OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

[Devils_Advocate]

Goblin_Priest, I do not think that the word "inherently" means what you think it means.

An inherently offensive statement is offensive to a reasonable person, not merely for being offensive to a single person.

I find myself less than convinced that the state of an actual person matters less than the hypothetical response of some vaguely-defined idealized entity.

To censor speech based on the most easily offended people to roam the earth is a path to folly, because some people get worked up for the most ridiculous of things.

I don't think that speech should be censored based on offense at all.

If, for example, someone encourages the unfair persecution of some group, then the problem of note is presumably that that speech might lead to unfair persecution, whether anyone "is offended" or not. But if the only issue with something is that someone is offended... well, first of all, we should consider how anyone offended feels about being offended. If someone wants to be offended, then no problem, right? And in the case where the only problem is that someone who wants not to be offended is offended... well, the problem is with the offended individual's response. And if someone disliking some form of speech is considered sufficient justification to remove that speech from public discourse, that's obviously tantamount to having no protections on speech at all (because obviously no one will try to ban speech that everyone is fine with). Even removing a form of speech from public discourse strictly for being highly unpopular seems like it might be a really, really bad idea? Like, maybe sometimes the popular consensus is bad and should be changed, and we shouldn't put measures in place to prevent that from happening?

It needs a basis, logic, in which it yields offense.

Possilby what you mean by this -- or the practical upshot of what you mean -- is that "a reasonable person" is only offended by things that are bad in ways other than "being offensive". But that turns "We should only censor that which would offend a reasonable person" into a convoluted way of saying "We should only censor things based on reasons other than offense", or in other words "We shouldn't censor anything based on offense". In which case, why on Earth not just say that clearly?! Phrasing that as censorship being acceptable based on whether something would offend anyone -- especially a theoretical idealized entity -- seems almost like deliberately obscuring the actual standard behind phrasing that superficially seems like the opposite.

One can be held to account with uttering things than a reasonable person could find offensive. But if one offends another by triggering an unknowable personality flaw or quirk, then one cannot be said to have dome something wrong, for the consequences of his actions were unforeseeable.

Whether one knows whether someone would take offense at something and whether "a reasonable person" could be offended by something seem like separate issues to me. It's entirely possible to be aware of someone's distinguishing personality flaw or quirk, and it's possible not to know "what would offend a reasonable person". Indeed, I barely understand the concept myself. (I'm not convinced that it's even particularly coherent.) I don't see why I should especially try to. I care a lot more about the actual consequences of my actions than I do about the hypothetical consequences of those actions in a hypothetical scenario. So if I'm talking to "an unreasonable person", that's whose sensibilities I'm going to try to take into account. That... seems really obviously like the sensible (one might even say reasonable) thing to do, even from an entirely sociopathic standpoint?

If what you're getting at is that we shouldn't fault people for things done accidentally, especially when they did their best to act with care, then I can agree with that. But again I find myself of the opinion that you should just say that clearly, and that this "reasonable person" nonsense seems like a distraction.

[tanonx]

Elan could learn the same lesson about what he wants in life, by thinking about what kind of priorities you need to have in life, in order to stick with a ship that will only ever let you barely succeed (but guarantee at least the partial success of showing up in time, and maximum drama), at the expense of people you care about being guaranteed to experience lesser pain while they wait for you.

You know... it's probably not the intended purpose, but maybe that's why Julio's not remotely close to anyone who isn't already on the Mechane. It could be a potent tool to reach people in peril who you'd otherwise never get to in time. If you don't have any existing relationships to choose from... well, it has to arrive in the nick of time for something. If there's someone out there nobody else can help, then their tormentors may well hear the Mechane's fearsome rotors overhead at the worst possible time. After all, there's not a lot of roaming heroes out in the Empire of Blood these days.

Might also explain why he's not handing it off to Elan, despite placing it at his disposal. Too many loved ones.

[Ruck]

Whether one knows whether someone would take offense at something and whether "a reasonable person" could be offended by something seem like separate issues to me. It's entirely possible to be aware of someone's distinguishing personality flaw or quirk, and it's possible not to know "what would offend a reasonable person". Indeed, I barely understand the concept myself. (I'm not convinced that it's even particularly coherent.)

