10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Discuss the comic here!
User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2131
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Guus » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:18 am

Social intelligence and quick battle wit are different skillsets.
Although I enjoy your analysis of the situation, I don't think you drew the right conclusion. Even if seen as "the master hands the servant its freedom", it would still think that that would mean "I recognize you as my equal (now)". Still I think that is way more recognition of social constructs than I think you can give MinMax credit for. We're talking about a guy who responds by throwing someone through a window in a fit of rage at the sight of something he perceives (rightfully so) as an injustice, without recognizing the intricate social situation he's in. When MM is emotional, he responds on that emotion and does not think about the implications of his action. He's not a robot, he's not a general trained in diplomacy and symbolism, he's a trained fighter with all his skills focused on being able to fight well, at the cost of just about everything else.
I feel smart, but I'm pretty sure I'm an idiot.

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Morgaln » Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:16 am

Yeah, as I said, it's my subjective impression of the situation, and I can absolutely see where you are coming from. Like you, I'd be interested in hearing what Hunt has to say about it. Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about my ability to put the question in just 140 characters (I would fail abyssmally at Sending spells), or I would ask him on Twitter myself.

Segev
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 13

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Segev » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:09 am

It is noteworthy that one can construct an argument that MinMax's tendency to resort to physical force to compel people to behave as he wishes in the moment is tyrannical, evil behavior. However, it is also important to note that, despite this being considered intellectually "bad" to our modern social mores, not only is it still ingrained enough culturally that few people bat an eye as long as it's a tense intimidation behavior that doesn't get overtly physical. Again, "You take that back," said in a menacing tone with hunched shoulders and body language suggesting that the speaker might be willing to have an unvoiced "or else, violence," is not something we hold against people. We even will, if we think the insult being demanded to be taken back is out of line, may agree that the shoulder-tensing aggressive person might be in the right.

It's interesting to me that people are ignoring, forgetting, or deliberately dismissing this cultural subtext and using MinMax's behavior within that subtext as a mark of not just poor impulse control and stupidity, but active evil. It's interesting because it demonstrates why a particular brand of social bullying is so effective. We see this, too, in a lot of fiction, usually by the smug snake style of social bully (frequently female, but not always, and also a major weapon in a bully's arsenal in Japanese fiction). The bully uses verbal barbs and hidden jabs to provoke this instinctive "How dare you? I will threaten you with violence if you don't stop picking on this vulnerable emotion of mine!" response, and then calls out that violence as "uncalled-for" or "extreme" or even "unprovoked" (if he's skilled enough).

Now, I'm not saying Names is doing this. Because Names, while clever, isn't that kind of person. Even if he wanted to bully MinMax, he would do it pretty much within MinMax's paradigm of physical force. If nothing else, he respects the "audience" of this scene - his fellow goblins - too much to manipulate them that way.

There is good reason we consider the MinMax-like response a bad one. Genuine bullies and jerks use it and take it to its fullest extent. Honestly, I think we allow "good people" leniency to engage in it because, despite intellectually and social-education-wise forgetting this, we have a deeply-ingrained instinct that that behavior is actually correct when responding to the tyrannical monsters who would use it without conscience. MinMax may be logically fallacious, and may do wrong at times, but his heart really is in, if not the RIGHT place, at least not a wicked one.

MinMax is responding to what he perceives as injustice, with Names, here. Names is unfairly attacking him and doing so by poking the emotional equivalent of a gaping wound that MinMax is trying to hold closed with staples while ignoring the pain and pressing on in the moment. He is responding like a wounded animal (which, in some ways, he is).

With Kin and the leash, he wasn't reacting to injustice so much as he was trying desperately to get her to pay attention and heed him. I still think it's giving his intellect too much credit (and his conscience too little) to think he processed on ANY level that the leash would magically compel her. He WAS using physical force, but he had no intention of hurting her, and probably would have let go anyway if she'd been resolute. He isn't the sort to force himself where he isn't wanted...but his instincts (poor as they might be) were that he could convince her to let him stay with her if she'd just give him a little longer and listen. He was trying to buy a minute more to persuade her, not trying to compel her beyond that.

Whether you think even demanding that by force is unacceptable or not, it's very human and it's something I'm sure we've all done to one extent or another at some point. Even if we didn't forcibly restrain somebody, we probably have nagged with repeated attempts to convince, followed a bit longer than we should, or otherwise been insistent by using physical actions that would demand counter-force that might be just the wrong side of socially acceptable to oppose to buy another chance.

