OOTS #1227 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

You mean other than "save all of existence?"

Also, that "but what have you done for me lately" is an old joke's punchline that does not, in fact, play that line seriously.

Spoiler: First version of it I found on google

Show

A traveler for a big publishing house couldn’t wait to get to St. Louis, where his oldest friend owned a prosperous bookstore.

"Sam,” he said to the owner the moment they were alone, “I want you to lend me $2000.”

“The answer, Joe,” said Sam, “is positively no.”

“But, Sam,” protested the salesman, “In 1929, when Bond and Share broke from 189 to 50, who gave you ten thousand dollars to keep you from being wiped out?”

"You did,” admitted Sam.

"And in 1931, when your daughter Shirley had that tropical disease, who took her down to Florida because you couldn’t get away from business, who did, Sam?”

“You, my friend, you did.”

“And in 1933, when we were fishing together, who dove into the rapids and saved you from drowning at the risk of his own life?”

“You did, Joe. It was wonderful!”

“Well, then, Sam, why on Earth won’t you lend me $2000 now when I need it?”

“All the things you say are true,” said Sam, nodding his head slowly, “But what have you done for me lately?”

[Ionathus]

But the point I've made several times and nobody has seemed to have addressed yet is that she doesn't seem to have reluctantly kidnapped them in a manner that causes them as little discomfort as possible, she seems to be going out of her way to mock them. You might expect a person that reluctantly kidnapped some good but incompetent innocents to be be somewhat remorseful about the need, but she's the opposite. 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.

Nobody is addressing it because it is completely irrelevant. Come on, now. Being rude to trespassers does NOT make you evil. You are still mistaking "Lawful" for "Good". Lying, nonlethal capture, drugging people with sleeping or amnesia potions...in D&D, NONE of these things are evil acts. They are CHAOTIC ones. Politeness does not make you Good. Rudeness does not make you Evil.

To make that comparison you'd have to nominate something Shojo did that was equivalent to the kidnap and drugging.

Shojo literally sent Miko to capture The Order and bring them back. She nearly killed them in the process, and Shojo knew she was unstable and eager to hurt them. If they even made it back alive to Azure City, his plan was then to stage an elaborate trial where they believed a conviction meant DEATH. This was all as part of an elaborate ruse to circumvent a bunch of oaths and lie to a bunch of paladins.

By any metric, Shojo's behavior was far worse. Serini has done NOTHING even close to objectionable by comparison.

[Liquor Box]

Ordered Miko to arrest them outside of Azure City's jurisdiction. If Miko and Shojo can claim universal jurisdiction over Gate protection, so can Serini. If Serini can't, Miko and Shojo can't. Same boat.

Also, there was that whole "holding people in secret prison off the record with no trial". Kind of an afterthought but that's probably worth counting.

I can see how you would see it as similar. I am not convinced that a nation arresting (your word) people who had already broken a law (destroyed a gate) is quite the equivalent of an individual capturing some people who had not yet done anything wrong on suspicion. But as I said, your mileage may vary, I can understand you see it differently.

What are you referring to by holding people in prison with no trial?

When was Belkar redeemed?

Well om some people's argument he always has been. Those people who think fighting on the side of those seeking to protect the world from destruction. "every soul on the planet" I think is the point being made. Of course she's applying that logic to Serini, but if its good logic it would seem to apply equally to both.

But what I was thinking of was the stuff beneath the thieves guild. But now I think that may have just been Belkar's imagination because I think Shojo died. Do you actually think Shojo did no onscreen good to balance out his capture of the Order? I can go back and have a look, but I wont bother if you don't disagree that Shojo did do some good stuff.

You mean other than "save all of existence?" You seem to be wanting to set her good/evil dial based on the weight of her actions. How does "every soul on the planet, plus all the ones that have come since then" come in on that scale? Just curious how you are figuring the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and possibly millions of people, and their souls into that equation. When, exactly, does that balance get outweighed by "kidnapped two people"?

Also a key point: she is back here protecting the gate personally today, and the proof of that is right in front of us. So the answer to your question seems to work out in her favor.

Again, the original point was whether she changed alignment. We are talking about what alignment she is now.

Do you think she's actually there to actively defend the gate? In the strips you linked to it says she created her dungeon than went of adventuring. In this strip she says she came back not because she decided her duty to defend that world was paramount, but because she felt she didn't fit into polite society the way she looked, but instead belonged with the monsters (which may imply a bit of speciesism on her part, but we'll let that pass). You may be right that that's what she's doing, but I'm not sure you can bank it just yet.

This isn't about Belkar. Stay on target.

No it's not. Nor is it about Shojo, who Peelee raised, or Rafiki who someone raised, or anyone else. But those people raised examples of others doing similar things to make the point that those things aren't always seen as evil. It puts me in the position of having to say why those situations are different, or agree that the same standards of evil/not evil should be applied. It's called argument by analogy.

I mentioned Belkar because I assumed you would still think him evil despite him being an integral part of the effort to save all existence at risk to his own life. He would also seem to have "every soul on the planet" in his plus column. Assuming you do think Belkar is evil despite those hundred of thousands of souls, then applying that same reasoning to Serini's plus column might expose reason to doubt her goodness. It's kind of a shortcut, so we don't have to rehash the arguments that were had about Belkar's goodness/evilness on these boards.

Nobody is addressing it because it is completely irrelevant. Come on, now. Being rude to trespassers does NOT make you evil. You are still mistaking "Lawful" for "Good". Lying, nonlethal capture, drugging people with sleeping or amnesia potions...in D&D, NONE of these things are evil acts. They are CHAOTIC ones. Politeness does not make you Good. Rudeness does not make you Evil.