I've often found that a speaker's use of "reasonable person" means "person who agrees with me."

[Anitar]

I've often found that a speaker's use of "reasonable person" means "person who agrees with me."

Most people think that they themselves are reasonable, so that kind of conflation makes total sense.

[arimareiji]

There's a Heinlein story, "By His Bootstraps", which begins with a guy who's working on writing up his graduate thesis. He's at the point of no longer caring much if it's valid. I've seen criticism of that, on the grounds of it being unrealistic. It always seemed realistic to me.

One of my good friends in grad school had to bite her tongue about the fact that the "star" doctoral candidate of the lab she was working in, routinely cooked data. Our society tends to treat whistleblowers worse than the blowees, and science misconduct isn't an exception.

Goblin_Priest, I do not think that the word "inherently" means what you think it means.

I find myself less than convinced that the state of an actual person matters less than the hypothetical response of some vaguely-defined idealized entity.

My roommate / close friend in college and I would constantly call each other "dumba**" with affectionate sentiment.
Someone who's been trapped in retail long enough can tell you to "Have a nice day, sir" with enough vitriol to dissolve a shipping container.

I don't think that speech should be censored based on offense at all.

Imo, a censure >> a censor.

Censoring offensive words, as with any other form of coercion, requires an extremely high bar to to justify.
Wrt censuring their use, if someone acts like a boor then people have every right to view them with disdain and express it. People generally aren't keen on obeying Because I Said So, but are keen on having others' approval.

But perhaps more to the point, it's ultimately futile because if someone wants to act like a boor there are a million ways to do it. If you ban a specific way, expect them to invent a few new ones. The issue that has to be addressed is their motivation to be a boor.

I've often found that a speaker's use of "reasonable person" means "person who agrees with me."

When it comes to reasons to feel good about ourselves, humans are creatures with an exceptional talent for externalized mental pseudo-rumination. Take of that what you will. (^_~)

[Goblin_Priest]

If Belkar gets into any heaven, I predict it will be a Lawful one because it would require an Atonement and his cleric buddies are LG.

Atonement is one of the most gimmicky spells there is. I seriously doubt that Rich will ever bring it up.

I've often found that a speaker's use of "reasonable person" means "person who agrees with me."

How does the saying go, again? "The problem with common sense is that everyone thinks they have it, even those that don't", or something along those lines. I won't disagree with you that just about everyone considers themselves reasonable, and thus there are challenges inherent to defining what a "reasonable person" is, but I don't think that voids the concept of all purpose.

Goblin_Priest, I do not think that the word "inherently" means what you think it means.

It looks to me like you are assuming I can't express properly, and then assuming I am implying things that my words have not, based on the incorrect definitions of said words you assume I have.

Inherently, as in, "in and of itself". As in, "a fundamental and immutable aspect of". Speech, for example, can sometimes be wrong, without being inherently wrong. Some words, in the same way, can yield offense, without offense being a fundamental aspect of that word. Because there's a difference between a "word whose purpose is to offend", and a "word that some person happens to dislike". Like, if you start naming "cyan" in the colors of the rainbow, I'll be upset, even though the word "cyan" is not inherently upsetting.

I don't think that speech should be censored based on offense at all.

If, for example, someone encourages the unfair persecution of some group, then the problem of note is presumably that that speech might lead to unfair persecution, whether anyone "is offended" or not. But if the only issue with something is that someone is offended... well, first of all, we should consider how anyone offended feels about being offended. If someone wants to be offended, then no problem, right? And in the case where the only problem is that someone who wants not to be offended is offended... well, the problem is with the offended individual's response. And if someone disliking some form of speech is considered sufficient justification to remove that speech from public discourse, that's obviously tantamount to having no protections on speech at all (because obviously no one will try to ban speech that everyone is fine with). Even removing a form of speech from public discourse strictly for being highly unpopular seems like it might be a really, really bad idea? Like, maybe sometimes the popular consensus is bad and should be changed, and we shouldn't put measures in place to prevent that from happening?