Consider, too, that sometimes, "grab the other person and don't let them leave just long enough to make a plea" can work. On some level, even with her memories gone, Kin was feeling the same thing MinMax was. But, unlike MinMax, Kin is logical, and will <I>not</I> let emotions rule her. Especially emotions she can't even begin to rationally explain. But it is possible - just possible - that MinMax could have appealed to those emotions enough to convince Kin to find an excuse to stay, if he'd had just a few more moments to plead with her. I doubt he would have stopped her from going for very long, even if he hadn't made the huge mistake he did. I can't know that, of course, but it seems out of character.

User avatar
Arch Lich Burns
Will NOT Shut Up!
Posts: 17412
UStream Username: burnsbees
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Arch Lich Burns » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:33 am

MM is not what I consider as a 'good person' in spite of the comic trying to tell us that he is. Names saying things about Kin was in response to MM saying that Names did not care about Fumbles or other goblins, which I like to highlight that the other goblins are currently on the ground unconscious but MM does not care about them at all. You may think Names is unjustifiably attacking but MM jabbed at his emotions first. Then he gets physical when Names jabs back. No MM is unjustified here.

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Morgaln » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:45 am

I haven't seen anyone claim that MinMax is evil. Did I miss a post somewhere?

Also, I don't think Complains is attacking him unfairly at all. He's pointing out a very real hypocrisy in MinMax' behavior here. It's been maybe two weeks since Minmax attacked the goblin camp and killed almost everyone Complain's ever knew. Not only did he do that, he did so gleefully and unprovoked, for his own gain. Less than a day ago, Minmax appeared at Complain's location for the express purpose of killing Complains and taking revenge for the wound he took in their last fight. Revenge for Complains daring to defend his home against an unprovoked attack. The only reason MinMax didn't kill any of the goblins then is that Kore showed up and forced them to work together for their survival. This has been after he fell in love with Kin and lost her. So he might see Kin as a person and not a monster, but clearly it hasn't made him re-assess his opinion of the goblins.

I haven't seen MinMax ever acknowledge what he did. He hasn't apologized or tried to close the rift between him and the goblins. He's doing nothing to atone for his deeds. Instead he's accusing Complains of not caring about a goblin that MinMax tried to kill two weeks ago. Complains himself said it, MinMax has no business at all to take the moral high ground here. It's about time he got called on it, even if this is a bad moment.

Before anyone repeats Thaco's line about how war is always tragic and unfair: this is not a war. MinMax is not a soldier in an army. He's a free person who attacked others unprovoked. He himself said he did it because they were monsters (meaning, because of their race), and because they had something he wanted (loot). That's about as immoral as it gets for motivation.

Until and unless MinMax acknowledges this hypocrisy and starts to actively atone, Complains is fully justified in telling him to keep out of goblin business.

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:49 am

I mean the following as a critical but sincere expression of my issues with the last few pages, and the trend of Goblins in the last year at least.

How do you reconcile this universe?

The characters have an incoherent self.
They feel pain sometimes. They don't... when it's not important for the page.
They miss their friends sometimes. They don't... mostly.
They fear danger sometimes. They haven't lately, despite a clear indication that Kore is on their heels.
They meta-talk about their multiverse constantly. Some tertiary characters specifically know that the world is not real, but the ones with whom we are supposed to identify never specifically nod to it, I assume because we're supposed to actually give a shit about Minmax and the goblins and it would be VERY alienating for them to refer to them being around a table rolling up new characters.

When I have asked these questions in the past I haven't gotten as specific, and the tendency of the forums is to say 'yeah, it's a fun comic about D&D! The fact that they have gaping wounds and are in fact on the very edge of death, the Big Bad right around the corner, the world literally ending, and still fucking around with loot is because they're kinda-sorta being played by gamers, and we all know those kinds of gamers, D&D is silly in a lot of ways.' This comic is not D&D. There are a ton of examples but it's clearly, at the least, a different gaming system, so I would like to put that aside, please.

Moreover, that is not my point. The comic is telling a story. It's about characters. Those characters have characteristics and problems and intentions. They move through a hostile world and are tested, they struggle, they grow.

When a story is as schizophrenic as the last few pages have been - remember how recently Minmax lost his love, how recently the Goblins lost their friend, how recently they were all NEAR-FATALLY WOUNDED - how do you continue caring about these "people?" You can't take a break to yuck around every other page and maintain the dramatic flow of a narrative.

The last few pages have been very, very bad. Arbitrary swerves of plot, incoherent characterization, a complete lack of tension. ("And now there's a BOMB!! Better make the clown the king, it's suddenly the only option! I will now pause to explain the religious reasons why, as this has never been mentioned before.") This page reminds us of the pathos the story had a couple years ago. Remember Kin? Remember giving a shit about the goblins' survival? Yeah, I guess I remember, but boy this comic makes it hard.

So: how do you guys imagine this world such that it makes any goddamn sense and matters to you? Why would it make any LESS sense for Explains to pop around the corner and punch Kore so hard Kin fell onto Minmax' face, the end? What are the rules around here, and who are these people?

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:58 am

Morgaln wrote:I haven't seen anyone claim that MinMax is evil. Did I miss a post somewhere?

...It's been maybe two weeks since Minmax attacked the goblin camp and killed almost everyone Complain's ever knew. Not only did he do that, he did so gleefully and unprovoked, for his own gain. Less than a day ago, Minmax appeared at Complain's location for the express purpose of killing Complains and taking revenge for the wound he took in their last fight. Revenge for Complains daring to defend his home against an unprovoked attack.
...
I haven't seen MinMax ever acknowledge what he did... He's doing nothing to atone for his deeds. Instead he's accusing Complains of not caring about a goblin that MinMax tried to kill two weeks ago. Complains himself said it, MinMax has no business at all to take the moral high ground here.
...
this is not a war. MinMax is not a soldier in an army. He's a free person who attacked others unprovoked. He himself said he did it because they were monsters (meaning, because of their race), and because they had something he wanted (loot). That's about as immoral as it gets for motivation.
Dude (or lady), I think YOU are saying that Minmax is evil, AND I AGREE.

If this is a real universe with consistent moral rules and a continuous history, Minmax is a monster.
If this is a game, WHO CARES?? Seriously! Minmax' behavior makes perfect sense, FOR THE PLAYER OF AN RPG, but they are grotesque, borderline irredeemable, for a person living in a real universe, so WHAT IS GOING ON?

If Minmax is so stupid that he hasn't realized that his past actions were attempted genocide, what are we waiting for, here? He's fallen in love with a monster. He's best friends with a goblin. What is the epiphany? What will it take for this dick-joke factory to figure out maybe he shouldn't walk through the world like it's Dungeons & Dragons? This is not a protagonist with whom I identify at all.

User avatar
Liquidmark
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 110

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Liquidmark » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:10 am

Morgaln wrote:
I definitely disagree on that part. He doesn't let go; letting go would mean dropping the leash immediately. Instead he deliberately sets her free, by handing her the leash. That even requires him to give her another order, or she couldn't take it out of his hand. That is a powerful gesture, but it is the gesture of a master to their servant, not of an equal to another. "I am letting you go," as opposed to "I have no power over you."
I do agree that he was in an extreme emotional situation and wasn't thinking rationally, but I also believe that he knew full well what the leash does and that he did try to force Kin to listen. We also know from several other situations in the Maze of Many that he can think very quickly and come up with clever solutions to problems if necessary, so saying he's too dumb to realize what he was doing doesn't hold with me.
He had her take the leash from him. That's more powerful than simply dropping it.
Morgaln wrote:I haven't seen anyone claim that MinMax is evil. Did I miss a post somewhere?

Also, I don't think Complains is attacking him unfairly at all. He's pointing out a very real hypocrisy in MinMax' behavior here. It's been maybe two weeks since Minmax attacked the goblin camp and killed almost everyone Complain's ever knew. Not only did he do that, he did so gleefully and unprovoked, for his own gain. Less than a day ago, Minmax appeared at Complain's location for the express purpose of killing Complains and taking revenge for the wound he took in their last fight. Revenge for Complains daring to defend his home against an unprovoked attack. The only reason MinMax didn't kill any of the goblins then is that Kore showed up and forced them to work together for their survival. This has been after he fell in love with Kin and lost her. So he might see Kin as a person and not a monster, but clearly it hasn't made him re-assess his opinion of the goblins.

I haven't seen MinMax ever acknowledge what he did. He hasn't apologized or tried to close the rift between him and the goblins. He's doing nothing to atone for his deeds. Instead he's accusing Complains of not caring about a goblin that MinMax tried to kill two weeks ago. Complains himself said it, MinMax has no business at all to take the moral high ground here. It's about time he got called on it, even if this is a bad moment.

Before anyone repeats Thaco's line about how war is always tragic and unfair: this is not a war. MinMax is not a soldier in an army. He's a free person who attacked others unprovoked. He himself said he did it because they were monsters (meaning, because of their race), and because they had something he wanted (loot). That's about as immoral as it gets for motivation.

Until and unless MinMax acknowledges this hypocrisy and starts to actively atone, Complains is fully justified in telling him to keep out of goblin business.

I don't think Names rightfully pointed out any hypocrisy with MM. names doesn't really know much about Minmax aside from the facts that he's stupid, killed some goblins when he was level 2 and is a good fighter. Names hasn't observed Minmax interacting with either Kin or Forgath for an extended period of time. As it stands now, Minmax knows more about how the goblins relate to each other than any of them know concerning his "using" Kin or Forgath. They know absolutely nothing about his relationship with Kin aside from him possibly loving her and being thirsty for some sweet sweet snake tail. On Forgath, they know that they were party members and they were both still alive and together when they appeared on the bridge. Granted, Minmax didn't shed a tear for the three drow, but screw them, they weren't anyone's friends and Minmax was established to be in that party to help them out. He and Forgath could duo the entire warcamp without the drow.

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:29 am

Liquidmark wrote: names doesn't really know much about Minmax aside from the facts that he's stupid, killed some goblins
How much more would you feel you needed to know about someone if one of the facts you knew was that he murdered or tried to murder most of the people you knew in order to take their stuff? Do you think you'd be able to leap to a conclusion about that person based on that scant evidence?

User avatar
Liquidmark
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 110

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Liquidmark » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:48 am

BiggestBlackest wrote:
Liquidmark wrote: names doesn't really know much about Minmax aside from the facts that he's stupid, killed some goblins
How much more would you feel you needed to know about someone if one of the facts you knew was that he murdered or tried to murder most of the people you knew in order to take their stuff? Do you think you'd be able to leap to a conclusion about that person based on that scant evidence?
Him doing that doesn't mean that he was just using Kin and Forgath. Nazis killed millions of people. That doesn't mean that Nazis weren't people that formed friendships amongst their own group. Minmax has grown as a character and has learned to see monsters as more than just loot to a point. Him teaming up with these goblins can only further that progression. But keep in mind that he always had a moral code. When it came to monsters, it used to be simply "kill them and be done with it". If this were the goblinslayer that we're talking about, I wouldn't even be talking because he was beyond redemption.

If name's wants to hate Minmax forever for trying to kill what's essentially his family, then that is names' right. My issue is him extending that to his speculation on how Minmax feels about Kin and Forgath. I would have hemmed him up on the spot as well had he said that to me about a friend that I think is dead or a woman that I loved that I let go to honor her wish. In Minmax's case, he sees them putting fumbles in jeapordy that he wouldn't put Forgath or Kin into. That's why he says they don't care. He doesn't seem to understand that they don't have any other options. Ears needs to be healed or he is dead and other stuff needs to be done. He should be focusing on a way to assure that fumbles can absorb all the essences possible without dying, but minmax is an "in the moment" sort of guy that doesn't plan ahead and only becomes a genius tactician when his back is against the wall.

User avatar
ForgetsOldName
Is Heard Often
Posts: 301
UStream Username: TwoCoo
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by ForgetsOldName » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:01 am

The whole comic is a riff on Dnd stereotypes about monsters and heroes, and that includes alignments. The most sympathetic character in the whole strip is neutral evil by virtue of her race.
The old name was Twocoo. The avatar is the scariest thing in Wizardry I, circa 1981.

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:04 am

Y'know, comparing Minmax to a Nazi somehow does not persuade me that Complains should stop being such a jerk and consider the nuances of his character.

Also, hey man, just because the Goblinslayer was a rapist doesn't mean rapists aren't people that form friendships amongst their own group. We didn't see how he talked to him mom.

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:05 am

ForgetsOldName wrote:The most sympathetic character in the whole strip is neutral evil by virtue of her race.
Maybe I missed something. What are you talking about? I am pretty sure the central theme of the comic contradicts the idea that you can guess alignments based on race.

User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2131
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Guus » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:19 am

That was the point with which the story started out. The comparison with nazis is pretty bad for numerous reasons, but honestly I'd rather ignore that part of the argument altogether.

In D&D, creatures are if certain alignments. They can be deemed evil just because they are. In the comic, this is also true, on the virtue of Paladins being able to detect evil and not losing their powers en masse for killing random goblin camps. This is the starting point of the story, and that's just how it is. The story sheds a light on the monster races, and shows them to basically not be evil by default, when you consider the goblins, Kin, and the monsters escaping Brassmoon. Yes, MM is a mass murderer. Yes, in the way that the story has developed that should've been a big problem. But it just isn't.

In conclusion: it's a story inconsistency. I don't have trouble with it, but it's an inconsistency nonetheless.
I feel smart, but I'm pretty sure I'm an idiot.

