Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 511
  1. - Top - End - #451
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
    Oops, missed this one.



    There is a reason why the Allies specified that they wanted "unconditional" surrender in World War 2. That is because, contrary to what you say, surrender normally does carry conditions. In Kubota's case, those conditions were explicitly spelled out.

    So you are mistaken here, unless you are just trying to say "might makes right", by which theory there are never any binding restrictions on anyone.
    If there was a need to specify "unconditional" in their surrender, then that's proof surrender isn't necessarily going to end the bad things being done or the bad guys meeting their just punishment.

    I don't remember

    a) Surrender to V
    b) Any demand for unconditional surrender

    So V's just ensured the bad guy meets their just deserts.

  2. - Top - End - #452
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Repeating exactly what V stated is not a misreading. Please don't misrepresent the event that refutes your position.
    And I'll extract exactly what you said but miss out "unimportant" words:

    Reason for killing kubota was relevant to the action


    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    V has never known of any reason for killing Kubota. The elf was satisfied with being handed one after the fact, but made it clear that it wasn't relevant to the action.
    See. Those words. In that order.

    You agree?

  3. - Top - End - #453
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Somber Requiem View Post
    Two more cents.

    Good and evil aren't about what actions you take. They are about the consequences of the actions taken. If you have a choice, and one action involves harming others, and the other does not, then you are committing an act of evil by choosing the first because of the consequences. Kubota and Belkar are strident examples of this.
    I disagree.

    If you take actions and don't *care* if they are going to harm, that's NEUTRAL in G/E axis.

    Belkar likes the death of others.

    Kabuto likes to show how he doesn't have to obey the rules and doesn't mind if his life continues at the expense of *anyone*.

    Belkar is more evil than Kabuto.

    NOTE: the neutral on the L/C axis is, imo pants. It doesn't make a difference between "somewhat Lawful" and "somewhat chaotic" and "always Lawful/Chaotic" is a contradiction.

    EDIT: Note: it could be that Kabuto is not evil but neutral. He thinks or just wants control of the city and its people. He doesn't *want* to kill them, but isn't worried one way or the other. He doesn't CARE that this will slow down the battle to defend the earth from the BB. He doesn't *know*.

    But, because he is trying (not as Evil but as Neutral) to take power at one of the worst possible times for the rest of the universe, he's the opponent.

    You don't have to be Evil to be the opponent to Good.
    Last edited by Eric; 2008-10-02 at 12:05 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #454
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lamech's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    On the whole Miko falling for killing Belkar thing. Wouldn't that be a pretty large violation of honor and paladin code and what not. The code says no using posion, so killing Belkar probably would have caused her to fall for code violation even if it wasn't evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Somber Requiem
    Two more cents.

    Good and evil aren't about what actions you take. They are about the consequences of the actions taken. If you have a choice, and one action involves harming others, and the other does not, then you are committing an act of evil by choosing the first because of the consequences. Kubota and Belkar are strident examples of this. Belkar didn't care about the consequences of killing people, and ultimately he is paying the price for it. Personally I doubt he would care about getting gutted like a fish; he always seemed to have a reckless 'if they can kill me then good for them' streak, but when it came to killing others little kept him from doing so.

    For me, V's "evil act" was when he threatened to kill a member of the order who was impeeding him from reuniting the order. That's not just evil, but crazy as well.

    Off to teach class!
    I really don't think consequences are a good judge of if an action is good or evil. Lets take an example, an orphanage is attacked by a wizard to get life force for his evil magic. A hero goes and puts a stop to the wizard and saves the lives of the children, all at great risk to himself. One of the children grows up attempts to take over the multiverse and in the process destroys the souls of several billion people. Obviously the consequences of the hero's actions are horrible, but I really don't think he could be called evil. On the other hand the if the wizard had been successful he would have had wonderful consequences, but their is no way I would call the wizards actions good.

    I think that a good act should require that the intent be to help others, and using the information the person has access to a reasonable conclusion is good will result.
    My deaths to wolves (or other evil night killers)
    Spoiler
    Show

    Spytrap III, Ultimate Kaos II, Monty Python, Twin Village, Invasion of the Zombies: Outbreak, Vampires III

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow
    I think Lamech will make a great Sephiroth.
    A new New York IC OOC

  5. - Top - End - #455
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by lamech View Post
    I think that a good act should require that the intent be to help others, and using the information the person has access to a reasonable conclusion is good will result.
    It can be that the extreme edges of Good are unapproachable if you kill some mortal, though. So ***if possible*** a non-killing response should be tried. Killing them doesn't make the act evil in the slightest. But, from a "karma" point of view, you're making the world better by showing only the good side of existence.

