OOTS #1153 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

Sooo, we just ignore the dead dwarf being carried around on a big magic hand I guess.

Looks like bringing dead bodies to this temple is the usual procedure so it's not particularly unusual. Sigdi was told that Durkon was in trouble so she isn't particularly surpised there's a dead body. They all know they can Raise her so they aren't really concerned either.

[Kish]

Good thing I wasn't talking about banning words, instead i was talking about overhauling our fundamental understanding of morality. You see I was being hyperbolic because obviously we couldn't all just decide to do something beneficial, that would be ridiculous.

Also, my post had a purpose beyond "alignment is bad". It was "alignment is bad and we should stop talking about it". There's a very key difference in communication there.

I feel like we used to agree on stuff more.

Me too. When the subject turns away from the alignment system and the Weirdo, perhaps we will again.

Reflecting on the other principle thing we've disagreed on (albeit briefly) lately, I think it very likely we will when the current female guest star is not...a word you would prefer I didn't use.

(Just because it occurred to me after writing that that it might give entirely the wrong idea, the word in question is a D&D term, has nothing to do with her being female, begins with e, four letters. I can think of at least one reason we agreed more when the spotlight was on Bandana.)

[Rrmcklin]

I can't help but think some people are giving far more leeway to Hilgya's rationalizations than they should. Though I know the comic does alignment jokes and stereotypes, I don't think we're supposed to believe that most people are like Xykon: evil for the sake of it, and reveling in it.

Even Tarquin seemed to genuinely believe that his and Vector Legions oppressive regime is legitimately better for the people than the all out chaos that existed before they came around. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe it to be the case and can rationalize it.

Hilgya is the same - that she has a moral framework and thought process that will enable her to put her desires ahead of Kudzu's safety and well-being and rationalize away that she's doing that doesn't mean that isn't what she's doing, it doesn't make it morally neutral, and it doesn't free her from the moral implications. That she isn't consciously thinking "I don't care what happens to my baby" meant very little for the actual situation.

And regarding how we're apparently talking too much about good and evil.... those are kind of central to the story and world that is The Order of the Stick. If that's not what you, personally, want to talk about fine, but it's ridiculous and presumptuous to talk as if it's not interesting to discuss, or that other people should move away from it just because it's not your fancy. And I stand by this statement even if instead of "good and evil" you say "alignment" because it doesn't actually change the meaning at all.

[The_Weirdo]

Me too. When the subject turns away from the alignment system and the Weirdo, perhaps we will again.

Reflecting on the other principle thing we've disagreed on (albeit briefly) lately, I think it very likely we will when the current female guest star is not...a word you would prefer I didn't use.

(Just because it occurred to me after writing that that it might give entirely the wrong idea, the word in question is a D&D term, has nothing to do with her being female, begins with e, four letters. I can think of at least one reason we agreed more when the spotlight was on Bandana.)

Dude. I was not disagreeing with you there. I was making no statement whatsoever. I was asking a question, and not even a loaded or rhetoric one. Sheesh.

[CriticalFailure]

I don’t see why people make such a big deal about the alignment system. To me it seems like the obvious solution is to come up with a character personality and then make a generalized claim as to where they’d be sorted based on the general traits of the alignments. You don’t have to make your character solely around alignment traits to put them in a category.

[Kish]

Dude. I was not disagreeing with you there. I was making no statement whatsoever. I was asking a question, and not even a loaded or rhetoric one. Sheesh.

Traceback. In the post exchange you're complainin' about, you're a subject, not a participant. The Extinguisher and I agree that there is an activity some people engage in involving you that makes the forum substantially less welcoming, but disagree on whether that activity is sniping at you or normalizing your violent rhetoric.

[Dr.Zero]

Come to think of it, Sigdi may well end up sorta-adopting Hilgya.

Hear me out.

