What alignment is Oona?

[Precure]

Where do the language barrier argument comes from? She doesn't seem to have any problems with understandIng others when they were arguing about Dark One. Broken speech patterns was usual.

[Olinser]

Where do the language barrier argument comes from? She doesn't seem to have any problems with understandIng others when they were arguing about Dark One. Broken speech patterns was usual.

As somebody that has worked with quite a lot of people that speak English as a 2nd language and translators of varying quality for several languaes, Oona would fight right in with a lot of newer people I worked with that aren't quite fluent and their native language has different sentence structure.

Her speech patterns are consistent with a non-native English speaker who understands pretty much everything said, but has not completely mastered the language to the point of fluent speaking - leaving out a lot of proper sentence construction words (i.e. doesn't seem to use 'the' hardly at all), uses words that are technically correct but in improper tense (i.e. 'preparing faster then, yes?' or 'that is sounding good to Oona'), or uses words and sentences that are not quite correct for what Oona is clearly trying to say (i.e. 'sometimes shaman is with the asking and helping, yes?').

They don't paint Oona as stupid, but as somebody speaking a language they have relatively good knowledge, but lack complete speaking fluency.

[hamishspence]

Something like

"Oona speaks Goblin as a birth language, but has only fairly recently learned Common, which the Monster and Redcloak use when speaking amongst themselves"

would fit the bill nicely.

[Metastachydium]

By that logic, the paladins considered the land where the goblin village was to be part of their territory too, and thus were perfectly entitled to kill those armed squatters. (They obviously were not)

The thing is, they probably did. Shojo explains that the Guard's mandate is from the Twelve Gods, and since, says Shojo, the jurisdiction of the Twelve is not limited (which is of course not quite the case, but Shojo does not know or deliberately ignores that), neither is that of the Guard, and therefore they can take action against those who „threaten existence” wherever they please or have to.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The thing is, they probably did. Shojo explains that the Guard's mandate is from the Twelve Gods, and since, says Shojo, the jurisdiction of the Twelve is not limited (which is of course not quite the case, but Shojo does not know or deliberately ignores that), neither is that of the Guard, and therefore they can take action against those who „threaten existence” wherever they please or have to.

Jurisdiction and terrain ownership are not synonymous concepts.

GW

[Metastachydium]

Jurisdiction and terrain ownership are not synonymous concepts.

GW

Evidently. But in this particular case there is little effective difference: even if the pretext used is not ownership, we still have a party claiming to have a right to act freely upon any invidiual who meets some specified criterion (which does not have to be trespassing) in a remote area they do not effectively control.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Evidently. But in this particular case there is little effective difference: even if the pretext used is not ownership, we still have a party claiming to have a right to act freely upon any invidiual who meets some specified criterion (which does not have to be trespassing) in a remote area they do not effectively control.

No, the ethical cases are not even remotely the same.

GW

[Metastachydium]

No, the ethical cases are not even remotely the same.

GW

So a secret society claiming to have jurisdiction someplace wehere the gods they refer to do not have such jurisdiction and „exercising their monopoly on violence”there on the basis of this false claim is somehow ethically more acceptable than claiming ownership over a tract of land and attacking „tresspassers”?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So a secret society claiming to have jurisdiction someplace wehere the gods they refer to do not have such jurisdiction and „exercising their monopoly on violence”there on the basis of this false claim is somehow ethically more acceptable than claiming ownership over a tract of land and attacking „tresspassers”?

"Not the same" doesn't mean "ethically more acceptable", it means "not the same".

GW

[Jason]

Where do the language barrier argument comes from? She doesn't seem to have any problems with understandIng others when they were arguing about Dark One. Broken speech patterns was usual.

Understanding a second language is much easier than speaking it fluently.

[Precure]

They don't paint Oona as stupid, but as somebody speaking a language they have relatively good knowledge, but lack complete speaking fluency.

Understanding a second language is much easier than speaking it fluently.

Based On this, language barrier couldn't be used as a justification for Oona's misunderstandings.

[Keltest]

Based On this, language barrier couldn't be used as a justification for Oona's misunderstandings.

I dont think Oona has particularly misunderstood anything except the MITD, and thats clearly a case of her having confirmation bias about the relationship between humanoids and monsters.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Based On this, language barrier couldn't be used as a justification for Oona's misunderstandings.

"Much easier" does not mean "perfectly". That she has trouble expressing herself demonstrates she is not a perfectly fluent speaker. Which means she can probably follow conversations, but is still liable to misunderstand common phrasing especially when they contain words with multiple meanings, false friends and/or homonyms. For example "I liked a few humans" being misunderstood to mean "I found them delicious" rather than the intended meaning of "I thought they were good friends". Especially, as Keltest points out, if she's predisposed to think of humans as sources of food.

