OOTS #596 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[vegetablevoice]

Sarcasm or illusions...which is more dangerous in Elan's hands?

Great strip, Giant!

[Ramien]

And Elan wins. Pure and simple, that illusion has to be the second coolest thing he's ever done.

[Lira]

Ah, that answers a lot of questions. :smalltongue:

[Tirian]

Wooo! Way to go, Surprisingly Cogent Elan!

[Frosty]

Elan...LEARNED...SARCASM! :smalleek::smallredface::smallbiggrin:

[Mauve Shirt]

Hahaha, that is the best thing for Elan to have done. :smallbiggrin:

[TRM]

I'm impressed and pleased with Elan's progress over the past several hundred strips, enough that he's become a vaguely competent character—this strip illustrates it well; the illusion was great.

Yet another excellent strip Giant. :smallsmile:

[Inhuman Bot]

XD
That was very funny....

Good job again, Mr.Giant!

[FelixZ]

Heheh, I thought that Belkar was invisible for a second before I read the lines. :smallbiggrin:

[Ted The Bug]

Epic. :smallbiggrin:
Also, I believe another spell was cast by V, unnoticed to many.
[Shatter 4th Wall]

[SlightlyEvil]

Great strip here. V gets so many good lines, probably because he/she's the only deadpan character left, with Roy being dead & all. And Elan has it pretty dead-on there. Also, this pretty thoroughly makes V non-good. Killing a subdued prisoner purely for convenience is almost definitely an evil act, and V's rationalization would make Miko blush.

[Hithros]

Heh...that a) completely explains why V zapped Kubota and B) nullifies some of the big forum arguments about the previous strip.

Though, I think its a bit out-of-character for V.....

[JaxGaret]

Rock on, elf buddy. Rock on.

[Mr.Bookworm]

The only thing that could have possibly whacked me harder than V killing Kubota just to get it over with was Elan being sarcastic about it.

[Mr. Scaly]

...Okay. Elan is now officially cooler than Vaarsuvius (spelling?). :smallbiggrin:

Now the question is, does Vaarsuvius become as annoying as Belkar?

[Electra310]

Truly, Kubota's was an evil mustache. And the last two panels had me breathless with laughter. For the love of God, somebody cast a sleep spell on V already. Even with a racial bonus to save, V needs it badly.

[JaxGaret]

For the love of God, somebody cast a sleep spell on V already. Even with a racial bonus to save, V needs it badly.

Elves are Immune to Sleep spells. It's enchantments they get a bonus to saves against.

[Liwen]

Wow, Elan was just bright enough to use sarcarsm? Maybe he got an magic item to raise his intelligence score. Something like a band of intellect +10

[DBear]

Nice one, Elan! :smallbiggrin:

[olthar]

elan ++ for sarcasm, V ++ for comments

elan: 2
V: 2

the game is currently tied

[Nevitan]

this story arc redeemed itself in its final moments, I mean.. Wow!:biggrin:

[Martok]

Ha! V's deadpan shtick was great as usual, but our resident bard totally owns today's strip.

Elan using sarcasm! Who'da thunk it? :smalltongue:

[Emanick]

Wow, that proves a lot of people, maybe including me, wrong. V definitely did not just commit a Good act. Surprising character development.
At any rate, I can't wait for the humor to start flowing again. This arc is decidedly low on it. I haven't laughed in over ten strips. :smallfrown:

[Rogue 7]

Ha! Well done, Elan, very well done indeed. Elan of late has been majorly climbing in the ranks of "my favorite character". Hell, he's probably my second favorite in the order now, after Roy.

[JaxGaret]

Wow, that proves a lot of people, maybe including me, wrong. V definitely did not just commit a Good act. Surprising character development.

Actions determine alignment, not intentions. Therefore the reasoning behind V's actions matter not one whit when determining what alignment the action was.

Note that I'm not saying that it was a Good act.

[eggamagga]

Burned by a bard. Ouch.

[thevorpalbunny]

This is made of awesome. Awesome and win. Win with a side of ownage. And fries.



Actions determine alignment, not intentions. Therefore the reasoning behind V's actions matter not one whit when determining what alignment the action was.

Not true; intentions determine alignment. A paladin smiting something else because they think it is evil and killing it does not make them fall.

Well, that's my opinion, at least. In any case, this is not the place for that discussion.

[Moose Fisher]

Elan using an illusion of Belkar nailed it for me. Thanks again Giant!:smallbiggrin:

[brilliantlight]

Great strip here. V gets so many good lines, probably because he/she's the only deadpan character left, with Roy being dead & all. And Elan has it pretty dead-on there. Also, this pretty thoroughly makes V non-good. Killing a subdued prisoner purely for convenience is almost definitely an evil act, and V's rationalization would make Miko blush.

Certainly an evil act. It would have been different if she said it was because Kubota would almost certainly escape but she didn't. Killing someone because it is inconvenient is always evil.

[SmartAlec]

Actions determine alignment, not intentions. Therefore the reasoning behind V's actions matter not one whit when determining what alignment the action was.

Note that I'm not saying that it was a Good act.

Argh, don't start it all again! :smallsmile:

Anyhow, this put me in mind of one of the late Roy Greenhilt's more quotable phrases:

:roy: "Your approval fills me with shame." :belkar:

[B. Dandelion]

The single greatest thing to come out of the strip since Roy's death has been Elan's character, and character growth. I've always liked him -- he seems like the nicest character around -- but now's he's starting to give Redcloak a run for his money in the "personal favorite character" department.

I guess I could say Red's my favorite bad guy and Elan's my favorite hero. Redcloak I sympathize with, and I find his personality fascinating, but Elan I just LIKE. He is a truly decent person in a way that stands out even among other good and compassionate people.

I like V's personality turn too, but because it's interesting, not admirable. You just know she's to have to get worse before she gets better -- if she EVER gets better.

[JaxGaret]

Argh, don't start it all again! :smallsmile:

Hey, I didn't start it. Note my two posts above that didn't mention alignment at all....


Anyhow, this put me in mind of one of the late Roy Greenhilt's more quotable phrases:

"Your approval fills me with shame."

Yay! :smallsmile:


Not true; intentions determine alignment.

We can go at this until we're blue in the face, but let me just say that I am fairly certain I am correct, that actions are the sole determinants of alignment.


A paladin smiting something else because they think it is evil and killing it does not make them fall.

Of course it wouldn't. Killing an Evil character is not inherently Evil, by D&D morality standards.


Well, that's my opinion, at least. In any case, this is not the place for that discussion.

Agreed. I didn't bring it up.

[Wreckingrocc]

Yay V! Keep the plot moving!

[Swordguy]

Very nice use of the laws of Dramatic Convention by V there.

Even better rejoinder on Elan's part. "Sure, we'll lie to the paladin! What can possibly go wrong?"

:amused:

[reignofevil]

Im not sure if I approve of V more or less apon hearing (s)he only did it for convienience.
But I DO approve of Elan more. If only because I had to doublecheck if he was serious or if it was sarcasm....

[malakim2099]

No, Elan!

Once you start down the Sarcastic Path, FOREVER WILL IT DOMINATE YOUR DESTINY! :smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

:smalltongue:

[LuisDantas]

My respect for Elan raised dramatically with the last two panels :)

WAY TO BE, Elan!

[skywalker]

I LOL'd IRL.

V makes a good point, tho.

[shaddy_24]

Heh, heh. Elan has joined us on the sarcastic side. There's no turning back now. And he's surprisingly good at it too. I liked the illusion. It just made my day.

[Ramien]

Actions determine alignment, not intentions. Therefore the reasoning behind V's actions matter not one whit when determining what alignment the action was.

Note that I'm not saying that it was a Good act.

Not true at all. V's actions tread dangerously close to evil, based on the elf's reasoning. If, on the other hand, V knew what was going on, and killed Kubota just to ensure that some form of 'justice' was done, it would be a lot easier to justify.

[Crinos]

Anyone else find it oddly fitting that Kubota, a man who sought power and respect and whose greatest weapon was his standing in a noble met his end at the hands of someone who didn't know who he was or cared to find out?

[Liwen]

I like V's personality turn too, but because it's interesting, not admirable. You just know she's to have to get worse before she gets better -- if she EVER gets better.

She will not. At least not from a long shot For the dark side's lure may only be overcome by killing a bunch of people just because they are middly incompetent and then get you own son to convince you there's still a chance by getting hit by lighting in the face.

[SteveMB]

Wow. If even "This is the sort of thing Belkar would do" doesn't get through to V, s/he's pretty far gone.... :smalleek:

[LuisDantas]

Though, I think its a bit out-of-character for V.....

Quite out-of-character indeed.

[Corrupted One]

Anyone else find it oddly fitting that Kubota, a man who sought power and respect and whose greatest weapon was his standing in a noble met his end at the hands of someone who didn't know who he was or cared to find out?

I do! I'm loving V more and more. I hope he never sleeps again!!!! :smallbiggrin:

[Nitan]

Actions determine alignment, not intentions. Therefore the reasoning behind V's actions matter not one whit when determining what alignment the action was.

If actions alone determine alignment then the Blood War would have been fought by saints.

[Shirani]

Quite out-of-character indeed.

You mean character development? You know, rather then being a one dimensional running joke?

[B. Dandelion]

Anyone else find it oddly fitting that Kubota, a man who sought power and respect and whose greatest weapon was his standing in a noble met his end at the hands of someone who didn't know who he was or cared to find out?

Wow I hadn't even thought of that. Poetic justice indeed.

[Green Bean]

I think it's interesting how the Order seems to be behaving with Roy's death; V and Belkar seem to be running off the rails, Haley and Elan can't seem to bring them under control, and Durkon understands what's going on, but doesn't have the authority to stop it. They really need their leader back.

Edit: Also, how long do you figure until this strip gets added to What the Hell, Hero? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatTheHellHero) :smallwink:

[Stupendous_Man]

Dun Dun DUN!

[JaxGaret]

Wow. If even "This is the sort of thing Belkar would do" doesn't get through to V, s/he's pretty far gone.... :smalleek:

Belkar also eats and breathes, should V then logically conclude that they themself should not eat and breathe?

No, that's flawed logic.

Note that I'm not defending V here, just perhaps correcting what V's perception of things is.

[LuisDantas]

Anyone else find it oddly fitting that Kubota, a man who sought power and respect and whose greatest weapon was his standing in a noble met his end at the hands of someone who didn't know who he was or cared to find out?

I did. :) Poetic justice indeed.

Too bad it involved such an evil and out-of-character act from Vaarsuvius.

[Liwen]

Anyone else find it oddly fitting that Kubota, a man who sought power and respect and whose greatest weapon was his standing in a noble met his end at the hands of someone who didn't know who he was or cared to find out?

Haha, good point there. But still, it's pretty scary to see that V killed Kubota without even knowing what he had truly done. I don't want anything to do with that index finger.

[Dire Platypus]

That's the Elan we like, but smarter.Loved it :D

[JaxGaret]

If actions alone determine alignment then the Blood War would have been fought by saints.

Why do you say that?

[Zolem]

Not true at all. V's actions tread dangerously close to evil, based on the elf's reasoning. If, on the other hand, V knew what was going on, and killed Kubota just to ensure that some form of 'justice' was done, it would be a lot easier to justify.

Indeed, it would have been chaotic, but not evil. Ie. the law system cannot met out justice, so I'll just wrap it up. The actual reason of 'I don't want to sit through another trial, so I'll just kill him so I can get back to making myself feel better' is quite definantly NE, as she killed sombody she knew nothing about jsut to further her own needs to feel good about herself. SMack dab center NE.

[LuisDantas]

You mean character development? You know, rather then being a one dimensional running joke?

I find this neutral-to-evil characterization of V to come out of the left fields, that's all. I like the character and it hurts me to see him so.

[TARINunit9]

Hmm... decent comic, but this sub-plot is taking quite a while to get over with...

Wait a sec, comic 596... :smalleek: Holy Crap! Are we that close to 600 ALREADY?!

[Aeon221]

All people accused of crimes have a right to a fair trial -- this is one of the most basic elements that determine whether or not a state is free. V's actions were illegal and morally unjustifiable because, regardless of the extent (or lack thereof) of his knowledge of the case, he did not have the right to make that judgment. Vigilante or mob "justice" is never right.

I'm glad that one of the characters pushed that viewpoint, because I was quite alarmed prior. Hopefully V. will have a chance to defend himself in a court of law.

[pingcode20]

Heh. I'm not really surprised at V's actions, being the Meta Guy and all.

Besides, it's classic 'grumpy wizard' behaviour. I don't think Vaarsuvius really stands on an alignment meter - on the contrary, Vaarsuvius is quite literally grumpy old wizard incarnate, and utterly amoral.

This might mean becoming Neutral Evil in the eyes of paladins, but for V overall, it's just "Go 'way. Sleepy." and throwing the wizardly equivalent of a pillow at the offending individuals (eg. A Disintegrate spell).

It's sort of the same way V dealt with the Demon - "Don't have time for this. Go 'way.", which translates in wizard-speak to Save-or-dies.

[Doopliss]

The actual reason of 'I don't want to sit through another trial, so I'll just kill him so I can get back to making myself feel better' is quite definantly NE, as she killed sombody she knew nothing about jsut to further her own needs to feel good about herself.Technically, she knew Kubota was a villain. :smalltongue:

[The Tygre]

"Rock on, elf buddy!"

Best Belkar line in months.

[mikeejimbo]

I still say V is True Neutral.

[thevorpalbunny]

Of course it wouldn't. Killing an Evil character is not inherently Evil, by D&D morality standards.
I was talking about killing a Good being, which is an evil act. But if the actor thought they were committing a Good act by ridding the world of Evil, it is not an Evil act. The paladin would not fall.

[Liwen]

I'm glad that one of the characters pushed that viewpoint, because I was quite alarmed prior. Hopefully V. will have a chance to defend himself in a court of law.

