17 June 2016: Good and Evil

[sunphoenix]

And how can one know he is a paladin for sure? He can easily be a blackguard. Detect evil is not something to rely upon all the time for there are items that make you seem non evil. Making a person loose paladinhood because he is not sure the merit in another person is a terrible idea. They could easily be lying, and I know detect lies is sometimes a crapshoot as well.

In answer, and warning I'm about to get gammy here... I rarely get to let the D&D nerd out so here it comes...

No, Ears cannot be a Blackguard and not radiate evil, because Blackguards are a prestige class that requires a BaB of +6...that's minimum 6 HD, and MUST be of evil alignment to qualify for the prestige class. Detect Evil specifically does not detect evil on beings of lesser than 6HD even if they are of evil alignment.

Second I did not say a paladin would lose his alignment for not being sure of a person's moral merit... I said ignoring their request for be judged by his divinely given ability to detect evil and just attacking to kill would merit a serious breach of his responsibilities as a paladin to seek justice and the Law and Good. Attacking to kill without just cause is an evil act... and not worthy of paladinhood.

It is true.. there are many ways to fool detect evil ...but to assume and not question that someone is worthy of death or to just decide all beings of a particular race are evil and therefore worthy of death is questionable even in itself.

Personally, I would have stripped Kore of his paladin status the moment he killed that dwarven child who had done nothing apparently evil save being in the company of 'usually' evil beings. Kore made no attempt to find out if the child had been kidnapped and held for ransom or been captured in the woods or ANY NUMBER of other possible reasons a dwarven child might find himself in the dubious company of 'usually' evil beings! I don't care what Thunt or anyone else thinks about it~ killing that child without even trying to find out why he was there was nothing short of cold-blooded murder and waaay out of line for ANY paladin of Lawful Good alignment.

So as far as Kore is concerned to me.. he is made of 'plot-device' and nothing more...

But for sake of story.. I'm going to let it pass and enjoy the tale.

[YardMeat]

@Yardmeat: I too love THunt's portrayal of BE as a paladin. It's a nice change from the stick in the mud common player of the class. That he feels so guilty over the Axe breaking, despite doing his best, and keeps going over his past mistakes, means he's trying to learn from his mistakes and trying to figure out how to fix it.

I agree with all of that, 100%, I'm just frustrated with the way the story is treating him. Even by BE's own comments and definition of good/evil, Kore is evil. Now, that has been observed before. Others in the story have openly asked how Kore could still be a paladin while committing such evil acts, and apparently his curse is somehow behind that, so Kore is some sort of exception. I'm cool with all of that. But I still don't understand how:

• The Axe can be weakened without showing the signs of being weakened that it has shown before
• Acting in self defense and in the defense of your friends against a blatantly evil character is somehow, itself, evil, just because of the technicality that the evil character is somehow still a paladin
• An act can be evil enough to break the Axe, but not evil enough to lose paladin status

[YardMeat]

I really like Big Ears' explanation of the difference between good and evil, here. It's a lesson so many need to learn and I can think of a number of people that I've met--and a few that I only know through their work, such as comics--that have been the victims of this very evil. Disturbingly, I've heard and read people praising this very evil as good. And it's utterly horrifying how many people nod and accept this as good and right.

I agree . . . but his description of what constitutes good and evil is in conflict with what happens in the comic. According to his explanation, Kore is evil.

Being a paladin is supposed to be hard. Paladins are meant to be the paragons of good and justice. If you're anywhere near the average (even just above average), then you're doing it wrong. If you're compromising because things are hard, then you're doing it wrong. Take the best person you know and that person probably is not good enough for paladinhood.

Agreed, but that doesn't change any of my criticisms.

The Axe of Prissan requires even more than that. The wielder of the Axe of Prissan is to the average paladin as the average paladin is to the average person.

