OOTS #547 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[Emperor Ing]

redcloak sounds remotely accurate, but I smell a revolt. :smallbiggrin:

[Ghastly Epigram]

And lo, there was much rejoicing.

[Tweety]

Guess again Redcloak, guess again :smallbiggrin:

[Tempest Fennac]

It looks as thougn RC made a tiny miscalculation (the fact that O'Chul couldn't help him seems to have been a major part of the problem, and the fact that it was RC who was threatening to kill them didn't help his case).

[SMEE]

To put it simple: Awesome! :smallsmile:

[RMS Oceanic]

Wow, Good End. And yet, the comic leaves you wondering whether O-Chul does know something afterall. Still, it was the most perilous game of Chicken ever played in history.

I suspect we'll see nothing of this revolt just yet. A panel like that is just begging to be cut off and focus on somebody else, maybe Elan or Roy. Still, Chekov's Gun, Ammunition and instruction manual have been left on the table, and Chekov's Psychotic maniac will pick it up at some stage.

[banjo1985]

Ah Redcloak, how poorly you understand rebellion :smallbiggrin:

That was nice, especially the last panel.

[Trazoi]

I think Redcloak needs a hug...

Nice to see he didn't send those people to oblivion; I always thought Redcloak had a heart. It might be very crabby, pent up with unending rage against the unfair universe and completely covered in emotional scar tissue, but it's still there.

[curtis]

MWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

I love the smell of the slave pits in the morning. Smells like... revolution!

First page! Also, I was on the site when it came up, so W00T!

[JoseB]

Yesssss.... Last panel FTW!!

Redcloak has very badly miscalculated how humans react, and has shown that he doesn't understand at all the way paladins think and behave. He is filtering everything through his own mind and experiences.

But, after all... To Redcloak, humans are an alien species ;)

This is going to bite him SO hard in the butt...!

Scrubbed.

[Grunjon]

Well done, Giant! I haven't posted in a long time, but I was simply impressed by how this run with RC and OC ended up. Great job!!

[Moriarty]

noooo! what about the science??!!

wheres the chaotic evil lich guy when you need him? :/

[SnowballMan]

Well if Redcloak is going to grow a mustache and twirl it on the end like a classic villain, I'm sure those lightning powered trains will come in handy when he needs to tie a damsel to the tracks.

I can't help but think that secretly he's enjoying these spats with O'chul.

[nimby]

Dang, I was actually looking forward to seeing the Snarl in action outside the Crayons of Time! :(

[dogmac]

Am I the only one who REALLY wants to see Redcloak with a mustache now?

Can Goblins grow mustaches?

Resist, Resist, Resist the evil invaders!

[RMS Oceanic]

Can Goblins grow mustaches?

Well we see Goblin Dan with a Beard, so maybe.

[Alces]

Redcloak in moral outrage? He's going to wind up so far in the Lawful bit of the Lawful Evil corner that he'll turn against Xykon and the chaotic faction in his side. I'm thinking sooner, rather than later.

Edit 1: note appropriateness of my avatar image, huzzah!
Edit 2: never got here this early, double-huzzah!

[SnowballMan]

Can Goblins grow mustaches?

I'm sure there is an alchemist potion for that. Alternatively he could find a human with one, cut it off and glue it on himself.

More importantly, how long will it take for someone to make an avatar of it?

[kukn]

I like it that Redcloak is totally wrong here. There's nothing worse than a major villain being all-knowing and always right. So kudos!

[rosebud]

:smallsmile: For a moment, I thought there was a math error (8 * 2 = 16, not 14), but then I realized the control group only has 6. Seriously, though, I'd expect Redcloak to have controlled the conditions better.

It was cute, though. A bit long on panels for some, but it's nice to see that Redcloack did not do it and that O'Chul stood.

I'm still wondering where the seemingly useless 12 gods are, though...

[Roc Ness]

Well if Redcloak is going to grow a mustache and twirl it on the end like a classic villain, I'm sure those lightning powered trains will come in handy when he needs to tie a damsel to the tracks.

Yeah, and we ccould add that cliche where the hero just stops the train so that it is one inch from the damsels face. :smalltongue:

Maybe we could see the sidekick fall under the train while the hero reaches out saying "No... (sidekick's name), no, no, this isn't happening, nooooooooo!" :smallwink:

[RMS Oceanic]

rosebud raises a good question: I'm sure it hasn't escaped the Twelve God's attention that not only has the capital of their worshippers' domain fallen goblins, but a rift which allows access to the greatest single threat in the multiverse has expanded rapidly. I can't help but wonder why the Gods haven't stepped in on this matter?

[AslanCross]

Is there any end to O-Chul's awesomeness?

[T-Ice]

What about the experiment? Science must march on. That would have so made a publication in Nature.

[warmachine]

Just when I thought Redcloak was rational, even if a little cowardly (see Start of Darkness), he ignores 3 months of evidence that O'Chul knows nothing. Sometimes, one has to consider that a plan of action is a dud. Worse, even if O'Chul does know something, he has to willingly let Azurite citizens die rather than give information to the likes of Redcloak or Xykon. Whatever they want to do with the other gates, it's clearly going to be epic level, new Dark Age evil. O'Chul would be seeing the fate of all beings, not just his city. Although the ordinary citizens don't know about the gates, they're mostly Good alignment and won't want information given to Team Evil so they can conquer and enslave more people, even to save their own skins. Alas, is seems Redcloak is guilty of tribalism and can't see this. For a high level cleric, he's not very enlightened.

[Calinero]

Ah, yes! A return to the Redcloak we know and love! To be honest, I don't think I could have kept liking him if he threw those people into the rift. I like the conflict that exists in Redcloak, he's a much deeper villain than Xykon.

[Orzel]

Good one. Redcloak should know "never interrogate enemies in the presence of their allies unless you are 100% sure they will crack."

[Jowston]

I was really hoping that Redcloak wouldn't throw anyone in at all, it seemed a little dark for him, and he's evil... Yay for people not dying. :smallbiggrin:

Now all poor old O-chul jas to face now is whatever sort of Undead gladiator thingy that has been cooked up to fight him. :smalleek:

[Rad]

YAY!
Go Sapphire Liberation Front!

what?

Well, you know that when you join groups you need some name different from all the old ones, right? And guess what name did the commander of the new resistance movement liked :smalltongue:

Go Sapphire Liberation Front!

[ref]

O-Chul lateralled, and kept lateralling, and he scored, this torture game is over, and the paladins win!

Yay O-Chul!

[Edit, Off-Topic] I always wanted to ask, what does the T in LGBT stand for? Assuming I got the B correct, that is.

[Lira]

Great strip! I'm glad Redcloak decided against throwing them in, although I'm curious about what exactly would have happened if he did.

[Pandabear]

Now here's an Endurance feat that gives similar bonuses to all allies within LOS.. Nice :smallbiggrin:

[Ossian]

More than a good comic, this is a quite good story arch. Good pace, well done and, if I may add, quite punctual. Rich is posting a lot more regularly, and great stuff too. While this is (or might be) a sign that his condition is OK, which is fabulous, it is also quite enjoyable from this side of the screen.

Thus, 3 Hail! for the Giant! Ha-Hooo

[LtPowers]

[Edit, Off-Topic] I always wanted to ask, what does the T in LGBT stand for? Assuming I got the B correct, that is.

Transgender.


Powers &8^]

[Ave]

I think Redcloak needs a hug...

Nice to see he didn't send those people to oblivion; I always thought Redcloak had a heart. It might be very crabby, pent up with unending rage against the unfair universe and completely covered in emotional scar tissue, but it's still there.

Yep, this soft heartedness will be his undoing. He isn't evil enough. I don't understand why he didn't kill the people just because they ARE non-goblins.

[Miraqariftsky]

NIIII-IIII-III-CCCEEEEE!

He bleeding well slept through it... or did he? Hmm... did O-Chul just reveal to us how good he was at double bluffing?

Oh, and OOTS is "thrice a week" without warning, right? Does that mean that there won't be any more updates for this week?

[Banjooie]

Yep, this soft heartedness will be his undoing. He isn't evil enough. I don't understand why he didn't kill the people just because they ARE non-goblins. Redcloak wants to prove that he's /better/ than the humans. This is important to him. He wants his nation of goblins to be /morally superior/ to the humans, flat out. His view of morality's twisted, and certainly D&D-alignment evil, but he's trying for his own sort of good. You know?

[Bendal]

Redcloak just doesn't "get" humans at all, as the last panels in the prison cells showed. Yeah, "good PR" indeed, but not the kind he expected...

[Saint Nil]

Once again, proving the awesomeness of O-Chul. No matter how many times I read this comic, I can't help but laugh outloud.
O-Chul the Chuck Norris in the Playground.

[Ellye]

Redcloak is the best villain I've ever seen.

[Pheldagriff]

o-chul is super sexy in this bondage scene

[Freelance Henchman]

Once again, proving the awesomeness of O-Chul. No matter how many times I read this comic, I can't help but laugh outloud.
O-Chul the Chuck Norris in the Playground.

Came here to say that :smallsmile: I agree, O-Chul = Chuck Norris. When O-Chul goes swimming, he doesn't get wet, water (or acid) gets O-Chul!

[Talyn]

Huh-freaking-zah!

This, my friends, is what paladins are supposed to be like - unflinching and inspiring.

As to the earlier question of "where are the 12 gods"? They are not directly interfering to help the city for the same reason the Dark One isn't directly interfering to harm it - in Dungeons and Dragons, the gods only work through the granting of spells, powers and prayers through their intermediaries, unless their avatars are summoned through Epic Magic.

The 12 gods are there. O-chul's immunity to fear is a gift of the gods, and his supernatural endurance is at least partly the same. Meanwhile, perhaps the enslaved citizens have been praying for a hero - well, thanks to the 12 gods, they have got one!

Redcloak is an excellent villain; he's smart, competent, and ruthless. But his psychology is, as was pointed out earlier, alien - he doesn't understand that he just gave handed out the most dangerous weapon an oppressed people can receive: the will to fight!

[pendell]

MWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

I love the smell of the slave pits in the morning. Smells like... revolution!

First page! Also, I was on the site when it came up, so W00T!

Revolution? There is no revolution brewing. Even if they killed every last hobgoblin in Azure City, Xykon would fry them all and raise them as zombies, then have them fight each other for his amusement.

No, all this does is give the people in the pits hope. Which is no bad thing.

Fascinating .. Redcloak seems to have a heart, not willing to kill slaves just for jollies. When he sees it's futile, he spares their lives.

He is NOT Xykon. He will kill when necessary, but not for fun.

And yet he is entirely blind to the true situation, fitting things into his preconceived worldview. I diagnose a form of Mikoism. Ironic, he condemned Miko for her fanatical way of dealing with things and for being impervious to facts, and yet he seems to suffer from the same problem.

I commend the Giant for making such a complex ... and interesting ... character.

I'm also rubbing my hands with glee at the 5000 Redcloak alignment threads this is sure to spawn.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Nice end to the mini-arc!

Redcloak has a rebellion brewing in the slave pits, the various resistance factions are uniteing against him, and he has no new info.

O-Chul stands firm, and Redcloak seems to have forgotten to kill him. Must not have been on the schedule!

Time to shift back to Elan and Team Hinjo.

[Estelindis]

Excellent comic. Very nice resolution to this mini story arc. Both O-Chul and Redcloak were true to their characters... O-Chul spoke with dignity and courage, and Redcloak showed himself to be not quite so capable of horrors as he sometimes threatens to be. The final panel was the icing on a very fine cake.

Go O-Chul! :smallsmile:

[Yendor]

O-chul is just incredible. And the Azure City Underground Rebel Sapphire Resistance is going to get a lot more support.

[Bag_of_Holding]

This comic gave me a lot to think about. Very nice. :smallcool:

[FujinAkari]

rosebud raises a good question: I'm sure it hasn't escaped the Twelve God's attention that not only has the capital of their worshippers' domain fallen goblins, but a rift which allows access to the greatest single threat in the multiverse has expanded rapidly. I can't help but wonder why the Gods haven't stepped in on this matter?

Because the meddling of the Gods is what created the snarl in the first place. They have mutually agreed never to directly interfere with the world again, but instead empower their followers to act using their magics.

While this is a bit foolish given the circumstances, there is also the very real reason that the Gods don't -want- to get anywhere NEAR that Rift. The snarl is pretty much the only thing that can actually kill a God, and so if the Snarl DOES escape, it seems likely that the Gods intend to simply create a new world around it, rather than risk being in the area if it does break loose.

[SteveMB]

Yesssss.... Last panel FTW!!

Redcloak has very badly miscalculated how humans react, and has shown that he doesn't understand at all the way paladins think and behave. He is filtering everything through his own mind and experiences.

But, after all... To Redcloak, humans are an alien species ;)

This is going to bite him SO hard in the butt...!

Screwed by his own overconfidence and underestimation of the enemy -- another "I'm turning into XYKON!" realization moment.... (Though the fact that he didn't toss the slaves off the tower for the hell of it shows that, really, he isn't.)

[Susil]

Wow, nice ending!

O-Chul is indeed the Chuck Norris in the Playground...

[Remirach]

It BACKFIRED on the poor goblin, but oh, oh, Redcloak! You DIDN'T! You DIDN'T destroy innocent souls just because you're evil.... and I think you COULDN'T no matter what you say!!

I just...

HOORAY!!!!

[Pronounceable]

Redcloak just doesn't understand humans. Now the slaves are excited. Interesting bit: slaves were cowed cos they thought all paladins were wiped out.

Though as someone said above, there's no freedom for Azurites while Xykon is still around. None can hope to face him. But they'll revolt and drive the hobs from their city after Team Evil leaves for the next gate.



I'll just do something wildly original later to make up for it.

That's a promise I'll expect him to keep.

[Vargtass]

Revolution? There is no revolution brewing. Even if they killed every last hobgoblin in Azure City, Xykon would fry them all and raise them as zombies, then have them fight each other for his amusement.

No, all this does is give the people in the pits hope. Which is no bad thing.

(snip)

Respectfully,

Brian P.


Remember that Xykon does not want Azure City; it's Redcloak's conviction that they need information on the gates (e.g. from O'Chul) that keeps the two archvillains there. So the hope may still come in handy, when the rebellion eventually breaks loose.

[Tundar]

I'd really love to see Redcolak with a mustace of that kind.
Great comic!

[Fingolfin]

Hehe, banged right back at your plans Redcloack :smallamused:

[HOLEkevin]

Hey man, I was in love with Redcloak before it was cool!

LOL, anyway, it was a great strip. Red and O-Chul were wonderful together, and I really enjoyed that, but the prisoner's reactions really nailed it.

Thanks Rich, as always!

[Trazoi]

Redcloak wants to prove that he's /better/ than the humans. This is important to him. He wants his nation of goblins to be /morally superior/ to the humans, flat out. His view of morality's twisted, and certainly D&D-alignment evil, but he's trying for his own sort of good. You know?
That's my reading of it too. Redcloak was bluffing the whole time about the "experiment" judging from his reactions in the first few panels; he's got rules about how far he'll go, which he believes makes him better than those he despises. Still D&D-alignment lawful evil, although I've never properly understood how that system works for complicated villains like Redcloak.

I vastly prefer Redcloak's type of villain over the pure psychopath (sorry Xykon and Belkar; I still think you're amusing :smallamused:)

[DeathQuaker]

Brilliant comic, Giant. Nice to see an example of such a great hero in O Chul. I think at the moment I'm more worried about his fate than some of the regulars.... (but I still love them too :smallbiggrin: )

[Vargtass]

Hey man, I was in love with Redcloak before it was cool!


When was it not cool?

[xarvh]

Awesome, but I don't get it...
I still consider Redcloack Lawful Good.
He wants to revenge/protect his people and kill the different ones.
What's the difference with the paladins?

[Eran of Arcadia]

Two things:

1. Good job, Rich, with the spate of excellent comics coming out frequently.

2. Go O'Chul. I just about cheered out loud.

[Felixaar]

Can't help but notice that Redcloak obviously has issues with the idea that he, of all people, could possibly be wrong. I really would like to see what would happen if Redcloak and Vaarsuvius got into an argument, though it would probably span the next three story arcs.

To be honest, I'd like to see what would have happened if they'd been tossed in. Sounds cruel, yes, but they're also nameless NPC's and most of them are bald. Anyhow, it would have been interesting to see them undone... mainly cause I hope its not the same way certain characters of mine were undone.

[Kilarny]

Wow, fast updates. Most excellent as usual.
Is it time for another published book yet? *whine*

(yes, I'm begging you to give me another opportunity to give you money)

[MythicFox]

Can't help but notice that Redcloak obviously has issues with the idea that he, of all people, could possibly be wrong. I really would like to see what would happen if Redcloak and Vaarsuvius got into an argument, though it would probably span the next three story arcs.

It's not just that he's wrong. He's also starting to crack because after all this time of advancing the plan, and using the power of the Dark One to screw around with the universe and all that, he's at a wall that he can't kick over. O-Chul doesn't know what Redcloak wants to know so badly, and Redcloak can't stand that there isn't a damn thing he can do about it.

The blessings of the Dark One, and the alliance with Xykon, and an entire city populated by hobgoblins loyal to him, and having gotten oh-so-close to mastering the power of the Gates a total of three times now...

And the one thing stopping him is the fact that Soon swore that stupid oath and got Paladins to stick to it. And there is nothing that Redcloak and Xykon can do to change that. Not a damn thing, and it's driving him nuts to get that far and just be stopped and not being able to do anything about it.

[Supreme Evil]

Remember that Xykon does not want Azure City; it's Redcloak's conviction that they need information on the gates (e.g. from O'Chul) that keeps the two archvillains there. So the hope may still come in handy, when the rebellion eventually breaks loose.

Xykon may not care much for Azure City, but the people cannot hope to stand against him. If they revolted, he'd kill them all just for something to do all day.

Besides, the hobos still outnumber the slaves. They conquered Azure City once before when they were faced with trained and equipped soldiers, paladins, and PCs. They can put down an unarmed slave revolt.

[Niesra]

Great comic! I actually thought RC was going to throw them in. I also think that his desperate attempt to prove he's better than humans/paladins is much stronger than his evil side. He's like the "good" guy who won't sink down to the "bad" guy's level (seeing how it's been said many times that redcloack's people have been haunted down by O-Chul's). And i also think that the fact that his plan has been forced to be delayed by what he thinks is his lack of capacity to break a paladin who should be "inferior" get the better of him.

[Kesnit]

That last panel... WOW! My heart stopped as I read it.

Great character development on Redcloak. (I'm starting to wonder if he is creeping towards LN.)

[Wixit]

I don't understand why some of you are (were) getting so wound up over RC throwing the slaves in. In his mind O'Chul has the data he needs. In his mind he won't share them with him. He has hundreds of slaves to toss away at his disposal in an attempt to break him. If nothing else, he would want to discover the Snarls abilities and effects it has on it's enviroment.

I don't see where all the "I'll hate him if he does it" is coming from. He's evil. He sacrificed dozens of hobgoblins to get access to Xykon's secondary lair. He's carrying Xykon's phylactery and does everything to preserve his life to serve his petty interests. He attacked Azure City without even entering negotiations or offering surrender, despite being Lawful. Slaughtering a bunch of humans to gain leverage on a paladin who may have information he needs is normal to him, immortal souls be damned.

