OOTS #844 - The Discussion Thread

[Jay R]

Elan's rapier is a foil

or is is an epee?

I know it was a joke, but it has a real answer.

A modern foil and a modern epee are nothing like a rapier. Both are sporting equipment. The epee was patterned on a dueling sword of the 19th century, and the foil was designed as a training aid unlike any known weapon.

But the original word "foil" meant a blunted sword used for practice, but the original word "epee" was just the French word for sword.

So etymologically, Elan's rapier is an epee, but not a foil.

[Forikroder]

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.

technically it would only be half-kidnapping since at least the kids with one of its parents

really it could even be seen as just ignoring the rights of the other parent

[zimmerwald1915]

technically it would only be half-kidnapping since at least the kids with one of its parents

really it could even be seen as just ignoring the rights of the other parent

Alternatively, it could be seen as putting the interests of the Gate above the interests of the child. And a parent willing to do that does not deserve custody, even if that custody was not gained through kidnapping.

[Kish]

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.

Aside from what Porthos said, I have to wonder why people keep bringing up the Twelve Gods' moral judgments.

It's about as relevant as pointing out that Elan said he didn't see what was wrong with Shojo.

technically it would only be half-kidnapping since at least the kids with one of its parents

really it could even be seen as just ignoring the rights of the other parent

I do not believe "it is possible to play down the Draketooths' crimes, if for some reason you want to" is in dispute.

"Technically," there's no such thing as half-kidnapping.

[ti'esar]

Aside from what Porthos said, I have to wonder why people keep bringing up the Twelve Gods' moral judgments.

It's about as relevant as pointing out that Elan said he didn't see what was wrong with Shojo.

Really? Although I'd certainly agree that the Twelve Gods shouldn't be held up as arbiters of morality, we haven't seen any particular evidence suggesting they're anywhere near as childish as the Northern Gods.

[Kish]

Really? Although I'd certainly agree that the Twelve Gods shouldn't be held up as arbiters of morality, we haven't seen any particular evidence suggesting they're anywhere near as childish as the Northern Gods.

Aside from their being full participants in the thread-yanking that led to the Snarl...

Remember "Ninjas, because I say so"?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: A flame against Rich, personally, and several responses removed.

[Particle_Man]

Aside from what Porthos said, I have to wonder why people keep bringing up the Twelve Gods' moral judgments.

It's about as relevant as pointing out that Elan said he didn't see what was wrong with Shojo.

Except that Paladins are defined as losing their powers if they willing do evil acts by the rules of the game, Rich usually follows the rules of the game in his webcomic, Rich has given an example of what it takes for a paladin to fall (Miko killing her lord), and we don't have evidence of any other paladin falling for killing goblins.

Spoiler

Show

Apparently killing orc/goblin babies is a-ok, as far as staying LG and Paladinesque goes.

Kinda like the campaigns I run, actually.

Spoiler

Show

Indeed, it seems that goblins were specifically created for the gods's servants to kill and get xp for, so in game they are "fair game".

Now one could assume that Rich is doing a detailed critique of this via The Dark One

Spoiler

Show

trying to get a fair deal for gobilnkind

, I suppose, but that could be taken as a critique of the alignment system as a whole.

The sapphire guard paladins are just playing out the world under the rules as they are set up for the world, both in the "game" sense and in the "world created by the gods" sense. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

[Forikroder]

Alternatively, it could be seen as putting the interests of the Gate above the interests of the child. And a parent willing to do that does not deserve custody, even if that custody was not gained through kidnapping.

id say its a pretty neutral really, even if one parent is not consulted the kid is still raised by his/her parent and we have no evidence of any mistreatment within the draketooth clan and the kid is raised in a fairly safe environment compared to the other areas of the desert

[Porthos]

Except that Paladins are defined as losing their powers if they willing do evil acts by the rules of the game, Rich usually follows the rules of the game in his webcomic, Rich has given an example of what it takes for a paladin to fall (Miko killing her lord), and we don't have evidence of any other paladin falling for killing goblins.

Spoiler

Show

Apparently killing orc/goblin babies is a-ok, as far as staying LG and Paladinesque goes.

Kinda like the campaigns I run, actually.

Did you read my prior post where I pointed out that Rich said one shouldn't necessarily presume that?

Spoiler

Show

Indeed, it seems that goblins were specifically created for the gods's servants to kill and get xp for, so in game they are "fair game".

Point of Order:

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak claims that this is the case. We have no idea whether or not he is correct.

Anyway, I suspect that you're gonna get a fair few posts that will want to... discuss the Kick In The Door playstyle you are championing. So I think unless I see something interesting (and, sadly, the 23,856th iteration of THAT debate isn't to me anymore ) I think I will leave this part of the discussion to the rest of the forum.

[Math_Mage]

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.

Frankly, I think YOU'RE working it backwards. Because the SG are presented as good people by the words and deeds of the typical SG members (as opposed to Miko, who can't be taken as indicative of anything), it took a lot of SoD showing to make us accept that the SG could go overboard.

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

Do you consider slaughter an appropriate response to following the orders of an oathbreaker? Or even a Neutral response? I certainly don't.

being distrustful isnt an evil act considering what hes hiding

It's not a typical state of mind for Good characters, and it leads to contemptible actions like the ones we've seen in the comic.

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

Leaving aside the issue that we have no idea what Girard has or hasn't been doing with the Gate, and whether or not he's even theoretically CAPABLE of doing anything with it that would serve any of his purposes in any way, harnessing its power is an entirely alignment-neutral act.

[Forikroder]

Do you consider slaughter an appropriate response to following the orders of an oathbreaker? Or even a Neutral response? I certainly don't.

if they went looking for the gate then its only safe to assume they plan to take control of it for some reason erego the trap is teh first line of defense to prevent a god killing abomonation from escaping and unmaking the world

It's not a typical state of mind for Good characters, and it leads to contemptible actions like the ones we've seen in the comic.

blind trust is only a cahracteristic of Lawful Stupid character not good characters, Roy didnt trust Shojo at all until his father vouched for him and only trusted his fathers word becuase he knows when it comes to stopping Xykon his father wont lie

even Durkon distruts people and hes about the best depiction of lawful good in the comic (with Miko being classic Lawful Stupid)

Leaving aside the issue that we have no idea what Girard has or hasn't been doing with the Gate, and whether or not he's even theoretically CAPABLE of doing anything with it that would serve any of his purposes in any way, harnessing its power is an entirely alignment-neutral act.

while it could be seen as alignment neutral, it lies more in the neutral and evil then good, a cahracteristic of good would be, i cant find a word that would describe it accurately, but basically being able to refuse power for powers sake is a good act while getting power for powers sake would be an evil act hence selling your soul to a devil and becoming a lich is always considered an evil act, in Girards specific case he could get away with it being neutral since its for the greater good but not messing with the gate just like Dorukon is certainly a good act

[Math_Mage]

if they went looking for the gate then its only safe to assume they plan to take control of it for some reason erego the trap is teh first line of defense to prevent a god killing abomonation from escaping and unmaking the world

If Soon or any of Soon's paladins goes looking for Girard, the ONLY safe assumption is that Soon is looking to take over the Gate and unmake the world? No, that's Girard's paranoia talking, not common sense.

blind trust is only a cahracteristic of Lawful Stupid character not good characters, Roy didnt trust Shojo at all until his father vouched for him and only trusted his fathers word becuase he knows when it comes to stopping Xykon his father wont lie

I think you're mistaking Girard's blind paranoia for hardheaded cynicism a la Haley and sometimes Roy. And I think you're mistaking my argument against Girard's attitude for an argument against anything that isn't blind trust.

even Durkon distruts people and hes about the best depiction of lawful good in the comic (with Miko being classic Lawful Stupid)

Durkon has been quite open-minded in this comic. Consider his relationship with Nergal.

while it could be seen as alignment neutral, it lies more in the neutral and evil then good, a cahracteristic of good would be, i cant find a word that would describe it accurately, but basically being able to refuse power for powers sake is a good act while getting power for powers sake would be an evil act hence selling your soul to a devil and becoming a lich is always considered an evil act, in Girards specific case he could get away with it being neutral since its for the greater good but not messing with the gate just like Dorukon is certainly a good act

Do you think that becoming a lich is considered evil because the user becomes more powerful? Or is it perhaps because of the unspeakably evil things that one must do to become a lich?

Do you think that selling your soul to a devil is evil because the user becomes more powerful? Or is it perhaps because you're granting control of your power to a being of absolute evil?

Power is alignment-neutral. You're overlaying all kinds of random motivations and assumptions on top of it, giving the resulting composite an evil alignment, and concluding that the acquisition and use of power shares that alignment. That's simply ridiculous.

Let's take your own words for a minute here. If Girard COULD harness the power of the Gate to create a super-mega-ultra-epic illusion that would hide the Gate from everything, forever, and safeguard it perfectly...would doing so lie "more in the neutral and evil than good"?

And all this discussion is in pursuit of an idea that Girard probably hasn't even had, considering that the best that even a god can do with the Snarl is move the gate around so its uncontrollable havoc can be wreaked where TDO desires. There's no indication that Girard CAN harness the power of the Gate to do anything constructive; the fact that he has not done so therefore shows nothing about his alignment.

[Burner28]

Belkar is CE, but he occasionally listens to his "better devil" and does some long term planning for the "greater him" as opposed to simply lashing out in a CE manner, and that listening sounds a little NE to me. So CE with a few NE tendencies, perhaps.

.

It's still CE, just not Stupid Evil.

[Kish]

Except that Paladins are defined as losing their powers if they willing do evil acts by the rules of the game, Rich usually follows the rules of the game in his webcomic, Rich has given an example of what it takes for a paladin to fall (Miko killing her lord), and we don't have evidence of any other paladin falling for killing goblins.

Spoiler

Show

Apparently killing orc/goblin babies is a-ok, as far as staying LG and Paladinesque goes.

Kinda like the campaigns I run, actually.

Spoiler

Show

Indeed, it seems that goblins were specifically created for the gods's servants to kill and get xp for, so in game they are "fair game".

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=108

Now one could assume that Rich is doing a detailed critique of this via The Dark One

Spoiler

Show

trying to get a fair deal for gobilnkind

, I suppose, but that could be taken as a critique of the alignment system as a whole.

The sapphire guard paladins are just playing out the world under the rules as they are set up for the world, both in the "game" sense and in the "world created by the gods" sense. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=120

[Omergideon]

technically it would only be half-kidnapping since at least the kids with one of its parents

really it could even be seen as just ignoring the rights of the other parent

Abducting a child from one parent without their knowledge or consent when they have rights to access (something assumed for both parents unless stated otherwise by a court order) would be kdnapping, even if the kidnapper is a parent. I believe the term is custodial kidnapping in the US and a similar crims exists here in the UK.

But moving on.


This is withou doubt a step down from the previous comic, but that is no suprise. Last issue was so very good that this one would almost have to be a lesser strip. Not to say it is bad, and there are certainly some decent moments. But it really does have some issues as well. Now this is not a major issue in the grand scheme of the story. Issues like this one, exposition, plot set up and "down time" are to be expected. But as I try to analyse them as individual strips I kinda ignore that a bit. But moving on.

The Good:
1) Overall the art is merely functional, with the normal standard we expect. nothing stands out but nothing is painful either. However there is one issue construction point I think very good. The cut away to V in the pit when Roy makes his comment on the villain is a good moment. It hints at intrigue to come, updates us on V easily and cleanly and overall makes for a pretty nice image. This I liked.
2) The Lawful thing at the end was mildly humourous, but moreso it was subtle. We are not beaten over the head with a massive "this is what is wrong with a lawful attitude" message. Instead it is a minor and very in character moment that shows a possible problem with lawful character types. It raises the issue, does not dwell on it, but gives enough to make me think a bit. Especially as it flows naturally from the characters of Roy, Elan and Haley to act this way.
3) The Giant uses the strip well to really define simply and effectovely the potential pitfalls of an overly mistrustful chaotic nature. Now again this is not bashing of chaotic characters. We have good and laudable examples of all good aligned character alignments to work with to counter such an accusation. But it does continue the idea of exploring issues well. It is not a perfect way of doing so, but the tying back into past characters with Haleys dad makes it a cut above average and dry discussion.

The Bad:
1) This is an exposition/potential plot hole filling strip. Now the Giant uses it well enough to include some other issues. But mostly we have talking about why ressurection did not work. This makes for a relatively slow and uninteresting plot for the strip. I repeat it is used well enough, but with such a big focus on "we know one gate is safe, and ressurection did not work" there is little space to adavance the plot or wow us with humour. A fairly big issue when reviewing a strip as standalone entertainment.


I repeat that I know an infodump strip is essential sometimes. And we have had a couple of big reveals, dramatic moments and tense scenes or jokey strips to balance it out. But it still makes for a less entertaining strip. ** would be my rating. Not bad, but not good really either. In context and as part of a book this would be a minor issue at best, but standalone it becomes bigger.


As for the overall "Girard" debate.......I expect we shall see his side soon. I understand some of his reasons for being paranoid. I really do. It makes some sense. But many evils are commited because they made sense at first, or a superficial kind of sense. I think between SoD and now we are seeing the dangers of extremism in either direction being explored. The risks inherent in the system. Much as most books on virtue (or even the Ultima game series) explore even a good thing like prudent fear or unrelenting and indomitable desire to keep others safe can become harmful when not balanced by the other virtues. I think the SG as a whole come off better than Girard and co due to the increased screen time, visible suffering they endure, strong and memorable characters and sympathetic goals. Plus they helped our protagonists more. But this can change. I still think I agree with the giant that the SG are heroes (who had flaws) they needed to overcome and issues they were humbled for. Hinjo, O'Chul, Thanth and so on are excellent examples of what I think the SG could become overall. Miko is probably closer to the extremism that even when small in number can have a huge influence.


Now if we see Girard or some descendent etc able to demonstrate more virtues and so on my opinion of them will rise. But for now to me they seem extremist, and all the more dangerously so because it is for an admittedly good cause.

[BaronOfHell]

Considering the number of victims, I think the law of large numbers would apply.

No, because we can only evaluate the observed data and not the expected data. Which is about ~70 targets in total. But an analysis still requires assumptions. Some I think are fair, some I don't think are.

First of all, we don't know how many victims there were, but we've only observed ~70 affected.

Are those 70 randomly selected? Doubtly. After all, the point was to show the effect of the spell. So it's unlikely someone surviving would be selected. But it's not impossible of course.

We can in stead, if we don't assume the targets being randomly selected, ask if it is reasonable there would be 70 examples of non-saving victims to pick from in the first place?
I don't know the total amount of black dragons and as such, I don't know how many were affected according to V. So I can't really evaluate if it's likely to be able to select the amount of non-saving black dragons given a 5% chance of surviving the spell.
On the other hand, how about the amount of humans affected? If it was only the draketooth clan, then one can actually reasonably calculate how likely it was that there would at least be the amount of affected humans.
However it requires assumptions about mean life time (and variance of that), birth rates (and again variance of that), some assumptions about the draketooths as well (like the presented family tree), etc. It's certainly doable. So there's at least a way, if it was not because this was a comic and not a simulation of a real event, to decide if it's reasonable to assume 5% chance of saving the spell.
But even that won't be a reasonable assumption, because the whole idea of a sorceress ancestry is to be a dragon descendent (I think). Maybe certain types of dragons had more human offsprings, I don't know, but since it's not something I think we can reasonable put numbers on anyway, it's unlikely that we can assume only the draketooth were affected by clause 1 of familicide.

Next question would be, if the dice rolls are independent. That's normally a fair assumption and I'd say the same applies here.
However, we strictly don't know if the pink lightning continues despite making a save, yet it was earlier thought to be reasonable if making a save would mean next targets of the pink lightning would survive. Meaning the dice rolls wouldn't have been independent if we count those affected being those targeted by the pink lightning in the first place. That's of course a minor detail and not a very valid assumption anymore, anyway. So I'd be rather surprised if the dice rolls weren't independent of eachother. (It could also be a type of spell, which increased in power for each victim, meaning the 5% would eventually turn to 0%, because the stacked damage on a save would be too high, so we couldn't distinguish a save and a non-save anymore).

So despite it not being a very reasonable assumption, if those 70 were randomly selected, then there'd still be some ~3% chance of no one having survived when there's a 5% chance for each to survive given the dice rolls being independent of eachother.

So, I don't think we can reasonably conclude if a 20 saves, given the observation we have (the amount we've seen being affected and the description of the spell).
Heck I'd even guess there's no save given the way the giant decided to word the description here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...postcount=1034

It also makes sense on a meta level that there's no save. But those arguments have already been presented numerous of times and I see little reason to repeat them.

[thepsyker]

If Soon or any of Soon's paladins goes looking for Girard, the ONLY safe assumption is that Soon is looking to take over the Gate and unmake the world? No, that's Girard's paranoia talking, not common sense.

For Soon or his paladin's to go looking for Girard it would at minimum mean that Soon had violated his oath of non-interference, in which case all bets would have been off as to what his possible motive would have been .

I think you're mistaking Girard's blind paranoia for hardheaded cynicism a la Haley and sometimes Roy. And I think you're mistaking my argument against Girard's attitude for an argument against anything that isn't blind trust.

We don't know that it is blind paranoia, because we have no idea what happened to make Girard distrust/dislike Soon as everything we know about the Order of the Squiggle comes from Shojo, who got it from Soon as a child, thus everything we know is from Soon's point of view. I won't make any claim that Soon was lying, but it is quite possible the retelling we have is biased.

[Particle_Man]

It's still CE, just not Stupid Evil.

Ok, what would a NE devil on Belkar's shoulder be saying, in your opinion, that would be different?

[Particle_Man]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=108

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=120

Looks like I would not enjoy playing D&D with Rich, then.

That's ok, I will still enjoy his webcomic.

But I maintain then, that so far it looks to me like Rich is more interested in attacking the concept of "LG" as portrayed by players like me (and apparently sometimes by paladins). If Rich is putting something else in there, I guess it will be revealed later on.

It would also seem odd that the paladins don't notice things like "hey, Bob killed that goblin child and lost his paladinhood" and concluded "Maybe I better not kill that other goblin child over there, then." Or maybe that was all off-camera too and there are some paladins raising goblin children as their own or something like that.

[Kieran Cage]

Looks like I would not enjoy playing D&D with Rich, then.

That's ok, I will still enjoy his webcomic.

This so needs to be sigged.

It perfectly encapsulates the sentiments that myself and countless others on here have regarding the emphasis on real world verisimilitude in a fictitious game.

That such a game "should" better reflect real world-morality and ethics is an opinion. Not inherently correct or incorrect, simply an opinion. Shared by some, not shared by others.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to agree with every sentiment of an author to enjoy his literary product. :)

[t209]

Looks like I would not enjoy playing D&D with Rich, then.

That's ok, I will still enjoy his webcomic.

But I maintain then, that so far it looks to me like Rich is more interested in attacking the concept of "LG" as portrayed by players like me (and apparently sometimes by paladins). If Rich is putting something else in there, I guess it will be revealed later on.

It would also seem odd that the paladins don't notice things like "hey, Bob killed that goblin child and lost his paladinhood" and concluded "Maybe I better not kill that other goblin child over there, then." Or maybe that was all off-camera too and there are some paladins raising goblin children as their own or something like that.

I also made a story on a Paladin who was raised by good aligned orcs and married one and had a child with her.
P.S- Do you wonder if Rich was influenced by Thunt's Goblins (closer), Daggerfall Orcs (first but not well known) and Warcraft 3 Orcs (well known), which began to break the mold of monster stereotypes.

[Forikroder]

If Soon or any of Soon's paladins goes looking for Girard, the ONLY safe assumption is that Soon is looking to take over the Gate and unmake the world? No, that's Girard's paranoia talking, not common sense.

Soon swore on his honour as a palaid that he and the saphire guard would never interfere with the gate, the only time they could break that vow is if they fell meaning there evil

I think you're mistaking Girard's blind paranoia for hardheaded cynicism a la Haley and sometimes Roy. And I think you're mistaking my argument against Girard's attitude for an argument against anything that isn't blind trust.

how is it blind paranoia? his experience with Paladins show they cant be trusted what exactly happened while they were travelling is unknown but at least Girard considers Kraagars sacrficie enough to never trust a paladin

Durkon has been quite open-minded in this comic. Consider his relationship with Nergal.

right, his relationship where he lied about everything to the head priest

Let's take your own words for a minute here. If Girard COULD harness the power of the Gate to create a super-mega-ultra-epic illusion that would hide the Gate from everything, forever, and safeguard it perfectly...would doing so lie "more in the neutral and evil than good"?

And all this discussion is in pursuit of an idea that Girard probably hasn't even had, considering that the best that even a god can do with the Snarl is move the gate around so its uncontrollable havoc can be wreaked where TDO desires. There's no indication that Girard CAN harness the power of the Gate to do anything constructive; the fact that he has not done so therefore shows nothing about his alignment.

perhaps its impossible to control the snarl, perhaps it isnt, the IFCC certainly seem to think they can obtain a great amount of power from the gates (or at least its implied)

jsut becuase TDO doesnt try to harness the power of teh snarl doesnt mean much becuase hes up against Gods, Gods are worthless VS the Snarl so TDO doesnt need to harness its power jsut point it in the right dirction

Girard is up against Mortals so being able to harness the power of the snarl would be more helpful VS his enemy then his opponents enemy

[Jay R]

Whatever your current opinion about Girard is, you haven't heard his side yet. You cannot make a competent a moral judgment without finding out all the information first. You cannot conclude a trial without hearing the defense.

Not long after we met Shojo, we all knew he was a senile paladin, who wanted to have the Order convicted of weakening the fabric of the universe.

And we were wrong. The story was much more complicated than that.

Not long after we had met Tarquin, we all knew that he had murdered Penelope and had sex with the elven ambassador.

And we were wrong. The story was much more complicated than that.

I predict that the situation with Girard is much more complicated than we know now, too.

[rbetieh]

You know, what always surprised me is how integrated and well adjusted Orcs seem to be when they are usually portrayed as violent and territorial. It's weird that they weren't created for slaughter as the goblinoids were. And what is even more interesting is they dont even have a real god. And they should be an even greater threat than goblins. Oh well, that is a musing.

The point I would say is that Law and Chaos aren't that different. From my point of view a character like Ian Starshine or Girard are "Lawfully Chaotic" that is to say they are consitenly playing what it says in the book Chaotics are supposed to think. That level of consistency; however, makes it hard for me to view them as truly chaotic. There is a cost to "having principles" you know.

[Forikroder]

Whatever your current opinion about Girard is, you haven't heard his side yet. You cannot make a competent a moral judgment without finding out all the information first. You cannot conclude a trial without hearing the defense.

Not long after we met Shojo, we all knew he was a senile paladin, who wanted to have the Order convicted of weakening the fabric of the universe.

And we were wrong. The story was much more complicated than that.

Not long after we had met Tarquin, we all knew that he had murdered Penelope and had sex with the elven ambassador.

And we were wrong. The story was much more complicated than that.

I predict that the situation with Girard is much more complicated than we know now, too.

people thought Tarquin had sex with the elven ambassader?

[Holy_Knight]

Soon swore on his honour as a palaid that he and the saphire guard would never interfere with the gate, the only time they could break that vow is if they fell meaning there evil

No. First of all, the monitoring system was set up specifically to alert the other members if there was a problem with the other gates, meaning there were obviously exceptions to the non-interference agreement. Secondly, think about this scenario: Soon's gate falls, right after one of the other gates has fallen, with an imminent threat to the rest of the gates that so far none of its defenders have been able to handle alone. The survivors realize they need to warn and reinforce the defenders of the other gates or else risk a megalomaniac threatening the fabric of existence. No evil, no trying to take over anything, no nothing. And that's exactly what did happen. Girard's hatred for Soon blinded him to any possibility other than what he erroneously assumed would happen within mere weeks of the original agreement, and decades later, that flawed judgment has done nothing but impede the goal of protecting the gates.

[Forikroder]

No. First of all, the monitoring system was set up specifically to alert the other members if there was a problem with the other gates, meaning there were obviously exceptions to the non-interference agreement. Secondly, think about this scenario: Soon's gate falls, right after one of the other gates has fallen, with an imminent threat to the rest of the gates that so far none of its defenders have been able to handle alone. The survivors realize they need to warn and reinforce the defenders of the other gates or else risk a megalomaniac threatening the fabric of existence. No evil, no trying to take over anything, no nothing. And that's exactly what did happen. Girard's hatred for Soon blinded him to any possibility other than what he erroneously assumed would happen within mere weeks of the original agreement, and decades later, that flawed judgment has done nothing but impede the goal of protecting the gates.

no there was no interference allowed, the only thing they were allowed was to know the status of the other gates so theyd know if someone was attacking them so tehy could beef up there own security, there was no interference allowed period

[Particle_Man]

This so needs to be sigged.

Done. You can sig it too if you like. Heck, maybe it will go viral.

[Particle_Man]

That such a game "should" better reflect real world-morality and ethics is an opinion.

I wonder what chess would be like with this opinion.