Hieronymus Grubwiggler is not dead

[Haleyintraining]

I noticed that in the newest comic, 577, Haley supposedly kills Hieronymus Grubwiggler, but if you look at his body, his eyes are slits, not x's. Does this mean something?

[Bayar]

I noticed that in the newest comic, 577, Haley supposedly kills Hieronymus Grubwiggler, but if you look at his body, his eyes are slits, not x's. Does this mean something?

Nono. A sap sneak attack deals non-lethal damage. It only knocks them out.

[Haleyintraining]

Nono. A sap sneak attack deals non-lethal damage. It only knocks them out.

If he was not making a reappearance, he probably would have died, so where will he reappear? I'm thinking he is going to team up with the Linear Guild.

[Morty]

If he was not making a reappearance, he probably would have died, so where will he reappear? I'm thinking he is going to team up with the Linear Guild.

He did not die because Haley isn't Belkar and won't kill people if she doesn't need to(goblinoids are another matter though...). So he's not guaranteed to make a reappearance.

[chibibar]

also, why kill the guy? She robbed him like 3 times and make a profit. So I presume she is keeping him alive to rob him the 4th time!! :)

[Occasional Sage]

If he was not making a reappearance, he probably would have died, so where will he reappear? I'm thinking he is going to team up with the Linear Guild.

I doubt HG survived so that he could reappear; Haley's just being a kinder, gentler adventurer to appease Celia. "Hey, you're the one who's against killing, here."

[SlightlyEvil]

No time to pick it before Grubby wakes up.
(emphasis added)

That answer your question?

[NerfTW]

She probably didn't kill him because she's Chaotic Good, and doesn't kill people that she doesn't have to?

Keep in mind that if she did kill him, she would have committed murder in the course of what the police would think is a robbery. Probably not a good way to avoid attention.

[mikeejimbo]

She's taking a big risk to save Celia in the first place, she wouldn't take the risk of killing him.

[David Argall]

Grubwiggler can thank Celia for his life. Haley just figures that Celia will go all gnome loving if she starts tossing off tickets to the afterlife and might endanger her own rescue. So she goes to the extra trouble of keeping them alive. Haley may not be eager to kill, but she is willing to kill if it is useful.

[mikeejimbo]

I actually don't know about that. Killing someone when it's useful seems like a Chaotic Neutral viewpoint. Don't we think Haley is supposed to be Chaotic Good?

[Red XIV]

This is D&D (or a world governed by D&D rules, anyway). Haley is an adventurer. Thus, she kills stuff. It's what D&D adventurers do.

[JohnnyPsycho]

This is D&D (or a world governed by D&D rules, anyway). Haley is an adventurer. Thus, she kills stuff. It's what D&D adventurers do.

Ah, but D&D adventurers are also governed by alignment, meaning killing must fit the philosophy of the alignment. Chaotic Good characters do not kill because it's useful, that's straddling the Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Evil line there. If there wasn't a greater good that would be accomplished through killing (and no, simple "usefulness" is not considered a part of the greater good), then there would be no way to justify killing Grubby according to her Good alignment. Robbing him while his back is turned (and, perhaps, a little more while he's unconscious) is perfectly fine under Chaotic alignment... again, as long as she uses the loot for a greater Good (in Haley's case, she's trying to save up to bail her father out of prison).

Grubwiggler might have been negotiating with Celia over her life, but hell, he was negotiating... not pointing a dagger at her throat or dangling her over a pit of lava. It'd be nice if more villains were that thoughtful...

[David Argall]

Grubwriggler was negotiating only in the most technical sense at the point where Haley attacked. He had given orders that any observer would assume would result in Celia being killed. So any good adventurer has grounds for killing him in rescuing Celia. Since Haley has had experience with how dangerous it is to let a spellcaster get off a spell, like Dancing Lights, she is taking a definite risk in not killing him.

