OOTS #844 - The Discussion Thread

[RMS Oceanic]

These people lived in a compound consisting only of blood relations. They propagated a new generation by having affairs with outsiders just long enough to steal the resulting infant and run.

Quite aside from the statue and the family tree and the halo, this doesn't all scream "cult" to you?

I dunno, a "secret society" could do such things as well. "Cult" is a loaded word sometimes.

[Caivs]

You know with all this talk about how Girard's family kidnapping their children and robbing people means that they can't possibly be good I'm feeling the urge to play devil's advocate a little and point out that if you tally up the morally questionable actions taken by Girard and Soon's followers Girrard's side of the tally isn't the one with all the murdered children on it. Just throwing that out there.

It might also be worth mentioning that we don't know how typical Orren's approach to having children is for the family, we just know that the Girard clan winds up with the kids from their various affairs. It is possible that some of them take a less evil approach to it. This would of course be easier for the females in a way in that they could just sleep around casually until they get pregnant and then head home/ There are ways the men could be a bit more upfront with the situation as well. They could perhaps find some one who would be willing to have their child in exchange for pay, perhaps justified with some sob story about a barren wife or perhaps him and his boyfriend just want to have a kid. I'm not saying even I buy these possibilities, but they are there even if they are rather flimsy.

This. I keep thinking the entire forum is demonizing Girard, just because we, as the reader, were driven to see the Saphire Guard as the standard ''big good'' of the OotSVerse, so anyone who opposes them is evil or nearly evil. Girard hates Soon. Because Soon apparently ordered Lirian to cast the rift-sealing spell hastily, killing Kraagor. AND it does fit Soon's character (Even Dorukan says so), he's the one who founded an order of paladins willing to die and ready for total sacrifice in order to defend the world. For good or bad, they're the most fanatic ones, who will do anything for the greater good (Including say, mass murder). While Girard, however, seems to be more the kind who will put kinship above the mission. He would have surely taken the risk of waiting just a few moments before sealing the rift so that Kraagor would live. He doesn't trust authority figures and seems more inclined toward a ''live and let live'' morality.

And as for the murder attempt at the fake gate location, let's remember it would have only killed the paladins IF Girard had been right! He didn't send his clan to assassinate Soon in Azure City, he left a trap so that IF he thought right and Soon was to put his nose in his business, ''well sorry pal, I still think Kraagor's death is your fault, and I'm not going to let you seize my gate.''. Kinda extremist, but there might be more reasons to why he hates Soon than what we know. People always say he didn't understand at all how paladins act, well my guess is that he just used another interpretation. Soon was ready for anything for the greater good, so it would have been actually likely that he sends his men to Girard. However, he just underestimated the importance of an oath for them. So paranoia? Hmm maybe, maybe not. I'd say I disagree with people who see his only psychological caracteristics as paranoid and crazy. There's more in a man than that.

[Conuly]

I dunno, a "secret society" could do such things as well. "Cult" is a loaded word sometimes.

If a "secret society" continued itself via kidnappings and isolation, I'd call them a cult. It's a loaded word because it's a BAD thing.

[t209]

This. I keep thinking the entire forum is demonizing Girard, just because we, as the reader, were driven to see the Saphire Guard as the standard ''big good'' of the OotSVerse, so anyone who opposes them is evil or nearly evil. Girard hates Soon. Because Soon apparently ordered Lirian to cast the rift-sealing spell hastily, killing Kraagor. AND it does fit Soon's character (Even Dorukan says so), he's the one who founded an order of paladins willing to die and ready for total sacrifice in order to defend the world. For good or bad, they're the most fanatic ones, who will do anything for the greater good (Including say, mass murder). While Girard, however, seems to be more the kind who will put kinship above the mission. He would have surely taken the risk of waiting just a few moments before sealing the rift so that Kraagor would live. He doesn't trust authority figures and seems more inclined toward a ''live and let live'' morality.

And as for the murder attempt at the fake gate location, let's remember it would have only killed the paladins IF Girard had been right! He didn't send his clan to assassinate Soon in Azure City, he left a trap so that IF he thought right and Soon was to put his nose in his business, ''well sorry pal, I still think Kraagor's death is your fault, and I'm not going to let you seize my gate.''. Kinda extremist, but there might be more reasons to why he hates Soon than what we know. People always say he didn't understand at all how paladins act, well my guess is that he just used another interpretation. Soon was ready for anything for the greater good, so it would have been actually likely that he sends his men to Girard. However, he just underestimated the importance of an oath for them. So paranoia? Hmm maybe, maybe not. I'd say I disagree with people who see his only psychological caracteristics as paranoid and crazy. There's more in a man than that.

I agree! The problems with Gates started with a dead dwarven barbarians. If they had survived, maybe Azure city could have paladins, barbarians (unless they go beserk and destroy the gate), good only opening gate and illusions.

[rbetieh]

I agree! The problems with Gates started with a dead dwarven barbarians. If they had survived, maybe Azure city could have paladins, barbarians (unless they go beserk and destroy the gate), good only opening gate and illusions.

Ummm, I doubt it. Remember what Tarquin said about the 6-man bands. One of them is the foil to the rest. Now, it turns out the team we are present had 1 die and 4 out of the 5 break the oath almost immediately. Who was the foil then?

[factotum]

This. I keep thinking the entire forum is demonizing Girard, just because we, as the reader, were driven to see the Saphire Guard as the standard ''big good'' of the OotSVerse, so anyone who opposes them is evil or nearly evil.

I've never demonised Girard, thanks muchly. I believe his trap in the desert was an extremely stupid thing to do driven by a fundamental inability to see things from Soon's point of view, but if everyone who did something stupid were Evil there'd barely be anyone left to bang the drum for Good!

[Forikroder]

Ummm, I doubt it. Remember what Tarquin said about the 6-man bands. One of them is the foil to the rest. Now, it turns out the team we are present had 1 die and 4 out of the 5 break the oath almost immediately. Who was the foil then?

ya but he called Belkar the foil who is one of the strongest members of OoTS so they dont have a foil

unless you feel like calling Elan the foil but hes been fairly useful

[rbetieh]

ya but he called Belkar the foil who is one of the strongest members of OoTS so they dont have a foil

unless you feel like calling Elan the foil but hes been fairly useful

Belkar is the foil because he purposefully undermines the rest of the group. Heck, he tossed a knife into Roys back once just for the Lulz. Superman has a Foil, its Lex Luthor. Get it? It's a guy who is doing the opposite of what you want from them. Like killing the Oracle.

Don't come back with V, the Elf didn't kill the draketooth clan "on purpose".

[zimmerwald1915]

This. I keep thinking the entire forum is demonizing Girard, just because we, as the reader, were driven to see the Saphire Guard as the standard ''big good'' of the OotSVerse, so anyone who opposes them is evil or nearly evil.

Problem with this theory: most of the forum sees the Sapphire Guard not as the "big good" of the OOTSVerse, but as hypocritical, racist mass-murderers. And they're not wrong.

[Incom]

Belkar is the foil because he purposefully undermines the rest of the group. Heck, he tossed a knife into Roys back once just for the Lulz. Superman has a Foil, its Lex Luthor. Get it? It's a guy who is doing the opposite of what you want from them. Like killing the Oracle.

Don't come back with V, the Elf didn't kill the draketooth clan "on purpose".

No, a foil is a character whose similarities and differences with another character throw their respective qualities into sharp relief. You are also allowed multiple foils (see Hamlet).

Supes' foil? Not overly familiar, but I think Batman qualifies.

Belkar is a foil to Roy, because his zaniness helps emphasize Roy's sobriety and vice-versa.

Foil is also a good word for most of the Linear Guild members.

[eulmanis12]

Elan's rapier is a foil

or is is an epee?

[Math_Mage]

Girard isn't being spoken of as Evil because he hates paladins, he's spoken of as potentially Evil because he:
-is willing to kill Soon's hypothetical companions to make a point about his personal grudge against Soon
-is pathologically distrustful of anyone who isn't family (as far as we know)
-condones, if not encourages, running off with the kid
-would make narrative sense as a Chaotic mirror to the overzealous Sapphire Guard crusade against goblins

The only other relevant point I can think of, and one I regard as less legitimate, is that he is of close black dragon descent, and hence has a possible racial bias.

[factotum]

Distrusting people isn't Evil under even the most liberal interpretation, I think. Kidnapping children (even your own) might be, as would leaving a trap that might get set off by anybody...however, I still think Girard is more likely Chaotic Neutral; he does what he thinks is required to get the job done, even though he has to hurt a few people to protect the majority.

[RebelRogue]

Problem with this theory: most of the forum sees the Sapphire Guard not as the "big good" of the OOTSVerse, but as hypocritical, racist mass-murderers. And they're not wrong.

This.

Also, I'd like to add, that I don't think defending all of reality from destruction is necessarily a good act as such - sounds more like self-perseverance to me, which is neutral I'd say.

[rbetieh]

...however, I still think Girard is more likely Chaotic Neutral; he does what he thinks is required to get the job done, even though he has to hurt a few people to protect the majority.

Isn't that the definition of Chaotic Good? Thats pretty much a Robin Hood if ever I heard it. We don't even know why Girard is defending his gate. His chosen method (making it a deathtrap for adventurers) doesn't speak good at all. Of course, neither does sending an army out to destroy anything that might one day threaten the gate, even if they dont pose a threat today... I think the most "Good" defender is Dorukan.

That said, I would guess Girard is Neutral or maybe even Evil. He's not the only Ranger in this show to call a Paladin a Fascist you know.

[Porthos]

Problem with this theory: most of the forum sees the Sapphire Guard not as the "big good" of the OOTSVerse, but as hypocritical, racist mass-murderers. And they're not wrong.

"Most"???

I'd say "vocal segment", myself.

Also, I wonder what you might have to say about the following:

".... But it was important to show that for all of their misguided excesses, the Azurites were still the Good Guys...."

(NOTE: Both the pointing out of their utter failures mentioned and the specifics of the Good Guy-ness sited afterwards intentionally snipped. )

[Caivs]

I know that not all the forum is demonizing Girard, it was just an impression I had after seeing quite a lot of posts (I was especially surprised after strip 841 when a few people thought Girard had killed his own family because he was getting paranoid...).

Also, I'd like to add, that I don't think defending all of reality from destruction is necessarily a good act as such - sounds more like self-perseverance to me, which is neutral I'd say.

Indeed, protecting it in itself is not a good act, since an evil character has no interest in seeing the world end either (Unless he's the suicidal type like Count Bleck in Super Paper Mario. /memories). I suppose an epic level arcane user who was there when the gates were made could find a way to use it, but he would probably take no profit out of shifting the snarl to another plane or something like that.

However I still think a powerful evil spellcaster who had such a great ''weapon'' close to him couldn't resist trying to master it (This would surely not end well though).

[Porthos]

I know that not all the forum is demonizing Girard, it was just an impression I had after seeing quite a lot of posts (I was especially surprised after strip 841 when a few people thought Girard had killed his own family because he was getting paranoid...).

The problem is, just as a lot of the forum reacted... strongly to SoD, a lot of the Forum also reacted... strongly to these strips.

It left a rather negative impression in regards to Girard in some people (the baby kidnapping revelations that came later on just added to the problem). Thus is it much of a surprise that some people expect the worst of a character they barely know? I mean, after all, people are willing to call the SG nothing but a bunch of "hypocritical, racist mass-murderers" as if that is all that defines them without looking at the genuine good that they did.

Now whether or not the genuine good that the SG did outweighs their undeniable faults and atrocities is for people to ponder and come to their own conclusions. But, I think what I am really saying, is if people react in a knee jerk fashion to the SG, it shouldn't be much of a surprise if people also react in a knee jerk fashion to Girard and his gang.

[Particle_Man]

Problem with this theory: most of the forum sees the Sapphire Guard not as the "big good" of the OOTSVerse, but as hypocritical, racist mass-murderers. And they're not wrong.

Well apparently they are wrong for the OOTS universe's 12 Gods, as the paladins retained their paladinhood, and thus their LG alignments. Miko fell but the others seemed to be just fine.

[Porthos]

Well apparently they are wrong for the OOTS universe's 12 Gods, as the paladins retained their paladinhood, and thus their LG alignments. Miko fell but the others seemed to be just fine.

We don't actually know that all of the paladins retained their Bluecloaks.

(Spoilers, of a sort I suppose, for SoD)

Spoiler

Show

...

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

(c/o The Index of Giant's comments thread by ThePhantasm. )

[t209]

We don't actually know that all of the paladins retained their Bluecloaks.

(Spoilers, of a sort I suppose, for SoD)


(c/o The Index of Giant's comments thread by ThePhantasm. )

One Karmic consequences of these paladins they got was the loss of Azure City (now stuck on their own Trebizone permanently since the resistance are gone).

[Forikroder]

Girard isn't being spoken of as Evil because he hates paladins, he's spoken of as potentially Evil because he:
-is willing to kill Soon's hypothetical companions to make a point about his personal grudge against Soon
-is pathologically distrustful of anyone who isn't family (as far as we know)
-condones, if not encourages, running off with the kid
-would make narrative sense as a Chaotic mirror to the overzealous Sapphire Guard crusade against goblins

The only other relevant point I can think of, and one I regard as less legitimate, is that he is of close black dragon descent, and hence has a possible racial bias.

the only time soons hypothetical companions would have died is if Soon sent them to the desert to find the gate purposely breaking his oath so setting up a trap isnt an evil act

being distrustful isnt an evil act considering what hes hiding

the only real evil thing Girard and his clan does is waht could be considered kidnapping children and even then id say its more then balanced by guarding the gate, and while guarding the gate may be seen as a neutral act, i think only a good person would guard the gate a neutral or evil person would be trying to harness the gate at the very least to super charge there power and make it completely impregnable, but obviously Girard has not succumbed to such temptation since with the power fo teh Snarl hed be able to cast the msot epic illusion and make the entire canyon completely disapear that would never wear off

[zimmerwald1915]

".... But it was important to show that for all of their misguided excesses, the Azurites were still the Good Guys...."

I'd say that if the author feels he needs to go out of his way to point out that the Good Guys have actually done good, then the good that they do isn't central enough to who they are as characters to outweigh the bad that we don't need to detour to see.

[Porthos]

I'd say that if the author feels he needs to go out of his way to point out that the Good Guys have actually done good, then the good that they do isn't central enough to who they are as characters to outweigh the bad that we don't need to detour to see.

He was comparing and contrasting O-Chul and Miko/Shojo (along with a side dash of events in SoD) in commentary for DStP. A comment like that is fairly natural, I would think.

ETA:::

BTW, he "wasn't going out of his way" to do anything. I mean, the O-Chul/MitD dynamic was central to the story.

But I do think that it is important that if we have a bunch of supposedly Good Guys, we do in fact see them act like Good Guys every once in a while. Otherwise a disconnect forms where people just react to what they have seen and not to what they have been told.

Show Not Tell.

A prime example of this is Eugene Greenhilt. We have (practically) only seen him in an atagonistic role to Roy Greenhilt. Thus the overwhelming reaction toward him on the forum is highly negative. Along with wondering just how someone like this could possibly be Good.

But, the thing is, we haven't seen much of Eugene's life. Only a selected portion of it that is important to the story that Rich wants to tell. For all we know, Eugene was a very good and competent man that had a tremendous blind spot toward his son. But since we don't see the other aspects of Eugene's life, we don't give them as much credence to what we do see.

So it seems to me that Rich showing the undeniably Good (in deed as well as alignment) characters of Lien, Hinjo, and O-Chul WAS to show that perhaps, just perhaps, the Sapphire Guard wasn't rotten to the core. And maybe even that the examples of Shojo and Miko (and some of the party in SoD) were the exception not the rule.

An exception that made a pretty big impression, perhaps, but still the exception.

[zimmerwald1915]

He was comparing and contrasting O-Chul and Miko/Shojo (along with a side dash of events in SoD) in commentary for DStP. A comment like that is fairly natural, I would think.

Well, until my Kickstarter package comes in, I won't own DStP, so I can't refer to the commentary like you can. If you want to have an actual discussion instead of a series of "gotcha"s, either transcribe it in full or wait until April.

EDIT in response to EDIT: We don't disagree about the importance of "show, not tell". I just think that having the rump Sapphire Guard perform good acts just to substantiate that they are, in fact, the Good Guys is more "tell" than "show".

[thepsyker]

the only time soons hypothetical companions would have died is if Soon sent them to the desert to find the gate purposely breaking his oath so setting up a trap isnt an evil act

being distrustful isnt an evil act considering what hes hiding

the only real evil thing Girard and his clan does is waht could be considered kidnapping children and even then id say its more then balanced by guarding the gate, and while guarding the gate may be seen as a neutral act, i think only a good person would guard the gate a neutral or evil person would be trying to harness the gate at the very least to super charge there power and make it completely impregnable, but obviously Girard has not succumbed to such temptation since with the power fo teh Snarl hed be able to cast the msot epic illusion and make the entire canyon completely disapear that would never wear off

I agree with most of this, I'm not sure that I agree with protecting the world balancing kidnapping children, but the rest sounds reasonable.

I would add that we don't actually know Girard's stance on the whole kidnapping children thing. Just because they do it now, assuming that that is the way they all approach the matter, doesn't mean that it is something condoned by Girard. It really depends on if he is still alive/animate and controlling his family. If he is dead or in some sort of suspended animation then it is possible they only started the practice after he was no longer in power. The thing is we really don't have enough information to draw a conclusion either way.

[Porthos]

Well, until my Kickstarter package comes in, I won't own DStP, so I can't refer to the commentary like you can. If you want to have an actual discussion instead of a series of "gotcha"s, either transcribe it in full or wait until April.

It wasn't a "series of 'gotcha's'", though. And I explained my reasoning a bit more on my edit that I made.

Do I think that the Sapphire Guard deserves to be condemned/criticized/what-have-you for doing things they weren't supposed to?

Absoultely.

But I also think we should remember that the comic itself has shown a lot more decent and just Sapphire Guard members than not. And I think some people have tendency to forget that from time to time.

Which it is why, as I said, it is important to show the decent and just Sapphire Guard members in the comic.

====

BTW, swinging this back around to Girard, I think this is critical point not to forget. We just haven't seen all that much from Girard that would paint him in a very good light.

Mind, I have no doubt that "his side of the story" is going to be told. And when it does, I also have very little doubt that it will provide lots and lots and lots and lots of discussion fodder.

=====


In response to your edit

We don't disagree about the importance of "show, not tell". I just think that having the rump Sapphire Guard perform good acts just to substantiate that they are, in fact, the Good Guys is more "tell" than "show".

I think that is a little strong, actually. Hinjo showed up on the scene way back in the 260's, as a counterpoint to Miko. In fact it was strongly implied that Miko was very much the exception of the SG compared to everyone else in it.

Shojo himself was presented as a Resonable Authority Figure early on, and it was only very late in the game when he got in trouble (what with his constant lying and all).

In fact, I would say that it was really only when Start of Darkness came out that the worm really turned in regards to the SG. And yet, just about every single appearance of the SG after SoD has been printed as been a positive one.

It's just that the SoD narrative was so powerful that it really really really stands out.

Though, I admit, once we hear Girard's side of the story in regards to his little 'spat' with Soon, I am fully bracing for tons of anti-SG posts again.

[zimmerwald1915]

It wasn't a "series of 'gotcha's'", though. And I explained my reasoning a bit more on my edit that I made.

Do I think that the Sapphire Guard deserves to be condemned/criticized/what-have-you for doing things they weren't supposed to?

Absoultely.

But I also think we should remember that the comic itself has shown a [u]lot/u] more decent and just Sapphire Guard members than not. And I think some people have tendency to forget that from time to time.

Which it is why, as I said, it is important to show the decent and just Sapphire Guard members in the comic.

I think your point is standing on its head. You say we've been shown more decency than indecency from the rump Sapphire Guard, therefore the rump Sapphire Guard is made up of good people. The quote you provided from the commentary suggests that the chain of events went the other way around. The rump Sapphire Guard were supposed to be good people. Therefore, we've been shown a number of incidents to substantiate that they are, in fact, good.

BTW, swinging this back around to Girard, I think this is critical point not to forget. We just haven't seen all that much from Girard that would paint him in a very good light.

Mind, I have no doubt that "his side of the story" is going to be told. And when it does, I also have very little doubt that it will provide lots and lots and lots and lots of discussion fodder.

And one of the points made in the story is that evil isn't one big, happy family

Girard and his clan can be reckless, paranoid, contemptable goons at the same time the Sapphire Guard are hypocritical, racist mass-murderers. Nothing about the two situations is mutually exclusive.

It's just that the SoD narrative was so powerful that it really really really stands out.

I think this is the crux of the issue. What we see of the Sapphire Guard in SoD was so definitional for the organization as a whole that the author basically has to bludgeon us over the head with examples to make us "get" that the rump Sapphire Guard is supposed to be good.

[Porthos]

What we see of the Sapphire Guard in SoD was so definitional for the organization as a whole that the author basically has to bludgeon us over the head with examples to make us "get" that the rump Sapphire Guard is supposed to be good.

First off, I don't see any difference between the "rump" SG and the SG when they were running around full strength, but that's by-the-by.

But to your central point there, I personally don't see the O-Chul/MitD interactions (to name one) as "bludgeoning over the head", as you put it. As a matter of fact, I found the O-Chul/MitD to be a rather subtle affair that was drawn out over a long time.

Nor do I see any of the times where we see Hinjo or Lien interacting with people to be particularly out of place, narratively speaking.

I guess I am saying that Rich's depiction of the SG post Fall of Azure City works for me. One milage, as always, may vary, of course.

[Caivs]

hmm, all these discussions about Girard just reminded me of the fact I actually dreamed of him a few nights ago...I was with the OotS and we were entering a very large circular hall. I was destroying a few blocks around (I played a LOT of Minecraft that day okay?) when Haley(I think) told me to look behind. At the middle of the hall there was some kind of autel where a foggy , kinda godly, human figure was appearing, slowly becoming clearer. It was Girard, but he was different from what he looks like in the actual comic. His blue and purple clothes were very well drawn with a lot more details than normal, while still being OotS style, and his red hair was long and ended below his shoulders, he looked epic (Not D&D epic but just, really cool). Then he talked to us, but I just remember him thanking us for reviving him, or waking him up from some kind of semi-death state, or something. The rest is very confusing, I remember him starting to teleport at different places and casting spells, I don't know why. All I remember about that part is that we saw he was really, really powerful.

So yeah um, maybe that'll happen :D