OOTS #1280 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[3SecondCultist]

Aww, that's so heartwarming! Look at Belkar, getting some doomed character development.

Too bad we know that won't come to pass, most likely. :smallfrown:

[Peelee]

I dismissed the whole "the soup is still laced with some memory erasure" theory but it's looking a little more attractive now...

[Windscion]

I don't know why exactly, but Sunny using the straw just tickles me.

[Crusher]

Oh, Belkar. Clawing your way up to neutral is going to sting.

[pendell]

Loving this strip.

Belkar, there are at least four variables in play here:

1) You're feeding them tasty soup, and hungry people at the end of a long day always look more fondly on the one feeding them than when they're on duty and confronting you over the freshly killed corpse of your latest victim.

...
actually, isn't feeding how we tame animals into pets? Can Belkar feed the paladins and acquire them as anim-- Paladin companions?

2) Lien isn't Miko. She grew up as a fisherwoman and worked for a living before she became a paladin. She has a boyfriend. Who was in jail. All of this implies that, while she is lawful and good, she's a bit more accepting and forgiving of people who've fallen short of those standards.

3) Hinjo, of course, has an entire book of his own (which is, to my mind, the pinnacle of Rich's work so far) , for the bulk of which he was trying to restrain lawful-good paladins from launching a genocidal campaign against lawful evil hobgoblins. Because good and evil is more than just the color of your team jersey. Hinjo has a lot greater feel for that nuance than many other paladins. He certainly got on well with the MITD.

4) Finally, it's just barely possible Belkar's undergone some actual character development here. Scary thought, I know :smallamused:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ivrytwr]

Loved this one Giant!
The look on Belkar at the end, the Paladin banter (heh-heh "inflation"), Belkar's soup "wasted" on feeding, planning...
So much to unpack and reread.

Thanks Giant!

[ZhonLord]

A wizard is prepared for anything. Including not having silverware available, while everyone else besides Sunny slurps from the bowl like SAVAGES!

[Psyren]

You, uh, might want to savor that soup Lien. I don't think Belkar will be making much more :smallfrown:

[SlashDash]

I'm assuming next we'll see the private talk between Roy and Durkon? I assume it will be Roy trying to make sure Durkon won't sabotage the mission to try and talk to Redcloak again.

[Larsaan]

3) Hinjo, of course, has an entire book of his own (which is, to my mind, the pinnacle of Rich's work so far) , for the bulk of which he was trying to restrain lawful-good paladins from launching a genocidal campaign against lawful evil hobgoblins. Because good and evil is more than just the color of your team jersey. Hinjo has a lot greater feel for that nuance than many other paladins. He certainly got on well with the MITD.

O-Chul, but yes.

That said, Hinjo does seem like a more understanding and humane type of paladin as well. He probably won't go as far as his uncle did, but he did get a front row seat to where Miko-like thinking gets you.

[Doug Lampert]

Loving this strip.

Belkar, there are at least four variables in play here:

1) You're feeding them tasty soup, and hungry people at the end of a long day always look more fondly on the one feeding them than when they're on duty and confronting you over the freshly killed corpse of your latest victim.

...
actually, isn't feeding how we tame animals into pets? Can Belkar feed the paladins and acquire them as anim-- Paladin companions?

Note that Belkar's comment about the first time he's talked to a paladin and the conversation isn't dripping with judgment and hostility is talking about how BELKAR normally acts in such conversations, hence the continuation, "and they were nice too."

Belkar may well have had hundreds of previous interactions where the paladin was also nice, probably not, but it's not contradicted, he's the one being unusually understanding here. O-chul and Lien are just being the normal O-chul and Lien.

[Sir_Norbert]

I like it.

[t209]

All you can eat Fugu?
I think this would have been popular with Dwarves or races with poison resistance/immunity.
Also I know it’s a pun, but I guess the authorities were willing to turn a blind eye until owner jacked up the price.

[ZhonLord]

Also I know it’s a pun, but I guess the authorities were willing to turn a blind eye until owner jacked up the price.

Actually I think lien was being literal, and the gargantuan pufferfish puffed up to full size and bodyslammed her boyfriend.

[Reboot]

Note that Belkar's comment about the first time he's talked to a paladin and the conversation isn't dripping with judgment and hostility is talking about how BELKAR normally acts in such conversations, hence the continuation, "and they were nice too."

Belkar may well have had hundreds of previous interactions where the paladin was also nice, probably not, but it's not contradicted, he's the one being unusually understanding here. O-chul and Lien are just being the normal O-chul and Lien.

I mean, that's the joke, but I'm not sure that what Belkar said justifies it outside of Belkar's own head. ("I can waste it instead", anyone")

Also, this is where D&D paladin RAW gets sketchy-stupid - at what point, REGARDLESS of motication, do paladins fall simply by associating with a CE character?

[The MunchKING]

Too bad you can't get Ribbons in that world. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

I like Belkar's final comment.

[TerrickTerran]

Belkar and paladins not ending in bloodshed. Truly he has changed so much.

[The MunchKING]

I mean, that's the joke, but I'm not sure that what Belkar said justifies it outside of Belkar's own head. ("I can waste it instead", anyone")

Also, this is where D&D paladin RAW gets sketchy-stupid - at what point, REGARDLESS of motication, do paladins fall simply by associating with a CE character?

I've always understood it to be they can't associate with him in the sense of going with him and allowing him to do evil things. If they can reform him, and stop him before he does evil, then he's not really Evil anymore, is he?

[Wintermoot]

Also, this is where D&D paladin RAW gets sketchy-stupid - at what point, REGARDLESS of motication, do paladins fall simply by associating with a CE character?


And that depends on how big of a {scrubbed} the DM is.

[Reboot]

I've always understood it to be they can't associate with him in the sense of going with him and allowing him to do evil things. If they can reform him, and stop him before he does evil, then he's not really Evil anymore, is he?

Well, Roy (and, by inference, the deva) draw a line between a paladin associating with evil characters and any other LG character doing so here - https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html

[RabidEel]

A new strip for my birthday? Aw, Rich, you didn't have to.

I want some of the that soup. Assuming it doesn't have trace amnesia in it.

[Peelee]

A new strip for my birthday? Aw, Rich, you didn't have to.

I want some of the that soup. Assuming it doesn't have trace amnesia in it.

Happy birthday!

[Ionathus]

Goshdangit, stop making me care about Belkar :smallfrown:

Fantastic strip! So excited to see what comes next, and wondering if we're gonna see another talk between Roy and Durkon...maybe Roy has some thoughts after talking to "Julia"?

[Kaed]

Like Wintermoot said, in practice it's only as strict as your DMs interpretation of "associating with". It seems obvious to me that Rich is allowing the Southern Gods to allow some nuance in interpreting the behavior of these two paladins, but you also have to consider what exactly Belkars conduct has been for over a book and a half now.

Durkon dying for him without blaming him for it was a life changing moment for Belmar and he has been changing as a person ever since. When was the last time he actually performed a truly evil act? At what point do we stop considering him to be the same person mentally who casually murdered a gnome and looted him for chocolate?

Certainly, he's still a bit snarky and enjoys violence but those aren't precisely evil traits. I think that the paladins being polite but watchful of him is a perfectly reasonable behavior here and no reason to make them fall just because Belkar was at one point in the past an unrepentant murderer.

Heck, he even implies here that he has intent to allow himself to be imprisoned for his crimes. I can't see precisely what in his behavior would set off Paladin flags for smiting.

[Kish]

I dismissed the whole "the soup is still laced with some memory erasure" theory but it's looking a little more attractive now...
Bet offer's still open (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25768345&postcount=124).

[Peelee]

Bet offer's still open (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25768345&postcount=124).

Still think those are both bad bets. :smalltongue:

[Reboot]

Still think those are both bad bets. :smalltongue:

...then what do you think Sereni's pronouns ARE?

[Peelee]

...then what do you think Sereni's pronouns ARE?

Bad bets, in that there's no way I'm taking them.

[Mic_128]

Stop tugging at my heartstrings, gah!


Like Wintermoot said, in practice it's only as strict as your DMs interpretation of "associating with". It seems obvious to me that Rich is allowing the Southern Gods to allow some nuance in interpreting the behavior of these two paladins, but you also have to consider what exactly Belkars conduct has been for over a book and a half now.

It's also worth pointing out that this is the first time Belkar's been in the same room with either of these two since before Azure City fell. They aren't going to suddenly lose their powers for being in the same room as the guy and talking for an hour, if it's even been that long since they burst in and captured Serini.

[enq]

Happy for the short time between the updates... and, I'm flashing my signature.


Actually I think lien was being literal, and the gargantuan pufferfish puffed up to full size and bodyslammed her boyfriend.
Lol. I read the strip, this thread, then the strip again and then it finally dawned on me.

Also, pillow mimic still angry.

[bunsen_h]

Like Wintermoot said, in practice it's only as strict as your DMs interpretation of "associating with". It seems obvious to me that Rich is allowing the Southern Gods to allow some nuance in interpreting the behavior of these two paladins, but you also have to consider what exactly Belkars conduct has been for over a book and a half now.

Durkon dying for him without blaming him for it was a life changing moment for Belmar and he has been changing as a person ever since. When was the last time he actually performed a truly evil act? At what point do we stop considering him to be the same person mentally who casually murdered a gnome and looted him for chocolate?

I thought the paladins were aware of Belkar's history in Azure City? How much would they know of his character change? They're not likely to put a lot of weight on his milder behaviour when they're not around to see the changes.

[InvisibleBison]

Also, this is where D&D paladin RAW gets sketchy-stupid - at what point, REGARDLESS of motication, do paladins fall simply by associating with a CE character?

Paladins don't fall for associating with evil characters. A paladin falls for violating their code of conduct, but the rule against associating with evil characters isn't part of the code of conduct. It's a separate thing, with its own bold heading and everything.

[link3710]

They also have almost certainly been in regular communication with Roy since he came back to life. While they may have heard mention of him being an evil mess, that was all second hand, and literally anyone could have filled them in off-screen on the cliff notes of whats going on since they got back.

Don't forget, Lien had absolutely no interaction with Belkar before today, save maybe at Roy's resurrection. And Hinjo's only context was the mess Belkar made fighting Miko. Evil? Yes. But nowhere near enough for him to realize how evil Belkar was at the time, Roy covered for him.

[danielxcutter]

I thought the paladins were aware of Belkar's history in Azure City? How much would they know of his character change? They're not likely to put a lot of weight on his milder behaviour when they're not around to see the changes.

I mean, Belkar didn't do THAT much there. He killed one guy in the process of escaping, who might have actually gotten raised by then already (since debt is a thing). Miko's antagonism towards him might not mean much against Belkar since even before Falling she was well known for not being the nicest paladin in the Guard. And after that he got slapped with the Greater Mark of Judgement. If anything they've seen LESS of his Evil stuff than the Order.

Also, since Serini is drinking the soup as well I feel confident in betting against any memory alteration potion in it.

And best panel in the comic ever is Sunny using a straw. That one's just perfect.

[Zhorn]

Thinking about it; it's making sense the exchange went as well as it did.

Belkar is cooking/serving food. Violent sociopathic tendencies aside; the kitchen is a happy place for him. Sure he gets a joke in about 'wasting food' on the paladins versus just tipping it down a drain, but he'd much rather food go to good use. So by default he'll be in a hospitable mood.

Next, the paladins are appreciating a think Belkar enjoys doing. Difficult to get barbs in when being told what you agree with. Belkar knows he's a good cook. The paladins agree he's a good cook. Common ground established.

Finally; Belkar not feeling like he's being tricked. "Why would you do that for me?" is him looking for the trick/catch, but he's given an honest answer. There's no sugar coated deception at play, and the goal is laid out. It would work for his benefit, but it's not done for him. No deception to make him a fool to.

At this stage; it's not even character growth. There was just nothing in the exchange for him to Belkar it up over.

[slowplay]

I dismissed the whole "the soup is still laced with some memory erasure" theory but it's looking a little more attractive now...

My thought too. Well, I was thinking some kind of poison, maybe sleep, so Serini can do something unilaterally.

[Kaed]

I thought the paladins were aware of Belkar's history in Azure City? How much would they know of his character change? They're not likely to put a lot of weight on his milder behaviour when they're not around to see the changes.

The paladins aren't the ones making judgements on whether they fall or not, their gods (who can see a lot more) are the ones who decide this. The paladins are just being themselves, so it's a really weird question to start asking about 'why aren't they falling for associating with evil halflings, rules say they do'



It's also worth pointing out that this is the first time Belkar's been in the same room with either of these two since before Azure City fell. They aren't going to suddenly lose their powers for being in the same room as the guy and talking for an hour, if it's even been that long since they burst in and captured Serini.

This, also. I can't imagine any scenario of reasonable roleplay (or storytelling, because remember, this is a narrative first and game second) where a group of people save you from imprisonment by a group of people that happens to include a convicted murderer and he then proceeds to cook you a tasty soup, and you are expected to refuse to eat the soup or speak to him because 'paladins don't associate with evildoers rah rah' under threat of losing your position. That's a really silly stance for anyone to take.

[dmc91356]

Took me a second read-through to notice that "they" in the last panel was bold. Self reflection by Belkar? We must be in the home stretch . . .

[Peelee]

The paladins aren't the ones making judgements on whether they fall or not, their gods (who can see a lot more) are the ones who decide this. The paladins are just being themselves, so it's a really weird question to start asking about 'why aren't they falling for associating with evil halflings, rules say they do'

Doubly so when the rules don't even say that.

[The MunchKING]

Well, Roy (and, by inference, the deva) draw a line between a paladin associating with evil characters and any other LG character doing so here - https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html

But then she says they have a category for "attempting to reform an evildoer". So I think it would be frowned upon if the evildoer did any evil while under the Paladin's watch, but reforming is a legit thing.


Paladins don't fall for associating with evil characters. A paladin falls for violating their code of conduct, but the rule against associating with evil characters isn't part of the code of conduct. It's a separate thing, with its own bold heading and everything.

Well if by definition a Paladin will never associate with an Evil character, and a person DOES associate with an Evil Character, what does that mean? It means they aren't a Paladin. Whether that means they Fell, or were never REALLY one to begin with, is a question for the Philosphers.


My thought too. Well, I was thinking some kind of poison, maybe sleep, so Serini can do something unilaterally.

Paladins (Well at least ones with a positive Charisma score) have better chances of tanking through that than Rogues do. If Sereni dosed it up later, rather than it being left over mess from her previous potion, it would have to be after she got her bowl if she wanted to walk it off.

[Laurentio III]

My thought too. Well, I was thinking some kind of poison, maybe sleep, so Serini can do something unilaterally.
Belkar spices the soup with heavy duty narcotics. Takes sleeping Serini with him, enters a dungeon that has been cleaned, opens the portal, leaves Serini sleeping, enter the secret room, ambushes Team Evil and dies trying.
Instant martyr.

Meanwhile the dwarves recover (because dwarves) and awake the others (because healers). They read the note left by Belkar. Run to the rescue, powered by anger and disbelief. Too late, but still win.

World is saved, Belkar awakes in Limbo.

Thanks for partecipating in "Sloopy Fan Fiction Night". Have your complementary drink on your way out.

[Peelee]

Well if by definition a Paladin will never associate with an Evil character, and a person DOES associate with an Evil Character, what does that mean?

It means they don't know that said character is Evil, since the restriction is on knowingly associating.

[Kaed]

Doubly so when the rules don't even say that.

It does, though, in the 3.5 rules that this comic is using as a foundation. This is from the 3.5 SRD (highlighted line for context):

https://i.gyazo.com/b7a079750ed92aefc0d30486d8c72865.png

It may be that in later editions they smoothed over that rule (because it was a stupid one that caused a lot of interparty problems), but that's what it said then. Their code of conduct and their refusal to associate with evil characters are part of the same thing.

I emphasize again that I do not endorse the take that the paladins should be falling for talking to Belkar, but I can see how people who are trying to rules lawyer the comic could be confused.

[Laurentio III]

It does, though, in the 3.5 rules that this comic is using as a foundation.
Well, no.
The main rule of the author is "Following D&D rules if it makes a better story". And paladins being decent beings instead of bigot robots is a better story.
People who expect rules to be enforced in this comics are just not getting it.

[The MunchKING]

Doubly so when the rules don't even say that.

Well here's what the rules say:


Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

So, it is speaking in the context of adventuring with them, and thus acting as a jailor or redeemer is outside the immediate context of the statement. But also they make a point of 'will not associate with someone who constantly offends their moral code'. And Belkar hasn't actually done much to offend their moral code in the presence of the Paladins.

He cowardly abandoned O-chul to die (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html) so he could escape, but after O-chul corrected him on that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html), I don't think Belkar has done worse than "be snarky" where the Paladins could see him.



It means they don't know that said character is Evil, since the restriction is on knowingly associating.

I mean that is another loophole. But that really works with "constantly offends their moral code" too. If they aren't evil enough to be radiating evil, how would a Paladin even know? Only if they do evil things where the Paladin can learn about it.

[Peelee]

It does, though, in the 3.5 rules that this comic is using as a foundation. This is from the 3.5 SRD (highlighted line for context):

https://i.gyazo.com/b7a079750ed92aefc0d30486d8c72865.png

It may be that in later editions they smoothed over that rule (because it was a stupid one that caused a lot of interparty problems), but that's what it said then. Their code of conduct and their refusal to associate with evil characters are part of the same thing.

I emphasize again that I do not endorse the take that the paladins should be falling for talking to Belkar, but I can see how people who are trying to rules lawyer the comic could be confused.

You'll understand my confusing here, since you can clearly see that the Code of Conduct dictates that a paladon may fall, but Associations, which is separate, does not. It simply states they will not knowingly associate with Evil people.

It means they don't know that said character is Evil, since the restriction is on knowingly associating.


I mean that is another loophole.

It's not even a loophole. The only reason to add "knowingly" in there is to explicitly make it possible for a paladin to associate with Evil creatures in some way. It's working as intended.

The vast majority of people will be True Neutral. Even ones that go to prison. They're not Miko, they dont spam Detect Evil. For all they know hes Neutral and just a ****, and also a criminal. And as you sau, the first two don't go against their code of conduct and all three seem pretty resigned to "they'll make him finosh his sentence in some form" when they're finished trying to save the world.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[enq]

It means they don't know that said character is Evil, since the restriction is on knowingly associating.

Isn't it trivial for them to find out though? Belkar doesn't even have his lead sheet anymore.

[b_jonas]

I was wondering how the count of the plates (soup bowls) can work out. #1279 4th panel shows 11 plates, but it looks like we need 12, as in for Roy, Durkon, Vaarsuvius, Haley, Elan, Belkar, Mr. Scruffy, Minrah, Lien, O-Chul, Serini, Sunny. Maybe Belkar gave Mr. Scruffy got his plate of soup already before the start of #1279, or maybe Belkar isn't eating or doesn't use a plate. Or maybe Minrah bought too few plates and someone later fetched one more off-panel.

[Peelee]

Isn't it trivial for them to find out though? Belkar doesn't even have his lead sheet anymore.

Does it matter if hes not actively being Evil? Why would they?

[Resileaf]

I'm pretty sure that the rules on associates also expressively mentions that in extreme cases, a paladin can associate with an evil person for as long as the situation requires it, with expectation that they'll try to redeem the evil person while they are together or will cease the association the moment it is no longer necessary or if the evil person commits blatant evil actions in front of them during the association.

I think we can safely call the current situation 'extreme'.

[brionl]

Actually I think lien was being literal, and the gargantuan pufferfish puffed up to full size and bodyslammed her boyfriend.

Since this is fantasy fugu, I'm thinking it's more likely that the customers "inflated" than the fish. You wouldn't normally put someone in jail for injuring themselves.

[Resileaf]

Since this is fantasy fugu, I'm thinking it's more likely that the customers "inflated" than the fish. You wouldn't normally put someone in jail for injuring themselves.

No, but you put someone in jail for smuggling.

[Kaed]

You'll understand my confusing here, since you can clearly see that the Code of Conduct dictates that a paladon may fall, but Associations, which is separate, does not. It simply states they will not knowingly associate with Evil people.



The vast majority of people will be True Neutral. Even ones that go to prison. They're not Miko, they dont spam Detect Evil. For all they know hes Neutral and just a ****, and also a criminal. And as you sau, the first two don't go against their code of conduct and all three seem pretty resigned to "they'll make him finosh his sentence in some form" when they're finished trying to save the world.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

To bold text: That's, uh. An interesting take. I don't think I've ever seen someone come to to the conclusion that because it is not part of the same section of text that includes the bit about losing all their powers, it technically doesn't apply and they wouldn't lose their powers for doing so. I have seen most people generally take it as a given that the phrase 'a paladin will never XYX' falls under the same headings as code of conduct. Because, you know, if they did one of those things, they aren't a paladin anymore.

As for the rest, those are valid points. I'm not sure how exactly O'Chul in particular could have come to any other conclusion than that the Belkar he knew at Azure city was a Bad Person Who Inflicts Harm On Others, and was trying to argue the point that Belkar isn't precisely evil anymore, and it's up to the Twelve Gods to decide if they don't like their paladins associating with him in the course of saving the world, but we certainly could just bring up the point that neither of them technically know he was evil, despite the fact that he murdered a guard escaping prison and was almost executed publicly by Miko, a woman known for being very good at identifying and killing evildoers, if nothing else positive can be said about her.

