OOTS #1149 - The Discussion Thread

[zimmerwald1915]

More dangerous than the man with an entire evil empire at his beck-and-call that regularly executes dissidents? Tarquin is an excellent manipulator, has an entire party of high-level allies and very impressive fighting skills of his own as well. He got very close to wiping out the entire Order except Elan. Hilgya, for all her strength in clerical magic, is still only a single high-level unit who isn't nearly as sly as Tarquin is.

Personally, I'm not prepared to call her as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil until we see a little more. Because most of the things Hilgya has done that everyone's condemning her for, the main cast has done too. The only real difference is that Hilgya did them to PCs.

You can't really aggregate the "main cast" like that, when it includes hostory's worst mass-murderer and a man comparable in evil to the spawn of Cruella deVil and Sauron. Stick to the humans and Durkon; Haley alone provides enough cold-blooded murder fodder, and she's supposed to be Good.

[hamishspence]

Personally, I'm not prepared to call her as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil until we see a little more. Because most of the things Hilgya has done that everyone's condemning her for, the main cast has done too.

Like? Aside from Belkar, that is, who is specifically called out by The Giant as CE.

V's actions are also portrayed as extremely evil even if V is Neutral at the moment.

Haley alone provides enough cold-blooded murder fodder, and she's supposed to be Good.

The only killing done by Haley that came across as Murder at the time, turned out to be in response to a series of attempted murders, as far as I recall.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Personally, I'm not prepared to call her as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil until we see a little more. Because most of the things Hilgya has done that everyone's condemning her for, the main cast has done too. The only real difference is that Hilgya did them to PCs.

I must have forgotten when the OotS got rich by robbing an entire clan -children and all- causing them to become homeless.

Or when the OotS seriously planned to kill an entire clan via flame -children and all- but changed their mind only because the smoke might hurt them.

Or when V tried to murder their spouse so as to not have to face a divorce.

Yeah, I seem to have missed a lot of the comic.

Oh, wait, it's Potatopeelerkin, who has wondered in here from reading some other comic and gets them confused a lot.

Grey Wolf

[greenfunkman]

I'm always amused by the tendancy on this thread to attack or defend characters like they are real people.

It's a humorous webcomic about a self aware stick figure d&d universe, where the rules of physics and morality are different to our own. As some of you pedants have reminded me today, it's not d&d - so why try to shoehorn the characters into d&d ethics?

Today's strip is a joke based on 'never underestimate the fury of a woman scorned'. Pretty funny if you ask me. Mrs Greenfunkman and I had a good chuckle over it.

[zimmerwald1915]

I must have forgotten when the OotS got rich by robbing an entire clan -children and all- causing them to become homeless.

Wooden Forest. Only there, they murdered the child rather than leave it destitute (even if Vaarsuvius did the deed, the whole Order was prepared to kill that dragon).

Or when the OotS seriously planned to kill an entire clan via flame -children and all- but changed their mind only because the smoke might hurt them.

Wooden Forest again. Only without changing their minds.

Or when V tried to murder their spouse so as to not have to face a divorce.

She may have seriously considered it in the fourth panel

But as I said above, that's almost all Vaarsuvius. Haley's about as rich a well of robbery (though not of children - and to be frank, my heart bleeds as little for Grubwiggler as it does for the Firehelms) and murder (of Crystal - likewise).

[Potatopeelerkin]

Like? Aside from Belkar, that is, who is specifically called out by The Giant as CE.

V's actions are also portrayed as extremely evil even if V is Neutral at the moment.

The only killing done by Haley that came across as Murder at the time, turned out to be in response to a series of attempted murders, as far as I recall.

Haley murdered a whole bunch of people in Greysky City. Some more justified than others.
Roy wanted to attack and wipe out a party of ogres while they were distracted, without giving any chance for diplomacy.
The entire party has killed scores of goblins, hobgoblins, monsters, etc with little regard as to how much of a threat they were at the time. Roy wiped out a room full of goblins that Vaarsuvius put to sleep and were harmless. Compare their behaviour to, say, O-Chuls in GDGU.