    See "Source Priests" in any of many David Gemmel books for examples of this theory. "Lion of Macedon" can show how even a "good" act (by results) can redound. However, that is sufficient punishment for someone who is still good, so no need to send them to Hell. Then again, look at The Sword Of Truth by Terry Goodkind for the opposite theory.

    It all depends on what the DM is thinking.

  6. - Top - End - #456
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilElitest View Post
    dear gods, by D&D rules, V commited an evil action. Weather she actually is Evil is unknown, but the action is evil on an absolute basis. Its in the rules, stop evading it, and accept it. So what? Really, why is there this need to keep V from committing an evil act? Does the fact she committed an evil action in a moral system taht may or may not match your own somehow make the character less interesting? What is this?
    from
    EE
    Mind you, on one hand I agree with this post. Meaning that I'd say: "Don't feel pressured into justifying each and every acton that a character who you like, or that you consider good, performs".

    On the other, I strongly advise against "going absolute" on forum discussions about the alignment rules.
    As an example: EvilElitest, in the OOtS #596 discussion thread, said that the death penalty is always evil. However, Book of Exalted Deeds explicitly says, on page 11, that the death penalty does not qualify as evil.
    This leads me to believe that either the rules are so complicated that even people who have read the relevant sourcebooks and take them... uhm... pretty seriously can get facts wrong, or that the rules are actually self-contradicting.

    So... all in all, I suggest to talk about about alignment and the like if you want to get a fresh prospective on something (or want to offer it to somebody else). Trying to "prove people wrong" or "make them see the truth" is probably going to be irritating (to everybody involved and, possibly, to other readers) and, often, completely impossible if the rules do not point towards any coherent "truth".

    Peace.
    Last edited by Mef; 2008-10-02 at 01:14 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #457
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    yes. New books override old ones, and in some cases (Vile Darkness) book may be internally contradictory.

    The "poison the well of a town you believe to be evil" act. V.D said, probably not evil in context, but good people shouldn't do that, because there might be innocent people in that town.

    The problem with that, is it was directly contradicted by earlier statement in Vile darkness that "preventing future evils being committed" as a justification for killing an evil being, only work for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons.

    Add to that the "do not harm evil civilians" bit in Exalted Deeds on subject of appropiate violence, and said act would be evil, even if it was a ravage that the person was pouring into the water supply.

  8. - Top - End - #458
    Troll in the Playground
     
    David Argall's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Puente, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Repeating exactly what V stated is not a misreading.
    True, but repeating half of it is not exactly, and is in this case a misreading. What V said before Elan asked him about holding a rope is a relevant part of V's reasoning, and ignoring it a misreading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    V has never known of any reason for killing Kubota. The elf was satisfied with being handed one after the fact, but made it clear that it wasn't relevant to the action.
    V did have a reason. She just did not know precisely what it was. But by dramatic convention, V knew Kubota was clearly guilty of some crime meriting death. Just which one was a detail that did not need to be investigated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Then it's the same sort of mercy that prevents people from shooting others just for being in the same room as them.
    One does not normally shoot others for being in the same room with one. One [as a D&D PC at least] does kill people routinely for acts like Kubota is guilty of. So it is an act of mercy for a PC not to kill Kubota.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    That's the evil point of view. It is not otherwise accurate.
    Stating something does not make it so. Would you care to provide some actual proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Research that could safely have been conducted anywhere in the world -- and still can. Therefore, there is no threat, unless V fabricates one.
    A great deal of research can be conducted "anywhere in the world", but the one wanting to do the research is quite often annoyed if he has to move or is denied a particular location. So there is still a threat, even if we assume V can escape without problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    As a foreseeable result of V's actions against a party that could have been safely ignored by V...
    Perhaps. Awfully big assumption, though.
    You seem to have already accepted my case tho. Since you have said that V should not have expected any personal convenience to result from killing Kubota, any convenience must be that of other parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    The fallacious nature of this argument aside, it can't be a good action, because V didn't do it for a good reason.
    But she did. She was killing a known evil who was threatening to do more evil. A very standard reason for a D&D PC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    If V doesn't, then V had no reason to stick around all this time,
    Not particularly true. While trust and co-operation are desirable, they are not necessary to work towards a common goal.
    V just needs to know that Durkon and Elan will work to save the world. She doesn't need to have them think he is a nice guy or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    it's not "on the contrary." "More precisely," I will grant you.
    It's "Quite the contrary". You present evidence to support your case that in fact attacks it. Haley, in the comic in question, does not say killing the prisoners is evil as you wish to say. Instead she say something else is evil. While she may feel both are evil, the implication is that killing would not be, and thus the strip argues in that direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    As has been established previously, however, that is her viewpoint.
    That is a reasonable implication, but in strict fact, Haley does not present that view. She merely says that Belkar does not need to be heard because his view is already known. She may well feel that Belkar's "idea" of killing both is wrong, but she does not say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Further back, we can see that Elan agrees.
    Now you have a problem here going from the particular to the general, and then back to a different particular. Elan's statement rather obviously means "in this case". We can not argue from it that he means "in all cases". In fact, as Belkar points out, there are cases where he does approve of killing. So this case really doesn't tell us more than we assume already. It does not tell us that Elan rejects the execution of any prisoners at any time, just that he does not like the idea of killing them, which is to be expected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew
    There is a reason why the Allies specified that they wanted "unconditional" surrender in World War 2. That is because, contrary to what you say, surrender normally does carry conditions.
    There is also the term "conditional surrender", and the default is that if it doesn't say conditional, it is unconditional.