If that is the case, that isn't at all what Thunt has communicated in the comic. The comic mentions nothing about a separate, higher standard of good for the wielder of the Axe. The Axe is designed to attract paladins because paladins are committed to good acts, and good acts reinforce the Axe. That's it. There is no mention of one standard of good/evil for non-paladin handlers of the Axe and another for paladins. In fact, if that were the case, the Axe would practically be designed to fail: it attracts paladins when it is weakened, but paladins are more likely to break it than anyone else

I find the explanation to be fitting.

I don't because it assumes:

• The rules of the Axe have changed, without explanation (see again, the Axe weakening to the point of breaking without signalling the same warnings it has signaled before)
• Paladins are not allowed to protect their innocent friends against an evil attacker, if the attacker has some weird curse that makes them technically a paladin despite being evil
• An act can be evil enough to break the Axe without being evil enough to lose paladin status
• In the hands of a non-paladin, the Axe operates under different rules than it does in the hands of a paladin
• Paladins must deprioritize the lives of their companions and instead attempt to deescalate battles with non-violent diplomacy, even if they and their companions are currently under attack

Certainly this was not the only solution to the fight with Kore.

Certainly? What makes you say that? What other option was there other for BE to abandon his companions to their deaths?

[miados]

good and evil are mostly subjective which is why it usually goes by what diety they worship.

is it wrong to steal? typically yes but what if you steal from known con artists in order to help orphans have food? (I thought of this from a mash christmas episode where the man in charge of his orphanage sold presents meant for the kids but used it to buy them food)

Is it wrong to kill? typically yes but if the person intends to kill you and or others?

Is it wrong to lie? typically but during ww2 there were times lies saved the lives of others.

That is why the power they believe in and strive to make happy is a big part of what can be the determining factor.

Plus based on the lore of the axe I would say kore is verified to be a paladin.

and of course as many of the books for d and d say. the dm trumps the rules. so for all we know its a home brew aspect. after all we follow the story we don't know what is used to create it.

[Guus]

You are forgetting about the code of paladins. It is always wrong to lie, it is always wrong to steal, and it is always wrong to murder inlees diplomacy fails. Now, D&D 3.0 and 3.5 have the nifty trick of people being evil as judged by the alignment system/cosmos, which separates them from the need to trying to be diplomatic. However, in the way Hunt puts it, that's not how it works in the THuntverse. Apparently a personal code is the deciding factor (BE can never use a flanking advantage, because attacking someone in the back is apparently against his code). This makes good and evil completely arbitrary, as well as the paladin code and what makes the Paladin lawful or not. So basically, everything that makes a Paladin a Paladin is up for discussion and nothing actually decides what makes you a Paladin or not except your own moraal code. Let's hope BE is simply wrong in this matter. He is much more a 4E paladin based on what he says than a Paladin of the older versions.

Self defense is NOT an evil act, and defending your party against attackers is NOT an evil act. If anything, the axe should've broken on the future side of the room, because they actively attacked good characters, not the other way around. His explanation of why the axe would've been weakened is weird. BE wasn't exactly paladin-like in his behaviour, but he didn't actively do evil acts too, except that he mistakenly did things.

Evil in real life is pretty difficult. People do evil things for good reasons, and people do good things for evil reasons. What makes them actively good or evil is something that can be discussed, although there are certain things that just about everyone would view as being evil. In D&D 3.0 and 3.5 they got rid of that pesky problem by making it a force of nature. In context of this explanation, THunt got rid of that D&D gimmick, and now it's just arbritrary rules made by random people, although they still get powers from their "goodness". It just doesn't fit.

[YardMeat]

good and evil are mostly subjective which is why it usually goes by what diety they worship.

Not in 3rd ed D&D. Thunt can houserule, but the core rules specifically state this this is not the case. The PHB states that good and evil are not mere philosophies or points of view, but independent divine forces in-and-of-themselves that shape the cosmos. Paladins get their abilities from the divine forces of good and law, just as druids get their abilities from the divine force of nature, and not from deities.

Plus based on the lore of the axe I would say kore is verified to be a paladin.

Yes, but he is also verified to be some sort of weird exception, based on his curse.

