Order of the Stick

[OddHat]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Wow. She went there. I wonder how much of the alignment shift will stick when the splice ends? Iirc, you can only move one step at a time, so she's more likely to end up at LN or TN than LE/NE (I assume she started at LG or NG).

[Hermit]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Wow. She went there. I wonder how much of the alignment shift will stick when the splice ends? Iirc' date=' you can only move one step at a time, so she's more likely to end up at LN or TN than LE/NE (I assume she started at LG or NG).[/quote']

 

Actually, IIRC, V has been labeled as many fans as having been LN or TN at the start. If that's the case, that 'one step' is enough to bring her/him into E turf

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Yeah' date=' but they have green skin (or, in the dragon's case, chromatic scales). So it's OK. [/quote']

 

Ahhh...so long as we base it on physical differentiation, like skin colour, it's OK... Why am I not encouraged by that theory?

[GamePhil]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Ahhh...so long as we base it on physical differentiation' date=' like skin colour, it's OK... Why am I not encouraged by that theory?[/quote']

 

Well, it was Belkar's theory, so why would any semi-rational person be encouraged by it? At least I assume that's what bunny-guy was talking about.

[Lucius]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Wow. She went there. I wonder how much of the alignment shift will stick when the splice ends? Iirc' date=' you can only move one step at a time, so she's more likely to end up at LN or TN than LE/NE (I assume she started at LG or NG).[/quote']

 

Why would you assume that? I've never seen any reason to view her as other than Neutral.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if, despite the opinion of Lucius, Vaarsuvius is in fact neuter as well as neutral.

[Lucius]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

By the way - any of you fans of cryptograms translated the inscription in that magic circle yet?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary ate my notes

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

I must say I found the scene of his family rather disturbing for stick figures. THat's not a nice dragon.

I have found that Rich Berlew can evoke many intense feelings for stick figures.

 

"Hi Roy! Wanna play blocks?"

 

"More than anything."

 

He's a masterful story teller.

 

-MarkE

[OddHat]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Yeah' date=' but they have green skin (or, in the dragon's case, chromatic scales). So it's OK. [/quote']

 

Ahhh...so long as we base it on physical differentiation' date=' like skin colour, it's OK... Why am I not encouraged by that theory?[/quote']

 

I remember playing in an AD&D module many years ago where the party descended into one of the cities of the underdark and began a house to house slaughter of Drow, looting their bodies as we went. We were "Good", they were "Evil", so killing them and taking their stuff was fine. While a pretty good example of human thinking in war time (and when dealing with anyone we class as "not we"), that was the sort of adventure that made me decide to stop playing AD&D.

[Kristopher]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

I remember playing in an AD&D module many years ago where the party descended into one of the cities of the underdark and began a house to house slaughter of Drow' date=' looting their bodies as we went. We were "Good", they were "Evil", so killing them and taking their stuff was fine. While a pretty good example of human thinking in war time (and when dealing with anyone we class as "not we"), that was the sort of adventure that made me decide to stop playing AD&D.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I sadly have to agree.

 

Anything I have to add would be getting squarly into NGD territory, so I guess I'd just suggest anyone who is interested should find my past comments about how "we're the good guys" has been used to justify a lot of bad deeds.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

 

"It's a blood plasma screen." Heh.

 

And he didn't so much a mewl, but say "The wheels on the bus go round and round...", IIRC.

 

 

V's gone 'round the bend, I do belive.

[Lucius]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Well, as of today the strip challenges a lot of fantasy gaming assumptions. As I read V's comments, I'm struck by the fact that (s)he is no better than the Dragon.

 

But really, it was OOTS who went to the Dragon lair to steal something, and murdered the young dragon who was inconvenient to the completion of their theft. The vengeance plan of Momma Dragon doesn't enjoy a lot of moral high ground, but she's not the one who started the cycle, is she? How much sympathy would we have for the burglar who kills the hero's child in the opening scenes of a modern action movie?

 

If the "hero" proceeds to go after the burglar's children, then it's not an action movie, but a horror movie.

 

But yes, Mr. Burlew is good at pointing up some of the problems and hypocrisy of D&D as it was traditionally played.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Irrelevant palindromedary tagline

[Manic Typist]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

But really' date=' it was OOTS who went to the Dragon lair to steal something, and murdered the young dragon who was inconvenient to the completion of their theft. The vengeance plan of Momma Dragon doesn't enjoy a lot of moral high ground, but she's not the one who started the cycle, is she? How much sympathy would we have for the burglar who kills the hero's child in the opening scenes of a modern action movie?[/quote']

 

The dragon was more than an inconvenience: it was actively trying to kill the party.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

The dragon was more than an inconvenience: it was actively trying to kill the party.

 

Yes, what a terrible thing for it to do when it catches people in its house trying to steal its stuff. Really, anyone who defends their residence against a thief should be executed, shouldn't they?

[Manic Typist]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Yes' date=' what a terrible thing for it to do when it catches people in its house trying to steal its stuff. Really, anyone who defends their residence against a thief should be executed, shouldn't they?[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, this doesn´t even come close to representing my beliefs on the issue. Of course it´s acceptable to use force, even lethal force, to defend yourself (and likely even your property, though I am open to discussion on that if you want to argue that sapient life is always more valuable than mere things).

 

My point is, the analogies aren´t tracking. This isn´t the case of someone being killed in their sleep by a bunch of heartless thieves who have invaded a person´s home. First and foremost, this dragon chose to fight rather than flee or even negotiate. If you choose to live by the sword and happen to die by the sword, I´m not going to call it anything other than a logical consequence of your decions.

 

That alone eliminates the simplistic moralization of the mother dragon´s tale (no pun intended). But wait, there´s more!

 

The dragons were residing in a home that WASN´T their´s (squatters is the kindest term they could ascribe to) with a massive amount of treasure that was almost defintely stolen from a wide variety of other people.... probably after killing said people.

 

So, to reform the analogy: It´s more like a bunch of thieves broke into what they thought was an abandoned warehouse complex filled with other criminals and ne´er (spelling?) do-wells when they happened to stumble upon the abode of one particular set of thievin´muderin´ rascals, one of whom set out to hunt down and kill the intruders in order to protect his ill gotten gains.

 

Basically, I agree the mother´s seeking revenge, but don´t assume I´ll buy that she´s after Justice without me wanting to take a look at the basement and have independent contractors look over the property. I see very little room for moral authority on ANY side here. Just competing interests.

 

Edit: to specifically address with your ¨murdered child¨ and sympathy for the killer question (which I initially decided against addressing directly, though I almost did in my first post), my response is: yes, I am absolutely open to the possibility of being sympathetic to the killer if I am presented with a story that can reasonably invoke my sympathy. Life is complicated, and everyone has a story to tell. It could be the makings of a tragic story, in fact. Furthermore, I am prepared to call a teenager (in a story, mind you) who chooses to attack a bunch of armed thieves who are only out to steal STUFF, alone.... an idiot.

 

Of course, that´s a kind of idioacy I´d likely be guilty of, but that doesn´t mean I don´t recognize it for the foolishness it would (or at least could) be.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

If the "hero" proceeds to go after the burglar's children, then it's not an action movie, but a horror movie.

 

But yes, Mr. Burlew is good at pointing up some of the problems and hypocrisy of D&D as it was traditionally played.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Irrelevant palindromedary tagline

 

The huge number of sentient species in traditional D&D is one of the reasons I don't always like it. You swing a cat and hit 5 different unrelated sentient species even before you're halfway around. If I ever run a Fantasy Hero game, sentience will be a much less prevalent attribute.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Unfortunately, this doesn´t even come close to representing my beliefs on the issue. Of course it´s acceptable to use force, even lethal force, to defend yourself (and likely even your property, though I am open to discussion on that if you want to argue that sapient life is always more valuable than mere things).

 

My point is, the analogies aren´t tracking. This isn´t the case of someone being killed in their sleep by a bunch of heartless thieves who have invaded a person´s home. First and foremost, this dragon chose to fight rather than flee or even negotiate. If you choose to live by the sword and happen to die by the sword, I´m not going to call it anything other than a logical consequence of your decions.

 

So if a burglar breaks into your house, and you choose to try to stop him, rather than flee or negotiate, it's just a logical consequence of your decision if he beats your brains out or shoots you? OOTS traveled to that specific location in order to take the meteor rock. Not purchase it, or negotiate for it. Take it. Not for any great humanitarian cause, but to give Roy a nicer sword.

 

The dragons were residing in a home that WASN´T their´s (squatters is the kindest term they could ascribe to) with a massive amount of treasure that was almost defintely stolen from a wide variety of other people.... probably after killing said people.

 

So it's OK to steal from thieves, then. Does that include, say, stealing from a white collar criminal? Does he have to be convicted first, or is it OK for me to just decide he's guilty? Can I steal from a guy I know cheats on his taxes? After all, he's stealing from the people of this Great Nation, and I'm one of them, so he's actually stealing from me. It must be OK if I break in and take back what's mine (and what's everyone else's along with it) and if he gets in my way, it's OK to gun him down as well, right?

 

So, to reform the analogy: It´s more like a bunch of thieves broke into what they thought was an abandoned warehouse complex filled with other criminals and ne´er (spelling?) do-wells when they happened to stumble upon the abode of one particular set of thievin´muderin´ rascals, one of whom set out to hunt down and kill the intruders in order to protect his ill gotten gains.

 

Basically, I agree the mother´s seeking revenge, but don´t assume I´ll buy that she´s after Justice without me wanting to take a look at the basement and have independent contractors look over the property. I see very little room for moral authority on ANY side here. Just competing interests.

 

I don't grant the Dragon any moral high ground either. She's no better than V. But, viewed through the actions leading up to this, and treating Dragons as having the same rights as any other sentient creature (rather than being less worthy of rights due to their physical characteristics), V doesn't have any moral high ground either. We're more in a moral pit.

 

Edit: to specifically address with your ¨murdered child¨ and sympathy for the killer question (which I initially decided against addressing directly, though I almost did in my first post), my response is: yes, I am absolutely open to the possibility of being sympathetic to the killer if I am presented with a story that can reasonably invoke my sympathy. Life is complicated, and everyone has a story to tell. It could be the makings of a tragic story, in fact. Furthermore, I am prepared to call a teenager (in a story, mind you) who chooses to attack a bunch of armed thieves who are only out to steal STUFF, alone.... an idiot.

 

Of course, that´s a kind of idioacy I´d likely be guilty of, but that doesn´t mean I don´t recognize it for the foolishness it would (or at least could) be.

 

Often, the difference between "idiot" and "hero" is success or failure. Certainly in action movies. These typically involve going up against impossible odds to do what's right. In the action movie, Our Hero prevails. In real life, he's another statistic of criminal violence. Don't get involved. But this part of the discussion trends evenmore to NGD than the rest.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

So if a burglar breaks into your house' date=' and you choose to try to stop him, rather than flee or negotiate, it's just a logical consequence of your decision if he beats your brains out or shoots you? OOTS traveled to that specific location in order to take the meteor rock. Not purchase it, or negotiate for it. Take it. Not for any great humanitarian cause, but to give Roy a nicer sword. [/quote']

 

Yes. It is an entirely plausible outcome that you can anticipate if you choose to meet someone with force. Is it Just? Of course not. But you made the call to put your life on the line, and you lost. Hopefully someone else will manage to see Justice done for you.

 

Yes, OOTS did go to take it. That doesn´t mean they wouldn´t have been willing to barter for it, if they´d be given the opportunity. So that offers no real traction. Plus, they were after it so Roy could use it to make a new sword in order to defeat a world threatening lich. Sounds kind of a humanitarian cause.... albeit ¨ends justify the means.¨

 

 

So it's OK to steal from thieves, then. Does that include, say, stealing from a white collar criminal? Does he have to be convicted first, or is it OK for me to just decide he's guilty? Can I steal from a guy I know cheats on his taxes? After all, he's stealing from the people of this Great Nation, and I'm one of them, so he's actually stealing from me. It must be OK if I break in and take back what's mine (and what's everyone else's along with it) and if he gets in my way, it's OK to gun him down as well, right?

 

Um, actually, yeah, it probably is ok to steal from thieves. Not morally beneficial to society, but I don´t see any new moral harm either. Just feels very grey to me. If one thief robs another thief of his ill gotten goods... I´m not going to feel any particular moral indignation for the thief. Sounds like irony. It´s always best to work within the bounds of society, but when those recourses fail... in fact, this seems inconsistent with what you´re saying. You (seem to) claim that it is your RIGHT to KILL someone who comes to take your STUFF (I´m not saying I disagree with you. I am just making it clear what the position is, at its most simplistic). So, how is that any different if I break into the thief´s house and kill him while getting my stuff back? The only difference is where. Does the right only exist while he´s on my property? So if he robs me on the street, my options are more limited? Why can I kill the thief in my house before he´s convicted (or really DONE anything other than just break in), while you can claim that it´s objectionable to kill another person before they´ve been convicted of anything? Are you going by actions, intentions, or the processes of our civil society as the determining factor of the moral status of an individual/criminal?

 

I don't grant the Dragon any moral high ground either. She's no better than V. But, viewed through the actions leading up to this, and treating Dragons as having the same rights as any other sentient creature (rather than being less worthy of rights due to their physical characteristics), V doesn't have any moral high ground either. We're more in a moral pit.

 

I largely agree, though I think there´s a difference between ¨I had a job, I was doing a job, and a very dangerous individual who chose to get in the way died for it¨ and ¨I am going to hunt down your family and torture them for all eternity just to make you pay for what you did to me.¨ Especially, again, when I think Kid Dragon was responsible for his decisions. V´s family literally had NOTHING to do with any of this, while the same cannot be said for anyone else involved.

 

 

Often, the difference between "idiot" and "hero" is success or failure. Certainly in action movies. These typically involve going up against impossible odds to do what's right. In the action movie, Our Hero prevails. In real life, he's another statistic of criminal violence. Don't get involved. But this part of the discussion trends evenmore to NGD than the rest.

 

I agree that this is true, in the sort of ¨it´s a funny truism of how society tends to operate.¨ But again, you seem to be using inconsistent standards here. If this were an action movie, Momma Dragon would indubitably be the one in the wrong here, and V would have all the right to kill her and her children all day long. They are by definition (and ¨in reality¨) evil. But the rest of the time, you refuse to accept the standard action movie moralizations (which is a good thing, I think).

 

The key is doing what´s RIGHT. Are you really meaning to tell me that it is RIGHT (not just morally permissible or acceptable, but actually rising to the level of a moral imperative) to kill someone who just wants to take things? I think you MAY have the right, but I don´t buy that it is RIGHT (or WRONG) to exercise that right.

 

I´ll buy a heroic action, but a teenager choosing to defend his home against a larger number of dangerous people is not a heroic action just because he´s in the moral/legal high ground. It´s stupid. Brave, even admirable... but stupid. His life is worth more than those things (and I´m sure his parents would tell him to burn the entire house down before risk his life to save one piece of jewelry). A heroic action would be going over to help his neighbor who was being burgalarized, because in that cause he is rising ABOVE the everyday. It´s normal/expected to look after your own interests... but to risk your interests to help another, especially with no direct benefit to yourself? That seems to match our vague definition of heroic better than simple self-defense.

 

 

Hugh, I´m completely with you on how... WRONG... it is that so many people tend to operate by the ¨don´t get involved¨ philosophy. It offends me, infuriates me, and if If you want to go over to the NGD to discuss it, I´d be happy to. In fact... I think that´d be the first time I posted in NGD.

[archermoo]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Yeah' date=' but they have green skin (or, in the dragon's case, chromatic scales). So it's OK. [/quote']

 

And you know, I don't recall ever gaming with anyone who was interested in killing orcs because they had green skin. It was generally because they were, you know, evil. Which meant that they were, you know, doing evil things.

 

Maybe we were just weird...

[teh bunneh]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

And you know, I don't recall ever gaming with anyone who was interested in killing orcs because they had green skin. It was generally because they were, you know, evil. Which meant that they were, you know, doing evil things.

 

Maybe we were just weird...

 

I was, of course, being snarky (and quoting Belkar). But in a universe where Evil is a very real, palpable, physical quality and the moral rules of the universe are set so that killing things that are Evil is perfectly OK, it is by definition OK to kill Evil things/people.

 

So when V killed the dragon, that was perfectly OK according to the moral strictures of the universe. It obviously had repercussions, but it was a morally defensable act.

 

And also, you know, sometimes it's kinda fun just to kill the greenskins and take their shinies. Maybe not every day, and maybe not every game, but sometimes I like to just kick down the door and roll for initiative without worrying about moral and ethical quandries.

[Clonus]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

 

 

So it's OK to steal from thieves, then. Does that include, say, stealing from a white collar criminal? Does he have to be convicted first, .

 

The circumstances of your environment have to be taken into consideration. Does the world of OOTS have police you can call to handle felonious dragons?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

that leads to the philosophical position that the only reason we do good is enforcement by a perceived higher authority; We don't actually have a moral compass of our own and it must be pushed down to us. . . I don't buy it.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

that leads to the philosophical position that the only reason we do good is enforcement by a perceived higher authority; We don't actually have a moral compass of our own and it must be pushed down to us. . . I don't buy it.

Me neither. I lease my morality.

[Clonus]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

that leads to the philosophical position that the only reason we do good is enforcement by a perceived higher authority; We don't actually have a moral compass of our own and it must be pushed down to us. . . I don't buy it.

 

No. It leads to the position that in the absence of formal law enforcement, there's nothing wrong with being a vigilante.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Okay, the situation as set up in the original comics almost is designed to obviate this discussion.

Roy, unusually clueless even for him, has no idea that they will encounter a monster protecting the star metal. He even fabricates bejewelled giants (that they will rob) to coax Belkar and Haley into the exploit.

As they approach what proves to be the dragons' lair, they have lost Vaarsuvius' services, but press on regardless. This is either hopelessly faulty tactical thinking, as V. believes, or simply a general realisation that the team is wasting valuable time on a sidequest, and that having fought the annis(?), there are no more XPs at stake.

As they approach the star metal, they are ambushed by a juvenile black dragon, which they overcome by V.'s resourceful use of her magic skills and a great deal of luck. A tragic sequence of events is entrained, in which V.'s recovery of her elven form will lead to the release of the dragon, and its pre-emptive killing in self-defence. (Presumably, V. would have been the first victim of a bite attack, and the OOTS would have been back in the same position they were prior to the dragon failing its save.)

Only at this point, and after an extended search, does the team discover the hidden underwater tunnel to the lair proper. Here is the perfect location for the black dragon to have forted up, and it is only when they pass the tunnel that the OOTS actually trespass. This is the place where the black dragon should have defended its lair, and quite probably won.

It went out to meet the OOTS because it was looking for a snack and some treasure, not in self-defence of its home.

[Lucius]

Re: Order of the Stick

 

Me neither. I lease my morality.

 

I'm borrowing mine.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Until the palindromedary needs it back.