OOTS 595 up

[Umbran]

Not to get overly political...

... but by saying that, you show knew you probably were. So (rhetorical question) why did you?

Don't go down this road, folks. Thanks in advance.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Typically, morality is found in either the intentions (did you mean to do good?), the consequences (were the results good?), or in the act itself (even if it is done with good intentions and to achieve a good end, you could say taking a life is still evil). I think you knew that, though.

Or, to shoot myself in the foot, you could go with something like good is, "maximize the happiness of the most people, even if that group doesn't include yourself." Then evil is maximizing unhappiness. You could define morality by relativism - it makes me feel good, so it is good. Or go the other way and invoke the divine - "god says it is evil, so it is."

The long and short is that there are many definitions of good and evil, as well as right and wrong, and the two pairs are not even necessarily the same (though some do believe they always are). Additionally, much of what we would classify as good/evil/right/wrong is completely ingrained through culture, religion, upbringing, and experience. I could point out some extreme examples, but that would be derailing the thread.

[Lasso] Needless to say, V's actions fall strongly into the evil category for me. For example - if Kubota was outlining his plan, who's to say they couldn't have been foiled? Whose to say Kubota's trial even would have gone as he said? The Paladins can detect evil, after all; maybe Kubota isn't evil at all. Who is to say his rule over the Azure Fleet (for lack of better term) would be any better or worse than Hinjo? There are too many variables for it to be entirely Neutral; V killed a person not out of good motives, but selfish ones.

Of course, let's ask another question - does V's alignment even matter?

And we can muddy up your precious "intent," as well. Once you get into the psychology of it all, how do you know for sure what you intended? There's always subconscious desires, battles between the id, ego, and superego, and so on. Think that's a load of fecal matter? Well, so do I about chaos theory wrecking ethical consequentialism.

Or for that matter, who says you have a choice? If your personality, dictated by your genes and environment, are a consequence of causality, then whose to say your "decisions" are actually choices? Maybe that's all been predetermined. However, I think I fall in StreamOfTheSky's camp - that infinite causality (ie, your action has effect beyond your scope to comprehend) is a convenient excuse to engage in rampant relativism.

Of course, all that said - it's these themes that make a story interesting. Would this comic be more interesting or less if V was clearly in the right or wrong? My guess would be the latter.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

The whole point of a trial is to try to determine guilt fairly.

The PCs in Order of the Stick commonly display meta-knowledge, including knowledge that they are in a game.

That meta-knowledge included factual awareness that Kubota committed murder and treason.

There was no need for a trial.

V has no real alignment problems.

The reason they have trials is that they are necessary as plot points.

 

[Orius]

Awesome strip. I too have players that'll get twitchy like that. Kinda like Arnold in Conan the Destroyer with the hilarious line "Enough Talk!" followed by a hurled dagger to the chest!

One of the two great lines in that entire film.

V is awesome.

Love how this strip has ignited a firestorm of debates about V's alignment. Personally, I am thinking - True Neutral (earlier editions) or Unaligned (4e). Totally in character for her/him, V rocks.

I'm seeing V as neutral here. The simple fact, Kubota's trying to bump off Hinjo, and as far as he's concerned, the OotS is in the way. He's targeted them a few times already. He's a threat. Eliminating the threat is kind of a pre-emptive form of self-defense, which isn't an evil act.

 

[That One Guy]

I now what Elan to ask V, "Wait, so what Alignment are you now?"

...that'd be great.

 

[hamishspence]

to soum up the arguments, elsewhere, that act was not evil.

It involved the killing of a bad guy, which is not murder, or not evil.

Murder is Chaotic, not evil, anyway.

Vile Darkness, and Exalted Deeds, which say murder is evil, are not core.

killing of unarmed prisoners isn't always murder.

Killing someone you know has committed death-penalty crimes is not murder

Killing someone you know will not be convicted of their crimes is not murder.

I am inclined to disagree with most of the above, and feel that they miss principles behind 3.5 ed D&D alignment. Similar, I am not fond of the idea that "anything exalted deeds says about prisoners is invalid because its not core, or because a prisoner just about to be executed is still a prisoner"

 

[jeffh]

Murder is Chaotic, not evil, anyway.

Who has said that, and where?

Note, also, that some of the other items on that list are rather tainted by using the word "murder". As has been pointed out multiple times already, "murder" means "wrongful killing" (or something close to it), and so using that word presupposes a specific stand on several of the very things that are at issue.