By what logic are the paladins tresspassers? They are in her house or warehouse becuase she drugged them and took them there.

As for the rest of your post, I think you are saying I am judging Serini by real world standards rather than DnD standard? You agree that is I tranquilised you, took you back to my house, tied you up, engaged in some light mockery, supressed your memory with roofies and left you somewhere that would be a bad thing. But if you do the same thing to innocents in DnD that's actually ok (on the good/evil spectrum)? Are we understanding each other right?

I'm not sure I agree that it is ok to drug and kidnap innocents in DnD when it is not necessary to do so. It's possible that there are contexts where it is ok though. My point about the mean behaviour was less that it was evil in and of itself, and more that it seemed inconsistent with Serini having no choice but to kidnap the paladins.

Shojo literally sent Miko to capture The Order and bring them back. She nearly killed them in the process, and Shojo knew she was unstable and eager to hurt them. If they even made it back alive to Azure City, his plan was then to stage an elaborate trial where they believed a conviction meant DEATH. This was all as part of an elaborate ruse to circumvent a bunch of oaths and lie to a bunch of paladins.

By any metric, Shojo's behavior was far worse. Serini has done NOTHING even close to objectionable by comparison.

How was Shojo's worse? Almost everything you mention Shojo having done, Serini did too. She captured them with the assistance of others, while Shojo had another do it entirely, but I don't think that's a relevant difference. Shojo's plan was to stage trial where the Order believed they might die - Serini staged a poisoning where the paladins believed they might die. They both lied to paladins.

What element is it of what Shojo did that makes you say his behaviour was "far worse" "by any metric"? I mean, I think it's reaosnable for Peelee to raise Shojo as having behaved comparably to Serini, but I struggle to undestand your logic in saying he was far worse.

To be honest, your casting of Shojo's actions as so objectionable makes Serini's actions also seem objectionable because they were quire similar in some ways.

[Peelee]

I am not convinced that a nation arresting (your word)

Miko's word.

people who had already broken a law (destroyed a gate)

Not a law, given the secrecy around the gates. Unless it was a secret law, of course.

What are you referring to by holding people in prison with no trial?

Not just no trial, but their very existence was a state secret. While they were imprisoned, of course.

I feel comfortable saying that the canonically Chaotic Good Shojo did far worse things.

[Svata]

I kindof wonder if Serini might be evil.
Hitting defenceless prisoners and providing them with false hope of freedom doesn't exactly scream 'good' at any rate.

She didn't hit her hard. It's not like... an attack hit, it's a "stop being stupid" hit.

[arimareiji]

Also, that "but what have you done for me lately" is an old joke's punchline that does not, in fact, play that line seriously.

Spoiler: First version of it I found on google

Show

A traveler for a big publishing house couldn’t wait to get to St. Louis, where his oldest friend owned a prosperous bookstore.

"Sam,” he said to the owner the moment they were alone, “I want you to lend me $2000.”

“The answer, Joe,” said Sam, “is positively no.”

“But, Sam,” protested the salesman, “In 1929, when Bond and Share broke from 189 to 50, who gave you ten thousand dollars to keep you from being wiped out?”

"You did,” admitted Sam.

"And in 1931, when your daughter Shirley had that tropical disease, who took her down to Florida because you couldn’t get away from business, who did, Sam?”

“You, my friend, you did.”

“And in 1933, when we were fishing together, who dove into the rapids and saved you from drowning at the risk of his own life?”

“You did, Joe. It was wonderful!”

“Well, then, Sam, why on Earth won’t you lend me $2000 now when I need it?”

“All the things you say are true,” said Sam, nodding his head slowly, “But what have you done for me lately?”

In case there's any doubt*, I meant for it to have mostly the same point as the joke makes - people often "forget" great debts that should never be forgotten, especially when it serves their desires. (^_^)
* - tone of voice is abominably-hard to "hear" on the internet

Specifically, "Okay, sure you made great sacrifices to save millions of people from having their very existence undone... but let's talk about the fact you just playfully bonked a paladin for saying something stupid. Are you sure you're not evil now?"

[mjasghar]

1)troll blood doesn’t make you immortal. There’s a dragon article saying they lose regeneration around 80 years old and wander off to die. Scrags live to 300 (FR sea of fallen stars box I think)
2) Girard was nasty and a bigot - the ‘barnyard pantheon’ comment was prejudiced and nasty.
3) Shojo wasn’t entirely responsible for every action Miko took - the same way the paladin Open Lord of waterdeep doesn’t Fall because some of his watchmen etc are Evil.
4) The Giant quote about Eugene seems to suggest that E would have got in except for the blood oath. Remember the alignment planes are a process - you don’t have to be perfectly aligned to get in, as you can only go up the mountain as you become more perfect.
5) Eugene’s behaviour to his family - especially Roy- seems to me to be related to his own father’s rejection of E’s wizardry. And E’s father is in the LG afterlife. Hopefully Roy can break the cycle with his kids if any want to be casters.

[Liquor Box]

Miko's word.

Yeah, well the word you brought to this discussion. I have no objection to the word, but I was accused of spinning things earlier in the discussion so I wanted to avoid any suggestion I had used the word 'arrest' instead of 'kidnap' to minimise Shojo's conduct relative to Serini's.

Not a law, given the secrecy around the gates. Unless it was a secret law, of course.

If you go one comic back from the one you linked above, you will see that it was a law and not a secret one. Miko tells them the crime they have committed and crime by definition means prohibited by law. She then goes on to make it clear that the crime is not secret by saying there are no rules against her describing it.

