind of what's the word -- non-empathic? -- approach we've come to expect from wizards in OOTS verse.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

KorvinStarmast

2023-01-30, 04:41 PM

If he was thinking as an actual small unit commander, he would give the arguments that were given in this thread - about low possibility of it working and high possibility of backfiring, leading to preventable losses.
But he does not give them, that's my problem with his line of thinking. Like a small unit commander, he sees his people as people, while Julia sees them as game pieces. That's the contrast I was presenting. He is aware all of the time that his team can fail. See War and XP for one of many cases of that.

Crusher

2023-01-30, 04:43 PM

Well, then you are killing a million of innocent people by inaction, just to keep your cognitive patterns safe.
I, on the other hand, would prefer to have 999 999 people live. If I am willing to sacrifice myself to save a million people, then I'm obliged to sacrifice my sanity and my feeling-of-scale cognitive bias.

If we are talking about five people, the "innocence" defence should work, because you are undermining the foundations of the society by choosing to kill an innocent man. But you absolutely should risk undermining them a bit in order to save 1 000 000 people.
I'm obliged to not give real-life examples on this forum, but spies in the middle of the last century were making such decisions - and if they did not, then we may not be talking right now.

Different people value things differently, right? Its not even an arguable point, I think. You like vanilla ice cream, I like chocolate, perhaps. Extensions of this are why we have stock exchanges and such.

It follows that different people might put different values on human lives, depending on the people and the circumstances. Because of relationships to the people involved (I would value the lives of my children over the lives of two people I have never met), values (a person more focused on the future might value a human life less than a person focused on the present "If I spent lots of resources saving this person now, I will not be able to save 10 people down the road") or circumstances (letting someone else die is REALLY not equivalent to killing that person yourself, even to a hardened warrior like Roy) people can come to wildly different answers to these sorts of equations. If you consider a life to be effectively priceless, then the math absolutely works out as Greywolf is saying and its disingenuous to argue that it *cannot*. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/fortytwo/2020/09/11/math-with-infinity/

And that entirely avoids the topic of probability. Sure, in the trolly problem the odds of death are 100%, but in life that's seldom the case. I'm reminded of a passage from one of the later The Expanse books. I'll be vague to try and avoid spoilers in case anyone is still reading them.

There's a gigantic battle between a much larger force and a much smaller, more technologically advanced force. The fight goes back and forth for a while and the bigger force seems to be significantly hurting the smaller force but its sort of hard to tell. But they do know that a TON of people are dying on the bigger force side.

During a break in the fighting, the commander of the smaller force messages someone senior on the larger force who I think he'd had some interactions with. All he says is "Give me a number", and they're like "Huh? What are you talking about?" He clarifies "Tell me how many people I have to kill before you surrender. Because I don't want to kill anyone, but I will kill you all if that is your number."

The larger force surrenders.

He'd changed the math of the moral equation from a vague "We must fight them!" with lots of uncertainties and possible outcomes to "If we are probably going to lose, am I comfortable putting an exact number of people who will 100% die in a losing effort." And they decided they'd already reached that number.

The authors don't really give a clear answer, and figuring out whether they made the "right" answer would require a doctoral dissertation, but it is at least suggested that it wasn't a bluff.

Anyway, point is, in morality there are always lots of right answers depending on a zillion things. The trolly problem is interesting (and that episode of "The Good Place" was *amazing*) but life always has context and a zillion other confounding factors different people see differently.