Why is V constantly benched?

[TrinityGrace]

Don't forget that the imp was in on the attack, and secretly didn't want anything to happen to V. Even if V hadn't found the way to win, or at least end, the fight with Z I don't think V would have died.

[zimmerwald1915]

As I said, perspective. Roy decided to leave Elan to the bandit and couldn't believe that the rest of the party would risk their live to save him and even then, turn their back on them.

Roy even threathen an innocent weapon seller that if he could buy a weapon, he would use it on him right away.

Don't see people complaining about Roy being baaaaad !

I have. I've not been among them, but they do exist.

And yes, Roy did save the day in the end. Just as V didn't actually sic the dragon on the team and save them from that dragon that was outmatching them.

I fail to see how executing the dragon was preferable to, say, negotiating a trade for the starmetal or at least a peaceful withdrawal from its home.

If V wasn't there at the time, you really think Z would have just sit still and didn't attack the rest of the group ? Z would have been able to then help his group and a wizard supporting the fighters would have been devastating.

I think Z would have done everything in his power to help his team...and that that wouldn't amount to much. Again, he was all but out of spells at this point. Again, as evidenced by his resorting to melee against V, the most he could do would be to flank Roy or Elan, who are both better warriors than him.

In those circumstances, that Z was barely able to snatch a draw on his last spurr beside having all the good cards at hand is not what I'd call a victory for him.

Moving the goalposts. The original claim by Reddish Mage, to which I was responding and that you took it upon yourself to defend, was that V "defeat[ed] Z in the second match". It ain't so.

[Kish]

Moving the goalposts. The original claim by Reddish Mage, to which I was responding and that you took it upon yourself to defend, was that V "defeat[ed] Z in the second match". It ain't so.

Considering the Plane Shift and the lapse into unconsciousness followed by arrest, "Vaarsuvius won" is indeed no better a claim than "Zz'dtri won."

Or to put it another way, "A plague on both your houses...with a Fortitude DC of 18...incubation period of 1 day...and 1d4 Constitution damage per day infected."

[Sir_Leorik]

Alright, I think I understand your position now, but if we're treating this as a distinct trend, then it doesn't track V's character well. By your accounting, the combination of V's power and arrogance would cause her to usurp the story if left unchecked. But if we see the sidelining solely as a corrective measure for that, then we'd expect it to happen more often earlier in the comic, when her ego was most overt. If we're being fair, we'd expect more of this near the start of Paladin Blues, since a lot of DCF predated the intricate plotting and creative decisions that came after. But that's not what happens: before Azure City, we had V end entire combats in instances like this:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html,

this: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html,

I'm going to stop you right there, because you kind of missed the point of the arc that strip appeared in. In that arc, a Hag Baleful Polymorphs V into a small lizard, and she can no longer use her most powerful spells. In the end she manages to save the party by preparing and casting Feather Fall and Suggestion, a utilitarian spell with limited applications, and a Language Dependent Enchantment spell. V could have learned to better appreciate what she can do with her magic, preparing a wider variety of spells, but she immediately ignored those potential lessons and not only Disintegrated the YABD, she threatened to do so to the rest of the party, out of displeasure with their leaving her as a lizard longer than she felt necessary.

During that arc V was unable to communicate with the party, was almost eaten by Blackwing, and was groped by Belkar out of "curiosity". But she didn't learn anything, and did not undergo character growth. So she was forced to undergo character growth in Book Four by painful experiences.

It's not until the big battle that waylaying V became a trope, and it hasn't gotten better as V's tried to rein herself in, it's gotten worse.

It was the second occasion, not the first; the first was the lizard arc. The third occasion was V refusing to help save Lien, and the third was V abandoning Elan and Durkon after she murdered Kubota. The fourth time was being sent to the Semi-Elemental Plane of Ranch Dressing. The Archfiends snatching her and Blackwing's souls away is the fifth time V has been "removed from play". (I don't count any situtation like the fight in Cliffport, where V gets knocked unconscious from hit point loss, to be V getting benched. She is an Elf Wizard, she doesn't have a lot of hp.)

This makes a lot more sense if we use my running theory, that it's about V's arc and nothing (or comparatively little) else.

And I'm not a fan of her arc as it's been going. It's...monotonous would be a good word, moreso than straight boring. There's very few characters involved, and it detracts from other parts of the story (especially serialized like it is now, since time's more of a commodity now then it will be when everything's in book form) I don't expect everyone (or anyone in particular really) to agree with me, but I feel it needs throwing out there.

Well then you're in for some disappointment. All of the characters have experienced character growth, and V's arc since Book Four has been entirely a journey of self-discovery, with Blackwing acting as her conscience.

Let's see. In this arc, Vaarsuvius has come to understand blasting away at problems doesn't solve them, has begun working on her temper, decided that her family is better off without her, worked out through hearing one word that Girard had an organization backing him, defeated an opponent whose entire build was designed to kill her, began to understand the true enormity and true depths of her crimes in the last arc and thus taken a decent step towards redemption, outwitted Qarr (admittedly not the greatest challenge, but still) and figured out where Roy was headed, and nearly stopped Roy from playing into the Fiends' hands, failing only because they personally intervened.

I don't know what you consider "jack all" but it doesn't seem to mean the same thing to you as it does to me. Unless you're talking about flat out winning on her own, and considering the point of the entire last book for V was that she can't, V has done plenty.

Well, most of that's character development, and it's generally slow and incremental stuff. Not that that's a bad thing, but the fact that people are still all too willing to consider her the same mouthy and mindless blaster-wizard as she was a few hundred strips ago would suggest that these steps have failed to significantly alter our collective perception of the elf. Might be a bit harsh and premature to call the development a failure, then, but I'm still waiting on a payoff for all of it. Failing that, I'd settle for her getting to be a part of the party again.

Oh, and in no meaningful sense did V win against Z. The fact that she was only saved from eternal torment by Z's double-dealing familiar should make that pretty clear.

Z didn't win that fight either; he was slapped in irons the moment it was over. And like I said V is on a journey of self-discovery. There are some people who post here who feel she is a monster who doesn't deserve a redemption arc, and now you come along and posit that redemption arcs are boring. Like they say, you can't please everyone all the time.

[Malek2991]

I have. I've not been among them, but they do exist.


I fail to see how executing the dragon was preferable to, say, negotiating a trade for the starmetal or at least a peaceful withdrawal from its home.


I think Z would have done everything in his power to help his team...and that that wouldn't amount to much. Again, he was all but out of spells at this point. Again, as evidenced by his resorting to melee against V, the most he could do would be to flank Roy or Elan, who are both better warriors than him.


Moving the goalposts. The original claim by Reddish Mage, to which I was responding and that you took it upon yourself to defend, was that V "defeat[ed] Z in the second match". It ain't so.

First: The dragon attacked the order first, and pretty much had them beat without Varsuvius's help, granted V was kinda a jerk about it. Furthermore, what would the Order have been able to trade a dragon for the starmetal, The only thing they would have to offer the dragon was a tasty snack. (By which I mean their flesh). Not even Haley had enough money to buy the starmetal from the Dragon, and even if they somehow convinced the dragon to accept some sort of offer, there would be no guarentee that the dragon would actually follow through on its side of the bargin.

Second: He would easily be crushed in melee by Roy, even with Nale flanking, but flanking Elan with Thog, while being able to inform Thog that the female Half-Orc is an illusion, means Elan is toast.

[Reddish Mage]

You mean the time when she threatened to sic the dragon on the party if they didn't cater to her every whim, then executed it while it was helpless thus beginning the arc that culminated in familicide? Some help.


...Z was probably less of a melee threat than Elan to anyone but V.


See, the way I read that scene, Z toyed with V, then put her down when the situation got serious. V had her bacon saved by Qarr.


V's and O-Chul's not being present at Girard's Gate gave Xykon a reason to teleport immediately to Kraggor's Tomb, giving Team Evil a massive head start and probably letting them blindside O-Chul and Lien.

I can't say that I agree that V hasn't been at all helpful, ever, this analysis has suggested that at least V's magic has yet to obviously prove itself indispensable to the Order.

That is quite remarkable given what we know a wizard is capable of, and is truly humiliating compared to Elan's contributions.

[SavageWombat]

Just a thought:

After Belkar had his turning point of character growth, and role-played his way out of the mark of justice - he had one of his biggest Moments of Awesome and saved the entire party.

Vaarsuvius has role-played himself to the same point - and the party is in a position where one well-placed wizard could save the entire group.

(I can't make the timing work out myself, but it's possible.)

[littlebum2002]

I dunno, I think I can enumerate a couple others:
...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html

You picked a strip right before Durkon gets killed to point out how strong he is?

Let me present my counter-argument:

HE GETS KILLED

[Domino Quartz]

HE GETS KILLED

Not for another 6 strips.

[DiamondHooHaMan]

You picked a strip right before Durkon gets killed to point out how strong he is?

Let me present my counter-argument:

HE GETS KILLED

he is struck down only to become more powerful then you could possibly imagine.

[zimmerwald1915]

First: The dragon attacked the order first,

The Order were invading the dragon's home, were visibly armed, and were talking about what they would do with a piece of the dragon's personal property. He could have reasonably expected bodily harm. What was he supposed to do? Call the police? The bandit arc had established that Wooden Forest wasn't part of any kingdom, that there was no local authority - except possibly the druid's local that never showed up - to which to appeal.

Furthermore, what would the Order have been able to trade a dragon for the starmetal, The only thing they would have to offer the dragon was a tasty snack. (By which I mean their flesh). Not even Haley had enough money to buy the starmetal from the Dragon, and even if they somehow convinced the dragon to accept some sort of offer, there would be no guarentee that the dragon would actually follow through on its side of the bargin.

That's not really the dragon's problem, now, is it? The Order were clearly in the wrong, and the burden was upon them to redress that wrong.

[Mammal]

That's not really the dragon's problem, now, is it? The Order were clearly in the wrong, and the burden was upon them to redress that wrong.

I think you've got some interesting points, but at least with the dragon encounter, you're applying Real World (tm) logic to a story. There was no peaceful resolution possible because of course there wasn't. That the heroes come into conflict with a dragon while seeking its treasure is as inevitable as the heroes seeking the treasure to begin with.

That doesn't excuse anyone's actions per se, but I think you're overthinking it. V began the comic as a pretty flawed person, but so did everyone in the Order but Durkon. And OotS has an ensemble cast. Like it or not, it's just as much V's story as Roy's, Xykon's, and Haley's, even if her personal arc isn't tied into the main story at the moment. We wouldn't be spending all this time with V if it weren't going to be relevant again in a big way.

[Kish]

I do not believe either that Vaarsuvius was or is or...sigh...ever will be anything less than one of the six main characters of the comic.

I also do not believe Rich meant it to be morally irrelevant that Vaarsuvius, alone of the Order, had it actively shoved in her/his face that the dragon was willing to talk, and s/he responded by immediately breaking out the Suggestion spells, and disintegrating the dragon after s/he had kept her/him prisoner for hours.

[zimmerwald1915]

I do not believe either that Vaarsuvius was or is or...sigh...ever will be anything less than one of the six main characters of the comic.

Embrace denial of this point. It's great for the blood pressure

[Arcanist]

You mean the time when she threatened to sic the dragon on the party if they didn't cater to her every whim, then executed it while it was helpless thus beginning the arc that culminated in familicide? Some help.

Oh yes, it is seriously V's fault that s/he did not have the foreknowledge nor omniscience to know that after killing the Young Adult Black Dragon, someone would come after him. Especially considering that nobody had mentioned age category or other such information until after the fact.

I find it interesting that you paint that scenario in a darker light than it actually is. As if V had any serious intent to actually kill the party unless s/he got what s/he desired like some brutish thug or whining child. It was painfully obvious that eventually the Order would have returned V to his/her form, but when V confirmed and managed to establish communication with the Order requested that s/he be transformed immediately, rather than later. Any such threat while in that state was clearly made in a joking manner.

The Order were invading the dragon's home, were visibly armed, and were talking about what they would do with a piece of the dragon's personal property. He could have reasonably expected bodily harm. What was he supposed to do? Call the police? The bandit arc had established that Wooden Forest wasn't part of any kingdom, that there was no local authority - except possibly the druid's local that never showed up - to which to appeal.

You assume that their world operates on any form of real world_tm logic (except where explicitly mentioned). In their world invading a Dragon's home and stealing it's treasure can be considered an everyday event and applying our moral views on property laws to their world would be ridiculous.

If anything, the Order's world operates on a form of "might makes right" outside of the jurisdiction of the law and clearly killing Chromatic Dragons (regardless of innocence) is not illegal.

That's not really the dragon's problem, now, is it? The Order were clearly in the wrong, and the burden was upon them to redress that wrong.

Of course it's not the Dragon's problem, but it isn't the Order's either. You conveniently ignore the fact that the Order entered the cave under the idea that there was no Dragon (black or otherwise) inside of it. Upon encountering it, the Dragon attacked home invaders and the Order defended themselves against an attacking Dragon.

In essence, nobody really did anything wrong. They all reacted perfectly normal under the circumstances presented. We cannot know if they had any time to seek parley on the Dragon to discuss a price for the object they desire and thus we must exclude it as a possible outcome for this scenario.

[zimmerwald1915]

Oh yes, it is seriously V's fault that s/he did not have the foreknowledge nor omniscience to know that after killing the Young Adult Black Dragon, someone would come after him. Especially considering that nobody had mentioned age category or other such information until after the fact.

V had at that point been adventuring with a man who was on record as being more inclined to talk to people than to kill them because doing so would be slightly more convenient for weeks if not months. She had plenty of time to be exposed to that attitude. She had absorbed none of it. I, for one, don't blame Roy for this.

I find it interesting that you paint that scenario in a darker light than it actually is. As if V had any serious intent to actually kill the party unless s/he got what s/he desired like some brutish thug or whining child. It was painfully obvious that eventually the Order would have returned V to his/her form, but when V confirmed and managed to establish communication with the Order requested that s/he be transformed immediately, rather than later. Any such threat while in that state was clearly made in a joking manner.

And as I said earlier, I find any attempt to paint this scenario as anything other than a home invasion culminating in mindrape and cold-blooded murder shameless whitewashing. Good words, by the way, "brutish thug" and "whining child". I'll have to incorporate them into my hatedom lexicon

You assume that their world operates on any form of real world_tm logic (except where explicitly mentioned). In their world invading a Dragon's home and stealing it's treasure can be considered an everyday event and applying our moral views on property laws to their world would be ridiculous.

We've seen a number of legal/law enforcement regimes so far: Azure City, Cliffport, the Empire of Blood, the "arbitrary civilization" where Nale and Thog were imprisoned, and others that I'm forgetting but which I am sure exist. Azure City, Cliffport, and the Empire of Blood seem to follow some variant of American criminal procedure. Roy in the Azure City trial seems to expect freedom of speech, suggesting that even though this isn't an Azurite concept, it is fairly common in Northern law. To me this suggests that when the Giant writes about law and legal norms, he - being like most people not an expert on comparative law or even on the law of his own culture - writes what he does know.

Besides, just because something is common doesn't make it either legal or right. It just means that some people in that world consider some kinds of people legitimate targets of violence and don't expect condemnation or punishment. This is not something the Giant means us to accept; it's an attitude he wants to criticize and condemn.

Of course it's not the Dragon's problem, but it isn't the Order's either. You conveniently ignore the fact that the Order entered the cave under the idea that there was no Dragon (black or otherwise) inside of it. Upon encountering it, the Dragon attacked home invaders and the Order defended themselves against an attacking Dragon.

Doesn't matter. They intended to enter its home, and then did so. They intended to remove something. Whether or not they knew it was anybody's home is irrelevant. It was on them to determine whether what they were after belonged to anybody, not on the possessor to prove title.

In essence, nobody really did anything wrong. They all reacted perfectly normal under the circumstances presented. We cannot know if they had any time to seek parley on the Dragon to discuss a price for the object they desire and thus we must exclude it as a possible outcome for this scenario.

Normal behavior can also be bad behavior. The Giant has spoken out before against normative gamer and PC behavior, and has stated that one of the things we ought to be doing with The Order of the Stick is learning what it has to teach.

[Rakoa]

Given that the Dragon did attack first, the Order was well within their rights to kill it. And don't say it's their fault because it's the Dragon's "home". I highly doubt it has the land deed, and it could have attempted to parlay with the Order just as easily as they with it (in fact, even more easily).

[Reddish Mage]

Doesn't matter. They intended to enter its home, and then did so. They intended to remove something. Whether or not they knew it was anybody's home is irrelevant. It was on them to determine whether what they were after belonged to anybody, not on the possessor to prove title.


Normal behavior can also be bad behavior. The Giant has spoken out before against normative gamer and PC behavior, and has stated that one of the things we ought to be doing with The Order of the Stick is learning what it has to teach.

Actually, if your home is a cave, and you do nothing to fence the property or to block entry, there certainly was no "breaking and entering." The dragon did nothing to warn approaching adventurers that it was its cave and attacked without additional provocation.

Seems to me to be a case isn't so clear cut morally or legally.

[shamgar001]

The dragon's scales weren't shiny. Yes, we the readers can understand in retrospect that the OotS shouldn't have killed it, but considering the OotS lives in a world where all chromatic dragons are regarded as evil by default, I don't think we can blame them for killing it; according to the knowledge they had, that was the right thing to do. When that strip first came out - when dragons were just another fantasy monster and we had no idea that the mother was coming back - did anyone think "oh hey, maybe they shouldn't be invading another sentient creature's home"?

So V saving the group from the dragon is not an insignificant help on V's part. Even if we disregard that fact and say that the Order was doing wrong by being in the dragon's lair in the first place - that doesn't change the fact that without V, they might very well have ended up dead. That counts as a contribution to the party.

[zimmerwald1915]

Given that the Dragon did attack first, the Order was well within their rights to kill it. And don't say it's their fault because it's the Dragon's "home". I highly doubt it has the land deed, and it could have attempted to parlay with the Order just as easily as they with it (in fact, even more easily).

Why does the dragon not get to expect to live unmolested in its place of residence? Why is it not on adventurers to have some special reason for dragon-slaying beyond "I don't like dragons" or "I want their stuff"?

The dragon's scales weren't shiny. Yes, we the readers can understand in retrospect that the OotS shouldn't have killed it, but considering the OotS lives in a world where all chromatic dragons are regarded as evil by default, I don't think we can blame them for killing it; according to the knowledge they had, that was the right thing to do. When that strip first came out - when dragons were just another fantasy monster and we had no idea that the mother was coming back - did anyone think "oh hey, maybe they shouldn't be invading another sentient creature's home"?

Normative behavior, again, is not justified by its being normative, nor is it above condemnation. Out of universe, the Giant condemns such behavior. In-universe, Roy has condemned it even if he's had his moments of backsliding.

So V saving the group from the dragon is not an insignificant help on V's part. Even if we disregard that fact and say that the Order was doing wrong by being in the dragon's lair in the first place - that doesn't change the fact that without V, they might very well have ended up dead. That counts as a contribution to the party.

There is a point where you taint your contribution by the method you use to make it.

[zimmerwald1915]

Actually, if your home is a cave, and you do nothing to fence the property or to block entry, there certainly was no "breaking and entering." The dragon did nothing to warn approaching adventurers that it was its cave and attacked without additional provocation.

Seems to me to be a case isn't so clear cut morally or legally.

There might not be breaking and entering, but there was for sure trespass. And no, a homeowner or landowner is under no obligation to notify intruders that they're on his property; they have a right to expect to live free of intruders. The obligation is on intruders to avoid other people's property. They're the ones in motion, the ones in charge of their own route. They can move out of the way of others' homes. Others' homes can't move out of their way.

[archon_huskie]

The answer is:


It doesn't

Deus Ex Machinas are plot devices whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. The only way such a thing would be possible would be if V(not Darth V) suddenly began casting spells that were decidedly way beyond her ability to cast with seemingly no explanation.

An example of a Deus Ex Machina would be along the lines of watching The Dark Knight and then at the end Superman suddenly appears and Bonks the Joker in the face with no explanation.

I apologize if i sound a little exasperated, i just get so frustrated when i hear someone use the term "Deus Ex Machina" used so casually. It is, by definition, an unexpected and spontaneous act that has no foreshadowing or explanation that appears and solves the problem at hand.

I appreciate that you know what Deus Ex Machina means. I raise my glass to you.

[Arcanist]

V had at that point been adventuring with a man who was on record as being more inclined to talk to people than to kill them because doing so would be slightly more convenient for weeks if not months. She had plenty of time to be exposed to that attitude. She had absorbed none of it. I, for one, don't blame Roy for this.

Who said anything about Roy specifically? This is a moral "problem" that the entire order faces.

And as I said earlier, I find any attempt to paint this scenario as anything other than a home invasion culminating in mindrape and cold-blooded murder shameless whitewashing. Good words, by the way, "brutish thug" and "whining child". I'll have to incorporate them into my hatedom lexicon

Interesting. Using this line of reasoning I can declare that Tarquin being anything less than a Heroic figure who brought order to a lawless territory by any means necessary is shameless mudslinging. You are creating an obvious bias towards the Dragon in that it was ethically entitled to kill the party immediately upon entering the cave, however what was really stopping the Dragon from seeking parley? Absolutely nothing. Despite having the advantage of territory, might and only failing due to an unfortunate saving throw, it had the advantage and most likely would have emerged victorious. So why not avoid the conflict entirely and talk it out rather than fight? Do you sincerely believe that the Dragon should have killed them all strictly by virtue of them being in it's cave?

I welcome you to add those terms to your lexicon.

We've seen a number of legal/law enforcement regimes so far: Azure City, Cliffport, the Empire of Blood, the "arbitrary civilization" where Nale and Thog were imprisoned, and others that I'm forgetting but which I am sure exist. Azure City, Cliffport, and the Empire of Blood seem to follow some variant of American criminal procedure. Roy in the Azure City trial seems to expect freedom of speech, suggesting that even though this isn't an Azurite concept, it is fairly common in Northern law. To me this suggests that when the Giant writes about law and legal norms, he - being like most people not an expert on comparative law or even on the law of his own culture - writes what he does know.

Not once did I attempt invalidate any of those countries legal systems and in fact invoked them as a counter point. Most prominently being that the murder of a Chromatic Dragons is legal as endorsed by Miko. Thereafter stealing from it's hoard would be considered fair game (mostly because it is performed in a lawless region).

Besides, just because something is common doesn't make it either legal or right. It just means that some people in that world consider some kinds of people legitimate targets of violence and don't expect condemnation or punishment. This is not something the Giant means us to accept; it's an attitude he wants to criticize and condemn.

It was endorsed as being perfectly acceptable (by a Paladin no less) and thereafter commended (making it reason to believe that it was ethical). From this we can confirm that Chromatic Dragons have no legal rights under Azurite law. Therefore it is legal and debatable in it's ethics.

Doesn't matter. They intended to enter its home, and then did so. They intended to remove something. Whether or not they knew it was anybody's home is irrelevant. It was on them to determine whether what they were after belonged to anybody, not on the possessor to prove title.

You're ignoring facts that alter your view of the events to allow you to reach your desired conclusion.

They entered the cave with the intent to obtain the Starmetal (regardless of obstacle), however they did so under the assumption that there were no creatures guarding it (beyond the Ogre's that Roy made up). Upon entering the cave they encountered a Black Dragon that asked no questions and just decided to take the law into his own hands. The Dragon did not appear shocked at their arrival and was quite expecting of them.

If anything this Dragon was looking for a reason to kill someone. It didn't care if it was the Order or someone else.

Normal behavior can also be bad behavior. The Giant has spoken out before against normative gamer and PC behavior, and has stated that one of the things we ought to be doing with The Order of the Stick is learning what it has to teach.

This was not normal gamer and PC behavior. This was action as logic dictates. Someone attacks you, is it not logical to assume they will attack you back?

Perhaps it would be more appropriate in saying that everyone acted normally. The Dragon attacked and the Party responded back.

[Scow2]

There might not be breaking and entering, but there was for sure trespass. And no, a homeowner or landowner is under no obligation to notify intruders that they're on his property; they have a right to expect to live free of intruders. The obligation is on intruders to avoid other people's property. They're the ones in motion, the ones in charge of their own route. They can move out of the way of others' homes. Others' homes can't move out of their way.

It's not Tresspassing until there's a warning that you're on Private Property - usually in the form of a highly-visible sign.

They entered the cave with the intent to obtain the Starmetal (regardless of obstacle), however they did so under the assumption that there were no creatures guarding it (beyond the Ogre's that Roy made up). Upon entering the cave they encountered a Black Dragon that asked no questions and just decided to take the law into his own hands. The Dragon did not appear shocked at their arrival and was quite expecting of them.

Law has all of jack **** to do with what's Right. And why should someone be forced to negotiate/parlay with rats coming into their home?

This was not normal gamer and PC behavior. This was action as logic dictates. Someone attacks you, is it not logical to assume they will attack you back?

Perhaps it would be more appropriate in saying that everyone acted normally. The Dragon attacked and the Party responded back.

Normally is not Right. Take your "Legally"s, and keep them off the Moral axis.

[shamgar001]

Normative behavior, again, is not justified by its being normative, nor is it above condemnation. Out of universe, the Giant condemns such behavior. In-universe, Roy has condemned it even if he's had his moments of backsliding.

There is a point where you taint your contribution by the method you use to make it.

I undermined my own point by engaging the question of whether the order was right or not. Either way, you have to judge people according to the knowledge they had in the circumstances. V and the rest of the order had every reason to believe that they were doing the right thing.

[Arcanist]

Law has all of jack **** to do with what's Right. And why should someone be forced to negotiate/parlay with rats coming into their home?

This is terrible comparison and using this line of reasoning would mean that I can kill anyone (and anything) on my property that I desire. Logic be damned.

Normally is not Right. Take your "Legally"s, and keep them off the Moral axis.

This was a question of whether this was morally and therefore legally acceptable behavior.

[Scow2]

This is terrible comparison and using this line of reasoning would mean that I can kill anyone (and anything) on my property that I desire. Logic be damned.

You can if you're a Dragon, Deity, or Lovecraftian Horror.

This was a question of whether this was morally and therefore legally acceptable behavior.

Law has nothing to do with morals. There are a lot of legally unacceptable behaviors that are moral, and a lot of morally unacceptable behaviors that are legal.

However, the Law and Chaos alignments LOVE to paint themselves as "Good" and the other as "Evil".

[zimmerwald1915]

I undermined my own point by engaging the question of whether the order was right or not. Either way, you have to judge people according to the knowledge they had in the circumstances. V and the rest of the order had every reason to believe that they were doing the right thing.

Belief and knowledge don't matter for squat, except insofar as the dragon deigns to grant the Order a courtesy. Nobody picked them up and deposited them in the cave. They intended to be there. They brought deadly weapons along (this is what allows the dragon to respond with force; he could reasonably have believed the Order intended to use those weapons against him). They intended to abscond with a movable good, and spoke those intentions aloud. They brought any consequence on themselves.

[Domino Quartz]

Belief and knowledge don't matter for squat, except insofar as the dragon deigns to grant the Order a courtesy. Nobody picked them up and deposited them in the cave. They intended to be there. They brought deadly weapons along (this is what allows the dragon to respond with force; he could reasonably have believed the Order intended to use those weapons against him) They intended to abscond with a movable good. They brought any consequence on themselves.

So...they should just accept that and allow themselves to be killed by the dragon?

[shamgar001]

Belief and knowledge don't matter for squat, except insofar as the dragon deigns to grant the Order a courtesy. Nobody picked them up and deposited them in the cave. They intended to be there. They brought deadly weapons along (this is what allows the dragon to respond with force; he could reasonably have believed the Order intended to use those weapons against him) They intended to abscond with a movable good. They brought any consequence on themselves.

I'm not disagreeing with that. My disagreement is that you seem to be suggesting that V saving the Order doesn't count as a contribution to their goals since s/he should have said "Hey, you guys broke in here; you deserve to be eaten" (and then later gotten eater him/herself).