He just clearly point out he doesn't need to awnser to Hinjo. That means he's gonna "index finger rectify" any more "disturbances" such as Hinjo coming out to arrest him.

I sense NPC death coming...

[vonschlesie]

Since when does V's explanation imply it was something evil? S/he KNEW that Kubota was evil enough to deserve Disintegration, and doesn't have to high an opinion of the slower forms of justice. Not evil, just shows total lack of confidence in Azure City justice (and human mechanisms in general).

[dogmac]

Message to Haley....

In your reunion with Elan, do not, I repeat NOT consider any form of bondage.

NOT, I say.

[JaxGaret]

Vigilante or mob "justice" is never right.

I'm glad that one of the characters pushed that viewpoint, because I was quite alarmed prior.

I could have sworn that Elan accepted V's actions as vigilantism or justice.

[sheepofoblivion]

What I don't get is how V, who previously seemed to be lawful (although I don't really want to debate about his alignment)(based on his syntax, awesomeness, and his saying stuff like "sir," and other stuff...) suddenly killed someone for mere convenience, and how Elan, who can't even be lawful, is taking a stand for the lawful side. I mean, Kubuto totally deserved it...

Meh, that's just my nit-picking...

[David Argall]

this pretty thoroughly makes V non-good. Killing a subdued prisoner purely for convenience is almost definitely an evil act, and V's rationalization would make Miko blush.

Not particularly. V is being somewhat rash since her argument is based on Elan being correct, but essentially his analysis amounts to "I came into the room and found the defendant holding the knife that was also plunged into the victim's heart."

V argues that Elan only ties up major evil foes, precisely the sort of foe who deserves killing. V need know no more before having a justification for killing the prisoner. Add in that using the legal system was both chancy and requires much effort, and you have a case for his immediate removal.

Now arguing that Elan could possibly be right about anything, much less always right, is something that is hard to credit, but we are discussing dramatic conventions, and we know Elan shows amazing knowledge in this field. So it is not entirely unreasonable to think Elan is following the convention without thinking about it.

[malagigi]

That was perhaps the most satisfying thing I've ever seen Elan do.

[Qrod]

I'm so pleased that this strip appears to be moving back to a more streamlined plot. It was getting frayed with all the different characters and their varying levels of plot commitment. I mean, what's a reader to care about?

The problem of stagnation looks like it's being resolved as well. What happened was that the characters (aside from Haley, Celia, and Belkar) all went to places that they both can't interact with each other and don't have the option to leave. How can a strip about a party of adventurers not stagnate in a situation like that?

Right now I'm wishing for several quick releases that re-inform the reader as to what is going on with the characters not on the boat and then another few batches of releases that work the characters (or at least a majority of them) back together and unify them to a single goal. It is definitely possible.

A strip should be more rewarding than it is work, and with the past three or four releases it's looking like we're getting back in the right direction. Great work Giant.

[RosesOnConcrete]

God, V needs a nap, but if it leads to this sort of awesome irritability, then bring on the coffee.

And whoa...while I wasn't looking, Elan grew a spine. He's standing up to his teammates now? O.O Also, badass punchline.

[Mushroom Ninja]

V = God.

This strip confirms it.

[B. Dandelion]

She will not. At least not from a long shot For the dark side's lure may only be overcome by killing a bunch of people just because they are middly incompetent and then get you own son to convince you there's still a chance by getting hit by lighting in the face.
The funny thing is that you could almost exactly use the same criteria for Vegeta in DBZ. Along the same lines maybe Elan will manage to reform Lord Tyrinar.

Evil overlords, don't let your sons grow up to be heroes!

[JaxGaret]

I was talking about killing a Good being, which is an evil act. But if the actor thought they were committing a Good act by ridding the world of Evil, it is not an Evil act. The paladin would not fall.

What specific situation are you setting up here?

You can't just say "What if a Paladin thinks that someone is Evil and kills them, but they turn out to be Good". That doesn't explain the actual situation.

[Porthos]

We can go at this until we're blue in the face, but let me just say that I am fairly certain I am correct, that actions are the sole determinants of alignment.

I just want to give this one thought experiment, and then I'll move on. :smallsmile:

Suppose there's this guy who decides he wants to curry favor with Dark Powers. And he decides the best way to do that is to sacrifice a small town's worth of souls. Problem is, he's not in a position to do that. So he decides to become Mayor of the Town (or some other Powerful Position).

He goes around doing hundreds of small good deeds. He helps little ol' ladies across the street. He supports orphanages. He helps various civic improvement drives.

Over time (say a couple of years) he becomes beloved in the community and then decides to run for Mayor (or whatever) and he wins. He then calls the town meeting, closes the doors on the assembly, goes "MWAHAHAHAHAHAH" and kills everybody/orders everybody killed in the room.

What was said person's alignment during all of this fun? And were his actions Good, Neutral, or Evil?

Personally I don't want to play in any system where it would call that person Good, or any of his actions Good.

That is the main problem I have with the idea that Actions are the Sole Determinate to Alignment. It misses out on people who commit Good Acts for an Evil Cause. Personally I think that (at least in some situations) it's both Action and Intent, with a varying amount placed on each one depending on the situation,

Anyway, just my 2 cents on the subject. :smallsmile:

[tiercel]

Elan with an attitude?!

Nice.

V being completely genre-savvy is a nice touch as well, but it's nice to see the bard not only showing competence but a bit of backbone.

I still think that V's action was justifiable on several levels, though the sheer level of disinterest V shows demonstrates just how monomaniacal the elf is becoming. (It's not that we haven't seen the progression coming, but this is a big step.)

What is awesome particularly in the recent strips is how well the Giant is stacking characters' Crowning Moments of Awesome and advancing plot and brilliantly showing character development.

Kudos!

[Edit to add:]


Suppose there's this guy who decides he wants to curry favor with Dark Powers. And he decides the best way to do that is to sacrifice a small town's worth of souls. Problem is, he's not in a position to do that. So he decides to become Mayor of the Town (or some other Powerful Position).

....closes the doors on the assembly, goes "MWAHAHAHAHAHAH" and kills everybody/orders everybody killed in the room.

Where it gets sticky is what you would consider the guy *before* he actually kills everyone. After all, doing all these good deeds might give him enough of a warm fuzzy to reconsider his mass-murder scheme -- one might argue that the reason he is Evil is that the Evil of the mass murder far outweighs any Good he does in the runup to it (especially since he is likely murdering the very people he had done any good for).

I personally would agree that intent has a place in the discussion though. The nasty thing here is that intent isn't exactly symmetric -- having Evil intent definitely taints any Good actions, whereas having Good intentions may not necessarily redeem Evil actions.

After all, one could almost *define* Evil as "the ends justifies the means."

[TigerHunter]

I can't decide whether this is awesome character development or horrible character derailment.

[FoE]

I agree with Elan. It is totally cool that the Order of the Stick go around killing people.

Keep it up, Rich! :smallwink:

[Doopliss]

He just clearly point out he doesn't need to awnser to Hinjo. That means he's gonna "index finger rectify" any more "disturbances" such as Hinjo coming out to arrest him.

I sense NPC death coming...V nicely explained that he does have a concept of acceptable targets, even if it's nonstandard to say the least. She's not going to kill any Azurites unless Elan ties them up first.

[Fawkes]

We can go at this until we're blue in the face, but let me just say that I am fairly certain I am correct, that actions are the sole determinants of alignment.

I know a certain celestial deva that might disagree with you...

[dish]

Dun Dun DUN!

I have to agree. The tension and character development are really piling up at the moment. The sarcasm and humour really help too. I just hope that the Giant doesn't decide to toy with us all by giving us a perfectly normal 600.

[JaxGaret]

I just want to give this one thought experiment, and then I'll move on. :smallsmile

Okay, let's take a look :smallbiggrin:


Suppose there's this guy who decides he wants to curry favor with Dark Powers. And he decides the best way to do that is to sacrifice a small town's worth of souls. Problem is, he's not in a position to do that. So he decides to become Mayor of the Town (or some other Powerful Position).

He goes around doing hundrerds of small good deeds. He helps little ol' ladies across the street. He spports orphanages. He helps various civic improvement drives.

Over time (say a couple of years) he becomes beloved in the community and then decides to run for Mayor (or whatever) and he wins. He then calls the town meeting, closes the doors on the assembly, goes "MWAHAHAHAHAHAH" and kills everybody/orders everybody killed in the room.

Got it.


What was said person's alignment during all of this fun?

I'm not sure. What were they doing before they became Mayor?


And were his actions Good, Neutral, or Evil?

This is easy. The Good actions were Good. The Neutral actions were Neutral. And the Evil actions were Evil.


Personally I don't want to play in any system where it would call that person Good, or any of his actions Good.

So an Evil person can never commit a Good act, according to you?


That is the main problem I have with the idea that Actions are the Sole Determinate to Alignment. It misses out on people who commit Good Acts for an Evil Cause.

Actually, it doesn't. There are no "Good Acts for an Evil Cause", there are only Good, Neutral, and Evil acts.

You have to look at each act specifically to determine its alignment.


Personally I think that (at least in some situations) it's both Action and Intent, with a varying amount placed on each one depending on the situation,

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other on what "intent" is. If a person walks around hating everyone and thinking about killing everyone, but never does anything but Good acts in their lifetime, are they Evil, or Good? They are Good.

That is what I mean by intent. If actions that seem Good actually lead to more Evil, such as, say, the situation with the Mayor that you proposed, then those "Good" actions are actually Evil. That is not intent, that is the outcome of the action.


Anyway, just my 2 cents on the subject. :smallsmile:

Thanks muchly! That was an excellent example.

[Finwe]

I was talking about killing a Good being, which is an evil act. But if the actor thought they were committing a Good act by ridding the world of Evil, it is not an Evil act. The paladin would not fall.

It appears not everyone agrees with your analysis (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html)


An action's 'good-ness' is determined by both the actor's intent and the inherent good/evil-ness of the action.

[Charles Phipps]

All people accused of crimes have a right to a fair trial -- this is one of the most basic elements that determine whether or not a state is free. V's actions were illegal and morally unjustifiable because, regardless of the extent (or lack thereof) of his knowledge of the case, he did not have the right to make that judgment. Vigilante or mob "justice" is never right.

I'm glad that one of the characters pushed that viewpoint, because I was quite alarmed prior. Hopefully V. will have a chance to defend himself in a court of law.

By that logic. That assumes Revolution and Overthrowing a Tyrant is innately wrong. If someone kills a Dictator without a trial, it's not wrong. Likewise, the same for any situation where the law is problematic. The law is a very good thing but it can be easily subverted. It'd be flat out wrong to say the world has not benefited from several bad people being killed before trial.

At least in D&D, which is where we're arguing. Not RL.

[JaxGaret]

I respectfully disagree (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html)


An action's 'good-ness' is determined by both the actor's intent and the inherent good/evil-ness of the action.


That was the exact example I would have used.

However, where do you see intent affecting that particular action's good/evil-ness?

[Porthos]

Where it gets sticky is what you would consider the guy *before* he actually kills everyone.

That's pretty much what I am asking. :smallsmile:


After all, doing all these good deeds might give him enough of a warm fuzzy to reconsider his mass-murder scheme....

Nahhh. He's a bastard through and through. In fact, it gives him a kick/power trip to know he's throughly manipulating everyone. The only warm fuzzies he would get is when he daydreams about all of the wails of anguish that he will be hearing soon.

He's a sick sick dude. :smalltongue:

[Rogue 7]

Not particularly. V is being somewhat rash since her argument is based on Elan being correct, but essentially his analysis amounts to "I came into the room and found the defendant holding the knife that was also plunged into the victim's heart."

V argues that Elan only ties up major evil foes, precisely the sort of foe who deserves killing. V need know no more before having a justification for killing the prisoner. Add in that using the legal system was both chancy and requires much effort, and you have a case for his immediate removal.

Now arguing that Elan could possibly be right about anything, much less always right, is something that is hard to credit, but we are discussing dramatic conventions, and we know Elan shows amazing knowledge in this field. So it is not entirely unreasonable to think Elan is following the convention without thinking about it.

That argument is a load of bull$&*@. Vaarsuvius didn't know who Elan had tied up- whether it was someone who inconvenienced Elan a little, or, as it turned out to be, the mini-arc's villain. By his own admission, he killed the man solely because Elan had him tied up. He casually murdered the man not because he thought that the man deserved death, but because he couldn't be bothered to go through the distraction of a trial. V's justification after the fact is nothing but rationalization, based on the evidence of two encounters, both of which involved Elan's twin brother. As such, there might be some cause to suspect that the experimental data is tampered with by other variables.

[JaxGaret]

The law is a very good thing

Good laws are a good thing. Evil laws are not.

[mikeejimbo]

V = God.

This strip confirms it.

What if V was one of us?
Just an elf like one of us?
Just an adventurer on hir horse
Trying to save the worllllllllld

[Ascension]

So wait, does Dashing Swordsman advance bardic spellcasting? Or is it just Elan's creativity with illusions that's advancing rapidly?

[BarGamer]

Elan should get bonus XP for RPing that one, to the point where he levels up. I mean, SERIOUSLY. An RP where Elan wins one over on V, to the extent that V looks worse than BELKAR, deserves no less.

[TerrickTerran]

And Elan just totally rocks in that strip. V, you're nuts........deal with it and get some rest.

[Porthos]

Thanks muchly! That was an excellent example.

Glad to hear your response (and thanks for the compliment), and I won't belabor the point any further past this post.

Needless to say though, I strongly disagree with your viewpoint. :smallwink: I would have no problem having that guy "ping" as Evil (and Strongly Evil at that) if a wandering Paladin had happened into the town before the dude became mayor, and have run games (and been a part of games) where that philosophy was built into our presumtions about alignment.

Thanks again for the response. :smallsmile:

[JaxGaret]

Glad to hear your response (and thanks for the compliment)

You're welcome.


Needless to say though, I strongly disagree with your viewpoint. :smallwink:

No!!! Everyone must agree with everything I say, or my head asplodes!!!! :smallwink:


I would have no problem having that guy "ping" as Evil (and Strongly Evil at that) if a wandering Paladin had happened into the town before the dude became mayor, and have run games (and been a part of games) where that philosophy was built into our presumtions about alignment.

I would have no problem having that guy *ping* as Evil either.


Thankls again for the response. :smallsmile:

Thank you again for the example and for this response.

[Seidaku]

Boy, sure does seem like V killed the right guy at the right time for the wrong reasons. By saying four words. Yep, this does seem to support the idea that this is the fulfillment of the oracle's prophecy.

[herrhauptmann]

Arguments aside, I'm glad this plotline is almost over. I'm sorta expecting a cleanup strip or two, then a shift over to Haley and co.
And if Giant were a traditional author, I'd expect Roy's re-entry to the story line to go something like this one out of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga... http://www.onemanga.com/Full_Metal_Alchemist/81/31/

[Hippoboy]

This comic is easily the greastest OOTS i've seen in a long time for the sheer amount of win Elan and Varsuvius have combined to make Super win

[Werewindlefr]

Elan has grown an (oversized) spine :smalltongue:

[FMArthur]

Elan > Roy now. He was already on his way to becoming a more entertaining lead protagonist, and this just strip gave him a gigantic leap in awesomeness that put him ahead. Elan telling V how stupid an idea was, and reminding him/her of overlooked consequences? Something must be giving Elan a gigantic bonus to intelligence.

[pendell]

An excellent strip. Not funny, but solid character development.

V is starting to demonstrate some very troubling tendencies. He is starting to care less and less about the people around him and more about his/her own goals. We've seen in SOD what happens when a wizard or sorcerer takes that to an extreme.

It results in watching your minions die for fun, and for disposing of them when you see them as inconvenient.

I'm beginning to think it is a very bad thing for V to attain ultimate power. Because it seems that the more power he has, the more he is inclined to view those around him who are not similarly powered as some kind of insect.

And Elan, of course, demonstrate solid maturity and sarcasm. My respect for him is going up by quite a bit.

But if I were an adventurer I would be getting very, very nervous about being associated with V. He/she is becoming very much like a hand grenade, without care as dangerous to foes as to friends.

Although I will say that ... though I despise his/her method -- I greatly appreciate that we won't have to endure 20-30 strips of lawyers. I just wish he/she had found another solution besides 'disintegrate'.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[goodyarn]

That was an awesome strip. My favorite since "lick my orange balls, halfling."


Though, I think its a bit out-of-character for V.....

My guess is V is only going to get worse from here. An elven mage, who fancies that s/he commands nature, up against an epic spell s/he can't crack? V won't be back to "normal for V" until after s/he has gotten that ultimate power for all those wrong reasons. That's what me and the dog think anyway.

[Fanatic-Templar]

Elan humiliates Vaarsuvius? My entire worldview has been shattered... by awesome!

[Timespike]

I think it's interesting how the Order seems to be behaving with Roy's death; V and Belkar seem to be running off the rails, Haley and Elan can't seem to bring them under control, and Durkon understands what's going on, but doesn't have the authority to stop it. They really need their leader back.:

Yeah, I'd say that's a spot-on characterization of what's happened, here. I can't help but wonder if Hinjo will be joining the OotS when/if it reforms. Belkar seems a bit... ...indisposed at present.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Keeeeee! Euugd Lcclnwpql Lgfm!

That was brilliant.

[Zolem]

Boy, sure does seem like V killed the right guy at the right time for the wrong reasons. By saying four words. Yep, this does seem to support the idea that this is the fulfillment of the oracle's prophecy.

And the unlimited power is?

[Reploid Knight]

"Your swift progress with illusions is overshadowed only by your long-overdue grasp of the basics of sarcasm"

HA haha. Well put. that's hilarious.:smallbiggrin:

[Finwe]

That was the exact example I would have used.

However, where do you see intent affecting that particular action's good/evil-ness?

For an action to be good, you have to do it for the right reasons. Let's say there's a serial killer on the loose, killing everyone whose telephone number adds up to a prime, and he also happens to own a knee odors clinic. Coincidentally, is killed by a different serial killer, who is murdering everyone whose business is an anagram of "Celine Dion Rocks." Did the second killer commit a good act? Clearly not. (A more simple example: the first killer realizes that his phone number is 617-3213, and shoots himself in the head) More generally, for an action to be "good," you have to both intend to do good and actually do good.

[Rogue 7]

Arguments aside, I'm glad this plotline is almost over. I'm sorta expecting a cleanup strip or two, then a shift over to Haley and co.
And if Giant were a traditional author, I'd expect Roy's re-entry to the story line to go something like this one out of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga... http://www.onemanga.com/Full_Metal_Alchemist/81/31/

Ran Fan's would be better.

[tyckspoon]

Why do you say that?

Re: Blood War

Because the Blood War is fought primarily between demons and devils. And in a system where the only determinant is what you did and not why you did it, destroying an Evil Outsider can only be a Good act of the highest kind. So the hordes of the Abyss and the Hells have been and will, status quo willing, eternally be repeatedly performing a very Good act, and so will eventually redeem themselves against their own wills (this would make a pretty good alternate reason for the Blood War, actually- a Chaotic Good Trickster-type being arranged it in order to redeem the fiends/increase the amount of Good in the universe.) Unless you believe being an Evil Outsider completely overrides that, in which case it's just amusingly ironic.

[Kaihaku]

Epic. :smallbiggrin:
Also, I believe another spell was cast by V, unnoticed to many.
[Shatter 4th Wall]

I think V cast permanency on that one.

[Zolem]

Re: Blood War

Because the Blood War is fought primarily between demons and devils. And in a system where the only determinant is what you did and not why you did it, destroying an Evil Outsider can only be a Good act of the highest kind. So the hordes of the Abyss and the Hells have been and will, status quo willing, eternally be repeatedly performing a very Good act, and so will eventually redeem themselves against their own wills (this would make a pretty good alternate reason for the Blood War, actually- a Chaotic Good Trickster-type being arranged it in order to redeem the fiends/increase the amount of Good in the universe.) Unless you believe being an Evil Outsider completely overrides that, in which case it's just amusingly ironic.

...must...add...chaotic...good...trickster...for.. ..different...reason.

[JaxGaret]

For an action to be good, you have to do it for the right reasons. Let's say there's a serial killer on the loose, killing everyone whose telephone number adds up to a prime, and he also happens to own a knee odors clinic. Coincidentally, is killed by a different serial killer, who is murdering everyone whose business is an anagram of "Celine Dion Rocks." Did the second killer commit a good act? Clearly not. (A more simple example: the first killer realizes that his phone number is 617-3213, and shoots himself in the head) More generally, for an action to be "good," you have to both intend to do good and actually do good.

The serial killer killing the other serial killer was a Good act.

That, of course, does not now make them Good, due to the overwhelming Evil of their other acts.

Why do people like to insist that Evil people simply cannot commit Good acts?

[BarGamer]

Wait, which 4 words? "Disintegrate" and "Gust of Wind", or "What is a Kubota?" I'm also confused as to how this grants him uber powers, especially since V doesn't look all THAT much closer to lich-dom.

And could we get a link to the relevant Oracle comic?

[JaxGaret]

Unless you believe being an Evil Outsider completely overrides that, in which case it's just amusingly ironic.

This.

Not to mention the other unspeakable Evils being committed by those participating in the Blood War that probably far overshadow the limited Good of slaughtering Evil.

:smallsmile:

Converting Evil to Good is perhaps the highest Good, or one of them. Killing Evil falls well below that on the Good scale, that is if it's not Neutral (or even Evil in some circumstances) in nature; it depends on the specific situation.

[WarriorTribble]

One wonders if V got some exp from that kill.

[ishnar]

Actions determine alignment, not intentions. Therefore the reasoning behind V's actions matter not one whit when determining what alignment the action was.


I dunno where you got that idea. It's not in keeping with any philosophy or religion I know of, be it Christianity, Shinto, Taoism, or Rationalism.

You donate so that the organization will "owe you a favor" - Evil
You donate so you can brag about it and get recognition - Evil
You donate out of a sense of obligation - neutral
You donate because you care and want to help - Good

for Christians there's even a parable that touches on this. Shinto has the tales of the three samurai. Etc..

[JaxGaret]

I dunno where you got that idea. It's not in keeping with any philosophy or religion I know of, be it Christianity, Shinto, Taoism, or Rationalism.

The D&D alignment system is not a RL philosophy or religion.

Please leave RL morality out of D&D morality.

[EvilElitest]

Indeed, it would have been chaotic, but not evil. Ie. the law system cannot met out justice, so I'll just wrap it up. The actual reason of 'I don't want to sit through another trial, so I'll just kill him so I can get back to making myself feel better' is quite definantly NE, as she killed sombody she knew nothing about jsut to further her own needs to feel good about herself. SMack dab center NE.

No its evil, because murder of a prisoner is evil always in D&D at least. Won't matter to V, because she is a neutral wizard, but the act is still evil



Not true; intentions determine alignment. A paladin smiting something else because they think it is evil and killing it does not make them fall.

Well, that's my opinion, at least. In any case, this is not the place for that discussion.
Not in D&D at least, when it comes to good. A paladin who murders somebody will always fall, no matter how justified they felt it was (miko) The acception is when it was done by accident, like a paldading killing a charmed commoner attacking them with a knife


And......Elan just out witted V? I no longer dislike that character
from
EE

[Tilian]

Nice burn, Elan!

Though him being the one delivering it turns my world upside down.

[DSCrankshaw]

Two things I'd like to point out:

First, V's knowledge of Elan's capturing prisoners goes back a ways (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html).

And second, I do have a theory for how those four words would lead to ultimate arcane power:
Qarr was watching. If he sees Kubota dead and decides to set his sights on a new ally, then Vaarsuvius might be an obvious choice--a powerful mage with no particular grudge against him who's morally ambiguous at best. And considering how desperate Vaarsuvius is to locate Haley and the others, he may be willing to consider such an alliance.

[Child Conscript]

Roy would be proud :smallbiggrin:

[Trizap]

Anyone else find it oddly fitting that Kubota, a man who sought power and respect and whose greatest weapon was his standing in a noble met his end at the hands of someone who didn't know who he was or cared to find out?

very fitting, I mean V just thought "oh look, a helpless enemy, better kill him for XP"

and I think Elan just took another level of Badass; he has now two levels in it.

1st level of badass: when he became dashing swordsman
2nd level of badass: finally learned sarcasm

[SmartAlec]

If actions are all that count, doesn't this invalidate the firmly-established traditions of the anti-hero (does the right things, for the wrong reasons) and the sympathetic villain (does the wrong things, for the right reasons)?

The whole reason it's difficult to put people in neat boxes is because intention, action, and a bunch of other stuff is involved.

Out of curiosity, where did this assertion that V knew Kubota was a villain comes from? V made an educated guess that Kubota was a villain based on appearances, and shot without bothering to even check. Elan and Kubota could have been rehearsing a dramatic scene, for all V knew.

[Ramien]

The serial killer killing the other serial killer was a Good act.

That, of course, does not now make them Good, due to the overwhelming Evil of their other acts.

Why do people like to insist that Evil people simply cannot commit Good acts?

A serial killer killing a serial killer? Not good at all, assuming the killer acted out of his desire to kill.

If I walked out into the street and shot somebody at random, that's an evil act, no matter who it kills. I killed someone without provocation - it doesn't matter if it was the nun who runs the orphanage next door, or the up and coming antichrist.

[Lamech]

V killed someone because he was tied up by Elan?!?!?!? First, off that is assuming that Elan, doesn't make huge mistakes like tying up someone for a bad reason. Secondly, what if he was tied up because of a mind control effect (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0401.html) and couldn't be killed for that reason. Umm... chaotic evil, yeah that was definatly a chaotic evil action. Please tell me their isn't a debate on this still? Please, it will make me feel better about my sanity...

[JaxGaret]

If I walked out into the street and shot somebody at random, that's an evil act, no matter who it kills. I killed someone without provocation - it doesn't matter if it was the nun who runs the orphanage next door, or the up and coming antichrist.

I beg to differ. If you walk out in the street and kill the antichrist, that is an overwhelmingly Good act, for you have just averted untold Evil.

There's a difference between a single act and a series of acts. If you're the kind of person that's going to randomly shoot people, then sure, once in a while you'll get lucky and kill the right person. But all the wrong people you killed will far outweigh the right ones.

[EvilElitest]

If actions are all that count, doesn't this invalidate the firmly-established traditions of the anti-hero (does the right things, for the wrong reasons) and the sympathetic villain (does the wrong things, for the right reasons)?

The whole reason it's difficult to put people in neat boxes is because intention, action, and a bunch of other stuff is involved.

Out of curiosity, where did this assertion that V knew Kubota was a villain comes from? V made an educated guess that Kubota was a villain based on appearances, and shot without bothering to even check. Elan and Kubota could have been rehearsing a dramatic scene, for all V knew.

being evil doesn't make you a sociopath. I mean, look at all the historical figures who would be evil
from
EE

[Tilian]

Intent matters a lot. If it doesn't, the alignment system really does become as ridiculous as its detractors claim, and it takes out any depth of moral complexity in the game. It's not the ONLY thing that matters, but it is very much an important factor.

One of the things I absolutely hated about Fable was that killing bandits always counted as Good, even though my village burning omnicidal maniac was just defending himself. And sometimes I just wanted their stuff.

[Rogue 7]

I beg to differ. If you walk out in the street and kill the antichrist, that is an overwhelmingly Good act, for you have just averted untold Evil.

