OOTS #1247 - The Discussion Thread

[danielxcutter]

Well, Roy's never been as Lawful as Durkon. He tries, but I think someone on the forum said once that Durkon could out-Lawful a Modron.

[Rogan]

That's fair. But I don't think Peelees point, which I happened to support here, was that Roy is terrible person who should never have been accepted in the LG afterlife.
The point is, Roy was acting at least in a moral gray zone. But he wasn't called out as evil for this action, while Serini was called evil for her actions by some posters. (Not necessarily posters involved in this discussion right now!)

Peelee is fighting against the bias against Serini by showing flaws and mistakes of the order, things that are in a similar ballpark than Serinis behavior, which didn't get such a strong negative response.

At least, that's what I think Peelee is doing. If I'm wrong, it's my mistake.

[Hurkyl]

Serini got maimed by Xykon and almost died, so I'm not going to criticize her for being traumatized and afraid of him.

(snip)

That's why I don't think Serini's position is entirely based on logic and philosophy - fear, trauma, stubbornness, some other emotion or sentiment, or a mixture of those thrown into the mix as well, sure, but it really just sounds like some people think that Serini is entirely right to think what she does with what she knows and her only shortcoming is something she had no actual responsibility for.

What do you imagine the resolution of this conflict being?

• Serini comes to believe once again in the power of friendship and suddenly stops caring about everything she says during her conversation with the paladins
• The Order gets a chance to confront the criticisms and provide a strong counterpoint

That is why I reject so much the characterization of this conflict just being that Serini is psychologically damaged, because the implication is that the resolution of this conflict comes from addressing Serini's character without addressing the criticisms she has of the protagonists.

And those criticisms have merit, even if we don't believe that merit enough to warrant rejecting the protagonist faction, and IMO it would be absolutely terrible writing if the protagonists dodge them because the story went ad hominem instead.

For the record, if I had to guess, my money would be on a third option that conflict is resolved by something changing the situation -- e.g. Team Evil interrupting their little battle.

[danielxcutter]

Okay, I'm pretty sure I didn't use the words psychologically damaged when describing her. Stop putting words in my mouth.

V basically had a panic attack once they realized they'd slaughtered countless humans due to Familicide, does that make them "psychologically damaged" then? Does that, somehow, make V lesser of a character?

I did say that I can't criticize her at all if Serini's motivation is influenced by fear and/or trauma; look what he did to her! It'd explain a lot, and it's not something I'd blame her for.

[Hurkyl]

Okay, I'm pretty sure I didn't use the words psychologically damaged when describing her. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You didn't use the words, but it's definitely what you're describing.

Edit: is this one of those weird situations where if you don't use whatever euphemism is currently in vogue that people willfully misinterpret you? I really dislike it when people play those sorts of games regarding mental issues.

V basically had a panic attack once they realized they'd slaughtered countless humans due to Familicide, does that make them "psychologically damaged" then?

Yes? This seems pretty clear to me.

Does that, somehow, make V lesser of a character?

I mean, yes, quite literally. Unless, I guess, you are making some unspoken implication here beyond not having the mental fortitude to handle that situation. I mean, if by "lesser character" you mean "we can't take anything V says or does seriously", then having that panic attack doesn't support that.

I did say that I can't criticize her at all if Serini's motivation is influenced by fear and/or trauma; look what he did to her! It'd explain a lot, and it's not something I'd blame her for.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. This isn't about whether or not we should have any sort of sympathy for what happened to Serini and whatever long-term trauma she may have suffered from it.

My point is that you're using that trauma as an excuse to be dismissive Serini's reasons for standing against the Order.

[danielxcutter]

...I'm sorry, what? So everyone who has some kind of underlying mental issue is a bad character, you mean? That's basically most of the main cast!

[Hurkyl]

...I'm sorry, what? So everyone who has some kind of underlying mental issue is a bad character, you mean? That's basically most of the main cast!

Character flaws are character flaws. I don't understand the jump to "bad character"; neither the rationale for saying it nor what you mean to imply by it.

[danielxcutter]

You literally said having a panic attack makes V lesser of a character, I dunno what else that could mean. And I was not saying that she was a bad character for it!

[Hurkyl]

I mean, yes, quite literally. Unless, I guess, you are making some unspoken implication here beyond not having the mental fortitude to handle that situation. I mean, if by "lesser character" you mean "we can't take anything V says or does seriously", then having that panic attack doesn't support that.

You literally said having a panic attack makes V lesser of a character, I dunno what else that could mean. And I was not saying that she was a bad character for it!

It could mean V didn't have the mental fortitude to handle that situation.

I guess I should take this as meaning that "bad character" is an unspoken implication of your use of "lesser character"? With that meaning, my answer to the previous question would be no, but with the caveat that I'm understanding 'bad character' to mean how I would use the phrase rather than knowing what you mean to imply by it.

And I will also add I don't understand the point of considering in this context whether or not having that problem would mean V has "bad character".

[danielxcutter]

It could mean V didn't have the mental fortitude to handle that situation.

I guess I should take this as meaning that "bad character" is an unspoken implication of your use of "lesser character"? With that meaning, my answer to the previous question would be no, but with the caveat that I'm understanding 'bad character' to mean how I would use the phrase rather than knowing what you mean to imply by it.

And I will also add I don't understand the point of considering in this context whether or not having that problem would mean V has "bad character".

You're misrepresenting my argument by conflating character as in character in a story, and character as in the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual. Saying someone has bad character and saying someone is a bad character mean entirely different things.

If Serini was traumatized by being horrifically maimed, that might be a character flaw, but that doesn't mean that she's flawed as a character, as in flawed writing. Character flaws only really matter if they have some impact on the story - like V wanting more power and getting it, and using that power to slaughter 25%+ of black dragons and countless other humans, like Haley's paranoia preventing her from trusting the other members of the party on multiple occasions, and then falling into Nale's trap because she overcompensated.

And not knowing about the Godsmoot isn't a "flaw", it's just not knowing. That's not what "Serini is flawed" should mean.

[Hurkyl]

Character flaws only really matter if they have some impact on the story - like V wanting more power and getting it, and using that power to slaughter 25%+ of black dragons and countless other humans, like Haley's paranoia preventing her from trusting the other members of the party on multiple occasions, and then falling into Nale's trap because she overcompensated.

Or like Serini refusing to work against Xykon, due to fear borne from her previous maiming. That is the specific narrative you've been advocating for, is it not? That everything she's said has just been a way to rationalize her fear of facing Xykon again? And, IMO, the formulation has come with the implication that nothing she's said in those rationalizations merits any consideration, because they were borne from her trauma.

Serini's refusal to work with the protagonist faction has also been chalked up to trauma borne from the falling apart of the Scribblers, and IIRC a few other similar sorts of flaws have been suggested too over the course of these discussions.

It could very well be that she does have these flaws and they are biasing her thread of logic -- but the thing I stand firm against is when people use those flaws to warrant dismissing the logic that she has put forth, as if those criticisms and arguments are without merit because they are coming from a flawed person.

The thing I would consider poor writing is if the story does that too.

[Liquor Box]

He said "you probably shouldn't have discussed how you are going to beat the system in front of the guy charged with upholding the system".

So it wasn't cheat. But beat the system doesn't sound very lawful to me either. If you move inside if the boundaries of the system, you would not need to beat it. What Roy tried to do was exploiting a legal loophole, something that's clearly contrary to the spirit of the law while following the letter. This might be fine for LE, but we are talking about LG here.

Roy also was not that open to Hinjo. He asked him to reduce the charges on a somewhat valid case. And he probably knew about the plan to offer a 5 year reduction. But he explained how this would lead to a non-sentence to Belkar, Hinjo simply was close enough to listen. But since the order has a habit of ignoring NPCs, that's not being open to Hinjo. The quote above shows that Hinjo was not informed of the plan beforehand.

My only quibble with your description above is it wasn't just that Hinjo was close enough to listen, but was clearly standing right next to them both, and Roy must have known he was there.

Apart from that, i guess people's mileage may vary on whether it was evil of Roy to try to set up a deal with the authorities that got Belkar off.

[danielxcutter]

I mean, Xykon is really strong and the phylactery makes it mindbogglingly hard to put him down for good, yes, but that doesn't mean the Order should roll over and give up. And they're not going to blow this Gate up anyways, so there really isn't much criticism she can really make once she knows all the facts.

[Carl]

I mean, Xykon is really strong and the phylactery makes it mindbogglingly hard to put him down for good, yes, but that doesn't mean the Order should roll over and give up. And they're not going to blow this Gate up anyways, so there really isn't much criticism she can really make once she knows all the facts.

That assumes any fight with Xykon takes place well away from the gate. If it's in the same room it could become a casualty of a miss-aimed spell or other goings on. They don't have to be willing, intending,l or even trying to destroy it to get it destroyed in the crossfire by accident. And that assumes she's certain they wouldn't rather let Xykon rule the world than have it destroyed.

Obviously once she learns about the godsmoot and "The Plan" all that goes out the window. But thats clearly something she doesn't know yet.

[danielxcutter]

That assumes any fight with Xykon takes place well away from the gate. If it's in the same room it could become a casualty of a miss-aimed spell or other goings on. They don't have to be willing, intending,l or even trying to destroy it to get it destroyed in the crossfire by accident. And that assumes she's certain they wouldn't rather let Xykon rule the world than have it destroyed.

Obviously once she learns about the godsmoot and "The Plan" all that goes out the window. But thats clearly something she doesn't know yet.

Yes, but the Order was explicitly trying to ambush him somewhere where they WOULDN'T risk blowing up the Gate themselves specifically to avoid that scenario. And that assumes she's even open to hearing them out. Lien literally said that "[destroying the Gate] isn't even an option here" and Serini didn't even NOTICE, or if she did she ignored it.

[Hurkyl]

Lien literally said that "[destroying the Gate] isn't even an option here" and Serini didn't even NOTICE, or if she did she ignored it.

And what happens when you have "no other choice" but to do something that "isn't even an option"? They've already admitted to being willing to do "whatever it takes".

[danielxcutter]

You ask "what do you mean?" rather than basically talk past them, even sarcastically.

[Carl]

Yes, but the Order was explicitly trying to ambush him somewhere where they WOULDN'T risk blowing up the Gate themselves specifically to avoid that scenario. And that assumes she's even open to hearing them out. Lien literally said that "[destroying the Gate] isn't even an option here" and Serini didn't even NOTICE, or if she did she ignored it.

Um we have no idea where the order would have fought him if Durkon hadn't got them chasing. They where looking for the Paladins, then getting chased.

Also Lien says that but Serreni has no way to know if they'll stick to that if it's a choice between letting Xykon win and blowing up the world. Remember as well she knows the OOTS is on the way, they clearly aren't Paladins so even if Lien and O-Chul can be trusted that doesn't mean the OOTS can.

She also doesn't think they can stop Xykon. Given that, what possibble advantage is their to letting a fight happen that might spill over onto the gate and in which one of the "good" guys might have a last second moment of weakness and blow it up? In that situation the gate is safest if there's no fight.

[Metastachydium]

Also Lien says that but Serreni has no way to know if they'll stick to that if it's a choice between letting Xykon win and blowing up the world. Remember as well she knows the OOTS is on the way, they clearly aren't Paladins so even if Lien and O-Chul can be trusted that doesn't mean the OOTS can.

If Serini thinks the paladins would just have the soul of every single being in the world devoured by an eldritch abomination just to spite someone, she has a very shaky understanding of what Good means.

[danielxcutter]

They were looking for the paladins though, not the Gate. I think if they couldn't find the paladins, they'd have waited outside a door and ambushed them as they came out, similar to now.

Edit: Also what Meta just said.

[Hurkyl]

If Serini thinks the paladins would just have the soul of every single being in the world devoured by an eldritch abomination just to spite someone, she has a very shaky understanding of what Good means.

Don't worry, it's not so bad if the gate goes boom, the Gods are prepared to salvage their followers' souls before they're unmade. Maybe. And is that really worse than Xykon winning? How confident are you that everyone involved in the situation has the same valuation as you?

But that aside, it's not the Good part she's worried about, it's the Lawful. A lot of absolutes have been thrown around in that conversation. Maybe there are even more that haven't been vocalized -- anyone swear any oaths to stop Xykon? Who knows which of these absolutes will actually win if the paladins are left to their own devices? Serini doesn't.

[Peelee]

Yes, but the Order was explicitly trying to ambush him somewhere where they WOULDN'T risk blowing up the Gate themselves specifically to avoid that scenario. And that assumes she's even open to hearing them out. Lien literally said that "[destroying the Gate] isn't even an option here" and Serini didn't even NOTICE, or if she did she ignored it.

Option 3: Serini did notice, did not ignore it, and did not believe them. I believe I have brought up this option before.

[Metastachydium]

Don't worry, it's not so bad if the gate goes boom, the Gods are prepared to salvage their followers' souls before they're unmade. Maybe. And is that really worse than Xykon winning? How confident are you that everyone involved in the situation has the same valuation as you?

I'm very confident that maybe justkilling but probably destroying everyone forever doesn't count as a Good act, however you try to twist and turn it.

But that aside, it's not the Good part she's worried about, it's the Lawful. A lot of absolutes have been thrown around in that conversation. Maybe there are even more that haven't been vocalized -- anyone swear any oaths to stop Xykon? Who knows which of these absolutes will actually win if the paladins are left to their own devices? Serini doesn't.

Being Lawful is not the same thing as being obsessive-compulsive. And Lawful Good is both Lawful and Good anyway. So again, if Serini thinks a Lawful Good person would get everyone unmade just to fulfill some oath, she has a very shaky understanding of what being Good entails.

[Hurkyl]

I'm very confident that maybe justkilling but probably destroying everyone forever doesn't count as a Good act, however you try to twist and turn it.

Okay, that's what you think. But I asked how confident you were that the characters involved are not capable of deciding that blowing up the world is preferable to letting Xykon win.

Being Lawful is not the same thing as being obsessive-compulsive. And Lawful Good is both Lawful and Good anyway. So again, if Serini thinks a Lawful Good person would get everyone unmade just to fulfill some oath, she has a very shaky understanding of what being Good entails.

I do not share your confidence that someone who gets forced into choosing between options they previously considered unthinkable will conveniently happen to choose the one you prefer. Nor do I share your underestimation of peoples' ability to rationalize reasons why it's not so bad to fail some other goal in the pursuit of the goal they're focused on.

I'm not quite as skeptical as Serini on this, but people can get pretty well entrenched in tunnel-vision, especially when they think the thing they're focused on is important.

[Metastachydium]

Okay, that's what you think. But I asked how confident you were that the characters involved are not capable of deciding that blowing up the world is preferable to letting Xykon win.

That's even easier. I'm absolutely certain the characters involved would not destroy the last Gate for any reason, unless their understanding of the situation changes radically (something something about the world in the Rift).
(Not that Xykon can even win.)

I do not share your confidence that someone who gets forced into choosing between options they previously considered unthinkable will conveniently happen to choose the one you prefer. Nor do I share your underestimation of peoples' ability to rationalize reasons why it's not so bad to fail some other goal in the pursuit of the goal they're focused on.

I'm not quite as skeptical as Serini on this, but people can get pretty well entrenched in tunnel-vision, especially when they think the thing they're focused on is important.

"I'm Lawful and therefore I have a one bit mind. Let's kill everyone!" is not how Lawful Good works, sorry.

[Vikenlugaid]

The difference is that the Order (even Belkar!) has demonstrated introspection and awareness of their flaws. Serini, so far, has not.

I should add, I thought Serini was a fine character in the beginning. Not a perfect person by any means, but I could see where she was coming from, even if I disagreed with her and thought her arguments were flawed. It wasn't until "I decide who's on my side" that I lost respect for her, because it's basically her sticking her fingers in her ears and shouting LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. It's what made me re-evaluate her actions up until then, and made me realize that she's actually been quite unpleasant and emotionally immature the entire time she's been on page.

I don't expect her to be reasonable about everything. I don't expect her to drop everything and start cooperating with the Order just like that. But I do expect her to not act like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

Could you tell me what kind of people doesn't decide who is on their side?
Don't you do it?

[Vikenlugaid]

Yes, but the Order was explicitly trying to ambush him somewhere where they WOULDN'T risk blowing up the Gate themselves specifically to avoid that scenario. And that assumes she's even open to hearing them out. Lien literally said that "[destroying the Gate] isn't even an option here" and Serini didn't even NOTICE, or if she did she ignored it.

1- but they are risking team evil finding the key of the first line of defense. Serini stopping them there has saved the world.

2- Serini didn't ignore Lien, she agreed that is not an option, she just doesn't trust the paladins not using that option. And me neither.

[Vikenlugaid]

I did say that I can't criticize her at all if Serini's motivation is influenced by fear and/or trauma; look what he did to her! It'd explain a lot, and it's not something I'd blame her for.

But her fear is real and logic. It isn't a phobia, nothing irrational. Her motivation is rational.

[danielxcutter]

{scrubbed}

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The interactions between these three members of the Order are great. Especially Belkar's line at the end! And I also love the look of affront on Vaarsuvius in panel 9. I do hope that this won't be a super long chase sequence, however. I kind of want to see Serini grabbed and everyone forced to talk stuff out.