Poll: V or I?

[Rrmcklin]

If Rich wanted to unambiguously communicate the idea “what V is doing right now is evil”, he should have given V little fangs and dressed them in an comically evil overlord outfit.

I know this is a joke, but it is still pretty impressive how clear the Giant can be about a character or action being evil, and still there can be a debate about his actual intentions. Not whether you agree with his intentions, but just what they even are.

[Doug Lampert]

If Rich wanted to unambiguously communicate the idea “what V is doing right now is evil”, he should have given V little fangs and dressed them in an comically evil overlord outfit.

200 foot tall flaming letters were probably not practical, but he could also have had V ignore his injured children to have time to commit genocide or something. That and the costume would really give it away.

Shame Rich didn't think of any that and we're left stuck with all this ambiguity.

[Ionathus]

People seems to be willing to cut Inkyrius a lot more slack then they cut Vaarsuvius in my view.

I'd imagine because one has earned it, and the other hasn't.
...
They aren't talked about equally in these situations because their characters and mistakes aren't equal.

Exactly. Some commenters have been so quick to rush forward with evidence and arguments about Inky's "misbehavior" while comically missing the point. V's and Inky's marriage was already in a horrible spot. V was already a terribly neglectful spouse and parent. Whatever nitpicks people have about Inky's decision to confront their demon-possessed spouse before setting their children's broken legs don't really change all the evidence leading up to this event, as well as the fallout (a divorce which V did not contest because they acknowledged they were the one in the wrong).

Can we also acknowledge that "temporary ignores the children to work out why their mate apparently turned into a hellish genocidal monster and acknowledge that their marriage just isn't working out" and "ignores the children after six years of abscence so they can bring back a dragon from the dead to further torment them by commiting genocide" aren't comparable?

This is the thing that boggles the mind for me. The expectation that any minor character who ever calls out a main character has to act with 100% perfect moral uprightness and make absolutely optimal decisions, or else they have no right to even sass more major characters. Hell, we just ran into this with Serini -- how many pages of argument spun off from "lightly bonking someone on the head is Evil"? All because Lien and O-Chul are the ones we're rooting for.

Honestly, I think some people fixate too much on the protagonists, and aren't willing to ever admit other viewpoints or criticisms of them, even when the author is purposefully introducing those counterpoints. After all, if you can discredit the minor NPC calling out your favorite character, you don't have to take that NPC seriously.

If Rich wanted to unambiguously communicate the idea “what V is doing right now is evil”, he should have given V little fangs and dressed them in an comically evil overlord outfit.

I know this is a joke, but it is still pretty impressive how clear the Giant can be about a character or action being evil, and still there can be a debate about his actual intentions. Not whether you agree with his intentions, but just what they even are.

On this very forum, I have read a wildly improbable and out-of-character prediction, set within a hypothetical scenario, within another hypothetical scenario, relying on loads of things to have happened offscreen on different occasions for no obvious reason, all presented with complete seriousness, just to fit somebody's personal pet theory. Nothing surprises me on here anymore.

[arimareiji]

Honestly, I think some people fixate too much on the protagonists, and aren't willing to ever admit other viewpoints or criticisms of them, even when the author is purposefully introducing those counterpoints. After all, if you can discredit the minor NPC calling out your favorite character, you don't have to take that NPC seriously.

When someone absolutely "knows" anything about a subjective matter, whether it's "Joe is a saint beyond reproach" or "Joe is evil beyond redemption" or even "I like oatmeal", good luck trying to introduce nuance. But particularly when it comes to People I Empathize With (or People I Don't), no matter what label they go under.

V is spectacularly wrong for prioritizing necromancy and Familicide over "my children's legs are broken and my mate is still wounded from being staked to a tree". Period. No action of Kyrie's can possibly cancel that out or even mitigate it. And if it were possible to integrate and derive rights and wrongs like applied mathematics^*, I believe you'd get K(r)-K(w) > V(r)-V(w).
_{* - I don't think it is.}

But similarly, if^** Kyrie has been less than a perfect saint, Kyrie is responsible for their own actions. The fact a separate action of V's was (spectacularly) wrong doesn't change that, and vice versa.
_{** - I have neither desire nor ability to change anyone's opinion on that, thus the hypothetical.}

For the record: I don't think it's possible for either K or V to be a Perfect Saint who can't be criticized, or a Damned Fiend about whom nothing good should be said. I don't think the Giant is nearly that simple of a storyteller.

[Precure]

For me it is pretty obvious (also confirmed by ABD) that both kids had both of their legs broken, at the very least. That's probably something a parent should be slightly concerned about.

Okay, I completely missed that previous line.