Regardless of what you think Hilgya's alignment is, Sigdi, upon hearing her story will likely see someone that's been all but abandoned by her family. And she might well choose to step in for that very reason; it would not be out of character for Sigdi at all.

And no, I'm not saying Sigdi would be the kind of dysfunctional family Hilgya hates. She might well give Hilgya an example of a much better, not-related-by-blood, family.

Yes, Sigdi will impose some order. And Sigdi will also accommodate Hilgya's CN alignment.

For people who think Hilgya's CE, it'd be a redemption arc. For people who think she's CN, a pretty good ending, and one that makes sense; if there's one thing Sigdi is about, it's knowing that blood bonds don't mean that much.

For one, I won't be comfortable at all with the only powerful high level working[1] adventuring[2] mom we have seen in the comic to be someway "reformed".

An act which pushes an otherwise Lawful Good character to True Neutral is by definition a Chaotic Evil act. No deva is going to say, "You spend way more time in the bathroom than you spent rescuing the helpless, so on balance you're True Neutral." There's no such thing as a strongly neutral act--it's like saying "a zero of a high absolute value." If you're at 500, the number which gets you to 0 is -500, not "0, but a lot of it."

Actually, yes, if you do the average (weighted or not). Which is clearly how alignment should work, else one adventurer could spend 1000 years being TN, then do one single good act and ending up with the same "score" of an adventurer who made that same good act the first day and then died.

In one case that is 0+0+0+0+...+0+1 / 365k, in the other 1 / 1.

About the second point, the "strongly neutral act", if the average is weighted, a neutral act of particular importance (weight) can outweigh whatever was the previous score.

[1] No, in d&d having a tavern doesn't count.
[2] No, V doesn't count, either. For at least a couple of reasons I'm sure anyone can understand by oneself.

[Potatopeelerkin]

I can't help but think some people are giving far more leeway to Hilgya's rationalizations than they should. Though I know the comic does alignment jokes and stereotypes, I don't think we're supposed to believe that most people are like Xykon: evil for the sake of it, and reveling in it.

...Hilgya is the same - that she has a moral framework and thought process that will enable her to put her desires ahead of Kudzu's safety and well-being...

You are right, but there's a difference between a rationalisation and a mistake made for genuine reasons. A rationalisation is when you come up with a reason (consciously or not) that allows you to do what you wanted to do anyway. So for instance, Tarquin may have convinced himself that his rule is for the best for the people too, because it allows him to take control and run an oppressive regime without guilt. Whereas Elan may do stupid things that endanger himself and the party, but he doesn't do them because he doesn't care- he's just not the brightest.

I don't see what Hilgya has to gain from taking Kudzu along, so it wouldn't make much sense for her to provide a false rationalisation. I don't see what suggests her moral framework puts her desires ahead of Kudzu's safety, because she had many alternatives that would have allowed her to follow her desires more easily without having Kudzu hindering her. It seems more likely to me that she just has trust issues, like Ian.

[Rrmcklin]

For one, I won't be comfortable at all with the only powerful high level working[1] adventuring[2] mom we have seen in the comic to be someway "reformed".

I mean, I'm not comfortable glossing over how and why she makes a terrible mother, but unfortunately I feel the story will do so, in order to justify a "compromise" with Durkon on parenting. We all can't have everything.

Actually, yes, if you do the average (weighted or not). Which is clearly how alignment should work, else one adventurer could spend 1000 years being TN, then do one single good act and ending up with the same "score" of an adventurer who made that same good act the first day and then died.

In one case that is 0+0+0+0+...+0+1 / 365k, in the other 1 / 1.

About the second point, the "strongly neutral act", if the average is weighted, a neutral act of particular importance (weight) can outweigh whatever was the previous score.

[1] No, in d&d having a tavern doesn't count.
[2] No, V doesn't count, either. For at least a couple of reasons I'm sure anyone can understand by oneself.

How in the world in the world has this person been adventuring for a thousand years without doing any good acts and still TN?

