OOTS #1227 - The Discussion Thread

[hroþila]

Those aren't holes at all though. For the first point, there's no need for The Giant to explain why Serini handles the intruders she can overcome differently to the intruders she can't overcome. This was always a key difference, but especially now that we know what Xykon (without Redcloak, Oona and Greyview) did to Serini last time they met.

For the second point, she's talking to them right now. In a situation she controls, which is wise.

For the third point, their already being on their guard is empirically shown to not matter much by the fact that she did manage to catch O-Chul off his guard and take him out of the fight pretty much immediately. You're suggesting she take a significant risk there for little to no gain, since the paladins were already avoiding a direct confrontation with Team Evil.

[Liquor Box]

Those aren't holes at all though. For the first point, there's no need for The Giant to explain why Serini handles the intruders she can overcome differently to the intruders she can't overcome. This was always a key difference, but especially now that we know what Xykon (without Redcloak, Oona and Greyview) did to Serini last time they met.

For the second point, she's talking to them right now. In a situation she controls, which is wise.

For the third point, their already being on their guard is empirically shown to not matter much by the fact that she did manage to catch O-Chul off his guard and take him out of the fight pretty much immediately. You're suggesting she take a significant risk there for little to no gain, since the paladins were already avoiding a direct confrontation with Team Evil.

Perhaps 'holes' was the wrong choice of word. I meant to say that I don't accept that she kidnapped the paladins out of necessity. She had other options which seem to me to be just as rational, but don't involve such an infringement on their freedom. So, I agree kidnapping them was not an entirely unrational course. But insofar as we are discussing the morality of it, we should not do so under the illusion that there were no other rational options open to her.

On the first, you are right that she might have attacked the paladins, but not Xykon, because Xykon is too powerful to deal with similarly. But that doesn't explain why she thought that paladins were a threat in the first place. I actually think that is a bit of a hole, and I fully expect it will be explained in the next few strips.

On the second, she is not talking to them about whatever blunder we are presuming she feared them making. If she does intend to drug them to forget, that suggests she does not intend to engage with them in that way.

On the third, I agree being alert did not save them. So how would trying talking to them first (and leaving peacefully) make it harder for her to capture them later?

Regarding your comments on risk, I think they are one sided. There might have been some risk in talking to two paladins in circumstances she did not control, although they seem remote. But there would also seem to be risk in capturing them unnecessarily - O-Chul might have made his save for example, they may have had a see invisible magic item for all she knew. However, the relative risks does not change the fact that she had options (which included leaving them alone as posing no threat) other than kidnapping them so she did not kidnap them out of necessity to extent that has any bearing on the goodness/evilness of the kidnapping.

[Corneel]

Funny how I was at least partially right with a joke post...
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...6#post24921516

[Peelee]

So none whatsoever then?

Not at all! My neighbor was in California in the 70s, has no alibi for any of the nights in question, loves puzzles, and wears glasses. All of this matches the Zodiac Killer's profile. All of that is evidence. It's just weak, is all.

[Liquor Box]

Not at all! My neighbor was in California in the 70s, has no alibi for any of the nights in question, loves puzzles, and wears glasses. All of this matches the Zodiac Killer's profile. All of that is evidence. It's just weak, is all.

Haha, better just to own it mate.

As I said, nothing wrong with revising your position. Thanks for the discussion.

[Peelee]

Haha, better just to own it mate.

As I said, nothing wrong with revising your position. Thanks for the discussion.

I don't disagree, but haven't revised my position at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it possible that Serini suffered literal brain damage from the attack, as well as the psychological after-effects?

I see no evidence of reduced mental capacity. Granted, she's only been 'on screen' for a brief period of time.

Looking forward to the next strip, wherein the Giant will yet again knock over almost* everyone's carefully-constructed Jenga towers of speculation.

Me also.

Has anyone called "Serini is actually a transdimensional weresphinx secretly working for the Snarl" yet? If not, dibs.

Darnit, Ninja'd again!

I think we're pretty close, but still have substantive disagreements.

tl;dr - I believe he has divine jurisdiction just as much as I believe Mr. Scruffy told him what to do.

Likewise. Serini has put two strangers who she believe to be a danger to the last gate into custody. Simply putting someone in custody is not, by default, evil.

Sereni did label him "mean" in her diary .. that doesn't mean he's evil

We have an accord! (I have been overdoing my Captain Jack Sparrow lines lately, sorry about that)>

Personally, I agree that what we've seen out of Serini thus far is not enough to strike me as Evil, although were I a Deva I would probably not be super happy with the whole kidnapping and memory erasure thing.

