OOTS #857 - The Discussion Thread

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm sure that our opinions for redemption differ, but how realistic is it for evil-aligned creatures, especially god-like beings, to be willing to forgive some one who harmed them? Personally, I wouldn't hold killing any evil dragons or dragon-relatives against V on the cosmic-karma count. Evil backstabs evil all the time; it's one of the few things that probably keep it from overwhelming the more honor-bound good types entirely.

My point is that is not realistic to expect someone like Tiamat to forgive V. I acknowledge as much at the end of the paragraph you quoted. It's one of the reasons I don't believe we'll be shown V's redemption by the time Roy destroys Xykon.

Your standard for redemption seems to be set very VERY high, kind of like declaring "you must eliminate all evil, everywhere, forever". If your list of requirements for some one to redeem themselves isn't even remotely realistic, what's the point of it?

My reading of the subject as it applies to OOTS comes from strip 464, which, since the Giant is loath to comment on "morally justified" matters, is the closest we're likely to get to a prescription for what makes a successful redemption in the OOTS-verse. The same strip, incidentally, calls redemption a "rare and special thing", which would not be the case if the standard for achieving it were not very very high. A penitent coming before the person he has wronged, asking for forgiveness, should be like Orpheus coming before Hades, yielding all the power and authority to the wronged party, with no expectation of success, but determined to use all his faculties to sway the wronged party nonetheless.

I will concede that I perhaps overstated my case. Perhaps it is not necessary that the person you wronged actively forgive you, but only that you put yourself wholly at their mercy, and the mercy of their moral judgment. Still, that requires acknowledging fully all the people you've hurt, and V is still a long way from doing that.

Just to lighten the mood...

Look at panel 12. Is this the first time we've seen three concentric "shocked" eyebrow markings? Both V and Elan have been shown with two concentric "shocked" eyebrow markings one or more times, but I don't remember ever seeing three.

[Mike Havran]

V awake and on the run. Although If I was Nale, I would make sure Malack and Tarquin were in front of me and my allies not behind me.

It's interesting that in the previous strip Nale ordered Tarquin to stay in front behind the mummies, and Malack to stay in the back. It was considered wise from Nale to split them. Yet a few moments later, Tarquin is already next to Malack and in the safer position.

[Deepbluediver]

Just to lighten the mood...

Look at panel 12. Is this the first time we've seen three concentric "shocked" eyebrow markings? Both V and Elan have been shown with two concentric "shocked" eyebrow markings one or more times, but I don't remember ever seeing three.

Characters have been scared or surprised before, but this might be the first time we see some one in a truly blind panic; having lost all control whatsoever.
Elan is perpetually optomistic, making it unlikely for him to reach this stage, and even when the ABD was menacing V's family, he/she was still trying to think of some way to logically resolve the problem.
Lately, V has been acting a lot more emotional and a lot less intellectual.

[Peelee]

My point is that is not realistic to expect someone like Tiamat to forgive V. I acknowledge as much at the end of the paragraph you quoted. It's one of the reasons I don't believe we'll be shown V's redemption by the time Roy destroys Xykon.


My reading of the subject as it applies to OOTS comes from strip 464, which, since the Giant is loath to comment on "morally justified" matters, is the closest we're likely to get to a prescription for what makes a successful redemption in the OOTS-verse. The same strip, incidentally, calls redemption a "rare and special thing", which would not be the case if the standard for achieving it were not very very high. A penitent coming before the person he has wronged, asking for forgiveness, should be like Orpheus coming before Hades, yielding all the power and authority to the wronged party, with no expectation of success, but determined to use all his faculties to sway the wronged party nonetheless.

I will concede that I perhaps overstated my case. Perhaps it is not necessary that the person you wronged actively forgive you, but only that you put yourself wholly at their mercy, and the mercy of their moral judgment. Still, that requires acknowledging fully all the people you've hurt, and V is still a long way from doing that.

It could well be that it is a rare and special thing because there are few people willing to show such humility and insight into seeing their faults and truly seeking atonement. After all, immediately after saying it is a rare and special thing, Soon says it is not for everyone.

[zimmerwald1915]

It could well be that it is a rare and special thing because there are few people willing to show such humility and insight into seeing their faults and truly seeking atonement. After all, immediately after saying it is a rare and special thing, Soon says it is not for everyone.

Problem: redemption and atonement are not the same thing. Soon says that atonement is a component of redemption, not that the two are identical or equivalent.

[Shatteredtower]

It accomplishes punishing V for her sins.

No, it doesn't. It merely promotes suffering without concern for results. Sort of like what V did in the first place, but with less rationalization.

The forgiveness of those you have wronged is not a requirement of atonement, nor the forgiveness of those who've witnessed your wrongdoing. That's their burden. If V could restore every one of those dragons to life, multiply their numbers tenfold, pay upfront a few hundred years of therapy sessions for everyone involved, and give them rulership over all elven lands, there are still going to be individuals that will never forgive what was done to them in the first place.

Atonement is not a matter of changing what was done, nor even of settling accounts. It is a matter of changing the one that did it, and striving to prevent such debts from multiplying.

The biggest danger to V and anyone close to V is the belief that the wizard's fate is ultimately in anyone else's hands. We've already seen the six hands that will claim V completely if the elf chooses to accept that.

[AstralFire]

I find all this visceral hatred for V rather disturbing. Mass murder evil? Absolutely. Deserves execution? Sure, unless you're opposed to the death penalty itself (no real-world politics, please). Eternal torment? Maybe.

No chance of redemption? Nope. Saving the world from being totally erased would probably do the trick. Word of Giant is that he's still TN, too, don't forget. That makes him, from at least a mechanical standpoint, less evil than Belkar, most of the LG, Xykon, Redcloak, the various evil outsiders we've met... The only clear difference is that V is regretful of his actions, and would undo them in a heartbeat (even if for the wrong reasons)--who of the above list would consider such a thing?

I find it telling that "killing evil people for being evil is evil" and "I want V exquisitely tortured for all time" can coexist in the same thread.

Food for thought.

Redemption is overrated.

[zimmerwald1915]

No, it doesn't. It merely promotes suffering without concern for results. Sort of like what V did in the first place, but with less rationalization.

The forgiveness of those you have wronged is not a requirement of atonement, nor the forgiveness of those who've witnessed your wrongdoing. That's their burden. If V could restore every one of those dragons to life, multiply their numbers tenfold, pay upfront a few hundred years of therapy sessions for everyone involved, and give them rulership over all elven lands, there are still going to be individuals that will never forgive what was done to them in the first place.

Atonement is not a matter of changing what was done, nor even of settling accounts. It is a matter of changing the one that did it, and striving to prevent such debts from multiplying.

The biggest danger to V and anyone close to V is the belief that the wizard's fate is ultimately in anyone else's hands. We've already seen the six hands that will claim V completely if the elf chooses to accept that.

Problem: redemption and atonement are not the same thing. Soon says that atonement is a component of redemption, not that the two are identical or equivalent.

If you want to set the bar on V's character before she becomes sympathetic again at atonement, that's your business, I suppose. But please don't conflate atonement and redemption.

Let me be clear. I don't want V to suffer the torments Mixt described, though I can understand and try to articulate his rationale. I do not believe that V's redemption is impossible. Stranger things have happened in literature, and we have so many examples of unredeemed sinners throughout the comic (Miko comes to mind) that seeing one, a protagonist, no less, buck the trend or be shown to be on the way to bucking the trend would be refreshing. I just don't think V has time before Xykon is destroyed and the story, Roy's story, ends to progress a meaningful distance along her journey. Maybe the Giant will surprise me. He's good at that.

[Peelee]

Problem: redemption and atonement are not the same thing. Soon says that atonement is a component of redemption, not that the two are identical or equivalent.

It seems to me he's explaining what is required in different ways, to make it easier to understand, not reciting a list of requirements. Besides, the atonement spell is able to be used for redemption, so if atonement is required for redemption, that's an infinite loop.

Overall, I'm finding this debate far more enjoyable than any other dealing with her. Maybe because redemption is simply a brighter topic than genocide.

[Deepbluediver]

My reading of the subject as it applies to OOTS comes from strip 464, which, since the Giant is loath to comment on "morally justified" matters, is the closest we're likely to get to a prescription for what makes a successful redemption in the OOTS-verse. The same strip, incidentally, calls redemption a "rare and special thing", which would not be the case if the standard for achieving it were not very very high.

It may be rare and extremely difficult, but it should still be possible, otherwise there isn't any shot at redemption or attonement at all. I've been in games where the DM's seem ready to hold people to this level, but it's not the impression I get from the OOTS verse.

I realize that I've probably missed most of the V-morality arguments (I wasn't a forum regular when that strip came out) but why do you seem to think that V would need to seek forgiveness, or put him/herself in the power of evil entities to have a chance at attoning for her/his actions? I'm sure that some one will disagree, but in my book if you are firmly and actively on the side of evil, you kind of give up any right you have to complain when some one tries to kill you or your associates. I think that V would need to make right the issue of killing any good or neutral characters caught in the familicide spell, but just because some one is chromatic-dragon related doesn't automatically mean that they have a direct connection to or are even remotely favored by Tiamat.

A penitent coming before the person he has wronged, asking for forgiveness, should be like Orpheus coming before Hades, yielding all the power and authority to the wronged party, with no expectation of success, but determined to use all his faculties to sway the wronged party nonetheless.

I think I understand what you are going for, but I'm not sure this is a good example. From what I know of the myth, Orpheus had done nothing wrong. His wife had died in an accident, and he was trying to convince Hades to let her return to life (something Hades was obviously reluctant to do).

[zimmerwald1915]

It seems to me he's explaining what is required in different ways, to make it easier to understand, not reciting a list of requirements. Besides, the atonement spell is able to be used for redemption, so if atonement is required for redemption, that's an infinite loop.

Atonement, like any other spell in the comic, is capitalized as a proper noun when people talk about it. Soon's "atone" is not even the full name of the spell, nor is it capitalized. He is clearly talking about the process by which an individual comes to accept something horrid he's done, and forgive himself. Your reading falls on its face when the words Soon uses are examined closely. You atone when you are at peace with yourself, when you no longer find it necessary, because of your sins and your guilt, to war within yourself. It is an internal process. Seeking forgiveness is another matter entirely. The only person who can grant forgiveness is the aggrieved party. I will admit, again, that I oversold my case originally: Soon does not say you need to receive forgiveness, only to seek it.

Overall, I'm finding this debate far more enjoyable than any other dealing with her. Maybe because redemption is simply a brighter topic than genocide.

There's also the fact that it's a debate, rather than a basically settled issue.

[J's]

It accomplishes punishing V for her sins. Whether or not it makes the world at large a better place, or the people inhabiting the world better people, is a whole other question.

As this quote sums up the v must pay mindset without vitriol -

I find this train of thought flawed, quite frankly there is a reason those that are doing the punishing are usually considered to be evil themselves. Reveling in someone else's torture says more about those enjoying it than the one suffering. If you want justice it would be a clean end, an absolute end. If the elf shows understanding of how to be redeemed (not simply that it is necessary) a stay may be given, of course that =\= success.

[Kish]

I find all this visceral hatred for V rather disturbing. Mass murder evil? Absolutely. Deserves execution? Sure, unless you're opposed to the death penalty itself (no real-world politics, please). Eternal torment? Maybe.

No chance of redemption? Nope. Saving the world from being totally erased would probably do the trick.

That makes no sense at all. Xykon would save the world from being totally erased--after all, some of his best evilness took place there.

I find it baffling that you apparently think "redemption" can exist in the absence of any acknowledgement that there was anything wrong with the action the person to be redeemed needs redemption for, just by doing enough unrelated (and completely self-interested, in the case of "keeping the world you're standing on from being erased") good deeds.

[zimmerwald1915]

It may be rare and extremely difficult, but it should still be possible, otherwise there isn't any shot at redemption or attonement at all. I've been in games where the DM's seem ready to hold people to this level, but it's not the impression I get from the OOTS verse.

Read my position again. I believe it is possible...just not before Roy's story will reach and crest its climax and the comic will end.

I realize that I've probably missed most of the V-morality arguments (I wasn't a forum regular when that strip came out) but why do you seem to think that V would need to seek forgiveness, or put him/herself in the power of evil entities to have a chance at attoning for her/his actions? I'm sure that some one will disagree, but in my book if you are firmly and actively on the side of evil, you kind of give up any right you have to complain when some one tries to kill you or your associates. I think that V would need to make right the issue of killing any good or neutral characters caught in the familicide spell, but just because some one is chromatic-dragon related doesn't automatically mean that they have a direct connection to or are even remotely favored by Tiamat.

Well, Tiamat seemed pretty personally affronted when she confronted the IFCC, and if anyone has the moral authority to speak on behalf of dragonkind, it is her.

I think I understand what you are going for, but I'm not sure this is a good example. From what I know of the myth, Orpheus had done nothing wrong. His wife had died in an accident, and he was trying to convince Hades to let her return to life (something Hades was obviously reluctant to do).

I was looking for a literary rather than a religious example. True, Orpheus wasn't necessarily a sinner (at that point anyway - he showed his lack of faith at the end of the trek up from Hades), but the attitude is the same. Orpheus approached a more powerful figure than he, acknowledged that that figure held Orpheus' fate in his hands, expected Hades' heart to remain as hard as it ever was...and nevertheless got what he needed to live. If Hades hadn't released Eurydice, Orpheus would have stayed in the underworld. He says as much when she dies, that he feels he must die too.

There are stories about how people should act and be when they seek redemption from Christ for both original and temporal sin, but citing them strays much too close to real world religion for comfort. I've got to work with what I can remember. For what it's worth, twelve step programs require a similar mindset of their participants; that they try to find peace in themselves, but realize that their fate is fundamentally out of their hands.

[Peelee]

Atonement, like any other spell in the comic, is capitalized as a proper noun when people talk about it. Soon's "atone" is not even the full name of the spell, nor is it capitalized. He is clearly talking about the process by which an individual comes to accept something horrid he's done, and forgive himself. Your reading falls on its face when the words Soon uses are examined closely. You atone when you are at peace with yourself, when you no longer find it necessary, because of your sins and your guilt, to war within yourself. It is an internal process. Seeking forgiveness is another matter entirely. The only person who can grant forgiveness is the aggrieved party. I will admit, again, that I oversold my case originally: Soon does not say you need to receive forgiveness, only to seek it.

Ignoring that he is answering whether Miko will become a paladin again, which requires the atonement spell? My reading is that he is telling her why she is ineligible in a way that helps her understand it most. No matter how closely you examine his words, he is answering a direct question about her paladin status.

Read my position again. I believe it is possible...just not before Roy's story will reach and crest its climax and the comic will end.

I admit, I also missed the full meaning of that.

[zimmerwald1915]

Ignoring that he is answering whether Miko will become a paladin again, which requires the atonement spell? My reading is that he is telling her why she is ineligible in a way that helps her understand it most. No matter how closely you examine his words, he is answering a direct question about her paladin status.

Because we have no other in-comic speech or text weighing on the matter, and because Soon's words were general even if Miko's question was not, I don't think it's too big a leap to say that Soon's criteria apply across the board.

[Peelee]

Because we have no other in-comic speech or text weighing on the matter, and because Soon's words were general even if Miko's question was not, I don't think it's too big a leap to say that Soon's criteria apply across the board.

I'll accept that.

[kickassfrog]

Well, that resolves a few questions.
The mummies repeating things was all a set up for that joke. V is still alive, and finally conscious again.
The LG will probably run out of mummies before they reach the Order.

But I'm sure someone in the previous strip's thread said Nale is trying to isolate Malack, so wasting his lackeys may be a tactical move.

That makes no sense at all. Xykon would save the world from being totally erased--after all, some of his best evilness took place there.

Unless he gets really bored. It's Xykon, he probably would.

[Kish]

I would like to note I am speaking purely in D&D terms here. Specifically, when I speak of "morality," I mean in D&D terms, not in real life terms.
[...]
There is no moral ambiguity here. Would there have been as great an outcry if V had targeted devils? How about fiends?

Devils are fiends.

You are right about exactly one thing: It's not ambiguous. "Black dragons deserve to die because they are black dragons" is an example of an attitude described quite clearly in the Player's Handbook as a Lawful Evil one.

RAW does, indeed, have something quite clear to say on the subject. It is not on your side.

But we already know that V is going to pay for his/her actions--V still owes time on his/her soul. I think it's safe to say that that time will be spent forcing V to do something(s) that s/he will regret far more than s/he currently regrets casting Familicide!

That will, from a certain point of view, be "punishment" for making a deal with fiends. That is, from the same point of view in which Roy's having a rhino land on him was "punishment" for him using a Bag of Tricks. It will have nothing to do with the Familicide, any more than the rhino had something to do with Roy using a greatsword.

[Peelee]

Devils are fiends.

You are right about exactly one thing: It's not ambiguous. "Black dragons deserve to die because they are black dragons" is an example of an attitude described quite clearly in the Player's Handbook as a Lawful Evil one.

RAW does, indeed, have something quite clear to say on the subject. It is not on your side.

I meant to say "demons." Thanks. As for the rest, I have already been successfully rebutted and agreed to the opposing argument. Unless you want to continue stating this to me, I consider it settled.

I expected more people to argue against me on that after it was resolved, but I am surprised at how long it took.

[zimmerwald1915]

I meant to say "demons." Thanks. As for the rest, I have already been successfully rebutted and agreed to the opposing argument. Unless you want to continue stating this to me, I consider it settled.

I expected more people to argue against me on that after it was resolved, but I am surprised at how long it took.

Someone on the Internet changed their opinion. See, deepbluediver? Miracles can happen.

[hamishspence]

I realize that I've probably missed most of the V-morality arguments (I wasn't a forum regular when that strip came out) but why do you seem to think that V would need to seek forgiveness, or put him/herself in the power of evil entities to have a chance at attoning for her/his actions? I'm sure that some one will disagree, but in my book if you are firmly and actively on the side of evil, you kind of give up any right you have to complain when some one tries to kill you or your associates.

Acts can be "evil even if committed against evil beings". Hence, V has to atone for "the murder of evil beings" (none of the other dragons in the family did anything to V) as well as "the murder of nonevil beings".

"Apologizing to those wronged" and "Making restitution to those wronged" may be a minimum for atonement to have taken place.

[Shatteredtower]

If you want to set the bar on V's character before she becomes sympathetic again at atonement, that's your business, I suppose.

I find V's character to be entirely sympathetic. Same for Redcloak and Miko. For all that they've been blind to their faults, the latter two dedicated their lives to setting things right in the world. The sacrifices they made have been extraordinary, even if diminished by how counterproductive many of them were.

The atonement for atrocity is measured against a lifetime. The length of that does not matter. Sincerity and consideration in your efforts do.

I'll agree that V hasn't done enough. For example, there may be nothing the Order can do about the time share or the wrath of a multi-headed mama dragon, but holding information back about them can only make things worse.

But please don't conflate atonement and redemption.

So one is the road, the other the destination. So what? Kicking the legs out from underneath someone striving to walk that road isn't useful. It's not like V would be the only one tripped up in the process either. What with them being on a world-saving mission, this is a particularly bad time for that sort of thing.

[Deepbluediver]

Read my position again. I believe it is possible...just not before Roy's story will reach and crest its climax and the comic will end.

sorry, I think you made a couple of other posts while I was writing my first reply. Didn't see them until just now.

Well, Tiamat seemed pretty personally affronted when she confronted the IFCC, and if anyone has the moral authority to speak on behalf of dragonkind, it is her.

There's a difference between being upset that she's lost a signifcant number of black dragons and their offspring and being personally injured by some one's actions. My biggest issue right now is who V would need to seek forgiveness from.
Miko (had she survived) would have had to seek forgiveness from the 12 animal gods because she violated the code or rules of honor that they supported, and that she had sworn to serve. V had no connection or allegience to Tiamat, so there was nothing to betray.
V is, last we heard, aligned as nuetral, and if she wants to avoid falling into the evil camp, then she needs to seek forgiveness from good or neutral alligned creatures.

[Peelee]

Someone on the Internet changed their opinion. See, deepbluediver? Miracles can happen.

Hooray, I'm an example!

[LordRahl6]

We knew the (s)elf wallowing was coming, but the giant was laying it pretty thick with the zombie falling down and saying "your fault"

Also the elf/self was bit was a typo at first, but it seemed to cool a in joke not to leave out.

[Kish]

Sorry, didn't see that.

Just for the benefit of people who genuinely haven't seen my stance on Vaarsuvius before: I want him/her to repent of what s/he did--truly repent, not just of "I didn't think that the spell might hit mostly-humans" but of, "I killed dozens of innocent sapients for revenge on one already-dead relative of theirs" and even, "I didn't try to negotiate with the first black dragon I killed." I don't particularly want him/her to be trapped in the Demiplace of Extremely Painful Torture like Mixt, beyond that, considering the magnitude of his/her evil actions, fully recognizing them would mean exquisite suffering. If Rich can pull that off well enough to ever make me sympathize with Vaarsuvius again, it will be a feat of writing that eclipses Start of Darkness.

If he cannot or doesn't want to, then Vaarsuvius can go to Hades. Literally.

If, instead of either of these taking place, we're expected to accept "s/he feels remorse for part of the Familicide, the part involving mostly-humans" as meaning redemption, I will be unhappy.

[Peelee]

Sorry, didn't see that.

Just for the benefit of people who genuinely haven't seen my stance on Vaarsuvius before: I want him/her to repent of what s/he did--truly repent, not just of "I didn't think that the spell might hit mostly-humans" but of, "I killed dozens of innocent sapients for revenge on one already-dead relative of theirs" and even, "I didn't try to negotiate with the first black dragon I killed." I don't particularly want him/her to be trapped in the Demiplace of Extremely Painful Torture like Mixt, beyond that, considering the magnitude of his/her evil actions, fully recognizing them would mean exquisite suffering. If Rich can pull that off well enough to ever make me sympathize with Vaarsuvius again, it will be a feat of writing that eclipses Start of Darkness.

If he cannot or doesn't want to, then Vaarsuvius can go to Hades. Literally.

If, instead of either of these taking place, we're expected to accept "s/he feels remorse for part of the Familicide, the part involving mostly-humans" as meaning redemption, I will be unhappy.

No worries. Convinced me to add an edit that should prevent any other people retreading that ground.

Also, I now feel I understand your position on the Darth V incident a lot better. Thanks for that!

[zimmerwald1915]

I find V's character to be entirely sympathetic. Same for Redcloak and Miko. For all that they've been blind to their faults, the latter two dedicated their lives to setting things right in the world. The sacrifices they made have been extraordinary, even if diminished by how counterproductive many of them were.

Once again, that's your business. I don't particularly care.

The atonement for atrocity is measured against a lifetime. The length of that does not matter. Sincerity and consideration in your efforts do.

More conflation. In any case, and both Kish and I have pointed this out already, so you really have no excuse, sincerity and consideration aren't enough. You need to understand and acknowledge the whole of your sin. In V's case, she needs to understand that killing however many black dragons (I don't buy the argument that she was attempting to wipe out a people rather than a bloodline, and losing a quarter of a population isn't enough to wipe out that population's viability as a breeding group, particularly when viable cross-species breeding is as common as it is in OOTS-world, so I want to avoid the term "genocide") was just as wrong as any other ramifications, if not more so because they were her intended, victims who deserved their fates as little as the Draketooths did. Completeness is just as, if not more, necessary as sincerity.

I'll agree that V hasn't done enough. For example, there may be nothing the Order can do about the time share or the wrath of a multi-headed mama dragon, but holding information back about them can only make things worse.

Well, we agree that she ought to bare her soul to the Order, at least. That said, that's a practical matter that doesn't have much bearing on V's soul.

So one is the road, the other the destination. So what? Kicking the legs out from underneath someone striving to walk that road isn't useful. It's not like V would be the only one tripped up in the process either. What with them being on a world-saving mission, this is a particularly bad time for that sort of thing.

You say that like I, someone posting on a messageboard somewhere, has any influence over what V does, how the Giant writes what V does, or the course of the story. I just have an opinion, and I believe it to be correct and supported by the text so far.

[hamishspence]

In FC2, characters who die repentant, who have failed to achieve any kind of atonement, who would otherwise have gone to Baator because of their actions, get a "second chance"- being reincarnated as Hellbred to try and achieve the redemption they failed to achieve in their last life.

While there's no evidence that FC2 is in use- I do see something along those as appropriate for V- if V dies "repentant but unredeemed".

Because the idea of the genuinely repentant going to the Lower Planes is a bit unpalatable. Maybe that's why FC2 came up with the alternative in the first place.