[disorder]

Since Haley has had experience with how dangerous it is to let a spellcaster get off a spell, like Dancing Lights, she is taking a definite risk in not killing him.
Yeah, but a perfectly in-character risk. This is Haley's home town. Grubby is a real person to her, not a level-appropriate encounter she stumbled across in a dungeon. Most people won't randomly kill their neighbors unless they have absolutely no choice; Haley is not being a saint, merely a believable non-Belkar person.

[EyethatBinds]

No Haley totally killed the guy, then killed Celia, Belkar, Mr. Scruffy, Xykon, and the MitD. It was awesome.

Read the comic after drinking for a few hours.

[silvadel]

She is a thief not an assassin -- and she has no respect for assassins like [which would start to drift into an origins spoiler]

[nybbler]

Keep in mind that if she did kill him, she would have committed murder in the course of what the police would think is a robbery. Probably not a good way to avoid attention.

In Greysky city? That would fit right in, though I can't see any police actually being involved. But being "good-ish", not wanting to upset Celia, and wanting a chance at robbing him a fourth time are all sufficient reasons not to kill him.

[NerfTW]

Let's keep in mind that Celia is the one who rushed the reanimation process without reading the contract in full. "Grubby" was simply dealing with a non paying customer, although in a forceful manner.

If Haley had killed him for the crime of operating a completely legal golem business, I would have serious doubts about her claims of "Chaotic Good". It would be like Roy killing an angry bartender beating up Belkar after he runs up a tab.

[David Argall]

"Grubby" was simply dealing with a non paying customer, although in a forceful manner.

If Haley had killed him for the crime of operating a completely legal golem business, I would have serious doubts about her claims of "Chaotic Good".

killing a customer, non-paying or not, is not operating a completely legal business. And to the extent it is, as a chaotic, Haley is likely to reject the law that allows killing.


It would be like Roy killing an angry bartender beating up Belkar after he runs up a tab.
If the bartender just beat him up, Roy would be fine with it. However, note that Roy is lawful, not chaotic, and so accepts the legitimacy of any law giving the bartender the right to take it out of Belkar's hide.

[Borris]

As a Chaotic Good character, Haley wouldn't kill someone unless it's for the greater good or necessary to save her life. The hobgoblind in Azure City were most certainly evil, a threat to her own life, and would most likely have become a threat to the rest of the resistance had she left them alive. In the case of Grubwriggler, though he's apparently not above comitting a few evil acts, he's not really a threat to the greater good. More importantly, Haley did not have to kill him. Having robbed him before, she probably knew she could knock him unconscious in a single blow, and still save Celia's life. A good character won't commit murder when there's a less evil and just as efficient way to get to the same results.

[David Argall]

A non-lethal attack is -4 to hit, which means a 20% to miss, and means in a great many cases, it is not just as efficient

[Lupy]

I think it is the Giant's way of saying that Haley is still good, although not as obvious as when he explained with Elan. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html)

[Faithless]

I agree with Lupy. I mean he has to showthat somewhere. Haley killing a guy and robbing a house doesnt speak much for her character.

[Lupy]

Additionally, he was showing that she is appeasing Celia to some degree.

[JohnnyPsycho]

A non-lethal attack is -4 to hit, which means a 20% to miss, and means in a great many cases, it is not just as efficient

That's not entirely correct, according to this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a)...

The attacker must use a weapon optimally to make a sneak attack. If the attacker takes the -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage, no sneak attack is possible. (A weapon that normally deals nonlethal damage, such as a sap, can be used in a sneak attack; however, you deal nonlethal damage if you do so.)

[David Argall]

That would be true, but that would largely just make the handicap in a different form.
Masterwork saps, to say nothing of magical ones, are quite rare, as are feats that increase their utility. And their basic damage is not impressive. Now Haley might well figure her 7d6 sneak will be all she needs, but she is still making a suboptimal choice.

And her basic situation is that she is attacking with a justification of self defense. She saves Celia's life, and merits no blame if she killed in the process.

[NerfTW]

That would be true, but that would largely just make the handicap in a different form.
Masterwork saps, to say nothing of magical ones, are quite rare, as are feats that increase their utility. And their basic damage is not impressive. Now Haley might well figure her 7d6 sneak will be all she needs, but she is still making a suboptimal choice.

And her basic situation is that she is attacking with a justification of self defense. She saves Celia's life, and merits no blame if she killed in the process.

Except that Celia entered into an agreement with this person, rushed the process, and now is backing out of payment. He's threatening a deadbeat to pay a bill. And with a pretty cheesy method. (Squeeze her until she pays)

It would be outright cold blooded murder for her to simply kill him, especially since she could probably enter into an agreement for paying him if she didn't want to knock him out. She had two choices before murder, jumping straight to murder would have made her another Belkar.

[David Argall]

Killing Celia to collect and threatening to kill to collect are the same thing here. Haley would get a pass on killing the attacker here. Grubwiggler has no established right to Celia or her body, so his attempt to "collect" on his debt is simply assault.

A common case you can see in the small claims tv shows is where the tenant is said to owe some rent when he leaves and the landlord refuses to give back the security deposit since he is owed the rent. The judge will explain he can't do that. The security deposit is held only for certain things, not for general debt, and so it must be returned whether or not the tenant owes rent. [Of course, if the tenant does owe rent, the money goes right back, but the shortcut is not allowed.]
The same principle applies here. Celia may owe him considerably more than the value of her body, but he can't collect by simply taking whatever he wants of her's.

We can say Haley was acting in a morally superior manner by not killing him [even if her motive was to avoid a fuss with Celia], but she would have been within the bounds of good if she had killed him.

[Chronos]

A common case you can see in the small claims tv shows is where the tenant is said to owe some rent when he leaves and the landlord refuses to give back the security deposit since he is owed the rent. The judge will explain he can't do that. The security deposit is held only for certain things, not for general debt, and so it must be returned whether or not the tenant owes rent.I thought that's exactly what the security deposit was supposed to be for... Sometimes there's a separate cleaning deposit; is that what you're thinking of?

[David Argall]

Security deposits can cover the rent, but the basic is damage to the rented property.

http://apartments.about.com/od/leaselegalterms/g/securitydep.htm

A security deposit is money that the tenant pays to the landlord. It provides monetary security to the landlord, in case of damage to the apartment or failure by the tenant to comply with the agreement (such as moving out before the lease ends). The tenant receives the deposit back at the end of the lease, minus any deductions for repairs / restoration.

[DreadSpoon]

And to the extent it is, as a chaotic, Haley is likely to reject the law that allows killing.

And this is why I'm glad 4e simplified alignment - it seems the vast majority of players have ideas like these that clearly got pulled out of a back orifice.

Chaotic has nothing to do with laws. A Chaotic person does not reject laws solely on the account of them being laws. A Chaotic person does not go against the established order simply in order to go against the established order. They might also do these things on top of the other behavior you'd expect of a Chaotic character, but not even close to all Chaotic characters strive for anarchy just for the sake of anarchy.

All Chaotic means is that the character believes in freedom and follows their whims instead of believing that everything should have its place and living by a strict personal code.

A character who breaks every law he can solely to break them is more Lawful than Chaotic - he forces himself to adhere to a strict, predictable, unwavering order. That's obsessive compulsive (illegally so, sure), which is possibly the complete antithesis of Chaotic.


If the bartender just beat him up, Roy would be fine with it. However, note that Roy is lawful, not chaotic, and so accepts the legitimacy of any law giving the bartender the right to take it out of Belkar's hide.

No, no he doesn't. A Lawful Good character does not blindly follow every law. A Lawful Good character has and uses his ability to judge a law as just or corrupt, and can and does fight back against the evil laws of tyrants, sadists, or otherwise evil governments. A character who allows Evil to exist because it is codified in law is not Lawful Good.

Roy would have to decide if letting a bartender beat Belkar (nearly) to death is Good or Evil, not simply whether there happens to be a law making it legal according to the whims of the local ruler.