I doubt Serini gives a hoot what a Deva thinks. I have yet to see a position taken vis a vis her alignment that argues LG; that's where Deva's hang out, right? In LG land? (Or am I thinking D&D 5e versus 3.x cosmology?)

Serini has half her face disfigured, AND a foreign flesh graft with green skin! Of course she's Evil, she has all the signs of a villain! Just look how big the villainy percentage for each of these traits, and you expect a person who has them combined to not be Evil? Are you people blind or something?

No, but I do need reading glasses.

[Metastachydium]

Darnit, Ninja'd again!

Well, before it was revealed that Xykon took her diary by force I did consider the possibility that she was an agent of the Snarl who was trying to make sure the other Gates get destroyed.

I doubt Serini gives a hoot what a Deva thinks. I have yet to see a position taken vis a vis her alignment that argues LG; that's where Deva's hang out, right? In LG land? (Or am I thinking D&D 5e versus 3.x cosmology?)

Angels are Good (any). The archons are the always Lawful ones.

[KorvinStarmast]

Angels are Good (any). The archons are the always Lawful ones.

Ah, OK, hence why Thor has a deva helping out during the Durkon/Minrah meet Thor mini arc? I think I am letting the 5e stuff leak into my understanding of a 3.5x based discussion.

[pendell]

That's fair.

As the person who has spent the most time on the 'Serini seems a bit evil' track, I want to be clear that from my perspective it's the "drugged, captured, held in chains, and plan to give roofies" part which I think suggest a bit of evil. That she was also mean to them I just think implies that she isn't doing the worse stuff apologetically because she has no choice.

On the other side of the coin she's going to a great deal of effort and expense to release them unharmed after feeding them a potion of amnesia. There are faster, and cheaper, ways to ensure people don't talk about what they've seen. Redcloak demonstrated that when he dealt with the craftsgoblin who manufactured Xykon's fake phylactery.

At the moment I consider Serini Chaotic good. Lying and slapping people with a stick are chaotic actions, but they don't fall into the category of what I would consider "torture", which would involve pincers and hot iron. If she'd killed them out of hand I'd hear arguments for chaotic neutral or chaotic evil. If she'd put them to death and taken great glee in their discomfiture, as Xykon did when they were using O-chul as sport back in Gobbotopia, I'd agree she is chaotic evil. As it is, I see evidence of 1) Willing to risk her own life for the sake of others. Even for someone as damaged as she is, there are other things she can do with her life than guard a gate in the middle of nowhere. 2) Willing to work to save life when it would be cheaper and more efficient to simply kill them, as with Lien and O-chul. So I accept her on the "good" axis, but since she lies and pulls pranks she's obviously not lawful. I'm pegging her on the chaotic end of the scale. Hence, chaotic good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ebarde]

Shojo said that to cover himself, we know his plan wasn't by divine order or whatever. Because by aprehending the order, his ultimate goal was to reveal the secrets about the gates to them, something the gods are explicitedly unwilling to do. He also kidnapped a celestial to stage a fake trial, so I have a hard time believing he had the divine given right to do something that goes behind the gods' back. He only came up with that because it's easier to pull that stunt off as the sapphire commander who seems to have pretty unchecked authority, than the leader of Azure City who probably would need to go explain himself to quite a lot of people before doing all he did.

In fact he even makes sure to make the distinction that the SAPPHIRE GUARD isn't required to abide by restrictions, and makes a clear distinction between them and Azure City's government. Which seems to imply they are sorta like the Section 31 of Azure City, to make a Star Trek comparison.

[Peelee]

I have a hard time believing he had the divine given right to do something that goes behind the gods' back.

I wholeheartedly agree with your whole post, but that specific part I'd been trying to say that but you put it better.

[pendell]

- Law enforcement doesn't use tranquilizers and the like for a reason. There are reasons baton's (of course Serini did use the equivilent of a baton later, for no good reason), pepper spray and tasers are preferred - probably mostly because they are less dangerous and more harmful than tranquilizers. Even then, those means aren't usually the first point of call - usually warnings and such come first. Some people would even see these less harmful measure (like tasers) as too brutal.

Okay, this one I have to respond to.

There's a difference in real and fantasy worlds between tranquilizer darts and sleep darts.

In a fantasy world, a sleep dart is pretty much guaranteed to put a target -- any target -- into a healthy sleep which lasts for a period of time, is induced in one combat round (<6 seconds), and from which the target wakes up with no after effects. Same way any chain mail you find will always be just your size to wear, even if you're a halfling taking it off a giant.