If you care so much about their immortal souls then you should turn to the Gods and tell them that their incompotence and impotence has allowed this creature to undo what they created and blame them for not figuring out a way to destroy it before creating a new world. No, they decided it would be better to lock it up, but failed to do that as well. They were far more eager to have followers than protecting their followers from being undone. Selfish, self serving and reckless. How are these characteristics either Good, or Lawful?

[Sir_Leorik]

Excellent comic! I especially liked the last panel. This is what a paladin should be: an inspiration to the downtrodden, not a bully, like Miko. O-chul may have started life as a low-charisma fighter, but he has found his calling. Now if only he can survive Xykon's crushing boredom for a few more panels...

[kierthos]

Wait... some of you still think O-Chul is lying?

*boggle*

[Storm Bringer]

It's not just that he's wrong. He's also starting to crack because after all this time of advancing the plan, and using the power of the Dark One to screw around with the universe and all that, he's at a wall that he can't kick over. O-Chul doesn't know what Redcloak wants to know so badly, and Redcloak can't stand that there isn't a damn thing he can do about it.

The blessings of the Dark One, and the alliance with Xykon, and an entire city populated by hobgoblins loyal to him, and having gotten oh-so-close to mastering the power of the Gates a total of three times now...

And the one thing stopping him is the fact that Soon swore that stupid oath and got Paladins to stick to it. And there is nothing that Redcloak and Xykon can do to change that. Not a damn thing, and it's driving him nuts to get that far and just be stopped and not being able to do anything about it.

The really funny thing is he's right. It IS stupid and irrational for the paladins to not keep tabs on the other gates......

But it was Shojo who controled the azurite Intelligence services, not the paladins. The paladins made a vow and kept to it, while less lawful allies worked behind the scenes.

Redcloak's problem is that he being too cynical. He refuses to belive that O-chul was Idealistic enough to follow his vows to the letter in this matter.

In short, he gone vulcan on us: he's unable to accept that his oppent is acting Irrationally, and is seeking a rational answer to a problem that has none.

[Melph]

Heh, the first panel was similar enough to comic 546 that it took me a moment to realize a new comic was up. I'm glad Redcloak stayed evil, but for a good cause, instead of going full blown Snidely Whiplash.

On a completely unrated note, does the way the rift looks close up unsettle anyone else? Maybe its just because I just had my wisdom teeth out, and it looks a little too much like my empty sockets for comfort, but it makes me physically queasy to look at for too long.

[Drascin]

Screwed by his own overconfidence and underestimation of the enemy -- another "I'm turning into XYKON!" realization moment.... (Though the fact that he didn't toss the slaves off the tower for the hell of it shows that, really, he isn't.)

He's actually the opposite of overconfidence - he literally refuses to even think his enemies can be stupider than he is, and so he acts thinking they'd all do the rational thing from his view, which would have been having a special contingency plan to help if other gates were attacked. He put it entirely clear last comic. Which is easier to swallow - that the prisoner is somehow resisting his attempts at divination, or that for the last hundreds of years an order of paladins created for the sole purpose of guarding the Rifts have absolutely no idea about any other rift and have never even tried to know about them to plan in case of risk?

And so, he forget's the Razor, seeing schemes and Xanatos Gambits where there are none, and this might very well become his undoing down the line.

Still, I am liking Redcloak very much. He's a very, very interesting villain.

[truemane]

I am continually amazed at how emotionally invested I am in this 'silly little comic.' When I read that last panel I felt a surge of joy that out a smile on my face that's still here two hours later.

They're STICK FIGURES and I'm exited for them like they were characters in Shakespeare!

I commend you and I thank you, Mr. Burlew, for your creation.

[TroyXavier]

After that comic, I have new respect for O'Chul.

[Forum Explorer]

I wonder when Redcloak will just give up on O-Chul:smallamused:

[Keldaria]

Wow thats gotta be like the 5th comic this week.. i feel like a kid on Xmas Morning

[Sir_Leorik]

I don't understand why some of you are (were) getting so wound up over RC throwing the slaves in...
I don't see where all the "I'll hate him if he does it" is coming from.


I think it's because Giant made Redcloak such a tragic figure in Start of Darkness, that we sometimes forget that Redcloak is evil. Unlike Xykon who's evil for the Hell of it, Redcloak has what he feels is a good reason to be Evil, besides the alignment line in the section in the Monster Manual for Goblins. He's kinda like Shylock in that regard: he's been kicked around for so long that his monstrousness is understandable, if not excusable. Redcloak will happily kill humans so long as it suits his needs and will feel joy at their deaths. In the case of O-Chul he just can't wrap his brain around a person so noble that they would take a vow handed down by a dead man they never met, keep it even when it seems irrational to do so, even when doing so is the hardest thing in the world.

O-Chul isn't lying. He swore on the honor of the Sapphire Guard to uphold Soon's oath to the rest of the Order of the Scribble not to intervene in the other gates. That means that he doesn't know how Girard's Gate is guarded, and I even doubt he knows more about Girard's Gate other than a vague idea where it is. His job was to guard Soon's gate in this life and the next, nothing more.

By the way, Redcloak might want to think about his own fanatacism in following the Dark One's Plan. He had three chances to follow Right-Eye and leave this madness behind, and chose to stick with Xykon, to the point of killing his baby brother. I think that's why Redcloak is so annoyed with O-Chul, though he probably doesn't realize it: they are mirror images of each other, one dedicated to Good the other to Evil, but both are bound by their duty.

[Milandros]

That's my reading of it too. Redcloak was bluffing the whole time about the "experiment" judging from his reactions in the first few panels; he's got rules about how far he'll go, which he believes makes him better than those he despises. Still D&D-alignment lawful evil, although I've never properly understood how that system works for complicated villains like Redcloak.

I vastly prefer Redcloak's type of villain over the pure psychopath (sorry Xykon and Belkar; I still think you're amusing :smallamused:)


Actually, in some ways I think it's worse. I believe that Redcloak would absolutely and completely have thrown those people to the Snarl. He would have done so without regret, and with some distinct satisafaction. He just doesn't see any point in doing so when there's no gain to him. He wouldn't drink a potion of healing when he's on full hit points just because he enjoys the taste, and he wouldn't throw away resources such as slaves/experimental subjects/toys just for the sake of it. He's Lawful Evil.

Redcloak wouldn't kill you just for the hell of it, or because he finds pain and suffering funny. But if he thinks he might get some use of of it, he'll happily torture you for hours then destroy your soul.

[Remirach]

I don't understand why some of you are (were) getting so wound up over RC throwing the slaves in. In his mind O'Chul has the data he needs. In his mind he won't share them with him. He has hundreds of slaves to toss away at his disposal in an attempt to break him. If nothing else, he would want to discover the Snarls abilities and effects it has on it's enviroment.

I don't see where all the "I'll hate him if he does it" is coming from. He's evil.

::sigh::

He is, indeed, evil. But for one thing, he still thinks all his evil deeds can be redeemed if he is successful in his "greater good." For another, he still has compunctions. There are lines he doesn't want to cross. For him to violate those, would take him in many a person's perception from a nuanced, complicated (and somewhat self-delusional) character to a cardboard cut-out villain.

As Redcloak himself alludes to. ("Might as well grow a mustache...")


He sacrificed dozens of hobgoblins to get access to Xykon's secondary lair. He's carrying Xykon's phylactery and does everything to preserve his life to serve his petty interests. He attacked Azure City without even entering negotiations or offering surrender, despite being Lawful. Slaughtering a bunch of humans to gain leverage on a paladin who may have information he needs is normal to him, immortal souls be damned.
But he's never before sacrificed immortal souls, so how CAN it be NORMAL? The fact that he has "evil" in his alignment doesn't mean that absolutely every single thing which is evil is something he's comfortable with or has done. Does he strike you as a rapist? A cannibal?


Redcloak will happily kill humans so long as it suits his needs and will feel joy at their deaths.

REDCLOAK: It gives me no pleasure to end those men up there...

But okay, he was just lying. Because he's evil that way, and all evil people rejoice in death.

[Belkar Rocks]

I must admit, Rich, that I am becoming something of an O-Chul fan.

Come on, everybody!

O-Chul!
O-Chul!
O-Chul!

[JasonDoomsblade]

Redcloak looks like he's gonna have an anurism or something.:smalltongue:

[Trazoi]

Actually, in some ways I think it's worse. I believe that Redcloak would absolutely and completely have thrown those people to the Snarl. He would have done so without regret, and with some distinct satisafaction. He just doesn't see any point in doing so when there's no gain to him. He wouldn't drink a potion of healing when he's on full hit points just because he enjoys the taste, and he wouldn't throw away resources such as slaves/experimental subjects/toys just for the sake of it. He's Lawful Evil.
I get the impression that that's what Redcloak is trying to make O-Chul think, but Redcloak's reaction in panel 4 and his dialogue in panel 5 to me suggest otherwise. To me it looks like Redcloak is annoyed that his bluff has been called.

However, I can also see how it could taken to mean that Redcloak is just exasperated that his foolproof interrogation technique for paladins has been foiled.

I suppose my opinions are clouded that Redcloak is probably the character I sympathise the most with, and is probably currently the most complex character in the comic. I don't think that at his very core Redcloak is naturally a villain, he's just been turned that way by his life experiences (many out of his control, some pivotal poor choices on his part).

[Pyscho Druid]

That's my reading of it too. Redcloak was bluffing the whole time about the "experiment" judging from his reactions in the first few panels; he's got rules about how far he'll go, which he believes makes him better than those he despises. ...

Right - so not to over analyze the D&D rules - but OC says charisma was his dump stat. Everyone is on the "OC is Chuck Norris" bandwagon - maybe charisma *was* his dump stat, but it is still awesome, just not as awesome as his other stats. Think (5) 18's and charisma is 17, or something along those lines. Don't give me statistics about the chances of rolling that (think acid-based shark and we'll talk reality). This is a fantasy comic based on a fantasy game. If he's one of the most powerful NPCs, maybe there is a reason for it.

If he truly had some fighter levels then he *could* have been lying. On top of that, he *could* have some skills ranks in sense motive and *knew* that RC was lying about throwing the prisoners in the rift.

PD

[Remirach]

I believe that Redcloak would absolutely and completely have thrown those people to the Snarl. He would have done so without regret, and with some distinct satisafaction. He just doesn't see any point in doing so when there's no gain to him.
He DID have something to gain from sacrificing those human prisoners: some more empirical data about the Snarl. If he doesn't give a fig about their immortal souls, then why even hesitate just because his Paladin is balking? If he were willing to sacrifice them, it was a win-win proposition whether or not O-Chul cooperated.

As it was, O-Chul called his bluff. Redcloak was infuriated a Paladin would "LET" him commit such an evil and then couldn't even pull it off with O-Chul's implied "permission."

[EmperorSarda]

What is the likelihood of O-Chul hocking a lugie()sp?) (spitting) at RC with it empowered by a smite evil?

[Yendor]

I think we may be seeing the first recruits for the new Sapphire Guard.

[Eric]

Awesome, but I don't get it...
I still consider Redcloack Lawful Good.
He wants to revenge/protect his people and kill the different ones.
What's the difference with the paladins?

And Hitler was Good because he wanted to help the German people.

Stalin was good because he wanted the corrupt emperors out of Russia.

And anyway, the difference is that in D&D (and OOTSiverse) there really is an objective Evil. And RC follows it.

After all, he coated hobgoblins in mustard sauce and gave them salt cracker shields to go attack the guardian monster. Sound like he wants what's best for them?

[Eric]

Xykon may not care much for Azure City, but the people cannot hope to stand against him. If they revolted, he'd kill them all just for something to do all day.

Besides, the hobos still outnumber the slaves. They conquered Azure City once before when they were faced with trained and equipped soldiers, paladins, and PCs. They can put down an unarmed slave revolt.

However, the slaves have something to fight for they did not before: they now know what freedom means. Before, they were schism'd. They had their freedom so didn't value it.

[Eric]

I don't understand why some of you are (were) getting so wound up over RC throwing the slaves in.
...
He's evil.

However, some people have issues about anyone they like being evil. So Belkar is CN not CE. RC is LG not LE. Because if they were CE/LE then these people would find themselves rooting for evil.

Strange, really.

[Vulion]

Man...that IS great P.R., thanks a bunch, Redcloak!:smallamused:

[Remirach]

However, some people have issues about anyone they like being evil. So Belkar is CN not CE. RC is LG not LE. Because if they were CE/LE then these people would find themselves rooting for evil.

Strange, really.

There aren't enough rolleye smilies in the world for you, mister.

I'm not rooting for evil. I'm rooting for the PLOT.

[Renegade Paladin]

If Redcloak thinks that O-Chul not cracking because of that is against the rules, then he needs to review the rules. :smalltongue: He'd be the one killing them, not O-Chul.

Not that I think O-Chul knows anything to crack with, but even so.

Anyway, for all those saying Soon's oath was a bad idea: Was it? Was it really? After all, if they hadn't taken it, Redcloak would know all about Girard's Gate by now. :smallamused:

[whitemane]

Xykon may not care much for Azure City, but the people cannot hope to stand against him. If they revolted, he'd kill them all just for something to do all day.

Besides, the hobos still outnumber the slaves. They conquered Azure City once before when they were faced with trained and equipped soldiers, paladins, and PCs. They can put down an unarmed slave revolt.

Well, I disagree with your sentiment because there are alot of things that the slaves can do to resist(note that I said resist, not revolt.) First of all, you are assuming that the slaves will engage the hobos in open rebellion. That might be a decent tactic when you have an army at your back, but it doesn't work so well when you are an unarmed slave. Instead, the slaves would be better off having some of their hobgoblin guards just "disappear" on occasion... Have equipment mysteriously break, impeding their ability to produce food and whatnot for the hobos... And lets not forget helping the resistance when they come about!

Realistically, if the human population has gotten stirred up to resist, then there are all sorts of things that they can do... and by doing them, they will effectively make it so it's not worth it to the hobos to continue occupying their lands through a war of attrition.

As Citizen G'Kar once said... "No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand."

In any case, Giant, that was an awesome strip! Certainly, it ranks in the top 5!

[Maerok]

Aww, I wanted to see what happened when they got thrown in. :smallamused:

[Morty]

Anyway, for all those saying Soon's oath was a bad idea: Was it? Was it really? After all, if they hadn't taken it, Redcloak would know all about Girard's Gate by now. :smallamused:

So would Sapphire Guard, and they could've taken means to protect it better than just getting themselves killed and hoping the bad guys won't get there.

[silvadel]

It makes me wonder actually if throwing the people into the snarl wasnt a bluff right from the beginning.

He was acting under the assumption that Ochul wouldnt let that happen and maybe he doesnt want to provoke the snarl at azure city right now either.

[Holammer]

Am I the only one who REALLY wants to see Redcloak with a mustache now?

Can Goblins grow mustaches?


Whipped this up in a hurry, belongs in the arts and crafts forum fer sure, but it's on topic anyway. Bit Zero Punctuation'ish with the hat methinks.


http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn217/Holammer/twirl.png

This is some interesting character development O'chul's had recently, just a few strips worth and he used to change the kitty litter back in the days. Now he's suddenly more fleshed out than most characters.
At this rate I wouldn't really mind if Rich jumped the shark and made him a major character with his own plot and story.

[silvadel]

And now you see what one of Redcloaks bad dreams looks like.

[Shatteredtower]

I submit that the strip's title aptly describes the Giant's accomplishment of posting a strip a day for the last four days.


If you care so much about their immortal souls then you should turn to the Gods and tell them that their incompotence and impotence has allowed this creature to undo what they created and blame them for not figuring out a way to destroy it before creating a new world.And if they never could work out a means of destroying the Snarl, no new lives would come into being. Unacceptable. It's as daft as refusing to plant crops until you've found a means of preventing tornadoes.


No, they decided it would be better to lock it up, but failed to do that as well.Er, no they didn't. It's still contained. It's managed to destroy at least a few individuals from within that captivity, but the cracks in its cage were resealed by a group of mortals.

The gods took enough risks in imprisoning the Snarl. Focusing their efforts on killing a creature that effortlessly destroyed a pantheon in charge of 1/4 of the world within seconds by force of arms or magic would have been folly, especially when there are methods that contain the threat and let them get on with more productive activities.

And who's to say the gods haven't sought means to eliminate the Snarl (without having to destroy the world) in the meantime?


They were far more eager to have followers than protecting their followers from being undone.Well, that's one extremely biased way to look at it. Another says that they're a bunch of artists eager to create something wonderful, aware of the risk of having to unravel the entirety of creation if things go wrong again. They did their best to avoid a disaster this time, but the fact that there was a disaster last time shows them to be considerably less than infallible.


How are these characteristics either Good, or Lawful?First of all, not all of the gods are good or lawful. Building the world was a team effort, and all of them are aware of what happens when it's not, so we know it wasn't built solely for lawful or good aims. (Neither was it built in the absence of such aims. It's just that someone got their chaotic evil in someone else's lawful good.)

Second, life is hope. Giving life a chance to grow, even on the edge of oblivion, is good. Doing the best you can to seal the threat of oblivion away so that societies have a chance to flourish is lawful. Giving life no such chance at all because "the risks are too great" is... even more short-sighted than Thor has proven to be.

[The Wanderer]

Anyway, for all those saying Soon's oath was a bad idea: Was it? Was it really? After all, if they hadn't taken it, Redcloak would know all about Girard's Gate by now. :smallamused:

Yes, yes it really was. Because if the oath wasn't in place, the defenders of the different gates could have teamed up against a threat an squashed it flat before it ever got this far. Like I said in the past thread, Xykon had to camp outside Dorukan's Dungeon for months on end before he finally faced Dorukan. What if instead of facing Dorukan one on one, he instead got hit by a small army of paladins, clerics tossing around Heal spells, and Dorukan all at once? He would have been squashed flat.

The only reason Team Evil has a chance is because of the oath not to interfere with each other. If there was even the barest cooperation among them, the world wouldn't be in the danger that it is. And as it's going, the world needs another group of heroes to come to its dramatic rescue just a generation or two later because the last bunch were too childish and immature to overcome their squabbles despite the fate of the world potentially resting on it.


However, some people have issues about anyone they like being evil. So Belkar is CN not CE. RC is LG not LE. Because if they were CE/LE then these people would find themselves rooting for evil.

Or maybe we're rooting for the redemption of a character and hoping that he doesn't do anything so evil it will be impossible for him to be redeemed from it afterwards. :smallwink:

[happyturtle]

Awesome, but I don't get it...
I still consider Redcloack Lawful Good.
He wants to revenge/protect his people and kill the different ones.
What's the difference with the paladins?

Did you read Start of Darkness? Redcloak is EVIL.

[Eric]

There aren't enough rolleye smilies in the world for you, mister.

I'm not rooting for evil. I'm rooting for the PLOT.

You may want to edit your comment for a facepalm for yourself.

some != all

Do YOU harp on about Belkar being CN? About RC not being evil? No? Then that wasn't about you, was it.

[Eric]

YBecause if the oath wasn't in place, the defenders of the different gates could have teamed up against a threat an squashed it flat before it ever got this far.

Play the "what if" game properly.

The only reason why Team Evil survived is because Miko "the nutter" broke the gate and therefore ended the oath binding Soon to the mortal plane and able to affect it.

An oath that would not have been so powerful it if hadn't been so strictly adhered and so straightly defined. Otherwise the DM would have disallowed it as even an Epic level spell.

[Alaska Fan]

(1) O Chul Rocks!
(2) The plot twists you don't see coming are the very best.