Not just no trial, but their very existence was a state secret. While they were imprisoned, of course.

I feel comfortable saying that the canonically Chaotic Good Shojo did far worse things.[/QUOTE]

Ah, so your complaint is that the imprisonment of the order was secret? Why do you think that makes Shojo worse? Do you think the Serini has not kept her imprisonment of the paladins secret?

She didn't hit her hard. It's not like... an attack hit, it's a "stop being stupid" hit.

So if I disagree with your post, would it be ok for me to his you with a stick (not too hard) instead of saying so? Or is it the context that she has them chained up and helpless that makes it alright?

Also, did the paladin actually say anything stupid? The only thing she knew about the tolls and Serini was that they were trading partners, is it so stupid to assume that the trolls saved her to preserve their trade? As far as assuming the trolls didn't just do it out of the goodness of their heart - well they didn't Serini said they only did it because they were friends, implying they wouldn't necessarily have saved anyone else.

[fuschiawarrior]

Ah, so your complaint is that the imprisonment of the order was secret? Why do you think that makes Shojo worse? Do you think the Serini has not kept her imprisonment of the paladins secret?

You are misreading. Peelee is talking about the imprisonment of Thog, Nale and Sabine for the murders and other crimes that they commited in Cliffport which Azure City has no jurisdiction.

[Liquor Box]

You are misreading. Peelee is talking about the imprisonment of Thog, Nale and Sabine for the murders and other crimes that they commited in Cliffport which Azure City has no jurisdiction.

Ah, ok thanks for that. I assumed the link he posted to Shojo saying the order's imprisonment must be kept secret meant he was talking about that.

The point still stands though. Both Serini and Shojo have shown willingness to imprison people secretly. If it's Nale and co at least they weren't innocents. I must say though, I don't think the secrecy adds much to it from a good/evil perspective, that goes more to lawful/chaos

[Sky_Schemer]

Again, the original point was whether she changed alignment. We are talking about what alignment she is now.

And if you want to state that she's changed alignment because of the events of the last few panels, then you need to state at what point those actions outweighed saving all of existence. Tell me what the expiration date is for saving the world.

[Liquor Box]

And if you want to state that she's changed alignment because of the events of the last few panels, then you need to state at what point those actions outweigh saving all of existence. Tell me what the expiration date is for saving the world.

I am not saying her kidnapping of the Order is itself sufficient to make her evil. We know very little about her life in terms of good/evil for the last twenty years (or however long it's been). We have no evidence of her doing anything good in that time. We have a little evidence of her doing something bad in that time (drugging, kidnapping and hitting). hence why I have been very clear that there's no reason to say anything conclusive about her alignment, only that there are some signs she is presently evil there.

I don't know what the expiration date for saving the world is. Are you saying that if a person is part of a team that saves the world, they can never be evil? Or they have to kill more souls than they saved (seemingly an impossibility if they saved all of them). If so, i tend to disagree.

[Peelee]

If you go one comic back from the one you linked above, you will see that it was a law and not a secret one. Miko tells them the crime they have committed and crime by definition means prohibited by law. She then goes on to make it clear that the crime is not secret by saying there are no rules against her describing it.

That Miko calls it a crime does not make it so. Azure City laws presumably only have jurisdiction in Azure City; I doubt Azure City could claim that theft in Cliffport is against the laws of Azure City. Not to mention that there is no way for the Order to have known such a vastly expansive law, nor would they have any expectation to know about the Gates even if they knew about the law. By all indications, this law, which allows for people with no intent who do an action not in Azurite lands and not being located in Azurite lands could be held responsible in and apprehended by Azurites and put to death would be far more oppressive than Serini enforcing her own law in her own canyon in which she makes people who, with intent, committing actions in her canyon and being located in her canyon, simply forget the last few days or so.

So if I disagree with your post, would it be ok for me to his you with a stick (not too hard) instead of saying so? Or is it the context that she has them chained up and helpless that makes it alright?

Alright does not equate to Good, and Good does not equate to alright.

The point still stands though. Both Serini and Shojo have shown willingness to imprison people secretly.

And Shojo is canonically Good.

[arimareiji]

That Miko calls it a crime does not make it so. Azure City laws presumably only have jurisdiction in Azure City; I doubt Azure City could claim that theft in Cliffport is against the laws of Azure City. Not to mention that there is no way for the Order to have known such a vastly expansive law, nor would they have any expectation to know about the Gates even if they knew about the law. By all indications, this law, which allows for people with no intent who do an action not in Azurite lands and not being located in Azurite lands could be held responsible in and apprehended by Azurites and put to death would be far more oppressive than Serini enforcing her own law in her own canyon in which she makes people who, with intent, committing actions in her canyon and being located in her canyon, simply forget the last few days or so.

But hey, I'm no lawyer. Does "if you do something without knowledge or intent outside of a nation jurisdiction and never enter that jurisdiction then you can be put to death by that nation, is this an ethical law?" sound like a tricky bar question that would stymie law students?

Bonus round: What if the "crime" is only thus under the laws of Empire of Blood?

[Snails]

I am not saying her kidnapping of the Order is itself sufficient to make her evil. We know very little about her life in terms of good/evil for the last twenty years (or however long it's been). We have no evidence of her doing anything good in that time. We have a little evidence of her doing something bad in that time (drugging, kidnapping and hitting). hence why I have been very clear that there's no reason to say anything conclusive about her alignment, only that there are some signs she is presently evil there.

IMNSHO what we have here is evidence that Serini is Not Nice, at least some of the time.

