OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread

[AvatarVecna]

Thank you for your long post. I read it but I am still not sure....

You complain that what I wrote could be percieved as me generalising things, but then you suggested I should have worded it like this:
"Bottom line: It's a comic. A parody. Maybe we should all step back a little and try not being insulted, regardless of the group supposedly being maligned. Laughing about oneself is a huge step in character, I have found."

Your suggestion was to not mention specific groups I mentioned.

I mentioned these groups specifically because these were groups the comic either made fun of or which were discussed in relation to the comic making fun of - the intent was to create a clear connection to the comic.
Thus, the "It's a comic" in the beginning of the paragraph...

I could have wrote
"It's a well-intentioned comic. A non-offensive parody[...]"
or something along those lines.
That would have made it a little more clear that I don't approve of other comics or media that make offensive and bad fun of these particular groups (I thought that was clear from the context, but hey, maybe it wasn't )

I understand the point you were making at the time, I'm just saying that saying "come on guys, can't you just take a joke instead of getting offended?" is never going to be taken the way you mean if you call out specific groups, especially if they're not even remotely comparable in terms of how they're generally and specifically ridiculed/oppressed. It doesn't help that, by your own admission below, you don't think the comic has ever treated being trans as a joke, which makes the inclusion of trans people in the "can't you take a joke" admonishment look even more suspect.

So, semantics aside I still have no clue why, or how, transgender people feel insulted by the comic. Maybe that would be part of the way to understand the actual problem?

The answer is simple: they don't. They aren't generally offended by the comic because the comic generally treated the issue fairly seriously. The offense is that you saying "you're right, people should be able to take a joke", comparing the people complaining about "Andi supposedly being used as a scapegoat to pin engineer jokes on" to "trans people getting offended at comedic depictions of trans people", which is too close to being a political issue to fully discuss here due to forum rules. I got a long bit typed up in regards to the "trans people depicted in media" issue, and if you're interested in discussing it a bit further...well, I don't think PMs are exempt from the rules, but we could probably Skype about it? I dunno.

[Unoriginal]

You know, funnily, Redcloack is kind of the textbook example of what the High Priest of Hel said.

Redcloack's worst day was decades ago, and it's still going on.

[Keltest]

I don't think the Order simply smashing Xykon, killing Redcloak, reconquering Gobbotopia and returning Azure City to Hinjo, and restoring the status quo ante is in the cards, or would be treated as a happy ending if it was.

That said, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Redcloak's hypocrisy or that of his god. If I were Oona, I'd be kicking myself for having guilted Redcloak into strengthening economic and social ties with me.

I for one, am going to be incredibly disappointed if Gobbotopia is left in the hands of the goblins unconditionally. "its ok to be evil as long as people were mistreating you first" seems like a terrible moral, and the goblins, so far, have been completely unrepentant even after they get their city.

[Unoriginal]

An idea I had this morning.

Imagine if Team Evil manages to find the door leading to the Gate, go through the epic monster battles all day, and prepare to fight the titanesque dragon guarding it...

Only it's a black dragon, one of the eldest of the line V anihilated.

[danielxcutter]

You know, funnily, Redcloack is kind of the textbook example of what the High Priest of Hel said.

Redcloack's worst day was decades ago, and it's still going on.

Considering the Crimson Mantle literally makes the user unaging and immortal, very well made point.

[KorvinStarmast]

Besides, even in usual D&D, it's not a Good act to kill because someone has "probably" (sans evidence) done "some" Evil.

Depends on the edition and the DM. It was a lot less trouble when the alignments were Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. The DM had more room to work.

Why should we care what the Deva thought? Because she's in charge of judging the morals of characters entering heaven. In other words, in charge of deciding if characters have acted in a "Lawful" and "Good" manner according the rules of the universe during their mortal lives.

And she never even brought up any of the times that Roy killed evil creatures in their homes who weren't actively committing evil. Which means that to her judgment - which is a proxy for the judgment of the lawful good gods - those were not evil acts.

The justification is that the plot required it. That's meta alignment, which has +7 plot armor.

Bronze dragons could still be horrified by V's actions from a moral standpoint - Roy was.

Yes, and it answers a few points earlier about a trans Draconic council taking a dim view of some humanoid laying waste to so many dragons.