[Porthos]

And that is how you roleplay the Kobayashi Maru situation, my fellow players and DMs. :smallcool: No "Bwaahaha! I just made your Paladin Fall." No, "Let's screw the Paladin and make him suffer because of a he had to choose the lesser of two evils." No "Make the Paladin Code work against the character" nonsense.

This strip was a textbook example of what a Paladin should do as an Agent of all that is Good and Just. He tried everything he could to save the prisoners lives. He showed compasion by pleading with Redcloak that if they must die, then to make it quick so they do not suffer. He showed vengance by showing how he would save them were he free. And he showed piety by saying how he would feel an crushingly heavy burden for not being able to save them. So he did not Fall, nor should he.

It has been said many times in many places, but the Order of the Stick is the textbook that everybody should be reading when it comes to playing and DMing Paladins. Miko for the "No.... Don't do it this way" and O-Chul, Hinjo, and the Rest for "Yes... Do it thius way."

* Gives Rich A Standing Ovation*


PS: I saw this over at EN World, and it's too good not to share:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4152775&postcount=6

I AM O-CHUL!

[happyturtle]

Redcloak has a very sensible reason for not throwing in the prisoners: Getting the attention of the Snarl might make it more difficult to control.

He's still one of the bad guys people.

[Remirach]

You may want to edit your comment for a facepalm for yourself.

some != all

Do YOU harp on about Belkar being CN? About RC not being evil? No? Then that wasn't about you, was it.

Apologize if I misread your intent, because the post you replied to stated:
I don't understand why some of you are (were) getting so wound up over RC throwing the slaves in.
...
He's evil.
And then you followed up with
However, some people have issues about anyone they like being evil. So Belkar is CN not CE. RC is LG not LE. Because if they were CE/LE then these people would find themselves rooting for evil.

Strange, really.
Which I think makes it pretty easy to see that "SOME" qualifier as not being directed at the people who are claiming some alternate alignment for their preferred character, but at anyone who dislikes evil characters doing things even, well, MORE evil than they usually do. Which was how I read your post, apparently in error. Sorry if that was not, in fact, what you meant.

[Lonna]

Point 11 on the Evil Overlord List: "I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove it by leaving clues in the form of riddles or leaving my weaker enemies alive to show they pose no threat." (Emphasis added.)

There you have it Red Cloak - classic mistake. On the other hand, I agree with several other people who said that if he had actually thrown them into the rift, it would have been out of character... Xykon would probably have thrown them in just for kicks, whether or not O'Chul told him anything useful. Red Cloak, on the other hand, has a moral code, albeit a very skewed and generally lax moral code.

[Maerok]

Or maybe we're rooting for the redemption of a character and hoping that he doesn't do anything so evil it will be impossible for him to be redeemed from it afterwards. :smallwink:

But why would you be rooting for that sort of thing now when there hasn't been much (if any) evidence that he would change. It seems like people are holding out for this Redcloak Redemption purely by meta-plotting. It would be so horridly over-used to have the evil guy suddenly turn good when he's currently devoted to controlling or unleashing the Snarl for whatever reason. It just seems like people have automatically picked him out and are awaiting his 'eventual' alignment shift because he's a little angsty. But if anyone were to do it I guess it would be Redcloak.

Xykon wouldn't let me down. :xykon:

I think if anything, these comics here have fueled his hatred of humans and paladins. I believe his letting the slaves go was to get back at O-Chul in a sort of 'If you're not willing to save your own people, let's see how you like it when the villain keeps them safer then you do.' Which backfires.

[Aerysil]

Not a lot of comedy here, but it's nice to see O'Chul get some positive feedback, even though he doesn't know about it. I was expecting him to be abandoned.

[The Wanderer]

Play the "what if" game properly.

Um... I am. I think you're confused.


The only reason why Team Evil survived is because Miko "the nutter" broke the gate and therefore ended the oath binding Soon to the mortal plane and able to affect it.

This is certainly true in that circumstance. What does it have to do with what I said? If you need a refresher course, Team Evil first went to Lirian's gate, where, after some misadventures in SOD, they overcame the defenders, but accidentally destroyed the Gate. Shojo actually broke the oath to a degree and sent paladins out to investigate, but they turned up nothing.

Years later, with a small army of goblins and ogre, Team Evil went after Dorukan's Gate. A very small SOD spoiler is that they were unable to enter the Dungeon at first, and had to attempt to lure Dorukan out. If, instead of having to take them on alone, Dorukan had some backup, it's quite likely things would have ended there. There would never have been a blowing up of Dorukan's Gate, no siege of Azure City, no Miko the nutter destroying the Sapphire, etc.


An oath that would not have been so powerful it if hadn't been so strictly adhered and so straightly defined. Otherwise the DM would have disallowed it as even an Epic level spell.

Um... you do realize that the oath every party member took not to interfere in each other's gates and Soon's method of defending his are two entirely different oaths, right? Soon could have still chosen to do the second oath as a means of protecting the AC Gate even if he hadn't done the first. So what exactly are you saying, and can you make it make sense, please?

(Also, OOTS world is not a D&D campaign. Just a world loosely based on D&D rules. As per The Giant, there is no DM, there are no players, etc).

[Tal9922]

Definately one of the best comics lately. It looks like The Giant is on a roll, both in strip quality and quantity as of late.

Keep it up Giant!

[The Wanderer]

But why would you be rooting for that sort of thing now when there hasn't been much (if any) evidence that he would change. It seems like people are holding out for this Redcloak Redemption purely by meta-plotting. It would be so horridly over-used to have the evil guy suddenly turn good when he's currently devoted to controlling or unleashing the Snarl for whatever reason. It just seems like people have automatically picked him out and are awaiting his 'eventual' alignment shift because he's a little angsty. But if anyone were to do it I guess it would be Redcloak.

Well, old Red has had a number of comics where he has shown to be a much lesser evil than Xykon. There's evidence for that as early as the strips set in Dorukan's Dungeon. Despite a history of racial problems between his people and the hobgoblins he was initially reluctant to risk hobgoblin lives until MITD accidentally made him change his mind. He came to embrace and care about the hobgoblins in 451, and even put his life at a risk, (probably minor, but still a risk) when he dueled the high Cleric of the 12 Gods rather than just having the hobs slaughter them all, which would have been the logical thing for a commander to do but would have gotten more of his men killed. Then there's the fact that he has a sympathetic origin. Even the Giant says that Xykon is and always has been Evil, and more to the point, a ****. Redcloak isn't.

And in the end, some of it, for me anyway is simple hoping for the best. Even before his days a lich, Xykon was psychotic bastard with entirely too much power at his disposal. Redcloak is an intelligent leader, one capable of caring about others, who doesn't do atrocities just because they're there to be done. I'd like to see something positive be made from those talents and abilities, and see some good come out of the tragedy and horror that is Redcloak's life, both in what others have done to him, and what he has done to himself and those around him. The alternative is just such a waste, but unless he changes fairly soon or fairly drastically, it's coming closer and closer to that result.

[ArmorArmadillo]

If, instead of having to take them on alone, Dorukan had some backup, it's quite likely things would have ended there. There would never have been a blowing up of Dorukan's Gate, no siege of Azure City, no Miko the nutter destroying the Sapphire, etc.
SOD Spoiler
Or if Durokan hadn't left the castle alone to fight Xykon for Lyria's soul
or if the OOTS hadn't let Redcloak escape with the phylactery, or if a great many things had happened differently.

Was it a mistake in retrospect? Yes.

But, I'm starting to find it a little tiresome that the OOTS and Shojo and other 'popular' characters are allowed to make mistakes as long as they're trying to do the right things, but others like Miko and Soon aren't.

Yes, Miko destroyed the gate, but she was trying to stop Xykon who up until the moment she intervened was set to win the fight. Wrong in retrospect? Yes, but done for the right reasons.

(Elan destroyed a gate by the way...people seem to ignore that.)

[Girl Wonder]

YAY!

This comic was -so- full of happy for me. I love my paladins. I play paladins, and it's moments like this that I live for... sure, running through the Big Bad is fun, but standing tall in the face of Evil (even rationalized 'Evil for a Good Cause' like Redcloak's) and not wavering, not just not wavering but inspiring the best in others, getting them to do the same?

Just pure awesomesauce.

Woo!

I'm quite pleased.

[Qov]

Marvellous! I love you Rich for saving the humans, even though they are just coloured pixels that you created in the first place. I thought this episode might not be popular because it's a little bit sappy and not as laugh out loud funny. So I came to the thread to defend its awesomeness. Looks like my defense of its awesomeness can't even be heard over everyone else's.

Way to go O-Chul for upholding everything. Way to go Redcloak for not being gratuitously cruel. Way to go Rich for an awesome comic. Way to go everyone else for appreciating it.

[bibliophile]

That, ladies and gentlemen is how a paladin acts. That is Good. Go O-Chul!

[lemonhoney]

I don't know about you guys, but this most recent arc has made me rather dislike Redcloak. It's a shame, I always thought he was cool. :smallconfused:

[Callista]

He is. He's just evil.

Lots of people have wanted good for their own, and bad for everyone else. Generally we call them supremacists of one sort or another, and we know they're evil. The thing is, they're rationally evil--the sort of evil we can understand. Everyone wants his own family, his own neighborhood, city, and country to be happy and prosperous... Now if that can be done at the expense of those who aren't one's own, then that would be rather a temptation, wouldn't it? Then all you have to do is allow yourself to forget that the "other" is also a thinking, feeling being; and you have someone capable of very great evil while still intending good. Genocide has been committed by those who thought they were doing good.

Redcloak is Evil; but I think we are all a little evil inside, and a little good; and we empathize with him because he wants things that we want, and does things we're tempted to do. We can't completely hate him, because he reminds us of ourselves.

[David Argall]

I'm sure it hasn't escaped the Twelve God's attention that not only has the capital of their worshippers' domain fallen goblins, but a rift which allows access to the greatest single threat in the multiverse has expanded rapidly. I can't help but wonder why the Gods haven't stepped in on this matter?

The answer is likely because there are gods rather than a god. Nearly everything they can try to do will be opposed by one or more of the other gods.

Drawing from the comic, it seems about the only really effective thing they can do is to remake the world, which is going to be resisted by all the gods who are "winning" at the moment. [In theory, that could be every one of the gods if we assume the world is sorta a giant tv set, and each god is enjoying the adventures of hero X, Y, or Z, there being more heros than gods. Since they can't remake the world and save the parts they want to save, they want to wait until things get desperate.]

On a less drastic level, such as dropping huge magic boulders on Xykon and Redcloak, we are likely facing arguments among the gods. The Dark One in particular has plenty of right to complain if they take out his chief priest, and the other gods are not likely to deem it a reasonable compromise that each of their chief priests also dies. There may be nothing they can do without causing troubles with other gods.

So we have a situation where the gods really can't do much, and are hoping the mortals will resolve the situation before it gets bad enough that they have to act.


The strip itself gives us a lesson on why one should beware of bluffing. I can't say I'd be inspired if it was my body O'Chul was risking to the Snarl, but when I get out alive, being inspired seems much more reasonable. Redcloak just makes himself look weak.
[Now those hoping for a Redcloak redemption can take some hope here. As several poster have suggested, tossing the slaves to the Snarl would have likely been viewed as unforgivable and ruined his sympathy. But I would not put much hope on this. The deaths of the slaves would have been too dark for the strip anyway and so we have Redcloak buckle even when it is out of character.]


The non-contact between gates was a bad idea made acceptable only because they couldn't think of a better alternative. Once tempers had had a chance to cool, they should have made better arrangements. [The paladins were likely unwilling to change if any such suggestion was made. Rules are not made to be changed.] Possibly, they would have had the same results. SoD The forest gate was taken by surprise and Dorukan was wanting to get his girlfriend back, and so would not have been interested in a rescuing army of paladins. Still, he would have had the option to summons in some pretty powerful help. But it is hard to think that the possible aid would have failed to help.

[Remirach]

He's NOT cool... he's a nerd, basically. I personally think it's hilarious that he's a evil goblin cleric of an evil goblin deity who'll yell at people to wipe their feet because he's just swiffered the floors.

[ChaoticEvilGuy]

OH MY GODS!!!!

[TBone]

This story arc went well. The humans in the pens at the end was inspiring. well done rich. I may be critical at times, but this is not one of them. well done.

[otakuryoga]

oooooo, slight miscalculation on the part of :redcloak:

[hanzo66]

Redcloak seems like the type who although would kill the prisoners if he knew it would get him info, seeing that killing them would do nothing save for giving O-Chul a Moral Victory he lets them go. I do somewhat like entertaining the idea that perhaps Redcloak may not be completely beyond redemption, but that will take several revelations for him to truly decide to turn from his current goals (or at least break off from Xykon).

Still, I like this comic. Helps flesh out both characters.

[Bitzeralisis]

Failure!

...

Redcloak, not the comic. :smallbiggrin:

[stsasser]

Will he still kill O-Chul?

[DrivinAllNight]

this is in my own honest opinion, probably the best comic I have read in the past few months, Go O-Chul Go!!!

[Zienth]

Will he still kill O-Chul?
Here's a scenario I picture:

Redcloack walks away in disgust, leaving O'Chul bound to the stake. After a while, Redcloak hasn't come back, so O'Chul says to a nearby hobgoblin, "Well, looks like he's through with me for the day, you might as well take me back to my cell." The hob shrugs and says "well, I guess so," and proceeds to untie O'chul from the stake. O'Chul the headbutts the hob, uses his sword to cut the remaining ropes, and escapes to join the resistance.

(and lives happily ever after, so MITD wins his bet) :smallsmile:

[Estelindis]

Here's a scenario I picture:

Redcloack walks away in disgust, leaving O'Chul bound to the stake. After a while, Redcloak hasn't come back, so O'Chul says to a nearby hobgoblin, "Well, looks like he's through with me for the day, you might as well take me back to my cell." The hob shrugs and says "well, I guess so," and proceeds to untie O'chul from the stake. O'Chul the headbutts the hob, uses his sword to cut the remaining ropes, and escapes to join the resistance.

(and lives happily ever after, so MITD wins his bet) :smallsmile:

That's rather awesome. However, I predict that
Redcloak, seeing no further use for O-Chul, will simply give him back to Xykon in order to keep the lich amused. :smalleek: Hopefully, word of O-Chul's survival will reach the Resistance, and he may be rescued at some later point (provided they make an attempt during O-Chul's "time off"). Realistically, though, such an assault would be very difficult, so O-Chul may not gain freedom until Xykon and Redcloak leave - if they don't just kill him then.

[Querzis]

Redcloak seems like the type who although would kill the prisoners if he knew it would get him info, seeing that killing them would do nothing save for giving O-Chul a Moral Victory he lets them go. I do somewhat like entertaining the idea that perhaps Redcloak may not be completely beyond redemption, but that will take several revelations for him to truly decide to turn from his current goals (or at least break off from Xykon).

Personnaly, thats a lot more how I read it, he didnt kill the prisonners because that would be just giving O-chul a moral victory, not because he didnt want to.

Guys we are talking about Redcloak:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0192.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html

Hes not above senseless killing. And that was hobgobelins, not the humans he hate so much. Even if there was no more reasons to kill them, he doesnt think there is any reason to torture O-chul either but he still do it because its in his schedule. He would have killed all these people if he wasnt for O-chul. Redcloak tried to prove that O-chul wasnt better then him...and failed miserably. For pretty much the first time as far as I know, Redcloak loss a moral argument. O-chul did what no one else ever did in the comic or in SoD, not even Redcloak brother, he won against Redcloak Resolve. Redcloak didnt throw those guys in the rift not because of his conscience but because that would make him worse then O-chul and he know it. He cant accept that.

And thats why O-chul is the best paladin ever. He doesnt just have a good influence on his allies but also on his enemies. Even when that enemy is a fanatical goblin that coudnt be stopped even by his family members.

And for the people who thought Redcloak was bluffing, please tell me you're kidding? If O-chul woudnt have screamed «Wait» in the first panel those guys would already be dead. Redcloak did shout «THROW IN THE FIRST GROUP» in the last panel of strip 546.

[Blaznak]

Wow! I am SOOOO uber-bummed Rich didn't draw Redcloak with moustache and hat. RC's statement about that just hit me right. :smallbiggrin: Too funny!
I enjoyed the rest of the strip, and loved that Evil got punished for doing right (letting prisoners go). Just goes to show, pick out what you do well and do it!
Later!

[Yendor]

I'd like to see
O-chul left alone with :mitd: while the others are at the meeting. The Monster helps Mr. Stiffly escape, or maybe gives him a reason to try to escape, say by letting slip that there's a resistance movement going on in the city. At least, it would be interesting to see how O-chul reacts to the Monster when alone.

[LtNOWIS]

I don't understand why some of you are (were) getting so wound up over RC throwing the slaves in. In his mind O'Chul has the data he needs...

I don't see where all the "I'll hate him if he does it" is coming from. He's evil. He sacrificed dozens of hobgoblins to get access to Xykon's secondary lair...

Even evil people can have limits, especially when they're lawful. People thought that a complex villain like Redcloak wouldn't want to recklessly destroy souls if he didn't have to. I personally would have found it believable and not a substantially new level of evil, but mileage varies.



If you care so much about their immortal souls then you should turn to the Gods and tell them that their incompotence and impotence has allowed this creature to undo what they created and blame them for not figuring out a way to destroy it before creating a new world. No, they decided it would be better to lock it up, but failed to do that as well. They were far more eager to have followers than protecting their followers from being undone. Selfish, self serving and reckless.

They can't fight the snarl. That's why a quarter of them were killed by it really quickly. And, getting mad at the gods isn't exactly a winning strategy. Saying "You shouldn't have created us without a better plan" isn't all that sensible either; arguably, it's better to have been created than not to have been created.


Awesome, but I don't get it...
I still consider Redcloack Lawful Good.
He wants to revenge/protect his people and kill the different ones.
What's the difference with the paladins?
Paladins don't torture. They don't keep slaves. And, they aren't harmed by Smite Evil.


Anyways, great comic arc by the Giant. Very inspiring last panel.

[Vanguard]

Anyone noticing the nice little insignificant color change? Wow comic's are poppin about like Daisies!


Go prisoners toot!



Woot-we own other team,

toot-figure it out.

[Callista]

Redcloak thinks he is LG. Or, at least, his own version of LG, which is the universal definition of LE. Why does thinking you are good automatically make you good? Everyone, deep down, thinks they are doing the right thing... even if their definition of "right thing" is "whatever amuses me". Redcloak just isn't as extreme as that. His definition is "whatever gives the goblin race revenge against the rest of the world".

That said, I wonder if perhaps O-Chul mightn't actually influence Redcloak to switch sides. We know, from his history, that there used to be potential for good there; every once in a while we see bits of that potential, and that's why we like him. He's spending an awful lot of time with somebody who's pretty strongly Good, and just as honorable as Redcloak. If they ever saw eye-to-eye, Redcloak might see a return of the gentler ideals he held long ago... Stranger things have happened.

[Dervag]

I don't think there's any chance of Redcloak being convinced of anything by O-Chul. From Redcloak's point of view, O-Chul is like the "honorable German officer" archetype from World War II movies. He's basically honest and he's got some respectable qualities, but he still fights for the Nazis.

You may respect someone like that, but you're not likely to be turned around by someone you see that way.

As for the strip:

"Yay!"

[CockroachTeaParty]

As much as I love team evil, it's nice to be reminded why they are indeed team EVIL. Redcloak in the last few strips, and Xykon's post ray of frost comment were delightfully sinister, in all the right ways.

