OOTS #595 - The Discussion Thread

[Carteeg_Struve]

Although I pin V down as True Neutral (with a more than a tad bit of 'cranky' tossed in), I have to wonder if his/her action was actually....

Chaotic Good!

S/He completely flipped off the judicial system (non-ethical), but the action possibly may end up saving the lives of everybody on the planet (pro-moral).

Good/Evil is a moral issue, while Lawful/Chaotic is an ethical action. To let the trial proceed would had done nothing but assist the cause of evil in the world, while telling law and order to take it up the backside by killing a murderous a-hole who was indirectly aiding the destruction of the world through purely selfish and vile deeds.

V assassinated him.

Good.

Very good.

Waiting until the villain is in a position to fight back or harm others isn't 'Good-aligned'. It's stupid.

Now, under normal circumstances, you have the trial for the purpose of validating whether he truly did commit the crime or not. Here a much bigger issue was looming over everybody's heads (namely the Snarl). Combine that with the fact V knew he was guilty, there was no option. For the good of everyone, the problem needed to headed off at the pass.

Namely, he rightfully murdered the bastard, and possibly aided in saving the lives of all children, puppies, and lower-middle class folks in the entire universe (along with a couple of others). I cannot under any circumstances say that is not a good act. Only if V was more concerned about his/her own life rather than EVERYBODY'S IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, could the intentions be anything else. But his/her words reflected saving the world, not just bucking the odds up for his/her own life. So, I'm going to give him/her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

The only thing V defied was the rule of law. And sometimes Law does not agree with what is Right and Wrong. His/Her action was good... ABSOLUTELY GOOD. But his/her action was illegal, thus chaotic.

Assassination is an extreme action, and mindlessly done is very easily evil. However when the situation calls for it, assassination can do some pretty good things.

The ends justify the means, but only when all ends are considered. What's the bad fallout from Kibuto being dead before a trial?

<insert the sounds of crickets here>

Just my rambling take on the matter.

[EvilElitest]

Good/Evil is a moral issue, while Lawful/Chaotic is an ethical action. To let the trial proceed would had done nothing but assist the cause of evil in the world, while telling law and order to take it up the backside by killing a murderous a-hole who was indirectly aiding the destruction of the world through purely selfish and vile deeds.

V assassinated him.

Good.

Very good.

no, assassinations are evil, because thats murder, murder is evil, we've been over this. In D&d, ends do no justify the means

And rightfully murdering somebody. What happened to hte values of good, compassion, forgiveness, kindness.
from
EE

[Lex-Kat]

I'm just going to say:

That was the most awesome thing V has ever done!! imho.

[Sucrose]

So basically, your saying because the text doesn't support yoru argument, your going to declare it irrelevant and move on as if it hasn't' happened, in order to prove your point. So dispite the fact that murder is inherently evil (BoED chapter 1 and 2) your just gong to not counter any argument because it weakens your argument.

um, have fun i guess

Again, I do not consider BoED a valid source, so your argument holds no weight. If you argued PHB and actual, real ethics, I'd pay attention.

Disagreeing with the text is a personal issue. i didn't make the rules i just fallow them. You are disagreeing with it on the basis it doesn't work that way, while i am putting my own personal morals aside and saying "Yeah, it does work taht way, its in the rules, deal with it"

Ah, I see, so you advocate being a sheep, and trusting the authors of a single non-Core book to know what best defines right and wrong in every campaign in every setting of Dungeons and Dragons ever. Yeah, no. What is right and what is wrong depends on the setting. F'rex, if eternity is absolute bliss for all, and this is a provable fact, then killing everyone in sight would be a Good act, as it would allow them to experience that joyous period sooner.

My personal morals are relevant, only the morals of the game, Which are defined in BoED, and so it is perfectly relevant. Just because it doesn't support your idea of vigilante justice doesn't make it irrelvant

No, its idiotic writing does that all by itself, along with the utter impossibility of accounting for every possible setting.

Yeah they could be. Treason is a subjective term. A nation might say that gonig against the gods is treason, impliying the king might be wrong is treason, worshiping other gods is treason

You know, this one I'll give to you, because one of the dictionary definitions for treason is a violation of allegiance, which one could argue fit those definitions. I still feel that those aren't in the spirit of treason.

No its not, because it is still murder, and when you resort to evil actions, you are admitting defeat.
You know, making very narrow and vaugly defined situations doesn't actually prove a point. The solution depends upon the specifics
No because in D&D the murder of an unarmed prisoner are never justified. Its lazy, arrogant, hypocritical, cowardly and most importantly, evil to kill him just because its easier. Good is always the hard way
from
EE

1) No, it's vigilante justice, as you already pointed out. When you're on the frontier, you make your own law.
2) Any situation can disprove an "always" assertion. Therefore, if I can construct a situation in which performing an action is not evil, but fully justified and appropriate, then the "always" argument is disproven, regardless of how narrow the argument may be. If the same extenuating circumstances apply to a different situation, then the appropriateness applies to the others as well.
3) It is not hypocritical (seriously, where the hell did you come up with this one?) or cowardly to be pragmatic, and doing it because it's easier when your effort needs to be conserved to SAVE THE WORLD can be justified rather well. And that assumes that letting things go to trial wouldn't make things actively worse beyond wasting time. If Kubota has any media savvy at all, it would.

In any case, since we're arguing under different premises, this debate is pointless. Specifically, you are arguing that the BoED is a holy text, and utterly accurate in all respects for Dungeons and Dragons morality, while I am arguing from the position of real-world reason and occasional consideration of the Player's Handbook section.

Since you probably will not agree to my premises, and there is no way in hell that I'll agree to yours, we should probably just drop it. Feel free to post a rebuttal, but I've realized just how utterly pointless this debate is.

[Ryusacerdos]

this isn't trolling
from
EE

It certainly feels like it. The undercurrents of hostility run deep!

[Illuminatus]

YES!!!! YES!!!! YES!!!!!!! VARSUVIUS IS THE BEST!~!!! Hands down Discussion over! This whole plot needed to die and our boy came through!!!! First he kicks the imp's ass and then he kicks the big demon's ass and then he kicks Kuboto's ass IS THERE ANY ASS VAR CANNOT KICK I ASK YOU PLEASE???!!!!

Now will somebody please cast sleep on him before his awesomeness exponentially increases to the point where it consumes the entire universe??

I signed up to these forums just to post this message and now I withdraw back into the safety of the real world

[North]

Yes yes yes yes omg yes!

[beerbeard]

Ha. Oh man that would &$#( me off. I mean think about it, this is a d&d game right?? So that means the dm of oots probably had 5 or 6 pages of court stuff planed out. Then the wizard says "hmmmm nope" and out goes weeks of planing. Believe me its not fun when a player cuts you legs out like that.

[Arameus]

An exalted society wouldn't ever execute somebody no. However, outside the heavens, i don't think there are any exalted societies. A good society however, could execute without becoming evil, it just isn't good ether. Murder can never be commited, while execution (after a fair trial of course) is simply killing


No, because in on situation there is a fair trial. Kobato doesn't die because old men decied it, he dies because a fair trial has found him guilty. V is simply taking justice into her own hands and executing him on the spot.

Your the one being inconsistent, because your sighting claims I haven't made and jumping to conclusions to support an argument that doesn't mesh with what i'm saying



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism


from
EE

You admit that in a conversation you insist is centered on D&D ethics, there are no exalted societies, even the Heavens since they contain mortals and their flawed nature. So stop bringing up a concept that is completely imaginary even in fictional universes.

Isn't a fair trial the act of flawed, mortal men taking morality and its wages into their own hands? Even if you discount the ability of a person to maintain full rights to arbitrate morality, you clearly accept that there are situations in which mortals must decide what is good and what is evil. A 'fair trial' is not an otherworldly, timeless practice gifted to humans by a perfect society. It is mankind deciding when it is okay to punish someone by various means, including killing them outright. Your exclusion of a 'fair trial' from any other means of mortal interaction is glaringly baseless, because a 'fair trial' is just the public consensus of when this arbitration should regularly take place, not a separation of mortals from arbitrating Good and Evil. By this logic, we can see that a 'fair trial' not only achieves nothing by your own rules of Good and Evil but that since no 'fair trial' would have ever been forthcoming for Kubota, such an option was nonexistent. In this way, we can see that the arbitration of morality that you claim does and doesn't exist, oddly, is impossible. Since a trial decides not only what punishment one is to receive but whether punishment is justified at all by providing legal record of guilt or innocence, which you apparently think makes the difference, Kubota then exists as some sort of morally static entity; it would not be fair for the characters to let him go or to reward him in some way any more than it would be to punish him in any way because they lack the authority to do so, by your standards. The question of what to do with him becomes impossible to answer because the only medium that you believe can do so is nonexistent in his case. So, lacking that, what do you suggest shoudl be done with him? The only possible course of action by your reasoning would be to lock him in some sort of indefinite stasis that could contain him just as he is forever, or until a truly airtight trial could be guaranteed: a legal Schroedinger's cat.

1) Knowing he will get away with it? Really. Prove it. You have Kabuto's boasts, and as we can clearly see, his claims are not proof, nor absolute. How can you know if you haven't tried. If you give up and resort to evil without trying, then evil truly does win

So if the 'fair trial' really is succesfully rigged, do they get to kill him on the way out of the courtroom? He'd have the chance to defend himself, at least, probably with a bunch of armed guards, and they already tried it the 'right' way. All in all, though, there's really so much wrong with just that statement and its mentality that it'd be difficult to pin it all down, like nailing Jello to a tree.


Oh:
Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1]. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.

As usual, Wikipedia took purposelessly long to say it, but eventually manages to babble out exactly the definition that the trusty MW's gave 'elitism.' Since you went out of your way to prove me right, you have my earnest thanks for admitting you were wrong. It's a very humble quality, and it suits you.

It's midnight, though, and I've satisfied his desire to be tied to his whipping post as long as the existence of video games will allow me to.

[Manoftyr]

So didn't see this coming, and V is awesome this is a prime example of why chaos>law, hopefully this will be the end of this friggen sidestory already and we can all get back to 'saving the world' as V put it.

That is, if the damned Paladin contingent don't throw V in jail and drag this on even further , of course then again V could just disintegrate them...which I for one would not object to since the only good Paladin is a dead one in my opinion, kinda like lawyers.

I'm mainly hoping this leads to the order being kicked off the boat and somehow sets a chain of events that end with them being re-united, or some other chain of events that takes the party away from the fleet...no offense to the Hinjo/Azurite fans but I'm just flat out tired of them at this point, I'm so sick of them and this entire arc that the entire Azurite fleet could be hit by a random meteor and just sink into the friggen ocean killing them all at this point and I'd be ecstatic because then the story wouldn't be able to revolve around them anymore. I've had it up to 'HERE' with Paladins and Lawfuls and noble houses and trials and magistrates and all that Bull, LET'S GET BACK TO SOME *expletive deleted*ING ADVENTURING ALREADY!

[carborundum]

YES!

Back to saving the world!

[Eraniverse]

V is certianly honorable, trustworthy (at least when she sleeps) judgmental, lack of adaptability at tiems, adherence to tradition, reliablity, and sometimes close mindedness. She also tends to act in an orginized and lawful faction. I admit she could be TN, but i'm thinking LN.
EE

Sorry but V is like the classic chaotic elven caster. V attacks teammates, attacks non combatants, seeks ultimate power, continually refers to wielded magic as disruptive of the natural order, despises all authority besides Roy's personally proven guidance, acts erratically in combat, occasionally forces issues without consultation *cough*Kubota*cough*.

I'll eat my words if you can find other people who support your lawful claim. Until then I'm going to have to stop replying.

[Spyros_Baldr]

To everyone arguing the rules of D&D:

You all have made one fatal flaw when it comes to the rules of the game, and it is contained in both the DMG and the PHB, which is that ultimately, the run-down of the game is decided by the DUNGEON MASTER, and that any rule that the [DM] does not agree with in the game can be house-ruled out.
So therefore, any additional rules that come from any of the supplemental rulebooks don't mean squat if your [DM] doesn't use them.

Sorry if that's harsh, but, Jesus, the rules of D&D are as subjective as the alignments of its characters. Any [DM] worth his/her salt knows that.

[kusje]

Disgusting. Cold blooded murder cannot be justified.

Brute force seems to have triumped over genius in this case. Unacceptable.

[Moechi_Vill]

Disgusting. Cold blooded murder cannot be justified.

Brute force seems to have triumped over genius in this case. Unacceptable.

I'm sure they taught you that problems can always be solved by long-winded discussions and the power of love, or that such a recourse should always be attempted - despite numerous, multiferous infernal murders to the contrary.

Cue Joker and Batman courtesy of the comics code.

Thank you TV tropes! For giving me the names of my weapons that I use to point out the faults of my opponents.

[EvilElitest]

Again, I do not consider BoED a valid source, so your argument holds no weight. If you argued PHB and actual, real ethics, I'd pay attention.

Actual real ethics aren't relevant, because this isn't a real world topics class, and the PHB morals are so ill defined and badly worded that an accurate guess can be taken. if you reject the book, then your essentially denying evidence because it doesn't suit your argument.

Ah, I see, so you advocate being a sheep, and trusting the authors of a single non-Core book to know what best defines right and wrong in every campaign in every setting of Dungeons and Dragons ever.

Calling me a sheep? Ok, i'm calling this in as a flame

But i'm not advocating meekness, i'm advocating using evidence properly. This book defines moral implications of actions, weather i like it or not, its word is law

Yeah, no. What is right and what is wrong depends on the setting. F'rex, if eternity is absolute bliss for all, and this is a provable fact, then killing everyone in sight would be a Good act, as it would allow them to experience that joyous period sooner.

Base this upon something. Really, other than your own assumption, actually back it. If you want to go into real world ethics, then this isn't the forum for it

No, its idiotic writing does that all by itself, along with the utter impossibility of accounting for every possible setting.

because......you say so. Why not back that up with something. i mean, if we are talking inconsistencies, what about the PHB?

You know, this one I'll give to you, because one of the dictionary definitions for treason is a violation of allegiance, which one could argue fit those definitions. I still feel that those aren't in the spirit of treason.

Spirit of treason is defying your government, nothing more, nothing less

1) No, it's vigilante justice, as you already pointed out. When you're on the frontier, you make your own law.
2) Any situation can disprove an "always" assertion. Therefore, if I can construct a situation in which performing an action is not evil, but fully justified and appropriate, then the "always" argument is disproven, regardless of how narrow the argument may be. If the same extenuating circumstances apply to a different situation, then the appropriateness applies to the others as well.
3) It is not hypocritical (seriously, where the hell did you come up with this one?) or cowardly to be pragmatic, and doing it because it's easier when your effort needs to be conserved to SAVE THE WORLD can be justified rather well. And that assumes that letting things go to trial wouldn't make things actively worse beyond wasting time. If Kubota has any media savvy at all, it would.

1) Not in D&D, where good and evil are absolute forces. Murder is clearly defined and so that must be murder. This isn't a subjective system
2) And you back this up with what exactly? I mean other than personal assertions, you really don't have any evidence here other than "I say so"
3) Yes it is hypcritical, because you are claiming to support the cause of good and fight evil, but when things get rough, you give in and resort to the very methods your fight against. THat is hypocrisy. It is cowardly because murdering an unarmed helpless prisoner is always cowardly. And you can't use "Saved the world" as an excuse to be evil, i imagine many villain use that as a moral shield. The trial wouldn't be a waste of time, because they are trying an evil person for a crime in order to stop him. The only reason why this murder happened is because its easier, which isn't an excuse when it comes to human life

In any case, since we're arguing under different premises, this debate is pointless. Specifically, you are arguing that the BoED is a holy text, and utterly accurate in all respects for Dungeons and Dragons morality, while I am arguing from the position of real-world reason and occasional consideration of the Player's Handbook section.

your arguing real world morality, and this forum isn't suited to that. I'm arguing using the rules on morality to deiced mortality.

Since you probably will not agree to my premises, and there is no way in hell that I'll agree to yours, we should probably just drop it. Feel free to post a rebuttal, but I've realized just how utterly pointless this debate is.

Do what you want, i really don't care.

You admit that in a conversation you insist is centered on D&D ethics, there are no exalted societies, even the Heavens since they contain mortals and their flawed nature. So stop bringing up a concept that is completely imaginary even in fictional universes.

There are exalted people. I said i don't think there are any exalted society, not that they are impossible. Heaven is entirely exalted, so it effectively is an exalted society. Exalted people wouldn't execute a man, while good people could get away with that

Isn't a fair trial the act of flawed, mortal men taking morality and its wages into their own hands?

Depends on the system. A trial where actual beings of law and good are overseeing to the best of their ablity is certainly going to be as fair as you can get

Even if you discount the ability of a person to maintain full rights to arbitrate morality, you clearly accept that there are situations in which mortals must decide what is good and what is evil. A 'fair trial' is not an otherworldly, timeless practice gifted to humans by a perfect society. It is mankind deciding when it is okay to punish someone by various means, including killing them outright. Your exclusion of a 'fair trial' from any other means of mortal interaction is glaringly baseless, because a 'fair trial' is just the public consensus of when this arbitration should regularly take place, not a separation of mortals from arbitrating Good and Evil. By this logic, we can see that a 'fair trial' not only achieves nothing by your own rules of Good and Evil but that since no 'fair trial' would have ever been forthcoming for Kubota, such an option was nonexistent.

Um, except that a fair trial would be one where the defendant gets a chance to prove his innocence, and the accusers will get the chance to prove his guilt, without corruption involved. Considering weh ave paladins and angels around, this is possible. Why wouldn't Kubato get a fair trial? Considering he actually is guilty, the purpose the trial is not to prove his guilt but to provide a proper punishment. IF it is execution, then it isn't an evil act, just a neutral one

In this way, we can see that the arbitration of morality that you claim does and doesn't exist, oddly, is impossible. Since a trial decides not only what punishment one is to receive but whether punishment is justified at all by providing legal record of guilt or innocence, which you apparently think makes the difference, Kubota then exists as some sort of morally static entity; it would not be fair for the characters to let him go or to reward him in some way any more than it would be to punish him in any way because they lack the authority to do so, by your standards. The question of what to do with him becomes impossible to answer because the only medium that you believe can do so is nonexistent in his case. So, lacking that, what do you suggest shoudl be done with him? The only possible course of action by your reasoning would be to lock him in some sort of indefinite stasis that could contain him just as he is forever, or until a truly airtight trial could be guaranteed: a legal Schroedinger's cat.

this is not real life, trials are nearly as vague because you have you know, magic and holy beings to assist.

But essentially, your nitpicking. While the large paragraph is nice, it boils down to a few sentences, so do you mind actually addressing the issue.

As usual, Wikipedia took purposelessly long to say it, but eventually manages to babble out exactly the definition that the trusty MW's gave 'elitism.' Since you went out of your way to prove me right, you have my earnest thanks for admitting you were wrong. It's a very humble quality, and it suits you.

Um, prove you right? When have i asserted taht i'm not an elitist? I've admitted to being an elitist from you know, the start, and your tip toeing around definitions is little more than a waste of my time. Stop evading around and actually come out and say your point

To everyone arguing the rules of D&D:

You all have made one fatal flaw when it comes to the rules of the game, and it is contained in both the DMG and the PHB, which is that ultimately, the run-down of the game is decided by the DUNGEON MASTER, and that any rule that the [DM] does not agree with in the game can be house-ruled out.
So therefore, any additional rules that come from any of the supplemental rulebooks don't mean squat if your [DM] doesn't use them.

as far as we know, rule zero hasn't been evocked


from
EE

[arkwei]

Remember, people, Windu wanted to kill Palpatine even when he is defenseless.

"Too dangerous to be kept alive."

Oh, and remember how fine a man Palpatine turned to be.

Please note, Evil has all sorts of unlikely and unpredictable allies. Who knows who is going to be Kabuto's Anakin?

[EvilElitest]

Remember, people, Windu wanted to kill Palpatine even when he is defenseless.

"Too dangerous to be kept alive."

Oh, and remember how fine a man Palpatine turned to be.

Please note, Evil has all sorts of unlikely and unpredictable allies.

good and evil do not equal right and wrong
from
EE

[arkwei]

good and evil do not equal right and wrong
from
EE

I don't get it. So Good is wrong?

[EvilElitest]

I don't get it. So Good is wrong?

it can be. It depends on your point of view. Good and evil are two different forces. They are objective in how they work. Weather you think good is actually right is up to you. the Roman Empire would be evil by D&D terms, but the romans wouldn't consider what they were doing wrong, its just their way of life. They felt they were perfectly jusitfied in taking over the known world, just like V felt she was jusified in killing Kubato. Right and wrong are subjective
from
EE

[Nevitan]

sometimes doing a 'good' act over all, isn't for the best

*koffMikoKoff*

[B.I.T.T.]

....

[EvilElitest]

sometimes doing a 'good' act over all, isn't for the best

*koffMikoKoff*

well that wasn't good actually
from
EE

[Yukitsu]

EE, please turn to the latter half of page 73 of the book of exalted deeds, and read in full the passage presented there.

[arkwei]

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?

Because Rich Burlew is that good of a writer. Immersion, my friend, will make you feel that the fantasy is real.

[Borris]

Dammit, V. I'm sure Roy or Durkon could have made good use of that +5 armor. Finding a hiding place might have been a better idea than throwing it overboard, don't you think?

[LurkerInPlayground]

Eh, one needs to keep in mind that "good" and "evil" are essentially broad categorizations. It really doesn't recommend the most advisable course of action, but simply reflects the kind of general morality a character thinks would serve best.

But really, I'm not here for the moral/ethical whatever. I just wanted to say that it's been awhile since I've laughed this hard. V magically vaporizing the big-bad without the least bit of angst. Perfect.

Part of the humor simply lies in the fact that Kubuto is simply used to getting away with cheating and alienating people without the least consequence from other evil, good or neutral people. . .
. . .Then a high-leveled wizard decides he/she has had enough.

It's poetic justice.

Personally, this is why "True Neutral" is my favorite alignment. It can be just so pragmatic.

[Liwen]

And so comes issue #600, V will turn to the dark side and blast Hinjo to bits.

[Nevitan]

And so comes issue #600, V will turn to the dark side and blast Hinjo to bits.

Even if it'd kill at least one really cool character, It'd be cool to see V take out hir fury against paladins

[ss49]

So is Indiana Jones evil? He had the drop on the swordman in RotLA, but shot him down in cold blood. Sure the victim was armed, but a sword vs. a revolver is like being unarmed, right?
Yet that scene received the loudest cheers in the theater.
Maybe we should just relax?