Why doesn't Soon know where Girard's Gate is?

[Metastachydium]

"Oh no, the roaches are all over the kitchen again!"

[Crimsonmantle]

That process is how we ended up with a different lake with a name that etymologically means "Lake Lake" as well. All that's missing is a clueless English-speaking tourist coming to ask what it's called and ending up calling it the equivalent of Lake "Lake Lake" or "Lake Lake" Lake.

Pendle Hill in Lancashire is literally Hillhill Hill. Welsh the first time, English but ground down and merged into the first word the second time, hence added again for clarity (and because the name Pendle had come to denote a slightly wider area.)

[Dion]

Pendle Hill in Lancashire is literally Hillhill Hill.

Similarly, Torpenhow Hill apparently means “hill hill hill hill”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill

Names are crazy. And in places with few people, they can change more often than we think.

[pearl jam]

Similarly, Torpenhow Hill apparently means “hill hill hill hill”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpenhow_Hill

Names are crazy. And in places with few people, they can change more often than we think.

I'm imagining someone who speaks too many languages trying to come up with which word for "hill" is the one they want just then.

[Rrmcklin]

Seems like a reasonable precaution when dealing with a paladin who goes on to become the sole leader of a nation.

Doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable, especially when it's established that Girard has literally no idea how someone like Soon actually thinks. His actions were guided by the version of Soon his overly-paranoid brain created, not by the actual person.

[Jasdoif]

Passage Pass, The Wooden Forest, The Sunken Valley, Gorge Ravine, Cliffport...

Most of the places in this comic have extremely generic name as a running gag.

Or at least, deliberately keeping the setting at the bare minimum.

Although in comparing the two works, I suddenly wonder what politics are like outside of the Empire of Blood. We had some ideas of what it was like in what used to be Azure City, but other than those two locales, unless I missed something, we really don't know about any politics in any other human nation or any of the four "allies" Hinjo tried to muster or anything of that sort. Of course I understand the reason we don't know this is because it's not ultimately important to the story you're telling, but it might be an interesting thing for book commentary or to speak about at a convention. Not super detailed or anything, just an idea of how many human/elven/dwarven nations there are, their attitudes towards each other, any major wars or other events that defined why the Stickverse is as it is.

In order to write that, I'd have to decide it all first, and I have little or no interest in it. Not that I couldn't find it in my heart to write a story with detailed politics, but that OOTS is so clearly not that story that I can't imagine hammering the square peg into that particular round hole.

The world of OOTS is ultimately a paper-thin Anyworld, except for those specific things that influence the plot directly like the creation story or Tarquin's scheme. There's a reason why most of the place names in the comic are things like "Wooden Forest" and "Barren Desert," and it's to intentionally de-emphasize the specifics of the world.

Maybe, but it occurs to me that a well-developed setting can generate more than one story. Consider Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance -- if the setting is developed well enough, it can spawn not only multiple stories but even a franchise with different authors and modules.

I'm not a professional author. But I have to wonder whether the "leave it undefined until I absolutely need it" school provides the greatest dividends when you're writing a single one-off work, while a "define the setting first" approach allows greater opportunities for revisiting and expanding on the earlier work.

You may not have noticed, but the OOTS world is the most ridiculous paper-thin placeholder for a setting possible while still getting a large-scale story told. It's intended to be Everysetting, to a degree; default D&D with no particularly wild deviations. Because the setting isn't important to me; the characters are. I don't care about nitpicky political details or cultural quirks or any of that stuff—I just need places they can go and do their stuff. If I want to write another story, I'll make another world—one that fits the tone of that story as well as the generic vanilla world I'm using in OOTS fits for a comedic satire of the fantasy genre.

[Peelee]

Remember the end of the movie Fargo where Steve Buscemi buries a bunch of money in the snow, and we realize he has absolutely no idea where he is and he’s never going to find the money again?

Well now I don't need to watch the movie.

[MReav]

Passage Pass, The Wooden Forest, The Sunken Valley, Gorge Ravine, Cliffport...

Most of the places in this comic have extremely generic name as a running gag.

They were scraping the bottom of the idea barrel when they came up with self-aware stick figure fantasy parody.

[Gurgeh]

1) Girard didn't think Soon would break the Gate, he thought Soon would eventually decide that only he knew what was best to defend them, which we know was true from their fight back in the day.

Emphasis is mine, to point out that this is not established by the text. Let's look at the relevant strip and see what it says:

The party agreed that the gates could not be allowed to fall into the hands of evil, but they disagreed on how best to defend them.

Soon disagrees with Dorukan's initial suggestion, and Girard immediately throws a pithy retort. Matters escalate, and Serini intervenes before violence can break out. She proposes that each surviving member of the Order takes sole charge of the defences of one gate, and that nobody will interfere with any of the other gates.

They agreed, and swore an oath to that effect.

So: Soon Kim, a man who has been consistently, rigidly honourable - to a fault, some might say - made a promise to not interfere with any of the other gates, a promise that Girard himself acknowledges in the illusion trap's message. We know that Soon - and the Sapphire Guard - never interfered with any of the other gates until the destruction of the gate in Azure City released them from their oaths. So - Soon's behaviour is entirely consistent with his characterisation in the comic, and entirely inconsistent with Girard's expectations.

Doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable, especially when it's established that Girard has literally no idea how someone like Soon actually thinks. His actions were guided by the version of Soon his overly-paranoid brain created, not by the actual person.

Once again, emphasis mine, to reiterate the point. Shadowknight, as best I can tell you have done exactly what Girard did; you're talking about a character that does not exist in the text. Whatever his faults, Soon Kim was honest, honourable, and kept his word. Like the other Scribblers, Soon promised not to interfere with any of the other gates, and the text makes it clear that he kept his promise - to the extent of making all of his subordinates swear a similar oath of non-interference.

[Shadowknight12]

Whatever his faults, Soon Kim was honest, honourable, and kept his word. Like the other Scribblers, Soon promised not to interfere with any of the other gates, and the text makes it clear that he kept his promise - to the extent of making all of his subordinates swear a similar oath of non-interference.

Personally, I find it quite funny that this entire argument hinges on "one person not changing his ways for the rest of his life", which is a risky gamble to take when any sort of traumatic event could have occurred to Soon in the following decades after the Scribblers split up, and we know from his backstory that he is quite motivated into action by traumatic events.

Girard distrusting Soon isn't a mistake, it's a reasonable precaution when dealing with paladins (which is proven right when Soon and his paladins go on to massacre and slaughter those they deem a threat), and it's a safeguard in case a) the Soon that Girard knew isn't as honorable as he appeared, or b) the Soon that Girard knew stops existing in the next several decades and is replaced by a Soon with a different set of priorities.

[Peelee]

Girard distrusting Soon isn't a mistake, it's a reasonable precaution when dealing with paladins

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?

[Metastachydium]

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?

Paladins are Lawful Good and therefore you have to protect yourself from them with deathtraps. This is a universal truth.

[Shadowknight12]

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?

It's a class mandated to be Lawful, which as Haley herself says, have an unfortunate tendency of thinking their way of thinking is The Right Way, and trying to impose it on others. This goes double for Lawful Good folk, who are convinced by virtue of their Goodness that their way is not only Right, but also Good.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Emphasis mine. Paladins are supposed to refuse aid to people who would use it for chaos (regardless of whether it might be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral ends, which are by definition not evil), and also are compelled to punish those who are even a "threat" to innocents, which means they are encouraged to act before any harm has been done, on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Presumably this is intended to encourage paladins to protect the innocent before they are harmed, but it seems like a bad idea to command them to take preemptive action on mere "threats".

Furthermore, paladins are harshly punished not only for committing evil acts or ceasing to be Good, but for ceasing to be Lawful as well, and for "grossly violating" their code of conduct, so they are incentivized to adhere to it as strictly as possible.

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.

[Peelee]

"Paladins must be Lawful and follow a strict, rigid code, so they are inherently unpredictable and you have no idea how they will act" is certainly one of the more novel assertions I've seen on this site.

[arimareiji]

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.

(emphasis added)

Thus Serini's legitimate worry about (paraphrased) "Okay, you don't intend to destroy all of existence, but what if you decide that your code requires everyone to die honorably rather than let Xykon win?"

As far as she knows, that's easily one of the most dangerous land mines on the playing field. Primarily because it might not take much to trigger it, and she can't predict every situation that would trigger it.

[Shadowknight12]

"Paladins must be Lawful and follow a strict, rigid code, so they are inherently unpredictable and you have no idea how they will act" is certainly one of the more novel assertions I've seen on this site.

Wasn't there a famous fictional pirate who said something about honesty?

(emphasis added)

Thus Serini's legitimate worry about (paraphrased) "Okay, you don't intend to destroy all of existence, but what if you decide that your code requires everyone to die honorably rather than let Xykon win?"

As far as she knows, that's easily one of the most dangerous land mines on the playing field. Primarily because it might not take much to trigger it, and she can't predict every situation that would trigger it.

Exactly.

[Fyraltari]

Well that's an interesting specificity. What is it about paladins specifically that makes it a reasonable precaution?

Well, see, Paladins are punished when they break their Oath. If they were trustworthy, there wouldn't be any need for that. Therefore one should never trust a paladin, unlike, say a Rogue whose class never punishes them for backstabbing people.

Wasn't there a famous fictional pirate who said something about honesty?

And immediately contradicted himself.

[Timy]

It's a class mandated to be Lawful, which as Haley herself says, have an unfortunate tendency of thinking their way of thinking is The Right Way, and trying to impose it on others. This goes double for Lawful Good folk, who are convinced by virtue of their Goodness that their way is not only Right, but also Good.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Emphasis mine. Paladins are supposed to refuse aid to people who would use it for chaos (regardless of whether it might be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral ends, which are by definition not evil), and also are compelled to punish those who are even a "threat" to innocents, which means they are encouraged to act before any harm has been done, on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Presumably this is intended to encourage paladins to protect the innocent before they are harmed, but it seems like a bad idea to command them to take preemptive action on mere "threats".

Furthermore, paladins are harshly punished not only for committing evil acts or ceasing to be Good, but for ceasing to be Lawful as well, and for "grossly violating" their code of conduct, so they are incentivized to adhere to it as strictly as possible.

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.

(emphasis added)

Thus Serini's legitimate worry about (paraphrased) "Okay, you don't intend to destroy all of existence, but what if you decide that your code requires everyone to die honorably rather than let Xykon win?"

As far as she knows, that's easily one of the most dangerous land mines on the playing field. Primarily because it might not take much to trigger it, and she can't predict every situation that would trigger it.

Wouhaou...

I am amazed...

You really are trying to argue that following a code make a bunch of people not trustworthy because they could decide that their code could make these people take bad decisions ?

As opposed let say to people acting without any code and who therefore will never take bad decisions ?

[Shadowknight12]

As opposed let say to people acting without any code and who therefore will never take bad decisions ?

This is something I never said, it seems you're inventing a point to argue at.

[Gurgeh]

It's a class mandated to be Lawful, which as Haley herself says, have an unfortunate tendency of thinking their way of thinking is The Right Way, and trying to impose it on others. This goes double for Lawful Good folk, who are convinced by virtue of their Goodness that their way is not only Right, but also Good.

Gotcha, you have a pathological dislike of paladins and have allowed it to colour your interpretation of the text. Note that in the same strip, Haley characterises Girard as "a paranoid fool who will suffer just to spite someone" - and had not long before stated, in pretty much the same way as Roy, that Girard genuinely did not understand Soon:

Sure, if you grasp how paladins think. Mr. Booby trap here clearly doesn't, or he wouldn't have bet on one to break his oath.

The "code of conduct means they've gotta do XYZ or they'll fall, and the desire to not fall will drive every single decision they make" angle also feels like a dead end, since oathbreaking is a pretty clear violation of the paladin's code.

[Timy]

This is something I never said, it seems you're inventing a point to argue at.

With clerics, druids, monks or rangers, you might not know what their specific religious tenets are, or their personal beliefs, so you might be willing to extend the class itself the benefit of the doubt. With paladins, because they are all obligated to follow the same code and class restrictions, you can be certain that while there is room for personality, at the end of the day the paladin must follow the code. This makes it wise and reasonable to keep them at arm's length and not extend them any more trust than necessary.

And so, here you imply what exactly ? that druid/monk/etc also need to be kept at arm length ?

[Fyraltari]

And so, here you imply what exactly ? that druid/monk/etc also need to be kept at arm length ?

Keep everybody at arm's length, you fool! Don't you know there's a pandemic happening? Now is not the time to be hugging strangers!

[Shadowknight12]

Note that in the same strip, Haley characterises Girard as "a paranoid fool who will suffer just to spite someone"

Haley is completely correct: Girard was a paranoid fool. In addition to that, he was a horrible person in general.

that Girard genuinely did not understand Soon

As I said before: trusting that a person will never change, instead remaining incorruptible and adhering to an oath until his death, is a very dangerous gamble. People are tricky and they can change, oftentimes when subjected to external events.

Saying "Girard didn't know Soon" is missing the point. The point is that "trusting you know someone" is a dangerous gamble to make when you are safeguarding one of the cornerstones of reality. It doesn't matter if Girard was right or wrong about Soon, keeping paladins away from Gates is a reasonable precaution regardless of how much you think you know someone.

And so, here you imply what exactly ? that druid/monk/etc also need to be kept at arm length ?

Depends on the individual case.

[Fyraltari]

Shadowknight, that would make sense had Girard not trusted anycof his teammates. But he gave the correct coordinates to Serini. If there were such a risk that Soon would do a 180° and try to seize control of Girard's Gate, why weren't there one that Serini would do the same?

[Shadowknight12]

Shadowknight, that would make sense had Girard not trusted anycof his teammates. But he gave the correct coordinates to Serini. If there were such a risk that Soon would do a 180° and try to seize control of Girard's Gate, why weren't there one that Serini would do the same?

I don't think he should've done that, tbh, as it led to Serini's diary getting found by Xykon.

When I agree with Haley that Girard was a "paranoid fool" I mean to say that his paranoia kept him from making rational decisions and that his foolishness, ironically, came from being too trusting (and it came back to bite him in at least two different ways). Though in fairness, every Scribble member was flawed, so I wouldn't expect Girard to do any better than any of the others.

[arimareiji]

Wouhaou...

I am amazed...

You really are trying to argue that following a code make a bunch of people not trustworthy because they could decide that their code could make these people take bad decisions ?

As opposed let say to people acting without any code and who therefore will never take bad decisions ?

People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

[Timy]

Shadowknight, that would make sense had Girard not trusted anycof his teammates. But he gave the correct coordinates to Serini. If there were such a risk that Soon would do a 180° and try to seize control of Girard's Gate, why weren't there one that Serini would do the same?

Or any of the people in his clan for that matter...

People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

Is not "ethics" a code you follow ?

[Metastachydium]

Gotcha, you have a pathological dislike of paladins and have allowed it to colour your interpretation of the text. Note that in the same strip, Haley characterises Girard as "a paranoid fool who will suffer just to spite someone" - and had not long before stated, in pretty much the same way as Roy, that Girard genuinely did not understand Soon:
The "code of conduct means they've gotta do XYZ or they'll fall, and the desire to not fall will drive every single decision they make" angle also feels like a dead end, since oathbreaking is a pretty clear violation of the paladin's code.

No, no, no, you don't get it. You see, because of the code all paladins are under the explicit obligation that they must protect the innocent by punishing and harming people who did nothing wrong, i.e. the innocent. If they don't punish the innocent they will fall!

People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

That's hardly of relevance here. Paladins must be Lawful Good to begin with, or else they cannot swear their oath, so they are not Good because of taking the oath, but rather vice versa: they take the oath because they are Good.

[arimareiji]

Is not "ethics" a code you follow ?

Not in the sense of "If X then I absolutely must do Y", no. If I obey a code that requires me to never flee a battle, that can run completely counter to ethics if the nominal enemy I'm battling has been lied to, and there's no way they'll listen to me mid-battle but if they have time to think about it then they'll reconsider.

At least to my mind, ethics are fluid decision-making... which I'll admit is very vulnerable to human biases and fallacies, so it requires a great deal of mindfulness to not degenerate into self-serving behavior. A code, morals as imposed by society, etc, is following decisions that have already been made.

[Fyraltari]

People ruled almost exclusively by code/morals/etc may have a hard time understanding that people can also be guided by ethics. (I'm describing my past self in both cases, and I've seen it in others as well.)

The present me is guided by both, leaning more towards ethics. For example: I respect a code (or any synonymous construct) that says "Don't punch babies or else thou shalt be evil", but I'm not going to start punching babies in the absence of such a code. I don't punch babies because doing harm to others requires exceptional good cause. They're not doing harm to me or anyone else, so there's no question that there's no good cause.

Returning to directly address the point, yes I do believe that people who refuse to let ethics get in the way of their code can make horrific decisions. The much-assailed Inspector Javert from Les Miserables is an excellent example.

"Ethics" is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with moral judgment. In common parlance, "ethics" and "morals" are interchangeable. Could you explicit the distinction you make between the two? Because I don't understand your position, as is.