-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Throknor
Crystal didn't make death threats. Crystal actively attempted to kill Haley during the raid. The scene was cut from online for pacing issues making Haley's motivation less obvious. She knew if left alive Crystal would track her down, but Bozzak might not be willing to spend the money to resurrect her.
Spoiler
Show
Money saving tip: for one meal a day have water instead of soda/tea/beer/whatever. At the end of the month you can buy the book and get all the author's commentary on character's motives and decisions.
Well, trying to kill somebody may qualify as a death threat. I wrote in the way I did as to not give away too much of the extra content.
As for your incredible money saving tip, please keep them to yourself in the future or try to be a little less condescending. Especially if you don't know anything about the person you are talking to.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
In which case, once Crystal found them and starting making hostile moves, self-defence becomes a consideration.
But in the context of the strips we see- it isn't- at best it's "preventing a potential future problem".
but they have no way of knowing that in the future theyll be able to prevent it
what if Crystal had followed them to the palace and killed V while he tranced? or while Haley was asleep and alone after getting drunk?
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
There's always possibilities- but generally that's not a Good reason to kill somebody- though it might be a Neutral reason.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
In which case, once Crystal found them and starting making hostile moves, self-defence becomes a consideration.
But in the context of the strips we see- it isn't- at best it's "preventing a potential future problem".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
There's always possibilities- but generally that's not a Good reason to kill somebody- though it might be a Neutral reason.
Spoiler
Show
I see Haley's act as a pre-emptive attack against Crystal. Crystal and Bozzok had made it clear they were not going to abide by the deal Celia and Hank negotiated, courtesy of their actions in Grubbwriggler's manor. That made Crystal a future problem, not a "potential" future problem.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
True- though they didn't know if she'd leave Greysky to go after Haley or not.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphiox
V's familicide was evil because it was done for an evil reason - to avenge, taunt and torture the ABD by inflicting harm on third parties unrelated to the dispute between them that the ABD emotionally valued. In intent and motivation it was no different than the cackling supervillain shooting the defeated hero's kid sister in front of him just to taunt him. Even if you be *very* generous and accept the "prevent them from seeking revenge" transparent self-justification, it is no different from the Evil Overlord slaughtering all the newborn babies in the kingdom because some prophecy said that a child born under the ninth moon of the ninth year would be destined to overthrow him. It's still evil either way.
(Also, in a vastly greater echo of the original disintegration of the YABD, it was massive, massive overkill for the needs of the moment, and V deliberately went over the top, just to show off.)
It is evil also because it was done in an evil manner, indiscriminately and wantonly slaughtering without consideration for restraint. V knew the spell was indiscriminate. V knew that spell's effects were far-reaching and that the caster does not have control of what it might kill, and indeed, cannot even necessarily *know* the extent that it would kill. V didn't care and cast it anyways. THAT is evil.
It matters not at all the alignment of who was killed. Even if no nonevil targets had died it would still have been evil.
This raises a point--suppose V had obtained access to an epic spell from a somewhat less evil and careless necromancer that would have selectively killed *only* the black dragons (or, to complicate things somewhat, any other non-divine being) who would be inclined to avenge the deaths of ABD and her son should they know about it and simply cast it without gloating at the ABD? Would that be substantially less evil than casting Familicide? Would it be even less evil than that if he/she limited the effect to *only* those who would be inclined to strike at V's family/friends to achieve their vengeance rather than at V him/herself (V's stated reason for casting Familicide was the ABD's bringing family into it)?
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
but they have no way of knowing that in the future theyll be able to prevent it
what if Crystal had followed them to the palace and killed V while he tranced? or while Haley was asleep and alone after getting drunk?
What if? What if? That's Belkar thinking, not that of anyone who claims a good alignment. There is always a what if that can be justification for any sin one might suggest.
But it is a what if?. It is something that one already acknowledges might not happen. And we don't go around killing people who might kill us. Here we have a notable chance that Crystal would never pass the city limits. [Her work inside the city is likely to keep her busy.] So self defense will not justify Haley's action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Leorik
I see Haley's act as a pre-emptive attack against Crystal. Crystal and Bozzok had made it clear they were not going to abide by the deal Celia and Hank negotiated, courtesy of their actions in Grubbwriggler's manor. That made Crystal a future problem, not a "potential" future problem.
Anything mortal is only a potential future problem. Crystal might decide to become a nun. Hardly odds-on, but not impossible, and so the future problem may never happen. Crystal is only a potential future problem.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raymundo
Well, trying to kill somebody may qualify as a death threat. I wrote in the way I did as to not give away too much of the extra content.
As for your incredible money saving tip, please keep them to yourself in the future or try to be a little less condescending. Especially if you don't know anything about the person you are talking to.
The discussion was judging Haley on her actions without complete context, by the authors own admission. Whether Haley's action falls under the 'not a threat at the time' banner, it was at least in response to actual actions that she knew would be repeated and not merely threats that might not be.
Spoiler
Show
Stress-reducing tip: Not everything you read is directed at you, including this.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
There's always possibilities- but generally that's not a Good reason to kill somebody- though it might be a Neutral reason.
"Possibilities" regarding someone who is literally your nemesis and who is clearly still spoiling to kill you (and at least one of your fellow party members--even if it *is* Belkar) should be given a tad more weight, IMO. Allowances should also be made for leeway in cleaning up messes created by the deeply clueless sylph temporary party member (which, after all, is how she ended up back in the sights of her old employers in the first place). To be honest, if anything she was being soft-hearted and careless by not cutting Crystal's head off and putting it one of her bags of holding to make the prospect of raising her at least twice as expensive. I vote Neutral act that will not make her alignment needle even quiver noticeably.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eilandesq
"Possibilities" regarding someone who is literally your nemesis and who is clearly still spoiling to kill you (and at least one of your fellow party members--even if it *is* Belkar) should be given a tad more weight, IMO.
True, as far as that goes.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eilandesq
"Possibilities" regarding someone who is literally your nemesis and who is clearly still spoiling to kill you (and at least one of your fellow party members--even if it *is* Belkar) should be given a tad more weight, IMO.
Particularly given that Crystal has tried to kill Haley, what, three times now? Four? Haley's actions are pretty much within the context of extended self defense, performed intelligently. The Haley-V connection is nonexistent here.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
What if? What if? That's Belkar thinking, not that of anyone who claims a good alignment. There is always a what if that can be justification for any sin one might suggest.
But it is a what if?. It is something that one already acknowledges might not happen. And we don't go around killing people who might kill us. Here we have a notable chance that Crystal would never pass the city limits. [Her work inside the city is likely to keep her busy.] So self defense will not justify Haley's action.
Crystal coming to kill them? not a what if, a when
the specific scenario? definently a what if
Quote:
Anything mortal is only a potential future problem. Crystal might decide to become a nun. Hardly odds-on, but not impossible, and so the future problem may never happen. Crystal is only a potential future problem.
sure if you consider "potential future problem" and in anything short of 100% likely, there was a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999% taht Crystal comes to kill Haley
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
Crystal coming to kill them? not a what if, a when
the specific scenario? definently a what if
sure if you consider "potential future problem" and in anything short of 100% likely, there was a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999% taht Crystal comes to kill Haley
Not even 99%. Not even close. You have heard the saying "Threatened men live long lives."? It applies to Crystal and Haley too.
Crystal has a life to live. Chasing after Haley just distracts from this. Even if she gets Haley, Crystal is a loser.
And she can lose big. Her previous attempts to kill Haley did fail, and they were on Crystal's home ground. Chasing after Haley means she is fighting on Haley's home territory. If she ever finds Haley to fight at all. [Sure, there are ways to track her down, and ways to make it impossible to track her down. She does not get an auto result here.]
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eilandesq
This raises a point--suppose V had obtained access to an epic spell from a somewhat less evil and careless necromancer that would have selectively killed *only* the black dragons (or, to complicate things somewhat, any other non-divine being) who would be inclined to avenge the deaths of ABD and her son should they know about it and simply cast it without gloating at the ABD? Would that be substantially less evil than casting Familicide? Would it be even less evil than that if he/she limited the effect to *only* those who would be inclined to strike at V's family/friends to achieve their vengeance rather than at V him/herself (V's stated reason for casting Familicide was the ABD's bringing family into it)?
Is it evil to kill someone for an inclination which they have not yet acted on, and which they may or may not actually act on?
As for what is "more" or "less" evil, perhaps a better question to ask is this:
Even if there were such a difference in "degree" of evil, is such a difference significant, in the sense of warranting a different response to the act, in any meaningful way?
Does (should?) the hells have tiers where those who score 99 on the evil meter go to a different place than those who score 98?
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Regarding Haley and Crystal, I do not recall it being stated anywhere that everything Haley does has to be good. I would consider killing Crystal in the manner that she did to be a Neutral act. The Good act would have been taking the necessary precautions to protect herself and her teammates from potential future ambush, and killing Crystal in combat only if she really does try to come after Haley (in some ways that is actually a smarter act too, as killing Crystal in the field, far away from Greysky City, would make it harder for Bozzok to resurrect her and send her after the Order again, if he was inclined to do so). The Evil version of the act would be if after waiting until after the quest is done, and seeing that Crystal actually did not go after Haley at all, to return to Greysky city and kill her anyways.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wolv90
I know I am late to this particular party, but in a world with alignment based afterlives, is death really a condemnation? Even for those who die as children? Roy's brother didn't seem to mind being dead, after all. In our lives, where an afterlife is not a certainty, death is among the worst outcome we can imagine, but in this world it seems more of either a reward for a good life or a punishment for a bad one.
The Dragon, on the other hand, did not want to merely kill V's children, thus sending them to an eternal reward, but trap their very souls as to prolong revenge beyond any reasonable scale.
This is, I think, a very interesting question.
The greatest minus of the afterlife is that you can no longer make a difference. The world goes on without you, and you can't change a thing in the afterlife regardless of how compelling your arguments in a Debate hall or how enthralling your stories in the Tavern are. You can't even keep evolving as a person, as evidenced by Eric Greenhilt. Well, you can, sort of, by climbing the mountain, but only if you are already an adult and already have your mind set on it. If you died as a child, you are stuck as a child for all eternity.
If you are a spellcaster, you can scry on the prime material plane, if not, you can just ask the newcomers about the news. There are some ways to influence the events down there, one of them shown by Eugene Greenhilt the Being of Lawful and Good, but they are complicated and perhaps mostly forbidden. You are separated from all the action, and you can't connect to your loved ones until they are up there with you - if you are lucky enough to be of a similar alignment with them.
I say that it's enough of a punishment to consider death a really, really bad thing for anyone (save those who would suffer in life much more without any chance of getting better... see Mercy Kill).
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
I searched through whole thread, and i am surprised to find that NO ONE! and i mean No One took a note of this small detail. Maybe it is an overraction, but still, i think it is an interesting thought:
Look, it is right in the first panel. That lizard-guy(?) soldier call's another soldier BY HIS FRIGGIN NAME!!! (Amir - that is)
And we all know by now, what happens when seemingly random NPC gets to have a Name, aren't we?
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cower
I searched through whole thread, and i am surprised to find that NO ONE! and i mean No One took a note of this small detail. Maybe it is an overraction, but still, i think it is an interesting thought:
Look, it is right in the first panel. That lizard-guy(?) soldier call's another soldier BY HIS FRIGGIN NAME!!! (Amir - that is)
And we all know by now, what happens when seemingly random NPC gets to have a Name, aren't we?
That's a really good point. Now if we only got to see his face or anything that would let us tell him from the other male NPCs with this skin color...
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Thank you for making this awesome comic. I can't wait for another kickstarter so I can throw more money at your work.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yagerr
Thank you for making this awesome comic. I can't wait for another kickstarter so I can throw more money at your work.
You could always throw money at him by buying the books or t-shirts. :smallsmile:
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Rich needs to make ones I don't already have. Fortunately, we should (crossed fingers) have the next book by the end of the year, which will improve the holidays immensely.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
I just had a thought about Xykon and the next dungeon, but don't think it warrants a new thread. Since he's ahead of the group, I think it makes it more likely that Team Evil will have more trouble with Kraagar's place than the others. I do believe the Order will win in the end, so since they can't teleport, Xykon needs to be slowed down. Not that I think the monsters will beat xykon, but he could be slowed down enough for the good guys to catch up.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaggerPen
(Snipped to avoid mild SOD spoilers). While Giant was talking about a goblin child here, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the same logic applies to baby black dragons.
Even if Familicide killed only Evil creatures, and V knew it killed only Evil creatures, I would still consider the act Evil, because 1. The motivation was Evil - revenge vs. justice or self-defense and 2. Being Evil doesn't necessarily merit summary execution. The majority of Evil black dragons might be so because they routinely steal cattle and gold and the like without actually being mass murderers, etc. There's a difference between just being Evil and being Unredeemably Evil to the point where summary execution is justified. You don't execute people for being Evil; you mete out an appropriate punishment based off of the actions they have done. If you don't know the actions, just the alignment, then executing them is an evil act.
It's precisely why I play my paladin this way. Sure, he can Detect Evil at will. Do they deserve to die? Probably not. The NPC's in that game refer to him as the Judge, not because he delivers judgement, but because he weighs a person's actions before he responds to them. Our DM even called a DM Overide and allowed him to work with evil PC's/NPC's as long as they weren't violently evil and he was doing it for a good cause. He is a silver half-dragon and will only use his claws and his bite on weak/misguided opponents. If they are particularly strong, he will pull out his Ancestral Relic, a Holy greatsword, but will not use any additional combat techniques. Only the ones who delight in causing pain and suffering, the truly despicable, will taste his Smite Evil Power Sneak Attack of Bahamut. :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RMS Oceanic
You could always throw money at him by buying the books or t-shirts. :smallsmile:
Or the OotS Adventure Game. It's hella-long, but great to sit and BS with your buddies if you have time to kill.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
illyahr
It's precisely why I play my paladin this way. Sure, he can Detect Evil at will. Do they deserve to die? Probably not. The NPC's in that game refer to him as the Judge, not because he delivers judgement, but because he weighs a person's actions before he responds to them. Our DM even called a DM Overide and allowed him to work with evil PC's/NPC's as long as they weren't violently evil and he was doing it for a good cause. He is a silver half-dragon and will only use his claws and his bite on weak/misguided opponents. If they are particularly strong, he will pull out his Ancestral Relic, a Holy greatsword, but will not use any additional combat techniques. Only the ones who delight in causing pain and suffering, the truly despicable, will taste his Smite Evil Power Sneak Attack of Bahamut. :smallbiggrin:
Thats one of the best changes Pathfinder made in my opinion. No longer requiring a DM override for paladins to work with evil for the greater good. Its in the paladin code by default in PF. (though they're still encouraged to seek Atonement whenever they can while they're working with an evil being.)
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
illyahr
It's precisely why I play my paladin this way. Sure, he can Detect Evil at will. Do they deserve to die? Probably not. The NPC's in that game refer to him as the Judge, not because he delivers judgement, but because he weighs a person's actions before he responds to them. Our DM even called a DM Overide and allowed him to work with evil PC's/NPC's as long as they weren't violently evil and he was doing it for a good cause.
Defenders of the Faith (3.0 paladin and cleric splatbook) does say that "Circumstances might force temporary cooperation" and that "you have to weigh the potential gains - the success of the specific enterprise, the possibility of redeeming a fallen character, and so on against the chance of personal corruption"
And Eberron Campaign Setting also suggests that not every Evil aligned NPC deserves to be attacked by the party.
So there's a certain amount of support for that approach.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
It should be noted that "killing evil" is not a good act. Indeed killing anything is not a good act. The good act is the action for which killing was the secondary consequence. Defending the innocent is a good act. Meting appropriate justice to evildoers is a good act. The killing part of it is the side effect of the primary act. If it was unavoidable or necessary then it is a *neutral* consequence of the original act which does not affect the morality of the original act. If it was unnecessary or avoidable it is an *evil* consequence of the original act which may alter the morality of the act in total if it outweighs the original good that was done.
Killing in and if itself, in isolation of other concerns, is an act of destruction, and acts of destruction are never good.
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphiox
It should be noted that "killing evil" is not a good act. Indeed killing anything is not a good act.
BoVD at least did say killing a Fiend is a good act rather than a Neutral one- but I see that one as very context sensitive.
It would be silly for demons and devils with levels in certain Evil classes or PRCs to be unable to fight each other without "falling".
-
Re: OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread
There is now a new comic to discuss.