New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3181920212223242526272829 LastLast
Results 811 to 840 of 862
  1. - Top - End - #811
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    I'm going to need a reference to believe that your country allows the imprisonment of car vandals every time they come within a few hundred meters of a car factory.

    But more to the point, how does Serini knows that the paladins were "obviously planning on" going into the factory. For all she knew they were just watching Xykon.
    Well, that was an example XD in my country car vandalism is not a crime punished with prison. But the gates are far more important than cars.

    Comic 1189:
    Serini was watching, and listening, the paladins. And they were talking about their allies coming, and about plans to find the gate and that, i think that is enough reason for Serini to act, if not, they would joined forces with the order and then Serini's work would have been far more difficult, an ambush vs a team of 9...
    Last edited by Vikenlugaid; 2021-10-01 at 07:05 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #812
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    I'm going to need a reference to believe that your country allows the imprisonment of car vandals every time they come within a few hundred meters of a car factory.

    But more to the point, how does Serini knows that the paladins were "obviously planning on" going into the factory. For all she knew they were just watching Xykon.
    What country is Serini in? If we're going by what certain countries allow, then knowing what constraints Serini is operating under certainly matters.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  3. - Top - End - #813
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Yes, she did do things beyond capturing and mind wiping them before releasing them. Before I spell the other things out, I want to be clear that I think those two things are bad things to do unless you have justification.

    In addition, she shot them with darts, which cause hit point damage, which would be bad behaviour even if nothing more was done. She drugged them with sleeping poison, and I think tranquilizing someone without their permission is wrong even if nothing else is done. She then imprisoned them, which you mentioned. While she had them imprisoned she taunted them with offers of freedom, and hit them with her stick (probably not hard enough to any real harm), which is itself a completely unnecessary assault even if everything else she'd done was necessary. She then plans to drug them forceably again.

    Perhaps you can identify which, if any, of these things, you think people should freely be able to do to one another?
    I can't think, off hand, of any kind of action that one can do "freely" to another without condemnation; I always expect there to be limitations.

    Let me preemptively point out that D&D characters have fantasy biology; for example they don't suffer potential side effects from being "tranquilized" that are a large part of why we put a lot of limitations on analogous methods for subduing people in real life.

    If you think doing what Serini did is ok, is there anything you can do to a person other than murder and torture that you think is evil?
    I can't think, off hand, of any kind of action that one can do to another for which there aren't circumstances that would make it Evil.

    I must admit, I am a bit surprised we are arguing about whether doing all those things is evil. I could understand it if we were arguing that Serini is justified, but acting as if people should be able to do those sorts of things freely is surprising to me.
    Who's doing that? I, in turn, are a bit surprised we are arguing about whether doing these things is Always Evil.

    I'm still optimistically presuming that you don't believe these things are Always Evil, and that your actual position is the milder one that you deny the claim Serini is justifiable in taking them. And so I will continue to object to argument forms like "these acts were Evil thus Serini shouldn't be doing them".

    If you truly believe they're Always Evil... I don't think we can come to any sort of agreement.

    In terms of past bad actions - if the person you saw on your street was a convicted sex offender, that would not be justification for you or the police to imprison them.
    You sure? There are a number of real world examples of this type of thing; for example, this is pretty much exactly what a "restraining order" is meant for.

    I think there are even real world examples of your specific example; limitations on where a convicted sex offender can go. Whether you consider the laws justifiable, I really don't have an opinion.

    Indeed, much like the situation in the comic. The Order, having been attacked, now would be justified in firing back.
    Agree. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Serini is completely and incontrovertibly in the right here... that doesn't imply the Order would be in the wrong to resist.



    Hmm, I think we may be talking past one another and misunderstanding each other here. The message I intended to convey in my parenthetical was the same one as I think you conveyed above.
    I do strongly suspect a large part of how this argument has gone is mainly of the form that you've made statements far more broadly than you intended, and I'm failing to convey I'm objecting to the broad statement rather than the more narrow one you intended.


    I agree. Except the Paladins weren't in Serini's house. I don't think you can reasonably claim the whole of Monster Hollow is Serini's house such that anyone who steps foot there is trespassing, especially when there's a whole village of other creatures there.
    To be clear, my example was meant to refute claimed principles like "duly appointed officers cannot imprison people on suspicion either" and similar. I don't consider that statement to be a valid premise to be used in argument, and attempt to refute that by demonstrating a situation where that premise would lead to a false conclusion.
    Last edited by Hurkyl; 2021-10-01 at 07:13 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #814
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    What country is Serini in? If we're going by what certain countries allow, then knowing what constraints Serini is operating under certainly matters.
    I don't know. She may be in a country, or she may be in unclaimed territory.

    @Vikenlugaid, you brought up what is allowed in your country, do you have any thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vikenlugaid View Post
    Well, that was an example XD in my country car vandalism is not a crime punished with prison. But the gates are far more important than cars.
    Ah, fair enough. What are the constraints of preventative detention that you mentioned, so we can see if they are comparable to this situation?

    Comic 1189:
    Serini was watching, and listening, the paladins. And they were talking about their allies coming, and about plans to find the gate and that, i think that is enough reason for Serini to act, if not, they would joined forces with the order and then Serini's work would have been far more difficult, an ambush vs a team of 9...
    Oh, so Serini was listening. So she would have heard O-Chul say they couldn;t go and start opening doors because Xykon would notice?

    That strip does not suggest they were "obviously planning to" go to the gate. It is all entirely consistent with them just watching.

    In your car analogy if the car vandal said "Our friends should be here soon. Hey I wonder what car that have in there. We can't look or the guard would see us" that would not be grounds to attack them, drug them, imprison them etc etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurkyl View Post
    I can't think, off hand, of any kind of action that one can do "freely" to another without condemnation; I always expect there to be limitations.

    Let me preemptively point out that D&D characters have fantasy biology; for example they don't suffer potential side effects from being "tranquilized" that are a large part of why we put a lot of limitations on analogous methods for subduing people in real life.
    Well the only description of sleeping poison I could find (below) does suggest some side effects - weakness, lassitude and something only described as "subsequent detrimental effects". Also the darts themselves are a risk of killing a person in DnD (although not the paladins).

    But what's the point here? Are you saying that you can do what you want to people so long as it doesn't do any permanent of long term harm?

    Are we in a position where can agree that doing the things Serini did to the Paladins would be wrong, unless she was justified for some reason? We can then discuss what i think is our real point of disagreement - whether that justification exists.

    I can't think, off hand, of any kind of action that one can do to another for which there aren't circumstances that would make it Evil.
    That wasn't really my question. Can we at least agree that murdering someone without justification is evil? If so, if murder the only thing?

    Who's doing that? I, in turn, are a bit surprised we are arguing about whether doing these things is Always Evil.

    I'm still optimistically presuming that you don't believe these things are Always Evil, and that your actual position is the milder one that you deny the claim Serini is justifiable in taking them. And so I will continue to object to argument forms like "these acts were Evil thus Serini shouldn't be doing them".

    If you truly believe they're Always Evil... I don't think we can come to any sort of agreement.
    I have never ever said that they are always evil actions. I have consistently said they are evil if done without justification though, and I stand by that. I refer you back to my first reply to you on the topic (post 781) where I said "I think that attacking people without justification is not the right thing to do"

    You sure? There are a number of real world examples of this type of thing; for example, this is pretty much exactly what a "restraining order" is meant for.

    I think there are even real world examples of your specific example; limitations on where a convicted sex offender can go. Whether you consider the laws justifiable, I really don't have an opinion.
    Sure, but that's not what we are talking about. Those things can't happen without the restrained party knowing about it. We have seen nothing that suggests that sort of thing applies to the paladins or Order.

    Are we agreed that, in the absence of specific things like restraining orders applying, you cannot drug and manacle a sex offender who is on the street near your house?

    Agree. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Serini is completely and incontrovertibly in the right here... that doesn't imply the Order would be in the wrong to resist.
    Glad we agree, although it doesn't really impact on the rest of our discussion. I wonder if the Order will torture Serini for the location of the paladins, then lock her in her own manacles, and use her items in the struggle against Xykon. Although, not sure how the manacles would work on Sunny.

    I do strongly suspect a large part of how this argument has gone is mainly of the form that you've made statements far more broadly than you intended, and I'm failing to convey I'm objecting to the broad statement rather than the more narrow one you intended.
    Well, I have no doubt that is what happened above, where you took it that I was saying murder/drugging/imprisonment was always evil in any circumstances - but I was just saying that they are evil when no sufficient justification exists.

    To be clear, my example was meant to refute claimed principles like "duly appointed officers cannot imprison people on suspicion either" and similar. I don't consider that statement to be a valid premise to be used in argument, and attempt to refute that by demonstrating a situation where that premise would lead to a false conclusion.
    I don;t think your example accomplished that. Except possibly in a few edge cases officers cannot imprison people just because they see suspicious. If a person is arrested for being insider your house without permission, that is not arresting on suspicion, they have actually committed a crime (probably breaking and entering).
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2021-10-01 at 07:48 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #815
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    What country is Serini in? If we're going by what certain countries allow, then knowing what constraints Serini is operating under certainly matters.
    As far as I know, Serini is currently in Xykonlandia.

    In Xykonlandia, it is illegal for Serini to NOT imprison paladins.

    Letting them go after stuffing them full of amnesia potions, on the other hand, is civil disobedience.

    // Im clearly not taking this seriously, but I can’t take seriously the idea that the moral implications of Serini’s actions should be evaluated in the legal framework of whatever country most recently planted a flag near the North Pole.
    Last edited by Dion; 2021-10-01 at 08:58 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #816
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Well the only description of sleeping poison I could find (below) does suggest some side effects - weakness, lassitude and something only described as "subsequent detrimental effects". Also the darts themselves are a risk of killing a person in DnD (although not the paladins).
    And in the real world, I think the side effects are things like respiratory damage, cardiac arrest, or death.

    But what's the point here?
    That you keep saying "drugging" as if it were some aggravating factor whose meaning should be obvious. I'm grasping at straws trying to figure out what you have in mind. The most charitable interpretations involve connotations derived from the problems with real-life analogs.
    Last edited by Hurkyl; 2021-10-01 at 09:18 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #817
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Ah, fair enough. What are the constraints of preventative detention that you mentioned, so we can see if they are comparable to this situation?



    Oh, so Serini was listening. So she would have heard O-Chul say they couldn;t go and start opening doors because Xykon would notice?

    That strip does not suggest they were "obviously planning to" go to the gate. It is all entirely consistent with them just watching.

    In your car analogy if the car vandal said "Our friends should be here soon. Hey I wonder what car that have in there. We can't look or the guard would see us" that would not be grounds to attack them, drug them, imprison them etc etc.
    1- I am not a lawyer. But any situation where the arrested could be dangerous if he is free, even if he is only a suspect and not yet declared guilty. And from Serini point of view, both the Paladins and the Order are pretty dangerous for gates.

    2- Ochul literally say that they are waiting for the allies to start de action, if Serini knows that they are waiting for more people to come, is enough reason to act before they come, couse if not they will be probably too strong to attack them and all will be ****ed up.

    Forget the car analogy and think about a terrorist analogy, which is, in fact, more similar to these gate-destroyers.

    And you need to know that Serini is nor omnipotent, she can afford the luxury of just wait while her enemies join forces and look what they do then, she need to act when she can stop them, the risk is to high.

    Btw, reading that comic I remembered that Ochul thoght killing Ona would have been nice... Is Ochul evil then? Couse killing is an evil act... Or maybe the same act could be evil or not evil depending on the situation? Well well. And we are talking about killing here, far worse than atrack with non lethal force.


    Seriously, what does Serini need to do here to be not evil? Just help the gate-destroyers without any condition?
    Last edited by Vikenlugaid; 2021-10-01 at 10:01 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #818
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    If you disagree, perhaps someone should go and drug you, kidnap you, put manacles on you, quiz you an whack you with a stick if you get a question wrong. They wont need to give you ruffees to forget, because you'll be lauding their good behaviour in not killing you.
    That dishonest statement (italics mine) can get only one response: WACOS.
    Given that I've had SERE training, I learned how to deal with the situation you describe. We got to experience all kinds of sanctions for not answering questions. Not sure if you've had the opportunity: it's good training.
    Spoiler: not gonna go any further into RL
    Show
    And I am glad that I didn't have to apply that training to what it was preparing us for.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2021-10-01 at 10:11 AM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  9. - Top - End - #819
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    So you'd be ok if someone detained you with non lethal force just because they suspected you might do a thing?


    Doing nothing would be neutral, IMO.
    She is doing other things that are good I think, like setting up the defences.
    If I was breaking and entering (as the order are), I wouldn't be happy about being on the wrong end of it, but I'd understand it and would consider moving past it and getting along with whomever did it.
    Doing nothing would be neutral, IMO.
    She is doing other things that are good I think, like setting up the defences
    I would actually argue the passive defensives are much more evil that her active defense.

    Assuming typical D&D dungeon, these are lethal and indiscriminate. Her active defense is clearly non-lethal. While her judgement is in question, I think we can agree that she would avoid hurting a bugbear child, whereas a purple worm would just eat them.

    A more accurate depiction of this as the trolley problem would be:
    • Serini flips the lever (attacks the paladins/order), a handful of people are drugged and imprisoned and either Xykon rules the world or the world is destroyed
    • Serini does nothing and either Xykon rules the world or the world is destroyed or the Order stops Xykon and the world survives.
    You've omitted the outcome "Order destroys the final gate"

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    I'm going to need a reference to believe that your country allows the imprisonment of car vandals every time they come within a few hundred meters of a car factory.
    My country imprisons people if they come within a few hundred meters of a nuclear weapon.

    But more to the point, how does Serini knows that the paladins were "obviously planning on" going into the factory. For all she knew they were just watching Xykon.
    The "street" is the subarctic world. The "factory" is the north pole. Going to the north pole is an extraordinary activity for Azurite paladins!

    Yes, they might have conceivably snuck into the factory to look around and then leave without touching anything, but that's not the case. O-Chul (by his own words) is there to do "whatever it takes" to stop Xyklon.

    Now, there is (potentially) an absence of evidence that Serini had sufficient evidence to be justified in this belief ahead of time. The reason for this absence of evidence is that this is a stick figure comic that can't afford that level of detail.
    The thing is the Azurites don't use a single color; they use a single hue. The use light blue, dark blue, black, white, glossy blue, off-white with a bluish tint. They sky's the limit, as long as it's blue.

  10. - Top - End - #820
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Quizatzhaderac View Post
    You've omitted the outcome "Order destroys the final gate"
    The gate is at risk on both tracks, though she does think it to be more likely under one than the other. (And of course, in reality, it's equally at risk on both, if not even moreso on the one she picked, though she doesn't yet know that.)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  11. - Top - End - #821
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    The issue is that Liquor Box's description provides detail in a selective and unfair manner.

    The "no flip" side includes the Order saving the world, so it also needs to include the Order messing up.
    Last edited by Quizatzhaderac; 2021-10-01 at 04:21 PM.
    The thing is the Azurites don't use a single color; they use a single hue. The use light blue, dark blue, black, white, glossy blue, off-white with a bluish tint. They sky's the limit, as long as it's blue.

  12. - Top - End - #822
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vikenlugaid View Post
    1- I am not a lawyer. But any situation where the arrested could be dangerous if he is free, even if he is only a suspect and not yet declared guilty. And from Serini point of view, both the Paladins and the Order are pretty dangerous for gates.
    OK< well if we don't have the specifics we cannot compare.

    2- Ochul literally say that they are waiting for the allies to start de action, if Serini knows that they are waiting for more people to come, is enough reason to act before they come, couse if not they will be probably too strong to attack them and all will be ****ed up.

    And you need to know that Serini is nor omnipotent, she can afford the luxury of just wait while her enemies join forces and look what they do then, she need to act when she can stop them, the risk is to high.
    No that is absolutely not what they say. They say "how we might deduce which door the gate is behind, even once our allies arrive". 'Deduce' means reason it out, it doesn't mean look. And they say 'even' once our allies arrive, whcih means they are not intending to do anything different when others arrive.

    Am I missing something? If there is something that suggests they are "obviously planning to" go inside, perhaps you could quote it.

    Btw, reading that comic I remembered that Ochul thoght killing Ona would have been nice... Is Ochul evil then? Couse killing is an evil act... Or maybe the same act could be evil or not evil depending on the situation? Well well. And we are talking about killing here, far worse than atrack with non lethal force.[/quote]

    Yes, it could be evil or not depending on the situation. It is not evil when someone is attacking you with lethal force. It is evil when someone is simply lingering around your town.

    Seriously, what does Serini need to do here to be not evil? Just help the gate-destroyers without any condition?
    Seriously, I have answered this question from you three times now. Doing nothing would be a not evil act. Talking to Lien etc to find their intent would not be evil. There are a myriad of non-evil options. Serini didn't choose one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurkyl View Post
    And in the real world, I think the side effects are things like respiratory damage, cardiac arrest, or death.

    That you keep saying "drugging" as if it were some aggravating factor whose meaning should be obvious. I'm grasping at straws trying to figure out what you have in mind. The most charitable interpretations involve connotations derived from the problems with real-life analogs.
    I think that drugging someone is an aggravating factor. To be extremely clear, I think a person should not interfere with another person (and drugging is one example of where Serini did that) without justification.

    I could understand if you were arguing that Serini was justified by the circumstances (like most people seem to be). But I am having trouble understanding how you can tenably argue that the act of drugging someone without their consent is ok on the face of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    That dishonest statement (italics mine) can get only one response: WACOS.
    Given that I've had SERE training, I learned how to deal with the situation you describe. We got to experience all kinds of sanctions for not answering questions. Not sure if you've had the opportunity: it's good training.
    Spoiler: not gonna go any further into RL
    Show
    And I am glad that I didn't have to apply that training to what it was preparing us for.
    More SERE training than O-Chul?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quizatzhaderac View Post
    If I was breaking and entering (as the order are), I wouldn't be happy about being on the wrong end of it, but I'd understand it and would consider moving past it and getting along with whomever did it.
    I would actually argue the passive defensives are much more evil that her active defense.
    Assuming typical D&D dungeon, these are lethal and indiscriminate. Her active defense is clearly non-lethal. While her judgement is in question, I think we can agree that she would avoid hurting a bugbear child, whereas a purple worm would just eat them.
    The conversation was about the paladins. They are not breaking and entering.

    Arguably the Order are different because they have actually entered the cave.

    You've omitted the outcome "Order destroys the final gate"
    No, I explicitly said "the gate is destroyed" as a possibility if Serini does nothing. That is a potential outcome either way. There are pages of argument about whether it is more likely one way or the other.

    My country imprisons people if they come within a few hundred meters of a nuclear weapon.
    I don't think that's true. Can you point me to that law?

    It might be true that your country has areas where nuclear are stockpiled, that are clearly demarked and fenced, and people are challenged on entry and warned not to proceed. If someone then penetrates those defences somehow, they can be arrested.

    That might be analogous to what the Order did, but it is not similar to what the paladins have done.

    The "street" is the subarctic world. The "factory" is the north pole. Going to the north pole is an extraordinary activity for Azurite paladins!

    Yes, they might have conceivably snuck into the factory to look around and then leave without touching anything, but that's not the case. O-Chul (by his own words) is there to do "whatever it takes" to stop Xyklon.

    Now, there is (potentially) an absence of evidence that Serini had sufficient evidence to be justified in this belief ahead of time. The reason for this absence of evidence is that this is a stick figure comic that can't afford that level of detail.
    The north pole is not the factory in this analogy. A whole village of bugbears lives there.

    I don't agree that the stick figure comic medium restricts the ability to convey the information. All that had to happen was to have O-Chul say "we have to get inside before Xykon does" instead of "let's not try any doors because Xykon might see us" before Serini captured them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quizatzhaderac View Post
    The issue is that Liquor Box's description provides detail in a selective and unfair manner.

    The "no flip" side includes the Order saving the world, so it also needs to include the Order messing up.
    No, the possibility of the gate being destroyed was included on the side if she doesn't interfere. I will paste it again and bold it so you can see:
    A more accurate depiction of this as the trolley problem would be:
    • Serini flips the lever (attacks the paladins/order), a handful of people are drugged and imprisoned and either Xykon rules the world or the world is destroyed
    • Serini does nothing and either Xykon rules the world or the world is destroyed or the Order stops Xykon and the world survives.


    In the first scenario the world would be destroyed by Xykon, or in conflict with future adventurers. In the second scenario it would be destroyed in the conflict between the Order and Xykon. You could add that level of detail in if you want, but it doesn't change the outcomes out of each scenario.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2021-10-01 at 07:18 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #823
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    More SERE training than O-Chul?
    Unlike you, O-Chul isn't whinging about Serini's treatment.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  14. - Top - End - #824
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Unlike you, O-Chul isn't whinging about Serini's treatment.
    I think that has more to do with this being O-Chul than anything else. Bad example.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  15. - Top - End - #825
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    I think that drugging someone is an aggravating factor. To be extremely clear, I think a person should not interfere with another person (and drugging is one example of where Serini did that) without justification.

    I could understand if you were arguing that Serini was justified by the circumstances (like most people seem to be). But I am having trouble understanding how you can tenably argue that the act of drugging someone without their consent is ok on the face of it.
    I'm not. I'm saying "capture + drugging" is not different from "capture" in any way that would cause us to judge the act more harshly. It doesn't matter whether she was justified or not.

    If Serini is justified in capturing the paladins, I don't see how adding in the fact her method was sleeping poison would be cause to condemn her.

    If Serini is not justified in capturing the paladins and we condemn her for that, I don't see how adding in the fact her method was sleeping poison would mean we should increase our condemnation.

    Honestly in both cases, the fact sleeping poison was the method would seem to soften the act, since it seems one of the least harmful means available, so the act was not as bad as the "average" capture. Like "Serini is an awful person for capturing the Paladins, but I can at least praise that she chose a gentle method of capture".


    To pre-empt a possible response, let me add that I'm categorizing "she should have tried peacefully asking them to come along quietly before attacking" as a condemnation of "capture", so we're talking past each other if, this whole time, the only reason you were saying "drugging" is because you mean she should have done that first and you would have had absolutely no problem* should sleeping poison be her next step if they said "no". I don't think that argument holds any water, but I wanted to acknowledge how I fit that argument in the big picture.

    *: with her choice of methods, specifically, I mean
    Last edited by Hurkyl; 2021-10-02 at 04:44 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #826
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurkyl View Post
    I'm not. I'm saying "capture + drugging" is not different from "capture" in any way that would cause us to judge the act more harshly. It doesn't matter whether she was justified or not.

    If Serini is justified in capturing the paladins, I don't see how adding in the fact her method was sleeping poison would be cause to condemn her.

    If Serini is not justified in capturing the paladins and we condemn her for that, I don't see how adding in the fact her method was sleeping poison would mean we should increase our condemnation.

    Honestly in both cases, the fact sleeping poison was the method would seem to soften the act, since it seems one of the least harmful means available, so the act was not as bad as the "average" capture. Like "Serini is an awful person for capturing the Paladins, but I can at least praise that she chose a gentle method of capture".

    To pre-empt a possible response, let me add that I'm categorizing "she should have tried peacefully asking them to come along quietly before attacking" as a condemnation of "capture", so we're talking past each other if, this whole time, the only reason you were saying "drugging" is because you mean she should have done that first and you would have had absolutely no problem* should sleeping poison be her next step if they said "no". I don't think that argument holds any water, but I wanted to acknowledge how I fit that argument in the big picture.

    *: with her choice of methods, specifically, I mean
    You are right, unless someone surrenders, kidnapping/capturing someone does imply doing something unpleasant to them. If we exclude them surrendering (which they were unlikely to do) drugging is probably somewhere near the lower end of that spectrum. It is harmful in and of itself, but less harmful than many other ways they could go about it.

    Is your point here that think that I am separating out the drugging, the imprisonment, the mocking and hitting, and the roofies to play up what Serini did? Similar to using the confronting term 'kidnapping' rather than a softer term like 'capturing'. In both cases you were right. I feel justified in doing that because it seems to me that several people are downplaying the significance of what she did, and of course because the things I am saying are accurate. I don't think there's any question that what she did is seriously wrong, unless she had sufficient justification. There is a question as to whether she was justified, and I'd be happy to discuss that.

  17. - Top - End - #827
    Banned
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    A Shallow Grave

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Quizatzhaderac View Post
    The issue is that Liquor Box's description provides detail in a selective and unfair manner.

    The "no flip" side includes the Order saving the world, so it also needs to include the Order messing up.
    You're treating this as though its not a fantasy story. Its ok to kill and steal and break and enter, etc in DND. In fact its usually encouraged. I love considering the actions and morality of the people in the story too, but you can't compare this world to that one. In that one it is arguable that there is no such thing as murder, and that sometimes killing people is a wonderful thing. Just ask Uncle Kandro.

  18. - Top - End - #828
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    OK< well if we don't have the specifics we cannot compare.



    No that is absolutely not what they say. They say "how we might deduce which door the gate is behind, even once our allies arrive". 'Deduce' means reason it out, it doesn't mean look. And they say 'even' once our allies arrive, whcih means they are not intending to do anything different when others arrive.

    Am I missing something? If there is something that suggests they are "obviously planning to" go inside, perhaps you could quote it.
    You are always "forgeting" that Serini knows that Ochul and the Order are, at the very least, partially guilty of the destruction of 3 gates. She is not Elan, she doesn't need 200 foot tall flaming letters saying "these guys are bad news to your gate". Ans she can't wait for them to join forces and wait to see what they do then, couse she is not that powerful to stop them all together.

    And btw, talking to Lien ans Ochul is not an option, we have alreasy seen that conversation, she won't believe them. And once she speak and lose the surprise factor, capturing them is far more difficult. That is not a good act, that is a stupid act.

    And doing nothing is not good either, is negligent, her job is defend he gate.
    Last edited by Vikenlugaid; 2021-10-02 at 11:43 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #829
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    I can't say the Order or the paladins were truly responsible for Soon's Gate falling at all. I'd also say that destroying Girard's Gate was still the right call, but I don't think I'd be able to convince you anyways.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  20. - Top - End - #830
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    I can't say the Order or the paladins were truly responsible for Soon's Gate falling at all. I'd also say that destroying Girard's Gate was still the right call, but I don't think I'd be able to convince you anyways.
    You don't need to convince me, you need to convince, at least, the gods, Serini, V and Blackwing, who all think destroying a gate is not the right call. In fact, if Roy could ttavel in time, he would stopped himself of doing it, you know, the gods almost destroyed the world for that "right call".
    In fact, Xykon might have been killed for good there by the Vector legion and their armies, who knows, or the other way, that would have been good to the world, and epic to de story XD

    And with soon's gate, thats why I said "at least partially guilty" but still, Ochuls intentions were clear there.
    Last edited by Vikenlugaid; 2021-10-02 at 11:52 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #831
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vikenlugaid View Post
    You don't need to convince me, you need to convince, at least, the gods, Serini, V and Blackwing, who all think destroying a gate is not the right call. In fact, if Roy could ttavel in time, he would stopped himself of doing it, you know, the gods almost destroyed the world for that "right call".
    In fact, Xykon might have been killed for good there by the Vector legion and their armies, who knows, or the other way, that would have been good to the world, and epic to de story XD

    And with soon's gate, thats why I said "at least partially guilty" but still, Ochuls intentions were clear there.
    And if he hadn't destroyed the Gate, the world would have already ended because Team Evil would have started the Ritual and the gods would have torn it all down.

    Yeah uh, I don't think you're checking your facts correctly.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  22. - Top - End - #832
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vikenlugaid View Post
    You don't need to convince me, you need to convince, at least, the gods, Serini, V and Blackwing, who all think destroying a gate is not the right call.
    What evidence do you have that the gods care one way or the other about the gates?

    If they really cared about the gates, they’d probably mention to someone not to destroy them. They seem to have the ability to do that, but they didn’t bother. So, the logical inference is that they don’t care.

    And that matches up pretty well with what we’ve seen. They’re planning to make another world after this one fails, just like they’ve done a few billion other times. Heck, half of them are looking forward to it.
    Last edited by Dion; 2021-10-02 at 11:57 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #833
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    I can't say the Order or the paladins were truly responsible for Soon's Gate falling at all. I'd also say that destroying Girard's Gate was still the right call, but I don't think I'd be able to convince you anyways.
    The paladins are guilty of "attempted gate destruction".

    But I want to emphasize there is a gap between "they deserve punishment* for destroying the gate" and "they should not be trusted with another gate".

    We can look at each little thing the paladins have done and say they made reasonable choices every step of the way... but the end result is still a destroyed gate. I think there's a big picture/little picture disconnect here; I interpret Serini's position that she's looking at several "forests of gate destruction" and no matter how much we argue the paladins were planting the right trees will change that fact, and she's not trusting them to plant another forest in her territory.




    *: or some other form of recompense; exactly what doesn't matter.

  24. - Top - End - #834
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    And if he hadn't destroyed the Gate, the world would have already ended because Team Evil would have started the Ritual and the gods would have torn it all down.

    Yeah uh, I don't think you're checking your facts correctly.
    Man, are you forgeting about Tarquin on purpose? And Xykon need to find the gate first, is not that simple.

  25. - Top - End - #835
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    What evidence do you have that the gods care one way or the other about the gates?

    If they really cared about the gates, they’d probably mention to someone not to destroy them. They seem to have the ability to do that, but they didn’t bother. So, the logical inference is that they don’t care.

    And that matches up pretty well with what we’ve seen. They’re planning to make another world after this one fails, just like they’ve done a few billion other times. Heck, half of them are looking forward to it.
    IIRC, the gods have a unanimous agreement on a total blackout of information about the gates with any mortals who do not already know about them. The threat of the snarl is so great that they are not taking any chances that any god will be tempted to do some meddling.

  26. - Top - End - #836
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    What evidence do you have that the gods care one way or the other about the gates?

    If they really cared about the gates, they’d probably mention to someone not to destroy them. They seem to have the ability to do that, but they didn’t bother. So, the logical inference is that they don’t care.

    And that matches up pretty well with what we’ve seen. They’re planning to make another world after this one fails, just like they’ve done a few billion other times. Heck, half of them are looking forward to it.
    Well, they obviously care about the gates couse they did the whole votation thing couse 4 gates had been destroyed, and no before.

  27. - Top - End - #837
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurkyl View Post
    The paladins are guilty of "attempted gate destruction".

    But I want to emphasize there is a gap between "they deserve punishment* for destroying the gate" and "they should not be trusted with another gate".

    We can look at each little thing the paladins have done and say they made reasonable choices every step of the way... but the end result is still a destroyed gate. I think there's a big picture/little picture disconnect here; I interpret Serini's position that she's looking at several "forests of gate destruction" and no matter how much we argue the paladins were planting the right trees will change that fact, and she's not trusting them to plant another forest in her territory.




    *: or some other form of recompense; exactly what doesn't matter.
    You know what, I think the "Serini was scrying on the paladins at just the right moment" thing is right. And she just assumed that if they did it once, they'd do it again without looking into it more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vikenlugaid View Post
    Man, are you forgeting about Tarquin on purpose? And Xykon need to find the gate first, is not that simple.
    Roy had no way of knowing that Tarquin would have destroyed the Gate - and if Tarqun hadn't destroyed it fast enough, Xykon would have gotten it anyways. It's not like there were any defenses to speak of left, after all.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  28. - Top - End - #838
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Roy had no way of knowing that Tarquin would have destroyed the Gate - and if Tarqun hadn't destroyed it fast enough, Xykon would have gotten it anyways. It's not like there were any defenses to speak of left, after all.
    What? Who cares what Tarquin really wanted?
    Roy did know that Tarquin was there and Xykon was coming, and both wanted the gate. That would ended in a Tarquin VS Xykon, and that is good news for the world, at least for the good guys of the world, one of them will loose, and that is one big bad guy less in the world. And then, who knows, maybe the other one was weak enough for an easy win to the Order.

    And still, if Nale + Malack + Zzdtri didn't notice the double bluff of the gate, why should Xykon + Redcloak? They have far less experience adventuring, Redcloak is smart but I don't think Malack is an idiot.

    But this is irrelevant now. Even if destroying Girards gate was the right call, Serini isn't suposed to know that circunstances, she only know that the gate was destroyed, and that's not nice.

    The thing is some people is saying that Serini's actions are evil + irrational just because she is not helping the protagonist. And from her point of view, doing this is the most rational thing to do, and she is still caring about the life of these guys, when that should be secondary given the circunstances (and being this DnD where dying is not the same than the real world), so she is really really good.
    God, she is even called "mom" by a typical evil monster who is, in fact, totally good, I mean, that goodness needs to come from the one who raised it.
    Last edited by Vikenlugaid; 2021-10-02 at 05:30 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #839
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vikenlugaid View Post
    And still, if Nale + Malack + Zzdtri didn't notice the double bluff of the gate, why should Xykon + Redcloak? They have far less experience adventuring, Redcloak is smart but I don't think Malack is an idiot.
    Team Nale barely glance at the bluff before Nale freaks out over his apparent failure and rushes the party out. No investigation, no search, just one cast of detection magic each and they're gone. Maybe Z could have advised further investigation, but surely Malack has no interest in playing the role of advisor here.

    Furthermore, IIRC the whole thing was speculative on Nale's part anyways; they were just hoping the OotS was going to lead them to something worthwhile.

    Team Evil, on the other hand, actually has the gate coordinates and the OotS is rather certain of that fact: Girard's illusion confirms Serini knows them, and the OotS knows Xykon is getting gate info from her diary.
    Last edited by Hurkyl; 2021-10-02 at 05:56 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #840
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ruck's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1244 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Skull the Troll View Post
    You're treating this as though its not a fantasy story. Its ok to kill and steal and break and enter, etc in DND. In fact its usually encouraged. I love considering the actions and morality of the people in the story too, but you can't compare this world to that one. In that one it is arguable that there is no such thing as murder, and that sometimes killing people is a wonderful thing. Just ask Uncle Kandro.
    I don't think that's an accurate summary of the morality of OOTS at all, either by the explicit content of the comic or by Rich's own comments on fantasy morality vis-a-vis OOTS.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •