OOTS #707 - The Discussion Thread

[Blaznak]

I would imagine there were probably some kind of standard orders to kill all the goblinoids. The leader just did it in a way that was expedient.

[Silver2195]

I'm very disturbed that people are defending the elf commander here. This is different from Familicide, which at least was used against an Always Evil race by someone who wasn't thinking clearly. The commander calmly and deliberately killed the hobgoblin (Usually Evil, meaning a sizable minority are not evil) just because he was a hobgoblin. If he'd given a reason like "I don't believe your story and we can't risk having witnesses", that would be one thing, but he gave no reason except racism for his action.

[FerhagoRosewood]

I thought it was funny.

And I'm liking the female NPC with the eyepatch. Hope she gets a name soon.

^-^

[TheSummoner]

I would imagine there were probably some kind of standard orders to kill all the goblinoids. The leader just did it in a way that was expedient.

Except he didn't.

He gave the Hobgoblin false hope first and led him to believe he would be freed.

It was unnecessary. It was sadistic. It was cruel. Thats what makes the act evil.

The killing in itself could be considered a necessity, but the taunting... not so much.

[wowy319]

he decided to taunt that individual and give him false hope first.

Killing the hobgoblin may have been for the good of the group... to eliminate a potential risk. That much I agree with. Taunting him and giving him false hope on the other hand... people don't do that sort of thing unless they get some sort of enjoyment out of it. There was nothing to be gained from it other than the pleasure he got out of it. It was sadistic and cruel. THAT is what was evil.

I never said it wasn't. I said it was in accordance with his likely alignment. And the way he did it was still logical; rather than waste time having the same discussion of morals with Thanh or anyone else who would have raised this same question, he tricked the guy into coming with him quietly. It was that or drag him kicking and screaming away from the group which would have caused the problem he was trying to avoid. Was it evil? Sure, that was a pretty crappy thing to do. But it was still logical to him and in what he felt was the best interest of his mission, which is what neutral is all about.

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure if you understand that the people at the tower were all soldiers. Soldiers knowingly put their lives at risk. To say that someone who has to fight and kill for a living has no reason to expect that someone else can and will try to kill them is asinine.

Again: being a soldier is no excuse for being a butcher. The hobgoblin had his hands tied, for crying out loud.

You sure don't think much of the military, do you? Neither do I, as a matter of fact. But I usually don't assume them to be glorified, racist butchers.

And no, there weren't any hobgoblins left in the area besides him. If there were any left, they would have been swarmed by wights already.

That would require that those hypothetical hobgoblins were free and had enough lead time to call for succor. There were indeed none, and there was no significant risk of that one getting free in time to make a difference, either. His hand were tied, he could be kept out of action for long enough without being killed.

Sure, he would then tell Gobbotopia authorities about the escape and the presence of the Elven Teams. But what are the odds that such a large escape will pass unnoticed anyway?

It is not even reasonable to assume that killing him will keep Gobbotopia in the dark about who and how many people freed the captives. Even if there are no witnesses, there is scrying magic to consider.

To sum up what happened: Soldiers were guarding enslaved civilians. A group of enemy soldiers attacked them and won this skirmish. In battle, the attacking soldiers killed all enemy combatants to prevent reinforcements from arriving.

True enough so far.

A likely neutral-aligned elven commander saw a potentially dangerous person that could lead to the extermination or enslavement of their entire group, with none spared.

That would be true if the hobbo was free and about to escape. Not at all the case.

He took the logical course of action.

For an immoral racist, yes he did.

He was neutral aligned and was not bound by any moral code.

So it appears, although I have reason to suspect the "neutral" part.

The morality of his actions was in accordance to his alignment. Nothing out of the ordinary happened, and the world moved on.

And the world will keep moving, but that doesn't make his acts any less evil.

[wowy319]

I'm very disturbed that people are defending the elf commander here. This is different from Familicide, which at least was used against an Always Evil race by someone who wasn't thinking clearly. The commander calmly and deliberately killed the hobgoblin (Usually Evil, meaning a sizable minority are not evil) just because he was a hobgoblin. If he'd given a reason like "I don't believe your story and we can't risk having witnesses", that would be one thing, but he gave no reason except racism for his action.

That's pretty much the exact reason he gave. Didn't you see the point he brought up in panel four?

[LuisDantas]

Considering we know for a fact that the gods created social inequalities on purpose and encouraged their followers to slaughter those who weren't like them for XP, your viewpoint has little support.

We don't know that either, as the Giant himself clarified in another recent thread. Did you miss it?

[Kish]

That's pretty much the exact reason he gave. Didn't you see the point he brought up in panel four?

The exact reason that he gave was, "The only good goblin is a dead goblin." No need for "pretty much"s. It was a paraphrase of the real-world assertion, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

[Worira]

A question to those defending the elf commander: Do you actually think Rich intended the commanders actions to be viewed as positive? Or do you simply disagree with him as to whether they are?

[LuisDantas]

But that's incredibly unrealistic and makes for really lame storytelling. Black and white morality doesn't match the way people act at all, and it makes stories pretty uninteresting. Star Wars wouldn't have been anywhere near as great if the characters were all paragons of justice and virtue, and nor would Lord of the Rings. And you can't possibly tell me Hamlet would be a classic if the titular character was a goody-two-shoes.

Okay, I give up. If you want to call butchery "gray" morality, I have no reason to keep discussing the matter with you.

[Solara]

Told ya.

Goblins = Good

Azurites and Elves = Evil



In fact, let's be honest. Those aren't "slaves" or "refugees." Those imprisoned humans are horrible criminals who deserve whatever they get. Redcloak should've thrown them all into the rift a long time ago.

Christ almighty, I hope you're joking here...but this forum being what it is that's probably naively hopeful thinking.

If you're serious, then I don't know what to say. Congrats on being exactly like the characters you're condemning, I guess. Pulling off that kind of hypocrisy with complete sincerity and no sense of the irony is an accomplishment in itself.

[Kish]

Christ almighty, I hope you're joking here...but this forum being what it is that's probably naively hopeful thinking.

Read Rideryu's sig.

(I rather wish he'd turn the persona off occasionally, m'self. I can't remember the last time he said anything that wasn't defined by the attitude encapsulated in that sig, and it gets wearing, as well as reducing the signal-to-noise ratio to near zero because it's impossible to tell what his real stance on anything is.)

[wowy319]

You sure don't think much of the military, do you? Neither do I, as a matter of fact. But I usually don't assume them to be glorified, racist butchers.

Man, you'd better be trolling with that statement. You'd have to be making logical jumps that'd make Miko confused to get that out of "Soldiers fight and kill enemy combatants and know that they are running the risk of death just by being soldiers." Ad hominem is not debating, dude. If you want to have a discussion with me, you knock that off now.

[Kumo]

Yeah, they should have. They would be glorified today for it, it seems. Too bad they never followed on this, and you shot yourself in the foot here, proving the elf is far more evil than Redcloak can be.

SoD Spoiler

Spoiler

Show

Killing you own brother and letting people die just so you don't have to admit you're wrong sounds pretty evil to me. Or at least ridiculously narcissistic.

Or sending hobgoblins to "die like lemmings". Or genuinely enjoying the slaughter of an entire city. Or serving a lich who plans to basically use a god-killing abomination to take over the world.

Except it is nonsense, as they did nothing of the sort, indeed, even invited many Death Eaters and their sympathizers (Sirius and Snape, for example, ring a bell?) into their ranks, hell, they allowed many of them to teach at Hogwarts.

That's why they were good guys, and not a band of murderous scum.

Sirius was never a death eater or a sympathizer, Snape gave an iron-clad reason for being trusted, and working with the good guys does not instantly make you good any more than going to russia for a week makes me a russian.

The reason they were the good guys was because they fought a band of mass 'murderous scum' - ie, voldemort and the death eaters. ("Half of the muggle killings done in you-know-who's time were done for fun.") If they did it by murdering death eaters in their sleep, it would've added a gray/darker-gray morality quandary in the series but they still would've been the good guys because they have very specific targets while Voldemort basically kills everyone who looks like they would be fun to murder or might get in his way at some future point.

Nice try, but there is no such consensus. In fact, more sensible people found the kill to be stupid from the beginning

You assumed your opinion was the smarter one? Killing the hobgoblin may or may not have been morally wrong (i don't think it was, but you might) but it WAS the smart thing to do. Morally, was it stupid? Maybe. Logically? No.

[yawn] I love how apologists invented the whole 'sense motive' nonsense and it already spread like fire in wain apology attempt, despite having no support whatsoever in the very words of that racist prick himself.

If he said something like 'nice try' or 'I was supposed to buy that?' it would be a different story, but he didn't even hinted at it, and for now, you're like the guys arguing Thog, Belkar, Nale, V or Haley aren't evil because they're cool

Thog isn't evil because he's too stupid to realize that evil even exists, V isn't evil so much as self-centered, and whether Haley is evil depends on how much value you put on the law.

... wait, did anyone seriously claim Belkar and Nale aren't evil? Not GOOD at being evil, maybe, but come on!

As for sense motive, your entire argument is based on the idea that rolling it would have made a difference. Unless he put ranks in it or rolled a natural 20, would it have? Doubtful.

[wowy319]

Okay, I give up. If you want to call butchery "gray" morality, I have no reason to keep discussing the matter with you.

I fail to understand how killing enemy combatants is butchery. Killing the one dude? It's an evil act, but the elf isn't a paladin and is 90% likely to be neutral.

[Trixie]

To sum up what happened: Soldiers were guarding enslaved civilians. A group of enemy soldiers attacked them and won this skirmish. In battle, the attacking soldiers killed all enemy combatants to prevent reinforcements from arriving. A likely evil-aligned elven commander saw a potentially dangerous person that could lead to the extermination or enslavement of their entire group, with none spared. He took the logical course of action. He needlessly tortured prisoner, gave racist remarks, then offed him in disgusting way for no logical reason whatsoever. He was evil and was not bound by any moral code. The morality of his actions was in accordance to his alignment. Evil happened, and the world moved on.

Fix'd

[Mastikator]

Is it really reasonable to expect the elven commander dude to risk the safety of a large number of innocents to save one, singular evil racist hobgoblin who's willing to betray his own people (either that or worse, he's a spy)?
No, no it's not reasonable.

[Math_Mage]

I fail to understand how killing enemy combatants is butchery. Killing the one dude? It's an evil act, but the elf isn't a paladin and is 90% likely to be neutral.

All the more so since the elf believes it likely that the goblin is a spy. Even in the real world, the punishments for that get harsh real quick.

Of course, his prejudicial decision to automatically consider the goblin a spy because of his race is beyond the pale, and his toying around with the goblin before killing him is morally unjust. But his actions leave him far close to Neutral than Evil on the alignment continuum.

[Silver2195]

Is it really reasonable to expect the elven commander dude to risk the safety of a large number of innocents to save one, singular evil racist hobgoblin who's willing to betray his own people (either that or worse, he's a spy)?
No, no it's not reasonable.

Perhaps, but keep in mind the elven commander's reason: he was just as racist as the guy he was killing, if not more so.

[Kumo]

Perhaps, but keep in mind the elven commander's reason: he was just as racist as the guy he was killing, if not more so.

Or he thought the goblin was an idiot for thinking they'd risk it and screwed with him because of that =/

[Math_Mage]

Fix'd

If you, er, ignore the logic behind killing the goblin, then I suppose that could be considered a 'fix'. There was no torture, either, unless the definition of the word has changed radically. Needlessly painful death I'll grant you, but to a minor degree. Racism I'll grant you. 1.5/4 is not a good score, as these things go.

[DSCrankshaw]

I haven't read through all the arguments, but I'll just give two thoughts:

1. The hobgoblin was, at the least, a racist. He hates the green-skin goblins, and was in prison for roughing up one of them. Odds are that he's evil.

2. Thanh's not exactly far away, and even 1st level paladins get detect evil. He could have made certain the goblin was evil in no time.

3. Even if he is evil, even if he'd betray them in a heartbeat, there's currently enough magic floating around that they could have gotten good, honest answers out of him. So killing him was wasteful, whether or not it was justified.

[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.

[Kish]

Or he thought the goblin was an idiot for thinking they'd risk it and screwed with him because of that =/

And his lieutenant somehow knew what he was getting at, even though the commander had actually never previously expressed the horrifically racist opinion that the only good goblins are dead goblins, eh?

[amanojaku]

Hmm, in 707 issues of OotS I've never had a reason to criticize an issue, but I must say that this issue was the most predictable one I've ever seen. Soon as what's is name said "there are good goblins" I knew the punchline would be "dead goblins".

[Math_Mage]

I haven't read through all the arguments, but I'll just give two thoughts:

1. The hobgoblin was, at the least, a racist. He hates the green-skin goblins, and was in prison for roughing up one of them. Odds are that he's evil.

This is both a poor justification for thinking that the goblin is evil, and a poor justification for offing the goblin.

2. Thanh's not exactly far away, and even 1st level paladins get detect evil. He could have made certain the goblin was evil in no time.

Which would be an impractical waste of time during a critical operation.

3. Even if he is evil, even if he'd betray them in a heartbeat, there's currently enough magic floating around that they could have gotten good, honest answers out of him. So killing him was wasteful, whether or not it was justified.

We do not know if this was already done (good way to find out about the festival, for example). We have little reason to believe that the goblin had many answers to give. The marginal value of taking him prisoner would be small.

[Kumo]

Fix'd

To sum up what happened: Soldiers were guarding enslaved civilians. A group of enemy soldiers attacked them and won this skirmish. In battle, the attacking soldiers killed all enemy combatants to prevent reinforcements from arriving. A elven commander saw a potentially dangerous person that could lead to the extermination or enslavement of their entire group, with none spared. He took the logical course of action. He spoke with the prisoner, gave racist remarks, then offed him in a excruciatingly way to prevent risk to his men and those in the resistance. His alignment was unclear and therefore he was not bound by any moral code. The morality of his actions was most likely in accordance to his alignment, though it did not necessarily have to be since alignment is not the only thing deciding the morality of characters, except maybe for paladins. Stuff happened, and the world moved on.

Re fixed.

And his lieutenant somehow knew what he was getting at, even though the commander had actually never previously expressed the horrifically racist opinion that the only good goblins are dead goblins, eh?

Why not? Stupider crap has happened, Real life AND order of the stick.

Granted, probably not. But it's also perfectly plausible that they have only ever met hobgoblin soldiers, in which case referring to them as 'hobgoblins' is much simpler than saying 'hobgoblin soldiers.'

[Mastikator]

Perhaps, but keep in mind the elven commander's reason: he was just as racist as the guy he was killing, if not more so.

Races in D&D do have personality tendencies. It's why they have favored classes and some races are "usually chaotic" and others, such as hobgoblins are "usually lawful evil", and tend toward brutality and fascism. Elves tend to be arrogant jerks.
For a hobgoblin to outright betray his newfound country by roughing up a goblin for being green, despite the fact that the supreme leader is a "greenskin", means that's he's either lying or an unreliable traitor. There's simply no way he's worth the risk.

For the record the elf is specist. Like Readcloak.

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?

He wasn't putting anyone at risk at that point. Had they taken him with them then he'd gain valuable information of the whereabouts and the whoabouts of Than & Co. and would be able to escape, to divulge the information to the other hobgoblins.

[The Hop Goblin]

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.

On one hand, I found that the actions of the Elves and subsequent awe of their actions to be morally disgusting; I can bring up an example of how someone tied up, no weapons, and no way to escape can be a threat.

In the movie U-571, the captured U-Boat commander was signalling the pressence of the boat to the searching destroyer above. He was bound, he couldn't escape off of a submerged vehicle, and had no weapons at the time; but he could signal at the inopportune moment.

So, on that portion of the argument, I can bring up an example.