In real life, even in combat, soldiers generally do understand that war is horrible. That's why people have such adverse reactions to it. And it's why most new fighters don't even aim at the enemy. The fact that none of the party shows any regret or even questions it should be an indication of evil (or psychopathy) by real-life standards. Even when killing is necessary you should still understand that killing is terrible.

Ultimately, that's just the nature of the fantasy setting. Rich can only comment on it if it exists in the first place. But the same rules apply to Hilgya too. It's not fair to hold Hilgya to the standards of a real-life person and not the rest of the cast.

-snip-

You'll have to excuse me if I don't respond to you at all, because every time I do you're unpleasant and condescending enough to make me regret it. I can see that this time you're not planning on acting any differently, so I'm just going to skip all your comments.

[hamishspence]

I'm always amused by the tendancy on this thread to attack or defend characters like they are real people.

It's a humorous webcomic about a self aware stick figure d&d universe, where the rules of physics and morality are different to our own. As some of you pedants have reminded me today, it's not d&d - so why try to shoehorn the characters into d&d ethics?

The story has been "taking a more moral stance" for a while:

On the story taking a more moral stance Two reasons from the author.

#931

2013/11/19

Haley murdered a whole bunch of people in Greysky City. Some more justified than others.

Self-defence, generally speaking - not murder.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wooden Forest. Only there, they murdered the child rather than leave it destitute (even if Vaarsuvius did the deed, the whole Order was prepared to kill that dragon).

Teenager, not child. While the murder of that dragon in his own cave was quite problematic, it was a) unplanned, which as you know counts for a lot and 2) after the dragon had proven quite deadly. Dwarven babies fail to be deadly except as blunt weapons, and of course there is the premeditation bit.

I'd also argue that one individual is not equivalent to a whole clan worth of individuals. Yes, yes, men are not potatoes, I agree, but the breadth of murders Hilgya happily plans for must be considered as an issue in its own right.

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

Which is why, I believe, Durkon felt he had to say his piece. He knew she was about to kill him again - he practically said as much two comics back - so it was his chance. Letting her go "Durkon, you bastard, I hate you, Flame Strike!" would mean having to come back, say his piece, then get murdered a second time, for a total loss of three levels. His way was rude, yes, but better overall, in his calculation.

Grey Wolf

Perhaps.

The flaw in your calculation, I believe, is the idea that the Order will simply stand by while she does the same thing again. I fully expect the rest of the Order to be on guard against shenanigans the second time around. The second time, I would expect Vaarsuvius to be prepared to counterspell flame strike, which would be followed by an immediate attack by the Order's melee heavy hitters.

So I think Durkon would be down a max of two negative levels max.

Which doesn't mean you're *wrong*. I can't even begin to speculate what would have happened if things were other than what they were. That's in the mind of Rich Burlew, and unless he wants to tell us what would have happened if everyone had involved made other choices, I suppose we will never know.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The flaw in your calculation, I believe, is the idea that the Order will simply stand by while she does the same thing again. I fully expect the rest of the Order to be on guard against shenanigans the second time around. The second time, I would expect Vaarsuvius to be prepared to counterspell flame strike, which would be followed by an immediate attack by the Order's melee heavy hitters.

Again, you are basing this on what actually happened. I'm talking about Durkon's perspective and plans. He knows Hilgya is about to raise him. He knows that, last he saw them, the order was all down for the count except Belkar. He cannot count on the order being there. He gets resurrected, he says his piece, and takes his lumps. He might not have had the attention to see if the order had been healed before he had been resurrected.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

2) after the dragon had proven quite deadly. Dwarven babies fail to be deadly except as blunt weapons

Setting aside the occasional epic lich shapechanged into dwarf baby for lulz, of course.

I'd also argue that one individual is not equivalent to a whole clan worth of individuals. Yes, yes, men are not potatoes, I agree, but the breadth of murders Hilgya happily plans for must be considered as an issue in its own right.

Yes, what Hilgya planned was a genocide in the most literal sense - the destruction of a gens. Something we've certainly never seen from our heroes. Even setting aside Vaarsuvius, Haley and Belkar harbored vague plans of ousting the hobgoblins from Azure City.

