OOTS #612 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[Adumbration]

Were those sound effects really necessary? :smalltongue:

Awesome, anyway.

[T-O-E]

"Brainy Pete"? :smalltongue: Classic.

[Trizap]

yeay! Belkar teaches the loki cleric how to solve problems with violence!

[Tyrael]

5. Ouch. At least we got to see what he looks like without his glasses. Today is just not his day.

[lemonhoney]

Ewwwwwy.

squish.

I actually really like Belkar in this comic.

[Zeful]

This new Belkar is really creepy. I could have sworn he simply never stopped smiling throughout the whole thing.

[kpenguin]

You know, the first thing I thought when I saw the strip was "Is that Eugene?"

[Tafkan]

"Solve a man's problems with violence, help him for a day. Teach a man to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime!"

Got to love Belkar. <3

[Evil DM Mark3]

Give a man fire and he will be warm for a while.

Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

This is getting increasingly awesome.

[Weirdlet]

Yowch. His pretense of character growth is really... really effective.

[Lord_Ventnor]

It seems Belkar has really taken "Shojo's" lesson to heart. As in, he had a chance to abandon Haley, but he didn't.

[David Argall]

Well, Pete did get to keep his eyes for the rest of his life...

Now the Belkar rescue mission now becomes better and worse. If Crystal and Bozzak can flank a lone Belkar, he is dead meat fast with some horrible number of d6 sneak damage. But there is an increased chance of his getting to attack with surprise, or at least not getting ambused and surprised himself.

[Tempest Fennac]

I hope Cleric of Loki doesn't vanish altogether. (He's one of my favourite characters.) At least it looks as though he'll survive, even though he probably didn't get paid.

[turkishproverb]

Wow. Me like. Nice and vengeful.

Even if I WAS hoping the Cleric would join them for a bit. STill betting he's a CN cleric of Loki though.

[SPoD]

I like the title:

"Technically, the "Fish" Version is a Subset of This One"

Because teaching a man to fish IS using violence to solve his problems--it's just violence against the fish, which non-vegans deem socially acceptable.

[Winged One]

:smalleek: Belkar has somehow become even more...Belkarish with his fake character development.

[Yendor]

So fishing is a form of violence?

And fish is brain food, so... Formerly Blind Old Pete will get his just desserts?

[hungryLIKEALION]

Awesome comic, laughed out loud at Belkar's new phrase. Something really does seem different about Belkar, oddly... He just seems more gleeful. But maybe I just think that because it's been so long since I've seen him doing anything other than lie still and puke.

Unfortunate that CoL left him before the confrontation with Bozz and Crystal... now who will wake up Haley to have her final showdown with her teenage enemy?

Anyway, I really hope the next update comes quickly, because I can barely contain my curiosity.

[Fluke_Bandywag]

Belkar and Mr. Scruffy frolicking off to do more violence?

What a lovely image.

More of that, please (and internal foot massages).

[Hamilkar]

I'm beginning to like that cleric.
Belkar as a teacher? :belkar: naaaa

[Glorfindel]

Go Belkar, go!
Our beloved halfling is going to save the day.

[carebearbecky]

Excellent :smallbiggrin:

[jmucchiello]

So fishing is a form of violence?If you doubt it, ask the fish.

This was the first comic I laughed aloud at the end of in quite awhile. Although I am sorry to see the cleric go away I really don't think he and Durkon would get along....

[Castel]

Awesome punchline from :belkar:. and it looks like Mr. Scruffy got some blood on his eyebrows on panel 4.

[Tempest Fennac]

Durkon didn';t have enough Religion ranks before to know that Thor and Loki are rivals (he has gained at least 2 levels since then, though).

[HealthKit]

Wow, Belkar is doing a number on the thieves' guild, I wonder if they will have any members left when this is all over.

[thubby]

that was the most warped aesop i have ever seen, and i am quite thoroughly disturbed. AWESOME.

though, if this is belkar's new way of doing things, i fear for intelligent life everywhere :smalleek:

[zillion ninjas]

So in Belkar's case, "less one-dimensional" means "Darker and Edgier". He's actually found another thing that he enjoys more than wanton killing - convincing someone else to get his hands dirty instead.

If the cleric doesn't stay around, though, then Team Haley will again need to reach Durkon in order to raise Roy.

[Keris]

Excellent comic. Well, too bad the Cleric didn't join up with the party, but you can't have everything.:smalltongue:

[DragoonKain]

A nameless character just brained a named NPC? The horror!

[Devoured_Dude]

Is anyone else hoping for a confrontation between Belkar and Bozzok?

[turkishproverb]

Excellent comic. Well, too bad the Cleric didn't join up with the party, but you can't have everything.:smalltongue:

I'm still hoping he joins up. At least for a little while.

[Chocowatte]

I'm honestly curious how life will change for the cleric thanks to Belkar's teachings...

Maybe his future will have a sharp increase in kilo-nazis? Hopefully we'll see him again in the future.

*SQUISH* Ewww....

~Chocowatte

[Ganurath]

You know, the first thing I thought when I saw the strip was "Is that Eugene?"That made the strip so much better for me, and that's saying a good deal.

[Querzis]

Well I'm really happy the nameless cleric of Loki will apparently survive. Even if we probably wont see him again, its good to see such a cool character not leaving in a bodybag for once.

And I love Belkar fake character development, hes a lot more interesting and funny like that.

[Natural20]

That is so much more Evil than Chaotic. What has the wacky old dude done?!:smalleek:

[VariaVespasa]

So fishing is a form of violence?

You tell me...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd-MpXCMcIs

I vote yes... :)

[Flame of Anor]

I'm still hoping he joins up. At least for a little while.

Yeah, me too. Excuse me for a second...

ZOMG UPDATE W00T!!!!

...okay, back. Hooray for Belkar and his stabbity snarky awesomeness and his fake character development! Hooray for Cleric of Loki and his violent problem-solving and his not-being-dead!


That is so much more Evil than Chaotic. What has the wacky old dude done?!:smalleek:

Only sold them out to their painful deaths!

[TengYt]

I love how happy Belkar is. Also, he's really friendly with the cleric...if V's theory is right, does that mean...:smalleek:

[vegetalss4]

i liked it, liked the title. I found it very funny:smallbiggrin:

[turkishproverb]

I love how happy Belkar is. Also, he's really friendly with the cleric...if V's theory is right, does that mean...:smalleek:

V's theory?

[Tempest Fennac]

He also seems to have an "amusing" catagory, hence Belkar liking Shojo and Elan. I'm not sure if CoL would quite come under that catagory, though.

(TP, he's refering to the idea that Belkar can only catagorize people under "lust" or "hate.")

[Natural20]

What does the title mean?:smallconfused:

Edit: Oh, now I get it.

[TengYt]

V's theory?

About Belkar either hating people or lusting them.

[Querzis]

About Belkar either hating people or lusting them.

That theory never made any sense because Belkar barely hate anyone. He kill people for fun, not because he hate them.

V was just pissed off. Beside, V got high intelligence but his wisdom isnt that high and its wisdom you use to understand other people.

[Ridureyu]

That was possibly the best thing I could have hoped to happen to Pete. Now let's just hope that the cleric exits stage left, and lives through the comic:smallbiggrin:

[AslanCross]

I've always been wondering how Belkar's able to deal so much damage with his tiny daggers. He doesn't have any Rogue levels, right? (Besides, he doesn't yell "SNEAK ATTACK!")

[Rockphed]

I've always been wondering how Belkar's able to deal so much damage with his tiny daggers. He doesn't have any Rogue levels, right? (Besides, he doesn't yell "SNEAK ATTACK!")

The general understanding is that human's are his favored enemy and he has a strength score of 20+

[Medya]

And here I was spending the last week of my life expecting Belkar to hack out Pete's eyes. Welp, I admit defeat. I probably should've predicted such an obvious move would be changed...

[Firewind]

I just got back from breakfast and the sound effects from the final panel alone were nearly enough to make me lose it never mind the mental images it conjures up :eek:

[Parlik]

Great comic, reminds me how much I have missed seeing Belkar having fun.

About his damage, well he probably stack up a bit of damage with feats and class skills, and knowing Belkar he probably have chosen enemy: Everyone else. Also he might be a 4ed Ranger/Barbarian, they do more damage there, I seem to recall.

[ref]

Hmm... OB Pete deserved that. Now is Belkar & Scruffy vs Bozzok & Crystal, and Haley might very well be dead, because Bozzok told Crystal to kill her already and, you know, she gets to kill haaaaaley, she gets to kill haaaaaley...

[Heliomance]

@Parlik: Nah, the OotS are 3.5.

[shylocxs]

This new Belkar is really creepy. I could have sworn he simply never stopped smiling throughout the whole thing.

Which is why I've been smiling so broadly for two strips now! Hurrah for the new and improved- and even more sick and twisted- Belkar! Going all the way back to the first strip makes me realize how far his character development has come.

[fractal]

It's a good thing we already saw how eager Pete was to sell them out (and surely he knew the consequences to them of doing so). He had this coming, more or less, when he returned to the scene (what kind of crazy NPC bets his life on the PCs losing when he doesn't have to?). Still, rogue cleric tips from probably Neutral to probably Evil.

[Nevrmore]

Okay, the quality of the strips since Belkar had his vision of Shojo has been improving (barring any in between that - Dill Resistance? REALLY?), but this one was just perfect. "Maybe they ought to call you Brainy Pete." was the perfect line and makes me like the Cleric of Loki just that much more.

This strip was a homerun. KEEP IT UP GIGANTO

[Starscream]

Belkar actually manage to be scarier when he's like this than when he just kills everyone in sight. Love Pete's comment about his clothes as well.