Grey Wolf

[KorvinStarmast]

Thats fine for Durkon, but the paladins?

She's patrolling the area around her people's homeland (which is what Rangers and Marchwardens have always done) and found intruders.
Common response to that is to defend borders/repel unauthorized invaders, slay them, etc.
Hardly evil to defend your homeland, as I see it.

[Keltest]

She's patrolling the area around her people's homeland (which is what Rangers and Marchwardens have always done) and found intruders.
Common response to that is to defend borders/repel unauthorized invaders, slay them, etc.
Hardly evil to defend your homeland, as I see it.

She was hunting them as a snack for the MITD. I really dont get this "she was defending her borders" argument. It doesnt really make it not evil to murder strangers without an established hostile intent and no warning to turn back, and she explicitly was trying to capture them to feed to a (perceived) pet anyway, so it wouldnt matter even if that defense somehow made it better.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

She's patrolling the area around her people's homeland (which is what Rangers and Marchwardens have always done) and found intruders.
Common response to that is to defend borders/repel unauthorized invaders, slay them, etc.
Hardly evil to defend your homeland, as I see it.

1) Slaying people just for crossing a border is Evil, unless they are, say, an army (heck, even then... armies in training mistakingly crossing international borders happens every couple of years in RL, and retaliating would be excessive). In D&D some exceptions might be made for things like undead abominations, but two people in blue cloaks does not.

2) Unless there was a border crossing that Rich filed to include, the paladins were just walking across a completely undescriptive chunk of ice. They are not even in sight of the settlement, and the flying panel suggests it is quite some distance away. There is a point where "defending your homeland" crosses the line into "murdering people who'd not even know it was your homeland to start with", and it becomes Evil before you get to that point.

Grey Wolf

[Jason]

She was hunting them as a snack for the MITD. I really dont get this "she was defending her borders" argument. It doesnt really make it not evil to murder strangers without an established hostile intent and no warning to turn back, and she explicitly was trying to capture them to feed to a (perceived) pet anyway, so it wouldnt matter even if that defense somehow made it better.

Exactly.

Good response to intruders: "Hi guys, my name's Oona, pleased to meet you. Hey, did you miss those signs saying this is bugbear territory? I know, I know, it's an ice flow - the signs keep faling over. Why don't you tell me what or who you're looking for and we'll try to help you while I walk you out of our borders?"

Neutral respone to intruders: [sound of crossbow being cocked] "Get off my lawn. I'm going to count to three."

Evil response: What Oona did. Ambush them without warning and feed anything left over to your pet monster.

[GMantis]

Oona is not stupid: where does this come from? She has a somewhat stilted mode of expression to give her a unique voice, just as Bandana does.

She decided to kill Minrah despite stating that Minrah had a point. Seems a classical example of irrational evilness. Which is not exactly the same as being stupid, just that the impulse to do evil overrules more vital considerations.

[Worldsong]

Exactly.

Good response to intruders: "Hi guys, my name's Oona, pleased to meet you. Hey, did you miss those signs saying this is bugbear territory? I know, I know, it's an ice flow - the signs keep faling over. Why don't you tell me what or who you're looking for and we'll try to help you while I walk you out of our borders?"

Neutral respone to intruders: [sound of crossbow being cocked] "Get off my lawn. I'm going to count to three."

Evil response: What Oona did. Ambush them without warning and feed anything left over to your pet monster.

Best response: "WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY SWAMP."

[hamishspence]

She decided to kill Minrah despite stating that Minrah had a point. Seems a classical example of irrational evilness. Which is not exactly the same as being stupid, just that the impulse to do evil overrules more vital considerations.

Seemed less about "impulse to do evil" and more about "desire to keep Redcloak moderately happy, after Redcloak has made a courteous request" to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

1) Slaying people just for crossing a border is Evil,

Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on, nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.

[Fyraltari]

Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on

It is well known after all that heavier-than-air flight is a surefire sign of an archaic time period.

nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.

This is asinine. It’s never been right to kill two people for crossing an invisible frontier.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on, nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.

Yes, it is Evil in both any time period you care to quote and yes, it is Evil in the game. This is not my opinion, but the RAW of what it means for an action to be Evil: murdering people who are no danger to you, for no better reason than walking in an unmarked, unremarkable ice flow "because they crossed a boundary" is Evil.

Grey Wolf

[dancrilis]

... murdering people who are no danger to you, for no better reason than walking in an unmarked, unremarkable ice flow is Evil.

But they are a danger to her settlement - Paladin's (notably blue clad human paladins) have a history of roaming the world finding goblinoid settlements and attacking them with barely any warning, they shouldn't be surprised that some goblinoids choose to attack as soon as they see anyone matching that description.

She stated on panel 7 that she almost got the monster in the darkness a special dinner - but she didn't claim that was her sole reason for attacking humans encroaching on the territory.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But they are a danger to her settlement

No they are not.