[bibliophile]

Redemption is a possiblity, but I see it as unlikely, given his conduct in SoD. My new pet theroy is that O-Chul will escape and free some slaves setting off a mass rebelllion, possibly after xykon leaves.

[Ridureyu]

Again, I want Redcloak to die while crying.

Seriously. He needs comeuppance. He should not die instantly without realizing how pathetic he is, nor should he randomly turn "good." Sometimes it's good for the "sympathetic" villain to die a death worthy of his constant crimes, not his occasional sarcastic wit and cool fashion sense.

[Morgan Wick]

The way this book has gone and how far we are in it, I wouldn't be surprised to see us move on to the Linear Guild next.

[Remirach]

Actually this thread has been on my mind much of the day...

Why DID Redcloak call off the deaths of the prisoners in the end?

Was he trying to prove he was "better" than O-Chul, who would have "let" his fellow humans die?

Or had he been bluffing the entire time?

My immediate (and doubtless biased) reaction was more inclined to read it as a bluff he couldn't follow through on. It's true that Red's evil and has sacrificed goblinoids by the HUNDREDS for the sake of the plan (which is to say NOTHING of the humans he's killed), but to me it seemed there was an important distinction between simple death and the utter annihilation of a soul. So the plot point could have been put in to demonstrate that there is a line he considers sacred (he is a cleric, after all, and in SoD directly refers to the souls of his "martyred" goblin allies who would be "blessed by the Dark One in the afterlife.")

Which totally reinforces his complete hypocrisy, but it's not like THAT'S an out-of-character trait. Of COURSE souls are sacred... unless they all have to be obliterated for the sake of Plan B. Whoops! That he doesn't at all see this as a massive logical disconnect is not really surprising considering the mental loops he's taken himself through to justify everything ELSE about the Plan.

So I think "bluffing" is still a valid interpretation (if perhaps not the most intriguing one.) After all... the rift IS a huge part of what Team Evil is all about exploiting, and if annihilating human souls means nothing to Redcloak than what stopped him from pulling this stunt before?

On the OTHER hand... what if he HAD been willing to do it to prove to O-Chul he wasn't joking? 8 humans here and now, maybe 2 dozen the next time? How many souls before even a mighty Paladin must crack?

But even though he's DEAD certain O-Chul knows something, the Paladin won't talk. Considering the already low opinion he has of them, this would basically just be reinforcement of his prior belief that they're all self-righteous, myopic hypocrites. And since his village was slaughtered by supposedly "good" Paladins, here he has the chance to prove that he himself is of better moral fiber... which part of him must desperately want to do, because although he hides from himself just how far he's fallen, he knows deep down he's sunk below all hope of redemption.

(Well, hopefully not literally, but he certainly doesn't seem to be seeking it out or even to think it's a possibility.)

So he calls it off and gets to call himself the hero for the day. Huzzah. Of course, it backfires horribly...

(Although, I do wonder if those slaves really had any notion of what they were facing had they been tossed in, and if their reactions would have been exactly the same. I don't know. I'm a rather selfish person myself and I think I might be a little miffed if the Good Guys DIDN'T spill the beans when my immortal soul was at stake. It would depends on circumstances, sure, but in general...)

And because of the fact that this negative opinion of Paladins makes him feel superior, he is even MORE dead-set in his views that O-Chul knows something but is hiding it somehow. Otherwise, he'd have to think that O-Chul was basically just helpless to stop him no matter what he said... and that, if Redcloak had killed the peasants, the blood would be on his hands and not the Paladins'. Which is not nearly so satisfying.

Honestly I think they are both right to a degree. I think Redcloak never anticipated that O-Chul wouldn't crack. "You can't just let me do this! It's literally against the rules!" He intended to bluff, but when caught out, thought he might be able to salvage some kind of statement from the whole botched affair anyway, and the encounter helped feed into his superiority complex against humans.

As to O-Chul influencing Redcloak... sadly, I think not, or at least not yet. Redcloak's opinion of him here is even lower than it was before, and the fact that the Paladin managed to actually shoot back a retort that rendered him temporarily speechless pissed him off, it didn't impress him. If he started to doubt that the Paladin really WAS holding something back, maybe... but why start to believe that when the alternate theory is so much more morally gratifying?

Actually what I sort of wondered was what O-Chul thought of Redcloak. Most of the good guys barely know he's alive, and Miko simply dismissed him as a "soulless nihilist." O-Chul's much more rational. I fear he probably thinks of the cleric as a fanatic -- rightly -- but perhaps a somewhat pitiable one.

[Griever]

Great comic!!!

O-Chul continues to show his utter badassery and Redcloak can't get over his little flaw of stubborness... beautiful :smallbiggrin:

[Morgan Wick]

I'm not up for any of the "O-Chul=Chuck Norris" rounds, in part because I'm sick of that meme in general, but I do see a scenario where O-Chul=Jesus.

On an unrelated note:
If we do go back to a non-Roy group we've already seen, I'm seeing the set-up of the end of Redcloak's control over Azure City without learning what he needs, by way of three factors, two of which we've already seen:
*The unification of the Resistance.
*The inspiration of the slaves, potentially into a second resistance.
*Hinjo and Co. returning, even without external allies, or Haley.
The first two factors will lead to Redcloak becoming more pre-occupied with fighting the Resistance and restless slaves, which will grow more restless as they are freed and word of the Resistance spreads, leaving him more vulnerable should Hinjo arrive. It's entirely possible the twin resistances could even overthrow Redcloak, resulting in the end of the Cloister, resulting in V/Durkon contacting Haley and surprising her and Celia.

[Midnight Lurker]

Redcloak has officially dropped off the "sympathetic villains" list for me. :smallfurious:

As far as I'm concerned, there can be no act more evil than the deliberate destruction of even a single immortal soul. The destruction of the physical universe would run second to that, as long as everyone in it got to their duly designated afterlives.

Redcloak, you're off the hook. For now. :smallwink:

[the_tick_rules]

hasn't redcloak seen braveheart? He should know how this works.

[Rockphed]

When my brother finished reading the comic, he remarked, "Looks like Redcloak has stolen the idiot ball, and he is guarding it jealously." I am inclined to agree.

[PlatypusNinja]

I'm really enjoying this plot thread. Redcloak has a beautiful mix of right ideas and wrong conclusions.

It really is astonishing that the paladins could be this dumb...

[Qov]

It really is astonishing that the paladins could be this dumb...

On the other hand, if everyone knows how every other gate is guarded, when one gate falls the aggressor learns the secrets to all. If no one knows the secrets of the others, then nothing can be given away.

On the other hand they should have some kind of communication system to signal the fall of gates. But on the other other hand, I guess they do, because they knew to go and check on Dorukan's gate, even if they missed the obvious clues.

[Slayen]

I think this quote from the Doctor Who episode, "Boom Town" seems rather apropriate:


You let one of them go, but that’s nothing new. Every now and then a little victim spared...because she smiled? Because he’s got freckles? Because they begged? And that’s how you live with yourself. That’s how you slaughter millions. Because once in a while, on a whim, if the wind’s in the right direction...you happen to be kind.

[Remirach]

Originally Posted by the Ninth Doctor
You let one of them go, but that’s nothing new. Every now and then a little victim spared...because she smiled? Because he’s got freckles? Because they begged? And that’s how you live with yourself. That’s how you slaughter millions. Because once in a while, on a whim, if the wind’s in the right direction...you happen to be kind.
I think the validity of this comparison depends somewhat on whether you see Redcloak's proposed action as being just more of the same evil he's always done, or whether sacrificing those souls in the name of "science" would have taken him to a level of heinousness he had not yet demonstrated.

Aborting the attempt in the first case makes the quote seem very relevant. In the second... it's not just that he's occasionally capable of compassion, which reassures him, it's that he's rationalized that he's BETTER morally than his enemies and his brutal behavior will be justified in the end by his ultimately righteous end goals.

[Sludge-o-matic]

moriarty said: "wheres the chaotic evil lich guy when you need him? :/"

(ye olde quoting)


mmmh...interesting. Now I wouldn´t be surprised if next comic skullsy massacres something.

[Count D20]

The really funny thing is he's right. It IS stupid and irrational for the paladins to not keep tabs on the other gates......
But it was Shojo who controled the azurite Intelligence services, not the paladins. The paladins made a vow and kept to it, while less lawful allies worked behind the scenes.
Redcloak's problem is that he being too cynical. He refuses to belive that O-chul was Idealistic enough to follow his vows to the letter in this matter.
In short, he gone vulcan on us: he's unable to accept that his oppent is acting Irrationally, and is seeking a rational answer to a problem that has none.
Further ,he can't accept that a long line of people have been acting illogically for a long time.
I mean ,over someone else's "stupid" promise so many people have been ,to him derelicting duty.
To him that kind of inefficiency, for reasons of honor ,is staggering.

[Wixit]

They can't fight the snarl. That's why a quarter of them were killed by it really quickly. And, getting mad at the gods isn't exactly a winning strategy. Saying "You shouldn't have created us without a better plan" isn't all that sensible either; arguably, it's better to have been created than not to have been created.

Lets postulate a few things:

1. the Gods are omnipotent - they created everything and act as fuel for their followers' spells,
2. if Creation was delayed 200 million years and they let themselves think this through, nothing would change - the timeline would simply be delayed and that's it. It would have been exactly the same from the mortals' standpoint.

They had all the time in the world (literally) to sit down and think. Any attempt of Creation by any one God would be foiled by the others in the same way Creation v1.0 was, so the Chaos crew was kept in check. And if there really were no other alternatives (one dumb idea comes to mind, pull the strings out of the Snarl in a way that it can't counterattack) then they should have executed this prison idea to perfection. No cracks, no leaks, no need for mortals to create gates to patch up their incompetence.

Oh, one other thing - Creation v2.0 was by definition Lawful, i.e. it had order, as explained by the crayon comics. While individual gods may have weaved in chaotic threads into the realm of mortals, their entire plan was based on an orderly method. Had it been chaotic, we would have two Snarls.

Hm, hypothetically, do you think they'd cancel each other out? Seems more likely they'd just join up, but if they happened to turn on each other they'd split the threads that made them, making them weaker and more susceptible to unweaving.

[DougTheHead]

Further ,he can't accept that a long line of people have been acting illogically for a long time.
I mean ,over someone else's "stupid" promise so many people have been ,to him derelicting duty.
To him that kind of inefficiency, for reasons of honor ,is staggering.

This is sort of a weird trait for Redcloak to have. After all, he's a cleric. You'd think he had some sort of idea of the internal strength religion can give to "true believers."

[Alsadius]

I'm really surprised by Redcloak here - I never pegged him as being that stupid. Refusing to allow for the possibility of the obvious being true, completely misunderstanding human(or rather, sentient) nature, and then making all of his future threats worthless by backing down when faced with passive resistance. I literally can't think of any way he could have botched that more.

[Wolfprint]

O-Chul is badass.

Here are lessons to learn about playing paladins.

[Azazel]

It's not a question worthy of its own thread so I'll just state that I'm curious what happened to Redcloak lately. He seems a bit pale...

[Eric]

Apologize if I misread your intent, because the post you replied to stated:
And then you followed up with
Which I think makes it pretty easy to see that "SOME" qualifier as not being directed at the people who are claiming some alternate alignment for their preferred character, but at anyone who dislikes evil characters doing things even, well, MORE evil than they usually do. Which was how I read your post, apparently in error. Sorry if that was not, in fact, what you meant.

No worries. I was trying to explain what I see as the reason for the activity you were decrying (RC doing evil stuff).

It's because overtly evil actions (Belkar murdering the Gnome, RC sacrificing humans to the Snarl) are actions that SHOW they are evil. "But I LIKE them!! The Giant must have it wrong. He's doing it wrong. I can't like someone who kills like that!!!". That's why some have issues with these actions: they don't want to identify with evil. Which is kind of strange when it comes to characters in a story...

I shouldn't have been so snippy, though. Apologies for that.

[Eric]

do[/i] realize that the oath every party member took not to interfere in each other's gates and Soon's method of defending his are two entirely different oaths, right?

I would say not: from Soon's POV, the oath was needed. Read Soon's comments when he and the dead paladins appear. A paladin's oath will bind them beyond death. Remember it was Soon who said they should make an oath and Soon told his paladins to take that oath. Soon would not be able to come to the party and Miko would be by a long chalk the biggest badass on the palading side. And how long did it take Xykon to remove all those paladins (the highest level ones) from the throne room? One round.

He'd have pasted them easy.

Or just the goblins would have died. You think that would faze Xykon? Would he run out of level drain to take Dorukan out?

The result at Dorukan's gate would not have changed except there would have not been so many goblins for the OOTS to engage.

And the Azure gate would be unprotected.

[Eric]

But, I'm starting to find it a little tiresome that the OOTS and Shojo and other 'popular' characters are allowed to make mistakes as long as they're trying to do the right things, but others like Miko and Soon aren't.

Well, Miko did just make a mistake. Soon forgave her for it and gave her solace when she was dying.

But she was at that time a complete and utter nutcase. She was listening to her own voices and thinking that they were the Gods voices because She Was Good! Roy nailed it with his "You forgot to get the milk? That means you are in league with evil! Slash slash slash". Miko had lost the plot. O'Chul kept it because HE wants to help the people not some amorphous "Good". Miko just thought that since she could detect evil and she could kill easily those evil creatures, She Was Blessed.

In other words, she was a nutter.

She chopped the sapphire not to stop it falling in evil hands (like Mr Stiffly) but to get redemption and get the power she had back. It was a mistake and it was made for bad reasons. If O'Chul had chopped it, that would have been a mistake, but would have not been made on a bad premise.

Soon forgiving Miko doesn't stop her being a nutter. It does mean Soon forgave.

[Krenn]

In short, he gone vulcan on us: he's unable to accept that his oppent is acting Irrationally, and is seeking a rational answer to a problem that has none.

Hey: Vulcans understand perfectly well that OTHER races can be irrational. They probably even understand game theory, where it might occasionally make sense to FAKE being irrational.

They just refuse to act irrationally themselves if they have a better option.

[Krenn]

Redcloak's not really thinking this through.

If Paladins surrendered every time someone took hostages, they'd never get anything done. Betraying innocents just to save their lives is pointless.

After all, if those were 14 PALADINS about to be sacrificed, O'Chul knows they'd want him to keep silent. 14 Civilians wouldn't face death as fearlessly as paladins would, but O'Chul still wouldn't be doing them any favors by giving redcloak the information he needs for Xyklon to spend the next ten generations slaughtering civilian children.

The hard part is explaining his decision to the civilians when he meets up with them in the afterlife. And Paladins aren't generally known for shirking the hard parts.

[Remirach]

No worries. I was trying to explain what I see as the reason for the activity you were decrying (RC doing evil stuff).

It's because overtly evil actions (Belkar murdering the Gnome, RC sacrificing humans to the Snarl) are actions that SHOW they are evil. "But I LIKE them!! The Giant must have it wrong. He's doing it wrong. I can't like someone who kills like that!!!". That's why some have issues with these actions: they don't want to identify with evil. Which is kind of strange when it comes to characters in a story...

I shouldn't have been so snippy, though. Apologies for that.
You're actually too kind! I think honestly I might have been overly snippy myself, although I had hoped it would seem a little more joking in tone (rolleye smilies being inherently unserious in nature). It's hard to tell on the internet sometimes though.

I LIKE Redcloak, but I LIKE Xykon and many others. The thing was, sacrificing souls to the snarl seemed way, way out of his "evil league." It's not that I don't get he's evil, or want to reclassify him. It's that those actions would have actually redefined him as a character for me, in a much less enjoyable light. I like Redcloak despite his being evil, but that... seemed not like the character I'd come to know.

[Laurentio]

I LIKE Redcloak, but I LIKE Xykon and many others. The thing was, sacrificing souls to the snarl seemed way, way out of his "evil league."
But he didn't. And he gave the order TWICE, and didn't even cared that his hobs didn't followed it (of two one: they where told not to do for real, of Redcloak was giving orders at inadeguate volume to be listened).
Sometimes you fail to do evil, sometimes you are not really going to do. It's called "pretending".

Came on, no carded villains would save the life of 14 innocents on a crap like "See how a good PR I'm!". If you are evil enough to destroy souls, you probably would kill innocents in front of their children, and having them eat the corpses, while telling them that "The bad paladin had me done this, because he doesn't care you".

PS: look the new trope image: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging

Laurentio

[hamishspence]

Logical question, how did hobgoblins NOT throw them in? On neither occasion does redcloak give an obvious signal to them to not do it. No yelled WAIT, no hand waves. And hobgoblins are very obedient to Redcloak, even when it puts them at risk.

Did they here him saying "Let them go, it is a waste of time?" two possibilities:

Yes, or the prisoners would not have been returned to their cells. Just cos its not a shout, doesn't mean they can't hear it.

No, but there was a specific time limit, if order not given within certain amount of time, they return to cells with the prisoners

Hypothesis: Redcloak has given them orders to only obey a specific variant of the command Throw them In, in order to run the threat against O-chul, without the risk of being too hasty and throwing them in too early.

Or, he had signals, which we cannot see, to make it clear when he's bluffing and when he's serious: less likely.

Or, possibly, he is too worried about the hazardous rift to take the risk, and it was a true bluff: less likely but not impossible.

[pjackson]

Awesome, but I don't get it...
I still consider Redcloack Lawful Good.
He wants to revenge/protect his people and kill the different ones.
What's the difference with the paladins?

Are you a troll?

A paladin would not use evil means to try to achieve a good goal.
If a paladin did he would fall - a single evil act would do that.
That includes killing someone just for being different.

Redcloak routinely does evil things:

Torture (every Thursday for several months)
Creating undead (Evil by definition within D&D)
Slavery (he has enslaved the population of Azure City)

Redcloak has stopped sacrificing his own followers, so is maybe not quite as evil as he used to be.

[EvilJames]

Awesome, but I don't get it...
I still consider Redcloack Lawful Good.
He wants to revenge/protect his people and kill the different ones.
What's the difference with the paladins?

Paladins don't use torture or through innicent civillians into oblivian filled soul eating abominations, for starters. Nor are they willing to risk the destruction of the multiverse for their goals. Incedently revenge isn't a lawful good feature either. Redclaok is a very interesting LE but he IS LE (following a dark power is another clue as well)

[pjackson]

The really funny thing is he's right. It IS stupid and irrational for the paladins to not keep tabs on the other gates......


No, it was neither stupid nor irrational.
The oath stopped Soon and the others from fighting.
Defending one gate is enough to keep the snarl contained so so long as they defended the Azure Gate one it didn't matter what happened to the others.
The "unbreakable" honour of the paladins that kept them to the oath also enabled Soon to summon them to defend the gate, and that worked.
Xykon and Redcloak were beaten.

Unfortunately Miko broke.

[The Wanderer]

Are you a troll?

A paladin would not use evil means to try to achieve a good goal.
If a paladin did he would fall - a single evil act would do that.
That includes killing someone just for being different.

So a paladin wouldn't for example, kill an unarmed child or unarmed elderly men and women during the course of a mission?

[pjackson]

So a paladin wouldn't for example, kill an unarmed child or unarmed elderly men and women during the course of a mission?

Not without good reason to believe they were evil - such as if they were willing participants in the worship of an evil god, like the ones killed just after Redcloak was ordained - and capturing them to try to redeem them was not practical - because they were deep in enemy territory.

