OotS 452

[Celebrim]

Roy, lawful good, is presented in a very sympathetic manner and is shown to be very intelligent, often as a contrast to the stupidity of other party members. If any OotS character is a mouthpiece for the author, it's Roy.

Well, he's the protagonist so you are probably right. But I find several things that are interesting about Roy. First, Roy is pretty blatantly held up in contrast to the other lawfuls appearing in the strip. Of all the alignments, lawful good has probably been the least sympatheticly portrayed in the strip, outside of Roy. Heck, even Chaotic Evil is shown with more sympathetically than most lawfuls in the strip - witness all the fans of Belkar and Zykon. Secondly, Roy isn't all that lawful. We only know of his lawfulness because he's said to be lawful. But we know very little about the code of belief Roy supposedly adheres to. I don't think I'd necessarily question Roy's lawfulness without this context, but lately I've been wondering what separates Roy from say 'nuetral good'? Is it the respect he has for his father's wishes? Is it the respect that he has for the traditions of marriage? Is it his respect for societal norms, or his unwillingness to bend convention or law? Is it his willingness to subordinate himself to some higher authority? Is it is flexible attitude with respect to dealing with evil? I'm beginning to feel that the basis of Rich's sympathy with Roy is his willingness to put aside lawful tenents when it would be beneficial to do so, which sounds alot more like like 'nuetral' on the law/chaos axis than lawful.

Citing Roy's moral behavior doesn't consistute proof of lawfulness, since things like honesty, respect for life, and so forth are generally considered basic tenents of goodness.

I don't think paladins are ever portrayed as stupid. Miko, the worst example of paladinhood in the strip, comes across as deeply mistaken, but not dumb.

Is that the point though of 'lawful stupid'? Isn't that the heart of the sterotype? That being lawful makes you stupid, regardless of your actual intelligence?

 

[Wolfwood2]

I don't understand how this particular strip evoked a "lawful stupid" reaction anyway.

The soldiers who stayed weren't being stupid. It's just that they were willing to fight to the last breath to defend their homeland, even knowing it meant their almost certain deaths. In many circles that would be considered, you know, heroic.

Did anyone seriously read that strip and come away thinking, "Hah, what a bunch of suckers!"

 

[Celebrim]

Did anyone seriously read that strip and come away thinking, "Hah, what a bunch of suckers!"

That's what I'm trying to find out. And in particular, I'm curious where the author's sympathy lies? Where does he intend us to place our sympathy? In the past two strips, he's presented the hobgoblins more heroicly than the Paladins.

 

[frankthedm]

The soldiers who stayed weren't being stupid. It's just that they were willing to fight to the last breath to defend their homeland, even knowing it meant their almost certain deaths. In many circles that would be considered, you know, heroic.

Did anyone seriously read that strip and come away thinking, "Hah, what a bunch of suckers!"

I am almost certain there were. There are many in this modern era who place little to no value on oaths of service and even hold such in contempt. Some of them even have trouble grasping why deserters get shot by their own side.

 

[DreadArchon]

Did anyone seriously read that strip and come away thinking, "Hah, what a bunch of suckers!"

I did. "Hey guys, let's die for no reason to appease our egos. The hell with our families!"

 

[Doug McCrae]

And in particular, I'm curious where the author's sympathy lies? Where does he intend us to place our sympathy?

Maybe the author thinks they are both perfectly reasonable human responses. If he does then I agree with him. Some might think the soldiers that ran were cowardly and some might think those that stayed were stupid, but I wouldn't.

I found this week's strip very thought provoking, touching as it does on the issue of what motivates men to fight in battle.

 

[Celebrim]

And now that I think about, I've got another line of argument for Roy being neutral good rather than lawful good.

Justice and Mercy are generally held by philosophies we commonly call 'good' to be both virtues but, also to be virtues that are in tension with each other. It's hard to be merciful and just at the same time. I propose that chaotic good philosophies tend to err on the side of Mercy in making judgements, and that lawful good philosophies tend to err on the side of Justice. Not only does this fit our sterotypes of the philosophies, but there is a strong theoretical reason why this should be so. The purpose of Justice is to protect the society. The purpose of Mercy is to protect the individual. So its natural to suspect that lawfuls would err on the side of Justice and chaotics err on the side of Mercy.

So on which side does Roy err? I would propose that Roy consistantly errs on the side of Mercy. In fact, Roy's mercifulness and hesitancy to shed life are some of the most consistant aspects of his personality. This doesn't necessarily prove that he's not lawful, but to me it strongly suggests that Roy's portrayal has been more neutral good than lawful good.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Heck, even Chaotic Evil is shown with more sympathetically than most lawfuls in the strip - witness all the fans of Belkar and Zykon.

The author does have a lot of fun with both those characters. Maybe it's a bit like Satan in Paradise Lost, usually held to be the most likeable character in the poem.

Personally I don't really like either of them. Miko is actually my favourite, and I suspect Rich likes her too as she's been saved from seemingly certain death a few times.

 

[2nd Ed Paladin]

....
Is that the point though of 'lawful stupid'? Isn't that the heart of the sterotype? That being lawful makes you stupid, regardless of your actual intelligence?

I've always thought of Lawful Stupid being the expression used to describe when someone Lawful Good to extremes rather than how most people play a lawful good character. For instance, won't lie no matter the circumstance, won't wear a disguise, etc.

 

[Jdvn1]

I did. "Hey guys, let's die for no reason to appease our egos. The hell with our families!"

You think that's the only reason? I can think of a few others.

"Egos? I thought I was doing this so I'd have a home to go to. If I try running away with my family, I'll probably die running away. My wife is sick and can't run very fast. I love my wife more than life itself and would never leave her behind. Why not, then, die fighting?"
(not necessarily for wives or families, but that's the most clear example, I think)

"I may be chaotic, but that doesn't mean I don't love my country."

"If we all try to run away, some of us will inevitably be left behind, as the boat-loading process is relatively slow (you have to walk up a narrow gangplank, so you can't all jump on) and we'll be killed anyway. I'd rather die fighting than die running."
(also, not just for boats and gang-planks but anything that causes a bottleneck--doors, even; also, boats are liable to sink if too many people are trying to save themselves by jumping on, and even if the boat doesn't sink, starvation and disease is a strong possibility)

Running away might be a good idea for some, but it's clearly not a good idea for all.