What alignments are feasible for Enor & Ganji?

[Ron Miel]

I thought Ron couldn't astound me further, but claiming things that actually happened in the comic are "total nonsense" because they don't support his preferred conclusion managed it.

The problem is that you keep on distorting things in the comic to support your claims. You claim things as happening in the comic. Most of your claims just simply did not happen.

In comic Ganji and Enor make a minor attack on Roy that doesn't harm him, then try to leave. You twist that into an attempt to murder Roy. You don't have any support for that claim, other than your own belief.

You make an assertion and, when various people point out that it's not true, you just scream that unless they prove that the exact opposite is true, then your assertion is so true. It's not sound.

[Narren]

The problem is that you keep on distorting things in the comic to support your claims. You claim things as happening in the comic. Most of your claims just simply did not happen.

In comic Ganji and Enor make a minor attack on Roy that doesn't harm him, then try to leave. You twist that into an attempt to murder Roy. You don't have any support for that claim, other than your own belief.

You make an assertion and, when various people point out that it's not true, you just scream that unless they prove that the exact opposite is true, then your assertion is so true. It's not sound.

.......I'll try again.

Yes...they DID try to kill Roy. They used lethal force against him. That blast did what? 5d6 damage? That does an average of 17.5 points of damage. That's way more than enough to kill most people in the world. They didn't know that Roy was a high level fighter. Therefor, they were trying to kill him. And their reasons certainly WERE frivolous. He was asking questions. That's it. No reason to respond with lethal force because someone is annoying you.

In fact, Ganji even admits it in the 3rd panel. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html

[Ron Miel]

Please try to understand.

They did not try to kill Roy. They gave him ONE blast, and then they tried to leave.

See that very important part there? I'll say it again.

THEY TRIED TO LEAVE



If they were trying to kill Roy, they would have stayed and blasted him over and over again.

But they didn't do that.

They tried to leave. While Roy was still alive.

Because they were not trying to kill him.

Do you understand yet, or will I have to simplify it any more?

[Narren]

Please try to understand.

They did not try to kill Roy. They gave him ONE blast, and then they tried to leave.

See that very important part there? I'll say it again.

THEY TRIED TO LEAVE



If they were trying to kill Roy, they would have stayed and blasted him over and over again.

But they didn't do that.

They tried to leave. While Roy was still alive.

Because they were not trying to kill him.

Do you understand yet, or will I have to simplify it any more?

They blasted him with a potentially lethal blast. He didn't die (or even get scratched, hardly) so they realized he was a serious threat. So they tried to flee. If they just wanted to leave, they didn't have to blast him first. They could have just left.

[FatJose]

They blasted him with a potentially lethal blast. He didn't die (or even get scratched, hardly) so they realized he was a serious threat. So they tried to flee. If they just wanted to leave, they didn't have to blast him first. They could have just left.

Everything is potentially lethal. They had to rename non-lethal weapons to less-lethal specifically because they kill people. Beanbag guns kill. Tasers kill. Mace kills. They have a very low mortality rate but it happens. Especially when the person using the weapon thinks there will be no permanent damage. It might be stretching but I would assume Roy walks around in gear that "looks" like an above 10th level fighter, so why not? Also, slapstick. Also, everyone in that bar was high level.

[Ron Miel]

If they just wanted to leave, they didn't have to blast him first. They could have just left.

No.

look at it this way.

They are bounty hunters. They catch criminals and hand them over to justice. The people they catch quite likely have friends and associates out for revenge.

So, they sit enjoying a quiet meal. They get approached by a big man in armour with a huge sword. The guy wants to know what happened to his friends.

Ganji guesses correctly that he is a comrade-in-arms of one of their captures. He doesn't know WHICH one.

WE know that Roy is the hero. Ganji doesn't. He has every reason to think that Roy is a potential threat to them.

You tell me, what should a good or neutral aligned character do in such a circumstance? Should they wait for the guy to draw his weapon and attack them? That's a good way to get themselves killed.

No, when threatened, they gotta strike first and hard. A perfectly appropriate action is to quickly blast him, for non-lethal damage, then run away before he can get up again. And that's exactly what they did.

They. Did. Not. Try. To. Kill. Him.
It wasn't frivolous either.

[Narren]

Everything is potentially lethal. They had to rename non-lethal weapons to less-lethal specifically because they kill people. Beanbag guns kill. Tasers kill. Mace kills. They have a very low mortality rate but it happens. Especially when the person using the weapon thinks there will be no permanent damage. It might be stretching but I would assume Roy walks around in gear that "looks" like an above 10th level fighter, so why not? Also, slapstick. Also, everyone in that bar was high level.

Yes, beanbag guns can kill. Tasers and mace do not kill. Some deaths have been the result of situations in which these tools were used, but they were not the cause of death. However, this is terribly off topic and potentially quite derailing. I guess my point is, you can't compare real life less-lethal weapons with D&D. It doesn't really translate. When you blast a random stranger with 5d6 points of damage, you're prepared to kill him. Yes, he was wearing armor and had a sword. So does the level 1 town guard, who only has 8 hitpoints. This isn't World of Warcraft where you can automatically tell what level someone is based on their gear.

[Narren]

No.

look at it this way.

They are bounty hunters. They catch criminals and hand them over to justice. The people they catch quite likely have friends and associates out for revenge.

So, they sit enjoying a quiet meal. They get approached by a big man in armour with a huge sword. The guy wants to know what happened to his friends.

Ganji guesses correctly that he is a comrade-in-arms of one of their captures. He doesn't know WHICH one.

WE know that Roy is the hero. Ganji doesn't. He has every reason to think that Roy is a potential threat to them.

You tell me, what should a good or neutral aligned character do in such a circumstance? Should they wait for the guy to draw his weapon and attack them? That's a good way to get themselves killed.

No, when threatened, they gotta strike first and hard. A perfectly appropriate action is to quickly blast him, for non-lethal damage, then run away before he can get up again. And that's exactly what they did.

They. Did. Not. Try. To. Kill. Him.
It wasn't frivolous either.

They didn't blast him for non-lethal damage, they blasted him with a lighting bolt. That's lethal damage. Oh, and I was mistaken on the damage, it's actually 6d8. So their response to someone who is (politely) inquiring about his friends is to blast them with an average of 27 points of damage. They have no idea what level he is, so if he's less than say...level 3, he's probably going to instantly die. That attack COULD do up to 48 damage. Remember, high level characters are pretty rare. They have NO IDEA how many hitpoints Roy has, so they are prepared to kill him with that blast.

You can't just attack, and possibly kill, EVERYONE that you think could be a potential threat. Roy wasn't even being aggressive, he was nicely asking for help to find his friends. And he was met with a snarky comment and a lighting bolt to the face.

[Ron Miel]

They didn't blast him for non-lethal damage,

Oh, that's right. The damage was lethal. I forgot that Roy died again.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

Turns out the damage wasn't lethal.

So their response to someone who is (politely) inquiring about his friends ...

I explained to you at length why Roy seemed like a threat to them.

You have simply ignored it. How about trying to answer it?

[Gift Jeraff]

Oh, that's right. The damage was lethal. I forgot that Roy died again.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

Turns out the damage wasn't lethal.

Lethal damage is anything that can potentially kill. I don't think you can deal nonlethal damage with a breath attack.

[Narren]

Oh, that's right. The damage was lethal. I forgot that Roy died again.

Oh wait, no he didn't.

Turns out the damage wasn't lethal.

What's the point in being sarcastic? Lethal attacks deal lethal damage. Non-lethal attacks deal non-lethal damage. I don't know if you play D&D, are you familiar with the difference?

And the attack was potentially lethal (as far as they knew). If someone shoots you with a pistol, but the bullet barely grazed you, does that mean that they were NOT trying to kill you?

I explained to you at length why Roy seemed like a threat to them.

You have simply ignored it. How about trying to answer it?

I agree with you that Roy could be perceived as a possible threat. But you can't try to kill everyone that could be a possible threat. He wasn't directly threatening them, he was asking questions about his friends. I understand treating him apprehensively, because you don't know who he is. But they could have, you know, told him they didn't know anything or start leaving. If he goes for a weapon or tries to use any kind of force against them, then blast away.

[Ron Miel]

What's the point in being sarcastic?

Because it helps to get the point across better than repeated explanations.

Lethal attacks deal lethal damage. Non-lethal attacks deal non-lethal damage. I don't know if you play D&D, are you familiar with the difference?

I used to play, haven't done so for years. D&D was never my favourite system, anyway.

And the attack was potentially lethal (as far as they knew). If someone shoots you with a pistol, but the bullet barely grazed you, does that mean that they were NOT trying to kill you?

That's how it works in the real world. But I remember enough of D&D rules to know that damage doesn't work that way in the game. You CAN hit someone for damage without killing them.

I agree with you that Roy could be perceived as a possible threat. But you can't try to kill everyone that could be a possible threat. He wasn't directly threatening them, he was asking questions about his friends. I understand treating him apprehensively, because you don't know who he is. But they could have, you know, told him they didn't know anything or start leaving. If he goes for a weapon or tries to use any kind of force against them, then blast away.

Following that advice is a good way to get killed.

You see, there are two types of story. There is the badly written type where the good guy never draws first. He only draws his gun AFTER the bad guy has drawn his. The bad guy shoots and misses, but the good guy shoots and hits.

Any cop or soldier that tried that in real life would die.

The second type of story is where the good guy draws first and shoots if the bad guy even looks like he's attempting to draw. This is much better written, and it's what cops and soldiers do in real life.

Basically, all Ganji did was to draw first against a perceived threat.

I see nothing "evil" about that.

[thereaper]

This statement is totally wrong.

YOU are the one making the claim that they are 'evil' it is up to YOU to prove it.

Every character should be assumed 'Not Evil' until there is proof of evil.




No, YOU are the one making the claim, YOU have to prove it.



Ganji's act of self sacrifice in the arena.



Yes it does. There is no logical reason for dismissing it. You just want to ignore it because it ruins your theory.





They didn't try to kill Roy, and their reasons were not frivolous.




It's perfectly obvious that he's just saying that to upset Roy. Ganji already knows that Elan isn't being tortured, but is having a festival thrown in his honour.



This is nonsense. You keep saying it but it makes no sense.

They hunt criminals for reward. Collecting a reward from an Evil Empire does not make them supporters of the empire.

You have been told this point over and over. You have NOTHING to support your position



Wrong. Literature is full of good characters who work only for pay and who won't go against the bad guys unless they get something in return.

Are you old enough to remember a TV show called The A-Team?

: In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.


They could be hired by the good guy for protection against the bad guys. And the point is, they were HIRED. And their fees were high, like about $40,000 cash, or 5% ownership of the good guy's business. Anyone without that kind of money to spare didn't get their help.

And they were certainly "good" characters.




All four are total nonsense.

I claim they are neutral at best. I must prove that claim. To do so, I must demonstrate that they cannot be good (not that they are evil, only that they are not good).

You claim they are neutral at minimum. You must prove that claim. To do so, you must prove that they cannot be evil (not that they are good, only that they are not evil).

A character who only does good things when there is money in it is not good by D&D alignment standards. They are neutral. Fiction is full of neutral (and even evil) protagonists.

Attacking someone with an attack dealing lethal damage when that person's level is not known is an attempt at killing. Whether or not one tries to escape after it fails is irrelevant. The "good" alternative is to attempt an intimidate check or leave. A "good" character would only have attacked Roy with lethal damage if Roy had attacked first.

Now, time to quote the SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Enor and Gannji have not shown the tendencies associated with "good" for anyone except one another. A character who is only committed enough to make sacrifices for one or two people that they know very well is not good, but neutral.

A good character shows the kind of commitment Enor and Gannji show to each other to nearly any innocent person. This kind of behavior is anathema to the way Enor and Gannji have been depicted in the comic. They care about themselves and that's about it.

They have, however demonstrated a willingness to kill when it was convenient (typically classified as evil), and shown themselves willing to help an evil empire (would you catch people North Korea put bounties on?). This alone is not enough to prove that they are evil, of course. However, I do not have to prove that they are evil. I must only prove that they are not good (see above).

Ultimately, the problem here seems to be that you have difficulty understanding the difference between good and neutral. Neutral does not simply mean your evil acts are balanced by your good ones. It indicates, well, the mindset that most real life people have. They care about themselves and maybe a few other people they are close to, but they won't sacrifice for people outside of that (and nor will they stoop so low as to do horrible things to those other people).

[AxeD]

Hey, sorry if this is a stupid question, but since enor is a half dragon, shouldn't he be the same alignment as his blue dragon parent? "Always lawful evil" or can that change?

[Studoku]

Hey, sorry if this is a stupid question, but since enor is a half dragon, shouldn't he be the same alignment as his blue dragon parent? "Always lawful evil" or can that change?

Not necessarily. Even "Always x" alignments (which I'm surprised half-dragon is) have exceptions. There's even a succubus paladin out there.

It's a shame this is the case. Unrealistic though it is for one race to all have the same alignment, it'd at least stop these ridiculous alignment debates.

[hamishspence]

While the template says "Alignment- Same as the dragon variety" the sample half-black dragon in the MM, in it's Alignment section, says "Often Chaotic Evil"

So I'd say that "Often" was left out of that bit- and should be taken into account.

Basically, all Ganji did was to draw first against a perceived threat.

I see nothing "evil" about that.

In the real world, "drawing first and shooting" against a "perceived threat" that has done as little to be threatening as Roy had at that moment, generally gets murder (or attempted murder) charges.

And in D&D, Murder is generally considered to be an evil act.

[Kish]

I explained to you at length why Roy seemed like a threat to them.

I pointed out to you that Gannji freely agrees that Roy asked a perfectly reasonable question, to which they responded with violence.

You ignored that. As, in fact, you have ignored so many things other people have pointed out to you in this thread...

You have simply ignored it. How about trying to answer it?

...that the irony here is staggering.

[hamishspence]

That's how it works in the real world. But I remember enough of D&D rules to know that damage doesn't work that way in the game. You CAN hit someone for damage without killing them.

"Damage" that has no chance of killing the victim (no matter how much is delivered) only of knocking them out, is called "nonlethal" in D&D.

It can be done with melee weapons, but not ranged weapons- unless the ranged weapons have the special "Merciful" magical trait.

It can be done with spells- but that takes a feat.

And I don't think it can be done with Supernatural Abilities (like breath weapons) at all.

[Narren]

Because it helps to get the point across better than repeated explanations.

Apparently it doesn't.

That's how it works in the real world. But I remember enough of D&D rules to know that damage doesn't work that way in the game. You CAN hit someone for damage without killing them.

Yes, you can hit someone without killing them. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But dealing an average of 27 damage to someone while having NO idea how many hitpoints they have means you are prepared to kill them. Again...if someone shoots you, but the bullet grazes your shoulder, does they mean they weren't trying to kill you?

Following that advice is a good way to get killed.

You see, there are two types of story. There is the badly written type where the good guy never draws first. He only draws his gun AFTER the bad guy has drawn his. The bad guy shoots and misses, but the good guy shoots and hits.

Any cop or soldier that tried that in real life would die.

Umm...no. You're drawing a false dichotomy. It's not "You wait for him to shoot first" or "You kill anyone that could ever pose a threat to you." No, a cop (or anyone) does not have to wait to be shot at to respond with lethal force. But they have to be able to articulate why the person they used potentially lethal force against was a threat to their life or the life of another. You CANNOT use deadly force against someone because he was asking questions about someone, even if you think they guy could be a threat. He hasn't even BEGUN to present himself as a threat.

I could be mistaken on soldiers, but I believe that the rules of engagement only allow most soldiers to use force if fired on first. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The second type of story is where the good guy draws first and shoots if the bad guy even looks like he's attempting to draw. This is much better written, and it's what cops and soldiers do in real life.

Basically, all Ganji did was to draw first against a perceived threat.

I see nothing "evil" about that.

If Roy walked up with his hand on his hilt and was threatening them with either looks, actions, or words, then fine. That's not what happened. If Roy went for his sword and they blasted him with a prepared action, fine. That's not what happened. They attacked him unprovoked.

[hamishspence]

Umm...no. You're drawing a false dichotomy. It's not "You wait for him to shoot first" or "You kill anyone that could ever pose a threat to you." No, a cop (or anyone) does not have to wait to be shot at to respond with lethal force. But they have to be able to articulate why the person they used potentially lethal force against was a threat to their life or the life of another. You CANNOT use deadly force against someone because he was asking questions about someone, even if you think they guy could be a threat. He hasn't even BEGUN to present himself as a threat.

Yup. The last time this sort of topic was discussed in detail was the "was Roy morally justified in attacking Miko after she murdered Shojo" threads- and it was hard enough to justify Roy's action, even with a murder having being committed immediately before, and Miko having rearmed herself, being clearly unstable, and having previously announced that "everyone in this room but me and Hinjo is an agent of evil".

Ganji has none of these mitigating factors in his favour.

[Ron Miel]

I pointed out to you that Gannji freely agrees that Roy asked a perfectly reasonable question, to which they responded with violence.

A throwaway joke that doesn't invalidate the point that they felt threatened by Roy's approach.

You ignored that.

I felt it to be too trivial to be worth anhswering

As, in fact, you have ignored so many things other people have pointed out to you in this thread...

You've only said a small number of things. You keep saying them over and over. I have not ignored therm. I've pointed out olver and over why you are wrong.

But you just keep making stuff up.

...that the irony here is staggering.

true, but not the way you think it is.

[Ron Miel]

Apparently it doesn't.

apparently it does.

It helped get a message through to you, that you had previously ignored.

Yes, you can hit someone without killing them. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But dealing an average of 27 damage to someone while having NO idea how many hitpoints they have means you are prepared to kill them.

They are experienced bounty hunters. They are used to judging the threat posed by an enemy. And here's the thing. They try to knock their targets out, but leave them alive.

They are therefore able to judge how many hitpoints of damage they can do to someone without killing him.

Again...if someone shoots you, but the bullet grazes your shoulder, does they mean they weren't trying to kill you?

Already answered.

Real world injuries aren't the same as D&D injuries. In D&D you CAN shoot someone with an arrow for a small amount of damage without trying to kill them.

Plus Roy's armour and sword telegraph that he's a fighter type, able to withstand damage.

Umm...no. You're drawing a false dichotomy. It's not "You wait for him to shoot first" or "You kill anyone that could ever pose a threat to you."

Amazing, you understand "false dichotomy" but not "begging the question."

They didn't try to kill him.

You CANNOT use deadly force against someone because he was asking questions about someone, even if you think they guy could be a threat.

They didn't use deadly force.

[hamishspence]

Real world injuries aren't the same as D&D injuries. In D&D you CAN shoot someone with an arrow for a small amount of damage without trying to kill them.

Strictly, you cannot. Ranged weapons do lethal damage, and can't be adjusted to do nonlethal- not without magic. If you shoot a 1st level Warrior with an arrow you have a fair chance of doing enough damage to reduce him to negative hitpoints- after which he's fairly likely to bleed out and die in less than a minute, without healing.

Plus Roy's armour and sword telegraph that he's a fighter type, able to withstand damage.

They don't telegraph anything about his level though- the largest proportion of fighters in a D&D universe are 1st level, and 1st level fighters are almost as fragile as 1st level Commoners.

They didn't use deadly force.

They did significantly more damage than an assault rifle from DMG does- that is, in-setting, "deadly force". The fact that Roy is unusually high level does not change the fact that the vast majority of NPCs in a D&D world would have died from that much damage.

[Ron Miel]

They are bounty hunters

Their business model is based on knocking criminals down and capturing them alive.

They are experts at knowing how much damage you can do to someone without killing them.

[hamishspence]

Or-

Paralysing their targets with Strength-damaging poison bolts.

Hitting them first with several nonlethal blows, then hitting them with lethal blows till they pass out without ever reaching negative hit points.

Researching the target ahead of time so they can judge if the target is tough enough to survive at least one lethal blow.

None of which they do with Roy- all they do is open fire.

The presumption that they know Roy is high level- seems lacking in support.

They are experts at knowing how much damage you can do to someone without killing them.

In a D&D setting, damage is rolled randomly.
And characters vary enormously in hit points.

Thus- unless you know ahead of time how tough the target is- the same blow that will barely faze a high level fighter, will leave a commoner stone dead.

To put a Star Wars parallel on it- Enor's breath weapon is not something that "knocks out" . It is not something that can be "dialed down to a stun setting". It is a lethal weapon that Roy happened to be tough enough to survive.

Just like Leia surviving being shot with a blaster bolt in Return of the Jedi,doesn't change that blaster bolts are lethal- and that you don't shoot someone with a blaster bolt if you want them to survive.

[Ron Miel]

Please look at the actual comic.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0713.html

In the actual comic a lightning blast is a way of knocking out their target without killing him.

Maybe it doesn't work that way in the game rules, but that doesn't matter to what's in the comic.

[hamishspence]

The comic says nothing about it being "used to knock Roy out without killing him".

And, as a D&D comic, the presumption is that 3.5 D&D rules are in force except when proven otherwise.

What happens, is that Roy survives the hit. We cannot say that "the intent was to knock him out without killing him"- because we have no evidence of that.

We have no reason to think that they can judge Roy's level accurately based on the few seconds they see him in the strip.

[martianmister]

You can say same thing for Vaarsuvius and her/his explosive runes.

[hamishspence]

I did mention that in some of the V's Alignment threads- that V's use of Explosive Runes on the half-orc could easily come across as attempted murder- since he doesn't know the half-orc is tough enough to survive.

As for the use of Lightning Breath on Elan- a case could be made that that had done enough research on Nale, to judge how high level he was, what his levels were, and therefore roughly how much damage Nale would need to knock him out- and used a mix of lethal and nonlethal attacks on "Nale" (actually Elan, unknown to them) with the intention of taking him alive.

However, that case can't be made for the attack on Roy.

[Ron Miel]

The comic says nothing about it being "used to knock Roy out without killing him".

The comic directly SHOWS Elan getting a blast of lightning breath and surviving.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0713.html

You do agree, at least,l that they were trying to take 'Nale' and associates alive and not kill them, right? You understand that part?


Every scrap of evidence in the comic says that a blast of Enor's lightning breath is NOT an attempt to kill.