So, Malack...

[SaintRidley]

Here's the thing. We have context and motive for Tarquin and Malack. And context and motive definitely say evil.

[Kish]

What I object to is the notion that killing people, even huge numbers of people, regardless of context or motive, automatically makes him an evil person.

You apparently don't recognize a distinction between "involvement in a brutal government" and "killing people," 'cause the one of them you said didn't make Tarquin evil isn't the one you're saying doesn't make him evil now.

[Carry2]

It may suggest that he was something of an obstruction to Tarquin's plans for the Empire though- hindering the implementation of brutal policies, until he was killed by the future Empress of Blood.

It might, but as evidence goes it's no more convincing than Inst's pro-Tarquin citation of ominous-sounding placenames.

Now, to be fair, I think there is reasonable evidence that Tarquin and Malack are applying, shall we say, "unneccesary force" in pacifying the continent. I just take issue with some of the specific double-standards that people are trotting out in the effort to prove this.

[Paseo H]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but it sounds something like an artificial dichotomy. Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

It all comes down to necessary evils, which is the difference between deontology and utilitarianism.

For the former camp to have meaning, one has to hold that there are things that are both necessary and wrong, because if such things did not exist, why object to the idea that the ends justify the means?

In short, one can either be pure, or one can do the right thing, and to do the latter essentially negates the whole purpose of denying the evil pragmatism of "the ends justifies the means."

And so one might think, that would be the end of the argument. Just throw out deontology, embrace utilitarianism and necessary evils, and move on.

But the problem with doing so is, if you allow for necessary evils in the first place, how could you argue against others doing them to you, should they deem it "necessary" from their standards?

So, deontology essentially refutes itself by requiring a contradiction in order for it to have any meaning as a concept, yet if you don't accept it, you're saying it's fine for people to do bad things to you.

[Carry2]

You apparently don't recognize a distinction between "involvement in a brutal government" and "killing people," 'cause the one of them you said didn't make Tarquin evil isn't the one you're saying doesn't make him evil now.

The argument that I've been hearing in this thread is that:
* Tarquin has created and administers a government, X.
* X is responsible for the brutal killing of many, many people only guilty of pretty vague crimes, such as 'resisting arrest' or 'incitement to anarchy'.
* Therefore, Tarquin is responsible for the crimes of X.
* Therefore, Tarquin has killed many, many people, only guilty of pretty vague crimes.
* Therefore, Tarquin is Evil.

To which my counterpoint has been:
* The Order of the Stick have killed many, many people only guilty of pretty vague crimes, such as 'trying to arrest me' or 'working with an oppressor'.
* The Order of the Stick are largely good-aligned.
* Therefore, noble intentions and careful methods are sufficient to excuse killing many, many people only guilty of pretty vague crimes.
* Therefore, the primary argument for Tarquin's evil alignment is insufficient.

Here's the thing. We have context and motive for Tarquin and Malack. And context and motive definitely say evil.

Well and good. But I have not been claiming that Tarquin is non-evil. I have simply been claiming that you need to make the right arguments to prove it.

[Kish]

I think you should consider the possibility that the problem is with your hearing, not with the arguments people are making.

I also think the devil has more than enough advocates.

[sum1won]

The argument that I've been hearing in this thread is that:
* Tarquin has created and administers a government, X.
* X is responsible for the brutal killing of many, many people only guilty of pretty vague crimes, such as 'resisting arrest' or 'incitement to anarchy'.
* Therefore, Tarquin is responsible for the crimes of X.
* Therefore, Tarquin has killed many, many people, only guilty of pretty vague crimes.
* Therefore, Tarquin is Evil.

To which my counterpoint has been:
* The Order of the Stick have killed many, many people only guilty of pretty vague crimes, such as 'trying to arrest me' or 'working with an oppressor'.
* The Order of the Stick are largely good-aligned.
* Therefore, noble intentions and careful methods are sufficient to excuse killing many, many people only guilty of pretty vague crimes.
* Therefore, the primary argument for Tarquin's evil alignment is insufficient.

Well and good. But I have not been claiming that Tarquin is non-evil. I have simply been claiming that you need to make the right arguments to prove it.

Would it help if Tarquin spelled out evil in 200 foot high flaming letters?

[Carry2]

And so one might think, that would be the end of the argument. Just throw out deontology, embrace utilitarianism and necessary evils, and move on.

But the problem with doing so is, if you allow for necessary evils in the first place, how could you argue against others doing them to you, should they deem it "necessary" from their standards?

Leaving aside that there is probably a middle ground between these extremes, it seems to me that people who habitually make poor cost-benefit evaluations about whether or not to do harm to others could, by a more rational cost-benefit evaluation, be locked up for the greater good. Which is essentially how we justify using force against criminals. If you assume that rational people outnumber irrational people, then... I'm starting to see a problem with this line of argument.

Nonetheless, I think my basic point stands. If you are okay with the OOTS doing what they do, then you are clearly comfortable with a fair degree of means-to-the-end reasoning. Therefore, means-to-the-end reasoning, in itself, is not what makes Tarquin evil.

[Carry2]

Would it help if Tarquin spelled out evil in 200 foot high flaming letters?

I think you should consider the possibility that the problem is with your hearing, not with the arguments people are making.

Perhaps I misspoke in suggesting that this was the only argument being put forth for Tarquin's alignment. Again, I agree that gratuitous, self-serving or non-requisite violence are valid arguments for him being evil, and is there is pretty good evidence for that.

But being a blood-soaked killer is not sufficient proof by itself. All the protagonists of this story are waist-deep in blood, and climbing.

[Paseo H]

Leaving aside that there is probably a middle ground between these extremes, it seems to me that people who habitually make poor cost-benefit evaluations about whether or not to do harm to others could, by a more rational cost-benefit evaluation, be locked up for the greater good. Which is essentially how we justify using force against criminals. If you assume that rational people outnumber irrational people, then... I'm starting to see a problem with this line of argument.

Nonetheless, I think my basic point stands. If you are okay with the OOTS doing what they do, then you are clearly comfortable with a fair degree of means-to-the-end reasoning. Therefore, means-to-the-end reasoning, in itself, is not what makes Tarquin evil.

Yeah, "middle ground" is what we call "trying to have it both ways." Which may be necessary to some extent, if you follow deontology instead of throwing out morality altogether by embracing utilitarianism, but most people refuse to see the selfishness of it. It leads to moral myopia and moral compromise.

So really, the best one can do is be a self aware hypocrite who makes no excuses and doesn't condemn people for viewing what is done as wrong.

[Sir_Leorik]

Here's the difference between the majority of the OotS vs. Tarquin and Nale (I'm leaving Belkar out of this discussion, because Belkar murders for fun, even when it would be in his best interests not to.)

In OtOoPCs Roy is presented with an opportunity to

Spoiler

Show

kill a group of Orcs who are supposedly terrorizing a town. It turns out they are really waiting to by tickets to a heavy metal concert and came to the town to buy snacks. Roy parleys with the Orcs and agrees to provide the Orcs with food if they don't return to the town and leave the area after the concert is over. The Orcs agree, to the consternation of Roy's companions, save Durkon who approves.

When confronted by the Paladin who leads Roy and Durkon's party about why they couldn't just kill the Orcs, Roy states his reasons: he refuses to kill someone just because it would be more convenient. Roy and Durkon leave the other adventurers and form their own party.

Elan almost never kills anyone other than monsters who are attacking. He took Nale prisoner twice, captured Kubota, and even freed Thog from prison.

Haley is a bit more cut throat than the others, having killed Crystal in a pre-emptive attack. However, Haley only did that after Bozzok ordered Crystal to kill her during the assault on Grubwriggler's mansion. In fact, Haley was ready to parley with Grubwriggler to get Roy's body back before Crystal murdered Grubwriggler as he was consenting to Haley's terms.

Durkon disbanded the bandits, urging them to go home to their families, away from the dangers of the trees. He was developing a friendship with Malack, despite their denominational differences, and was trying to defend Malack prior to discovering the Vampire feasting on Belkar.

V is ... okay, look, V has clearly made some mistakes, so I'll just move on to something else.

Most of the time the OotS adventures they are operating in lawless areas. This is one of the Tropes of D&D (made explicit in the default setting to 4E), that adventurers venture into abandoned or wild areas where the rule of the King, Baron, etc. does not reach. Dorukan's Dungeon is a bit of an exception, as it lay within the jurisdiction of a town; even so, Dorukan was missing, and Xykon's Goblins had been mounting raids in the Redmountain Hills, so the OotS was operating like a sort of posse. Wooden Forest was under no one's jurisdiction, the Inn lacked proper security, despite the King of Somewhere staying there and Sunken Valley was only recently incorporated into a town. Only in Azure City, Cliffport, Greysky City and Bleedingham have the Order been openly adventuring in an area with laws. For the most part the OotS complied with the Laws.

Tarquin and Malack (and their allies) have perverted the Rule of Law in the trio of Empires Tarquin runs. They have encouraged a Social Darwinian nightmare to develop, where ordinary citizens attack their rivals in hopes of gaining an advantage, provided no one notices. It is barely a step above living in Greysky City; at least in Gobbotopia the authorities took steps to protect the citizens from the Elven insurgents. (I'll say one thing for Redcloak and Jirix: they are ruthless killers when it comes to Humans, but they care about their fellow Goblins' welfare. Too bad Xykon doesn't...)

Tarquin fully expects to be overthrown some day. Until then, he'll continue to expand his power base, rotate figureheads and encourage the citizens to turn their aggression against each other or sate their bloodlust by watching gladiators fight to the death. Should Tarquin die of old age without being overthrown, Malack will get to turn the three empires into a fast food franchise catering to Vampires.

[Sir_Leorik]

To which my counterpoint has been:
* The Order of the Stick have killed many, many people only guilty of pretty vague crimes, such as 'trying to arrest me' or 'working with an oppressor'.

Could you provide evidence to back up this assertion?

[Kish]

Perhaps I misspoke in suggesting that this was the only argument being put forth for Tarquin's alignment. [...]
But being a blood-soaked killer is not sufficient proof by itself.

Dude, at this point, if you can quote one person saying that Tarquin is evil because he's killed in large numbers and for no other reason, I'll be amazed.

If you can't, you might want to lay off the strawman. Yes, we all see that you're stronger than it, well done. (Your first blow against the strawman in this thread quoted someone saying "acts of plain barbarity, not to mention rape." So yeah.)

[Carry2]

Could you provide evidence to back up this assertion?

I mean folks like the goblins in Durokan's dungeon, or the thieves in Greysky city, or the guards in the imperial palace and arena. Aside from working for unsavory authority figures, and attacking the order for trespassing on their turf, we don't generally see them doing specific bad stuff. I mean, we don't really know these are all sadistic torturers, or just card-punching regular joes stuck in a low-end job.

Now, sure, these folks are probably likely to be an unpleasant bunch, but even if you assume that 99% of these folks are severely evil, that works out, statistically, to at least a couple of innocent people killed. (I mean, the goblin survival rate for Durokan's dungeon, after Elan got through with it, appears to have been 0%.)

[Carry2]

Dude, at this point, if you can quote one person saying that Tarquin is evil because he's killed in large numbers and for no other reason, I'll be amazed.

If you can't, you might want to lay off the strawman. Yes, we all see that you're stronger than it, well done. (Your first blow against the strawman in this thread quoted someone saying "acts of plain barbarity, not to mention rape." So yeah.)

I am sorry if I phrased myself poorly, and I apologise if I've been belabouring this relatively narrow point, but if you say, "I believe the sky is blue because of pixie dust and raleigh scattering", I am not required to explore raleigh scattering in order to point out the flaws in the pixie dust argument.

.

[Kish]

I am sorry if I phrased myself poorly, and I apologise if I given the impression of belabouring this relatively narrow point, but if you say, "I believe the sky is blue because of pixie dust and raleigh scattering", I am not required to explore raleigh scattering in order to point out the flaws in blaming pixie dust.

.

You did not phrase yourself poorly for what you appear to be attempting to assert. "Belaboring a relatively narrow point" is not an accurate description of your dedicated campaign to prove the wrongness of an argument no one made.

I do, however, wonder what the poor strawman ever did to you.

[Mutant Sheep]

I mean folks like the goblins in Durokan's dungeon, or the thieves in Greysky city, or the guards in the imperial palace and arena. Aside from working for unsavory authority figures, and attacking the order for trespassing on their turf, we don't generally see them doing specific bad stuff. I mean, we don't really know these are all sadistic torturers, or just card-punching regular joes stuck in a low-end job.

Now, sure, these folks are probably likely to be an unpleasant bunch, but even if you assume that 99% of these folks are severely evil, that works out, statistically, to at least a couple of innocent people killed. (I mean, the goblin survival rate for Durokan's dungeon, after Elan got through with it, appears to have been 0%.)

The goblins were goblins that invaded a guys home, which is wrong, being "forced" by an epic lich or not. For Greysky, you cannot be arguing that cartel/gang rule is somehow justification to kill people on other people's property. (All the killing, except Crystal, was in Blind Pete's house, with a bunch of rogues coming in to explicilty kill Haley and Co.). We even have Haley say "FYI readers, these people are terrible excuses for organs." The Empire of Blood goons, you could make an argument for "Haley didn't have to kill those guards", and she didn't, but being a guard for the Lawful Evil government is not actually the only job in a Lawful Evil nation, and enforcing Evil is not innocence. (Those Lawful Nuetral Javert types aren't exactly innocent, because even Good is not always Good, so how can Neutral be? They aren't newborn babies, they are full grown sentient beings who have free will.)

[Porthos]

Can I make a plea here? Can we all agree not to cite what happened in the first, say, 20 - 30 strips of this comic as proof of what makes the characters in the strip evil/not evil/chocolate pudding?

Because, dudes and dudettes, the tone and character of the strip has changed a wee little bit since the infamous Strip #11.

[Carry2]

You did not phrase yourself poorly for what you appear to be attempting to assert. "Belaboring a relatively narrow point" is not an accurate description of your dedicated campaign to prove the wrongness of an argument no one made.

I do, however, wonder what the poor strawman ever did to you.

I agree that Tarquin is Evil. However, the general impression I got, at the point where I first responded, was that the numerical violence of Tarquin's regime was one of the primary arguments for his evil-ness. And I don't think the evidence, on that specific point, is clear-cut in either direction. I still believe that is a valid point, and relevant to the discussion.

.

[Kish]

I agree that Tarquin is Evil. However, the general impression I got, at the point where I first responded, was that the numerical violence of Tarquin's regime was one of the primary arguments for his evil-ness.

And yet the post you responded to said "acts of plain barbarity, not to mention rape." At best, you've been trying to make a very narrow point against a generalized impression you have. It looks a lot more like--as I said repeatedly--you've been beating up a strawman. The fact that your "general impression" is that someone somewhere has been making the argument you want to refute is no substitute for actually being able to quote such a person.

[Carry2]

And yet the post you responded to said "acts of plain barbarity, not to mention rape."...

No, the post I quoted was what I first responded to, back on page 13. The 'rape and barbarity' reply was my third post. Here is my second. Perhaps you might peruse the record more thoroughly yourself.

The goblins were goblins that invaded a guys home, which is wrong, being "forced" by an epic lich or not... For Greysky, you cannot be arguing that cartel/gang rule is somehow justification to kill people on other people's property... ...being a guard for the Lawful Evil government is not actually the only job in a Lawful Evil nation...

Forgive me, but I don't think this kind of blanket generalisation is really compelling. The goblins in Xykon's employ really were forced into the job on pain of death. It is not unlikely that Bozzok forcefully conscripted a number of low-level minions for going after Haley, given his wish that they 'die for his fleeting tactical advantage'. It is even conceivable that people work for Tarquin who really just want to preserve law and order, or even work for reform. Again, you have to literally establish that 100% of these people actively deserved death, if you don't want to accept collateral, and I don't think that's possible, for us or the Order.

[Kish]

No, the post I quoted was what I first responded to, back on page 13. The 'rape and barbarity' reply was my third post. Here is my second. Perhaps you might peruse the record more thoroughly yourself.

Pardon me. The "barbarity, not to mention rape" post was the first post to which you responded by taking a swing at your strawman. I didn't realize that by "first responded" you meant "first posted in this thread," mainly because your first post in this thread wasn't related (except apparently in your view) to the strawman you would shortly be beating up.

With your first post in this thread, you brought in a real-world reference to dispute someone else saying, "I don't think that Tarquin's method is distinguishably less bloody than the warfare before him." And apparently you considered this a refutation of some mysterious person's assertion that Tarquin is evil only because he has killed many. And then you made a post in which you expressed the opinion that "Tarquin's involvement in a brutal government, by itself, doesn't make him evil." ...And apparently, in your view, "involvement in a brutal government" is the same as "killing a large number of people for any reason," but I don't think that's to your credit. Then came your beating up on your strawman and various other people's attempts (mine included) to get you to engage with what was actually being said. Are we caught up now?

[Carry2]

...Are we caught up now?

Are you entirely certain that this summary isn't something of a strawman itself?
Because I don't think there is any further benefit to be gained from going over these previously-covered points.

I apologise for what is apparently considered a diversion, and thank you for your time.

[Kish]

Are you entirely certain that this summary isn't something of a strawman itself?

A strawman is a fake argument propped up to be defeated.

I see how, "Tarquin is evil only because he's killed in large numbers" is one here. But the only argument I'm attributing to you is, "Tarquin having killed in large numbers is not in and of itself enough to prove him evil." If that is not even the argument you're trying to make, then you have successfully lost me. But if you object to something else about my summary, it might be a different fallacy but it's not strawmanning.

[Math_Mage]

No, the post I quoted was what I first responded to, back on page 13. The 'rape and barbarity' reply was my third post. Here is my second. Perhaps you might peruse the record more thoroughly yourself.

Okay, here's the thing. The violence of Tarquin's plan is being argued about specifically because there are people making the argument that "Tarquin is not Evil because his plan is making a net contribution to peace on the continent." This invites responses that no, Tarquin's plan is not making a net contribution to peace on the continent, because his rule is extremely brutal and violent. But you appear to be interpreting these responses as an argument that "Tarquin is Evil because his plan is making a net contribution to violence on the continent," which is a decidedly different position. That's why your argument is out of step with the rest of the discussion.

[Carry2]

A strawman is a fake argument propped up to be defeated...

Kish, I feel that the central point may have been somewhat lost here. Regardless of who posted what, I think it is fair to say there was significant debate on the entirely utilitarian question of whether Tarquin's government was a net plus or minus for the continent, and whether this constituted the sole argument for Tarquin's alignment or not, it clearly was a key argument on that point. Therefore, addressing the utilitarian standards involved is not a 'fake argument'.

Boiling several pages of argument on my part down to a handfull of soundbytes, however, certainly feels like one.

Thank you and good night.

[Kish]

it clearly was a key argument on that point.

Sorry, no. You don't get to claim that something no one said was "clearly a key argument." Nor does your finding my response to your posts generally objectionable mean said response is a strawman. If you want to debate you should respond to things people have actually said.

[Feddlefew]

I'm going to throw in my $.02 say that Malack is absurdly utilitarian, and that's what makes him evil. He doesn't care how much suffering and death his actions cause, because as long as they are in service to his god and bring order to a chaotic land, it's all fine with him.

[Kish]

That's not what "utilitarian" means. Malack is under no illusions that what he's doing is benefiting the greatest number. There is no room in utilitarianism to argue that Nergal gets fifty trillion votes despite being only one entity. Malack is a loyal slave of his evil god. That's not no-morals but it's not utilitarianism either.

[The Giant]

You know what? This thread is way over the "morally justified" line when we're discussing value systems like utilitarianism and deontology as ways to explain or mitigate Tarquin and Malack's alignments. And it's been warned twice before.

Thread locked.