You are right, but there's a difference between a rationalisation and a mistake made for genuine reasons. A rationalisation is when you come up with a reason (consciously or not) that allows you to do what you wanted to do anyway. So for instance, Tarquin may have convinced himself that his rule is for the best for the people too, because it allows him to take control and run an oppressive regime without guilt. Whereas Elan may do stupid things that endanger himself and the party, but he doesn't do them because he doesn't care- he's just not the brightest.

I don't see what Hilgya has to gain from taking Kudzu along, so it wouldn't make much sense for her to provide a false rationalisation. I don't see what suggests her moral framework puts her desires ahead of Kudzu's safety, because she had many alternatives that would have allowed her to follow her desires more easily without having Kudzu hindering her. It seems more likely to me that she just has trust issues, like Ian.

She gains not having someone else telling her what to do by taking Kudzu along. People have continuously argued that she brought him in the first place because she had no other options if she wanted to go, in case, the obvious choice is to not go. Yet she clearly did, probably by rationalizing "I can easily beat Durkon, so Kudzu won't be in any danger anyway" or something of that nature.

Then, when she arrived and found out about the vampires, she chose to go fighting them still with him strapped to her because she didn't like the idea of handing over - again, rationalizing "he's safer directly facing the vampires with me, than he would be with other adults away from the vampire."

I'm not even arguing that Hilgya doesn't love Kudzu, but it's a selfish love - he's a possession to her. Right now he's incapable of meaningfully defying her, but when he is I do not expect her to react any better to it than Tarquin did, at least not as she is now.

[Dr.Zero]

How in the world in the world has this person been adventuring for a thousand years without doing any good acts and still TN?

Doing always TN acts, I suppose.
But if you think that to be impossible, just substitute 0+0+...+0+1 with (+1-1)+(+k-k)+....+1=1
The point is anyway that is not the sum the important, but the average.

[Anitar]

How in the world in the world has this person been adventuring for a thousand years without doing any good acts and still TN?

By not doing any evil acts either.

[Potatopeelerkin]

She gains not having someone else telling her what to do by taking Kudzu along. People have continuously argued that she brought him in the first place because she had no other options if she wanted to go, in case, the obvious choice is to not go. Yet she clearly did, probably by rationalizing "I can easily beat Durkon, so Kudzu won't be in any danger anyway" or something of that nature.

Then, when she arrived and found out about the vampires, she chose to go fighting them still with him strapped to her because she didn't like the idea of handing over - again, rationalizing "he's safer directly facing the vampires with me, than he would be with other adults away from the vampire."

I'm not even arguing that Hilgya doesn't love Kudzu, but it's a selfish love - he's a possession to her. Right now he's incapable of meaningfully defying her, but when he is I do not expect her to react any better to it than Tarquin did, at least not as she is now.

I can see what you mean, and you make some good points. I think by this point it comes down to our interpretation of the characters rather than what's confirmed as canon. So I don't think there's any textual evidence I can use to convince you that yours is wrong, but I also don't think there's any you could use to convince me, either (unless you've been saving something up).

I will mention though that there are a lot of emotions involved in handing your very young child over to someone else, and not all of them are rational. Add that to bad experiences with childcare services in the past, and I get why someone would be very reluctant to let their child out of their sight and make poor decisions.

By not doing any evil acts either.

Short of hiding under a rock your whole life, avoiding both good and evil acts sounds very difficult.

[Fyraltari]

How in the world in the world has this person been adventuring for a thousand years without doing any good acts and still TN?

By not doing any evil acts either.

Most boring adventurer ever.

[Shining Wrath]

Anyone whose favorite OOTS NPC isn't Sigdi is a bad wrong person who probably sucks at D&D. So let it be written; so let it be recorded.

[LadyEowyn]

Not to get too caught up in the examples brought up because thats a trap, but i think I'm even more extreme here than you. I dont think laws can be good, even in principle.

Does this mean you think all laws are bad, or that you think laws are basically Neutral (with some specific laws being bad)? Are you thinking of every law a government could pass, or only of criminal law? I’d like to get a clearer sense of your thinking on this.

I can think of laws I think are good. Thinking just of my country: the laws that established our public health care system, the laws creating employment insurance, the laws creating public pension plans and (to go a bit further back in history) the laws establishing free public schools for all. A question for both you and zimmerwald: would you consider these laws good, and if not, why not?

(If this is something we’re not allowed to discuss on the forums, we can take it to PM, but there seems to have been pretty broad leeway for sociopolitcal and philosophical discussion here lately.)

[Rrmcklin]

Doing always TN acts, I suppose.
But if you think that to be impossible, just substitute 0+0+...+0+1 with (+1-1)+(+k-k)+....+1=1
The point is anyway that is not the sum the important, but the average.

By not doing any evil acts either.

Perhaps a better way would be how in the world and Adventurer could only ever do morally neutral things for a thousand years, but it also doesn't really matter.

[Seward]

Lack of sufficiently powerful nativist lobbies.

Yeah. In CA we beat back an "english only" proposition every few years. <scrubbed reason why to avoid accidently mixing in real world politics<

[Rrmcklin]

Does this mean you think all laws are bad, or that you think laws are basically Neutral (with some specific laws being bad)? Are you thinking of every law a government could pass, or only of criminal law? I’d like to get a clearer sense of your thinking on this.

I can think of laws I think are good. Thinking just of my country: the laws that established our public health care system, the laws creating employment insurance, the laws creating public pension plans and (to go a bit further back in history) the laws establishing free public schools for all. A question for both you and zimmerwald: would you consider these laws good, and if not, why not?

(If this is something we’re not allowed to discuss on the forums, we can take it to PM, but there seems to have been pretty broad leeway for sociopolitcal and philosophical discussion here lately.)

This obviously wasn't addressed towards me, but I still want to answer it. I think that it's absolutely possible for a law to have no good usage and only be bad, but unfortunately the opposite isn't the case.

That being said, I think whether most laws are good or bad just depends on how they're enforced. A law could be drafted with the best of intentions and in the right hands do a lot of good, but if someone really wants to screw people over, they probably can.

[Seward]

Fine, then. We also learned to deep fry oreos. WHAT NOW, JAPAN?

psssst! Especially in humor, the US Deep South is not renowned for its grandeur.

When I visited Oklahoma I had deep fried twinkies.

I'm pretty sure US cusine can top anybody in the deep fried department.

[Potatopeelerkin]

This obviously wasn't addressed towards me, but I still want to answer it. I think that it's absolutely possible for a law to have no good usage and only be bad, but unfortunately the opposite isn't the case.

That being said, I think whether most laws are good or bad just depends on how they're enforced. A law could be drafted with the best of intentions and in the right hands do a lot of good, but if someone really wants to screw people over, they probably can.

I dunno. I don't see how, say, public healthcare, laws ensuring the votes of minorities, or minimum wage laws could be used for evil.

[Keltest]

When I visited Oklahoma I had deep fried twinkies.

I'm pretty sure US cusine can top anybody in the deep fried department.

I think the Scots will win that particular battle, if they ever feel so inclined to prove it.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah. In CA we beat back an "english only" proposition every few years. <scrubbed reason why to avoid accidently mixing in real world politics<

What is "CA"?

When I visited Oklahoma I had deep fried twinkies.

I'm pretty sure US cusine can top anybody in the deep fried department.

"Your [cooks] were so preoccupied with wether or no they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should."

[Seward]

Would other people with actual D&D experience normally consider abandoning Elan (i.e. refusing to risk his own life to save someone else) an Evil act? I'd peg it as strongly Neutral on both axes, which is why the Deva reckoned it would be enough to put Roy in the TN bin, but again, I have very little D&D experience.

I'm with the deva. It's a selfish neutral act, maybe a bit chaotic too.

A lot depends on how risky the act is.

Dropping Elan from a height that would kill him is an evil act because you aren't at risk.

Not leaning way out on a cliff where you might fall off to try to grab his hand falls more in the selfish neutral camp. Especially if, say, you are size small and rescuing him that way is also fairly unlikely.

The bandits had beaten Roy's team once. Seeing trying to save Elan as essentially just getting the whole team captured is basically selfish neutral.

Had they been level 15 where any two of them could have easily cleaned up the entire camp, maybe an evil act.

[Erys]

I dunno. I don't see how, say, public healthcare, laws ensuring the votes of minorities, or minimum wage laws could be used for evil.

A healthcare law could have caveats for forcing medications. (Especially dangerous when a medical industry runs the boards that are supposed to protect people from malpractice/negligence).
Laws 'ensuring' voting could also create databases for tracking, and should a party become dictatorial, voting rolls could be used to identify dissent.
Minimum wage increases easily create more poor people (if you made 15/hour before, you don't get a wage increase, you are now at the new minimum as prices raise accordingly.

Virtually every law can be used for evil.

[Seward]

What is "CA"?

State of California in the USA. We have strong feelings about using language to exclude people.

[Seward]

"Your [cooks] were so preoccupied with wether or no they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should."

What the deep fried twinkie reminded me of more than anything is the Thai deep fried bananas. Similar texture but sweeter.

Order with coffee or a similar bitter drink if you feel the need to risk your arteries for novelty as I did.

[Aveline]

What is "CA"?

The state of California.

[Erys]

State of California in the USA. We have strong feelings about using language to exclude people.

Unified language is a means to have a people feel united. When large chunks of a city/State/Country cannot communicate with each other it can create environments of fear and intimidation. As well as sow seeds of division, doubt and hate.

I think it would be much more honorable to provide those who speak foreign languages the ability to learn the language of the land, than any alternative.

[Seward]

Unified language is a means to have a people feel united. When large chunks of a city/State/Country cannot communicate with each other it can create environments of fear and intimidation. As well as sow seeds of division, doubt and hate.

I think it would be much more honorable to provide those who speak foreign languages the ability to learn the language of the land, than any alternative.

The way the "english only" initiatives were written, the effect would be to prevent access to education and other resources that they're entitled to by law.

The way immigrants often actually work in the USA is that the first generation starts with no english or little english and may never learn very much at first if they settle in areas that mostly speak their language. Then their kids go to public school and rapidly learn english, usually then causing the earlier generation to get better at it, enough to get by.

But if you have english as a second language, can you really read something like a "voter information form" with the nuance necessary? Some can, many can't. Ditto how do you expect their kids to enroll in the public schools if the parents can't navigate the bureaucratic forms needed to allow them to join? Modern students can't just show up without explanation.

CA is a place that gets a lot of immigrants. It has a lot of jobs and an excellent climate. A significant portion of the adult population are not native english speakers.

[The_Weirdo]

Traceback. In the post exchange you're complainin' about, you're a subject, not a participant. The Extinguisher and I agree that there is an activity some people engage in involving you that makes the forum substantially less welcoming, but disagree on whether that activity is sniping at you or normalizing your violent rhetoric.

Maybe it's hemming and hawwing about whether or not forcing a woman to marry at the point of a weapon is acceptable? Or whether or not she must have done something? Because, you see, I'm not feeling unwelcome by your sniping (not the least of it because it needs work and gravitas). I have yet to see someone saying they feel unwelcome by my rhetoric. Repulsed, horrified, sure, but not unwelcome, as in feeling like a socially acceptable target or second-class person. But I did, as a matter of fact, see quite a few women here outright saying they feel unwelcome by the phenomenon I just described.

So mayhaps we should start there?