Hugh Neilson Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick I largely agree' date=' 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.[/quote'] We're largely straying off topic (and I try to avoid NGD as well). But you reminded me of where I see V really crossing the line, in this strip (637, for those of you reading in 2019), when he twists the knife describing the young dragon's death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 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... And yet, in most instances, except when they are forcefully expanding their territory, they're just trying to live in (usually) inhospitable environs with limited resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Typist Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick We're largely straying off topic (and I try to avoid NGD as well). But you reminded me of where I see V really crossing the line' date=' in this strip (637, for those of you reading in 2019), when he twists the knife describing the young dragon's death.[/quote'] While I think discussing the moral quandries presented by the comic strip is ¨on topic.....¨ I absolutely agree with. That was beyond the pall. When I first read the end strip, I thought the last one started out ¨Wow, I can´t believe he went there!¨ I think that would have been much more interesting/funny than a TV joke... Greywind- you know, that makes me want to run some scenarios in which expansionistic orcs are painted in a kinder light... they´re not slaughter hungry invaders, they´re trying to find a place to live! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick I actually had a game that an Orc actually became a Lawful Good Paladin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick When I ran the old AD&D module G1 (The Steading of the Hill Giant King), the PC's liberated the giant's orcish slaves and gave them the fort - after the orcs swore an oath of feudal loyalty to the Knight in the party. In return for being allowed to live there, the orcs had the duty to collect lawful taxes on the nearby road (this was gone into in great detail), and to maintain a watch on the local area for invading armies, hostile creatures, etc. Since the orcs didn't want to piss off the players (who, through superior tactics, pretty much mowed down the giants), the orcs reformed pretty well... at least, for my game they did. Another group tried something similar with a black dragon in the marshs surrounding a major waterway. The dragon tried to claim "10% taxes" as the one boat out of 10 that had all the gold and gems, easily worth 10x the rest of the commerce that went down the river that day. They had to put him down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Gillen Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Greywind- you know, that makes me want to run some scenarios in which expansionistic orcs are painted in a kinder light... they´re not slaughter hungry invaders, they´re trying to find a place to live! Sorta like Warcraft after Thrall took over the Horde. JG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick #638 is UP! What are the stats of a pink dragon anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Ok. Color commentary aside, that's a pretty cool visual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemming Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick "Finger of Failure" "Hand of Hopelessness" "Pointer of Pointlessness" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick D&D has pink dragons now? Lucius Alexander What next, color coded palindromedary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCUBA Hero Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Oh dear. This is V's big test of pride in magic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristopher Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Given what the dragon promised to do and had already done to the partner and children, I think that V's verbal "knife twist" isn't that much of sign of "turning evil", so much as it is raw hatred. But then, looking to a game/setting, or a comic based on it, that has the sort of stilted, odd "moral universe" that D&D has for moral/ethical questions might not be so fruitful or worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Gillen Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick "I think he said..." "'Shapechange'." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick No. It leads to the position that in the absence of formal law enforcement' date=' there's nothing wrong with being a vigilante.[/quote'] Incorrect - it means there's no higher authority stopping (nothing "illegal" if you will) with vigilantism. It does NOT make it correct or moral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick I feel a Nitsche reference coming on . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick We're more in a moral pit. More like a morass of moral mores? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Given what the dragon promised to do and had already done to the partner and children' date=' I think that V's verbal "knife twist" isn't that much of sign of "turning evil", so much as it is raw hatred.[/quote'] One might also argue the Dragon's actions are more a sign of raw hatred and grief at the death of a child than any evil on the dragon's part. But I'm no less reluctant to excuse the Dragon than V. But then' date=' looking to a game/setting, or a comic based on it, that has the sort of stilted, odd "moral universe" that D&D has for moral/ethical questions might not be so fruitful or worthwhile.[/quote'] Most RPG's, especially in that genre, share this stilted moral code to some extent. Players tend to like to cut loose with their powers, demonstrating Heroism in Battle, not rein them in and demonstrate the Heroism to do the right thing even when it hurts. I've yet to see a player character fight his battles using civil disobedience, nor a game system that encouraged or rewarded that approach. More like a morass of moral mores? "Morass of Moral Mores" sounds like a great name for a spell (or a rock band). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Typist Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Most RPG's, especially in that genre, share this stilted moral code to some extent. Players tend to like to cut loose with their powers, demonstrating Heroism in Battle, not rein them in and demonstrate the Heroism to do the right thing even when it hurts. I've yet to see a player character fight his battles using civil disobedience, nor a game system that encouraged or rewarded that approach. I´d like to play in a game with that opportunity. While the knife twist was bad, what I think is really problematic with V´s decision is that he chose this after knowing that a successful demonstration of this power could very well help to unite the Forces of Evil later so they can unleash untold suffering upon countless lives in the future. Just so he can save... three people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick And yet' date=' in most instances, except when they are forcefully expanding their territory, they're just trying to live in (usually) inhospitable environs with limited resources.[/quote'] Possibly in games that you have played. Not so in any of the ones I have that I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick 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. Yuppers. And actually that was part of my point. At least in the games I played, the fact that something was described as "evil" meant that it was, you know, evil. Not misunderstood, not just competing against you for resources, not just labeled evil by people so that they could kill it and take its stuff. Actually objectively evil. Which helps towards at least my enjoyment of the whole "kick in the door and roll for initiative" bit. I've also enjoyed many games where the "bad guys" weren't necessarily evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Incorrect - it means there's no higher authority stopping (nothing "illegal" if you will) with vigilantism. It does NOT make it correct or moral. Sure it does. The problem with vigilantism (directed at actual wrongdoers) is that it disrupts the social order and thereby makes us all less safe in the long run. If there is no social order to disrupt, then that's not an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick While the knife twist was bad' date=' what I think is really problematic with V´s decision is that he chose this after knowing that a successful demonstration of this power could very well help to unite the Forces of Evil later so they can unleash untold suffering upon countless lives in the future. Just so he can save... three people.[/quote'] I think it's a pretty standard trope of heroic fiction that we DON'T sacrifice a few to save a multitude. We save who we can today and rely on prevailing over the new evils tomorrow. Yuppers. And actually that was part of my point. At least in the games I played' date=' the fact that something was described as "evil" meant that it was, you know, evil. Not misunderstood, not just competing against you for resources, not just labeled evil by people so that they could kill it and take its stuff. Actually objectively evil.[/quote'] Isn't that what a lot of people through history believed of those who were misunderstood, competing for resources and/or in possession of stuff those telling them about this evil wanted to take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Isn't that what a lot of people through history believed of those who were misunderstood' date=' competing for resources and/or in possession of stuff those telling them about this evil wanted to take?[/quote'] Yep. And that, even more than the magic or the fantastic beasts, is why it's called Fantasy roleplaying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick Isn't that what a lot of people through history believed of those who were misunderstood, competing for resources and/or in possession of stuff those telling them about this evil wanted to take? Possibly so. What does that have to do with a fantasy setting where it is actually true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZilla Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Re: Order of the Stick I think it's a pretty standard trope of heroic fiction that we DON'T sacrifice a few to save a multitude. We save who we can today and rely on prevailing over the new evils tomorrow. That's something that Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan apparently forgot. Isn't that what a lot of people through history believed of those who were misunderstood' date=' competing for resources and/or in possession of stuff those telling them about this evil wanted to take?[/quote'] IMO that rampant label-ism of one group by another group falls into two categories. Consider the Normans vs the Saxons. I'd be willing to bet that each group called the other Evil, but IMO neither group were truly Evil, just competing for resources/control. Eventually they were able to coexist peacefully (not counting a tiny fraction that cause trouble). Consider the Nazis vs just about everybody else. Both groups called the other Evil. But since the Nazis were Evil, it was not possible to reach a point of peaceful coexistence (not counting today's skinheads). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.