The creators explicitly called out as petty jerks that came this close to deciding to end the world and start over? Clearly paragons of virtue.

The gods get to judge, and the gods get to pass sentence. That's the point of the Godsmoot: to remind people that the gods, who are the creators of this world, however imperfectly, have that power and right.

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"?

With some folks, it's like asking an octopus to be a dolphin.

Yes. The bodyguards at the godsmoot seemed very, very interested in what the gods were thinking about right then. It's the sort of interest that tends to come about when you're watching people vote on whether to murder you, intensified by how they were also discussing whether to murder literally everyone that wasn't one of them or the Snarl.

Yeah, that was a neat feature of the godsmoot sub arc. The gods really do have that power, and like most polytheistic pantheons passed to us from legends and mythology, are chaotic in the sense that they are moved by their own interests and passions. (Greek pantheon a classic case, and the Norse).

Elan recognized that he should be making a speech about the Twelve Gods when he buried Therkla. And the IFCC are very aware of the deities, especially that honked off five-headed dragon lady.

Yes, some people do take gods seriously.

Anyhow, I believe the dragons would be taking more aggro from a jumped up hairless monkey person killing a lot of dragons than anything relating to alignment. But then the Council of Wyrms theme song is 'Draco Uber Alles'.

I'm with you.

It's very similar to the dynamic of the Western Continent where the elves have all the good lands and the human kingdoms are fighting it out over the desert in-comic.

I wonder if the humans would be considered evil for trying to take the elven lands.

If led by Tarquin, that isn't even a question. It's an axiom, or a given. Pick which you'd rather it be.

[Jasdoif]

Don't understand the part about the starmetal. Could you explain, please?

Roy was going after the starmetal because he was told it was necessary to fix his sword. He was told the area was full of dangerous monsters, but he had no way of knowing the starmetal had been claimed by a creature capable of being reasoned with (and in fact Roy never met her). Roy didn't head out there to commit murder in the course of robbery.

The part about Roy is that he proudly gloated over the dragon killing, and the deva didn't note it, despite generally caring for "bad language". So gloating about a murder done by your team is morally better than giving your jerk father sarcastic lines? Hmmm...
And Roy was being held responsible for Belkar because he is his leader. He is also Varsuuvius' leader.

As I think Kish has implied, this says far more about gods/devas/paladins then it does about Roy.

Well, unless you want to make a case that the younger black dragon attacking the Order of the Stick after Haley's rather emphatic call for retreat constitutes cause for Roy to believe he was evil; but that'd be a stretch...and, again, that the deva didn't even see cause to mention it still says something about entities other than Roy.

[JumboWheat01]

This is incorrect. Any "always evil" race is born that way, this includes black dragons. What crime has a black dragon committed when it breaks out of it's shell?

It looks ridiculously cute. Like kittens.

Whom we all know are evil.

[mr-mercer]

My opinion on current events hasn't changed with this new update, so I'll make a fairly important point in response to someone else here.

Cats: chaotic evil, 30 charisma. That is all.

[Mightymosy]

I understand the point you were making at the time, I'm just saying that saying "come on guys, can't you just take a joke instead of getting offended?" is never going to be taken the way you mean if you call out specific groups, especially if they're not even remotely comparable in terms of how they're generally and specifically ridiculed/oppressed. It doesn't help that, by your own admission below, you don't think the comic has ever treated being trans as a joke, which makes the inclusion of trans people in the "can't you take a joke" admonishment look even more suspect.



The answer is simple: they don't. They aren't generally offended by the comic because the comic generally treated the issue fairly seriously. The offense is that you saying "you're right, people should be able to take a joke", comparing the people complaining about "Andi supposedly being used as a scapegoat to pin engineer jokes on" to "trans people getting offended at comedic depictions of trans people", which is too close to being a political issue to fully discuss here due to forum rules. I got a long bit typed up in regards to the "trans people depicted in media" issue, and if you're interested in discussing it a bit further...well, I don't think PMs are exempt from the rules, but we could probably Skype about it? I dunno.

I think you can write PMs any way you want, so go ahead. Of course, we can Sykpe also if that's what you prefer.