Plausible deniability is certainly a defense that I would like to be applied to Paladins more often, it gives a lot of validation to their interactions as agents of the forces of good and law. :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

To bold text: That's, uh. An interesting take. I don't think I've ever seen someone come to to the conclusion that because it is not part of the same section of text that includes the bit about losing all their powers, it technically doesn't apply and they wouldn't lose their powers for doing so.

Spellcasting is also not part of the same section of text and also does not apply. That's why they're put in different sections. Because they deal with different things. If associating with evil people would have them fall, then it would say that. It does not say that.

I'm not even the first person to point this out in this thread.

[Kish]

My thought too. Well, I was thinking some kind of poison, maybe sleep, so Serini can do something unilaterally.
Bet offer's for you too.

I am somehow certain (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html) that O-Chul knows that Belkar was evil when they met previously, even if one considers it an inappropriate invasion of privacy for paladins to use their innate Detect Evil--which I do not. (With the shouldn't-be-necessary-but-is codicil that using Detect Evil to gain information is not at all the same as using Detect Evil and immediately slaughtering everyone who glows red.)

(I wouldn't be particularly surprised if these particular paladins don't use Detect Evil very much, for reasons of:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/O-Chul.png It is not what your current alignment is that interests me. It is what choices you are going to make today, and tomorrow, and the day after that.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/lien.png I find if I assume every stranger is evil, they never disappoint me and often pleasantly surprise me.

But Lien was provably willing to use Detect Evil on Therkla [which was, in fact, an example of her incorrectly thinking a Neutral-aligned character was evil], so she's not unwilling to use it if she sees a reason to.)

[enq]

Does it matter if hes not actively being Evil? Why would they?
I'm just thinking of how many times per day I can cast it in BG2 and so it seems more a case of "might as well".

(and Miko didn't seem to have the spell in short supply, either)

[Psyren]

Also, this is where D&D paladin RAW gets sketchy-stupid - at what point, REGARDLESS of motication, do paladins fall simply by associating with a CE character?

There is a big heaping dose of greater good here, as well as the fact that Roy is the one leading this mission rather than the paladins themselves. They are not strong enough to stop Xykon without the OotS, and the OotS (specifically their leader) is choosing to include Belkar on the team.

[Kish]

Paladins can cast Detect Evil at will. It being limited at all in the BG games is a relic of "coding it as self-restoring, while possible, was an effort the programmers didn't want to go to."

Rich did say, a long, long time ago, back in the first book, when someone suggested Roy should take paladin levels, that Roy would never multiclass to paladin because if he did he would have to kick Belkar out of the Order or Fall.

[Rinazina]

while everyone else besides Sunny slurps from the bowl like SAVAGES!

yeah I would also have enjoy to se Sunny opened like a sink and by telekinesis dropping all the sup at once. perhaps Sunny like slow sipping?

[Shining Wrath]

Belkar learns that if you are nice to paladins, they are nice to you. Except Miko, who is a special case of colon-stiffening-via-stick.

[gbaji]

It's not even a loophole. The only reason to add "knowingly" in there is to explicitly make it possible for a paladin to associate with Evil creatures in some way. It's working as intended.

Yup. More or less the "don't ask; don't tell" method of party management that folks have used for decades to manage this. As long as the evil person isn't actively doing evil things (that the paladin is aware of), then the paladin's association with that person isn't a problem for them. Obviously, this can be subject to abuse at a table, but it's a generally workable method.


I'm pretty sure that the rules on associates also expressively mentions that in extreme cases, a paladin can associate with an evil person for as long as the situation requires it, with expectation that they'll try to redeem the evil person while they are together or will cease the association the moment it is no longer necessary or if the evil person commits blatant evil actions in front of them during the association.

Redemption, while hoped for, is not even a requirement for this IMO. Recall, as Peelee correctly pointed out, the paladin "falls" if she "knowingly commits an evil act". That's the actual trigger here. Obviously, associating with evil people is going to make this problematic, since as long as you are associating with someone evil, the odds that something you do results in an evil outcome increases. Helping someone, when you know that someone is going to use your help to cause harm to innocents would qualify as "knowingly committing an evil act". IMO, that's how the association bit fits in.

But yeah, some extreme cases still work within this concept. A paladin may realize that the only person who can assist with defeating the massively evil lich lord of doom is the somewhat more mundane crimelord of the city, who maybe also doesn't like the idea of living under the rule of the undead lich lord guy. So they may work together to some degree to defeat a "greater evil". But I'd rule that as long as the paladin isn't being forced to accept some condition of help from the crimelord that directly violates the "do no evil" bits, the paladin can do this. So a deal of "I'll help you defeat the big bad, and then we go our separate ways" is acceptable. A deal of "Bring me three children for my sacrifice to <whatever> and I'll help you defeat the lich", would not.

In the former case, even though the paladin knows this crimelord is evil and will certainly do evil in the future, there's no specific known "evil act" involved. But in the latter case there is.

At least, that's how I would rule this sort of situation.

[Peelee]

Bet offer's for you too.

I am somehow certain (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html) that O-Chul knows that Belkar was evil when they met previously, even if one considers it an inappropriate invasion of privacy for paladins to use their innate Detect Evil--which I do not. (With the shouldn't-be-necessary-but-is codicil that using Detect Evil to gain information is not at all the same as using Detect Evil and immediately slaughtering everyone who glows red.)

(I wouldn't be particularly surprised if these particular paladins don't use Detect Evil very much, for reasons of:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/O-Chul.png It is not what your current alignment is that interests me. It is what choices you are going to make today, and tomorrow, and the day after that.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/lien.png I find if I assume every stranger is evil, they never disappoint me and often pleasantly surprise me.

But Lien was provably willing to use Detect Evil on Therkla [which was, in fact, an example of her incorrectly thinking a Neutral-aligned character was evil], so she's not unwilling to use it if she sees a reason to.)
Eh, i could see a Neutral-but-a-**** person doing the same thing Belksr did there.

And Lien used Detect Evil to try to track/find Therkla. Had Therkla been Evil, it would have been useful to do so. Using it solely to detect alignment doesn't seem terribly fruitful for anyone who's not Miko, i think we can agree on that.

I'm just thinking of how many times per day I can cast it in BG2 and so it seems more a case of "might as well".

But you are not them (and they are not Miko). Again, why? It doesn't do anything useful for them, so why would they do it?

[Resileaf]

Redemption, while hoped for, is not even a requirement for this IMO.

Hence why I said "Will try to redeem or will cease association when it's no longer needed". It's not necessary to redeem an evildoer, but it's appreciated for your code of honor.

And while we're at it, if any association whatsoever was forbidden, it would be impossible for a paladin to redeem an evildoer because to convince someone evil of turning into a better person, you need to interact with them. As in, you need to associate with them, maybe regularly. If redeeming evildoers made paladins fall, it would be a gross misunderstanding of what paladins in D&D are supposed to be about.

[Joebob]

Eh, i could see a Neutral-but-a-**** person doing the same thing Belksr did there.

Yeah. Considering the circumstances, one might be forgiven for abandoning someone like that if carrying them was a plausible risk to you being able to get out alive, which considering his short stature and the jump he had to make, might very well be true. Callous, maybe, but not an evil act, just not a good one.

Snarking at the man was admittedly in poor taste, though.

[Peelee]

Yeah. Considering the circumstances, one might be forgiven for abandoning someone like that if carrying them was a plausible risk to you being able to get out alive, which considering his short stature and the jump he had to make, might very well be true. Callous, maybe, but not an evil act, just not a good one.

Snarking at the man was admittedly in poor taste, though.

Hell, I'd even say it was an Evil act. But hebwss carrying O-Chul away at first then came to a dire circumstance where he may not live. And even disregarding that, it's not like Neutrals cant commit Evil acts. The IFCC wasn't even that sure that they'd get V after familicide, which is a hell of a bigger step.

[Kish]

E
And Lien used Detect Evil to try to track/find Therkla.
Didn't (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html). She was trying to prove Therkla was evil.

[Peelee]

Didn't (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html). She was trying to prove Therkla was evil.

Ah, fair, i misremembered. Still, though, the point stands that she wasn't just doing it because she could or because she was bored. She was used it in furtherence of proving Therkla was a ninja.

[gbaji]

Hence why I said "Will try to redeem or will cease association when it's no longer needed". It's not necessary to redeem an evildoer, but it's appreciated for your code of honor.

Ah. I mistook the first "or" for an "and". Opps! :smallredface:

Anycase. I think the key is that the association bit is relevant in how it ties back to the "don't commit evil acts" requirement.

[The MunchKING]

Isn't it trivial for them to find out though? Belkar doesn't even have his lead sheet anymore.

RAW is kind of vague about it if they aren't evil like an Evil Cleric of Evil kind of thing.

Detect Good (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) says that it sees "auras" and the clerics are the only PC classes to get specifically called out as having a strong alignment aura that could be evil.


It's not even a loophole. The only reason to add "knowingly" in there is to explicitly make it possible for a paladin to associate with Evil creatures in some way. It's working as intended.

I think it was to keep the GM from making them Fall for people who are evil but are pretending to be good around the Paladin and being like "ha! You associated with someone who was Evil". But then you run into the people who want an Evil guy on the team, but want to play Paladins turning a blind eye and failing to figure out their obviously evil teammate is evil. So they have to add the bit about "anyone who violates their code repeatedly".


Since this is fantasy fugu, I'm thinking it's more likely that the customers "inflated" than the fish. You wouldn't normally put someone in jail for injuring themselves.

In the real world fugu is VERY heavily regulated, and MOSTLY illegal, because the fugu fish is EXTEREMLY poisonous. You need like a full docterate to learn how to prepare it properly or something.



Plausible deniability is certainly a defense that I would like to be applied to Paladins more often, it gives a lot of validation to their interactions as agents of the forces of good and law. :smalltongue:

From what I've read it tends to lead to a lot of people trying to exploit it, so they can have Evil Teammates doing evil stuff, but the Paladin just happened to step out of the room first so they don't KNOW Evil McStabbyton is torturing prisoners in there. Ooops! Plausible Deniability! Which is why the rules try to stop those shenanigans by explicitly calling out Evil OR Code-breaking actions as intolerable.



I'm just thinking of how many times per day I can cast it in BG2 and so it seems more a case of "might as well".

(and Miko didn't seem to have the spell in short supply, either)

3.5 Paladins get it "at will" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm).

[Resileaf]

In the real world fugu is VERY heavily regulated, and MOSTLY illegal, because the fugu fish is EXTEREMLY poisonous. You need like a full docterate to learn how to prepare it properly or something.

You have to wonder who figured out (and how they did it) that a very small, specific part of the pufferfish can be eaten safely when prepared extremely specifically.

[gatemansgc]

You have to wonder who figured out (and how they did it) that a very small, specific part of the pufferfish can be eaten safely when prepared extremely specifically.

probably one idiot who ate one and didn't die.

[hamishspence]

Detect Good (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) says that it sees "auras" and the clerics are the only PC classes to get specifically called out as having a strong alignment aura that could be evil.


a 1st level Cleric's aura strength will be Faint - exactly the same as a 10th level or less "Evil creature".

[brian 333]

Paladins don't fall for being in the same room with Evil characters. No paladin could be a jailor in that case.

Paladins don't fall for being nice to Evil characters. No paladin could redeem an evildoer in that case.

Paladins don't fall for associating with those who are charged with the parole of an Evil character. A paladin could not befriend a bail bondsman in that case.

The paladins associate with Roy, who holds Belkar's parole. They do not have to shun Belkar, nor do they have to be rude to him. In fact, they should set an example of behavior to which Belkar should aspire. By recognizing a talent, praising him for it, and showing genuine gratitude for sharing it they are obeying their code and oath much better than Miko ever did.

As I said before, Miko was the author's example of poor play of a paladin character. Lien and O'Chul are examples of good play of a paladin character.

[pearl jam]

Fugu can be lethally poisonous to humans due to its tetrodotoxin, meaning it must be carefully prepared to remove toxic parts and to avoid contaminating the meat.

...

Fugu contains lethal amounts of the poison tetrodotoxin in its organs, especially the liver, the ovaries, eyes, and skin.[5] The poison, a sodium channel blocker,[6] paralyzes the muscles while the victim stays fully conscious;[7] the poisoned victim is unable to breathe, and eventually dies from asphyxiation.[8] There is no known antidote for fugu poison.[9] The standard treatment is to support the respiratory and circulatory systems until the poison is metabolized and excreted by the victim's body.[10]

Researchers have determined that a fugu's tetrodotoxin comes from eating other animals infested with tetrodotoxin-laden bacteria, to which the fish develops insensitivity over time.[11] Whether tetrodotoxin is sequestered from or produced by symbiotic bacteria is still debated.[12] As such, efforts have been made in research and aquaculture to allow farmers to produce safe fugu. Farmers now produce poison-free fugu by keeping the fish away from the bacteria; Usuki, a town in Ōita Prefecture, has become known for selling non-poisonous fugu.


It's not so much a small specific part that can be eaten as having to remove the parts that can't properly so that the poison won't get into parts that otherwise would be edible. Or, more recently, using farm fugu that are poison free to begin with.

[Precure]

Sorry but, whether paladins or not, "I can fix him" is a code word for toxic relationships, especially toxic since we're talking about an actual mass murderer here. Lien and O-Chul were way out of line there.

[Peelee]

Sorry but, whether paladins or not, "I can fix him" is a code word for toxic relationships, especially toxic since we're talking about an actual mass murderer here. Lien and O-Chul were way out of line there.

At what point did they say "i can fix him"? They both acknowledged he should still be punished, Lien recommended s job in the prisom kitchen and O-Chul said he could see about having the sentence also include community service for the populace, which would also let Belkar not be as miserable as a side effect.

What, exactly, was out of line?

[Precure]

At what point did they say "i can fix him"?

It's pretty obvious what they were up to, and many people in this thread noticed it too. For a starter, they don't need to be buddy-buddy with a murderer. What's especially out of line is they're planning to ask Hinjo's favor for him. On what grounds? Why?

[gbaji]

a 1st level Cleric's aura strength will be Faint - exactly the same as a 10th level or less "Evil creature".

Just to follow up on this. 3rd edition D&D treats anyone with an alignment as being affected by spells that operate on alignment. That means, detect <alignment>, protection from <alignment>, and dispel <alignment> spells all work/act on everyone with the respective alignment. A level one evil person shows up as a faint aura on detect evil. Belkar, being in the 11-25 level range, actually shows up as "moderate". It's also why his own protection from evil amulet hurts him when he uses it.

Clerics of a specific alignment deity just show up more strongly is all. But yeah. This does not mean that only clerics of an evil deity show up on detect evil.

[dxm2000]

Gosh, all this talk of redemption is fun, and I love it (the talk of them forgetting redemption is interesting, but odd, considering this has been a long time coming). Something I feel needs to happen now though, considering they are putting everything on the table, is for them to actually put everything on the table, including the redemption/cause for redemption bits. Fact of the matter is, they are in the end game, and one slip up-- like, say, the other member on the path to redemption suddenly vanishing, confusing 9/10th of the remaining party --could doom them.

In fact, after this page, my going theory (which I assume other's have already had), is that one person's cause for redemption (Vaarsuvius') will directly lead to the triggering of a certain prophesy (Belkar's), and likely screw both over, or that said cause will rend the party when most convenient to the fiends.


----


Sorry but, whether paladins or not, "I can fix him" is a code word for toxic relationships, especially toxic since we're talking about an actual mass murderer here. Lien and O-Chul were way out of line there.

In this case, you appear to be being judgmental/pessimistic. In general, sure. In real life, making bed with a mass murderer is bad, except...
a) Belkar is not really a mass murderer by D&D standards (though certainly, he is a murder, a thief, miscreant, abuser, etc);
b) They do not know the depths of his depravity(including multiple things listed there), he had already started changing before they knew him;
c) "I can fix him" is a code word for "toxic relationships" when you ascribe excess value to the person you are trying to change, and the person is not trying to change. They are ascribing a value of "room for improvement, not irredeemable" to him, and have shown no inclination to forgive future crimes, and he has shown that he is "willing" to change.

To say they are "out of line" is to act as if they know his deepest depths, and that he has not changed since volume 1(or whatever his worse volume is). Would you say the same is they tried to buddy-buddy with Vaarsuvius (an actual provable mass-murderer by D&D standard)?

[Peelee]

It's pretty obvious what they were up to, and many people in this thread noticed it too. For a starter, they don't need to be buddy-buddy with a murderer. What's especially out of line is they're planning to ask Hinjo's favor for him. On what grounds? Why?

Its apparently not, since i have no idea what you're talking about. The paladins discussed ways for Belkar to serve his sentence in more productive ways. Thats good, dude. Again, Liem explicitly said he could serve in the prison kitchen, and O-Chul explicitly said he he would try to ask Hinjo if Belkar could cook for an oppressed people while serving his sentence. Neither of these are "i can fix him". Both of these are making productive use of incarceration.

As for being buddy-buddy, they're not. They're being civil. Complaining about civility and productive punishments seems really weird to me.

[Precure]

In this case, you appear to be being judgmental/pessimistic. In general, sure. In real life, making bed with a mass murderer is bad, except...
a) Belkar is not really a mass murderer by D&D standards (though certainly, he is a murder, a thief, miscreant, abuser, etc)

He's shown as willing to kill countless people, only reason that his resume is relatively short because he's not talented enough.


b) They do not know the depths of his depravity(including multiple things listed there), he had already started changing before they knew him

If they are unaware of true scope of his crimes, that makes them very irresponsible people for asking Hinjo's favor for someone they don't know.


c) "I can fix him" is a code word for "toxic relationships" when you ascribe excess value to the person you are trying to change, and the person is not trying to change. They are ascribing a value of "room for improvement, not irredeemable" to him, and have shown no inclination to forgive future crimes, and he has shown that he is "willing" to change.

Belkar still didn't apologize for any of his crimes, sans trying to kill Elan for EXP.


To say they are "out of line" is to act as if they know his deepest depths, and that he has not changed since volume 1(or whatever his worse volume is). Would you say the same is they tried to buddy-buddy with Vaarsuvius (an actual provable mass-murderer by D&D standard)?

If they know of V's deeds? Yes.

[Kish]

It's pretty obvious what they were up to,
Especially since O-Chul explicitly said it, but it's not what you're insisting on, whether unspecified hordes of other posters made the same assumptions you did or not. And Lien is doing nothing more than being polite to someone she's currently working with. You might note that neither of them suggested they had any interest in actually reducing Belkar's sentence by so much as one day.

What exactly are you suggesting they should do?

[Larsaan]

Sorry but, whether paladins or not, "I can fix him" is a code word for toxic relationships, especially toxic since we're talking about an actual mass murderer here. Lien and O-Chul were way out of line there.

Well it's a good thing that neither Lien or O-Chul are in a relationship with Belkar, and are very unlikely to delude themselves into excusing any negative actions he might take.


If they are unaware of true scope of his crimes, that makes them very irresponsible people for asking Hinjo's favor for someone they don't know.

Presumably they trust Hinjo enough to say "no". Besides, Belkar is "only" going to jail for manslaughter, not every immoral action he ever did.

Besides, all statistics show that treating prisoners with dignity and humanity is by far the most effective way to get them to turn over a new leaf. Letting them practice a trade (voluntarily) especially so. Would it work on the old Belkar? No, probably not. I could see the new Belkar being receptive to it, though.

[Precure]

Its apparently not, since i have no idea what you're talking about. The paladins discussed ways for Belkar to serve his sentence in more productive ways. Thats good, dude. Again, Liem explicitly said he could serve in the prison kitchen, and O-Chul explicitly said he he would try to ask Hinjo if Belkar could cook for an oppressed people while serving his sentence. Neither of these are "i can fix him". Both of these are making productive use of incarceration.

As for being buddy-buddy, they're not. They're being civil. Complaining about civility and productive punishments seems really weird to me.

Lien is advising him about "the best job in the prison" while O-Chul is helping him to make his sentence "less onerous"


What exactly are you suggesting they should do?

Shut their mouths and drink the darn soup while trying not to help a murderer.

[Peelee]

Lien is advising him about "the best job in the prison" while O-Chul is helping him to make his sentence "less onerous"

You know what they call the person who graduates at the bottom of their class in med school? "Doctor".

The best job in prison is still a job in prison. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

[Larsaan]

Lien is advising him about "the best job in the prison" while O-Chul is helping him to make his sentence "less onerous"



Shut their mouths and drink the darn soup while trying not to help a murderer.

They don't know he's a murderer (even if they know about his sentence). Belkar told them he's going to prison, and they responded with suggesting some ways to make the best of a bad situation.

Which is good. You don't get rehabilitation out of dehumanising people, even if they aren't human.

[Precure]

They don't know he's a murderer (even if they know about his sentence). Belkar told them he's going to prison, and they responded with suggesting some ways to make the best of a bad situation.

They should be aware, considering how they met:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0411.html


You know what they call the person who graduates at the bottom of their class in med school? "Doctor".

The best job in prison is still a job in prison. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

He's still a criminal. What do you expect them to do, try ask a pardon? It's the best kinf of help they could give to him.

[Peelee]

He's still a criminal. What do you expect them to do, try ask a pardon? It's the best kinf of help they could give to him.

.... Yes, that's the point I'm making. The best kind of help still keeps him imprisoned exactly as long, and just makes him more productive. Again, this is a good thing, for literally everyone involved. Is your objection that prison should be as cruel as possible to all prisoners at all times? I really don't understand your complaint here.

[pendell]

I think we shouldn't apply the rule against associations so tightly.

The only "association" O-chul and Lien have are with each other. They are not part of the Order of the Stick; they are members of the Sapphire Guard. They are allied with the Order of the Stick at this moment to achieve an immediate goal of saving the world, and that means co-operating with all the order's members, not deciding that now is the time to insist on the letter of the code and getting into a fight with a high-level party right before a showdown with the BBEG.

Now, if O-chul and Belkar became permanent adventuring companions when this was over, then O-chul would fall over it, yes. As it is, the only likely association O-chul, Lien and Belkar would have if they were the only survivors after the adventure was over would be for the two paladins to take him as prisoner back to Azure City to serve his sentence. Or, at most, agree to give him to the count of X to get out of their sight before they go after him, if they were feeling especially grateful.

At it is, they're thrown together into a temporary situation in which they must put all other quarrels and issues aside to either prevent the Dark One gaining control of the Gate or the Snarl eating everything.

...

come to think of it, there has to be a limit on association elsewhere.

Everyone remember this scene (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)?

Hinjo is recruiting an evil rogue and a gorram necromancer into his army.

Since they're in his army, don't they count as 'henchmen' and therefore can't be evil? Is Hinjo deliberately dodging the letter of the law by not detecting evil on them? Or is it that "association" only counts for "direct associates", not "every single member of the Azure City army".

Hey, if a chaotic evil rogue is willing to stop an arrow for Azure City, I'm more than willing to let him.

We know they're evil. The rogue tried to murder Hinjo for pay. Tsukiko defected to Team Evil the first chance she got. But Hinjo didn't fall for accepting them into his army.


... all of this circles back to the point that at any good gaming table the rules have to be applied with a leavening of common sense. Being temporarily thrown together in a last minute hectic action to save the world from an imminent threat shouldn't count against the Paladin Code. Only if they continue the association after the battle's over and they have the opportunity to calm things down would it count as a breach.

If they still have to travel with the Order, they'll have to officially take Belkar prisoner with the understanding that the end point of the journey will be the Azure City penal system. Miko did that, and didn't fall for "associating" with Belkar despite technically being in the same party, because he was her captive.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[dxm2000]

If they are unaware of true scope of his crimes, that makes them very irresponsible people for asking Hinjo's favor for someone they don't know.



If they know of V's deeds? Yes.

Uh... this is very contradictory. They are "irresponsible" and "out of line" for supporting Balkar in net-positive acts, because they don't know that he's done some terrible things, but the are only irresponsible for doing the same with V if they know of V's deeds? It's one way, or the other.

All that they might know about Belkar's crimes, if they were told at all, is that he was charged with manslaughter(lesser murder), after being thrown into jail alongside his party, by the most anal of paladins in the whole order, as part of staging an escape based on charges they were acquitted for. Again, if they even know that much. They may think he's in jail for theft, smuggling, or other "lesser crimes" for all we know. And they only even know he has a sentence because he told them. Why would they assume a man who is saving the world, and admitting he has a sentence on his head is irredeemably evil.



He's shown as willing to kill countless people, only reason that his resume is relatively short because he's not talented enough.

Again, they don't know that, just like they don't know how big V's resume is. And it's not a lack of talent stopping him, it's a lack of desire. He has the power to walk into and level a defenceless town, at this point. Or hold it hostage. Or quit the party, run away, and live the rest of his-- to his knowledge, not --limited days in riches, chaos and joy. Yet he chooses to stick around and help. And contribute. And care.(even if he does protest too much)



Belkar still didn't apologize for any of his crimes, sans trying to kill Elan for EXP.
An actual point. Belkar should endeavor to apologize or make up for his cruel/vile/harmful acts. He's started to do so even (Elan, Durkon, Roy). Though so far limited to those close to him, in theory, he should eventually make amends to those who aren't. Here's the thing: Saving the world is a large step towards that, and even if you don't think so, it is more so than hunting down one person to apologize to, or living a few days in jail before the world ends.

EDIT: (Post made while I was typing)


They should be aware, considering how they met:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0411.html

Their introduction to Belkar was Miko having fallen for "something"(likely the one part they remember of that scene, because that was big) and him freaking about not being able to kill the familiar of the least liked paladin as a throwaway joke... Even if they remember meeting him like that (which is a maybe, at best, because many bigger things, including their whole order falling occurred around that time), that does not indicate what he was in for, or that his sentence wasn't over. I imagine however, that what they more likely remember as introductions to him is him abandoning Ochul(in Ochul's case) in desperation and going on to save lives(something Ochul forgave him for), and... meeting him as the party of heroes got back together.


He's still a criminal. What do you expect them to do, try ask a pardon? It's the best kinf of help they could give to him.
Agreed. Which makes the complaints about such an action weird.

[Precure]

Uh... this is very contradictory. They are "irresponsible" and "out of line" for supporting Balkar in net-positive acts, because they don't know that he's done some terrible things, but the are only irresponsible for doing the same with V if they know of V's deeds? It's one way, or the other.

How? They're not asking Hinjo for V's favor, knowing his crimes. Not to mention they should be aware of his personality, considering how they met:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0411.html


.... Yes, that's the point I'm making. The best kind of help still keeps him imprisoned exactly as long, and just makes him more productive. Again, this is a good thing, for literally everyone involved. Is your objection that prison should be as cruel as possible to all prisoners at all times? I really don't understand your complaint here.

They're not asking for some kind of prison reform here, they're trying to help Belkar so his sentence would be "less onerous" which gives him advantage.

[Peelee]

They're not asking for some kind of prison reform here, they're trying to help Belkar so his sentence would be "less onerous"

They're not. Lien is recommending he put his talents to use, and again, the besy job in prison is still a job in prison. O-Chul is advocating for some of the most downtrodden people to have quality foods, which will have the side effect of making the sentence less onerous. Of course, less onerous in prison is still in prison. Its not suddenly going to be a Marriott.

Again, unless you're advocating that prison should be as horrible as possible to all prisoners at all times, i have no idea what your objection is.

[Kish]

Well it's a good thing that neither Lien or O-Chul are in a relationship with Belkar, and are very unlikely to delude themselves into excusing any negative actions he might take.

Upon seeing more text from Precure, I think this is the best answer.

"I can fix him is toxic" applies to intimate relationships. It doesn't apply to literally every interaction. And the suggestion that two paladins are obligated to research the villainous deeds of anyone they accept soup from before saying "hey, you should ask for a job in the prison kitchen" doesn't map to any wise or valid advice, only to: redemption is a crock, forgiveness is for those who don't need it, people who have done wrong should suffer without mercy.


I think we shouldn't apply the rule against associations so tightly.

The only "association" O-chul and Lien have are with each other. They are not part of the Order of the Stick; they are members of the Sapphire Guard. They are allied with the Order of the Stick at this moment to achieve an immediate goal of saving the world, and that means co-operating with all the order's members, not deciding that now is the time to insist on the letter of the code and getting into a fight with a high-level party right before a showdown with the BBEG.

Now, if O-chul and Belkar became permanent adventuring companions when this was over, then O-chul would fall over it, yes. As it is, the only likely association O-chul, Lien and Belkar would have if they were the only survivors after the adventure was over would be for the two paladins to take him as prisoner back to Azure City to serve his sentence. Or, at most, agree to give him to the count of X to get out of their sight before they go after him, if they were feeling especially grateful.

At it is, they're thrown together into a temporary situation in which they must put all other quarrels and issues aside to either prevent the Dark One gaining control of the Gate or the Snarl eating everything.

...

come to think of it, there has to be a limit on association elsewhere.

Everyone remember this scene (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)?

Hinjo is recruiting an evil rogue and a gorram necromancer into his army.

Since they're in his army, don't they count as 'henchmen' and therefore can't be evil? Is Hinjo deliberately dodging the letter of the law by not detecting evil on them? Or is it that "association" only counts for "direct associates", not "every single member of the Azure City army".
This (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#leadership) is what "cohorts, henchmen, and followers" refers to.

[dxm2000]

How? They're not asking Hinjo for V's favor, knowing his crimes. not to mention they should be aware, considering how they met:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0411.html

Edited my reply to address this so I wouldn't have two posts in a row.

EDIT: Actually, addition: Asking for a favour is likely to lead to them learning of them sentence if it is actually bad. So asking should still be valid. There is no evidence that they knew anything beyond him needing to be put in a cell (which the Sapphire Guard also did to people before judgement), which means they could've assumed he was aquited. Even if they didn't, there are a wild variety of potential guesses they could make about his situation unless they asked, and the fact that they were surprised he would go to jail indicates they never did. (Meaning they likely have no clue he killed anyone. They could've assume it, but they could've also assume Miko caught him jaywalking.)


They're not asking for some kind of prison reform here, they're trying to help Belkar so his sentence would be "less onerous"
So what's the problem then? That it's mutually beneficial, rather than only beneficial to them? Prison, all in all is a revenge system... and that is terrible. That they are trying to turn it into reformation-- arguably better than their leader Hinjo, who was willing to use it as labour with reduced sentences and no reformation to defend Azure City --is good!

You want to pitch prison reform? You start somewhere. You don't, but you want to help someone who admitted to you-- a paladin who could lose powers for aiding in the crime of avoiding arrest --that they did wrong? Well, helping them do good is still good.

[Lumix19]

The issue of LG association with Any E was dealt with by Roy's deva. As long as they can mark your association as part of an attempt to redeem an evildoer, their Evil actions don't taint your record.

[Precure]

Again, unless you're advocating that prison should be as horrible as possible to all prisoners at all times, i have no idea what your objection is.

It's a strawman argument to make my objection into a call for "prison should be horrible" slogan when in fact I only want Belkar to be treated fairly, punished according to his crimes. I think it's out of line for paladins to be buddy-buddy with someone like Belkar, which is exemplified by Lien and O-Chul's unwarranted attempts at helping Belkar to make his jail sentence less onerous.

[Peelee]

It's a strawman argument to make my objection into a call for "prison should be horrible" slogan when in fact I only want Belkar to be treated fairly, punished according to his crimes.

That's still going to happen in their scenario, dude. Prison cook is a job that exists regardless.

[Precure]

That's still going to happen in their scenario, dude.

Pretty mature of you to keep calling me dude.

[Larsaan]

They should be aware, considering how they met:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0411.html

In the aftermath of Miko killing Shojo? I'm not sure what you're getting at there, Belkar literally didn't do anything wrong during that whole sequence (except complain about never getting to kill her horse, which they may or may not have been within earshot of).


He's still a criminal. What do you expect them to do, try ask a pardon? It's the best kinf of help they could give to him.

I'm with Peele here. There's nothing bad about what they're doing.

[dxm2000]

It's a strawman argument to make my objection into a call for "prison should be horrible" slogan when in fact I only want Belkar to be treated fairly, punished according to his crimes. I think it's out of line for paladins to be buddy-buddy with someone like Belkar, which is exemplified by Lien and O-Chul's unwarranted attempts at helping Belkar to make his jail sentence less onerous.

Except that you a misrepresenting the paladins (or at least making claims about them that you lack evidence for). What we know: The paladins met Balkar at a time when one of them brought him to a cell, in parallel with one of their most obsessive and least liked paladins who had just fallen. Belkar was later outside of the prison during the attack (as were other prisoners-- presumably, they knew why, but we do not see evidence one way or the other --). Belkar "tried to save one" from a "monster", but abandoned him when they were all in danger. Belkar's group is overall good and trying to save the world. When they and Belkar reunited, no one, including Hinjo, the man who sentenced him, objected. They next met up ("were saved") through the group trying to "peacefully" resolve an incident.

You are assuming that they know of his crimes (and even then, they'd only know that he killed one guy as a part of escaping jail for a different crime he was acquitted for. That Hinjo wouldn't explain the situation if they asked. They they consider him a friend, or that they would is they knew what he did. That their motive is primarily to make things easier on him, and that that isn't just words. That they remember any of the things before the MitD thing.

Also, you are berating them for not inquiring-- if they don't know the depths of his crime --but why wouldn't they trust that the person in charge of their entire way of life-- including their criminal justice system --would not let someone irredeemable free, or would not refuse them their request, if it is unjust?

Unless they should assume the worse of everyone, and therefore quiz the whole order that associates with a "known criminal", that's an unreasonable demand of them.

[Precure]

Lien is literally horried In that panel, so she definitely heard Belkar's disappointment about not killing a horse. Last time they met, O-Chul threatened to gut him with his hands, which means he too must be aware of what kind of person Belkar is.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html

[dxm2000]

Lien is literally horried In that panel, so she definitely heard Belkar's disappointment about not killing a horse. Last time they met, O-Chul threatened to gut him with his hands, which means he too must be aware of what kind of person Belkar is.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html

Lien: (Ignoring that it might be surprise, because, you know, Roy is wearing the same expression, heck Belkar is) ...Cool, except, words, not actions. Miko was universally disliked. The horse may've been disliked by proxy or she could've assumed he hated it because it hurt him for Miko. It's a familiar, and depending on interpretation, its death might be considered minor. Character deaths are considered humour material in this world, and familiar deaths in D&D are less permanent than the already impermanent character deaths, therefore are also likely considered humour material.

Ochul: Threatened to "gut him with his hands" if Belkar ever specifically throws someone to the wolves to save his own skin. None of which indicates that Belkar is pro-casual murder. It indicates, at best, that he assumes that Belkar is capable of such cowardice again... which is also true of a lot of non-criminals.

[Kish]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that both paladins have been exhaustively briefed on all Belkar's crimes, even the ones Roy doesn't know about himself.

How do you get from there to "it's wrong for Lien to suggest he should ask for a job in the prison kitchen"? Since you apparently don't want to own that you're arguing that people who have done wrong should suffer without mercy. Redemption is a central facet of Good, particularly O-Chul's form of Good.

[Ruck]

You have to wonder who figured out (and how they did it) that a very small, specific part of the pufferfish can be eaten safely when prepared extremely specifically.

I think about stuff like this a lot when it comes to things like cheese and beer. Who was the first person who said, "Hey, looks like this milk / grain water spoiled. I'm gonna try it anyway and see what happens"?


Sorry but, whether paladins or not, "I can fix him" is a code word for toxic relationships, especially toxic since we're talking about an actual mass murderer here. Lien and O-Chul were way out of line there.

They're not in an intimate relationship with Belkar. I would hesitate to even call them friends with him.

[enq]

But you are not them (and they are not Miko). Again, why? It doesn't do anything useful for them, so why would they do it?
It helps them put everyone's actions into context, it gives them a heads-up that someone may be trying to deceive them (if they register as Evil without acting like it). It seems to me it can be done very casually, like glancing at your phone to see if you have Facebook notifications. Unless you're actively doing something else, you don't need to motivate glancing at your phone. It's not like, say, googling the chemical composition of race car fuel.

[Deepbluediver]

A lot of people seem to be getting caught up arguing the minutia of the Paladin rules for 3.5 when I'm pretty sure Rich has said that the rules serve the story, and not the other way around.

In-story, the interpretation seems to be that the gods (at least the ones who make Paladins) are NOT a bunch of petty bean-counters just waiting around for Paladins to make one tiny slip-up so they can yank the chain and depower them. Miko, for example, did a whole lot of stuff that wasn't Good and I think would arguably only be Lawful if she were pulling a kind of Judge-Dredd-esque "I AM THE LAW!" bit. And yet she didn't fall (not even when "associating" with Belkar), until she snuffed out an innocent the life of the man she'd sworn to obey and protect.

To add to this was also have the whole conversation that Roy had with the Deva in which she confirmed that since associating with Belkar was probably less-worse than the worst possible other option, it wasn't an end-all-and-be-all for determining the alignment of his party members. Also, the Deva judged Roy to still be Lawful-Good, and worthy of resting in the LG afterlife, even though he wasn't PERFECTLY lawful-good.
And the gods themselves have been shown to bend the rules on occasion (Thor), or alter their actions in the service of a better outcome even if it would normally be against their nature (Loki).

So you put all this together and what you get IMO is that the Gods of this world are willing to be at least a LITTLE reasonable or flexible when it comes the actions of their followers. In fact, I would say that one interpretation of Miko's character is that if you focus on obeying the literal letter of a code to the exclusion of rational understanding, leniency, basic human kindness, etc etc etc, then you can still end up an awful human being.
If Miko acted the way she did and ended up falling, why would any other Paladin want to imitate her and start randomly shunning (or stabbing) anyone who pinged on their evil-dar?



Edit: As an aside, has it been confirmed that we've even SEEN any other Paladins besides ones created in association with the 12 Animal Gods and Azure city? Every other Divine spellcaster seems to be some flavor of cleric (or 1 favored soul).
In the 3.5 Core Rulebook Paladins had to be LG, but there was at least 1 supplement that (Unearthed Arcana maybe?) that gave alternatives. Not to mention literally hundreds of PrCs, at least some of which are Paladin-ish. So it's not totally inconceivable to me either that there could be a Mardukian Paladin somewhere in the Stickyverse murdering babies for the red god and partying with mindflayers, or whatever; there's just never been a reason to divert the story and highlight them.

[The MunchKING]

It's a familiar, and depending on interpretation, its death might be considered minor. Character deaths are considered humour material in this world, and familiar deaths in D&D are less permanent than the already impermanent character deaths, therefore are also likely considered humour material.

Technically Paladin Mounts and Familiars are different things with different mechanics.


A lot of people seem to be getting caught up arguing the minutia of the Paladin rules for 3.5 when I'm pretty sure Rich has said that the rules serve the story, and not the other way around.

Because the person who brought it up was comparing it to 3.5 RAW.



Edit: As an aside, has it been confirmed that we've even SEEN any other Paladins besides ones created in association with the 12 Animal Gods and Azure city? Every other Divine spellcaster seems to be some flavor of cleric (or 1 favored soul).

In Origin of the PCs, there was one whose origin was unconfirmed, but he wasn't wearing Blue. Actually there was two, IIRC. The guy from Roy's party and the guy Elan used to herald for.

[Mic_128]

I think about stuff like this a lot when it comes to things like cheese and beer. Who was the first person who said, "Hey, looks like this milk / grain water spoiled. I'm gonna try it anyway and see what happens"?

Listen to me, an I'm sure you'll agree,
the bravest person in all history,
is neither a warrior, or practitioner of law,
but the first who devoured an oyster raw.

[Tzardok]

I think about stuff like this a lot when it comes to things like cheese and beer. Who was the first person who said, "Hey, looks like this milk / grain water spoiled. I'm gonna try it anyway and see what happens"?


As far as I know, the first cheeses were found by stone age hunters in the stomachs of young game (as you may know, most cheeses require rennet, a stuff from the stomachs of calves etc, to be made). And if it's in a stomach, you'll probably assume that it's at least edible.


Sorry but, whether paladins or not, "I can fix him" is a code word for toxic relationships, especially toxic since we're talking about an actual mass murderer here. Lien and O-Chul were way out of line there.

Hello Miko. Didn't expect you to show up here.

[dxm2000]

Technically Paladin Mounts and Familiars are different things with different mechanics.

Fair. Looking into it, it seem that mounts would fall under "as difficult to bring back" (possibly), rather than "less difficult". Just harder to kill unless they are one-shot, because they can be dismissed as a free action, and summons return them at full health. My blindspot, because even when I played 3.5, paladins weren't really my jam.

Still, character death in general is played off as a joke/punchline semi-consistently(e.g. the drunk wizard not long before that), and that was an end of page aside/punchline... and we have no clue about the Lien-Miko relationship, but considering Miko's approach to "evil" and Lien's boyfriend... I imagine Lien avoided her.

[Aquillion]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that both paladins have been exhaustively briefed on all Belkar's crimes, even the ones Roy doesn't know about himself.

How do you get from there to "it's wrong for Lien to suggest he should ask for a job in the prison kitchen"? Since you apparently don't want to own that you're arguing that people who have done wrong should suffer without mercy. Redemption is a central facet of Good, particularly O-Chul's form of Good.
Yeah, I thought the comic was extremely clear that they weren't doing it for Belkar's sake.

From their perspective, Belkar has committed crimes, has been lawfully judged for them, and is being properly punished for them in a lawful manner, with the sentence being handed down by someone they consider good and decent. There's no reason for them to doubt it or, therefore, to be vindictive about it.

Since they know he's a good cook, they'd rather that that skill be put to good use (and they mentioned that it's a good job so he'd agree), but they're not doing it for his sake.

That said, I do think that the rule that:


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

...is a bad rule and I suspect the comic is ignoring it deliberately. "Associate" is too broad and interpreting it strictly just leads to party issues. Like, yes, sure, there's an interpretation of "associate" so broad that they are breaking the rules by talking to him in a friendly manner, but I don't think that's what was intended and I think that following that interpretation turns Paladins into ridiculous lawbots.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, I thought the comic was extremely clear that they weren't doing it for Belkar's sake.

From their perspective, Belkar has committed crimes, has been lawfully judged for them, and is being properly punished for them in a lawful manner, with the sentence being handed down by someone they consider good and decent. There's no reason for them to doubt it or, therefore, to be vindictive about it.

