Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!

[Ubiq]

Spoiler

Show

I hope Biscuit either bats it right back at him or makes a point out of avoiding it just because randomly coming into contact with an unknown item might be fatal.

K'selliss was kind of a moron; Biscuit isn't.

[Emperordaniel]

Spoiler

Show

Oh, shoot. This isn't good.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

So apparently the Goblins site was hacked by a Trojan. Fortunately, being a Linux user, I have nothing to worry about, but for those of you employing Windows, you may wish to steer clear for a few days until Thunt gets it back in order.

[Marnath]

So apparently the Goblins site was hacked by a Trojan. Fortunately, being a Linux user, I have nothing to worry about, but for those of you employing Windows, you may wish to steer clear for a few days until Thunt gets it back in order.

As far as I know all of the Blind Ferret sites were compromised. I saw a Retweet from them by Thunt saying everything is fixed, but obviously that isn't true.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

As far as I know all of the Blind Ferret sites were compromised. I saw a Retweet from them by Thunt saying everything is fixed, but obviously that isn't true.

The latest tweet I saw said that his computer is down because his computer got compromised by his own site, and that he's tweeting from his Xbox and Android.

[Gez]

As far as I know all of the Blind Ferret sites were compromised.

Yep, Girls With Slingshots is locked out too at the moment.

[Sutremaine]

Now that's just fighting dirty. It's about the only equaliser available to Grem so far though...

[ChowGuy]

Now that's just fighting dirty. It's about the only equaliser available to Grem so far though...

Proving once again though that like his mother, Grem's version of "honor" is just "what serves me best." Sorry I can't link to the actual strip at the moment, but he even says as much to Fox, explaining that using others, including goblins, as slave labor instead of having the Vipers do the work is "honorable" because 'we Vipers have to remain strong and ready to fight."

ETA: You'll recall by the way, that this was right after he accused her of being "dishonorable" for taking adventurer levels in order to defend her people on an equal footing, and demanding to know if she was also "dishonorable" enough to use their magic weapons. If that's not a "magic weapon" he's planning to use now that his "traditional" tools have failed him, I'm not sure what it is.

[B. Dandelion]

I think you're thinking of this comic and Grem doesn't defend the issue of slavery at all. The implication is more that he doesn't think it's really honorable, because he insists it's not his doing and makes personal excuses for the person whose it is ("my mother's under a lot of stress") rather than try to justify the action itself.

I don't recall him ever saying something negative magic weapons, either. In the next comic he asks Fox why she doesn't have any magic items, but not in a way that suggests disapproval, though it's sort of hard to tell since it's off-screen.

It doesn't surprise me people would root for Biscuit over Grem, but I can't get behind the mentality that "he should do the honorable thing and allow himself to be slaughtered" by the orc that will presumably resume wiping out the rest of his clan. That's not honorable, that's just nuts.

[Hands_Of_Blue]

Huh. Never realized so many people disliked Grem. I hope he lives, at least.

[ChowGuy]

because he insists it's not his doing and makes personal excuses for the person whose it is ("my mother's under a lot of stress") rather than try to justify the action itself.

[Cheap shot]"I was chust following orders."[/cheap shot]

I never said I dis-liked Grem per se, or even that I'd prefer Biscuit to win. Indeed from a story point of view, this "fighting dirty" is a good turn if it affords Grem the opportunity of additional character development, something Biscuit probably doesn't have here.

[B. Dandelion]

Just to be clear, the comic in question does showcase his primary lapse in moral judgment. What isn't accurate that he believes slavery is honorable or redefines the term to suit whatever suits him best at the moment.

I think the intended effect is to show us that Grem isn't necessarily a bad guy, but that he is looking the other way at behavior he does realize isn't acceptable because it's his mother, who he rationalizes must only be acting out of stress or whatever. This is not a good thing, but it's also kind of understandable that Grem hasn't worked his way up to recognizing his mother for what she is.

[ChowGuy]

It's not about slavery or the morality thereof (so let's don't turn this into a "morally justified thread") it's about honor which is not just []having[/i] principles, it's acting according to them. There are some who would think Death preferable to violating their principles, even principles we might feel are wrong or stupid - K'sellis for example who would rather have died then "eat something that's not 'food'."

Grem, though he strikes me as being someone who would accuse a foe of being "dishonorable" for using such tactics as a "matter of principle", is perfectly willing to employ them himself when it suits his needs. Maybe this fight will help him recognize that, and recognizing your own failings is the first step toward character development.

[B. Dandelion]

It's not about slavery or the morality thereof (so let's don't turn this into a "morally justified thread")

There's no danger of that when everybody's on the same page about it not being cool.

it's about honor which is not just having principles, it's acting according to them. There are some who would think Death preferable to violating their principles, even principles we might feel are wrong or stupid - K'sellis for example who would rather have died then "eat something that's not 'food'."

I remember that totally didn't hold. The fin that indicates battle-lust came up and then he did the whole "but this guy's pissed!" and attacked despite his reservations, and ultimately wound up trying to eat one and was thoroughly wigged out.

But nobody else cared.

Grem, though he strikes me as being someone who would accuse a foe of being "dishonorable" for using such tactics as a "matter of principle", is perfectly willing to employ them himself when it suits his needs.

He is a hypocrite because he "strikes you" as the kind of person who would accuse a foe of being dishonorable for using "such tactics" as the finger? That's pretty, uh, subjective and vague. Can we textually support the notion that he'd see the tactics he's using now as dishonorable?

When Grem objects to Fox's levels, he doesn't take the tack that the lives she saved mean nothing because she should have let them die rather than do such a thing, but that he'd managed to do the same without levels. He goes on to say he thinks Fox is so strong she shouldn't have needed levels. That's not indication he's the kind of person who believes you can be in a position where you should die rather than use some particular tactic, but that he believed Fox was never in such a position. Are there any examples of Grem using words to the effect of "it's better to die rather than [do X]?" The closest I can think of is when he thinks it's better to stand and fight the Finger Horror rather than run, but I can believe he was arrogant enough to think he stood a chance.

There's also nothing in particular about the finger that I can think of having come up. It's a really, really nasty way to go, but so what? Why would honor demand he prioritize Biscuit's not dying a horrible death over the continued existence of the rest of his clan?

I think it could be that he doesn't like pulling out the finger except as a last resort, and honor may have something to do with that, but it's perfectly reasonable to assume that was the logical progression of honorable behavior rather than a digression from honorable behavior.

Maybe this fight will help him recognize that, and recognizing your own failings is the first step toward character development.

I agree he has failings he needs to recognize, but I don't think they're applicable to how he's fighting Biscuit.

[Gez]

It's not about slavery or the morality thereof (so let's don't turn this into a "morally justified thread") it's about honor which is not just having principles, it's acting according to them.

Honor is a crutch to replace morality for immoral people. That's why it is used as a pretext for justifying gruesome murder and why it is a word that always come up in the vocabulary of mafiosi and soldiers. "Field of honor", anyone? No real principle here other than "hey, kid, here's a rifle, now go stand there and try to kill as many people as you can before you get killed yourself".

[Elystan]

Yes Grem, liquefy that overrated orc psycho

[TheSummoner]

It's not about slavery or the morality thereof (so let's don't turn this into a "morally justified thread") it's about honor which is not just having principles, it's acting according to them.

A bit off topic, but I really hate that phrase. "Morally justified." Bah, a character doesn't have to justify their morality to the audience. Morality is something that is automatically "justified" (Horrible word for it. Proven would be better, but justified is the one that people tend to cling to for some reason) through actions. If a character performs an action that goes against the audience's view of their morality, it means one of two things. Either the audience was wrong about that character's morality or that character's morality has changed over the course of the story (or possibly that the character is inconsistant and ping-pongs back and forth between saint and baby-eater like the "neutral" option in so many video games with tacked on, poorly executed morality systems and that the story is badly written, but that's another discussion entirely).

A character is good or a character is evil. That is morality at a basic level (if you want to include their methods you can add in chaotic or "lawful"... which is also a poor word choice but I won't go further off topic on it). There are certain actions and methods that a character might find preferrable or distasteful. Defining those and acting accordingly is a code of honor in a nutshell. It is not a "crutch to replace morality for immoral people" as Gez so cynically put, but something separate that exists side by side (otherwise it would be impossible for good... or moral... people/charactrs to have honor). Most importantly, morality is subjective. If a character's actions do not fit your subjective view of their morality, it does not mean they have to "justify" their actions to you, it means it might be a good idea for you to re-evaluate your view of that character's morality to something that reflects the evidence you are given.

[/rant]

[Doran]

Cue semantics argument I guess

[The Linker]

I didn't think 'morally justified' meant 'justified by their own views on morality' -- I thought it just meant 'I think he was right to do so'. When evil characters do evil things (boom goes the orphanage!), then, are they morally justified to do so?

I mean, I guess that makes sense. I just never knew.

[B. Dandelion]

I didn't think 'morally justified' meant 'justified by their own views on morality' -- I thought it just meant 'I think he was right to do so'.

Ditto. I don't get the other interpretation myself.

A "moral" action by itself is presumably "justifiable". But "justifiable" seems to imply context in a particular situation, while "moral" seems more absolute. So asking if something is "morally justified" asks whether some particular action in a particular context can be fit within an absolute moral framework, if the absolutes of the situation go against regular "morals".

So for example under conventional morality, killing people as a rule is not moral, but under some circumstances you can kill and not be in violation of morals. "Morally justified" covers such circumstances.

Problem is, there does happen to be a great deal of disagreement over where the "absolutes" of morality are in the first place, even before you get into the territory of justifiable exemptions.

[Puschkin]

How is the finger going to help him anyway? As I understand it, Biscuit has to EAT it in order to do any harm to him. How is Grem going to pull that off? Biscuit isn't Kselliss (spelling?), he doesn't eat everything you throw at him, biting isn't one of his natural attacks and his super-high wisdom means he won't be persuaded to eat it by a simple trick of Grem.

Try to force a raging bull to swallow a candybar - that's what Grem is trying to do now. Unless I understood something wrong about how Mr. Fingers works.

[Strawberries]

Try to force a raging bull to swallow a candybar - that's what Grem is trying to do now. Unless I understood something wrong about how Mr. Fingers works.

You understood something wrong about how Mr. Fingers works. The effect is triggered by touch. K'ssellis started to 'melt' with his hands, and died when Mr Fingers grabbed him.

[Squark]

The effect itself is essentially carried simply by touch, actually. Granted, Grem still has to get close enough with it, and Hit Biscuit somewhere critical, but the principle is there.

[willpell]

How is the finger going to help him anyway? As I understand it, Biscuit has to EAT it in order to do any harm to him.

Nope, he originally broke the finger off with his hand and held it there while saying he would eat it, but his hands started to turn to goo before he could chow down (which is the reason he continued to have a mouth to run off at while he and Grem bolted for the pipe).

The effect is triggered by touch. K'ssellis started to 'melt' with his hands, and died when Mr Fingers grabbed him.

Actually he died after biting into Mr. Fingers, and then going underwater where we couldn't see exactly what was happening, but his last words clarified that he had "done the eating". (Exactly how much he ate is unclear, but obviously it was enough to incapacitate the creature, as well as completely destroying himself.)

[The Succubus]

I didn't think 'morally justified' meant 'justified by their own views on morality' -- I thought it just meant 'I think he was right to do so'. When evil characters do evil things (boom goes the orphanage!), then, are they morally justified to do so?

I mean, I guess that makes sense. I just never knew.

: "Who summons me from my resting place, which shall not be disclosed?"

[Qwertystop]

The site is still down for me...

[Sholos]

Who else is guessing that Biscuit will simply make the Fortitude saving throw?

[Killer Angel]

Who else is guessing that Biscuit will simply make the Fortitude saving throw?

Well, K’seliss died against the old version of Mr. Fingers, the one with the stats and the DCs all messed up; now, with the new fingers’ sheet, the DC for the ST is lower.
Of course, this is Meta Reasoning, with capital letters...

[Lvl45DM!]

: "Who summons me from my resting place, which shall not be disclosed?"

HA! +1 internet cookie for you

Honestly this is the coolest fight since Minmax vs Goblinslayer.
Mostly cos i care about who loses. I REALLY want DH to massacre those cowardly cultistic goblins i REALLY want Saves to beat Dove to dust and I really want Biscuit to die a glorious death

[HandofShadows]

i REALLY want Saves to beat Dove to dust

I suport this 100%. I like Saves.