She could easily have executed these paladins, looted them, and disposed of their bodies in the gullet of some beastie. That would have been a lot less effort than kidnapping and memory wiping. Absent any evidence of malice in any of her actions, spending extra effort to not kill someone who is completely at your mercy is weak circumstantial evidence of a positive moral code with some semblance of Good in there somewhere.

Not a lot of evidence. Not strong evidence. She could turn out to be evil without contradicting anything we know.

But if I had to bet money on Serini's alignment, I would put her in the Good bucket.

Anyone want to bet some quatloos on this one? I win if there is strong evidence of Good. You win if there is strong evidence of Evil. Not proof, just strong evidence. And in the event of nothing strong or strong contradictions, it is a wash.

[Peelee]

IMNSHO what we have here is evidence that Serini is Not Nice, at least some of the time.

[snip]
Not a lot of evidence. Not strong evidence. She could turn out to be evil without contradicting anything we know.

But if I had to bet money on Serini's alignment, I would put her in the Good bucket.

This sums up my position nicely. It certainly could be early evidence of her being Evil, but the evidence is very weak right now IMO and I see no reason to move away from the Good idea I have in my mind of her at the moment.

[Sky_Schemer]

I am not saying her kidnapping of the Order is itself sufficient to make her evil. We know very little about her life in terms of good/evil for the last twenty years (or however long it's been). We have no evidence of her doing anything good in that time. We have a little evidence of her doing something bad in that time (drugging, kidnapping and hitting).

It is a very big jump from this^^^

hence why I have been very clear that there's no reason to say anything conclusive about her alignment, only that there are some signs she is presently evil there.

To this^^^.

Jaded? Angry? Bitter? Unreasonable? Maybe. All are good bets. But evil?

I don't know what the expiration date for saving the world is. Are you saying that if a person is part of a team that saves the world, they can never be evil? Or they have to kill more souls than they saved (seemingly an impossibility if they saved all of them). If so, i tend to disagree.

Right now, I am not saying anything. I'm asking you what the expiration date is for saving the world and how it factors into your "she's good/she's evil" calculus.

You've declared that she is "presently evil" based on a handful of strips, two of which are from when she literally helped prevent the destruction of the planet. If you are wondering why almost no one agrees with your conclusion, that's a very big piece of it.

[Liquor Box]

That Miko calls it a crime does not make it so. Azure City laws presumably only have jurisdiction in Azure City; I doubt Azure City could claim that theft in Cliffport is against the laws of Azure City. Not to mention that there is no way for the Order to have known such a vastly expansive law, nor would they have any expectation to know about the Gates even if they knew about the law. By all indications, this law, which allows for people with no intent who do an action not in Azurite lands and not being located in Azurite lands could be held responsible in and apprehended by Azurites and put to death would be far more oppressive than Serini enforcing her own law in her own canyon in which she makes people who, with intent, committing actions in her canyon and being located in her canyon, simply forget the last few days or so.

Ah, so your objection isn't that it was not a law at all, but that you think Azure City does not have jurisdiction.

I have avoided the jurisdictional question because we have no idea about how the law in OotSverse works. If the law in OotS replicates real world law in any way though, Azure City may have jurisdiction. Domestic law in OotSverse may apply outside of Azure Cities' national borders - otherwise you could never punish mutineers or those who have sex with minors while overseas (where that is not against local laws) or pirates - some laws are specified to apply only within national borders, but some apply anywhere. Also international law generally enables nations to take action overseas too - an example might be to displace an aggressor who invaded a smaller country.

Something that might threaten the fabric of existence strikes me as very much the sort of thing that could be enforced overseas. I imagine most countries would take action where something overseas might destroy their very existance.

Does the comic address the jurisdictional issue directly? If not, I think it's fair to assume they do have jurisdiction simply because Shojo and Miko both seem to think they do, and both are likely to know about OotSverse law than you or I.

As to Sereni, on what basis do you think she owns the entire canyon? Also, ownership isn't the same thing as sovereignity - you aren't free to do the same things to people who come onto your property as a country can do to people who disobey its laws.

Alright does not equate to Good, and Good does not equate to alright.

Well, I used 'alright' to mean not evil. I think that's a reasonable meaning of the word, but if it was not clear to the person I was replying to, now it will be. Thanks for pointing out it needed clarification.

And Shojo is canonically Good.

Yes. There I was responding to your comment "I feel comfortable saying that the canonically Chaotic Good Shojo did far worse things.". I can;t understand how you can think what Shojo did was worse.

I can understand why you think it was just as bad, and as such I think your argument that Shojo's goodness indicates goodness from Serini is reasonable. However, the reasons I am not convinced are as follows:

• (1) Shojo captured people who had actually done something wrong (or dangerous to the world) and Serini captured people who have done nothing for reasons we don't know (although we might guess its because she suspect they;re a threat.
• (2)We have seen Shojo do lots of good things to balance out the bad. We haven;t seen that from Serini yet (except for the fact that, like Belkar, she was in a good party decades ago). We haven't seen much of her, so we don;t really know - but her bad actions were put onl display pretty quickly.

But if I had to bet money on Serini's alignment, I would put her in the Good bucket.

Anyone want to bet some quatloos on this one? I win if there is strong evidence of Good. You win if there is strong evidence of Evil. Not proof, just strong evidence. And in the event of nothing strong or strong contradictions, it is a wash.

Not me. I suspect she'll turn out to be good too. I'm just talking about how she's presenting at the moment

This sums up my position nicely. It certainly could be early evidence of her being Evil, but the evidence is very weak right now IMO and I see no reason to move away from the Good idea I have in my mind of her at the moment.