It's strange then those children were able to stand on their legs when their legs were broken by a dragon.

It's also strange that I and V were wasting time by discussing their marital affairs and V simply fly away instead of teleporting them to the nearest medic.

[hamishspence]

They weren't standing - they were sitting up, at most, in strips 641 (panel 2) and 642 (from panel 4 onward)

[Morty]

Considering that the entire point of the scene was V being focused on their power-trip rather than their family, not teleporting the kids to a healer also doesn't strike me as at all strange.

[dancrilis]

I think there might be two discussions going on here - that Vaarsuvius's use of Familicide was evil is not in doubt, it was fairly obviously evil when it was used, but that has little to do with 'Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?'.

Inkyrius didn't mention the spell itself nor the genocide nor the necromancy - and they did fail to listen to Vaarsuvius when they wanted to explain the situation.
Vaarsuvius didn't need to cast the spell and even if they did could have (presumedly) held off on casting it for a few minutes to talk to Inkyrius first.

For the relationship failing Vaarsuvius bares most of the responsibility I would say but 'evil' has little to do with that and Inkyrius is not blameless - so my thinking is they were both wrong in general and it could be said that in that specific few minutes Inkyrius was more in the wrong for not being willing to listen.

[Dion]

Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?

I reject the question on two levels;

1. Right about... what exactly?

2. The question is based on the logical fallacy that an argument has two sides, and that one of those sides is right, and the other is wrong. It’s a meaningless question because it’s based on a false assumption.

At any rate, V literally sold their soul to fiends in front of a chorus of castrated pedophiles. I honestly don’t know how to frame an argument about that.

[dancrilis]

I reject the question on two levels;

1. Right about... what exactly?

2. The question is based on the logical fallacy that an argument has two sides, and that one of those sides is right, and the other is wrong. It’s a meaningless question because it’s based on a false assumption.

I largely agree which is why my initial responce was that there was no disagreement during the crisis itself and only afterwards, and why I have not picked a clear side as I think both are at fault based on what we see during the disagreement.

However to attempt to answer your question based on my understanding of what I think is being asked.

1. Right about... what exactly?

Effectively I take this to mean: Who within that specific interaction acted as a better spouse?

If I am right in my interpretation than you could claim the question is stacked in favour of Vaarsuvius, but again if I am right the question favouring one side or another doesn't change the question.

[arimareiji]

I think there might be two discussions going on here - that Vaarsuvius's use of Familicide was evil is not in doubt, it was fairly obviously evil when it was used, but that has little to do with 'Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?'.

Inkyrius didn't mention the spell itself nor the genocide nor the necromancy - and they did fail to listen to Vaarsuvius when they wanted to explain the situation.
Vaarsuvius didn't need to cast the spell and even if they did could have (presumedly) held off on casting it for a few minutes to talk to Inkyrius first.

For the relationship failing Vaarsuvius bares most of the responsibility I would say but 'evil' has little to do with that and Inkyrius is not blameless - so my thinking is they were both wrong in general and it could be said that in that specific few minutes Inkyrius was more in the wrong for not being willing to listen.

I think I'm pretty much in the same camp with your post.

The Familicide aspect is just plain messy. My two cents:

• V casting it is horrific under any circumstances. It's understandably hard to resist as an emotive argument to show V is irredeemably Evil and thus must be wrong about anything no matter what. But it doesn't directly bear on their marriage at all.
• V doing something so horribly evil in front of their children is pretty messed up as well. Let alone "killing someone else's family in front of yours". (That sounds like anime backstory, when it delves into "How someone got so broken".) But it only directly bears on their marriage, to the degree Kyrie considers "being a good parent" a sine qua non for marriage.
• V prioritizing that (and gloating) ahead of taking care of their family, is a giant red light for their marriage. But technically, it's "only" spectacularly thoughtless rather than a direct injury (e.g. cheating, lying, shutting out) to it.

One last thought... I don't know if "right" is the best word. To me, it seems more like "Which one of them is the least wrong".

[Ionathus]

Effectively I take this to mean: Who within that specific interaction acted as a better spouse?

Inkyrius.

it could be said that in that specific few minutes Inkyrius was more in the wrong for not being willing to listen

This really isn't how arguments work. If I crash my car through a storefront, nearly kill someone, and then get out and try to be excessively polite with the store owner, they are not somehow in the wrong for the few minutes in which they process the accident and maybe even get (rightfully) angry at me for destroying their store and almost killing them or their patrons. Interactions aren't subdivided into seconds-long periods of time where one person is being more reasonable than the other.

At least, not in the real world. In panel-by-panel breakdowns during internet arguments, it's a lot easier to cite the 4 scattered panels where, again, somebody was momentarily rude, and somehow that means they deserve to get the "both sides misbehaved" treatment alongside the genocidal megalomaniac.

This accusation against Inkyrius is trying to frame their frustration and fear as unreasonable, while cutting away all context surrounding them, which includes:

• years of spousal neglect from V
• years of parental neglect from V
• being attacked by the ABD because of V
• V's altered personality making them unrecognizable
• V's altered abilities making them unrecognizable
• V's fixation on revenge, instead of their injured & terrified children
• V's fixation on showing off their newfound powers
• V's refusal to give up their powers, explicitly because "*I* still need to fix everything."

Vaarsuvius behaved horribly as a spouse and parent. This has been explicitly stated in the comic, multiple times, including by V themselves. Whatever momentary rudeness Inky displayed is so vastly overwhelmed by V's abhorrent behavior that it's not even worth mentioning.

[Robots]

Ionathus says it the best. Literally multiple characters state "hey V you screwed up bad because of these multiple reasons" including Vaarsuvius themself, but no, Inkyrius is the bad guy for... being justifiably afraid and angry at their spouse. Jeez.

[Darth Paul]

The question is based on the logical fallacy that an argument has two sides, and that one of those sides is right, and the other is wrong. It’s a meaningless question because it’s based on a false assumption.

Some arguments have two sides, one of which is right and the other of which is wrong. For example, let's go with some hypotheticals:

- Killing a fellow humanoid for personal pleasure is wrong; yes or no.

- Outside of war, the use of force or violence other than to defend oneself or others is wrong; yes or no. (Some would argue that war itself should not be an exception to the rule.)

- Sexual activity without consent is never permissible; yes or no.

I could go on, but you see my point. Some arguments are simply opinions, like "red wine is better than white" or "veganism is more moral than eating meat", but others are fairly cut & dried.

@Ionathus- you alluded to somone else bringing up Inkyrius' "momentary rudeness". I'm trying to remember any point where I found Inky coming across as rude. I realise this may have been how other people were characterizing something he said. Everything I recall were just some "What the hell, hero?" speeches, which were completely justified in my view. It's not rude to call someone out on turning into a personification of evil magic. Brutal honesty is not rudeness.

How do you do it politely, anyway? "Umm... I'm not sure how to put this, but...." No, it doesn't work. There's no polite way to say "You've turned into the Dark Lord of the Sith, Anakin!!" (Sorry, wrong franchise...) I mean, you can try it, but it will get you Force Choked either way...

[Ionathus]

@Ionathus- you alluded to somone else bringing up Inkyrius' "momentary rudeness". I'm trying to remember any point where I found Inky coming across as rude. I realise this may have been how other people were characterizing something he said. Everything I recall were just some "What the hell, hero?" speeches, which were completely justified in my view. It's not rude to call someone out on turning into a personification of evil magic. Brutal honesty is not rudeness.

How do you do it politely, anyway? "Umm... I'm not sure how to put this, but...." No, it doesn't work. There's no polite way to say "You've turned into the Dark Lord of the Sith, Anakin!!" (Sorry, wrong franchise...) I mean, you can try it, but it will get you Force Choked either way...

Yes, I agree with you -- I should've put sarcastic quotation marks around "rudeness". In my view, Inky was at no fault whatsoever. But to others, their reaction was somehow inappropriate, because they decided to talk to V instead of tending to their kids, or (and I kid you not) saying that Inky took too long to reach the children from when they were un-staked from the tree and when they reached the kids, 12 seconds later.

Again, that gamer mentality of taking "sub-optimal" and applying it to conversations. Pick apart any tiny little perceived misstep by the other side and use it to justify your own opinions or ignore criticism of "your" guy (in this case, V).

[Darth Paul]

Again, that gamer mentality of taking "sub-optimal" and applying it to conversations. Pick apart any tiny little perceived misstep by the other side and use it to justify your own opinions or ignore criticism of "your" guy (in this case, V).

Ah, yep, gotcha.

It's always always bothered me how some players will model and remodel every action every round, often moving their minis and then replacing them, poring over spells, trying to place an area of effect just so, taking 15 minutes to decide what to do in a nominally 6-second round. My view is that you make a decision, stick with the decision, and go with the best move that occurs to you. If it turns out that it wasn't "optimal", well, when is life optimal? It even extends to conversations with NPCs: "Oh, if the King is going to have that attitude, I won't say that." Well- you did.

Characters are characters, not drones. Play the character as you would react (at least the "you" that you envisoned for that character).

Yes, if I were playing a character in Kyrie's situation, I would be concerned for my children. And my primary goal would be making sure that Other Parent doesn't murder them in a fit of pique, which they look perfectly capable of doing- or even just by accident. There will be time to heal them once I know they're safe (especially in a world with Heal spells).

If I may draw a metaphor: You don't turn your back on the rabid dog, no matter how bad the weasel may have already hurt the kids. If the weasel's out of the picture, now the dog is the problem.

[Dr.Zero]

If I may draw a metaphor: You don't turn your back on the rabid dog, no matter how bad the weasel may have already hurt the kids. If the weasel's out of the picture, now the dog is the problem.

It's a great metaphor (aside for the rabid) and helps a lot to understand things:

Firstly, if you were curbstomped by the weasel, what makes you think you can face the dog which destroyed the weasel?

Secondly, if the dog was your own dog, and it killed gruesomely the weasel in an act of vengeance for attacking you (and to show off), what does make you think the dog is "rabid" or will attack you? (Aside the fact you never really understood the dog in the first place)

Thirdly, if, after killing the weasel to defend you, the dog -which is a magically talking dog- came to you already and did nothing to you, but inquiring on your status, what does make you think it will attack you later?

[Darth Paul]

Secondly, if the dog was your own dog, and it killed gruesomely the weasel in an act of vengeance for attacking you (and to show off), what does make you think the dog is "rabid" or will attack you? (Aside the fact you never really understood the dog in the first place)

I think you answered both your own questions. Knowing your own dog (or, let's go back to the original problem, your own spouse), you have a fair idea of what is or isn't normal behavior even under duress. Defending family from an attacker is one thing. Gruesomely destroying an attacker in the most vicious way imaginable is another. That would (or should) lead you to conclude one of two things- either "Something is very wrong, they are not themselves, they may be a danger to anyone as long as they're in this state", or else "I never really knew them at all if they can behave like this, can I trust them not to turn on us next?"

[Dr.Zero]

I think you answered both your own questions. Knowing your own dog (or, let's go back to the original problem, your own spouse), you have a fair idea of what is or isn't normal behavior even under duress. Defending family from an attacker is one thing. Gruesomely destroying an attacker in the most vicious way imaginable is another. That would (or should) lead you to conclude one of two things- either "Something is very wrong, they are not themselves, they may be a danger to anyone as long as they're in this state", or else "I never really knew them at all if they can behave like this, can I trust them not to turn on us next?"

It makes sense, but only as long as you take the single action by itself (ie: he popped in from nowhere, killed gruesomely, without saying a word).
But it didn't happen that way.
This is why the questions to answer were three, and not just one. ;)
Indeed, if you check out the third point in my previous post, you'll see that in the context of V who had already talked about the health of I. and the kids, there were no reason at all to think V would attack them. A lot of reasons to think: "My god, what have you become?", but not to think "Let me get the stick to defend myself from my spouse who 20 seconds before asked if we had urgent health issues".

[Darth Paul]

It makes sense, but only as long as you take the single action by itself (ie: he popped in from nowhere, killed gruesomely, without saying a word).
But it didn't happen that way.
This is why the questions to answer were three, and not just one. ;)
Indeed, if you check out the third point in my previous post, you'll see that in the context of V who had already talked about the health of I. and the kids, there were no reason at all to think V would attack them. A lot of reasons to think: "My god, what have you become?", but not to think "Let me get the stick to defend myself from my spouse who 20 seconds before asked if we had urgent health issues".

Indeed, V did inquire, while looking in the opposite direction and in possibly the least concerned way I can imagine. Here's the actual script:

V: Are your injuries or those of our children immediately life-threatening?

I: "Our" children ...Suvie?! Is that you?? Great elven gods have mercy, what happened to you-?

V: A simple yes or no will suffice.

I: Uh, no... I suppose not, but-

V: Good. [beat panel]
V: Because I am not done with the dragon. [proceeds to reanimate ABD's head and commits Familicide in full view of horrified family]

So, your spouse is for one thing unrecognizable to you, for another committed mass murder in front of you and your children (less than 10 yards away by the look of it), for a third has demonic voices speaking through them (which Kyrie can hear, established in 641). I don't see how utter horror is not an appropriate first reaction. And it appears fully justified, since in 642, after Kyrie says "I simply thought that I had some sort of say in what happened to your soul. I apologize for my presumption," V's first reaction is to raise their hands blazing with magic while shouting, "You stubborn FOOL!"

V is out of control. The ultimate arcane power is one thing, the emotional unbalance is another. V is drunk on the Dark Side, and Inkyrius can see it. If it were otherwise, V would indeed be able to give up the soul splice right then, after defeating the dragon. But their true motivation was not just saving their family; the whole book long V has been trying to find a way to make up for their magic not being enough to save Azure City. "I still need to fix everything." The ABD just brought things to a head.