OOTS #1121 - The Discussion Thread

[hamishspence]

On his first day as a cleric, he looks at the list of rich donors. Something tells me that someone related to Durkon is on that list, maybe a leader from a clan, maybe someone who could have helped her mother, maybe both. It could even be Durkon´s own father.

Now's probably a good time to point out that one of those names is in fact:

Spoiler

Show

Sigdi Thundershield.

The one above it is Shirra Copperbottom, which may be Sigdi's friend.

Here's the font.

What strip is this? I tried looking but I didn't have any luck finding it.

1112 has the Wall of Very Rich Donors:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1112.html

[danielxcutter]

Sigdi is Durkon's mom's name, right?

[factotum]

Sigdi is Durkon's mom's name, right?

Yes, so if she appears on the Wall of Very Rich Donors despite apparently living in near-destitution, something is off. Could be she just gives *all* her money to the church and doesn't keep any for herself, though...

[SlashDash]

Damn... Never considered it might have plot relavant stuff on that wall.

I just assumed that it would be the top KS donors and \ or maybe a couple of notable forum members like Wrecan (RIP)

Never considered it would be actual plot related secrets in a hidden gem. I am continued to be amazed and how much effort is given to the smaller details in this strip.

[VincentvB]

How does she hold that bowl with only one arm?

[zimmerwald1915]

Ma, if'n ye gave so much money to the Church over the years, how came ye've not asked for a Restoration spell? Yer donations would've more'n cover'd it.

[happycrow]

Ma, if'n ye gave so much money to the Church over the years, how came ye've not asked for a Restoration spell? Yer donations would've more'n cover'd it.

Yuuuuup. No incoming feels to this one......

[hamishspence]

Ma, if'n ye gave so much money to the Church over the years, how came ye've not asked for a Restoration spell? Yer donations would've more'n cover'd it.

Only the High Priest of Odin had the ability to cast the spell, at least at the time:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0983.html

plus, the point of donations is that they're donations - not debts that can be repaid.

[Shining Wrath]

Without getting into a big argument about this again, I'll point out that "the vampire is lying about everything" isn't something that should be assumed because he's not saying these things just for Durkon's sake; it's for the audiences sake. If we're not supposed to trust what he says about vampirism it greatly detracts from the situation.

And, even if you'd say he would lie to Durkon, he certainly wouldn't lie to Hel. Going "he's evil, so of course he's lying" doesn't automatically follow. Durkon has been struggling almost this entire time, if he had the power to actually do anything (besides showing memories) it would have been made apparent by now.

I think Durkula would definitely lie to Durkon.

What I don't think (and what I think would be bad writing) is that Durkula would lie when there's no character to deceive. That would be explicitly trying to fool the audience. I agree he wouldn't lie to Hel.

I wish I had a good guess for where the story in Durkon's memory is going. Of the guesses I've heard so far, I'd bet most likely on Durkon learning something about the gods that Durkula didn't know, which could cause a change of plans, especially if Durkula takes the wrong key information from the memory. (Durkon learns something that causes Durkula to flee and join the Exarch is intriguing, but I'm not sure why Durkon would be motivated to get Durkula to flee given that the Order seems to have the advantage here. The thing about his dad is plausible, though we have so little to go on there that it's hard to say what or how.)

I propose a syllogism.
Major Premise: Durkon can, to some degree however slight, impact Durkon^T's actions and thoughts by showing him memories.
Minor Premise: Durkon^T is strongly motivated to not let Durkon know that.
Conclusion: On this one particular topic, Durkon^T may very well be lying to Durkon, even if that results in deceiving the audience as to the nature of the vampire - host relationship.

In other words, we should not count all scenes "behind the eyes" as bardic exposition for our benefit. Somewhere, Elan frowns.

[zimmerwald1915]

Only the High Priest of Odin had the ability to cast the spell, at least at the time:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0983.html

plus, the point of donations is that they're donations - not debts that can be repaid.

If'n ye must nitpick. . .

Why dinnae ye give yer money to the Church o'Odin, then? And as a payment rather'n a donation? Ye had more'n enuff, just use a little on yerself!

* * *

Point is, we're due for an explanation of what Durkon told Hilgya: that his Ma taught him self-denial and the importance of duty - especially if it makes you miserable. Finding out that she could have had a whole body and comfortable (if not necessarily lavish) lifestyle, and denied herself that, and why, is as good an opportunity as any.

[hamishspence]

Finding out that she could have had a whole body and comfortable (if not necessarily lavish) lifestyle, and denied herself that, and why, is as good an opportunity as any.

Maybe she earned a place on the "richest donor" list before falling on hard times?

We can't assume that she "denied herself comfort" merely based on undated donations.

Yes, so if she appears on the Wall of Very Rich Donors despite apparently living in near-destitution, something is off. Could be she just gives *all* her money to the church and doesn't keep any for herself, though...

We know that when Durkon was growing up, she was on a pension - not having a job - and that unexpected expenses, even small ones, might mean having to borrow money:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0963.html

so, IMO, the most logical explanation for her being cited as a rich donor, was that it happened long ago, before she was poor - rather than that she's getting huge amounts of money and is giving all but a tiny bit to charity.

[Ironsmith]

Maybe she earned a place on the "richest donor" list before falling on hard times?

We can't assume that she "denied herself comfort" merely based on undated donations.

We know that when Durkon was growing up, she was on a pension - and that unexpected expenses, even small ones, might mean having to borrow money:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0963.html

so, IMO, the most logical explanation for her being cited as a rich donor, was that it happened long ago, before she was poor - rather than that she's getting huge amounts of money and is giving all but a tiny bit to charity.

There's a minor wrinkle in that theory, and it's to do with the fact that at the high point of her career, Sigdi was only a sergeant... well above poverty, obviously, but not exactly flowing with gold. What follows is that she pulled a reverse Hylgia; inherited a lot of money (legitimately this time) and donated most-all of it to the church.

Alternatively, the wall could be based on cumulative donations... Sigdi can only spare a couple dozen gold pieces at a time, but she's been donating every bit of change she's saved for years.

[Ruck]

Whew, nice catch on whoever figured out Sigdi's name was on the Wall of Names of Very Rich Donors. Even zooming in and comparing the two it was difficult for me since the letters in the comic are so close together.

It's also the last scene we saw from Durkon's memory of his first day at work before now, so it makes sense that the memory will be connected to this.

edit: A few other names are fully visible, but for the life of me I could not make them out.

[Corneel]

Indeed. Lying is a chaotic act, not an evil one.

GW

Where does it say that in the strip?

IMO lying is an act that due to it's nature will usually fall on the chaotic part of the alignment spectrum and more often than not on the evil part of the spectrum, but in and of itself is an unaligned act. I mean, lying about the jewish refugees you're hiding in the cellar to the gestapo doesn't seem to be either evil or chaotic.

I think there is a tendency to over-ascribe alignment to actions. I mean, over 99% of acts and actions probably don't involve any alignment at all. I mean, me eating a nice camembert with wine this evening: yummy barely necessary. Me going to the toilet later; stinky necessary. Me typing on this forum: self-satisfying unnecessary. Good, Evil, Law or Chaos don't enter into it.

[hamishspence]

BoVD has "lying" on its list of Evil acts discussed in detail - but, it's one of the few that's specifically called out as "does not have to be evil" even though many good-aligned D&D religions ban it.

The PHBs in most editions have played up that Lawful characters tend to tell the truth (and by implication, that telling the truth tends to be Lawful) - and that Chaotic characters tend to be at least willing to lie.

[Ruck]

Where does it say that in the strip?

IMO lying is an act that due to it's nature will usually fall on the chaotic part of the alignment spectrum and more often than not on the evil part of the spectrum, but in and of itself is an unaligned act. I mean, lying about the jewish refugees you're hiding in the cellar to the gestapo doesn't seem to be either evil or chaotic.

Well, that's quite the real-world example to jump to, but given that the Gestapo is a Lawful entity, I think you just disproved your own point.

Other examples at least in the strip tend to show Lawful characters deceiving through omission or exact wording, whereas Chaotic characters will just disregard those technicalities entirely.

[hamishspence]

At least in BoVD, Baalzebul, an archdevil, so "a being of Law and Evil" has the well-earned nickname of "lord of Lies".

Conversely, Angels (alignment - any Good) are notable for being "impeccably honourable" and "never lying, cheating, or stealing"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm

even Chaotic Good angels.

Which does suggest that lying is more affiliated with Evil than it is with Chaos.

[Corneel]

Well, that's quite the real-world example to jump to, but given that the Gestapo is a Lawful entity, I think you just disproved your own point.

They can be easily considered as illegitimate (and thus unlawful) when operating in occupied territory and the people hiding jews from them thus acting on pre-established lawful principles. The gestapo also ignored any pre-existing law and engaged in unlawful behavior (torture).

[Ruck]

They can be easily considered as illegitimate (and thus unlawful) when operating in occupied territory and the people hiding jews from them thus acting on pre-established lawful principles. The gestapo also ignored any pre-existing law and engaged in unlawful behavior (torture).

You've made a pretty good case for establishing them as Evil, but I don't think you've told me anything that couldn't be applied to the highly Lawful Empire of Blood. Nor have you addressed the differences of methods of deception between Lawful and Chaotic people (re: which the alignment of the deceived is irrelevant).

[Kish]

They can be easily considered as illegitimate (and thus unlawful) when operating in occupied territory and the people hiding jews from them thus acting on pre-established lawful principles. The gestapo also ignored any pre-existing law and engaged in unlawful behavior (torture).

This also treats "Lawful" as meaning "Obeys the Law" rather than "Ordered."

Torture is overwhelmingly evil; it's not particularly Lawful or Chaotic.

[Ironsmith]

In terms of whether lying is evil or chaotic, I offer up the Fiendish Codex, which gives details on how to dispute and successfully sever a deal with a diabolical figure. Every last one of the devils mentioned are obviously, unabashedly evil, and yet one possible way of severing a deal with them is if it turns out they lied to you (implying the Always Lawful Evil devils won't abide lying).

So, it seems likely that lying, in of itself, tends to bend CE, since pure Good beings won't do it and LE beings won't abide it. Of course, that's assuming you're willing to take it as carrying enough moral weight to leave TN.

[Corneel]

This also treats "Lawful" as meaning "Obeys the Law" rather than "Ordered."

Torture is overwhelmingly evil; it's not particularly Lawful or Chaotic.

Torture was also forbidden by the Geneva Conventions to which Germany was a signatory. And which they mostly respected as far as POWs were concerned. Also if you think Nazi Germany was "ordered", I think you need to read quite a lot more about it. Nazi Germany was pretty much the epitome of a neutral evil regime.

[Ironsmith]

This also treats "Lawful" as meaning "Obeys the Law" rather than "Ordered."

Torture is overwhelmingly evil; it's not particularly Lawful or Chaotic.

...That might be because that's what Lawful is SUPPOSED to mean, at least in part.

Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Plus, if I can offer a bit of a weird philosophical opinion here... even Chaotic individuals tend to be ordered. If a chaotic person is motivated by what they themselves want, then they're still obeying a kind of implicit order: "serve yourself always". If a chaotic person devotes their life to "sticking it to the man", that, too is ordered. Personally, I don't define an ordered mindset as being Lawful until they start actively creating an order that doesn't come naturally to them and then commit to adhering to it.

[Jasdoif]

...That might be because that's what Lawful is SUPPOSED to mean, at least in part.

In situations where "law" coincides with "legitimate authority", sure. They're not synonymous, however.

They think that because the D&D definition of Lawful has little to nothing to do with law enforcement. To think that Lawful always means "obeying the written law" is a gross misunderstanding of the D&D definition of the term.

For example, think of formal duels—the "pistols at dawn" kind. Such events are undoubtedly Lawful affairs—they have strict codes, elaborate rules, and concern themselves mostly with symbolic honor. All hallmarks of Lawful behavior when contrasted with, say, a drunken brawl. However, at the time Aaron Burr shot Hamilton, they were illegal in the United States. People who participated in such duels were abiding by a formal code of ethics and behavior that was in opposition to democratically passed law. Lawful behavior can be made illegal in a given jurisdiction, but that doesn't spontaneously change the nature of the act in a cosmological sense.

I've used this example before, but if a paladin walks into the orc's swamp to do battle, he is not suddenly bound to obey the Orc King's laws or lose his paladinhood. It is entirely possible to have a code that you believe supersedes the written law wherever you are and still be considered Lawful.

I've often said that a lot of confusion would have been avoided if they had simply called it Ordered instead of Lawful. "Ordered Good" leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation.

---

Plus, if I can offer a bit of a weird philosophical opinion here... even Chaotic individuals tend to be ordered. If a chaotic person is motivated by what they themselves want, then they're still obeying a kind of implicit order: "serve yourself always". If a chaotic person devotes their life to "sticking it to the man", that, too is ordered. Personally, I don't define an ordered mindset as being Lawful until they start actively creating an order that doesn't come naturally to them and then commit to adhering to it.

As long as I'm quoting....

....
Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

---

The WotC article on Law and Chaos is generally worth a read too.

[Ironsmith]

In situations where "law" coincides with "legitimate authority", sure. They're not synonymous, however.

---

As long as I'm quoting....

---

The WotC article on Law and Chaos is generally worth a read too.

I see what you're getting at here. It's more "obeys a code of some sort, whether internally generated or accepted from an external source, up to and including punitive measures", as opposed to "ordered". My main objection was that "ordered" was too broad a definition to prevent everyone from being considered Lawful.

[Elenna]

There's a minor wrinkle in that theory, and it's to do with the fact that at the high point of her career, Sigdi was only a sergeant... well above poverty, obviously, but not exactly flowing with gold. What follows is that she pulled a reverse Hylgia; inherited a lot of money (legitimately this time) and donated most-all of it to the church.

Alternatively, the wall could be based on cumulative donations... Sigdi can only spare a couple dozen gold pieces at a time, but she's been donating every bit of change she's saved for years.

Do we know she was only a sergeant? I mean, outside the story Durkon was told, which I'm pretty sure is a lie Sigdi told her friends. Note that she met all those friends *after* something happened that made her a destitute single mother. (I don't have time now to go through all the memories looking for evidence).

I'm sure at least part of that story is a lie, because if it's all true I see no reason why she wouldn't just tell Durkon that.

[Ironsmith]

Do we know she was only a sergeant? I mean, outside the story Durkon was told, which I'm pretty sure is a lie Sigdi told her friends. Note that she met all those friends *after* something happened that made her a destitute single mother. (I don't have time now to go through all the memories looking for evidence).

I'm sure at least part of that story is a lie, because if it's all true I see no reason why she wouldn't just tell Durkon that.

Well, we don't know for sure, since that was only a story told to us and not an actual flashback, but for now, that's the narrative we have.

[Ikuryo]

Sigdi left an arranged marriage after bankrupting the clan that forced her into it and donated all the money she got from that to the church. Durkon was a product of that marriage.

Gives her a way of relating to Hilgya, and why no one wants to talk about it.

(This is complete speculation with no source for fact and this post is just made to humor myself)
(I will be really surprised if I'm right though)

[Ironsmith]

Sigdi left an arranged marriage after bankrupting the clan that forced her into it and donated all the money she got from that to the church. Durkon was a product of that marriage.

Gives her a way of relating to Hilgya, and why no one wants to talk about it.

(This is complete speculation with no source for fact and this post is just made to humor myself)
(I will be really surprised if I'm right though)

And Tenrin's a vampire these days.

[Fish]

I just have to ask: is that dragon-blood troll ... still buried under that rockfall? Could it still be alive?