A safe rule of thumb for most cases: Good or Evil is the more important axis of alignment. The Lawful in Lawful Good denotes how a character believes in conducting himself and how he believes in upholding Good. People like to use Robin Hood as an example of Chaotic Good, claiming that he's Chaotic since he goes against the law -- so by that logic, he's only Chaotic during Prince John's reign, since he didn't break the laws before nor did he continue being an outlaw after Richard returned. He broke the laws because the laws were Evil. Maybe he would be Chaotic, maybe not; that would depend entirely on his inner character and motivations, not on his desire to thwart the Evil that happened to use legalese as one of his weapons.

Then of course you get into the insanity of Neutral, where you don't even know what it means. What's Neutral Good? Does it mean they don't care about Law or Chaos? Not caring sounds an awful lot like Chaotic, doesn't it? Does it mean that they desire a balance? That sounds pretty Lawful, actually. Even the core books don't know. Thank $DEITY that crap is gone in 4e; they at least got one thing right in the new edition.

[JohnnyPsycho]

Killing Celia to collect and threatening to kill to collect are the same thing here. Haley would get a pass on killing the attacker here. Grubwiggler has no established right to Celia or her body, so his attempt to "collect" on his debt is simply assault.For all we know, there could very well be a clause in small print of the agreement that allows Grubwiggler the right to Celia's body in the event of non-payment... something Haley probably knows due to her familiarity with "Grubby". Sheesh...

Again, I want to also point out the fact that Haley knows the guy, as in he's not just a random monster in a dungeon, but a person to her... conscience plays a big role in a decision about whether or not to "ice" someone, especially for a good aligned character, and you especially can't go against conscience just because the "other way" is more "logical" when you're Chaotic Good. Like DreadSpoon points out, the most important part of the Chaotic Good alignment is the Good part, and that the Chaotic half's need to be "free and without rules" isn't going to circumvent the conscience, which is the only thing that a Chaotic Good person truly follows.


Then of course you get into the insanity of Neutral, where you don't even know what it means. What's Neutral Good? Does it mean they don't care about Law or Chaos? Not caring sounds an awful lot like Chaotic, doesn't it? Does it mean that they desire a balance? That sounds pretty Lawful, actually. Even the core books don't know. Thank $DEITY that crap is gone in 4e; they at least got one thing right in the new edition.I actually disagree heavily with the neutering (no pun intended) of the alignment system... as hard as it is for some people to figure out what the difference is between a Neutral Good character and a Chaotic or Lawful Good character, I think it's largely still important to include them. The lack of a Lawful Evil alignment, for instance, REALLY irks me, but that's for another discussion...

As far as how to figure out Neutral Good on the scale, I've always put it this way: "Law is fine and dandy, as long as it doesn't interfere with my own freedom, but I'm not going to exactly feel good about breaking any laws either." That's sort of where Neutral on the Lawful/Chaotic scale should be. Another way to put it is that a Neutral person may not go out of their way to observe the laws, but they're not going to flat-out ignore their existance or importance either. A Chaotic Good person sees no usefulness in observing the laws, and instead only pay attention to their heart.

A nice example would be a Neutral Good person running a red-light and feeling bad about it, but not as bad as he would if he didn't get to his daughter's ballet recital on time, like he promised. A Lawful Good person wouldn't run the red-light, and feel terrible now that he's going to be too late to see the first couple minutes of his daughter's Sugar Plum fairy dance. A Chaotic Good person has always felt that that traffic-light was placed in an idiotic spot, because there's never any cross-traffic there anyway and is an obvious waste of tax-payer money (which is ironic considering he doesn't pay taxes anyway... the money he would have spent on his taxes instead went into buying a nice new camcorder, which he'll use to tape the performance for his ailing mother who lives in Boca Raton).

[hamishspence]

Grubwiggler could make the case that Celia paid for a service, its not his fault she did not specify it clearly, and refusing to pay, is basically theft.

in the fictional city of Agrabah in Aladdin movie, shopkeepers take a...rigorous approach to dealing with people they catch thieving. While some areas of the OOTS world seem to have a modernist approach to law (sue, civil rights, distinctions between murder and manslaughter, imprisonment) its entirely possible that others may be more medieval, or even pre-medieval, in style, like Greysky.

