-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Killing the hobglobin in itself is not a good act. But I can see being neutral in the situation: not leaving a witness, the fact that everything pointed to the Hobglobin being evil.
However the way it was done, giving false hope, the cruelty on the act, and specially the fact that the killing was not done with remorse but actually enjoying every moment is what makes it evil.
It remember me what of Haley did in this part. An evil murder done more out of the pleasure of killing then out of anything else.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LuisDantas
Why are some of you claiming that a prisoner with his hands tied, no weapons, and no way to escape is putting the whole group in risk?
I must ask again: why couldn't the Elves and the Resistance simply tie him up and leave him there until it was too late for him to make any real difference?
This would be the worst option, pragmatically speaking. The elves are perpetrating a covert operation under cover of a festival. Leaving behind a goblin who has seen their faces, neither killing the potential danger nor bringing him along for potential value added, is foolish whatever one's ethical position.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LuisDantas
Why are some of you claiming that a prisoner with his hands tied, no weapons, and no way to escape is putting the whole group in risk?
I must ask again: why couldn't the Elves and the Resistance simply tie him up and leave him there until it was too late for him to make any real difference?
There is a reason why Thanh would not aprove the killing, you know. He is a Paladin and has killed before. But not gratuitously.
How about - they didn't want the goblins to know there are Elf (Elven?) commandos in the city?
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xwing
How about - they didn't want the goblins to know there are Elf (Elven?) commandos in the city?
If that's their justification, I hope they have a solution to Speak with Dead (or did they somehow liquefy all the hobgoblin corpses?), Legend Lore, and all the other spells any mid-level cleric or wizard can use to find out exactly what happened.
(Of course, it's not. "The only good goblins are dead goblins" is the justification. Really, he told us what he is. Why is anyone trying not to believe him?)
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
If that's their justification, I hope they have a solution to Speak with Dead (or did they somehow liquefy all the hobgoblin corpses?), Legend Lore, and all the other spells any mid-level cleric or wizard can use to find out exactly what happened.
(Of course, it's not. "The only good goblins are dead goblins" is the justification. Really, he told us what he is. Why is anyone trying not to believe him?)
I'm pretty sure the last two panels imply that they will be removing the body.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woodsman
I'm pretty sure the last two panels imply that they will be removing the body.
He wasn't the only body.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
I'm going to come out on the side of saying the Elf the Elf's action* is evil.
It's understandable that he wouldn't trust the hobgoblin; even if the Hobgoblin believed he was telling the truth, he could later change his mind and decide to betray Team Peregrine in return for amnesty, and with a Paladin in charge, there's a decent chance the team wouldn't be allowed to torture information out of the prisoner once he got back to camp. So killing him? I can see that. It's not exactly a good act, but it's not necessarily evil.
But how it was done? Yeah, that was evil.
* As pointed out by Math Mage, saying "the action is evil" is different from saying "the actor is evil." I don't know enough from reading one strip to say that the Elf is evil...just his actions in this strip.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kumosabe
He wasn't the only body.
This is true. Sorry, I was thinking about the latest strip at the time.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
I apologize if someone else made this point and I missed it. The whole discussion of what is good and evil in this world is simple. Roy is Good, Belkar is Evil. The more a given character's actions resembles one or the other can predict the "morality" of the action. Elf Commander's action was clearly a Belkar move.
WWRD? He wouldn't have pushed a hobgoblin off a wall as the punchline to a joke. It is however practically Belkar's signature move...
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Math_Mage
Leaving behind a goblin who has seen their faces, neither killing the potential danger nor bringing him along for potential value added, is foolish whatever one's ethical position.
Not arguing with you, just pointing out the fact that anybody running around free who is neither green nor orange would be a target, I don't think it would have mattered whether the hob could have described them or not.
I guess the news that there were a couple of elves in the resistance could be a cause for concern...of course, thinking about it more, what does that really prove? Why would the goblins believe that every person in a large port/trading city at the time of the attack was an Azurite? I'm sure the OotS weren't the only adventurers in the entire city...
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dbsousa
I apologize if someone else made this point and I missed it. The whole discussion of what is good and evil in this world is simple. Roy is Good, Belkar is Evil. The more a given character's actions resembles one or the other can predict the "morality" of the action. Elf Commander's action was clearly a Belkar move.
WWRD? He wouldn't have pushed a hobgoblin off a wall as the punchline to a joke. It is however practically Belkar's signature move...
Now this is a good argument.
Or it would be if some people didn't think Belkar was Neutral.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dbsousa
I apologize if someone else made this point and I missed it. The whole discussion of what is good and evil in this world is simple. Roy is Good, Belkar is Evil. The more a given character's actions resembles one or the other can predict the "morality" of the action. Elf Commander's action was clearly a Belkar move.
WWRD? He wouldn't have pushed a hobgoblin off a wall as the punchline to a joke. It is however practically Belkar's signature move...
Belkar would have ripped out the hobgoblins brain and fed it to him prefrontal cortex first so the creature would not realize it was eating the logical portion of it's brain, or cut out it's lungs and fed them to him.
Roy would have run the goblin through right after it finished speaking but his actions have been called into question as well. (i think they're crap, but meh. to each his own.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kyuubi
Or it would be if some people didn't think Belkar was Neutral.
I wish i could say i didn't believe anybody was that stupid.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
The way I see it, it was the choice between allowing a potentially traitorous Hobgoblin to have knowledge of their operations and where the prisoners were being evacuated to, or killing him and avoiding the risk entirely.
Was it a good action? No, but it does make logical sense.
Does it excuse the racism? No, but the action makes logical sense.
There is no question in my mind that killing him was an evil act, but it does not, in itself, make one evil. But it was brutally practical, and probably the safest choice from a tactical standpoint. The likelihood that giving the Hobgoblin inside information on the operation even in the tiniest amount could jeopardize the entire operation or simply be a potentially dangerous decision when it comes to the safety of the prisoners was higher than the likelihood that he was telling the truth about wanting to help them, at least in the commander's eyes.
Once again, the action was reprehensible and the reasoning given for it was highly racist, but it was not in itself an illogical action to take.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kumosabe
Roy would have run the goblin through right after it finished speaking but his actions have been called into question as well. (i think they're crap, but meh. to each his own.)
Yes. This.
Roy would've done what was necessary and stopped there.
Belkar and the elf commander would've took pleasure in doing something to cause the hobgoblin more pain... the difference between the two of them is that the elf did it in a more mental/emotional way by giving him false hope, whereas Belkar would've done it by kiling him in the most slow and painful way possible.
I'm glad we agree that the elf did, and Belkar would've crossed the line between necessary and sadistic.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darklord Bright
But it was brutally practical, and probably the safest choice from a tactical standpoint.
Killing him a quick, no nonsense way would have been practical; making his death the punchline to a joke really was more 'just for fun'. I completely agree with your points otherwise, though.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Solara
Stabbing him would have been practical, making his death the punchline to a joke really was more 'just for fun'. I completely agree with your points otherwise, though.
No argument that it was drawn out in a cruel way. My point was more that it was the way it was done, and not the decision itself that was evil, though.
Besides, heroes get away with being racist all the time. :smallwink:
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Solara
Not arguing with you, just pointing out the fact that anybody running around free who is neither green nor orange would be a target, I don't think it would have mattered whether the hob could have described them or not.
I guess the news that there were a couple of elves in the resistance could be a cause for concern...of course, thinking about it more, what does that really prove? Why would the goblins believe that every person in a large port/trading city at the time of the attack was an Azurite? I'm sure the OotS weren't the only adventurers in the entire city...
Finding out that elves are assisting the Resistance in bringing about a major strike against Gobbotopia, and some approximation of their strength, is significant information.
As I said previously, I find the elf commander's actions to be brutally pragmatic and prejudicial, hence on the Evil side of neutral, but not so far as to throw the guy off the deep end of the alignment pool.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSummoner
Yes. This.
Roy would've done what was necessary and stopped there.
Belkar and the elf commander would've took pleasure in doing something to cause the hobgoblin more pain... the difference between the two of them is that the elf did it in a more mental/emotional way by giving him false hope, whereas Belkar would've done it by kiling him in the most slow and painful way possible.
I'm glad we agree that the elf did, and Belkar would've crossed the line between necessary and sadistic.
I agree they both go beyond what was necessary, but I completely disagree that they do so either to the same extent or with the same degree of justification.
EDIT: Meh, sorry for double-posting, I'm used to this thread updating so fast that making one point/response a post lets a few others get in between each response.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSummoner
I'm glad we agree that the elf did, and Belkar would've crossed the line between necessary and sadistic.
Actually no, we don't agree. Belkar would have done it BECAUSE he enjoyed it, and for no other reason. If the idea that it would have been the right thing ever crossed his mind, it wouldn't have until later. That's nothing like the commander, who at least recognized it was necessary.
Something people seemed to ignore: The commander mentioned that 'most people would be suspicious' which (to me) implies he doesn't trust the goblin as far as he could throw him (no pun intended).
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kumosabe
Actually no, we don't agree. Belkar would have done it BECAUSE he enjoyed it, and for no other reason. If the idea that it would have been the right thing ever crossed his mind, it wouldn't have until later. That's nothing like the commander, who at least recognized it was necessary.
Something people seemed to ignore: The commander mentioned that 'most people would be suspicious' which (to me) implies he doesn't trust the goblin as far as he could throw him (no pun intended).
There is no reason to cross that line unless you enjoy it. The commander gained nothing by giving the hobgoblin false hope other than the enjoyment he got out of it.
Maybe the commanded did realize that killing the hobgoblin was necessary... I don't disagree, it was the safest thing to do... but the fact that he taunted him and gave him false hope like that first made it an evil action.
If that makes him better than Belkar in your eyes, then fine... the commander is less evil than someone whose level of evil is measured in kilonazis and has been compared to the fictional offspring of Sauron and Cruella DeVille for the sake of having a a baseline.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Math_Mage
Finding out that elves are assisting the Resistance in bringing about a major strike against Gobbotopia, and some approximation of their strength, is significant information.
Yeah, but, 'I saw a couple of elves with the Resistance guys' does not necessarily equal 'the elven kingdom has sent an elite team to infiltrate and free the city'. If Belkar had ever failed to cut the kidneys out of a witness or two and word of his presence got back to Redcloak, I'm sure he's not going to immediately assume the closest halfling town is out to get his precious Gobbotopia.
And yes, I am aware I'm over-thinking this.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSummoner
There is no reason to cross that line unless you enjoy it. The commander gained nothing by giving the hobgoblin false hope other than the enjoyment he got out of it.
It also allowed him to mislead the Goblin long enough to kill him without hassle of having to deal with his loosened shackles and hidden weapons.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
I like that commander. :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSummoner
There is no reason to cross that line unless you enjoy it. The commander gained nothing by giving the hobgoblin false hope other than the enjoyment he got out of it.
Except, of course, that he did it right in front of two Azurite resistance members, which (combined by the fact that neither elfs' expressions seem to betray any enjoyment at all) leads me to suspect that the actions were more to encourage the Azurites than to spew mindless racism for racism's sake.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
He drew out the action to make a point.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSummoner
There is no reason to cross that line unless you enjoy it. The commander gained nothing by giving the hobgoblin false hope other than the enjoyment he got out of it.
Maybe the commanded did realize that killing the hobgoblin was necessary... I don't disagree, it was the safest thing to do... but the fact that he taunted him and gave him false hope like that first made it an evil action.
You know why i find this argument - not just what you said, but the whole entire arguement about the morality of his actions - stupid? His other two options were to execute him without a word, or tell him he was going to die anyway.
(EDIT: Or not kill him, which is the stupid idea.)
The first option would be called into question because somebody somewhere would point out that he said nothing and therefore he never even considered that the goblin could help, making it racist and/or evil.
The second would have put the goblin into a veritable state of paniced terror before he died, which is the state he ended up in anyway, making it evil and/or racist.
Quote:
If that makes him better than Belkar in your eyes, then fine... the commander is less evil than someone whose level of evil is measured in kilonazis and has been compared to the fictional offspring of Sauron and Cruella DeVille for the sake of having a a baseline.
I only said that because somebody put his actions on par with Belkars, which you just pointed out is ridiculous.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Here's something I don't quite understand:
It takes only a single, drawn out execution of a Hobgoblin to have one be declared "Evil".
But risking life and limb in a rescue operation to save what appears to be a sizable amount of Azurite slaves, who would probably otherwise end up dead or worse, is never once brought up.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Solara
Yeah, but, 'I saw a couple of elves with the Resistance guys' does not necessarily equal 'the elven kingdom has sent an elite team to infiltrate and free the city'. If Belkar had ever failed to cut the kidneys out of a witness or two and word of his presence got back to Redcloak, I'm sure he's not going to immediately assume the closest halfling town is out to get his precious Gobbotopia.
And yes, I am aware I'm over-thinking this.
I would say rather that you are not considering all the implications.
A lone halfling, one that Redcloak has known about for hundreds of strips (he doesn't know for certain they're the same, but he can guess), accompanying the humans--not significant indicator.
A coordinated strike force of elves appearing for the first time to assist the Azurites on a major prison break--very significant indicator.
They are not equivalent events. The fact that both involve a being of a different race is the only point of similarity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSummoner
There is no reason to cross that line unless you enjoy it. The commander gained nothing by giving the hobgoblin false hope other than the enjoyment he got out of it.
Maybe the commanded did realize that killing the hobgoblin was necessary... I don't disagree, it was the safest thing to do... but the fact that he taunted him and gave him false hope like that first made it an evil action.
If that makes him better than Belkar in your eyes, then fine... the commander is less evil than someone whose level of evil is measured in kilonazis and has been compared to the fictional offspring of Sauron and Cruella DeVille for the sake of having a a baseline.
I disagree specifically with your assertion that there is no reason to do more than strictly necessary unless 'you enjoy it'. Racial prejudice may be evil, but it's not 'murder for the enjoyment of it'.
In fact, what strikes me most about the commander is the dispassionate nature of his action--as if killing a goblin is like killing a louse. Again, evil, but not 'murder for enjoyment' or any such thing.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darklord Bright
Here's something I don't quite understand:
It takes only a single, drawn out execution of a Hobgoblin to have one be declared "Evil".
But risking life and limb in a rescue operation to save what appears to be a sizable amount of Azurite slaves, who would probably otherwise end up dead or worse, is never once brought up.
Good acts don't excuse evil ones. That's like James Bond saying since he stopped the villain of the week's evil master plan to blow up London it's okay for him to rape little girls.
-
Re: OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drolyt
Good acts don't excuse evil ones. That's like James Bond saying since he stopped the villain of the week's evil master plan to blow up London it's okay for him to rape little girls.
Except it's not at all. Killing a single unarmed, tied hobgoblin, who was probably lying and potentially a danger to the operation, is in no way on par with raping children.