Is Rich's Light Mockery of the "Morally Justified" Threads Morally Justified?

[DougTheHead]

As many people have pointed out, Belkar's behavior in the last few panels of comic 689 appear to be a jab at the people who endlessly discuss the morality of actions taken by OOTS characters- actions that, to the majority of readers, seem fairly straightforward. This move by Rich may have been well intentioned, but the end result is that he has insulted nearly a dozen people, almost all of whom, judging by their actions (namely, obsessing about the moral values of stick figure comic characters), have few social skills and way too much time on their hands. Should he be kicking people who have already sunk so low?

Personally, I think this signals a shift in Rich's alignment to Chaotic Evil, and within two weeks he will be coloring his strips with fresh kitten blood.

[averagejoe]

Personally, I think this signals a shift in Rich's alignment to Chaotic Evil, and within two weeks he will be coloring his strips with fresh kitten blood.

Nah, he's just chaotic neutral with evil tendencies. Anyways, he was morally justified in killing the kittens.

[Shale]

Personally, I think this signals a shift in Rich's alignment to Chaotic Evil, and within two weeks he will be coloring his strips with fresh kitten blood.

Are you crazy? He'd have to let some of it dry, otherwise all the sand would be red.

[Starscream]

Personally, I think this signals a shift in Rich's alignment to Chaotic Evil, and within two weeks he will be coloring his strips with fresh kitten blood.

It's a well known fact by anyone who owns a computer keyboard that cats are Always Chaotic Evil. Thus killing them is a good and lawful act. Rich need not worry about losing his paladin powers.

[FujinAkari]

These. Are. Not. Funny.

[Katana_Geldar]

And once again, Sanity proves itself to sneak into a back alley and service Drama as would a copper piece harlot.

[Nimrod's Son]

What amazes me is that there are so many people who are aware of the glut of "morally justified" threads round here, yet are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they all get locked within a page or two along with a "for the love of god, no more"-type message from the moderator.

[HandofShadows]

I think mocking the "Morally Justified" threads is a good idea and a funny one as well.

[kpenguin]

These. Are. Not. Funny.

They absolutely are.

[DBJack]

I think mocking the "Morally Justified" threads is a good idea and a funny one as well.

Except there was only one morally justified thread, and the whole is Redcloak good debate doesn't count

[Cracklord]

Except there was only one morally justified thread, and the whole is Redcloak good debate doesn't count

There was one about O-Chul killing a demon roach.

[Killer Angel]

I followed (and partecipated) a little the "Roy-Miko thread". Some things were interesting, but it became old quickly. There's a reason for Rich and Administrators concede the existence of only one of these "morally justified threads".

That said:
Rich making a comic with a joke on that thread? Good and funny.

You making a pun with a "morally justified thread on morally justified threads"? well, sometime there's a thin line between funny and annoying...

[Manicotti]

(Deadpan Remark on the Apparent Uniqueness of Another of Those Charming Morally Justified Threads)

*

(Small Non-Smiling Smiley)

(Exasperated and Halfhearted Admonition to Stop)

(Thread Lock)









*This is the part where I, were I actually a moderator, would announce my utter shame in being genetically related to the bleach-drinking short-bus escapees that insist on perpetuating this godawful meme-wannabe.

PS - Roland, I love your avatar.

[Sewblon]

He is justified in mocking the "morally justified" threads, because morality does not exist in the Stickverse. The gods, the other outsiders, and their servants merely create the illusion of morality so that the characters can be loved/hated/rewarded/punished as the plot requires. Rich has hinted at this, with Durkon's revelation of how his "what would Thor do" mantra is essentially inapplicable, and in the characters of Belkar, who is pure evil but has remained a protagonist since the first strip, and Miko, who was a paladin for a long time, but was never shown to be "good" by any real world definition. You need to remember that their world follows the laws of DnD, invisible dice ultimately arbitrate all events, the one true god of the Stickverse is unbiased, unfeeling, unjust, amoral chance.

[hamishspence]

I thought it was funny- and I put up the original thread more than two months ago (though there were many threads before that, asking similar questions- they just weren't phrased that way.

I suspect there were probably threads on "is it OK for Haley to put Belkar in danger for the good of the group"- when she had Belkar masquerade as Shojo- and the general answer was "yes it is"

This is basically more of the same.

[TriForce]

i think by now its morally justified to decapitate anyone who is considering to create another one of the morally justified threads...

please.....stop.....

[Haven]

I think I'm morally justified in believing that it wasn't a reference.

[The Glyphstone]

Possibly, but people want attention, and believing that the author of the webcomic noticed their forum threads/posts enough to make a comic specifically mocking them boosts their spirits enough so that they don't have to notice just how much time they're actually wasting in said forums.

[hamishspence]

There was a very similar reaction to the suggested alternate plan given by the Fiends for V to rescue his family without the Soul Splice-

that it was gentle mockery of the "Epileptic trees" that crop up on the forums.

Which is not all that implausible.

[Studoku]

So is it morally justified to discuss whether discussing whether threads discussing the 'morally justified' threads are morally justified?

Yes, I'm sick of these threads too btw.

[Querzis]

Except there was only one morally justified thread, and the whole is Redcloak good debate doesn't count

There were dozens of them, they just werent all called «is X morally justified». Thread like this have always existed in those forums, its just that not long ago it really became ridiculous. Especially in the thread about «she who must not be named».

[hamishspence]

yes- one was more than enough.

Debates about the morality of behaviour in OotS, protagonist, antagonist, or otherwise, go way back, though.

[pendell]

I've argued in the 'morally justified' threads, and I thought it was funny. I didn't feel insulted at all. I don't think Rich is deliberately setting out to antagonize his fan base -- he wants sales, after all -- it's just that he's seen so much of it that it drives him a little crazy. He's allowed to express that.

The only time I felt truly insulted was when Rich used Belkar's 'kill' prophecy to have him straight-out kill the Oracle, after mocking all the arguments about how it was fulfilled earlier, one of which I held quite strongly.

I got over it.

There's plenty to be offended about in the strip if you're looking for a reason to be offended. So far I've been able to overlook it because Rich is such a good author. I suspect the day will come when I *will* be really offended -- Rich has stated that his next comic book after OOTS will probably be more mature, and he intends to offend some of the 'family-friendly' readers to get ready for the move, and I suspect that is the point at which we will part ways. Until then, I'll enjoy his work.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[JosephHeller]

And thus, sensitive sensibilities are bruised, and the forums are once again victimized by Rich's great popularity.

That being said, I think Roy is morally justified in using Belkar as bait because we've clearly established that he is evil, and drug use is an evil act, so Roy is justified in using Belkar in this non-harmful manner as long as he doesn't "accidentally" drop him, and we all know that Roy's never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and hurt you.

[hamishspence]

And thus, sensitive sensibilities are bruised, and the forums are once again victimized by Rich's great popularity.

They were? I hadn't noticed anyone expressing especially bruised sensibilities- it may be a jab- but it's a funny one.

[Lamech]

I thought it was funny, in fact the whole Miko thread is kind of silly. You basically had Roy being dragged over the coals for what everyone agreeded (excepting maybe david) either a) a really minor offense or b) no offense at all

[hamishspence]

Pretty much.

A bit of dispute over "light offense" or "no offense", a bit of:

"chaotic good- but still morally wrong"

and a lot of David.

My guess is it was more the tendency of other copycat threads to spawn that was the problem.

[Optimystik]

What makes you think he's mocking these threads in particular, and not just D&D players' obsession with alignment in general?

[hamishspence]

could be.

Still, alignment or no alignment, Rich has made a big thing out "acts that are damning" in the commentaries to War & XPs- and stressing how Azure City "failed to live up to it's ideals"

So, whether or not its phrased as "good and evil" behaviour- it seems to me that "right and wrong" behaviour are seen as important in the context of the strip.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: I feel morally justified in locking yet another one of these threads.