Possilby what you mean by this -- or the practical upshot of what you mean -- is that "a reasonable person" is only offended by things that are bad in ways other than "being offensive". But that turns "We should only censor that which would offend a reasonable person" into a convoluted way of saying "We should only censor things based on reasons other than offense", or in other words "We shouldn't censor anything based on offense". In which case, why on Earth not just say that clearly?! Phrasing that as censorship being acceptable based on whether something would offend anyone -- especially a theoretical idealized entity -- seems almost like deliberately obscuring the actual standard behind phrasing that superficially seems like the opposite.

As above, I think you are inferring/projecting quite a bit too much. I didn't promote censorship anywhere. I did say some things could be wrong, but not all things that are wrong should be disallowed.

Whether one knows whether someone would take offense at something and whether "a reasonable person" could be offended by something seem like separate issues to me. It's entirely possible to be aware of someone's distinguishing personality flaw or quirk, and it's possible not to know "what would offend a reasonable person". Indeed, I barely understand the concept myself. (I'm not convinced that it's even particularly coherent.) I don't see why I should especially try to. I care a lot more about the actual consequences of my actions than I do about the hypothetical consequences of those actions in a hypothetical scenario. So if I'm talking to "an unreasonable person", that's whose sensibilities I'm going to try to take into account. That... seems really obviously like the sensible (one might even say reasonable) thing to do, even from an entirely sociopathic standpoint?

If what you're getting at is that we shouldn't fault people for things done accidentally, especially when they did their best to act with care, then I can agree with that. But again I find myself of the opinion that you should just say that clearly, and that this "reasonable person" nonsense seems like a distraction.

Here you ignore my arguments about reasonably foreseeable consequences. To simplify my thoughts on the matter, and to use the example on hand:

Elan makes comments which would not be offensive to an ordinary reasonable person.
V is not reasonable, and takes offense.
Elan did not and could not know V would react in such an unreasonable way.
Elan's comments were there neither wrong nor offensive, even if V took offense at them.
Thus, Elan doesn't owe V an apology, though that doesn't preclude him from displaying empathy ("I'm sorry I upset you").

Now, if Elan was to say the same things again today.

Elan could and should know that V would likely react in such an unreasonable way.
Elan would be willfully causing offense, and thus what he says would be wrong, even if it would still not be inherently offensive.
Thus, Elan could be expected to owe V an apology.

Because the first time he said those things, he couldn't have been expected to know the offense it would cause. And in the second case, he could have predicted it. And offensing your friends for no other purpose but to make them feel bad is wrong.

However, this should not be construed as an argument that goes along the lines of "thus Elan should be prohibited from saying these same things again" or "Elan should be punished for saying these same things again". Just because free speech is an important fundamental right, doesn't mean that it's every use is righteous. I think it important that Elan be able to repeat those same jokes if he wills it, but that'd kinda make him a jerk, even if I think V should just grow the hell up and not be so fragile about it. It should also not be interpreted in a way that would suggest that knowingly saying something that will cause offense is always wrong, because justification is possible, but in this case, I can't really imagine what justification there could be to make your friend feel like crap about his life choices for a laugh like this.

[Good Coyote]

Atonement is one of the most gimmicky spells there is. I seriously doubt that Rich will ever bring it up.

I think it's about as unlikely to be used in this way as that Belkar will get into heaven, but he did already bring it up with Miko.

[Fyraltari]

Atonement is one of the most gimmicky spells there is. I seriously doubt that Rich will ever bring it up.

Does Panel 14 count?

[Skull the Troll]

The difference between intentionally causing offence and unintentionally causing offence is in what happens afterword's, not in what happens before. If you have unintentionally caused offence, you apologize and don't do it again.

[mjasghar]

The difference between intentionally causing offence and unintentionally causing offence is in what happens afterword's, not in what happens before. If you have unintentionally caused offence, you apologize and don't do it again.