[(^_^)]

Kore is very definition of evil using BE words, so they kill him using Axe and it works as super-happy-good deed, Axe gets fixed and everyone dies happily after.

[Hjerne]

I was the first to say that the demons were actually the GAP future selves who had traveled back in time.
And I was right.
I was the first to say that the axe broke specifically because it was used to attack Fumbles.
And I was right. (unless Ears is wrong)

This frightens me since I never manage to predict Thunt's plots or motivations correctly.

Now as to the determination of good and evil it is entirely possible that the attack on Kore from behind was evil and it would not have mattered if Kore was the most evil being on the face of the world. What actions are evil can vary from paladin to paladin. It all depends on the paladin's code of honor. It may be based on the requirements of some particular god or just based on the determination to become a champion of good but it is the code of honor that a paladin vows to uphold that determines what they can and can't get away with. If Big Ears code of honor was that to attack from behind was evil then it was an evil action. If his code of honor was that he couldn't attack opponents without being certain of motives then attacking their future selves was evil. Heck if his code included the belief that stealing food was the greatest of all evils then taking a single grape from a market vendor would be extremely evil.

[Rndom]

I am really liking the high resolution comic images, and hope they are here to stay.

[Krulle]

Become a Patreon.

[WearsHats]

Too tired to go through the whole thread, but I suspect this may be of interest. The first one is a general tweet. The others are replies to various people.

A lot of people are correcting me on paladins/good/evil. Ears' opinion isn't 100% mine. I disagree with him on a few points regarding morals.

Ears is actually contradicting himself on this page, though. This is no accident.

1st he's all "I attacked from behind, which counts as evil b/c I personally think it is."

2nd he's all "Evil think they're good, just b/c they personally think so. That doesn't mean they're good"

Also, in reply to a comment about how, basically, it's not fair that attacking Kore might be considered evil:

Well Kore is meant to currently appear as a frustrating contradiction to what makes good and evil. So yeah... it's awful.

[Eji1700]

Seems Thunt himself covered it, but I'd say that using Kore as part of your argument is already asking for trouble, given that it's been made very clear something is allowing him to not follow the rules.

[Sessine]

Ah! If this is Ears being over-conscientious and assigning all blame to himself, not author exposition -- then that's totally in character, and I am much happier with this page. Of course he'd do that. He's good... but he's not exactly a genius. He can be wrong.

[lurker]

Ah! If this is Ears being over-conscientious and assigning all blame to himself, not author exposition -- then that's totally in character, and I am much happier with this page. Of course he'd do that. He's good... but he's not exactly a genius. He can be wrong.

Maybe Minmax, with his simple logic will set him straight?

Something along the line of: "That's stupid! Good is about trying to help, evil is about... being evil..."

I dunno. It just seems to me that some Minmax logic might be just what Ears needs to stop overthinking things.

[miados]

Ah! If this is Ears being over-conscientious and assigning all blame to himself, not author exposition -- then that's totally in character, and I am much happier with this page. Of course he'd do that. He's good... but he's not exactly a genius. He can be wrong.

Maybe Minmax, with his simple logic will set him straight?

Something along the line of: "That's stupid! Good is about trying to help, evil is about... being evil..."

I dunno. It just seems to me that some Minmax logic might be just what Ears needs to stop overthinking things.

I could picture minmax using a recent example of fighting evil. saying something like

"I thought a guy was cool. It turned out he was a rapist, but nobody cared since he was raping a mon..... non human and I threw him through a window because he was evil. He died because he was evil I fought him because im good. Don't overthink it."

Maybe use another combined word. good and heroic. gooic.

then a goblin would make a comment it sounds like so and sos cooking. I am sure i am way off from what will happen but still.

[Guus]

MinMax saying something like that would actually redeem this page for me and make it actually interesting instead of... what it is now. I hope you're right!

[YardMeat]

Too tired to go through the whole thread, but I suspect this may be of interest. The first one is a general tweet. The others are replies to various people.

A lot of people are correcting me on paladins/good/evil. Ears' opinion isn't 100% mine. I disagree with him on a few points regarding morals.

Ears is actually contradicting himself on this page, though. This is no accident.

1st he's all "I attacked from behind, which counts as evil b/c I personally think it is."

2nd he's all "Evil think they're good, just b/c they personally think so. That doesn't mean they're good"

Also, in reply to a comment about how, basically, it's not fair that attacking Kore might be considered evil:

Well Kore is meant to currently appear as a frustrating contradiction to what makes good and evil. So yeah... it's awful.

That's very refreshing to hear, Hats, and thanks for sharing it. The Kore thing doesn't bother me so much because it has long been established that there is some sort of curse/blessing thing going on with him, and I'm 99.9999% certain that it has something to do with the Axe and the demon inside. I'm convinced Kore is the lone paladin that survived that event.

[Sessine]

Hah. Thinking about how MinMax is going to react to hearing all this... here's another possibility. He could say, "That's dumb. Who cares why the axe broke? Demons are easy. Hey, Names, if you're so good at names, just guess what the demon's name is. Then you can tell him to go to hell and he has to do it."

(He probably hasn't processed that Complains of Names is actually turning into a demon.)

[Miryafa]

Dang, Big Ears had a long rant there. Where did he get all these ideas anyway? I never saw him talk like this before he became a paladin, and he hasn't been to any paladin schools since then. And there's nothing going on in those panels either. It just feels to me like he's being a mouthpiece for the author.

But on another note, it's cool to see new goblins pages. I'm happy you're drawing again Thunt. And if you're reading this comment now I hope you stop, because in the past it seemed like you got so angry about comments and took them so personally when you don't even know us.

[RocketScientist]

Glad to see this was just Ears being Ears. It makes more sense that way. Thanks for sharing the tweets, Wears.

[gordo]

Someone posited in a previous thread that Fumbles'/Vorpal's new staff has anti-magic properties and could be the cause of the axe breaking, since the Future-Copies take on the characteristics of those they're portraying.

Ergo, Ears' wasn't the cause of the Axe breaking; the staff was.

My money is on this theory.
Despite the guy replying it was just some dumb level 1 item, I do think Fumbles got his hands into a very powerful artifact of nulification.

And used it, on its epicness, to make the most epic fumble ever. Like, reality collapse fumble.

(Also, it's strange to see someone who got this far on the comics still not get the idea that Thunts throws a lot of custom itens and some of then may be subtle hinted destroying magic ropes. And some of then are overpowered as hell, like a shield that turned a medium to large city into a pandemonium. By your logic, something this powerfull would never be founded into a poorly locked chest into a goblin warcamp, and well, it totally was...)

[SuperVaderMan]

And somehow the person who had the staff in the first place never touched any of the ropes with it and died. OK.

[miados]

And somehow the person who had the staff in the first place never touched any of the ropes with it and died. OK.

maybe it slipped from their hands as they were grabbed? people can drop things when startled.

[Arch Lich Burns]

I never said it was a level one item. And there are problems with that theory.

1: the guy holding the staff died, when using common sense, one would use the staff at one of the edge ropes after seeing all the bodies since they likely know it is magic discombobulation.
2: the spell to put them in time/create versions of themselves should have failed due to said magic item.
3: the ability to destroy the axe came out of nowhere and still very contrived.

[Vetala]

I'm not sure the axe was ever quite as indestructible as people want to believe it was. The possibility of at least damaging the axe was foreshadowed back when they were crossing the river. http://www.goblinscomic.org/10122010-3/ has Ears dismissing the idea of damaging the axe, not because it's unbreakable as long as it's used right, but because it's a magic item and therefore can only be damaged by magic.

So I think this "prison" is less a case of "as long as you keep feeding it good deeds, it'll be unbreakable", I think it's always been "if you feed it good deeds, it'll be too strong to break out of" with a mostly unstated caveat of "but if you bulldoze the walls from outside, that's your own problem, so try not to break it."