OOTS #595 - The Discussion Thread

[Pokemaster]

If the Order of the Stick has taught me anything, it's that Great Fortitude is a must-take feat for everyone.

[EvilElitest]

Fourth and last, isn't killing evil people and creatures for whatever money they have on them the basic definition of what Good adventuring PCs do with their time?

No it isn't. Good people contrary to popular belief, don't simply kill evil monsters for their loot (the exception being always evil creatures), they do it to protect themselves and innocents

from
EE

[RedWizard]

After a fair trial and conviction, which is an exception to the rule


Even a chaotic person needs to abide by the laws of goodness if he hopes to stay good. Otherwise, he will fall.

How can a trial have anything to do with Good or Evil if laws aren't related to Good or Evil? Chaotic people are people who do good without caring about the law. What are PCs supposed to do with murders and slavers if the local law allows for murder and slavery? Unless they're going to be judge, jury, and executioner themselves... which is exactly what V did.

Thank you for proving me right. your simply nitpicking at minor flaws in order to make your point look good, which is basically what i said. what your personal morals are or mine are irrelvant, whats relevant is what the D&D books say and they say, absolutely, that this is evil
Weather its morals are what you personally think is right or wrong is not relevant, whats relevent is its status as a rule book.
Good thing i haven't heard that joke before, now witty and orginial.......
1) its the statbook on the subject, excluding it simply because it doesn't support your argument doens't render it irrelevent

It's a supplement, not a corebook. WotC has such different takes on good and evil, between Ebberon, Ravenloft, Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms that it looks like even they don't care about applying its nonsense across their own lines. I don't, either.

2) miko's fall would be evil by BoED deeds definition and he has been following its rules so far

She fell for murdering a Good 80-year-old man! She had, however, been killing anyone and anything that she detected as Evil until then, and hadn't fallen. How does that fit in with BoED?

1) Being evil can be anything, a selfish buisness man could be evil.
2) And being evil is not a crime

Crime is irrelevant to Good vs Evil; criminals can be Good, laws can be Evil. Cheating on your taxes doesn't make you evil; as required by the corebook, it requires malice and a willingness to kill innocent people.

3) he may be guilty yes, that doesn't exclude the fact taht he is a prisioner. And simply being gulity doesn't mean that death is the proper solution
1) It isn't good to kill a prisioner because a judge says so, it is tolortable to kill a prisioner who is found innocent in a fair tral
2) Killing is never good, only netural at times

Trials can confirm that someone is guilty, but V already knew he was; a trial would be nothing but a waste of time to confirm what s/he already knows at best, a way for him to avoid just punishment at worst. Nothing about a trial is inherently more "good" or "fair" than a single person's judgement.

3) Miko's smite was only used in combat. She got lucky that she never killed an innocent until shojo
from
EE

She brags that, when someone or something detected as evil, she killed it; she wasn't checking Belkar all the time to satisfy her curiosity, she was doing it because, if he was evil, she was going to skewer him. She was lucky, yes (and her methods were arrogant, foolish, shortsighted, and ultimately self-destructive), but until she killed a Good man, she had never performed an evil act.

No it isn't. Good people contrary to popular belief, don't simply kill evil monsters for their loot (the exception being always evil creatures), they do it to protect themselves and innocents

from
EE

They do in D&D, from brown box to the moment BoED came off the shelves.

ETA: Alternately, they kill evil creatures to protect innocents and themselves, usually in exchange for a fee, as well as all the money the evil things have on them.

[Scarlet Knight]

Since there are 25 pages, forgive me if I have missed this, but the two sided problem is that OOTS is a game AND a story.

We have all gamed with someone who wanted to get the plot moving ( often when the party is split) and so he just says " $#@% this" & kills the NPC holding everything up. I find it funny that Mr Burlew worked that in with V. (That's usually Belkar's job)

From a story point of view, I worry about Elan. Elan has always had a childlike belief in the way the world works. Evil is punished, Good triumphs, and all his friends are admirable people. Will he be tainted by V's act, especially if called to testify & either has to lie or hurt a friend?

Hinjo must punish V because he rules by the rule of law, not by might. ESPECIALLY if the crime benefits him and is comitted by a group close to him that many of his citizens believe is the cause of the death of the previous ruler ( see #533) .

Unless of course this is a plot device to get the party on the road & back together...

[joela]

"Dunh dunh DUNNNNNH!" indeed.

[Starbuck_II]

No it isn't. Good people contrary to popular belief, don't simply kill evil monsters for their loot (the exception being always evil creatures), they do it to protect themselves and innocents

from
EE

Dude, you usually make a lot of sense (I've agreed with alot of your points in this thread).
But what? Glood people kill evil for loot. I mean, Good Adventurers do at least. This is D&D.

Look at Haley. She is Chaotic Good I believe.

[Kish]

They do in D&D, from brown box to the moment BoED came off the shelves.

That's Belkar's opinion, but quite conspicuously not something Roy, Haley, Elan, or Durkon are okay with.

It is interesting to note that Vaarsuvius is the only party member we don't see glaring at Belkar there.

[RedWizard]

That's Belkar's opinion, but quite conspicuously not something Roy, Haley, Elan, or Durkon are okay with.

It is interesting to note that Vaarsuvius is the only party member we don't see glaring at Belkar there.

So what would you call the sidequest of "break into the dragon's home for purposes of looting its horde?"

And it does seem to me that Haley has her priorities straight, there.

[Hydro]

It seems a lot of people are taking everything said by a man who claims he can lie his way free of any legal or political consequences as though it was entirely true.

Oh, we don't have to prove that it's true. You have to prove that it's false.

Suppose Kubota had been a man pointing a gun (well, wand) at Elan, rather than brandishing- indeed, flaunting- his political prowess, which is just as dangerous. Suppose that this wand at least had a chance of killing Elan.

Would one need to prove that this attack was guaranteed to hit before any measures of self-defense on Elans' (or his friends') parts were justified?
No. That he is in danger is enough to justify a self-defense claim. Kubota's power was a deadly weapon, and he has expressed and demonstrated both the will and the ability to use it against Elan. He was neither "helpless" nor a "captive", only unarmed and tied up.

It has been asserted several times that Kubota threatening someone with assassination is not the same thing as threatening one with a gun. And it *is* different, but only in one key way: proving that someone is pointing a gun at you is usually easy, proving that someone is plotting to have you assassinated is a bit harder.

Laws tend to deal with observables and concretes because they need to be inforced by humans, who are easily confused. Cosmic Good has no such hindrances to perception.

V was protecting her friend Elan from imminent danger. Her actions were justified.

[Hydro]

1) Um, defenseless, unable to fight back should you kill him, unable to fight back
2) Guile doesn't count as an active threat. He is still a prisoner, and so killing him is still evil. Just because he is still a threat doesn't justify murder, it just means you have to face him on a legal basis. That is part of what good is, restraint

Your arguement seems to be that attacking a dangerous creature at the instant when it is not dangerous isn't okay.

Curious: when the cleric turns a vampire, does the party have to hold back until the turning affect wears off (because the vampire isn't a direct threat for that time)?

If not, what's the difference?

[Kish]

So what would you call the sidequest of "break into the dragon's home for purposes of looting its horde?"

I would call it...unworthy of you to imply that Roy or anyone in the party knew the starmetal was the property of an intelligent dragon when they set out.

Haley spent years robbing innocent people for a living before she ever became an adventurer, without appearing to feel the slightest pangs of conscience. Now you're treating her primary interest in treasure as granting moral license to every adventurer to rob and pillage, rather than reflecting that she--like Vaarsuvius--is still distinctly more morally gray than Roy, Durkon or Elan?

[reignofevil]

Maybe im missing something here.
Whats the point of being neutral if all you can do is follow the strict standards of good or else fall to the evil spectrum?
Neutral is the alignment of justification. V can make a million cases for killing the wicked noble, and because he is not good, he could make the choice the azurites could not.
It would be like forcing a neutral to only commit evil acts or else fall to the good side, but of course that sounds REALLY stupid doesnt it?

[Hydro]

Maybe im missing something here.
Whats the point of being neutral if all you can do is follow the strict standards of good or else fall to the evil spectrum?
Neutral is the alignment of justification. V can make a million cases for killing the wicked noble, and because he is not good, he could make the choice the azurites could not.
It would be like forcing a neutral to only commit evil acts or else fall to the good side, but of course that sounds REALLY stupid doesnt it?

We're discussing the act, not the person.

Whether it was a good act or an evil act, I think we all agree that (for now) V stays neutral.

[SmartAlec]

Curious: when the cleric turns a vampire, does the party have to hold back until the turning affect wears off (because the vampire isn't a direct threat for that time)?

If not, what's the difference?

Did the vampire surrender?

[reignofevil]

Putting the now deceased noble in a court room would be like putting a master level wizard in a room full of magical energy.
Sure he might stick to his earlier promise of not using it, but you know he will eventually.
He is a noble. He is an aristocrat. He has shown he can weave good and complex lies in seconds, and that he is more then capable of getting himself out of what would normally be horrible situations. The court room is his room of ultimate arcane power. Beating him there would be possible, but even you naysayers must admit how unlikely it is.

[maxon]

Right I .... right. Remind me to wait until late afternoon to insult Varsuuvius.

I love the way Elan is left holding the empty rope.

26 pages! Blimey. What have you been talking about? The strip's only been up two days. Controversy, I bet but at 26 pages it's TL:DR.

[Taljen]

Look, at this length it's pretty obvious no one is going anywhere. People have different takes on morality/alignment when it comes to D&D. Though let me remind you, this is a forum on (a very well written) comic about D&D. I don't think anyone will solve the problem of universal morality here. Everyone should just agree to disagree and move on.

[rman]

Maybe Kubota had a backup plan:

Before beginning a night of mayhem that might possibly lead to death an evil overlord shall sacrifice one joint of their left pinkey. Such sample of flesh and a sufficient amount of diamond dust and a high level cleric to be sent to a safe location with instructions on a certain spell to be cast should they not hear from the evil overlord within the specified time limit.

Death is not forever.

A high level mage who will remain close to the evil overlord will have placed a trackable mark upon the piece of flesh (allowing its summons) and the cleric. If a mage and cleric are not available an imp/demon or other extra planar being to which one already has a soul contract can be used instead.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Hahahahaha...that was hilarious. V and Richard seem to take some of the same tacks on certain issues. Fwoosh.

[Leewei]

Suppose Kubota had been a man pointing a gun (well, wand) at Elan, rather than brandishing- indeed, flaunting- his political prowess, which is just as dangerous.

Bam! This thread has been won.

[Zeku]

Is there any way we can get Rich to confirm exactly how alignments are being considered and represented?

I never did learn if Miko lost her lawful, her good, or both attributes. And, I also don't know if this action represents a change in V's alignment, or in which direction.

[David Argall]

If there was one sleeping goblin, then yes, that would have worked. Assuming that the party had rope to spare. A single helpless goblin would have been a situation very similar to Kubota.

One hundred helpless goblins would also be a situation similar to Kubota. In fact more so. One goblin is not a serious threat, and so can be left alive. 100 is serious enough to need dealing with.

But there was more than one - and unless someone is sleeping really deeply, there's a good chance you'll wake them up in the process of binding them. And the noise that one could potentially make might wake up the others - not to mention that there's still a goblin awake in there!

A coup de grace is a full round action. Tying up and gaging a goblin is also a full round action. Roy is of no more danger of all awakening either way. And as noted, the other good PCs are not doing anything to help him, also indicating the risk of their wakening was not a concern.

We still have Good Roy killing helpless prisoners.

That's only if they're goblins. The gods made them to be killed, it would be an insult to the game designers gods to pass up the opportunity to coup de gras a few gobbos.

But Roy does pass up the chance to kill goblins. See 93 & 101.

We reach the same conclusion. Roy, faced with a situation similar to V & Kubota, kills, and his behavior is considered proper for someone of Good alignment. [That does not mean V is justified, but it does mean we can not condemn V out of hand. His action can be Good.]

[Shpadoinkle]

Look, at this length it's pretty obvious no one is going anywhere. People have different takes on morality/alignment when it comes to D&D. Though let me remind you, this is a forum on (a very well written) comic about D&D. I don't think anyone will solve the problem of universal morality here. Everyone should just agree to disagree and move on.

This is the internet. Nobody EVER agrees to disagree. They simply pick apart the opposing side's three or four arguments pedantically while continuing to repost the same three or four arguments they have, with minor variations. Provided this thread doesn't get locked, I wouldn't be surprised if it was still around and going strong a year after the comic has concluded.

[Nirveli]

I have to agree with the last post. V has not been shown to be lawful good, so killing an enemy DURING a conflict is perfectly within his/her alignment as neutral good or even chaotic good. Kubota started the conflict, tried to kill V's teammate,tried to kill the only way to find or retrieve V's other teammates.

Clearly throughout the comic and in the realm of their world, V's actions make perfect sense. Kill Kubota and destroy the ashes to prevent any chance of him being resurrected or reincarnated so that V can continue to look for the rest of the Order. Just because V is with the Azure City refugees doesn't mean he/she has joined their society or feels that s/he has to follow their laws. Kubota confessed to the crime and admitted to conspiracy to commit more crimes that would have impaired V's ability to fulfill his/her duty to the people that matter to him/her.

I believe the only reason that V allowed the trial at Azure City to proceed was that Roy allowed it. V does not seem to be willing to expend more effort that is necessary at any time, so after the defeat at the hands of the crazed paladin, it makes sense that V would allow the situation to play out until action was necessary to save either him/her self or his/her teammates. I would refer you back to #285 where V uses Scorching Ray on Miko to save Belkar and then hears a rousing speech on not abandoning teammates. Clearly in V's mind, finding the rest of the team is more important.

I applaud the development of the wizard into a more complex character.

[Firelock_ny]

Nope.

Sam Vimes.

Esmie Weatherwax.

Han Solo.

Mal Reynolds.

Wolverine.

Batman.

The Punisher.

Richard Cypher.

Mack Bolan.

Remo Williams.

Jean Luc Picard.

Winston Churchill.

Captain John Sheridan.

Max Headroom (If you can't kick a man when he's down, when can you kick 'em?).

Want more? I'll look 'em up in the other books I have.

Note that "Protagonist" doesn't always equal "Good-Aligned",
especially when you're talking about anti-heroes like
Remo Williams, Mack Bolan or the Punisher. Also note
that even good-aligned characters can have bad days
and do things that are less-than-good.

--
Walt

[Warren Dew]

Haley spent years robbing innocent people for a living before she ever became an adventurer, without appearing to feel the slightest pangs of conscience. Now you're treating her primary interest in treasure as granting moral license to every adventurer to rob and pillage, rather than reflecting that she--like Vaarsuvius--is still distinctly more morally gray than Roy, Durkon or Elan?

Thanks for actually saying that. I've often wondered why Haley got such a free pass on the forums regarding alignment, when Miko and Vaarsuvius and the like get raked over the coals.

[Ridureyu]

Well, I can think of two reasons why.

1. Haley's alignment isn't really in question.

2. Haley has easier-to-expose boobs.

[Nimrod's Son]

Boring alignment squabbles aside, it's a pretty sure-fire bet that Vaarsuvius didn't just say "the right four words". The prophecy says that the words will be spoken to the right being. It's a stretch to even claim that Vaarsuvius said "Disintegrate" to Kubota (he was casting a spell, not starting a conversation), let alone "Gust of Wind", which was said after Kubota was already dead.

Also, minor point: the names of these current antagonists are KUBOTA, QARR and THERKLA. I hate to nitpick, but the amount of ludicrously mangled spellings and pronunciations on display here is just unbelievable.

[SmartAlec]

Roy, faced with a situation similar to V & Kubota, kills, and his behavior is considered proper for someone of Good alignment.

It's not at all similar. Not at all.

The goblins are an immediate threat, for a start. Yes, they're still a threat. They're asleep now - but they could wake up in a round. After all, Elan and Belkar are awake, and the Order apparently used measures to wake them up that didn't wake up any of the other goblins, so it might not have taken much for them to wake. (And who's saying Roy's behaviour is considered proper for Lawful Good, David? I don't recall anyone saying that at all.) Kubota is a neutralised threat - yes, he is - he's tied up, he has submitted to authority, and apparently genuinely helpless, unlike the goblins, who only have to wake up to break out of their 'captivity'. (Seriously, David, they're not prisoners.) Only if Kubota escapes or is found innocent will he resume being a threat - yes, he may have plots already in motion, but they were enacted before his capture and they could potentially continue after his death. Killing him then and there gets the good guys nothing. Unlike the goblins, who could potentially wake up at any moment, Kubota can do nothing right now; and even if he is found innocent, V can still just kill him then.

The only thing V has done is avoid the trial. And as people have pointed out, that could go against Kubota and benefit Hinjo just as much as it damages Hinjo and benefits Kubota (the Katos' testimony, Therkla's diary, Kubota's sentence would send strong message to other anti-Hinjo nobles amongst the fleet...). Hinjo wanted a trial. Elan wanted a trial. V just killed the guy.

I'm not saying what he/she did was 'Evil', per se. But at best, it was pragmatic, expedient, and very Neutral. No way was it Good. Yes, it might lead to good results. On balance, it might have been a positive move. That's practically why Neutral adventurers can still be effective. But what V did there? Wasn't Good.

[spectralphoenix]

don't misquote me. I never said that the parts in teh BoED taht are silly don't apply, just that that they are silly. You are denying the whole book because it doesn't support your unbacked point in compression

I'm pointing out that not only is the BoED both optional and outdated, but no one of sound mind actually uses it. You're claiming that the BoED is THE absolute judge of good and evil in D&D, which it is not. You might as well claim that the Regulators from the ELH must exist in every campaign, because they're discussed in a book, despite being an idiotic idea and impossible to fit in with any setting not specifically designed for them.

And using poison is always evil in D&D. I EE personally think its silly, but my personal morals are irrelevant. Within D&D poison is always evil and i never said otherwise

Except in other WotC material where it's okay. The BoED isn't the set of rules on good and evil, it's a set of rules on good and evil. And a moronic set at that.

no because he honestly admits he is an evil bastard

V never said he wasn't. You can't be hypocritical by acting contrary to something you've never claimed.

Cowardly is when you don't face the hard way and take the easy way out for selfshiness. V is doing that, instead of doing the Good thing trying to convict Kubato, she simply kills him because she doesn't want to actually take the responsibility for her actions. In the same way Miko is a coward in her inabilty to confront herself, V is being cowardly in taking the easy way out. As she is netural, this isn't going to have a major effect yet, but it is still an evil action

No, s/he's doing it because "facing the hard way" would involve putting lots of innocents killed. And I really would like to know where you're getting this definition for "cowardly." Dictionary.com has it at "contemptibly timid," "exhibiting ignoble fear," and the like. Not "not willing to risk the lives of hundreds of people based on a sourcebook that probably isn't being used because it would be 'harder'"

The ninja incident had too little evidence, while this one has much more

Like what?

I say it again, you have nothing to prove that the trial woudlnt' have worked

Don't make false assumptions, because we can't know Kubato will get off. even if he does, he would be weakened greatly. If he strikes again, v can kill him as long as he doesn't surrender

So then what? He strikes again, kills more innocents, and then surrenders if he gets caught? Rinse and repeat until Kubota and V are the only people left on the fleet?

the force of evil would, because apperently good can hold itself to its own standard

"The force of evil" isn't an entity.

he gave up and let himself be captured. By both BoED and Geneva convection standards, that is surrendering.

I'm reasonably certain V is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention. And as mentioned, there is no evidence the BoED is being used as an arbitrator for good and evil in this campaign setting.

and again, you have a different situation this time. And again, you are only speculating Kubato would get off, we can know for certain the trial would have gone his way.

With an extremely high chance of it going his way, and again, killing huindreds of innocent people.

it would weaken your argument?

Or because it's been supported by everything the comic has said on the subject so far?

try him. If he tries to cheat his way out, banish him.

Assuming you mean "teleport him out into the middle of nowhere" and not literally Banishment (since that would be impossible) then even if V could cast teleportation spells (which he can't,) it would still be impossible because teleportation requires a willing target, and even then K could just hire some other caster to teleport him right back. Furthermore, simply abducting K in front of the twelve gods and everyone would probably start a war.