Were the Ogres Innocent Victims?

[Tvtyrant]

No. They were an invading army attacking civilians with overwhelming numbers and force, and an open confrontation risked the OotS for no measurable gain. You aren't obligated to let people kill you to prove yourself righteous. As the Paladins say "Good, not stupid."

Terry Pratchett's 71 Hour Ahmed is a great example of this issue. If you have no civil authorities you can't arrest people, does that mean that groups are obligated to allow themselves to be ruined by attacking strangers?

[dancrilis]

Except we do have reason to trust her. I'll sum them up again for you:

I think you might be missing the point of the topic.

- No issues with having attacked them during the Deva review

This in particular misses the point of the topic - see the final section of the opening post.

- No objections with her story from Roy, who we know empirically from OtOoPCs that he would have raised if he saw reason to object.

Just because one person acts well in one way does not mean they act well in all cases - the Deva mentions that trying is what matters.

- No objections with helping her for free from Haley, who a commoner would have found nearly impossible to lie to.

How familiar are you with the Sense Motive rules? - suffice to say they do not work like that.

- No presentation of the scene from the Giant as anything but a reasonable sidequest/encounter.

You are close to the point here.

The burden of proof is therefore on you to prove that her account was false, which you have failed to meet.

There is no burden to answer ones own questions (also I didn't say her account was false).

I could have rephrased the question as 'hey are they actually guilty?' the responce 'hey you haven't proved they aren't' is not a good responce.

[Aidan]

I think you might be missing the point of the topic.


This in particular misses the point of the topic - see the final section of the opening post.


Just because one person acts well in one way does not mean they act well in all cases - the Deva mentions that trying is what matters.


How familiar are you with the Sense Motive rules? - suffice to say they do not work like that.


You are close to the point here.


There is no burden to answer ones own questions (also I didn't say her account was false).

I could have rephrased the question as 'hey are they actually guilty?' the responce 'hey you haven't proved they aren't' is not a good responce.

Except we have several piece of evidence to suggest they are guilty, contrasted with no evidence that they were not.

The overall point Psyren seems to be making in his last post is "Given what occurred in the scene itself, we have little reason to doubt that what we heard was true" which is a notion I agree with. The issue is we reject your premise that you lay out in your original post. Whether or not they were made as an XP race is not as relevant as whether or not they are a threat to locals. For instance in the the battle of Azure City, the Hobgoblins were not innocent victims because it was abundantly clear that they were an active threat to Azure City.

Adventurers killing monsters that are an active threat to the populace is not some evil act that the Gods ignore.

[dancrilis]

Except we have several piece of evidence to suggest they are guilty, contrasted with no evidence that they were not.

What evidence have we seen that justifies killing them - not heard second (third?) hand, not assumed etc.
Does having someone tied up warrant execution?
Vaarsuvius would agree later that it does (along with based on physical appearance), Elan seemed to disagree in that instance.

"Given what occurred in the scene itself, we have little reason to doubt that what we heard was true" which is a notion I agree with.

Ok - you accept that they were evil ogres and the order wiping them out was a good thing, that might be true.

The issue is we reject your premise that you lay out in your original post.

Which is fine.

However:

Spoiler: SOD/HTPGHS

Show

The idea that Goblins are a mistreated race comes largely from two areas:
1. Redcloak says they were designed that way - something neither he nor his god can know firsthand.
2. The events that occur to goblins and hobgoblins in SOD and HTPGHS.

Now the Ogres are accused of the crimes of looting, attacking, kidnapping - two of which we do not see and one of which was called into doubt by the person kidnapped (who confirms that they were not harmed at all).

The goblins are (to memory) in every instance attacked because of the Crimson Mantle - an artifact we know* was designed to lead to potentially the end of the world which they use in The Dark One's name to attempt to blackmail the gods.

If the Order's attacks on the Ogres are justified (because they have been told that the Ogres are bad) then the Guards attacks on the Goblins are also presumedly justified (and likely moreso - as they have been told the Goblins threaten the planet) - and Redcloak's justification in following The Plan may be wrong.
However if the Order's attacks on the Ogres are not justified and merely overlooked by the forces of Law and Good as they do not care for the XP races - well that shows that Redcloak is fairly justified in his support of The Plan.

The reason I raised the topic was that I had effectively been arguing that Redcloak was not justified as we see no justification for The Plan baring the responce to The Plan (i.e The Plan itself - and maybe The Dark One - is the bane of the goblin people).
The Ogres were the best counterpoint I could think to support that The Plan was justified - which I think there is a decent case for.

It seems most people are effectively siding with the Order in there analysis - which is where I also think I naturally sit, but I find it helpful to examine ones own position at times.

*to the extent we know anything about it.

[Psyren]

I could have rephrased the question as 'hey are they actually guilty?' the responce 'hey you haven't proved they aren't' is not a good responce.

It is when you combine it with "we have multiple reasons to believe they are actually guilty." So for the third time, the burden is back on you.

Except we have several piece of evidence to suggest they are guilty, contrasted with no evidence that they were not.

The overall point Psyren seems to be making in his last post is "Given what occurred in the scene itself, we have little reason to doubt that what we heard was true" which is a notion I agree with. The issue is we reject your premise that you lay out in your original post. Whether or not they were made as an XP race is not as relevant as whether or not they are a threat to locals. For instance in the the battle of Azure City, the Hobgoblins were not innocent victims because it was abundantly clear that they were an active threat to Azure City.

Adventurers killing monsters that are an active threat to the populace is not some evil act that the Gods ignore.

Correct.

[Jasdoif]

The recent discussion on the plight or lack thereof of the goblins in the 1205 discussion got me thinking about how different groups have been interacted with which brought me to the ogres.

On 211 we are introduced to an Ogre tribe by way of an old woman telling us that they are 'lootin' our land attackin' travelers' she follows this up by calling them a 'Buncha savages', she then cuts to the heart of her problem and explains that they kidnapped her husband.

The Order and Miko accept this at face value and begin the quest to deal with the ogres.

When they locate the ogres in 214 they ogres are doing nothing obviously evil (or have done anything obviously evil recently) - the Order begins to form a plan to slaughter them while they sleep with no negotiation or discussion at all but Miko has a different plan - she declares herself the enemy of the Ogres and asks them to ready for battle.
The ogres informed that they are to be killed prepare for battle as requested 215 but still allow the paladin to strike the first blow.

Members of the Order sneak past the ogres to rescue the missing husband 218, who other then being tied up seems to not be suffering at all.

With the battle joined the Order kills the remaining ogres 219 and return to the farm 222 where we learn that the farmer was not hurt (panel 3) and had gotten himself captured deliberately so he could have some time alone (panel 7).

Essentially the ogres seemingly did nothing deserving extermination - this was never raised again (Roy's interview for the mountain springs to mind).

This can also be contrasted with dealing with human bandits 167 where it seems the order was much more inclined for non-lethal force - despite the humans being actively engaged in poor behaviour.

So to the topic title - should we merely accept that the ogres had it coming and that this is not a stain on the Order (and Miko) or were the ogres victims of PC aggression for no better reason than they were not members of a standard PC race and not regarded as noteworthy by the powers of law or good - potentially justifing:

Spoiler: SOD

Show

Redcloaks claim that goblins (and presumedly others) were created to be nothing but XP by the Gods.

Well, like you say: the ogres did accept Miko's offer of a battle. We see no questioning of why Miko wants to vanquish them, nor attempting to dissuade her, nor discarding her words as unworthy of their attention. One can argue about the aggressive nature of this sort of conflict resolution, but there's certainly self-determination on the part of the ogres involved. Since they chose to engage in deliberately lethal activity, and died as a result of such deliberately lethal activity...to what extent are they really victims, innocent or otherwise?

[dancrilis]

It is when you combine it with "we have multiple reasons to believe they are actually guilty." So for the third time, the burden is back on you.

I am not sure your point here - none of the reasons seem to be a clear cut 'kill the criminal'.

Imagine the following (similiar situation different actors).
Villager: Help an evil witch cursed my fields and stole my daughter.
Witchhunter hunts down and kills witch without further investigation.
Then the witchhunter finds a young girl tied up in the witches hut.

Was the witchhunter justified in killing them, does finding the girl make them retroactively justified - they likely feel they are a good judge of character and they felt the villager had no reason to lie to them, and they found the girl (even if she said she got captured delibrately), their god (who may or may not care about witches) has not stripped them of spells and doesn't question them on it later.

There is a solid arguement that the witch is guilty and deserved to die - the located child acting as the best arguement for that.
I just don't think that arguement is ironclad (and certaintly not before the child was found) - and it is possible that the witchhunter could be out of line if we knew more of the story.

I am not saying that you are wrong for standing with the witchhunter (or the Order) - it is where I would normally stand I think, but as listed in the above post questioning things to see if you are viewing them fairly is not wrong.

So in brief - we likely agree that 'Order (and Miko) were right', but where I am thinking 'likely - and they should have done more investigation first' you seem very certain that those Ogres deserved to die no more questions needed.

Well, like you say: the ogres did accept Miko's offer of a battle. We see no questioning of why Miko wants to vanquish them, nor attempting to dissuade her, nor discarding her words as unworthy of their attention. One can argue about the aggressive nature of this sort of conflict resolution, but there's certainly self-determination on the part of the ogres involved. Since they chose to engage in deliberately lethal activity, and died as a result of such deliberately lethal activity...to what extent are they really victims, innocent or otherwise?

This is a fair point (and we don't know if any discussion occured when the ogres were readying themselves) - but I think that if someone comes to you and announces their intention to do you harm and you choose to engage (Ogres may have poor impulse control or lack diplomacy to consider alternatives) and they kill you it is still likely that you were a victim (particularly if all this occurs in what might be your garden where they woke you from sleeping).

[Jasdoif]

(and we don't know if any discussion occured when the ogres were readying themselves)

Much like if Roy said off-panel during the trip "Ideally we'll rescue the old man without having to kill anyone, but we can't take for granted that we can subdue them; so we'll plan for attack just in case we have to attack" and Miko unilaterally eliminating the opportunity; thus the ogres not coming up during Roy's interview with the deva because it came up during Miko's.

"What if something that changes the entire thing happened off-screen" has its uses for envisioning alternate scenarios for compare-and-contrast, but it doesn't go very far on its own.

[Dion]

Why are we discussing the Ogres collectively, as if they possessed a unitary hive mind?

Only the leader agreed to fight Miko. Why would it be ok to kill all of the other ogres that didn’t agree to fight Miko?

[dancrilis]

Much like if Roy said off-panel during the trip "Ideally we'll rescue the old man without having to kill anyone, but we can't take for granted that we can subdue them; so we'll plan for attack just in case we have to attack" and Miko unilaterally eliminating the opportunity; thus the ogres not coming up during Roy's interview with the deva because it came up during Miko's.

"What if something that changes the entire thing happened off-screen" has its uses for envisioning alternate scenarios for compare-and-contrast, but it doesn't go very far on its own.

Exactly - there may be moral outs for the people involved but we have no reason to assume that there are.

[Psyren]

...
Witchhunter hunts down and kills witch without further investigation.
...

This is an assumption you're making and why we're unlikely to agree on this topic. Just because no further evidence was shown on panel does not mean there isn't any. Given what we know of Roy, Haley, the scenario itself, and yes, the entire judgment system presided over by the Astral Deva, the woman was shown to not be lying - period.

Exactly - there may be moral outs for the people involved but we have no reason to assume that there are.

We have every reason to assume that there are.

EDIT: Wait, I'm pretty sure this is just another not-so-thinly veiled "were the Order morally justified" thread.

[Keltest]

EDIT: Wait, I'm pretty sure this is just another not-so-thinly veiled "were the Order morally justified" thread.

Good catch. I retract my involvement. Apologies to anybody who was actually going to reply to me.

[Worldsong]

Good catch. I retract my involvement. Apologies to anybody who was actually going to reply to me.

You can't stop me, I have the power of the internet!

[dancrilis]

This is an assumption you're making and why we're unlikely to agree on this topic. Just because no further evidence was shown on panel does not mean there isn't any. Given what we know of Roy, Haley, the scenario itself, and yes, the entire judgment system presided over by the Astral Deva, the woman was shown to not be lying - period.

...

also I didn't say her account was false

Seperately - her account was not shown to be 'not lying' anymore then it was shown to be 'her lying' - but on the balance I would lean towards 'not lying', it doesn't however change anything.

We have every reason to assume that there are.

You are free to believe that - if you feel that 'I know this person and he wouldn't do bad things' is all you need to give them a pass that is a fine stance that many people have and might normally be correct - I just don't think it is always correct.

EDIT: Wait, I'm pretty sure this is just another not-so-thinly veiled "were the Order morally justified" thread.

It isn't, but as mentioned you do not seem to understand the point of the topic (or perhaps as I mentioned I might be missing your points).

[Psyren]

You are free to believe that

Thanks, I do.

It isn't, but as mentioned you do not seem to understand the point of the topic (or perhaps as I mentioned I might be missing your points).

What is the point of your topic? That comics need to show every detail to support a character's statements? Because, good luck with that.

[dancrilis]

What is the point of your topic?

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.

[Keltest]

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.

They still have free will, and that edge cuts both ways. Assuming the story youre talking about is Start of Darkness, its important to remember that, as the name suggests, villains with tragic backstories are still villains. If its wrong to kill them out of hand simply for being "monsters" then theyre also fully accountable for what they do with themselves.

[Jasdoif]

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.

So basically, you're questioning whether the bureaucratic deva is as biased as her "employer" in this regard; thus her accounting can't be taken at face value, since if she were biased then her account would be expected to be biased as well?

[dancrilis]

So basically, you're questioning whether the bureaucratic deva is as biased as her "employer" in this regard; thus her accounting can't be taken at face value, since if she were biased then her account would be expected to be biased as well?

Depending on the use of the word 'biased' yes (I suppose).

I am not accusing her of not being a being of Law and Good - and she has a book to follow which I suspect she is following faithfully - but might that book have a partial omission for killing outclassed ogre bandits that it does not have for killing outclassed human bandits (for instance), and might this result in adventurers being more merciful to humans then ogres, after all even those who are not faithful still grew up in a society where that book might be something of a guide to correct behaviour.

They still have free will, and that edge cuts both ways. Assuming the story youre talking about is Start of Darkness, its important to remember that, as the name suggests, villains with tragic backstories are still villains. If its wrong to kill them out of hand simply for being "monsters" then theyre also fully accountable for what they do with themselves.

Which leads us to the opening post as it was laid out.

[Keltest]

Which leads us to the opening post as it was laid out.

You phrase it like a question, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. If the ogres are responsible for their actions, theyre responsible for their actions. Like... i dont understand why you need anything more than that. Its possible for them to have been victimized in the abstract while still meeting a just fate in the specific circumstances.

[Dion]

What about that one Ogre who always hung back at every fight and dreamed of running away to be a dentist?

Why was it acceptable to kill that one innocent ogre when he didn’t do any of the evil things all the other ogres did?

[KorvinStarmast]

What about that one Ogre who always hung back at every fight and dreamed of running away to be a dentist?

Why was it acceptable to kill that one innocent ogre when he didn’t do any of the evil things all the other ogres did?

Have you reead "How the Paladin Got His Scar" yet?

[Dion]

Have you reead "How the Paladin Got His Scar" yet?

No. Does it deal with the problem of “what happens if there is a trolley with five ogres on their way to work as dentists and it’s heading toward a cardboard box full of fuzzy kittens. Are you allowed to throw a switch and send the trolley off a cliff?”

[Aidan]

Without using spoilers (which have already covered that - well or not would depend on my writing skill, so probably not well) - it is about the nature of the world and whether the Ogre scene supports a story that was told in one of the books.

The point made about how XP-races were mistreated, was placing them on the edge of society, so they would be forced to raid settlements by other races. This fact is shown in the ogre scene.

The issue is, even though the ogres were placed on the planet at a disadvantage, they still controlled their actions, actions which included pillaging, raiding, and kidnapping.

Had the ogres only been picking flowers, and then the order came in, I would have a problem with that. I also have an issue with the thought that the Gods don't punish humans for murdering members of an XP-race who have not committed a crime themselves.

As the Giant said regarding the beginning of SOD

Spoiler: SOD Spoilers

Show

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.)

If killing innocent members of an XP-race can result in the loss of paladin-powers, I'm sure it would also come up when trying to gain admittance to the afterlife. Considering Roy had no issues making it past the pearly gates, and Miko did not fall (well, didn't fall from this), I really don't see how the ogres could be just innocent victims.

In short, were the ogres put at a disadvantage from creation? yes
Does that excuse legitimate wrongdoing? no

[dancrilis]

You phrase it like a question, but it seems pretty clear cut to me.

Which is fair enough, it has been 15 years since the side quest (nearly) and it was pretty clear cut to everyone (myself included as detailed in previous posts).

If the ogres are responsible for their actions, theyre responsible for their actions. Like... i dont understand why you need anything more than that. Its possible for them to have been victimized in the abstract while still meeting a just fate in the specific circumstances.

This is why I laid it out the way I did - we are told that the Ogres have done wrong but we are never shown that they have been engaged in wrong, the one act that they have done - kidnapping - is undermined by the kidnappee (no damage, and delibrately got it done).

There is maybe(probably?) nothing more to this series of events then showing that Haley is a good person willing to help others but sick of Roy's (and based on the surrounding strips Miko's) 'everything is all about me mentality' and revealing Vaarsuvius's marriage.

But The Giant has been known to hold things in reserve for a while.

[Psyren]

This is why I laid it out the way I did - we are told that the Ogres have done wrong but we are never shown that they have been engaged in wrong, the one act that they have done - kidnapping - is undermined by the kidnappee (no damage, and delibrately got it done).

Dan, you keep harping on the fact that "the wrong wasn't shown" when you're talking about strips drawn at a time when we were lucky if they had a background at all. That is not the correct way to be thinking about that scene.

If the Giant drew that strip today, we would likely have gotten informative background details like the ones present here. Since it wasn't, we only have the word of the NPC, who we have no reason to disbelieve and every reason to conclude is telling the truth.

[Jasdoif]

This is why I laid it out the way I did - we are told that the Ogres have done wrong but we are never shown that they have been engaged in wrong, the one act that they have done - kidnapping - is undermined by the kidnappee (no damage, and delibrately got it done).

Unless you're positing that the dirt farmer coerced the ogres into kidnapping, or that "kidnapping" necessarily requires visible physical harm, I don't see why you'd think this was undermining.

[dancrilis]

Unless you're positing that the dirt farmer coerced the ogres into kidnapping, or that "kidnapping" necessarily requires visible physical harm, I don't see why you'd think this was undermining.

I actually answered this before:

You, I, The Order and Miko have no knowledge of what they wanted with the commoner - it is possible that they were looting his seemingly worthless dirt and he said 'hey can you take me with you for a day' and an Ogre said 'ok' tied him up put him in a cave and forgot about him.

[Tvtyrant]

I actually answered this before:

Except we have direct witness testimony that this is not true, and no evidence later that this was true. Inventing a possible hypothetical and then demanding that it be proven false is not how anything works.

If I said "what if they were possessed by a Tsochari" about the OotS and then demanded you prove that wrong or they are off any moral hook involved no one would take that claim seriously.

[dancrilis]

Except we have direct witness testimony that this is not true, and no evidence later that this was true.

Can you link me to the panel with the someone directly witnessing the act?

Edit: or for that matter claiming to directly witness the act.