OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

[hamishspence]

Again, avatars don't affect personal views.

Might reason for saying the acts were evil is I prefer notion of good having a high standard to live up to, which most alignment-related supplements fit with: Vile Darkness, Exalted Deeds, Fiendish Codex 2 Champions of Ruin, etc.

That said, I also go with the notion that Evil does not just mean psychopathic: extreme ruthlessness in the "Cause of Good" can segue into Evil: Knight Templar characters are a major trope in D&D. An evil chacter can be very nice to those he loves or respects (see Savage Species) without changing from Evil.

[Manoftyr]

When you wake up, look in the mirror and see veiny skin and glowy eyes, you may not yet be evil, but you are sure as hell on your way there.

I think most people who are still defending V as being good aren't really interested in the effect V's actions would have on V's alignment, but rather are of the opinion that "evil is cool and good is dumb" and so simply want to defend characters the more evil that they start to get. It's pretty noticeable that most if not all of the recent defense of V as good comes from those with evil-looking avatars. Zombies, mind flayers, Cthulhus, evil Parsons, shadowy-glowy-eyed-things, etc seem overrepresented in the "V is still good" camp.

I'm sorry, but that is the weakest argument I have heard for...well, anything!

"All the people supporting V have evil-ish looking avatars and names with Cthulhu in them so therfore they MUST be biased against good, and also he has glowy eyes and veiny skin so he MUST be evil!"

I mean, when you truly examine that kind of argument...it immediately reveals itself as a tad silly.

And as for personal biases I will admit a strong bias against 'law', but definitely not against good...seriously, someone said it earlier in the thread it's like everyone here thinks the axis works with law on one side and evil on the other.

[hamishspence]

Exalted Deeds and Fiendish Codex 2 might fit with different interpretation: but they keep getting dismissed as Not Core.

[mousemaster3]

Sigh.....once again we see the stuipid side of Elan though that hasn't happened in a while. Glad to know the Elan we know is back!

[Eric]

I think most people who are still defending V as being good aren't really interested in the effect V's actions would have on V's alignment, blah blah blah

You can think it. No problems there. But you might want to keep the evidence of a mind failing to work properly to yourself.

Just saying, like.

[Linkavitch]

OK, V is officially evil, and trance-deprived. And scary. V has crossed the line. . . s/he really needs to get hir priorities straight.

[Eric]

It doesn't really read like V is making any sort of comparisons with Belkar.

OK, so you're not an INT18 either.

He doesn't say "If I'm like Belkar..." so technically you're correct: you never read him saying that. However, use inference to, uh, infer what V's saying.

"If I have killed to remove an obstacle, then is it wise to claim to be another obstacle?"
?
"Well, if I killed him for being in my way, why not kill you for being in my way?"
?
"Oh, I give up".

I've rephrased a little to accentuate the thread of thought.

NOTE: Belkar wouldn't threaten. He'd just stab. So as far as that goes, V's placement of Belkar's way of approaching the problem doesn't mesh: killing Elan isn't what V wants. He wants Elan to stop pestering him with irrelevancies.

[Iranon]

This certainly has the potential to turn into one of those plans where you start killing everyone who notices that you've been killing everyone... I hope V doesn't end up losing her circlet.

Also, this is how a poor Charisma can cause you to fail every intimidation check regardless of how scary you are.

[Eric]

This certainly has the potential to turn into one of those plans where you start killing everyone who notices that you've been killing everyone... I hope V doesn't end up losing her circlet.

Also, this is how a poor Charisma can cause you to fail every intimidation check regardless of how scary you are.

Like the "Tales of Interest" in Futurama: the "what if" machine.

When Lela asks "what if I was slightly more impetuous?".

[Shatteredtower]

NOTE: Belkar wouldn't threaten. He'd just stab.

Windstriker would disagree.

So as far as that goes, V's placement of Belkar's way of approaching the problem doesn't mesh: killing Elan isn't what V wants. He wants Elan to stop pestering him with irrelevancies.

Or he'll kill them too.

Sure, I'm willing to accept the idea that V was more interested in getting Elan to leave him alone than in actually hurting him, but the reasoning behind the threat is flawed. Telling Hinjo what's happened doesn't make Elan a distraction. It might cause Hinjo to become a distraction.

On the other hand, forcing V to repeatedly explain what he meant about Elan being a distraction counts as a distraction, and V obviously walked away from this one.

Too bad this didn't become a habit sooner.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I don't follow the logic there. Celia just said "ONE of you with a pure heart..." She wasn't saying that they all had pure hearts, and considering Sabine and Zz'dtri were both in the group at the time, it would be absolute nonsense to imply that she was! (You'll also note that it was Haley, not V, who ended up touching the Air sigil).

You are, of course, quite right. That's what I get for posting while sleep-deprived

Well, that makes me feel better about my "V is N" position, since #11 now seems to be an isolated exception against a wide assemblage of more-neutral-y actions.

[chiasaur11]

Like the "Tales of Interest" in Futurama: the "what if" machine.

When Lela asks "what if I was slightly more impetuous?".

And Elan is the most Fry-like...

[Laurentio II]

This certainly has the potential to turn into one of those plans where you start killing everyone who notices that you've been killing everyone... I hope V doesn't end up losing her circlet.

Don't. You'll lose your hat.
(Yes, I know we are citing the very same page. But some people don't know... better to proselytize)

[teratorn]

It's pretty noticeable that most if not all of the recent defense of V as good comes from those with evil-looking avatars. Zombies, mind flayers, Cthulhus, evil Parsons, shadowy-glowy-eyed-things, etc seem overrepresented in the "V is still good" camp.

Ruthless Parson, not evil Parson! By the way, from all the members in OOTS I identify best with Durkon (boring, lawful good, yep, that's me). I couldn't care less about the evil characters, Belkar included.

One thing we know about V is that V can feel remorse, particularly if she has Haley nearby to balance her actions. V made Elan cry, and really felt bad about it. V may not cringe after zapping an evil guy, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't be tormented after killing someone good.

V may be on the path to do something terribly wrong, but I don't think she'll shift alignment like that. V needs Haley, that's all.

[ref]

[V]'s transforming into a hot asian cyborgess?

I admit a Hot Asian Cyborgess Vaarsuvius would be something really cool. Was referring to how things conspire in making the characters in question very unlikeable.

[Aristeidis]

YES! V gets the point of wizardom more and more!

No one stops a wizard!! That's why he is my favorite character!

[EvilElitest]

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

[Yukitsu]

Mostly because the books you introduce as being "rules" related to doing certain acts contradict themselves, for instance in the notion that all murder is evil, as a paladin may on occasion murder, if the situation calls for it. The alignment rules are, to be blunt, dumb, and allow way too much ambiguity, so most people rationally use their own personal moral codes, some which allow good a wider range of pragmatism.

Frankly, I'll agree that this was probably evil, but I also think it was done almost entirely for metagaming reasons.

[EvilElitest]

Mostly because the books you introduce as being "rules" related to doing certain acts contradict themselves, for instance in the notion that all murder is evil, as a paladin may on occasion murder, if the situation calls for it.

Actually thats covered, paladins are allowed to kill, not murder. Its a hard distinction, but there is an actual distinction, you just have to buy a source boko to get it

The alignment rules are, to be blunt, dumb, and allow way too much ambiguity, so most people rationally use their own personal moral codes, some which allow good a wider range of pragmatism.

Frankly, I'll agree that this was probably evil, but I also think it was done almost entirely for metagaming reasons.

The system isn't bad itself, its just its delivery.
from
EE

[Stormoverkrynn]

V is no doubt in my mind is Evil or very close to evil. I also dont think V is Lawful, the alignment atm seems more Chaotic - Evil/Neutral. Had Elan realized what V meant, I think Elan would be dead. Elan's lack of Int in this case saved his life. V in this case was willing to kill an active member of his party. In an evil campaign that behavoir is accepted...cause as evil characters your mostly in it for themselves. The glowing eyes and hands was almost demonic. Haley may have a way of balancing V out alittle, but I dont think V is doing things for the benefit of the greater good of the party atm. I am wondering what will happen is Elan does say something. At this point though Elan being Elan might not say anything in hopes that V is researching the spell haste. It will be interesting to see where this leads in the next comic or two. All in all I liked these last two comics, it shows what V thinks he/she is capable of, and having no fear of the consequences of said actions. The paladins if they find out what happened will put V on Trial for
murder.


Lawful Good is known as the "Saintly" or "Crusader" alignment. A lawful good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. A lawful good nation would consist of a well-organized government that works for the benefit of its citizens. Lawful good characters include righteous knights, all paladins and most dwarves. Lawful good creatures include the noble golden dragons. Lawful Good outsiders are known as Archons.

Lawful Good characters, especially paladins, may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey Law or Good when the two conflict - for example, upholding a sworn oath when it would lead innocents to come to harm - or conflicts between two orders, such as between their religious law and the law of the local ruler.

Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, or a disciplined monk.

Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to Good and Evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass; but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition or law dictates. They typically have a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to Good or Evil.

Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits: while they typically obey their superiors and keep their word (trustworthy), they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, honorable but undiscriminating mercenary types, and soldiers who follow the chain of command but enjoy killing for its own sake.

Chaotic Evil is referred to as the "Destroyer" or "Demonic" alignment. Characters of this alignment tend to have little respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own selfish desires. They typically only behave themselves out of fear of punishment.

V currently has no respect for the rules. V is also acting in his own self interests

Have fun and good job Giant i hope to see how this pans out.

[spectralphoenix]

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

Bloody hell, haven't we been through this before? The alignment system presented in the BoXD is optional. It's existence doesn't mean that all or even most campaigns follow (or are expected to follow) that as part of the "rules" any more than Vecna's inclusion in the PHB means every campaign must have Vecna in it.

And really, how many campaigns do you think follow those rules to the letter anyway? Those books are so stupid they warp the universe around them.

[Skaarg]

Ruthless Parson, not evil Parson! By the way, from all the members in OOTS I identify best with Durkon (boring, lawful good, yep, that's me). I couldn't care less about the evil characters, Belkar included.

Fair point! Ruthless Parson!

I actually sort of care about Belkar. I don't know if care about is the right term, but he does add a lot of humor to the strip and for that reason I will kind of hate to see him go. I won't mind seeing him get his comeuppance, though.

(Actually I think the only one who adds more humor to the strip than Belkar is Elan, who is probably the most relentlessly good of all the characters.)

One thing we know about V is that V can feel remorse, particularly if she has Haley nearby to balance her actions. V made Elan cry, and really felt bad about it. V may not cringe after zapping an evil guy, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't be tormented after killing someone good.

V may be on the path to do something terribly wrong, but I don't think she'll shift alignment like that. V needs Haley, that's all.

As far as V being redeemable (not good), I am certain that that is still possible. I don't think it's very likely, though. (Mainly because the kinds of stories that the GitP has been telling so far. Redemption is possible, but I don't think he's ever shown redemption of someone whose motive was achieving power.) I have to say though, when the evil act is murder of a helpless prisoner, even if you might not quite be in the evil boat yet, you're out of the good boat.

[EvilElitest]

Bloody hell, haven't we been through this before? The alignment system presented in the BoXD is optional. It's existence doesn't mean that all or even most campaigns follow (or are expected to follow) that as part of the "rules" any more than Vecna's inclusion in the PHB means every campaign must have Vecna in it.

They are still the defining rules on the subject and any attempt to disallow the in a conversation is basically saying that "I don't want it because it doesn't support my point". If you don't want to do it, fine but as written these are the rules on good and evil

And really, how many campaigns do you think follow those rules to the letter anyway? Those books are so stupid they warp the universe around them.

1) What games follow the rules and don't is irrelevant, it doesn't make the rules any less important
2) funny, i wasn't aware taht declaring something stupid made the rules any less relevant.
3) So stupid they wrap the universe around them? how does that make sense
from
EE

[Scarlet Knight]

YES! V gets the point of wizardom more and more!

Now, if he/she had only put a point or two in wisdom...

[spectralphoenix]

They are still the defining rules on the subject and any attempt to disallow the in a conversation is basically saying that "I don't want it because it doesn't support my point". If you don't want to do it, fine but as written these are the rules on good and evil

They are the defining rules on the subject for campaigns that use the BoXD as part of their setting. Eberron, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and pretty much every other campaign setting ever produced has different defining rules on the subject. The BoXD are optional, and most people don't use them.

1) What games follow the rules and don't is irrelevant, it doesn't make the rules any less important
2) funny, i wasn't aware taht declaring something stupid made the rules any less relevant.
3) So stupid they wrap the universe around them? how does that make sense
from
EE

1) Since OotS is a parody of D&D at large, and not "D&D when using the weirdest campaign supplements ever to stain WotC's presses," there's a good chance the world doesn't use those definitions.
2) See above. Additionally, since the BoVD's definition of murder is different from the BoED's, even if you use them you still have to choose which of the contradictory rules takes precedence.
3) Hyperbole, meet EE. EE, Hyperbole.

[David Argall]

when the evil act is murder of a helpless prisoner, even if you might not quite be in the evil boat yet, you're out of the good boat.

And what bloody difference does it make that the victim was a prisoner? You are morally acceptable executing the helpless prisoner, who has been found guilty of the horrid crimes. You are morally unacceptable killing the heavily armed and trained guy innocently walking down the street. The prisoner status just doesn't enter into it.

[Laurentio II]

The prisoner status just doesn't enter into it.

It does, in terms of "reasonable force". If you have a prisoner, the amount of force needed to subdue him is... zero. And the risk by the law enforcer to subdue him is zero, too.
If you have to subdue an armed, strong person, you need an equivalent force, and the risk of injuries or death of the law enforcers is high. This means that the use of violence is needed. In extreme cases, killing the opponent is a viable alternative if there are high chances of death amongst the law enforcers or innocents.
But this is a real life case. OotS works in a fantasy, epic setting, where the value of human life is much lower. And don't start speaking of non-human life value.

[Eric]

It does, in terms of "reasonable force".

Which has nothing to do with "Evil/Good".

Just lawful application of force.

Law.

[Eric]

V is no doubt in my mind is Evil or very close to evil.

Fair enough.

Please accept two things:

a) you could be wrong

b) someone else doesn't have your mind.

Lawful Good is known as the "Saintly" or "Crusader" alignment.

No, that is someone to whom lawful is less important than good.

Those who are more lawful than good accept the cutting off of the hands of thieves because that is an EXCELLENT deterrent for thieving.

Not all that good, though.

And a chaotic good would rail at that law and consider it evil (the individual cruelty isn't justified by the greater weal for society).

[Eric]

[Or he'll kill them too.

Sure, I'm willing to accept the idea that V was more interested in getting Elan to leave him alone than in actually hurting him, but the reasoning behind the threat is flawed.

Elan has still not retracted his threat to tell Hinjo.

Killing Elan AFTER that will not remove the obstacle. So if V wants to kill Elan for tattling, especially since high INT is high logical acuity, he would do it now.

Since he's exited, stage left, he hasn't.

Your proposition he will is not supported by either fact or inference of such.