It doesn't work that way in the real world. A tranquilizer dart is essentially a general anesthetic which you're trying to apply by shooting through a gun. You have to get the dosage just right; too little and it won't affect the subject at all, too much and you'll stop their heart. We use it on animals because we're a lot less bothered about the aftereffects than we are about human beings. But any tranquilizer used on humans would have to be exactly tailored to the targets weight and medical history. This isn't something your basic bobby on the street is going to just carry around as a general purpose tool to stop criminals. For that you need the aforementioned tasers or batons or guns, which work pretty much the same on everyone. Although of course a police officer's best weapon is their own presence and verbal command of the situation, to prevent if possible things from reaching the point where you need a weapon at all.

There's a reason 'anesthesiologist' is a skilled job which pulls down $230K per annum. Applying just enough to knock the subject out but also let them get back up again without aftereffects is not easy , and again it is very specific to every individual undergoing treatment.

If we had magic sleep darts which worked on everyone, I daresay police everywhere would carry them; no one wants to kill a suspect if they can avoid it, while tasers can be quite unreliable, especially against someone who is high on adrenaline or a controlled substance. The reason we don't, again, is not because sleep darts are cruel; its because those kind of sleep darts are fantasy.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[danielxcutter]

Okay, this one I have to respond to.

There's a difference in real and fantasy worlds between tranquilizer darts and sleep darts.

In a fantasy world, a sleep dart is pretty much guaranteed to put a target -- any target -- into a healthy sleep which lasts for a period of time, is induced in one combat round (<6 seconds), and from which the target wakes up with no after effects. Same way any chain mail you find will always be just your size to wear, even if you're a halfling taking it off a giant.


It doesn't work that way in the real world. A tranquilizer dart is essentially a general anesthetic which you're trying to apply by shooting through a gun. You have to get the dosage just right; too little and it won't affect the subject at all, too much and you'll stop their heart. We use it on animals because we're a lot less bothered about the aftereffects than we are about human beings. But any tranquilizer used on humans would have to be exactly tailored to the targets weight and medical history. This isn't something your basic bobby on the street is going to just carry around as a general purpose tool to stop criminals. For that you need the aforementioned tasers or batons or guns, which work pretty much the same on everyone. Although of course a police officer's best weapon is their own presence and verbal command of the situation, to prevent if possible things from reaching the point where you need a weapon at all.

There's a reason 'anesthesiologist' is a skilled job which pulls down $230K per annum. Applying just enough to knock the subject out but also let them get back up again without aftereffects is not easy , and again it is very specific to every individual undergoing treatment.

If we had magic sleep darts which worked on everyone, I daresay police everywhere would carry them; no one wants to kill a suspect if they can avoid it, while tasers can be quite unreliable, especially against someone who is high on adrenaline or a controlled substance. The reason we don't, again, is not because sleep darts are cruel; its because those kind of sleep darts are fantasy.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Minor nitpick: 3.5e armor doesn't magically resize either unless it's specifically capable of doing so. Same for weapons - in fact, I can think of cases where weapons resize to fit the wielder, but none for armor aside from the Wild enchantment(armor sticks around during Wild Shape)

[Skull the Troll]

Shojo said that to cover himself, we know his plan wasn't by divine order or whatever. Because by aprehending the order, his ultimate goal was to reveal the secrets about the gates to them, something the gods are explicitedly unwilling to do. He also kidnapped a celestial to stage a fake trial, so I have a hard time believing he had the divine given right to do something that goes behind the gods' back. He only came up with that because it's easier to pull that stunt off as the sapphire commander who seems to have pretty unchecked authority, than the leader of Azure City who probably would need to go explain himself to quite a lot of people before doing all he did.

In fact he even makes sure to make the distinction that the SAPPHIRE GUARD isn't required to abide by restrictions, and makes a clear distinction between them and Azure City's government. Which seems to imply they are sorta like the Section 31 of Azure City, to make a Star Trek comparison.

Shojo didn't kidnap a celestial he called one. Eugene is the one that kidnapped the celestial and went in its place in order to further his agenda. Turns out Eugene and Shojo just had some common goals is all. That said I agree, Paladins like to use Divine Mandate as a reason for things with very little evidence.

Okay, this one I have to respond to.

There's a difference in real and fantasy worlds between tranquilizer darts and sleep darts.

In a fantasy world, a sleep dart is pretty much guaranteed to put a target -- any target -- into a healthy sleep which lasts for a period of time, is induced in one combat round (<6 seconds), and from which the target wakes up with no after effects. Same way any chain mail you find will always be just your size to wear, even if you're a halfling taking it off a giant.


It doesn't work that way in the real world. A tranquilizer dart is essentially a general anesthetic which you're trying to apply by shooting through a gun. You have to get the dosage just right; too little and it won't affect the subject at all, too much and you'll stop their heart. We use it on animals because we're a lot less bothered about the aftereffects than we are about human beings. *SNIP*

Respectfully,

Brian P.

They only use them on animals in emergencies even. Most animal traqilizations end with the animal being harmed. If its an emergency and a humans life is at risk they simply kill the animal. (Remember Harambe?) That's because if you get the dose right the animal becomes drunk, confused, and usually violent before going under. Its much neater in Hollywood and DnD campaigns.

[The MunchKING]

Minor nitpick: 3.5e armor doesn't magically resize either unless it's specifically capable of doing so. Same for weapons - in fact, I can think of cases where weapons resize to fit the wielder, but none for armor aside from the Wild enchantment(armor sticks around during Wild Shape)

I thought magic armor automatically resized... Normal armor doesn't of course, but the resizing was built into the magic making armor magic.

[danielxcutter]

I thought magic armor automatically resized... Normal armor doesn't of course, but the resizing was built into the magic making armor magic.

Nah, there's nothing about that. It's a shame but that's how it works I guess.

[The MunchKING]

Nah, there's nothing about that. It's a shame but that's how it works I guess.

I thought it was in the DM manual about not giving PC Gear they couldn't use. I'll have to look that up later.

[danielxcutter]

I'm sure magic weapons at least don't automatically scale. There's specific abilities solely for that in the first place.

[bunsen_h]

I thought it was in the DM manual about not giving PC Gear they couldn't use. I'll have to look that up later.

"Well, now we have a set of large +2 plate. Nobody can use it, right? Guess we'll haul it back to town and sell it."

[pendell]

I'm sure magic weapons at least don't automatically scale. There's specific abilities solely for that in the first place.

Maybe I'm thinking more final fantasy than D&D. In FF6, for example, I have 14 characters ranging from a friendly yeti to an 8 year old girl, but we go through stacks of enemies which drop leather armor and any piece will automatically fit anyone in the party, from the little girl to the young 20 something male Edgar to the female teen Terra. No requirement for any kind of adjustment or worry about sizing, it just fits. But then, that's probably why they call it Final Fantasy not Final Gritty Tactical RPG.

ETA: Be that as it may, the remainder of my point stands. The closest I can find in SRD is Sleep Arrow

This +1 arrow is painted white and has white fletching. If it strikes a foe so that it would normally deal damage, it instead bursts into magical energy that deals nonlethal damage (in the same amount as would be lethal damage) and forces the target to make a DC 11 Will save or fall asleep.

A weapon that instantly puts the target -- of any size or weight or shape or medical condition -- to sleep? And is guaranteed nonlethal? Police Departments would buy them by the truckload if they were real. Even without the medical issues associated with anesthetics, there is no such thing in the real world as a 100% guaranteed non-lethal weapon. People have died from "non-lethal" weapons because they hit a little too hard, or the victim couldn't breathe, or suffered a heart attack. Trying to subdue a human being by force is by its nature a violent exercise with a certain degree of risk, which is why we want to keep things at the verbal level wherever possible.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ronnoc]

On the topic of Serini's alignment, I would argue that given the themes of the comic her treating the trolls as people rather than encounters is exceptionally strong evidence that she's good aligned. Coupled with her attitude CG seems reasonable.

[arimareiji]

Maybe I'm thinking more final fantasy than D&D. In FF6, for example, I have 14 characters ranging from a friendly yeti to an 8 year old girl, but we go through stacks of enemies which drop leather armor and any piece will automatically fit anyone in the party, from the little girl to the young 20 something male Edgar to the female teen Terra. No requirement for any kind of adjustment or worry about sizing, it just fits. But then, that's probably why they call it Final Fantasy not Final Gritty Tactical RPG.

I didn't get in until FF7, but with a couple of exceptions it was generally the same thing for "bangles" and "armlets" and whatnot. Which makes more sense than plate armor, but it's still pretty ridiculous for the same wrist armor to fit the tiny Cait Sith (or his giant golem?) and the pumped Barrett or the slim Aeris.

