The Stick's worst blunder: vote now!

[Kish]

Why are they opposed?

Because Tarquin is sickeningly evil and the Order is, you know, the heroes, not self-absorbed anti-heroes who roam everywhere promoting Law without any regard for Good or Evil?

Also, there's totally a big Blue Dragon willing to take Greysky City. That's confirmed.

Let us suppose that the MOBs joke was, at least in part, a sternly factual statement about the inevitable destiny of Greysky City without Bozzok.

So what? How would you support the idea that Boss Monster would be worse for the city than Bozzok (who, again, is really freakin' evil?). They're explicitly shown being pissed off that someone killed one of their subordinates, which puts them one up on Bozzok in terms of loyalty already--pretty good for a single-panel joke character.

Edited to add: Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people; Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate). I know you've seen this before, so my question has now become: Why are you so certain of the moral correctness of not challenging the status quo even if the status quo is the total dominance of evil that you are confident such will be shown in a comic where the author has explicitly rejected it?

[Kurald Galain]

Who says the Order will stop Xykon? Maybe they won't. Maybe O'Chul will do it after Team Evil backstabs itself to weakness. And if that's the case, the Order will look even less competent.

While it's technically possible that OOTS will end up being a shaggy dog story, keep in mind that The Giant is not Brian Clevinger.

[Spellbreaker26]

Edited to add: Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people; Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate). I know you've seen this before, so my question has now become: Why are you so certain of the moral correctness of not challenging the status quo even if the status quo is the total dominance of evil that you are confident such will be shown in a comic where the author has explicitly rejected it?

The problem with the discussion that you are relating is that the alignment system in DnD is generally designed for PCs; a cruel ruler that brings stability can easily be a net positive, wheras even a good ruler who makes the system less stable can be a net negative. I.E. Chaotic Good characters do not usually end up running states, or if they do, running states very well. In fact if it wasn't stated otherwise I would have pegged Shojo as Neutral Good rather than Chaotic.

I once was in a campaign world where I assumed the elves holed up in a forested part of an island had a significantly smaller population than the mixed-but-mostly human cities that bordered it, also on the same island, only to be informed that in fact the elves had a significantly higher population. I had a very tough time wrapping my head around this because it defied all common sense that forests would be more-populated than urban areas, but I had to go with it because it was the campaign world.

It's the same for this - lots of historical precedence would have it that Tarquin's "bread-and-circuses" policies are at the very least a net-neutral result for the citizens given the free-for-all chaos that is the alternative - the term was originally coined by Romans who had to switch from a pseudo-democratic/oligarchical system to an absolute monarchy for the sake of stability. We have to take it from the word of the author that that is not the case, and that the Western continent is at least slightly better off under the squabbling states than a single power despite evidence to the contrary that we can find in the historical record, and given that OoTS is not a story about politics but rather just an adventure I'm more-or-less OK with just ignoring the disconnect there.

[hroþila]

It's not just the constant warring (which, by the way, is a problem that could conceivably be fixed), it's also the way their three states are governed. People under Tarquin and Malack suffered immensely even if the frontlines were far away, and that's no indication that the population of other states was mistreated so severely. In fact, without the Vector Legion it might well be a case of ruling elites replacing other ruling elites violently with mercenaries and private armies, the common people outside of the immediate frontlines being largely unaffected, except inasmuch as constant warring severely damages the economy and, hence, their living standards. But since the people ruled by the Vector Legion are actively oppressed and kept down, it's not a given that they're better off even economically.

[Spellbreaker26]

It's not just the constant warring (which, by the way, is a problem that could conceivably be fixed), it's also the way their three states are governed. People under Tarquin and Malack suffered immensely even if the frontlines were far away, and that's no indication that the population of other states was mistreated so severely. In fact, without the Vector Legion it might well be a case of ruling elites replacing other ruling elites violently with mercenaries and private armies, the common people outside of the immediate frontlines being largely unaffected, except inasmuch as constant warring severely damages the economy and, hence, their living standards. But since the people ruled by the Vector Legion are actively oppressed and kept down, it's not a given that they're better off even economically.

I don't doubt that Malack's endgame of a vampire Nergal death cult would be anything other than the worst possible outcome for the Western Continent. But the image that we were given of the Western continent before we found out about Elan's dad is pretty grim and I just find it hard to picture people being much worse off under Tarquin. When your borders are constantly changing, the frontline is where you are no matter where you are; the impression was given of some sort of constant Warring States period or even a constant Thirty Year's War; then there is the added wrinkle of the Lizardfolk v Human thing adding a potential racial element to any given conflict. It just never really feels that the Vector Legion is so much more oppressive that a return to the constant war is a good thing; plus the argument for the Legion being defeated is primarily being made by Ian Starshine. I don't know about anyone else, but I did not find him very persuasive.

Really, I'm of the opinion that the OotS should have tried to score some of Tarquin's help, at least in the short term, defeated Xykon and then turned on him. I have doubts that Le Resistance, made of one angry general of no importance, one paranoid thief and two bounty hunters of middling ability would have destroyed a continent spanning empire by then anyway. It will almost certainly happen, it will just strain my credulity.

[Kish]

"Historical precedence" strikes me as based on a fundamental misconception. D&D is set in fantasy worlds that, at most, very vaguely resemble real-world historical periods. You don't have to take the author's words that the miserable dystopia is a miserable dystopia and not some kind of "most of the world used to be morally horrific" statement; you just have to not apply a type of goggles that make no sense.

Similarly, in your example, I gather I'm supposed to be reading something like "the DM declared something absurd and I swallowed my Common Sense and went along with it because I had to," but what I'm reading is "the DM described a fantasy world in which humans weren't overwhelmingly predominant and forest-dwelling elves weren't a minor population of secondary characters, and I choked on it."

[Spellbreaker26]

"Historical precedence" strikes me as based on a fundamental misconception. D&D is set in fantasy worlds that, at most, very vaguely resemble real-world historical periods. You don't have to take the author's words that the miserable dystopia is a miserable dystopia and not some kind of "most of the world used to be morally horrific" statement; you just have to not apply a type of goggles that make no sense.

Similarly, in your example, I gather I'm supposed to be reading something like "the DM declared something absurd and I swallowed my Common Sense and went along with it because I had to," but what I'm reading is "the DM described a fantasy world in which humans weren't overwhelmingly predominant and forest-dwelling elves weren't a minor population of secondary characters, and I choked on it."

A continent divided by warring countries is a miserable place, magic or no. I stopped reading the comic for a good long while after we had been introduced to the Western Continent but before we had met Tarquin and it was explicitly described as not a particularly nice place to live. (Source: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html ) I'm just saying that if not for the author specifically saying that Tarquin was reducing the quality of life then I would consider the Vector Legion unifying the continent to be a net-positive thing. At the very least, I would have trouble seeing Tarquin as worse than the people he's replacing.

It's not that the humans weren't predominant, it was that any society living in a smallish forest area somehow manages to have a higher population than one in an urban area - for one, food production from a forest is lower, because you don't have farming, so the supported population is not as large. (This was also a fairly low-magic world, so trying to circumvent basic agriculture via magic was a no-go). This is basic socio-economics type stuff.

[Kish]

I'm just saying that if not for the author specifically saying that Tarquin was reducing the quality of life then I would consider the Vector Legion unifying the continent to be a net-positive thing.

As long as stop speaking for other people, it's up to you whether you want to swallow Tarquin's propaganda*.

*Remember, everything you're complaining about is the present tense, not some pre-Tarquin-scheme past. Tarquin says that he's bringing stability, you observe the continent is miserable, this leads you to believe Tarquin: it looks to me like there's a piece missing somewhere. Though, again, as long as you stick with the I and not the We, I don't really care.

[Jasdoif]

It's not that the humans weren't predominant, it was that any society living in a smallish forest area somehow manages to have a higher population than one in an urban area - for one, food production from a forest is lower, because you don't have farming, so the supported population is not as large. (This was also a fairly low-magic world, so trying to circumvent basic agriculture via magic was a no-go). This is basic socio-economics type stuff.

Food production in a forested area is going to be higher than in an urban area, because urban areas are dominated by buildings and not agriculture. Urban areas rely on rural areas for their food.

[Spellbreaker26]

As long as stop speaking for other people, it's up to you whether you want to swallow Tarquin's propaganda*.

*Remember, everything you're complaining about is the present tense, not some pre-Tarquin-scheme past. Tarquin says that he's bringing stability, you observe the continent is miserable, this leads you to believe Tarquin: it looks to me like there's a piece missing somewhere. Though, again, as long as you stick with the I and not the We, I don't really care.

They say it's been going on for a long time, so perhaps it is not pre-Tarquin as you say. However Laurin does seem to have a lot of genuine resentment against elves for living in a better part of the continent, and she grew up there long before Tarquin decided to take over, so it can't be all roses. Tarquin is obviously a bit of a self-deceptive person, but I believe him when he says that it was warring and chaotic before he got there.

My point is that the main evidence for the Vector Legion's current operations (i.e. taking over the continent, as opposed to Malack's endgame) being a net-negative rather than net-neutral is the author having to specifically come out and say it. So when people say that they feel that the Order going against the Legion was a blunder (which is not what I, personally, am saying) then perhaps they have a legitimate point; there is such a thing as the "Death of the Author" view of criticism.

[Spellbreaker26]

Food production in a forested area is going to be higher than in an urban area, because urban areas are dominated by buildings and not agriculture. Urban areas rely on rural areas for their food.

Exactly - the humans had control of farms outside of their cities. The elves did not have any farms, mainly subsisting of of hunting and gathering food.

[hroþila]

I don't doubt that Malack's endgame of a vampire Nergal death cult would be anything other than the worst possible outcome for the Western Continent. But the image that we were given of the Western continent before we found out about Elan's dad is pretty grim and I just find it hard to picture people being much worse off under Tarquin. When your borders are constantly changing, the frontline is where you are no matter where you are; the impression was given of some sort of constant Warring States period or even a constant Thirty Year's War; then there is the added wrinkle of the Lizardfolk v Human thing adding a potential racial element to any given conflict. It just never really feels that the Vector Legion is so much more oppressive that a return to the constant war is a good thing; plus the argument for the Legion being defeated is primarily being made by Ian Starshine. I don't know about anyone else, but I did not find him very persuasive.

Really, I'm of the opinion that the OotS should have tried to score some of Tarquin's help, at least in the short term, defeated Xykon and then turned on him. I have doubts that Le Resistance, made of one angry general of no importance, one paranoid thief and two bounty hunters of middling ability would have destroyed a continent spanning empire by then anyway. It will almost certainly happen, it will just strain my credulity.

Oh, I'm leaving Malack's endgame out of the equation, I'm only talking about their states as they currently stand (granted, I'm extrapolating from what we see of the Empire of Blood; since the rulers in the shadows rotate, I think it's a reasonable guess that they're similarly bleak places). Bear in mind that we get an image of the Western continent before we're introduced to Tarquin, but after he's been ruling a large chunk of it for a long while. And this is a state where people are routinely executed for the most inane reasons, with or without farcical trials, and whose soldiers are glad to march to certain death because the alternative might mean the death of their whole families - and not even because they disobeyed their orders at all. I could see slavery being an evil that's common to the whole continent, for example, the same way war apparently is. But the degree of absolutely arbitrary, murderous, petty tyranny we see in the Empire of Blood? No, I personally don't think so. I don't think there's any reason to believe the other states in the continent are EoB-bad.

There's been constant warring at several points of human history, but they were not equally devastating, especially for the civilian population. The Thirty Year War was extraordinary for its time - that kind of viciousness on such a scale only really started with the religion wars, and there's no equivalent factor at play in the Western Continent. I don't see any signs of Lizardfolk vs Human racial tensions, for example.

Edit: It's also worth pointing out that the Vector Legion doesn't intend to ever merge their three states, because they don't want the elves or anyone else paying too much attention to them. It's likely that, even after they had taken over the whole continent (bar the elvish lands), war would continue to be endemic, only it'd be 100% staged for the sake of appearances. Think 1984.

[Mightymosy]

Exactly - the humans had control of farms outside of their cities. The elves did not have any farms, mainly subsisting of of hunting and gathering food.

They are e l v e s.

As in "fantasy beings that don't exist in real life and in most settings are imagined
a) to be really really good at hunting.
b) really really good at gathering whatever food a forest provides in forms of berries, roots and the like.
c) are pretty thin either way, often with a metabolism that is said to be different from humans as in requiring no sleep and less urination, for example.
d) typically dwelling in mystical forests which may or may not provide food in some magical way, by will of the setting's nature dieties, to them.
e) usually blessed with a very long lifespan if not outright immortal unless killed.

Any or all of the above may be true."

Frankly, if you think it through, by logics elves should be the numerical predominant species in most settings...

TL&DR: Applying real life economics or socionomics in a fantasy setting that was specifically not meant to be analysed with such will not yield any good results. Misapplication even less so.

[Mightymosy]

They say it's been going on for a long time, so perhaps it is not pre-Tarquin as you say. However Laurin does seem to have a lot of genuine resentment against elves for living in a better part of the continent, and she grew up there long before Tarquin decided to take over, so it can't be all roses. Tarquin is obviously a bit of a self-deceptive person, but I believe him when he says that it was warring and chaotic before he got there.

My point is that the main evidence for the Vector Legion's current operations (i.e. taking over the continent, as opposed to Malack's endgame) being a net-negative rather than net-neutral is the author having to specifically come out and say it. So when people say that they feel that the Order going against the Legion was a blunder (which is not what I, personally, am saying) then perhaps they have a legitimate point; there is such a thing as the "Death of the Author" view of criticism.

Alternatively, you could look at all the scenes where Tarquin's empire is being shown and look at the evidence in front of your eyes.

[Kish]

I didn't want to be quite that blunt, but...yeah. Rich saying so is the main evidence, if main is defined as "hardest to wave away," but it's a long, long, loooong way from being the only evidence, and it's really weird that so many people were ever eager to take Tarquin's word for anything.

[Snails]

The problem with the discussion that you are relating is that the alignment system in DnD is generally designed for PCs; a cruel ruler that brings stability can easily be a net positive, wheras even a good ruler who makes the system less stable can be a net negative. I.E. Chaotic Good characters do not usually end up running states, or if they do, running states very well. In fact if it wasn't stated otherwise I would have pegged Shojo as Neutral Good rather than Chaotic.

Whether NG or CG, Shojo demonstrates the silliness of your hyperbolic argument against non-Lawful.

LEs are not required to be cartoonish evil, of course. Tarquin, as very explicitly written, is not some cuddly LEs like the Borgias of historical Earth.* Tarquin is a cartoonishly evil monster who fills his jail with jaywalkers, grinds a roomful of people into fertilizer goo for a pinch of his fiance's bottom, lights people on fire for daring to escape, etc.

You can theorize all you want about how Tarquin could be someone else if only he were someone else, but why should anyone care?



* The Borgias were monsters on the personal level who preyed on aristocrats, while leaving the common people alone as best as practical. So, they were quite popular for clearing out the ridiculous tiny kingdoms and baronies that brought endless wars by means both fair and foul, and then bringing relatively improved situation in terms of enduring law and order and peace to the common people in the wake of the war.

[Snails]

My point is that the main evidence for the Vector Legion's current operations (i.e. taking over the continent, as opposed to Malack's endgame) being a net-negative rather than net-neutral is the author having to specifically come out and say it. So when people say that they feel that the Order going against the Legion was a blunder (which is not what I, personally, am saying) then perhaps they have a legitimate point; there is such a thing as the "Death of the Author" view of criticism.

There is the wrong argument that Tarquin's scheme is net neutral (or perhaps positive). And then there is the wrong argument that the Order should not have gone against the Legion.

The biggest problem with the second is that it was Tarquin's choice for there to be conflict, in the first place. Tarquin uses unnecessary conflict as a tool for manipulating people. It is a habit for him.

If meeting his long lost son for the first time and then chucking the girlfriend out a window to impede escape does not make this clear to you, nothing will. The man literally cannot just say "Hey, I will grant you protection in the name of the king. Let's talk." like normal overly self-important melodramatic people would do in a Dumas novel. He has to figuratively tie a damsel to the train tracks, instead, so he can deny being a mustache twirling villain properly.

The Order somehow deciding to unilaterally grant concessions to a monster who chose to create a fight the does not bring peace between the groups. It only grants an ephemeral reprieve. Tarquin himself is explicitly looking forward to his eventual dramatic final fight scene when battling the Order.

"Death of the Author" interpretations imply there is significant ambiguity. I would even grant a serious hearing to an argument that the author "made a mistake" in a couple scenes and a minor rewrite opens up new perspectives. But that has nothing to do with the moral status of the EoB.

[keybounce]

(I have just finished page 5, and did not see this mentioend yet)

My nominations:
1. Belkar not guarding the spellcasters when they were going against Xykon
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html

2. Leaving the small orc teenagers still conscious so that they could rat out their enchanted sword
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html

EDIT:

If they had all supported Banjo, then they'd still have a cleric in the party.

Oh, for the love of espresso, a worshipper was lost.
For the want of a worshipper, ...

(Someone else can fill that in more)

EDIT 2:

...You don't allow a tyrant to stay in power because things might be worse without them there.

Actually, you don't remove a tyrant without having a power structure to replace them.

If you remove a Saddam Husein, and don't have anything to replace the power vacuum, you might get an ISIS.

---

If you think that sending people into war just to make conflict is unique to this, consider the history of the USA, just the last century. I'll open with Vietnam. Starting a war to raise the popularity of one president to increase re-election chances, not to mention using lies as a negotiation tactic, basically telling one of the two sides to trust us and then backstabbing them to make the war. I'm approximating / summarizing, probably to the point of some error, but our history is not a kind and decent nation, but a nation of changing tyrants with occasional good guys in-between.

---

A forest *IS* a city to Elves. Don't say "There's a lot of humans in human cities, but there should be very few Elves in a forest". You have human cities supported by farms? Well, you have Elven cities supported by ... magic.

As mentioned, unusual metabolism, unnatural ability to find food in forests, blessing of their gods, etc.

[Spellbreaker26]

They are e l v e s.

As in "fantasy beings that don't exist in real life and in most settings are imagined
a) to be really really good at hunting.
b) really really good at gathering whatever food a forest provides in forms of berries, roots and the like.
c) are pretty thin either way, often with a metabolism that is said to be different from humans as in requiring no sleep and less urination, for example.
d) typically dwelling in mystical forests which may or may not provide food in some magical way, by will of the setting's nature dieties, to them.
e) usually blessed with a very long lifespan if not outright immortal unless killed.

Any or all of the above may be true."

Frankly, if you think it through, by logics elves should be the numerical predominant species in most settings...

TL&DR: Applying real life economics or socionomics in a fantasy setting that was specifically not meant to be analysed with such will not yield any good results. Misapplication even less so.

C] Elves are a PC race, and have a metabolism very similar to humans (they can eat all the same food, for one).
A + B] No matter how good you are at hunting and foraging you're going to hit a hard limit of how much game and food you can collect from forests pretty soon.
D] I specifically said that this setting was a fairly low magic one, so magic forests wasn't a thing either.
E] Immortality doesn't solve the problem of not enough food

I actually agree that Elves would eventually outpopulate the world purely based on the immortality factor, my problem was that a forest was able to support a higher population of any species than the rest of the island. In fact, I'm giving serious thought to how Dwarves in Moria eat now. Fungi based diet, perhaps?

But my point of that anecdote is that sometimes you have to just let something illogical happen for the rest of the story to happen. So even though one could make a logical argument for Tarquin not being much worse than the chaos that preceded him (or a logical argument that the comic doesn't go into enough detail on the subject), we have to take the story's word for it that he's more evil than the alternative. And I'm actually OK with that, I was just trying to explain why other people might not be.

The biggest problem with the second is that it was Tarquin's choice for there to be conflict, in the first place. Tarquin uses unnecessary conflict as a tool for manipulating people. It is a habit for him.

If meeting his long lost son for the first time and then chucking the girlfriend out a window to impede escape does not make this clear to you, nothing will. The man literally cannot just say "Hey, I will grant you protection in the name of the king. Let's talk." like normal overly self-important melodramatic people would do a Dumas novel. He has to figuratively tie a damsel to the train tracks, instead, so he can deny being a mustache twirling villain properly.

The Order somehow deciding to unilaterally grant concessions to a monster who chose to create a fight the does not bring peace between the groups. It only grants an ephemeral reprieve. Tarquin himself is explicitly looking forward to his eventual dramatic final fight scene when battling the Order.

"Death of the Author" interpretations imply there is significant ambiguity. I would even grant a serious hearing to an argument that the author "made a mistake" in a couple scenes and a minor rewrite opens up new perspectives. But that has nothing to do with the moral status of the EoB.

You make some good points; I'm not saying that the end goal shouldn't have been to take him down, just that the Order should have tried to score some resources and help off of him first. They are going into an uphill struggle against two incredibly powerful spellcasters and a monster with seemingly no limit to its capabilities, with the world at stake. The entire point of the comic was that Tarquin's empire ultimately isn't as important as he thinks it is. If they had gotten some magic items from him then they would have a fighting chance, not to mention they could then use those same items to take down the Vector Legion afterwards.

[Mightymosy]

C] Elves are a PC race, and have a metabolism very similar to humans (they can eat all the same food, for one).
A + B] No matter how good you are at hunting and foraging you're going to hit a hard limit of how much game and food you can collect from forests pretty soon.
D] I specifically said that this setting was a fairly low magic one, so magic forests wasn't a thing either.
E] Immortality doesn't solve the problem of not enough food

I actually agree that Elves would eventually outpopulate the world purely based on the immortality factor, my problem was that a forest was able to support a higher population of any species than the rest of the island. In fact, I'm giving serious thought to how Dwarves in Moria eat now. Fungi based diet, perhaps?

But my point of that anecdote is that sometimes you have to just let something illogical happen for the rest of the story to happen. So even though one could make a logical argument for Tarquin not being much worse than the chaos that preceded him (or a logical argument that the comic doesn't go into enough detail on the subject), we have to take the story's word for it that he's evil. And I'm actually OK with that, I was just trying to explain why other people might not be.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html
In all honesty, if 200-foot-tall flaming letters made of fleeing slaves aren't enough for you, I don't know what comic "evidence" you still need.


Re:Elves
Maybe Elves eat the same thing we do, but draw lots more energy from it? Or require lot less energy because their muscles are more efficient?
Real life animal kingdom species (including us humans) can draw different amounts of energy from the same food, so why would fantasy elves need to be the same as humans? Especially considering even humans aren't the same either! (some grow fatter more easily from chocolate than others, for example (although often this is just an excuse one makes for themselves :-P))

Indeed, the fact that Varsuuvius needs to pee very rarely indicates (if you absolutely must discuss fantasy things using real life science) that Elves produce far less waste metabolites with a similar kind of kinetic output (unless they produce more poop than humans, but there is no hint at that).
This indicates that in Elven metabolism, urea might not be the nitrogen end product as it is with us humans. Maybe Elves can oxidate it all the way down to ammonia, like some bacteria can? Yielding a lot more energy than humans do? Meaning they need to eat less, being able to survive with what the forests provide?

Maybe Elves can, again unlike humans, actually degrade cellulose into glucose pieces? That means that they can eat salad the same way humans can eat salad, with the difference that Elves could actually sustain their energy requirements by doing so.
This would be perfectly in lines with beings who are known to live in the woods, where there is plenty of easily obtainable celluose.
And why stop at cellulose? Maybe they can digest other plant fibres as well which we can't?

[Goblin_Priest]

C] Elves are a PC race, and have a metabolism very similar to humans (they can eat all the same food, for one).
A + B] No matter how good you are at hunting and foraging you're going to hit a hard limit of how much game and food you can collect from forests pretty soon.
D] I specifically said that this setting was a fairly low magic one, so magic forests wasn't a thing either.
E] Immortality doesn't solve the problem of not enough food

I actually agree that Elves would eventually outpopulate the world purely based on the immortality factor, my problem was that a forest was able to support a higher population of any species than the rest of the island. In fact, I'm giving serious thought to how Dwarves in Moria eat now. Fungi based diet, perhaps?

But my point of that anecdote is that sometimes you have to just let something illogical happen for the rest of the story to happen. So even though one could make a logical argument for Tarquin not being much worse than the chaos that preceded him (or a logical argument that the comic doesn't go into enough detail on the subject), we have to take the story's word for it that he's evil. And I'm actually OK with that, I was just trying to explain why other people might not be.

How would immortality make them overpopulate the planet? If we look at our planet, long-lived species are the least numerous, while short-lived ones are, by far, the most populous. Whether you count individuals or biomass. How long an individual can live has little bearing in population dynamics, at least compared to how long it takes before reaching reproductive age, and then fertility. In all fantasy settings I know of, despite elves having a much, much longer reproductive age span, they are much, much less fertile than humans. Humans with 14 kids? Sure, nothing surprising for the age. Elves with 14 children? Never heard of it. Much less elves with 50 children, which even if they gestate three times as long (never heard of such a thing), would probably still be feasible, or close (1 baby per 3 years from adulthood to "old"). If elves take 110 years to reach adulthood... and only make 1-2 children... really, what's surprising is not that they haven't overpopulated the earth, it's that they haven't been driven extinct yet.

[Spellbreaker26]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html
In all honesty, if 200-foot-tall flaming letters made of fleeing slaves aren't enough for you, I don't know what comic "evidence" you still need.


Re:Elves

I'm not denying Tarquin is an extremely evil man. I'm not denying that he's at least as bad as the people he's replaced even factoring in the stability he brings. I'm just saying that it would not be unreasonable to conclude that he's not more evil than the people he's replacing.

As for the elf discussion, I'm not saying that none of those possibilities aren't happening, just that walking into a situation completely at odds with how those sort of populations work - not just because forests usually don't equal heavily populated, elf societies in fantasy aren't usually heavily populated either. But I think I should start a brand new topic elsewhere on the forum for that, and leave this one to argue about the comic itself.

[Mightymosy]

I'm not denying Tarquin is an extremely evil man. I'm not denying that he's at least as bad as the people he's replaced even factoring in the stability he brings. I'm just saying that it would not be unreasonable to conclude that he's not more evil than the people he's replacing.

As for the elf discussion, I'm not saying that none of those possibilities aren't happening, just that walking into a situation completely at odds with how those sort of populations work - not just because forests usually don't equal heavily populated, elf societies in fantasy aren't usually heavily populated either. But I think I should start a brand new topic elsewhere on the forum for that, and leave this one to argue about the comic itself.

Fair enough on the Elves thing.

The problem with the Tarquin thing is not that it is unreasonable per se, or that it strictly couldn't be possible, if, for example, the universe hated the people in the OotS universe.
The thing is that we are shown what Tarquin and his reign mean for the people. And that is like 99% on evil and horrific on the scale between pleasant paradise vs horrific hell. The only two options that could reasonably be worse are Xykon's reign, Hel's new world, or Malack's vision for the future, the latter quite probably the worst - and guess what: Malack's slaughter business is just the thing Tarquin's reign is supposed to lead to, eventually.

Even without the comic, how can it possibly be much worse? Sure it could, but the way Tarquin's empire is portrayed I think the more reasonable assumption is that he did not replace worse people


Remember: if you buy safety with freedom, you' end up losing both.

Or put another more accurate way: stability does not equal a good time by itself.

[Spellbreaker26]

Fair enough on the Elves thing.

The problem with the Tarquin thing is not that it is unreasonable per se, or that it strictly couldn't be possible, if, for example, the universe hated the people in the OotS universe.
The thing is that we are shown what Tarquin and his reign mean for the people. And that is like 99% on evil and horrific on the scale between pleasant paradise vs horrific hell. The only two options that could reasonably be worse are Xykon's reign, Hel's new world, or Malack's vision for the future, the latter quite probably the worst - and guess what: Malack's slaughter business is just the thing Tarquin's reign is supposed to lead to, eventually.

Even without the comic, how can it possibly be much worse? Sure it could, but the way Tarquin's empire is portrayed I think the more reasonable assumption is that he did not replace worse people


Remember: if you buy safety with freedom, you' end up losing both.

Or put another more accurate way: stability does not equal a good time by itself.

That's an excellent argument.

For perhaps some lighter discussion, how culpable should we hold the order for destroying the Inn?

[Snails]

I'm not denying Tarquin is an extremely evil man. I'm not denying that he's at least as bad as the people he's replaced even factoring in the stability he brings. I'm just saying that it would not be unreasonable to conclude that he's not more evil than the people he's replacing.

And I am saying exactly that it is entirely unreasonable to conclude that he's not more evil than the people he's replacing.

A "reasonable conclusion" requires the weighing of the evidence using tools such as logic. No rational weighing of the evidence can possibly come to any such conclusion. I am literally saying it is impossible. The subset of hard facts suggesting Tarquin is correct is so thin as to be near non-existent, while there is a mountain of evidence suggesting Tarquin is lying or deluded.

Mind you, I have no problem whatsoever with people who say "You know, it is actually possible that Tarquin is correct, but I really cannot say for sure without knowing more about the continent."

[Mightymosy]

That's an excellent argument.

For perhaps some lighter discussion, how culpable should we hold the order for destroying the Inn?

Ahh, my favourite part of the comic :-)

Tough to say, actually. The explosives were the dwarven assassin's, so he is somewhat guilty I think. Belkar accidentally put them on fire, albeit while chasing the lawyer, with clearly bad intentions. Then again, how much blame can be put on the Order as a group?

I say, tough to say :-)
But in the end, using our standards, I would put general blame on them for continually supporting Belkar, but with the inn specifically, it's more of an accident (although the two assassins should be tried for attempted murder, and the dwarf additionally for something like handling explosives carelessly).

What do you think?

[Spellbreaker26]

Ahh, my favourite part of the comic :-)

Tough to say, actually. The explosives were the dwarven assassin's, so he is somewhat guilty I think. Belkar accidentally put them on fire, albeit while chasing the lawyer, with clearly bad intentions. Then again, how much blame can be put on the Order as a group?

I say, tough to say :-)
But in the end, using our standards, I would put general blame on them for continually supporting Belkar, but with the inn specifically, it's more of an accident (although the two assassins should be tried for attempted murder, and the dwarf additionally for something like handling explosives carelessly).

What do you think?

The assassins are not just killers for hire, but also brought explosives on a mission to kill one guy, which is not only inefficient but also puts nearby civilians at risk. They are extremely at fault.

The order doesn't get off totally scot free. Whether or not they should keep Belkar around is a tricky proposition - as Roy points out later on, short of outright killing him there's not a lot of good places to put him. But setting the explosives off is just an unlucky coincidence.

As for the rest... they willingly deceive the staff at an inn into letting them have five-star treatment for nothing. Roy tries to justify himself to Durkon, but he is basically stealing from the inn. Rescuing people doesn't entitle you to steal from other people. But when things actually get serious he abandons his pride and repeatedly puts himself in danger to save Elan, so I'm not sure we can put the incident on his shoulders. Their first priority is to evacuate everybody in the inn, which speaks well for them, and I will give extenuating circumstances for being around Miko, who could make even the most devoted Lawful Good PC act out and be rebellious.

So the Order is guilty for acting like jerks, but the assassins are guilty for being completely irresponsible above and beyond being contract killers.

[Mightymosy]

The assassins are not just killers for hire, but also brought explosives on a mission to kill one guy, which is not only inefficient but also puts nearby civilians at risk. They are extremely at fault.

The order doesn't get off totally scot free. Whether or not they should keep Belkar around is a tricky proposition - as Roy points out later on, short of outright killing him there's not a lot of good places to put him. But setting the explosives off is just an unlucky coincidence.

As for the rest... they willingly deceive the staff at an inn into letting them have five-star treatment for nothing. Roy tries to justify himself to Durkon, but he is basically stealing from the inn. Rescuing people doesn't entitle you to steal from other people. But when things actually get serious he abandons his pride and repeatedly puts himself in danger to save Elan, so I'm not sure we can put the incident on his shoulders. Their first priority is to evacuate everybody in the inn, which speaks well for them, and I will give extenuating circumstances for being around Miko, who could make even the most devoted Lawful Good PC act out and be rebellious.

So the Order is guilty for acting like jerks, but the assassins are guilty for being completely irresponsible above and beyond being contract killers.

Yeah, but you asked about destruction of the inn - and that's still tough to say :-D

[Spellbreaker26]

Yeah, but you asked about destruction of the inn - and that's still tough to say :-D

Been reading it again...

First of all, I forgot how hilarious the conversation that Elan and Roy have before the assassins attack is.

Second of all, a lot of the stuff in this thread is things that weren't supposed to happen. When Roy poses as a king he knows he's doing something wrong, but he had no reason to suspect that it would lead to an inn getting destroyed. He had no reason to suspect he was actually putting people in danger; compare this to V taking the soul splice (much more serious, but hear me out) where he basically knew it was a bad idea and would put people at risk but still went for it. However, Roy still deceived people for personal gain and the inn was destroyed as a consequence of that.

Belkar's similar, except instead of petty theft he's actually trying to murder someone for foiling his attempted animal abuse. He similarly is not intending to destroy an inn (though it would not trouble him if he did) but similarly his immoral action caused destruction. But since Belkar (at least until his epiphany at Greysky) has motives that include maximum destruction a blunder for the Order is not necessarily a blunder for Belkar. A blunder for Belkar would, however, include things like kissing V at New Years because it gets him blown up about five times.

To be honest, the inn getting destroyed was not a blunder (at least, not for the order), but impersonating royalty was, because the order were extremely lucky that the consequences were as minor as an inn with no people in it getting destroyed. Had the king of Nowhere found out he would likely not be particularly amused, and some kind of punishment could have easily followed. Honestly they should have all known that it was really a bad idea.

[Samzat]

My vote goes with Roy trying so hard to get Xykon to remember Fyron that the teenage goblin was able to warn Xykon of the disjunction on Roy's blade. Im not clear on the disjunction rules so Im not sure if that would keep xykon from coming back but it certainly wouldnt have given redcloak time to get away