Well then, you and I agree. I think it's weak evidence of her being evil too.
I just didn't start with a "Good idea" to move away from

It is a very big jump from this^^^



To this^^^.

Jaded? Angry? Bitter? Unreasonable? Maybe. All are good bets. But evil?

Sorry, I don;t really se the jump. Maybe you can explain the nuanced difference you are seeing.

What I think I said in both posts was we don't have conclusive evidence of her alignment, but what we have seen in the last few strips seems more evil than good. It's also about the same thing I was saying on page 5. What is it about my position you think has changed?

Right now, I am not saying anything. I'm asking you what the expiration date is for saving the world and how it factors into your "she's good/she's evil" calculus.

You've declared that she is "presently evil" based on a handful of strips, two of which are from when she literally helped prevent the destruction of the planet. If you are wondering why almost no one agrees with your conclusion, that's a very big piece of it.

I know you're not saying anything, that's why I asked. If you'd prefer to take the easier option of just asking questions so be it.

I don't know what the expiry date is. But I do think it's possible to change alignment. I don't think I need to pick a precise date, or explain some system whereby the weighting of your good acts starts to expire to hold that position. it has been debated pretty thoroughly on this board already in the context of other characters.

In case it wasn;t clear from the two quotes you have just published, 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).

As to noone agreeing with me. A few have, although a minority to be sure. I am not wondering why most are disagreeing with me because most are kindly telling me. Discussion does have its benefits, and on discussion it seems that even Peelee and I do not really disagree much. You clearly do disagree though. I know you don't like answering questions, but do you think it's possible that you are reacting so strongly because you have misunderstood my position to be different to what it actually is - or in other words, that you are inadvertantly arguing against a strawman?

[Ionathus]

Shojo sent a paladin to a different continent to capture the Order. Serini captured two people who had been camping outside her front door.

Your point about Shojo's actions being objectionable is flawed. As Peelee said, Shojo is canonically Good. Therefore, it does not follow that actions less objectionable than his are "evidence" of any potential for Evil on Serini's part.

If she turns evil, she'll turn evil. But for goodness sake, let her be disgruntled in the meantime.

[Liquor Box]

Shojo sent a paladin to a different continent to capture the Order. Serini captured two people who had been camping outside her front door.

Your point about Shojo's actions being objectionable is flawed. As Peelee said, Shojo is canonically Good. Therefore, it does not follow that actions less objectionable than his are "evidence" of any potential for Evil on Serini's part.

If she turns evil, she'll turn evil. But for goodness sake, let her be disgruntled in the meantime.

Yep, all points that have been well made, and answered. It's a reasonable position, but there are reasons to see it differently, which I have stated.

[arimareiji]

During YARR (Yet Another Re-Read), I turned up this comic which may help with regard to "jurisdictional questions". Shojo disclaims ruling Azure City as the basis, and says it was "on the authority of the gods". (Exactly how they revealed this law to him is not explained, and I suspect he simply made it up to serve his purpose.)

Speaking of which, this comic from the same YARR seems pretty apt. Closing arguments:

Lawful Good does not mean a strict adherence to meaningless laws, even at the expense of safety. It acknowledges the possibility of bad laws. A Lawful Good authority such as this court needs to constantly evaluate whether or not a law supports the greater good... any prohibition against destroying the gate is subservient to the greater good of the safety and wellbeing of the inhabitants of the universe.

It's a speech from Celia. But I would be surprised if anyone thinks it's adverse to the Giant's opinion, considering the scene casts her as the Voice Of Reason.

She's taking about Elan thoughtlessly destroying a gate restraining the Snarl. If that level of disregard for how your deeds affect others isn't Evil (ymmv), I have a really hard time seeing how Serini's "kidnapping" (rendering two people [whose actions you have good reason to think could destroy the world] unconscious, then bound and and powerless) is.

Your alignment does not make you immune to mistakes, and making mistakes will not cause you to change alignments... There are people who claim that alignments are archaic and limiting; that they restrict possible personalities and lead to inherently unsolvable conflicts. Please, prove them wrong.

Again, Celia. But I share her opinion, and have a hard time understanding any serious assertion that playfully bonking someone for saying something stupid is proof of Evil. It's reminiscent of what Roy said about Miko in 408, "ignoring all possibilities in order to arrive at a preconceived conclusion that happens to support her existing emotional state".

I can't believe I actually wanted to date you at one point. Can you imagine that relationship?
"Honey, we're out of milk."
"Clearly that means the gods want me to kill you!" Slash! Slash! Slash!

[Liquor Box]

. But I share her opinion, and have a hard time understanding any serious assertion that playfully bonking someone for saying something stupid is proof of Evil. It's reminiscent of what Roy said about Miko in 408, "ignoring all possibilities in order to arrive at a preconceived conclusion that happens to support her existing emotional state".

Lucky nobody has made an assertion like that isn't it?

The drugging and kidnapping is the main thing which I think she did which she shouldn't have, the bonking and the mocking just make it seem less like she was forced to kidnap them by the circumstances.

Also, neither thing is proof of evil, it just one thing that I think might suggest evil. The problem we have is that we don't have a lot of information on Serini (at least recently) so the drugging and kidnapping is most of what we have.

During YARR (Yet Another Re-Read), I turned up this comic which may help with regard to "jurisdictional questions". Shojo disclaims ruling Azure City as the basis, and says it was "on the authority of the gods". (Exactly how they revealed this law to him is not explained, and I suspect he simply made it up to serve his purpose.)

Thanks Arimareiji, that does seem to settle the jurisdictional issue. Btw, it does say how it was revealed to him - the cat told him.

[Peelee]

Ah, so your objection isn't that it was not a law at all, but that you think Azure City does not have jurisdiction.

I think Miko is not a reliable source for whether it is an actual law or not. Shojo clearly knew Miko fairly well, and knew she would not object to the mission. When she claims jurisdiction, she claims it not on behalf of Azure City but on behalf of her gods (which is also, for me, tissue-paper thin), so I have little reason to believe that there was an Azurite law that was being broken, but rather a divine, unwritten law that Miko chose to believe. She believed quite a few things that required... let's say "inspired" interpretation of her gods' wishes. I question the validity of both the jurisdiction and the law they supposedly broke.

Something that might threaten the fabric of existence strikes me as very much the sort of thing that could be enforced overseas. I imagine most countries would take action where something overseas might destroy their very existance.

Which most, if not all, nations do not know about? I would be surprised if there was any sort of international agreement there. One nation unilaterally claiming universal jurisdiction for a crime only they know about does not seem like a terribly solid argument for that nation to make.

Does the comic address the jurisdictional issue directly? If not, I think it's fair to assume they do have jurisdiction simply because Shojo and Miko both seem to think they do, and both are likely to know about OotSverse law than you or I.

Neither care terribly much about OotSverse law - Shojo in general, and Miko when she has reason to believe her divine interpretations take precedence.

As to Sereni, on what basis do you think she owns the entire canyon? Also, ownership isn't the same thing as sovereignity - you aren't free to do the same things to people who come onto your property as a country can do to people who disobey its laws.

Didn't say she owned the entire canyon, just that she has authority over the canyon (seeing as it is entirely made of multidimensional stone, which has an exceedingly high likelihood of being placed there on her dime, making that part, at least, under her purview). If Azure City can assert universal jurisdiction over crimes that only it knows about, then it seems only fair for Serini to be sovereign over the canyon without acknowledgement by any other nation.

For Azure City and Serini, either both of them are allowed to do their things or neither should be allowed to do their things. In either case, she did far less than Shojo did (send a representative across continents to apprehend the prisoners/kidnappees, hold others in secret prisons without trial for the rest of their lives and keeping their existence a state secret so nobody would ever hear from them ever again). I find it very difficult to swallow evidence of Serini being Evil when her actions have been less objectionable than Shojo's, who we know to be Good.

[CountDVB]

I have a sneaking suspicion that kraagor was the token evil member of the scribbles, serini's drawing and her choosing monsters to represent him by but especially girard's quip about soon being glad to be rid of him

(I also think he has a role to play in the story still, we know too little about him and I think that's by design)

Well, I reckon she thought of him as scary or pretty gruff. She is pretty teasing as we saw.Also, Girard is a pretty lousy character judge of Soon.

However, we do see that Soon's priorities of stopping the Snarl over the lives of his comrades when he and Kraagor were in danger and he made it out while Kraagor didn't. This is why they would to hold varying levels of bitterness at him and probably why they suspected him. Heck, Girard accuses Soon of being a coward for not being the one to die. They thought he saw their lives as expandable and that he didn't care about them.

Which in turn also shows why they suspected him; because they believed he didn't trust them and thus would send his paladins to check on them.

However, none of them were Lawful so of course they would not understand him. Recall what Haley said on Lawful characters back in the pyramid, which caused a reaction from both Durkon and Roy. This shows the differing thought processes and priorities of these characters. As a Lawful character, he'd be more focused on the mission and do what was needed. They're adventurers after all and what they were doing was dangerous.

I suspect that if Kraagor was alive, he could ironically be the one not angry at Soon for this action, if mainly since they were at the frontlines, Soon was equally in danger. Hell, him dying in battle would be something I would assume he suspected would happen (he's a dwarf after all and a barbarian) and Soon wouldn't lie to him about the potential of his soul being gone (he's a Lawful Good Paladin after all). As such, Kraagor would probably go in fully knowing he would die on the front lines and made his peace with that. That and he was fighting alongside Soon the whole time in doing so. Of course, Barbarians aren't lawful in D&D 3.5, but that doesn't mean he cannot come to similar conclusions if with a different train of thought.

Soon was following the rhetoric of sacrificing the one for the many. And he was risking his own life out there on the frontlines. It could've easily just been him getting wiped by the Snarl instead of Kraagor out of just chance, least from what we know. Perhaps they would've kept in contact openly with his death though it would mean someone would have to figure out Azure City, most likely Serini, with Azure City having Soon's Mausoleum (probably a large fortified pagoda) with the Sapphire Guard protecting it, with the same sort of safeguards on it. To the public, it'd likely be a resting place for the various paladins there.

Of couse, Serini would likely put her own traps there, not trusting the aristocracy and coming up with stuff that would deter them, but not the pallies. I don't know if there would be a Deathless spell on it (though I would assume so given how Serini would know Soon enough and check if something like that would work).

I do see a possibility of comparison though. Perhaps we're supposed to conclude that Soon should've pushed Kraagor out of the way or done something to priortize the safety of him. After all, a the failures of the Scribblers as a team is a pretty big point, but I suspect Soon's failures as a leader would also be of note.

A larger trend I notice in Order of the Stuck is on the failures of various group leaders involving communication and respectable decision-making. Their failures in being good leaders and unable to do what is needing for the sake of their charges comes back to bite them:

-- Lord Shojo's manipulative nature is understandable, especially given he had to deal with the daimyos (I assume the Good of Chaotic Good was why he didn't arrange them for all of them to be offed in accident outside of the city). However, he still lied to the Paladins and they caught up with him, leaving a bunch of issues. Heck, his way of treating Miko (sending her off far away and keeping her isolated) was a big contribution. I believe the Giant himself has made note of this.