[gibbo88]

Yet more constructive lessons from Belkar! I want to subscribe to his magazine!

[Rockphed]

It's a good thing we already saw how eager Pete was to sell them out (and surely he knew the consequences to them of doing so). He had this coming, more or less, when he returned to the scene (what kind of crazy NPC bets his life on the PCs losing when he doesn't have to?). Still, rogue cleric tips from probably Neutral to probably Evil.

For somewhat justified revenge? I don't think so. If he made a habit of it, sure. But the one-time thing, not so much.

[dish]

I was hoping that formerly-Old Blind Pete would actually survive.

I know, I know, it was unlikely. Oh well, at least the Cleric is still ok.

[Delgarde]

This new Belkar is really creepy. I could have sworn he simply never stopped smiling throughout the whole thing.

Oh, that's nothing to do with the new Belkar - that's just his normal face when going around slaughtering things. He was like smiling like that during his fight with Miko too, and out on the battlefield before Azure City.

He's an evil little monster, but he's just so much fun...

[fractal]

For somewhat justified revenge? I don't think so. If he made a habit of it, sure. But the one-time thing, not so much.
For somewhat justified revenge in the form of murder against a helpless target, who is begging for mercy, who was once your friend? I think that's probably evil, yes.

[Moonshadow]

Am I misreading, or is there a word missing in one of Belkar's text bubbles?

He says "Nah, I better go help the girls, its a whole thing."


It feels like something is missing between whole and thing to me :smallconfused:

[banjo1985]

Hehe...Blind Pete does look like Roy behind those glasses. :smalltongue:

Nice strip, now for Belkar to finish saving the day!

[teratorn]

What's that red v shaped thingy over Mr Scruffy's eyes in the 4th panel?

What makes Belkar creepier is that now he can brag freely. He makes the deed, then explains it to the cat.

[gooddragon1]

Grammatical inaccuracy in panel 2:
Look, all I want is get to my den, right behind you. I'll just sit and read a book until you guys give the word.

Look, all I want is to get to my den, right behind you. I'll just sit and read a book until you guys give the word.

[Delgarde]

That theory never made any sense because Belkar barely hate anyone. He kill people for fun, not because he hate them.

Not just kill, either. He kills quickly if there's no point in doing otherwise - if he's surrounded by goblins, for example. But in general, he toys with his prey, like we see with Petey here - this time he's not even doing the killing himself, just acting in such a way that he gets the satisfaction anyway. But take Miko as the real example - much as he hated her, killing her was a long way down the list, as we saw from him failing to do so when he had the chance in Azure City. No, he saw her as a challenge - killing wouldn't be too hard, but making her fall first would be much more satisfying for him.

As I said in the other post, he really is a nasty little psychopath, who really ought to be killed for the good of the world. But he's got a real sense of style about it that makes him such a fun character.

[Axl_Rose]

haha I actually laughed the most at the start of the comic when Pete realised he was wearing orange and purple. It was just so wacky.

[Flame of Anor]

For somewhat justified revenge in the form of murder against a helpless target, who is begging for mercy, who was once your friend? I think that's probably evil, yes.

Helpless and begging for mercy, yes. Once his friend, maybe. (Could have been for the money.) But it's more than somewhat justified. Pete just tried to sell him out to his death. Sure, I doubt he's Good, but there are enough mitigating circumstances to make it not inconsistent with Neutral.

[Iranon]

Strange as it may sound, I found that the 'squilch' made the off-screen violence less disturbing.

Otherwise, I would have assumed just enough blunt trauma to inflict permanent brain damage... which, for someone who prides himself in his quick thinking, possibly qualifies as a fate worse than death.

[megalodon]

Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the........FLOOR!! :smallyuk:

Awesome. Pure genius. Was laughing maniacally the entire comics. You rock, man! :smallyuk:

A thousand thumbs up.

[Zamiron]

And with a vengence :)
His body count needs replenishing :)

[Tyrael]

What does the title mean?:smallconfused:

Edit: Oh, now I get it.

I don't get it. Huh? :smallconfused:

[Samurai Jill]

Ouch. Well, that was pretty grisly.

...And here people were worrying that Belkar was about to shift alignment.

[HolderofSecrets]

Today's life lesson brought to you by Belkar Bitterleaf. :smallwink:

[Robert_Frazer]

This new Belkar is really creepy. I could have sworn he simply never stopped smiling throughout the whole thing.

That is the sign of a man who is at peace with himself. :smallsmile:

[Mordokai]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Poor Pete.

I find today's comic quite enjoyable. Not the best, but there were worst. I hope that we can now move on to more important thing. Like getting a corpse raised and similar.

And if there's a pun in the title of the comic... I don't get it.

[Moonshadow]

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

Compare to Belkar's last statement and you should understand.

[Nevrmore]

I don't get it. Huh? :smallconfused:
Belkar made his own version of the "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day" adage in the last panel.

[pasko77]

The title is genius :)

[kerberos]

For somewhat justified revenge in the form of murder against a helpless target, who is begging for mercy, who was once your friend? I think that's probably evil, yes.
Begging for mercy doesn’t mean you deserve it and I think you relinquish any claims to friendship when you deliver your “friend” to his almost certain death. I'm not seeing the evil here.

It's also worth noting that the Cleric was clearly reluctant to kill Pete initially, since it wasn't self-defence, which seems to imply some moral scruples.

[Nevrmore]

For somewhat justified revenge in the form of murder against a helpless target, who is begging for mercy, who was once your friend? I think that's probably evil, yes.
Please refer to every show ever where the hero relents on killing the villain because they start begging for mercy, and as soon as they turn around the villain tries to throw in one last cheap shot.

When you're a traitor by nature, begging for mercy doesn't mean jack.

[Trazoi]

When you're a traitor by nature, begging for mercy doesn't mean jack.
Plus I don't think Pete's obvious lying was doing him any favours.

I'd say it was an evil act, but not an alignment shifting one for the cleric.

[Georlik]

Great! Thanks for the strip.

[RMS Oceanic]

Revenge when other options are available is not necessarily evil, although frowned upon. I think encouraging someone to get over their moral scruples and kill when other options are available is generally evil.

I liked this one, although it kinda chilled me how Belkar has just encouraged someone to murder his childhood friend, whether it was warranted or not. That just feels more evil than stabbing the guy yourself. I wonder if the Cleric is gonna sneak away now, or wait to get his Triple-cost Sending fee from Haley? The answer to this question determines how likely we are to see a quick Roy resurrection.

[Taekwondodo]

A nameless character just brained a named NPC? The horror!

OMG! No-one is safe, run for your lives!!!!! :smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

[Mordokai]

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

Compare to Belkar's last statement and you should understand.

Yeah, it makes sense now.

[Callista]

And Belkar crosses the line once again. True Evil does not always equal puppy-kicking and swimming in guts. (Actually, it usually doesn't. Those things are just petty and gross, respectively.)

People who wrote BoVD: Take note.

Very nice.

[Tempest Fennac]

I disagree that the Cleric killing Brainey Pete was evil (it's not as if Pete seemed to care much about CoL, or Haley and her friends, and there's a good chance that he was planning on double-crossing them again). If anything, Belkar was doing the right thing by teaching the Cleric that it's often a good idea to do that sort of thing.

[Kaytara]

Yeah, it makes sense now.

What's better, the Giant is right. :) The fish version IS a subset of this. ^^ As mentioned earlier here, either YOU do the fishing, in case you're using violence (killing the fish) to solve a man's problem (hunger), or you're teaching HIM to do his own fishing. :)

Anyway, this was beautiful. ^^ So very very evil and disturbing... Belkar at his finest.

I agree that the Cleric killing Pete wasn't necessarily evil. Sure, he could've just walked out and left someone else to deal with him, but the end result would've been the same.
I mean, Pete didn't just sell him out. He told the Thieves Guild about the spells the Cleric cast to help HIM. Repaying someone with a knife in the back for aid rendered? That's a level even most anti-heroes don't stoop to. So yeah, I don't see how you can do that to a person and still expect them to owe you any kind of mercy.

Although I have to wonder if Pete HAD planned on helping them out again... Shouldn't he have enough common sense to lie low while the Guild is taking care of the people he double-crossed?

[KageSama]

For some reason, I saw Belkar as an evil Yoda with his young Padawan, the CoL.

"Strike him down, young Skywalker . . . "

[Hydro Globus]

Last panel: Ultimate awesomeness! Belkar IS a player, he helps OTHER people...

(Also, this is even better than the sorcerer version (as read in post #10).)

[pjackson]

I disagree that the Cleric killing Brainey Pete was evil

Of course it was evil.
Pete wasn't a threat to anyone at the time.
He could hardly double cross anyone with his foot nailed to the floor.
Plus there was the enormous clue in that it was Belkar who suggested it.



I mean, Pete didn't just sell him out. He told the Thieves Guild about the spells the Cleric cast to help HIM. Repaying someone with a knife in the back for aid rendered? That's a level even most anti-heroes don't stoop to.


That does not make the killing non-evil.
Killing Pete denies him the chance to make restitution.


So yeah, I don't see how you can do that to a person and still expect them to owe you any kind of mercy.

Yes.
Pete probably expected his evil actions to be returned by evil actions.

Giving mercy where is is not deserved is a Good act - even Elan knows that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html).

[Rhuna_Coppermane]

This new Belkar is really creepy. I could have sworn he simply never stopped smiling throughout the whole thing.

Well, of course not, he was getting to do what he likes best, and he knows no one is going to complain about it afterwards. Better yet, they're going to owe him. Good times.

And I guess we have an answer to the "Does Belkar kill women?" question.

[Tempest Fennac]

His foot wasn't always going to be nailed to the floor, and my stance is that trusting people who have betrayed you is always a huge mistake. (This is why I class the Book of Exhaulted Deeds as a poor source book.) Admittedly, I often see Belkar as having a much higher Wis then other people give him credit for.


EDIT: In these cases, I just class any sort of mercy as a Neutral Stupid action rather then good (eg: if the Order had just hacked Nale and Thog up before throwing the remains into the monster pit, Sabine, who they knew to be much too powerful for NPC town guards) would have had much more of a problem as far as getting them back went, and over 400 people would have avoided being murdered.

[Mauve Shirt]

Oh wow. What a gross way for Pete to go. But the nameless cleric survived, and Belkar is indeed going to help the girls! And the punchline is fantastic as always. :smallbiggrin:

[Ramidel]

Exalted Deeds -does- take the position that sometimes, to be good, you have to be less than pragmatic. (When it doesn't take the position that, because you make a little white lie, you poke a hole in the fabric of the cosmos and spill out concentrated pure evil into the world. But that's a separate topic.)

[eras10]

Wow, No one has pointed this out yet.

.... I don't know about you folks, but this strip seems to implicitly demonstrate that there's no way in heck Haley will still be alive when Belkar gets there.

I mean, this whole series of cute events with the front door goes by, and we're supposed to believe that it hasn't yet been 10 rounds since Bozzok pwned Haley? Considering that the strike appeared prior to Belkar even being uncursed.. it's going to take a heck of a creative plot hole.

[keldorn]

For some reason, I saw Belkar as an evil Yoda with his young Padawan, the CoL.

"Strike him down, young Skywalker . . . "

Do a chaotic evil deed for a man and you damn him for a day,
Teach him to do chaotic evil deeds...

[Parlik]

@Parlik: Nah, the OotS are 3.5.

Maybe Belkar just upgraded early? Also he was encouraged to 'cheat' more in his deathvisions.

[Tempest Fennac]

That is a good point, Parlik (Kabuto had a 4th Edition sourcebook as well, so Belkar may have been able to update to that). I tend to see practical as being essential for being good, while favouring practicality if it means reduced suffering for innocent people.

[pjackson]

His foot wasn't always going to be nailed to the floor, and my stance is that trusting people who have betrayed you is always a huge mistake. (This is why I class the Book of Exhaulted Deeds as a poor source book.)

Trusting some one and showing mercy to them are not the same thing.
If the cleric was just going to leave town then by the time Pete had got free it would have been too late for him to do any further harm to the cleric.
The Book of Exalted Deeds has some problems but is generally pretty sensible about what is good and is a pretty good source book.
It certainly does not say that good people have to be stupid.

[rxmd]

For somewhat justified revenge in the form of murder against a helpless target, who is begging for mercy, who was once your friend? I think that's probably evil, yes.
Helpless and begging for mercy, yes. Once his friend, maybe. (Could have been for the money.) But it's more than somewhat justified. Pete just tried to sell him out to his death. Sure, I doubt he's Good, but there are enough mitigating circumstances to make it not inconsistent with Neutral.
See signature.

[theinsulabot]

Of course it was evil.
Pete wasn't a threat to anyone at the time.
He could hardly double cross anyone with his foot nailed to the floor.
Plus there was the enormous clue in that it was Belkar who suggested it.



That does not make the killing non-evil.
Killing Pete denies him the chance to make restitution.



Yes.
Pete probably expected his evil actions to be returned by evil actions.

Giving mercy where is is not deserved is a Good act - even Elan knows that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html).


you confusing neutral with good. killing a wounded person people is generally evil. killing for revenge however, which has priority, is a neutral act. enjoying the taste of revenge is also neutral. also a lawful act. and unless there is some aspect of loki i didnt catch, CoL is likely either lawful neutral or true neutral, either of which would likely appreciate the chance for revenge, either out of a sense of betrayal or just for its own sake. hell even chaotic would probably get a kick out of killing him to

[Tempest Fennac]

The part about taking people prisoner just because they surrender came under that catagory for me. Also, I fail to see how any of the Vows apart from Nonviolence can count as Good. (Eg: why would a Vow of Chastity be needed to get a Unicorn for a friend when you've already dedicated your life to fighting evil?)

Loki is normally CE in D&D. However, his Clerics can make Holy Water according to the crayon flashbacks, and Thor is normally CG while Durkon is LG, so Rich probably changed the god rules a bit.

[pjackson]

.... I don't know about you folks, but this strip seems to implicitly demonstrate that there's no way in heck Haley will still be alive when Belkar gets there.

I mean, this whole series of cute events with the front door goes by, and we're supposed to believe that it hasn't yet been 10 rounds since Bozzok pwned Haley? Considering that the strike appeared prior to Belkar even being uncursed.. it's going to take a heck of a creative plot hole.

There is no rules problem.
If Haley was only reduce to zero health, or if she stabilizes before death (10% chance per round) then the only time limit is how long it would take Haley to heal back to consciousness.

[Loyal2NES]

I guess this means we won't see our new Cleric friend returning?

:(

[kierthos]

Maybe Belkar just upgraded early? Also he was encouraged to 'cheat' more in his deathvisions.The entire OotS converted to 3.5 back in strip #1. And the Giant has said he's not converting them to 4th edition. (For which I am grateful.)

If Belkar is at least a 10th level ranger, then he could have as much as a +6 to damage versus humans. This assumes that he has Favored Enemy humans (taken at either 1st or 5th level) and decided to increase the bonus at 5th and 10th level.

Also, consider that the vast majority of the Thieves' Guild are probably 4th level or lower. (And the Rogue class does not have the best Hit Dice out there.) Yes, Crystal and Bozzok are higher level (Crystal is at least the same level as Haley, and Bozzok is at least four levels higher then Haley), but, of a necessity, Bozzok is not going to want to keep too many thieves around who could be a significant challenge to his rule.

Look at who Belkar has already cut through - literally in one case. Strip #611: Studded leather thief, cut in three parts with two attacks (Cleave?). Blond thief, killed with one stab. Balding half-orc thief, one slice and one thud to the melon by the CoL. Three thief line-up, killed by a run-by. Tall thief, killed by double-stab to the face. (Dark-skinned halfling killed by Inflict Serious Wounds by the CoL, which substantiates that these are really low level guys.) Mage thief, killed by Mr. Scruffy and the double-slice flip. Rogue interrupting Belkar getting his mack on, killed by two thrown daggers.

Of course, now that he has no clerical back-up, I have no idea how he's going to take on both Crystal and Bozzok, but I suspect the sheer bragging about thinning the ranks of the Guild will take part before the combat.

[Varkarrus]

Durkon is lawful good, and he thinks that Thor is lawful good too. Like he was completly unaware of the storm that saved Miko's life happened during a drunken lightning fight.

[heroe_de_leyenda]

Trusting some one and showing mercy to them are not the same thing.
If the cleric was just going to leave town then by the time Pete had got free it would have been too late for him to do any further harm to the cleric.
The Book of Exalted Deeds has some problems but is generally pretty sensible about what is good and is a pretty good source book.
It certainly does not say that good people have to be stupid.

This. There are many options between "trusting Pete" and "killing Pete. Killing a helpless, surrendered enemy is usually wrong. The poor bastard was blind many, many years, and not even his rogue cleric friend dared to heal his eyes.

Elan is a good example of what good people do. You can argue that not killing Nale was not convenient or stupid, because he wouldn't have killed so many people in Cliffport or something, but you can't compare the evil, fiendish, sadistic, bloodthirsty Nale with a poor, disgraced, desperate -treacherous indeed- but otherwise harmless Pete (who had already got everything he really wanted)

[Trazoi]

(Eg: why would a Vow of Chastity be needed to get a Unicorn for a friend when you've already dedicated your life to fighting evil?)
I don't know how unicorns are treated in D&D, but if know my mythology something along the lines of a vow of chastity would indeed be required to retain a unicorn as a friend.

[Fraxinus]

It seems the halfling is starting to practice what Shojo's delirious image preached.

[brilliantlight]

For somewhat justified revenge? I don't think so. If he made a habit of it, sure. But the one-time thing, not so much.

Somewhat justified? It was totally justified, Pete sold him out to his probable death.

[Tempest Fennac]

I was thinking of unicorns as being more like horses, which is why I was thinking that wouldn't make sense (you're right as far as the mythology goes, Trazoi; I forgot that). Also, how do you know Pete wasn't more dangerous then he appeared? There were still other TG members around who he may have been willing to help. Besides, he could have asked for help from Haley regarding getting out of town without betraying her.

[pjackson]

you confusing neutral with good. killing a wounded person people is generally evil.

No. It makes no difference whether they are wounded or not. What matters is whether they are a threat or not. It is possible that someone is not currently a threat due to the severity of the wound.


killing for revenge however, which has priority, is a neutral act.[/evil]

It can be an evil act.

[quote]enjoying the taste of revenge is also neutral. also a lawful act.

Revenge dictated by a code of honour can be lawful. It can certainly also be evil, especially if disproportionate, as it was in this case. Pete had not killed the cleric.


and unless there is some aspect of loki i didnt catch, CoL is likely either lawful neutral or true neutral,

He is certainly not lawful - he is in the habit of breaking the rules of his church. And the other cleric of Loki we have seen (Helga) was chaotic evil.


either of which would likely appreciate the chance for revenge, either out of a sense of betrayal or just for its own sake. hell even chaotic would probably get a kick out of killing him to

[HOLEkevin]

Ahhh… that was so satisfying. Thank you Rich. Thank you so very, very much.

[kerberos]

Revenge dictated by a code of honour can be lawful. It can certainly also be evil, especially if disproportionate, as it was in this case. Pete had not killed the cleric.