[hamishspence]

Exalted deeds says killing non-combatant, even evil ones, even those "outside society" (orcs in an orc village) is evil. Even placing area effect spells in such a way that will kill both combatants and non-combatants is considered evil.

OOTS probably doesn't use quite as strong a definition. which is why all the arguments over Start of Darkness. even people who dislike exalded deeds definitions of good, seeing them as too extreme, tend to strain at the massacre of goblin children. (1st ed apparently said slaughtering defensless orc children was evil, and it had much more freedom of action.)

Aforesaid paladin raid was rather indiscriminate. AND they didn't pick the Crimson Mantle up after killing its wearer, which seemed a little foolish. Had redcloak and Right eye died, it is entirely possible it would have fallen into the hands of other goblins. why weren't they sent out with more precise instuctions?

[The Wanderer]

Perhaps we see different things as necessary and practical.

Personally, I see little reason to use deadly force without direct cause, in other words when fighting someone capable of killing or even attacking you. I don't regard going out of your way to kill children, (which they did, both the leader paladin on the horse who chased Right-Eye and the female paladin who took the time to find the cave that Redcloak's little sister was hiding in and then impale her) as necessary under most circumstances. Perhaps if they're holding a weapon and are intent on using, but even then it's gray, at best.

O-Chul, Hinjo, and Lien have shown themselves to be good paladins so far, with admirable motives and actions. However, I don't believe in the line of thinking that being a paladin = automatically being good or being in the right. So by my standard, and pretty much anyones, they committed evil acts in pursuit of a good goal.

But then, I don't think OOTS are normal D&D ones. They are appointed by and empowered by the 12 Gods, and the 12 Gods define what is good. This is not the same as what is objectively good.

Redcloak is LE. But he and some of his opponents are not nearly as far apart as their alignment would suggest.

[Remirach]

But he didn't.

He didn't what? You left that one totally ambiguous.


And he gave the order TWICE, and didn't even cared that his hobs didn't followed it (of two one: they where told not to do for real, of Redcloak was giving orders at inadeguate volume to be listened).

This is extremely difficult to follow, logically. No offense but is English your first language?

If the idea is to shock the Paladin, clearly one would want to give the shocking order to KILL THE PEASANTS at the most opportune time. So it's not surprising Redcloak might give, and then rescind, the order twice. He CLEARLY rescinds it (with hand gesture) the first time, at least.


Sometimes you fail to do evil, sometimes you are not really going to do. It's called "pretending".
That's part of the debate going on. Did Redclaok "fail" to do evil -- i.e., give up? Or was he only "bluffing" -- i.e., "pretending" the whole time?


Came on, no carded villains would save the life of 14 innocents on a crap like "See how a good PR I'm!".

"Carded" as in "Card-Carrying Villain" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain)? Because while Xykon clearly fits that trope, Redcloak just as clearly dislikes it. ("It's hackneyed! I might as well grow a mustache and twirl the ends!")


If you are evil enough to destroy souls,

THENNNN you are a character who has not yet appeared in this series. Or the Snarl. Take your pick.


you probably would kill innocents in front of their children, and having them eat the corpses, while telling them that "The bad paladin had me done this, because he doesn't care you".

Sort of sounds like what Xykon wanted to do to Lirian in front of Dorokan. To Redcloak's total disgust and horror.


PS: look the new trope image: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging

Laurentio

Nice. Totally irrelevant to this conversation. But nice.

[Laurentio]

This is extremely difficult to follow, logically. No offense but is English your first language?
No. And offence taken. I'm italian, and my english skills are subordinated to the amount of work and/or caffeine.


THENNNN you are a character who has not yet appeared in this series. Or the Snarl. Take your pick.
Not as in "Having the power of destroying souls", but in "Being enough evil to destroy souls". The Snarl is just a local convenient soul destroyer, at the moment.
Actually, seems to me that Redclock acts really evil only if cornered, and no other action is possible. Otherwise, is more on the "morally challenged" type (yes, another trope).
To be clear, I think that Redcloak is intentionally failing at causing irreversible evil acts, when feasible.


Nice. Totally irrelevant to this conversation. But nice.
I'll close myself in a monastery to mourn on my lack of relevance until... ow, one moment. It was a "PS" (Post Scriptum). I suppose it counts.

Laurentio "You will have to hit me much harder before I even start to feel offended"

[Remirach]

No. And offence taken. I'm italian, and my english skills are subordinated to the amount of work and/or caffeine.

Either that is a typo and you meant "no" offense taken or you honestly want to fight with me for being a Seppo, in which case I don't give a flying camel's ass what country you're from. Bring it on, pasta boy.

NOODLY VENGEANCE (http://www.venganza.org/) WILL BE AT HAND


Not as in "Having the power of destroying souls", but in "Being enough evil to destroy souls".

Which you CAN'T pin on Redcloak because he's never done so. Either he's NOT evil enough to destroy souls, or else is but has never been shown to be, which makes no real sense.


You can be evil enough to want to do so but not have the power. but in "Being enough evil to destroy souls".

Again, Redcloak: No. If you want to say he's destroyed souls... there is exactly ZERO evidence backing it up. Say he's evil. Say he's rotten. He's killed people. He's Zombified corpses. BUT. HE. HAS. NEVER. Destroyed a soul that we know of. Period.


The Snarl is just a local convenient soul destroyer, at the moment.

Like a garbage disposal, or what? They actually HAVE NOT used it for ANYTHING. Perhaps it's too dangerous to screw around with.


Actually, seems to me that Redclock acts really evil only if cornered, and no other action is possible.

What "other action"? And "cornered" by whom? The treants?


Otherwise, is more on the "morally challenged" type (yes, another trope).

He's dishonest?


To be clear, I think that Redcloak is intentionally failing at causing irreversible evil acts, when feasible.

I'd love to see him not do evil things for some reason, but WHY...?


I'll close myself in a monastery to mourn on my lack of relevance until... ow, one moment. It was a "PS" (Post Scriptum). I suppose it counts.
You're as relevant as you think you are! Just keep telling yourself that, Paul McCartney!


Laurentio "You will have to hit me much harder before I even start to feel offended"

"I have only yet begun to pound your intestines out of your posterior end."

[NamelessArchon]

Mmmm - THAT'S good paladin!

[pjackson]

Exalted deeds says killing non-combatant, even evil ones, even those "outside society" (orcs in an orc village) is evil. Even placing area effect spells in such a way that will kill both combatants and non-combatants is considered evil.

OOTS probably doesn't use quite as strong a definition. which is why all the arguments over Start of Darkness. even people who dislike exalded deeds definitions of good, seeing them as too extreme, tend to strain at the massacre of goblin children. (1st ed apparently said slaughtering defensless orc children was evil, and it had much more freedom of action.)

Aforesaid paladin raid was rather indiscriminate. AND they didn't pick the Crimson Mantle up after killing its wearer, which seemed a little foolish. Had redcloak and Right eye died, it is entirely possible it would have fallen into the hands of other goblins. why weren't they sent out with more precise instuctions?

We do not know how much the Paladin's knew.
Most likely they did not know the powers of the cloak - it is possible that even Redcloak himself did not realize it was of more than symbolic importance before putting it on.

What we do know is that any evil act will cause a paladin to fall, so any explanation that says the paladins were committing evil acts is wrong, including Redcloak's, which is the one given in SoD.

It was not a random goblin village that was attacked, it was the site of an evil religious ceremony which all those present had supported and most likely participated in. The greatest threat to the gate was there - the bearer of the crimson mantle and several other evil clerics. How did the paladins know? Most likely through some divination magic. Possibly that had warned them against leaving survivors, maybe with a warning that if any were to survive they would be the one to destroy the gate. Though that would not have been enough to excuse an evil act.

We do not know that Redcloak's sister was a non-combatant. She may have carried a knife, and being a member of an evil society not have expected to receive mercy, so may have attacked whoever discovered her.

The exalted standard of goodness is more extreme that that of a Paladin but not unreasonable or unplayable. I am playing an exalted character currently.

[hamishspence]

there was also the attack on the young goblin who we later know as Right Eye.

Maybe it is simply that Giant does not use exalted deeds? seems simpler than bending over backward to justify attacks on young, unarmed, fleeing goblins.

[pjackson]

there was also the attack on the young goblin who we later know as Right Eye.

Maybe it is simply that Giant does not use exalted deeds? seems simpler than bending over backward to justify attacks on young, unarmed, fleeing goblins.

Right-eye was running back to the fight.

[SteveMB]

Logical question, how did hobgoblins NOT throw them in? On neither occasion does redcloak give an obvious signal to them to not do it. No yelled WAIT, no hand waves. And hobgoblins are very obedient to Redcloak, even when it puts them at risk.

Did they here him saying "Let them go, it is a waste of time?" two possibilities:

Yes, or the prisoners would not have been returned to their cells. Just cos its not a shout, doesn't mean they can't hear it.

No, but there was a specific time limit, if order not given within certain amount of time, they return to cells with the prisoners

Hypothesis: Redcloak has given them orders to only obey a specific variant of the command Throw them In, in order to run the threat against O-chul, without the risk of being too hasty and throwing them in too early.

Or, he had signals, which we cannot see, to make it clear when he's bluffing and when he's serious: less likely.

Or, possibly, he is too worried about the hazardous rift to take the risk, and it was a true bluff: less likely but not impossible.

Note that one of the hobgoblins asks, "Hey, so... are we throwing people off the roof, or what?" This suggests that they're still waiting for some unambiguous signal.

Recloaks's words and gestures:

Last frame of 545 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html): "THROW IN THE FIRST GROUP!"
First frame of 546 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html): Raised hand, apparently a flat-palm "STOP" gesture.
Last frame of 546 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html): "THROW IN THE FIRST GROUP!"
First frame of 547 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html): Hands raised... but this is apparently an expression of exasperation directed to O-Chul, not a signal to the hobgoblins.

The simplest explanation I can think of is that Redcloak told the hobgoblins that if they heard O-Chul respond to an order to throw in the prisoners, they were to hold off and await further orders. That would give his pressure tactic the best chance to work without prematurely tossing the hostages and losing his leverage. (Admittedly, only for the moment; there are plenty more where they came from. However, one must strike while the iron is hot....)

[hamishspence]

Right Eye was walking, not running. In any case,it was a case of paladin attacking him on sight.

the hobgoblin bit: does it suggest Redcloak has informed hobgoblins to stay on hold after first Wait signal, or was there a second Wait signal?

[Laurentio]

I repeat my opinion: Redcloak seems to be the kind of criminal mind that gives high detailed orders (probably, on color-themed flow-charts). So, I suppose that proper orders and options have been provided. That is, if no human has been flunked down in the soul-blaster rift, it means that Redcloak didn't want to.

I'm not a RC fan, it's just the male and green version of Hermion to me, or maybe a troubled teenager Peter Parker. Too much speaking before acting; always sticking to routines and science. Nothing against science, but there is a confine between Dark and Dork, and someone went too far.

And not enough evil (1). Not a problem for me (I enjoy the character's contribution to the story), but bad for him. One day, he will have to look behind and acknowledge his past. Xylon would laugh of it, but poor Redcloak?
Did he never did intentional harm to someone, without being driven by rage, an immediate and otherwise unachievable goal, or having Xylon looking him? (verily a question: I didn't read the books)
I know of Chaotic Neutral characters acting more evil than him. And with more gusto.

(1) Not saying that Redclock is not Evil. He is, but on a lower scale for the ultimate goal he pursuits, and for the massive means he is using. He just had his own personal epiphany ("Even hobgoblins are goblins!"), what is next? "Human are humanoid too"?

Laurentio

[DarkCloud]

-Definitely one of the most emotional strips thus far.

Very much enjoyable.

As the others were saying, as far as Redcloak goes- he'd lose the cartoonish villanous quality and it just would be depressing to read about him if he'd killed all the prisoners. Xykon can get away with such atrocities, Redcloak can't.

And I'm glad to see a small triumph for O-Chul, even though he doesn't know it was a complete triumph.

[motub]

Well, gotta say that it was real, real nice to see Team Good win one, and quite legitimately as well... it's been pretty hard for the good guys of late. Very much enjoyed the comic.

But I feel that many are missing the practicalities of Redcloak's bluff, and the real reasons that he wouldn't/didn't/can't afford to either throw the prisoners in the rift, or kill O-Chul (at this time).

And why he had to bluff, using a fairly insubstantial chain of logic to "cover" the bluff.

Redcloak's position at this time is incredibly weak.... but he naturally wants to keep his job (and his skin). As we all know, Redcloak sets great store by doing his job-- which at this time is Xykon's right hand-- as well as possible.

His job is 1) to keep Xykon happy, entertained, and satisfied.... and secondarily to 2) acquire the information that will keep Xykon happy, entertained and satisfied.

At this point, they've been sitting in Azure City for a good long time, doing nothing, which is boring. Xykon has made extensive complaints about just how bored he is already. And Xykon bored is a bad, bad thing.... especially if it's Redcloak's fault that there's nothing interesting to do.

So Redcloak has got to be feeling pretty desperate at this time... because short of coming up with the required information on Giskard's Gate-- which he can't do, apparently, after weeks of trying with his most likely/best source-- all he can hope for is to keep Xykon in some way distracted from his failure to acquire the information until he can think of some other way to get it, find someone else or some other resource to get it from, or make something up (which would be a true move of desperation, since it is so insanely dangerous), or whatever.

Now, if you want to keep Xykon distracted and entertained, what is there in Azure City of interest? Not much.... just 1) a paldin to torture, and 2) the open Rift.

Unfortunately, Redcloak suspects that the Snarl simply hasn't noticed the Rift yet, and since Team Evil doesn't really have any way at the present time, under the present circumstances, to control/utilize any aspects of the Snarl that might escape the Rift, it would not be a very good idea to attract its attention by throwing in tasty souls for it to destroy. And Redcloak is above all things a practical creature. I myself wonder how he's managed to dissuade Xykon from doing so until now, given that Xykon is bored..... stiff.

Well, of course, there is O-Chul. For the time being. By maintaining the fiction that there is some hope that O-Chul might have critical information that Redcloak will eventually succeed in retrieving (which it seems fairly obvious that RC knows isn't the case; even if O-Chul does have the information, which it seems almost certain he doesn't, Redcloak isn't going to be able to get it from him, having already utilized every resource at his disposal unsuccessfully), Redcloak preserves a still-somewhat-interesting 'toy' for Xykon, which gives him time to figure out what the heck he's going to do when Xykon tires of that toy and wants some real meat on his plate.

I mean, sure, probably RC believed some, if not all, of that guff he was spouting (we tell ourselves all kinds of things to rationalize our secret agendas, and anyway, he wouldn't tell the enemy his real motivations), but ultimately, he's middle-management, responsible for keeping Team Evil running, and keeping Boss Evil happy. "Scientific experimentation"? Please. Left to his own devices, I'm sure that RC would be interested in "examining" the Snarl-- he is something of a geek-- but he isn't left to his own devices, and don't ever think his own interests would supercede the demands of his responsibilities. Which are to serve Xykon's needs successfully enough that Xykon doesn't throw him into the Rift. It's not like Xykon likes him, or cares about him, after all.

I'm very proud of O-Chul, and very happy that his calling of Redcloak's bluff netted more 'win' than anyone expected, but even though O-Chul didn't do it because he knew or cared that RC was bluffing (he's not so bright as to have thought it through so deeply, especially after what he's been through), even a little bit of consideration would have revealed it as a bluff so thin that a child could have called it successfully, nothing said about a paladin of some experience, like O-Chul.

I really can't wait to see how RC going to save his skin when Xykon finally gets tired of diddling around Azure City watching Tivo and gambling with Demon Roaches. Though maybe the undercover rebellion, if and when it occurs, will distract him for a little while longer, if he forgets that he doesn't really give a hoot about Azure City at all anyway.

[hamishspence]

nice theory. we have no knowledge of precise danger of rift, but a lot of surmise, and it is plausible that Redcloak considers rift too dangerous to mess with. Might need more evidence to confirm theory, but it is insightful reason for it to be a true bluff.

Going by way they are talking, hobgoblins do not know rift is that dangerous. if it is as dangerous as theory says, I suspect only redcloak would know of danger being that bad.

[Clover]

Another awesome strip :smallbiggrin: poor redcloaks got no idea how wrong he was :smalltongue: lol

[Calmness]

Now that's just silly Redcloack. You should just have dropped them to their deaths, i know Xykon would have done it on an instant.

[SteveMB]

At this point, they've been sitting in Azure City for a good long time, doing nothing, which is boring. Xykon has made extensive complaints about just how bored he is already. And Xykon bored is a bad, bad thing.... especially if it's Redcloak's fault that there's nothing interesting to do.

So Redcloak has got to be feeling pretty desperate at this time... because short of coming up with the required information on Giskard's Gate-- which he can't do, apparently, after weeks of trying with his most likely/best source-- all he can hope for is to keep Xykon in some way distracted from his failure to acquire the information until he can think of some other way to get it, find someone else or some other resource to get it from, or make something up (which would be a true move of desperation, since it is so insanely dangerous), or whatever.

That might be part of the reason he's so annoyed by O-Chul's attempt to make something up -- it might have been tempting to pretend to believe it and thus solve the immediate problem (by kicking the can down the road and hoping to come up with some way to defeat the actual defenses of Girard's Gate when the time comes).

[LordSintax]

I hereby nominate O-Chul for the Chuck Norris Award, due to his awesomeness. Also, it's kinda nice to see Redcloak NOT throw townies into the rift, but think of the science lost! Somebody call up the boys at NOVA. they'll come up with the funding for this. And I did kinda want to see the snarl whoop some rear end outside the crayons of time. but ah, well. Still nice to see a Pally that i actually like in this comic. (years of playing rogues have left me a bit prejudiced. heh.)

[LordSintax]

I hereby nominate O-Chul for the Chuck Norris Award, due to his awesomeness. Also, it's kinda nice to see Redcloak NOT throw townies into the rift, but think of the science lost! Somebody call up the boys at NOVA. they'll come up with the funding for this. And I did kinda want to see the snarl whoop some rear end outside the crayons of time. but ah, well. Still nice to see a Pally that i actually like in this comic. (years of playing rogues have left me a bit prejudiced. heh.)

[Arcane_Secrets]

If Redcloak thinks that O-Chul not cracking because of that is against the rules, then he needs to review the rules. :smalltongue: He'd be the one killing them, not O-Chul.

Not that I think O-Chul knows anything to crack with, but even so.

Anyway, for all those saying Soon's oath was a bad idea: Was it? Was it really? After all, if they hadn't taken it, Redcloak would know all about Girard's Gate by now. :smallamused:

There's still a way for Redcloak to find Girard's Gate. I'm surprised he hasn't thought of it yet:

speak with dead on Shojo's body and ask him how the sensor to alert him that Girard's Gate was tampered with works. Since all of the gates were set up with sensors that alert all of the survivors of the "Order of the Gates" when any gate was tampered with or destroyed, if the alert system physically exists (it's obviously magical), then perhaps Redcloak could figure out how, precisely, Girard's gate sensor connects with the Azure City gate sensor. Speak with dead offers a Will save, but Redcloak's stats are probably high enough that Shojo may very well fail it.

[Tobrian]

Right-eye was running back to the fight.
*sigh*
Great, by that feat of handwaving you can define anything as "moral and right" that you want.