[Dr.Zero]

21 pages in one day.
I came straight to the last one to see if all the fuss was about Hylgia's alignment.
I was not disappointed.

[zimmerwald1915]

He might not have had the attention to see if the order had been healed before he had been resurrected.

Grey Wolf

Come off it. He had thirteen panels worth of time and a Spot of at least +6.

[hamishspence]

Haley and Belkar harbored vague plans of ousting the hobgoblins from Azure City.

Yup - because they're invaders. Even Hinjo and O-Chul - the "most good" paladins we've seen in the strip so far, want Azure City "freed" from its current rulers:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Come off it. He had thirteen panels worth of time and a Spot of at least +6.

Yeah, but by that point he had already interrupted her. The subject of discussion with Pendell is whether he should or should have not let her talk first. Once he had his word in edgewise*, it was a case of in for a penny, in for a pound.

ETA:

Haley and Belkar harbored vague plans of ousting the hobgoblins from Azure City.

"Ousting" is not the same as "genocide". Ousting means expelling them from the city, not killing them all.

Grey Wolf

*I always feel that should be "edgeways" - I'm guessing that's a common mistake even amongst English speakers?

[zimmerwald1915]

*I always feel that should be "edgeways" - I'm guessing that's a common mistake even amongst English speakers?

I've never seen it.

[greenfunkman]

The story has been "taking a more moral stance" for a while

And it's marvelous - one of my favourite things about this strip. The rules in oots-verse aren't our rules, however. This strip touches on how a 'true death' would change things:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html

[diplomancer]

about the dragon, I have a question: Did anyone, at the moment that the dragon was killed, protest that the killing was unethical?

I ask that because Rich is a very skilled writer, who had written the scene in a way that would not raise a moral outcry (at least not from most D&D players), but that, once reviewed in light of the later Vaarsuvius x Mama Dragon confrontation, would be seen as problematic. It was a retorical masterstroke by Rich, and I suppose made many D&D players think better about the morality of dragonslaying.

This situation is entirely different, and if you don't see that, you are at least as nonchalant about female on male violence than the average D&D players is about dragonslaying... with the aggravant that there are no dragons to kill in our world, but partner-to-partner violence is regretably common.


as to whether Hilgya is more dangerous than Tarquin. Tarquin spent several rounds, with the aid of an army and 2 of his colleagues, trying to kill the order, and he failed to kill ONE, at the end of an adventuring day. Hilgya one-shotted a full HP Durkon

[KorvinStarmast]

... Hilgya HAD to kill him.

I mean, at least once. If she doesn't, she doesn't fulfill her mission. (When she joined the group a few comics ago I thought she specifically said her mission was to slay Durkon.) And if she doesn't fulfill her mission (i.e. kill Durkon before she dies) then she dies dishonorably and goes to Hel. Right? It'd explain why she had multiple diamonds on her.

Plausible.

Not the end of the world.

That is Roy's current mission.

We can argue about Hilgya's alignment or whatever without having to excuse forced marriage. She can be bad and have had bad things happen to her.

Not sure who is excusing forced marriage, but your second point I agree with.

Thor: "Bro, can't you tell her that if she keeps develing Durkon then there goes our main hope of saving her world?"
Loki: "Hey, if I get in her way now she'll probably just switch gods."

Chuckled, I did.

The last time this came up exactly ONE matriarchal culture was mentioned.

Did that include the Mosuo in China?

My interpretations: Hilgya is impressed by Durkon's speech in spite of herself, but it also makes her angry, because she's been thinking about exactly what she's going to say to him for months. He ruined her big moment by apologizing so perfectly. (Like Belkar says, it really takes the the fun out of rubbing it in his face.) She's also been fantasizing about killing him for that long. She can't let go of that fantasy, so she just does it. She might be perfectly prepared to forgive him afterward, now that she's made her point.

Given her chaotic nature, that is a possible outcome. Not betting on it, based on her pulling Kudzu's hand away from Durkon. There's some strong negative feeling going on there ...

Belkar is furious because he cares about Durkon. What a huge character moment!

Yep.

Aaaaaaaaaanyways, we can all agree that Hilgya's being a jerk for wasting diamonds, right?

They are her diamonds, and she seems to be more selfish than team player, in terms of what we've seen "on screen."

Speaking as someone who has a baby, Prestidigitation is the ultimate spell for baby caretakers. Cleans, colors, flavors, warms, that's the baby spell right there.

Yep.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And it's marvelous - one of my favourite things about this strip. The rules in oots-verse aren't our rules, however. This strip touches on how a 'true death' would change things:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html

...

And their conclusion is that "there would be less war".

So clearly, they are wrong about their analysis.

More broadly, Rich has been quite clear that he is using the comic to discuss real issues. But also that he is at the same time shining a light on the D&D alignment system.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

...

And their conclusion is that "there would be less war".

So clearly, they are wrong about their analysis.

Unless you believe Steven Pinker.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Did that include the Mosuo in China?

No, it was Native American. I think it might have been the Iroquois, but I'd have to google my own post from that thread to be sure.

ETA: Thinking about it, I suspect that patri/matriarchy is strongly correlated with arranged marriages - nothing more pater(mater)nalistic that telling your children who they can marry - so I'd guess that any society that is strongly based on head-of-family authority will have arranged marriages, at least at the political top. But I am no anthropologist.

Grey Wolf

[Potatopeelerkin]

The story has been "taking a more moral stance" for a while

I always felt that the comic was doing this in an exaggerated way- taking a more moral stance doesn't mean making it equivalent to real life, only that good and bad is well-outlined. It can be easier to talk about racism or whatever by turning snide comments and lack of respect into a full-blown goblins-vs-humans war, for instance. Or for another example, Tarquin may be a genocidal maniac, but ultimately many of the moralistic messages from that arc are directed at real people who aren't genocidal maniacs.

So things are taken to extremes to make a point, essentially.

I hope I'm being clear. It's difficult to describe. I have a feeling I'm not, though.

I also do not feel that Rich would make a joke out of something he was deliberately trying to send a moralistic message on, and he usually does make it dead obvious who's in the wrong and who's in the right.

With regards to the OOTS themselves:

If we restrict ourselves to newer comics (BRiTF-onwards) for the Order's ethics only it's a little difficult to argue about because the only opponents we've seen the Order come up against are Tarquin's cronies, the frost giants, Crystal and the vampires, none of which make for good ethical arguments. There's been no one like the bandits or the goblins where taking a nonviolent approach is really feasible. So I doubt it's possible for either of us to convince each other using those. There's just not enough evidence.

But I would still bring up that none of them showed any concern for the fact that they killed hundreds of members of Tarquin's army, many of whom likely didn't want to be there. It was necessary, but if it were real life it would still be tragic. So it's clear there's still a gap between OOTS morality and real life morality.

Wow, I typed way too many words for a reply to one sentence.

[Verappo]

The story has been "taking a more moral stance" for a while:
.

I think the moral stance only works insofar as it relates to reality and actual issues though. Resurrection doesn't exist, and in this specific instance doesn't appear to be some kind of metaphor for domestic abuse or what have you, so it has very few connotations for us, the readers.

Hilgya's side of the story on the other hand does have real life equivalents, which is (I think) why that viewpoint is given prominence in this specific strip. That's the moral stance that is put forward: Durkon should have been more thoughtful and has more to learn.

And also Hilgya is evil. Which is used as an explanation for what in real life would be a disproportionate retribution. But this is a web comic and not real so the action can be used as a signifier for the kind of frustration a woman might feel when on the receiving end of a proposal they find invasive and unnecessary (and possibly a reminder of previous trauma).

To me, the comic only matters for what it can tell us about ourselves. Durkon isn't going to be offended that I wasn't outraged at Hilgya's murder. Durkon isn't real.

[Rinazina]

I'm quite disappointed. I was. I found ways to be less disappointed.

first: On Durkon's monologue. really? f*ck you and your marriage tokenization! Really you want to change Hilgya? oh gosh, you deserve to be dumped a couple of times before understand how to be in a relationship.

Probably that was the meaning of the monologue: remind us the entire future of the reality rely on a socially inept mainstream priest :P

second: On the one single hit killing. I hope being killed in that way would at least make to him expend 10 minutes at HEL's and get some meaningful insights and/or deserved punishment.

[zimmerwald1915]

This situation is entirely different, and if you don't see that, you are at least as nonchalant about female on male violence than the average D&D players is about dragonslaying... with the aggravant that there are no dragons to kill in our world, but partner-to-partner violence is regretably common.

Oh, I dunno, getting especially exercised about female-on-male violence today is akin to participating in the three thousand or so years of uninterrupted condoning of male-on-female violence and worse.

as to whether Hilgya is more dangerous than Tarquin. Tarquin spent several rounds, with the aid of an army and 2 of his colleagues, trying to kill the order, and he failed to kill ONE, at the end of an adventuring day. Hilgya one-shotted a full HP Durkon

By the same token, Durkon failed to hold Tarquin, but managed to easily dominate Hilgya. Nova capacity is not the sole criterion for danger.

[Dr.Zero]

Hopefully this will put any question about her alignment to rest.

Of course. She swore to kill him and she kept her word. This makes her definitely lawful!
(Ah, I could not resist!)
(No, don't explain me that she summoned chaotic giraffes and used chaotic spells, I'm well aware.)
(Oh, and yes. I still place her Chaotic Neutral. True jerkassery? Killing and then plane shifting!)

[Potatopeelerkin]

-snip-

Great, and then this guy comes along and makes a stronger, clearer argument than me in half as many words. Screw you, and thank you.

Listen to Verappo instead of me. What he's arguing is very similar to what I meant (even if not exactly what I said) and he's clearly much better at articulating it than I am.

Oh, I dunno, getting especially exercised about female-on-male violence today is akin to participating in the three thousand or so years of uninterrupted condoning of male-on-female violence and worse.

Domestic violence is not a gender war. We can try to fix both at once.

Saying female-on-male violence is a problem doesn't mean male-on-female isn't either. And vice versa.

[KorvinStarmast]

Loki: *smirks* "You didn't complain when the Flame Strike one-shotted the high level dwarf cleric. Take with one hand, give with the other." *looks over his shoulder* "Isn't that right, brother?"

Thor: *rolls eyes in annoyance* "Yes, brother--you are the best at the long con in all of creation. Let's just hope that the crazy lady doesn't incinerate him again before the job is done."

Chuckle.

Yay! Partner abuse is the best kind of funny! ~not even linking TV Tropes on this one~

I get your point, but I never got the idea that Durkon and Hilgya were partners. One night stand, and then a tearful break up. Partners?

In-universe "that someone murdered will be resurrected tomorrow" doesn't actually mean that the murder change gets reduced. The guard Belkar murdered was supposed to be raised, with Belkar's share of treasure being earmarked to pay for that raising:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html

but the charge of Murder was still kept.

Fair Pointg.

So now we can clearly see Durkon's lack of relationship experience :-)

If your girl is starting to shout at you, let her vent if off FIRST.

True.

No, it was Native American. I think it might have been the Iroquois, but I'd have to google my own post from that thread to be sure.

ETA: Thinking about it, I suspect that patri/matriarchy is strongly correlated with arranged marriages - nothing more pater(mater)nalistic that telling your children who they can marry - so I'd guess that any society that is strongly based on head-of-family authority will have arranged marriages, at least at the political top.

Makes sense, also not an anthropologist.

[Verappo]

Great, and then this guy comes along and makes a stronger, clearer argument than me in half as many words. Screw you, and thank you.

Listen to Verappo instead of me. What he's arguing is very similar to what I meant (even if not exactly what I said) and he's clearly much better at articulating it than I am.

Oh gosh, I was about to edit my own comment quoting your last sentence and adding something like "you and me both buddy". Thank you and also good job on your typing speed, you beat me to it