-- Bozzok's need to be smarter caused problems for the Rogues' Guild and he died after what he did to Crystal.

-- Shadow co-leader, but still fits. Tarqin suffered because of his ego regarding his sons and his ambitions, especially when Malack was killed by Nale. Meanwhile, he suffered a large loss and we have no idea how Lirian or Miron survived, which spells major trouble for the troika of the pairs of shadow co-rulers known as the Vector Legion.

-- The Gods themselves and the Snarl. As Thor said, so many souls lost because they couldn't play nice. Also, perhaps religious leader given how what happened to Durkon.

-- Heck, given he's a cultural leader, Redcloak counts too. He is a constant failure of a shepard of the goblinoid peoples because's he too much of a moral coward to own up to his failures so he persists with a plan looking less practical by the day (though we can attibute some of that failure to The Dark One for not even communicating with Redcloak in 35 years). Things aren't looking too good for him, so gotta see what happens with him.

Soon would probably fall under this too since his aloofness and keeping everyone at arms' length (perhaps out of fear of loss or not grieving properly) would cause problems since he would come off detatched from the party and we're still seeing what the fallout of the Scribblers has caused.

This makes a contrast with Roy, who has been about learning to be a more capable, caring and responsible leader. As such, we can see he could succeed where Soon failed and what is needed. I also suspect there will be comparisons between Soon and none other than O-Chul. O-Chul defiens hmself on being the shield of the people and had he been in Soon's shoes, would've tried to push Kraagor out of the way and be the one who dies (of course, whether he would've succeeded in this or if Kraagor would've accepted is a different question entirely...)

Guess we'll find out whether I hit my targets or rolled a critical fail.

[arimareiji]

The drugging and kidnapping is the main thing which I think she did which she shouldn't have, the bonking and the mocking just make it seem less like she was forced to kidnap them by the circumstances.

Also, neither thing is proof of evil, it just one thing that I think might suggest evil. The problem we have is that we don't have a lot of information on Serini (at least recently) so the drugging and kidnapping is most of what we have.

Indeed, my memories were playing tricks on me.

Spoiler: actual

Show

This is what I mis-remembered as a definite assertion that the bonk was an evil act:

I kindof wonder if Serini might be evil.
Hitting defenceless prisoners and providing them with false hope of freedom doesn't exactly scream 'good' at any rate.

(And elsewhere, your statement was on a similar level...)

