OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread

[The_Weirdo]

(...) maybe indicate that the resistance are shaking hands with the Devil.

And if that's what it takes for one to be free, by all means!

[MReav]

Deserves? I disagree. I don't think anyone deserves what they were doing to O-Chul for killing one dude, unarmed or no. Even Miko got to go to Celestia and see Windstriker again, and look at all the crap she pulled.

No... it's mentioned that Windstriker would visit her.

I think the hobgoblin is a jerk (he assaulted a green goblin for being a greenskin), and probably would have sold them out, but getting taken out like that was a **** move. I don't know the alternatives, maybe keeping him under security and teleporting him to the elven lands?

No.

[Kumo]

This morality debate is stupid.

However, that last post did raise an interesting question in an extremely twisted way: i can see the hobgoblins not knowing what the gate plan is for, (though judging from what redcloak said before they marched on Azure city [see roy's oracle Q&A] they do generally know a gate is involved) but why are they not asking questions about the giant swirling rift in the sky that very clearly wasn't there before the attack on Azure city?

[Dacia Brabant]

In case you haven't noticed, the arguement isn't over whether killing the hobgoblin was evil, (general consensus is that it was neccesary) but rather the method by which it was done.

Whether unfairly building up his hopes that he might be spared before killing him or just killing him outright, you still have a murdered prisoner on your hands. The means make it worse, but it's still bad.

And necessary != not evil.

Lawful Good protagonist killing unarmed, defenseless people who are completely at his mercy.

Old comic is old. Seriously, #11? Was there even a plot at that point?

Also, enemies magically put to sleep in the middle of combat for a few seconds aren't quite the same thing as prisoners. For one thing they can wake up and fight again unless you take time to shackle them, which the hobbo prisoner already was.

[Dark Matter]

For the entire ten seconds it takes them to get a Cleric to cast Speak with Dead

At which point the goblins information becomes useless and his death rather pointless

If you look at today's comic (707) you'll notice there are *no* dead goblin bodies. Maybe that's just art, or maybe they're taking the corpses to prevent any of them from being raised or spoken too.

And maybe that explains why the commander's last orders were to bring him with us, and why it seemed like it was going to be obeyed.

Or in other words, Team P is doing it's best to make sure their existence stays a secret.

And I'm not sure why giving a prisoner hope, even false hope, is evil while killing him isn't. It was a joke, this comic is full of them.

[Kumo]

Whether unfairly building up his hopes that he might be spared before killing him or just killing him outright, you still have a murdered prisoner on your hands. The means make it worse, but it's still bad.

Considering he would have been a risk had they released him, then killing him was fine. If you notice, the elf never actually said he was going to let him go, or give any hints to it for that matter. Heck, he actually said that he wasn't a nice guy.

And necessary != not evil.

I think you're getting 'evil' confused with 'cruel'. if it's necessary, it might not be good but it isn't evil.

Old comic is old. Seriously, #11? Was there even a plot at that point?

Plot was established at 13. whether rich had an idea for a plot at 11 is debatable.

Please don't, though.

[Zexion]

Awesome comic. I always wanted to see the terrorist elves, but I thought that they had been skipped over. Now I know that RICH HAS LIKE SIX COMICS ALL ABOUT THEM! YES!

[The_Weirdo]

Side note: I eagerly await the day when I learn the name of the cute resistance eyepatch girl. :D

[Seabyrn]

Elves? Awesome?

Eh, I disagree.

Anyone else think "17 types" referred to Pokemon at first?

I haven't read all 11 pages of comments, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I thought that the "why there are, like, 17 types." in the headline was meant as a subtle reference to Valley Elves, written up in an old April edition of Dragon Magazine.

[Turkish Delight]

I think you're getting 'evil' confused with 'cruel'. if it's necessary, it might not be good but it isn't evil.

We have the term 'necessary evil' for a reason. If killing an unarmed prisoner of war who is arguing for his life isn't evil, what is evil? Would you react with more revulsion if....say, the hobgoblin had been a young hobgoblin child spotted by the elves who stumbled across the raid and ended up filled with arrows to prevent him from raising the alert?

I actually think the elf didn't really have much choice in this matter. It's a guerrilla war, no real chance for taking prisoners or allowing potential moles in the group. But regardless, the action was evil, and the drawing it out rather than doing it quickly and cleanly made it more so.

[snikrept]

Tolkien himself had problems with this. He flip-flopped around with the actual origins of orcs precisely because he couldn't stand the thought of an 'Always Evil' species; it conflicted too violently with his Catholicism.

And yet, everyone in LotR treats orcs as essentially irredeemable. They spare the human prisoners at Helm's Deep, for example, but leave no orcs alive. There is never a point in the book at which orcs are presented as the slightest bit sympathetic; the closest they get is a couple of orcs musing on how much better it would be if they could raid and ransack on their own without 'big bosses' to push them around.

This has always been one of the more disturbing aspects of LotR, and the bazillions of fantasy authors who have followed it. 'Always Evil' has been the subject of innumerable deconstructions by webcomic authors, but the Giant seems intent on really ripping into it at every chance he gets.

Yes, exactly, I totally agree.

Tolkien invented elves as we know them, and made them awesome immortal badasses who are better at everything compared to the rest of us. There's no real line in power level drawn in his books between elves and the gods - they intermarry and produce children after all, see Melian and Thingol. But he also made the elves brutal bigots - along with just about everyone in his books, with a few exceptions like Gandalf (remember his speech to Frodo about whether Smeagol deserves death) and Frodo by the end (tries to prevent killing the halforcs during the scouring of the shire, even in pitched battle). And somehow the association of awesomeness and bigotry has stuck in fantasy literature.

c.f. the "Elves have a racial hatred of goblins, therefore killing them on sight is justified" sort of circular logic. That's what having a racial hatred means, yes.

I do think one of the great things about the OOTS story is how it explodes that longstanding swords&sorcery fantasy tradition that some sentient creatures are in the world to be chunks of XP for other sentient creatures, and nobody should bother to question this :) EDIT and I should add, it's the way Mr. Burlew does this that is great. Not by portraying an inversion where there are nice happy goblins who are cruelly mistreated by always-evil humans and elves, but by constructing a world where sentients who exist to be chunks of XP is the norm, and showing us all the twisted consequences of that. Scenes like this one with the elven commander are what make Redcloak such a sympathetic villain.

IMO the closest Tolkien got to a sympathetic orc was Uglúk. He even gets a heroic last stand!

[Hurkyl]

If killing an unarmed prisoner of war who is arguing for his life isn't evil, what is evil?

Killing a hobgoblin simply because it's a hobgoblin.

[Hurkyl]

We have the term 'necessary evil' for a reason.

"Necessary evil" is an oxymoron. The phrase is not used to refer to an evil act, but the sort of unpleasant act that we like to avoid getting involved in. If the terms "good" and "evil" are to have any substantial meaning, an actual evil act cannot be necessary.

[Beowulf DW]

Deserves? I disagree. I don't think anyone deserves what they were doing to O-Chul for killing one dude, unarmed or no. Even Miko got to go to Celestia and see Windstriker again, and look at all the crap she pulled.

I never said that the elf deserved to be tortured. I said that he deserved to be on the recieving end of a curb-stomp battle.

[Kumo]

We have the term 'necessary evil' for a reason.

It means that it would be evil in just about any other circumstance. The fact that the word 'evil' is included does not automatically make it evil.

"I will drink some evil milk!"
"Jack spicer's evil time machine!" (... ok, bad example)
"my evil flower garden!"

Originally i was going to put 'we also have the term oxymoron for a reason' but i thought it was too obscure.

If killing an unarmed prisoner of war who is arguing for his life isn't evil, what is evil? Would you react with more revulsion if....say, the hobgoblin had been a young hobgoblin child spotted by the elves who stumbled across the raid and ended up filled with arrows to prevent him from raising the alert?

Truthfully? Yes, i would. Should I? Probably not.

I actually think the elf didn't really have much choice in this matter. It's a guerrilla war, no real chance for taking prisoners or allowing potential moles in the group. But regardless, the action was evil, and the drawing it out rather than doing it quickly and cleanly made it more so.

I pose you this question: can you truly be evil if you have no opportunity to do good?

It's on a smaller scale here, and i'm probably doing a poor job of making my point, but i'll give it a shot anyway.

The commander's actions would have been evil under different circumstances but here he had no choice but to kill the goblin. Was it a good act? no. was it an evil act? also no.

[TheSummoner]

The commander's actions would have been evil under different circumstances but here he had no choice but to kill the goblin. Was it a good act? no. was it an evil act? also no.

See... this is the thing I think most of us agree on... that there was too much risk involved in letting the Hobgoblin live. That the commander had a duty to his followers and the prisoners they were rescuing to do whatever was necessary to ensure their safety...

But there is no way anyone could argue that it was necessary to taunt the Hobgoblin and give him false hope before killing him.

[Dacia Brabant]

Considering he would have been a risk had they released him, then killing him was fine. If you notice, the elf never actually said he was going to let him go, or give any hints to it for that matter. Heck, he actually said that he wasn't a nice guy.



I think you're getting 'evil' confused with 'cruel'. if it's necessary, it might not be good but it isn't evil.

Necessity, except for basic things like food, water and shelter, is subjective because mortals do not know all causes and all effects, only those causes and effects which are proximate to themselves. In this case, "the only good goblin is a dead goblin" from the perspective of the elf commander, or in your case a matter of hypothetical cost and risk to the freedom-fighters outweighing any possible benefit of keeping the prisoner.

So a thing can be deemed "necessary" from a personal or social perspective, but that doesn't keep it from being evil, which is a moral concept that carries a certain objectivity beyond any particular sets of circumstances. An example would be a war fought for self-preservation where the defender attacks the invader's civilian population in order to deter their armies from invading further.

[Beowulf DW]

The result of the commander's actions was not evil, just necessary given his circumstances.

The method he used to achieve the result was just plain sadistic.

[Turkish Delight]

"Necessary evil" is an oxymoron. The phrase is not used to refer to an evil act, but the sort of unpleasant act that we like to avoid getting involved in. If the terms "good" and "evil" are to have any substantial meaning, an actual evil act cannot be necessary.

Like a lot of comics here, this is an invitation for all kinds of real world examples that would invite scrubbing or deletion, but keeping it general, there are many things that might be absolutely necessary that are also morally repulsive.

I'm thinking of the Hemingway quote, roughly: "Never think that war, no matter how justified or necessary, is not a crime." War is the biggest example; a country mobilizing a bunch of young men (and often women nowadays), often against their will and with no understanding of why they're going, with the intent of systematically butchering and being butchered by a bunch of young men who were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong geographic region. It involves the intentional willingness to spread death, maiming, destruction, ruined lives, looting, disease, hunger, hatred, and a variety of other nastiness. If war isn't evil, what is?

And yet sometimes it is just and necessary. I guess we could say that so long as a war is necessary it isn't evil, but given how dripping the whole enterprise is with every kind of wickedness, from top to bottom, it almost seems profane to not always label it as evil.

[KiwiImperator]

Alright, I'm not gonna lie, it was a cold move, but I like to think of it this way: It used to be in certain parts of the world, prisoners condemned to death and prisoners cleared of charges would be told the same thing, that they were free, and that they should write a letter of thanks to the Premier/God Emperor/Chairman for pardoning them. The men condemned to death would be shot as soon as they sat down at the table, whereas those who were not would be allowed to write the letter and leave freely. (This might be hearsay, but it sounds truthful enough)

In my mind, this is just about the same thing, but with a bit of meanness (attributable to the guy being Chaotic or on the darker side of neutral) added in. It's pretty clear that this guy doesn't like hobgoblins, AND he can't bring the guy with him. He has to kill him, and frankly there's no GOOD way to tell someone that you're about to split him down the middle... So he picked the funny way. I can't fault the bro for that.

[DoomCup]

I just read through thirteen-odd pages of the same group of people repeatedly saying the exact same things over and over.

I hate you all.

[snikrept]

The result of the commander's actions was not evil, just necessary given his circumstances.

The method he used to achieve the result was just plain sadistic.

I would say necessary is not the opposite of evil, nor is it the reason for good.

Being backed into a corner where you must do evil out of necessity is, in fact, the big problem many people have with playing a Paladin, heh heh. "oh noes that innocent baby has been possessed by a demon and is going to open a gate that will wreck the world unless you kill the baby right now! oh noes!"

But seriously, offing a defenseless captive is like the textbook evil act. If you laugh at them or give them false hope while you are doing it is just evil icing on the cake.

[Dacia Brabant]

Like a lot of comics here, this is an invitation for all kinds of real world examples that would invite scrubbing or deletion, but keeping it general, there are many things that might be absolutely necessary that are also morally repulsive.

I'm thinking of the Hemingway quote, roughly: "Never think that war, no matter how justified or necessary, is not a crime." War is the biggest example; a country mobilizing a bunch of young men (and often women nowadays), often against their will and with no understanding of why they're going, with the intent of systematically butchering and being butchered by a bunch of young men who were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong geographic region. It involves the intentional willingness to spread death, maiming, destruction, ruined lives, looting, disease, hunger, hatred, and a variety of other nastiness. If war isn't evil, what is?

And yet sometimes it is just and necessary. I guess we could say that so long as a war is necessary it isn't evil, but given how dripping the whole enterprise is with every kind of wickedness, from top to bottom, it almost seems profane to not always label it as evil.

Yeah, this. Thank you.

[Beowulf DW]

I just read through thirteen-odd pages of the same group of people repeatedly saying the exact same things over and over.

I hate you all.

We love you, too.

[Elan's Modron]

I just read through thirteen-odd pages of the same group of people repeatedly saying the exact same things over and over.

I hate you all.

And so you kept reading for 13 pages?

[Kumo]

I just read through thirteen-odd pages of the same group of people repeatedly saying the exact same things over and over.

I hate you all.

why didn't you just skip to the end after the second page?

Necessity, except for basic things like food, water and shelter, is subjective because mortals do not know all causes and all effects, only those causes and effects which are proximate to themselves. In this case, "the only good goblin is a dead goblin" from the perspective of the elf commander, or in your case a matter of hypothetical cost and risk to the freedom-fighters outweighing any possible benefit of keeping the prisoner.

So a thing can be deemed "necessary" from a personal or social perspective, but that doesn't keep it from being evil, which is a moral concept that carries a certain objectivity beyond any particular sets of circumstances. An example would be a war fought for self-preservation where the defender attacks the invader's civilian population in order to deter their armies from invading further.

Are you kidding? Morality is even more subjective than necessity. Ask a person and they will tell you they 'need' but they really mean 'want'. Neccessities for survival are, in fact, ironclad: shelter, water, food. Anything else makes life easier but it isn't needed to live.

EDIT: Ok, medicine to manage a fatal disease too but that's objective as well.

[Milskidasith]

Basically, here's how I see it:

Killing a goblin who may or may not be evil may or may not be evil. It all depends on your views of necessity and, in fact, how necessary it was. Taking a prisoner wouldn't have been that hard, but if you believe that pragmatism is good, or at least non-evil, then I can see that viewpoint. What you believe here doesn't really matter.

The thing is, the way he killed the goblin is definitely evil. It may not be a majorly evil act, but killing somebody in a sadistic fashion while giving them false hope is definitely not anything besides evil.

[Zxo]

Wow, an update and 13 pages of discussion already...
I understand that keeping that hobgoblin alive might have been too much of a risk. But the manner in which the elf kills him is evil - joking, playing with the prisoner's hope... Your stereotypical Tough Good Guy would say: "sorry, can't afford to take that risk" and kill the possible spy straight away, not feeling good about what he must do. The elf enjoys it and doesn't have any respect for the victim. That's ugly.

[Lokey57]

Basically, here's how I see it:

Killing a goblin who may or may not be evil may or may not be evil. It all depends on your views of necessity and, in fact, how necessary it was. Taking a prisoner wouldn't have been that hard, but if you believe that pragmatism is good, or at least non-evil, then I can see that viewpoint. What you believe here doesn't really matter.

The thing is, the way he killed the goblin is definitely evil. It may not be a majorly evil act, but killing somebody in a sadistic fashion while giving them false hope is definitely not anything besides evil.

Was going to post, but this one pretty summed up everything I was going to say. Although do let me note that this type of behavior is what makes me want to cling to the slim chance of hope that Azure City remains under goblin/hobgoblin rule. I mean, at least they admit outright they're evil (...somewhat), rather than hiding behind a hypocritical banner of good.

[Rev. George]

What do you do with an enemy prisoner which you cannot properly secure, let alone feed/house? Here's a hint- The "quarter" in the term "No Quarter" comes from the use of the word to refer to lodgings/accommodations. Such things happen all too often in the real world. A famous (real-life inspired) literary example is in the novel Company K- One of the stories deals with the company capturing over a dozen prisoners before being given orders to go on to another objective. There is no one to secure the prisoners, no ability to send 3 people to march them back to HQ, and they cannot leave them there, because they now know the next secret objective. So they execute the prisoners. Of course the book is pretty much a morality tale about the horror of war, so take that for what it is worth.

Getting beyond that-
I know DND has changed a bit, particularly recently, but at least in the olden days, Rangers were a "good only class"...even know, I believe you can still be a good aligned ranger. Rangers have a "racial enemy" or now a "favored enemy" a group of creatures that he/she has an unabiding passionate hate for. how does this mesh with the black and white morality that is sometimes brought up? Can you be a good racist/ species-ist? Must you treat any and all sentient life as equal? or can you be a good alignment by ensuring mercy and compassion for all humans? or elves, as the case may be...

-+G