Paladin's (notably blue clad human paladins) have a history of roaming the world finding goblinoid settlements and attacking them with barely any warning, they shouldn't be surprised that some goblinoids choose to attack as soon as they see anyone matching that description.

And if anyone was claiming this was retaliation, we'd be having a different conversation. But that is not the claim being made.

Of course, you'd need to provide evidence that a) Oona recognized them as Azure Guard Paladins; b) that she is aware of the Azure Guard crimes; c) the relevance of the surprise to the morality of an action ("they shouldn't be surprised"? they aren't surprised. That doesn't make the attack any less Evil); and d) that guilt by association is a valid moral position, since neither of these paladins have ever done anything of the sort.

But then, I'd not be interested in having that conversation, so really don't care if you can answer any of the above.

Grey Wolf

[Bunny Commando]

I would like to point what Oona actually said: in comic 1037 she says that she attacked Lien and O-Chul because she wanted to fed them to the MitD. O-Chul and Lien, in her view, were not trespasser or intruders or enemy combatants: they were prey, food for what she considers merely a beast.

[dancrilis]

No they are not.

They are relatively mid/high-level characters who are directly out to oppose the interests of Oona's new allies, and are/were seeking to scout its location before bringing in reinforcements to attack those allies - who happened to be in her village.

She didn't know any of that - but that doesn't change the fact that 'they are a danger to her settlement' is a true statement.

But then, I'd not be interested in having that conversation, so really don't care if you can answer any of the above.

Fair enough.

[KorvinStarmast]

No they are not.

Yes they are - from what we know:

Oona is patrolling her people's lands and marches when she spots armed knights, warriors, attempting to infiltrate into her lands. These knghts are from a nation that is hostile to her ally (Redcloak).
Yes, Oona is already allied with Redcloak/goblins at this point - we find out a strip after the two armed invaders disappear into the cold water.
She has already aligned her people (at least somewhat) with Redclaok and his cause, even though she hasn't the fervor for TDO that he displays.
Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not.

Yes, a potential threat to her people; taking them out is at worst a neutral act. And, did you see the size of that flying creature? Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.

@bunnycommando: your points are noted

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes they are - from what we know:

Oona is patrolling her people's lands and marches when she spots armed knights, warriors, attempting to infiltrate into her lands. These knghts are from a nation that is hostile to her ally (Redcloak).
Yes, Oona is already allied with Redcloak/goblins at this point - we find out a strip after the two armed invaders disappear into the cold water.
She has already aligned her people (at least somewhat) with Redclaok and his cause, even though she hasn't the fervor for TDO that he displays.
Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not.

Yes, a potential threat to her people; taking them out is at worst a neutral act. And, did you see the size of that flying creature? Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.

Like I said to dancrilis: you did not claim any of that. You claimed that murdering people for crossing a boundary is not Evil. It sounds like you now want to instead switch to "it is not Evil to murder known enemies (not just any individual), regardless of their physical location (not just for crossing a boundary)" which is a claim that has exactly 0 overlap with your original claim - not so much moving the goalpost as much as pretending you were playing baseball all along.

FTR:

1) Slaying people just for crossing a border is Evil

Not in the context of the archaic time period that the genre is based on, nor in a game where killing is a heck of a lot more common than it is IRL, but you are welcome to your opinion on that. I cannot further elaborate on this without crossing into some RL stuff so I won't.

GW

[Bunny Commando]

Yes they are - from what we know:

Oona is patrolling her people's lands and marches when she spots armed knights, warriors, attempting to infiltrate into her lands. These knghts are from a nation that is hostile to her ally (Redcloak).
Yes, Oona is already allied with Redcloak/goblins at this point - we find out a strip after the two armed invaders disappear into the cold water.
She has already aligned her people (at least somewhat) with Redclaok and his cause, even though she hasn't the fervor for TDO that he displays.
Those two armed intruders are enemies of Redcloak - we know this - Oona may not.

Yes, a potential threat to her people; taking them out is at worst a neutral act. And, did you see the size of that flying creature? Fresh meat is likely hard to come by in this region, per Oona's further comments about soup, so it's an economical and practical choice to feed intruders to the beast.
Kill two birds with one stone.

@bunnycommando: your points are noted

If my points are noted, then I would like to ask you how you came up with your reconstruction of what happened.
In 1037 she states that she was not patrolling her people's land, she was exercising Lancer. If her primary intent was defending her territory she certainly succeeded: yet she feels embarassed about her failure.
Lastly, if Oona has identified O-Chul and Lien as enemies of her ally Redcloak (even if there's no proof to support that conclusion) one would think that she would tell Redcloak what happened; in 1038 and all subsequent strips she does not even if it would be a valuable information for Redcloak to know - it would mean his enemies are near.