That's just not true. Killing Pete was perfectly proportionate. Pete tried to kill the Cleric, the Cleric tried to kill Pete - the Cleric just did a better job. If the likely consequence of Pete’s betrayal had been expulsion from the church rather than death then you could call it disproportionate

[reignofevil]

@ pjackson
Every single time alignment debates start, people seem to entirely forget the neutral alignment exists. Rather choosing to damn at will. What WOULD qualify as neutral exactly? Because if killing a prisoner for revenge when he sold YOU out to die is not the definition of neutral...

[Neopolis]

That was a very satisfying squish.

[brilliantlight]

No. It makes no difference whether they are wounded or not. What matters is whether they are a threat or not. It is possible that someone is not currently a threat due to the severity of the wound.

[quote]killing for revenge however, which has priority, is a neutral act.[/evil]

It can be an evil act.






It CAN be not automatically is. Pete was clearly a traitor who rated death. For one thing if Pete is evil enough to sell his own freind the cleric out who cast spells on his behalf he is simply to dangerous to live.

[KIDS]

Ooooooh, now that was evil. Very likeable :)

[Oslecamo]

And thus started the legend of the nameless cleric of Loki who wandered the land crushing the heads of whoever dared to get in his way, the first disciple of the sexy shoeless god of war.


The book of violence, tome II

[brilliantlight]

@ pjackson
Every single time alignment debates start, people seem to entirely forget the neutral alignment exists. Rather choosing to damn at will. What WOULD qualify as neutral exactly? Because if killing a prisoner for revenge when he sold YOU out to die is not the definition of neutral...

Exactly, can't explain it better myself. Showing mercy would be a good act but not showing it is a nuetral act. If the sell out would merely have meant the cleric would have to pay a large fine or face imprisonment then it would have been excessive but Pete betrayed him to his probable death. The fact that the cleric didn't die doesn't change that. He fully expected his friend to get killed over it.

[pjackson]

The part about taking people prisoner just because they surrender came under that catagory for me.

Taking someone prisoner is not the same as trusting them.


Also, I fail to see how any of the Vows apart from Nonviolence can count as Good. (Eg: why would a Vow of Chastity be needed to get a Unicorn for a friend when you've already dedicated your life to fighting evil?)

I think it confuses celibacy with chastity but the form of those vows is a rejection of a particular type of sin.
Celibacy = rejection of lust
Poverty = rejection of greed
Nonviolence = rejection of wrath

The unicorn idea comes from the same myths as the unicorn itself.

[Blaznak]

Belkar better go help the girls as its "a thing". Too funny. ALMOST conceding a genuine sense of duty or emotion, but falling short. Too classic.
Later!

[Phexar]

I mean, this whole series of cute events with the front door goes by, and we're supposed to believe that it hasn't yet been 10 rounds since Bozzok pwned Haley? Considering that the strike appeared prior to Belkar even being uncursed.. it's going to take a heck of a creative plot hole.

Crystal seemed hesitant about finishing off Haley, last time we saw, I'm guessing that's either because she doesn't really hate her or because this isn't the glorious end to Haley she was clearly fantasising over, making her have second thoughts. This would explain the lengthy pause, although Bozzok wouldn't share such reservations and must surely be getting impatient by now.

The "Brainy Pete" line was beautiful. :smallsmile: Pete's excuses wouldn't have gone over well... what's to say he -knew- his Cleric pal would have still been alive for him to 'rescue' by the time he got back? He wasn't armed to do anything, and they probably overheard him talking about just sitting and waiting in his den until it was over whilst they were going up the stairs. He didn't warn Haley and co, which may have boosted their odds more. And why would he have sold him out in the first place? It's just too flaky for 'Brainy' Pete to be innocent here.

I liked the friendly "Good luck to you, then. You too." exchange between Belkar and the Cleric. Belkar's been more polite here than I can recall. Looks like he found another use for that bottle of moonshine too. :smalltongue:

[pjackson]

It CAN be not automatically is.

Yes, but in this case it was.


Pete was clearly a traitor who rated death.

That is an evil viewpoint. A neutral one would be that he deserved punishment (which he happened to already be receiving).


For one thing if Pete is evil enough to sell his own friend the cleric out who cast spells on his behalf he is simply to dangerous to live.

Pete was most certainly not dangerous to the cleric. Not at the moment he was killed due to be being pinned. Nor in the future since he can't betray the same same secrets again.

[warmachine]

I love that fishing is a subset of solving a problem with violence.

[Dr. Simon]

See signature.
__________________
The D&D alignment system: Provoking useless discussions of moral absolutism since 1977

You, Sir/Madam, are the voice of sense and reason.

[Triumphales]

Revenge is by definition evil.

Revenge = Somebody wrongs you, and you "wrong" them back.

Instead of trying to salvage the situation in which you were wronged, and getting restitution from the person who did the wrong, you are purposely trying to cause that person harm. Deserved or not, that is an evil act.

[brilliantlight]

Yes, but in this case it was.



That is an evil viewpoint. A neutral one would be that he deserved punishment (which he happened to already be receiving).



Pete was most certainly not dangerous to the cleric. Not at the moment he was killed due to be being pinned. Nor in the future since he can't betray the same same secrets again.

No, he was selling out his friend to his death. Killing him could be very much be a just sentence in that case, particularly in a town without a working justice system. Pete might not be able to sell his secrets twice but when he finds out his ex-friend is still alive he very well might do something about it due to the fact he should fully expect the cleric to be out for his blood.

[Tre of the Wood]

He he he:smallsmile:. "I'll start with the inside." Nice work Rich.
Also, to all the people above: the cleric was already evil. He was a cleric of Loki.

[brilliantlight]

Revenge is by definition evil.

Revenge = Somebody wrongs you, and you "wrong" them back.

Instead of trying to salvage the situation in which you were wronged, and getting restitution from the person who did the wrong, you are purposely trying to cause that person harm. Deserved or not, that is an evil act.

Without a working justice system you are stupid if you don't. It is also arguable that the only way to discourage someone from commiting injustice in a society without a working justice system is harsh measures to discourage others from doing the same.

[eras10]

There is no rules problem.
If Haley was only reduce to zero health, or if she stabilizes before death (10% chance per round) then the only time limit is how long it would take Haley to heal back to consciousness.

Sure, those things are technically possible. But likely? And what are Crystal and Bozzok doing all this time, as they stand over her unconscious bodies? Having an impromptu tickle-fight?

It's not so much a rules conflict I'm pointing out, so much as that it seems like so much time has passed since Haley was brought down that her aliveness is going to seem unrealistic, if it's presented without great care.

Some kind of cutback along the lines of "look, Bozzok and Crystal are still arguing about whether to kill Haley" will be overly convenient and implausible.

[brilliantlight]

He he he:smallsmile:. "I'll start with the inside." Nice work Rich.
Also, to all the people above: the cleric was already evil. He was a cleric of Loki.

Which can have CN or NE clerics. I am arguing that he is possibly CN not that he is good.

[pjackson]

@ pjackson
Every single time alignment debates start, people seem to entirely forget the neutral alignment exists. Rather choosing to damn at will. What WOULD qualify as neutral exactly? Because if killing a prisoner for revenge when he sold YOU out to die is not the definition of neutral...

Of course it isn't the definition of neutral.
It is returning Evil for Evil.

Killing Pete was Evil.
Freeing Pete and healing him would have been extremely Good.
Neutral would be something in between, such as leaving him to suffer, or taking away the reward he got from his betrayal (blinding him again).

[rayne_dragon]

I'm loving the new Belkar. Still a violent sociopath, but now a team player and occasionally nice to others, although in a way that increases the amount of carnage he's responsible for.


Also, to all the people above: the cleric was already evil. He was a cleric of Loki.

Also, The cleric could be neutral, couldn't he? Clerics need to be within one step of their deity's alignment, right? I seem to recall playing the evil cleric or a neutral god once. Belkar's still teaching him to act MORE evil than he already was.

[Prowl]

Moving on from this silly alignment stuff and back to the important stuff:


What's that red v shaped thingy over Mr Scruffy's eyes in the 4th panel?

I believe those are kitty eyebrows to give Mr. Scruffy that mean "I'm attacking this poor bastard" look.

[hamishspence]

BoVD- revenge can be non-evil, but is strongly associated with evil. And the evil mindset tends to redefine it as "revenge at any cost"

the comments about the villain pleading for mercy, hero granting it, villain promptly attacking. Yes, its a trope. But mercy is famously associated with Good and "forgiveness and mercy are not traits most evil beings possess"

Belkar's actions aren't that different from before- he believed that if he tempted Miko to kill him out of vengefulness (and in that moment, with no weapons to hand, he looked pretty helpless), she would Fall. I wonder if he will continue to be a Tempter.

Elan fears that if he just let Nale die, when hanging over long drop, not even killing him, out of vengefulness, he'd be Doing Wrong. Though his "little devil" figure does give pragmatic arguments.

I'd say, even if act itself is evil, CoL could be CN- Loki is CE in Deities and Demigods, though this may be modified in OOTS.

[jamroar]

Wow, No one has pointed this out yet.

.... I don't know about you folks, but this strip seems to implicitly demonstrate that there's no way in heck Haley will still be alive when Belkar gets there.

I mean, this whole series of cute events with the front door goes by, and we're supposed to believe that it hasn't yet been 10 rounds since Bozzok pwned Haley? Considering that the strike appeared prior to Belkar even being uncursed.. it's going to take a heck of a creative plot hole.

All this is likely happening concurrent with the strips with Haley and Crystal. Belkar will probably turn up right at the end of that strip where Haley is about to be coup-de-graced.

[Prowl]

Of course it isn't the definition of neutral.
It is returning Evil for Evil.