What really got me were the weapons, though. I got it that only one character could use something in their narrow specialty (fisticuffs, staff, giant honkin' sword, gun arm)... but why are so many other people carrying around such items that don't fit their style? Particularly: Considering there are only two people with gun arms in the entire world, why would anyone else be carrying them around? XD

~~~~~

Almost forgot the primary reason I wanted to make this post - thank you for your excellent points about why magical sleep inducers are a pure storytelling trope. They're somewhat more realistic than inconsequential magical genderswaps (another pet peeve), but not by a wide margin. (^_~)

[Sky_Schemer]

I have not "declared that she is "presently evil"". If you think I have said that, quote me. I have said that some of the things she has done in those handful of strips moved her somewhat toward evil, and may have suggested she was presently evil, always with the disclaimer that this was not conclusive (or not a declaration if you prefer).

Well, there is this.

I also agree that she doesn't have to be pure to be good. What I am saying is that the little we have seen leans more toward evil than good.

And this.

Now the Giant may be seeking to pass her off as having some sort of edgy (but still good) persona, but at the moment I don't think she's pulling that off.

Seems evil to me, but the next strip could easily show that to be wrong. She might even apologise for her behaviour.

You're trying to argue both sides, hedging by saying "I agree it doesn't make her evil" in one paragraph, and then ending with "seems evil to me" in another. And by saying "there is too little information" but ending with "leans more toward evil than good".

You can't have it both ways. Either you're undecided, or you're taking a reading based on what you've seen. And you've taken a reading. The fact that more information might change your opinion later on is irrelevant, and frankly, assumed since the story is not finished. The point is you've made a judgement now, based on a handful of strips, and that's what we're debating.

This is the statement I take issue with:

There might be a handful over 1200 strips (as you say, they need not be pure), but the Order has done some good stuff to balance that out. Serini has done something (or more than one thing depending how you split it out) in her three or four strips, and we've seen nothing to balance it out.

We have, in fact, seen something to balance it out: you left out the two strips where she literally saved the world.

[pendell]

We have, in fact, seen something to balance it out: you left out the two strips where she literally saved the world.

I would say that saving the world is a neutral act since self-interest is involved. Even Xykon has hinted that he would fight to keep this world from being destroyed. Back when he and Roy were duelling over Azure City he said he liked the world, wouldn't mind ruling it. So if there ever came a time -- and there might -- when Xykon has to choose between watching Redcloak destroy the world and helping the heroes, he might just line up with the OOTS. Not because he's good or because he's had a heel face turn. It's because even evil people will battle to keep a ship from sinking if its one they're riding in and there's no way off.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ruck]

Other people have gotten into this much more deeply than I care to, so my quick read on the situation is that the big point here is that the "Serini is Evil" evidence is both flimsy and, more importantly, minor. Being rude and sarcastic toward paladins-- even bonking one on the head with a stick!-- is very, very, very minor in the grand scheme of one's alignment.

[bunsen_h]

We have, in fact, seen something to balance it out: you left out the two strips where she literally saved the world.

There's a strong case to be made that self-interest is a factor in that one.

My own take is that she leans towards the Chaotic side of the chart, and I don't have enough information yet regarding her Good/Evil nature. I don't think she's strongly evil. Her history and motivations are complex; there's a lot that we don't know about the current situation and what's driving her. We know that she wasn't evil while the Order of the Scribble were active, because Soon -- a paladin -- was part of the group, and would "never knowingly associate with evil characters". Her giving Lien a *bonk* seemed to me to be nothing more than a "master thwacks martial arts student for a badly wrong answer" trope, and her lying to them about letting them go came off to me as a "paladins have sticks up their butts, let's poke them" rough joke, not a particularly strong indicator of alignment.

Too early to call. Wait and see.

[Doug Lampert]

Nah, there's nothing about that. It's a shame but that's how it works I guess.

3.0 SRD has the rule:
"Armor is always created so that even if the type of armor comes with boots or gauntlets, these pieces can be switched for other magic boots or gauntlets. Magic armor, like almost all magic items, resizes itself to fit the wearer."

I can't find an equivalent for 3.5, but I could have sworn it was there. I'm tempted to dig out my actual books, because there are things in the books that aren't in the SRD.

[Sky_Schemer]

I would say that saving the world is a neutral act since self-interest is involved.

And that is a reasonable argument to make. We don't know her motivations for saving the world. And we know that, after building the dungeon for the gate, she moved on to do other things.

There is/was more going on than that, but it's true that what we've seen from her so far paints an incomplete picture.

[Sky_Schemer]

There's a strong case to be made that self-interest is a factor in that one.

Agreed. This is a reasonable argument, as well.