Order of the Stick 596!

[wingsandsword]

Sorry, but you're wrong, according to giantitp.com's news from 20 May 2008. OOTS is both, neither, and whichever is funniest at the time, all at once.

Also: Ridiculous alignment debates such as this are one of the major reasons for 4E's massive improvements to the alignment system. As far as I'm concerned, V is a good guy who killed a bad guy. End of story.

Wrong. Characters have 3.5 class abilities, make 3.5 rules jokes (even making remarks about what they gained/lost in 3.0 to 3.5 transition, like V losing Teleport).

While officially OotS might not say 3.5 anymore and has that little disclaimer so Rich can make a 4e joke if he wants to, it hasn't changed one single bit since 4e came out, nobody is "marking" people, V can't teleport because it's a ritual not affected by his school specialization or raise the dead because it's not restricted to Clerics now, and classes which don't exist in 4e like Bards still exist (along with Prestige Classes). So far the extent of 4e in OotS has been one joke about Elan having "Ignorance" as a class power source. Given how radically incompatible 4e would be with the established characters and plot, I seriously doubt that other than the occasional wisecrack there will be any 4e in OotS.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wrong. Characters have 3.5 class abilities, make 3.5 rules jokes (even making remarks about what they gained/lost in 3.0 to 3.5 transition, like V losing Teleport).

While officially OotS might not say 3.5 anymore and has that little disclaimer so Rich can make a 4e joke if he wants to, it hasn't changed one single bit since 4e came out, nobody is "marking" people, V can't teleport because it's a ritual not affected by his school specialization or raise the dead because it's not restricted to Clerics now, and classes which don't exist in 4e like Bards still exist (along with Prestige Classes). So far the extent of 4e in OotS has been one joke about Elan having "Ignorance" as a class power source. Given how radically incompatible 4e would be with the established characters and plot, I seriously doubt that other than the occasional wisecrack there will be any 4e in OotS.

But in OotS, is has been stated that Elan is using Ignorance as a power source!

 

[jeffh]

"The last time you captured someone, it turned out to be your brother and he was evil, so, this time, I preemptively permanently killed your prisoner to forestall any such nonsense." is V's entire justification.

And this is considered a good act by some of you?

Not a good act, just one that wouldn't automatically disqualify one from a Good alignment (a non-issue in V's case anyway, since s/he was never Good-aligned). At worst, a dangerously rash one indicating that careful scrutiny of that character's future actions may be warranted.

 

[jeffh]

Really, Elan nails it pretty well in the end. If it wasn't a good act, why wouldn't you tell the paladins about it? I mean, if it was a good act, then the paladins should be right on board.

Not necessarily. These Paladins are beholden to other causes in addition to Good in the abstract, namely Soon's Oath, Law in the abstract, and the interests of Azure City. All of these can be, and the first has been repeatedly depicted as being, positive obstacles to Good-aligned behaviour. We've seen the horrors at least one of them is capable of, and even the best of them have agendas that render any simple "disapproved of by the Sapphire Guard = Evil" equation problematic.

 

[doctorhook]

Wrong. Characters have 3.5 class abilities, make 3.5 rules jokes (even making remarks about what they gained/lost in 3.0 to 3.5 transition, like V losing Teleport).

While officially OotS might not say 3.5 anymore and has that little disclaimer so Rich can make a 4e joke if he wants to, it hasn't changed one single bit since 4e came out, nobody is "marking" people, V can't teleport because it's a ritual not affected by his school specialization or raise the dead because it's not restricted to Clerics now, and classes which don't exist in 4e like Bards still exist (along with Prestige Classes). So far the extent of 4e in OotS has been one joke about Elan having "Ignorance" as a class power source. Given how radically incompatible 4e would be with the established characters and plot, I seriously doubt that other than the occasional wisecrack there will be any 4e in OotS.

Well of course it hasn't changed; it's a webcomic, not a D&D play-by-play or simulation.

Rich Burlew has stated numerous times that the story and events of OotS is only loosely based on the rules. Primarily, OotS is rooted in the system-neutral fantasy themes of D&D. It addresses the rules only to explain certain plot-devices, or for comic effect. Obviously, given that the vast majority of comics were released during 3.5E's reign, yes, 3.5E's influence is still apparent in the comic.

Your point about 4E being 'radically incompatible' with OotS is ridiculous. Taking your logic to an extreme, you might as well have said, "4E is radically incompatible with Spongebob Squarepants!" In truth, OotS is a fantasy story, no more bound to any D&D rules than Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter is; the only difference is that OotS uses the idiosyncrasies of a popular fantasy roleplaying rules-system--D&D, especially 3.5E D&D up until now--to frame and flavour the plot. (Note that I said, it uses the idiosyncrasies of the rules, not the rules themselves.)

(Most of your "missing rules elements" arguments don't hold up either, given that 4E has or will soon have equivalencies for basically everything in previous editions.)

Does all this mean that OotS will soon be all "4E" rules jokes? Not necessarily. What we can count on is Rich Burlew continuing to write stories that entertain himself, using the idiosyncrasies of whatever D&D he's comfortable with as a source of comic material. That said, it's still nonsense to suggest that the comic is firmly tied any rules-system.

 

[wingsandsword]

Rich Burlew has stated numerous times that the story and events of OotS is only loosely based on the rules. Primarily, OotS is rooted in the system-neutral fantasy themes of D&D. It addresses the rules only to explain certain plot-devices, or for comic effect. Obviously, given that the vast majority of comics were released during 3.5E's reign, yes, 3.5E's influence is still apparent in the comic.

Well, it also addresses the rules not just to explain plot devices, but to explain everyday things, like the spells that are used (like spells that don't exist as spells anymore in 4e).

Your point about 4E being 'radically incompatible' with OotS is ridiculous. Taking your logic to an extreme, you might as well have said, "4E is radically incompatible with Spongebob Squarepants!" In truth, OotS is a fantasy story, no more bound to any D&D rules than Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter is; the only difference is that OotS uses the idiosyncrasies of a popular fantasy roleplaying rules-system--D&D, especially 3.5E D&D up until now--to frame and flavour the plot. (Note that I said, it uses the idiosyncrasies of the rules, not the rules themselves.)

No, Order of the Stick is a webcomic set in a world that uses the D&D rules, strongly predominantly the 3.5 edition rules, as it's basic laws of physics. There has been one, ONE, solitary 4e rules reference to Elan using "Ignorance" as a class power source, and aside from the first comic being about the OotS converting from 3.0 to 3.5, there have been a few references to V losing the ability of Teleport when spells were shuffled around from 3.0 to 3.5 in spell schools, and characters of long ago being earlier editions (like Haley's father being a 1e thief).

As for being radically incompatible, going back to Start of Darkness, the big master plan of the BBEG's Xykon and Redcloak is tied pretty closely into the Epic Spell rules from 3.x, which with 4e's ritual rules means that Xykon and Redcloak wouldn't need each other anymore to try to conquer the world.

That said, it's still nonsense to suggest that the comic is firmly tied any rules-system.

Frankly, I think it's nonsense to assume that Order of the Stick isn't deeply rooted in 3.5 D&D and that somehow it's a generic fantasy comic strip that makes the occasional reference to D&D rules along with every other fantasy source ou tthere, when for the years that strip has been around the whole gimmick of the strip has been a world where things worked as if the world was a D&D 3.5e game, complete with PC's, NPC's (with each knowing which they are), D&D rules (and the characters generally knowing the rules of the world they are in), and all the related cliches and plot tropes of classic D&D gaming.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Now you are confusing lawful with good. Executing "justice" without paying heed to legitimate authority is neither good nor evil, it is chaotic. The fact that V didn't care to bring Kubota before Hinjo is not evil, it is non-lawful.



That would be chaotic in nature - V determined Kubota was a villain guilty of crimes by an unorthodox route and immediately took steps to deal with it without regard for lawful authority. That's not evil in and of itself, that's chaotic.

No, that's Chaotic Evil in nature. The axis of alignment aren't exclusive, something can be of a combination of the two. Killing someone because it's easier than bringing him to trial shows not only disrespect for the law, but also for the value of life.

Really, this whole argument is eerily similar to one that happened in a game once, where one PC, in a fit of rage, murdered his girlfriend. For weeks, he tried to argue it was a chaotic act, not an evil one, whilst myself and the DM were saying "no, it was chaotic evil." Since said character was an Eladrin, the difference was kind of important.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, that's Chaotic Evil in nature. The axis of alignment aren't exclusive, something can be of a combination of the two. Killing someone because it's easier than bringing him to trial shows not only disrespect for the law, but also for the value of life.

That would be a cogent argument, except that it has been established that the crimes a BBEG is guilty of are generally punishable by death in the OotS universe. Hence, avoiding lawful authority and executing a sentence that would be in line with that which would otherwise be handed out by lawful authority doesn't show disrespect for life any more than bringing an evildoer to trial to have a sentence executed would.

Really, this whole argument is eerily similar to one that happened in a game once, where one PC, in a fit of rage, murdered his girlfriend. For weeks, he tried to argue it was a chaotic act, not an evil one, whilst myself and the DM were saying "no, it was chaotic evil." Since said character was an Eladrin, the difference was kind of important.

Your example is a complete non-sequitur. V determined that the person tied up had to be a BBEG, using metagame logic. In your example, the PC killed someone "in a murderous rage". The two aren't even remotely similar.

I think most people in this thread simply don't get why we have trials. A trial is not good in and of itself. However, in the real world we treat it as such because it is the only fair way we have come up with to reliably determine guilt and innocence and the level of culpability that should be assigned to the guilty. If we had magic mirrors that could view the past and see "the truth" we could dispense with trials. But we don't. So trials are seen as good - because they are the only known way we have of determining who has done "evil" and who has not.

But in the OotS universe, this is not true. V has outlined a perfectly valide metagame way to determine guilt and innocence, and in this case, the method has been 100% accurate. The only way you can say that V's act was evil is if you say that imposing the death penalty in the OotS universe after a trial is also evil.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That would be a cogent argument, except that it has been established that the crimes a BBEG is guilty of are generally punishable by death in the OotS universe. Hence, avoiding lawful authority and executing a sentence that would be in line with that which would otherwise be handed out by lawful authority doesn't show disrespect for life any more than bringing an evildoer to trial to have a sentence executed would.

I wasn't talking about the oots universe specifically, but I suppose i should. Where do you get "the crimes a BBEG is guilty of are generally punishable by death in the OotS universe" from? Nale went to prison. Belkar wasn't murdered on the spot for killing that guard. In fact, I think in oots, location matters, and it matters quite a bit. I'm trying to think, but other than Belkar (and the war, obviously), I can't recall once that the party has killed a sentient being inside a town/city. Some times in the wilderness and ruins/dungeons, but they seem more keen to take enemies alive when in the midst of civilization. Why does this matter? Elan had Kubota on the Azurite's ship. For all purposes, this is just as much a society as Azure City was, and I'm sure they have laws they uphold. I'd be willing to bet that giving accused persons some sort of trial, like the law had it in Azure City, is one of those laws. That may be an important difference. Kubota could have been given to the rightful authorities, and V murdered him in an area with laws against that.

Your example is a complete non-sequitur. V determined that the person tied up had to be a BBEG, using metagame logic. In your example, the PC killed someone "in a murderous rage". The two aren't even remotely similar.

I wasn't comparing the events of oots to that issue, I was comparing your line of ethical argument, being stuck on the chaotic parts of the action and somehow thinking that because it's chaotic it's not also possibly evil. In both situations, both you and that player were basically arguing that because the murder was "chaotic" -- in his case random violence, in the strip's case not wanting to deal with legal proceedings -- that's the end of it. No consideration on the good/evil axis. That side note had nothing to do with the comic itself.

I think most people in this thread simply don't get why we have trials. A trial is not good in and of itself. However, in the real world we treat it as such because it is the only fair way we have come up with to reliably determine guilt and innocence and the level of culpability that should be assigned to the guilty. If we had magic mirrors that could view the past and see "the truth" we could dispense with trials. But we don't. So trials are seen as good - because they are the only known way we have of determining who has done "evil" and who has not.

But in the OotS universe, this is not true. V has outlined a perfectly valide metagame way to determine guilt and innocence, and in this case, the method has been 100% accurate. The only way you can say that V's act was evil is if you say that imposing the death penalty in the OotS universe after a trial is also evil.

It's not an entirely valid metagame reason. Being good isn't easy, and the good choice is often not the expedient, simple, or "fun" one. Just because V found killing Kubota to be more efficient does not make the act non-evil. If we could get rid of a major disease by simply murdering every single person with that disease, it's still evil even if it's more efficient than spending untold decades trying to find a cure as scores die from it anyway. Well, most people would call it evil, at least.

I'm not saying this one act made V evil, but (s)he did commit an evil act. And yes, a chaotic one, too.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Depends on the justification. Cop in a non-death penalty state arrests murderer. Who points out that law will treat him as insane (it was a very spectacular murder and cop found bloodied, unarmed murderer standing over body LAUGHING! !

Cop make unilateral decision to kill the handcuffed murderer. Justification: life imprisonment is not enough, evil, threat to society and very good at faking insanity.

Justification would not, typically, convert Murder to Not-murder.

Now, in Teeth of the Tiger by Tom Clancy, agent is aware he has legal right to kill in self defense. He kicks over chair, murderer looks up and snatches up knife: bang bang bang.

(entry was legal by fact of suspected wrongdoing and fact agent heard screams from house. Ironically, it wasn't victim screaming)

Here we see a more valid justification.

There is a problem with your analogy. Realistically if a cop kills someone he is automatically subject to a review board meeting (a trial) where he has to prove that he was killing in self defense and that there was valid justification for the killing. The cop has to prove that he tried to subdue the victim through non-lethal force.means and that the only way he could have subdued the victim of the shooting was through lethal/fatal force because if he didn't his life (and those of others) would have been at peril.

Remember is law enforcement, be it COPS or PALADINS is to enforce the law and bring the guilty/unjust to trial, NOT to act as judge, jury, and executioner.