Order of the Stick 596!

[The Little Raven]

Intentions matter more. Much more.

"The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."

It's all situational, really... to pull an example from Warcraft, Arthas Menethil had the best of intentions when he began his descent into darkness, as he was solely motivated by his desire to save his people. The result was the near-extermination of those people, the desecration of a land, and the rise of the most powerful evil being currently in the world.

So, intentions are important, but they do not always overshadow results in import.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

From my experiences in D&D land, not killing the bad guy when you have the opportunity is a act of foolish naivete.
There's just too many unknown factors/uncertainty in D&D land (magic, etc), eliminating the threat when the opportunity presents itself is just smart play.

 

[HandofMystra]

I think what Varsuuvius did was the epitome of Chaotic Good. Execute the criminal before he does something horrible and forget the justice system, which is rigged. My 2¢.

Anyway, how do V's actions relate to what seemed to happen to her on the island? You know: V missed the chance to say "I told you so", and Elan said "Dunh dunh DUNH!".

Does anyone think that we are skating on the edge of a political metaphor here?

 

[Desdichado]

The real moral problem with what V did is that (s)he took a lot of unnecessary risks with a stranger's life. V made judgments based on assumptions, inductions, and deduction rather than certainty. That means there was a serious chance of dealing out death to someone who did not deserve it.

There is no moral problem whatsoever. It's a freakin' comic strip, based on a game where it's normal to kill people who oppose you without the expectation of repurcussion, and it's a comic strip that's notorious for mixing "in-game" with metagame considerations to comic effect.

If it makes you feel better, take Varsuvius' justification for a bit of parody for the bizarre, Byzantine and inherently unlikely justification that players offer each and every weekend across the world for their characters' over-the-top, extremely violent actions.

Frankly, that's a move I applaud. This whole side trek has really gotten away from the writer, IMO. It's become huge and it takes itself too seriously. Varsuvius' comment seems to bring it back down to the level that made OotS great in the first place; a satirical depiction of what D&D is like for the players.

EDIT: As an aside, I now feel 63% nerdier just for contributing to this discussion. I think tape spontaneously appeared on the bridge of my glasses and my voice just became much more nasal and whiny sounding.

 

[Darkwolf71]

It was a perfectly legitimate move for a Chaotic character, yes. In terms of morality it can defined as neutral at best. Honestly, V's admission that it was done solely for impatience without even knowing the facts pushes it squarely into Evil. I could give the benefit of the doubt were V fully aware of the situation, but because it was solely because Elan had him tied up? Evil.

Not evil, logical. As V explained, s/he knew for a certainty, due to the circumstances, that Kubota 'needed killing'.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

This is D&D land. The only thing V did that was wrong was not taking Kubota's stuff after killing him.

 

[Asmor]

Was it really murder?

Yes, yes it was.

You can argue whether it was justified or not, but that doesn't change whether it was murder or not.

 

[hamishspence]

Actually, I've seen arguments that it wasn't murder, and that murder is only Chaotic

That doesn't mean I agree with them.

The "its not murder" arguments state things like "its international waters, no laws apply, murder is only unlawful killing"

They miss the point that act took place on a ship, and that even in places where any killing is not illegal (Vashar plateau, for example) the act of murder still exists.

Or, they argue that, there are times when you cannot take prisoners, therefore, killing people who have surrendered isn't murder.

I take the view that, as per Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds, a killing can be murder, whether it is illegal or not. If a jurisdiction legalises acts which are fairly called murder, the fact that that particular jurisdiction doesn't call it that is irrelavent.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Order of the Stick 596 is up.

Here is a link to the latest strip

END COMMUNICATION

 

[mlund]

You can argue whether it was justified or not, but that doesn't change whether it was murder or not.

Actually, it was "homicide," not necessarily "murder." They aren't the same thing. "Murder," is a type of homicide that implies an intentional and unjust killing. Ergo, whether it was justified or not does change whether it was murder or not.

When you kill someone who is attempting to unjustly kill you it is a form of what is called "Justifiable Homicide," that we typically label self-defense. When you kill someone who is attempting to unjustly kill someone else it is also called "Justifiable Homicide," but obviously not self-defense. If you kill someone who is attempting to maim or rape someone it is usually Justifiable Homicide as well. When a capital criminal is executed for his crimes (such as Murder or High Treason) the execution isn't considered Murder either - unless the State is corrupt and passing capital sentence unjustly.

Throwing the word "murder" around every time anyone intentionally kills someone else for any reason really dilutes the meaning of the word and the gravity of the action.

Not evil, logical. As V explained, s/he knew for a certainty, due to the circumstances, that Kubota 'needed killing'.

I suppose the whole 4th-wall breaking / genre-savvy thing could be considered conclusive proof. On the other hand, I think V acted because he believed it was likely that Kubato deserved death rather than that it was certain, and was willing to ignore the difference for the sake of expediency. To be fair to V, though, expediency might be the difference between the lives of everyone in the world and their utter annihilation.

- Marty Lund