OOTS #1212 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

I think you can make an excellent argument that at the time of the story Therkla was indeed Neutral, but that if she continued working loyally for Kubota she would eventually have become Neutral Evil or worse because of the evil actions he would have required her to perform.

Well, there's an argument to be made here - since Kubota chose to remove her from his employ for not doing what he wanted, it seems like she was pretty set on not changing had he not killed her or otherwise fired her; she would probably have left at some point if his orders kept being too much. Or, at the very least, continued to do things as she saw fit while still technically accomplishing the missions he gave.

[Arathorne]

And all that said, any argument whose premise is "Rich is wrong about his own story" is bound to fail.

It never ceases to amaze me that when people critique this strip that they fail to see this is Rich's story to tell and that being the case how can he be wrong?

I will never understand how people can pan any author and judge them as wrong, I suppose you can argue the "syntax" as improper or "sentence structure" maybe but wrong?? sorry it does not compute to me

just i mho

[Jason]

Well, there's an argument to be made here - since Kubota chose to remove her from his employ for not doing what he wanted, it seems like she was pretty set on not changing had he not killed her or otherwise fired her; she would probably have left at some point if his orders kept being too much. Or, at the very least, continued to do things as she saw fit while still technically accomplishing the missions he gave.

In other words we agree - she could not realistically have continued working for Kubota and remained Neutral. She could only get away with "fulfilling his evil assignments in a non-evil fashion" until she was caught or couldn't find a non-evil way to fulfill them.

[Peelee]

In other words we agree - she could not realistically have continued working for Kubota and remained Neutral. She could only get away with "fulfilling his evil assignments in a non-evil fashion" until she was caught or couldn't find a non-evil way to fulfill them.

Yep. Kubota just had a significantly lower threshold for putting up with that that she did, sadly.

[Ruck]

It never ceases to amaze me that when people critique this strip that they fail to see this is Rich's story to tell and that being the case how can he be wrong?

I will never understand how people can pan any author and judge them as wrong, I suppose you can argue the "syntax" as improper or "sentence structure" maybe but wrong?? sorry it does not compute to me

just i mho

Yeah, and you could even argue it's bad or poorly written (I would not agree with you, but the argument can be made), but mightymosy's argument seems to be "The parts of the story that justify declaring Therkla Evil are valid, and the parts of the story that suggest otherwise are not valid."

[Fyraltari]

As a ninja, Therkla is doing essentially the same job she would do for any Azure City nobility. I don't know whether Lord Shojo employed ninjas himself, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he had other people to do the work a chaotic good ruler needed doing that Paladins wouldn't.

Put that way, her job really isn't all that different from an ordinary soldier in the ranks. One could argue that nobles resolving their differences through quiet assassinations is more moral than fighting outright wars. Is it better to kill the politician who's causing trouble, or some 17-year-old draftee in that politician's army who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I have a fixed aversion to young people killing each other en masse while old people use them as gamepieces on a chessboard. What's so bad about the politicians and nobles going for each other directly, and leaving ordinary people to live out their lives in peace?

That might be a potential rationalization for Therkla to be Kubota's assassin and yet be neutral. One could argue she's fulfilling a needed function in society that prevents it from falling apart, just as a thunderdome champion's fights prevents what would otherwise be "war that is damn near the death of us all". Link .

Now, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's entirely possible to do politic without any violent death you know.

ETA: Another possible consideration is exactly who Therkla is killing. No one sends out a ninja to kill poor people or beggars or orphans; your bog-standard thug , hireable at any pub, will do the job just fine. No, an assassin is sent after someone who is able to defend themselves, not to mention probably rich and politically influential to boot.

I'm sorry but how exactly is it more morally permissible to kill people when they can defend themselves?

Neutral Evil or worse

Neutral super-evil?

It never ceases to amaze me that when people critique this strip that they fail to see this is Rich's story to tell and that being the case how can he be wrong?

I will never understand how people can pan any author and judge them as wrong, I suppose you can argue the "syntax" as improper or "sentence structure" maybe but wrong?? sorry it does not compute to me

What's more the comic is available for free.

Bolded is what I think i am doing, so what's your problem with that?
smallconfused

The part where you said:

And the Giant was wrong with Therkla

Which is why I said you can't go around telling people the Giant is wrong about his own characters.

Also, what joke?

This really is a distinction without a difference. Killing for a mob boss isn't any better or worse then killing for a scheming politician.

Now, now, Kubota wasn’t a crime boss, he was a traitor. Completely different.

And, yes, the discussion is meaningless, then why do you engage in it?
again, smallconfused

I'm not. I am fine with any of you saying that Therkla's portrayal reads more as chaotic evil, lawful sandwich, or whatever. I am however, interested in discussing Therkla's character and wether any or all of her wactions were evil, good or elsewise.
And wether her character was interesting. FOr the record my opinion is: in DstP she's rather boring as she's defined utterly by her conflict between a one-note vilain and shallow lust for a stranger. Her agency tops at "refusing to make a choice".

I like her much more in Spoiler Alert where she's a much more rounded character with goals and stuff.

[Worldsong]

If someone thinks that Therkla's behaviour on-screen was too Evil for her to be Neutral they can just fill in the details and imagine that off-screen she did stuff which is more in line with a Neutral alignment.

If someone thinks that Therkla's behaviour on-screen simply can't be reconciled with a Neutral alignment you'll just have to live with the fact that The Giant is using a different morality system.

If someone thinks that any morality system which defines Therkla as Neutral is objectively incorrect, then... well, tough luck, that's how it works in the story.

[Jason]

It never ceases to amaze me that when people critique this strip that they fail to see this is Rich's story to tell and that being the case how can he be wrong?

I will never understand how people can pan any author and judge them as wrong, I suppose you can argue the "syntax" as improper or "sentence structure" maybe but wrong?? sorry it does not compute to me

just i mho

If you are writing in a shared world, and especially one with rigorously defined rules on how it functions then you do have some grounds saying "the author is wrong". For instance, there was a thread that said "that's not how Implosion works" and a valid argument can be made that it doesn't work in D&D 3.5 like it did when Red Cloak cast it a few pages ago.
The alignment rules are not such an area, however. They are intentionally vague and leave a lot of discretion up to individual DMs on when a character has changed alignment.

[pendell]

Now, that's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. It's entirely possible to do politic without any violent death you know.

In Azure City, with ninjas taking exception to Meatloaf day, this does not seem likely.

I'm sorry but how exactly is it more morally permissible to kill people when they can defend themselves?

Killing someone who's trying to kill you is self-defense, not murder. Even if the weapon you use is a ninja, rather than a sword you carry yourself.

If Therkla is sent to butcher innocents she couldn't escape an evil alignment. She most likely hasn't been given that order because that's not what ninjas are for.

If she's being sent out to kill evil nobles or nobles who are attempting to kill her master, she could retain her neutrality. It would be as if Stannis sent out an assassin to kill Cersei Lannister. When evil people fight evil battles, it's a total wash alignment-speaking for the soldiers fighting on their behalf.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

If you are writing in a shared world, and especially one with rigorously defined rules on how it functions then you do have some grounds saying "the author is wrong". For instance, there was a thread that said "that's not how Implosion works" and a valid argument can be made that it doesn't work in D&D 3.5 like it did when Red Cloak cast it a few pages ago.
The alignment rules are not such an area, however. They are intentionally vague and leave a lot of discretion up to individual DMs on when a character has changed alignment.

This isn't a shared world, though. It's a world based on D&D rules, with varying closeness. It's like Mel Brooks writing Spaceballs - it's not in the Star Wars universe, so it doesn't need to adhere to rules in the Star Wars universe, despite the fact that it's obviously based on the Star Wars universe.

Implosion absolutely works like it does as shown, for example, because it's not using 3.5's exact Implosion - it's using Rich Burlew's Modified Implosion, which fits in perfectly well with Rich Burlew's Modified D&D Rules that the story uses.

[Riftwolf]

Implosion absolutely works like it does as shown, for example, because it's not using 3.5's exact Implosion - it's using Rich Burlew's Modified Implosion, which fits in perfectly well with Rich Burlew's Modified D&D Rules that the story uses.

Playing Devil's Avocado for a minute, we've seen Implosion work as per its 3.5 counterpart in the comic when Redcloak squished the elves.
However, we could argue the spell is working differently on Durkon because he's made his save whereas the elves didn't. 3.GitP Implosion might work like so;
Each round of Implosions duration, the caster chooses a target corporeal creature. The target makes a fortitude save; if it fails, its crushed instantly and can only be resurrected by True Resurrection. If the target succeeds its save, it take XdX damage and is immobilised for the round instead. The caster can choose to target the same creature.
Gitp Implosion looked like 3.5 Implosion against the elves because they all failed their saves. It stopped looking like 3.5 Implosion against Durkon because he succeeded.

[Fyraltari]

In Azure City, with ninjas taking exception to Meatloaf day, this does not seem likely.

The ninjas are necessary because of the ninjas? Sure...
We actually have comments from the Giant about how avoidable the political climate
of Azure city was:

If you take away the external threat of Xykon, the most likely outcome of Shojo's rule is that he dies (whether from Miko or old age), and the more Lawful Hinjo takes over. He reforms the system and the nobles either fall in line or get crushed by his much larger army. The only reason Kubota takes the risky actions he takes is because Hinjo has virtually no army anymore, and Kubota has no ancestral holdings to lose. It is a highly unusual vulnerability on Hinjo's part

Yes, exactly. The nobles' objection was that playtime was over, not that Hinjo wasn't a viable leader. Absent the imminent threat of Xykon, there would have been a lot of grumbling and jockeying for position before all their hidden schemes that Shojo tolerated by pitting them against one another were systematically exposed and shut down. Even the first wave of ninjas sent in #414 only appeared because the nobles (mistakenly) thought they could save their own skins from Xykon with Hinjo out of the way.

Speaking of Hinjo...

Killing someone who's trying to kill you is self-defense, not murder. Even if the weapon you use is a ninja, rather than a sword you carry yourself.

If Therkla is sent to butcher innocents she couldn't escape an evil alignment. She most likely hasn't been given that order because that's not what ninjas are for.

So, do you think Hinjo is guilty of something in particular or did you forget the one target Therkla was tasked with killing in the main comic?

When evil people fight evil battles, it's a total wash alignment-speaking for the soldiers fighting on their behalf.

I'm not sure The King Who Cared is a great example of an evil person fighting evil.

[Peelee]

Playing Devil's Avocado for a minute, we've seen Implosion work as per its 3.5 counterpart in the comic when Redcloak squished the elves.

I would argue that, as we don't know how much time/rounds encompassed the implosion effects, even in that very strip. The first time we see it cast, it's cast in one panel visual effects in another, and splat in a third. The second time (in the same strip), we see it cast and the splat seemingly simultaneously. So we already know that time is being plated with somewhat. As much as I hate the "talking is a free action" bit (or, at least, how much they're able to get away with), that has also been established. Everything we saw could have been explained away as taking place within a single round, with Minrah disrupting the spell, and no fort save necessary.

[understatement]

In Azure City, with ninjas taking exception to Meatloaf day, this does not seem likely.

If Therkla is sent to butcher innocents she couldn't escape an evil alignment. She most likely hasn't been given that order because that's not what ninjas are for.

If she's being sent out to kill evil nobles or nobles who are attempting to kill her master, she could retain her neutrality. It would be as if Stannis sent out an assassin to kill Cersei Lannister. When evil people fight evil battles, it's a total wash alignment-speaking for the soldiers fighting on their behalf.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Bolded mine for emphasis.

She is complicit and willing in a plan that involves attacking civilian ships. Just because she doesn't do it herself doesn't make her involvement in it less evil.

Also, Stannis probably is the most LN character in the whole series.

[Larsaan]

Man, this thread really flies by when you're not paying attention. Anyway, I think it's a little funny how this forum will fiercely rail against the notion that "monstrous" races are in any way restricted to a single alignment or mode of behaviour... but somehow seems to have locked itself into the line of thinking that "lizardfolk are (usually) Neutral in the MM, therefore everything they do is Neutral".

Lizardfolk are as capable as any other mortal race of having alignment variety. Some lizardfolk might hunt other sapients to eat them; those would be Evil lizardfolk. Others restrict themselves to funerary cannibalism, and maybe an opportunistic snack after a battle; those would be your Neutral, sometimes Good, lizardfolk.

As a side note, I really liked how the hyenas in Digger thought about funerary cannibalism:

Spoiler: Digger, by Ursula Vernon

Show

As for the undeath discussion, I want to point out that even setting aside the Evil spirits, being undead is an utterly miserable, tormented existence. And while there are two types of undead that can rise above that (liches and vampires), those two still have to prey on sapients for souls or blood to sustain themselves.

So, in the cases where an undead creature contains the original soul, you've condemned someone to a state of endless pain and suffering. And in the cases where undead creature doesn't contain the original soul, you've still basically created an A.I. that knows nothing but pain and suffering.

[bunsen_h]

I would argue that, as we don't know how much time/rounds encompassed the implosion effects, even in that very strip. The first time we see it cast, it's cast in one panel visual effects in another, and splat in a third. The second time (in the same strip), we see it cast and the splat seemingly simultaneously. So we already know that time is being plated with somewhat.

I thought that was one casting successfully taking out two targets, one after another.

[Mightymosy]

Spoiler

Show

It was a rival ninja, and Therkla kills her because

a) the ninja was going to kill her, and even stabs her fatally.

b) she was planning to hunt down the family Therkla had saved earlier.

Didnt the other ninja guard the fan, working for the other noble lady? Dont remember it exactly tbh

Does a single example prove behavior? Because if so, wow, probably a huge majority of Stickworld is doomed to the lower planes.

We explicitly see her not kill people on multiple occasions. That pokes a big hole in your argument. Which, I should note, I thought you were not going to make with me?

No, not a single behavior.
She has been working for Kubota for quite some time, and I dont think one can do that and remain non-evil.

Also,didnt say i wouldnt have an argument with you.
I said wont convince you with arguments, which is exactly what happens (or rather isnt happening).
I write for people who read to form an opinion.

No one is saying Therkla hasn't done Evil things. But a Neutral person can do Evil things and remain Neutral.

Of course, it's also a good time to remember that Rich decides character alignment in advance based on the perspective he wants to write the character from. He is not assigning a final judgment to them; nor, for that matter, is everything we see on the page the entirety of their lives.

And all that said, any argument whose premise is "Rich is wrong about his own story" is bound to fail.

Really? What makes you think that?
1. Authors have been wrong about their stories plenty.
Even Rich admitted to a couple of errors.
2. Also, read my last post. I say he is wrong when he considers Terkla neutral in a good-evil framework, and I am pretty sure that argument can be made, no matter what you think about that.


Good night you all

[WanderingMist]

A person's body is their most personal possession, even after they are dead. Stealing, eating, or otherwise desecrating a person's body is an act of contempt towards that person, and therefore evil.
There might be rare justifying circumstances for doing one of those things, but it could never be described as a good act to treat someone's mortal remains with contempt, regardless of the alignment of the deceased.

What if the person's culture required that their body be eaten after death?

Exactly. If we take away the end goal, it's basically killing non-threatening random sapients for the joy of it.

If we take away the end goal...the entire point of the discussion on Oona's character is "Do her ends justify her means?" You can't take away the end goal and pretend it's still the same discussion.

Is now a good time to mention that, in Brazil, one of the "criminal/ironic/dismissive" expressions for dead people is "ham" (presunto)?

I'll let you in on the secret of long pork pies...

And the Giant was wrong with Therkla, anyway ;-)

Murdering people for a crime boss = evil

Nough said

The bolded part is an <your name here>





Another example for "good" necromancy is from Amonkhet, a Magic the Gathering expansion from a couple years back (right now being "remastered", whatever that means):
Zombies in MtG had been black magic before (~evil), and in that setting, the designers wanted white magic zombies (~good), mummies, to be exact, since this was their Egyptian expansion set.
So they made the lore for that setting that the zombies/mummies were a normal cultural thing - our dead ancestors helped you with the chores of your daily life.



Kubota:
- does crimes
- is Therkla's boss
-> crime boss

Sorry, my English doesn't reach much further than that.

to your edit: In my book, you just don't get to call yourself non-evil, if you willingly do a job that reads "kill people for someone in exchange for money, and don't ask questions"



Yeah, it frequently is brought up what she does in "Spoiler Alert", to rationalize her being neutral of some sorts.
The thing is, it is just not believable. It is implausible, even in this kind of comic.
At least not if you want to read this comic with a serious approach. If you read it as "it is just all silly fun, don't think too much", then yeah, ok, but then a serious discussion about good or evil doesn't even make sense to try.

Sorry, I was so fixated on the word play on your user name that I didn't get the message across.

To be more clear: I am a 100% with you on what you said on this page and the last one.
So, you don't speak only for yourself, but for me as well.



1. At the point she killed a house guard to obtain a fan she didn't even know what her boss wanted it for?
At the point she signed up for a job as "stealth assassin for local crime boss"?
At the point she even chose to go to that school? What did she think she would as, after gradutating? As a vet?
At the point she continued the job even after several times learning what she would eventually have to do?

2. What I am sayingif no one twists my words, is this:
I consider myself and Mr Burlew as mature enough that I don't feel the need to treat his work(s) as sacred cows.
I reserve my right to praise the work overall, especially praise the good parts, and still complaing about the bad parts.

In this case: We learn Therkla is a private assassin for a local crime boss.
Then, in Spoiler Alert (and with the statement he considers Therkla TN), Rich appearantly tries to convince us that being TN and being a paid assassin for a crime boss are not mutually exclusive, and constructs a story around that to "prove it".
And I don't find it convincing.
Just because the story says so, doesn't make it true.

3. Don't worry, I won't try to convince you with arguments

Killing people for Kubota? Evil. Saving Elan? Good. Ignoring the people who aren't Elan? Neutral. Letting the paladins arrest her? Lawful. Refusing to testify against Kubota? Neutral. Immediately knocking out one of the guards while they're distracted by the giant devil? Neutral. Immediately afterward taking Elan to the fleet to rescue it from Kubota's schemes? Good.

From what we see of her, within the D&D alignment system, Therkla fluctuates wildly between Good, Evil, and Neutral acts. There's not really enough to throw her in Chaotic or Lawful from what I remember. Her Evil acts are motivated by her desire to get paid and her desire to impress her Evil mentor. Her Neutral acts come from her own desire for self-preservation. And her Good acts are motivated by love for another, which we have never seen be a motive for an Evil character in-comic, at least not without it starting to pull them away from Evil, as with Belkar and MitD (platonic love in these cases, but love nonetheless). Tsukiko was driven by lust, before you mention her. Even Redcloak isn't motivated by love. He's motivated by pride and the sunk-cost fallacy while deluding himself that it's out of love for his brother and for goblinkind as a whole, a point Minrah most helpfully shouted at him in their most recent encounter.

Man, this thread really flies by when you're not paying attention. Anyway, I think it's a little funny how this forum will fiercely rail against the notion that "monstrous" races are in any way restricted to a single alignment or mode of behaviour...but somehow seems to have locked itself into the line of thinking that "lizardfolk are (usually) Neutral in the MM, therefore everything they do is Neutral".

Lizardfolk are as capable as any other mortal race of having alignment variety. Some lizardfolk might hunt other sapients to eat them; those would be Evil lizardfolk. Others restrict themselves to funerary cannibalism, and maybe an opportunistic snack after a battle; those would be your Neutral, sometimes Good, lizardfolk.

No, no, if they hunt only sapients, that should be considered Evil. If they hunt anything that comes their way, regardless of sapience, that should be Neutral. Not to mention that one definition of cannibals as evil required them to be getting perverse pleasure out of it, not just sustenance that might happen to be tasty.

[The_Weirdo]

I'll let you in on the secret of long pork pies...

Are they pooooooooooooooooooork pies, pork piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeees or poooooooork piiiiiiiiiieeeeees?

[Larsaan]

It's Cleric. Have a little Cleric.

[WanderingMist]

Are they pooooooooooooooooooork pies, pork piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeees or poooooooork piiiiiiiiiieeeeees?

Let's just say the real adventurer was inside you all along.

[Jasdoif]

So we already know that time is being plated with somewhat.

Is "somewhat" like "sterling silver"?

[The_Weirdo]

Let's just say the real adventurer was inside you all along.

I know what long pork is.

Chianti.

[Worldsong]

No, no, if they hunt only sapients, that should be considered Evil. If they hunt anything that comes their way, regardless of sapience, that should be Neutral. Not to mention that one definition of cannibals as evil required them to be getting perverse pleasure out of it, not just sustenance that might happen to be tasty.

I like you. You keep it short and simple.

[Goblin_Priest]

Not sure if I've found the same source, but if I have you're reading a lot into one paragraph here that just isn't there. Human meat being delicious to lizardfolk is an unfounded in-universe legend, and some tribes ate captives. The only widespread eating of sapients was the ritual consumption of dead tribe members.

Got the quote from the 3.5 MM

Lizardfolk are primitive reptilian humanoids that can be very dan-gerous if provoked.Although they are omnivores, lizardfolk prefer meat; popular lore holds that lizardfolk prefer humanoid flesh, but this charge is largely unfounded (though some tribes do eat captives or slain foes). Some more advanced tribes build huts and use a variety of weapons and shields; leaders of these tribes may have equipment stolen from or obtained in trade with other intelligent creatures.

Says the claim is largely unfounded. From this, I don't see any inconsistencies between "lizardfolks are usually neutral" and "eating sentient beings is evil".

Also, isn't that stated somewhere that eating unicorn meat is heinous because it's sentient?

[Peelee]

I thought that was one casting successfully taking out two targets, one after another.

Yeah, my bad. Still, his second target is seemingly instantaneous, so the time we see is definitely being played with artistically.

Is "somewhat" like "sterling silver"?

No bastard alloys!* Pure silver for me, good banana!

*ETA: Though white gold is also acceptable.

No, not a single behavior.
She has been working for Kubota for quite some time, and I dont think one can do that and remain non-evil.

"Quite some time"? She's pretty young, early 20's or so at best. She's not been working for Kubota for terribly long at all, unless you consider a few years to be "quite some time". Maybe you do. I certainly don't - at least not long enough to be evil. And seemingly, neither does the author, given that in the online comic she explicitly goes against his wishes to be Evil and gets killed for it.

Also,didnt say i wouldnt have an argument with you.
I said wont convince you with arguments, which is exactly what happens (or rather isnt happening).

Vagaries of the English language. I wasn't saying I thought you wouldn't debate me. I was saying I thought you wouldn't make arguments to try to convince me. Which is what you're doing. I have no problem with it, I'm just surprised every time you continue to do so given that you seemed to be against the idea initially.

Because if you're addressing the open forum instead of me, then quoting me seems an odd way to do it, given how that creates a natural back-and-forth on forums.

[WanderingMist]

Got the quote from the 3.5 MM



Says the claim is largely unfounded. From this, I don't see any inconsistencies between "lizardfolks are usually neutral" and "eating sentient beings is evil".

Also, isn't that stated somewhere that eating unicorn meat is heinous because it's sentient?

Well, if we go by Harry Potter rules, eating unicorn meat/drinking their blood is Evil because unicorns are creatures of pure Good. Presumably this applies only if you actively kill them rather than the unicorn doing something like offing itself to save you or it happening to be dead when you stumble across it while starving and dehydrated.

[dancrilis]

"Quite some time"? She's pretty young, early 20's or so at best.

I would assume mid twenties - at least 22 (assuming she only worked for him as a adult and that she rolled low on her age dice for a starting age of 15) but likely older she has been Kubota's most trusted assassin for 7 years (panel 5) after all and I would be dubious if he trusted her immediately after she graduated (although he might have).

Either way 7 years for someone in their 20s I think probably counts as 'quite some time'.

[Peelee]

I would assume mid twenties - at least 22 (assuming she only worked for him as a adult and that she rolled low on her age dice for a starting age of 15) but likely older she has been Kubota's most trusted assassin for 7 years (panel 5) after all and I would be dubious if he trusted her immediately after she graduated (although he might have).

Either way 7 years for someone in their 20s I think probably counts as 'quite some time'.

Yeah, I'll totally cop to 7 years being quite some time (forgot there was an exact count good catch!). Thing is, though, that still works in my favor, since even after 7 years, she was still unwilling to commit to Evil and even directly rejected it when pushed at the end. All those years did not push her to Evil, she remained steadfast Neutral to the end.

[bunsen_h]

Well, if we go by Harry Potter rules, eating unicorn meat/drinking their blood is Evil because unicorns are creatures of pure Good. Presumably this applies only if you actively kill them rather than the unicorn doing something like offing itself to save you or it happening to be dead when you stumble across it while starving and dehydrated.

Yes, I noticed that logical skip when I first read the book. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenceless to save yourself and you will have but a half life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips." What if you get the blood without killing a unicorn? If, say, you get the unicorn to bleed into a container for you? Or if you scrape some up as you follow the trail of blood from an injured unicorn?