Killing Pete was Evil.
Freeing Pete and healing him would have been extremely Good.
Neutral would be something in between, such as leaving him to suffer, or taking away the reward he got from his betrayal (blinding him again).

Well-justified revenge on a betrayer in the absence of any other means of obtaining justice (e.g. a funcitoning legal system) is not categorically evil. Many tales of heroism culminate in just such an act.

[pjackson]

Pete might not be able to sell his secrets twice but when he finds out his ex-friend is still alive he very well might do something about it due to the fact he should fully expect the cleric to be out for his blood.

The cleric was intending to leave town to avoid the others in his church (who are a real threat to him). He is much stronger than Pete (having quite a few levels in a PC class). If the cleric did not kill Pete then when he had the chance it would be insane of Pete to expect the cleric to be out for his blood.

[hamishspence]

I seem to remember an awful lot of novels in which the hero forgoes his "well deserved revenge" despite great temptation. And counterpart- quest for revenge corrupting someone into a villain.

[Zolem]

All this is likely happening concurrent with the strips with Haley and Crystal. Belkar will probably turn up right at the end of that strip where Haley is about to be coup-de-graced.

Like when Elan had that whole adventure and swung in right before Haley was stabed. And since we didn't know it was a time shift ahead of time...brilliant!

[brilliantlight]

Well-justified revenge on a betrayer in the absence of any other means of obtaining justice (e.g. a funcitoning legal system) is not categorically evil. Many tales of heroism culminate in just such an act.

Agreed, if there was a legal system in Greysky City it would be one thing but there isn't so it is arguably neutral.

[Dire_Weasel]

I fully expected CoL to cast blindness on O.B. Pete before braining him.

And just my 2 cents on the neutral or evil discussion: legally speaking, conspiracy to commit murder=murder. And in a medieval world, the death penalty is punishment for lesser crimes. IMO, vigilante justice is a chaotic act, not evil. Whether the death penalty is itself evil or barbaric is another discussion, and one that doesn't belong here.

[hamishspence]

BoED says death penalty for Serious crimes is not evil. But for Lesser crimes, might be mark of a slightly corrupt system.

and poor law enforcement does not equate to no legal system- the cops might be swamped and few in number, but that doesn't mean there aren't courts.

That is, if Greysky has cops- we don't know, one way or another.

[KindaChang]

If CoL were to be evil in the instance of killing Pete, instead of simply executing him (attempt on his life versus attempt on Pete's life, eye for an eye) he would have tortured him first, taken a couple false blows or just started hammering non-lethal bits of Pete. THAT would be evil.
The quick movement towards killing him was neutral.

[kerberos]

BoED says death penalty for Serious crimes is not evil. But for Lesser crimes, might be mark of a slightly corrupt system.

and poor law enforcement does not equate to no legal system- the cops might be swamped and few in number, but that doesn't mean there aren't courts.

That is, if Greysky has cops- we don't know, one way or another.
Yes we do, we saw some guy dragging the corpse of the brother he just murdered through the streets. He's clearly surprised that anyone brings this up as unusual yet freely shares the details of his murder. People don't do that in cities with functional justice systems.

[Tempest Fennac]

I know that taking someone prisoner isn't the same as trusting someone, but it does potentially increase the amount of risk to you. I'd personally class blinding him again to be much mor eevil then killing him due to classing being disabled as much worse then being dead. Regarding the Vows from BoED, I don't class the things which they ban people from doing as even the slightest bit evil due to how they aren't hurting anyone, unless they are taken to extremes.

[Triumphales]

Without a working justice system you are stupid if you don't. It is also arguable that the only way to discourage someone from commiting injustice in a society without a working justice system is harsh measures to discourage others from doing the same.

The COL had the option of saving time, skipping town, and leaving the killing to Belkar. His first instinct was to get the heck out of dodge. He allowed himself to be persuaded (against his first instinct) to stay and kill his Childhood Friend.

That is an evil act. Whether the COL himself is evil is a different matter.

[hamishspence]

I'm not talking about Vows- Vows are options for Exalted characters and not all exalted characters have to abide by them- but by the "must accept offers of surrender" text earlier in the book, before the feats.

to give an example- person with Vow of Peace can't kill anyone- ever. Must take them alive, Must not permit comrades to kill them. Noter that they can still hand them over to The Law, and they don't Fall if after trial, criminal is sentence to death.

An exalted person without Vow of Peace has much more freedom of action- as long is the killing isn't "murder" its OK.

But revenge as a motivation for a killing, is a bit hard to characterise as anything other than murder, since it is a classic "nefarious motivation"

[Jjkaybomb]

Y'know what, I think we all learned a very valuable lesson. We should all take to heart what Belkar has said, a very deep and meaningful philosophy. I know that this has changed my life, and from now on I beleive I will be solving all of those little nagging problems with violence. I cant beleive I didnt see it before....

[pjackson]

Well-justified revenge on a betrayer in the absence of any other means of obtaining justice (e.g. a funcitoning legal system) is not categorically evil. Many tales of heroism culminate in just such an act.

Not all heroes are Good.
I agree that revenge is not categorically evil. (Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less by Jeffrey Archer has a Lawful Neutral example.)
But killing someone who is no threat is an evil act (whether or not it is done in revenge). That was confirmed for the OoTS world by Miko's fall.
That is something that few heroes do.

[yanmaodao]

Please refer to every show ever where the hero relents on killing the villain because they start begging for mercy, and as soon as they turn around the villain tries to throw in one last cheap shot.

Yet, time and again, heroes are shown to make that last attempt at mercy. Why do you think that is?


Sure, I doubt he's Good, but there are enough mitigating circumstances to make it not inconsistent with Neutral.

Probably right. Either Neutral or Evil.


Exalted Deeds -does- take the position that sometimes, to be good, you have to be less than pragmatic.

Good is not synonymous with rational or pragmatic. As such, there will be situations when being good is what is rational and/or pragmatic - and conversely, there will be situations when it is irrational and impractical. (In fact, defining "good" as that which keeps things humming and least disrupts the greater goal is probably Lawful Neutral.) Showing mercy to untrustworthy people is a case where "Stupid Good" comes into play, although I'd argue that wouldn't have been the case here.


Neutral would be something in between, such as leaving him to suffer, or taking away the reward he got from his betrayal (blinding him again).

Actually, I'd argue that blinding Pete again after he begged not to be would be more Evil than just killing him. There are Neutral reasons to take life, after all. But blinding him again suggests malice, cruelty, and a love of inflicting suffering.

(Even if it was deserved. Inflicting maximum amount of anguish on someone, because they deserve it, is still cruelty and still Evil.)

[hamishspence]

execution of person who isn't a physical threat isn't evil.

However, for a person to be Executed, usualy requires some form of trial first. Taking Pete prisoner, dropping him off at next kingdom on charges of conspiracy to commit murder, would be a bit better.

Miko seems happy to take the Order for trial in a country a long way from where they committed the "crime"

[pjackson]

I'd personally class blinding him again to be much mor eevil then killing him due to classing being disabled as much worse then being dead.

Having once worked with some one who is blind I have to strongly disagree with that.
Within the OotS world both can be cured, but blindness is easier to cure than death.

[kerberos]

execution of person who isn't a physical threat isn't evil.

However, for a person to be Executed, usualy requires some form of trial first.

You're thinking real world, not fantasy world, or alternatively confusing Lawful and good. Pete was undoubtebly guilty so a trial is beside the point.


Taking Pete prisoner, dropping him off at next kingdom on charges of conspiracy to commit murder, would be a bit better.
That's just silly. Dragging him along while trying to escape is dangerous, and the next kingdom might not care about crimes commited outside it's juristiction or be able to prove that Pete was guilty (barring detect lie spells, which I assume are somewhat rare).


Miko seems happy to take the Order for trial in a country a long way from where they committed the "crime"
No, she seems unhappy with it, and does it only becasue she was explicitly ordered to. If a paladin can execute on the spot so can a neutral person.

[Tempest Fennac]

That is a good point (I was thinking more about real life and my personal views on it when I said that). Miko would have probably killed the Order if she hadn't have been told to bring them to AC for trial, though.

[Mythlor]

Pete was very happy to get his eyes back, but I don't think he saw this one comming... :smallcool:

[hamishspence]

depends on if you consider Mutilation to be an Evil punishment, even if its the Law inflicting it.

Prisoner's Carnival, in the R.A. Salvatore Drizzt books, had mutilation and torturous execution as legal punishments of Luskan. A rather LE government. and in general, "deterrent value" didn't actually work very well.

[hamishspence]

why is a trial "beside the point"? They get mentioned in DMG2, as used by both Chaotic and Lawful jurisdictions.

[Tempest Fennac]

How could you be punished like that, and what exactly happened to people being punished, HamishSpace? I can;t find any information about it. I think the idea was that the trial would be a waste of time because they knew he sold them out.

[hamishspence]

Prisoner's Carnival, in Spine of The World, was much like classic medieval punishments for the more severe crimes- disembowelling and whatnot. Amputations. Etc.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks (that place sounds a lot like Greysky City. Greysky sounds like a much nicer name to me, though).

[hamishspence]

on the subject of trials- most fictional vigilantes tend to perform "citizen's arrests" and leave tied up villains in hands of the police, even if the vigilante witnessed the crime. the ones who kill the criminals themselves, tend to be in settings of the grimmest kind.

Luskan is a pretty grim city- ruled over by evil archmage, powerful merchants, brutal place.

[Koshiro]

Of course it was evil.
Pete wasn't a threat to anyone at the time.
So, the death penalty is a strictly evil thing in any fantasy game world? Good or even neutral institutions don't have it? Because the whole point of the death penalty is killing people who are not a threat at that particular time...
(And yes, he didn't bother with the legal, institutional yaddayadda. His being chaotic, we can consider a given.)

Note that even Elan was basically cool with V killing Kubota... he only objected when he realized that V did it for the "wrong" reasons.

That said, I wouldn't have a had a good character kill Pete in that situation... but only because he obviously did it to get his eyes back, and that would have evoked some sympathy. If the betrayal had been just for money...
The CoL is still very much in the ballpark for neutral, though.

[Coldwind]

what about resurrection scroll? and his payement for sending spell? and also haley still needs him to heal herself I guess? lets hope he wont leave.

[pjackson]

Actually, I'd argue that blinding Pete again after he begged not to be would be more Evil than just killing him. There are Neutral reasons to take life, after all. But blinding him again suggests malice, cruelty, and a love of inflicting suffering.

Possibly.
However Pete's begging implies that being blinded again is the punishment he expects.
It could be considered the punishment that Pete thinks is just, and thus to be a just punishment.
We don't know which he would choose if given the choice.

Of course having made his peace with the thieves guild Pete could try to get the new blindness healed again, so blinding him again would not be as severe as in real life.

[hamishspence]

Like I said, even Chaotic places have some form of legal code, and trials, etc. in DMG2, trial by ordeal is considered a possible use in Chaotic systems (this is fantasy, here, the gods really can intervene)

Elan still tried to hand Kubota over to trial, and appeared to consider himself obliged to do so. Until V intervened.

[Captain Alien]

I didn't like Pete because he betrayed the PCs, but that was cruel. Belkar has been really clever. I don't think Haley would approve such an unnecessary murder, but it wasn't Belkar who commited it. Belkar took his revenge without being directly involved.

Anyway, I liked this last comic a lot. I cannae wait to see how Belkar solves this whole thing!

[pjackson]

So, the death penalty is a strictly evil thing in any fantasy game world?

No.
The death penalty for someone like Belkar would not be evil, since he would be a threat if not killed, even if imprisoned.
Pete was not a threat after he had shared his knowledge.



The CoL is still very much in the ballpark for neutral, though.

Yes. One act would not be enough.

[Charles Phipps]

Actually, Revenge is something so intrinsically intwined with human culture. We created the word "Retribution" just so we could create a word for 'Justified Revenge.' The idea of our entire legal system is mostly based on punishment rather than Deterrence.

For example, Saint Cuthbert would give a big thumb's up to killing Not-So-Blind Pete.

[hamishspence]

It could be an Individual vs Group thing. Even when justice does get meted out extralegally (to milady De Winter in The Three Musketeers book) they tell her what she's accused of, testify as to her crimes in front of her, and all together state "Guilty. Death" and don't kill her themselves- they get an executioner to do it.

and St Cuthbert's "Retribution is the basis of all law" was in Fiendish Codex 2. He's LN, not LG. the person propounding all this, who St Cuthbert came down on the side of, was the already LE Asmodeus.

[kerberos]

why is a trial "beside the point"? They get mentioned in DMG2, as used by both Chaotic and Lawful jurisdictions.
Trials are beside the point because trials are not "good". If they were evil systems wouldn't have them. Also I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of a chaotic jurisdiction.

on the subject of trials- most fictional vigilantes tend to perform "citizen's arrests" and leave tied up villains in hands of the police, even if the vigilante witnessed the crime. the ones who kill the criminals themselves, tend to be in settings of the grimmest kind.

What Vigilantes are you talking about? carton heroes? Those are almost all opposed to all killings, even by the judicial system, in self defence or in defence of millions of people. Probably also in defence of all of existence. Cartons have even more bizarre moral systems than D&D. Actually any kind of fiction outside D&D is irrelevant because they don' operate under D&Ds rather outlandish moral system.

[hamishspence]

Or, for that matter- real, legal, Vigilante organizations- a bit like more proactive Neighbourhood Watch.

What's an elven state- but a Chaotic jurisdiction?- whole bunch of CG people. if they all meted out their own punishments, might collapse pretty quickly.

[Charles Phipps]

and St Cuthbert's "Retribution is the basis of all law" was in Fiendish Codex 2. He's LN, not LG. the person propounding all this, who St Cuthbert came down on the side of, was the already LE Asmodeus.

I remind you that's also Asmodeus' propaganda, which is almost certainly a slight against Saint Cuthbert who wasn't a God by the time that Asmodeus had fallen to become King of Hell.

Recall that Asmodeus had the pun "Read the fine print" at the end.

To head off most of the further discussion, D&D itself states that there's a great deal of "Your Mileage May Vary" amongst the gods. In general, because it's a game BUILT ON VIOLENCE, in order for something to be a truly evil act then it has to be violence that...

A. Is against a person who has not harmed you.
B. Will not harm anyone in the future.
C. Is not Evil.

Or at least two of these.

Yes, Lawful Good and Neutral Good types may want to show mercy for extra brownie points, but Lawful Good Paladin types may also simply say "For attempted murder, you are sentenced to death. SMITE!"

As a Cleric of Loki, I doubt that's a big concern for Nameless One.

[kerberos]

Or, for that matter- real, legal, Vigilante organizations- a bit like more proactive Neighbourhood Watch.

If you kill a catgirl each time you bring real world physics into a comic, who do you kill when you bring real world law into one?

[hamishspence]

it suggests he was a godling then, became a god when he said that.

the Pact Primeval story isn't complete (doesn't mention Asmodeus being booted out of heavens with great force), but that is mentioned in section on Nessus.

is more the point that vigilanteeism doesn't have to mean Mete Out Punishment. and in DMG2, and Cityscape, (and BoED) it says players really have to try and bring surrendered villains before the law, unless they want to be hunted themselves.

[Charles Phipps]

If you kill a catgirl each time you bring real world physics into a comic, who do you kill when you bring real world law into one?

Yes, besides we've got plenty of heroes in Live Action Movies that cross the line as well.

[hamishspence]

true, but strip has lawyers, and even restraining orders, and, in cliffport, issues on detect lies being unacceptable evidence that might lead to mistrial.

[Avilan the Grey]

Of course it isn't the definition of neutral.
It is returning Evil for Evil.

Killing Pete was Evil.
Freeing Pete and healing him would have been extremely Good.
Neutral would be something in between, such as leaving him to suffer, or taking away the reward he got from his betrayal (blinding him again).

I should have stayed out of this but:
Personally I feel blinding him again to be far more evil than killing him. Because to me, torture is more evil than a quick death.

[Aevii]

For somewhat justified revenge in the form of murder against a helpless target, who is begging for mercy, who was once your friend? I think that's probably evil, yes.
Once your friend until you realize he sold you out and even now lies and tries to manipulate them.

As a matter of fact, how many people bemoaning the fate of the thieves guild bemoan the hobgoblins and other critters Belkar put away.

If it were Haley in his place, while killing him wouldn't have been her first choice, it wouldn't have taken much persuasion. After all, Haley's argument against killing Nale was the mistaken belief Nale had incredible resources and henchmen that could always bring him back. Nobody's bringing Traitor Pete back, unless Zykon, Redcloak, crazy-eyes or Grubwiggler are involved.

[hamishspence]

Celia, but thats it- because those hobgoblins weren't attacking them at the time.

[kreszantas]

Gah! I really can not stand alignment debates in the main thread, take those to another one. Everyone seems to forget there is a point system within 3.5 you have so many points before it changes. Only a True Neutral would be worried about such actions.

[hamishspence]

actually, no point system exists in PHB or DMG. Fiendish codex 2 does have point systems for Evil and Lawful acts, but no other source I can think of does.

and good point- will make new thread.

[teratorn]

Moving on from this silly alignment stuff and back to the important stuff:
Sigh, we've tried, but it's a lost cause, once people get into "alignment mode" it's a lost cause.


I believe those are kitty eyebrows to give Mr. Scruffy that mean "I'm attacking this poor bastard" look.

Yeah, you're probably right, I looked too much into the color thing.

[Cazziuz]

If you really want to know, re-read the Book of Exalted deeds. A really fine example is:
A paladin encounters a man and a succubus. Since the succubus is generally viewed as an evil creature, he should slay it. But the man loves the succubus and doesn't care if it is evil or not. But the succubus is evil (It's freaking made of evil!) and it seduces mortals and steals their souls, or makes them do evil acts. But the paladin has to keep in mind that the aformentioned man really loves the succubus, and love is a good thing, a good feeling and of the light. So what does the paladin do? Kill the succubus so that it cannot steal more souls, and thereby killing the one person the man loves? Later it is stated that no matter what, the end does not justify the means. So yeah, you might save a hundred souls by killing one succubus, but killing it is actually closer to an evil deed than a good one.

Am I the only one who thinks too much about this? :smallconfused:


Edit: Missed the part of the new thread, will go there now :smallsmile:

[Belkar Rocks]

Belkar, as usual, totally rocks in this one. :smallamused:

Also, "Brainy Pete". Heh. :smallcool:

[hamishspence]

I don't remember reading that- closest thing was the pic with caption: A paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love- with two succubi.

[Glyde]

The sound effects remind me a lot of a certain movie. With a certain bowling pin.

[Kilbia]

Two points:

- It's been implied heavily several times, and explicitly stated recently, that the Order of the Stick are *not* playing D&D. They are living in a world with physics and mechanics which are similar in several respects, but also with several differences (e.g the speed of plot and rule of funny trump anything that we might find in an official publication). So discussing alignment in terms of "Rules As Written" is fruitless because we've already established that there's no guarantee this world always cleaves to those rules.

- The first two times we see the lawyer characters, they show up to take action against the use of monsters and characters that were not released as part of the 3.5 SRD and were thus still the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast (now Hasbro). So using the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness to discuss alignment issues with respect to the Order of the Stick is doubly fruitless - even if Mr. Burlew agrees with one or more of the philosophies presented therein, there cannot be any certainty that he got the notion from those publications. He could easily have had the notion independently, without ever having cracked either of those books - and even if he *did* get the notion from the books, he has already established that he will not make that obvious.

[Kokopelli Jones]

Looks like Belkar and Mr. Scruffy have developed a nice little double-team move: Mr. Scruffy hits a claw attack to the chest and Belkar follows-up immediately with an attack to the head.

I'm not sure that Belkar's character development is anything new. Lord Shojo and Mr. Scruffy are two characters he's looked favorably upon for reasons more chaotic than evil. Leaving a kill for someone else, OTOH... that may be new.

As for whether the CoL's act was evil or not ... It's really a question of whether one considers personal revenge an evil act or not. In modern western society, with a generally functioning justice system, it's generally looked down upon. Some might make exception for when the justice system is corrupted or otherwise fails -- and the lack of a justice system in Greysky city (unless you count the justice system of the Thieves Guild) might justify the CoL's revenge.

However, in some historical societies, personal revenge has been considered part of the justice system. Not seeking revenge would be a sign of cowardice or other dishonor.

Ironically, despite being fantasy-based, D&D and like games tend to define good and evil per modern norms. Other times, other places, the CoL's revenge on Once-Blind-Now-Brainy Pete would be, at the least, honorable. Within the context of the OftS and the type of society it takes place in, I think this would be better classified as a chaotic act -- it's certainly disobedient to the "law," such as it is, of Greysky city -- than an act with any particular good or evil content.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right- some of the things he showcases as unlikeable, alignment wise, were more 2nd ed than 3rd- Paladins slaughtering goblin children in SoD, paladin saying "They're listed as CE, so we can kill them without alignment problems" in Origin of PCs.

and yes- the evolution toward modern norms is noticable. BoED showcases it most dramatically, saying "even if slavery torture, etc are accepted, they are still evil" but I doubt it started there.

[Tichrondrius]

I would just like to say that these last couple of strips have been awesome incarnate.

[ss49]

Attacking Pete has nothing to do with CoL's alignment.
Pete just attacked the CoL, using the Thieves' Guild as a weapon. The cleric is exercising self-defense.
I've already lectured y'all about how accepting the surrender of an enemy is not, and has never been, mandatory.

[TheSummoner]

Old Once-Blind, Then Brainy, Now Dead Pete was human garbage. Period. He sold out not only the girl and her friends who came to him and trusted him in their hour of need, but also a childhood friend who risked his butt to help him. He did it for personal profit (his eyes), and his begging for mercy was a last-ditch effort to protect the one person he ever showed any concern for... himself. Evil, good, neutral, stupid, whatever, the man deserved what happened to him.

And I think its kinda scary you guys are taking advise about what the best course of action is from Elan. Without a doubt hes a good guy, but hes not winning any intelligence awards.

[Niley]

It is a... strange... omen when psychotic halflings start quoting Lao Tzu. :smallbiggrin:

[Koshiro]

No.
The death penalty for someone like Belkar would not be evil, since he would be a threat if not killed, even if imprisoned.
You're stalling. Imposing the death penalty always involves killing people who are basically at your mercy, and no threat at the time. Otherwise you couldn't just kill them.

And please: You're not seriously proposing that Pete was not a threat anymore. He betrayed his friend to get the guild to forgive him forbetraying them. His middle name might as well be "treachery". For all we know, as soon as the CoL fled town, Pete would have given his pursuers hints about possible hideouts, friends and family to kidnap, etc.
Silencing him was perfectly reasonable.

[Quorothorn]

Am I misreading, or is there a word missing in one of Belkar's text bubbles?

He says "Nah, I better go help the girls, its a whole thing."


It feels like something is missing between whole and thing to me :smallconfused:

Nope, the lack of an additional word is on-purpose, IMO: it's to show that Belkar is not quite able to put into words WHY he's going to help the girls.

[hamishspence]

he may not be very bright, but he knows his tropes- "If You Kill Him You Will Be Just Like Him", here

there is a difference between "he deserves to die" and "its OK to kill him" as Gandalf pointed out. Pete is pretty pitiful.

Even Evil has Standards- Terry Pratchett- the assassins don't kill the one who betrayed them in Night Watch "Beating something like Ferret to death was, to the other two, an embarrassing waste of fist"

[The Mormegil]

I... I actually thought that the "light a man a fire" was... original... and I knew the "give a man a fish" thing from Lao Tzu... I feel stupid...

[T-O-E]

I wonder what race the orange guy in panel 1-4 (not sure which) belongs to?

[OOTS_Echoes]

The Cleric didn't kill Pete. His mace did.
Again. Pete wasn't killed from Blunt Force Trauma... the Blunt Force cracked his skull... it was... Brain Force Trauma.
And we didn't see him die. We heard his brain get squilched. From the mace.

I move to say the Mace of the Cleric of Loki is Evil! Pure Evil!!

...
[/Nonsense]
Awesome comic

[Scarlet Knight]

Pete was very happy to get his eyes back, but I don't think he saw this one coming... :smallcool:

Groooan!


"Brainy" Pete may not be dead. We may see him in future episodes, perhaps as the CoL's bellringer, but with Thog's vocabulary , Crystal's logic, and a slightly mishappen head....

[eras10]

This would explain the lengthy pause

No, it wouldn't, precisely because of the reason you go on to specify.


All this is likely happening concurrent with the strips with Haley and Crystal. Belkar will probably turn up right at the end of that strip where Haley is about to be coup-de-graced.

That's exactly what I was anticipating against, and it would be, in these circumstances, an act of writing hackery. "Clumsy" isn't strong enough.


Like when Elan had that whole adventure and swung in right before Haley was stabed. And since we didn't know it was a time shift ahead of time...brilliant!

Actually, it's not like that at all. There was no time context in which we had previously been introduced to Elan's whereabouts since he'd been left in Cliffport, days ago. It was just.. seven days of who-knows-what - then the arrival. And the distance he had to cross was explained by the airship.

We specifically know that this is NOT concurrent with the strips with Haley and Crystal, because we had a single, unitary strip #610 that cut between Bozzok & Crystal AFTER Haley's stabbing, and the cleric debating whether or not to heal Belkar.

Unless cutaway panels inside a single strip, which have in every time previous indicated near-simultaneous events, now are jumping around in time with no indication of that at all - not a flashback, which either uses events obviously prior to the story arc or ones we have already seen - unless that, which would be a lame excuse, we know that Haley was stabbed before Belkar was uncursed.

It was just barely plausible that in the ten rounds before Haley died - or, granting her stability somehow, in the about 60 seconds that seems the longest plausible delay between Bozzok, "Get on with It" and Crystal "Ok.", that Belkar could have cut his way through the flunkies, raced upstairs, and interfered.

But with this extended conversation at the front door added on? Uh-uh. It is going to take some unrevealed distraction *and* Haley's unlikely stabilization to have her be alive. And - this was my point - it's going to take really good and clever writing to come up with a distraction that seems believable, considering one has to be distracted from finishing off a high-level mortal enemy.

Given the constraints Rich has put on himself, the most realistic - thus satisfying - course of events would be to have her already be dead.

.....I suppose maybe something else could have intervened before Belkar gets there, but Belkar should be too late.

[OperationTREX]

Belkar teaching people is a scary new prospect.

But, Sign me up for Belkar's School of Evil right away!

[Prowl]

Old Once-Blind, Then Brainy, Now Dead Pete...

Don't forget the brief incarnation of Fashion Sense Pete!

[B.I.T.T.]

et tu, Pete!

Good comic.

[MReav]

Why does Mr. Scruffy have red eyebrows in panel 4.

I think the Giant (while his stories and humour are great) has been making a few art mistakes, with there being an extra dagger in the fourth to last panel, and now Mr. Scruffy's red eyebrows.

Anyways, criticism over. Great job.

"Brainy Pete".

[Prowl]

I wonder what race the orange guy in panel 1-4 (not sure which) belongs to?

Looks like a tan-skinned human.

[Skaven]

This is all kinds of awesome.

The Cleric rocks!

[heroe_de_leyenda]

Wow... the majority of the posts in this thread deal with whether the execution of un-Blind Pete was evil, chaotic, right, moral, etc...

I believe it was a pretty strong, impressive content that's giving us a lot of plot unrelated stuff to talk about. This violence is making us think a lot (you know, it is not the usual Awesomeness of killing rampage that we are used to with Belkar)

[frogman55]

Occurred to me: 'Brainy Pete' is a plausible (Plausible, not likely) forshadowing of the (again, plausibly) evil cleric of Loki raising Pete as a zombie.

Probably won't happen, but it would be cool.

[Essex]

With all the talk about the Cleric of Loki shifting alignment to evil because of his actions, has anybody considered that he may have had to make that decision to keep his spellcasting abilities? After all, sparing someone who had wronged him after going behind the backs of his superiors to help some adventurers and backing up an adventurer in a fight against a bunch of murderous thieves may have risked shifting his alignment to good, which may have made him ineligable to maintain his clerical spellcasting abilities. A vicious act of selfish revenge may have been necessary to keep him in an alignment eligible to be a cleric of Loki.

[Quorothorn]

Wow... the majority of the posts in this thread deal with whether the execution of un-Blind Pete was evil, chaotic, right, moral, etc...

I believe it was a pretty strong, impressive content that's giving us a lot of plot unrelated stuff to talk about. This violence is making us think a lot (you know, it is not the usual Awesomeness of killing rampage that we are used to with Belkar)

Well, to be honest, this sort of thing (alignment debates) just tends to happen with D&D geeks.

[chiasaur11]

Belkar just moved from bad influence to worse influence.

Which, for Belkar, is saying something.

[Rhuna_Coppermane]

Good vs. evil, lawful vs. not, even if you were talking absolutes, are meaningless without a context. The AD&D standard, as quoted in these threads, is very Christian in outlook. Other moral/religious systems look at things differently. Judaism, for instance, doesn't take motive into account, just action, and revenge is never permitted. Killing in self-defense, however, is not only permitted, it is mandated, but you are explicitly forbidden to kill someone just because someone else says "Kill him or I'll kill you." Lust isn't a sin, it's just a feeling. What you do with it is what counts. You're supposed to lust after your spouse, and do something about it.

[hamishspence]

many of these fit closely with BoED: Vows are phrased as "giving up natural and healthy thing" in some cases and "Being good doesn't mean remaining a virgin"

Also, context for killing- Execution- Not evil (usually) Self defence- Not evil. Revenge- Never Good.

And the "murder to save lives is still murder" principle.

the book has flaws (poison as evil, contradicted in later books like Complete Scoundrel) but it's not as bad as some people keep making out.

[heroe_de_leyenda]

Well, to be honest, this sort of thing (alignment debates) just tends to happen with D&D geeks.

I know that, it's just... I thought this strip was quite dark when I read it... even for this comic. (And just look how many posts in the main 612 discussion thread regarding this we have -not being an alignment thread)

[Yoyoyo]

Occurred to me: 'Brainy Pete' is a plausible (Plausible, not likely) forshadowing of the (again, plausibly) evil cleric of Loki raising Pete as a zombie.

Probably won't happen, but it would be cool.

I guess his name would be (using best zombie voice) "BBBrrrraaaaaiiiinnnnnnyyyy Pete." :smallbiggrin:

Great comic, whether we get a Zombie Brainy Pete or not.

[rxmd]

If you kill a catgirl each time you bring real world physics into a comic, who do you kill when you bring real world law into one?

A sylph.

Sounds good: Every time you bring real-world law into a fantasy setting, God kills a sylph.

But which God? And is it an Evil or Neutral act? And is it Lawful?

[Linkavitch]

Awesome punchline from :belkar:. and it looks like Mr. Scruffy got some blood on his eyebrows on panel 4.

Nah, he's just squinting, like this: :mad:

[Linkavitch]

Amazing comic, Giant. Pure. Awesomness. I still can't believe Belkar's back. I really hope he doesn't get killed by Boz and Crystal.

[Welf]

I love that strip. Some really dark humor. Belcar's evilness becomes really evil.

[Jeivar]

I luuuv those sound effects. First the 'thunk thunk' of the initial blows, then the 'crack' as the skull gives in, and then the ''squilch' for the overkill blow! :smallamused:

[brilliantlight]

Not all heroes are Good.
I agree that revenge is not categorically evil. (Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less by Jeffrey Archer has a Lawful Neutral example.)
But killing someone who is no threat is an evil act (whether or not it is done in revenge). That was confirmed for the OoTS world by Miko's fall.
That is something that few heroes do.

One big difference in the situations in that Azure City had a functioning legal system and Greysky doesn't .

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Why does Mr. Scruffy have red eyebrows in panel 4.

I think the Giant (while his stories and humour are great) has been making a few art mistakes, with there being an extra dagger in the fourth to last panel, and now Mr. Scruffy's red eyebrows.

Anyways, criticism over. Great job.

"Brainy Pete".

Um, what extra dagger? I only see the one in Belkar's hand, and the short sword in Blind Brainy Pete's foot...

I started a thread on the red eyebrows, I thought Mr. Scruffy might have been injured, while most of the people who replied thought the Giant used red eyebrows to bring attention to the Scruffinator's anger. Still open to debate. :smallamused:

[Watchdog]

At least Old Pete got to see before he died.

Too bad the last thing he'll ever see will be his own death...

[hamishspence]

In the previous comic- two daggers in enemy, one in hand, while kissing Jenny.

[Morchaint]

belkar needs some sound effects. red lines are nice and all. with the X.X of the enemy too. but the sound effects really make it stand out.

altho in total I found this comic to have less epic belkar awesomeness than the last one.

hope haley isnt past -9. altho she prolly is.. the last 2 panels would have taken at least 10 or 11 rounds to accomplish. even if she was merely at 0 or -1 when we last saw here.


belkar should be a rogue, not a ranger/barbarian.

[Dalek Kommander]

For somewhat justified revenge in the form of murder against a helpless target, who is begging for mercy, who was once your friend? I think that's probably evil, yes.

The fact that Pete was once his childhood friend makes the betrayal all the more intolerable. And how convincingly sincere is the begging of a self-confessed two-faced smart guy who has all the angles covered?

Killing Pete out of vengeance may not be an act of pure snowy-white lawful goodness, but it's well within the bounds of chaotic neutrality.

[Child Conscript]

I take it back. this is the best OOTS ever.

[hamishspence]

a CN person Can do anything-

(swearing lifetime loyalty and obedience to someone- honestly, would be sort on thing that would move them close to NN by Fiendish Codex 2, but they could still do it)

- question is- is the act itself very mildly evil, strongly evil, or not evil at all?

[Lissibith]

Hee, that was awesome. Thank you, CoL, for heeding the word of Belkar and handing down punishment as warranted. :) (I dunno, something about an unrepentant killer like Pete makes me expect he's got something up his sleeve for moments like this and it might be a good thing for Belkar and Co. that he's out of the picture.

[Manoftyr]

I demand a cleric of Loki fanclub *now*! :smallmad:.

CN and CG PCs of the playground, UNITE!

[Tundar]

Pete should have seen it coming.

Brilliant strip!

And really nasty sound effects too.

[Winged One]

With all the talk about the Cleric of Loki shifting alignment to evil because of his actions, has anybody considered that he may have had to make that decision to keep his spellcasting abilities? After all, sparing someone who had wronged him after going behind the backs of his superiors to help some adventurers and backing up an adventurer in a fight against a bunch of murderous thieves may have risked shifting his alignment to good, which may have made him ineligable to maintain his clerical spellcasting abilities. A vicious act of selfish revenge may have been necessary to keep him in an alignment eligible to be a cleric of Loki.

Interesting idea. That honestly hadn't occurred to me. Then again, a case could be made for Hylga being CG(if I misspelled her name, I mean the dwarf cleric of Loki who Durkon had a "private adventure" with).

[hamishspence]

Would-be Poisoner. and, going by pics rather than her words, of a rather OK guy.

[Lerky]

:smallyuk:bleh! This comic was a bit gory for my tastes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't bad. I wonder what path the Cleric will go down on. Maybe we'll see him again as a badass version of his older pipsqueak self. Maybe with an eyepatch:smallbiggrin:

anyway I was also hoping that he'd join the team for a bit. Act as the teams healer until Durkon gets back (in which case he'll die a death worthy of an NRS)

[ericgrau]

Just catching the last two pages, but are people seriously debating the Cleric of Loki's alignment based on whether or not he kills someone who betrayed him to probable death? Sheesh, I don't know what game you're playing, but last time I checked every alignment in d&d was out doing adventures that involved killing others to avoid getting killed. How many of you even show mercy to the remaining monsters once the fight is pretty much won? Ideally you should, and it happens in games I've played, but most good-aligned parties wouldn't think twice before finishing up the fight with complete annihilation of the enemy.

Mercy is a wonderful thing, but not something to be required and weighed. It is something that comes freely, abundantly and without obligation. "The quality of mercy is not strained", etc. See Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare.

[brilliantlight]

Interesting idea. That honestly hadn't occurred to me. Then again, a case could be made for Hylga being CG(if I misspelled her name, I mean the dwarf cleric of Loki who Durkon had a "private adventure" with).

She admitted trying to poison her husband who loved her, DEFINITE CE!!

[hamishspence]

yes- but Monsters and NPCs are two different things. Yes there is a double standard, but it is still a D&D trope, that you don't punish criminals yourself.

[Rhuna_Coppermane]

She admitted trying to poison her husband who loved her, DEFINITE CE!!

Yeah, I'm not buying it either.

[Lerky]

She admitted trying to poison her husband who loved her, DEFINITE CE!!
Definition of CE:
Characters of this alignment tend to have little respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own selfish desires. They typically only behave themselves out of fear of punishment.
so I think that's a no...

Definition of CG:
A chaotic good character favors change for the greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom.
sounds a lot like Hilgya but not exactly since she did join Nale (even unwilling)

Definition of CN:
A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, shirks rules and traditions. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not specifically enjoy seeing others suffer. Many adventurers are of this alignment.
now this hits the nail on the head in my opinion.:smallwink:

[KageSama]

Of course, while everyone's arguing about alignment, did anyone notice that the "Guy who's supposed to resurrect Roy" is leaving town with no forwarding address?

Hope Durkon gets there soon.

[hamishspence]

selfish desires- not being married

lack of respect for lives- trying to Kill him.

[Lerky]

Of course, while everyone's arguing about alignment, did anyone notice that the "Guy who's supposed to resurrect Roy" is leaving town with no forwarding address?

Hope Durkon gets there soon.
hey, you're right. Did he even finish the Sending?:smallconfused:


selfish desires- not being married

lack of respect for lives- trying to Kill him.
not exactly selfish. If you were forced to marry (at point blank (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0083.html)) someone whom you didn't love, wouldn't you feel the need to rebel?

that I can agree on but if she wanted to she could've just grabbed that hammer of her's and her husband would look like Pete by now. She decided to flee and leave him a live at least.

[brilliantlight]

selfish desires- not being married

lack of respect for lives- trying to Kill him.

Exactly, she defines CE.