OOTS #595 - The Discussion Thread

[David Argall]

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.

But it's likely a very good idea. Just what are the player supposed to do during those 5-6 pages of court stuff? Sit there and listen to the DM read box text?

can you give me a comic number where V claimed to support the cause of Good?

#11, which has been acknowledged to mean V was Good at that time.

Now to go into a few points...

A trial is not a necessity for a good killing. It can be for a lawful one, but the chaotic does not care about that.
The trial is merely a pragmatic means of establishing the facts and deciding what is to be done about them. Thus it is not necessary when the fact are already established, and the action clear. In the case at hand, that seems to be what we have. Kubota was behind attacks that killed many, and intends to resume such evil as soon as he can. He deserves killing and the Good do not suffer for killing those who deserve it.

Minor technical point. Kubota surrendered to Elan, not to V, which means V is under no promise not to hurt Kubota.

The fact one is a prisoner does give certain protections, but these are largely limited to your not being an immediate threat. You gain no immunity to proper punishment, nor to your being a future threat.

The idea of some lesser punishment is entirely wrong here. If V had the right to impose one of them, V also had the right to impose the lethal penalty, and these lesser ideas are all subject to either being disguised executions or ineffective. So they are not valid options.

[Tundar]

Bwa hahahaha!
Oh man, I didn't see that one coming.

It opens a can of worms in regards to Elan and V's different alignments, but it was fun as hell.


And yeah, lets resume to saving the world please.

[LiteYear]

Having said that, Elan should still have skewered Kubota - Kubota confessed to lots of crimes, Elan saw him effectively kill in cold blood, yadda yadda. Chaotic good is all about doing good irrespective of the rule of law.

I would slightly disagree. I believe Chaotic Good is doing good where the higher authority would fail to do so. Elan believed that Kubota would be brought to justice, and was a reason he should not have and did not kill Kubota.

[RedWizard]

Only Belkar's killed out of anything but immediate survival. What alignment is Belkar again?

Miko killed everything she met that detected as evil. She says this often and proudly. Not only was she Lawful Good, but until she killed a man who wasn't evil, she had never in her life committed an evil act.

You don't become evil by embroidering dirty words into handkerchiefs. People in this thread say that "being evil is not a crime," but it is; you don't become evil unless you habitually commit crimes (on the universal scale, not anything as petty as local law). "Evil" means "has done things that deserve killing."

For the record, the Lawful Good alignment is described as "the Avenger" in the 3.X corebooks. Not the Enforcer, not the Defender, not the Protector. The Avenger. The one who makes sure that evil people get their just desserts.

Due process can keep innocent people from being punished, but punishing the guilty isn't evil, whether or not it's legal. It would be pretty bizarre if a Chaotic Good person who viewed laws with contempt had to wait for a formal trial to punish a murderer.

Edit: It occurs to me that Evil Elitist is actually arguing a picture-perfect Lawful position, while ignoring the fact that not only are PCs criminals by the measure of wherever they happen to be, thieves, anarchists, and vigilantes can be good (Chaotic Good, that's what it's there for!) without having any respect or consideration for law whatsoever.

Second Edit: Book of Exalted Deeds was one part broken mechanics, one part nonsense, and one part attempts at trying to shoehorn real-world morality into a game about killing evil people to steal their stuff. It was useful for one thing and one thing only, and glossy pages aren't absorbent enough to be good at it. Slightly worse than Book of Vile Darkness, which has a couple useful feats and classes for villains sandwiched between immature attempts at 'edginess.' I don't care what they say, and I don't see anything that suggests that the OotS folk do either

Final Edit: Got so worked up with the discussion that I forgot to add how hard I laughed when I saw him fried, and V's weary expression. Awesome. A slippery slope, perhaps, but awesome all the same.

[glowface]

Didn't read all the comments yet, but if V had a disitegrate prepared, why didn't she shoot it at the Big Guy after saving throw reductions instead of Prismatic Spray? OK, Prismatic Spray is one level higher, so +1 DC, but there is a significant chance it will only cause a - relatively - small damage.

[factotum]

#11, which has been acknowledged to mean V was Good at that time.

Cobblers. You've been told on numerous occasions that Unholy Blight affects Neutral characters as well as Good ones, so why do you persist in this irrational belief that strip 11 proves V was Good?

Anyway, I don't think this is the end of the arc by a LONG way. We may be out of the Therkla and Kubota subplot, but the "V falling apart" subplot has a ways to run yet, I think!

[BloodOnlySpills]

Glowface, I think it was a question of circumstances, plus, who can argue with a gigantic demon turned to freakin stone? A testament to V's magical skill.

Also: JUSTICE WAS DONE. And hilariously.

[arkwei]

Didn't read all the comments yet, but if V had a disitegrate prepared, why didn't she shoot it at the Big Guy after saving throw reductions instead of Prismatic Spray? OK, Prismatic Spray is one level higher, so +1 DC, but there is a significant chance it will only cause a - relatively - small damage.

Generally, targeting some big monster on a Fort save is not a good idea. Granted, it was the saving throw that the Big Red ultimately failed, but V was really just lucky on that one.

[Elfey]

1) In D&d good and evil are objective. Right and wrong are subjective.
2) That being said, the moment you start saying "this is for the greater good" or "Ends justifies the means' your basically admitting that evil won by you narrowing your focus to not include the good option available to you, because apperently they are too difficult.
from
EE

I'm sure you're probably write about the rules. I don't game hardcore enough to pretend to be an expert.

My example before using the situation as presented in Kotor was to show how I feel the rules strangle good and evil by making them pay for right and wrong. Deception and subtlety I've seen lawful and good characters penalized for, especially when deception requires a minor evil act. When said deception and quick thinking would for allow better end, it's right. However often enough the rules say it's evil. (minor evil, and usually the good done offsets it but still).

Good example is in Book Zero with Roy and his first party. The best option for a good player, and the hard way you mention is what Roy did. That is stay 3 weeks and feed the Orcs. No one dies unnecessarily. The other adventurers preferred to just kill them. I understand what EE is saying, as the best good option is present here. And in this case the right option is to feed the Orcs.

My take is the 'hard good' option for V, going for the trial and getting a conviction, is something V believes endangers the world and the time spent would kill everyone involved.

Ultimately I'm convinced now V is neutral, so V could do such an 'evil' act, but looking at the subjective base, not the strict alignment, V's act prolly helped save the world.

[fractal]

You don't become evil by embroidering dirty words into handkerchiefs. People in this thread say that "being evil is not a crime," but it is; you don't become evil unless you habitually commit crimes (on the universal scale, not anything as petty as local law). "Evil" means "has done things that deserve killing."

This is one definition of evil, but not the only one. It doesn't work at all for many monsters that may never have had an opportunity to do such things. I would interpret an evil alignment as "inclined to do evil things if they can be gotten away with." A person does not need to have already done something bad to be evil, and similarly, just because someone did something bad in the past does not mean that they're still of evil alignment.

Redcloak could see the error of his ways and reform; he will immediately no longer be evil, although he could still deserve punishment for his past actions. Belkar was probably evil even before he met his first victim.

Another way to look at it is that otherwise, there could never be stuff like level 1 Paladins of Tyranny, since they'd have no way of being evil in time to qualify for the class.

[Stormoverkrynn]

This comic was awesome, I did not see that coming at all either.

I am also assuming V heard the confession and decided to be judge, jury, and executioner. What V did may be considered was an evil act, but he is not a good aligned character, nore is he evil..he kinda walks the line between both. I am also gonna assume that since Kabuto was making his fine confession to Elan, that he thought there were no witnesses around so unless Elan says anything...no one will know what happened to Kabuto..people think he escaped and life goes on. I am also assuming that V's lack of rest is also affecting his judgement (granted in most Ad&d books elves do not sleep or need to...ie elves get saves to sleep like effects and charms) (also this was a case of a powerful wizard just putting his foot down, IMHO it shows how power V thinks he is....what can Elan or anyone on that crew do to V. He like you said could teleport away, cast a fireball, cast a wide array of other spells. I am starting to think V, wants to get the party back together, so he can get some rest, then he wants to challenge someone possibly stronger than he is. (our lich friend) what most people might or might not know, is most liches at one point were wizards that wanted to cheat death and live forever.

I have played alot of AD&D and it is rather easy to kill a character. A good gm will help a side quest end faster at times to try and speed up what he really has planned or in store for his party. Also going under the definition that killing is an evil act, is it evil for a party of good aligned players to kill a party of kobolds who are out just gathering food? Yet I bet instead of trying to communicate with the kobolds the parties first reaction is to kill them. AD&D is mostly about storyline, the better the storyline the more people get hooked. In my years of playing there were times that playing sucked cause well I hated were the story was going, but then there are times when you just sit there and go WOW. It really comes down to perspective.

The last two comics I did not see coming, and all I can say is WOW and great job. A great writer will keep ya guessing.

[Kaihaku]

It's DnD... genocide is "cool."

How many sentients have the party killed?

Precisely.

EVERY character in Order of the Stick is a serial murderer by the standards of "modern law". Well, save maybe Elan... So, the fact that V murdered someone by the standards of "modern law" is irrelevant unless you judge the entire world by them. Don't even try a "it's war" because it's a war on "EVIL" and guess who was clearly evil? It amounts to breaking the Geneva Convention.

[Samurai Jill]

...


Wait- V! What were you THINKING!!!
...Save his armour and magical items!

[RedWizard]

This is one definition of evil, but not the only one. It doesn't work at all for many monsters that may never have had an opportunity to do such things. I would interpret an evil alignment as "inclined to do evil things if they can be gotten away with." A person does not need to have already done something bad to be evil, and similarly, just because someone did something bad in the past does not mean that they're still of evil alignment.

Redcloak could see the error of his ways and reform; he will immediately no longer be evil, although he could still deserve punishment for his past actions. Belkar was probably evil even before he met his first victim.

Another way to look at it is that otherwise, there could never be stuff like level 1 Paladins of Tyranny, since they'd have no way of being evil in time to qualify for the class.

What sort of evil people do you think have never had the chance to be evil? Presumably characters don't sit around on their thumbs in some sort of Schrodinger's room, doing neither good deeds or bad, until their first adventure? (Although that could be kind of cool.) Either way, it doesn't change the fact that killing creatures for being evil is never shown as being an evil act, and has in fact been shown as not being an evil act, since paladins can apparently do so and get away with it.

Also, comic-related note: Have all skulls been drawn with uneven eye sizes? Because I noticed it, and it looked like he was even more surprised than I was.

[Najian]

Loved it. Though really V should get some rest. She should have been trough all of her spells by now including the nastier ones.

But yet she manages to gust of wind for the scenic touch
That makes up for all of it

[Eric]

I can't be the only one who thinks Vaarsuvius executing a helpless man and then destroying the evidence is not a good thing.

I mean, yeah, it ended the problem of Kubota, but I think the problem of Vaarsuvius is just beginning.

Judge: Zone Of Truth
Prosecutor: Why did you disintegrate a surrendered noble?
V: Because of multiple murders, his verbatim tirade about how he could lie to the court and not be detected as such and his absolute conviction that he could turn his nefarious deeds to his advantage in his treasonous acts against the lawful ruler, even in his people's greatest need for unity.
Judge: Truth.
V:Defense rests.
Judge: Next case

[RedWizard]

"Defense's wittiness." "Varsarious, do you believe you would have the ability to overcome a zone of truth spell, such as this one, with the arcane powers you possess?" "ABILITY!? My arcane might is such that etc etc etc..." "Move the wittiness' testimony be struck from the record."

[John Campbell]

Two things:

1) About damn time.

2) Once again, we have a lovely demonstration of why alignment is the worst thing that ever happened to D&D.

[Kami2awa]

Screw the rules, I have magic!

[Prowl]

If a paladin can ambush-murder an innocent goblin child and that is not 'evil' in D&D terms, then slaying Kubota - a very guilty party - in this circumstance cannot be considered 'evil' either.

Both SoD and the main comic have made it abundantly clear - there is nothing 'evil' about killing an evil creature. That it does not comport with modern ideas about due process is irrelevant.

Besides, Kubota surrendered in only the most Lawful interpretation of his behavior. Even at the point of a sword, even tied as a prisoner, even in the face of individuals who unquestionably knew he was a murderer, and worse - he was still issuing threats. To call him 'unarmed' is false; he was armed with the laws of the Azurites and he continued to wield them up to the moment of his death.

[Elfanatic]

Screw the rules, I have magic!

Quoted for truth.

[fractal]

What sort of evil people do you think have never had the chance to be evil? Presumably characters don't sit around on their thumbs in some sort of Schrodinger's room, doing neither good deeds or bad, until their first adventure? (Although that could be kind of cool.)

Never having done anything sufficiently evil to deserve to die for it, no. Then again, I'm of the opinion that the unscrupulous merchant who cheats his customers whenever he can is evil. Furthermore, I think he would still be evil even if he knew he couldn't get away with cheating them, so doesn't, but would if he could.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that killing creatures for being evil is never shown as being an evil act, and has in fact been shown as not being an evil act, since paladins can apparently do so and get away with it.

We actually haven't really seen any paladins kill things just for being evil. There was always a more specific reason. It's hinted that Miko did so, but there's no actual evidence that she didn't hold out for more solid proof of wrong-doing.

[charl]

About time!

Thank you V.

Finally. Resume saving the world, indeed.

[Prowl]

We actually haven't really seen any paladins kill things just for being evil. There was always a more specific reason. It's hinted that Miko did so, but there's no actual evidence that she didn't hold out for more solid proof of wrong-doing.

SoD shows otherwise.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak's opening scene culminates with a group of paladins slaying every goblin they could find... even helpless and blameless children.

[courtjester]

Is it just me or does the OOTS team seem to be unbalanced? It seems that V is the engine of destruction and the rest of the characters are becoming bystanders that delay the bad guys while V charges up. V wipes out dragons, giant devils, and evil class "b" lords on his/her own while the other characters fight goblins, zombies, thieves, etc.

Sure it's good to see Belkar skewer gobbos, but it would be nice to see Haley, Roy (when alive), Durkon, and/or Belkar get some big, evil... thing... (you get my point).

Oh, and I vote that V is neutral good (in V's current state of exhaust, I'm not sure it can be argued that V was in full possession of his/her mental faculties - and after defeating a monstrous devil, disintegrating a plainly evil warlord planning on starting a civil war and further delaying saving the world (nay, the whole of the multiverse!) may seem reasonable).

[David Argall]

Cobblers. You've been told on numerous occasions that Unholy Blight affects Neutral characters as well as Good ones, so why do you persist in this irrational belief that strip 11 proves V was Good?

Because Unholy Blight does not sicken neutrals. Since everyone in the party except Belkar was affected in some non-pure damage way, they are all good.
And of course because the artist says it proves V was Good.

[kabbes]

Best. Comic. Ever.

Actually, second best comic ever. But pretty close to best.

[RedWizard]

Never having done anything sufficiently evil to deserve to die for it, no. Then again, I'm of the opinion that the unscrupulous merchant who cheats his customers whenever he can is evil. Furthermore, I think he would still be evil even if he knew he couldn't get away with cheating them, so doesn't, but would if he could.

That's giving "evil" a much wider definition than I would. That's another discussion, though.

We actually haven't really seen any paladins kill things just for being evil. There was always a more specific reason. It's hinted that Miko did so, but there's no actual evidence that she didn't hold out for more solid proof of wrong-doing.

Aside from the events of Start of Darkness, Miko says it right here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html "They were evil, so I killed them!"

[Klepty_McKlepto]

Oh wow that was fantastic, way to go V...

if only the rest of V's plans worked so well

[Smoke_Rulz]

Holy crap. I think this is the best swerve you've ever pulled, Rich.

Kubota was in a great position, really. He's decidedly evil but a mastermind, and he has his bases covered to the point where he's freely bragging about it to Elan after surrendering. There's nothing they can truly pin on him in fair trial so trying any of it would be useless. And he killed Therkla, a likable character who had ways to stall his plans if she had taken the opportunity. It was going to be interesting to see how they would deal with this mess, how they would try to pin him with something, just what they could possibly do to not let the evil genius go free.

And then suddenly V WITH DISINTIGRATE.

This was totally unexpected and decidedly epic. I think I can die happy now.