    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew
    In Kubota's case, those conditions were explicitly spelled out.
    Debatable at best, at least in our hearing. One problem is that Elan says nothing, which gives him only the normal legal and moral duties in relationship with Kubota. That rules out Elan's hitting him like he did, but from the moral view, if Kubota remains a danger, as he insists he is, more effective & permanent action may be acceptable.
    Let us say you surrender to the police on some charge, or that you are just arrested under circumstances where you offer no resistance. In both cases, you are treated pretty much identically. You still get booked and tossed in a cell and face the judge who gives the same penalty... Surrender then creates no new duty on the cop. He is still to use all necessary force [and no more] in either case.

  9. - Top - End - #459
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    And I'll extract exactly what you said but miss out "unimportant" words
    If you mean V's admission that all that mattered was that Kubota was in his way, don't bother. It wouldn't be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Reason for killing kubota was relevant to the action
    Reason for killing Kubota: Kubota was in the way.

    Kubota's guilt: a happy coincidence.

    How much guilt mattered to V: not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    See. Those words. In that order.

    You agree?
    I'm not sure you understand what they mean. (Is the only difference between the sun and a banana their respective shape?) V killed Kubota for being in the way -- though he was not. V as much as states that if Kubota was actually deserving of death, so much the better, but it wasn't why he was killed.

    Killing someone for snoring too loud is evil. It doesn't become good just because it later turns out that the snoring party was also a serial killer.

  10. - Top - End - #460
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Warren Dew's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Stating something does not make it so. Would you care to provide some actual proof?
    Interesting argument, because you later say:

    There is also the term "conditional surrender", and the default is that if it doesn't say conditional, it is unconditional.
    Stating something does not make it so. Would you care to provide some actual proof?

  11. - Top - End - #461
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    NOTE: the neutral on the L/C axis is, imo pants. It doesn't make a difference between "somewhat Lawful" and "somewhat chaotic"
    Sure it does: "somewhat Lawful" means just a little too lawful to be exactly neutral. "somewhat Chaotic" means just a little too chaotic to be exactly neutral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    and "always Lawful/Chaotic" is a contradiction.
    Yes, but neutrality means NOT committing yourself to "always" being anything.
    Last edited by Dalek Kommander; 2008-10-02 at 03:33 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #462
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Kommander View Post
    Sure it does: "somewhat Lawful" means just a little too lawful to be exactly neutral. "somewhat Chaotic" means just a little too chaotic to be exactly neutral.
    Leaving bugger all between sometimes chaotic and sometimes lawful.

    If you don't always follow the rules, you sometimes follow them (Lawful) and sometimes don't (chaotic). Or sometimes you break your promise and sometimes you don't.

    Now what does Neutral mean? Will follow the law or not based on whim? Taken. What else?

    Bloody silly.

    Neutral would have to be its own axis. What it describes is anyone's guess.

    Feel free to guess.

  13. - Top - End - #463
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Kubota's guilt: a happy coincidence.

    I'm afraid your brain dropped off somewhere for a pint or two without you here.

    V doesn't just decide to waste his disintegrate spell. Zapping Kabuto wasn't done because "I have a spare. He'll do".

    V zapped Kabuto because he was tied up by Elan. He was going to court to face crimes. He was gloating about how he was going to get off scott free. So V zapped him.

    Kabuto's guilt wasn't a coincidence, it was the very REASON for V using up 1 round and 1 high level spell.

    When your brain gets done from its jollie let us know.

  14. - Top - End - #464
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Reason for killing Kubota: Kubota was in the way.

    Kubota's guilt: a happy coincidence.

    How much guilt mattered to V: not at all.
    Reason for killing Elan: he's also in the way, and his stupidity makes him immune to mere threats.

    Elan's complete lack of villainous mustache-twirling levels of guilt: an unhappy coincidence.

    How much guilt matters to V: demonstrably more than none at all, since Elan is still alive.

  15. - Top - End - #465
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    You seem to have already accepted my case tho. Since you have said that V should not have expected any personal convenience to result from killing Kubota, any convenience must be that of other parties.
    Good catch.

    I bet this will be "forgotten" though and they'll STILL say "V did this for his own convenience only" when that's what *Elan* _accused_ him of.

    Just because that's Elan's one-sentence reconstruction of his incredulity at V's act doesn't mean it's right.

    And, as you pointed out here, they are saying that V will have no convenience. Which makes their parroting of the same misattributed line insane.

  16. - Top - End - #466
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    True, but repeating half of it is not exactly, and is in this case a misreading. What V said before Elan asked him about holding a rope is a relevant part of V's reasoning, and ignoring it a misreading.
    That bit of rationalization has never been ignored. Keep pretending otherwise, but the reading is accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    V did have a reason. She just did not know precisely what it was.
    Then V didn't actually have a reason after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    But by dramatic convention, V knew Kubota was clearly guilty of some crime meriting death.
    Not based on anything shown in the strip to date. V just didn't want to be bothered.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Just which one was a detail that did not need to be investigated.
    Please stop making big claims for which you have no support.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    One does not normally shoot others for being in the same room with one.
    True. Nevertheless, that's pretty much what V did. It's extreme, but not out of character for the mage.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    One [as a D&D PC at least] does kill people routinely for acts like Kubota is guilty of.
    And if one is aware of them, it might not even be evil. V had no such knowledge, and merely leapt to a conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    So it is an act of mercy for a PC not to kill Kubota.
    Nonsense, because V didn't know or care about anything Kubota may or may not have done.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Stating something does not make it so.
    Yet you keep doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Would you care to provide some actual proof?
    Already did it in the same post you're quoting. Neither Elan nor Haley nor Roy nor even Miko treat prisoners as property, though some of her prisoners might have preferred if the paladin had done so.

    Now, since we're talking about proof, how about you show the proof behind the claim that prisoners are property, to be done with as you will?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    A great deal of research can be conducted "anywhere in the world", but the one wanting to do the research is quite often annoyed if he has to move or is denied a particular location.
    V's been on a boat for the last few months, and could have disembarked in any of several locales that would have been no less convenient for research than a crowded vessel, continually on the move. So much for that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    So there is still a threat, even if we assume V can escape without problem.
    Even supposing there was a threat, it would be one V created without cause or need.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    You seem to have already accepted my case tho.
    Admitting there exists one possibility does not mean accepting the rest of your case.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Since you have said that V should not have expected any personal convenience to result from killing Kubota, any convenience must be that of other parties.
    Then you've just admitted that V is entirely in the wrong, because this isn't a convenience as far as anyone else in concerned -- not that V cares.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    But she did. She was killing a known evil who was threatening to do more evil.
    Not according to anything said by V or demonstrated in the strip. Everything shown indicates that V was just trying to escape an inconvenience, not right a wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Not particularly true.
    Spare me the weasel words. V is acting against everyone's best interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    V just needs to know that Durkon and Elan will work to save the world.
    No, that's just another rationalization. It's not like V's been working on that task either.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    You present evidence to support your case that in fact attacks it.
    False.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Haley, in the comic in question, does not say killing the prisoners is evil as you wish to say. Instead she say something else is evil.
    And therefore, "more precise." The strip -- and series! -- in question, however, does equate the proposition with evil, even if not in exact words.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    While she may feel both are evil, the implication is that killing would not be, and thus the strip argues in that direction.
    No, it doesn't. There's not a word supporting what you just claimed.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    That is a reasonable implication, but in strict fact, Haley does not present that view. She merely says that Belkar does not need to be heard because his view is already known.
    Favourably? No. Neutrally? No. The images clearly indicate disapproval.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Now you have a problem here going from the particular to the general, and then back to a different particular.
    Making up nonsense doesn't support your argument. The examples all point to a consistent view.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
    Elan's statement rather obviously means "in this case".
    "This case", of course, being one of bound captives. Thank you for admitting the point.

  17. - Top - End - #467
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    V doesn't just decide to waste his disintegrate spell. Zapping Kabuto wasn't done because "I have a spare. He'll do".
    There you go, equating mass murderers with good cops again. Not even remotely what I argued.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    V zapped Kabuto because he was tied up by Elan. He was going to court to face crimes. He was gloating about how he was going to get off scott free. So V zapped him.
    V didn't care about the crimes. V cared only about the inconvenience of a trial, making the decision to off Kubota an evil one. Of course, killing a noble pretty much assures further investigation and the possibility of a trial that will personally involve V. So much for logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Kabuto's guilt wasn't a coincidence, it was the very REASON for V using up 1 round and 1 high level spell.
    V didn't know that. Don't pretend otherwise, or that the wizard's ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.

  18. - Top - End - #468
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    That bit of rationalization has never been ignored. Keep pretending otherwise, but the reading is accurate.
    You've never changed a thing you said because of it.

    So you read it and didn't ignore it but what? Dismissed it???



    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Then V didn't actually have a reason after all.
    Yes. Twirling moustache. Gloating. Being taken to court (you don't get many innocent bystanders tied up arrested and taken to court) and gloating NO innocent person gloats about how they'll get off all charges in court, only the guilty do that).

    Of course, for you, that's "no reason" because "it's not the reason I want to think of being a reason".


    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Not based on anything shown in the strip to date. V just didn't want to be bothered.
    If V didn't want to be bothered, why insert a disintegrate spell? Just go back to his research.

    IF "don't bother me" was his only reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Please stop making big claims for which you have no support.
    Does your reflection show up in a mirror? Go check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    And if one is aware of them, it might not even be evil. V had no such knowledge, and merely leapt to a conclusion.
    And? That conclusion wasn't "they are in my way".


    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Nonsense, because V didn't know or care about anything Kubota may or may not have done.
    Neither does the law: it only cares about your trial.

    Your employer doesn't care why you went to jail for five years. The fact of five years in jail is enough to get them to put your job application into the round filing cabinet.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Yet you keep doing it.
    And you won't stop either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Already did it in the same post you're quoting. Neither Elan nor Haley nor Roy nor even Miko treat prisoners as property, though some of her prisoners might have preferred if the paladin had done so.
    Neither did V.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    V's been on a boat for the last few months, and could have disembarked in any of several locales that would have been no less convenient for research than a crowded vessel, continually on the move. So much for that argument.
    A boat which has stopped at several cities. Presumably where V can get components. And rent free too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Then you've just admitted that V is entirely in the wrong, because this isn't a convenience as far as anyone else in concerned -- not that V cares.
    No, just demonstrated that your argument is internally inconsistent.

    Fix the inconsistency.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Not according to anything said by V or demonstrated in the strip. Everything shown indicates that V was just trying to escape an inconvenience, not right a wrong.
    That wasn't the only reason. Elan is inconvenient. He's still not a pile of dust blowing in the wind.

    You keep harping on the half-truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    Spare me the weasel words. V is acting against everyone's best interests.
    David is by far the lesser of two weasels. Maybe this is why you think you should be believed even if your arguments are contradictory.

    Remember, we aren't trying to argue we're right but trying to open you up to the possibility you're wrong and misreading and misrepresenting to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    False.
    I refer the right horrible gentlemen to his earlier response: stating it doesn't make it so. Do you not believe that yourself? Or is it a case of "do as I say not do as I do"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    "This case", of course, being one of bound captives. Thank you for admitting the point.
    A captive who is

    a) the bad guy
    b) gloating about how he'll never be done for it

    You believe from merely a wavy line that Haley disapproves of Belkar's assumed solution but when those are wavy lines on the face of someone V then disintegrates, you need a damn sight more than that to read.

  19. - Top - End - #469
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Kommander
    "somewhat Lawful" means just a little too lawful to be exactly neutral. "somewhat Chaotic" means just a little too chaotic to be exactly neutral.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Leaving bugger all between sometimes chaotic and sometimes lawful.
    Would you also argue that zero isn't a number, because there can't be room for it between 0.00001 and -0.00001? Because that's what your argument sounds like to me.

    edit: and the original word was somewhat, not "sometimes". Way to shift the goalposts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    If you don't always follow the rules, you sometimes follow them (Lawful) and sometimes don't (chaotic). Or sometimes you break your promise and sometimes you don't.

    Now what does Neutral mean? Will follow the law or not based on whim? Taken. What else?
    What else is there to "always being Lawful", besides always being lawful? Or "always being chaotic", besides always being chaotic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Bloody silly.
    How is it more silly than to NOT have a name for people who aren't particularly committed to law or chaos?
    Last edited by Dalek Kommander; 2008-10-02 at 04:17 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #470
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I bet this will be "forgotten" though and they'll STILL say "V did this for his own convenience only" when that's what *Elan* _accused_ him of.
    V's the one who stated that the goal was to avoid a lengthy trial. Not Elan.

    Of course, now Elan (and others) have an even bigger inconvenience to deal with -- not that V cares.

  21. - Top - End - #471
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    V didn't know that. Don't pretend otherwise, or that the wizard's ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.
    Whose pretending here? You are the great pretender.

    There are several facts.

    1) Fu Manchu tash
    2) tied up by Elan
    3) gloating about how he'll never be tried
    4) Elan being REALLY angry at him and yelling "we'll PROVE it!!!"
    5) Elan CG, long time associate
    6) Elan ties up the major villain (rather than the goblin mook)

    ALL of these are known by V.

    Ones he didn't know:

    a) Who he was.
    b) What he'd done.

    But who he is doesn't change whether he was arrested or not. That's harking back to the privileged classes again. Not Good.

    So all we have missing is what he'd done. Given that Elan was angry and saying they'll prove it, it was bad. Given that Elan ties up the major villain probably very bad. Given that the guy is saying a long protracted court case will see him exonerated and hinjo (ruler and paladin) ruined, no justice is forthcoming and the result of a trial will be WORSE for those people who ARE good. Like Hinjo and Elan.

    Nothing?

    Nothing my wobbly wotsit.

  22. - Top - End - #472
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    V's the one who stated that the goal was to avoid a lengthy trial. Not Elan.

    Of course, now Elan (and others) have an even bigger inconvenience to deal with -- not that V cares.
    No, that's why he used "disintegrate" rather than "make him tell the truth" or "Hold person" or "detect gloating".

    Why he got involved AT ALL was because of all the things he DID know.

  23. - Top - End - #473
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Kommander View Post
    Would you also argue that zero isn't a number, because there can't be room for it between 0.00001
    You don't remember why 0 is a number, do you?

    If it weren't for that number lots of the bigger ones would look silly.

    Like 1 or 1 or the number an order of magnitude bigger than that, 1.

    Also, 0 is a very specific number. Hardly worth an axis, except to pin another axis on.

    Now +ve and -ve have LOTS of use. In fact ALL your numbers (barring one, which is an infinitesimally small fraction) go one side or the other. 0 just stops them from bumping into each other. Not a lot lives there, except the Y axis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Kommander View Post
    How is it more silly than to NOT have a name for people who aren't particularly committed to law or chaos?
    Yes. It's not going to be 50/50 PRECISELY. So if it's 49.99999/50.000001 L/C then you're slightly chaotic.

    Now if you have -10 to -30 LAW, +10 to +30 CHAOS and -10 to +10 neutral, what makes you put someone at 11 rather than 9? Or -9 rather than -11?

    That's why it's silly.

    G/N/E is better because

    GOOD: be nice to others, it helps build a better fair society
    EVIL: be nasty to others, its the only way to build a strong society
    NEUTRAL: Look out for number 1, it's the only way to have a rational society

    See?

  24. - Top - End - #474
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    You've never changed a thing you said because of it.
    Why would I? V's rationalization does not change the fact that V's only goal was to avoid a trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Yes. Twirling moustache.
    Bound hands don't allow for much mustache twirling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Gloating.
    Not as V described it: "I overheard him saying something about his trial taking weeks."

    Nothing mentioned about the likelihood of getting away with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Being taken to court (you don't get many innocent bystanders tied up arrested and taken to court)...
    Are you kidding? It happens all the time. Do a search for wrongfully charged (and executed) individuals some time. Some were even charged simply on the basis of how they looked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Of course, for you, that's "no reason" because "it's not the reason I want to think of being a reason".
    It wasn't a reason V had. That's what makes V's action an evil one.
    Last edited by Shatteredtower; 2008-10-02 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Cut portion of quoted text which I'd overlooked and to which I'd not responded. May address in later post.

  25. - Top - End - #475
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Why he got involved AT ALL was because of all the things he DID know.
    V didn't know anything. V assumed plenty. Being correct about some of those assumptions doesn't change the fact that it was done for the wrong reasons.

  26. - Top - End - #476
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    V didn't know anything. V assumed plenty. Being correct about some of those assumptions doesn't change the fact that it was done for the wrong reasons.
    Yes he did.

    1) Fu Manchu tash
    2) tied up by Elan
    3) gloating about how he'll never be tried
    4) Elan being REALLY angry at him and yelling "we'll PROVE it!!!"
    5) Elan CG, long time associate
    6) Elan ties up the major villain (rather than the goblin mook)
    PS WHAT WRONG REASONS?

    EDIT: If you're going to say "Because it was convenient" then please tell me how this:

    1) Stop
    2) Cast disintegrate
    3) Cast gust of wind
    4) Continue on to berth and spell research

    be more convenient than this:

    1) Continue on to berth and spell research
    Last edited by Eric; 2008-10-02 at 05:02 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #477
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2004

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Yes he did.
    Okay, sure, he knew that Kubota was tied up and held by Elan, that he had a mustache, and that he expected his trial to take weeks.

    None of these are killing offenses -- and yet V killed him to avoid the last one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    PS WHAT WRONG REASONS?
    To avoid having to endure a lengthy trial. Perhaps you think it's not an evil act because it spares the writer and readers the event? It's not like it's of benefit to anyone else.

  28. - Top - End - #478
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Shatteredtower View Post
    To avoid having to endure a lengthy trial.
    That's not a bad reason.

    Either because the bad guy will get his just deserts. Which, for treason, is death. Again, V doesn't know WHAT Kabuto did, but that doesn't matter: what Kabuto DID was treason and mass murder. Which DO deserve death.

    He got death now.

    And no long expensive trial tying everyone up from finding shelter or support.

    How is that a bad reason?

    End result is no different in the lividity of Kabuto (dead) and yet a huge saving in money and time that can be spent on the needs of the AC refugees.

    All good.
    Last edited by Eric; 2008-10-02 at 05:07 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #479
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Does anyone else think that Haley's absence is what directly resulted in this downward spiral?

    Think about it, V always seems to mention Haley specifically when she talk's about her search. Her conversation with Elan was vaguely reminiscent of a protective best friend trying to tell off a potentially two timing boyfriend.

    It's been repeatedly suggested that Haley and V are each other's personal confidants. I really think that V misses Haley specifically a great deal, no mater how much "saving the world" bluster she throws out, and her absence is really grating on her.

    Of course, I might be imagining all this. I just thought I'd throw it out.
    Last edited by Eben; 2008-10-02 at 05:25 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #480
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Warren Dew's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    EDIT: Note: it could be that Kabuto is not evil but neutral. He thinks or just wants control of the city and its people. He doesn't *want* to kill them, but isn't worried one way or the other. He doesn't CARE that this will slow down the battle to defend the earth from the BB. He doesn't *know*.
    I think this suggestion is pretty much the only tenable position on Kubota's alignment for those claiming that Vaarsuvius' killing him is not evil. Most of the arguments for the legitimacy of Vaarsuvius killing Kubota apply just as strongly to Kubota killing Therkla. If Vaarsuvius' act is neutral, it's only consistent to say that Kubota's is too.

    Edit: Eben, I agree with respect to Vaarsuvius and Haley, so you're not the only one.
    Last edited by Warren Dew; 2008-10-02 at 05:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •