OOTS #1249 - The Discussion Thread

[Vikenlugaid]

?



We did meet Soon.



You can put the details in words. These two concepts are not opposed. "Girard disliked Soon" is the main fact, whereas the reasons I listed are some of the details why that was the case.



When did I say Soon was perfect? Something must have happened at Kraagor's Rift, and Soon's likely not blameless there. Also, Dorukan only said one thing and that couldn't have referred to anything other than Kraagor's death. Girard's a different deal, but he's a pretty unreliable narrator.



Yes. That was the only thing both Dorukan and Girard accused him of in the Crayons story: that he didn't care about Kraagor's death. Other than that, we only get a generic "honour is overrated" comment from Girard.



You mean other than his participating in locating, securing and sealing the Rifts? Because then, we are left with his curb-stomping Team Evil. Is that an Evil act somehow?



Who are these people and where are they?



Pretty sure that doesn't apply to liches. Heck, we haven't seen a single intelligent undead that wasn't Evil.



Okay. So?



Yes, that likely figured into Girard's view on authority figures, but that doesn't make it less of a bias/prejudice.



"Never" and "always" are literally there to quantify his statements.



Well, in English it means something more like patronizing, or – pretty much literally – 'speaking/acting as if one would be lowering oneself to another person while making clear that one deems them inferior'.



The Order's used to Belkar being a little creep. I don't really get why Minrah ignores those comments.



Yes, people change. Nothing indicates that Soon's personality or outlook changed radically, however.

1- again, we have met a ghost of Soon decades after he died, he could have change a lot in that time. Minrah have met Belkar too, she didn't know how horrible he really was.
We haven't met the Soon that Girard met.

2- we only know what Girard feels, but we don't know the exact details of why he feels that way.

3- well, I am basically just saying he probably wasn't perfect and you are arguing against me, so...
And why is Girard an unreliable narrator? Cause he was wrong in one single aspect of the paladin class? Why can't he be right in anything?

4- Girard then said that he should have been the one who died there, so I think the acusation is not only for "not caring" about Kraagor's death.

5- well, apparently his motivation of participating in that quest was a selfish one. But anyway that's just a quest, Belkar is on one two and he is still evil... And atacking team evil means nothing in that regard, Miko atracked them too and she was still awful.
We haven't seen Soon do things like Ochul, for example. I think he did a lot of good things in the past, anyway, but I think he could have done some awful things too.
In this world we have seen paladins doing awful things, and not even falling for those (and I am not talking about Redcloak's village).

6- well, you, everytime I say Soon could do bad things you argue against, everytime I say Girard could be right you argue against. If not, tell me some examples.

7- we do, in GDGU. And Xykon didn't became evil when he became a lich.

8- so Soon could be awful, nothing implies he couldn't.

9- but One thing can be a prejudice and be right at the same time.

10- well I don't usually read never or always as literal.

11- yeah, I think people usually use that word in my language with that meaning, but it really doesn't mean that. That is like a "bonus of the meaning"

12- it isn't really clear if she actually heard those comments.

13- but we don't know if he did. In fact, Miko is a big example that Soon's primary believe is not true, the honor of a paladin is not unbreakable. But he didn't even mention that little "detail" there, he he he.

I'm aware of how it is colloquially used. I'm just allergic to that usage.

But that is the only usage that has sense in this comic, because the true definition is imposible in a world where Italy doesn't exist and obviously Girard didn't mean that.

[Ruck]

He is heavily biased against Soon and someone who knew Soon just as well but didn't share Girard's biases, casually dismisses his paranoid ramblings as paranoid ramblings. It's not the 50-50 chance you present it as.

I haven't chimed in on this conversation (although, for the record, I agree with you throughout), but this is a point I'd like to highlight. As I'm fond of snarkily saying, "anything can be anything if we just imagine it," but for the comic, I'm generally going to go with what the evidence presents in the comic and what requires the least amount of assumptions to support. I think Vikenlugaid is having to make a lot of assumptions about things we never saw happen and have no reason to think happened to support their case.

Your own words (holding mine):
You're making a distinction without a difference. They swore to defend their gate and to never interfere with any other gate. They did not do it at the same time that Soon did.That, as far as I can tell, is the only separation of the oaths.

My mother and my mother in law are both naturalized US citizens. They both took an oath. They took the oath at different times. Still took the same oath.

Eh, I think Bacon has a good point here. We don't know that the oath the Guard took, unlike Soon, didn't include "As long as our Gate stands..."

I personally feel justified in invoking that old point of Rich's about "When dealing with an unknown quantity, why assume the narrative is wrong instead of assuming the narrative is right?". Presumably Hinjo, a very Lawful character, knows better than we do about what the oaths he swore upon becoming a member of the Sapphire Guard actually involved, and under what conditions they might be voided.

Hinjo doesn't seem like the kind of guy to flout an oath on a technicality, unless said technicality was specified in the oath.

[Peelee]

I haven't chimed in on this conversation (although, for the record, I agree with you throughout), but this is a point I'd like to highlight. As I'm fond of snarkily saying, "anything can be anything if we just imagine it," but for the comic, I'm generally going to go with what the evidence presents in the comic and what requires the least amount of assumptions to support. I think Vikenlugaid is having to make a lot of assumptions about things we never saw happen and have no reason to think happened to support their case.



Eh, I think Bacon has a good point here. We don't know that the oath the Guard took, unlike Soon, didn't include "As long as our Gate stands..."



Hinjo doesn't seem like the kind of guy to flout an oath on a technicality, unless said technicality was specified in the oath.

I agree on both points, but that goes against what we know of the original deal (at the very least, it goes against the spirit). Again, I'm not saying they're oathbreakers. I'm saying that if I were in their shoes, I would hold myself to a higher standard. These are people who already willingly hold themselves to the highest standards as part of their class, after all (or, at least, they should).

[Ruck]

I agree on both points, but that goes against what we know of the original deal (at the very least, it goes against the spirit). Again, I'm not saying they're oathbreakers. I'm saying that if I were in their shoes, I would hold myself to a higher standard. These are people who already willingly hold themselves to the highest standards as part of their class, after all (or, at least, they should).

It might go against the spirit of the original deal, but not the letter, and Hinjo seems to think the oath is dissolved with Soon's Gate gone, and he would know.

In this case, "holding to a higher standard" runs into "I feel it foolish to risk universal destruction for a promise to people I've never met" and "Your stupid sissy honor isn't more important than making sure that when it's all over, Xykon has been stomped into the dirt." (And, look, I know those are not the best characters to make the case for how paladins should behave, but I think in this, considering the practical reality of the situation at hand, they have a point.)

[Peelee]

n this case, "holding to a higher standard" runs into "I feel it foolish to risk universal destruction for a promise to people I've never met" and "Your stupid sissy honor isn't more important than making sure that when it's all over, Xykon has been stomped into the dirt." (And, look, I know those are not the best characters to make the case for how paladins should behave, but I think in this, considering the practical reality of the situation at hand, they have a point.)

Which is a great reason to not swear to not interfere in the other Gates' defense. I'm not really speaking purely hypothetically here, either, the job I'm going for has something.... Well, while not really similar, certainly of a very serious nature, and I fully realize and understand what I would be holding myself to if I make it. And would hold myself to that, come hell or high water. Fiat justitia ruat caelum, in a certain way.

[Ruck]

Which is a great reason to not swear to not interfere in the other Gates' defense. I'm not really speaking purely hypothetically here, either, the job I'm going for has something.... Well, while not really similar, certainly of a very serious nature, and I fully realize and understand what I would be holding myself to if I make it. And would hold myself to that, come hell or high water. Fiat justitia ruat caelum, in a certain way.

I think we're just circling back around to "was the Sapphire Guard oath to never interfere with the Gates, period, or to never interfere as long as Soon's Gate stood?" And, again, Hinjo seems to think it's the latter.

I'm not a paladin, myself, and would never be confused for one in real life-- if I had to box it in, my outlook is probably closer to Haley's "Chaotic Good-ish," where I try to do the right thing but I also prize my autonomy and self-preservation. So I'm inclined to defer to the actual paladin who seems to take Paladin oaths and standards of conduct genuinely seriously, who's also the leader of what once was the Sapphire Guard, and he seems to believe offering assistance after Soon's Gate has fallen doesn't violate his oath.

[Bacon Elemental]

Ultimately I think this brings us around to the fact that the order of the scribble splitting up and each putting all of their eggs in a single basket was in hindsight a really bad idea that could have been avoided if their party dynamic hadn't been totally disfunctional. Which I guess is at least Soon's fault, since he took it upon himself to be party leader then didn't do, well, the party leader stuff that someone like Roy might have.

[Peelee]

Ultimately I think this brings us around to the fact that the order of the scribble splitting up and each putting all of their eggs in a single basket was in hindsight a really bad idea that could have been avoided if their party dynamic hadn't been totally disfunctional.

Now that I'll agree with wholeheartedly.

[Ruck]

Ultimately I think this brings us around to the fact that the order of the scribble splitting up and each putting all of their eggs in a single basket was in hindsight a really bad idea that could have been avoided if their party dynamic hadn't been totally disfunctional. Which I guess is at least Soon's fault, since he took it upon himself to be party leader then didn't do, well, the party leader stuff that someone like Roy might have.

Now that I'll agree with wholeheartedly.

Yeah, and (though it's hardly a new observation) I'll add that it's precisely the ability to work together as a team, to trust each other and value each other's individual skills, that will cause the Sticks to succeed where the Scribblers failed.

[Vikenlugaid]

I haven't chimed in on this conversation (although, for the record, I agree with you throughout), but this is a point I'd like to highlight. As I'm fond of snarkily saying, "anything can be anything if we just imagine it," but for the comic, I'm generally going to go with what the evidence presents in the comic and what requires the least amount of assumptions to support. I think Vikenlugaid is having to make a lot of assumptions about things we never saw happen and have no reason to think happened to support their case.

Mmm but my point precisely is that we shouldn't assume anything as granted till we see the whole truth.

[Ruck]

Mmm but my point precisely is that we shouldn't assume anything as granted till we see the whole truth.

But your case relies on assuming a lot of things we have not seen and have no reason to believe (or have very spurious reasons to believe, such as "Soon is a fascist because Girard, someone who clearly bristles at any idea of authority and whom his own favorite teammate described as paranoid, said so").

I will stick with where the preponderance of evidence points.

[danielxcutter]

Also, people really keep forgetting that by RAW, paladins have to be Good more than Lawful.

[Peelee]

Also, people really keep forgetting that by RAW, paladins have to be Good more than Lawful.

Notwithstanding that the comic does not need to follow RAW, we've seen some paladins act pretty dang Evil without much issue.

[Gurgeh]

Not really, I'd say - and not at all within the main comic. "Acting evil" is a pretty fuzzy standard to evaluate relative to the fairly rigid RAW code, but the comic's made it pretty clear via Roy's evaluation with the Bureaucratic Deva that both action and intent matter when it comes to alignment.

Miko suffers immediate consequences for her murder of Shojo. Gin-Jun, likewise, falls as soon as he harms an innocent. The troop in SoD are not shown to suffer any consequences for their massacre, but they're also seen entirely through goblin eyes, and there's no follow-up with them because they're only relevant as a threat to Redcloak and his people.

The best case I can see for "this is basically evil behaviour but they're apparently still a paladin" is Roy's murderhobo party leader in OOPCs, who feels much more like a commentary on D&D players than part of a coherent narrative.

[Peelee]

Not really, I'd say - and not at all within the main comic. "Acting evil" is a pretty fuzzy standard to evaluate relative to the fairly rigid RAW code, but the comic's made it pretty clear via Roy's evaluation with the Bureaucratic Deva that both action and intent matter when it comes to alignment.

Miko suffers immediate consequences for her murder of Shojo. Gin-Jun, likewise, falls as soon as he harms an innocent. The troop in SoD are not shown to suffer any consequences for their massacre, but they're also seen entirely through goblin eyes, and there's no follow-up with them because they're only relevant as a threat to Redcloak and his people.

The best case I can see for "this is basically evil behaviour but they're apparently still a paladin" is Roy's murderhobo party leader in OOPCs, who feels much more like a commentary on D&D players than part of a coherent narrative.

Spoiler: Print only comics

Show

The SoD raid was not in crayon, which means it is accurate (this does not mean it is full orncomplet, but it is accurate).

Gin-Jun is advocating a plan which is rebuffed as morally abhorrent by a literal being of Law and Good. We also do not see any evidence that he falls, only that the Sapphire Guard abandons him.

Roys murderhobo party paladin explicitly is trying to kill off Durkon, regardless of whatever commentary may or may not have been made.

Plenty of paladins doing Evil things with no visible repurcussions.

[Gurgeh]

I did not say that the SoD attack was inaccurately portrayed, I said that we are only shown the elements of it that matter to Redcloak's story: paladins from Azure City came and wiped his village out. What happened to them after is not depicted, for better or worse.

AFB and not entirely confident on the order of events in HTPGHS, so I'll concede the point for now.

[mjasghar]

Also, people really keep forgetting that by RAW, paladins have to be Good more than Lawful.

The Harmonium and the whole Arcadia plane which is LLG would tend to disagree with that. Also, wrt the idiot paladin he committed a sin of omission so it’s reasonable to assume that as long as you follow your oath by The Book you’re okay. It’s a very common trope, if anything, to have the person on the Good side who is a git in behaviour.

[Schroeswald]

Spoiler: Print only comics

Show

The SoD raid was not in crayon, which means it is accurate (this does not mean it is full orncomplet, but it is accurate).

Gin-Jun is advocating a plan which is rebuffed as morally abhorrent by a literal being of Law and Good. We also do not see any evidence that he falls, only that the Sapphire Guard abandons him.

Roys murderhobo party paladin explicitly is trying to kill off Durkon, regardless of whatever commentary may or may not have been made.

Plenty of paladins doing Evil things with no visible repurcussions.

Spoiler: GDGU

Show

While Gin-Jin and Roy’s Paladin definitely did some evil without falling, Gin-Jun fell. The Giant has confirmed that he fell when he attacked Zhou Bo. I havent seen Jasdoif in awhile so idk if this is gonna work but let’s try Summon Banana IX for that quote.

[The MunchKING]

If I promise to pay my mortgage, and also promise to pay your mortgage, then the fact that my house burned down doesn't mean I'm off the hook for yours.

From my understanding, you're not of the hook for your own mortgage either, it's just the bank doesn't have a lot it can repo if you default. They'll take your land I guess though.


Likewise, I assume Soon had a "for as long as my gate stands, we will do this stuff" clause in his oaths, because once his gate breaks he says it no longer binds him. He seems like he's Lawful enough he would follow through on an Oath as much as he could, even if it didn't have the power to punish him for failing anymore.

[gnomish dwelf]

how come this issue still gets comments although its yesterdays news?

[Hurkyl]

Ultimately I think this brings us around to the fact that the order of the scribble splitting up and each putting all of their eggs in a single basket was in hindsight a really bad idea that could have been avoided if their party dynamic hadn't been totally disfunctional. Which I guess is at least Soon's fault, since he took it upon himself to be party leader then didn't do, well, the party leader stuff that someone like Roy might have.

And just to clarify, the fact their party dynamic was totally dysfunctional means they need to take that into account when responding to a crisis. Proceeding as if it wasn't dysfunctional, as some have suggested (either intentionally or carelessness), would be a bad idea.

It might go against the spirit of the original deal, but not the letter, and Hinjo seems to think the oath is dissolved with Soon's Gate gone, and he would know.

In this case, "holding to a higher standard" runs into "I feel it foolish to risk universal destruction for a promise to people I've never met" and "Your stupid sissy honor isn't more important than making sure that when it's all over, Xykon has been stomped into the dirt." (And, look, I know those are not the best characters to make the case for how paladins should behave, but I think in this, considering the practical reality of the situation at hand, they have a point.)

The thing that needs to be emphasized, though, is that you're effectively asking someone to swear an oath that they won't interfere... until such time they judge it warrants interference.

Which is fine, I suppose, if the thing you're trying to prevent is having Soon or the SG interfere on a whim. But the agreement was very specifically to bar Scribblers from doing something they felt very strongly was of utmost importance.

As much flak as people give Girard about not trusting a paladin to keep an oath -- you're describing basically what Girard thought Soon's attitude towards the oath would be

I always figured that eventually, you'd decide that only you could be trusted with the power of the Snarl, or you'd have some other "greater good" excuse to bring your thugs here to knock on my door

The only real difference here is that you trust Soon's judgement and intentions, but Girard did not.

But your case relies on assuming a lot of things we have not seen and have no reason to believe (or have very spurious reasons to believe, such as "Soon is a fascist because Girard, someone who clearly bristles at any idea of authority and whom his own favorite teammate described as paranoid, said so").

I will stick with where the preponderance of evidence points.

At the risk of putting words in the other poster's mouth... IMO the parsimonious explanation is that Girard seems to have taken this very personally due to personal experience.

I know I was never arguing Girard's opinion was accurate -- just that, IMO, there's more than enough opportunity for there to have been actual events to base his opinion on so that it doesn't really make sense to chalk the whole thing up to paranoid delusion.

Was the other poster actually saying something stronger? I got this impression the whole discussion has been basically "Soon is totally innocent -- we have no real reason to think that" rather than the latter side being "Soon is definitely completely guilty!"

[Vikenlugaid]

But your case relies on assuming a lot of things we have not seen and have no reason to believe (or have very spurious reasons to believe, such as "Soon is a fascist because Girard, someone who clearly bristles at any idea of authority and whom his own favorite teammate described as paranoid, said so").

I will stick with where the preponderance of evidence points.

All I am saying is Girard didn't just think Soon was going to come to his gate, he wanted him to come to kill him (if not, he wouldn't have set any trap, any message, and Soon would have been wandering that zone of the desert never finding the gate) , that kind of hate must have a big reason, as Roy asked.

I am not assuming anything, just not taking for granted things that we don't really know.

Also, people really keep forgetting that by RAW, paladins have to be Good more than Lawful.

Not in this comic.

[Metastachydium]

<Cut short for the sake of brevity.>

This is getting incredibly repetitive and tiresome. You've also begun to attribute opinions to me that I've never voiced (I explicitly said Soon was likely not blameless, but you keep insisting that if I don't agree that the biased, paranoid freak is a reliable source of information, I must somehow believe he was perfect). I was going to respond one last time, nevertheless (I ain't no quitter!), but luckily for me, Ruck has summarized what I would have had to use a lot more words for very aptly:

But your case relies on assuming a lot of things we have not seen and have no reason to believe (or have very spurious reasons to believe, such as "Soon is a fascist because Girard, someone who clearly bristles at any idea of authority and whom his own favorite teammate described as paranoid, said so").

I will stick with where the preponderance of evidence points.

But that is the only usage that has sense in this comic, because the true definition is imposible in a world where Italy doesn't exist and obviously Girard didn't mean that.

Not at all. Fascism has a number of characteristics that are not specifically Italian. But I'll leave it at that.

[Hurkyl]

As much flak as people give Girard about not trusting a paladin to keep an oath -- you're describing basically what Girard thought Soon's attitude towards the oath would be

I always figured that eventually, you'd decide that only you could be trusted with the power of the Snarl, or you'd have some other "greater good" excuse to bring your thugs here to knock on my door

The only real difference here is that you trust Soon's judgement and intentions, but Girard did not.

As an amusing side... in #0290, Shojo literally cites the "greater good" as justification for conscripting mercenaries to go knock on Girard's door.

[Gurgeh]

So, I've reviewed HTPGHS, and it the text makes it pretty clear that Gin-Jun falls; Sato strongly implies that the attack on O-Chul was already enough to disqualify him, since she refers to herself as "the highest ranking paladin present" when she expels him from the Sapphire Guard.

Gin-Jun himself seems aware that he has fallen, too, as he complains that he "cannot be a paladin" while he's laying into Zhou and O-Chul.

[Ruck]

The thing that needs to be emphasized, though, is that you're effectively asking someone to swear an oath that they won't interfere... until such time they judge it warrants interference.

The Gate being destroyed is not a matter of judgment. It's an objective event.

The only real difference here is that you trust Soon's judgement and intentions, but Girard did not.

Girard was proven objectively wrong, so why would that reflect poorly on my case?

[Hurkyl]

The Gate being destroyed is not a matter of judgment. It's an objective event.

I wasn't commenting on the (apparent) fact the SG oath had a big loophole in that it was tied to the gate's existence.

I'm talking about the part where we're discussing keeping to the agreement that oath was meant to uphold

Girard was proven objectively wrong, so why would that reflect poorly on my case?

Everything previous reflects poorly on your case. The quoted comment is just a preemptive response a likely follow-up.

[Bacon Elemental]

Spoiler: Print only comics

Show

The SoD raid was not in crayon, which means it is accurate (this does not mean it is full orncomplet, but it is accurate).

Gin-Jun is advocating a plan which is rebuffed as morally abhorrent by a literal being of Law and Good. We also do not see any evidence that he falls, only that the Sapphire Guard abandons him.

Roys murderhobo party paladin explicitly is trying to kill off Durkon, regardless of whatever commentary may or may not have been made.

Plenty of paladins doing Evil things with no visible repurcussions.

I'd say that what this shows about OOTSverse is more clearly that intention to commit an evil act is not enough. Miko did not fall because she decided to execute her unarmed and helpless commander in delusional rage, she fell when she actually did so

Spoiler: How the Paladin got his Scar

Show

I personally agree that Gin-Jun should probbably have fallen before he actually seems to have. I'd have placed it at the point where after the angel rejected his demand, he used deception to trick her into agreeing to commit a massacre instead of accepting her refusal to storm the fortified town. But I didn't felt that it was an egregious enough "Hey he should have fallen" to throw me off the narrative for that story, especially for first-time reading.

Also the original SoD raid has been discussed to death already and has a couple of fairly convincing conclusions on the matter that i generally follow (I believe along the lines of "Yes, some paladins did fall for these raids, but enough didn't fall that the ones who didn't went "Ah, our brother Song In-Je has Fallen... he allowed himself to lose proper restraint in his mission and went too far. A sobering lesson that we must all consider when rooting out these dens of evil" instead of 'Are we sure we're doing the right thing by storming all these settlements in search of the Dark One's evil high priest?' ")

[RatElemental]

From my understanding, you're not of the hook for your own mortgage either, it's just the bank doesn't have a lot it can repo if you default. They'll take your land I guess though.


Likewise, I assume Soon had a "for as long as my gate stands, we will do this stuff" clause in his oaths, because once his gate breaks he says it no longer binds him. He seems like he's Lawful enough he would follow through on an Oath as much as he could, even if it didn't have the power to punish him for failing anymore.

Given the fact that Soon's oath literally kept him and the other paladins bound to the material even in death, not putting in a clause like that would have been really dumb too.

Might have even been a requirement to get that to work in the first place. The gods and inevitables don't tend to like it when you cheat death, and I doubt swearing an oath would let you do it outside of very narrow conditions as a result.

[danielxcutter]

Well, being bound to about five thousand cubic feet most of the time with not much to do doesn't exactly sound like sunshine and rainbows if you ask me.