OOTS #1021 - The Discussion Thread

[Jasdoif]

I think a lot of German concentration camp guards probably went home to their kids and were normal fathers. Or torturers in Argentina, or Francoist Spain, or Mafia families, or whatever.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

The paladins who wiped out Redcloak's tribe probably went home and behaved kindly to their families too.

This is, ironically, because these people are behaving according to a code that says you treat evil people differently, and they recognise their victims as evil and their children as not-evil. Focused special relationship ethics - "I'll die to save my children but the rest of you out the airlock" - is a really old way of thinking. It's the less xenophobic philosophies that are the recent arrivals.

I'm not sure what Rich was saying here. It's not immediately obvious from the thread which argument he's getting involved in.

Oh, there was a lot going on in that thread...including statements somewhat similar to yours. Let me see if I can find a response, in case that helps clarify anything for you....

You're absolutely wrong here. For example, there are plenty of cases where children had no idea that their parents had committed atrocities or had helped commit atrocities. The fact of the matter is that, yes, Virginia, people can and do do horrible things and otherwise come across as decent people to those who don't know about their actions. It's astounding that you think otherwise.

Purple emphasis mine.

You're arguing against something I didn't say. The "Evil Switch" i'm talking about is not the external facade, it's the internal reality of the person. I don't dispute for one second that people can come across as otherwise decent people. Yes, I concur that it is entirely realistic for people who commit horrible atrocities to seem like good people in other situations. But the key word there is, "seem." Being able to act like a good person some of the time does not make one a good person, it makes one a competent actor. Someone mentally and emotionally capable of intentional deliberate mass murder is still capable of mass murder when hugging their child. They're just not doing it that moment.

Tarquin seemed like a decent person when we met him, that's the entire point. It would have been entirely plausible for Tarquin to have never cracked his facade, to continue acting like a calm and collected person who separated his two lives, but I have no interest in writing that. First, it's boring, and second, it sends a message that you can totally commit atrocities and it's OK, that doesn't make you a bad person as long as you pet a dog afterward. Yes, it makes you a bad person. That is the point. That is the message I am consciously conveying with my story, and if you disagree with it, that's fine, I guess. But I'm not going to take, "You conveyed the message you wanted to convey but I don't like it!" as a criticism that I need to pay attention to.

Anyway, the whole thread centered around how Tarquin appeared to have suddenly become a different person when/after he killed Nale...and Kish had the succinct summary (as is frequently the case):

Tarquin has not changed. The creepy control freak who literally did not hear "I don't want to marry you" as anything he needed to care about is exactly the same as the creepy control freak who heard "I want you out of my life" as "I don't want a life." The only difference is that the former was directed at a bit character and the latter at a recurring villain with a name.

A great many people on the board saw him as far cooler, far more powerful, and most especially far more sane than he ever was. Their disappointment was inevitable. A is A, Tarquin is Tarquin. Tarquin doesn't realize Elan would already come back because--in an ironic mirror of posts which treat "ripped the liver out of a living sapient being so that he could have exotic food at his feast" as representing a far lower level of evil than killing Nale--he doesn't realize that burning a few dozen nameless slaves alive is something Elan truly cares about, enough to come after him for; in Tarquin's mind, he hasn't done anything personal to Elan (or Elan's property, such as the redhead with the perky eyes), so he hasn't done anything it makes sense for Elan to come after him for.

---

This is basically Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner, who I would agree are not great characters but are very popular so obviously many people disagree with us.

It doesn't have as much to do with the two of them as characters, though.

Bugs excels at pulling off zany antics on other characters with sufficient detachment that he doesn't appear vindictive; it's really the antics that carry him along. (If you want more of a character to go with that, I recommend Babs Bunny)

And I doubt Road Runner would even be notable if it weren't for the sheer determination of Wil E. Coyote...and how he excels at pulling off zany plans that backfire on himself.

[Mad Humanist]

So the staff of the Mechane have two things to thank Blackwing for:

1. He has cleared the ship of rats.
2. They have a nice stock of rat meat for a nutritious soup.

[Manty5]

I'm just looking forward to the scene where Belkar meets the guy who attacked his cat. All those kobold skulls were getting repetitive...

[dancrilis]

I'm just looking forward to the scene where Belkar meets the guy who attacked his cat. All those kobold skulls were getting repetitive...

If you are talking about Gontor he didn't attack the cat - in fact he went out of his way to setup a fair fight for the him as Mr. Scruffy had indicated a desire for battle.

Thinking about it had Blackwing not engaged Gontor he might have left peacefully and than Blackwing could have warned Vaarsuvius earlier leading to a possible victory for Roy if Vaarsuvius arrived in time to prevent the vampires using the teleport orb.

[Ron Miel]

So the staff of the Mechane have two things to thank Blackwing for:

1. He has cleared the ship of rats.
2. They have a nice stock of rat meat for a nutritious soup.

[Rift_Wolf]

*Wanders in after being away a couple days*

*Finds an alignment argument in full swing*

*Leaps back out of the thread with an alarmed yelp and goes to look for a bowl of psikibble to consume*

I'm eating porridge, but essentially I agree with this sentiment

[Dr.Zero]

I will not discuss about the whole stuff Rich said from a philosophical point (or a scientific point, or a historical point).
I could, but it would derail not only this thread, but the whole subforum.
And anyway it is not so needed, since then the same Rich states that it is only the message he wants to convey (so something he believes and wants to spread, which is totally fine by me, being this his comic).

Instead it is funny, because it is really on topic with this last page full of our animal friends, to read this...

You're arguing against something I didn't say. The "Evil Switch" i'm talking about is not the external facade, it's the internal reality of the person. I don't dispute for one second that people can come across as otherwise decent people.
Yes, I concur that it is entirely realistic for people who commit horrible atrocities to seem like good people in other situations. But the key word there is, "seem." Being able to act like a good person some of the time does not make one a good person, it makes one a competent actor. Someone mentally and emotionally capable of intentional deliberate mass murder is still capable of mass murder when hugging their child. They're just not doing it that moment.

[cut by me...]

it sends a message that you can totally commit atrocities and it's OK, that doesn't make you a bad person as long as you pet a dog afterward. Yes, it makes you a bad person. That is the point.

...and then notice that history's-worst-mass-murderer and The Belkster had their character's developments based literally on a series of "pet the dog" (well, the cat, the lizard-which-was-a-T-Rex and the crow) moments.

Someone could argue that V has remorses and is trying to find a way to atone his (I will refer to V as a male, because I don't want to use s/he, him/her or some fusion like "hir") sins.
But, to begin with, it should be assumed it is an external facade, according to Rich's philosophy.
Then V did start to show realization (not remorse, yet) only after his family reacted in the way it reacted. Not conscience, but plain and simple social pressure.
And remorse only after the power was lost. If it is not an external facade, of course.

For The Belkster, well...

If I should really stick to the quotes above, I should just ignore the comic and think that the literal "pet the dog" moments are there only to show then how I was silly to believe that such monsters had some redeeming virtues.

Or maybe, just maybe, I can stick with what I see in the comic and ignore the quotes. Yeah, on a second thought, I think I will do that.

[StorytellerHero]

If the other priests' companions are able to leave the summit, we could have a big force to battle against Vampkon after V fireballs the small fries to oblivion.

[KorvinStarmast]

So the staff of the Mechane have two things to thank Blackwing for:

1. He has cleared the ship of rats.
2. They have a nice stock of rat meat for a nutritious soup.

In a survival situation rodent flesh in a soup or stew isn't so bad. Depends on the seasonings and other stuff available.

[Ruck]

I will not discuss about the whole stuff Rich said from a philosophical point (or a scientific point, or a historical point).
I could, but it would derail not only this thread, but the whole subforum.
And anyway it is not so needed, since then the same Rich states that it is only the message he wants to convey (so something he believes and wants to spread, which is totally fine by me, being this his comic).

Instead it is funny, because it is really on topic with this last page full of our animal friends, to read this...



...and then notice that history's-worst-mass-murderer and The Belkster had their character's developments based literally on a series of "pet the dog" (well, the cat, the lizard-which-was-a-T-Rex and the crow) moments.

Someone could argue that V has remorses and is trying to find a way to atone his (I will refer to V as a male, because I don't want to use s/he, him/her or some fusion like "hir") sins.
But, to begin with, it should be assumed it is an external facade, according to Rich's philosophy.
Then V did start to show realization (not remorse, yet) only after his family reacted in the way it reacted. Not conscience, but plain and simple social pressure.
And remorse only after the power was lost. If it is not an external facade, of course.

For The Belkster, well...

If I should really stick to the quotes above, I should just ignore the comic and think that the literal "pet the dog" moments are there only to show then how I was silly to believe that such monsters had some redeeming virtues.

Or maybe, just maybe, I can stick with what I see in the comic and ignore the quotes. Yeah, on a second thought, I think I will do that.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're misinterpreting what Rich is saying, and there's a difference between a person who has done evil and is trying to redeem himself, vs. a person who continues to do evil knowingly and willingly but convinces himself he's good, because he loves his kids, or for whatever reason. (The TV show The Shield is probably the best story I've seen about a person like this.)

[Rogar Demonblud]

In a survival situation rodent flesh in a soup or stew isn't so bad. Depends on the seasonings and other stuff available.

So, creme le souris all around?

[Manty5]

And I love "Belkar secretly freeing bloodfeast so the bounty hunter doesn't have to kill his friend" being described as a mere "pet the dog" mechanic. Some people just tune out evidence that contradicts their theories as if it never occurred.

[Knewred]

Whoops, I'm a little bit late this time around :/. Oh well.

Yay V! The last few comics were great and all, but I was starting to miss them. And some great interactions between V and Blackwing as others have said, which is pretty much always fantastic in my book.

[zimmerwald1915]

Someone could argue that V has remorses and is trying to find a way to atone his (I will refer to V as a male, because I don't want to use s/he, him/her or some fusion like "hir") sins.
But, to begin with, it should be assumed it is an external facade, according to Rich's philosophy.
Then V did start to show realization (not remorse, yet) only after his family reacted in the way it reacted. Not conscience, but plain and simple social pressure.
And remorse only after the power was lost. If it is not an external facade, of course.

The whole point of V's story between Strip #650 and Strip #843 is to show every wrong reaction she could possibly have. Every false start, every blind alley, every delusion. So that by Strip #843 she is left with no possible reaction other than a crisis of conscience. I like to think my bona fides on the matter of finding V insincere are impeccable, and even I don't think she's lying when she wanted to sacrifice her life for "some small token of cosmic justice" before accepting eternal damnation.¹

In this book, her arc seems to have not progressed very much, but then, it's not her book. It's Durkon's. And the overall story isn't hers either, but Roy's.

¹ Before someone gets the wrong idea, I'm not advocating self-harm. V wanting a thing to happen most certainly doesn't make that thing right!

[Elenna]

Wow, lots of alignment debate.

On a completely separate note:

Thinking about it had Blackwing not engaged Gontor he might have left peacefully and than Blackwing could have warned Vaarsuvius earlier leading to a possible victory for Roy if Vaarsuvius arrived in time to prevent the vampires using the teleport orb.

But wasn't the issue that Blackwing couldn't warn Vaarsuvius? V only came because he started feeling "resigned acceptance and wistful regret", and the other people only came because he blew up the scroll, neither of which would have happened without Ratmageddon.

[Dr.Zero]

Now, a side note, before we go deep in the "evil people can/cannot be really good to someone else".

This whole external facade/internality concept, expressed in this way, to justify why Tarquin (but could have been whoever else, I don't care about it because of a comic character)...

Also, undercutting that so-called "redefinition of evil" is sort of the point. Because it's bull****. It's not a real thing. You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way.

You're arguing against something I didn't say. The "Evil Switch" i'm talking about is not the external facade, it's the internal reality of the person. I don't dispute for one second that people can come across as otherwise decent people. Yes, I concur that it is entirely realistic for people who commit horrible atrocities to seem like good people in other situations. But the key word there is, "seem." Being able to act like a good person some of the time does not make one a good person, it makes one a competent actor.

...is what normal people call dogma.
To be more exact, it would need at least to be falsifiable (so that we can bring facts or build experiments which can prove it false) to be a theory which can be discussed.
Rich's assertion is not falsifiable (because, for the circularity of it, even if "evil" people does "good" action, Rich defines them a facade).

Thus, yeah, glad to inform you that this discussion is about the dogmatic (not meant as a disparaging term, but as "not-scientific, because cannot be tested") beliefs of Rich. Which, by the way, Rich says explicitly, somewhere:

That is the message I am consciously conveying with my story, and if you disagree with it, that's fine, I guess.

And, as I said, I'm fine with him trying to convey such a message, if he believes it.

And I don't want to discuss about Rich's assertion on this matter, since they are dogmatic, thus a discussion is useless.

Now, let's us return to us!

And I love "Belkar secretly freeing bloodfeast so the bounty hunter doesn't have to kill his friend" being described as a mere "pet the dog" mechanic. Some people just tune out evidence that contradicts their theories as if it never occurred.

Really? He is willing to help someone else because they remind him of himself and his cat, even if just a moment before he uses the interiors of an innocent (and apparently good guy, since he defended the weaks from the same Belkar) as intestinal floss for a warrior (who, btw, deserved this treatment on the basis that he made fun of Belkar's love for the cat) and this was not a "pet the dog" moment?

Yeah, totally ignoring the evidences on my part.

And if this was not a pet the dog moment, why Tarquin being semi-neutral toward the OOTS and willing to help his son, would have been more of a pet the dog moment?

Another side note: I don't give a damn about Tarquin being irredeemable evil or hating/loving/using as a tool Elan.
He is a damn comic's character, not a real person: if at some point Rich wants him to dance Macarena in the middle of a fight, he will make him do it.

I just find funny this double standard, where we have a sociopathic and sadistic murderer (even if an adorably funny one) who maybe will pull a heel-face turn and who no one doubts he cares for his damn cat; history's worst mass murderer, who is accepted to be an ok guy/gal/whatever just after some rationalization (of course, he must pay for his sins, blah, blah, blah, but still no one says he deeply cannot be good or act for the good) and who, to add some more, just happened to commit the mass murder while being hit by the reaction of his family toward his actions, and no one doubts he cared for his family in that moment; and then we have this other mass murderer who, -clearly, clearly, it was so clear from the start- could not really care about his son, and whoever thought differently was mistaken, not because tricked by the comic itself, but because it was a silly idea to start with.

All of this is... interesting.

[dancrilis]

But wasn't the issue that Blackwing couldn't warn Vaarsuvius? V only came because he started feeling "resigned acceptance and wistful regret", and the other people only came because he blew up the scroll, neither of which would have happened without Ratmageddon.

Why couldn't the scroll have been set off without the rats? This would still have gotten the door open and Blackwing in the same manner and Blackwing could have warned Vaarsuvius (or the animals could have opened the door).

[Shining Wrath]

I think Rich's basic point is that evil starts on the inside and displays itself via actions. You don't torture people unless there is something inside you that is already evil - even if you go home and hug your child. There's also the constraints of society; today, a man who beats his children is likely to be arrested, but 500 years ago there was a lot more tolerance for it. So an evil man today might refrain while his equally evil ancestor pounded away. The guard who works at the concentration camp *might* have been willing to murder his family for waking him up early on his day off but knew he'd be punished for that. Acting differently in different situations might reflect not who you are, but what you can get away with.

"Character is what you do when nobody is looking". Or what you do when you know you can get away with it.

So the question before us is, e.g., when Tarquin killed Nale, was that character development - a sign that T had become more evil - or a demonstration that the charming despot we'd known had all along had always been evil to the core? Per word of Giant, the latter. But when V shows concern for Blackwing, is that V faking it and hiding the evil still living inside, or character development? Per word of Giant, the latter.

And the fact that it's not always easy to tell which is which is part of the lesson. Evil is not inevitable; it's a series of choices which tend to reinforce each other. And you can stop making those choices, over time.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, creme le souris all around?

Only with the correct wine pairing! *sniffs*
Brake fluid, Foxbat (Mig-25) vintage 1979 is the only correct wine pairing for that dish ... as far as I recall.

[DaggerPen]

I think Rich's basic point is that evil starts on the inside and displays itself via actions. You don't torture people unless there is something inside you that is already evil - even if you go home and hug your child. There's also the constraints of society; today, a man who beats his children is likely to be arrested, but 500 years ago there was a lot more tolerance for it. So an evil man today might refrain while his equally evil ancestor pounded away. The guard who works at the concentration camp *might* have been willing to murder his family for waking him up early on his day off but knew he'd be punished for that. Acting differently in different situations might reflect not who you are, but what you can get away with.

"Character is what you do when nobody is looking". Or what you do when you know you can get away with it.

So the question before us is, e.g., when Tarquin killed Nale, was that character development - a sign that T had become more evil - or a demonstration that the charming despot we'd known had all along had always been evil to the core? Per word of Giant, the latter. But when V shows concern for Blackwing, is that V faking it and hiding the evil still living inside, or character development? Per word of Giant, the latter.

And the fact that it's not always easy to tell which is which is part of the lesson. Evil is not inevitable; it's a series of choices which tend to reinforce each other. And you can stop making those choices, over time.

Very well said, and I have little to add, but I would like to say that I brought up this quote that has apparently opened a can of 2d3 worms specifically to counter the idea that any alignment choice is as valid as any other and that being suspicious of motivation on the basis of an Evil alignment is effectively racism. There's a huge area between "It's okay to indiscriminately slaughter anyone with an Evil alignment, especially if it's literal genocide of an Always Evil species" and "Evil is a valid life choice, like a sports team or something."

The general thrust of my point here is: racial alignments are horrifying and I find the idea of judging based on one to equate to like, actual racism.

Further, if you become aware that an individual, being treated as an individual, is capital E Evil, then it's completely reasonable to be suspicious, but a blanket ban on giving services to Evil people is probably a bad idea, because there are always exceptions. You might wind up denying the OOTS a teleport because Belkar.

Pretty much I'm just taking exception with "no alignment is inherently better than another". Evil is not a lifestyle choice to be respected. Don't be Evil.

[Rift_Wolf]

Why couldn't the scroll have been set off without the rats? This would still have gotten the door open and Blackwing in the same manner and Blackwing could have warned Vaarsuvius (or the animals could have opened the door).

Without the rats, Blackwing could've squeezed under the door. 'Blowing self up' is not a first choice for most people.

[jere7my]

Without the rats, Blackwing could've squeezed under the door. 'Blowing self up' is not a first choice for most people.

Next time you have a raven and a closed door, try to squeeze the raven under it. Let us know how it goes.

[Ruck]

Now, a side note, before we go deep in the "evil people can/cannot be really good to someone else".

This whole external facade/internality concept, expressed in this way, to justify why Tarquin (but could have been whoever else, I don't care about it because of a comic character)...





...is what normal people call dogma.
To be more exact, it would need at least to be falsifiable (so that we can bring facts or build experiments which can prove it false) to be a theory which can be discussed.
Rich's assertion is not falsifiable (because, for the circularity of it, even if "evil" people does "good" action, Rich defines them a facade).

Thus, yeah, glad to inform you that this discussion is about the dogmatic (not meant as a disparaging term, but as "not-scientific, because cannot be tested") beliefs of Rich. Which, by the way, Rich says explicitly, somewhere:



And, as I said, I'm fine with him trying to convey such a message, if he believes it.

And I don't want to discuss about Rich's assertion on this matter, since they are dogmatic, thus a discussion is useless.

Now, let's us return to us!



Really? He is willing to help someone else because they remind him of himself and his cat, even if just a moment before he uses the interiors of an innocent (and apparently good guy, since he defended the weaks from the same Belkar) as intestinal floss for a warrior (who, btw, deserved this treatment on the basis that he made fun of Belkar's love for the cat) and this was not a "pet the dog" moment?

Yeah, totally ignoring the evidences on my part.

And if this was not a pet the dog moment, why Tarquin being semi-neutral toward the OOTS and willing to help his son, would have been more of a pet the dog moment?

Another side note: I don't give a damn about Tarquin being irredeemable evil or hating/loving/using as a tool Elan.
He is a damn comic's character, not a real person: if at some point Rich wants him to dance Macarena in the middle of a fight, he will make him do it.

I just find funny this double standard, where we have a sociopathic and sadistic murderer (even if an adorably funny one) who maybe will pull a heel-face turn and who no one doubts he cares for his damn cat; history's worst mass murderer, who is accepted to be an ok guy/gal/whatever just after some rationalization (of course, he must pay for his sins, blah, blah, blah, but still no one says he deeply cannot be good or act for the good) and who, to add some more, just happened to commit the mass murder while being hit by the reaction of his family toward his actions, and no one doubts he cared for his family in that moment; and then we have this other mass murderer who, -clearly, clearly, it was so clear from the start- could not really care about his son, and whoever thought differently was mistaken, not because tricked by the comic itself, but because it was a silly idea to start with.

All of this is... interesting.

I find it interesting that you chose to completely gloss over my post, which answered most of these questions.

You're also misrepresenting the argument of the other side when you say "who, -clearly, clearly, it was so clear from the start- could not really care about his son." No one thought Tarquin didn't care about his sons. It's just, when push came to shove, he cared about his story and enforcing everyone's roles in it (as he saw them) more. That's what great drama does: It pushes people to a point of crisis where they have to choose, and the choice they make reveals who they really are.

When pushed to choose between his sons' lives and welfare vs. his story and how he saw everyone's role in it, Tarquin chose the latter. Twice.

[davidbofinger]

Or maybe, just maybe, you're misinterpreting what Rich is saying, and there's a difference between a person who has done evil and is trying to redeem himself, vs. a person who continues to do evil knowingly and willingly but convinces himself he's good, because he loves his kids, or for whatever reason. (The TV show The Shield is probably the best story I've seen about a person like this.)

I think the core question is not whether these people are good or evil, but whether a person can have the thoughts and actions of a good person in one context and of an evil person in another. To put it another way, can someone who is evil in one context behave as though they they are good in another, where the only deception involved is self-deception.

I'm not claiming this sort of separation is universal. Lots of concentration camp guards - lawful evil acts performed by lawful neutral people entrained to neutral evil rulers - were horrified by what they did in their day job and there were plenty of suicides.

[Ruck]

I think the core question is not whether these people are good or evil, but whether a person can have the thoughts and actions of a good person in one context and of an evil person in another. To put it another way, can someone who is evil in one context behave as though they they are good in another, where the only deception involved is self-deception.

I'm not claiming this sort of separation is universal. Lots of concentration camp guards - lawful evil acts performed by lawful neutral people entrained to neutral evil rulers - were horrified by what they did in their day job and there were plenty of suicides.

I one hundred percent agree with the bolded as true (I'll bring up The Shield again as the best example), but I think the problem is a conflation between "Person who has done evil in the past and is now trying to do good" with "person who does evil while convincing themselves they're good."

I think in the end it comes down to scale. "Loving your family" isn't even a particularly Good trait, given that evil people have families, relationships, etc. Even if it were, though, it pales in significance to the scale and scope to which Tarquin is committing Evil.

edit: And, of course, like I said, when he's forced to choose between loving his family and bringing everyone to heel, he chooses the latter. That's my other point: You know who people are by what they do when the choice is difficult, not when the choice is easy.

[Vikenlugaid]

I'm not sure about this one. What about Redcloak?

He's clearly a character acting actively for a cause that he thinks righteous and stuff.
That's how he lives with some sacrifices, because "It'll all be worth it. You'll see.".

From his point of view, he does that for the greater good. For goblins race, sure, but it still might be a pareto improvement in the end.


It's quite easier to be the good guy when you're above the other one and benefits from the status quo.

Amen!

Redcloack is in fact the greater hero of this history. He is not only sacrificing his life for his entire race, he is doing that being "a bad guy", so if he dies he wont be remembered as a hero by "the good guys".

[Pyrous]

Amen!

Redcloack is in fact the greater hero of this history. He is not only sacrificing his life for his entire race, he is doing that being "a bad guy", so if he dies he wont be remembered as a hero by "the good guys".

Redcloak will be remembered as a hero by his entire subtype because he conquered them a city. Why would it matter what a bunch of human thinks?

[Dr.Zero]

I find it interesting that you chose to completely gloss over my post, which answered most of these questions.

You're also misrepresenting the argument of the other side when you say "who, -clearly, clearly, it was so clear from the start- could not really care about his son." No one thought Tarquin didn't care about his sons. It's just, when push came to shove, he cared about his story and enforcing everyone's roles in it (as he saw them) more. That's what great drama does: It pushes people to a point of crisis where they have to choose, and the choice they make reveals who they really are.

When pushed to choose between his sons' lives and welfare vs. his story and how he saw everyone's role in it, Tarquin chose the latter. Twice.

I did jump your post on purpose, of course, because I didn't understand your point and how it was related to my argument.

Maybe was me who didn't understand it, which is completely possible. As it is completely possible that you didn't understand my point.

And usually I don't like to explain the same point too many times, spamming the same reasoning over and over, just in case...

But let's try another time, starting with the quotes.

Also, undercutting that so-called "redefinition of evil" is sort of the point. Because it's bull****. It's not a real thing. You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way.

wants you (and Elan) to think that what he does is separate from who he is—that he's a fundamentally decent man who just so happens to murder a bunch of people here and there—because that's how he tricks you into slowly accepting his blatant Evil as a valid life choice that needs to be respected. Which it is not.

Some people want to love the villain without having to face the fact that villains are largely terrible people who do horrific things with deficient reasoning. Not on my watch.

You're arguing against something I didn't say. The "Evil Switch" i'm talking about is not the external facade, it's the internal reality of the person. I don't dispute for one second that people can come across as otherwise decent people. Yes, I concur that it is entirely realistic for people who commit horrible atrocities to seem like good people in other situations. But the key word there is, "seem." Being able to act like a good person some of the time does not make one a good person, it makes one a competent actor.

it sends a message that you can totally commit atrocities and it's OK, that doesn't make you a bad person as long as you pet a dog afterward. Yes, it makes you a bad person. That is the point.

I think they can be well summarized as: "If you are an evil person, you cannot be good in other context (like caring for family or friends), and if you are, you're acting" and "if you are an evil person, petting the dog afterward doesn't make you a good person in that context (and I don't want to send the message it does)". Both are pars of the message Rich wanted to convey with Tarquin's behaviours.
You can even not summarize them, if you prefer. As long as you apply them.

I removed, as much as possible, the names of the characters involved, because the principles expressed are expressed as something general, and the names were only obfuscating this fact. Anyway the protagonist of the quotes was Tarquin and the quotes were an explaination why Tarquin had to act in the story like he acted.

Now I ask you to reply to this questions

Does Belkar care for his cat even if he is a sociopathic, sadistic murderer?
Did he care for it even before he started the heel face turn?
Was his conversion based/hinted initially mostly on some "pet the dog" moments?
Were some "pet the dog" moments the first ones which made you think a conversion was going to happen, even if he was still a sadistic murderer?
What exactly made the quotes above applicably to Tarquin and not to Belkar?

Now about V, during the demonic pact.

Did V care for his family and the OOTS while he was mass murdering the Dragons?
Was his conversion based initially on some "pet the dog" moments?
How can you be sure what he is doing now it's not a facade?
What exactly made the quotes above applicably to Tarquin and not to V (specially in the moment he was mass murdering the dragons)?


And then compare your replies with the quotes and tell me if they stick well together.

Again, I don't need to know if you share or not the same beliefs of Rich because it is not relevant (you can say it, but it is not relevant: for example I don't share them, and indeed this is utterly not relevant, and not even debatable, since no one can never prove that the other part is wrong).

And I'm not interested in: "But now X is near a heel-face turning, he is actively trying to change himself!"

This is what happened, if happened at all, some moment later, when the quotes are no more applicable. And it is how the story has been developed.
The quotes, being general propositions, principles, have a general scope and I was pointing out the fact that they don't seem to be followed when they are/were applicable, not that after they were no more applicable they are not followed (which is completely fine and obvious).

Indeed the whole reason they are there is that they were already used to explain why a character (for which they were applicable) had to act the way he acted. Thus I was interested in checking if the quotes were really valuable as they are presented.

In short if your argument will be: "But then... after that..."...
well, I can read the comic by myself to see what really Rich did make happen, despite the quotes or after the quotes were no more applicable.

Which was the exact reason why I said in my first post on this argument, and that you quoted: Or maybe, just maybe, I can stick with what I see in the comic and ignore the quotes. Yeah, on a second thought, I think I will do that.

[8BitNinja]

Why is everyone arguing if Redcloak is evil, of course he is, committing genocide and whatnot

When you say someone is evil, it does not mean that everyday they will try to go out and kick a puppy

The word to wrap evil up into one word is selfishness, whether in a group, or one person, the reason why evil exists is because one person thinks that they are more important than another and that the other person is not a human

This definitely fits the description of the goblins, they don't want to clear the land of the people because they are doing evil or harming them, they are clearing them out simply for more power

[davidbofinger]

pales in significance to the scale and scope to which Tarquin is committing Evil.

As long as we're just talking about Tarquin I think Rich's statement is fine. It's when it's applied more generally that I disagree. Of course Tarquin was the context when he said it.