[Shatteredtower]

Masterwork saps, to say nothing of magical ones, are quite rare...Not having my DMG handy, I will concede the point that magical saps would be quite rare in randomly rolled treasures. This does not necessarily hold true for NPC generation, however -- the equipment list for NPC generation states only that rogues of a certain level receive a +1 melee weapon without specifying what weapon that will be.

The claim about masterwork saps being rare, however, is a fabrication. By the rules, they'd be as rare as any other masterwork weapon.


...as are feats that increase their utility.Any feat that would increase your effectiveness with a short sword or mace would also increase the utility of a sap. Power Attack (and the rest of its feat chain) is ruled out in all three cases, but Haley hardly seems the type for that feat.

Admittedly, Haley's feat selection is probably built around ranged weapon use and is unlikely to even include Weapon Finesse. A bow would serve her better here, since Point Blank Shot grants her an equivalent bonus to Weapon Focus (and stacks with it) with +1 damage added, so long as she's within 30 feet. Since we're comparing its benefits to those of a sap, however, that's a given. She also wouldn't need to take Weapon Finesse to use her Dexterity modifier on attack rolls. Rapid Shot also tends to favour her more than Two-Weapon Fighting would.


And their basic damage is not impressive.It's at least as impressive as Haley's shortbow, which doesn't add her Strength bonus (if any) to damage done.


Now Haley might well figure her 7d6 sneak will be all she needs, but she is still making a suboptimal choice.Only in the sense that she specializes with the bow. Note, however, that the sap leaves her with one hand free to carry around her sack of loot, rather than risk leaving it unattended. It also leaves her with the option to rob Mr. Grubwiggler in the future, should she ever pass this way again, something the bow doesn't allow. By both of those terms, the sap was clearly the optimal choice.


And her basic situation is that she is attacking with a justification of self defense. She saves Celia's life, and merits no blame if she killed in the process.In legal terms, no. Haley's more likely to be weighing this decision based on personal morals than legal consequences.

[David Argall]

Let us not forget that Haley says "you're the one who is against killing here." We can quibble about the degree, but the default reading is that Haley is ok with killing any who get in her way.



The claim about masterwork saps being rare, however, is a fabrication. By the rules, they'd be as rare as any other masterwork weapon.
The rules do not cover the point in question. They simply say that a weapon can be made masterwork. As to magic weapons, there is 1 chance in 500 of finding a magic sap, vs 1 chance in 20 for a magic short sword in random treasure.

If we look at actual PCs, we see that shortage of masterwork and magic saps. Many rogues don't even bother carrying a sap. And it is other weapons that get the upgrade.


Any feat that would increase your effectiveness with a short sword or mace would also increase the utility of a sap.
Weapon focus will improve one of the three, and the sap is the one least likely to be chosen.


It's at least as impressive as Haley's shortbow,
it's still non-lethal damage, which heals a lot faster. [Haley is worried about being able to leave before her victim wakes.]


Note, however, that the sap leaves her with one hand free to carry around her sack of loot, rather than risk leaving it unattended.
We have to cut our artist some slack here, but no real Haley would be carrying that sack into battle. Nor would she continue to hold it while she fished around in another sack. Possibly using a non-sack Haley and a sack Haley was extra work not worth bothering about, but in any case, we can't invent non-existant advantages for carrying that burden around.


It also leaves her with the option to rob Mr. Grubwiggler in the future, should she ever pass this way again, something the bow doesn't allow.
A trivial advantage since she has been gone for years, will presumably not be back for more years, and had to be dragged back this time.


In legal terms, no. Haley's more likely to be weighing this decision based on personal morals than legal consequences.
This is a distinction without meaning here. We are not talking about the legal consequences. The references are to Haley's mores.
Haley obviously makes a distinction between justified and unjustified killing, and self defense is one of the standard distinctions. She likely doesn't care about what the local law says on the subject, at least as long as she can escape, but she does have her own ideas on the point, which would be that she is not violating her morals if she killed Froggy to save Celia.