I thought there was some transgender person who was offended by the comic, that's why I included this group of people in the list of groups who should "take a joke". If this wasn't the case after all, even better. Then I can just say that I regret mentioning it at all.
Because I only became involved with this after I heard there had been an issue, and I just couldn't out what it was, and appearantly still can't. So I was picking it, among others, as an example of a group who felt offended by being made fun off at their expense. It was just one of the examples more prominent in my memory.

So I didn't call them out because they, specifically are persons who should learn to take a joke, and even less RL discriminations. I listed the group among others which the comic supposedly made "bad" fun off.

I see your point that, when taken out of context, this could be read as me singling these groups out for being oversensitive.
For which I am sorry. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I think so, especially not in regard to RL insults.
I thought it was obvious from the context of previous posts (mine and the ones I responded to) and the words "comic" and the link to groups in the comic/comic discussion. I'll try to be more clear next time (although my posts tend to long already, unfortunately )

[Peelee]

I think you can write PMs any way you want, so go ahead.

PMs are indeed not exempt from the forum rules. Standard not-a-mod disclaimer, I just dont want people to get in trouble.

[Mightymosy]

Roy was going after the starmetal because he was told it was necessary to fix his sword. He was told the area was full of dangerous monsters, but he had no way of knowing the starmetal had been claimed by a creature capable of being reasoned with (and in fact Roy never met her). Roy didn't head out there to commit murder in the course of robbery.

So Roy was ok to kill the dragon because he was told it was necessary to fix his sword? Maybe it's too late here, but I still don't get it, sorry

I mean, sure, he is told there would be monsters. And then he stumbles into a cave and is attacked by some dragon in the cave. He is still entering another being's territory here, isn't he? One they can't speak with, but still.
So then they fight for a while so the dragon doesn't kill them, but it is finally being put on hold. And then V just kills it. You know, instead of "stealing" the starmetal and just walking away. And they find the young dragon's magazines, which clearly demonstrate how the YBD is was a living, feeling being.
And instead of questioning any of that, Roy goes on to brag about the deed, in order to get laid.

So he was told there would be dangerous monsters, but dangerous is not evil.
And the starmetal was clearly in the possession of a living, feeling being, so in the end he and his team commited burglary, and murder with robbery - even if V was the one who did the murdery.

I don't know...this seems worse than giving sarcastic retorts to a father who doesn't care about your interests and tries to enforce his career choices in you...

For me, the only "justification" Roy mentioned in comic for killing the dragon and taking his stuff, is that it was "color-coded"...
And given Miko's (!) approval, I think this was being meant as a critique to this kind of thinking.
So I wondered why it wasn't brought up by the deva in heaven.

As I think Kish has implied, this says far more about gods/devas/paladins then it does about Roy.

Well, unless you want to make a case that the younger black dragon attacking the Order of the Stick after Haley's rather emphatic call for retreat constitutes cause for Roy to believe he was evil; but that'd be a stretch...and, again, that the deva didn't even see cause to mention it still says something about entities other than Roy.

Yeah, we can agree on that. It can certainly mean something Rich wants to tell about heaven and the devas. But it also could mean he forgot to adress this point, or found it to be less important than other points.
Or, alternatively, it could mean that heaven shaped around how Roy would think, and for Roy this was not an issue, while the other things that were questioned were acutal things Roy's conscience felt guilty of.

[Mightymosy]

PMs are indeed not exempt from the forum rules. Standard not-a-mod disclaimer, I just dont want people to get in trouble.

So when we agree to discuss a topic in private, the mods check these messages to make sure we don't violate forum rules?

[8BitNinja]

This is incorrect. Any "always evil" race is born that way, this includes black dragons. What crime has a black dragon committed when it breaks out of it's shell?

Well, the last time I saw a black dragon broke out of it's shell, the shell went off like the atomic bombs that ended World War 2. After that, it used dark magic to reanimate the corpses killed by the shell opening and used the radiation covered nuke zombies to start a conquest across the world. It then proceeded to eat the inhabitants of an orphanage, incinerate a hospital, and kill innocent farmers. After it did that, it forced the survivors of his massacres to build a tower of him out of the rubble of their own homes.

And then it kicked a puppy.

[Peelee]

So when we agree to discuss a topic in private, the mods check these messages to make sure we don't violate forum rules?

No idea. Not a mod. I'd imagine they'd only check if one of the parties reported something, but at the same time, I have to think it's a poor idea to broadcast, "i shall PM this person because that is unconstrained by forum rules."

[Snails]

This is incorrect. Any "always evil" race is born that way, this includes black dragons. What crime has a black dragon committed when it breaks out of it's shell?

You are assuming that the "normal" moral metaphysical rules that we expect to apply to humanoids also apply to dragons. It is not necessarily true that a magical universe need be "fair" in that manner.

[AvatarVecna]

So when we agree to discuss a topic in private, the mods check these messages to make sure we don't violate forum rules?

I can't say for certain what the mods would do, but I figure there's probably a mod at least doing a cursory scan on the main comic thread every once in a while to see if inappropriate topics have come up, and seeing people talking about possibly using PMs to get around the rules would give them incentive to check PMs between those people. I'm not sure why it'd be an issue, since it wouldn't drag the public into it, but rules are rules.

And I'm glad the misunderstanding has been cleared up.

[The_Weirdo]

Well, the last time I saw a black dragon broke out of it's shell, the shell went off like the atomic bombs that ended World War 2. After that, it used dark magic to reanimate the corpses killed by the shell opening and used the radiation covered nuke zombies to start a conquest across the world. It then proceeded to eat the inhabitants of an orphanage, incinerate a hospital, and kill innocent farmers. After it did that, it forced the survivors of his massacres to build a tower of him out of the rubble of their own homes.

And then it kicked a puppy.

Why would any of that be Evil?

[JumboWheat01]

My opinion on current events hasn't changed with this new update, so I'll make a fairly important point in response to someone else here.

Cats: chaotic evil, 30 charisma. That is all.

Only 30 Charisma? Seems kinda low for some furry critters.

[8BitNinja]

Why would any of that be Evil?

You're right, that sounds more chaotic neutral. My bad.

[Jasdoif]

So Roy was ok to kill the dragon because he was told it was necessary to fix his sword? Maybe it's too late here, but I still don't get it, sorry

Well then, let's try this again:

---

I mean, sure, he is told there would be monsters. And then he stumbles into a cave and is attacked by some dragon in the cave. He is still entering another being's territory here, isn't he?

How was he supposed to know in advance there were dragons living in the cave where the starmetal was?

One they can't speak with, but still.

I'm pretty sure he was capable of speaking Common, actually.

So then they fight for a while so the dragon doesn't kill them,

Correct; expecting Roy to allow himself to be killed for an accident seems unreasonable.

but it is finally being put on hold.

And Roy doesn't attack him at that point.

---

So Roy had no reason to think he'd be harming sapient creatures when he went there, no reason to allow himself to be killed once he was there, and didn't continue attacking once there was no reason to. It was a bad situation, certainly; but which part of that, exactly, are you seeing Roy do that he should have done differently?

As for bragging and culpability-by-proxy....The deva who basically said "you're the party leader, you're partly responsible for Belkar's actions!" is the same deva who basically said "Oh, Belkar doesn't go on murder sprees as often as he used to? Okay!". If she's willing to write off murder sprees as long as they're infrequent, I don't think it's at all surprising that she'd see nothing worth noting in the tone Roy used when answering a paladin's demands, or a single construable-self-defense killing of a teammate under his command (in case of timeline confusion, Familicide happened well after the interview).

[Doug Lampert]

Not true. There is nothing saying they're born that way. Unless you're talking about beings such as Fiends.

3.5 Monster Manual, Page 12, How to read the entries:
"Always: The creature is born with the listed alignment".

P63, same book: Black Dragon: "Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil".

Both direct quotes from the rules of the game. Please stop making up stuff that bears no resemblance to the rules of the game.

[Doug Lampert]

You are assuming that the "normal" moral metaphysical rules that we expect to apply to humanoids also apply to dragons. It is not necessarily true that a magical universe need be "fair" in that manner.

And yet the alignment rules are there, and dragons are a natural race in D&D land and can interbreed with humanoids and are playable themselves (dragons have LA for young ones, notably for black dragons the first four age categories are all playable). You can quite clearly be evil without having ever committed an evil act.

[LuisDantas]

Andi is not evil as such, but her showing in this strip is certainly not making her any favors.

She will be lucky if she does not spend time in the brig when this crisis is over.

[AvatarVecna]

3.5 Monster Manual, Page 12, How to read the entries:
"Always: The creature is born with the listed alignment".

P63, same book: Black Dragon: "Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil".

Both direct quotes from the rules of the game. Please stop making up stuff that bears no resemblance to the rules of the game.

A couple important points in this regard:

1) Rich has mentioned on many occasions, in one phrasing or another, that persnickety rules-lawyering isn't the basis of his story.

2) As long as we're quoting rules, it might help to quote everything relevant:

Alignment
This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole. See the Glossary for details.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

I can certainly see why you stopped your quote after the first line, though. It's always easier to make a RAW argument when you can pretend exceptions to the rule don't exist or can't happen.

Not that I'm saying it wasn't CE, because I'm sure it was, but it never helps your argument to selectively quote easily-accessible sources.

[Doug Lampert]

A couple important points in this regard:

1) Rich has mentioned on many occasions, in one phrasing or another, that persnickety rules-lawyering isn't the basis of his story.

2) As long as we're quoting rules, it might help to quote everything relevant:



I can certainly see why you stopped your quote after the first line, though. It's always easier to make a RAW argument when you can pretend exceptions to the rule don't exist or can't happen.

Not that I'm saying it wasn't CE, because I'm sure it was, but it never helps your argument to selectively quote easily-accessible sources.

The argument was specifically over whether they are born evil or not, they are. There was no reference to any specific black dragon in my post or in those I was replying to. Since the question was about one that had hypothetical just cracked its egg it was PLAINLY and OBVIOUSLY not about a dragon that had played any role in any story as yet.

So just which "IT" are you not saying is or isn't CE, because the hypothetical just cracked its egg dragon is specifically stated to have been born that way.

That they can change and have moral choice STRENGTHENS the argument that actions are not required as it shows that this is NOT because evil actions are inevitable or because they have no choice.

They are born evil because they are born evil, and because no actual evil actions are required to be evil, just the attitude.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The argument was specifically over whether they are born evil or not, they are. There was no reference to any specific black dragon in my post or in those I was replying to. Since the question was about one that had hypothetical just cracked its egg it was PLAINLY and OBVIOUSLY not about a dragon that had played any role in any story as yet.

So just which "IT" are you not saying is or isn't CE, because the hypothetical just cracked its egg dragon is specifically stated to have been born that way.

That they can change and have moral choice STRENGTHENS the argument that actions are not required as it shows that this is NOT because evil actions are inevitable or because they have no choice.

They are born evil because they are born evil, and because no actual evil actions are required to be evil, just the attitude.

Just out of morbid curiosity, are you speaking about D&D the game, or are you also spousing that OotS also has Always Evil dragons being born already evil as per the rules you are quoting?

GW

[Mightymosy]

Well then, let's try this again:

---

How was he supposed to know in advance there were dragons living in the cave where the starmetal was?
I'm pretty sure he was capable of speaking Common, actually.
Correct; expecting Roy to allow himself to be killed for an accident seems unreasonable.
And Roy doesn't attack him at that point.

---

So Roy had no reason to think he'd be harming sapient creatures when he went there, no reason to allow himself to be killed once he was there, and didn't continue attacking once there was no reason to. It was a bad situation, certainly; but which part of that, exactly, are you seeing Roy do that he should have done differently?

#182 led me to believe that the dragon is understanding only dragon and lizard, but you're right, later on he speaks in common. But this emphasizes that Roy should have understood that they were clearly killing a sapient being who was living there, even before they found the magazines.

So, to be clear: Roy's actions in the cave were not evil as such, in my eyes. Most of the time he was busy surviving in a fight he wasn't expecting, and couldn't talk himself out of (I'm on the assumption that the dagon didn't speak common until V commanded him to. If the dragon spoke common all the time, then I think I would expect of LG Roy to try to parley).

What I don't like of Roy (in the context of it not being discussed by the deva) is that after he is given clear evidence what he and his team have done, he gives that 0 consideration - in fact the only justification he gives is the dragon's skin color.

So, this means the second part:

As for bragging and culpability-by-proxy....The deva who basically said "you're the party leader, you're partly responsible for Belkar's actions!" is the same deva who basically said "Oh, Belkar doesn't go on murder sprees as often as he used to? Okay!". If she's willing to write off murder sprees as long as they're infrequent, I don't think it's at all surprising that she'd see nothing worth noting in the tone Roy used when answering a paladin's demands, or a single construable-self-defense killing of a teammate under his command (in case of timeline confusion, Familicide happened well after the interview).

So then we are actually in agreement, that the deva's judgment is not one we would share, and that this is telling about the deva?

Also, I think the reasoning the deva gives for Belkar is not that he murders infrequently, but he murders less under Roy's command than he would otherwise - so it's not the frequency, but the reduction of frequency Roy gets off the hook for (not that I would agree with the deva in this regard, but hey, minutiae )

(or my other hypothesis was that Rhich forgot about that and didn't include it therefore?)

[Xyril]

What I don't like of Roy (in the context of it not being discussed by the deva) is that after he is given clear evidence what he and his team have done, he gives that 0 consideration - in fact the only justification he gives is the dragon's skin color.

Could you please post a link to a strip to illustrate what you mean, or perhaps clarify what you mean by rephrasing that?

Are you unhappy because there weren't more strips devoted to Roy reiterating the fact that he understands the dragon was a sentient creature and that he regretted killing it?

From your post, you seem to be referring to his conversation with Miko. And when "the only justification he gives is the dragon's skin color," you're leaving out a lot of important context: Miko was rather condescendingly telling him that he couldn't be sure he didn't in fact kill a good dragon (because, as we would later see, Miko had unwavering faith that her own knowledge and judgment far surpasses everyone else's.)

Roy could have gone into a long spiel recounting the story and pointing out that their actions were largely in self defense, that the dragon kept trying to murder them even after it no longer needed to in order to defend itself or its home, etc. But he didn't, for several reasons. First, narratively it wouldn't have made sense. A long recap would have been a major pause in the pacing, and a bit of a departure from the Giant's style--he largely trusts that we're intelligent enough and interested enough in his story to remember the recent major plot points, so he uses recaps sparingly, usually when there's an interesting reason for the characters to hear events retold.

Second, it would have ruined the joke. Remember, beyond the interesting narrative, this is a comic that lovingly pokes fun at D&D, especially in the early days. The comment about the black dragon was not only a reference to the practice of dragons being color coded for your convenience but perhaps also a jab at a monster manual that sometimes seems to neglect free will when it comes to alignment restrictions.

Finally, it was a good snarky comeback at Miko. Miko believed she was uniquely special until the end, and logic follows that a uniquely special person must be peerless in her abilities and knowledge. She even lampshaded it, literally telling Roy that the ability to tell good from evil creatures was a substantial skill that set her apart from most common adventures. So it was pretty funny when she was confronted with the fact that even a common adventurer knew that "shiny dragons are good, non-shiny dragons are evil."

It also foreshadowed what we would later see as one of Miko's defining traits--while she's pretty firmly Lawful Good in terms of D&D rules lawyering, Good doesn't mean nice, and in Miko's case, it doesn't mean possessing compassion, humility, restraint, or any of the other traits often considered with being "good" in real life. You say that you're disappointed that all Roy said was that the dragon was black, but I believe that the whole point of that exchange was to show that all Miko cared about was the fact that the dragon was black. Because you're right--a truly good person would care whether the dragon was a young sentient being with his own life, largely minding his own business until trouble found him. She would care whether Roy tried to retreat, and tried to give the dragon every chance to retreat, or whether Roy provoked a situation where he could conveniently kill someone in self-defense and then take an item he needed. But Miko didn't. For her, all that was relevant was that black dragons are on the acceptable victim list, and thus killing one isn't an evil act according to the rules.

[factotum]

Just out of morbid curiosity, are you speaking about D&D the game, or are you also spousing that OotS also has Always Evil dragons being born already evil as per the rules you are quoting?

This quote from the Giant is relevant here, I think:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...9#post16152989

Basically, he says that D&D shouldn't *have* rules for baby dragons, any more than they should for baby humans, because it just encourages people to think that killing newborns is A-OK, and he doesn't believe that it is.