Results 271 to 300 of 1011
-
2021-05-17, 03:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- New England
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
-
2021-05-17, 03:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
-
2021-05-17, 03:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Yep. The gods haven't fixed this problem because the gods only act together when a majority agrees, and most of them don't care.
The fact is what makes characters like Roy, Durkon and the other good is that they go beyond the minimum and beyond what is just needed. That selflessness and willingness to try and be proactive is what makes them, well, good. I heard someone say that the Good, Neutral and Evil axis could be defined as "moral, amoral and immoral" respectively.
There are no end to arguments people will make to justify why something isn't their fault and why it isn't in their hands, but our heroes aren't like that. As noted, someone has to be willing to be responsible and do something about it instead of saying "not my fault so I don't have to do anything to fix it."
-
2021-05-17, 03:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
I'm fairly certain you'll like him again. Give it a few months and these pages will be part of a larger plot arc where this discussion has paid off in a less didactic talky way, rather than something we all obsess over and pick apart each week while waiting for Serini to finally attack.
Especially if the coming pages involve Durkon's hammer smashing Redcloak in the face (again), which would be very nice.Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-17 at 03:13 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Paladins have a class-based obligation to not perform injustice. Failing to rectify injustice would be an edge case. "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities" -- at what point failure to act is deemed to be an act in itself can be open to interpretation.
-
2021-05-17, 03:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Well, when it comes to Lawful folk, they do like at it from a societal level unlike Chaotic folk. It does take a bunch of individuals to convice people to do or not do something as a collective, but negligance or willful ignorance isn't exactly a good thing.
Moral obligations and duty are aspects of a society. Alot of people take stuff for granted and don't consider the less fortunate. It could be argued it is bad that people would rather avoid confronting or maintain blindness to problems. But that's not what folk like Durkon or Roy do.
-
2021-05-17, 03:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
I don't believe it applies to the discussion a lot since it's about helping a third-party entire race while your example was strictly a 2-men scenario, but sure:
In general yes, the guy with more food should theoretically help the guy with less IF HE WANTS TO, but if he doesn't that doesn't automatically mean he's a bad person. If the other person tries taking said food by force the first has all the right to defend himself even if his resource pool is bigger, or to deny him food afterwards for example.
Or maybe sharing his food with him could mean the death of both while waiting for rescue in their small islands.
Basically inequality is not automatically synonymous with injustice nor is an act that preserves said state of inequality automatically wrong.
-
2021-05-17, 03:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Haven't read the rest of the thread, but it strikes me how much better written that speech is than the current strip. It makes being good feel energetic and positive. This strip makes it feel self-flagellating and strangely self-centered. Notice the difference: despite being a "heroic monologue", Roy is actually self-effacing about his part to play. But his dialogue with Durkon today is all about navel-gazing over their own moral status and share of culpability. Why does that even matter? Someone who's truly altruistic doesn't need to be culpable for something to want to fix it, while those who aren't altruistic couldn't care less about an abstract moral burden.
Join the 3.5e Discord server: https://discord.gg/ehGFz6M3nJ
-
2021-05-17, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Probably because this situation is trickier, and because it involves recognizing something they'd overlooked before.
Xykon was a Bad Dude when Roy fought him at Azure City, but he was just a bad dude. The danger was that he was scary and powerful and could toast Roy very easily (and did). This current situation, meanwhile, isn't a problem you can just hit until it stops. It's going require change on a different level. It will take some thinking through.
And honestly, while I don't read today's strip as "self-flaggelation" like you do, I think your observation gets across an important point: Good doesn't always feel good. Sometimes being Good is a power fantasy, complete with lens flares. And other times being Good means recognizing when something is wrong and making it right won't be glamorous; it will be hard and messy.Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-17 at 03:27 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Because they're Lawful Good. Taking down a maniac like Xykon is relatively straightforward, but fixing societal problems is a lot more complicated, especially if it involves confronting your own past beliefs, potential negligance and so on. Hence the Lawful part, focusing on societal aspects.
Plus, Roy admits he got into the quest for the wrong reasons, being selfish about it.
I do recall what Durkon said about how realizing how bad you been makes you feel bad, hence why Evil folk double down on their bad rather than confront what they did or haven't done. Or as Belkar put it, "cowards who can't handle hardcore introspection."
Facing guilt and dealing with it is part of character development.
-
2021-05-17, 03:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Negligance isn't typically blameless though. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" is a saying that comes to mind by Burke. Granted, the original saying was: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
Last edited by CountDVB; 2021-05-17 at 03:29 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
-
2021-05-17, 03:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
-
2021-05-17, 03:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- New England
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Why is this a relevant disanalogy? I mean, there are practical concerns that come up in the case of trying to help all the goblins. But the underlying moral issue seems to be the same.
In general yes, the guy with more food should theoretically help the guy with less IF HE WANTS TO
if he doesn't that doesn't automatically mean he's a bad person.
If the other person tries taking said food by force the first has all the right to defend himself even if his resource pool is bigger, or to deny him food afterwards for example.
Or maybe sharing his food with him could mean the death of both while waiting for rescue in their small islands.
Basically inequality is not automatically synonymous with injustice nor is an act that preserves said state of inequality automatically wrong.Last edited by pyrefiend; 2021-05-17 at 03:32 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Given the repetitive theme in this comic about groups using self-righteous ideologies and oppression narratives as an excuse to behave in a destructive manner, (Redcloak, Miko, the paladins before O-Chul,...), it's amusingly ironic that now we've come to {scrubbed}
Last edited by Peelee; 2021-05-17 at 03:41 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2021-05-17, 03:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
The goblinoids having been screwed over has been a major theme of the comic and the motivation of Redcloak for white a long Time now.
It looks more that by now, The whole thing is now in people’s faces and forcing them to confront uncomfortable things that they would prefer to rather not think about.
The Giant has been this point clear before.Last edited by Peelee; 2021-05-17 at 03:42 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
I think this is something that webcomics in particular suffer from: because they're periodically released rather than as fully-formed compilations, the latest strip lingers in the mind longer than it should.
I posted about this in another thread and will now arrogantly quote myself:
Originally Posted by IonathusLast edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-17 at 03:38 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
-
2021-05-17, 03:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Washington D.C.
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
The Mod on the Silver Mountain: No.
Everyone, please remember that real-world political topics are off limits on this forum. Please keep all political discussion regulated to non-real-world examples. If you want to talk about reparations in the context of the goblins and Azurites, that is fine. But the second it goes into real-world territory, it has crossed the line. The last few threads had to be closed several times, please help us break that streak.Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2021-05-17, 03:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Bolded gets at what I was going to post. It might seem didactic or self-flagellating to the reader, because by now we've heard about the problem, or the arguments for it, for a long time now. But this is the first time Roy is hearing them and the first time he's contemplating them.
Yes, with a side of "it's hard to take someone seriously who uses the {scrubbed} when it's written by one man who's been very clear about what that plot is for years."Last edited by Peelee; 2021-05-17 at 03:46 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2021
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
It is because it's in people's faces yes I would agree with that first half.
As for the second half... no, it sounds like some really big wishful thinking on your part that the people complaining are just "People who've been running from uncomfortable truths and that are now being shown... THE LIGHT!".
I mean come on, let's stay grounded here?
-
2021-05-17, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
When you're struggling or even "sort of okay" middle-class, you have to make peace with the fact that people are out there suffering in the world due to a lack of material resources, and there's nothing you can really do about it because trading your own well-being for theirs doesn't really improve the world in any meaningful way.
But when you win the lottery or become rich through other means, you gain an excess of material wealth that you don't need but others do, and that means that you now can aid others without you being endangered in any way whatsoever.
You can still choose not to, mind you, but that is a moral choice you are making.
-
2021-05-17, 03:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
If this is a claim that the comic has thrown nuance out the window, I'd like to emphatically object. The last few pages have been quite impressive for me, as a writer of fiction, to see just how intentionally Rich constructs the scenes to keep his characters complex while also debating some pretty hefty subject material. Notice how neither Durkon nor Redcloak really give much ground in their debate, but seem to agree on certain points. Notice how Thor doesn't really take the blame. Notice how Durkon acknowledges that in passing but doesn't preach to Thor. Notice how both Roy and Durkon acknowledge Redcloak is right about some things but not others.
In short, I've rarely seen a story that treats its characters with as much respect as OotS does, allowing them to have actual personalities and disagreements while still putting actual conversations about actual issues into their mouths. That's a level of skill I don't yet possess, and one that's in precious short supply in fiction writing.
Well, of course there is! Dogs are loyal, steadfast companions and mice are filthy, terrible vermin. Everyone knows Tom is the tragic hero of the cartoon!Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-17 at 03:53 PM. Reason: self-scrubbed
-
2021-05-17, 03:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- New England
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
I don't know about that... if you're even doing "okay" by affluent-nation standards, then you have enough wealth to help people who have much less in the way of material resources.
If you earn the typical income in the US, and donate 10% of your earnings each year to the Against Malaria Foundation, you will probably save dozens of lives over your lifetime.
-
2021-05-17, 03:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
I agree, but a) I am not from an affluent nation, so I tend to not assume people reading my posts are, and b) I didn't want my point to get derailed by nitpicking whether a middle-class person can or cannot effectively aid others materially, when the point I was making was about a lottery winner or some other wealthy person anyway.
-
2021-05-17, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- New England
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
-
2021-05-17, 03:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
I think these two quotes help me understand part of why I am struggling so much with the tone and direction of the story.
I can accept that the goblins have been dealt a poor hand in terms of territory. I agree with many others here who feel the comic has not the best job in showing how desperate and weak the goblin position is, but intellectually I can grok the idea they are unlucky.
What I understand less is that many people seem to view the goblins as a mistreated underclass in some universal civilisation when from what we see the goblins have their own separate nations (as indeed do the humans - the Stickverse seems to be composed of a mosaic of kingdoms and cultures across all species.) In that sense the goblin conquest of Azure City wasn't a "revolution" but an invasion by a hostile neighbouring state. It is still possible to read nuance into invasion stories of course, but it does make the 'oppressed underclass' argument fall flat for me, especially because it seems to be treading very heavily into overt analogy with real world politics.
-
2021-05-17, 04:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Well, that's in essence what the gods are: parents. They created the world, then they divided it up into territories they each control, and they have to respect the boundaries of those gods. They're responsible for the races they create first and foremost, but can extend that responsibility to races that choose to worship them. Thor can't get involved in areas controlled by other gods, largely has to stick with his own pantheon and people. Now, it's possible Thor could have taken steps to try and "adopt" the goblins, send them clerics and try to convert them, but that was an option and not a moral responsibility. The goblins got a bad draw with having a crappy parent, and that responsibility starts and stops with said bad parent.
But consider a different kind of case with the same structure. Suppose that we're shipwrecked, and you and I are the only survivors. We wash ashore on a desert island, and by sheer chance, I end up on the part of the island that's rich with fish and coconuts. By sheer chance, you end up on the part that's only got a few old coconuts and small fish.
Suppose I were to say "Well, it's not my fault you ended up over there. I didn't put you in that position. So I'm not going to share—I'll keep all of my nice fish and coconuts, thank you very much." I think that would be seriously wrong of me! It's unjust that I have so much better stuff than you—and by refusing to share, I'm intentionally perpetuating that injustice. I don't think it's at all crazy to say that I am in fact obligated to share with you. I'm obligated to at least take some minimal steps to make our situation more just.
I think this is the relevant metaphor here. The goblins and the humans "washed ashore" on different parts of the world. The goblins got the bad parts, the humans got the good parts. The situation is unjust. But, plausibly, there are some minimal steps the humans can take to make things more just. It seems like they are obligated to do that, for the same reason that I'm obligated to share my coconuts and fish with you.
It would also depend on my reaction. Let's see I find you and see that you're in a better position than myself.
If I immediately attack you to try and steal your stuff, then you're well within your right to defend yourself, decide never to share again, and attack me on sight.
If I just show up and demand you give me stuff, you're also well within your rights not to share. You certainly have the option to, and perhaps that act of charity would engender some good will in me towards you, and promote positive relations. Or I'd feel that you're a push over and will be coming back constantly to demand stuff from you and never seek to better myself.
If I show up, open a dialogue and ask if there's not some way we could share those resources, working with you to improve our situation to a mutual benefit in exchange for an equal share of resources, then yes, you'd be a jerk for not sharing. It'd still technically be your right to say that, "No, I like things the way they are, piss off", but it's a much less reasonable stance if I approach you this way. At the same time, you might have a good reason to do this. You might not trust me, you might be storing resources in case of bad times, etc. But it'd still be your choice to make.
If you see what I have and try to use your superior position to bully me or take my stuff, then yes, you're a jerk and I have every right to resist you.
It depends on how both parties approach things.
-
2021-05-17, 04:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread
Well, the Giant has made his opinion clear on why he is doing this: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...&postcount=120
There’s also his view on having it be real world allegory: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...&postcount=132