Since they know he's a good cook, they'd rather that that skill be put to good use (and they mentioned that it's a good job so he'd agree), but they're not doing it for his sake.

That said, I do think that the rule that:



...is a bad rule and I suspect the comic is ignoring it deliberately. "Associate" is too broad and interpreting it strictly just leads to party issues. Like, yes, sure, there's an interpretation of "associate" so broad that they are breaking the rules by talking to him in a friendly manner, but I don't think that's what was intended and I think that following that interpretation turns Paladins into ridiculous lawbots.

I have heard of enough DMs that treated the possibility of PC paladins Falling as a right to suspect that interpretation was not the sole reason, or even the main reason.

[Peelee]

Pretty mature of you to keep calling me dude.
It's my go-to word for referring to any given person. I'll try to stop using it with regards to you.

It helps them put everyone's actions into context, it gives them a heads-up that someone may be trying to deceive them (if they register as Evil without acting like it). It seems to me it can be done very casually, like glancing at your phone to see if you have Facebook notifications. Unless you're actively doing something else, you don't need to motivate glancing at your phone. It's not like, say, googling the chemical composition of race car fuel.
I'm still not hearing any good reason to do it. Again, they're not Miko. Just because you may glance at your phone every so often to see if you have facebook notifications doesn't mean everyone always does. For example, I never check my phone to see if I have any new notifications.

The way I understand it, you're arguing that just because they can means that they should. This does not follow. We've only seen Miko check alignment for the sake of checking alignment. And, again, they're not Miko.

[Liquor Box]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that both paladins have been exhaustively briefed on all Belkar's crimes, even the ones Roy doesn't know about himself.

How do you get from there to "it's wrong for Lien to suggest he should ask for a job in the prison kitchen"? Since you apparently don't want to own that you're arguing that people who have done wrong should suffer without mercy. Redemption is a central facet of Good, particularly O-Chul's form of Good.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Lien making a suggestion. But I do think it's not ideal for O-Chul to be speaking to Lord Hinjo and trying to get Belkar an more desirable prison job. Prisoners should be treated equally and should not be getting breaks from knowing someone who knows the ruler. O-Chul shouldn't be facilitating special treatment for any prisoner.

[Kish]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Lien making a suggestion. But I do think it's not ideal for O-Chul to be speaking to Lord Hinjo and trying to get Belkar an more desirable prison job. Prisoners should be treated equally and should not be getting breaks from knowing someone who knows the ruler. O-Chul shouldn't be facilitating special treatment for any prisoner.
As O-Chul said, it wouldn't be "Lord Hinjo, I think you should go easier on this halfling I met a couple times who threw me at Monster-san the first time"--it would be "Lord Hinjo, we have many hungry citizens who have been through brutal slavery and deserve to eat well, and I happen to know where you can find a really good cook."

[Peelee]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Lien making a suggestion. But I do think it's not ideal for O-Chul to be speaking to Lord Hinjo and trying to get Belkar an more desirable prison job. Prisoners should be treated equally and should not be getting breaks from knowing someone who knows the ruler. O-Chul shouldn't be facilitating special treatment for any prisoner.
Even if that were the case, it's still a standard prison job, which Belkar is well-equipped for. It would hardly be special treatment. I would call it efficient prison job placement.

[Wraithfighter]

This comic really exemplifies why I love Lien and O-chul so much.

O-chul is obvious. He's the Hardened Badass Paladin, the one that would never think of budging on his principles, but is actually, truly sincere in those principles. He's not an idiot either, even if he's a fair bit rigid. Hence here, where he comes up with a way to use Belkar's talents in a way that Belkar probably would enjoy, while also fulfilling the whole "prisoner" future that's totally coming definitely no chance he's dying soon at all.

But Lien... she's a Paladin who works for a living. She's so very grounded and real, but still unequivocally a Paladin. She wears her emotions on her sleeve most of the time, isn't above grousing and venting, and just feels... normal, for lack of a better term. You got a lot of that before now (she's gotten a ton of great jokes with how hilariously bitter she is about things :D ), but also, yeah, I totally can buy that she'd be in a happy relationship with an ex-con, because it's the ex part that matters.

Beyond that they make for a fantastic double-act, it's a good example of how wide ranging the archetype can be without betraying the core concept. Just wonderful characters that aren't even in the main cast...

[Liquor Box]

Even if that were the case, it's still a standard prison job, which Belkar is well-equipped for. It would hardly be special treatment. I would call it efficient prison job placement.

It may well be a standard prison job that he is well suited for. But I don't think people should be getting more favourable standard prison jobs because they are connected.


As O-Chul said, it wouldn't be "Lord Hinjo, I think you should go easier on this halfling I met a couple times who threw me at Monster-san the first time"--it would be "Lord Hinjo, we have many hungry citizens who have been through brutal slavery and deserve to eat well, and I happen to know where you can find a really good cook."

I don't think any cities hunger problems are caused by the lack of a good gourmet cook. It may be that azure city uses prisoners for labour (as many olden times prisons did), and part of this is cooking for the homeless. But the strip clearly says that cooking is the best job in the prison, and Belkar's connections with the paladins (with the intervention of the leader no less) shouldn't be the reason Belkar gets it.

[faustin]

Given Belkar isn't currently in Azure territory, what authority do Hinjo or his paladins have over him

You can even make the argument that the nation where Belkar committed his crimes do no longer exist as such.

[InvisibleBison]

But the strip clearly says that cooking is the best job in the prison, and Belkar's connections with the paladins (with the intervention of the leader no less) shouldn't be the reason Belkar gets it.

It's not going to. Lien doesn't say that she'll arrange for Belkar to get the job of prison cook, she merely says that he will be able to easily get it if he wants to.

[Peelee]

It may well be a standard prison job that he is well suited for. But I don't think people should be getting more favourable standard prison jobs because they are connected.

He wouldn't be. He would be getting it because hes a good chef, and thus would likely get it anyway. This just expedites the process by letting people know in advance. If he actually had run a restaurant before being thrown in prison, he would likely similarly get a kitchen job.

This isnt corruption or favoritism in any way. This is efficiency. That's it.

Given Belkar isn't currently in Azure territory, what authority do Hinjo or his paladins have over him

Power stems from the barrel of a gun, in this case. Between the paladins and Roy, Belkar doesn't really have much option. He could try to run away. Probably wouldn't work.

[dancrilis]

Power stems from the barrel of a gun, in this case. Between the paladins and Roy, Belkar doesn't really have much option. He could try to run away. Probably wouldn't work.

He has extra movement because of his barbarian level(s), and they wear heavy armour reducing their movement - I think he could likely run away fine (he also has decent ranks in hide) - unless Roy and the paladins decided to call in (more) divine or arcane help I don't think they would be able to get him if he didn't want to be got.

[danielxcutter]

Also, a lot of cooks probably died in the invasion. Every little bit helps!

[KorvinStarmast]

How do you get from there to "it's wrong for Lien to suggest he should ask for a job in the prison kitchen"? Since you apparently don't want to own that you're arguing that people who have done wrong should suffer without mercy. Redemption is a central facet of Good, particularly O-Chul's form of Good. Not only this, but Rich has some definite ideas on redemption and its role in the story, that the option to 'do some good after a life of evil' needs to be left open. (And I am thinking not only of Belkar, but Redcloak as well, and in a slightly different sense for V ~ after the horribly evil act of familicide).

I think about stuff like this a lot when it comes to things like cheese and beer. Who was the first person who said, "Hey, looks like this milk / grain water spoiled. I'm gonna try it anyway and see what happens"? But first he said "Hold my loco weed ..." :smallbiggrin:

They're not in an intimate relationship with Belkar. I would hesitate to even call them friends with him. They are allies confronting a great evil. It is worth noting that the US and USSR were allies versus the Third Reich...but friends? Not so much.

A lot of people seem to be getting caught up arguing the minutia of the Paladin rules for 3.5 when I'm pretty sure Rich has said that the rules serve the story, and not the other way around. Rich has explored a lot of ways to be a paladin in his story, and for that matter in his supplemental stories. (Elan's initial paladin boss, the jerk who Roy met when the orcs wanted to go to the metal concert, O-Chul and Hinjo in the GDGU, and the leader of the paladin squad who noticed Lien's potential and of course Miko, Lien, O-Chul, in the regular story.
As an aside: becoming rules-bound is one of the things that can poison a table. Seen it happen too many times ... and when I see an argument from that basis, I tend to frown.


Listen to me, an I'm sure you'll agree,
the bravest person in all history,
is neither a warrior, or practitioner of law,
but the first who devoured an oyster raw.
Nice poem ... but (dons grammarian hat) I think that line three ought to read "is neither a warrior nor practitioner of law" ... :smallsmile:

As far as I know, the first cheeses were found by stone age hunters in the stomachs of young game (as you may know, most cheeses require rennet, a stuff from the stomachs of calves etc, to be made). And if it's in a stomach, you'll probably assume that it's at least edible. Are you done with that cheese? (Yes, that's a reference to the movie Diner and "Are you done with those fries?").

Hello Miko. Didn't expect you to show up here. *snort*

As O-Chul said, it wouldn't be "Lord Hinjo, I think you should go easier on this halfling I met a couple times who threw me at Monster-san the first time"--it would be "Lord Hinjo, we have many hungry citizens who have been through brutal slavery and deserve to eat well, and I happen to know where you can find a really good cook." +1.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Lien making a suggestion. But I do think it's not ideal for O-Chul to be speaking to Lord Hinjo and trying to get Belkar an more desirable prison job. Prisoners should be treated equally and should not be getting breaks from knowing someone who knows the ruler. O-Chul shouldn't be facilitating special treatment for any prisoner. Your "should" is Incorrect. There is a mechanism called "sentence reduced for good behavior" so special treatment is a thing. That system / mechanism is well known in the social context that the author is familiar with, even if it isn't known to you.

[brian 333]

Whether the paladins are aware of Belkar's evil or not does not matter. He is a prisoner on parole, in the custody of Roy.

Association with prisoners is not going to cause a paladin to fall. If it did, no paladin could arrest, transport, or guard prisoners.

[Lumix19]

A lot of people seem to be getting caught up arguing the minutia of the Paladin rules for 3.5 when I'm pretty sure Rich has said that the rules serve the story, and not the other way around.

In-story, the interpretation seems to be that the gods (at least the ones who make Paladins) are NOT a bunch of petty bean-counters just waiting around for Paladins to make one tiny slip-up so they can yank the chain and depower them. Miko, for example, did a whole lot of stuff that wasn't Good and I think would arguably only be Lawful if she were pulling a kind of Judge-Dredd-esque "I AM THE LAW!" bit. And yet she didn't fall (not even when "associating" with Belkar), until she snuffed out an innocent the life of the man she'd sworn to obey and protect.

To add to this was also have the whole conversation that Roy had with the Deva in which she confirmed that since associating with Belkar was probably less-worse than the worst possible other option, it wasn't an end-all-and-be-all for determining the alignment of his party members. Also, the Deva judged Roy to still be Lawful-Good, and worthy of resting in the LG afterlife, even though he wasn't PERFECTLY lawful-good.
And the gods themselves have been shown to bend the rules on occasion (Thor), or alter their actions in the service of a better outcome, even if it would normally be against their nature (Loki).

So you put all this together and what you get IMO is that the Gods of this world are willing to be at least a LITTLE reasonable or flexible when it comes the actions of their followers. In fact, I would say that one interpretation of Miko's character is that if you focus on obeying the literal letter of a code to the exclusion of rational understanding, leniency, basic human kindness, etc etc etc, then you can still end up an awful human being.
If Miko acted the way she did and ended up falling, why would any other Paladin want to imitate her and start randomly shunning (or stabbing) anyone who pinged on their evil-dar?



Edit: As an aside, has it been confirmed that we've even SEEN any other Paladins besides ones created in association with the 12 Animal Gods and Azure city? Every other Divine spellcaster seems to be some flavor of cleric (or 1 favored soul).
In the 3.5 Core Rulebook Paladins had to be LG, but there was at least 1 supplement that (Unearthed Arcana maybe?) that gave alternatives. Not to mention literally hundreds of PrCs, at least some of which are Paladin-ish. So it's not totally inconceivable to me either that there could be a Mardukian Paladin somewhere in the Stickyverse murdering babies for the red god and partying with mindflayers, or whatever.

I almost completely agree though unfortunately I think Miko is an imperfect example of the Gods' flexibility. Namely because Rich has already indicated that the Twelve work together as one, so they are metaphysically pulled in all directions leaving them all TN.

Which I believe leaves their clerics, and perhaps even their paladins, to essentially only have to live up to their own code. Now, Miko, as a LG paladin, basically made her code the Azure City Paladin Code and the Samurai Code, one or both of which she violated by killing Shojo. My interpretation is that such a blatant breaking of her Code caused the Twelve to smite her.

But she might have been (and probably was) doing all sorts of overzealous, shady stuff that wasn't explicitly covered by either Code and so wasn't worthy of Falling. That arguably wasn't the Twelve being generous about what constitutes Good, or allowing failings because people are mortal and prone to such things.

It's just them at least partially outsourcing the moral codes of their followers because they don't collectively embody any real Alignment axis. Miko could have got away with stuff because she thought it aligned with her Code(s) that other actual N/L Good gods wouldn't have allowed her to skate by with. Relativism and all that.

[Resileaf]

Considering that what we see of Miko before she meets the Order is of standard hard-ass paladin stuff, I don't think we have any room to declare that she should have fallen long ago.

If she used detect evil on everyone she met to judge them on the spot, she would have never tried to negociate with the forest bandits when she first found them.

[Mic_128]

Nice poem ... but (dons grammarian hat) I think that line three ought to read "is neither a warrior nor practitioner of law" ... :smallsmile:

Heh that does sound better. I'm honestly surprised I remembered it at all, being something from an ancient comic strip called B.C.

[Matt620]

Lien is a pristine example of a minor character done properly.

[BloodSquirrel]

Given the fact that Belkar is:

A) Helping to save the world at personal risk to himself
B) Showing other signs of redemption aside
C) An extremely dangerous individual when he has a mind to be, even in prison
D) Demonstrating that he has a useful, non-violent skill that he enjoys employing

I'd say that making him spend his sentence cooking is an all-around practical decision. He'll be a lot less likely to get pissed off and kill someone again than if you just have him break rocks all day, he'll be providing actual recompense instead of his sentence being purely punitive, and if he ever gets out he'll have a potential career on his hands other than killing things.

"Special treatment" is when somebody is given a better deal than other people for reasons such as nepotism or being good at schmoozing with the boss. Belkar is both qualified for the position he is being offered and has been engaging in behavior which most justice systems actively seek to incentivize. It isn't "special treatment" to reward a prisoner for demonstrating that he is rehabilitating himself or to give him a jot that benefits the whole city.

[Psyren]

I want some of the that soup. Assuming it doesn't have trace amnesia in it.

I assume they used the cleaning wand. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1271.html) Between V, Durkon and Haley they would have been able to tell if she was lying about what the wand does I think.

[Peelee]

I assume they used the cleaning wand. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1271.html) Between V, Durkon and Haley they would have been able to tell if she was lying about what the wand does I think.

Not to mention that V and Elan can clean with Prestidigitation (which is likely what the wand is in any event) even if the wand couldn't.

[pearl jam]

It may well be a standard prison job that he is well suited for. But I don't think people should be getting more favourable standard prison jobs because they are connected.



I don't think any cities hunger problems are caused by the lack of a good gourmet cook. It may be that azure city uses prisoners for labour (as many olden times prisons did), and part of this is cooking for the homeless. But the strip clearly says that cooking is the best job in the prison, and Belkar's connections with the paladins (with the intervention of the leader no less) shouldn't be the reason Belkar gets it.

First, he wouldn't be getting it because of his connections. He would be getting it because he's a good cook. If they were promising to hook him up with the job despite him being unqualified for it, that would be a different situation.

Secondly, regarding the part I bolded, I think I could easily run afoul of the forum rules if I replied fully to this, but I think simply noting that this not at all a phenomenon that is relegated to the past tense is within acceptable boundaries.

[Peelee]

He has extra movement because of his barbarian level(s), and they wear heavy armour reducing their movement - I think he could likely run away fine (he also has decent ranks in hide) - unless Roy and the paladins decided to call in (more) divine or arcane help I don't think they would be able to get him if he didn't want to be got.

Belkar, a halfling with a speed of 20 ft, gets Barbarian's Fast Movement, which increases his speed by 10 feet to a total of 30 feet. This puts him on the same level as Vaarsuvius, Elan, and Haley, all of whom see Roy as a leader and obey his commands, if issued. Not even including magical help.

They would be able to get him if he didn't want to be got.

[Provengreil]

He has extra movement because of his barbarian level(s), and they wear heavy armour reducing their movement - I think he could likely run away fine (he also has decent ranks in hide) - unless Roy and the paladins decided to call in (more) divine or arcane help I don't think they would be able to get him if he didn't want to be got.

He could definitely escape, but we're long past any point where it's reasonable to do so: the Godsmoot made it clear that Serini's Gate is a do or die scenario.

He has two options and four outcomes:

1. He stays, wins, and MAYBE serves his year in jail, and is then free.
2. He stays, dies, gods unmake the world.
3. He leaves, the Order wins anyway, but now he's stuck in the north pole.
4. He leaves, the Order loses, gods unmake the world.

The only good option here is 1, so he's taking it. If he had left before the godsmoot, probably just after the Greysky City affair, That would have been one thing, but he stayed. Now he's all in and he knows it.

EDIT: I know he's never serving that time because of the prophecy, I'm breaking down his choices from his POV.

[BloodSquirrel]

He could definitely escape, but we're long past any point where it's reasonable to do so: the Godsmoot made it clear that Serini's Gate is a do or die scenario.

He has two options and four outcomes:

1. He stays, wins, and MAYBE serves his year in jail, and is then free.
2. He stays, dies, gods unmake the world.
3. He leaves, the Order wins anyway, but now he's stuck in the north pole.
4. He leaves, the Order loses, gods unmake the world.

The only good option here is 1, so he's taking it. If he had left before the godsmoot, probably just after the Greysky City affair, That would have been one thing, but he stayed. Now he's all in and he knows it.

EDIT: I know he's never serving that time because of the prophecy, I'm breaking down his choices from his POV.

Not to mention that a large part of Belkar's character arc is that he is getting past the point of serving his own interests in such a narrow and blunt way. Belkar is still kind of confused about his own motivations at this point, but there's definitely some level on which he considers the Order to be his friends and isn't going to casually abandon them or kill them for xp in the same way he would have in book 1.

He can probably rationalize it easily enough to himself as "Hey, it's better if I hang around to make sure the world doesn't get blown up out from under me. I can ditch these idiots when we get back to civilization anyway- I am the party tracker after all."

[gbaji]

He wouldn't be. He would be getting it because hes a good chef, and thus would likely get it anyway. This just expedites the process by letting people know in advance. If he actually had run a restaurant before being thrown in prison, he would likely similarly get a kitchen job.

This isnt corruption or favoritism in any way. This is efficiency. That's it.

Yeah. I think there's a bit of conflation of two different things. The first, that he should get a job in the prison kitchen, is not "we'll help you get a job", it's just Lien observing that working in the kitchen is the "best job in prison", and that Belkar should have no trouble getting a job there. That's just her observing that Belkar's skill at cooking will allow him to get that job. It's not forcing him to work there. It's not pulling strings to get him the job. He has the ability to get it all on his own. If he wants to.

The second bit,was couched in the form of a favor. O'chul stated that he could talk to Hinjo to get Belkar to use his talents to feed the hungry. But this is also not about doing Belkar a favor. Heck. Belkar asks the question:

Belkar: "Why would you do that for me"
O'Chul: "I wouldn't"

That's our answer. O'Chul is not doing this to help Belkar. That's not his motivation. He then further explains:

O'Chul: "I would do it for my fellow citizens who deserve to eat well after what they have endured".

That's why he's proposing this. He runs into someone who has time left on a sentence in Azure City, and his thought is how that prisoners talents could be used to help others instead of just rotting away while in prison. Belkar is going to be in prision either way (as you have pointed out multple times), so it's "be in prison and not cook for other people" versus "be in prison and cook for other people". One of those outcomes is better for "other people". And yeah, he then clarifies this as well:

O'Chul: "I simply have no objection if, in the process, your sentence is less onerous"

There's a big difference between saying "I want to make your sentence less onerous" and "I have no objection if your sentence is less onerous". He's basically just saying that he has no particular desire to increase or decrease the difficulty of anyone's punishment, but if a prisoner is willing to help others, and in the process it makes their own condition better, he isn't opposed to it.

That's a far cry from trying to help out Belkar out of some sense of association or favoritism here. He'd presumably have the exact same attitude towards anyone in this situation. Heck. This is the guy who has befriended the MitD. So it's not like "give people the chance to be a better version of themselves" isn't already firmly entrenched is his personality. But yeah, he always leaves the decsion and action up to the other person. Belkar is free to decide he just hates the poor and therefore wont cook for them. He's also free to not take the kitchen job in prison and maybe do laundry all day instead. O'Chul doesn't care in terms of how this affects Belkar (aside from maybe hoping that "doing things for others" may lead to a redemptive path). He cares in terms of how it affects others who may benefit from Belkar's skills. But what actually happens is entirely up to Belkar.


Uh. It's all pretty irrelevant anyway (other than establishing some characterization bits). We have no clue if/when Azure City will ever be restored, and it's a really good bet Belkar wont be around to serve out the rest of his sentence anyway.

[Peelee]

Yeah. I think there's a bit of conflation of two different things. The first, that he should get a job in the prison kitchen, is not "we'll help you get a job", it's just Lien observing that working in the kitchen is the "best job in prison", and that Belkar should have no trouble getting a job there. That's just her observing that Belkar's skill at cooking will allow him to get that job. It's not forcing him to work there. It's not pulling strings to get him the job. He has the ability to get it all on his own. If he wants to.

The second bit,was couched in the form of a favor. O'chul stated that he could talk to Hinjo to get Belkar to use his talents to feed the hungry. But this is also not about doing Belkar a favor. Heck. Belkar asks the question:

Belkar: "Why would you do that for me"
O'Chul: "I wouldn't"

That's our answer. O'Chul is not doing this to help Belkar. That's not his motivation. He then further explains:

O'Chul: "I would do it for my fellow citizens who deserve to eat well after what they have endured".

That's why he's proposing this. He runs into someone who has time left on a sentence in Azure City, and his thought is how that prisoners talents could be used to help others instead of just rotting away while in prison. Belkar is going to be in prision either way (as you have pointed out multple times), so it's "be in prison and not cook for other people" versus "be in prison and cook for other people". One of those outcomes is better for "other people". And yeah, he then clarifies this as well:

O'Chul: "I simply have no objection if, in the process, your sentence is less onerous"

There's a big difference between saying "I want to make your sentence less onerous" and "I have no objection if your sentence is less onerous". He's basically just saying that he has no particular desire to increase or decrease the difficulty of anyone's punishment, but if a prisoner is willing to help others, and in the process it makes their own condition better, he isn't opposed to it.

That's a far cry from trying to help out Belkar out of some sense of association or favoritism here. He'd presumably have the exact same attitude towards anyone in this situation. Heck. This is the guy who has befriended the MitD. So it's not like "give people the chance to be a better version of themselves" isn't already firmly entrenched is his personality. But yeah, he always leaves the decsion and action up to the other person. Belkar is free to decide he just hates the poor and therefore wont cook for them. He's also free to not take the kitchen job in prison and maybe do laundry all day instead. O'Chul doesn't care in terms of how this affects Belkar (aside from maybe hoping that "doing things for others" may lead to a redemptive path). He cares in terms of how it affects others who may benefit from Belkar's skills. But what actually happens is entirely up to Belkar.


Uh. It's all pretty irrelevant anyway (other than establishing some characterization bits). We have no clue if/when Azure City will ever be restored, and it's a really good bet Belkar wont be around to serve out the rest of his sentence anyway.

Would that I could have put it so well.

[dancrilis]

Belkar, a halfling with a speed of 20 ft, gets Barbarian's Fast Movement, which increases his speed by 10 feet to a total of 30 feet. This puts him on the same level as Vaarsuvius, Elan, and Haley, all of whom see Roy as a leader and obey his commands, if issued. Not even including magical help.

They would be able to get him if he didn't want to be got.

I was specifically referring to the paladins and Roy's ability to capture Belkar - in that scenario the odds I would say are on Belkar's side to get away.

If you mean the paladins and the Orders ability then yes that would favour the Order.

I also have my doubts that if Belkar survives the story, and then decides to avoid jail that Roy would consider it his job to force him to spend a year in jail for a sentance that Roy initially tried to get him out of (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) - I think Roy might be more interested in helping Elan deal with his father (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html) and he might even consider helping Belkar avoid jail if he stays in the party for that new adventure especially given that he doesn't think jails can hold Belkar (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)).

I kindof agree with Roy on that - Belkar is likely only going to be spending a year in jail if he chooses to spend a year in jail.

[Peelee]

I was specifically referring to the paladins and Roy's ability to capture Belkar - in that scenario the odds I would say are on Belkar's side to get away.

Well, sure, if we want to remove players for no reason other than to get that specific result. I don't much see the point of that, though.

Also, the Azurite jail held Belkar pretty well, even without an antimagic field. Their only flaw was not conductive a thorough search. Either options being exercised seems like it would do well to hold him. Roy's opinion is only that.

[dancrilis]

Well, sure, if we want to remove players for no reason other than to get that specific result. I don't much see the point of that, though.

It was the scenario I was responding too:

Between the paladins and Roy, Belkar doesn't really have much option. He could try to run away. Probably wouldn't work.

Had you wrote 'Between the paladins and the rest of the Order' I likely wouldn't have responded (or would have responded differently at least).



Also, the Azurite jail held Belkar pretty well, even without an antimagic field. Their only flaw was not conductive a thorough search. Either options being exercised seems like it would do well to hold him. Roy's opinion is only that.

It held him for less time then the party rogue got held for, the flaw that got exploited was not conducting such a search - we don't know what other flaws it might have had.

I am inclined to give Roy the benefit of the doubt about his thoughts on how his world works (particularly when the Deva doesn't offer any better alternatives then what he came up with).

[Kaed]

These threads are so weird sometimes, on the tangents they go off into. What started as someone confusedly trying to ask why the paladins are able to associate with Belkar has apparently spiraled off into long discussions of how and why the party would pursue Belkar and if the paladins have jurisdiction to arrest Belkar at all. Not to mention prolonged arguments about abusive relationships...

[Going Hereward]

I believe in the final dungeon this what you call a death flag.

[Peelee]

It was the scenario I was responding too:


Had you wrote 'Between the paladins and the rest of the Order' I likely wouldn't have responded (or would have responded differently at least).

Fair.

It held him for less time then the party rogue got held for, the flaw that got exploited was not conducting such a search - we don't know what other flaws it might have had.
Belkar was, and only escaped because he had a magic item and wasn't in an antimagic field. Even then, he could only escape during specific times, since the padlocks on the door were more than enough. The party rogue could escape on her own with no irems needed. Belkar needed the item, and also needed to know it still worked.

Also, the entire reason Belkar joined the Order was to escape justice, which isnt really needed if you can just escape.


Roy also was of the opinion that jumping on the dragon to fight Xykon was a good idea. Roy isn't always right, and that the deva didnt see value in getting into the weeds with him on that isn't really relevant since she went to the heart of the matter anyway.

[brian 333]

I believe in the final dungeon this what you call a death flag.

I think OotS goes beyond Serini's gate. This is not yet to the halfway point in number of pages as the earlier books, and each published book was longer than the previous one, (excepting the prequels, of course.)

[Joebob]

Belkar still didn't apologize for any of his crimes, sans trying to kill Elan for EXP.


Actually, I can think of another one he apologized for, off the top of my head: hitting Durkon with a palm tree.

[dxm2000]

He could definitely escape, but we're long past any point where it's reasonable to do so: the Godsmoot made it clear that Serini's Gate is a do or die scenario.

[...]

The only good option here is 1, so he's taking it. If he had left before the godsmoot, probably just after the Greysky City affair, That would have been one thing, but he stayed. Now he's all in and he knows it.

I'd argue that it's not so much that "he's all in and he knows it" as "he's all in and he chose it". Belkar, knowing the kind of person Roy is, and Durkon is, and their paladin allies, and so on, knows that-- should the world survive and no one else kicks the can --there are high percentage odds that he's going to jail. But he's willing, because in spite of everything, he cares. He cares if the world goes down, sure. The world is his oyster, and he can't abide someone taking it from him. But even if he knew that the world was going to be okay, he'd be sad(okay, maybe pissed is more accurate) if Durkon died, or Roy broke, or Haley fell apart. Heck, I'm pretty sure he'd be upset if V, who actively antagonizes him died. (I mean, he felt bad about disappointing a girl to whom he had no attachment, just because he had a positive interaction)

Given the pre-Azure Belkar, yeah, I'd say "he's all in and he knows it" is correct, but I think the moment he didn't abandon the party between the priest of Loki curing him and the desert, was the moment where he stopped putting all his eggs in "I'm doing this for myself" and started putting some in "it would be bad if some other people were hurt too". Though that doesn't stop him being terrible :belkar:

[Fishman]

I've always understood it to be they can't associate with him in the sense of going with him and allowing him to do evil things.
Well, firstly, they're not actually associating with him, since they're not members of party, merely temporarily-encountered/attached NPCs. Second, they don't know he's evil, as paladins have already tried to detect evil on him, and gotten No Reading.

[Flibbert]

Looks like Belkar is slowly losing a few kilonazis, still well into the Southern region of the alignment spectrum, but heading in the right direction.

[Liquor Box]

Given Belkar isn't currently in Azure territory, what authority do Hinjo or his paladins have over him

You can even make the argument that the nation where Belkar committed his crimes do no longer exist as such.

In the real world, a country would be able to arrest someone who had broken its own laws in a place like the north pole. Most countries laws allow them to arrest people anywhere they want, but that is subject to international treaties recognising the rights of other sovereign countries with respect to their own borders. That's why countries can arrest pirates in international waters.


It's not going to. Lien doesn't say that she'll arrange for Belkar to get the job of prison cook, she merely says that he will be able to easily get it if he wants to.

Yes, nothing wrong with what Lien said. That was just a helpful suggestion. It was O-Chul saying that he would intervene that I think was suboptimal.


He wouldn't be. He would be getting it because hes a good chef, and thus would likely get it anyway. This just expedites the process by letting people know in advance. If he actually had run a restaurant before being thrown in prison, he would likely similarly get a kitchen job.

This isnt corruption or favoritism in any way. This is efficiency. That's it.


Maybe he would have got it anyway because he;s a good cook. If so, there'd be no need for O-Chul to go to a ruler of the nation and suggest he tell whoever runs the prison to make Belkar a cook.


Your "should" is Incorrect. There is a mechanism called "sentence reduced for good behavior" so special treatment is a thing. That system / mechanism is well known in the social context that the author is familiar with, even if it isn't known to you.

Having your sentence reduced for good behaviour, or being eligable for parole before your sentence finished is not special treatment. It is available to all prisoners depending on their circumstances (such as the nature of their sentence and their crime). It is very different from relying on your connections to get one job or another.

[MReav]

Maybe he would have got it anyway because he;s a good cook. If so, there'd be no need for O-Chul to go to a ruler of the nation and suggest he tell whoever runs the prison to make Belkar a cook.

O-Chul is more offering to talk to Hinjo to about putting Belkar on the equivalent of a work-release program to help out at a soup kitchen or refugee camp. Belkar's talents can help far more people in that position. If making Belkar's life less crummy helps incentivize him to help the suffering populace of Azure City, he won't object to it.

[Peelee]

Maybe he would have got it anyway because he;s a good cook. If so, there'd be no need for O-Chul to go to a ruler of the nation and suggest he tell whoever runs the prison to make Belkar a cook.
Except O-Chul is not suggesting that. O-Chul is suggesting that the prison make use of Belkar's skills to help feed the free Azurite populace as part of Belkar's punishment, which is not something a prison cook typically does. That Belkar may like doing so is immaterial to O-Chul's suggestion; he simply doesn't object to it.

It seems like your argument is based on the idea that using a prisoner's skills to help the general population should not be done if the prisoner gets any sort of satisfaction or enjoyment out of it. Whether you mean to take this position or not, I wholeheartedly disagree.

[The MunchKING]

Well, firstly, they're not actually associating with him, since they're not members of party, merely temporarily-encountered/attached NPCs. Second, they don't know he's evil, as paladins have already tried to detect evil on him, and gotten No Reading.

That Detect Evil didn't work doesn't prevent them from using basic observation skills and intelligence.

[Swiftbow]

I mean, that's the joke, but I'm not sure that what Belkar said justifies it outside of Belkar's own head. ("I can waste it instead", anyone")

Also, this is where D&D paladin RAW gets sketchy-stupid - at what point, REGARDLESS of motication, do paladins fall simply by associating with a CE character?

The chaotic evil character has to do chaotic evil things in their presence. They can fall if they then do nothing about it.

Simply BEING chaotic evil is meaningless. It's actions that matter.

[BloodSquirrel]

Simply BEING chaotic evil is meaningless. It's actions that matter.

This opens up the question of whether a character can be chaotic evil if they don't actually do anything chaotic evil. IE, does a character who would commit mass murder if given the chance just for fun but can't because they're a quadriplegic qualify as chaotic evil?

[Peelee]

This opens up the question of whether a character can be chaotic evil if they don't actually do anything chaotic evil. IE, does a character who would commit mass murder if given the chance just for fun but can't because they're a quadriplegic qualify as chaotic evil?

Many years ago I formulated an example of this. I call it "Darth Vader at the beach".

Darth Vader kills just a bunch of people. Adults, kids, his own military commanders, just wanton slaughter. Clearly Evil. Now, the Death Star blows up, he flies away, but he just decides to retire. He goes to a beach and sips space mai-tais through a special straw that works with his helmet, why not. Reads a book on a towel. Watches the sunset. Basically, just Darth Vader on a beach. He never expresses any remorse or guilt for his many, many crimes. He just stops doing them, because hey, he's at the beach.

How many days would pass until you would say, "OK, he's no longer Evil. If this was D&D, he'd go to one of the Neutral afterlives now"? At what point would you be comfortable saying that?

[brian 333]

This opens up the question of whether a character can be chaotic evil if they don't actually do anything chaotic evil. IE, does a character who would commit mass murder if given the chance just for fun but can't because they're a quadriplegic qualify as chaotic evil?

Non-action does not cause alignment drift. There is no external pressure pushing alignments toward neutral. Only actions can change alignment, so a Good or an Evil character rendered incapable of acting remains Good or Evil.

Suppose there is a serial killer who eludes arrest, is never punished, and never seeks redemption. This Evil person is in a tragic accident and becomes a quadriplegic. This hypothetical person is still Evil, not because he cannot move, but because he is unwilling to show contrition. Even an immobilized person can act. He may never be able to ladel soup to feed the hungry, but at the very least he can feel remorse for what he did.

[MReav]

. He goes to a beach and sips space mai-tais through a special straw that works with his helmet, why not. Reads a book on a towel. Watches the sunset. Basically, just Darth Vader on a beach. He never expresses any remorse or guilt for his many, many crimes. He just stops doing them, because hey,

Insert joke about being surrounded by sand would be Darth Vader's idea of hell, therefore this is him punishing himself.

[Peelee]

Insert joke about being surrounded by sand would be Darth Vader's idea of hell, therefore this is him punishing himself.

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/0a6/d83/8ceca4122490e778386663a5d9cdd5cbaf-andor.2x.rsocial.w600.jpg

[BloodSquirrel]

Non-action does not cause alignment drift. There is no external pressure pushing alignments toward neutral. Only actions can change alignment, so a Good or an Evil character rendered incapable of acting remains Good or Evil.

Suppose there is a serial killer who eludes arrest, is never punished, and never seeks redemption. This Evil person is in a tragic accident and becomes a quadriplegic. This hypothetical person is still Evil, not because he cannot move, but because he is unwilling to show contrition. Even an immobilized person can act. He may never be able to ladel soup to feed the hungry, but at the very least he can feel remorse for what he did.

You're assuming he committed his crimes before the accident. What if it happened when he was five years old?

The question is whether someone who has all of the same personality traits as a serial killer, and differs only in that they lack the opportunity to kill someone, is still evil.

[Ruck]

As far as I know, the first cheeses were found by stone age hunters in the stomachs of young game (as you may know, most cheeses require rennet, a stuff from the stomachs of calves etc, to be made). And if it's in a stomach, you'll probably assume that it's at least edible.

Huh, you know, I don't think I knew that. I knew that rennet was important for cheese, but, uh, I didn't actually know what it was, either.

[brian 333]

Actions can be non-physical. Assuming the person is filled with rage and hate for many years, then yes, he can become Chaotic Evil. The question is one of agency. What can this person do? If the limit of his ability to act is to think, then obsessive murder fantasy may have an effect. It depends.

Alignment is a role-playing tool, designed for characters who are active agents. The victim we are describing would be a horrible PC. Unless he is a criminal mastermind or something, would his alignment matter?

And as for alignment as a descriptor of real world psychology and morality, it would be very much like actually rolling a d20 to find out if you make it to work or get in a car crash along the way. Game mechanics do not relate to real world experiences very well. Or at all.

[Tzardok]

I would say that alignment is a mixture of actions and outlook/intentions. Some evil people who are by their circumstances "forced" to act good may stew in resentment, making them more evil, while others, like Belkar, discover a sense of empathy and introspection.



Huh, you know, I don't think I knew that. I knew that rennet was important for cheese, but, uh, I didn't actually know what it was, either.

Nowadays a lots of cheese use rennet produced by microbes, which is good for vegetarians (getting calve rennet requires slaughtering the animal, so "traditional" cheese is non-vegetarian (my mother is a vegetarian; our family thinks about stuff like that when shopping)).

[Laurentio III]

Non-action does not cause alignment drift. There is no external pressure pushing alignments toward neutral. Only actions can change alignment, so a Good or an Evil character rendered incapable of acting remains Good or Evil.

Suppose there is a serial killer who eludes arrest, is never punished, and never seeks redemption. This Evil person is in a tragic accident and becomes a quadriplegic. This hypothetical person is still Evil, not because he cannot move, but because he is unwilling to show contrition. Even an immobilized person can act. He may never be able to ladel soup to feed the hungry, but at the very least he can feel remorse for what he did.
So, I mass-murder a whole town because a inn wench refused to sleep with me. Immediately after kebabbing the last infant, I look back and I fell immediate remorse. I resolve to amend this terrible act, then I deeply understand that it will require all my life, devotion and resource. Immediately a flying debris kills me on the spot.
Which afterlife do I get?

[Kish]

Well, firstly, they're not actually associating with him, since they're not members of party, merely temporarily-encountered/attached NPCs. Second, they don't know he's evil, as paladins have already tried to detect evil on him, and gotten No Reading.

That Detect Evil didn't work doesn't prevent them from using basic observation skills and intelligence.
Also, that Miko's Detect Evil was blocked by a lead sheet does not grant Belkar permanent immunity to Detect Evil from all paladins forever.

(Nor, much as she would appreciate being called such, was she plural paladins.)

[Peelee]

That Detect Evil didn't work doesn't prevent them from using basic observation skills and intelligence.

What have they observed him to do that was worse than, say, Gannji and Enor? Not to mention Lein used basic observation and intelligence to determine that Therkla was evil, so we know that basic observation and intelligence can lead one to the wrong conclusion regarding alignment.

[brian 333]

So, I mass-murder a whole town because a inn wench refused to sleep with me. Immediately after kebabbing the last infant, I look back and I fell immediate remorse. I resolve to amend this terrible act, then I deeply understand that it will require all my life, devotion and resource. Immediately a flying debris kills me on the spot.
Which afterlife do I get?

Reducing an issue to the point of absurdity gives absurd results, but I shall try.

In the above example, the question is one of sincerity. What would have happened had the person lived? Would this person have walked into a police station, confessed his crimes, and accepted punishment? Would he have thereafter spent his life attempting to make ammends and perform restitution? Would he have truly accepted responsibility for his previous acts and lived a life of responsibility?

Deathbed conversions can be sincere. It may be very rare, but it can happen. All characters can change.

Let's flip your example: I live a Good life doing good deeds and being a responsible member of society. An inn wench sleeps with me and I resolve to murder the guards at a jewelry store and steal all the diamonds for her. As I am about to murder the first guard, a maid dumps a chamber pot out of an upstairs window, splattering me. I stagger into the road only to be crushed by a piano which falls from a broken rope as movers try to lift it into a second story window. Which afterlife do I get?

(Besides endless reruns on the UHF startup channel in your market.)

[Laurentio III]

Reducing an issue to the point of absurdity gives absurd results, but I shall try.
It's a discussion based on a arbitrary and compartmentalized moral compass in a game. In real life you don't have a simple moral coded in nine nice slots, you have a infinite range of gradiant.
Plus, in real life you don't a verified afterlife (we are not discussing it here) where you are judged by fixed rules and assigned to a premade plane of existance.
Mind, it's the same system where you have a lifting weight maximal that is a perfect multiple of 15 pounds. Always.
So I get that it's a stupid question in real life, but it's a typical situation (well, not typical, but not unlikely) in a game where the player can say "My character doesn't believe what he sees because I say so, so he is rolling to disbelieve."

In real life the answer would be "Does it matter? People is still dead, who cares about your last minute spark of decency?".

[Kish]

So I get that it's a stupid question in real life, but it's a typical situation (well, not typical, but not unlikely) in a game where the player can say "My character doesn't believe what he sees because I say so, so he is rolling to disbelieve."
What does AD&D have to do with it?

("Announce you don't believe in the illusion and roll to disbelieve" went the way of the dodo along with nonhuman class restrictions. If 5ed brought them back I don't want to know.)

[Laurentio III]

What does AD&D have to do with it?
I'm lost. We are discussing alignment change requirement as a side topic of Belkar's run for a better ethic?
Useful reminder on the internet: I'm not trying to win a discussion. If I'm wrong I'm wrong.


("Announce you don't believe in the illusion and roll to disbelieve" went the way of the dodo along with nonhuman class restrictions. If 5ed brought them back I don't want to know.)
I admit I'm stuck at 3.5/Pathfinder. I played 4th once, laughed at it and never looked 5th or Beyond. Mostly because I play AMMO or Champions when possible.

