OOTS #1227 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

More seriously I do hope to buy SoD et al soon, but until then I'm curious - has any paladin other than Miko ever been grey-shirted onscreen, and if so then what was the final straw?

Nope, though it's often theorized that one in particular would have fallen if they hadn't died immediately after their transgression.

[Riftwolf]

I'll have to concede the point, given I have not read the paladin prequel. Seems odd though, given Miko fell when she stopped being good.

Her fall came from something a bit spicier than 'stopped being good'.
Lets say Paladinhood for the Southern Pantheon works like an internal Godsmoot: the twelve Gods decide whether someone becomes a Paladin by simple vote, majority for means the Paladin graduates, ties and majority vote against meaning the Paladin goes back for training, unanimous against means exclusion from Paladinhood for good. Most of the time it's a formality, so long as the Paladin keeps to whatever oaths they took, they're confirmed without a drawn out debate. Whenever a Paladin skirts the rules, the Gods make a judgement call as to whether to hold an internal moot, then its another vote for whether that Paladin falls or not. Because the Twelve Gods aren't all Lawful Good, they will have differing opinions on whether the rule break was harsh enough to warrant a fall, and a majority for dismissal can't be reached. Some (like the paladins from SOD who fell off-screen) were simple majority votes in favour of dismissal.
Mikos fall was unanimous, because even the evil Gods couldn't spin 'killing your unarmed liege and almost hitting the Gate just before an army threatens your stronghold' as a Lawful Good action.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

All that strip establishes is that Redcloak is able to absolutely control those particular undead, (including making them destroy themselves) and that he thinks the undead are tools - "complex weapons".

No. What that strip establishes is that those wights switched from being controlled by Tsukiko to being controlled by RC. Therefore, Tsukiko never befriended them, since they were never in a position in which they were not being mind controlled.

Go ahead and find a sentient free-willed ghoul in OotS if you want. I doubt they exist, but I don't care if they do. For the purposes of this conversation relating to Tsukiko, ghouls are not sentient.

GW

[danielxcutter]

No. What that strip establishes is that those wights switched from being controlled by Tsukiko to being controlled by RC. Therefore, Tsukiko never befriended them, since they were never in a position in which they were not being mind controlled.

Go ahead and find a sentient free-willed ghoul in OotS if you want. I doubt they exist, but I don't care if they do. For the purposes of this conversation relating to Tsukiko, ghouls are not sentient.

GW

Technically ghouls are sentient, I’d say the point is more “free will”.

[Peelee]

I'll have to concede the point, given I have not read the paladin prequel. Seems odd though, given Miko fell when she stopped being good.

One murder does not necessarily change alignment. For the record I believe Miko fell for grossly violating the paladin code, which is usually how paladins fall, since it's much easier than alignment change (and it doesn't hurt that I doubt she was ever truly Good to begin with - I'd call her a Lawful Neutral who claimed to be Lawful Good, and really wanted to be, for whatever that's worth).

ETA: Also they're super good and I think you'd enjoy them, especially How the Paladin Got his Scar in GDGU.

You guys are a terrible influence wrt spending money I'm not sure I have to spare. (^_~)

More seriously I do hope to buy SoD et al soon, but until then I'm curious - has any paladin other than Miko ever been grey-shirted onscreen, and if so then what was the final straw?

It's a toss up as to which is better between SoD and GDGU, but even OtOoPCs has paladin fun if you're interested in that! Anyway, they're all in black and white, so even if one were, we wouldnt tell. In addition to what other people said. But real answer, no, because the author explicitly said that would have taken away from the impact of Miko's fall. To the best of my knowledge, we never see anyone else fall onscreen.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Technically ghouls are sentient, I’d say the point is more “free will”.

They aren't sentient because their self-awareness is just a personality imposed by their controller. They also don't have free will, but free will is not required for sentience. For example, Durkon had full sentience but no very limited free will when trapped by Greg.

GW

[Peelee]

They aren't sentient because their self-awareness is just a personality imposed by their controller. They also don't have free will, but free will is not required for sentience. For example, Durkon had sentience but no free will when trapped by Greg.

GW

I'd argue Durkon did have free will, he was just remarkably limited in what he could do without controlling his body.

[Dr.Zero]

1) The fact that the ghouls can be controlled doesn't make them not sentient, no more than the fact a troll can be charmed or dominated makes him not sentient.
2) The fact that the ghouls were controlled by Tsukiko, if -IF- true, is mostly not relevant in the first place: what was the point was her vision of a "shunned" race. She loves -in a lot of ways- the undeads and would totally like to be in good terms with them, if possible. Even without the possibility to control them: see what she thinks of Xykon.

