Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
She wasn't risking permanent immolation. As V would say, "Stop being so blasted melodramatic! It's nonmagical fire. It inflicts a mere 1d6 points of damage."
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
She wasn't risking permanent immolation. As V would say, "Stop being so blasted melodramatic! It's nonmagical fire. It inflicts a mere 1d6 points of damage."
V is wrong. The kitchen stove inflicts 1d6 points of damage, but having several storeys of burning rafters collapse on top of you is a different story. Even in the actual story we got, Miko narrowly escapes being blown to pieces.
If Miko didn't know the Inn was going to explode how does it affect the act of going into the burning building? (To possibly rescue total strangers, she goes in after the initial evacuation in case there were stranglers not sure if anybody was actually left, don't think it necessarily affects the act but I think it needs to be said and could affect the obligation angle) Also citation needed on the narrowly escaped thing.
I don't think Miko knew the Inn was going to explode, but I do think she'd be reasonably aware of the risk of the structure collapsing. Because... that's what burning structures do. And just about everyone knows that. Even in D&D. And yeah, she doesn't know for sure that anyone is left inside, but in a way that's more impressive- she's double-checking for the sake of people that she doesn't even know for sure were left inside.
Look, I'm aware that Rich probably didn't intend that scene as something entirely serious, but... it goes on for multiple pages and genuinely did endanger her life and kinda has some significant knock-on effects, if not on the main protagonists then certainly for Somewhere's inhabitants. That's one hell of an outlying data point.
Miko is a product of the transitional period where characters changed from being caricatures of DnD classes to actual persons. Miko's "Lawful Stupid" flaws supposed to be jokes like others' flaws, but she was neither funny nor part of the original team and she became unpopular, so, after the strip's change into something much more serious, she never got the same treatment others got and her flaws seems worser in hindsight.
The inn collapsed so fast because of the additional explosives. As far as Miko and V knew, they weren't in any particular danger. I think Miko would probably have done the same even if she had known about the explosives, but that's not what happened.
Exactly. In the comic I linked, she, Haley, and V are just casually walking through the fire. No particular urgency or note of caution.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrožila
No... I'm still gonna say the strip where Haley was actively running and the walls are all burning is a point when you can reasonably start worrying about structural collapse.
EDIT: Look, here. I realise conventional physics don't exactly apply here, but in reality you'd have around 4 minutes before you get air temperatures similar to molten lava. A think a reasonable interpretation of the environment rules pegs that at 10d6 damage/round, quite apart from suffocation and smoke effects.
Miko never 'became' unpopular. There were readers who wished her a violent end more or less the instant she revealed herself as a paladin. So I think some other explanation for her reception is required. (For my own part, I thought she was amusing enough, though I guess there's no accounting for taste.)Quote:
Originally Posted by martianmister
I'm gonna question the validity of that on the basis of Haley actively running back towards the still-burning building.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
Those rules quite clearly state being in an environment with fire, or air temperatures over 140 degrees Fahrenheit, or even lava; does at much 10 damage per minute, and even catching on fire does only 1d6 per round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
It seems clear to me: Miko went into the burning building to rescue civilians because protecting people she finds innocent is what she does; and because dealing with physical threats by crushing them into oblivion is how she normally does it, the risk of physical harm to herself doesn't bother her. What's your intent in trying to push such a flimsy rules transmogrification?
If, and only if, one starts with the premise that heroism is dependent on knowingly and avoidably embracing great personal risk, Miko suddenly isn't heroic anymore if she was confident (rightly or wrongly) that her level 10+ Evasion-having self was in no significant danger when she went into the inn to save any low-level commoners, experts, or aristocrats who might still be inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodpeople25
I don't have that premise, and thus it makes no meaningful difference to me; in the scene where Miko tells the truth that she's there to rescue the helpless and Haley either lies about what she's doing or demonstrates how profoundly warped her priorities are by calling her* loot "the helpless," the moral high ground rests entirely with Miko. But I suspect Lacuna's moral beliefs differ from mine, such that the scene becomes substantially worse for him if Miko didn't believe she was in any danger.
*Properly the whole party's, but considering that she'll shortly be saying "AH diim. Afup!**" about it, that fact does not make her perspective look less selfish and warped.
**Translated: "MY loot. Mine!"
At the point where the air hits 1400 Fahrenheit, I'm gonna say the situation is comparable to total immersion, which deals 10x damage. But okay- even if you were only looking at 1d6/round, how many rounds does it take to check all the rooms in a four-storey building, or start failing suffocation checks? The latter in particular is save-or-die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasdoif
To address Kish's point: If Miko genuinely believed she was in no danger, then yes, it would still be a distinctly good thing to do, consequentially speaking, but as a measurement of her commitment to principle it would be lot more tepid (all she'd be sacrificing is spare time.) But I think it's implausible that she'd get to the second or third floor without noticing, e.g, all the blistering heat, dense smoke and falling timbers.
I'll fully admit that having buckets of hit dice and good saves would greatly improve Miko's odds of survival, but this is still one of the few environmental threats that can genuinely kill high-level D&D characters. (Also of note- if your corpse is cremated, nothing beside True Resurrection brings you back.)
Suppose, as I do, that innocent people definitely being in danger mattered more to Miko than whether she'd be in danger or not. Where would that fall on your tepidity scale?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
The characters clearly did not view the situation that way, which is why it's incorrect to say that Miko was "actively risking permanent immolation."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
Again, that's not how fire works here. That might be how you handle it as a DM, but OOTS clearly does not run under your proposed house rule. Either that, or the characters are all greatly underestimating the risk involved, which doesn't seem plausible. Especially when one of them is V: both very smart and with pitiful hit points I don't see any evidence in the comic that anything more than 1d6 damage per minute is at risk.Quote:
But I think it's implausible that she'd get to the second or third floor without noticing, e.g, all the blistering heat, dense smoke and falling timbers.
I think the main point I'm driving at is that what the main cast are saying and what the tangible facts of the narrative imply are, at this point in the strip, somewhat at odds with eachother. (Even if we're dealing with some exotic brand of fire that doesn't consume oxygen or collapse ceilings, smoke effects can leave a character effectively helpless with mounting save DCs.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasdoif
Maybe I'm being too hard on the comic's relatively flippant early days, but it's of some interest to me that readers more than a decade after the fact apparently take away that Miko was a static and unchanging caricature of a fanatic termagant, when her behaviour actually demonstrates (A) considerable change over time, and (B) substantial capacity for generosity and heroism. But framing trumps the text.
On that note... it just occurred to me that Eugene could probably have solved the Xykon problem in under 24 hours after Dorukan's Gate was destroyed by (A) asking the sapphire guard diviners to locate X/RC, (B) reminding Shojo that teleport spells exist, (C) pointing out that Xykon is vulnerable while he regenerates, and (D) that such an intervention would in no way contravene the paladins' oath to not interfere with the Gates, since Xykon isn't actually at any of the Gates at the time. Huh.
Awful people take jobs that involve risking their life in a good cause and then do those jobs and risk their lives in a good cause, every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
The text is very clear that they aren't in much danger in the burning building, but it doesn't matter enough to debate, because nobody doubts that Miko would risk her life to save innocents if that were the situation.
But she very likely would use detect evil to be sure it was worth her time.
Physical courage is a good quality, but having it doesn't mean you have any other good qualities.
You seem to be arguing that when (for example) Roy tells Miko off, that the characters are telling us something that Miko's actions don't show. But the idea there is that Roy was the one who was slow to see something about Miko that the rest of the party and the audience (mostly) had seen right away.
Um... no? Or at least, that's an assertion so outlandish I'd want to see some substantial evidence to support it? Could you consult your dense tome of psychometric statistics and get back to me?Quote:
Awful people take jobs that involve risking their life in a good cause and then do those jobs and risk their lives in a good cause, every day.
I don't assume that Miko has other good traits because she has physical courage. I infer she has other good traits because she's demonstrating physical courage to get people out of danger, in a pattern consistent with her, e.g, forfeiting personal gain to cover damage to property she didn't even cause, but inconsistent with her being someone who hides behind a badge to treat people like crap. So, yes, up to that point in the narrative I think you need to have a fairly warped assessment of Miko's priorities to conclude any such thing.
Have you ever personally worked in a dangerous lifesaving profession? Or around them? Many of them are not nice people.
Even without personal experience, just paying attention to the news and to history should tell you that.
Here have some evidence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b280206e5ba7
Heh. Having worked in a hospital with a couple of people who scored very highly on Dr Hare’s Psychopathy checklist, I have to add my +1 to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysbebatman
Also, for the posters speaking of Miko’s courage, does she not state to Redcloak (just before he delivers his somewhat hypocritical “The Reason You Suck” speech) that she has had her fear removed? Is it even possible to be courageous if one doesn’t feel fear?
[also: Hi! First post! I’m binge-rereading the PDFs from Gumroad, and I could resist posting no longer 😃]
I completely forgot about that, thank you!
Was that ALL paladins, or just Miko?
Yeah, my wife insists that House, MD is super unrealistic, because nobody would put up with such an *******. I'm like, you'd be surprised what you can get away with if you're effective.
Eta: Oh, also: welcome!
The question of professional motivations among firefighters is actually an interesting one, because it touches on of my major objections to 'empathy == good'. (This is why I don't really object to someone doing the right thing out a sense of unfeeling duty, because those habits are much more sustainable.) But I would point out that, e.g, medical surgeons are extremely well-paid for the work they do- if you want to find an ulterior motive there it's not difficult.
Yes, 'feel no fear' applies to all paladins. But the point isn't whether Miko shows courage, or feels warm and fuzzy about helping people- the point is whether she attaches intrinsic value to altruistic action. If she wanted to show off her skills or willingness to risk danger, she could have just chased after the assassins (which, incidentally, would also have been perfectly compatible with her code.) It's not like she's getting a paycheck out of it.
So, ALL that you want to assert is that Miko believes that altruism has intrinsic value?
Sure, point conceded.
If you truly believe that empathy and humility are just "warm fuzzies" and not important to living an ethical life, I can't imagine what's left to discuss.
In fairness, I'll take cynical altruism over naive jerkishness any day of the week. :smalltongue:
I don't strictly know that Miko doesn't feel warm and fuzzy about helping people, I just don't think it's the be-all and end-all of virtues, and that politeness/etiquette is a surprisingly weak predictor either way.
Empathy isn't a bad thing to have, but it comes with it's own drawbacks, such as the risk of burnout or manipulation, which tend to limit its scope and make it prone to misdirection. The reason why a lot of health professionals, for example, come off as cold and unfeeling to patients is precisely because they can't maintain close emotional rapport under those kind of stresses. Only the Oath endures.
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old General
Sociopaths can do a lovely job of faking empathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster
Yes, quite true, and your closing sentence is how a Paladin stays committed.Quote:
Empathy isn't a bad thing to have, but it comes with it's own drawbacks, such as the risk of burnout or manipulation, which tend to limit its scope and make it prone to misdirection. The reason why a lot of health professionals, for example, come off as cold and unfeeling to patients is precisely because they can't maintain close emotional rapport under those kind of stresses. Only the Oath endures.
Man, "empathy is important" is such a weird thing to not have consensus on, I had to Google it. Two of the top autocompletes for "empathy is" for me were "overrated" and "bad."
So, you aren't the only ones thinking it. But it's highly unconvincing to me. Isn't it reasonable to suspect that this pushback against empathy is coming from defensiveness? (I mean in general, not accusing anyone of anything.)
Accepting everyone as part of the human family (or in this setting, the sophont family) and treating them as such is the source of moral and ethical codes to begin with. Putting your code before your fellowship is getting things backwards and is prone to justifying the unjustifiable.
There are certain people that use real or feigned empathy to be an indicator they are a good person, and put less effort into actually being a decent human being. No names, but certain sections of the internet can really use empathy as an excuse to act extremely holier than thou, for instance. Which sort of defeats the point:smalltongue:
There are potential drawbacks to all personality styles, and a tendency toward orderliness is no exception, but there's an interesting discussion on the specific dangers of empathy here.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysbebatman
I'd also just say there's a difference between cognitive empathy (anticipating emotional reactions) and affective empathy (actually caring about well-being), which as Korvin points out can diverge greatly in the case of sociopaths, along with other minority groups. (Not saying that Miko specifically fits the profile, but... food for thought.)
I agree that it's very important to make the distinction between caring about people and being good at figuring out how people feel. One is foundational to life, the other's just a skill. If we use the word "empathy" for both (which I have no doubt I'm guilty of) it's not surprising if we misunderstand one another.
I definitely can't agree that caring about people is a personality style or that it can lead you astray.
Caring about people combined with poor judgement and/or misinformation or lack of perspective can lead you astray, but that's the fault of the poor judgment or etc, not of the caring.
If you're referring to compassion in the high-level utilitarian sense of maximising long-term benefit to as many people as possible, then... sure, that's hard to argue against on policy grounds, and I'm obviously not going to argue you out of your own priorities. But I think in practice that's a goal that requires, along with, e.g, sensitivity and generosity, other values such as discipline, directness, competition and impartiality. And insofar as we're referring to empathy as a moment-to-moment emotional contagion- which is a facet of personality- then it can absolutely conflict with those values.
EDIT: I would just say for completeness that if we're looking at the Big 5 model in particular, agreeableness is usually broken down into separate-but-correlating measures for politeness and compassion, which is a little different from Adam Grant's findings. (It's possible that big organisations weed out the most egregious specimens in terms of lacking both traits, but Big-5 studies are typically based on self-assessment, so take it with a grain of salt.)
And Miko is clearly AGR 12, CON 20, NEU 16, EXT 6, OPE 13. Like, objectively.
.
That's definitely a good analysis, CowardlyPaladin. The broader point is an obvious one in retrospect: Place characters in situations where they won't engage in their normal behavior, and they have to demonstrate different things about themselves. You can do that by making their normal behavior somehow not possible, but that's far from the only option. Someone who fulfills a major goal, for example, will then stop directing efforts towards it. In the case of Vaarsuvius, we get to see what V finally does with ultimate arcane power after chasing after it for so long, and how reluctant V is to give it up.
Of course, after circumstances return to normal, characters can likewise revert entirely or almost entirely to earlier patterns of behavior. And, indeed, this is necessary standard practice in low-continuity serial fiction wherein the status quo must be maintained. But being forced into an unfamiliar mode of operation can also teach important lessons and have lasting impacts. So it can serve as a device for long-term changes to characters, but it doesn't have to.
As to the more recent discussion, I had understood empathy to be experiencing the feelings of others. And while being happy when others are happy obviously motivates benevolence, but being sad and afraid when others are sad and afraid doesn't necessarily put you in the best emotional state to help them. Furthermore, since we can only vicariously experience things we're aware of in the first place, that sort of sensitivity can lead someone to avoid learning about suffering in the first place, e.g. by not reading the news, rather than to alleviate suffering.
I think that those are the sorts of problems people are thinking about when they say that empathy isn't necessarily all that great. Feeling bad about bad things happening to others not only doesn't automatically translate into helping them, but can lead away from doing so. And it's possible to care about the welfare of others and work to improve it without feeling bad about it. For some people, that may be easier.