Results 361 to 390 of 737
-
2017-02-23, 01:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
I mostly agree with him about the real world implications. I'd probably quibble a bit in the sense that we do things like play shooter games, D&D, etc. to get away from the real world and that sometimes it can be comforting to enter a "black and white" morality type of setting...so long as you leave that sort of thinking behind when you exit.
Redcloak is the ultimate example of "Villain has a point" and I think Giant's done an exceptional job of showing that. He's an evil, but sympathetic character who has understandable motivations and is clearly very different from, say, Xykon.
But Giant's taken turns both playing the trope straight and lampshading it. On the one hand, he lampshaded a good aligned adventuring party slaughtering a bunch of goblins with one of them objecting to the deeds.
"You killed them all!"
"Only because they attacked us."
"Because we were committing a home invasion!"
But on the other hand, he hasn't let it get in the way of a good story. The Paladins didn't get lost in the weeds over those goblin deaths caused by the party going towards Soon's gate. (Although I suppose it could be argued those were goblins working for Xykon and hence acceptable target.)
-
2017-02-23, 01:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
I don't know what "lost in the weeds" means or what deaths going toward Soon's Gate you're referring to, but Rich has explicitly pointed out that we shouldn't take for granted that the paladins who sacked proto-Redcloak's village didn't fall.
Last edited by Kish; 2017-02-23 at 01:20 PM.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2017-02-23, 01:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
And I don't disagree with the themes of the comic. As I've said, I dunno, maybe six times now I'm only pointing out it would not be consistent with the setting that has been established thus far for good aligned creatures to object to evil creature deaths.
The setting itself is a bit screwed up because that's how the gods have set it up. Certain races are acceptable targets. Full stop.
Giant has done a good job of showing his opinion that's not how it should work. But he's also played it straight that currently that's how things currently DO work in-universe. It's nearly the entire basis for the Redcloak character that his race is an acceptable target. His ENTIRE RACE is an acceptable target in universe.
Which brings me back to the original point. Given that is how things currently work in universe, it would be way more likely and be much more consistent with what has been established for some good aligned dragon council's main objection to be the collateral damage and not the evil dragon deaths.
This is not mutually exclusive with Giant's viewpoint that V's actions were morally reprehensible for reasons INCLUDING the evil dragon slaughter. It's just consistent with how the vast majority of other characters and beings in the universe would think and act.
Summarized:
Giant thinks things SHOULD be X and Giant recognizes that things are CURRENTLY Y are not mutually exclusive.
Or, filling in the variables. Giant thinks that goblins SHOULDN'T be an "always acceptable target" but in universe Giant has presented that currently goblins ARE considered to be an "always acceptable target".
He may think it is wrong and even portray it as being wrong, particularly in showing the racist elves and providing a sympathetic backstory for Redcloak. But that simultaneously proves that is currently the way things work in universe and therefore it makes it unlikely (not impossible) but unlikely that the main objection of a good aligned dragon council is going to be a bunch of evil dragon deaths instead of the deaths of "non acceptable targets" caught in the crossfire of V's spell.
My fireball in the crowded marketplace metaphor.Last edited by nocoolnamejim; 2017-02-23 at 01:26 PM.
-
2017-02-23, 01:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Oh, so Roy and Celia aren't good creatures then.
Passive voice remains utterly uncompelling. If you actually think there exists a mind which thinks what you're insisting on and which matters, switch to active voice. "It is the way it is" is meaningless. No character whose perspective is being presented as having value thinks goblins are acceptable targets.Last edited by Kish; 2017-02-23 at 01:32 PM.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2017-02-23, 01:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
In this context what "lost in the weeds" means is that we didn't get 30 comics of the PCs on trial for murder for killing all the goblins on the way to Soon's gate.
The paladins didn't care about that.
Instead the comic focused on laying out the backstory of the Snarl and the gates and the PCs were placed on trial for destroying one of the gates.
If the universe worked like Giant thinks it should as soon as the PCs were exonerated for the destruction of the gate they should have been put on trial for mass murder right afterward.
But they weren't because while Giant thinks it is wrong that goblins are an always acceptable target, in universe that's exactly what they are so paragons of virtue like paladins don't even consider it relevant enough to mention let alone put the group on trial for.
-
2017-02-23, 01:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
There were no goblins on the way to Soon's Gate. Do you mean Dorukan's Gate?
Assuming you do, I take it that's a yes to my earlier question about whether you were treating Dorukan's Dungeon as the home of Xykon's inoffensive minions when you insisted that Roy had done a whole lot of killing evil-race creatures in their homes while they weren't bothering anyone.Last edited by Kish; 2017-02-23 at 01:36 PM.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2017-02-23, 01:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Location
- The Great Eastern Bay
- Gender
-
2017-02-23, 01:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
-
2017-02-23, 01:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Avatar by linklele.
-
2017-02-23, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Ah! The gods! Finally, you identify who you've been speaking for!
No, I mean including them. Prominently including them. The best of them are squabbling children who treat mortals as semi-valuable chess pieces, the worst of them as monstrous as Tarquin and Xykon. And none of them have anything to say about whether, if Rich had a bronze dragon show up, that dragon would be actually good (like Roy, Celia, Haley, Elan, O-Chul, Hinjo, etc.), or horrifying "technically good" like a few mostly-joke characters. They don't justify your bizarre insistence that "technically good" is what "good" means, except in cases you're not acknowledging and are sure Rich will not introduce another of. Their opinions do not matter, except when and to the extent they are backed up with coercive power; if you remember, Roy was in the middle of explicitly disavowing the slightest concern for what the Godsmoot was about before he heard that they might destroy the world.Last edited by Kish; 2017-02-23 at 01:50 PM.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2017-02-23, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- Gender
-
2017-02-23, 01:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Location
- The Great Eastern Bay
- Gender
-
2017-02-23, 01:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Heres an alternative question for you Kish. Who, besides Roy and maybe Durkon, has actually been shown as having an opinion worth valuing? O-chul, maybe? Right-eye, arguably, except he isn't in the main comic.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2017-02-23, 01:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
I know.
But Roy gloats about the dragon slaying afterwards, and he is Varsuuvius' leader. So I expected it to come up - although maybe it was left out because Belkar was so bad...
(I'd still like to know that part about Azure City being a karmic "justice" for the Twelve Gods...)Boytoy of the -Fan-Club
What? It's not my fault we don't get a good-aligned female paragon of promiscuity!
I heard Blue is the color of irony on the internet.
I once fought against a dozen people defending a lady - until the mods took me down in the end.
Want to see my prison tatoo?
*Branded for double posting*
Sometimes, being bad feels so good.
-
2017-02-23, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- Gender
-
2017-02-23, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
- Location
- SoCal
- Gender
-
2017-02-23, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Spoiler: Response to Mightymosy, spoiler'd for lengthThe original quote certainly concluded that people needed to lighten up about supposed-discrimination they read into the comic, when it was supposed to be just a joke, which I agree with to an extent (obviously, there's issues when the joke goes too far in regards to a rights issue, but I doubt Rich is gonna step in that particular turd). The issue is more with the conversation that lead up to that conclusion, which discusses the "engineers are awkward" joke being "overdone in mainstream media". While your conclusion was written to be specific to the OotS comic, and I don't think you're transphobic (or whatever the word would be for "dismissive of the issues trans people have with their depiction in the mainstream media"), the conclusion in undermined by the argument concerning mainstream media, and overshadowed by the lines drawn between engineer discrimination and LGBT discrimination.
To put it a bit more simply, this:
...implies some comparison between perceived anti-engineer and anti-trans jokes/trends in the OotS comic. While it would probably be less offensive if written like this:
It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but it wouldn't be calling out specific groups anymore. The problem is this unintentional juxtaposition:
The conclusion is about the comic in particular, but the argument leading up to it is not, and this can leave people with the impression that your conclusion is meant as a more general statement in regards to how groups are depicted by the media, which comes across very poorly.
Once again, I don't think you're transphobic (or whatever the word for this would be), but I've long since come to a conclusion myself that we, as individuals, have some level of responsibility for how the world perceives us and judges us, to take into account how people will view our actions and words before we speak or act, to make sure the image we're presenting, and the one that others will take away, is one we can be satisfied with...and this goes doubly for online interactions, where misunderstandings and unintended implications/impressions occur much easier. I don't think you're a bad person, my post was more an attempt to let you know that this:
...looks far worse than I'm pretty sure you intended it to look.
Currently Recruiting WW/Mafia: Logic's Deathloop Mafia and Cazero's Graduates Of Hope's Peak - Danganronpa Mafia
Avatar by AsteriskAmp
My Homebrew
-
2017-02-23, 02:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
I'm not justifying anything. In fact, perhaps if you spent a little less time complaining about my posting style and a little more time trying to read and understand my points you'd get that.
For example, when I said this: "But he's also played it straight that currently that's how things currently DO work in-universe. It's nearly the entire basis for the Redcloak character that his race is an acceptable target. His ENTIRE RACE is an acceptable target in universe."
I assumed you knew Redcloak's backstory where the goblin race was designated as an acceptable target by all the gods except the Dark One and that's something he's trying to change. I didn't know you needed it explicitly spelled out for you.