Step 1: Define yourself as good. (Of course you would.)
Step 2: Define anyone else you don't like as evil.
Step 3: Attack them mercilessly, because evil does not deserve mercy.
Step 4: Claim that anyone who dares to attack back in revenge, or who fights you in self-defense, or who heads back into combat to protect his loved ones/friends/neighbors even if it means his own death, or who was running away but was "supporting" the terrorists by being around them, brought it upon themselves if you kill them. (Hm, sounds very familiar.)
Step 5: Claim that the fact that you didn't "fall" PROVES retroactively that killing them must have been a good act, agreeable to your God(s).

That's the "lesson" that some people seem to take away from D&D's screwed-up definition of good and evil alignments, never more so that these days, and it makes me sick.

It is often pointed to the rulebooks where it is stated that in the D&D universe, good and evil (or rather Good and Evil) are not subjective or "morally relativistic", but objective forces, with whole planes dedicated to that stuff, etc. One evil act often brought up is killing living sentient beings. Ok.

But instead of taking the "an evil act is always evil" approach to its logical consequence by saying that, for example, ALL KILLING of sentient (nonpsychopath) beings taints your soul (no matter your alignment or THEIR alignment, or your intentions or their intentions, or if it's done in self-defense), a view seen in Heroes of Horror and incidentally also in the Middle Ages[1], and that if events force you to kill you will have to make amends later for the sake of your soul...

...instead the "morally absolute" crowd simply labels one side as "good", the other as "evil", from which follows the very Old Testament view (which admittedly is still en vogue today) that ANY act, including slaughter, rape and genocide, done by Us to Them automatically gets defined as "good" and neccessary, while the same acts done to Us by Them are seen as reproachful. This is what historians and sociologists call "in-group morality coupled with out-group hostility".

What we end up with in D&D then is a sort of schizophrenia in regard to paladin: on the one hand, they're supposed to act out the ultimate Enlightened morality and fairy-tale chivalric ideals, on the other hand they're supposed to strike mercilessly against anyone defined as evil by their superiors and their god-given Sense Evil ability.

The point which a lot of people seem to overlook is that EVIL for a paladin is what his deity (or pantheon) defines as evil! A paladin only falls if his deity (aka the gamemaster) sees an act as uncondonable and withdraws its holy blessing.

Even if we define "paladins" as only those LG types (and ignore all the other CG, LN, LE alternative "paladins" from the Unearthed Arcana and travesties like the Gray Guard for the moment, let's call them Champions of their respective deities) the fact is that in various D&D worlds LG paladins of different gods can come to blows with each other over their definition of "innocent" or "guilty". For example, a paladin of Pholtus on Oerth would happily execute wizards and sorcerers, simpy for being spellcasters, if ordered so by his authorities, as well as any paladins and clerics who do not follow Pholtus but dared to proselytize within the borders of the Pholtean theocracy.

The Dungeonomicom online ran an article (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9483443&postcount=2) with an interesting take on D&D in-game morality: The author claims that the society of D&D worlds mirrors iron-age civilization and values, before nations or kings, where raiding and warfare between tribes is seen simply a matter of life, not good and evil, and the most powerful rule as warlords.[2] We steal their cattle and their women, they steal our cattle and our women and marry them (the women, not the cattle!). You don't hate the other side for it, because everyone is related, or at least they're your neighbors and you have to live with them... even if they're goblins or talk a funny language. Every tribe has Heroes whose task it is to go forth and protect their tribe against outside dangers, like raiding parties from that other village over in the next valley.

Outtake from the Dungeonomicon article (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9483443&postcount=2) below:

The Socialomicon: Heroes in the Greek Sense:
"Can I kill the baby kobolds?"

When people are asked to name a historical point that D&D most closely represents, they'll usually say something like "The Middle Ages", or perhaps a date between 1000 AD and 1500 in Europe. Truth be told, to find a historical period which has a social setup anything like D&D, you're going to have to go back. Way back. D&D represents a period in history that is most closely identifiable with the Iron Age: the landscape is dotted with tribes and aspiring empires, the wilderness is largely unexplored, and powerful individuals and small groups can take over an area without having a big geopolitical hubbub about it.

The source material for the social setting of D&D is not Hans Christian Andersen, it's Homer's The Iliad and Caesar's The Gallic Wars. In the backdrop of early historical empire building, crimes that modern humans shake their heads at the barbarity of are common place – even among the heroes. D&D at its core is about breaking into other peoples' homes, possibly killing the residents, and taking their stuff home with you in a sack. And in the context of the period, that is acceptable behavior for a hero.

Living With Yourself After a Raid

The goblins have gone and conducted a raid on your village in full force. They rode in, took a bunch of the sheep, killed some of the people, set fire to some of the cottages, and rode away again with Santa Sacks filled with this year's crop. And they laughed because they thought it was funny. And now that your elder brother has been slain you want to dedicate yourself to the eradication of the Goblin Menace and begin the training necessary to become a Ranger so that you can empty the goblin village from the other side of the valley once and for all.

Par for the course D&D, right? Wrong! Killing all the goblins isn't just an Evil act, it's unthinkable to most D&D inhabitants. This is the Classical Era, and actually sowing the fields of Carthage with salt is an atrocity of such magnitude that people will speak of it for thousands of years. In the D&D world, goblins raid human settlements with raiding parties, humans raid goblin settlements with "adventuring parties", and like the cattle raiding culture of Scotland, it's simply accepted by all participants as a fact of life.

When your city is raided by other groups of humanoids, it's a bad thing for your city. Orcs may kidnap some of your relatives and use them as slaves (or food), and many of your fellow villagers may lose their lives defending lives and property important to them. But that's part of life in the age, and people just sort of expect that sort of thing.

Razing Hell: When Genocide is the Answer:

Sometimes in history there would come a great villain who just didn't get with the program. The Classical example is the Assyrians. Those bastards went around from city to city stacking heads in piles and levying 100% taxation and such to conquered foes. They became… unpopular, and eventually were destroyed as a people. That's the law of the jungle as far back as there are any records: if a group pushes things too far the rules of mercy and raiding simply stop applying. Goblins, orcs, sahuagin… these guys generally aren't going to cross that line. But if they do, it's OK for the gloves to come off. In fact, if some group of orcs decides to kill everyone in your village while you're out hunting so that you come home to find that you are the last survivor, other humanoids (even other Evil humanoids like gnolls) will sign up to exterminate the tribe that has crossed the line.

Cultural relativism goes pretty far in D&D. Acceptable cultural practices include some pretty over-the-top practices such as slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice. But genocide is still right out. That being said, some creatures simply haven't gotten with the program, and they are kill-on-sight anywhere in the civilized world or in the tribes of savage humanoids. Mindflayers, Kuo-Toans, and [Monster] simply do not play the same game that everyone else is playing, mostly because their culture simply does not understand other races as having value. And that means that even other Evil races want to exterminate those peoples as a public service. Like the Assyrians, they've simply pushed their luck too far, and the local hobgoblin king will let you marry his daughter if you help wipe them out of an area.

Solitary intelligent monsters often get into the same boat as the Kuo-Toans. Since the Roper really has no society (and possibly the most obscure language in Core D&D), it's very difficult for it to understand the possible ramifications of offending pan-humanoid society. So now they've done it, and they really haven't noticed the fallout they are receiving from that decision. Ropers pretty much attack anything they see, and now everyone that sees a roper attacks them. In the D&D worlds, ropers are on the brink of extinction and it probably never even occurs to them that their heavy tendrilled dealings with the other races have pushed them to this state.

[big snip about raiding temples of evil gods]

Temporal Authority in D&D
"Kill the dragon, marry the princess, rule the kingdom."

D&D is set in an essentially Iron Age setting. If your group (or even you personally) are known to be hardcore enough, you actually do rule the lands extending as far as you can reach.
[snip the rest]

Start of Darkness made it pretty clear that the gods created the various "evil" races with every economical, geographic and physical disadvantage as XP fodder for the "good" clerics, and forced them to live as raiders, clinging to the outskirts of human civilizations and lands. Of at least that's the story as Redcloak told it, and he had no reason to lie at that point. And you know, I believe him. Of course some people will argue that even if Redcloak didnt like it doesnt' meant it must be the Truth, since it might simply be fabricated falsehoods, propaganda spreads by the Dark One to Redcloak (and all the other goblin clerics before him). Of course.

But the point is, the same gods who created the goblins, hobgoblins and other non-PC races are also the gods who send their paladins out to slay said goblins, hobgoblins etc. As long as these gods sanction the killing of a goblin by one of their paladins or clerics as a holy act, said paladins and clerics will not lose their powers.

In Order of the Stick, of course, the roles of Good Guys and Evil Guys are clearly defined, because it's about the story, and Redcloak is as genre-savvy as Elan, although he lacks Elan's Sense Motive skill (or his sense motive simply doesnt work on non-goblinoids). [edited to add] Redcloak started out as a Well Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) but he knows, ever since Xykon forced him to re-animate his own brother's corpse in Start of Darkness, that he is supposed to play the role of the Card-Carrying Villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain).


-----FOOTNOTES------
[1] Which is why the number of new monasteries founded rose sharply during and after the Crusades, when monastic orders became rich and powerful. The existential moral problem for Christian knights and kings was that while they were technically absolved from sin when they dutifully went out and slaughtered "heathens" to "free" the Holy Land, they were still killing human beings with souls, and worse, they often found themselves killing not just enemy warriors but civilians... woman, children. Even back in those days, scribes of BOTH sides wrote about appalling atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion. And from the point of view of a king, he was responsible for every act of atrocity that knights under his command conmitted, even if it was for a holy reason.

But the Church offered a Get Out of Hell card: prayer. Usually, there were codes of penitence for killing, the severity depending on what kind of person you had killed. Now, for killing so many knights would have to spend years and years doing penitance. But fear not! Penitance would be "outsourced" to monks who would do the praying in your name. And since this needed a lot of monks, the easiest thing was to give money and lands to monasteries, and found new ones, to accomodate all the new monks.

[2] I would argue that civilization in D&D worlds is not a feudal Iron Age one ruled by local chieftains and warlords, but that most D&D worlds exist at Renaissance level, with empires and nation-states (nation states did not exist in the Middle Ages), and very modern-day ideas of penal codes and punishment (for example, the idea of locking criminals up in large-scale "correctional facilities" aka prisons for years on end, to make the incarceration itself the punishment, was only invented in the 18th century (http://www.adpsr.org/prisons/history.htm)).

It is merely the "Adventurers" who seem to operate under an Iron Age paradigm.

[Patrick]

Does the Snarl have some terrible effect on hair growth? I mean, they can all grow facial hair, but not a single strand is pokin' out of anybody's scalp

[David Argall]

Well, Miko did just make a mistake. Soon forgave her for it and gave her solace when she was dying.
Soon doesn't, and can't, forgive anything. [Like any paladin, he's a cop. He arrests the criminal and lets the legal system decide if mercy is in order. Of course, he is also frequently the legal system as well, but he is not there to give forgiveness to someone who is not asking for it.] He merely gives an evaluation, in this case that Miko had acted technically correctly [which means there is nothing to forgive], but the action had still turned out badly [which means much to regret].


She chopped the sapphire not to stop it falling in evil hands (like Mr Stiffly) but to get redemption and get the power she had back. It was a mistake and it was made for bad reasons. If O'Chul had chopped it, that would have been a mistake, but would have not been made on a bad premise.

Now what makes you assign these motives to Miko? [Other than the same sort of reasoning you have denounced in the case of Redcloak] O'Chul tried to destroy the Gate rather than let it fall into the hands of Xykon [and failed]. Miko tried to destroy the Gate rather than let it fall into the hands of Xykon [and succeeded]. There really isn't much difference in their actions.



Defending one gate is enough to keep the snarl contained so so long as they defended the Azure Gate one it didn't matter what happened to the others.
By the evidence given us, the destruction of even one gate can cause the end of the world.
Your model presumably is that of 5 ropes holding something down, where if one breaks, it puts more strain on the others, but does not necessarily mean anything. But the story model seem to be that of 5 holes in a prison cell. The Snarl can escape thru any one of them once they are "big" enough [we presume size to be a factor, but given the absence of Snarl activity at the huge rift, it may be entirely irrelevant.] That means that the Paladins can guard their gate perfectly, and the world can still come to an end.



Again, Redcloak: No. If you want to say he's destroyed souls... there is exactly ZERO evidence backing it up. Say he's evil. Say he's rotten. He's killed people. He's Zombified corpses. BUT. HE. HAS. NEVER. Destroyed a soul that we know of. Period.
Properly we would have to assume that is due to lack of opportunity, not to lack of willingness. Under the theory of the story, he hasn't had the chance until now.
And Redcloak does not seem to see much difference between just killing the slaves and tossing them into the rift. He describes it as a waste, covering both those tossed into the rift and those tossed onto the ground.
But morally, Redcloak is guilty of destroying souls even if he has not done so. He put the prisoners where the hobgoblin commander could have easily made a mistake and started tossing. He was clearly not part of any bluff plan, but was acting on the assumption that he was going to play pitch prisoner. So even if Redcloak didn't have any intention of tossing the prisoners, he was endangering them, and takes moral blame for that.


What we do know is that any evil act will cause a paladin to fall, so any explanation that says the paladins were committing evil acts is wrong, including Redcloak's, which is the one given in SoD.

SoD It was not a random goblin village that was attacked, it was the site of an evil religious ceremony which all those present had supported and most likely participated in.
SoD Now we do need some explanation from the paladin side here since the picture given makes it seem the paladins were doing evil wholesale, without falling and that simply does not fit the idea of a paladin. However, we can not simply declare any likely theory to be true. The only religious ceremony we know of is the vesting of a 1st level cleric, which is evil of course, but hardly justifies a journey of a thousand miles, much less the slaughter of all witnesses to the ceremony.
Now, it is entirely possible there was a larger evil ceremony, in which Redcloak becoming a cleric was merely a sideshow, but this is merely a guess. We can't say it happened, tho we can be pretty safe in saying there was some valid reason for the paladins to do as they did.



Redcloak's position at this time is incredibly weak.... but he naturally wants to keep his job (and his skin). As we all know, Redcloak sets great store by doing his job-- which at this time is Xykon's right hand-- as well as possible.

His job is 1) to keep Xykon happy, entertained, and satisfied.... and secondarily to 2) acquire the information that will keep Xykon happy, entertained and satisfied.
While neither Redcloak nor Xykon have the least doubt about who is boss, Redcloak is still a very vital part of Xykon's plans, in some respects more vital that Xykon is. Redcloak is critical for controlling a gate, and Xykon can't get rid of him until that is done or is impossible. So Redcloak is not at all desperate in regards to Xykon. He's an annoyance for now.
Redcloak can be said to be desperate in other respects. He is finding it harder and harder to have any hope he is going to get useful information about the next gate, and there is a tradition to such stories that each challenge will be tougher- So unless something breaks, and likely soon, he is just going to have to head off to the next gate and hope for the best.



The point which a lot of people seem to overlook is that EVIL for a paladin is what his deity (or pantheon) defines as evil! A paladin only falls if his deity (aka the gamemaster) sees an act as uncondonable and withdraws its holy blessing.
Now we can dispute what is the case in the OOTS world, but this is flat wrong in the D&D world. The paladin must be prepared to give his god the finger at any time. What the god says is good is merely advice, not definition. The paladin falls for an evil deed no matter what the god says.


Start of Darkness made it pretty clear that

the gods created the various "evil" races with every economical, geographic and physical disadvantage as XP fodder for the "good" clerics, and forced them to live as raiders, clinging to the outskirts of human civilizations and lands.
Of at least that's the story as Redcloak told it, and he had no reason to lie at that point.
All sorts of reasons, many of which we don't know. He was trying to impress a human with the virtues of the goblin cause. He was likely told some variation of the tale as a child as a tribal justification for their evil deeds. He had suffered an overwhelming brainwash by the Dark One ...
But there is entirely valid reasons to assume the fault lies almost entirely with the evil races. Crime really doesn’t pay well [except for the very small percentage at the top] and the evil goblins are poor because they are evil, not because they were given a raw deal by any gods. So of course the goblins would prefer to believe it is somebody else’s fault they are poor, and definitely not their fault.

[Callista]

However, I don't believe in the line of thinking that being a paladin = automatically being good or being in the right. So by my standard, and pretty much anyones, they committed evil acts in pursuit of a good goal.Were they actually paladins, or were they Sapphire Guard?

Anyway, paladins *are* always Good; if they're not, they're ex-paladins.

[Maddgief]

Brilliant comic. Just brilliant. The last three have been a wonderful story arc.

Well done.

[Lupy]

Great Comic! I don't think RC quite gets how human POWs and slaves think... Anyone think O-Chul is the new Spartacus?

[ArmorArmadillo]

SoD

Now we do need some explanation from the paladin side here since the picture given makes it seem the paladins were doing evil wholesale, without falling and that simply does not fit the idea of a paladin. However, we can not simply declare any likely theory to be true. The only religious ceremony we know of is the vesting of a 1st level cleric, which is evil of course, but hardly justifies a journey of a thousand miles, much less the slaughter of all witnesses to the ceremony.
Now, it is entirely possible there was a larger evil ceremony, in which Redcloak becoming a cleric was merely a sideshow, but this is merely a guess. We can't say it happened, tho we can be pretty safe in saying there was some valid reason for the paladins to do as they did.
SoD
Well, the Crimson Mantle was at the ceremony, and the Crimson Mantle is what keeps giving goblins the idea to control the gates and try to use the snarl. Had they successfully destroyed it, it could have prevented all of it.
Frankly, OotS morality, as I see it shaping up, is that everyone is a jerk, and everything that tries to be good ends up being evil in at least some way. The only real way to be "Good" in OotS is to be Right-Eye, Elan, or MitD and try to live as simply as possible.

[Blue Knight]

I really hope we get to see how this mini-arc shapes up before the action cuts back to the main cast. It's about time somebody washed the taste of Miko outta my mouth.

[RedWizard]

General points:
1) Gods. NOT OMNIPOTENT. Extremely powerful, yes, but not omnipotent. The Snarl tore through the Greek pantheon without effort. Gods are limited, gods are constrained. Gods, in OOTS, can die.

2) Book of Exalted Deeds. Has one real use, and glossy pages aren't absorbent enough to be good at it.

3) Good vs Evil. D&D, fundamentally, is a game about killing evil creatures and taking their stuff. Arguing that killing an evil creature is evil pretty much invalidates the premise. If something detects as evil, this is because it is evil. You don't become evil by thinking unkind thoughts, you become evil for doing things like drinking the blood of the innocent (the way the goblins in OOTS did back in Durkan's dungeon). Paladins are good by definition, yes; if they aren't good, they aren't paladins, and if you think the gods' opinion on this matters, that's your own houserules showing. The OOTS gods seem about as infalable as its inhabitants.

4) Issue 547. Awesome.

[Remirach]

Again, Redcloak: No. If you want to say he's destroyed souls... there is exactly ZERO evidence backing it up. Say he's evil. Say he's rotten. He's killed people. He's Zombified corpses. BUT. HE. HAS. NEVER. Destroyed a soul that we know of. Period.
Properly we would have to assume
Define "properly" in context here.


that is due to lack of opportunity, not to lack of willingness.
This can't be proven.


Under the theory of the story,
Another interesting turn of phrase. "Under the theory of the story?" Under whose theory of the story? Miko's? The Snarl's? Yours?

Do you mean its YOUR theory, David?


he hasn't had the chance until now.
He's been there for four months.


