OOTS #595 - The Discussion Thread

[Llelldorin]

While there may have been other options available to V, we don't know that, as we don't know what spells V had prepped. Also, your example solutions are unfeasible, and all are less absolute in solving the problem than V's method.

Polymorphing is arguably more evil than just killing him, and can be undone if someone ever figures out what that sea rat is, while bringing up the same questions as his current method. Trying to hold Kubota prisoner assumes that he doesn't have associates who could bust him out while his erstwhile captors are busy, and V doesn't know Teleport, and is too weak to carry Kubota under the effects of fly.

They wouldn't have to hold him prisoner forever, remember--merely for long enough for V to rest and study whichever spells he might need.

Putting my LG hat on for a moment, I also have to point out how very little respect V's move treats Hinjo with. The trial might have gone as Kubota said, but Kubota thought Hinjo was an idiot. Hinjo might have had a better way out of the problem, but now that Kubota is a cloud of scattered dust motes, we simply can't know.

[Ryusacerdos]

And finally, why are you people getting so hung up about this in the first place? It's a fantasy comic, based on a fantasy game, based on fantasy powers. I mean, really? Really?

You may not understand this, but getting overly emotionally involved is very fun. It entertains us greatly.

[EvilElitest]

How many chances must good give evil to give up and reform before they're justified in saying "it's not gonna happen" and ending the threat permanently? What you're saying is that they're never justified in saying so. This is a valid viewpoint, to be sure (I disagree, if you hadn't noticed)...but you'd better be prepared in living around a lot of evil people since they can't be permanently dissuaded.

well what is one of the greatest weapons of good. Forgiveness. So as many chances as the evil deserves, through this doesn't apply to always evil creatures. That being said, that doesn't mean your not allowed to keep them from doing evil deeds, just that you can't commit evil in the process.

Fair enough - I interpreted that comment a completely different way (shooting a person who isn't actually doing anything to you at the moment but clearly means to in the future vs. shooting a prisoner whom you caught doing something...they overlap, but are also different). Judging by other reactions (like Lowkey's, I don't think I'm unjustified in my interpretation.

Depends. I'm going to draw this into a fantasy setting to avoid real world arguments, but killing somebody who has a sword and happens to be looking at your in a threatening way before he actually draws his sword would be evil, as opposed to murdering somebody who was sneaking up on you with a knife. If the latter was in fact innocent for some reason (he was going to stab another guy behind you) and you kill him by accident, it is still bad, but it isn't you being evil, its you making a mistake

lastly, good and evil in D&D are objective, right and wrong are subjective
from
EE

[Iago]

Following up on other issues raised:

What about Qarr?
-- I think it's still around, waiting to cause trouble. On the other hand, if it has half the brains it's demonstrated so far, it might well take its whopping two hit dice and find somewhere else to hang out. A single magic missile spell from V would be enough to do the job, statistically speaking. (17.5 dmg/cast)

Why the Gust of Wind?
-- Rule of Cool (breeze, that is)
-- Prevents anything save True Resurrection or Wish
-- Hides the evidence... hm, Kubota's rowboat appears to have been overturned, perhaps by a wave, and Kubota was seen in heavy armor.
-- possibly the four words, though I personally think not.

Real question about the GoW is did V want to hide her actions and give herself (and possibly Elan and/or Hinjo) plausible deniabilty, or just make sure this B-grade villain was going to not show up anytime soon?

Lucky for Kubota V doesn't have Soul Bind yet... otherwise I think we might have had a different follow up spell.

Followed by a <ker-plunk> as the gemstone went off the port bow, something very James-Cameron's-Titanic-esque.

[teratorn]

Come on guys, no need to be nasty.

So, all Hinjo has to show is that he's a paladin. Right then, right there, he's given absolute, incontrovertible proof that he never hired an assassin. End of story. Nobody in the story's going to assume he arranged an assassination, because unlike you, they have some idea of how things actually work under the D&D rules.

Nobody? Remember the resistance? The soldiers on the wall claiming Hinjo was behind Shojo's assassination? Commoners know very little about these things.

Instead of discussing if we think this is evil or not (since it's hard to put real world views aside) what about considering what Durkon and Roy would think about this?

[EvilElitest]

People seem to be hung up on the fact that killed someone in cold blood. If I am not mistaken, D&D rules say that killing something/someone evil is if not a good act, then a neutral act. From this, we can make a logical assumption that has just committed a good or neutral act- and probably leaning towards good, because Kubota was a Lawful Evil villain who could've done great harm had he risen to power.

The second argument is that is a wizard. Most wizards are neutral, and did not show up as evil when Miko scanned him. Therefore, s/he can be NG, LN, TN, or CN. Considering that s/he just killed somebody who was a prisoner, instead of letting him go to trial, speaks strongly against him/her being LN, and the sheer fact that did this without feelings of obvious remorse, AND has not been willing to work with the others to help a person in need rules out him being NG. So, s/he's either TN or CN, and by his/hers behavior in the past, it seems more likely that is TN.

And it is perfectly fine for TN characters to kill somebody, if they are obstructing the greater good. On one hand, had the fate of the world, on the other, legal procedure. It's fairly obvious that the correct choice would be the former, not latter.

And finally, why are you people getting so hung up about this in the first place? It's a fantasy comic, based on a fantasy game, based on fantasy powers. I mean, really? Really?

I think V was LN, and this is the slip into LE
from
EE

[Arameus]

1) cute, personal implications I don't see the need to pretend to be something else other than an elitist, so why be dishonest
2) Alright, fair enough, if that is the case, then let me explain. In D&D, Good and Evil are absolute. So certain actions will always be evil, like torture, rape, murder ect, no matter that the situation is. BoED is the Book of Exalted Deeds, which covers this
from
EE

Just seems to me that since the laws and due process of a Lawful Good Azurite society and court system would have executed him anyway, which would probably have occured with him restrained to the point of helplessness, if he had been convicted (which is something I assume, but does anyone really think I'm wrong?), then killing can't possibly be held as such by D&D alignment standards. What you say is that in D&D, killing is always, always the far end of the evil scale, regardless of circumstance or intention, when it obviously isn't since killing someone is quite obviously justified and considered a good act if you droned on to a judge or jury for a few weeks about it first, which is the foundation of most of this thread's bickering anyway.

In other words, by your own admittance you have splintered yourself off into a third school of thought that thinks that V killing him no muss, no fuss AND a state-sponsored execution post-conviction would be unambiguously evil acts because they both kill him, which always makes you a murderer. So, in other words, you contradict yourself pretty harshly there.

[ekedolphin]

That. Was the best thing. Ever.

I especially liked V's exasperated question at the end-- "Now can we PLEASE resume saving the world?" Reminded me a lot of Self-Loathing's line to Haley in #314: "You're gonna suck it up and swallow your character development like an adult already. Maybe this comic can get back to, like, adventuring or something."

I'm gonna miss both Kubota and Therkla, though; obviously, for different reasons. I wonder if Qarr's gonna get his at some point, or if he's written out, or if he joins the Rogue's Gallery or something.

[Swordguy]

well what is one of the greatest weapons of good. Forgiveness. So as many chances as the evil deserves, through this doesn't apply to always evil creatures. That being said, that doesn't mean your not allowed to keep them from doing evil deeds, just that you can't commit evil in the process.

I would say, then, that Kabuto had as many chances as he deserved, before being put down for good.

(Letting the "killing in RL argument" lapse by request)

[imp_fireball]

Whoa. Was that a neutral or evil act? I know it's definitely not Lawful.

It's chaotic neutral. V's alignment for the whole dang time.

Also the best alignment for doing the right and logical thing at all times. :P

[EvilElitest]

Just seems to me that since the laws and due process of a Lawful Good Azurite society and court system would have executed him anyway, which would probably have occured with him restrained to the point of helplessness, if he had been convicted (which is something I assume, but does anyone really think I'm wrong?), then killing can't possibly be held as such by D&D alignment standards.

If he is tried and found guilty in an actual fair trial, then execution is a valid option. Now it isnt' exalted, and it certainly isn't good, but it isn't evil. A really really good society would try to reform him, but that is going above and beyond the call of duty.

What you say is that in D&D, killing is always, always the far end of the veil scale, regardless of circumstance or intention, when it obviously isn't since killing someone is quite obviously justified and considered a good act if you droned on to a judge or jury for a few weeks about it first, which is the foundation of most of this thread's bickering anyway.

No i said murder is always always evil. Killing is neutral, murder is evil. Killing depends upon the situation, if you are fighting to defend yourself or somebody else against an activity hostile foe (IE he can fight back and hasn't given up) then killing is a neutral action. It isn't good, but you won't fall for it. However, murder is unjustified killing and it is a very thin line, like what happened to Miko. killing innocents, killing unjustly, killing prisioners, killing when the crime doesn't warrent it, killing for personal means/pleasure ect

In other words, by your own admittance you have splintered yourself off into a third school of thought that thinks that V killing him no muss, no fuss AND a state-sponsored execution post-conviction would be unambiguously evil acts because they both kill him, which always makes you a murderer. So, in other words, you contradict yourself pretty harshly there.

No, because there is a difference between killing and murder

I would say, then, that Kabuto had as many chances as he deserved, before being put down for good.

Good doesn't have a limit on chances, at least in this situation. No paladin would fall for killing him in combat, nor for killing him while he did something evil (like murder his second) but when he is a prisoner, murder is always an evil act. he is still a human being, and thus able to change, unlike say a demon who must be killed on sight

from
EE

[Sucrose]

1) Smite evil is an effective combat tool, that is not justice. Good's main values are mercy, forgiveness, compassion, understanding, love, which killing has nothing to do with. Killing is never good, it is at best neutral, but never a good act. Killing is used to protect the good values, not as justice, and so murder is never right. Kubota was unarmed, defenceless and had given himself up, and as of such, the killing of him is murder, not justice
2) No, what about rebelling against a tryant. Or fighting against in justice. Or disagreeing with your lord. these can all be considered treason, and are no inherently evil acts. Treason is a crime relative to a society, it is neather good nor evil in terms of the alignment
3) so? Kubota is evil, i dont' deny that. taht doesn't mean that murder is the solution or the proper justice, just that he is evil.
from
EE

1.) Any useful definition of the idea of good has at the forefront minimizing suffering. Killing a serial murderer who cannot be rehabilitated is a good act, as it prevents him from being able to hurt anyone ever again. If you feel otherwise, from the standpoint of D&D or otherwise, then I don't really care. Also, I'd like to add that BoED has a mindrape spell that's available to good characters. I don't care to listen to a source like that. It may CLAIM to be a good source on alignment and morality, but it is very much not.

2.) You may have a point (though disagreement =/= treason, which is plotting the overthrow of your nation) but that is moot both because of 3, and because Azure City is not a tyrannical nation.

3.) Execution is proper for someone who is evil to his extent. As execution will not occur in the court of law, a good man must take it upon himself to get the right sentence passed. I am not arguing that that was V's reason, but I personally would have done the same, if I truly believed that he would otherwise escape justice.

[Dervag]

So? That doesn't change the fact that he is still an unarmed defenseless prisoner. Let him talk, it comes to nothing, because talking isn't an evil action nor a threatening one. part of being good comes responsibility and that requires responsibility to treat your enemies in a humain manner. Murder is murder, excuses don't change that fact

I'd say, under the circumstances, that this was a somewhat evil act. Given that V has committed a number of good acts, this suggests that he is indeed Neutral. Probably not Lawful Neutral.

It was not an intensely evil act because the murder was committed very quickly and painlessly, and under circumstances where enormous numbers of bad things could have happened had it not been committed.

The most morally good course of action in this case would have been to take to the trial and fight it out, despite the great difficulty of doing so, relying on a combination of divination and "the truth will out" to deal with it. Among other things, Daimyo Kazumi saw the whole thing, and knows that Kubota was planning to kill her. Her testimony will cancel out Kubota's attempt to cover himself. Magical divination will (at worst) reveal that they are both telling the truth. Since their testimony is mutually exclusive, one of them is lying, and it won't be hard to tell which.

Moreover, Hinjo knows perfectly well that Kubota has previously sent ninjas to kill him. Since Azure City is not a democracy, and since Kubota has a track record of trying to assassinate major political figures, I figure he's going down.

This course is more or less what Elan was (vaguely) hoping for, I think.
___________________________

If you're hung up on the morality thing, you're just thick. A far better issue is alignment. I'm pretty sure V's neutral, maybe neutral good, so that covers his actions pretty well, but Elan's chaotic good. Serving the greater good with acts some might find questionable in and of themselves, ie, killing an unarmed, surrendering Kubota to avenge his vile actions and prevent any possible future perversions? That sounds exactly like CG to me...

To me, it sounds morally neutral. On the one hand, it averts the possibility of a great disastrous evil. On the other hand, it is not an inherently good act.

Feeding starving orphans is almost without an exception right. Killing defenseless prisoners is almost without an exception wrong. This is possibly one of the exceptions, but we're not sure. A lot would depend on how the trial goes, and since Hinjo would be presiding over the trial, I have a fair amount of faith in the system in this case.

I think the rule should be that good acts are acts which are almost without an exception the right thing to do, in general circumstances. Like feeding starving orphans or saving someone's life. Evil acts, likewise, are those which are almost without an exception the wrong thing to do in general circumstances. Like feeding people to demons.

I believe that V has just committed an evil act, but that under the circumstances there is no way this single act should change his alignment.

It seems like Elan really acted out of character there, especially since he's essentially taking levels in the 'Antihero' prestige class.

I dunno. "Dashing Swordsman" isn't Punisher-esque antihero. It's more like "loveable rogue." A rogue who kills his enemies when they're defenseless isn't very loveable.
___________

I'm glad Kubota is no longer a factor in the equation, but I think that in this case it would have been better to let it go to trial. Kubota is a megalomaniac who can't or won't stop scheming against his lord even when the city is in immediate military crisis. As in, when enemy armies are literally pouring over the walls. Or when the entire population has been reduced to refugees. His assessment of the political situation is probably not accurate, because in his heart he's too self-centered to believe that the world could ever not work the way he wants.

[delguidance]

It's not evil when the hero does it.

Buffy would do it.

Vigilantes are cool.

I'm a loyal long time fan and I love it when the updates come this quickly.

[Lamech]

Tell you what - find another way, aside from killing him, to guarantee Kabuto doesn't commit another evil act (setting aside, for a moment, the possibility of ressurrection in a D&D setting) in the future.

Pick me! Pick me! We could threaten him with death unless he accepts some sort of magic like an atonement spell, to change his aligment to good! Then instead of being evil and doing evil things he would be good and do good things.
We could also petrify him, or stasis him, but that would be worse than death since he wouldn't get an afterlife.

[Zeku]

Swordguy, making the assumption that your angsty story is true, (and I definitely don't care, at all) noone mentioned anything about a combat situation. V is not a voluntary or conscripted member of any nation's army, he has no superior officer, and has been given no wartime permission to kill. He 'fired' on another civilian, which is murder, and punishable in basically any country that has ever existed. In that scenario, he's made a sharp shift to evil.

Don't split hairs about 'real world' killing. You knew the distinction. You wartime guys get permanently warped by firing metal into people. You may have a clearer understanding of just how much violence our freedom is based on, but you lose the ability to exercise that freedom with forgiveness. Both types of people are required, and the 'forgiving' type of person can't kill people, no matter how hard they try.

[Nevitan]

Personally, I don't think that killing a elusive, manipulating, villain, in am attempt to get back to saving the World from a Lich is an Evil act, sorry if its been said before.

[Carteeg_Struve]

Thank you, V, for doing the right thing... which is usually the Neutral thing. Because too often the Good-aligned PCs keep doing the wrong things for the right reasons. ("Gee, it looks like we severely delayed ourselves from fighting massive evil and the end of the world... but at least my conscience is clean." --- Ugh.)

To quote my wife: "Good aligned characters are just people without enough worldly experience."

Again, V, thank you for bringing perspective back to the group before a parody of Judge Eto could be brought into the mix. *shudder*

[pendell]

Someone here asked whether an assassination ever did good.

While assassination is an evil act, and 99% of the time no good comes of it, there is 1% of the time when it does.

The example I'm thinking of is the assassination of Isoruku Yamamoto , Japan's military genius during WWII. The US got ahold of his flight schedule. They arranged for a flight of interceptors to meet him and his escorts. The act may have shortened the war by several months, possibly years.

Another example is Pablo Escobar , who ran his criminal empire just as well from inside prison as outside.

Or, as Tom Clancy would argue, why is it right to kill thousands upon thousands of uniformed teenagers but wrong to kill the creep who's sending off those kids to die in the first place?

Next thought; What V did was evil. But I can see how he/she would rationalize it.

If V were to defend him/herself, it would be something along these lines:

Was Kubota Evil? Yes? Then by Azure City law couldn't She Who Must Not Be Name Kill him out of hand for that reason if no other? Kubota was an enemy capable of marshalling incredible resources, and almost killed me.

If I had let Kubota go to trial, the very best that could have happened would have been the same result I just brought about, except that we would have lost several weeks or months while Xykon was MARCHING ON THE NEXT GATE AND THREATENING THE ENTIRE WORLD, and that's time we simply don't have.

That is the best case. In that case, I just saved us all a great deal of time and difficulty.

In the worst case, Kubota would have been free to unleash another fiend or sea trolls or some other vile monster and next time I may not be able to stop them. And remember that in the last few months attacks , lots of innocent people have died (see the first panel). For months monsters motivated by HIM have been picking off random ships and killing all the crew, wearing down Azure City bit by bit by bit.

So just how many more innocents and PCs have to die so that Kubota can have his rights?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[EvilElitest]

1.) Any useful definition of the idea of good has at the forefront minimizing suffering. Killing a serial murderer who cannot be rehabilitated is a good act, as it prevents him from being able to hurt anyone ever again. If you feel otherwise, from the standpoint of D&D or otherwise, then I don't really care. Also, I'd like to add that BoED has a mindrape spell that's available to good characters. I don't care to listen to a source like that. It may CLAIM to be a good source on alignment and morality, but it is very much not.

1) Killing a serial murderer as he is being an active threat (IE coming at you with a knife) isn't murder, but killing him as he sits in jail is. There are other solutions, particurally when insanity is curable in D&D
2) What you do care about is irrelevant in terms of personal morality. Personal/real world morality are not the issue here, because this isnt' a discussion of real life morals, its a discussion of D&D morals where murder is always evil
3) There are two things in the BOED i disagree with, mind control and poison. That doens't make the book any worst, i just disagree. It means that morals are different from mine and i disagree, but it doesn't make ether the book's purpose irrelevant, nor does it make the fact that it actually adressed these moral question any less admirable

2.) You may have a point (though disagreement =/= treason, which is plotting the overthrow of your nation) but that is moot both because of 3, and because Azure City is not a tyrannical nation.

Its a monarchy. The nature of the treason depends on how it is carried out, technically a bunch of people demanding the 12gods no longer be part of the goverening system is treason

3.) Execution is proper for someone who is evil to his extent. As execution will not occur in the court of law, a good man must take it upon himself to get the right sentence passed. I am not arguing that that was V's reason, but I personally would have done the same, if I truly believed that he would otherwise escape justice.

Not when you have to commit murder in order to pull it off. He was still an unarmed prisoner and thus killing him is evil. that isn't execution, which requires a trial, thats taking the law into your own hands, which is hubris

I'd say, under the circumstances, that this was a somewhat evil act. Given that V has committed a number of good acts, this suggests that he is indeed Neutral. Probably not Lawful Neutral.

He acts in a general lawful fashion, and his general way of doing things implies neutral. He is a moral person, but she is focused more upon personal power and her personal loyalty to the group rather than doing good for its own sake. Thats fine, LN is a good aligniment. But actual murder

It was not an intensely evil act because the murder was committed very quickly and painlessly, and under circumstances where enormous numbers of bad things could have happened had it not been committed.

Those facts are actually irrelevant. The amount of pain or the justification doesn't excuse or even lighten the action's evilness. V might stay LN, but that could push her over, or on the edge, it really depends on how close to the line she already was

The most morally good course of action in this case would have been to take to the trial and fight it out, despite the great difficulty of doing so, relying on a combination of divination and "the truth will out" to deal with it. Among other things, Daimyo Kazumi saw the whole thing, and knows that Kubota was planning to kill her. Her testimony will cancel out Kubota's attempt to cover himself. Magical divination will (at worst) reveal that they are both telling the truth. Since their testimony is mutually exclusive, one of them is lying, and it won't be hard to tell which.

true

Moreover, Hinjo knows perfectly well that Kubota has previously sent ninjas to kill him. Since Azure City is not a democracy, and since Kubota has a track record of trying to assassinate major political figures, I figure he's going down.

This course is more or less what Elan was (vaguely) hoping for, I think.

which would be a just one
from
EE
edit
Zeku calm down

[Sucrose]

They wouldn't have to hold him prisoner forever, remember--merely for long enough for V to rest and study whichever spells he might need.

Putting my LG hat on for a moment, I also have to point out how very little respect V's move treats Hinjo with. The trial might have gone as Kubota said, but Kubota thought Hinjo was an idiot. Hinjo might have had a better way out of the problem, but now that Kubota is a cloud of scattered dust motes, we simply can't know.

Sorry that I missed this. For the first point, maaybe, but one must remember that Elan is comically incompetent, and V is, to put it politely, not in a great state of mind right now. If ANY of his followers manage to get word, then there's a decent chance that they can get him out after V goes into trance, or begins to memorize his spells.

As for the lack of respect, I agree with you, and find it sad, but V has demonstrated that (s)he has very little respect for him already, at least in a combat situation. Since that's his forte, rather than being a leader, I doubt that hir confidence is much stronger in him at trial.

Lastly, even if Hinjo won the trial, Kubota showed that he had a good idea of how to win in the court of public opinion, which, at this point, means a lot more.

[Edea]

I wonder if Kubota had enough aristocrat levels to give V experience points for killing him. Hell, I'd give V a free level for it. As for the armor/shoes, probably too incriminating to keep those around (glamored or otherwise); I'm guessing there's going to be a request/desire to keep this particular incident 'quiet.'

[Eraniverse]

I think V was LN, and this is the slip into LE
from
EE

Ok that's just ridiculous. Do the words Explosive Runes mean anything? I think you're really downplaying the Lawful/Chaotic axis in favor of Good/Evil. Probably why we're not seeing eye to eye.

Anyways... V's progression:

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

I'm a fan of long term character development. Hardly bad writing as someone has been trying to imply.

[Zeku]

The writer has to be maddened by all this endless arguing over whether a particular action represents a shift to evil or chaos. It happened with Miko too, where so many of us argued that she merely shifted towards chaos, and not evil. I get the feeling he's just writing the characters as real people, and couldn't care less about the archaic alignment system.

And elitist, don't attribute your own emotional state to me. If you're interested in what I've wrote, read it in an emotionally neutral tone.

[EvilElitest]

Ok that's just ridiculous. Do the words Explosive Runes mean anything? I think you're really downplaying the Lawful/Chaotic axis in favor of Good/Evil. Probably why we're not seeing eye to eye.

Anyways... V's progression:

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

I'm a fan of long term character development. Hardly bad writing as someone has been trying to imply.

um, i'm not saying this is bad writing at all, i like this strip, what are you talking about. I'm just saying V's general actions tend to be done in a lawful manner. Remember, the actions are good or evil, chaotic and law decied the way you do it
from
EE

[Arathian]

Um, if I'm not mistaken doesn't disintegrate destory any items a character is wearing as well? Though there would still be dust for the wind gust but there wouldn't be any salvaging of any of the magical goodies Kobuta had on him.

Though he was such a total git I don't think I'd want to use anything he had before, and I'm usually all for looting defeated foes.

Oh and for alignment V seems to strike me as a True Neutral. The guy clearly deserved that anyway and he was just tired of all of this legal asshatery. God even lawful characters would want to kill the douche.

[Deuce]

So V is a student of the Mal Reynolds school of dealing with would-be recurring villains?

Good.

[Ryusacerdos]

I don't know about V being lawful. I mean, V had that inclination to explode Belkar with explosive runes, and in general annoy Belkar as much as Belkar did. Repeatedly. And now matter how V justified it (i.e. putting V back on Belkar's hate list), V really, really enjoyed it.

EDIT:

Also this: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0335.html

HAHA

[Eraniverse]

um, i'm not saying this is bad writing at all, i like this strip, what are you talking about. I'm just saying V's general actions tend to be done in a lawful manner. Remember, the actions are good or evil, chaotic and law decied the way you do it
from
EE

Wasn't implying you were. There were a couple of fatalistic posts a while back saying that bad writing trumps all. This thread is flying.

And lawful? V physically attacked a stable manager for overly strict over ticket rules. And tampered with the fundamental natural order. I'm sorry but I'll need to see some proof of lawful behavior.

[Migue]

Just read the comic... THAT WAS FREAKING AWESOME! GO V TEAM!