Poll: V or I?

[Precure]

I thought the question was "Who was right during the ABD crisis," about the ultimatum given by I to V: "If you get these powers to save us, give up them right now." It's not a question about whether I was right to divorce them, or who was more right during their hypothetical past lives, which we know very little of it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought the question was "Who was right during the ABD crisis," about the ultimatum given by I to V: "If you get these powers to save us, give up them right now." It's not a question about whether I was right to divorce them, or who was more right during their hypothetical past lives, which we know very little of it.

There was a TV show in the US (a few decades ago, IIRC) where the theme was "Can this marriage be Saved?" and I think that (once we get the context offered by Blackwing and the point about "for the last six years" from Inkyrius ...) I'd have to go with "no" - unless V stops being an adventurer. Given that V is an integral part of OoTS, V can't stop being an adventurer. But even without the ABD event, I'd say that marriage was headed for split city ... except I have no good basis for whatever the general elven point of view is on 'how patient do you have to be with your partner if you both live to be 700 yeas old, on average?"
For Imkyrius, that - the ABD moment - was the last straw on a bale-of-hay sized collection of straws perched on an anemic camel's back.

[Precure]

Yeah, V's career path was not compatible with marital and parental duties I wanted. Their relationship was on destination to divorceville, with or without ABD.

[Emanick]

They're both wrong. The whole scene shows two individuals who are not only failing to communicate, but to an extent don't even seem to be trying. No wonder they don't seem to have kept in touch via Sendings (although I admit we don't really have any firm evidence on this either way).

I don't think this shows that V and Inky are fundamentally incompatible, because a failure to communicate can ruin practically any relationship. In elven terms, V's adventuring career will probably end very soon, so that in itself is not an insurmountable obstacle. They could pick up where they'd left off if they were both committed to trying to understand what information they were missing.

Indeed, this lack of facility with open communication seems to be a longstanding issue for the two of them - after all, V notes that "it took my mate and I many years to acknowledge our feelings for each other."* Some people are just bad at that kind of thing. It doesn't mean they're wrong for each other - it does, however, mean that they're likely to have a rocky time when it comes to interpersonal issues in general.

* There are other explanations for this besides just "We aren't good at communicating/sharing our feelings," but in light of the rest of the comic, I think that one makes the most sense.

[Dr.Zero]

I thought the question was "Who was right during the ABD crisis," about the ultimatum given by I to V: "If you get these powers to save us, give up them right now." It's not a question about whether I was right to divorce them, or who was more right during their hypothetical past lives, which we know very little of it.

I've gone too long without directly addressing the poll question of "Who was right, during the ABD crisis, V or I?" exactly as worded. (I've tried to touch on it, but mostly gotten lost in the weeds of "their overall relationship".)

Yes, and yes.
They were clearly badly coupled, one pursuing some romanticism, the other pursuing mostly his career (so much to be oblivious that to send the children away wasn't meant as a gift from I to V, to let V work in peace).
But the question was, indeed, not about that, but about the specific behaviors during the ABD crisis.

[KorvinStarmast]

But the question was, indeed, not about that, but about the specific behaviors during the ABD crisis.

The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.

(On the other hand, it wasn't a bad illustration of the concept of being 'drunk with power' or 'drunk on power' ...)

It wasn't necessary that Inkyrius decree that this was the straw that broke the camel's back (though that position is understandable) - with elven lives being centuries long, and elves having a different view on life for a variety of reasons (the nice GiTP post some years back on 3.5 D&D "So you want to be an elf" is a good illustration of that), how they view mating relationships and romance and love are likely to be different from how humans view such things.

The author made that choice. Since the readers are all humans, it is certainly an accessible choice for the readers, and for some it may even resonate a bit with RL experience or various tropes/story forms that have currency.

[woweedd]

There was a TV show in the US (a few decades ago, IIRC) where the theme was "Can this marriage be Saved?" and I think that (once we get the context offered by Blackwing and the point about "for the last six years" from Inkyrius ...) I'd have to go with "no" - unless V stops being an adventurer. Given that V is an integral part of OoTS, V can't stop being an adventurer. But even without the ABD event, I'd say that marriage was headed for split city ... except I have no good basis for whatever the general elven point of view is on 'how patient do you have to be with your partner if you both live to be 700 yeas old, on average?"
For Imkyrius, that - the ABD moment - was the last straw on a bale-of-hay sized collection of straws perched on an anemic camel's back.

I mean, yes. I have a feeling that was a large part of why Inky put up with V spending so long in human lands. For an elf, who, in the OOTS, are still in their infancy at 20 years and such, a couple years in human lands is basically like going on a camping trip for a weekend. No, the problem wasn't that. It was that V didn't care about Inky as much as they did the search for ultimate arcane power. I would have been fine with their mate's search for arcane power, but, in doing it, they neglected their partner's emotional needs, and, eventually, with this whole incident, confirmed they cared about magic far more then their marriage.

[hroþila]

The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.

I haaaaaaaaaate this with this many a's.

[Fyraltari]

I haaaaaaaaaate this with this many a's.

Wasted opportunity to put 8 "a" in there.

[arimareiji]

Wasted opportunity to put 8 "a" in there.

That's because hroþila's true nature is that of a lover, not a h8r. (^_~)

[Ruck]

The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.

(On the other hand, it wasn't a bad illustration of the concept of being 'drunk with power' or 'drunk on power' ...)

It wasn't necessary that Inkyrius decree that this was the straw that broke the camel's back (though that position is understandable) - with elven lives being centuries long, and elves having a different view on life for a variety of reasons (the nice GiTP post some years back on 3.5 D&D "So you want to be an elf" is a good illustration of that), how they view mating relationships and romance and love are likely to be different from how humans view such things.

The author made that choice. Since the readers are all humans, it is certainly an accessible choice for the readers, and for some it may even resonate a bit with RL experience or various tropes/story forms that have currency.

I haaaaaaaaaate this with this many a's.

Once we start dismissing the implications of characters' actions with "the author made this choice," discussing them becomes meaningless. The author made all of the choices for all of the characters in the entire story. If we're not treating them like characters with agency who make decisions and take actions that have consequences, then there's no point in discussing who was in the right or what have you, because the answer to everything is "because the author decided it."

[Emanick]

But the question was, indeed, not about that, but about the specific behaviors during the ABD crisis.

The problem with narrowing the scope like that is something that Doug Lampert pointed out - once the ABD was killed, the further step (familicide) wasn't necessary ... except for the non trivial problem (Doylist) of being necessary as a plot point (why Girards' family were all dead in the next book) and as a pivot point for "V character growth" subsequent to that.

Just to be clear, you have me quoted as saying that, but it's actually Dr. Zero who said it. Not that it matters terribly.

[Rrmcklin]

I don't think there's any ambiguity here - given the context of their relationship, what had just transpired, and establishing that V had made a Faustian deal with literal fiends, that I was willing to talk at all is being more accommodating that many.

Yes, their response wasn't the most generous, but it can easily be argued that V had lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when it came to such things.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just to be clear, you have me quoted as saying that, but it's actually Dr. Zero who said it. Not that it matters terribly.

I am so sorry, I screwed up the multiquote.

[arimareiji]

I don't think there's any ambiguity here - given the context of their relationship, what had just transpired, and establishing that V had made a Faustian deal with literal fiends, that I was willing to talk at all is being more accommodating that many.

Yes, their response wasn't the most generous, but it can easily be argued that V had lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when it came to such things.

In case it throws anyone else off as far as it did me, I believe "I" is meant to represent Inkyrius rather than being a first-person pronoun.

(*reads* "given the context..., that I was willing to talk at all is..."
*thinks* "Whoa, wait... who sent Rrmcklin a passive-angrygram that made them respond in kind? I don't see it..."
*realizes* "Oh, never mind, my mistake.")

[Precure]

On a somewhat relevant discussion point, I never understand why there is always a talk about familicide when I and V's fight become a discussion point, even though there is actually nothing that indicates I care about it or even noticed it beforehand.

[WanderingMist]

They are both right, and that is crux of the problem.

Vaarsuvius is right because there is no reason to not try and stop Xykon while they have such power at their disposal, and to dismiss it right then and there would be a waste.

But Inkyrius is right about V's general character. Had Xykon no longer been a threat (presume that Soon had in fact succeeded before Miko's intervention), would V have given the power up upon defeating the dragon and Inkyrius' ultimatum, or would V still have had "to fix everything"?

[hroþila]

You guys are talking like there was no cost to keeping the splice. There was - extra accrued time, the consequences of which could very well be fatal to the Order's quest to save the world. If the possibility of defeating Xykon made V right in selling their soul, why didn't V try to do that before the ABD showed up? If Xykon's defeat justified any extra accrued time after killing the ABD, why didn't V wait for the party to be at full strength and ready, to maximize the chances of defeating Xykon?

The answer is simple - V did it to fix every problem personally and to best Xykon, not to save the world, and they tried to rationalize it all along the way. Which Inkyrius (and the IFCC, I might add) rightly called them out on.

[Precure]

You guys are talking like there was no cost to keeping the splice. There was - extra accrued time, the consequences of which could very well be fatal to the Order's quest to save the world.

V didn't know it back then.

If the possibility of defeating Xykon made V right in selling their soul, why didn't V try to do that before the ABD showed up?

If V did it to fix every problem personally and to best Xykon, not to save their family and the world, why didn't they try to do that before the ABD showed up?

[hamishspence]

Because nobody had offered a proper "soul for arcane power swap", prior to ABD showing up.

[Rrmcklin]

The point remains that if we're working under the logic that every second counts then V. still wasted time on pointless revenge and rubbing said revenge in the face of an already neutralized foe.

Self-aggradizement may not have been the only reason they did everything they di, but it was very clearly the most important one by a wide-margin, whatever else they tried to tell themselves in the moment.

[dps]

I thought the entire point of the devil deal was that V was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. And even so, "the right thing" was the most terrible and extreme thing V could have done. They accept the deal not to save their family, but rather to gain more power. Hell, the strip they accept the deal is entitled "The Wrong Reasons"!

Too many people these days simply don't know right from wrong, even when it is literally spelled out for them.

[hroþila]

V didn't know it back then.

No, but it's not like V thought it wouldn't matter either. Pacts with the devil are frowned upon for a reason.

If V did it to fix every problem personally and to best Xykon, not to save their family and the world, why didn't they try to do that before the ABD showed up?

Because V needs to be able to rationalize it.

[Dr.Zero]

No, but it's not like V thought it wouldn't matter either. Pacts with the devil are frowned upon for a reason.

Because V needs to be able to rationalize it.

As far as V knew, the deal was that his soul was going spend that time in hell after his death.
So he knew there was a price, but he thought it was a price he was going to pay personally, with some nasty torture or whatever they do to souls to have fun in hell.

[Rrmcklin]

As far as V knew, the deal was that his soul was going spend that time in hell after his death.
So he knew there was a price, but he thought it was a price he was going to pay personally, with some nasty torture or whatever they do to souls to have fun in hell.

And that's on them for assuming fiends would be so straightforward.

[Misery Esquire]

Well, let's see. V and I would be VI, which is 6 in Arabic numerals. Comic 6 has 6 word-starting C's - CCCCCC would be better written as DC, but it still tells us to go to Strip 600. In Strip 600, Roy learns to disrupt spellcasting - a vital part of V's character (to them, at least) - and references that they had told a similar joke in strip 100. In strip 100, there is a Devil(lish) Dean judging a goblin's application to Evil Ivy League. V fell from grace because of a triple Faustian pact, and caused I to ask V Y?

Tripling 100 to 300 brings us to another goblin-centric (Redcloak) strip, in which Redcloak is offering Xykon three choices - just as V sold out to three Lower Planes creatures. Azure City is the big name drop here, and when we check the various numbers mentioned 315 brings us to an Azure City skyline where Roy and Celia are romantic. But also discovering that there's trouble involved in the abilities available to one side of the relationship. Celia also mentions feeling like more than an entry in the Monster Manual, which V later references to the Black Dragon as well, at the peak of their... Excessive choices, that cause I to question their relationship.

Therefore, their relationship trouble was not only foreordained, but foreshadowed as well. Either that, or I just had a lot of fun tying together random coincidences.

[KorvinStarmast]

Therefore, their relationship trouble was not only foreordained, but foreshadowed as well. Either that, or I just had a lot of fun tying together random coincidences.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Mike Havran]

Therefore, their relationship trouble was not only foreordained, but foreshadowed as well. Either that, or I just had a lot of fun tying together random coincidences.

Eh, it's not really too different from other forum theories.

[Potatopeelerkin]

I reckon they were both in the right in some ways, and both in the wrong in others. Though I think V's position is a little more justified if only because they were acting on more complete information. Inkyrius' suggestion to give up the power there and then was not viable. The whole Xykon/Snarl thing has world-shattering consequences that would definitely put them back in danger. Forget defeating Xykon- even getting back to the party would be difficult if V let go of the power then (as, to V's knowledge, would be finding Haley, Belkar and Roy), and the OOTS clearly needs them all.

I tend to think it doesn't really matter if it was for the wrong reasons. Did V squander the potential? Kind of. But they still managed to achieve a lot of good with it- just not as much as they could have otherwise. The fact V's pride got in the way of achieving all that they could doesn't negate the very valid successes they did have.

Of course, the Familicide spell itself was undoubtedly evil. But that wasn't the part Inkyrius had a problem with.

[Bundin]

Im in the "how is this up for debate?!" camp, for the same reasons as previously mentioned.
V wanted to justify their actions and choices by saving Inky and kids, which technically worked until the threat was neutralised. When choosing not to drop the splice at that moment, it became painfully clear that their motives were a lot less pure than that. No time taken to try and explain things to Inky, even on a superficial level, not a moment spared for the children. While they did want to save their family, that was a secondary concern, as shown immediately after.

Enter the next justification: "I am willing to suffer through personal hardship because the world needs saving!". Sounds pretty noble, right. Unfortunately, it is equally untrue as the "have to save them" spiel. If it was only remotely true, V would have spent time to explain, to talk, to comfort, to show them that they are not just the monster that just killed, reanimated, tortured, and finally disintegrated a dragon.

V was an utter @$%#!)&# at that moment, personal growth only entered the equation much much later.

Their actions might have been somewhat justifiable, at least from a saving the world perspective, but V was never honest to himself or to Inky. Conclusion: Inky was absolutely right, having just witnessed what V said and did. "The end justifies the means" does not apply when one is not honest about what the end is, exactly.