Now, the reply that requires more time.

Why? At no point did I say the universe believes what is written on the character sheet absolutely until death. I said the universe eyeballs it. If one is close to the blurry line and you're not squinting, the universe can say "eh, they claim to be on the right side, so sure, why not". If one strays enough over the blurry line for there to be a sliver of daylight in between, the universe can say "welp, they claim what they want but what I see is good enough for me to disbelieve".

Which, correct me if I'm wrong, translates in: "As long paladins stay within the boundaries of what the Gods decided to be LG for mortals, they don't fall. And they fall if they exist that boundaries."
Sure, it might be that the boundaries change between the material plane and the afterlife.
But that additional assumption seems a bit ad hoc.

This is really straining the analogy at this point, but unless you're prepared to say that all of the shenanigans we have seen in-comic barring regicide are perfectly within Lawful Good behavior as well as the paladin code of honor, you must admit that something's rotten in Denmark. My pet theory handily addresses that quite well.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

Or, for example, the author said that some of the paladins who went too far in the massacre of Redcloak's village fell offscreen. Which ones would you say went too far? Or were they offscreen? Does killing the defenseless child count as going too far? What about the defenseless mother? Please, tell me where the demarcation line is. I'm interested in which specific atrocities you deem perfectly Lawful Good.

I think I addressed most of your point already in my previous post, when I underlined that the same Gods who define LG have created whole races for no other purpose than to be "eaten" for XP (at least if we accept what we have been told mostly by RC).
Is eating a young fish more evil than eating an old one?
More inefficient, sure (it is smaller -in this univese it has probably less XP- and it hasn't the chance to create more fish for the future), but not particularly evil. At least if you don't torture it for fun.

And by the author, the comic follows game rules until it doesn't.

I don't think that is particularly related to this discussion, but yeah, I ignore that part. My mind simply refuse to process a statement similar to "my program runs according to the specifics, until it doesn't (in that case you must assume new specifics)" as an explanation of anything or a foundation for any kind of reasonable debate.

[Mic_128]

Is eating a young fish more evil than eating an old one?
More inefficient, sure (it is smaller -in this univese it has probably less XP- and it hasn't the chance to create more fish for the future)

On that last point, you also don't want to go and eat the real big fish that are surviving well enough to lay hundreds of eggs for many more babies.

[Dr.Zero]

On that last point, you also don't want to go and eat the real big fish that are surviving well enough to lay hundreds of eggs for many more babies.

Yes. Or maybe, if the kind of fish is potentially dangerous, as shark, hunting and eating them young is better than trying to hunt and eat them when they have become a 19th level cleric 7 meters long. Finding the optimal point when to eat a creature might require some fine tuning.

[Peelee]

Which, correct me if I'm wrong, translates in: "As long paladins stay within the boundaries of what the Gods decided to be LG for mortals, they don't fall. And they fall if they exist that boundaries."

Wrong on 2 counts - as long as Paladins stay within their code of conduct is more accurate, but more importantly, the gods did not define Law and Good. Those are fundamental forces of the universe in Stick world and are absolute and non-negotiable. We know from following Roy that determining exactly whether a specific person is Lawful and Good takes a fairly extensive evaluation, so it stands to reason that the gods do not keep dynamic updates on the alignment in everyone's file, updating their exact alignment in real-time; if they did, they wouldn't need to do an in-depth review for Roy.

Though I do appreciate your response since I'm going to slightly adjust my theory into "the gods eyeball their alignment l" rather than the universe, since the universe set the ground rules but the gods made the rest of mortal reality.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

1) The fact that the ghouls can be controlled doesn't make them not sentient, no more than the fact a troll can be charmed or dominated makes him not sentient.
2) The fact that the ghouls were controlled by Tsukiko, if -IF- true, is mostly not relevant in the first place: what was the point was her vision of a "shunned" race. She loves -in a lot of ways- the undeads and would totally like to be in good terms with them, if possible. Even without the possibility to control them: see what she thinks of Xykon.

You cannot befriend people you mind control. She absolutely was mind controlling those ghouls - if they have a base personality, it is not that of 6-year-olds who love their mommy. Therefore, using Tsukiko as an example of someone reaching out to Evil races is a bad example, since what she did is mind control creatures into thinking they were her babies. If you really think they are sentient and free willed, it in fact makes it even worse.

see what she thinks of Xykon.

"Lichdom" is not a race. Xykon is a human with a template.