Who you killed is irrelevant, like Raimen said. It does not matter that ultimate evil has been averted. You randomly decided that you were going to kill someone, and, as it turned out, you got lucky. No one's going to reward you for that.

[Yoritomo Himeko]

Wait, which 4 words? "Disintegrate" and "Gust of Wind", or "What is a Kubota?" I'm also confused as to how this grants him uber powers, especially since V doesn't look all THAT much closer to lich-dom.

And could we get a link to the relevant Oracle comic?

That would be this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html).

[JaxGaret]

If actions are all that count, doesn't this invalidate the firmly-established traditions of the anti-hero (does the right things, for the wrong reasons) and the sympathetic villain (does the wrong things, for the right reasons)?

I don't see how that follows, could you elaborate?

[EvilElitest]

Intent matters a lot. If it doesn't, the alignment system really does become as ridiculous as its detractors claim, and it takes out any depth of moral complexity in the game. It's not the ONLY thing that matters, but it is very much an important factor.

One of the things I absolutely hated about Fable was that killing bandits always counted as Good, even though my village burning omnicidal maniac was just defending himself. And sometimes I just wanted their stuff.

1) Intent matters when it comes to neutral and evil, for example a neutral person who saves a kid might do it for selfish or selfless reasons. And it mattesr when it comes to accidents. However good has a much higher standard, and as of such the intent (for teh greater good ect) doesn't matter, its absolute. Unless you don't know your commiting something (for example, if by opening a door, i cause the death of a child, but i don't know that and open the door, i won't fall)
2) Ug, Fable morality. Just, no
from
EE

[JaxGaret]

You randomly decided that you were going to kill someone, and, as it turned out, you got lucky. No one's going to reward you for that.

And no one needs to.

[nowiwantmydmg]

You owe me a keyboard, Giant!

Hilarious.

[synnerman]

Kubota is responsible for the deaths of thousands and indirectly responsible for the poor defense that let Redcloak and Xyklon take Azure city and be able to access the snarl portal.

More hand wringing. This story is going to take an annoying turn methinks.

[MyrddinDerwydd]

<<<<<Rock on, elf buddy!>>>>>

[EvilElitest]

Kubota is responsible for the deaths of thousands and indirectly responsible for the poor defense that let Redcloak and Xyklon take Azure city and be able to access the snarl portal.

More hand wringing. This story is going to take an annoying turn methinks.

So?
from
EE

[Heroic]

Great comic. Many questions were answered.

[Rogue 7]

And no one needs to.

Someone needs to punish you, though. If only so that you don't go out and randomly kill someone again, because your chances of hitting the Antichrist have decreased significantly.

[Iago]

I can't decide whether this is awesome character development or horrible character derailment.


As a big fan of Vaarsuvius, I agree completely with your indecision.

Also, I take back my conclusion that these were not the four words to the right person for the wrong reasons. I now believe that, at least, they COULD be... not necessarily are, but I now think it can't be ruled out.

[turkishproverb]

I was talking about killing a Good being, which is an evil act. But if the actor thought they were committing a Good act by ridding the world of Evil, it is not an Evil act. The paladin would not fall.

It appears (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html)...not everyone agrees with your (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html)....analysis. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)

[Tilian]

1) Intent matters when it comes to neutral and evil, for example a neutral person who saves a kid might do it for selfish or selfless reasons. And it mattesr when it comes to accidents. However good has a much higher standard, and as of such the intent (for teh greater good ect) doesn't matter, its absolute. Unless you don't know your commiting something (for example, if by opening a door, i cause the death of a child, but i don't know that and open the door, i won't fall)



I agree that good characters have a harder time of it. I'm just saying that it's not a good idea to completely write off the importance of intent when it comes to alignment. Going by actions alone lets a lot of crap go under the radar.

I know someone playing a character who has done nothing outwardly evil for months in-game; he gives to the poor, defends the downtrodden, and has taken numerous orphans and homeless NPCs under his wing. And none of it has been out of the goodness of his heart. He's playing out a long term plan to become a demon. He's just fostering good will towards himself to gain the love and loyalty of enough people to help see his plan through.



2) Ug, Fable morality. Just, no
from
EE

Where else can you kick peasants' decapitated heads around for hours on end and be perfectly forgiven and loved by the people and have a saintly aura by just dumping gold at the closest temple?

[The Wanderer]

Not true; intentions determine alignment. A paladin smiting something else because they think it is evil and killing it does not make them fall.

Well, that's my opinion, at least. In any case, this is not the place for that discussion.

Then Miko would never have fallen, as she believed she was doing the right thing and killing a corrupt ruler who could control the courts.

Actions come first, intentions second in my book. Intentions can be mitigating factors for actions, but only sometimes does it completely make up for harmful and borderline actions.

[JaxGaret]

Someone needs to punish you, though.

For killing the Antichrist? Sheesh. Remind me not to go about killing the Antichrist while you're on watch :smallsmile:


If only so that you don't go out and randomly kill someone again, because your chances of hitting the Antichrist have decreased significantly.

Sure, someone can punish you for your act, but that doesn't make it any less Good.

Each action has to be judged individually to determine its effects on alignment.

[Rogue 7]

For killing the Antichrist? Sheesh. Remind me not to go about killing the Antichrist while you're on watch :smallsmile:


All kidding aside, do you see my point? That killing someone randomly can never be justified as good? If you knew ahead of time that he's the antichrist, go right ahead. Heck, I'll work with you to get the sniper rifle. But if you don't, it's just senseless violence, which isn't good.

[SmartAlec]

I don't see how that follows, could you elaborate?

Ok.

If you say that action is all that counts, that only what a person does is what makes up their 'alignment', you take all the grey away. All that's left are these neat boxes that say 'Bad Person', or 'Good Person', 'Law-Abiding Person' and so on. And people don't fit these neat boxes - the whole point of the anti-hero or the sympathetic villain is that their intentions are counter to their actions. They are a 'grey area', hard to classify. It doesn't matter that a character is a bank robber who tries to avoid causing harm to people beyond his acts of thievery, if actions are all that count they are a criminal and therefore Evil. If a character is a vigilante is of the Punisher-style, kill-em-all kind who racks up a vast bodycount and thousands of pounds of property damage and doesn't care, if actions are all that matter then he or she has stopped 'evildoers' and therefore is Good.

But that just doesn't make any sense. And, in a hypothetical case, may actually run completely counter to the author's wishes - that they wanted to create a hero who was not a good person. By your estimation, if actions are all that count, they are unable to do so because such a person does not exist.

But they do.

Anyhow, what's with this keeping real-life morality, ethics and religion out of the discussion? Where's our point of reference for these rigid definitions of Good and Bad, exactly?

[Finwe]

The serial killer killing the other serial killer was a Good act.

That, of course, does not now make them Good, due to the overwhelming Evil of their other acts.

Why do people like to insist that Evil people simply cannot commit Good acts?

The person who goes around executing people they wrongly believe to be evil is evil.

The person who goes around executing people they wrongly believe to be good is still evil.

[chiasaur11]

Elan has mastered sarcasm.

He's finally growing up. Sniff...

[Kupi]

Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth.

Vaarsuvius is shifting toward Evil, but isn't there yet. In D&D (and please append "as I see it" to all my statements henceforth), Good and Evil are their own causes for those who are labeled with those alignments. Good characters seek to do Good, which in general involves making life better for everyone (except those who are Evil). Here, reference Elan, who attempts to redeem most of the villain-type characters he encounters, and Roy, who started the quest against Xykon to rid the world of his evil [citation needed]. Evil characters seek to do Evil, which generally involves self-enrichment at the cost of others, often for its own sake. Reference Xykon, who kills for pleasure, and Redcloak, who supported the sacking of Azure city to avenge his tribe (I think). Vaarsuvius does not yet fit into either of those paradigms. Though his original goal, "saving the world", was noble and perhaps motivated by Good, he currently acts in a slavish devotion to the goal itself. To me, that devotion to a goal rather than Good or Evil seems more like Neutral behavior, with momentum toward Evil.

[Mike_the_Mystic]

Lol @ illusion :belkar:. He'll stabbity McStab you imaginarily!

[Tilian]

Lol @ illusion :belkar:. He'll stabbity McStab you imaginarily!

Attempt to disbelieve! Attempt to disbelieve!

[JaxGaret]

If you say that action is all that counts, that only what a person does is what makes up their 'alignment', you take all the grey away. All that's left are these neat boxes that say 'Bad Person', or 'Good Person', 'Law-Abiding Person' and so on. And people don't fit these neat boxes - the whole point of the anti-hero or the sympathetic villain is that their intentions are counter to their actions. They are a 'grey area', hard to classify. It doesn't matter that a character is a bank robber who tries to avoid causing harm to people beyond his acts of thievery, if actions are all that count they are a criminal and therefore Evil. If a character is a vigilante is of the Punisher-style, kill-em-all kind who racks up a vast bodycount and thousands of pounds of property damage and doesn't care, if actions are all that matter then he or she has stopped 'evildoers' and therefore is Good.

Theft is inherently Chaotic, not Evil. If the bank robber truly hurts no one (in all senses of the word), then it is not an Evil act.

If the Punisher commits only "Good" kills, and the destruction of property harms no one, then they haven't committed any Evil.

However, as you can see, it will be quite difficult for the bank robber or the punisher-type to adhere to those strict circumstances, and therefore their acts may be Evil.


But that just doesn't make any sense. And, in a hypothetical case, may actually run completely counter to the author's wishes - that they wanted to create a hero who was not a good person. By your estimation, if actions are all that count, they are unable to do so because such a person does not exist.

But they do.

What exactly are we talking about here? What kind of character are you describing?


Anyhow, what's with this keeping real-life morality, ethics and religion out of the discussion?

Because RL morality and D&D morality are completely different animals. Isn't it against the CoC to discuss RL religion or politics, anyway?


Where's our point of reference for these rigid definitions of Good and Bad, exactly?

The D&D alignment system.

[Narses]

Re: Blood War

Because the Blood War is fought primarily between demons and devils. And in a system where the only determinant is what you did and not why you did it, destroying an Evil Outsider can only be a Good act of the highest kind. So the hordes of the Abyss and the Hells have been and will, status quo willing, eternally be repeatedly performing a very Good act, and so will eventually redeem themselves against their own wills (this would make a pretty good alternate reason for the Blood War, actually- a Chaotic Good Trickster-type being arranged it in order to redeem the fiends/increase the amount of Good in the universe.) Unless you believe being an Evil Outsider completely overrides that, in which case it's just amusingly ironic.

However, as they each become more and more good, they start to stop killing Evil beings and start killing Good ones...which I believe is an Evil act.
:smalleek:

[Kaytara]

Wow.... Vaarsuvius IS officially off his rocker. O.O

Wonderful strip, though. It felt a bit strange for me to see Elan smiling (even sarcastically) so soon after Therkla's death... But the last panel was awesome. 'What Would Belkar Do', heh. XD

But no. This definitely isn't good. At all. :smalleek:

[tyckspoon]

However, as they each become more and more good, they start to stop killing Evil beings and start killing Good ones...which I believe is an Evil act.
:smalleek:

:smallbiggrin: Well, theoretically once they have achieved redemption (or at least Neutrality) they stop being fiends and transition to a different plane. Or maybe just get destroyed by the other fiends that are still Evil- thus sending the redeemed soul to a different plane. Or you could just let it happen.. call it the essential nature of the Evil planes fighting back against the Redemption War.

[Leo_Forestclaw]

Don't know why but literally busted out LOL at, "Yes, but that mustache, did not do him any favors, either."

I must remember that mustaches are an implicit trait of an evil creature thus it can be summarily executed. ;-)

[JaxGaret]

All kidding aside, do you see my point? That killing someone randomly can never be justified as good?

I understand that it can't be "justified" in a conceptual sense, but that has no bearing on whether a specific action is Good or not. Good is an outcome, a result of actions. Randomly killing a person will usually be Evil, so in general, yes, I would council against it. However, some of the time, it is a Good act, because the outcome is Good.

Note that the determination of whether or not killing a person is a Good act isn't just "If they're Evil, it was a Good act". It's far more complicated than that.

Sometimes killing an Evil person is Evil. Sometimes killing a Good person is Good. It's far more likely for the reverse to be the case, of course, or for both to trend more towards Evil.

[Tilian]

Don't know why but literally busted out LOL at, "Yes, but that mustache, did not do him any favors, either."

I must remember that mustaches are an implicit trait of an evil creature thus it can be summarily executed. ;-)


Not all moustaches are automatically evil.

If the bearer twirls one however...

[befuddled]

V: "I confess that I tired of those happenings some time ago and have paid them scant attention ever since"

He took the words right out of my brain. I registered just to say THANK THE TWELVE GODS IT'S OVER!!!!
I couldn't endure any more of that humorless drudgery. It'll be nice to not have to skim past this comic after seeing it predominated by green hued characters.

[tyckspoon]

Not all moustaches are automatically evil.

If the bearer twirls one however...

Yes, but the Fu Manchu is definitely one of the evil ones. Just look at the character it's named for.

[SmartAlec]

If the bank robber truly hurts no one (in all senses of the word)

Hold on there. There's no such thing. Both characters will be hurting people, somehow. It's very difficult to do something that high-profile without affecting someone in a negative way. Frightening bank tellers and random bank customers, taking up police time that could be preventing something else, somewhere; or bankrupting honest businessmen by damaging their places of business in pursuit of criminals, and leaving family members of the dead men mourning. By your standard, that each action has to be judged according to its' outcome, the amount of possibilities for knock-on effects are staggering.

See, what you're doing here is not judging the action, but the outcome of an action, which is ridiculous, because it entirely divorces the character committing the action from the moral and ethical weighing. The thief's respect for life, and the vigilante's disregard for it, are meaningless according to this method of determination. And that's where it gets crazy.

Using the earlier example of shooting someone bad: man (bob) leaves house with intention to commit murder. Bob kills random person, Joe. Joe was, himself, on his way to do something bad - let's say... commit murder. How do we judge if what Bob has done was Good? Is killing Joe Bad? We'll never know! Joe could have ended up killing someone who was Bad. And how do we know THAT person was Bad? They could have been on their way to doing something inadvertently good, too.

Given this bizarre situation, we're faced with the two claims here.

The first is that intent does matter, in which case, Bob's clearly in the wrong here.

The second is that intent does not matter. But by killing Joe, he has robbed Joe of his chance of becoming a 'good' person - which could be considered wrong, as Bob has essentially denied Joe the chance he has himself recieved, that is to be considered a 'good' person by virtue of the outcome of his deed, not to mention prevented the 'good' that Joe was about to do from happening. In this second example, 'good' and 'bad' are so abstracted from the people to whom these terms are applied that they have no meaning.

[Rogue 7]

I understand that it can't be "justified" in a conceptual sense, but that has no bearing on whether a specific action is Good or not. Good is an outcome, a result of actions. Randomly killing a person will usually be Evil, so in general, yes, I would council against it. However, some of the time, it is a Good act, because the outcome is Good.

Note that the determination of whether or not killing a person is a Good act isn't just "If they're Evil, it was a Good act". It's far more complicated than that.

Sometimes killing an Evil person is Evil. Sometimes killing a Good person is Good. It's far more likely for the reverse to be the case, of course, or for both to trend more towards Evil.
Alright, we're not as far apart as I thought. You're taking an objective view of the situation- what's the net gain. I place far more importance on intent (though not the sole purpose. A degree of neutrality is required. Yes, Miko should have fallen.) But I doubt we'll come to a consensus on that.

[Kaytara]

Not all moustaches are automatically evil.

If the bearer twirls one however...

Thank goodness Vaarsuvius hasn't remembered what Haley said about goatees or Hinjo would be next.... :smalleek:

[Charles Phipps]

Not in D&D at least, when it comes to good. A paladin who murders somebody will always fall, no matter how justified they felt it was (miko) The acception is when it was done by accident, like a paldading killing a charmed commoner attacking them with a knife

Not really. A paladin who walks up and kills a vampire because he's a vampire won't fall because the vampire is a vampire. Likewise, a Paladin who decides that he's going to kill Saruman because he's an oppressive tyrant in the Shire is not going to fall.

If a paladin is justified, they can kill.

After all, a PALADIN IS A HOLY WARRIOR. They EXIST to kill people.

[JaxGaret]

Alright, we're not as far apart as I thought.

I didn't think we were :smallsmile:


You're taking an objective view of the situation- what's the net gain. I place far more importance on intent (though not the sole purpose. A degree of neutrality is required. Yes, Miko should have fallen.)

Exactly. D&D alignment is entirely objective, because it is determined by actions, not intent.


But I doubt we'll come to a consensus on that.

I doubt it as well.

[Warren Dew]

Heh...that a) completely explains why V zapped Kubota and B) nullifies some of the big forum arguments about the previous strip.

Indeed. Giant 2, forum 0!


Though, I think its a bit out-of-character for V.....

I think it's quite consistent with Vaarsuvius' character to get impatient when the plot is dragging. I might agree that the increasingly direct methods of dealing with it are a bit disturbing, but they're not inconsistent. It may just be that Vaarsuvius' player doesn't have Belkar to do the dirty work any more.

Nice to see Elan reversing away from hints of darkness, as well - especially in a way that makes him less annoying!


At any rate, I can't wait for the humor to start flowing again. This arc is decidedly low on it. I haven't laughed in over ten strips. :smallfrown:

Uh ... please tell me you're kidding? I laughed so much I was really glad I read this at home. It's got to be the first strip where even the discussion thread is funny (for example posts 67 and 69, among others).


You donate so that the organization will "owe you a favor" - Evil
You donate so you can brag about it and get recognition - Evil
You donate out of a sense of obligation - neutral
You donate because you care and want to help - Good

So most charitable organizations survive because of evil acts? Does that mean the Red Cross is evil?


This is made of awesome. Awesome and win. Win with a side of ownage. And fries.

Not true; intentions determine alignment. A paladin smiting something else because they think it is evil and killing it does not make them fall.

Agreed about the awesome. Good to know that Miko is still wearing blue in paladin heaven, too!

[Starscream]

Elan is my hero. I want to be Elan when I grow up. the fact that I am already two years older than he is no deterrent.

And enough with the "someone cast sleep on V" stuff. Won't work. Lets move right up to "someone bludgeon V into unconsciousness with Durkon's big Thor Hammer" because right now it looks like s/he and Belkar are having an ugly-off.

[chiasaur11]

Yes, but the Fu Manchu is definitely one of the evil ones. Just look at the character it's named for.

On the other hand, even a Hitler mustache isn't pure evil.

Jolly J Jonah Jameson has one, and he's a tireless crusader for civil rights, a hardbitten fighter against corruption, and a daring journalist who prints the truth no matter what!

[Starscream]

Not true; intentions determine alignment. A paladin smiting something else because they think it is evil and killing it does not make them fall.

Incorrect. That is exactly what happened to Miko.

[Tilian]

On the other hand, even a Hitler mustache isn't pure evil.

Jolly J Jonah Jameson has one, and he's a tireless crusader for civil rights, a hardbitten fighter against corruption, and a daring journalist who prints the truth no matter what!

That Spider-man is a menace!

Don't forget Charlie Chaplain too, who actually used his moustache powers to take Hitler himself on in The Great Dictator.

[Dervag]

I think this is was very funny, and very informative. It tells us a lot about V's state of mind. It shows more depth of character out of Elan than I can remember ever seeing before*.

And I think it offers some important perspective for the debate over V's actions and whether they were right or wrong.

*Though that isn't really saying very much.

[JaxGaret]

Hold on there. There's no such thing.

I would say that it is unlikely, rather than impossible.


Both characters will be hurting people, somehow.

Probably.


It's very difficult to do something that high-profile without affecting someone in a negative way.

Right.


Frightening bank tellers and random bank customers, taking up police time that could be preventing something else, somewhere; or bankrupting honest businessmen by damaging their places of business in pursuit of criminals, and leaving family members of the dead men mourning. By your standard, that each action has to be judged according to its' outcome, the amount of possibilities for knock-on effects are staggering.

Correct. A bank robbery hostage situation will always be Evil (or often enough for it to be close enough to being asymptotic. I think I used the word asymptotic correctly here, but if I didn't, I think you still get my meaning). However, a break-in where no employees are disturbed and no law enforcement gets involved may very well be a victimless crme (or a crime in which any victims are deserving of the punishment), depending on the circumstances.


See, what you're doing here is not judging the action, but the outcome of an action, which is ridiculous, because it entirely divorces the character committing the action from the moral and ethical weighing. The thief's respect for life, and the vigilante's disregard for it, are meaningless according to this method of determination. And that's where it gets crazy.

Using the earlier example of shooting someone bad: man (bob) leaves house with intention to commit murder. Bob kills random person, Joe. Joe was, himself, on his way to do something bad - let's say... commit murder. How do we judge if what Bob has done was Good? Is killing Joe Bad? We'll never know! Joe could have ended up killing someone who was Bad. And how do we know THAT person was Bad? They could have been on their way to doing something inadvertently good, too.

Given this bizarre situation, we're faced with the two claims here.

The first is that intent does matter, in which case, Bob's clearly in the wrong here.

The second is that intent does not matter. But by killing Joe, he has robbed Joe of his chance of becoming a 'good' person - which could be considered wrong, as Bob has essentially denied Joe the chance he has himself recieved, that is to be considered a 'good' person by virtue of the outcome of his deed, not to mention prevented the 'good' that Joe was about to do from happening. In this second example, 'good' and 'bad' are so abstracted from the people to whom these terms are applied that they have no meaning.

Like I said, it's complicated :smallsmile:

I'm not going to say that everything is black and white. It's not. There's shades of grey to everything.

[tyckspoon]

On the other hand, even a Hitler mustache isn't pure evil.

Jolly J Jonah Jameson has one, and he's a tireless crusader for civil rights, a hardbitten fighter against corruption, and a daring journalist who prints the truth no matter what!

Ok, I lol'd. But it's still an Evil mustache, at least in the modern era (and by extension, most works that play with hair-related tropes.) After all, a man wearing a Hitler mustache.. is a man who doesn't mind being associated with Hitler. Self Godwinning; that's either an incredibly self-assured person who spends too much time on the Internet, or somebody likely to be at least a little unsavory.

[Cutsleeve]

Belkar steals the scene without even really being there. LOL

[Baelzar]

Best two strips in a long, long time.

[Dr. Cthulwho]

I couldn't endure any more of that humorless drudgery. It'll be nice to not have to skim past this comic after seeing it predominated by green hued characters.

Humorless? Well, to each their own, but I found a lot of great humour occurring. And some character development.

And predominated by green hued characters? I'd have thought you'd need more then one to be constantly in the fore for that to be true.


Don't know why but literally busted out LOL at, "Yes, but that mustache, did not do him any favors, either."

I must remember that mustaches are an implicit trait of an evil creature thus it can be summarily executed. ;-)

But it has to be a certain type of moustache - a long thin one that can be twirled usually. As opposed the, say, the Chief's moustache, which just existed to look awesome.


Jolly J Jonah Jameson has one, and he's a tireless crusader for civil rights, a hardbitten fighter against corruption, and a daring journalist who prints the truth no matter what!

Unless it concerns Spiderman (well, depending on when it is).

And another good strip, that's the V I was expecting. Totally for convenience, no "he was doing it because he knew if Kubota went to trial he would continue to be evil and killing innocents." And it's getting easier to see how V will one day gain ultimate arcane power for all the wrong reasons.

Ah, and Elan learning sarcasm... but is he strong enough to resist its corrupting influence, or will we come to see snarky Elan? (Though, it's a bit Roy-ish, I like to think he's looking down with pride on Elan right now).

[Wolf_In_Exile]

Haha, that was brilliant. At least one good laugh in every frame and the last three were priceless! Well done Giant

[Liwen]

Best two strips in a long, long time.

How do I see this comment EVERY single strip. It seems like the Giant's art and story is ever improving.

[jimpoplyr]

Alignment. pfff. What a waste of breath.

The real point of this strip is that V has broken the fourth wall; and become a deus ex machina. NOBODY wants to bother going through "twenty or thirty STRIPS of humorless drudgery, likely involving those two idiot lawyers".
For the purpose of this strip, V has become RB's avatar.
Onwards and Upwards! The story continues...

[Kekran]

Elan for the win! I couldn't help but giggle at Elan's tactic... truly illusion is the next big thing in the arsenal of sarcasm.

[Red XIV]

It appears not everyone agrees with your analysis (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html)


An action's 'good-ness' is determined by both the actor's intent and the inherent good/evil-ness of the action.
You're forgetting one critical thing: we don't actually know that Miko's fall was due to her action being Evil. It could also have been due to her action being Chaotic. Paladins don't just have to be Good, they have to be Lawful Good.

Anyway, for those who say intent doesn't matter in alignment, the being of pure Law and Good says otherwise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

[Dr. Cthulwho]

NOBODY wants to bother going through "twenty or thirty STRIPS of humorless drudgery, likely involving those two idiot lawyers".

I don't know, I like those two idiot lawyers. They'll probably have to start begging for food now that they'll be missing out on the trial of the century.

[kabbor]

You're forgetting one critical thing: we don't actually know that Miko's fall was due to her action being Evil. It could also have been due to her action being Chaotic. Paladins don't just have to be Good, they have to be Lawful Good.

Anyway, for those who say intent doesn't matter in alignment, the being of pure Law and Good says otherwise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

Yeah, that. Roy's dad is really true the authority on all this. [illusion=belkar]

[JaxGaret]

Anyway, for those who say intent doesn't matter in alignment, the being of pure Law and Good says otherwise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

Well, that strikes me as Roy being on the borderline between NG and LG, so he could go either way.

[Bakta]

How do I see this comment EVERY single strip. It seems like the Giant's art and story is ever improving.
[/lurk off]
This one deserve it
[/lurk on]

[courtjester]

Favorite part: "What is a Kubota?"

Clearly, Elan should be careful around V when tying down the horses.

[Arathian]

I think I can clearly see that some people just want to argue for no reason and prove to everyone they are right because they can't stand to be wrong.

That's a very ugly personality trait and probably ought to be looked at by someone

[Sweed]

I beg to differ. If you walk out in the street and kill the antichrist, that is an overwhelmingly Good act, for you have just averted untold Evil.

There's a difference between a single act and a series of acts. If you're the kind of person that's going to randomly shoot people, then sure, once in a while you'll get lucky and kill the right person. But all the wrong people you killed will far outweigh the right ones.

Surely that answer evades the point of the example. Simplify the example.

As in the original example, let's assume we can read minds.

Assume the person is not an habitual serial killer, but rather someone who has just now decided to be a serial killer. Let's say he just snaps one day after a fairly mundane, morally-neutral life and decides to go on his indiscriminate killing spree (our super mind reading ability tells us he has been slowly drifting into this murderous mindset for a while now, but never acted on it.) The first person he kills is, unbeknown to him, the antichrist.

Or similarly, lets imagine that this is a run of the mill serial killer who has racked up 10 kills so far in his life, all of which were, completely coincidentally, despicable mass-murderers themselves. The rest of his life is thoroughly unremarkable.

Now let's assume, to spur our judgment of this character, that he suffers a massive stroke moments after making his last kill (in either of the two above situations.) If we are the (special, mind-reading) DM of this character, to which of the traditional D&D afterlives are we to send this murderous, although ultimately good-achieving, soul? Given the fact that in both examples, the character's end state of mind was that of a bloodthirsty fiend, does this same person belong in Celestia?

I'd offer that perhaps you're confusing good and Good. While the character's acts were beneficial (small-g good), they weren't Good in the moral sense, but rather Evil actions that unwittingly had good consequences. Or, if you prefer, they were good actions accompanied by the Evil action of acting on genuine murderous intent. I agree with the person who said previously that in order to do something morally Good, you need to know that what you're doing is Good, and be doing it because it is Good. At the gaming table, the DM does not have the ability to discern player/character motives since players often paint their characters in the most positive light (just as people paint themselves in the most positive light.) But in situations where we can read characters' minds, or when the characters willfully expose their actual thought processes, that information should not be discarded simply because it is not usually available. It is, in fact, vital and rare information in deciding an action's morality. Otherwise, there would be no difference between manslaughter and first degree murder, and you could have situations like our serial killer friend who is accidentally a saint of Pelor (incidentally, is the person who brought up this example a fan of Dexter? ;P).

In Vaarsuvius's case, we know that V's actions were made out of convenience and with disregard to mortal life - because V admitted as much. Even if the action yielded net gain for the cause of Good (and it's hard to argue for sure that it did,) the action itself was not Good. It might not have even been good. Therein lies the danger of Hedonistic calculus. I can't help but remember the classic Gandalf line, "Some that live deserve death, some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" V's decision would have required more knowledge than a humorously Sherlockian inductive leap to be deemed well-informed, never mind Good. And I'm sorry, but disintegrating defenseless people, even bad guys, when you don't even know enough about them to call them by their name? While I can't say that V is necessarily in Evil territory, people are right when they say that we're starting to see road signs to that effect.

[Taljen]

Um.
People that say intent matters are right.
People that say only actions matters are right.
Two people can have opposing views, and both be right. It's all just point of view. In some cases, some points of view are more valid than others. In other cases, they're just different, and both are valid.
I think this a case where all points of view are valid.
...that's all.

[randomnondescri]

Hm.
I'm surprised about all this concentration on V instead of Elan...

I guess I saw V's actions as entirely in keeping with his/her character... From not caring about the poor dirt farmers, to V's question to the oracle (not if, when), V is concerned with personal power and the arcane far over individuals. V is always completely confident of his/her judgment and methods, I doubt it ever occurred to V that killing might be a mistake, given V's explanation of the basis for that decision. This may be an extreme extension of V's tendencies, but I think it's completely what I would expect him/her to do.


Now, I'm honestly surprised that Elan only had one panel of outrage. I really expected him to be more shocked: after he had wrestled with dealing with Kubata's surrender, to have the chance for getting revenge personally (in storybook dramatic fashion) summarily ripped away, I would think he would be more emotional. [I]Especially while still trying to accept Therkla's death... who he did like, even if not in the same way she liked him.

And you know, I have to wonder whether the giant read these posts and giggles at our speculations and arguments...

[Finwe]

You're forgetting one critical thing: we don't actually know that Miko's fall was due to her action being Evil. It could also have been due to her action being Chaotic. Paladins don't just have to be Good, they have to be Lawful Good.

Paladins can commit chaotic acts without falling - they simply have to make sure to retain a lawful alignment. However, one single evil act and they instantly fall. Given that Miko's character is incredibly lawful, I can't really see that one act of chaos being enough to change her alignment.

[Leo_Forestclaw]

Message to Haley....

In your reunion with Elan, do not, I repeat NOT consider any form of bondage.

NOT, I say.

You are soooooo wrong, but in a really right way. ;-)

[Jeivar]

I would go so far as to call that Elan's greatest moment! :smallbiggrin:
Belkar honestly WOULDN'T have a problem with this situation, and that's really not a good sign.

[Fyrelord23]

Anyone else find it oddly fitting that Kubota, a man who sought power and respect and whose greatest weapon was his standing in a noble met his end at the hands of someone who didn't know who he was or cared to find out?Fitting? Absolutely. Oddly fitting? No, more like perfectly fitting. :smallwink:

I'm still cackling like a witch on Ecstacy. :biggrin:

[JaxGaret]

Surely that answer evades the point of the example. Simplify the example.

As in the original example, let's assume we can read minds.

Okay, let's take a look at your offerings :smallsmile:


Assume the person is not an habitual serial killer, but rather someone who has just now decided to be a serial killer. Let's say he just snaps one day after a fairly mundane, morally-neutral life and decides to go on his indiscriminate killing spree (our super mind reading ability tells us he has been slowly drifting into this murderous mindset for a while now, but never acted on it.) The first person he kills is, unbeknown to him, the antichrist.

Or similarly, lets imagine that this is a run of the mill serial killer who has racked up 10 kills so far in his life, all of which were, completely coincidentally, despicable mass-murderers themselves. The rest of his life is thoroughly unremarkable.

Now let's assume, to spur our judgment of this character, that he suffers a massive stroke moments after making his last kill (in either of the two above situations.) If we are the (special, mind-reading) DM of this character, to which of the traditional D&D afterlives are we to send this murderous, although ultimately good-achieving, soul? Given the fact that in both examples, the character's end state of mind was that of a bloodthirsty fiend, does this same person belong in Celestia?

It really depends on the circumstances of the killings. If they were truly purely Good acts, then they may have been enough to push this hypothetical character into one of the Good afterlives. More likely these judged-to-be-Good acts are not enough, and they go to one of the Neutral afterlives.

The question is whether or not the killings were Good acts or not. Do they contribute more Good or more Evil?



I'd offer that perhaps you're confusing good and Good. While the character's acts were beneficial (small-g good), they weren't Good in the moral sense, but rather Evil actions that unwittingly had good consequences.

There's no difference in D&D morality. Good is good, and good is Good.


Or, if you prefer, they were good actions accompanied by the Evil action of acting on genuine murderous intent. I agree with the person who said previously that in order to do something morally Good, you need to know that what you're doing is Good, and be doing it because it is Good.

What if you don't know what Good is? Are you then not-Good, even though you spend your life doing Good acts?


At the gaming table, the DM does not have the ability to discern player/character motives since players often paint their characters in the most positive light (just as people paint themselves in the most positive light.) But in situations where we can read characters' minds, or when the characters willfully expose their actual thought processes, that information should not be discarded simply because it is not usually available. It is, in fact, vital and rare information in deciding an action's morality. Otherwise, there would be no difference between manslaughter and first degree murder, and you could have situations like our serial killer friend who is accidentally a saint of Pelor (incidentally, is the person who brought up this example a fan of Dexter? ;P).

Irrelevant. I am speaking of absolutes, not about judgment at a gaming table.


In Vaarsuvius's case, we know that V's actions were made out of convenience and with disregard to mortal life - because V admitted as much.

V did not admit as much. V explicitly stated that V logically concluded that Kubota was one of "the main villains of the encounter", and thus a valid target for deadly attack spells.


And I'm sorry, but disintegrating defenseless people

Not that V knew it, but Kubota was not defenseless, merely tied up. Kubota still had the magical protections, still had a devil ally somewhere close at hand, the possibility of other reinforcements from elsewhere, and is a Noble to boot, which is a protection in and of itself, though not a physical one.


, even bad guys, when you don't even know enough about them to call them by their name?

By D&D morality, killing bad guys is okay. It doesn't matter if you know their name or not.


While I can't say that V is necessarily in Evil territory, people are right when they say that we're starting to see road signs to that effect.

Yes, it's quite possible that V will trend towards Evil. However, I do not think that this specific act was Evil.

[Aerysil]

Elan is getting sharper, isn't he?

[Rad]

LLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111

oh, and it looks like V is neutral after all.

Unless we're assisting to an alignment shift

[Welf]

"Yes, but that mustache did not do him any favors, either."
Priceless. :smallbiggrin: V rules and judges.

[Jenx]

Aaaand conveniently ignoring the 7 pages of alignment bickering:

I'd have to agree with V on one thing though - Elan has gotten REAL good with his illusions. That Belkar was spot on.

[RedWizard]

By that logic. That assumes Revolution and Overthrowing a Tyrant is innately wrong. If someone kills a Dictator without a trial, it's not wrong. Likewise, the same for any situation where the law is problematic. The law is a very good thing but it can be easily subverted.

Nah, the law is a very, well, Lawful thing. :) Criminals can be Good; rulers, as you've pointed out, can be Evil.

I laughed, I cried... well, no, I laughed and laughed a bit more. V is deus ex machina! Elan is developing a sense of humor! Dogs and cats living together!

[Prowl]

Paladins can commit chaotic acts without falling - they simply have to make sure to retain a lawful alignment. However, one single evil act and they instantly fall. Given that Miko's character is incredibly lawful, I can't really see that one act of chaos being enough to change her alignment.

When that one act is a combination of breaking her oath of loyalty, breaking the law against murder, and slaying the leader of her own nation, I would say that it very well could be. If you review her speech, it includes an explicit rejection of the law. Reviewing the act itself, her intentions were good, but were clearly unlawful in every sense of the word. She fell primarily not because she was no longer good but because she was no longer lawful. You can be of Good alignment even if you are a miserably unpleasant person (see Eugene Greenhilt).

[Underfoot]

Boy, sure does seem like V killed the right guy at the right time for the wrong reasons. By saying four words. Yep, this does seem to support the idea that this is the fulfillment of the oracle's prophecy.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that thought :) I immediately got a sense of foreboding when he killed Kubota, and his explanations why he did it (convenience, and fashion-police-ism) made me get that sinking feeling. I'd bet that Qarr is going to approach V when (s)he's alone, and say "Hey, I'm impressed you killed Lord Kubota so efficiently just because he was an inconvenience to you. Want complete and total ultimate arcane power? 'Cuz I know a guy who knows a guy, and we can set you up as a lich." V might hesitate at the idea of selling his/her soul to devils, but knowing it'll give him the power (s)he needs to locate Miss Starshine, and also face Xykon on his own level? I think (s)he'd go for it.

[Sebastian]

And once again the Giant doesn't disappoint. :D

[Elfey]

I want a T-shirt now with a mix of stuff from the last two strips, namely the 4 words of power and the illusion. In a pinch I'll buy Rock on Elf Buddy as a shirt.

[Tundar]

Yeah, rock on elf buddy!
Nice illusion too.

This is just getting better and better.

[Finwe]

When that one act is a combination of breaking her oath of loyalty, breaking the law against murder, and slaying the leader of her own nation, I would say that it very well could be. If you review her speech, it includes an explicit rejection of the law. Reviewing the act itself, her intentions were good, but were clearly unlawful in every sense of the word. She fell primarily not because she was no longer good but because she was no longer lawful. You can be of Good alignment even if you are a miserably unpleasant person (see Eugene Greenhilt).

Lawfulness does not mean following the law of the land. In fact, if the laws of the land are in opposition to one's moral views (i.e. 'tainted courts!'), a paladin is allowed to disregard the law. She fell because she committed an evil act - the unprovoked killing of a Good man. Whether or not she was still good afterwards (I won't touch THAT one with an inter-planar, 10-lightyear pole) does not matter, because one evil act is enough to lay low even the most exalted of paladins. Perhaps she also became unlawful as a result of her actions, but given her insistence in following "the 12 Gods plan" even after her fall, I can't really see that being the case.

[vegetalss4]

Way to go Elan, way to go

[David Argall]

Vaarsuvius didn't know who Elan had tied up- whether it was someone who inconvenienced Elan a little, or, as it turned out to be, the mini-arc's villain.
But V did know, sufficiently for his purposes. He knows that Elan ONLY ties up the main villain of the encounter. Therefore Kubota was somebody deserving of death.



By his own admission, he killed the man solely because Elan had him tied up. He casually murdered the man not because he thought that the man deserved death, but because he couldn't be bothered to go through the distraction of a trial.
But he did believe, correctly, that the man deserved death.

Consider here the hangman. He does not need to know a thing about his victim. The judge simply says "Hang him", and he does. We see no flaw in the hangman for not knowing or investigating. He relys on the judge for that.
V does the same thing here, relying on Elan to judge Kubota, and gives us reasons to deem Elan's judgement is surprisingly accurate in such cases. So there is no sin from his carrying out the execution.



V's justification after the fact is nothing but rationalization,
V is rarely, if ever, guilty of rationalization. [The escape ship is the only case I can think of, and he not only does it poorly, he confesses rapidly.] He has his motives and states them. V can be wrong, but he is quite open about his motives.


based on the evidence of two encounters, both of which involved Elan's twin brother.
Those are the cases we see and remember. V has had much more opportunity to witness Elan's behavior.


As such, there might be some cause to suspect that the experimental data is tampered with by other variables.
Might be, but from all we know of Elan, the idea seems entirely sound. We don't expect him to be leading some captive grunts around. And of course, V was quite correct. Kubota was a major villain, well deserving of being killed.

Now while V's actions are still defendable as good, there is still a disturbing trend here, and an apparent attempt to deny V good motives. It does look very much like V is going to end up neutral or evil. That's a development I disagree with, but my opinion has been disregarded quite a few times.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Elan Learnt Sacracsm!

*Does dance*

[SliderDaFeral]

I'll admit there's a certain Mal Reynolds quality to what V did (because sometimes the only way to deal with a schemer is just to shoot the son of a motherless goat out of hand), but Elan gets himself some cool points for invoking Belkar.

:elan: +750 cool points for bringing down Kubota ("You were her captain, now you go down with her ship.")
:elan: +350 cool points for an illusion of :belkar:

[Warald]

"What is a Kubota? A miserable little pile of ashes!"


...I hate myself for that. :smallannoyed:

[Dvd]

Hello everybody,
this one is my first post, I couldn't resist to say OOTS #596 is imho the best stripe ever!
Grazie

Faber est suae quisque fortunae. Cicerone, De Republica, L. I

[Hamilkar]

Great comic :smallsmile:

Poor V, s/he is loosing it. When a powerful mage looses his/her sense of reality it can't be good.
Although i am happy to not see the two lawyers again :smallbiggrin:
If this continues V will go to the dark side... s/he is already a 25% zombie anyway.

Btw i like Elan more and more. I wonder how Hinjo will react to this and in which way Elen will tell him about Kubotas death. (Maybe the Katos will do the job)

P.S: About the neutral vs. evil debate. In my opinion there are two sides about what determines if an act is an evil (or good) act. 1. Intention (of the act) 2. Consequence (of the act)

While it is clear to me that V's Intention to kill Kubota was not evil (you can say it was for the higher good, clearly s/he didn't enjoy it, there was hardly any Intention in V besides his/her weird but (still) accurate logic.) the consequence to kill an unharmed prisoner s/he didn't know much about is something I am inclined to see as evil. Especially his/her carelessness s/he disposed the being Kubota without clear thinking.

[Morchaint]

*snort* lol Rotflmao.

that was funny.

V looks to be seriously messed up. she/he ( I refuse to state my opinion of V's gender ) needs a weeks vacatiion. or a nice white loooong sleeve jacket with some padded walls. I think the elf is starting to lose it.

Where is Roy?!!! we have not seen him for too long.!!!

[Synthetic]

I was talking about killing a Good being, which is an evil act. But if the actor thought they were committing a Good act by ridding the world of Evil, it is not an Evil act. The paladin would not fall.

Haven't read far enough to check to see if anyone else responded to this first but this statement has already been *proven* wrong, at least in the OotS world. See Miko. She had absolute conviction that she was striking down an evil being. Her *intentions*, as egomaniacal as they were, were completely good. But she was *wrong*. She killed someone who wasn't evil, and thus she immediately fell for doing so. Her intentions were meaningless. Her actions were everything.

[baerdith]

Priceless!!!!

Bravo, Mr. Burlew, Bravo!:biggrin:

[David Argall]

Haven't read far enough to check to see if anyone else responded to this first but this statement has already been *proven* wrong, at least in the OotS world. See Miko. She had absolute conviction that she was striking down an evil being. Her *intentions*, as egomaniacal as they were, were completely good. But she was *wrong*. She killed someone who wasn't evil, and thus she immediately fell for doing so. Her intentions were meaningless. Her actions were everything.

Not really correct. Her intentions were important, but they did not overcome the point that she acted in an extremely reckless manner. Had she carefully reasoned out the situation and come to a reasonable conclusion, even tho it was the identical one, her intentions would have been enough to prevent her falling, at least in the short run. In the longer term, failure to acknowledge her error and try to atone for it would probably have led to her fall anyway.

[pjackson]

I was talking about killing a Good being, which is an evil act. But if the actor thought they were committing a Good act by ridding the world of Evil, it is not an Evil act. The paladin would not fall.

That is what Miko thought.
She was wrong.
She did fall.
It needs more than that to make killing non-evil.


Her intentions were important, but they did not overcome the point that she acted in an extremely reckless manner. Had she carefully reasoned out the situation and come to a reasonable conclusion, even tho it was the identical one, her intentions would have been enough to prevent her falling, at least in the short run.

She would still have fallen immediately if I were DM.
Killing Shojo was unnecessary (as Hinjo pointed out) and thus an evil act.
The Paladin's code forbids commiting an evil act.
Intentions are irrelevant.
As the saying goes - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
For Good the end does not justify the means.

[Kato]

Am I that late again? (8 pages!!!)

Anyway, awesome comic again. V's running up to the oracle, when it comes to demolishing the fourth wall. And I loved the final joke ^^ (Both, Elan's illusion and V's comment on it)

[Taekwondodo]

Heheh, I thought that Belkar was invisible for a second before I read the lines. :smallbiggrin:

yeah it was weird, i thought Elan was going to cast a spell on him :smalleek:. his illusions have really got better though haven't they?

[Eric]

Well, in my estimation, this looks as though everyone had at least *something* right in their assumptions for #595!:smallbiggrin:

[Eric]

Certainly an evil act. It would have been different if she said it was because Kubota would almost certainly escape but she didn't. Killing someone because it is inconvenient is always evil.

Read "The Wizards First Rule" and the bit about the sword of truth.

You opinion.

Not the truth.

[Eric]

Why do you say that?

Because the extermination of demons/devils is a good act.

That they are going it because they want to be the only ones is intent, not action.

[Wagashi]

As far as the good versus evil of V's actions doesn't the scale have at least some justification. If I were to kill another being in a world where death is not permanent and you know for a fact souls exist, then I can correctly assume that the being that would be a bother to me is only being stopped. If you add to it that I know if I get stopped sufficiently then all of reality is destroyed and non-existence is the reward. Then I would think sleepless nights would be expected. The thing is Vaarsuvius understands the stakes and how high they are his actions completely reflect what you would expect a rational being to do when all of existence is threatened. The death of a likely criminal is small potatoes to V in comparison. Honestly, I think that V could have done better by getting Kubota to sign a written confession before hand and then turn him over. But then I wouldn't have gotten to see V ash the guy and that would not have been nearly as fun:smallbiggrin:

[Sweed]

It really depends on the circumstances of the killings. If they were truly purely Good acts, then they may have been enough to push this hypothetical character into one of the Good afterlives. More likely these judged-to-be-Good acts are not enough, and they go to one of the Neutral afterlives.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure in the case of either going to Good or Neutral afterlives, if this guy popped up and said "Who do I get to kill next?", and I was a Good\Neutral departed guy looking on, I would reevaluate my commitment to my own alignment if I'm lumped in with indiscriminate murderers.


The question is whether or not the killings were Good acts or not. Do they contribute more Good or more Evil?

And I'm saying that if we're to treat each discrete act as Good or Evil based on net effect rather than based on correlation to the character that committed them, we might as well not measure character alignment at all -there's only action alignment and the characters that make them are apparently irrelevant. In D&D, supporters of the alignment system argue that alignment's purpose is as a useful roleplaying tool, but if your character can accidentally commit Good acts and have it change what it says on his character sheet, you're receiving absolutely zero information about who to roleplay from what two letters your character accidentally happens to have written down on any given day. Don't like the idea of alignment as a roleplaying tool? Well let's take a look at some of its other practical uses:

-Detect Alignment? Paladins would register our serial killer friend as a do-gooder and upstanding citizen.
-Afterlife determinant? See above. The lantern archons would be scratching their heads if they had hands or heads.

Your argument seems to be that alignment is determined by a tally of discrete actions that have one of three moral values. Again, how is this a meaningful property of a character if accidents register just the same as volitions? Alignment, in any edition of D&D, is defined as a character's personal outlook on morality and ethics. But if accidents count, there is nothing personal about alignment, as if the character were a lightning rod, ready to be either positively or negatively charged by the universe.



There's no difference in D&D morality. Good is good, and good is Good.

So, the hero who actually decides to be merciful to the villain, even though the villain secretly desires to go off and kill a bunch of people, is committing an Evil act? So much for heroic fantasy, I guess.


What if you don't know what Good is? Are you then not-Good, even though you spend your life doing Good acts?

Uh, it depends on what you mean. By "not knowing" are you saying that I simply haven't come to a scholarly conclusion on the nature of Good and Evil, but I nonetheless decide willingly to protect the rights of others because I feel an obligation to do so? In this case, I know what Good is, I'm just too naive to know what to call it.

If on the other hand, I go around accidentally committing Good acts while either being completely diffident to the rights of others or downright malicious... then, yeah, I'm as not-Good as they come.


Irrelevant. I am speaking of absolutes, not about judgment at a gaming table.

I should think it would be of the utmost relevance if you are talking about absolutes, rather than simply of tangible gains and losses. The purpose of the gaming table analogy was only to remind you that the context in which most D&D players speak of alignment has practical limitations - we can't always read the intentions of players (or just don't want to argue with them,) so we resort to mainly measuring alignment by action. But in the case where you positively know motives, they're not irrelevant to alignment at all. To put it another way, a character's alignment can't be a moral absolute if it can be determined simply by a series of external accidents. Then it would be a moral relative, affected by chance situations, and completely irrespective of internal direction.

Make no mistake; I'm still saying that an Evil person can commit an act that is intrinsically Good, but that act is only intrinsically Good if it was propelled by the decision to make that Good act out of a desire to help someone/do the right thing/ etc. (and that person is only Evil if the person's entire moral outlook still accepts the principle that it's okay to violate other people's rights.)

Nor am I saying that a Good character with Good intent for his actions cannot subsequently commit an Evil action. The action must be Good, and be back by Good volition, for it to count as any indicator of alignment. The inverse permutations about Evil aren't true.


V did not admit as much. V explicitly stated that V logically concluded that Kubota was one of "the main villains of the encounter", and thus a valid target for deadly attack spells.

Punishing villains is only justified insofar as their actions warrant the prescribed punishment. V admits to having known nothing of Kubota's actions (being in fact, barely aware of their occurrence). V' own reasoning for this prescribed punishment had everything to do with avoiding "20 or 30 strips of humorless drudgery" and the "two idiot lawyers" and nothing to do with protecting people or even self-preservation, unless V left something out. And since we're talking about V, I doubt any opinion on the matter was spared articulation. Any number of spells could have rid the party of Kubota without killing him (heck, just leaving him on the island and going with the "he escaped" story would have been effective), but V resorted to the easy, quick, and violent method.


Not that V knew it, but Kubota was not defenseless, merely tied up. Kubota still had the magical protections, still had a devil ally somewhere close at hand, the possibility of other reinforcements from elsewhere, and is a Noble to boot, which is a protection in and of itself, though not a physical one.

Well, right, but like you say, V didn't know it.


By D&D morality, killing bad guys is okay. It doesn't matter if you know their name or not.

Well, that's hack-and-slash D&D morality, I don't know that everyone plays that way, but in any case, that simply begs the question of whether OotS is operating on what you're defining as D&D morality. Roy's first final judgment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) seems to indicate that in the OotS cosmos, moral intent happens to matter quite a bit, or else Roy would have been blamed for all of Belkar's subsequent actions as the result of breaking him out of prison. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the entire comic is devoted to lampshading hack-and-slash morality, so I'm not really sure that the story fits within the confines of the D&D morality you're talking about.


Yes, it's quite possible that V will trend towards Evil. However, I do not think that this specific act was Evil.

Well, if we're to take V's word for it (and hey, maybe we shouldn't), Kubota was an indeterminate bad guy who may or may not pose an immediate threat but who definitely would lead to a prolonged and annoying plot. Killing someone for expedience instead killing someone out of necessity seems like the kind of thing any of the Good characters in this story would have a lot of trouble accepting as anything distinguishable from Evil. In fact, one of them lucidly makes that point.

[KingMerv00]

OK V is evil. Not just for killing Kubota but also for metagaming.

I am still amazed that there are those out there who say V's act was not evil. Intentions matter. Intentions matter in the court of law and intentions matter in D&D.

Imagine this: I kill a random person for fun. That is evil even if that person happens to be a villain bent on world domination. Sure I saved the world but only by accident.

Man people in here are weird.

[Kobold-Bard]

I finally see why people have taken to Elan with such vigour, those last couple of panels were brilliant.

But regardless I am still solidly in the :vaarsuvius: camp. Always was the best, always will be. In fact, this is an official request for membership to the Vaarsuvius fan club. I will take any position.

Good comic Giant. Quick updates as well. Keep them coming.

[Thufir]

OK V is evil. Not for killing Kubota but for metagaming.

Actually, there are very few characters in the strip who haven't been guilty of that at some point or other.

Excellent sarcasm from Elan. The Greenhilts would be proud.

[KingMerv00]

Actually, there are very few characters in the strip who haven't been guilty of that at some point or other.

I went back and edited.

I still hate metagaming.

[pjackson]

I know someone playing a character who has done nothing outwardly evil for months in-game; he gives to the poor, defends the downtrodden, and has taken numerous orphans and homeless NPCs under his wing. And none of it has been out of the goodness of his heart. He's playing out a long term plan to become a demon. He's just fostering good will towards himself to gain the love and loyalty of enough people to help see his plan through.


They are still good acts even if his ultimate intention is evil. They help other people and encourage them to be Good. He is setting a Good example and spreading Goodness around.
If he is also making plans to become a demon that is a an evil action, a very evil action.

As DM I would be tempted to give him a challenge by having Good consequences of his Good acts occur which might interfere with his plans. For, example, a local good temple needs to expand because it is now getting more worshipers. He is asked to contribute, and attend some dedication services. The high priest dies and he is invited on the committee to select a replacement - the best qualified candidate being a high level adventuring cleric who is looking to retire to a quieter life.

[Pandabear]

Man.. 8 pages so soon...

And this comic was just too hilarious :smallbiggrin:

[Super_slash2]

I kind-of expected Elan to be more choked up about his death but I guess it lacked that personal touch. And it was superb attention to detail to make Elan even care that he died. Shows he's not jaded yet - that's one of his best qualities, in my opinion.

[Holammer]

The real shocker here is V's rationale for zapping kubota.
Elan's reaction is what you would expect. Although he shows some real maturity by carefully considering the upcoming consequences of V's actions. Then toppling it off with sarcasm at 6.7 on the Greenhilt scale.

:belkar: "Rock on, Elf buddy!"

[pjackson]

If you say that action is all that counts, that only what a person does is what makes up their 'alignment', you take all the grey away.


Sorry, but that is complete rubbish.
Actions being all that count and removing the grey have nothing to do with each other.
Even is you discount the idea of some actions themselves being grey (which some can), characters can take many actions and the mixture can be grey.


All that's left are these neat boxes that say 'Bad Person', or 'Good Person', 'Law-Abiding Person' and so on.


Those are not the boxes the alignment system uses. The alignment system boxes do each contain a mixture - Lawful Good includes Roy, Durkon, Hinjo and (barely) Miko.


And people don't fit these neat boxes - the whole point of the anti-hero or the sympathetic villain is that their intentions are counter to their actions. They are a 'grey area', hard to classify.

No harder than any other character.



It doesn't matter that a character is a bank robber who tries to avoid causing harm to people beyond his acts of thievery, if actions are all that count they are a criminal and therefore Evil.


Wrong. Criminal is not the same as Evil. A paladin can be a criminal - though only by breaking evil laws, e.g. free slaves might be considered theft by some legal systems.



If a character is a vigilante is of the Punisher-style, kill-em-all kind who racks up a vast bodycount and thousands of pounds of property damage and doesn't care, if actions are all that matter then he or she has stopped 'evildoers' and therefore is Good.


Wrong again. If he goes out of his way to make sure he does not kill or harm anyone who is not an "evildoer" he could be Lawful Neutral. He might just squeeze into Lawful Good if he does enough other Good actions. If he does not care about bystanders he would be Lawful Evil.



But that just doesn't make any sense. And, in a hypothetical case, may actually run completely counter to the author's wishes - that they wanted to create a hero who was not a good person. By your estimation, if actions are all that count, they are unable to do so because such a person does not exist.


The alignment rules are not meant for authors. They exist primarily so that DMs can determine the results of magic that interacts with Good, Evil, Law and Chaos.



Anyhow, what's with this keeping real-life morality, ethics and religion out of the discussion? Where's our point of reference for these rigid definitions of Good and Bad, exactly?

The D&D rule books of course.
If you read the introduction to Dungeon Crawlin' Fools you will see an explicit statement that they apply to the world of the OotS.
Though it is Good and Evil that are defined. Bad is not.

[Deth Muncher]

>_<

XD


I freaking love this comic.

[Majorman]

"What is a Kubota?" Wow, these "I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't really care" lines make V look much like Xykon. I wonder if all the powerful arcane spellcasters in the OoTS universe are like that.

[starwoof]

Those last two panels are easily the funniest that I can possibly remember.:smallbiggrin: Great job!

[King of Nowhere]

Originally said by Vaarsuvius
The men was bound, and you was holding the rope. I therefore deduced that he was an enemy of some sort
Elan and Haley better remember this when they want to try some kinky stuff

[JaxGaret]

Really? Because I'm pretty sure in the case of either going to Good or Neutral afterlives, if this guy popped up and said "Who do I get to kill next?", and I was a Good\Neutral departed guy looking on, I would reevaluate my commitment to my own alignment if I'm lumped in with indiscriminate murderers.

Do you know how unlikely it would be for an "indiscriminate murderer" to actually ascend to a Good or Neutral afterlife?

Let's say that 1 out of every 100 indiscriminate murders is a Good act. If the hypothetical person commits two or three such murders, we're already down to fractions of a percentage point.


And I'm saying that if we're to treat each discrete act as Good or Evil based on net effect rather than based on correlation to the character that committed them, we might as well not measure character alignment at all -there's only action alignment and the characters that make them are apparently irrelevant. In D&D, supporters of the alignment system argue that alignment's purpose is as a useful roleplaying tool, but if your character can accidentally commit Good acts and have it change what it says on his character sheet, you're receiving absolutely zero information about who to roleplay from what two letters your character accidentally happens to have written down on any given day. Don't like the idea of alignment as a roleplaying tool? Well let's take a look at some of its other practical uses:

-Detect Alignment? Paladins would register our serial killer friend as a do-gooder and upstanding citizen.
-Afterlife determinant? See above. The lantern archons would be scratching their heads if they had hands or heads.

Your argument seems to be that alignment is determined by a tally of discrete actions that have one of three moral values. Again, how is this a meaningful property of a character if accidents register just the same as volitions? Alignment, in any edition of D&D, is defined as a character's personal outlook on morality and ethics. But if accidents count, there is nothing personal about alignment, as if the character were a lightning rod, ready to be either positively or negatively charged by the universe.

You're overstating the issue. It will be very rare for the "wrong" alignment to register when pinging someone, since a character has a long list of actions (everything you do is an action) with which to determine their alignment. Characters don't spring up fully formed with a rigid alignment and no history.

The "30 years of neutrality, then bam, now he's a serial murderer" hypothetical isn't exactly a commonplace occurrence.


So, the hero who actually decides to be merciful to the villain, even though the villain secretly desires to go off and kill a bunch of people, is committing an Evil act? So much for heroic fantasy, I guess.

Quite possibly, yes. Letting the Evil guy off the hook because it makes you feel better about yourself, allowing them to commit atrocities, is not a Good act in my book. It doesn't necessarily make the hero non-Good, mind you. It's just one act among many.


Uh, it depends on what you mean. By "not knowing" are you saying that I simply haven't come to a scholarly conclusion on the nature of Good and Evil, but I nonetheless decide willingly to protect the rights of others because I feel an obligation to do so? In this case, I know what Good is, I'm just too naive to know what to call it.

I'm talking about someone who doesn't know what Good and Evil are. Never heard of them. But they commit Good acts consistently. Are they Good, or not?


If on the other hand, I go around accidentally committing Good acts while either being completely diffident to the rights of others or downright malicious... then, yeah, I'm as not-Good as they come.

You are very likely to be not-Good, yes. Accidentally committing Good acts will be far rarer than intentionally committing Evil acts for that character.


I should think it would be of the utmost relevance if you are talking about absolutes, rather than simply of tangible gains and losses. The purpose of the gaming table analogy was only to remind you that the context in which most D&D players speak of alignment has practical limitations - we can't always read the intentions of players (or just don't want to argue with them,) so we resort to mainly measuring alignment by action. But in the case where you positively know motives, they're not irrelevant to alignment at all. To put it another way, a character's alignment can't be a moral absolute if it can be determined simply by a series of external accidents. Then it would be a moral relative, affected by chance situations, and completely irrespective of internal direction.

I never said it would be completely irrespective of internal direction. A person's alignment is correlative to their intent, certainly.


Make no mistake; I'm still saying that an Evil person can commit an act that is intrinsically Good, but that act is only intrinsically Good if it was propelled by the decision to make that Good act out of a desire to help someone/do the right thing/ etc. (and that person is only Evil if the person's entire moral outlook still accepts the principle that it's okay to violate other people's rights.)

Nor am I saying that a Good character with Good intent for his actions cannot subsequently commit an Evil action. The action must be Good, and be back by Good volition, for it to count as any indicator of alignment. The inverse permutations about Evil aren't true.

Look, I understand that you think that D&D alignment is based upon intent as well as actions, but that's just not how it works. There are reasons for why intent doesn't matter, I'll bring some to the table as soon as I remember them; I haven't had an alignment debate in at least several months, probably closer to a year or more, so I'm rusty :smallsmile:


Punishing villains is only justified insofar as their actions warrant the prescribed punishment. V admits to having known nothing of Kubota's actions (being in fact, barely aware of their occurrence). V' own reasoning for this prescribed punishment had everything to do with avoiding "20 or 30 strips of humorless drudgery" and the "two idiot lawyers" and nothing to do with protecting people or even self-preservation, unless V left something out. And since we're talking about V, I doubt any opinion on the matter was spared articulation. Any number of spells could have rid the party of Kubota without killing him (heck, just leaving him on the island and going with the "he escaped" story would have been effective), but V resorted to the easy, quick, and violent method.

Other methods are more likely to fail. Say V teleports Kubota to some distant island - he has a chance to come back.

Disintegrate + Gust of Wind is about as effective a solution to the situation as you can get, as the only way back from it is a True Resurrection.


Well, that's hack-and-slash D&D morality, I don't know that everyone plays that way

I'm fairly certain it's canon D&D morality.


, but in any case, that simply begs the question of whether OotS is operating on what you're defining as D&D morality.

You are correct here; OotS may not be running on canon D&D morality. If so, then none of any of our arguments pertain to the situation at hand.


Roy's first final judgment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) seems to indicate that in the OotS cosmos, moral intent happens to matter quite a bit, or else Roy would have been blamed for all of Belkar's subsequent actions as the result of breaking him out of prison.

Wouldn't that be a point in my favor? Roy's intent was Good, his actions were not due to the outcome.


As a matter of fact, a great deal of the entire comic is devoted to lampshading hack-and-slash morality, so I'm not really sure that the story fits within the confines of the D&D morality you're talking about.

Perhaps, perhaps not.


Well, if we're to take V's word for it (and hey, maybe we shouldn't), Kubota was an indeterminate bad guy who may or may not pose an immediate threat but who definitely would lead to a prolonged and annoying plot. Killing someone for expedience instead killing someone out of necessity seems like the kind of thing any of the Good characters in this story would have a lot of trouble accepting as anything distinguishable from Evil. In fact, one of them lucidly makes that point.

V's logical conclusion was that Kubota was one of "the main villains of the encounter", therefore V felt justified in using deadly force. According to your stated D&D morality standards, that would be fine, no?

Of course, I still maintain that intent doesn't matter when it comes to alignment determination.

[pjackson]

And I'm saying that if we're to treat each discrete act as Good or Evil based on net effect rather than based on correlation to the character that committed them, we might as well not measure character alignment at all -there's only action alignment and the characters that make them are apparently irrelevant. In D&D, supporters of the alignment system argue that alignment's purpose is as a useful roleplaying tool,


It is. I get a lot of use out of it.



but if your character can accidentally commit Good acts and have it change what it says on his character sheet,


He can't. Individual acts do not change alignment. The overall pattern does.



-Detect Alignment? Paladins would register our serial killer friend as a do-gooder and upstanding citizen.


Wrong for many reasons. Firstly, killing is almost never a good act, even if you are killing an Evil opponent. Secondly, a single act would not change your alignment.



-Afterlife determinant? See above. The lantern archons would be scratching their heads if they had hands or heads.


See above.



Your argument seems to be that alignment is determined by a tally of discrete actions that have one of three moral values. Again, how is this a meaningful property of a character if accidents register just the same as volitions?


If it were an accident your actions afterwards would probably be very different.



Alignment, in any edition of D&D, is defined as a character's personal outlook on morality and ethics. But if accidents count, there is nothing personal about alignment, as if the character were a lightning rod, ready to be either positively or negatively charged by the universe.


Wrong. The accident has to be a result of your action, and your actions in response to it also count. If you care about the possibility of killing someone accidentally you will try to avoid killing in general, and those actions will be good ones. If you don't care you would just carry on commiting evil actions.



So, the hero who actually decides to be merciful to the villain, even though the villain secretly desires to go off and kill a bunch of people, is committing an Evil act?


Showing mercy is a Good act (and specifically named as such in BoED at least).
Killing a villain who is trying to escape to kill a bunch of people is may be a Good act or may be a Neutral one. It might even be Evil, if there is a less deadly and equally effective way to stop him, e.g. using disintegrate when you could have used polymorph.



Uh, it depends on what you mean. By "not knowing" are you saying that I simply haven't come to a scholarly conclusion on the nature of Good and Evil, but I nonetheless decide willingly to protect the rights of others because I feel an obligation to do so? In this case, I know what Good is, I'm just too naive to know what to call it.


Rights are a legal concept, not a Good one. There have been times when people have had the right to own slaves. Defending that right would not be Good.



If on the other hand, I go around accidentally committing Good acts while either being completely diffident to the rights of others or downright malicious... then, yeah, I'm as not-Good as they come.


Accidentally doing good is difficult. Self-sacrifice is hard not to notice in yourself. If you have the habit of going around putting yourself out to help others whilst being indifferent to their rights you would probably be Good. If at the same time you commit malicious acts then you would be tending towards neutrality and evil, depending on the balance.

[Kish]

I went back and edited.

I still hate metagaming.
Uh...then why are you reading this comic? :smallconfused: People who act shocked whenever someone breaks the fourth wall confuse me.

[Damaris]

Heh! Nice to get a Belkar appearance when the real Belkar is too sick to do anything. Serves V right too. I'll never forgive him/her for that one: I liked Kubota, and political plots, ninjas, and long trial with these stupid lawyer guys > saving the world, imo. Except that I really liked these two strips about his death. XD

Edit: Boy, sure does seem like V killed the right guy at the right time for the wrong reasons. By saying four words. Yep, this does seem to support the idea that this is the fulfillment of the oracle's prophecy.
Oh, I hadn't thought of that...

[Delgarde]

So wait, does Dashing Swordsman advance bardic spellcasting? Or is it just Elan's creativity with illusions that's advancing rapidly?

Just the latter. Elan's illusions aren't anything he couldn't have done a few levels ago - what's changed is V's tutelage on how to make them actually useful. Hence V's apparent irritation at what use those illusions are being put to, I guess... :)

But really, Elan's come up with some fairly decent illusions before. Sure, the female chimera didn't achieve much early on, but the illusion troll worked pretty well up until the point where he fell for his own illusion. Then there was the warden back in Cliffport, and the death scene on the battlements of Azure City. His problem is more that he forgets to use them - of the 15-20 spells a bard of his level could cast each day, he used just 2 of them that day. Neither of which was his idea.

[Delgarde]

I think it's quite consistent with Vaarsuvius' character to get impatient when the plot is dragging. I might agree that the increasingly direct methods of dealing with it are a bit disturbing, but they're not inconsistent.

Very much so. V was advocating using that same Disintegrate spell on Miko, pretty much from the moment they met. Had Roy not been in charge, Miko would have been a small pile of dust long ago, and the Order would have gone nowhere near Azure City.

[HOLEkevin]

Screw it, who needs Roy? Elan is turning into THE MAN. Good for him!

[Vulion]

V got owned.

[Daibhid C]

Not particularly. V is being somewhat rash since her argument is based on Elan being correct, but essentially his analysis amounts to "I came into the room and found the defendant holding the knife that was also plunged into the victim's heart.".


Yeah, except there's no victim, no knife, and V doesn't even know what the defendant's supposed to have done.

V's analysis amounts to "I came into the room and saw the police arresting someone. Because I'm so much smarter than everyone else, I realised he must require the death penalty, so I shot him to save them time."