OOTS #597 - The Discussion Thread

[Shatteredtower]

Sorry -- missed a few in an earlier reply. I've trimmed the comments from that post and included most of them, with responses in this one:

If V didn't want to be bothered, why insert a disintegrate spell? Just go back to his research.

See, now that would have been logical thinking.

V, however, is clearly too tired to think straight.

Does your reflection show up in a mirror? Go check.

I've provided examples, quoted passages, and even admitted inaccuracies. The mirror works just fine, thanks.

And? That conclusion wasn't "they are in my way".

Which is why Kubota is still alive and waiting trial.

Neither does the law: it only cares about your trial.

Since your trial relates to what you may or may not have done, the law is likewise concerned with these things as well. This argument doesn't vindicate V for performing an execution in ignorance.

The bit about the employer is entirely irrelevant.

And you won't stop either.

The quotes and links provided earlier indicate otherwise.

Neither did V.

True, but the issue at hand is David Argall's insistence that prisoners are property. While not all evil people would agree with this view, it is still an evil view, treating people as things.

A boat which has stopped at several cities. Presumably where V can get components.

Such components would be more readily and consistently available for someone living in one of these cities, however.

And rent free too.

Small price to pay for saving the world, and one a 13th level wizard can easily afford, especially if it means fewer interruptions.

No, just demonstrated that your argument is internally inconsistent.

You mean V's position is inconsistent. I'm just pointing out how this is so -- and why it's evil.

That wasn't the only reason. Elan is inconvenient.

You've yet to show how.

He's still not a pile of dust blowing in the wind.

Why disintegrate, when you can walk away? More proof that V is not thinking rationally.

You keep harping on the half-truth.

V claimed to have cast disintegrate to avoid a trial. V made it clear that he doesn't care about the trouble he's caused Hinjo and Elan. V felt that a group of assumptions justified the act, but expressed less concern for justification than in avoiding the trial.

That's the truth. Whether or not V is evil, the action was.

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

Then you'll need to show when that's happened. When I'm wrong, I've admitted it. I am, however, not wrong about what V said, or what it meant. I haven't tried to make excuses for the elf, or claim that it's based on rational thinking. Exhausted, V is not thinking straight. In Durkon's last appearance, the dwarf pretty much warned us something bad was likely to happen as a result of it. Elan gives ever indication it's happened.

Seems pretty cut and dried.

I refer the right horrible gentlemen to his earlier response: stating it doesn't make it so.

Since the statement was demonstrated right after the next quoted passage, there's no point to your observation here.

IMy reasons have already been...

Yes, yes... the gloating bad guy -- except V knows of neither of these things. He assumes only the former and still kills the man without any regard for consequences. That is not the result of clear, logical thinking, which is why his teammate calls him for acting in an evil manner. Hard as it may be to believe, Elan was by far the clearer thinker in this situation.

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

And now, a new one:

That's not a bad reason.

You're kidding. Killing for the sake of expediency is always a bad reason, especially when you have other choices.

Either because the bad guy will get his just deserts.

And who cares what it costs Hinjo or Elan, eh? No, "just deserts" are not the only factor, which is why the act was evil.

Again, V doesn't know WHAT Kabuto did, but that doesn't matter what Kabuto DID was treason and mass murder.

You have it backward. What Kabuto did didn't matter to V, so the only thing that matters in judging V's actions were V's actions and his reasons for them.

Regardless of whether or not Kubota was acting in what he believed to be the best interests of his nation, he still behaved in an evil fashion. We wouldn't pardon him for the evil, regardless of justification. Neither should we do the same for V, even if it should turn out that the elf's alignment is currently lawful good.

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

How? You don't think an individual, let alone a civilization, is capable of taking more than one action over a period of several hours, let alone several months?

How is that a bad reason?

Well, aside from the fact that it's implausible, it's also not among V's reasons for performing the act.

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

Wishful thinking. Chances are better that the nobles will demand V's head on a pike, which will end badly no matter how it turns out.

And All good.

So you support the killing of Thomas and Martha Wayne?

[Dalek Kommander]

Neutrality is not an "axis" all of it's own. Law vs. chaos is the axis: neutrality is coordinate zero along that axis.

If we add good vs. evil as another axis, we have a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, where "true neutral" is coordinate (0,0), also known as the "origin" of the Cartesian coordinate system.

If we wanted to add a third dimension to our alignment system, it should represent a struggle between opposing ideologies. Neutrality is not even one ideology, never mind a matched set of two opposing ideologies. It can't be an axis.

Let's use democrat vs. republican as the third dimension on our graph. Now you can do more than just say that chaotic good opposes lawful evil: you can say that chaotic good democrats oppose lawful evil republicans.

But not everyone is a clear-cut democrat or republican. Some people are... dare I say it... neutral in the struggle between democrats and republicans. Once again, that's not a new axis, that's coordinate zero ON the axis between democrats and republicans.

[Samurai Jill]

Personally, I think its the whole, I can't live without him, but I do not want to force him to love deal that made her accept death in the end.

Spoiler

Show

Yeah, but being dead without him isn't going to be any easier. Odds are pretty good it'll be worse. Death in D&D isn't some mysterious, ill-defined state of restful oblivion- there's a selection of documented destinations where you often keep all consciousness of your past life or, failing that, wind up subject to everlasting blistering torment.

And okay, maybe T was so into Elan that she literally couldn't bear to imagine doing anything that would hurt him, indirectly or directly. But why not try to insinuate herself into the Order, and win over Elan gradually? Love hurts, but T throwing her life away after only a cursory exploration of the options sort of cheapens her importance as a sentient being.

...There, I'm done.

[Ricky S]

OMG V has gone crazy! If I knew that V was a girl that would be totally HOT!!! Otherwise V has just gone up my ranks to 3rd after Belkar and Mr scruffy. Poor V though... Although does V really need sleep? Surely elves sleep as well even though they are almost immortal? Plus hasnt V broken the guiness world record for sleep deprivation?

[Dalek Kommander]

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

I think this suggestion is pretty much the only tenable position on Kubota's alignment for those claiming that Vaarsuvius' killing him is not evil.

It's more evil to kill Kabuto if he's evil than if he's neutral? Bwah?

And in any case, if the evil moustache wasn't obvious enough, Kabuto specifically mentioned mentoring Therkla in "Villainous Best Practices". He's wasn't just a bad person, he was a trope-lampshading, card-carrying villain.

Most of the arguments for the legitimacy of Vaarsuvius killing Kubota apply just as strongly to Kubota killing Therkla.

• Did Elan ever tie up Therkla with rope, in the style of a Hero dramatically apprehending a Villain? (and her fantasies don't count)
• Does Therkla have a Villainous Moustache?
• Was Therkla gloating in an overtly Villainous manner about how many weeks her pointless trial was going to take, just when Kobuta arrived thinking about how all of this nonsense was distracting him from saving the world?

Those are the major arguments stated by Vaarsuvius for his actions. I don't see how any of them even make sense in the context of Kubota killing Therkla, much less "apply just as strongly".

Varsuvius deduced (perhaps hastily, but correctly) that this moustache-guy who's name he didn't know was some sort of Villain of importance, who was undeniably guilty of something gloat-worthy but proving it "legally" would be a chore, so he zapped him.

Meanwhile, Kobuta killed a woman he knew like his own daughter, and who was desperately trying to keep HIM from getting arrested.

Even if it was possible to argue that both actions have the same alignment somehow, it isn't because they have anything else in common.

[Dalek Kommander]

V claimed to have cast disintegrate to avoid a trial. V made it clear that he doesn't care about the trouble he's caused Hinjo and Elan. V felt that a group of assumptions justified the act, but expressed less concern for justification than in avoiding the trial.

That's the truth. Whether or not V is evil, the action was.

What? Everything in the first paragraph described V's assumptions, motives, justifications, and concerns. These all have everything to do with the question of whether V is evil, as opposed to judging the action

The action was, in fact, chaotic good. It was chaotic because it went against all laws, customs, and conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners, but it was good because the world is actually a better place without Kubota in it. He was a scheming Villain who was always a THREAT to the greater good even when he chose to play the part of a "prisoner" to his own lawfully-evil advantage.

V absolutely did a good deed, but not for unquestionably good reasons. I'd say V is deeply neutral at this point, with rapidly increasingly chaotic tendancies and maybe even the first whiff of genuine evil. He's not Belkar yet, but he's heading in that general neighborhood.

[David Argall]

Stating something does not make it so. Would you care to provide some actual proof?

"When the parties agree to terms the surrender may be conditional, i.e. if the surrendering party promises to submit only after the victor makes certain promises. Otherwise it is a surrender at discretion (unconditional surrender);"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_surrender [/QUOTE]

That bit of rationalization has never been ignored. Keep pretending otherwise, but the reading is accurate.

Elan: Why did you kill him???
V: Your strict adherence to dramatic convention over the length of our association that you only bother to take captive the main villains of any encounter – such as your brother.
The man I killed was bound, and you were holding the rope. I therefore deduced that he was an enemy of some sort, and therefore a valid target.
Elan: You killed him just because I happened to have him tied up???
V: Yes

So V felt that he had the right to kill Kubota before he had heard a word, a right he would not have in other circumstances. That means he did not kill him just for convenience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
V did have a reason. She just did not know precisely what it was.

Then V didn't actually have a reason after all.

A cop sees a man running. He does not know what crime the man has done, or if he has done any. This ignorance does not stop him from ordering the man to stop and investigating the situation.
A cop hears shooting and investigates. He finds a man with a gun. Again he does not know if this man is guilty of a particular crime or any crime. Again he has a reason to act. He does not need to know the precise crime.
A cop finds some druggie high on something. He does not need to know what to haul him down to the jail house.
We can go on, but the point should be clear enough. There is no need for an exact knowledge before action is taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
But by dramatic convention, V knew Kubota was clearly guilty of some crime meriting death.

Not based on anything shown in the strip to date.

"The man I killed was bound, and you were holding the rope. I therefore deduced that he was an enemy of some sort, and therefore a valid target."

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Just which one was a detail that did not need to be investigated.

Please stop making big claims for which you have no support.

And what makes you think this is a big claim?
As to support, we have Kubota's actual behavior. He was guilty of crimes that deserved death. So V did come to the correct conclusion. We also have Elan's behavior. He did not challenge V's logic or his claim that Elan would behave in the way she suggested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
One does not normally shoot others for being in the same room with one.

True. Nevertheless, that's pretty much what V did. It's extreme, but not out of character for the mage.

Wrong. V selected a particular target for valid reasons. If we use a room of people analogy, she attacked the one person in the room that she had a wanted-dead or alive poster for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
One [as a D&D PC at least] does kill people routinely for acts like Kubota is guilty of.

And if one is aware of them, it might not even be evil. V had no such knowledge, and merely leapt to a conclusion.

We see no such evidence that V was leaping to a conclusion. The comic clearly is showing someone using valid logic to reach a correct conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
So it is an act of mercy for a PC not to kill Kubota.

Nonsense, because V didn't know or care about anything Kubota may or may not have done.

But he knew he had done something that deserved death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Would you care to provide some actual proof?

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

The statement was "That's the evil point of view. It is not otherwise accurate." That is an assertion, not proof.
And in what way do you think these people didn't treat prisoners as property? They were disposed of as their "owners" decided.

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

A person held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint, especially while on trial or serving a prison sentence.
http://www.answers.com/topic/prisoner

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
A great deal of research can be conducted "anywhere in the world", but the one wanting to do the research is quite often annoyed if he has to move or is denied a particular location.

V's been on a boat for the last few months, and could have disembarked in any of several locales that would have been no less convenient for research than a crowded vessel, continually on the move.

This is simply your assertion. On the face of it, it is incorrect simply because V is still on the ship. We can not be sure what advantage the ship offers, but the presumption must be that these is one or several.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
So there is still a threat, even if we assume V can escape without problem.

Even supposing there was a threat, it would be one V created without cause or need.

You are, again, just repeating your claim, without evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Since you have said that V should not have expected any personal convenience to result from killing Kubota, any convenience must be that of other parties.

Then you've just admitted that V is entirely in the wrong, because this isn't a convenience as far as anyone else in concerned

There is obviously a rather large convenience in not having to hold a trial. If we take Kubota seriously, and we have no reason not to, that trial will be a severe trial, stressing both party members and the entire fleet. That makes for a rather large convenience for everyone except V.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
But she did. She was killing a known evil who was threatening to do more evil.

Not according to anything said by V or demonstrated in the strip. Everything shown indicates that V was just trying to escape an inconvenience, not right a wrong.

"The man I killed was bound, and you were holding the rope. I therefore deduced that he was an enemy of some sort, and therefore a valid target."

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
V just needs to know that Durkon and Elan will work to save the world.

No, that's just another rationalization. It's not like V's been working on that task either.

Now are you just spinning out of control as you search for baseless charges? V has been killing herself working on that.

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

False.

How is it false? Merely saying it is false is mindless noise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Haley, in the comic in question, does not say killing the prisoners is evil as you wish to say. Instead she say something else is evil.

And therefore, "more precise." The strip -- and series! -- in question, however, does equate the proposition with evil, even if not in exact words.

No, quite the opposite.
"More precise" means you were more or less correct in the first place.
Here, you present a claim that Haley said killing the prisoners evil. She didn't. She said something else was, and that killing the prisoners was merely inefficient. Having failed to say something she could have easily said, we have evidence that she meant the reverse, that killing the prisoners wasn't particularly, or at all, evil. So she testifies against your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
While she may feel both are evil, the implication is that killing would not be, and thus the strip argues in that direction.

No, it doesn't. There's not a word supporting what you just claimed.

You are just denying to be denying it seems. Headline a few decades back "Half of our legislators are crooks!" There were threats to sue and such, whereupon the paper published another headline "Half our legislators are not crooks." Needless to say, that did not soothe anybody.
By the laws of logic, the conclusion that the 2nd headline means the same as the first is invalid. But that does not mean it is wrong, and we act on that basis. When Haley says X is evil, and then passes up a chance to say Y is evil, there is a presumption that Y is not evil. This can be incorrect, but it still the way to bet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
That is a reasonable implication, but in strict fact, Haley does not present that view. She merely says that Belkar does not need to be heard because his view is already known.

Favourably? No. Neutrally? No. The images clearly indicate disapproval.

Of Belkar. Whether of the idea is not so clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Now you have a problem here going from the particular to the general, and then back to a different particular.

Making up nonsense doesn't support your argument. The examples all point to a consistent view.

Well obviously not since one was a counter example showing that Elan didn't mean all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Elan's statement rather obviously means "in this case".

"This case", of course, being one of bound captives.

This case of bound captives, not all cases of bound captives.

he knew that Kubota was tied up and held by Elan, that he had a mustache, and that he expected his trial to take weeks.

None of these are killing offenses

Quite the contrary. V is acting in the role of voice of the writer in saying Tied up and held by Elan is a killing offense.

[goodyarn]

Quite the contrary. V is acting in the role of voice of the writer in saying Tied up and held by Elan is a killing offense.

Hope Haley doesn't get into one of her kinky moods when they all meet up again. That would just be tragic.

[NENAD]

Imagine this scene; Durkon has apprehended Therkla attempting to kill Hinjo while Elan is otherwise distracted, but he was able to subdue her without applying lethal force. Therkla is not really angry about this, more like slightly put out, talking about how low-level guards can't possibly hold her for long; she's a ninja. She'll escape and be at large again in a heartbeat.

Disintegrate.

Gust of Wind.







Also, the comic strip is, in fact, pretty much incapable of doing more than one thing at a time. V is well aware of the existence of panels, and knows full well that Kubuta's trial will take several comic updates, and that he is much less likely to contact Haley if it would mean interrupting the Trial of the Century. All of this is logical fact and has clearly occured to V. He says explicitly "I saved us all from a second tedious trial scene." Whether or not this was V's sole motivation is, apparently, debatable, and at length, no less.

[Warren Dew]

"When the parties agree to terms the surrender may be conditional, i.e. if the surrendering party promises to submit only after the victor makes certain promises. Otherwise it is a surrender at discretion (unconditional surrender);"

... and the paragraph continues regarding this unconditional surrender, "the victor makes no promises of treatment other than those provided by the laws and customs of war - most of which are laid out in the Hague Conventions (1907) and the Geneva Conventions. Normally a belligerent will only agree to surrender unconditionally if completely incapable of continuing hostilities." (Italics mine.)

In other words, "normally", surrenders are conditional, not unconditional; and even surrenders that are "unconditional" according to this wikipedia definition are actually constrained by the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions, making them, in actuality, conditional.

Randomly disintegrating bound prisoners would pretty clearly violate the Geneva Conventions, and likely the equivalent customs in the Ootsiverse. Your source just supports my point: that Elan has, implicitly or explicitly, accepted surrender conditions that Vaarsuvius violates.

[Eric]

Hope Haley doesn't get into one of her kinky moods when they all meet up again. That would just be tragic.

That would ONLY be true if the ONLY reason for V to undertake the actions he did was the singular fact:

Elan has her tied up

This would require that knowing Haley was incorrect, Elan and Haley doing "Advanced Karma Sutra" in the open, and all sorts of other REALLY OBVIOUS things.

I think she's safe.

[Eric]

V, however, is clearly too tired to think straight.

I've provided examples, quoted passages, and even admitted inaccuracies. The mirror works just fine, thanks.

Why disintegrate, when you can walk away? More proof that V is not thinking rationally.

Yes, yes... the gloating bad guy -- except V knows of neither of these things.

So you support the killing of Thomas and Martha Wayne?

a) And that's not evil.

b) And I have provided other examples, quoted passages and admitted inaccuracies. You still ignore that "convenience" was only one of two reasons why V avoided a trial. NOTE: AVOIDED A TRIAL. NOT Killed Kabuto.

1) A trial is inconvenient, so avoiding it is more convenient
2) Gloaty guy looks likely to get off, making a trial irrelevant

c) And that's not evil. In fact, not allowing a sham trial for the reason #2 above is a good act.

d) He says in the pane he heard gloaty guy gloating. See your earlier comment about how you've read eveything and not missed it.

e) Who? I neither support nor condemn it. If I'd hear them talk about how that little four year old girl was cute and when her spine broke was sooo satisfying, I'd say "yes". Given I didn't, why bring it up?

[Eric]

V absolutely did a good deed, but not for unquestionably good reasons. I'd say V is deeply neutral at this point, with rapidly increasingly chaotic tendancies and maybe even the first whiff of genuine evil. He's not Belkar yet, but he's heading in that general neighborhood.

You're absolutely right, but I think you're making too tight a connection between results and alignment.

If V did this act again but against the evidence the victim were innocent, the act is good. V's reasoning is still as a good alignment. The consequences will be bad.

Now, if having found out his mistake, V has three options:

1) OMG! I soooo sorry! followed by remorse and attempt to undo the damage. Good alignment

2) Ha! You THINK! Evil (or at least a highly amoral neurtal) alignment

3) Ah well, no omlette without breaking eggs. Neutral or Evil. NOTE: In the UK, the head of the metropolitan police said that a few innocents shot by police were a reasonable price to pay in the war against terrorists who would kill more. I think that is Evil, but some didn't. It's not good, though.

[factotum]

If V did this act again but against the evidence the victim were innocent, the act is good. V's reasoning is still as a good alignment. The consequences will be bad.

It can't possibly work that way. If it did, Miko would not have Fallen for killing Shojo, because she genuinely believed she was performing a Good act when she did so. The Twelve Gods disagreed, needless to say.

[goodyarn]

That would ONLY be true if the ONLY reason for V to undertake the actions he did was the singular fact: Elan has her tied up

To repeat: According to David Argall above, "V is acting in the role of voice of the writer in saying Tied up and held by Elan is a killing offense."

I see no exceptions listed, do you?

Apparently, then, V's alignment is Lawful Vanilla.

[Shatteredtower]

I'm going to pass on addressing Argall's Wall of Obfuscation today. There's just no fun in it.

a) And that's not evil.

No. It does, however, explain why V was more likely to act in such a careless and evil fashion.

You still ignore that "convenience" was only one of two reasons why V avoided a trial.

If there are two reasons, the second would be, "I leapt to conclusions based on very flimsy evidence."

Miko had a more solid case, even though she was wrong about Shojo.

NOTE: AVOIDED A TRIAL. NOT Killed Kabuto.

How did V attempt to avoid the trial? By killing the accused. Who's the accused? Kabuto. As V put it:

"As I landed on deck, I overheard him say something about his trial taking weeks -- and we all know that such would translate to 20 or 30 strips of harmless drudging, likely involving those two idiot lawyers.

"Not if my index finger has anything to say about it. And, as it turned out, it had quite the stirring dissertation prepared on that very subject."

Referring back to strip 595, you'll notice that V's index finger is pointing at Kubota right after disintegrate was cased. Based on the quoted statement from strip #596, V admits that the spell was cast to avoid a trial.

1) A trial is inconvenient, so avoiding it is more convenient

Convenient isn't good. When it means taking a life, it's almost certainly evil.

2) Gloaty guy looks likely to get off, making a trial irrelevant

Gloaty guy thinks he's likely to get off. V, on the other hand, knows nothing of what gloaty guy thinks of his chances. Neither has anything to do with the relevance of a trial, however.

c) And that's not evil. In fact, not allowing a sham trial for the reason #2 above is a good act.

Hinjo was not going to run a sham trial, regardless of how likely Kubota was to escape justice. With the circumstances of his death (killed by a foreign adventurer recruited by Hinjo during the war, but displaying no loyalty to him or interest in the nation's welfare), however, confidence in the man wearing the crown is likely to go way down. Seems pretty evil.

d) He says in the pane he heard gloaty guy gloating. See your earlier comment about how you've read eveything and not missed it.

I can't read what isn't in the strip. V "overheard him saying something about his trial taking weeks," and no more than that. Nothing about Kubota bragging about his chances of getting away with it, or about how he expects the whole thing to leave Hinjo looking like a fool -- not that V cares about how Hinjo will look either way.

Nothing that fits the description of gloating, in other words. Don't confuse what you read with what V overheard.

e) Who?

Batman's parents. If they hadn't been killed, Bruce Wayne would never have become Batman. Clearly, their deaths had a good result.

In an episode of Justice League Unlimited, Terry, Bruce Wayne's successor to the Batman title, learns that a certain party had tried to arrange the death of Terry's parents when he was a child, hoping to duplicate the circumstances that created the original. She knew what she was doing and her ultimate goal was clearly a good one, but she never pretended it was a good act.

If I'd hear them talk about how that little four year old girl was cute and when her spine broke was sooo satisfying, I'd say "yes".

While there'd be some ironic justice in that, it still wouldn't make what their shooter did anything but evil, considering his only interest was in robbing them.

In Spider Robinson's Night of Power, one of the main characters mentions that he'd seen a woman stab a man in the street, then fills in more details every time she expresses her opinion of what occured. Whether or not it was right or wrong, in her opinion, changed based on every detail she was given, making it abundantly clear that she couldn't give a valid assessment of the situation without all of the facts.

V didn't have all of the facts. V didn't care about not having all the facts. V's motives had nothing to do with how deserving Kubota was of death. They had everything to do with avoiding a trial (which, from V's personal point of view, was seen as a distraction) and the probability that Elan was holding a major villain captive.

V could easily have taken the time to confirm his assumptions before killing Kubota, but did not. There was no danger that the captive noble was going to escape in the time it would have taken to verify his status with Elan. Being unwilling to make that trivial amount of effort means V's behaviour was clearly evil, even if Kubota was deserving of death.

[Eric]

It can't possibly work that way. If it did, Miko would not have Fallen for killing Shojo, because she genuinely believed she was performing a Good act when she did so. The Twelve Gods disagreed, needless to say.

Aye, but

a) Miko is a paladin. It DOES make a difference.
b) Miko is a paladin. Yes, I know that's the same as (a) but it was so important I thought I'd say it twice
c) Even after proof of her actions being wrong, she never showed remorse and just make wilder theories (so falling under the (b) in that post you responded to

[MageLeif]

Apparently, then, V's alignment is Lawful Vanilla.

I think V's alignment is either Chaotic Good, or any Neutral (except maybe not Lawful Neutral).

[Eric]

To repeat: According to David Argall above, "V is acting in the role of voice of the writer in saying Tied up and held by Elan is a killing offense."

I see no exceptions listed, do you?

Apparently, then, V's alignment is Lawful Vanilla.

He also said in the words of the writer that

a moustache (which Haley doesn't have yet)
gloating about a long trial they will win (which won't happen unless E&H have a divorce, maybe because of a fu manchu haley grew)

were also important.

You say one third (at best) to support your idea.

And there's not just the black and white. There's only so much monologue you can put in a webcomic.

[Eric]

If there are two reasons, the second would be, "I leapt to conclusions based on very flimsy evidence."

But 100% accurate.

Convenient isn't good. When it means taking a life, it's almost certainly evil.

Avoided the trial for convenience.

Not killed for convenience.

And no, it doesn't almost certainly mean evil. E.g. Assasination (as per Paladin class from BoED) is acceptable, even though the assassin doesn't KNOW there's no redemption possible. They are not the Oracle.

Gloaty guy thinks he's likely to get off. V, on the other hand, knows nothing of what gloaty guy thinks of his chances.

Uh your quote above says otherwise. ADD?

V didn't have all of the facts. V didn't care about not having all the facts.

Yup. Makes him rash.

Not Evil

V could easily have taken the time to confirm his assumptions before killing Kubota, but did not.

Yup. Makes him rash.

Not Evil.

[David Argall]

I'm going to pass on addressing Argall's Wall of Obfuscation today. There's just no fun in it.

There seldom is in acknowledging you are wrong.

If there are two reasons, the second would be, "I leapt to conclusions based on very flimsy evidence."

There are at least two reasons, as has been frequently demonstrated, and the flimsy evidence is "flimsy" only in the Sherlock Holmes sense of being absolute fact not obvious to the lesser mind.

Miko had a more solid case, even though she was wrong about Shojo.

a-V was right, which should give pause right away to charges he was being rash.
b-Note that with Miko, and other places, we know right away that she was wrong. Our writer does not keep many secrets from us. Indeed, we get more hints of what the future will bring. So when we do not get immediate evidence that V was crazy here, we should regard it as valid logic by V.

Convenient isn't good. When it means taking a life, it's almost certainly evil.

But properly speaking V is not taking a life, and if he is, it's a praiseworthy act.
If the trial comes to its proper conclusion, Kubota dies. V then is merely carrying out the sentence in advance. Convenient, but it is Kubota's guilt that kills him, not V.
If Kubota gets off, he is an evil man who will continue to do evil, on a rather large scale. It is highly desirable he be stopped.

V "overheard him saying something about his trial taking weeks," and no more than that. Nothing about Kubota bragging about his chances of getting away with it, or about how he expects the whole thing to leave Hinjo looking like a fool

Kubota says this after something that V says she heard. The default is that he heard this as well.

V didn't have all of the facts. V didn't care about not having all the facts.

Of course not. One never has all the facts. V merely had sufficient facts to come to a correct conclusion.

V's motives had nothing to do with how deserving Kubota was of death.

You assert here what the comic denies.

V could easily have taken the time to confirm his assumptions before killing Kubota, but did not. There was no danger that the captive noble was going to escape in the time it would have taken to verify his status with Elan. Being unwilling to make that trivial amount of effort means V's behaviour was clearly evil, even if Kubota was deserving of death.

Does not follow. As noted before, V was right, and if she had taken the time, he would have then done exactly the same thing, only having wasted some time that could have been used to trance or research. At some point, you have to stop confirming and start acting.

[EvilElitest]

Mind you, on one hand I agree with this post. Meaning that I'd say: "Don't feel pressured into justifying each and every acton that a character who you like, or that you consider good, performs".

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

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

Peace.

I said that Murder is evil, not the death penlity

If there was an alternative which didn't imply Kubota being released and keep doing his evil deeds than it would have been simple to classify. It's clearly non-lawful, but unlike killing a good aligned character, killing an evil guy who's going to get away with it and keep harming others isn't straightforward. I'd have a problem deciding if I were the DM.

1) Good and evil are objective in D&D, and as murder of a helpess prisioner is listed as an evil act, this isn't a matter of personal morals
2) The thing is, you can't say for sure there wasn't any other possibilities. Just because Kubota thinks he can get away with it, doesn't make it so. I mean, he also thought he could pull of the assassination. That isn't a fact and its defeatist to give up before trying

About being one deed, V wanted to do this before, so it's in character and marks a tendency. V surely lacks any kind of remorse about what was done, and doesn't seem to have major objections to this kind of stuff.

V is neutral, not good
from
EE

[Eric]

I said that Murder is evil, not the death penlity

However you still haven't proven that this is murder by the definition you cling to of "murder is always evil".

There are examples where this same thing happened and it wasn't evil, so what is it about this situation that makes it evil?

[EvilElitest]

However you still haven't proven that this is murder by the definition you cling to of "murder is always evil".

There are examples where this same thing happened and it wasn't evil, so what is it about this situation that makes it evil?

Book of exalted deeds chapter one and two. Murder is always evil


What example of this happening? What are you talking about


The thing is, as i said before, killing is not evil, its neutral. Murder is when you kill somebody without proper justification. killing unarmed prisoners who have already surrender without a fair trial is classified as murder and is thus evil
from
EE

[David Argall]

Murder is when you kill somebody without proper justification. killing unarmed prisoners who have already surrender without a fair trial is classified as murder and is thus evil

But this is clearly a definition with a lawful bias. A fair trial is simply a pragmatic test, allowing us to make the guilt clearer or free the innocent. Since it is just a pragmatic tool, it can be despensed with when the facts are definite enough. And since the trial can impose the death penalty, so can other methods that don't involve trials.

Let us consider 228 Miko: "they were evil, so I killed them."
Miko did not fall from this, so these are not evil actions. But there is no trial [beyond Miko acting as judge, jury, and executioner].
Now some of these may have involved combat deaths, but Detect Evil takes a standard action. It is not cast in combat. Either she cast it before or after the combat. In the case of Roy, it came first we know. But it seems likely she won some battles, and only then tested the loser, executing him if he detected evil.
In other words, she killed helpless prisoners without trial, and did not fall. And since that was not an evil deed, neither can we call V's killing of Kubota evil.

[Warren Dew]

Either she cast it before or after the combat. In the case of Roy, it came first we know. But it seems likely she won some battles, and only then tested the loser, executing him if he detected evil.

It doesn't seem at all likely to me, especially given that Miko allowed opponents to finish eating and arm before fighting them. It's far more likely that her standard procedure is to do a detect evil first, not attacking until she knows what she's facing.

[David Argall]

It doesn't seem at all likely to me, especially given that Miko allowed opponents to finish eating and arm before fighting them. It's far more likely that her standard procedure is to do a detect evil first, not attacking until she knows what she's facing.

However, just how often will she have that option? If she is the one attacked, which is the majority of cases for PCs, she would not get this option until the battle is over and the attacker her prisoner.
We can also note her attitude about taking the party prisoner. She can't kill them since they are not evil and must take them to trial. Again we have her showing an attitude that trial is not necessary when guilt is clear enough. And again, she does not fall.

[Warren Dew]

However, just how often will she have that option? If she is the one attacked, which is the majority of cases for PCs, she would not get this option until the battle is over and the attacker her prisoner.

She won't get the option anyway, since she shows no inhibition against using lethal force to defend herself when attacked, such as with the bandit king and his daughter. Any attackers aren't taken prisoner since they die in the fight.

We can also note her attitude about taking the party prisoner. She can't kill them since they are not evil and must take them to trial.

In the case of the Order of the Stick, the reason she takes them prisoner instead of killing them is because Shojo ordered her to bring them back alive. Whether they were evil or not has nothing to do with it. If she were only capturing nonevil members of the Order of the Stick, she would have killed Roy, who detected as evil before the fight due to having the crown.

[xelliea]

I would say that V is not good but chaotic something

[Eric]

Book of exalted deeds chapter one and two. Murder is always evil


What example of this happening? What are you talking about


The thing is, as i said before, killing is not evil, its neutral. Murder is when you kill somebody without proper justification.

Then this is NOT Murder. V had justification and it was proper (check up in a dictionary as to what proper means).

Miko killing lots of critters who detected evil (see the sketch with Belkar's writ against Miko for attempting a dangerous radiation leak to detect evil on him): "THEY WERE EVIL!!!".

That wasn't murder, yet the only justification given was detect evil detected them as evil and could therefore be killed.

Same as V.

What about Roy killing the sleeping goblins? Wasn't that murder? Apparently not, despite not being an immedite threat.

Lots of cases where someone with limited justification killed someone. Just like here.