Wait a minute, why did the ABD care that V killed her son?

[Corneel]

Aside from the Jaegers fighting on the side of the British, were there Germans involved in that war?

The Prince-Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg.

[zimmerwald1915]

A D&D troll is not usually seen as a Hasbro toy with pink hair...

Speak for yourself, those are my main source of minis

[GrayGriffin]

With dragons, you have medieval tales of monsters to be slain where the dragon is more like a serpent. This has obviously changed over time. You have a range of portrayals in more modern tales, where the dragon is intelligent and potentially helpful like in Earthsea, or bred and domesticated such as the Dragons of Pern.

I wouldn't really say it's "changed over time," so much as other classic versions of dragons have been brought in. You do know that classic Eastern mythology often has dragons as benevolent creatures, right?

[Resileaf]

The Prince-Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg.

Relately, I just realized that I meant 'Hessians', not jaegers.

[Squire Doodad]

I wouldn't really say it's "changed over time," so much as other classic versions of dragons have been brought in. You do know that classic Eastern mythology often has dragons as benevolent creatures, right?

Many non-European mythologies have dragons as being typically benevolent or otherwise majestic creatures, with exceptions of course. Even some of the earlier European mythologies have dragons as creatures known for their might, power and majesty over destructive might. It's sort of a bathtub curve, with "good" dragons being popular early on, continuing to be popular for a considerable amount of time, fading out some time before the Dark Ages, then having a resurgence in the 20th century.

[Knaight]

Many non-European mythologies have dragons as being typically benevolent or otherwise majestic creatures, with exceptions of course. Even some of the earlier European mythologies have dragons as creatures known for their might, power and majesty over destructive might. It's sort of a bathtub curve, with "good" dragons being popular early on, continuing to be popular for a considerable amount of time, fading out some time before the Dark Ages, then having a resurgence in the 20th century.

It's worth noting that there the term "dragon" gets stretched pretty dramatically in translation to make this happen - it's essentially multiple different traditions operating at the same time.

[georgie_leech]

It's worth noting that there the term "dragon" gets stretched pretty dramatically in translation to make this happen - it's essentially multiple different traditions operating at the same time.

Remember, the Tarasque used to be a dragon from the Tarascon region of France.

[Edhelras]

I have good news...It seems Rich agrees with you:

Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
I can't think of anything more boring than a character who always wins and never gets emotionally impacted by anything.

Also, undercutting that so-called "redefinition of evil" is sort of the point. Because it's bull****. It's not a real thing. You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way. If you are the sort of person that can commit the acts that Tarquin does daily, then that will find its way into every aspect of your existence. It's who you are. This idea that Tarquin was this perfectly rational actor despite being a complete monster at his Day Job is a pipe dream. Tarquin wants you (and Elan) to think that what he does is separate from who he is—that he's a fundamentally decent man who just so happens to murder a bunch of people here and there—because that's how he tricks you into slowly accepting his blatant Evil as a valid life choice that needs to be respected. Which it is not.

Some people want to love the villain without having to face the fact that villains are largely terrible people who do horrific things with deficient reasoning. Not on my watch.

This.

It's strange and somewhat frustrating to see how many seem to want "Evil" in DnD to be kind of good, but just a bit naughty or rough. In contrast to real life, DnD is constructed as a game where Evil and Good are absolutes and real things. You may kill innocents when playing DnD, but you cannot do it and go on portraying yourself as the good guy. You may kill innoncents and be kind to orphans and old ladies - but then you are IMHO just a lousy DnD player. You want to play a game of fantasy, with no boundaries - yet you want there to be no boundaries at all. No consequences to your actions. Like nobody notices that you are there. At one moment, you kill a prisoner, gruesomely. At the next, you act like a Samaritan. That kind of behaviour (unless you are playing like an utterly Chaotic, or rather lunatic, character) would be impossible to relate to, for other players and NPCs. Sure, you may do it, but why?

It's a wonder to me why people want to play Evil characters and do Evil things in a game like DnD. It's one thing to be unfettered by the bonds of reality, to be able to be badass or even create a bar brawl for the fun of it. But true Evil acting, it's sad that ordinary people feel drawn to that. DnD enables you first and foremost to enter a make-believe universe where you don't have to think too much about the nuances of morality. You don't have to think about your opponent being at the same time a loving parent or some grandmother's loyal helper, or the owner of a cute cat. You can erase the gray zones and just accept that villains are simply villains.

It's very fine with a comic like OOTS to see that villains, in the context of this comic, may be something more, more fleshed-out and deeper personalities, with a background story explaining how they came to be villains. Also, it's good to see a challenge to the idea that monsters listed as "Evil" are simply that and may be killed without a second thought. However, there is a limit to nuances in DnD, and most importantly, characters themselves should not erode altogether the distinction between Good and Evil.

Unless you want the game to be a boundless psychodrama - should I kill that goblin attacking me, should I not, what about his kids, what about that orc I killed yesterday, there was a moment I really thought I might have build a bond with that mind flayer, etc... - I think you have to accept the premise of players being Good-ish and monsters being Evil-ish, and these two opposites kill each other, in order to be able to proceed through the standard setting of the DnD game. It's a way to keep the game moving.

[martianmister]

You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids.

Problem with this, this describes all evil characters in this strip, from Belkar to Xykon, from Tsukiko to Sabine. They can all switch their evil buttons if they want.

[georgie_leech]

Problem with this, this describes all evil characters in this strip, from Belkar to Xykon, from Tsukiko to Sabine. They can all switch their evil buttons if they want.

When they're not in conflict, at least. Belkar hasn't really had a moment yet where anything that he actually cares about would be affected by his lust for blood or general dickery (pre hippy vision quest he didn't have anyone he actually cared about). Meanwhile with Tarquin, once his pathological need for control and use of brutal punishments went up against his children, he killed the one, and then skewered the other and tried to murder all of his friends. I think the point is that Evil, as far as Rich is concerned, is most exemplified in a willingness to discard those you care about in service to some other goal or priority. It will be interesting to see what happens if Belkar ever faces a genuine choice between being the Sexy Shoeless God of War he loves to be, and Mr. Scruffy.

[Rrmcklin]

Problem with this, this describes all evil characters in this strip, from Belkar to Xykon, from Tsukiko to Sabine. They can all switch their evil buttons if they want.

Don't confuse being affable with not being evil.

[Resileaf]

Don't confuse being affable with not being evil.

One must be able to make the difference between 'Affably evil' and 'Faux affably evil'.

[CriticalFailure]

Both of which are evil at the end of the day.

[Knaight]

At one moment, you kill a prisoner, gruesomely. At the next, you act like a Samaritan. That kind of behaviour (unless you are playing like an utterly Chaotic, or rather lunatic, character) would be impossible to relate to, for other players and NPCs. Sure, you may do it, but why?

The problem is that the entire idea that that sort of behavior doesn't actually exist is entirely false. It is extremely common for people to define other people as either members of an in-group or an out-group, and a lot of very terrible people are terrible because of how they treat their out-group in particular. Some appear to be downright good people if you just look at how they treat their in-group.

[martianmister]

Don't confuse being affable with not being evil.

It's probably the most out of touch with reality strawman I see on this forum. Congratulations.

[Vinyadan]

The problem is that the entire idea that that sort of behavior doesn't actually exist is entirely false. It is extremely common for people to define other people as either members of an in-group or an out-group, and a lot of very terrible people are terrible because of how they treat their out-group in particular. Some appear to be downright good people if you just look at how they treat their in-group.

Yes, that's what I also think. This is why I only talk about the Giant quote in question as a D&D alignment statement. IRL, the "he was a good father" thing is very frequent, and I don't think it's a lie or a disingenuous statement, in most cases.

[Rrmcklin]

It's probably the most out of touch with reality strawman I see on this forum. Congratulations.

In what way is what I said a strawman?

[martianmister]

In what way is what I said a strawman?

Don't confuse being affable with not being evil.

[Riftwolf]

I keep feeling that quote about Evil not being an on/off switch gets misattributed. Rich was specifically talking about the Vector Legion who, to quote Kryten, are mass murdering butchers of a totalitarian state. Tarquin can't switch that off for a day with the kids. It doesn't mean all evil creatures are automatically Tarquin-level evil. ABD was evil, and what she planned to do was definitely evil, but she did so out of revenge, not for spite, stories, personal gain, her God, the lulz or any of the other reasons we've seen evil being done in the comic. Evil can care about other people; Tarquin and Malack, however, weren't just evil, they were monsters.

[CriticalFailure]

Even within the Vector Legion there seems to be a contrast between Tarquin and Laurin wrt parental attitudes. Not that we actually get a look at Laurin’s relationship with her daughter. But the narrative obsession that takes precedent over all else is very Tarquin specific.

[GreatWyrmGold]

When ordinarily most black dragons do not give a damn about their offspring’s wellbeing or survival. Why did she go out of her way to track down Vaarsuvius and come up with that whole revenge plot?

Maybe default chromatic dragons don't care about their offspring, but default goblins don't feel bitter about being treated as low-level XP fodder. OotS treats all sentient creatures like people, and that includes avoiding lazy r-strategist parenting.

[Rrmcklin]

Don't confuse being affable with not being evil.

Repeating my statement back is not an answer. That is not explanation as to how what I said was a strawman. There's no point to discussion if you're not actually going to elaborate on the things you say.

[paladinofshojo]

Maybe default chromatic dragons don't care about their offspring, but default goblins don't feel bitter about being treated as low-level XP fodder.

Actually yes they do, they’re a whole race of angry, short tempered monsters living in tribal bands without any concept of cohabitating peacefully with others who may or may not have been created as a slave race to serve hobgoblins along with bugbears.

Though again, that’s if we’re going on D&D goblins.

[deuterio12]

There was a short 3.5 adventure where the final boss is a big white dragon but before reaching her you need to fight her offspring and the adventure explicitly says she can hear the fighting going on and will not lift a claw to help her progeny, but will still want revenge against the party for killing them.

A simple explanation for that is that sometimes you don't realize how much you care about something until you lose it.

So evil mommy may not care much about her children while they were still kicking around, but when they're dead and gone she realizes she did like having them around, just too late, and revenge against their killers is the only satisfaction she can look for now.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Actually yes they do, they’re a whole race of angry, short tempered monsters living in tribal bands without any concept of cohabitating peacefully with others who may or may not have been created as a slave race to serve hobgoblins along with bugbears.

Though again, that’s if we’re going on D&D goblins.

I'm not seeing that in the Monster Manual. I mean, I see the parts about being angry, short, ill-tempered, and monstrous, I see the part about them being bullied or enslaved by anyone with more power than them, but I don't see anything suggesting that they were made to be hobgoblin slaves, anything connecting that to being low-level XP fodder, or anything suggesting goblins are bitter about their alleged predestined role as slaves or fodder.
The idea that goblins are angry at their place in the world, rather than just being "[m]otivated by greed and malice" with a tendency to "crave power and regularly abuse whatever authority they obtain," is pure OotS...and the story is better for it, because it's core to one of OotS's major themes (something like "Treating people of different races differently is a bad thing with long-lasting consequences").

[martianmister]

Repeating my statement back is not an answer. That is not explanation as to how what I said was a strawman. There's no point to discussion if you're not actually going to elaborate on the things you say.

You ask me about which part of your post is a strawman, and I showed it to you. Let's compare our posts:

Problem with this, this describes all evil characters in this strip, from Belkar to Xykon, from Tsukiko to Sabine. They can all switch their evil buttons if they want.

Don't confuse being affable with not being evil.

You claim that I didn't see them as evil, which is a clear case of strawman to me.

[CriticalFailure]

I think the point is that just because an evil person is not actively committing and evil act doesn’t mean they aren’t evil? They’re still evil when they’re interacting positively with those they like; evil isn’t about how you treat those you personally care about but how you treat everyone.

[Morty]

Actually yes they do, they’re a whole race of angry, short tempered monsters living in tribal bands without any concept of cohabitating peacefully with others who may or may not have been created as a slave race to serve hobgoblins along with bugbears.

Though again, that’s if we’re going on D&D goblins.

Okay. How does that relate to the comic that devotes a not inconsiderable amount of effort to criticizing such portrayals? It's really unclear what you're arguing for or against at this point.

[Oxenstierna]

Speak for yourself, those are my main source of minis

That made me laugh. I can see the session now.

"Okay, the Lego Luke Skywalker is the paladin, the cleric is Optimus Prime. BigSword McDoom the barbarian is Tickle me Elmo and the Pink Trolls are", interruption "Trolls!", continuing "No, they're still the Dark Elf Warband. Finally, the evil sorceress is 'adventure holiday' Barbie. Okay Lego Luke, Barbie just cast a Slinky Spring: roll for your reflex save..."

[Rrmcklin]

You ask me about which part of your post is a strawman, and I showed it to you. Let's compare our posts:



You claim that I didn't see them as evil, which is a clear case of strawman to me.

I claimed no such thing. I was disagreeing with your assertion that they can "turn their evil switch off" presumably because they're capable of having friendly conversations without murdering people, or in Sabine's case, seemed to genuinely love Nale. And since the Giant himself is very aware of the concept of "being evil doesn't mean a character can't be three-dimensional" your usage of all those characters falls flat.

So again, I repeat, that's not what a strawman is.