[Kish]

I thought the parenthetical would make what I was saying clear if it was unclear.

Guessing at what confused you: AD&D has two editions: 1st and 2nd. 3.5 and everything past it, where if you say "I want to roll to disbelieve what I'm seeing" the expected answer from the DM is something like, "and I want a pony" or, less sarcastically, "if you think what you're seeing is an illusion, feel free to describe how you test it; are you sticking your head in the dragon's mouth? But simply concentrating on how much you don't believe it does nothing," is simply D&D.

[Tzardok]

I thought the parenthetical would make what I was saying clear if it was unclear.

Guessing at what confused you: AD&D has two editions: 1st and 2nd. 3.5 and everything past it, where if you say "I want to roll to disbelieve what I'm seeing" the expected answer from the DM is something like, "and I want a pony" or, less sarcastically, "if you think what you're seeing is an illusion, feel free to describe how you test it; are you sticking your head in the dragon's mouth? But simply concentrating on how much you don't believe it does nothing," is simply D&D.

Uhm, 3.5 illusions still have Will (disbelieve) in their descriptions. Sure, you need to actually interact with it/have cause to think it's fake, but the disbelieve roll still exists.


So, I mass-murder a whole town because a inn wench refused to sleep with me. Immediately after kebabbing the last infant, I look back and I fell immediate remorse. I resolve to amend this terrible act, then I deeply understand that it will require all my life, devotion and resource. Immediately a flying debris kills me on the spot.
Which afterlife do I get?

According to Fiendish Codex 2, Lawful Evil people who recognize their damnation, but die before they can start redeeming themselves, get a special corner in Hell where they are tortured by the realization of their missed opportunity. Make of that what you will; FC 2 is sometimes weird.

[Jay R]

Most D&D mechanics are overly simplistic, because the behavior we’re trying to simulate is far more complex than anything you can re-create with a few die rolls. This is true of die rolls, diplomacy checks, attacks, hit points, and a lot of other things.

And it’s also true of the nine-way alignment system.

All attempts to understand how it simulates human behavior fail at the same point, which is: it doesn’t. Human behavior is far, far more complex than that.

Many of the questions being asked here are unanswerable, primarily because there are lots of different possibilities for each one.

How can I know what the consequences would be for a CE murderer who retired to a beach? I can’t even tell what the consequences of my own ordinary actions today will be. The one thing I’m sure of is this: If 100 CE murderers retired to a beach, there would be 100 different results.

So what happens in a game? The DM makes a judgment call, based on everything s/he knows about the situation, the character’s entire history up to now, some factors the players don’t even know, and possibly a die roll.

This means that if 100 CE characters retire to a beach in 100 different games, then they would have 100 different results…


… which is the most realistic result possible.

[Laurentio III]

I thought the parenthetical would make what I was saying clear if it was unclear.

Guessing at what confused you: AD&D has two editions: 1st and 2nd. 3.5 and everything past it, where if you say "I want to roll to disbelieve what I'm seeing" the expected answer from the DM is something like, "and I want a pony" or, less sarcastically, "if you think what you're seeing is an illusion, feel free to describe how you test it; are you sticking your head in the dragon's mouth? But simply concentrating on how much you don't believe it does nothing," is simply D&D.
Oh, I just misundestood.
I don't know the exact rule. On my table, "I disbelief" is usually acted as in "I just ignore it (maybe laughing) and go on whatever I was doing before the illusion came up". So if you disbelieve a charging dragon, you ignore it and keep doing what you were doing. If the dragon is real... sucks to be you.
Some game (in D&D not basic illusions, if I recall correctly) has it more deep, as you can take damage by believing you got damage, but you don't take damage if you don't believe you got it... unless it's real, obviously.

Anyway, it was not really the topic, just a bad example pn my part. What I was asking is an opinion about redemption and alignment change.
Let's say you are evil and acted evil.
To say, you enjoy eating babies.
At one point of your life...
• You stop eating babies for health reasons, and don't indulge in any other evil act by laziness and lack of opportunity. You keep wishing you could eat one more infant, but your doctor advised you to not. You die in old age of gout.
• You stop eating babies because you feel it's wrong, and don't indulge in any other evil act because you want to turn a leaf. You spend the rest of your life just reading and having small chat with neighbors who are not aware of your previous life. You die old and respected as a reclusive but polite person.
• You stop eating babies, are deeply disgusted by your horrible act and go out to turn yourself to authorities, donate everything you own to the families from which you kidnapped your lunches, and spend your whole life to help others. You die as a very controverse public figure.
• All of the previous, but while you open your front door the father of your last night dinner shoot you in the face. You die despised and your killer get a light sentence.

Bonus: you keep eating babies because you just can't resiste the urge, but you know you are doing an evil act and pray to God to raise you of your mental illness.

[Doug Lampert]

You're assuming he committed his crimes before the accident. What if it happened when he was five years old?

The question is whether someone who has all of the same personality traits as a serial killer, and differs only in that they lack the opportunity to kill someone, is still evil.

In D&D land they are clearly evil. A chromatic dragon hatches from the egg Evil, it has not at that point committed any evil actions.

Greg (Durkula, whatever name you like) was also clearly evil (and by the book evil) when he came into existence prior to committing any actions.

Alignment is about attitudes, but for a game, attitudes (especially of player characters) are expressed through actions, so we judge alignment via actions, but the determining factor in universe is the attitudes, else that red dragon couldn't hatch already evil but with the option to change later if it wants to.

[BloodSquirrel]

Reducing an issue to the point of absurdity gives absurd results, but I shall try.


The point of this kind of philosophical question is to ensure that your ideas are rigorous enough to handle edge cases. If your principles are solid, they should be able to hold up to extreme examples (although extreme circumstances to often lead to extreme results). These cases are also usually deliberately constructed to pit your intuitive responses against your rational responses to see which one wins out.

Personally, I think that someone's alignment (or just whether they're 'evil' or 'impatient' or whatever personality trait you might be talking about) is who they are, and what they do is the consequent of it. In practical reality, we often have to look at people's actions to judge their personalities, because we don't have a magical means to get inside their head and read their inner thoughts. But we also know that serial killers are often very good at hiding their psychotic tendencies, and that sociopaths can be very good at manipulating people into thinking that they're virtuous and caring. Even for more mundane personality traits, people will often show or hide them depending on their circumstances. If you're at work in a corporate office setting, you're probably going to behave differently than if you're at the pub. You're not suddenly a different human being at the pub; you're merely responding to a different environment where different behaviors are considered appropriate.

To the example given above, I would break it down into three things:

1) Such a thing is probably impossible in the first place. One of the built-in conceits of "evil is who you are" is that your actions are not random, and that if someone didn't feel guilty after the first 100 people he murders, he's not going to suddenly feel guilty when he murders the 101st. It's kind of like asking if someone who spent their entire lives struggling to figure out basic addition but suddenly figured out how to do advanced calculus on their deathbed is 'smart'. If you think that there is enough predictability and permanency to someone's personality to say that they can be something like "smart" or "evil" in the first place, then you also have to think that such predictability and permanency precludes certain behavioral possibilities.

You could construct some kind of scenario where you attempt to justify the incredibly sudden change in personality, but such a thing would reveal the artifice behind the question. If someone was hit in the head by a piece of shrapnel which destroyed the part of their brain that was causing their evil impulses and stimulated the part of their brain that causes them to feel empathy, they'd almost be a different human being at that point.

2) How someone feels in a moment where they are not in a position to act in a way that would have severe consequences is often quite different from how they would feel in a moment when they are. People regularly resolve to do things in the heat of the moment that they won't follow up on, and they themselves are usually not self-aware enough to know whether or not they will, for example, actually go to the police station tomorrow.

Or, to put it another way: who you are is more than just whatever surface-level emotion you're feeling at the moment. Your last-moment resolution to change your life doesn't mean anything, not just because you haven't taken those actions yet, but because it's not actually indicative of whether you would have taken those actions or not. Is your aggression and sadism actually gone, or are you just temporarily out of targets?

3) What afterlife you go to is not a strict alignment test. If you're a dwarf who never commits a single evil or even mean act in your entire life and you die of pneumonia your soul goes to Hel. Roy had a deva interviewing him and making a judgment call based on her own beliefs. Redcloak, if he was killed right now, would presumably go to the Dark One.

*Who someone is can change over time, of course, and can be affected by what they do. Someone who murders someone once and is rewarded for it can become more comfortable with it and grow more egotistical/less empathetic over time.

[Laurentio III]

You could construct some kind of scenario where you attempt to justify the incredibly sudden change in personality, but such a thing would reveal the artifice behind the question.
Steve is a serial killer with a prolific streak. Until he is one inch from killing a young woman who reminds him his beloved niece.
"People Is mean and cruel, so they deserves to die. But I would suffer so much if someone kills Jennifer, who is innocent and kind to me. Maybe people suffered because I killed so many victims? Oh Heaven, may I be wrong all this time?"

Still far-fetched, just less than accidental brain surgery.

[BriarHobbit]

This strip was very entertaining. It's nice to see the characters interact.

[Peelee]

With this whole train of thought anout evil people who decide to stop, i would love to yet again recommend one of my favorite movies ever, In Bruges. The entire film is an exploration of redemption, and whether it can be achieved at all. It is DELIGHTFUL.

[BloodSquirrel]

Steve is a serial killer with a prolific streak. Until he is one inch from killing a young woman who reminds him his beloved niece.
"People Is mean and cruel, so they deserves to die. But I would suffer so much if someone kills Jennifer, who is innocent and kind to me. Maybe people suffered because I killed so many victims? Oh Heaven, may I be wrong all this time?"

Still far-fetched, just less than accidental brain surgery.

But in this case, he's only refraining from murdering one person because she looks like Martha his niece. It doesn't sound like a permanent change in his personality. And it's not like a serial killer doesn't realize that other people are suffering. They're usually sadistic, so the suffering is a large part of the point.

Whether the shrapnel is far-fetched or accidental is beside the point; the point is that it's an example of what would be required to affect such a sudden and radical change in someone's personality.

[bunsen_h]

How can I know what the consequences would be for a CE murderer who retired to a beach? I can’t even tell what the consequences of my own ordinary actions today will be. The one thing I’m sure of is this: If 100 CE murderers retired to a beach, there would be 100 different results.

It sounds like a premise for a ghastly exploitive TV series, say Criminal Minds: Miami. Like Baywatch but much, much gorier.

[brian 333]

The game mechanic is not real, and only vaguely resembles anything real. I will stipulate that:

Redemptions happen. In game a DM decides if a particular redemption is authentic. It really does not matter if you or I believe the redemption was authentic. That is a separate issue called Forgiveness, which has nothing to do with whether the subject was redeemed or not. Only an omniscient being can determine the validity of a real world redemption, and our opinion on the issue is similarly unimportant.

[Laurentio III]

And it's not like a serial killer doesn't realize that other people are suffering. They're usually sadistic, so the suffering is a large part of the point.
Oh no. See, Steve was cruelly mocked during adolescence for entering a Magic the Gathering tournament with an all-blue deck, and the scornful event escalated to all tables until the organizers had to ban him from partecipating in order to stop the commotion.
So he grew into a powerful delusions of grandeur mixed with inadeguacy feelings, and started killing people under the premise that humans are all evil and the less there are, the better. He doesn't consider it cruel, as he dehumanized everyone but himself and the only reason he doesn't act openly is to avoid carceration.
His niece, who is of a very specific age range so that is both naive and innocent and an excellent Magic the Gathering player, found his old deck and asked him to explain her how it works. While Steve didn't care for her, he liked to showoff his perceived mastery of the game. So much, that he allowed her to keep the deck of cards. She used it in a actual tournament and won first price, that is even more impressive considering cards were several years old and possibly sub-par.
For this reason Steve decided that Jessica was the only decent person in the world, but being anaffective and possibly insane he didn't ever explored the feeling of belonging and confort he started proving when in her presence. That, until he had a passing through of her dying which allowed him to consider, for the first time in since he was a child, that people can be missed.
Mind, is not that Steve is convinced that humans (who he still considers mean vindicative animals) can't sincerely grief. He just never felt grief for anyone - because he doesn't care others - and doesn't believe anyone saying that they are sad when someone is gone.
But, this is still a new element that he can't ignore and will haunt everytimes he kills, until he will be unable to continue.

[BloodSquirrel]

Oh no. See, Steve was cruelly mocked during adolescence for entering a Magic the Gathering tournament with an all-blue deck, and the scornful event escalated to all tables until the organizers had to ban him from partecipating in order to stop the commotion.
So he grew into a powerful delusions of grandeur mixed with inadeguacy feelings, and started killing people under the premise that humans are all evil and the less there are, the better. He doesn't consider it cruel, as he dehumanized everyone but himself and the only reason he doesn't act openly is to avoid carceration.
His niece, who is of a very specific age range so that is both naive and innocent and an excellent Magic the Gathering player, found his old deck and asked him to explain her how it works. While Steve didn't care for her, he liked to showoff his perceived mastery of the game. So much, that he allowed her to keep the deck of cards. She used it in a actual tournament and won first price, that is even more impressive considering cards were several years old and possibly sub-par.
For this reason Steve decided that Jessica was the only decent person in the world, but being anaffective and possibly insane he didn't ever explored the feeling of belonging and confort he started proving when in her presence. That, until he had a passing through of her dying which allowed him to consider, for the first time in since he was a child, that people can be missed.
Mind, is not that Steve is convinced that humans (who he still considers mean vindicative animals) can't sincerely grief. He just never felt grief for anyone - because he doesn't care others - and doesn't believe anyone saying that they are sad when someone is gone.
But, this is still a new element that he can't ignore and will haunt everytimes he kills, until he will be unable to continue.

Okay, neat story, but I'm not sure what your point is. Steve is... very, very slightly more capable of empathy now? But he's still killing people? That's not exactly a philosophically difficult call to make; he's clearly still evil.

[Vikenlugaid]

It may well be a standard prison job that he is well suited for. But I don't think people should be getting more favourable standard prison jobs because they are connected.



I don't think any cities hunger problems are caused by the lack of a good gourmet cook. It may be that azure city uses prisoners for labour (as many olden times prisons did), and part of this is cooking for the homeless. But the strip clearly says that cooking is the best job in the prison, and Belkar's connections with the paladins (with the intervention of the leader no less) shouldn't be the reason Belkar gets it.
Well, if a prisoner who is literally risking his life to save the world can't get just a little prize while staying in prison...

[Precure]

Lien: (Ignoring that it might be surprise, because, you know, Roy is wearing the same expression, heck Belkar is) ...Cool, except, words, not actions. Miko was universally disliked. The horse may've been disliked by proxy or she could've assumed he hated it because it hurt him for Miko. It's a familiar, and depending on interpretation, its death might be considered minor. Character deaths are considered humour material in this world, and familiar deaths in D&D are less permanent than the already impermanent character deaths, therefore are also likely considered humour material.

Ochul: Threatened to "gut him with his hands" if Belkar ever specifically throws someone to the wolves to save his own skin. None of which indicates that Belkar is pro-casual murder. It indicates, at best, that he assumes that Belkar is capable of such cowardice again... which is also true of a lot of non-criminals.

Your hypothetical versions of both Lien and O-Chul seems pretty terrible people to me (being okay with murder of a horse because she disliked its rider? Threatening to gut a person because he was a coward?) and they wouldn't deserve paladinhood.


Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that both paladins have been exhaustively briefed on all Belkar's crimes, even the ones Roy doesn't know about himself.

How do you get from there to "it's wrong for Lien to suggest he should ask for a job in the prison kitchen"? Since you apparently don't want to own that you're arguing that people who have done wrong should suffer without mercy. Redemption is a central facet of Good, particularly O-Chul's form of Good.

Point is, Belkar don't deserve redemption. Redemption is a special thing (tm) it's for people who supposed to be apologetic. Belkar doesn't fit the bill, and those paladins don't have any reason to believe he's not a terrible criminal with blood on his hands and no guilt or regrets on his heart.


As O-Chul said, it wouldn't be "Lord Hinjo, I think you should go easier on this halfling I met a couple times who threw me at Monster-san the first time"--it would be "Lord Hinjo, we have many hungry citizens who have been through brutal slavery and deserve to eat well, and I happen to know where you can find a really good cook."

I don't think gourmet food is something necessary for these Azurites, at least not necessary enough to give special treatment to someone like Belkar. And no, don't dare to say there is no special treatment, a guy like Belkar wouldn't has any reason to make food if there is nothing to gain from it.


Actually, I can think of another one he apologized for, off the top of my head: hitting Durkon with a palm tree.

That would be a misdemeanor, I think.


It's my go-to word for referring to any given person. I'll try to stop using it with regards to you.

I've talked with you enough to know that's not the case, but, anyway, fine.


Hello Miko. Didn't expect you to show up here.

If paladins are reduced to being Belkar's pals in blue, then I'll become the Miko we all need slash slash

[Kish]

Point is, Belkar don't deserve redemption.

What a horrible claim.

Even if taking one line from Soon Kim out of context and sticking your own (frankly incomprehensible--"it's for people who supposed to be apologetic") ending on it was valid for Rich, if you've read anything about O-Chul at all, it should be plain that he wouldn't agree with you.



I don't think gourmet food is something necessary for these Azurites, at least not necessary enough to give special treatment to someone like Belkar. And no, don't dare to say there is no special treatment, a guy like Belkar wouldn't has any reason to make food if there is nothing to gain from it.

Imperatives emphasized with "don't dare"? Your priorities are, thankfully, not those of the paladins. "Let the people of Azure City go without, this disgusting person must have no trace of mercy!"--yeah, at this point comparisons to Miko would be unduly positive, really.

If paladins are reduced to being Belkar's pals in blue, then I'll become the Miko we all need slash slash
And no one needs your kind of Miko (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html).

[Mic_128]

Point is, Belkar don't deserve redemption. Redemption is a special thing (tm) it's for people who supposed to be apologetic. Belkar doesn't fit the bill


Not yet.

He has apologised. He has become nicer, and in turn, others have been nicer to him. Imagine Azure City Belkar going into a shop and being given something that would cause him intense pain. He would have killed them and looted the register. Instead, he ended up getting asked out for lunch.

Redemption is a special thing, and it's something he's very clearly working towards. Will he reach it before his time runs out? Hard to tell with some of the twists Rich has done, but I wouldn't be surprised if after development across multiple books, he does end up earning it right at the end, perhaps even with the way he does die.

[Peelee]

I've talked with you enough to know that's not the case

I've been myself long enough to know that is the case. I even use "dude" when talking to my wife. If anyone tells me they don't appreciate it, I'll do my best to keep that in mind in any future interactions with them, but please don't try to tell me that I'm not familiar with my own mannerisms.

[brian 333]

The paladins' observations about Belkar's cooking are not examples of showing favoritism. Prisons routinely make use of the abilities of prisoners. If a prisoner has medical skill he will be put to work in the infirmary. Educated prisoners may be called upon to teach uneducated ones. Skilled craftsmen may be used to perform maintenance and repair on the prison facility. This is not favoritism, it is pragmatism.

[The MunchKING]

Your hypothetical versions of both Lien and O-Chul seems pretty terrible people to me (Threatening to gut a person because he was a coward?) and they wouldn't deserve paladinhood.

I mean he LITERALLY did that one in the comic. I linked to it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html) and everything.

[dxm2000]

Your hypothetical versions of both Lien and O-Chul seems pretty terrible people to me (being okay with murder of a horse because she disliked its rider? Threatening to gut a person because he was a coward?) and they wouldn't deserve paladinhood.

Way... to misrepresent what I said.

Ochul threatened to gut Belkar if he ever put someone in direct risk of death due to cowardice, not threatened to gut him for being a coward. He sounds like a terrible person, because you cut (more than) half the context out.

As for Lien, I said the she could be okay with him saying("Words, not actions.") that he wanted to kill the horse.

It's like someone saying "I'm going to kill that dog", because the neighbour's dog whizzed on your car, scratched up your door, and is barking at 3 AM, except even less serious, because their whole world treats death as a joke that can be reversed at times(and if you want to call her horrible for that, then that should apply to any others who treat death/injury lightly as well), and it was end of comic joke which are acknowledged, in universe to often be punchlines/non-serious. (Belkar himself (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0650.html) points out that "last panel" stuff cannot be taken seriously.)

I further suggested, with the above understanding(that death and/or the statement is treated non-seriously) that she might consider such words(again, not actions) to be acceptable. I reasoned that in combination with the above, she might believe that he had a issue the horse. She might think "Miko and the horse stick together and Miko is awful. Maybe the horse is bad too."(similar to the assumption lots of people might make about the party's association with Belkar(including Miko)) or she might just assume it pissed Belka off.

Either way, prejudice(just like anti-"monster"/monster associate prejudice other paladins might have) or assumption, leads her to accept the words, not the possible actions.

Or.... as I also suggest, maybe she just forgot about it, months later, because there were like 50 other more important things that occurred around the same time, including her lord dying, Miko falling, and invasion, sailing off to sea, protecting her new lord, diplomacy and more.




Point is, Belkar don't deserve redemption. Redemption is a special thing (tm) it's for people who supposed to be apologetic. Belkar doesn't fit the bill, and those paladins don't have any reason to believe he's not a terrible criminal with blood on his hands and no guilt or regrets on his heart.

Those paladins don't have reasons to assume anything about Belkar. He volunteered that he was returning to prison, something that usually people who don't feel guilty, don't do. He was accepted by their lord, who does know his sentence(Manslaughter, of one guard) and trusted to run around across the world with a small party (and no one alive but Hinjo and the party knew of the Mark, which was done under Shojo's orders outside the legal system). Even if he does not deserve redemption(debatable, as he does seem to be trying to be a better person, and trying counts toward alignment), those two have no reason to think so, despite your claims. You've linked nothing that objectively proves they have a reason to see him as "a terrible criminal with blood on his hands and no guilt or regrets on his heart", merely things that might cause them to assume he is either a criminal of some minor description, or a coward.


I don't think gourmet food is something necessary for these Azurites, at least not necessary enough to give special treatment to someone like Belkar. And no, don't dare to say there is no special treatment, a guy like Belkar wouldn't has any reason to make food if there is nothing to gain from it.

Any comfort is good for these Azurites, who have lost everything, and are due some good.

And I dare say there is no (guarantee of) special treatment. On two accounts.

One: You don't know that this uncommon in Azure City, that such sponsorships are not a part of the Azure city justice system. That "a guy like Belkar", marked as a first time offender, in a special situation, who got a two minute trial wouldn't get this kind of treatment. He spent a grand total of two days in jail... before being sentenced. We have no clue what the rest of his stay would be like.

Two: All the other criminals from Azure city are dead, so, unless they picked up more on the boats, it's hard to be special in a group of one. (Also, if he is going to feed anyone, it'll be citizens or himself. The former is more logical.)

As for him having nothing to gain? The old one being unwilling to do so without compensation is likely true, but the new one? Up in the air. Here's the funny thing though, speaking of compensation: That still doesn't guarantee special treatment. Paid prison labour is a system in multiple places IRL.

[Provengreil]

If paladins are reduced to being Belkar's pals in blue, then I'll become the Miko we all need slash slash

Given that you seem to be at odds with everyone in the thread over values judgements and heavy handed morality judgements made over some rather rote interactions, I disagree the future tense of that statement.

[Liquor Box]

O-Chul is more offering to talk to Hinjo to about putting Belkar on the equivalent of a work-release program to help out at a soup kitchen or refugee camp. Belkar's talents can help far more people in that position. If making Belkar's life less crummy helps incentivize him to help the suffering populace of Azure City, he won't object to it.

Yes, I understand that. Lots of real life places now and in history have prisoners completing work around the prison, or on in the community. I think that can be a good idea, I just don't prisoners should secure that sort of program by knowing someone who knows someone.


Except O-Chul is not suggesting that. O-Chul is suggesting that the prison make use of Belkar's skills to help feed the free Azurite populace as part of Belkar's punishment, which is not something a prison cook typically does. That Belkar may like doing so is immaterial to O-Chul's suggestion; he simply doesn't object to it.

It seems like your argument is based on the idea that using a prisoner's skills to help the general population should not be done if the prisoner gets any sort of satisfaction or enjoyment out of it. Whether you mean to take this position or not, I wholeheartedly disagree.

That is not what my argument is based on at all. I don't mind prisoners getting benefit or satisfaction while in prison, nor with them doing things to help the general populaiton. This is the sort of thing that prisoner do at prisons currently, and historically.

I just don't think they should secure those sorts of things by being connected to someone who puts in a good word with the ruler. It's O-Chul's nepotism I object to, not the idea of having a prisoner do work for the community.


Well, if a prisoner who is literally risking his life to save the world can't get just a little prize while staying in prison...

I'd be inclined to give him a complete pardon myself.

[Ruck]

I just don't think they should secure those sorts of things by being connected to someone who puts in a good word with the ruler. It's O-Chul's nepotism I object to, not the idea of having a prisoner do work for the community.

Why does it matter in this case how it happens?


Given that you seem to be at odds with everyone in the thread over values judgements and heavy handed morality judgements made over some rather rote interactions, I disagree the future tense of that statement.

Hahahaha.

[Liquor Box]

Why does it matter in this case how it happens?


Because we weren't talking about whether it's a good idea. We were talking about whether O-Chul did the right thing by saying he'd intervene.

I don't think the parceling out of more or less favourable prison jobs (or any Gov't jobs for that matter) should depend on knowing someone important. It may be that the right call is made anyone (the person who gets the job is good at it), but I still think it's problematic if they got it due to happening to know someone.

[Peelee]

That is not what my argument is based on at all. I don't mind prisoners getting benefit or satisfaction while in prison, nor with them doing things to help the general populaiton. This is the sort of thing that prisoner do at prisons currently, and historically.

I just don't think they should secure those sorts of things by being connected to someone who puts in a good word with the ruler. It's O-Chul's nepotism I object to, not the idea of having a prisoner do work for the community.

It's not what your argument is based on, but it's what your argument effectively is. Because the argument of "an agent of the state reporting to his direct superior with a plan on what to do with a ward of the state is bad because that's nepotism" is frankly so far out there that I'm having trouble so much as grasping for any stable ground for it to stand on. Especially with said state being in tatters, and where we already know that said head of state is also able to adjudicate for the judiciary in any event. Hinjo offers pardons and sentences Belkar. Hinjo would be receiving a full report regardless from O-Chul and Lien when the dust settles. This is no different from a prison guard telling the warden. If you consider that "nepotism", then i cant see how in Liquor Box World any organization could function without engaging in it.

[brian 333]

There is a vast difference between 'getting special treatment' and being recognized for having a useful skill.

Working in the kitchen to feed a large number of people is hard work. I'm fairly sure those of us who have done it can testify that serving three meals a day for three hundred people is a twelve-hour day of very serious labor.

It is not as hard as turning big rocks into little ones.

But neither paladin is suggesting Belkar deserves 'better treatment'. They are recognizing that Belkar has a skill that could be put to use to benefit many others. How this affects Belkar is less important to them than how the system can gain from him. He has to be in prison. Why not make the most of his time?

Or would you consider it favoritism if a guard discovers that one of the prisoners formerly practiced medicine and informed his superior that the prisoner could serve his sentence in the infirmary?

[Kish]

Even if he does not deserve redemption(debatable, as he does seem to be trying to be a better person, and trying counts toward alignment), those two have no reason to think so, despite your claims.
I would not call that debatable: of course everyone who needs redemption deserves it. For man with no forgiveness in heart, life worse punishment than death.

And more to the immediate point, if you picked two random paladins there would be no reason at all to expect them to agree with "I am unforgiving gatekeeper of redemption," and they aren't two random paladins. If you expect O-Chul to be on board with "no, he deserves no mercy, even if that costs the innocent people of Azure City too," you need to read or reread How the Paladin Got his Scar. Especially if you don't like it.

[BloodSquirrel]

I would not call that debatable: of course everyone who needs redemption deserves it.

I'm honestly not sure how you could define "needs" and "deserves" in such a way for that to make any sense.

Redemption isn't something you deserve, it's something that you do.

[Peelee]

I'm honestly not sure how you could define "needs" and "deserves" in such a way for that to make any sense.

Redemption isn't something you deserve, it's something that you do.

In this specific context, i would define "deserves" as "should be able to get it if they want and try for it". Because if someone is so far gone they're past the point of redemption, then why should they bother doing anything except heading even further in the bad direction?

[The MunchKING]

Redemption isn't something you deserve, it's something that you do.

I would describe it as a state you achieve. But that's more a linguistic than philosophical distinction.


You redeem yourself. Therefore, you achieve Redemption.

[BloodSquirrel]

In this specific context, i would define "deserves" as "should be able to get it if they want and try for it". Because if someone is so far gone they're past the point of redemption, then why should they bother doing anything except heading even further in the bad direction?

First off, if they're doing something because someone is providing them with an extrinsic incentive, then it isn't redemption.

Second, while providing prisoners with incentives to behave properly is a practical strategy for managing them and even perhaps figuring out which ones can be redeemed, it's hardly the only strategy, let alone the one that you would employ for those who are genuinely incapable of ever changing for the better.

Case in point: Xykon needs to be destroyed. The last person who gave him a chance to redeem himself wound up as a flying zombie. He doesn't deserve a chance at redemption. Innocent people don't deserve to be put in danger by letting him exist longer than is absolutely necessary in the hope that he'll stop being willfully evil.

[Peelee]

First off, if they're doing something because someone is providing them with an extrinsic incentive, then it isn't redemption.

Second, while providing prisoners with incentives to behave properly is a practical strategy for managing them and even perhaps figuring out which ones can be redeemed, it's hardly the only strategy, let alone the one that you would employ for those who are genuinely incapable of ever changing for the better.

Case in point: Xykon needs to be destroyed. The last person who gave him a chance to redeem himself wound up as a flying zombie. He doesn't deserve a chance at redemption. Innocent people don't deserve to be put in danger by letting him exist longer than is absolutely necessary in the hope that he'll stop being willfully evil.

First off, what's the extrinsic incentive? Belkar and Vaarsuvius, for example, have both shown remorse for past misdeeds, and neither has done so for a better afterlife. Bkth have done so as part of personal growth and genuine feelings of regret.

Second, what do prisoners have to do with redemption? V for example, isn't a prisoner, but sure as hell needs redemption for abandoning their spouse and kids, or for xommitting genocide.

And for the Xykon example, i would back his bid for redemption if he ever tried to earnestly seek it. He won't, of course. But that doesn't mean he should be denied it if he actually tried to be better. That's why Miko was denied it - she didn't want to be better. She just wanted more opportunity to be exactly who she was.

[KorvinStarmast]

Heh that does sound better. I'm honestly surprised I remembered it at all, being something from an ancient comic strip called B.C. Be still, my Hart. :smallwink:

Lien is a pristine example of a minor character done properly. + many.


Yeah. I think there's a bit of conflation of two different things. The first, that he should get a job in the prison kitchen, is not "we'll help you get a job", it's just Lien observing that working in the kitchen is the "best job in prison", and that Belkar should have no trouble getting a job there. That's just her observing that Belkar's skill at cooking will allow him to get that job. It's not forcing him to work there. It's not pulling strings to get him the job. He has the ability to get it all on his own. If he wants to.

The second bit,was couched in the form of a favor. O'chul stated that he could talk to Hinjo to get Belkar to use his talents to feed the hungry. But this is also not about doing Belkar a favor. Heck. Belkar asks the question:

Belkar: "Why would you do that for me"
O'Chul: "I wouldn't"

That's our answer. O'Chul is not doing this to help Belkar. That's not his motivation. He then further explains:

O'Chul: "I would do it for my fellow citizens who deserve to eat well after what they have endured".

That's why he's proposing this. He runs into someone who has time left on a sentence in Azure City, and his thought is how that prisoners talents could be used to help others instead of just rotting away while in prison. Belkar is going to be in prision either way (as you have pointed out multple times), so it's "be in prison and not cook for other people" versus "be in prison and cook for other people". One of those outcomes is better for "other people". And yeah, he then clarifies this as well:

O'Chul: "I simply have no objection if, in the process, your sentence is less onerous"

There's a big difference between saying "I want to make your sentence less onerous" and "I have no objection if your sentence is less onerous". He's basically just saying that he has no particular desire to increase or decrease the difficulty of anyone's punishment, but if a prisoner is willing to help others, and in the process it makes their own condition better, he isn't opposed to it.

That's a far cry from trying to help out Belkar out of some sense of association or favoritism here. He'd presumably have the exact same attitude towards anyone in this situation. Heck. This is the guy who has befriended the MitD. So it's not like "give people the chance to be a better version of themselves" isn't already firmly entrenched is his personality. But yeah, he always leaves the decsion and action up to the other person. Belkar is free to decide he just hates the poor and therefore wont cook for them. He's also free to not take the kitchen job in prison and maybe do laundry all day instead. O'Chul doesn't care in terms of how this affects Belkar (aside from maybe hoping that "doing things for others" may lead to a redemptive path). He cares in terms of how it affects others who may benefit from Belkar's skills. But what actually happens is entirely up to Belkar.


Uh. It's all pretty irrelevant anyway (other than establishing some characterization bits). We have no clue if/when Azure City will ever be restored, and it's a really good bet Belkar wont be around to serve out the rest of his sentence anyway.
I had this in mind, but you said it so well. :smallsmile:

I think OotS goes beyond Serini's gate. This is not yet to the halfway point in number of pages as the earlier books, and each published book was longer than the previous one, (excepting the prequels, of course.) Not gonna bet against.

Having your sentence reduced for good behaviour, or being eligable for parole before your sentence finished is not special treatment. Your absolutist position, your "should", is still wrong. (1) You aren't the world builder, and (2) each place has its own customs and quirks. You also mis represented the situation, as gbaji has so clearly illustrated.

[brian 333]

Everyone deserves redemption. It is a human right, not a bestowed privilege. Whether someone actively seeks it is another question.

But I see a lot of confusion around the concept of forgiveness.

"I would not allow," or "that character does not deserve," to achieve redemption.

It is not your choice. You can neither bestow nor withhold redemption. You can forgive or not. That has nothing to do with the question of redemption. A character can achieve redemption without anyone's forgiveness, and a totally irredeemable character can be forgiven without ever having sought redemption.

Redemption is earned by and wholly internal to the character seeking it.

Forgiveness is bestowed and completely external to the character receiving it.

[Tzardok]

Not quite. You can also forgive yourself (and, I would say, this is a necessary component of achieving redemption).

[BloodSquirrel]

Everyone deserves redemption. It is a human right,

Redemption is earned by and wholly internal to the character seeking it.


This is "People die if they are killed!" levels of not actually saying anything. Again, you can't come up with a coherent definition for "redemption" under which all of these statements can be true.

[bunsen_h]

I'm reminded of the M*A*S*H character Pvt. Paul Conway (https://mash.fandom.com/wiki/Private_Paul_Conway), who was terribly inept as a soldier but highly skilled as a gourmet chef. Nobody was suggesting that he should be released from army service; they just wanted to change his assignment so he could be an army cook, where his skills would be put to the benefit of whatever unit he was with.

EDIT:

This is "People die if they are killed!" levels of not actually saying anything. Again, you can't come up with a coherent definition for "redemption" under which all of these statements can be true.

"A valid-and-true sense that one has made right the various ills that one has done" would work. Though for myself, I'm not convinced that redemption is strictly internal.

[Peelee]

This is "People die if they are killed!" levels of not actually saying anything. Again, you can't come up with a coherent definition for "redemption" under which all of these statements can be true.
I did. You just didn't like it.

I'm reminded of the M*A*S*H character Pvt. Paul Conway (https://mash.fandom.com/wiki/Private_Paul_Conway), who was terribly inept as a soldier but highly skilled as a gourmet chef. Nobody was suggesting that he should be released from army service; they just wanted to change his assignment so he could be an army cook, where his skills would be put to the benefit of whatever unit he was with.

I don't know about gourmet chef, but he was a hell of a drummer before his untimely death. I hear authorities said to best leave it unsolved.

[BloodSquirrel]

First off, what's the extrinsic incentive?

Right here:


Because if someone is so far gone they're past the point of redemption, then why should they bother doing anything except heading even further in the bad direction?

The reason for not heading even further in the bad direction is that you don't want to. Both Belkar and V have found intrinsic motivation to change who they are. That's why they're earning their redemption. Miko didn't. She wanted "redemption" as being loosely defined by you- a thing that deserves if she tries really hard and does a big hero thing. Except that, because she didn't have a genuine desire to change and be a better person, that big hero thing was just another screw-up.




Second, what do prisoners have to do with redemption? V for example, isn't a prisoner, but sure as hell needs redemption for abandoning their spouse and kids, or for xommitting genocide.

Yes, this is clearly the first time prisoners have been mentioned in this thread. There's not context at all here that might explain that relevance...



And for the Xykon example, i would back his bid for redemption if he ever tried to earnestly seek it. He won't, of course. But that doesn't mean he should be denied it if he actually tried to be better.

Okay, so if you had the chance to destroy Xykon right here and now, how many times would he have to promise not to murder anyone else ever again before you decide to let him go and see if he keeps his promise?

[KorvinStarmast]

Everyone deserves redemption. It is a human right, not a bestowed privilege.
Platitudes do not a coherent position make.

[Precure]

What a horrible claim.

Even if taking one line from Soon Kim out of context and sticking your own (frankly incomprehensible--"it's for people who supposed to be apologetic") ending on it was valid for Rich, if you've read anything about O-Chul at all, it should be plain that he wouldn't agree with you.

I wasn't aware that unapologetic people don't deserve redemption was such a "horrible claim". in fact, Rich himself literally denied redemption to Miko due to her being still unapologetic about her mistakes.


Imperatives emphasized with "don't dare"? Your priorities are, thankfully, not those of the paladins. "Let the people of Azure City go without, this disgusting person must have no trace of mercy!"--yeah, at this point comparisons to Miko would be unduly positive, really.

So, would they accept help from Tarquin? I don't think so. In fact, Elan himself didn't accept his father's help for dealing with Xykon because he knew it wouldn't worth it, and I doubt paladins would be more cooperative. So, their priorities isn't that different. And no, giving Belkar special treatment for his cooking skills doesn't make them without mercy. Sending him into prison instead of executing him is meecy enough.


And no one needs your kind of Miko (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html)

I think you linked to the wrong comic?


I mean he LITERALLY did that one in the comic. I linked to it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html) and everything.

No, because, as I argued for, he already know what kind of person Belkar is, and didn't threatened him just because he cowardly left O-Chul behind to save his own skin.


Not yet.

We're talking about current Belkar though.

[The MunchKING]

I think you linked to the wrong comic?

I thought it was comparing your claims to being a Miko to Tarquin's claims of instilling order.

"Everyone needs my kind of stability"


No, because, as I argued for, he already know what kind of person Belkar is, and didn't threatened him just because he cowardly left O-Chul behind to save his own skin.

He SAYS that's what he's threatening Belkar over. What else would he even know about?

The murder of that one guard?

[Bacon Elemental]

Belkar may be an awful person whose natural propensity as a serial killer was interrupted by the discovery that if you call yourself an "adventurer" you can get paid in gold coins for killing people, but the paladins barely know him. Sure, they'd probbably be a lot less chummy if they knew that the angels needed a special chart for measuring his evilness levels, but you can't fault them for not knowing that since that's Roy business.

His actual prison sentence (for killing a guard in an escape attempt) is six years for manslaughter (Commuted from murder 2 due to some fast-talking from Roy and the incredibly dubious circumstances surrounding Shojo, and down to one year for extraordinary services rendered to society), and Lien, who was the one actually being friendly probably doesnt even know that much, just that he's Elan and Durkon's less-than-pleasant halfling friend and is gonna be send to jail afterwards. O-Chul just says that he thinks Belkar's cooking talents could be put to good use and he's not hurt by the idea of Belkar getting off more lightly in the process. `


Also the "best job in the prison" thing wasnt anything to do with string-pulling. It's a recommendation for what to do by Lien based on her knowledge. O-Chul is the only one offering to pull strings here, and he wants Belkar working a soup line for hungry refugees (While also being notably less friendly since he's better informed about Death's lil helper).

[Ruck]

Platitudes do not a coherent position make.

Neither does glib dismissal.

[Kish]

Indeed, I think we're all at axioms. One of Precure's axioms appears to lead, in a single step, to: the paladins are morally wrong not to be treating Belkar like a kind of very large cockroach. And some of us find "[someone] doesn't deserve redemption" a monstrous idea (as well as, I mention again, the entire suggestion that O-Chul would be on board with it a strong contender for most goofy claim posted on this board).

Beyond that, as The MunchKING said, no, I did not link the wrong strip.

[Larsaan]

First off, if they're doing something because someone is providing them with an extrinsic incentive, then it isn't redemption.

Second, while providing prisoners with incentives to behave properly is a practical strategy for managing them and even perhaps figuring out which ones can be redeemed, it's hardly the only strategy, let alone the one that you would employ for those who are genuinely incapable of ever changing for the better.

I feel like I should point out that incentives like this is not just a bribe to facilitate rehabilitation, it is an active part of that rehabilitation. One of the most important things a prison system can do is make sure that the inmates feel like participants in society, rather than enemies of it. Giving them the opportunity to perform fulfilling tasks, learning trades, and letting them feel like the system cares about them as people is integral to making sure they're equipped for being human beings when they're released.

Obviously it's going to be of limited effectiveness when dealing with gleeful cartoon villains like Xykon or pre-Mark Belkar. For most actual humans, though? Turns out doing good feels good.

[Liquor Box]

It's not what your argument is based on, but it's what your argument effectively is. Because the argument of "an agent of the state reporting to his direct superior with a plan on what to do with a ward of the state is bad because that's nepotism" is frankly so far out there that I'm having trouble so much as grasping for any stable ground for it to stand on. Especially with said state being in tatters, and where we already know that said head of state is also able to adjudicate for the judiciary in any event. Hinjo offers pardons and sentences Belkar. Hinjo would be receiving a full report regardless from O-Chul and Lien when the dust settles. This is no different from a prison guard telling the warden. If you consider that "nepotism", then i cant see how in Liquor Box World any organization could function without engaging in it.

No, it's perfectly possible for the functions of government to run without friends of the ruler going over the appropriate authority to press for someone they know to be appointed to a position. In this case the warden of the prison can appoint a prisoner to cook in this programme without the need for O Chul suggesting that Hinjo instruct the warden that it should be Belkar who does so.

Belkar is not a ward of the state as the term is usually applied - he may in the future be a prisoner. O-Chul is a prominent soldier whose friends with the ruler. If you want to call that an agent of the state, it up to you, but as far as we know he has no responsibility for administering the prison system.

Belkar is a good cook. What if there's an even better cook at the prison? Should Belkar be given the plum job of cooking over that person because he knows O-Chul? I think not, I think that is nepotism.

[Peelee]

No, it's perfectly possible for the functions of government to run without friends of the ruler going over the appropriate authority to press for someone they know to be appointed to a position. In this case the warden of the prison can appoint a prisoner to cook in this programme without the need for O Chul suggesting that Hinjo instruct the warden that it should be Belkar who does so.

Belkar is not a ward of the state as the term is usually applied - he may in the future be a prisoner. O-Chul is a prominent soldier whose friends with the ruler. If you want to call that an agent of the state, it up to you, but as far as we know he has no responsibility for administering the prison system.

Belkar is a good cook. What if there's an even better cook at the prison? Should Belkar be given the plum job of cooking over that person because he knows O-Chul? I think not, I think that is nepotism.

You keep saying "friends of the ruler". Again, O-Chul is an agent of the state, and Hinjo is his direct superior. Belkar is a ward of the state. This is an officer who is overseeing a prisoner making a recommendation to his commanding officer, who also has apparently has control over the judiciary, on how to utilize the prisoner.

If you choose to disregard all of this, re-characterize the relationship solely through the lens of friendship, and completely sidestep the fact that the suggested course of action will result in better conditions for the people of the state and also better rehabilitation for the prisoner and has zero downsides or negative repuecussions, then sure, your argument has merit.

Weird hill to die on, though, since you're basically creating a scenario that doesn't exist in the comic and then complaining about it. For example:

Belkar is a good cook. What if there's an even better cook at the prison? Should Belkar be given the plum job of cooking over that person because he knows O-Chul? I think not, I think that is nepotism.Assume that is the case. Do you think for a second either Hinjo or O-Chul would ignore this and have Belkar do the thing regardless? If you dont assume they are brain-dead automatons and will actually make good choices based on the resources available (which is what O-Chul is specifically doing - hes not even suggesting Belkar cook for the prison, hes suggesting Belkar cook for the people while serving his sentence), then unsurprisingly, the problem is solved.

The author has already made comments about not making assumptions that dont support the text. You are doing that and somehiw also making claims that go against what we actually see to make a minor point about nepotism in a situation where even if nepotism was at work (it isnt), it would lead to no unfairness and only positive outcomes for literally everybody involved.

Its a bad point and the only effect would be to deny comfort to people. Zero-tolerance policies aren't good policies, generally. Im shocked I have to explain this to you, I would imagine you would already be aware of this.

[danielxcutter]

I mean, it's not like Belkar isn't trying to be better either. Remember that talk with Durkon last book?

[Jasdoif]

And some of us find "[someone] doesn't deserve redemption" a monstrous idea (as well as, I mention again, the entire suggestion that O-Chul would be on board with it a strong contender for most goofy claim posted on this board).I'm going to say "deserve"'s got nothing to do with it. Isn't that the entire point of absolution, and mercy in general: release from an obligation or responsibility that can't be fulfilled? "Deserve" is "fair"; and "fair" is a neutral position, not an altruistic one.

I'm a bit hazy on how the general argument is being applied to Belkar, though. I've seen references to what Soon said in #464 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html), but we've seen Belkar do those things in #1151 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1151.html)...so if the former's the standard "deserve" is being assigned, doesn't the latter mean Belkar is capable of meeting it? And if so, isn't it kind of silly to act like Belkar can't be redeemed, if he can be redeemed? Even if we're making a big deal out of the scope, it'd still be a case of looking at "hasn't been redeemed" and seeing "can't be redeemed".


Even if we're overlooking that....If I squint hard enough, I can kind of see the mirage of a case against O-Chul. I'm pretty sure it's rooted in how dismissing Belkar out of hand would be quicker, easier, more seductive....But still, I can imagine the sort of mental contortionism it'd take to see "one less onerous but still extant prison sentence" vs "improved quality of life for numerous destitute refugees" as some sort of affront, as tired as envisioning it makes me.

A problem with Lien's perfunctory polite conversation, though? That's...huh. Actually I can see that; it wouldn't be horrifically too surprising for someone to have a worldview that the only quality of life that matters is that of the most horrible people, as holding such a worldview places one squarely among them.




Belkar is a good cook. What if there's an even better cook at the prison?Are you suggesting Belkar would spoil the soup?

[dxm2000]

I would not call that debatable: of course everyone who needs redemption deserves it. For man with no forgiveness in heart, life worse punishment than death.

And more to the immediate point, if you picked two random paladins there would be no reason at all to expect them to agree with "I am unforgiving gatekeeper of redemption," and they aren't two random paladins. If you expect O-Chul to be on board with "no, he deserves no mercy, even if that costs the innocent people of Azure City too," you need to read or reread How the Paladin Got his Scar. Especially if you don't like it.


For the first part, I think you missed my meaning. The person I was responding to was acting as if it was not up for debate that Belkar does not deserve redemption. I was calling it debatable, based on my objection to their stance. My stance is that he deserves his shot at redemption. He appears to be trying, and if he is, there is no reason to deny him.

As, for the second bit, I can only imagine you were replying to someone other than I, because you are making arguments I wholly agree with, and I have not claimed otherwise.

[Kish]

In the general sense, I meant to address anyone who believes that the comic has so far upheld "bad people deserve no mercy" or would expect O-Chul to agree with "redemption needs gatekeepers" at all, never mind to the extent of "the hypothetically freed slaves of Azure City can go without if it's that or someone who did bad things getting a slightly easier sentence."

In the specific, I was responding to things said by someone whose name begins with P and ends with recure.

[brian 333]

Everyone deserves redemption. It is a human right, not a bestowed privilege. Whether someone actively seeks it is another question.

But I see a lot of confusion around the concept of forgiveness.

"I would not allow," or "that character does not deserve," to achieve redemption.

It is not your choice. You can neither bestow nor withhold redemption. You can forgive or not. That has nothing to do with the question of redemption. A character can achieve redemption without anyone's forgiveness, and a totally irredeemable character can be forgiven without ever having sought redemption.

Redemption is earned by and wholly internal to the character seeking it.

Forgiveness is bestowed and completely external to the character receiving it.


This is "People die if they are killed!" levels of not actually saying anything. Again, you can't come up with a coherent definition for "redemption" under which all of these statements can be true.

Redemption is a state where one who formerly was a burden to the community has taken whatever steps are necessary to become a contributing member of society. Repentance, the act of accepting responsibility for one's past and taking positive steps to prevent falling back into the undesired behavior(s), is a component of redemption. In cases where the person was actively harmful, these steps will require restitution, or the paying back of debts caused by the undesirable behavior. This may require completion of judicial punishments. In many cases full restitution will not be possible, and a commitment to pay it forward may satisfy this obligation.

Note that none of this can be granted by external authorities. The person seeking redemption must actively pursue it. Being forced into prison and paying fines may be punishments one seeking redemption must endure, but absent repentance and restitution, redemption cannot be achieved.



Platitudes do not a coherent position make.

I don't recall delivering platitudes. I explained what I meant and summed those statements up with TLDR statements.

[drDunkel]

I wonder what will be the twist with the soup. Is it only Bloodfeast, Minrah and Belkar who have not had ha helping?

[Liquor Box]

You keep saying "friends of the ruler". Again, O-Chul is an agent of the state, and Hinjo is his direct superior. Belkar is a ward of the state. This is an officer who is overseeing a prisoner making a recommendation to his commanding officer, who also has apparently has control over the judiciary, on how to utilize the prisoner.

If you choose to disregard all of this, re-characterize the relationship solely through the lens of friendship, and completely sidestep the fact that the suggested course of action will result in better conditions for the people of the state and also better rehabilitation for the prisoner and has zero downsides or negative repuecussions, then sure, your argument has merit.


I think you are missing the point here - it has nothing to do with the relationship between O-Chul and Hinjo. Belkar should not be getting a particular prison work program because he knows an advisor of the ruler. Describe O-Chul and Hinjo's relationship as a friend, advisor, subordinate/commanding officer or the silly sounding 'agent of the state', Belkar's relationship to them still shouldn't determine what work he gets put on.


Weird hill to die on, though, since you're basically creating a scenario that doesn't exist in the comic and then complaining about it. For example:

No, I'm complaining about the very example we see. Belkar getting a recommendation to a prison role which he would not have got had he not known O-Chul. This is nepotism, which is generally regarded as bad. My 'created scenario' was an example of why nepotism is bad.


Assume that is the case. Do you think for a second either Hinjo or O-Chul would ignore this and have Belkar do the thing regardless? If you dont assume they are brain-dead automatons and will actually make good choices based on the resources available (which is what O-Chul is specifically doing - hes not even suggesting Belkar cook for the prison, hes suggesting Belkar cook for the people while serving his sentence), then unsurprisingly, the problem is solved.

Yes, I completely think that O-Chul and Hinjo would ignore the presence of a better cook, because I don't think either would find out about it. I don't for a moment that someone who rules a city/nation with more than 10,000 people concerns himself with the cooking skills of his prisoners. So I think Hinjo would say to the warden (either directly or through intermediaries) of his prison, "there's a prisoner coming in, assign him to cooking for hungry people", and the warden would simply follow that order.


The author has already made comments about not making assumptions that dont support the text. You are doing that and somehiw also making claims that go against what we actually see to make a minor point about nepotism in a situation where even if nepotism was at work (it isnt), it would lead to no unfairness and only positive outcomes for literally everybody involved.

What assumption have I made that doesn't fit the text? The only assumption I have made is that O-Chul intends to suggest to Hinjo that he direct the prison warden to make Belkar a cook. That's exactly what the text says.


Its a bad point and the only effect would be to deny comfort to people. Zero-tolerance policies aren't good policies, generally. Im shocked I have to explain this to you, I would imagine you would already be aware of this.

No, you are still not getting it. BeIt may or may not be a good idea to have prisoners cook for the hungry - that will depend on whether Hinjo thinks the cost of the food is worth it. But that doesn't depend on Belkar in the slightest, if he is not there some other prisoner could cook. This isn't about zero tolerance policies. It is about not getting a job (whether in prison or anywhere else) because you know someone. I must admit, I would have thought you would get this.

[Ruck]

I wonder what will be the twist with the soup. Is it only Bloodfeast, Minrah and Belkar who have not had ha helping?

Why need there be a twist?


I think you are missing the point here - it has nothing to do with the relationship between O-Chul and Hinjo. Belkar should not be getting a particular prison work program because he knows an advisor of the ruler. Describe O-Chul and Hinjo's relationship as a friend, advisor, subordinate/commanding officer or the silly sounding 'agent of the state', Belkar's relationship to them still shouldn't determine what work he gets put on.

Let's look at this from another angle, then. By what means would you deem it acceptable that a prisoner be put to work in a way that best puts his skills to use?

[Liquor Box]

Let's look at this from another angle, then. By what means would you deem it acceptable that a prisoner be put to work in a way that best puts his skills to use?

If his skill was a non-unique skill like cooking? In a situation like this where there seems to be a cook role for Azure City prisoners?

The prison's administration chooses him as a cook, by whatever criteria they apply.

Probably cooking capability, but also things like whether they think he can be trusted around knives. Sometimes prisons treat working as a privilege, so he may have to spend some time in prison and demonstrate good behaviour etc.

[Vikenlugaid]

Where is the nepotism here?
Belkar would geting the job for being a good cook, not only good, excepcionally good aparently ("the best soup I have had"...).
If O'Chul was nepotist, he would recomend Roy for the job, as he like him more than Belkar.
And, anyway, a recomendation is not nepotism is just that someone knows the merits and talents of a person and they just tell those talents to the person who administrate the jobs.

[danielxcutter]

…Cooking is not THAT unique a skill tbh. I mean, he only has like four ranks anyways unless he took more since the Battle of Azure City.

[drDunkel]

Why need there be a twist?


I should have explained, but the souping was the first thing that struck me with the previous comic and now it continiued. But, no need for there to be a twist.

[Peelee]

I think you are missing the point here - it has nothing to do with the relationship between O-Chul and Hinjo. Belkar should not be getting a particular prison work program because he knows an advisor of the ruler.

Ok, great. So that's the point. Then good news, Belkar is not getting a particular prison work program because he knows an advisor of the ruler. Belkar is getting a referral for a particular prison work program because a captor (better? Use whatever term you want for O-Chul, because thats irrelevant. I waa trying to keep it fairly neutral, but if you think that's silly, then ill stop) noticed a skillset Belkar has and figured out a way to make use of it. Belkar would have gotten this exact same treatment if anyone else in the prison noticed it, with the possible exception of not feeding the people of Azure City.

No matter how you slice it, there is no nepotism going on here. Nobody is doing Belkar any favors. Belkar happens to incidentally gain an incredibly minor ancillary benefit from the state making more efficient use of him as a prisoner. Your complaint is both wrong and, even if it were correct, frivolous. I promise you, i am very much getting it. You're advocating for a zero-tolerance policy and then stretching to make a circumstance fit said zero-tolerance policy even though that would only serve to make things worse.

[brian 333]

Good news: Lein and O'Chul are not related to Belkar, and they are not his friends.

By what criteria do you claim nepotism, or favoritism, is happening here? To make this claim you must demonstrate that anyone else in this situation would not receive the same treatment.

Example: if the priest of Loki from Greysky was incarcerated by Azure City and was seen by Lien and O'Chul performing a healing spell, would they not advise him that the prison infirmary was a better prison job and bring his ability to the attention of Hinjo so that he could be assigned there?

[Liquor Box]

Ok, great. So that's the point. Then good news, Belkar is not getting a particular prison work program because he knows an advisor of the ruler. Belkar is getting a referral for a particular prison work program because a captor (better? Use whatever term you want for O-Chul, because thats irrelevant. I waa trying to keep it fairly neutral, but if you think that's silly, then ill stop) noticed a skillset Belkar has and figured out a way to make use of it. Belkar would have gotten this exact same treatment if anyone else in the prison noticed it, with the possible exception of not feeding the people of Azure City.

No matter how you slice it, there is no nepotism going on here. Nobody is doing Belkar any favors. Belkar happens to incidentally gain an incredibly minor ancillary benefit from the state making more efficient use of him as a prisoner. Your complaint is both wrong and, even if it were correct, frivolous. I promise you, i am very much getting it. You're advocating for a zero-tolerance policy and then stretching to make a circumstance fit said zero-tolerance policy even though that would only serve to make things worse.

Him being a captor might be better. But it doesn't matter, because O-Chul is not Belkar's captor. Ally might be the best term, since they are in different groups but working toward the same goal. So I'll go with that.

Belkar is getting a more beneficial job from being an ally of O-Chul. It doesn't matter if the job suits him, what O-Chul's motives are etc. It is still what it is. I sitll don't really think you get it. You say you do (promise even), then go on to describe something different.

As far as we know O-Chul knows nothing about whether Belkar is a flight risk in whatever circumstances the cooking for the hungry happens in. Heis not as well placed as a prison warden to assess whether Belkar would be dangerous in those circumstances (presumably involving handling knives). So Belkar might have got the same job. But he might not if he was deemed too dangerous, too much of a flight risk or if there was abetter cook available. If he did get the same job Azurites are no better off due to O0Chul's interference. If he was validly rejected from the same job for any of the reasons above, then they are worse off for him sticking his nose in.

Frivolous? Perhaps. O-Chul was well intentioned and his mischief was minor. But the other poster was being dogpiled a few pages back, so I thought I'd point out that what O-Chul was doing wasn't ideal.

[Peelee]

Belkar is getting a more beneficial job from being an ally of O-Chul.

Again, he's not. He's getting a more beneficial position because someone who is in charge and is observing him sees a skill he possesses and figures out how to best make use of that skill within the confines of his sentence. This is literally how the prison administration would work if Belkar was in the actual prison at the time (unless, of course, you would object to a prison guard reporting the skill to the administration as nepotism, which seems like it perfectly fits the argument you've been making so far. And also they may just do prison cook, or maybe prison cook for the administration, but probably not prison cook for the oppressed Azurite refugees).

Belkar even specifically asks why O-Chul would do him a favor, and O-Chul says hes not doing Belkar a favor, hes using Belkar to help the Azurites. He just says that he doesn't mind if that means things suck less for Belkar. If it turned out that prison cook was a bad position and it sucked more for Belkar, i doubt O-Chul would do things any differently, because, again, any affect this has on Belkar is incidental, and has no impact on O-Chul's plan, as O-Chul explicitly tells us.

If you stop casting aside what the comic directly tells us, then you'll see your argument doesn't work.

[KorvinStarmast]

Neither does glib dismissal.
Asserting an opinion as a fact gets people called out a lot (Just as Liquor Box got called out).
Brian was doing the same thing as regards these nebulous "rights" in the post that I responded to.

[Liquor Box]

Again, he's not. He's getting a more beneficial position because someone who is in charge and is observing him sees a skill he possesses and figures out how to best make use of that skill within the confines of his sentence. This is literally how the prison administration would work if Belkar was in the actual prison at the time (unless, of course, you would object to a prison guard reporting the skill to the administration as nepotism, which seems like it perfectly fits the argument you've been making so far. And also they may just do prison cook, or maybe prison cook for the administration, but probably not prison cook for the oppressed Azurite refugees).

O-Chul is not in charge of Belkar, they are currently allies. He is only observing him in the sense that all of the people in that room are observing each other. So your comparison with a guard in an actual prison falls short.


Belkar even specifically asks why O-Chul would do him a favor, and O-Chul says hes not doing Belkar a favor, hes using Belkar to help the Azurites. He just says that he doesn't mind if that means things suck less for Belkar. If it turned out that prison cook was a bad position and it sucked more for Belkar, i doubt O-Chul would do things any differently, because, again, any affect this has on Belkar is incidental, and has no impact on O-Chul's plan, as O-Chul explicitly tells us.

If you stop casting aside what the comic directly tells us, then you'll see your argument doesn't work.

Yes, I've acknowledged several times that O-Chul says he is not doing it as a favor. In the very post you just quoted I said "It doesn't matter... what O-Chul's motives are". You keep telling me I'm casting aside what the comic is telling us, but I challenge you to quote one passage in this thread where I claim something that directly contradicts something in the comic.

[Peelee]

O-Chul is not in charge of Belkar, they are currently allies.

Belkar is an Azurite prisoner, O-Chul is an Azurite agent. That they happen to be on the same side doesn't change this. Especially when that side is "we would not like the universe obliterated".

You have a terminal degree, right? I hope you never asked a professor for a letter if recommendation, I'd hate to hear that you used nepotism in your academic or professional career. Of course, that nepotism is baked into a lot of things over here. My wife got into a research study recently after some nepotism of one of her professors recommending her. How scandalous should i be treating this? Should I recommend that she withdraw? I apologize for revealing such a scandalous issue, i hope you are not too shocked at such brazen nepotism occurring here.

ETA: It strikes me that you will not waver from your incredibly overly-broad definition of nepotism, so i think ill actually adjust my argument here and say that I care about the ethical implications of this form of Liquor-Box-world-"nepotism" exactly as much as O-Chul, or Lien, or Belkar, or presumably Hinjo and the Order and the author himself. Which is to say, not at all.

[danielxcutter]

If Belkar being suggested to work as a prison cook by O-Chul is nepotism then what does that make Hinjo giving prisoners shortened sentences if they helped defend Azure City?

[Resileaf]

Belkar is a good cook. What if there's an even better cook at the prison? Should Belkar be given the plum job of cooking over that person because he knows O-Chul? I think not, I think that is nepotism.

Good news, prisons usually have multiple cooks! Belkar and the hypothetical second cook will share duties!

[Peelee]

If Belkar being suggested to work as a prison cook by O-Chul is nepotism then what does that make Hinjo giving prisoners shortened sentences if they helped defend Azure City?

Also nepotism. The soldiers knew Hinjo and just delivered the prisoners straight to him.

[mormon_soldier]

Point of order: none of this is nepotism because nepotism is favoritism based on /kinship/.

[Kish]

Also nepotism. The soldiers knew Hinjo and just delivered the prisoners straight to him.
And one of them tried to kill Hinjo, another defected, and the last was Belkar who we have clearly established must never receive any mercy. So clearly nepotism is bad.

[Peelee]

And one of them tried to kill Hinjo, another defected, and the last was Belkar who we have clearly established must never receive any mercy. So clearly nepotism is bad.

I'm not sure about that part, actually, since intentions don't count.

[MReav]

If we're jumping on the pedantry train, then O-Chul using his connections to help Belkar regardless of qualifications is Cronyism, not Nepotism.

However, based on the comic, Belkar is very much qualified to serve as a cook.

[137beth]

I probably missed it since the thread is moving too fast, but has anyone figured out what the runes on the pot say?
BTW, if you tell me what it says is that nepotism?

[Peelee]

I probably missed it since the thread is moving too fast, but has anyone figured out what the runes on the pot say?

Good news: yes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24936328&postcount=139).

Bad news: someone figured it out a little over two years ago. :smalltongue: