Why is V constantly benched?

[zimmerwald1915]

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).

I have no comment on what the Order should or shouldn't have done. My problem is with how the audience lauds or excuses their actions.

[TRH]

I have to ask now: do you like any of the protagonists of this story? They're all culpable in the Dragon incident to varying degrees, and although V seems to have been the only one with an option to resolve things peacefully ( the Dragon not knowing Common and all), they were all party to the intrusion that you also object to. Aren't they all horrible people who've escaped justice for that encounter, by your accounting of things?

[Emanick]

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.

What should the Order have done, then?

Should they have purchased a megaphone from the local boutique and shouted through it into the cave in order to determine if any creature lived there, and, if so, whether or not they had its permission to go inside? Is it morally wrong to enter a cave without proof that nobody lives there? As far as I can tell - and correct me if I'm wrong, because I am genuinely confused - according to you, the Order literally could not have gone about this a correct way. They had no moral right to enter the cave, despite the fact that it was not marked as a residence in any way, shape or form, and they had no way of asking whether or not it was okay to go inside, because there was nobody present to ask the permission of. It seems unlikely that the dragon was within shouting range.

Also, since when is it acceptable to attack ANYBODY with lethal force when they have not expressly indicated hostile intent towards you? Remember, the dragon attacked the Order immediately after seeing Haley retreat at her first glimpse of it. It seems like you've set up a moral double standard here - the dragon is justified in aggression, but the Order somehow can't be, no matter what their intent.

Let's say I'm a member of a rare ethnic group or subculture that prefers to live in caves rather than houses. (Otherwise, it's not really fair to compare me to a dragon, as dragons, unlike most societies today, can reasonably be expected to live in caves.) I decide to move into a cave in a dangerous forest, leaving no indication that I live there. One day, a group of miners with guns comes into the cave (they may have guns because the area is dangerous and they need to defend themselves, but I don't know this for sure). One of them comes into the lantern-lit cavern I'm sitting in me, gasps, and turns away, yelling at her friends to head back into a darker cavern. I immediately draw my machine gun and start shooting at her.

Is this okay? Because I honestly cannot see any difference between that and what the black dragon did upon meeting the Order.

[zimmerwald1915]

I have to ask now: do you like any of the protagonists of this story? They're all culpable in the Dragon incident to varying degrees, and although V seems to have been the only one with an option to resolve things peacefully ( the Dragon not knowing Common and all), they were all party to the intrusion that you also object to. Aren't they all horrible people who've escaped justice for that encounter, by your accounting of things?

I think I've liked every single post of yours I've read for being a clear and concise restatement of things I think. This one is no exception.

Is this okay? Because I honestly cannot see any difference between that and what the black dragon did upon meeting the Order.

Yes. It is my contention that the dragon was acting reasonably, using proportionate force in response to a threat a reasonable dragon could have perceived against its life and property in the same circumstances. Again, the Order was in visible possession of deadly weapons, and talked openly about taking a piece of the dragon's [mother's] property. The reasonable inference was that they posed a deadly and imminent threat that needed to be met. Whether this reasonable action is also a moral action? I am not going to say. But the dragon is under no obligation to act in a moral fashion. The Order, ostensible heroes, are. They get held to a higher standard because, as TRH points out, we're supposed to like them and to accept their actions as things heroes would do.

[TRH]

I think I've liked every single post of yours I've read for being a clear and concise restatement of things I think. This one is no exception.

Well, thanks for the props, but I'm still confused. What do you expect out of this comic, if you hate the main characters? They may be dragon-killers (or killer and accomplices, if we split hairs), but the villains are quite a bit worse. Among major characters (that aren't dead, like most of the Scribblers), that pretty much just leaves the Sapphire Guard, Paladins with a track record of killing Goblins for generally unjustified reasons, including civilians. It seems to me like your ideal ending to this story would involve the Snarl unmaking everything, since 90% of the named characters have done horrible things or been party to same. It's not like I don't get your individual takes on things, but I don't see why you'd be invested in reading more, since Rocks Fall Everyone Dies isn't a very likely ending for this story.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, thanks for the props, but I'm still confused. What do you expect out of this comic, if you hate the main characters? They may be dragon-killers (or killer and accomplices, if we split hairs), but the villains are quite a bit worse. Among major characters (that aren't dead, like most of the Scribblers), that pretty much just leaves the Sapphire Guard, Paladins with a track record of killing Goblins for generally unjustified reasons, including civilians. It seems to me like your ideal ending to this story would involve the Snarl unmaking everything, since 90% of the named characters have done horrible things or been party to same. It's not like I don't get your individual takes on things, but I don't see why you'd be invested in reading more, since Rocks Fall Everyone Dies isn't a very likely ending for this story.

Where the story goes is no business of mine. But you're right; I'm not here because I feel for the characters, though that might be why a great majority of the readers are here, and the author even says this is a character-driven story. I'm here to watch the characters do things that make me feel and think things. If those things I feel happen to be outrage and a desire to have people in the real world be better than these characters, so be it. Brecht would approve.

[lio45]

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.

That dragon was in no way a "homeowner" or "landowner" in possession of a valid deed to the place, just a sentient wild creature that happened to live there.

If I'm walking on MY land and I see a moose, I'm not legally trespassing on that moose's property, even though in the moose's mind I actually am, and he might very well charge and attack...

[zimmerwald1915]

That dragon was in no way a "homeowner" or "landowner" in possession of a valid deed to the place, just a sentient wild creature that happened to live there.

If I'm walking on MY land and I see a moose, I'm not legally trespassing on that moose's property, even though in the moose's mind I actually am, and he might very well charge and attack...

So in order to excuse the Order in your mind, you need to equate a person about as smart as a human (and capable of growing a lot smarter), just as capable of claiming a space in which it can feel safe and autonomous and just as endowed with the right to expect that autonomy and safety not to be violated, with a moose. Uh huh.

If nothing else, Wooden Forest being a lawless territory, the dragon['s mother] owned that cave by right of conquest, notarized deed or no.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is absurd. If you're walking around in a forest and happen to cross the border of someone's unmarked estate that person is nether legally nor morally entitled to blow you away on the spot.

[zimmerwald1915]

This is absurd. If you're walking around in a forest and happen to cross the border of someone's unmarked estate that person is nether legally nor morally entitled to blow you away on the spot.

People keep omitting the elements "visibly carrying deadly weapons" and "talking openly about taking a piece of one's property". I wonder why.

[Koo Rehtorb]

People keep omitting the elements "visibly carrying deadly weapons" and "talking openly about taking a piece of one's property". I wonder why.

Okay, buddy, let's modify it to see if it sounds any better.

A party of people are walking around in the middle of an uncharted wilderness, no settlements for miles and miles around. They are carrying hunting rifles because, you know, ****, it's the middle of an uncharted wilderness. They talk about finding a meteor that fell out of the sky.

Some hermit happens to be living in the middle of the uncharted forest. He filed no claims, made no mark of what he considers to be his "property line". As soon as they walk across this invisible boundary he blows them all away on the spot.

[zimmerwald1915]

Okay, buddy, let's modify it to see if it sounds any better.

A party of people are walking around in the middle of an uncharted wilderness, no settlements for miles and miles around. They are carrying hunting rifles because, you know, ****, it's the middle of an uncharted wilderness. They talk about finding a meteor that fell out of the sky.

Some hermit happens to be living in the middle of the uncharted forest. He filed no claims, made no mark of what he considers to be his "property line". As soon as they walk across this invisible boundary he blows them all away on the spot.

I don't understand this attempt to construct a hypothetical scenario. The chain of events is clear: it happened as is shown from strip 180 to strip 188. That said, this hypothetical, despite your stated intention still does not conform to the facts as laid out in those strips. The meteor in question was clearly regarded by the dragons as their personal property. They had "enshrined" it, we are told, in a special room to indicate its significance. The hermit in this scenario has taken no such steps to mark the meteorite as his own. What's more, a cave's outer boundary is clearly delineated, much more clearly so than an imaginary line on a map. The mouth of a cave is more analogous to a gate in a fence or a door to a house than to said imaginary line. The Order didn't just pass through the mouth of this particular cave by accident; they deliberately crossed the threshold, expending significant effort and at significant personal risk. They weren't innocent saunterers who made a mistake, not that it would make any difference to the dragon's reasonable expectations of them, but deliberate intruders.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't understand this attempt to construct a hypothetical scenario.

Mostly because I am flabbergasted that someone could look at strips 180-182 and go "Yup. This is a perfectly reasonable reaction." Not even "Gosh. That sure was an unfortunate but understandable misunderstanding on the dragon's part."

I find it to be a severely warped perspective.

[zimmerwald1915]

Mostly because I am flabbergasted that someone could look at strips 180-182 and go "Yup. This is a perfectly reasonable reaction." Not even "Gosh. That sure was an unfortunate but understandable misunderstanding on the dragon's part."

I find it to be a severely warped perspective.

I think the dragon was reasonably in fear for his life, safety, and property, had a right to protect the first at least, and reacted in proportion to the threat it reasonably perceived. I think most reasonable dragons would have reacted the same way, and I think many reasonable humans would as well if they had the power (most reasonable humans who find themselves naked and unarmed in the face of armed intruders would, of course, run and hide, but the dragon can hardly be considered "unarmed" and so our hypothetical humans should be armed too for purposes of analogy). Why don't you?

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think the dragon was reasonably in fear for his life, safety, and property, had a right to protect the first at least, and reacted in proportion to the threat it reasonably perceived. I think most reasonable dragons would have reacted the same way, and I think many reasonable humans would as well. Why don't you?

I guess because I don't feel that a group of people walking into an unmarked cave in the middle of a forest deserve to die on the spot because the resident didn't feel like putting up a sign warning people that it was inhabited. Call me crazy.

[shamgar001]

Is it totally unthinkable that both sides were correct in their reactions, given their respective understandings of property rights?

[zimmerwald1915]

I guess because I don't feel that a group of people walking into an unmarked cave in the middle of a forest deserve to die on the spot because the resident didn't feel like putting up a sign warning people that it was inhabited. Call me crazy.

Whereas I think that a group of heavily armed people who make a concerted and deliberate effort to penetrate a difficult-to-access cave and who wax eloquent about their plans to abscond with someone's property can be reasonably perceived as a threat to one's person or property. Is that a reasonable perception? If not, why not?

If the Order were not heavily armed, had crossed an imaginary line that only existed in the dragon's head instead of going to the trouble of climbing down a cliff face, and had not indicated to the dragon that they intended to pose a threat to its property, then yes, I'll concede force would not have been proportional. Happy? But I won't back off on maintaining that that wasn't the situation the dragon faced. It faced a situation it could have reasonably perceived as a threat. It reacted appropriately.

Is it totally unthinkable that both sides were correct in their reactions, given their respective understandings of property rights?

Sure, the Order may have acted reasonably, but it doesn't actually matter. What's in their heads is irrelevant. What matters for the purposes of determining the dragon's appropriate course of action is how their actions could reasonably be perceived by the dragon.

What happens if they act as they did in my little hypothetical response to Koo Rhetorb? They probably get killed and eaten, because they'd be defenseless and the dragon would probably not have deigned to offer them the courtesy of explaining themselves (in which case I'd probably rail at the dragon for being a tool and employing disproportionate force to a situation that it could not have reasonably perceived as a threat to its life or property). So as pointed out above, the Order is in kind of a lose-lose situation: either they go armed and risk provoking violence in self-defense from the people into whose homes they intrude, or they don't and risk provoking violence in peeved ire from the people whose homes they intrude. They might choose not to put themselves into situations where they might intrude upon people's homes (such as by staying in town and not venturing out into the wilderness), but then they wouldn't be adventurers. The conclusion is clear: adventurers, in reasonably providing for their own safety, assume the risk of attracting reasonable violence in self-defense from people into whose homes they intrude. Either accept that, or don't be adventurers.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Whereas I think that a group of heavily armed people

This is a fact of the world. Any band of people traveling through the wilderness are going to be armed because to do otherwise is suicide.

who make a concerted and deliberate effort to penetrate a difficult-to-access cave and who wax eloquent about their plans to abscond with someone's property

Making no mention of the dragon's ownership of the property or that they expected the cave to be inhabited.

can be reasonably perceived as a threat to one's person or property. Is that a reasonable perception?

This much I will grant you. However, it was the dragon's fault that this occurred in the first place. If it had made some effort to mark the cave as a dwelling as opposed to an abandoned pit then there would be a considerable amount more evidence that any trespassers were malicious and the response would be far more justified.

You can't blow innocent people away who are doing nothing wrong because you feel threatened by them.

It faced a situation it could have reasonably perceived as a threat.

This is not sufficient. Striking first without warning may have been tactically sound. This is a long way from justifiable.

[zimmerwald1915]

This is a fact of the world. Any band of people traveling through the wilderness are going to be armed because to do otherwise is suicide.

And as I point out in my post above, to go armed is also to court reasonable violence in self-defense. This is also a fact of the world.

Making no mention of the dragon's ownership of the property or that they expected the cave to be inhabited.

This much I will grant you. However, it was the dragon's fault that this occurred in the first place. If it had made some effort to mark the cave as a dwelling as opposed to an abandoned pit then there would be a considerable amount more evidence that any trespassers were malicious and the response would be far more justified.

Look, marking the limits of one's property might be the smart thing to do, in that it will deter people from trespassing, but it is not an obligation incumbent upon anybody. Giving people notice that you intend to defend yourself and your property with force might be the Good thing to do, in that it indicates an altruistic respect for the lives and dignity of potential trespassors, but it is not an obligation incumbent upon anybody. Doing these things is going above and beyond the call of duty for property owners. The obligation is on the potential trespassor not to become a trespassor because they, and not the property holder, control where they will and will not go. The dragon could not control whether or not the Order climbed down into the cave no matter how many signs he put up; that choice would always be the Order's alone. If the property holder leaves¹ it hard to know whether or not one is trespassing...tough. That's the regime of private property.

¹I originally had "makes" here, and changed it because "makes" implies that the property owner made it more difficult than it would naturally be to know whether or not one is trespassing, inviting more trespassers and assuming some culpability for their trespass.

You can't blow innocent people away who are doing nothing wrong because you feel threatened by them.

Yeah, actually, you can, if the fear of imminent bodily harm is reasonable under the circumstances. I maintain that here, it was. I'd bring up more specific examples, but there are real life politics concerns (and before you get the wrong idea, I take issue with the reasonableness in those particular not-to-be-mentioned circumstances, but not the doctrine of self-defense itself). Such a mistake may be tragic. But it is just as wrong if not more wrong to deny people the right to defend themselves on the off chance that the person brandishing a claymore at them and demanding their engagement ring (to choose a slightly different sword and valuable rock) might just want to discuss price.

[Paisley]

Whereas I think that a group of heavily armed people who make a concerted and deliberate effort to penetrate a difficult-to-access cave and who wax eloquent about their plans to abscond with someone's property can be reasonably perceived as a threat to one's person or property. Is that a reasonable perception? If not, why not?

To be fair, wax eloquent is a bit of a stretch. Save for a brief comment by Haley before entering the cave, no one so much as mentions anything that would suggest they were planning on plundering the dragon's horde. I'm not supporting the Order here, but for all the dragon knows, they could just be a group of highly enthusiastic spelunkers.

Also, I think the argument is starting to get a little over-complicated. I doubt that the first thought the dragon has upon seeing the party is "what reasonable course of action should I take in response to this group of possibly dangerous lifeforms who may or may not be willfully trespassing on my territory?" Rather, I suspect it's something more along the lines of "oh hey, free food."

It's like a bunch of steaks showing up on your doorstep. You don't go for your gun, you go for your knife and fork.

I think the dragon was reasonably in fear for his life, safety, and property, had a right to protect the first at least, and reacted in proportion to the threat it reasonably perceived.

Rereading strips 180-183, I can't say I see anything like fear motivating the dragon's actions. Anger, sure. Disdain, definitely. But fear? Not really.

[Domino Quartz]

Okay, seriously? You seem to be saying "It was totally okay* for the dragon to attack the OotS first for entering its cave, which they didn't know was inhabited, but the OotS are terrible people for entering a cave they didn't know, had no way of knowing, and had no reason to believe was inhabited with the weapons they happened to be carrying." If that's not what you're saying, please enlighten me.
Haley is the first person to see the dragon, and her reaction isn't "Oh, there's the dragon!" or "Oh, there's the creature that inhabits this cave" but "Oh crap! There's a dragon here!" upon which the dragon attacks.

*note: I'm not saying it wasn't an understandable reaction, but to say it was okay for the dragon to attack first but that the OotS are terrible people for entering the cave with weapons is ridiculous.

[zimmerwald1915]

Rereading strips 180-183, I can't say I see anything like fear motivating the dragon's actions. Anger, sure. Disdain, definitely. But fear? Not really.

Okay, I guess I could be a little clearer. I'm not referring to the emotion of fear. I'm referring to the way a reasonable person makes predictions about the future based on what they know in the present. When I say "reasonable fear" and "reasonably feared", read "reasonable expectation" and "reasonably expected".

I've also tried to use language like "a reasonable dragon" to indicate that I'm not even concerned with what was in this dragon's state of mind when it attacked the Order. That matters as little as the Order's state of mind. What matters is what a given reasonable person in the dragon's position would fear [expect] from the Order. I think a reasonable dragon could easily have come to the conclusion that there was an imminent threat of bodily harm to itself based on what said dragon could have reasonably known¹. Do you disagree?

¹I'm not saying you've argued this, but I want to head this argument off at the pass. Saying any reasonable dragon would react as if steaks had shown up on his doorstep is more than a little speciesist (ugh, I hate this term), and flies in the face of one of The Order of the Stick's main themes. As such, it is likely an incorrect characterization.

*note: I'm not saying it wasn't an understandable reaction, but to say it was okay for the dragon to attack first but that the OotS are terrible people for entering the cave with weapons is ridiculous.

Look, the only person against whom I've made a moral judgment in this thread is V, who moved from unwitting trespassor to wilful mind-rapist and executioner. My last few posts haven't been about condemning the Order (I do call them trespassors and accessories to V's actions, but that's a pretty shallow condemnation) so much as about defending the rights of the dragon. The Order doesn't have to actually do anything wrong for the dragon to reasonably feel it has to defend itself. Roy's, Elan's, and Durkon's minds might have been lily-white. I'm saying their state of mind doesn't matter.

[Paisley]

Okay, I guess I could be a little clearer. I'm not referring to the emotion of fear. I'm referring to the way a reasonable person makes predictions about the future based on what they know in the present. When I say "reasonable fear" and "reasonably feared", read "reasonable expectation" and "reasonably expected".

I see. That's different, then. Apologies for misunderstanding. I still read the dragon's behavior as "offensive"/"motivated by selfishness" rather than defensiveness, but that could just be my interpretation.

Okay, seriously? You seem to be saying "It was totally okay* for the dragon to attack the OotS first for entering its cave, which they didn't know was inhabited, but the OotS are terrible people for entering a cave they didn't know, had no way of knowing, and had no reason to believe was inhabited with the weapons they happened to be carrying." If that's not what you're saying, please enlighten me.

Actually, at that point most of the Order has been led to believe that they were going to be fighting "really tough [king] giants" for possession of the starmetal. Of course it's a lie Roy makes up to get them going, but the point stands that they were fully prepared to hoodwink/injure/kill these alleged giants for the treasure—it is, in fact, the only reason Belkar and Haley join their mission.

[GreyHound]

Sure, the Order may have acted reasonably, but it doesn't actually matter. What's in their heads is irrelevant. What matters for the purposes of determining the dragon's appropriate course of action is how their actions could reasonably be perceived by the dragon.

On the whole I agree with what you are saying. If we look at this from the dragon’s perspective I find it hard to sympathize with heavily armed thugs.

However, the name of the game is Dungeon and Dragons. What can you expect from that kind of a set up? I mean, the raiding of dragons, is almost routine in nature. Although the fact, that killing dragons is common, does not excuse V’s actions.

Is this not what makes V interesting as a character? That he has to live with the damage he has caused to so many living beings. I'm getting the sense you don't like V so much.

I might be missing your point completely though.

[zimmerwald1915]

I see. That's different, then. Apologies for misunderstanding. I still read the dragon's behavior as "offensive"/"motivated by selfishness" rather than defensiveness, but that could just be my interpretation.

I appreciate (and will strive to match) the cordial tone. I hope you won't take offense when I push a little harder at this point. It shouldn't matter what this particular dragon's motivations are at all. What matters in determining whether the dragon has a right to self-defense is what a reasonable dragon could have reasonably inferred from the information it could reasonably have known (an aside, I think it likely that it heard Haley's comment about the starmetal at the top of the shaft).

Is this not what makes V interesting as a character? That he has to live with the damage he has caused to so many living beings. I'm getting the sense you don't like V so much.

You're right, I don't like V very much. I don't like Mother Courage much either. I don't sympathize with her, and I find her motivations banal, much like V's. What is interesting, to me, is not the character, but the story and the effect the story has on the audience. I like and find interesting the reactions the actions and effects on the world of a character like V inspire in people.

Another aside: I think there's a lot of room for a much better critic than I to do a Brechtian reading of The Order of the Stick.

[Domino Quartz]

Actually, at that point most of the Order has been led to believe that they were going to be fighting "really tough [king] giants" for possession of the starmetal. Of course it's a lie Roy makes up to get them going, but the point stands that they were fully prepared to hoodwink/injure/kill these alleged giants for the treasure—it is, in fact, the only reason Belkar and Haley join their mission.

I'm pretty sure that they'd forgotten that by that point (or at least Belkar had).

[WindStruck]

I think a better solution other than simply benching V would be to present numerous difficult challenges that would actually require his spell casting ability and give no resting time. Eventually he would run out of spells.

Oh wait, that already happened.

This time, let's give V a fancy bow Haley has been saving though.

[Paisley]

I appreciate (and will strive to match) the cordial tone. I hope you won't take offense when I push a little harder at this point. It shouldn't matter what this particular dragon's motivations are at all. What matters in determining whether the dragon has a right to self-defense is what a reasonable dragon could have reasonably inferred from the information it could reasonably have known (an aside, I think it likely that it heard Haley's comment about the starmetal at the top of the shaft).

No offense taken; I understand this is a discussion and some points are bound to be stressed.

Anyway—I concede that the dragon's course of action was within reason, if a bit ruthless (though that is to be expected, given his nature). He certainly has the right to act out of self-defense, even though he was probably not purely motivated as such. That, I will not contend.

I am not so certain about him hearing Haley's comment, but accept it as a possibility. As we are never shown the dragon's perspective, we won't be able to say for certain.

I'm pretty sure that they'd forgotten that by that point (or at least Belkar had).

Belkar might have, but Haley certainly hadn't.

I think a better solution other than simply benching V would be to present numerous difficult challenges that would actually require his spell casting ability and give no resting time. Eventually he would run out of spells.

Oh wait, that already happened.

This time, let's give V a fancy bow Haley has been saving though.

...And I'm reminded of how far off topic I am.

Following that line of thought, I think it would be interesting to see V rely on something other than magic. Probably never going to happen, but it would give the elf something to work with while "on the bench," as it is.

[marq]

My last few posts haven't been about condemning the Order (I do call them trespassors and accessories to V's actions, but that's a pretty shallow condemnation) so much as about defending the rights of the dragon.

Why would you want to do that? Dragons are basically animals, right?

[Paisley]

Why would you want to do that? Dragons are basically animals, right?

Animals who are perfectly sapient. Animals who, despite their evil alignment, have been shown to be capable of emotions up to and including love. And, while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that humans are technically animals as well.

I'm getting off topic again, sorry.