Scolding for assuming selfish motives, probably not. But hitting someone for making a reasonable guess which was wrong (or at least Serini thinks so), is probably slightly evil. Telling lies and mocking people with the chance of escape only to snatch it away is also slightly evil.

~~~~~

Thanks Arimareiji, that does seem to settle the jurisdictional issue. Btw, it does say how it was revealed to him - the cat told him.

(tongue-in-cheek, intended as friendly ribbing) Ah. Shojo must be evil, since he told a lie and mocked the people he had Miko abduct. (^_~) (/tongue etc)

More seriously, because I'm too nitpicky: Shojo says Mr. Scruffy reminded him that his actions were "on the authority of the gods". But if it came down to brass tacks and he got pinned down on the question of "But how did you know the gods made this law?", I bet he would say Mr. Scruffy told him.
(And in any event, my comment was just a bit of snark from someone who always gets apprehensive when people say they have to do X because supernatural force(s) told them to.)

[Peelee]

More seriously, because I'm too nitpicky: Shojo says Mr. Scruffy reminded him that his actions were "on the authority of the gods". But if it came down to brass tacks and he got pinned down on the question of "But how did you know the gods made this law?", I bet he would say Mr. Scruffy told him.

Not to mention that if such a crime was, in fact, on the authority of the gods, Shojo probably wouldn't have set up a rigged trial to immediately get them out of it. Can't imagine the gods would have been terribly pleased with him short-circuiting their direct orders like that, especially when he already had a foot in the grave, old as he was. "The gods did it" seems like a perfectly fine set-up line for Miko to not question and everyone else not be able to dispute.

[danielxcutter]

I'm pretty sure that Soon didn't give a wererat's arse about the chances of blowing his saves entirely regardless of his actual bonuses; risking your own life to guarantee the safety of the world is a very Paladin thing to do. The fact that Kraagor failed his save and Soon did is more an unfortunate and unintended consequence of that.

[hroþila]

My position on this is that we know 100% that Serini wasn't Evil in her youth (since a paladin knowingly and willingly associated with her), and there has been no evidence of an alignment shift because none of the things she's done on panel so far are Evil. Good/Evil and nice/not nice are not synonyms.

[Liquor Box]

@ Peelee
Before starting I wanted to draw your attention to this post by you and my reply:

This sums up my position nicely. It certainly could be early evidence of her being Evil, but the evidence is very weak right now IMO and I see no reason to move away from the Good idea I have in my mind of her at the moment.

Well then, you and I agree. I think it's weak evidence of her being evil too.
I just didn't start with a "Good idea" to move away from

It does seem you and I might actually agree at what the events of the past few strips mean for Serini (weak evidence of evil). We may just differ in that you were coming from a starting point of assuming Serini was good, whereas I didn't come from any particular starting point. Do you think so?

I will reply to your posts in case you want to continue. But if we are actually on the same page, but were simply talking past one another just let me know and no need to respond to the rest.

I think Miko is not a reliable source for whether it is an actual law or not. Shojo clearly knew Miko fairly well, and knew she would not object to the mission. When she claims jurisdiction, she claims it not on behalf of Azure City but on behalf of her gods (which is also, for me, tissue-paper thin), so I have little reason to believe that there was an Azurite law that was being broken, but rather a divine, unwritten law that Miko chose to believe. She believed quite a few things that required... let's say "inspired" interpretation of her gods' wishes. I question the validity of both the jurisdiction and the law they supposedly broke.

Which most, if not all, nations do not know about? I would be surprised if there was any sort of international agreement there. One nation unilaterally claiming universal jurisdiction for a crime only they know about does not seem like a terribly solid argument for that nation to make.

Neither care terribly much about OotSverse law - Shojo in general, and Miko when she has reason to believe her divine interpretations take precedence.

The above all goes to whether Azure City had jurisdiction or not. You may have missed it, but Arimareiji settled that by posting the below strip which is explicit that Azure City did have jurisdiction:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0267.html

Didn't say she owned the entire canyon, just that she has authority over the canyon (seeing as it is entirely made of multidimensional stone, which has an exceedingly high likelihood of being placed there on her dime, making that part, at least, under her purview). If Azure City can assert universal jurisdiction over crimes that only it knows about, then it seems only fair for Serini to be sovereign over the canyon without acknowledgement by any other nation.

Well you did call it "her own canyon", which sounds a whole lot like you saying she owned it, but ok.

By what right do you think Serini has authority over the part of the canyon the paladins were in? While I appreciate she created the cliff with the doors, I don't see any evidence that she created a seperate cliff top far enough away to require a telescope to see the monster doors. Even if she did, paying for it would only imply ownership not sovereignity of the nature a nation state would have.

As for Azure City, we now know that their Authority came from the 12 gods. We also do not know that no other nation acknowledges it. There's no reason to assume that there are no international treaties or understandings in the OotSverse.

For Azure City and Serini, either both of them are allowed to do their things or neither should be allowed to do their things In either case, she did far less than Shojo did

Well no. First because one is a country with jurisdiction from the gods, and the other is an individual who may have ownership rights (can you do the same things a country can?). Second, because Azure City was responding to people who had already destroyed a gate while Serini was going after innocents (we might assume she went after because she suspected they might do something). I'll go through your remaining points one by one:

send a representative across continents to apprehend the prisoners/kidnappees

It's true Miko travelled further than Serini. but I don't think travelling time has any bearing on whether she was entitled to do it in the first place.

hold others in secret prisons

Both did this, unless you are suggesting Serini's imprisonment of the paladins is widely known

without trial

Azure City did give them a trial, Serini has not given them a trial

for the rest of their lives

Who was imprisoned for life? The Order was all out before Xykon attacked the city.

Serini has indicated that she will let the paladins go instead of keeping them for the rest of their lives, although she has lied about letting them go for ****s and giggles before....

and keeping their existence a state secret so nobody would ever hear from them ever again).

Addressed both of these above. Serini imprisoning the paladins is at least as secret, and the Order was let go.

I find it very difficult to swallow evidence of Serini being Evil when her actions have been less objectionable than Shojo's, who we know to be Good.

You called it weak evidence above. Have you changed your mind.

Anyway, here are the reasons one might think Serini's action suggest she's evil, while Shojo is not:

• (1) Shojo captured people who had actually done something wrong (or dangerous to the world) and Serini captured people who have done nothing for reasons we don't know (although we might guess its because she suspect they;re a threat.
• (2)We have seen Shojo do lots of good things to balance out the bad. We haven;t seen that from Serini yet (except for the fact that, like Belkar, she was in a good party decades ago). We haven't seen much of her, so we don;t really know - but her bad actions were put onl display pretty quickly.

Indeed, my memories were playing tricks on me.

Spoiler: actual

Show

This is what I mis-remembered as a definite assertion that the bonk was an evil act:
(And elsewhere, your statement was on a similar level...)

~~~~~
No problem, my memory plays such tricks on me all the time

More seriously, because I'm too nitpicky: Shojo says Mr. Scruffy reminded him that his actions were "on the authority of the gods". But if it came down to brass tacks and he got pinned down on the question of "But how did you know the gods made this law?", I bet he would say Mr. Scruffy told him.
(And in any event, my comment was just a bit of snark from someone who always gets apprehensive when people say they have to do X because supernatural force(s) told them to.)

Yeah look, but we have a host of characters acting like Azure City does have jurisdiction, including one who has explicitly said they have jurisdiction, and how they got it. We have no reason at all to think that they might not have jurisdiction. At this point, I think any argument that they lacked jurisdiction would be entirely speculative.

[arimareiji]

Yeah look, but we have a host of characters acting like Azure City does have jurisdiction, including one who has explicitly said they have jurisdiction, and how they got it. We have no reason at all to think that they might not have jurisdiction. At this point, I think any argument that they lacked jurisdiction would be entirely speculative.

If you mean characters from the comic, my knowledge is really limited - it's why I have to do YARRs periodically. All I took note of in the most recent one, was Roy questioning what right Shojo had to drag them to Azure City for events far from it - to which Shojo said he didn't do it as the ruler of Azure City, but as the commander of the Sapphire Guard on behalf of "the gods". It weirds me out to think other characters would contradict him, but weird things do happen.

If you mean characters as in "forum residents with a lot of character"*, I'll have to demur on responding. I have the devil of a time speaking for myself with any cogence; I suck rocks when it comes to speaking for anyone else. (^_^)°
* - that was actually my first thought, but reflection on it has me unsure