But back to my first sentence: I'm not justifying anything. In fact, I'll repeat it because you're really hung up on me thinking that the acceptable target race thing is okay. Let me be as explicit as I possibly can: I AM NOT making the argument that any race SHOULD be an acceptable target. You seem to think that I'm making the argument that things SHOULD work this way in universe. I AM NOT. I'm saying that's the way that they currently DO for the majority of the in-universe setting.
Roy and Celia are both EXTREME examples in-universe. Celia is a complete pacifist who won't commit violence even if her own life is threatened. Roy's got official Only Sane Man status and the universe is explicitly written as ignoring him half the time as with the example of the Godsmeet.
You've used Roy as an example multiple times as someone whose perspective matters.
Remember his speech before the vote to destroy the world? Moving. Touching. Several of the people who could actually hear it were moved to tears and didn't have the heart to tell him his perspective didn't matter one bit. The gods couldn't hear him. His perspective was literally written as not mattering.
Therefore, I AM however making the argument that mortals take their cues from the gods and if something is screwed up, looking to who set up the system is a good place to start. The goblin race currently IS an acceptable target according to the rules of the world that was created and established by the gods.
Remember when I said this? Giant thinks things SHOULD be X and Giant recognizes that things are CURRENTLY Y are not mutually exclusive.
The entire meeting of the gods council was a lovely example of it. The gods couldn't even hear Roy's perspective and several of the followers of the gods explicitly say that they don't want to see the world destroyed but it isn't their place to override the judgment of their deities.
In other words, Giant writes that the universe is messed up. It SHOULD be X, but it's CURRENTLY Y and these things aren't mutually exclusive.
It is unlikely that a bunch of good aligned dragons are going to object to the killing of a lot of evil aligned dragons because that isn't the prevailing morality of the setting. It would be more consistent with how the majority of the setting has been shown to think that the reasons why good aligned dragons are upset is at the unrelated deaths and not the deaths of their natural enemies: evil dragons.
-
2017-02-23, 02:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- The land of corn
- Gender
-
2017-02-23, 02:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
I complain about the ways your posting style occludes what you're saying.
For example, I can guess, based on your finally having identified the viewpoint you keep using passive voice for as that of the gods, that "the prevailing morality of the setting" is supposed to mean "the beliefs of the gods"--something that makes no sense to me--and not "the moral reading intended by Rich Burlew," which would, but the sentence is unclear enough that I have to guess. If somewhere in all that passive voice there was a reason why the entirely-hypothetical bronze dragon would agree with the gods other than "the gods say so," it would take more work than I'm going to devote to it to figure it out.
I am not hung up on you thinking that "the acceptable race thing" is okay. I don't care about that at all. I care about the claims you're making of what's in the comic, which I believe are insupportable, as I have addressed before, to be rebutted with lots of assertions (some really off the wall, like Roy having supposedly killed lots of evil-race creatures who weren't doing anything evil in their homes) and very little support for them. Those characters who don't support the beliefs of a handful of joke characters are "extreme" and don't count because of that with no need to support the weight you're giving those joke characters' opinions; some of those joke characters (I especially like Loki's rousing argument for the sanctity of life--which Roy comments on too, if you recall) being unable to hear one of the protagonists of the comic gets directly converted to "his perspective doesn't matter."
I posted the reference, Mightymosy; I believe Jasdoif did, as well. In War and XPs, opposite strip #474.Last edited by Kish; 2017-02-23 at 02:23 PM.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2017-02-23, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Oddly, I've been posting on various forums for many years now and you're the only person who has ever felt the need to mention my "passive voice" in very nearly every single post you make towards me in a debate.
Here's an idea!
If you're unclear on something, maybe you could, y'know, ASK for clarification instead of continually passive aggressively complaining about my posting style and leaving me to guess what YOUR meaning is on what you are unclear about when you keep mentioning my "passive voice"?
It would have saved you a whole lot of time.
-
2017-02-23, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
I'm sorry, it genuinely never occurred to me that anyone reading this would not know 1) what passive voice is, and 2) that it's generally unwise for communicating.
Here it is, then, so you can't say I'm being passive-aggressive: Passive voice is when you say something like "Xykon was thrown into the ward over Dorukan's Gate" rather than "Roy threw Xykon into the ward over Dorukan's Gate." In most cases it is unnecessary and makes communication a lot less clear. If you had just said "the gods say this" instead of "it is the way it is" a long time ago, while I doubt there would be any meeting of the minds, we could have gotten to "Each of us thinks the other is totally wrong" in about a quarter the number of posts.Last edited by Kish; 2017-02-23 at 02:28 PM.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2017-02-23, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
You mean like they did?
Kish, being far more patient than I ever would, has been pointing out to you both what wasn't clear and why all this time, I assume because they, unlike me, don't like to simply assume what your argument is. Which is why I told you that your whole argument of "the gods approve, therefore the bronze dragons approve" was a non-sequitur a page earlier (but occasionally means I answer something the other poster did not say, which Kish never does to the best of my recollection).
GWInterested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.There is a world of imagination
Deep in the corners of your mind
Where reality is an intruder
And myth and legend thrive
Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est
-
2017-02-23, 02:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
I'm sorry too. It genuinely never occurred to me that someone who has tried to portray himself as smarter than everyone in an attempt to lecture someone on their "reading at a very basic level" wouldn't be able to figure out my meaning.
But hey, we can passive aggressive snark back at each other all day instead! I'm game.
Here's an example. From the VERY BEGINNING of this debate.
I post: I'm not arguing it's okay at a moral level. Genocide is genocide. I'm saying that in-universe it's considered fine by the way the gods have set things up.
You post: You're using passive voice. "It's considered fine." Who considers?
GOSH. I don't know how anyone could have puzzled that through that I'm talking about the gods. What a brain teaser that passive voice was.Last edited by nocoolnamejim; 2017-02-23 at 02:41 PM.
-
2017-02-23, 02:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Oregon, USA
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Well, if we're going to get into semantic inferences...that is passive. You didn't say it's considered fine by the gods, you said it's considered fine by the way the gods have set things up...meaning someone looked at the way the gods set things up and decided that meant it's fine. That someone could be the gods...or Soon...or Xykon...or specific gods rather than gods universally....
On the low end of the cynicism spectrum, the ambiguity is unhelpful because the separation from context is a barrier to better understanding of the perspective as a whole. On the high end of the cynicism spectrum, the ambiguity is subversive because it actively attempts to separate an activity from its actors, who could be challenged as imperfect.FeytouchedBanana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!
The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas
-
2017-02-23, 02:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Addressed to anyone who happens to be reading this: You know, I can't think of a character who isn't a cleric, a paladin, a goblin, or an orc whose religion is a joke who's shown any real interest in what the gods think? Haley never casually swears using Loki's name and didn't have any hesitation in acting like Thor was a big joke. Elan only cares about one god, and he's a puppet. Even Tsukiko, who was part cleric, doesn't seem to have been interested in any gods, as such; the cleric class was part of her Mystic Theurge chassis, nothing else.
Any other examples I'm missing?Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2017-02-23, 02:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Way to narrow the field That removes all antagonists save Xykon, and the largest protagonist-aligned group.
I'd look through the Moot. There might be a couple of bodyguards expressing doubtful alignment to the god's decision in there.
(But to your larger point, no, I don't expect to find much)
GWLast edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2017-02-23 at 02:57 PM.
Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.There is a world of imagination
Deep in the corners of your mind
Where reality is an intruder
And myth and legend thrive
Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est
-
2017-02-23, 02:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
Something I think the Giant is kind of trying to eat his cake and have it too is that while he tries to portray the "evil races" as Evil on the cultural level (hobgoblins are not the tyrants that would make Tarquin give a thumb up like they are described in D&D, Redcloack's family was warm and loving, etc.), he stills portray them as the bad guys...
I mean, the whole "goblins were created to be walking XP bags and 'acceptable targets' " thing is more "everyone collectively decided to be ***** to goblins because reason, while goblins aren't more evil than anyone" rather than "goblins were created along with the other races, and were among the ones whose individual members liked to inflict harm and suffering to others the most often."
The whole "goblins are evil, so kill them on sight" thing that goes in RPGs still relies on the idea that, even if it's certainly not true all goblins are horribly evil, that most of them are the kind to cause harm and suffering, through pillage, torture and the like, to anyone they meet, and that the adventurers would get killed if they didn't fight.
In typical D&D, an Evil goblin settlement would like a cross between Greysky City and a raider camp, with the goblins using it to launch attacks on all travelers and villages they thought they had a chance against, and it would terrorise the local area until it was dealt with. There could be other kind of settlements, but the Evil one would be something like that.
In our world, pirates were considered "enemies of humanity" for that kind of thing.
In OotS, it sounds like the goblins would just want to have a peaceful life in their nice settlement, but then adventurers burst through walls like demendted, bloodthristy Kool-aid men, point at the goblins, scream "EEEEEEVIL" and then charge to kill all of them.
Yet, the different goblinoids are still portrayed as being mostly "bad guys", except with a "you treated our species like ****, so we're going to treat you like **** once the table have turned" kind of justified revenge.
-
2017-02-23, 02:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread
V nominally worships the elven gods of knowledge and adheres to their code. I leave it as an exercise to, well, you, to decide whether their lack of visible guidance for V is due to their nature as elven gods of knowledge (as opposed to, say, gods of hitting evil in the face with a hammer), or because V only pays lip service to them.
I think Roy's mom was implied to be somewhat devote as well, though not heavily.“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2017-02-23, 02:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- The land of corn
- Gender