Grubwiggler could make the case that Celia paid for a service, its not his fault she did not specify it clearly, and refusing to pay, is basically theft.
He could, but Haley would reject that logic as applied, even if the local courts deemed it valid. To the extent she accepted it, she would insist it was excessively applied. Grubby would have the right to demand payment, but not her life.



For all we know, there could very well be a clause in small print of the agreement that allows Grubwiggler the right to Celia's body in the event of non-payment... something Haley probably knows due to her familiarity with "Grubby".
And again, Haley would not accept that as valid grounds for killing Celia. In essence, he is getting copper and costing her gold. No matter what the contract says, that is a bad result.


Haley knows the guy, as in he's not just a random monster in a dungeon, but a person to her...
There is no sign this is a person she views favorably. Indeed, there is some chance she has absolutely no knowledge of him. She says she robbed the castle twice, not the golem maker. He may have moved in recently.



the most important part of the Chaotic Good alignment is the Good part,
If the PC believes that, the proper alignment is NG. Good, Evil, Law, & Chaos are all deemed "equal" forces. There is a lot of game error making good and evil the more important, but the concept is that Law & Chaos are types, not flavors.



And this is why I'm glad 4e simplified alignment
4e has "simplified" alignment in that there are now 5 alignments instead of
9, LG, Good [formerly CG], Evil [formerly LE] and CE, and renaming Neutral as unaligned. From the view of solving any of the problems with an alignment system, it punted. The system is as confused as ever, possibly more so for having less choices.



A Lawful Good character does not blindly follow every law.
"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong...but that's the way to bet."

Our LG does not blindly follow, but he follows. The default is that the law is correct. When told it's the law, he accepts this as evidence, strong evidence, whereas our chaotic says "So what?" When not sure, the burden of proof is on the side of the law.


Roy would have to decide if letting a bartender beat Belkar (nearly) to death is Good or Evil, not simply whether there happens to be a law making it legal according to the whims of the local ruler.
"Whims of the local ruler" is chaotic talk. Our lawful thinks of it as "the carefully considered decisions of thousands thinking about it for generations, and each of whom knew more on the subject than I do." Which is not entirely inaccurate, and is why we do not accept any claim of being good as an excuse for crime.

There of course exists some point at which Roy would say "This can't be what proper law would require.", but this will be at a point long past when any chaotic would intervene.

[NerfTW]

Yup, I retract my statements, since Haley has now stated that she didn't kill him as a favor to Celia.

I still think from what we saw, it would have been out of character, but the Giant might have backstory that rationalizes it. (Her knowing ahead of time that he's done evil deeds, perhaps.)

[Kish]

I think it is the Giant's way of saying that Haley is still good, although not as obvious as when he explained with Elan. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html)
I feel obligated to point that that Elan showed as "Still Not Evil" there, not "Good," paladins can only detect evil, not the difference between good and neutral.

(No, there's no doubt in my mind that Elan is Chaotic Good. It's just not a good idea to start equating "not evil" with "good.")

[NENAD]

While David Argall's theories concerning the alignment system have always been out of whack and have, at times, conflicted what is fairly heavily implied (though never explicity stated) in the rulebooks, I'm not going to argue with him on that level. The D&D alignment system is too vague and open for interpretation for there to be a definitive answer to those questions, and I can't say David's interpretation is wrong just because it heavily conflicts with my interpretation (and the 4th Edition hasn't helped at all).

Concerning how he said Haley would "kill anyone who got in her way." Wrong. She'd kill anyone evil who got in her way. Celia has been getting in her way in a sense for the entirety of the Greysky sub-arc, yet she seems to still be breathing. I don't think this is because Haley has had insufficient opportunity to kill her.

I'm guessing that was poor word choice and not a severe mis-judgment of Haley's character, though.

[David Argall]

"See? See? THIS is why we kill the bad guys when we get the chance."

As noted, "in her way" is inferior language. However, it's clear enough that Haley would have killed either or both and slept the sleep of the just.

Nor is she particularly wrong by CG standards. The survival of all is desirable, but there just are [a lot of, in D&D worlds] people whose purpose is to make the lives of others short and miserable. One can't object to their elimination when they try to carry out that purpose.