Indeed
Which is very different from saying offence is never given only taken.
Furthermore reducing such arguments to dry philosophy is very easy for those who know they will rarely if ever be on the receiving end of abusive terms. In practice such terms are routinely used for intimidation in order to create de facto segregation. One example is the use of ‘boy’ to refer to non-white adults as a reference to how it was used to perpetuate the concept that they were children who couldn’t be trusted to look after themselves.
Very easy to talk about airy fairy ideas of freedom of speech when you are in a privileged class.
Doesn’t mean it can't be used in humour though - like the C word joke in Zootropolis 🤣

[dancrilis]

Which is very different from saying offence is never given only taken.

If someone tries to give offence - and nobody takes any offence, then no offence was given.

Not sure if you disagree with that or not.

[arimareiji]

The difference between intentionally causing offence and unintentionally causing offence is in what happens afterword's, not in what happens before. If you have unintentionally caused offence, you apologize and don't do it again.

Like most human behavior, "Do they keep doing it?" is indeed an excellent basis to guess whether someone did or didn't intend to be offensive. Maybe our best basis. But technically this wording indicates that someone who intentionally calls their boss a $!@$ #$!%!# !#$%@#$% @#$!#%!#!@$ and poops on their desk on their last day (since they know they'll never see them again), "apologizes" after realizing they haven't gotten their last check yet, then exits stage right and never returns didn't intend to be offensive.

That's the funny thing about it, we never really do know for sure whether Jane was deliberately being offensive or Joe was deliberately looking for offense where none was intended. We can only make our best guess. Heck... given our capacity for rationalization, often we even fool ourselves about our intentions.

We can always make good guesses. But imo, thinking we "know" others' intentions and that we (or someone we include in our circles of self) must have been in the right about giving/taking offense is very treacherous ground.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Doing the bare-minimum of maybe becoming a not-horrible person doesn't deserve a reward.

You're entitled to your personal definition of "deserve", but if the goal of the rewards is to produce good people that is a wonderful occasion to give a reward.

You reward what you want to encourage. A terrible person like Belkar acting like a mediocre person is a special thing that should be encouraged.

[Fyraltari]

You're entitled to your personal definition of "deserve", but if the goal of the rewards is to produce good people that is a wonderful occasion to give a reward.

You reward what you want to encourage. A terrible person like Belkar acting like a mediocre person is a special thing that should be encouraged.

Is ot though? Because this looks like a perverse incentive: "feel free to act as montruous as you feel like, as long as you act a little contrite later in life you can get to paradise easy-peasy!"

This kind of **** is why fiction shouldn't portray afterlives (or at least afterlives that are supposed to pass omniscient judgement on the moral character of the dead) it's always more trouble than it's worth.

[Goblin_Priest]

Does Panel 14 count?

Not in the way I had in mind. The spell was mentioned, yes, but it wasn't actually used, much less as a plot device for character growth for one of the main characters.

Some NPC telling another NPC "maybe you can get an Atonement for this one misdeed", with the offer rejected, is far from "and Belkar got a a level 5 spell cast on him and he's now redeemed as a good character".

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the spell will be taken out, for whatever reason, after Belkar has sufficiently redeemed himself through normal means. But Rich just going "here y'all, he got Atonement, he's LG now!", I seriously doubt.

[bunsen_h]

You're entitled to your personal definition of "deserve", but if the goal of the rewards is to produce good people that is a wonderful occasion to give a reward.

You reward what you want to encourage. A terrible person like Belkar acting like a mediocre person is a special thing that should be encouraged.

Looking at Roy's review, the episode of him abandoning Elan would have been enough to get him chucked into the True Neutral bin if he hadn't gone back to fix things. His ongoing association with Belkar is considered problematic and he had to do a bit of fast talking to avoid the black mark. His tendency to use Chaotic means to achieve Lawful ends strikes the deva as being fairly neutral, and she'd have dropped him into the LG bucket except that he kept trying.

Now consider the parallel discussion for Belkar if he dies by committing an act of pure goodness.

That might enough to disqualify him for CE and he didn't go back to "fix things" by being evil afterwards. He's got the long-term association with LG Roy and Durkon on his record, and that would be an item of concern; there's not much evidence that he was pulling them to the Dark Side, rather the contrary. And it appears that he hasn't "kept trying" to be CE for a little while now.

If the same kind of "do you meet our standards" apply for the CE afterlife review as for the LG review, my guess is that Belkar's file would be handed over to the True Neutral people.

EDIT:

Not in the way I had in mind. The spell was mentioned, yes, but it wasn't actually used, much less as a plot device for character growth for one of the main characters.

Some NPC telling another NPC "maybe you can get an Atonement for this one misdeed", with the offer rejected, is far from "and Belkar got a a level 5 spell cast on him and he's now redeemed as a good character".

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the spell will be taken out, for whatever reason, after Belkar has sufficiently redeemed himself through normal means. But Rich just going "here y'all, he got Atonement, he's LG now!", I seriously doubt.

I don't think that's what Atonement is for. It's for restoring one's status in one's original alignment, not to change to a Good alignment. By CE standards, Belkar has been screwing up for some time now, but Atonement would help him repair the damage to his character and return to being properly CE.

EDIT 2: No, never mind. I just checked the 3.5 spell description; I was working from my experience with the original AD&D version, and it's changed.

[danielxcutter]

I think there's a good chance that Belkar's at least going to avoid going to a Lower Plane, or at least one of the crappier ones. Maybe Limbo or Pandemonium. Arcadia or Ysgard is probably a bit hard, though.

[JackJin]

Did I enjoy this whole conversation and reflection of Elan's behaviour and the party's mistreatment both being past problems and how the group has evolved? Greatly.

Do I hope Belkar gets a conversation similar? Yes. Do I expect it'll happen? ...Sadly not.

I'd love to have a bit of self-reflection in Roy and the others realizing they've distrusted and outright wanted Belkar dead (Haley and Roy at the least, given him dying instantly was a fantasy for them back in Draketooth's illusion) for longer than he's been trying to fake being/genuinely has been getting good. Belkar's Evolve Or Die moment was in strip 610, just over halfway back through the comic up to this point. Considering we've still got an arc/maybe epilogue to go through, Belkar will have been trying to be a good asset to the team for a majority of the comic run... But Roy, hell near everyone but Durkon still treats Belkar like he's the same murderhobo who felt like stabbing Elan for XP back in the day, outright disbelieving him even capable of doing good if only for the party.

We the audience have understanding the party doesn't, sure, but if Belkar's going to be dead for good in less than a month (and god do I wish that prophecy could be overturned,) I really do hope we get to see a point Belkar is acknowledged as part of the team... Instead of a liability they'll be dancing on the grave of.

[Peelee]

Did I enjoy this whole conversation and reflection of Elan's behaviour and the party's mistreatment both being past problems and how the group has evolved? Greatly.

Do I hope Belkar gets a conversation similar? Yes. Do I expect it'll happen? ...Sadly not.

I'd love to have a bit of self-reflection in Roy and the others realizing they've distrusted and outright wanted Belkar dead (Haley and Roy at the least, given him dying instantly was a fantasy for them back in Draketooth's illusion) for longer than he's been trying to fake being/genuinely has been getting good. Belkar's Evolve Or Die moment was in strip 610, just over halfway back through the comic up to this point. Considering we've still got an arc/maybe epilogue to go through, Belkar will have been trying to be a good asset to the team for a majority of the comic run... But Roy, hell near everyone but Durkon still treats Belkar like he's the same murderhobo who felt like stabbing Elan for XP back in the day, outright disbelieving him even capable of doing good if only for the party.

We the audience have understanding the party doesn't, sure, but if Belkar's going to be dead for good in less than a month (and god do I wish that prophecy could be overturned,) I really do hope we get to see a point Belkar is acknowledged as part of the team... Instead of a liability they'll be dancing on the grave of.

As much as I like how Belkar is actually making an effort to be better, at the same time I have to note that I like how the party is still reacting that way to him, because really, they should. Actions have consequences. Belkar is lying in a bed of his own making. He has to earn being treated differently, and he hasn't yet.

[Mike Havran]

We the audience have understanding the party doesn't, sure, but if Belkar's going to be dead for good in less than a month (and god do I wish that prophecy could be overturned,) I really do hope we get to see a point Belkar is acknowledged as part of the team... Instead of a liability they'll be dancing on the grave of.

Belkar has been already acknowledged (and even defended) as a part of the team as far as #285, almost 950 strips ago. Acknowledging his limited advance from murderhobo would be akin to buying sweets for a spoiled child just because it stopped its temper tantrum for the time being.

[arimareiji]

EDIT 2: No, never mind. I just checked the 3.5 spell description; I was working from my experience with the original AD&D version, and it's changed.

I'm glad you checked and then said this, I thought the same and would have never looked otherwise.

I initially thought of Atonement as being just a snarky way for people to say they don't buy Belkar's character development, and that the spell would never happen... but thinking more about it, I can't exclude the possibility it'll come into play (although maybe not explicitly). Crazy as it sounds.

1) I thought Minrah was just in the story to be "someone who grieves for Belkar", but... remember her convo with Thor? "Oh, before I forget. That thing you've been worried about for a while that you'd rather I not say out loud in front of Durkon. Cool with me. You do you, kid." A couple of possibilities come to mind, both relevant and neither excluding the other:
a) "I'm chaotic in a so-lawful-entire-trees-grow-up-their-butts society." (That fits better with "you've been worried about for a while", but it doesn't make much sense why she'd worry about Thor's perspective... unless her society has her believing Thor is actually LG, which my life experience suggests is plausible).
b) "I think I'm falling in love with Belkar."

2) The "Redemption/Temptation" aspect of Atonement says it can be used as flavor for a rapid alignment change, to the cleric's own alignment. She has been talking a lot with Belkar, and he's been listening closely. He may even be starting to reciprocate those feelings, whether he admits it to himself or not -- did he really sit through a long-into-the-night Elan recap to Minrah (that he had already experienced), just to make sure he wasn't missing any details?

3) No one would buy Belkar as LG, and it seems more like a reductio ad absurdum argument that he can't change. He's about as lawful as a fractal. But if Minrah is CG, which fits the little we know about her (or CN, but I don't think that's likely)... the power of love does really weird things to people. And iirc, hasn't she cast a 5th-level spell?

4) Remember Belkar's paradise in the pyramid, which Roy mocked with "I'm sure it involved a lot of stabbing, and whores, and whores stabbing whores who stab whores. But keep it to yourself."? Belkar played along with an uncomfortable expression, saying "Heh heh, yeah. I mean, it was MY dream, after all." But it was actually him as Shojo's chef, alongside a purring Mr. Scruffy. And afawk, Shojo is currently "sipping single-malt scotch and smoking cigars rolled from poorly-worded legal documents".

As much as I like how Belkar is actually making an effort to be better, at the same time I have to note that I like how the party is still reacting that way to him, because really, they should. Actions have consequences. Belkar is lying in a bed of his own making. He has to earn being treated differently, and he hasn't yet.

As much as I'm a sucker for redemption stories^*, I agree completely. But I get the feeling his redemption will come after all... through actively choosing to save the world at the cost of his permanent death, if not being unmade out of existence.
_{* - I blame anime, with its wacky notions of "People are rarely evil just for funsies, and often it boils down to horrible misunderstandings that can be resolved".}

[dancrilis]

In fairness to Belkar being treated better by the other members of the Order.
Vaarsuvius spent the time to give him a better dagger (panel 5), I think they might not have done it in earlier strips, also they were content to allow him the use of there dominated kobold as a favour.
Roy was comfortable drinking with him and having an actual conversation - whole strip, and further noted that he was trying 'a thing' panel 7, and implies that he doesn't think Belkar is an untrustworthy jerk anymore (panel 5).
Haley meanwhile has indicated that he 'employee of the month' panel 8 and while at the time she thought it was a ploy (and it kindof was) she may have learned to be less paranoid in the intervening time such as when she might have implyed that he was useful (panel 9).


So I do think that they see a change and they like the change - but seeing a change and liking a change only goes so far so quickly.

[Good Coyote]

cut for length

Personally I do buy Belkar's character development, I just don't think he can make it to actual heaven (a Good afterlife) under his own steam. He's got a wide, wide possibility of points on the Neutral spectrum to chug his way past first, and frankly, he doesn't have the time.

Thinking about this idea though... if it was going to happen, I suppose it actually could be a commentary on the need for humility, asking for help, living in a society, etc

I checked Minrah's alignment on the wiki before I made the post because I thought she was NG at first, but the wiki said LG and I didn't look too closely... citation needed, it seems. And that would be a very good explanation for that line with Thor. And if it's being used as a metaphor, it would make more sense that Belkar keeps his place as Chaotic since there's no... important life lesson to be learned about having to embrace Lawfulness because all of your cleric friends are Lawful.

Don't think there's any particular sign that Minrah is in love with Belkar though... or him with her. I think his sidechat with her was pretty comparable to learning about "extreme apologies" from Durkon. It does seem significant that he keeps having these chats with clerics, but to me, more for the sake of those characters showing off what clerics are about (like O-chul being an exemplary paladin). (In fact, if the story does go that route, then the framing would probably make an Atonement in part about how it's the responsibility and gift of clerics to be able to cast it.)

Belkar's dream in the pyramid wasn't really a paradise as such though. He didn't die first in his own experience, so it wasn't his in-dream afterlife. And we know that Roy's afterlife didn't particularly closely resemble what he saw in the pyramid. It does demonstrate that he can be content while not stabbing anybody, but that's all I can think of.

[bunsen_h]

EDIT 2: No, never mind. I just checked the 3.5 spell description; I was working from my experience with the original AD&D version, and it's changed.

I'm glad you checked and then said this, I thought the same and would have never looked otherwise.

It appears that Atonement was small-n neutral with regard to alignment into 2nd Edition, and was changed for 3rd to be only about getting back to Goodness.

[MultitudeMan]

I know this is a tangent from the current discussion, but does anyone else wonder if the Giant is speaking through Elan, to some extent, in panel 9? He's on record as saying he feels bad about this strip, and the Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity plotline, but I don't know that he's acknowledged this in the strip itself.

OOTS did start as just a dungeon crawl making fun of D&D tropes and bizarre rules-derived situations, but I think we all agree it's become much more than that now. Perhaps Rich feels he has had some character development himself in the process?

[bunsen_h]

It appears that Atonement was small-n neutral with regard to alignment into 2nd Edition, and was changed for 3rd to be only about getting back to Goodness.

Oops again. "Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can also be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, whether those acts are evil, good, chaotic, or lawful." That's as of 3.5 but not 3e.

[Good Coyote]

It appears that Atonement was small-n neutral with regard to alignment into 2nd Edition, and was changed for 3rd to be only about getting back to Goodness.

The initial description does mention evil deeds, but further down:

Redemption or Temptation: The character may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match the character's. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or changes to the character's alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders (or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally).

edit: oop, ninja'ed

[Fyraltari]

b) "I think I'm falling in love with Belkar."

First, ewwwwwwww.

Second, the conversation implies that Thor knows about whatever it is because she had prayed to him for guidance over it, which isn't possible for that possibility.

Third, ewwwwwww.

Fourth, given how little she knows of Belkar why would she assume Thor wouldn't be okay with it?

Fifth, ew, ew, ew.

[Good Coyote]

Thinking about it, I think there's also a strong narrative reason that love shouldn't be involved with Minrah and Belkar, whether she Redeems him or not.

Even if you like "redemption via love" narratives generally, it would risk reinforcing V's theory that Belkar operates on "either I want to kill or I'm attracted" dichotomy. She represents people who don't have any reason to think of Belkar as a murder gremlin, so that needs to be important to him for reasons entirely unrelated to attraction. It's possible for it to be important for both, but it might confuse the issue.

[bunsen_h]

The initial description does mention evil deeds, but further down:

edit: oop, ninja'ed

That would still work for changing within the Chaotic-to-Lawful spectrum within Good.

I'm imagining a little "chat" between the Chief Druid and Tree-Hugger Bob. "Bob, I see you've been hugging lots of bears and bunnies. That's nice. I like to see that. But when it comes to people, you've been way too Good. Some might even say Lawful. So what you're gonna do is, you're going to go into the city and, I dunno, throw paint on old ladies wearing fur coats and stuff. Then you come back here and we'll do the Atonement thing. You got that, Bob? You got 48 hours, or BAM, no more druid powers."