OOTS #1106 - The Discussion Thread

[Ruck]

Spoiler: Nale's Alignment and Death of the Author

Show

Two things.

1. Once you've written, you've written. Short of a retcon or edit, that is what you wrote, whether or not it's what you meant to write.
To take an example: When George R.R. Martin saw how tall the Wall was in Game of Thrones, he said it was too tall. He was told that it was exactly as tall as GRRM wrote it in A Song of Ice ad Fire (700 feet), to which GRRM replied that he'd written it too big. Now, should we assume that the Wall is as tall as GRRM wrote it (700 feet), or as tall as he meant to write it (probably much shorter)?
There's also a philosophical point to make here. Art (be it a brief sonnet or a years-long webcomic) is, at its heart, communication between author and audience. It might be a treatise on the nature of existence or an image of what the author thinks is cool, but it is still communicating ideas. If you believe the audience has a part in the discourse, then obviously the author isn't the be-all-end-all. But if not, then one again has to ask--if a message is not conveyed clearly, what does it mean? Does it mean what was intended, or what it said? If the Giant intended for Nale to be Neutral but did not convey that clearly, is he?
Maybe I'm just naturally disposed towards Death of the Author because of my scientific mindset, but...for something as (relatively) static as a work of art, to have its meaning and canon change with the whims and statements of the author feels deeply wrong. The meaning of a work of art should not change when the author says something new about it, unless it's a clarification or retcon or sequel or something. And it certainly shouldn't change to something not supported by the original piece.

2. The Giant didn't say "Nale is neutral," he said "This argument about Nale's alignment has merit". Whatever your position on Death of the Author, commenting on an argument means that argument can be critiqued. If the Giant thinks a flawed argument is not flawed, he is wrong. He may have the power to make the conclusion valid, but that is not the same as making the logic valid. And he didn't (directly) comment on the conclusion.



I'm not sure, but I do see how it means the Giant does not have a better grasp of the rules than most people.



Which is exactly why I take Nale's word on his alignment over the word of some guy on the forums. Even if that guy is Rich.



Not quite.
Again, that quote isn't the Giant saying "Nale is NE". It's him supporting an argument that suggests Nale is NE, which essentially means I am disagreeing with that argument. Its support is a combination of dubious assumptions about how Nale's behavior interacts with his alignment and the Giant's approval. I don't see anyone disagreeing with me saying that the original argument is flawed, so for the moment I'll say we all agree that that is not sufficient support along.
You believe "The Giant finds this argument 'interesting'" is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. I do not. That's it.



I'll agree that Nale isn't very Lawful, but in my book that's not the same as not being Lawful at all. He's much more Lawful than he is Chaotic (even if he has a pathological need to be on top which prevents him from working in other organizations--much the same could be said of Tarquin), and he calls himself LE.
Let me put it this way: If Nale was a character in my campaign, and his character sheet said Lawful Evil, I wouldn't tell him he had to change it, and he'd show up on Detect Law. If his character sheet said Neutral Evil, I wouldn't tell him he had to change it, and he wouldn't show up on Detect Law. He falls into a gray area, but self-identification is plenty sufficient to push him out of it.


You are wrong.
I referenced the debate between Nye and Ham earlier, which I hope doesn't count as discussing real-world religion. One of the most famous bits is where they were both asked what it would take to change their mind. Nye said evidence would change his mind, Ham said nothing would change his.
I am not Ken Ham, and I am insulted when someone ascribes to me that trait of his which I hate. I am (metaphorically) Bill Nye, which is an extremely unusual statement. If I saw evidence which showed Nale as being Neutral Evil, I would accept it. Believe it or not, an unequivocal statement that he is NE would count.
But we don't have that. We have him supporting an argument that Nale doesn't act "Lawful" enough. I do not agree with the logic of the argument (as explained before), so I do not find the argument convincing, even with the Giant calling it "interesting". Even if "interesting" is probably supposed to be a hint.



Then explain the Truenamer. Or, for that matter, this entire thread.
Incidentally, your argument that Rich knows D&D is, essentially, "An author is the best authority for what he writes". A basic understanding of logic should see the error in using such an argument to ultimately support the conclusion that Rich's statements on his work should be taken as ultimate authority.



First: The author didn't say that. He implied it, but by agreeing with a flawed argument. If he had agreed with a sound argument, or said something explicitly, or--you know--actually written Nale as clearly-not-Lawful, I would believe that he isn't Lawful.


I think it should be clear by now that I care little about intentions, save in how they are communicated through the text.

"Screw you": "I don't like you"
"Nothing will be convincing to you": "You are closed-minded"
How is the first worse than the second?

To put it another way: "Screw you" is what a disorderly drunk says to a police officer. (Among other situations, but you get the idea." "Nothing will be convincing to you" is what Bill Nye says to Ken Ham. (Well, it's more what Ham said about himself, but I really hope you get the idea.)

One's a conclusion based in observation and evidence, one which I went out of my way to explain (again: If the author of the story telling you something about his intentions doesn't convince you, why would anyone else be able to?), and the other is the verbal equivalent of a middle finger.

Just remember that you're the one who came up with the metaphor comparing yourself to Ken Ham, not me.

(EDIT: In fact, to use your Ham analogy, this would be like the following exchange happened:

BILL NYE: These fossil records show that evolution is real.
GOD: Interesting, that, don't you think?
KEN HAM: Nope, not convinced.

For all intents and purposes, Rich Burlew is the god of the OOTS universe, so if his own statements aren't enough to get you to re-think something, then no, I don't believe any reader of the comic will come up with something that will.)