GW

[Fyraltari]

Go ahead and find a sentient free-willed ghoul in OotS if you want. I doubt they exist, but I don't care if they do. For the purposes of this conversation relating to Tsukiko, ghouls are not sentient.

For the record.

[Dr.Zero]

For the record.

I thought that the ghoul willing to try the shoes and the one excusing himself with Tsukiko would have been enough anyway.

[hamishspence]

They aren't sentient because their self-awareness is just a personality imposed by their controller. They also don't have free will, but free will is not required for sentience. For example, Durkon had full sentience but no very limited free will when trapped by Greg.

The D&D definition of "sentient" is about intelligence, not whether or not a being is controlled.

Xykon's Ghasts are a good example of "not under total control, only obeying Xykon's/Redcloak's orders and doing nothing on their own initiative". They're even able to choose to answer V's question about what they are:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html

If they were totally controlled, they wouldn't have answered V's question in the first place.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The D&D definition of "sentient" is about intelligence, not whether or not a being is controlled.

And since I was talking about a non-D&D concept of friendship, this is utterly irrelevant.

{scrubbed} I shall not continue this conversation.

Bye.

For the record.

Ah, yes. That one, I can believe it is sentient.

GW

[hamishspence]

I'm trying to be as accurate as possible about D&D things - I'm not trying to be obnoxious.

You cannot befriend people you mind control. She absolutely was mind controlling those ghouls - if they have a base personality, it is not that of 6-year-olds who love their mommy. Therefore, using Tsukiko as an example of someone reaching out to Evil races is a bad example, since what she did is mind control creatures into thinking they were her babies. If you really think they are sentient and free willed, it in fact makes it even worse.

I agree with these two points. And "sentient, free-willed beings that she happens to be exerting control over" is IMO a more accurate description of ghouls than "non-sentient beings".

But someone else, without using mind control, can befriend a ghoul or wight - if they act in the way that a friend would.

I thought that the ghoul willing to try the shoes and the one excusing himself with Tsukiko would have been enough anyway.

IMO these:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0514.html
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0515.html

are a good example of how wights behave when Tsukiko's not exerting direct control to make them behave exactly the way she wants them to - they talk directly to each other, they call dibs, they comment on the improbability of the pineapple attack, and so forth.

[Dr.Zero]

I'm trying to be as accurate as possible about D&D things - I'm not trying to be obnoxious.



I agree with these two points. And "sentient, free-willed beings that she happens to be exerting control over" is IMO a more accurate description of ghouls than "non-sentient beings".

But someone else, without using mind control, can befriend a ghoul or wight - if they act in the way that a friend would.


IMO these:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0514.html
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0515.html

are a good example of how wights behave when Tsukiko's not exerting direct control to make them behave exactly the way she wants them to - they talk directly to each other, they call dibs, they comment on the improbability of the pineapple attack, and so forth.

So, we clarified that Ghouls and Wights are sentient, are able to express opinion -as pointed above- preferences (about wanting to wear shoes) and regret (about attacking Tsukiko, when commanded by RC).

Aside the fact that, if she was controlling the ghouls and the wights the whole time, her try to reason with them and RC's speech would be both senseless.

Aside all that: really the point is that Tsukiko is not Good because she didn't truly let them roam free and befriended them?

So a Tsukiko2, doing exactly the same things, saying the same delusional stuff about the shunned race, but in-comic-proved to have let them free, would have been considered Good because befriending a shunned race is, in itself, Good?

[hamishspence]

I would agree that motives for befriending shunned beings make a big difference.

[snowblizz]

Therefore, Tsukiko never befriended them, since they were never in a position in which they were not being mind controlled.

There's a scene somewhere I can't find atm that shows some more interaction of Tsukiko and the ghouls which IMO shows how false this whole "love" and "friendship" with undead is. Effectively it all stems from Tsukiko herself.

The ghouls have bought her a present but from the banter the undead do not understand it is clear Tsukiko herself is the cause of all their supposed affection.

[Dr.Zero]

I would agree that motives for befriending shunned beings make a big difference.

Indeed.
Which I think is the core of the matter: befriending a shunned race is not inherently Good, why you befriended them can be.
They seemed like lost puppies to you in need of protection? Probably Good.[1]
You think they are cool, funny to be around with, and who cares that they kill their neighbors? Probably not so much.

[1] But then, again, I realize that Tsukiko2 would have considered the undead persecuted lost puppies.
So it's not enough.

[Fyraltari]

There's a scene somewhere I can't find atm that shows some more interaction of Tsukiko and the ghouls which IMO shows how false this whole "love" and "friendship" with undead is. Effectively it all stems from Tsukiko herself.

The ghouls have bought her a present but from the banter the undead do not understand it is clear Tsukiko herself is the cause of all their supposed affection.

I have no recollection of that scene and so I guess it's a bonus strip.

[danielxcutter]

Personally, while I think that Redcloak's probably not wrong about the fact that Tsukiko was delusional, the fact that he's controlling them himself does weaken a bit.

[hamishspence]

There's a scene somewhere I can't find atm that shows some more interaction of Tsukiko and the ghouls which IMO shows how false this whole "love" and "friendship" with undead is. Effectively it all stems from Tsukiko herself.

The ghouls have bought her a present but from the banter the undead do not understand it is clear Tsukiko herself is the cause of all their supposed affection.

You're thinking of a bonus strip that is only in the book Blood Runs In The Family - Another Year Older. (708a)

It's less about affection and more about them just not getting rhetorical comments.


Interestingly when she's actually controlling them, their eyes change colour to the same colour as hers - blue and dark blue.

[Metastachydium]

So a Tsukiko2, doing exactly the same things, saying the same delusional stuff about the shunned race, but in-comic-proved to have let them free, would have been considered Good because befriending a shunned race is, in itself, Good?

1. Tsukiko was a delusional necrophile who hated the living.
2. Ghouls and wights resemble living creatures to a surprising extent: if left unchecked, they will attempt to perpetuate their kind via reproduction, which in their case means killing people and turning them into ghouls/wights.

[hamishspence]

2. Ghouls and wights resemble living creatures to a surprising extent: if left unchecked, they will attempt to perpetuate their kind via reproduction, which in their case means killing people and turning them into ghouls/wights.

What makes ghouls different from wights is that they're not under the control of the ghoul that created them:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghoul.htm

An afflicted humanoid who dies of ghoul fever rises as a ghoul at the next midnight. A humanoid who becomes a ghoul in this way retains none of the abilities it possessed in life. It is not under the control of any other ghouls, but it hungers for the flesh of the living and behaves like a normal ghoul in all respects. A humanoid of 4 Hit Dice or more rises as a ghast, not a ghoul.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wight.htm

Create Spawn (Su)
Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds. Spawn are under the command of the wight that created them and remain enslaved until its death. They do not possess any of the abilities they had in life.


The main way "uncontrolled wights" are created is via the use of Energy Drain type spells and powers, such as Energy Drain and Enervation.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAb...NegativeLevels

A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.

though Tsukiko also has a unique spell that creates them.

She made a wight with Tsukiko's Amazing Wight-Making Spell, which happens to have no verbal component.

[Goblin_Priest]

Intelligent is not the same thing as sentient. And in OotS, it has been explicitly established that ghouls/wights are not sentient.

GW

Members of one species ranting off about the inferiority of another's shoudn't be taken as evidence of how things actually are in-universe.

Redcloak's opinion on the undead changes little to the fact that many undead have an intelligence score of 3 or more, and thus are, by RAW, sentient.

Being under the control of another does not make the the wights less sentient. Freedom is irrelevant to sentience.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak's opinion on the undead changes little to the fact that many undead have an intelligence score of 3 or more, and thus are, by RAW, sentient.

Being under the control of another does not make the the wights less sentient. Freedom is irrelevant to sentience.

If the rules for Psionics can be taken as definitive for the meaning of the word "sentient" in a D&D context, then Int 1 is "sentient" and Int 3 is "has humanlike sentience".

However, other sources seem to favour calling Int 2 creatures like animals "not sentient" - so it depends which source you use.

It may be of importance in the context of Good:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Are Good characters expected to show a concern for the dignity of animals? An interesting question. IMO the answer is yes.

[Riftwolf]

Tsukiko already homebrewed the Wight raising spell; could she have homebrewed the personalities of the Wights the spell created? I don't know if Wight Lore is as fleshed out as vampire lore in Oots.

[Yirggzmb]

Indeed.
Which I think is the core of the matter: befriending a shunned race is not inherently Good, why you befriended them can be.
They seemed like lost puppies to you in need of protection? Probably Good.[1]
You think they are cool, funny to be around with, and who cares that they kill their neighbors? Probably not so much.

[1] But then, again, I realize that Tsukiko2 would have considered the undead persecuted lost puppies.
So it's not enough.

There's also the argument that one good action does not mean the person is necessarily good (same the opposite as well, one bad action doesn't inherently mean someone isn't good)

So theoretical Tsukiko genuinely befriending the ghouls could still have otherwise been evil if written that way.