And Redcloak does not seem to see much difference between just killing the slaves and tossing them into the rift. He describes it as a waste, covering both those tossed into the rift and those tossed onto the ground.
"Don't their lives -- their very souls -- mean anything to you?" [bolding mine]

Yet the "control" group was not in danger of losing their souls.


But morally, Redcloak is guilty of destroying souls even if he has not done so.

Depends on your version of "morality." Which is subjective. So this is, again, your opinion.


He put the prisoners where the hobgoblin commander could have easily made a mistake and started tossing.
If I get into a vehicle intoxicated, drive around and hit NO ONE, am I morally guilty of manslaughter? YOUR opinion may state that this is so, yet the charge I'd face in court is DUI, which carries a different sentencing penalty.


He was clearly not part of any bluff plan, but was acting on the assumption that he was going to play pitch prisoner. So even if Redcloak didn't have any intention of tossing the prisoners, he was endangering them, and takes moral blame for that.
I, personally, think it's fair to say "he takes moral blame for endangering them." However I do not think that is the moral equivalent of having actually gone ahead with it.

There are different levels of evil we're working with.

The other quote that bears my name in your post is misattributed. I didn't say it -- that was pjackson you're arguing with.

[factotum]

3) Good vs Evil. D&D, fundamentally, is a game about killing evil creatures and taking their stuff. Arguing that killing an evil creature is evil pretty much invalidates the premise.

Only if you're a powergamer. In OotS the characters have much better motivations than that...in fact, only Belkar would agree with you, and we know he's evil! In OtOoPCs Roy specifically prevents his party killing a bunch of ogres who are just around to watch a heavy metal concert, so Roy definitely doesn't think that all he needs to do is kill evil beings and take their stuff.

[Wixit]

The very Snarl that they themselves created. Are you saying they're so powerful they can make something that's even more powerful than they are, along with the rest of Creation? Why not just make a better, more powerful set of Gods to destroy the Snarl then?

Oh right. Powerhungry bastards.

[Laurentio]

The very Snarl that they themselves created. Are you saying they're so powerful they can make something that's even more powerful than they are, along with the rest of Creation? Why not just make a better, more powerful set of Gods to destroy the Snarl then?

Oh right. Powerhungry bastards.
Because it would be probably impossible. Please mind that destruction is far, far, far, far, far, far, and far easier than creation, or even repairing. Try making a pot (some hour, considerable effort), then break it (one instant, no effort) and mend it (probably an hour, some effort).
Snarl has been accidentally made, and is way stronger than all Gods together. It's like creating some nervine gas: it require a man to make, but no man in the world can resist it without dying. And it's almost impossible to rend inert (that is, to destroy).

I would like to see the Gods to create a SuperGod. But not in this story, it wont fit.

Laurentio

[Eric]

(a)Soon doesn't, and can't, forgive anything. [Like any paladin, he's a cop.

(b)Now what makes you assign these motives to Miko?


Well the answer to (a) is that Soon was asked "Did I do good" and "Will I see Windstriker again" and lied to her because she was dying.

I see that as forgiving her her mistakes. After all, Soon told her NOT to break the sapphire, which leads me on to the answer to


(b) where she's saying how she's seen the True Path that the Twelve Gods have ordained for her (and hence the reason why she Fell, so that she could Prove Her Rightness) and it is to break the sapphire gem. Despite, as has been said, Soon (the founder of the order and very definitely a paladin) saying not to.

O'Chul went to chop the gem before Soon appeared, so all he had to go on was the considered wisdom: break the gem because it can be used for evil.

[Eric]

"Don't their lives -- their very souls -- mean anything to you?"
...
I, personally, think it's fair to say "he takes moral blame for endangering them." However I do not think that is the moral [b]equivalent of having actually gone ahead with it.
...
There are different levels of evil we're working with.


I think that RC CAN and COULD kill those humans. It's just that his personal image of himself is that he's actually the GOOD guy. Worse for his doing this action is that he believes himself BETTER than the humans.

He refrained from killing the people not because their lives and souls were worthy of life but because his personal self-image says he shouldn't.

Xykon would. Not because he's any more evil or ready to kill, but because he has no self-image to get in the way.

Which is why Xykon's the Butch and Redcloak is the Bitch.

Redcloak IS a more sympathetic character because we can see there is some good in him. But he's too obsessed on his goal to make anything worthwhile of it.

[Arkenputtyknife]

The very Snarl that they themselves created. Are you saying they're so powerful they can make something that's even more powerful than they are, along with the rest of Creation?
Why not? A single atomic bomb is more powerful than any human. A small computer can perform calculations far beyond the capacity of any human. Not so long ago, a physics experiment that was believed to have an extremely small but non-zero probability of destroying the universe was proposed (I don't know whether it was actually performed). Humans created all of these in the real world.

The notion that entities can't make things greater than themselves is a fallacy which, through the ages, has led many philosophers to false conclusions.

[Remirach]

I think that RC CAN and COULD kill those humans. It's just that his personal image of himself is that he's actually the GOOD guy. Worse for his doing this action is that he believes himself BETTER than the humans.

He refrained from killing the people not because their lives and souls were worthy of life but because his personal self-image says he shouldn't.
If your personal image of yourself as a good person keeps you on the path of behaving as a good person... doesn't that mean you are a effectively a good person? And if the lives and souls of the humans weren't worth anything, why would a "good person" hesitate from destroying them?

But the thing here is, he KNOWS he's not Good. He can't be, in a world with an objective alignment system. Smite Evil hurts him. He channels negative energy. TDO is "technically an evil God." His image of himself as "better" DOESN'T always restrain him from doing evil deeds... because he already knows he's evil, all he can hope for is to be justified in the end.


Xykon would. Not because he's any more evil or ready to kill, but because he has no self-image to get in the way.

Which is why Xykon's the Butch and Redcloak is the Bitch.

One quote to not forget in that whole speech: the one he whispers to Redcloak.

Xykon: It's not just about raw power, it's also about how far you're willing to debase yourself before feeling bad.

Before FEELING BAD. As in, regretful or remorseful. Redcloak feels remorse for evil deeds, (like crying over his murder of Right-Eye) while Xykon does not. On occasion this restrains him from certain evil deeds. So it's not just about self-image, it's about conscience.


Redcloak IS a more sympathetic character because we can see there is some good in him. But he's too obsessed on his goal to make anything worthwhile of it.
Yeah... that's the tragedy of it all. If only he could have stayed in Right-Eye's village...

[Krenn]

Why not? A single atomic bomb is more powerful than any human.

that depends on how you define power; myself, I think you could make a case that the President of the United States is more powerfull than an atomic bomb. Under certain circumstances, he has authority to release a THOUSAND nuclear bombs.

not to mention that enough fuel-air bombs used together will eventually exceed the yield of a small nuclear warhead.

[Krenn]

Soon doesn't, and can't, forgive anything. [Like any paladin, he's a cop. He arrests the criminal and lets the legal system decide if mercy is in order. Of course, he is also frequently the legal system as well, but he is not there to give forgiveness to someone who is not asking for it.] He merely gives an evaluation, in this case that Miko had acted technically correctly [which means there is nothing to forgive], but the action had still turned out badly [which means much to regret].
[/spoiler]

Why would a paladin be unable to forgive? they're lawful good, not lawful neutral. As long as someone is truly penitent, and they're asking for a level of forgiveness that the paladin has authority to give, I don't see a problem.

Of course, even if a paladin were to PERSONALLY forgive, say, a homicidal maniac, they might still be required to execute them. Forgiveness is not neccessarily the same thing as mercy.

[Wixit]

Why not? A single atomic bomb is more powerful than any human. A small computer can perform calculations far beyond the capacity of any human. Not so long ago, a physics experiment that was believed to have an extremely small but non-zero probability of destroying the universe was proposed (I don't know whether it was actually performed). Humans created all of these in the real world.

The notion that entities can't make things greater than themselves is a fallacy which, through the ages, has led many philosophers to false conclusions.

So far two claims have been produced:

a) the gods cannot destroy the Snarl
b) the gods can create something that is more powerful than they are

I know you didn't make claim a), but nonetheless.

The two cannot exist together. Either they can create an entity that is stronger than they are (could destroy the Snarl), but won't, or they can't create an entity that is stronger than they are, which would mean they could kill the Snarl, but again, don't want to do it.

That was my entire point. It's ultimately their responsibility that the Snarl exists in the first place. They could have post-poned creation to figure out a way to nuke it and none would be the wiser, but chose not to for some unknown reason. I believe that reason to be greed and a lust for power.

[Eric]

If your personal image of yourself as a good person keeps you on the path of behaving as a good person... doesn't that mean you are a effectively a good person?

No, because that's a bribe. You're not thinking of others, you're thinking of yourself. Not *bad* necessarily, but there's no real good there. Rather like acting nice because otherwise you'd be jailed: you aren't doing good, you're just avoiding the penalty.

What will happen is that others will treat you as if you were good-aligned.

If Redcloak focussed on helping goblins rather than focussed on using the snarl to help them, he'd probably be able to develop his self image into a reality. It's *possible* for him to change his ways (unlike Xykon) but he won't be able to do it until he stops obsessing about the job and started thinking about the welfare of the goblins.

When he was about to join Right-eye, he would have become, if not good, at least on the right path to it. He'd discovered from his little brother that the best way to help goblins is to live right, not force everyone to do what you want. A moment that enters a little pathos into RC's story.

[Eric]

So far two claims have been produced:

a) the gods cannot destroy the Snarl
b) the gods can create something that is more powerful than they are


But the gods together ARE more powerful than the Snarl. They imprisoned it. The world they made contains the snarl. They mastered it.

They can't kill it.

See Death in "Good Omens": you can't kill it because that would unmake life. But Adam COULD still end Azrael's existence.

Or, to get onto Geekdom: Darth Vader killed Obi-Wan but Obi-Wan became more powerful yet. Darth was strong enough to KILL Obi-Wan, though. Just not more powerful.

[Remirach]

No, because that's a bribe. You're not thinking of others, you're thinking of yourself. Not *bad* necessarily, but there's no real good there. Rather like acting nice because otherwise you'd be jailed: you aren't doing good, you're just avoiding the penalty.

What will happen is that others will treat you as if you were good-aligned.

Then you're not talking about someone whose self-image depends on thinking of themselves as good: you're talking about someone whose self-image depends on OTHER PEOPLE thinking they are good.

Which is something completely different.


If Redcloak focussed on helping goblins rather than focussed on using the snarl to help them, he'd probably be able to develop his self image into a reality. It's *possible* for him to change his ways (unlike Xykon) but he won't be able to do it until he stops obsessing about the job and started thinking about the welfare of the goblins.

He actually IS thinking about the welfare of goblins. In a wrongheaded fashion that he would do better to abandon, but it is there.

When he was about to join Right-eye, he would have become, if not good, at least on the right path to it. He'd discovered from his little brother that the best way to help goblins is to live right, not force everyone to do what you want. A moment that enters a little pathos into RC's story.
That for me is the SADDEST moment of the whole story -- including even the end. Because of the "what could have been." We see his true concern for those he loves and the relationships he builds up rapidly with his family and loved ones, until finally he just wants to forget everything else and focus on THAT.

Then Xykon shows up. :smallfurious:

[Shatteredtower]

So far two claims have been produced:

a) the gods cannot destroy the Snarl
b) the gods can create something that is more powerful than they are

I know you didn't make claim a), but nonetheless.

The two cannot exist together.Of course they can. Once you've discovered means of destroying the planet, you can't uncreate those means. You may destroy the device capable of accomplishing the task and pledge never to build another one, but the means still exist.

The Snarl is a consequence of four pantheons working at odds with each other. The world is the product of the remaining three working together. They learned a lesson, and were determined to avoid making it again.

We don't know what they've been doing in their efforts to destroy the Snarl once and for all, but they're not chancing having it complete the job it did the first time. Get that wrong, and it's the End for everyone.


It's ultimately their responsibility that the Snarl exists in the first place.Of course it is. They know that.


They could have post-poned creation to figure out a way to nuke it and none would be the wiser, but chose not to for some unknown reason.Actually, there's an obvious reason for rebuilding the world the moment the threat was contained: When would they get a better chance?

Look, they've already seen their ranks diminished by the appearance of one threat that caught them unawares. The next could come at any time, from anywhere. Now's the best chance anyone's going to get.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Okay, at this point I know I'm a bit late in the posting game for this comic, but I still felt like saying this:

I've enjoyed Burlew's portrayal of paladins in the last several comics. As much as most of us hated Miko, it seems many have also been fans of Hinjo. O'chul, in just a few comics, has quickly become another fave of mine. He takes a beating, is threatened with pain and death, is nearly killed for sport, is made responsible for the potential utter destruction of his fellow citizens. Still, he remains steadfast and enduring. No wonder the people of Azure City are so inspired! It's a great display of an aspect of paladins that we rarely get to see.

Also, I enjoy the slight twist on the "give in, or I hurt others" interrogation method so often seen.

Right on.

[lothofkalroth]

They can't kill it.

See Death in "Good Omens": you can't kill it because that would unmake life. But Adam COULD still end Azrael's existence.

exactly, even if the gods could kill the snarl, they would have to destroy existence to do so. (and btw, Good Omens is an awesome book!)

[maxon]

It's not a question worthy of its own thread so I'll just state that I'm curious what happened to Redcloak lately. He seems a bit pale...

Standing in the light cast from the snarl rift, he is looking a little paler than usual.

In other news, O'Chul 1 RC 0

[David Argall]

Define "properly" in context here.
There are other assumptions we can use here. However, they are clearly flawed and inferior.


This can't be proven.
Now if you recall your crime shows, it is the guilty guy who says this sort of thing. In the show the hero usually then counters by showing some proof that he can. Given the limited evidence we have from the comic, I can't do the same, but we can still draw the same conclusion. By saying "this can't be proven" instead of "you are wrong", you are "confessing" to the crime, in this case, that Redcloak "failure" to destroy souls to date is weak to no evidence that he won't in the future.


Another interesting turn of phrase. "Under the theory of the story?" Under whose theory of the story? Miko's? The Snarl's? Yours?
You are free to provide a theory of the story that doesn't reach this conclusion.


He's been there for four months.
Out of a lifespan of 50 years or so, and tossing bodies into the rift is frankly a lot of unnecessary work. Not tossing them in up to now would seem to be a matter of indifference rather than any feeling of horror about the crime.

SoD Recall here that Redcloak is entirely willing to gamble his own soul on his attempt to take over a gate. He describes this as worse than death, but is still entirely willing to risk it, and to risk the souls of everyone else in the world. So it seems entirely dubious that he has any qualms that will stop him from destroying souls.


"Don't their lives -- their very souls -- mean anything to you?"
He was trying to convince O'Chul, which means he is entirely free to appeal to any value he thinks the paladin might have, whether or not Redcloak has that value or not.


Yet the "control" group was not in danger of losing their souls.
Which is the point. Redcloak treated both groups the same. He didn't say anything like "Destroying their souls is too evil for me, so I'll just toss them all off the tower to die", which we know he is entirely evil enough to do. Instead, he said killing any of them is a waste, which is merely a decision on use of resources.


Depends on your version of "morality." Which is subjective. So this is, again, your opinion.
It is also the opinion of just about all legal systems and moralists. You are free to try to provide exceptions.


If I get into a vehicle intoxicated, drive around and hit NO ONE, am I morally guilty of manslaughter? YOUR opinion may state that this is so, yet the charge I'd face in court is DUI, which carries a different sentencing penalty.
And you are charged with DUI because you might have hit someone. Same thing as if you shot at and missed someone you wanted to kill. You don't get charged with Murder, but with attempted murder, or maybe just assault if you catch a break. Morally you are guilty of murder because you might have killed someone.


I, personally, think it's fair to say "he takes moral blame for endangering them." However I do not think that is the moral equivalent of having actually gone ahead with it.
There are different levels of evil we're working with.
In the sense we punish them differently. But we are asking "will he do it next time?" and our evidence gives us more hope there will not be a next time than that he will refrain if there is.


The other quote that bears my name in your post is misattributed. I didn't say it -- that was pjackson you're arguing with.
Corrected

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall

(a)Soon doesn't, and can't, forgive anything. [Like any paladin, he's a cop.

(b)Now what makes you assign these motives to Miko?


Well the answer to (a) is that Soon was asked "Did I do good" and "Will I see Windstriker again" and lied to her because she was dying.
Now where is the evidence that Soon lied? On seeing Windstriker, we simply have zero evidence beyond Soon's word and manner, making any claim he lied purely a personal addition to the story. As to answering "Did I do good?", Soon gives a much more balanced answer than he would provide if he was trying to lie. We note he said Miko would not be allowed to become a paladin again, something much more important to her than her horse. [Indeed, we can argue from his expression and manner that he is relieved to be able to tell her some good news about her horse after having to deny her what she wanted most.]
Nor will the motive of her death work here. One might lie to the dying on the theory that it really doesn't make any difference. The dying will never find out the statement is a lie and can take some comfort in the little time left. But Soon knows that Miko will find out. The lie is just setting her up for a worse fall, and is outright damaging to her.


After all, Soon told her NOT to break the sapphire,
We have no evidence that she heard him, and her and Soon's words argue she didn't hear. She is expecting approval from Soon, which is distinctly dubious if she had heard him order her not to act. Nor does he task her with anything like disobeying orders, quite the reverse. He tells her that following those orders worked out badly.


O'Chul went to chop the gem before Soon appeared, so all he had to go on was the considered wisdom: break the gem because it can be used for evil.
Which does not differ him from Miko.



Why would a paladin be unable to forgive? they're lawful good, not lawful neutral. As long as someone is truly penitent, and they're asking for a level of forgiveness that the paladin has authority to give, I don't see a problem.
And the paladin, Soon in particular here, does not have that authority.



Of course, even if a paladin were to PERSONALLY forgive, say, a homicidal maniac, they might still be required to execute them. Forgiveness is not neccessarily the same thing as mercy.
Now note you are saying personally forgive, which is, in the case at hand, entirely unimportant. Soon is not going to be able to alter Miko's fate at all. Indeed he takes part in causing that fate.

So we are talking of different definitions of forgive. If we use the wider "to give up resentment against", then a paladin, or anybody else, can forgive. But if we use "to give up all claim to punish or exact penalty for..", then the paladin, as such, can't do that. That belongs to the victim or the legal authority. As you note, he may still be required to execute the sinner.

[dutch508]

heh heh heh...it's all about perspective

:smallbiggrin:

[Remirach]

Define "properly" in context here.


There are other assumptions we can use here. However, they are clearly flawed and inferior.
Why is it more "proper" to be coming up with assumptions in the first place when there is so much as-of-yet unrevealed evidence which could completely invalidate them in a single strip? I say, Redcloak hasn't destroyed any souls. You say, we should "properly assume" it's only because he hasn't had the opportunity yet, I want to know why that's "proper" when you can't back it up and admit as much.

This can't be proven.


Now if you recall your crime shows, it is the guilty guy who says this sort of thing.
You could make any kind of horrible claim about Redcloak -- maybe he's raped women, maybe he's eaten the brains of human children -- and I'd reply, there's no proof of that, why should we presume guilt just because he's got evil in his alignment? Because what I said (not something someone in the comic said) sounds sort of like what bad guys on Law and Order can say occasionally?

Because of that, we ought to assume guilt?

And you are the one stating other assumptions beyond yours are "clearly flawed and inferior?"


In the show the hero usually then counters by showing some proof that he can. Given the limited evidence we have from the comic, I can't do the same,


[b]THANK YOU FOR STATING THIS DEFINITIVELY, no, you CAN'T do the same. You CAN'T prove it.

Oh, wait, :sigh: there's more.


Given the limited evidence we have from the comic, I can't do the same, but we can still draw the same conclusion.

"I can't prove he's guilty but we can draw that conclusion anyway."

David, that statement totally contradicts itself. If you can't prove he's guilty, you can still THINK he's guilty but you can't "conclude" it.


By saying "this can't be proven" instead of "you are wrong", you are "confessing" to the crime,
By saying "this can't be proven" instead of "you are wrong," I am confessing that I can't point to a strip that invalidates your theory beyond all shadow of a loony doubt. Which might be something along the lines of a strip where we witness Redcloak saying "no, I could never actually destroy a soul, even a human one, it would just be too much for my conscience to bear." And really, even THAT wouldn't be good enough because you could just claim he was lying. So maybe if there were a strip where he said it while under some kind of magical geas that prevented lying, but then you could say, well, maybe he won't destroy souls NOW but he could change his mind.

I can't specifically invalidate an infinite number of theories that could be proposed -- this forum would have MUCH fewer posts (and posters) if this were not the case. We can point to past evidence, note trends, and try to make a case that there's no compelling reason to believe whatever theory has been proposed is likely, but we can't always say definitively you are wrong even if it looks really, REALLY likely that someone IS wrong.

Unless we're the Giant, of course.


in this case, that Redcloak "failure" to destroy souls to date is weak to no evidence that he won't in the future.
I said he's never destroyed a soul, I didn't argue he never ever will.

Another interesting turn of phrase. "Under the theory of the story?" Under whose theory of the story? Miko's? The Snarl's? Yours?

You are free to provide a theory of the story that doesn't reach this conclusion.
Which "conclusion?" The one that it is "proper" to believe that RC has never destroyed a soul because he has never had the opportunity, not that he is unwilling? The one you admit you can't prove?

He's been there for four months.

Out of a lifespan of 50 years or so,

We were talking about "opportunity to destroy human souls," which he has most definitively had for at four months because he has slaves and easy access to a Rift.


and tossing bodies into the rift is frankly a lot of unnecessary work.
He COULD do it though. NOW you're trying to state the reason he hasn't done it yet is it because it's "a lot of unnecessary work" to order some of his minions to start chucking? He doesn't even have to DO anything himself except sit back and enjoy the show.

Besides, even if it's "hard work" by some bizarro world definition of the term, he HAS the means at hand to start destroying human souls, but apparently lacks sufficient motive.


Not tossing them in up to now would seem to be a matter of indifference rather than any feeling of horror about the crime. Would "seem" to you, perhaps, but his total emotional freakout (we've only seen one of those expressions he displays twice before, both in SoD during the most traumatic moments of his life) suggests otherwise to me.

"It gives me no pleasure to end those men up there..."

And "damn you! You can't just let me do this!"

"You're savages. Amoral savages."


SoD Recall here that Redcloak is entirely willing to gamble his own soul on his attempt to take over a gate. He describes this as worse than death, but is still entirely willing to risk it, and to risk the souls of everyone else in the world. So it seems entirely dubious that he has any qualms that will stop him from destroying souls.

He's willing to risk it, but he doesn't want it to happen. He risks his allies all dying "slow uncomfortable deaths" in the process of making Xykon a lich, and Right-Eye notes that he's growing uneasy with how many of RC's plans seem to have something horrible like that as a possible consequence. It would be perfectly within his character traits to have qualms about destroying souls but still be willing to gamble on them.


He was trying to convince O'Chul, which means he is entirely free to appeal to any value he thinks the paladin might have, whether or not Redcloak has that value or not.
But when O-Chul seems to fail to display such a value, he's increasingly angry in a "how can you humans be such awful amoral savages" kind of way, not just a "damn you for thwarting me" fashion which would be what we'd expect if he didn't have some of those same values he expected O-Chul to have. (Values he has often, himself, violated, which makes him hypocritical, but he does indeed have values.)


Which is the point. Redcloak treated both groups the same. He didn't say anything like "Destroying their souls is too evil for me, so I'll just toss them all off the tower to die", which we know he is entirely evil enough to do. Instead, he said killing any of them is a waste, which is merely a decision on use of resources.
Actually he didn't say KILLING them was a waste, he said he was wasting his TIME. His stated reason to let them all live was it would be good for PR reasons. (Oops.)


It is also the opinion of just about all legal systems and moralists. You are free to try to provide exceptions.
No, it isn't, and this response makes me wonder if you even remember what this topic was originally about. Let's go over where this conversation has been.

You said, "morally he is guilty of destroying their souls even if he didn't actually, because he put them at risk."

I said, maybe according to YOUR morality. You have some pretty controversial opinions on certain topics of D&D alignment and morality, and not everyone on this forum agrees with a lot of them.

This, now, this isn't like "attempted murder." There was no attempt. What legal system would convict someone for murder they not only didn't do but didn't TRY to do? They'd nail him for endangerment and attempted blackmail.

As to what other "moralists" would think, I don't see anyone here besides you saying he's morally just as guilty of destroying their souls as if he really had gone and destroyed their souls.


And you are charged with DUI because you might have hit someone.
Yes, exactly! Might have, but in this case, didn't. Just like Redcloak having the prisoners up on the tower where they "might have" accidentally fallen.


Same thing as if you shot at and missed someone you wanted to kill.
That's something completely different because of "intent."


You don't get charged with Murder, but with attempted murder, or maybe just assault if you catch a break. Morally you are guilty of murder because you might have killed someone.
But are you morally guilty if you might have killed someone when you WEREN'T trying to? Because THAT'S the situation we're looking at with RC.


In the sense we punish them differently. But we are asking "will he do it next time?"
Oh?


I, personally, think it's fair to say "he takes moral blame for endangering them." However I do not think that is the moral equivalent of having actually gone ahead with it.
There are different levels of evil we're working with.
Seems to me what we were asking was "is he morally guilty of it even if he didn't actually do it?" Not "will he do it next time," since, indeed, it seems unlikely there will be a "next time."

[Rockphed]

Feeding trolls is bad.

In other news, O'chul Rocks!

[Eric]

Now where is the evidence that Soon lied? On seeing Windstriker, we simply have zero evidence beyond Soon's word and manner, making any claim he lied purely a personal addition to the story. As to answering "Did I do good?", Soon gives a much more balanced answer than he would provide if he was trying to lie. We note he said Miko would not be allowed to become a paladin again, something much more important to her than her horse. [Indeed, we can argue from his expression and manner that he is relieved to be able to tell her some good news about her horse after having to deny her what she wanted most.]
Nor will the motive of her death work here. One might lie to the dying on the theory that it really doesn't make any difference. The dying will never find out the statement is a lie and can take some comfort in the little time left. But Soon knows that Miko will find out. The lie is just setting her up for a worse fall, and is outright damaging to her.


We have no evidence that she heard him, and her and Soon's words argue she didn't hear. She is expecting approval from Soon, which is distinctly dubious if she had heard him order her not to act. Nor does he task her with anything like disobeying orders, quite the reverse. He tells her that following those orders worked out badly.


Which does not differ him from Miko.


And the paladin, Soon in particular here, does not have that authority.


Now note you are saying personally forgive, which is, in the case at hand, entirely unimportant. Soon is not going to be able to alter Miko's fate at all. Indeed he takes part in causing that fate.

So we are talking of different definitions of forgive. If we use the wider "to give up resentment against", then a paladin, or anybody else, can forgive. But if we use "to give up all claim to punish or exact penalty for..", then the paladin, as such, can't do that. That belongs to the victim or the legal authority. As you note, he may still be required to execute the sinner.

She asked whether she did good. Soon says eh... yeah. He paused. His Lawful alignment would have him tell her the truth: she screwed up. But he realised that the truth wouldn't help her and it wouldn't change anything. So his Good side decided to lie. hence the pause. Add in that she DID screw up (whether she heard Soon or not), his response was incorrect.

She wasn't going to see Windstriker because he was an elysian mount. Only paladins and extremely good people get to that level. She wasn't going to do that. Windstriker may decide to see her, but that isn't "yes you will" that's "well, you might", so that's a lie. But what would be the point of telling the hurtful truth? Punishment, vengeance, disregard for the happiness of the other. None of which would be "Good" but would be "Lawful". However, if Soon's forgiven these mistakes, there is no need for punishment, no desire for vengeance and the remaining option isn't good. So by subsuming the lawful urge to tell the truth, he's forgven.

And, to use your argument against you, you have no proof Soon didn't forgive, didn't lie. Rather like your rebuttal of Remirach's "this cannot be proven". So pick one argument and stick with it, don't chop and change based on what will make you right.

'K?

[xarvh]

Thanks for the answers, I'm indeed a bit rusty on D&D alignements.
And no, I haven't yet read SoD. =(

Miko apparently spent a lot of time killing evil on sight, unprovoked, and this didn't make her Fall.

My surprise was that I would not expect a Evil character to care for its own, and Redcloack has started to do just that with the hobgoblins, but yeah, he may well have spared the humans only for convenience.

[Eric]

Then you're not talking about someone whose self-image depends on thinking of themselves as good: you're talking about someone whose self-image depends on OTHER PEOPLE thinking they are good.

Which is something completely different.

Well, yes, that is something different. It's also different from what I was trying to show.

How about this poor analogy:

If I give you a book, it's a gift, right? Well no, if I'm only doing this so that I can ask you to do something for me, it's a bribe. If I'm doing this because I think YOU will like it, it's a gift. If I expect something in return, it's an exchange.

If I'm doing good because I want to feel good about myself, that's selfish. It isn't a good alignment act because it is meant to benefit ME. If I do good because I want YOU to be better off, whether you appreciate it or not, that's a good alignment act.

So RC didn't want to feel bad about himself because that would cause him to reexamine his actions so far in light of self-realisation that he *isn't* any better than the humans who killed his people. And that would be painful.

As Xykon said, Redcloak doesn't want to be bad and Xykon is so bad he's willing to sacrifice his remaining enjoyment of life rather than lose. He REALISES he's lost it and doesn't care. So he's Evil with a capital E

[factotum]

She asked whether she did good. Soon says eh... yeah. He paused. His Lawful alignment would have him tell her the truth: she screwed up. But he realised that the truth wouldn't help her and it wouldn't change anything. So his Good side decided to lie. hence the pause. Add in that she DID screw up (whether she heard Soon or not), his response was incorrect.


I don't think that indicated a lie. It might have indicated Soon was being "economical with the truth"--what he told Miko (e.g. her destruction of the gate having removed the possibility of the evil guys using it) was utterly true; he just chose not to add that, if she HADN'T destroyed it, the evil guys would now be dead. Withholding facts is not lying.

[David Argall]

She asked whether she did good. Soon says eh... yeah. He paused.
He paused to choose the right words that would tell the precise truth, not to tell a lie.


His Lawful alignment would have him tell her the truth: she screwed up. But he realised that the truth wouldn't help her and it wouldn't change anything.
This view is based on the real world, not on one where an afterlife is a given. A lie might well hurt her.


So his Good side decided to lie. hence the pause. Add in that she DID screw up (whether she heard Soon or not),
Nope. If she did not hear him, she performed precisely as she should have, and as all the other paladins would have in that position.


She wasn't going to see Windstriker because he was an elysian mount. Only paladins and extremely good people get to that level.
a-Elysium is the NG plane. Since paladins and their mounts are LG, this seems wrong on its face.
b-Given the evil adventurers we see, we can hardly say that any area is off limits to visitors, which means Miko would possibly have the ability to see him.


Windstriker may decide to see her, but that isn't "yes you will" that's "well, you might", so that's a lie.
By standard usage, no. "Yes, you will." is the truth even when there is a chance it will not happen. "I will see you next week" may be wrong for many reasons [such as dying before next week], but still be deemed true by all parties.
"Well, you might." by contrast means the odds are against you. The speaker doesn't think it impossible, but is inclined to bet against your success, and may give quite long odds.
Oh yes, we note a lack of pause here. So if a pause is a sign of Soon lying, the lack of one here means he is not lying.


But what would be the point of telling the hurtful truth?
Truth is, in and of itself, is a major virtue for paladins. It needs no justification. It would be any deviation from the truth that needs to be justified.


if Soon's forgiven these mistakes,
Soon does not have the right to forgive these "mistakes". They are offenses against Law and Good, not against him. He is the arresting officer here, not the judge. He does not decide what afterlife she goes to.


And, to use your argument against you, you have no proof Soon didn't forgive, didn't lie.

You are the one claiming there is a lie, so you need to provide that proof. By default, everything in the comic is true until we have evidence to the contrary. So Soon is telling the truth unless we can show otherwise.


If I'm doing good because I want to feel good about myself, that's selfish. It isn't a good alignment act because it is meant to benefit ME. If I do good because I want YOU to be better off, whether you appreciate it or not, that's a good alignment act
This is too strict a standard for D&D. It makes very few acts truely good. And D&D assumes a large percentage [17-33%] of the population is good. So either we conclude large numbers of good people have never done a good deed, or we widen the definition of good acts.



It might have indicated Soon was being "economical with the truth"--what he told Miko (e.g. her destruction of the gate having removed the possibility of the evil guys using it) was utterly true; he just chose not to add that, if she HADN'T destroyed it, the evil guys would now be dead. Withholding facts is not lying.
Soon would likely disagree. But in any case, he did tell Miko that if she had not been so quick, he could have ended the threat.



Why is it more "proper" to be coming up with assumptions in the first place when there is so much as-of-yet unrevealed evidence which could completely invalidate them in a single strip?
This argues against your case. If there is much unrevealed information, then there is reason not to rely on arguments that assume that information is just noise, which means we can't accept your claim that Redcloak has never destroyed a soul.


I say, Redcloak hasn't destroyed any souls. You say, we should "properly assume" it's only because he hasn't had the opportunity yet, I want to know why that's "proper" when you can't back it up and admit as much.
I can't prove it. I can back it up, by noting that soul destruction is rather obviously rare, and possibly can only be done by the Snarl. That make for quite good odds that he has never had the chance.


You could make any kind of horrible claim about Redcloak -- and I'd reply, there's no proof of that, why should we presume guilt just because he's got evil in his alignment?
Why shouldn't we? Or closer to the case, why should we assume his innocence just because we have not caught him?
Now as it happens, we can present evidence from strip and SoD that casts doubt on his having done the example crimes, but we know Redcloak to be guilty of a long list of crimes, and we would be rash indeed to assume the list is complete.


Because what I said sounds sort of like what bad guys on Law and Order can say occasionally?
If his lawyer can't present a better argument, why should we assume there is one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Given the limited evidence we have from the comic, I can't do the same, but we can still draw the same conclusion.


"I can't prove he's guilty but we can draw that conclusion anyway."

that statement totally contradicts itself. If you can't prove he's guilty, you can still THINK he's guilty but you can't "conclude" it.
A case of a juror in a famous case of a few decades back. After the jury voted to acquit, the defendant went over to thank the jurors, one of which responded "Get away from me! You're as guilty as sin. The prosecution just didn't prove it."

Prove is a very high standard, as in "beyond a reasonable doubt". But almost all of your daily actions are based on far less certainity. Especially in the case of the comic here, as we have so little evidence. We have to conclude things that are not proven.



By saying "this can't be proven" instead of "you are wrong," I am confessing that I can't point to a strip that invalidates your theory beyond all shadow of a loony doubt.
Since you don't cite them, it would seem you are also confessing to not being able to point to a strip that even casts a shadow of doubt on the theory.


I can't specifically invalidate an infinite number of theories that could be proposed
But you are the one proposing the idea and need to provide some proof of it.


I said he's never destroyed a soul, I didn't argue he never ever will.
This argues against your case. You argue he has a horror of destroying souls, far beyond killing people. That he "never" will destroy a soul. Saying he might is saying the whole premise is void.


Which "conclusion?" The one that it is "proper" to believe that RC has never destroyed a soul because he has never had the opportunity, not that he is unwilling?
We know of only one way to destroy a soul, and that soul destruction is a distinctly rare event. That gives us a default that Redcloak didn't have a chance to do that before he reached Azure City.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
and tossing bodies into the rift is frankly a lot of unnecessary work.


He COULD do it though. NOW you're trying to state the reason he hasn't done it yet is it because it's "a lot of unnecessary work" to order some of his minions to start chucking? He doesn't even have to DO anything himself except sit back and enjoy the show.
It is often harder work to get somebody else to do the work than it is to do it yourself. And it is work. So it's a given that Redcloak would find it easier to just execute the prisoners at the base of the tower than to herd them to the top and throw them in, whether or not he got his own hands dirty.


Besides, even if it's "hard work" by some bizarro world definition of the term, he HAS the means at hand to start destroying human souls, but apparently lacks sufficient motive.
Which is insufficient evidence of any distaste of the idea. This would merely show a lack of love.


his total emotional freakout (we've only seen one of those expressions he displays twice before, both in SoD during the most traumatic moments of his life) suggests otherwise to me.

"It gives me no pleasure to end those men up there..."

And "damn you! You can't just let me do this!"

"You're savages. Amoral savages."
Redcloak is not getting his way. What more needs to be said?


It would be perfectly within his character traits to have qualms about destroying souls but still be willing to gamble on them.
And he has qualms about lesser evils too. We are still not seeing soul destruction as something Redcloak deems beyond the pale.


Actually he didn't say KILLING them was a waste, he said he was wasting his TIME.
To be precise, what he said was a waste of time, not necessarily of his time in particular.
However, what he did not do is in any way say soul destruction was too evil for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
It is also the opinion of just about all legal systems and moralists. You are free to try to provide exceptions.


No, it isn't,
You don't seem to be providing those exceptions.


You said, "morally he is guilty of destroying their souls even if he didn't actually, because he put them at risk."

I said, maybe according to YOUR morality. You have some pretty controversial opinions on certain topics of D&D alignment and morality, and not everyone on this forum agrees with a lot of them.
This is the fallacy, arguing the person.


This, now, this isn't like "attempted murder." There was no attempt. What legal system would convict someone for murder they not only didn't do but didn't TRY to do? They'd nail him for endangerment and attempted blackmail.
Intent is not deemed necessary to being convicted of crime. The prosecution can nail you without it, either by showing that a motive is a reasonable assumption or that the action was so clearly dangerous that even if you absolutely lacked motive, you still are guilty.


As to what other "moralists" would think, I don't see anyone here besides you saying he's morally just as guilty of destroying their souls as if he really had gone and destroyed their souls.
I haven't noticed any saying he isn't. However, I doubt either of us want to rely on the authority of someone posting here under was is normally an assumed name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
And you are charged with DUI because you might have hit someone.


Yes, exactly! Might have, but in this case, didn't. Just like Redcloak having the prisoners up on the tower where they "might have" accidentally fallen.
Now just what do you think you see here? The example shows you can be morally at fault even when nobody is injured by your action, which makes Redcloak at fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Same thing as if you shot at and missed someone you wanted to kill.


That's something completely different because of "intent."
As noted already, you can be innocent of intent and still go to jail.



are you morally guilty if you might have killed someone when you WEREN'T trying to? Because THAT'S the situation we're looking at with RC.
Some kids are carelessly playing ball next door and a ball comes flying into your property and just misses your baby. Do you shrug and just toss the ball back? Or scream and yell about how they almost killed your kid? The kids obviously had no intent to hurt your child, but they nearly did anyway.

[Ossian]

It's becoming increasingly necessary to read Start of Darkness! I'm gonna get myself a copy real soon :smallsmile: