The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas

[Kish]

What changed is that the invalid assumptions that got a whole bunch of quotes removed are now recognized as invalid (though I didn't remember exactly what Rich initially responded to; thanks, Jasdoif).

[Peelee]

What changed is that the invalid assumptions that got a whole bunch of quotes removed are now recognized as invalid (though I didn't remember exactly what Rich initially responded to; thanks, Jasdoif).

Again, given that was said before any removals, I am wondering why it is being seen as new information.

ETA: I should note that I'm not opposed to you arguing this in favor of new votes. I just dont believe that it answers my specific question of "what changed".

[pearl jam]

Perhaps the implication is that there may be quotes which failed to ever be included, at least in part due to objections based around the former rule C, which could potentially merit consideration for inclusion now that rule C has been struck down?

[Kish]

Again, given that was said before any removals

It most definitely was not. Unless for some reason you're restricting "removals" here to "removals during Jasdoif's tenure," in which case the answer is: I am not.

[Peelee]

It most definitely was not. Unless for some reason you're restricting "removals" here to "removals during Jasdoif's tenure," in which case the answer is: I am not.

So I did a quick skim (for certain definitions of "quick") - basically went page by page and only looked at ThePhantasm's posts. Not only did I not see any removals, but an hour before the Giant's comment in question, ThePhantasm pondered removing quotes to trim down the index a bit. That was not the first mention of removing quotes, but it did imply that it had not yet been done.

If I missed any removals prior to September 2013, please, feel free to point them out. Especially ones that were removed under the argument of "Rich Burkew hates this thread", as those would be the only relevant ones in any case.

[Jasdoif]

To reiterate....


If anyone wants to propose older quotes to be included in the Index, feel free. In this regard I see no difference between quotes that were removed, quotes that had inadequate support to be included at the time, and quotes that were never considered for inclusion in the first place. The exception would be quotes that were recently removed/rejected, as the consensus against them is already measured (and because I'm not going to entertain scenarios where quotes are immediately reproposed after each update; that sort of double jeopardy doesn't even pretend to offer a true daily double).

Because community consensus will change, as the people in it develop (or come, or go). I mean, only one person voted against rule C when the rules were voted on the first place; and only one person voted to keep rule C when it was voted out less than three years later. (That I happened to be the one who voted against it originally is neither here nor there.) So what was consensus before, is not necessarily consensus now.

Mentioning a change, where a reason to include a quote exists now where it didn't before, would certainly be helpful; as the change alone means a reconsideration is probably warranted. Such a thing isn't required, however...if only because that involves figuring out what reasons applied before to tell what current reasons are different, and that sounds like a lot of work compared to just saying the current reasons.

Conversely, "because the reason it was removed no longer applies" is hardly moving on its own. Primarily because it implies a possibly-out-of-date consensus rather than a current one. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with the reasons to include a quote on its own merits...as in, if it is that hard, the quote shouldn't be included.

[Kish]

Looks like I misremembered what happened. Oops. Sorry about that.

[Peelee]

Looks like I misremembered what happened. Oops. Sorry about that.

No worries, I've made that same admission more than my fair share of times.

[Jasdoif]

In any case, what I said above still applies; if anyone wants to (re-)propose quotes that were removed a while ago, feel free. I'm not referencing the list I posted for mjp1050 partly because it's probably not complete (I have a vague recollection of hard-deleting at least one entry rather than marking it "removed"), but mostly because it includes entries that were removed for being in violation of thread guidelines after their initial inclusion...which is going to keep them from being included again.

---

Incidentally, if anyone else wants to express an opinion on Rule D, like how it tends to be "cited" for things it doesn't (currently?) apply to, now's a good time.

Rule D: If two quotes seem to contradict each other, only the quote that illustrates Rich's most recent and current opinion or position will be included. The index is not meant to be a complete collection for leisurely reading. It is meant to be an accurate research aid for forum discussions.

If my parsing of the free snippet of the Patreon post is correct, we're about two-and-a-half weeks out from the next Q&A post; may as well make good use of the time.

---

Suggestions for any other rules, whether existing or hypothetical, are welcome too.

[Fawkes]

Has the giant made any comment on the Kickstarter project recently? The most recent update I can find is a backer update from September 2018. Was wondering if I was missing something.

(Apologies if that's outside the purview of this thread - I wasn't sure where else to ask.)

[Jasdoif]

Has the giant made any comment on the Kickstarter project recently? The most recent update I can find is a backer update from September 2018. Was wondering if I was missing something.

That's the most recent update I could find, unless you count an indirect reference.

[Fawkes]

Bummer. Thanks for checking.

[Peelee]

This is pretty much just a minor bookkeeppiinngg issue, but the non-functional image here could probably be fixed or removed.

HPoH ( ) Made a Tactical Error in #1009 Durkon "showed him Roy telling him the story about what happened with Eric. That's it."

#1009

2015/10/19

[Jasdoif]

This is pretty much just a minor bookkeeppiinngg issue, but the non-functional image here could probably be fixed or removed.

Are you sure it's not a bbookkeeppiinngg issue?

Anyway, removed for now; been meaning to implement more centralized smiley support anyway, so it'll be easy to restore if/when a replacement is readily available.

[Peelee]

Are you sure it's not a bbookkeeppiinngg issue?

Well that just looks silly.

Anyway, on a more serious note, I couldn't find the Giant explicitly calling Shojo Good through the indexed quotes, but dancrilis was able to snag it for me. If this is already in elsewhere, I think it should be amended to say Shojo is Chaotic Good, and if it's not, I think it should be in the Alignment/Specific Characters/Good Characters section, either as an addition to or replacement for the current bit on Shojo, which is more about his government.

[Jasdoif]

Anyway, on a more serious note, I couldn't find the Giant explicitly calling Shojo Good through the indexed quotes, but dancrilis was able to snag it for me. If this is already in elsewhere, I think it should be amended to say Shojo is Chaotic Good, and if it's not, I think it should be in the Alignment/Specific Characters/Good Characters section, either as an addition to or replacement for the current bit on Shojo, which is more about his government.

It's not in the Index; it appears the initial proposal escaped notice at the time.

What's everyone else think?

[Ron Miel]

Not needed for inclusion, his alignment is specified in the comic.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html

[hamishspence]

That's only Belkar's opinion though. Having an actual quote from the Giant confirming this is useful.

[Kish]

Should be included, yes. I say as perhaps the only person who actively disbelieved that Belkar's line on the subject indicated any more than that Belkar, unsurprisingly, wouldn't know Good from a hole in the ground.

I still periodically get into arguments about whether Shojo's in-comic presentation earns that Good tag, but that's neither here nor there.

[Fyraltari]

Include the quote in addition to the one about his rulership.

[Gwynfrid]

That's only Belkar's opinion though. Having an actual quote from the Giant confirming this is useful.

It's more than just Belkar's opinion: It's the consensus of the room. When Belkar makes that statement, everyone agrees his explanation of the failure to resurrect Shojo makes sense.

In addition, the Giant himself said that he called Shojo's alignment in-comic. Of course, I realize the irony of quoting the Giant to confirm that this same quote is redundant with the comic

[Throknor]

It's more than just Belkar's opinion: It's the consensus of the room. When Belkar makes that statement, everyone agrees his explanation of the failure to resurrect Shojo makes sense.

In addition, the Giant himself said that he called Shojo's alignment in-comic. Of course, I realize the irony of quoting the Giant to confirm that this same quote is redundant with the comic

Actually, using a quote to prove it isn't needed to make a point makes the opposite point as far as I can see.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I like it as an addition for what we have on Shojo already.

[Gift Jeraff]

Include. Belkar also called Ian CG while Rich confirmed he's CN, Elan called Julio good while Rich said he's neutral, Nale called himself Lawful while Rich implied that wasn't the case, etc.

[Reboot]

Include per Gift J.

[ti'esar]

Include. As someone who has long voiced their puzzlement that Shojo is officially CG while Ian is officially CN, I'm really surprised it's not in there already.

[137beth]

Include, because of what Gift Jeraff said.

[Jasdoif]

I like it as an addition for what we have on Shojo already.

My plan was to move the existing chaotic government entry into the "general" area of the Alignment section with some rewording; and put the proposed Shojo entry with the rest of the Good character entries. So the overall Alignment section would look like:

Spoiler: (tenative) Alignment

Show

General Information
The Morality of Deception "Taking advantage of someone is neither Good nor Evil, inherently. What matters is what you take advantage of them for."	#981	2015/04/28
"Lovable" Does Not Mean "Not Evil" Case in point, Thog.	#936	2014/01/11
Genocide is Always Evil See also here.	#935	2013/12/24
Alignment and Authorial Intent What does the Giant mean when he says X character is Y alignment?	#903	2013/07/23
🍍🍌Azure City's Chaotic Government Azure City's chaotic government (under Shojo) was still good, not evil.	#891	2013/06/06
Elan and Nale's Parentage How did it affect their alignment? The Giant can't fully answer because of events yet to be revealed. Elan spared Nale's life because of Elan's understanding of what it means to be good.	#815	2011/11/18
Alignment and Environment Enor and Gannji were not operating wholly outside the ethical framework of the Empire of Blood. This doesn't change the nature of their acts but does mean that the acts are not as indicative of their overall alignment as some might suppose.	#812	2011/10/25

D&D Alignment
Usefulness of the alignment system in D&D games A great aid for teaching new inexperienced players how to roleplay.	#921	2013/09/29
"Lawful" vs "Legal" More here and here.	#891	2013/06/03
D&D's Alignment System Thoughts on how it could be improved.	#838	2012/02/18
About Lawful Alignments On being Lawful in D&D and the OOTS.	#281	2006/02/15

Specific Characters
Evil Characters
Everyone on Tarquin's Team is Evil And Tarquin is kind of like the Elan of their team. See also: here.	#934	2013/12/08
Redcloak is Evil	#830	2012/01/23
Tarquin is Lawful Evil	#763	2010/12/07
Belkar is Chaotic Evil	#251	2005/12/01
Nale, Sabine, and Thog are all Evil	#142	2005/01/20
Good Characters
Haley is Chaotic Good	#936	2014/01/12
Elan is (Still) Chaotic Good Elan let Tarquin fall because he was using a different interpretation of Chaotic Good.	#936	2014/01/11
🍌Shojo is Chaotic Good	#891	2013/06/05
Durkon is Lawful Good	#798	2011/07/27
Neutral Characters
Girard is Chaotic Neutral	#980	2015/04/25
Who Else is Neutral A long list of Neutral characters in the comic. See also here.	#903	2013/07/22
Enor & Gannji are True Neutral	#812	2011/10/24
V is True Neutral (and Always Was) "Vaarsuvius was never Neutral Good"; strip #11 does not suggest otherwise.	#801	2011/08/17

[Fyraltari]

Looks good to me.

[Peelee]

Perfectly solved the very minor problem I had of not finding Shojo's alignment super easily, so I'm happy.