User avatar
Liquidmark
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 110

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Liquidmark » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:30 am

BiggestBlackest wrote:Y'know, comparing Minmax to a Nazi somehow does not persuade me that Complains should stop being such a jerk and consider the nuances of his character.

Also, hey man, just because the Goblinslayer was a rapist doesn't mean rapists aren't people that form friendships amongst their own group. We didn't see how he talked to him mom.
Minmax doesn't seem the type to exterminate innocent women and children that can't defend themselves regardless of what they are. Even when he thought about killing Kin, it was going to be in honorable combat and a creature like Kin is not defenseless or weak. So no, he's not exactly comparible to a Nazi.

I only used the most extreme example to illustrate that it's sort of out of line to say that someone doesn't care about their loved ones because they are killers of others that are not their loved ones. Not saying that Nazis should get a pass for genocide but at the end of the day, they were still human beings and it is sort of silly to believe that they didn't care about their own loved ones as though they were some sort of reptiles that hatched from eggs. Committing genocide is certainly a horrible thing to do but in Minmax's case, the closest he came to that was attacking a warcamp, that's a known warcamp and battling opponents that he believes should be able to put up a fight. Forgath went right along with it, iirc and he even took satisfaction in essentially murdering goblins that stopped fighting and tried to crawl away. But once he realized that they were actually feeling, sentient, creatures, he did a 180 on that. Minmax didn't have that revelation at the time because he was off fighting Names, who was a worthy opponent.

Goblinslayer, on the other hand took joy in causing suffering and didn't care if the subject was a combatant or simply a villager that got lost. However, he cared deeply for his friend that ears killed and got the axe from and it would be unfair to claim that because he raped and tortured Kin that he didn't care about his friend. Not saying that it's suddenly ok to torture Kin or fumbles or anyone else. I'm only saying that being a killer, rapist or torturer is totally not related to how the person feels about others that they personally care about. If you want to be mad at someone for being a killer, rapist or torturer, then do that but it is a tall order to believe that they don't care about *anybody* because they're a dastardly mo-fo.

So far, only about 3 characters for that description, psymax, Kore and junior and the last two are pretty much cursed and psymax is clearly owlman levels of insane.

I'm not even saying that names should stop being a jerk. 'Jerk' is his default state and he does have a right and reason to not like Minmax and adventurers in general. He started out HATING humans and had he had the opportunity to do so, he probably would have exterminated all humans on page one of his appearance.

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:01 pm

Guus wrote: In D&D, creatures are if certain alignments. They can be deemed evil just because they are. In the comic, this is also true, on the virtue of Paladins being able to detect evil and not losing their powers en masse for killing random goblin camps. This is the starting point of the story, and that's just how it is. The story sheds a light on the monster races, and shows them to basically not be evil by default, when you consider the goblins, Kin, and the monsters escaping Brassmoon. Yes, MM is a mass murderer. Yes, in the way that the story has developed that should've been a big problem. But it just isn't.

In conclusion: it's a story inconsistency. I don't have trouble with it, but it's an inconsistency nonetheless.
What?

So, monsters are evil... but the story shows that monsters are not evil?

We have one example of a paladin retaining their powers while also slaughtering innocent creatures because of their race, and have a lot of evidence that there's more to it than D&D alignment restrictions. I don't think your argument makes sense at all.

Regarding "it should have been a big problem but it just isn't," I think it wasn't a problem because we were waiting for the story to pay off with Minmax learning lessons. Growing as a character. Butchering that goblin camp was an evil act, and we only sympathized with Minmax because he was an innocent idiot who didn't realize that goblins were people.

Now that he knows, and has known for a while, it's getting very hard to say that he's not just an unrepentant murderer.

... actually, I wonder why he had such a problem with raping Kin at a time when he would have had no problem killing her. Just inconsistent roleplaying? Or rather, he's being roleplayed by a guy who would rather not rape. I get that.

User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2131
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Guus » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:41 pm

What part of "inconsistent" is difficult here?

Hunt says that rules for paladins exist in this universe, so them being able to fall is not a stretch. BE used detect evil in Brassmoon, so there is an objective good and evil in this universe, unless the detect spells detect based on your own perspective, which would be incredibly convoluted. If there are Paladins, and they don't fall en masse, that means that it's ok to kill goblin Camps, orc tribes, giant bastions and so on and so forth, because the story starts with the warcamp being a low level adventure xp grind for new adventurers. So, as there are supposed to be objectively evil characters, the rest of the story is inconsistent with the base premise. It's not my argument that doesn't make sense, it's the discrepancy between good and evil/monsters and people in the story itself that doesn't.

On the note of Kore: I don't know how that's possible. According to Hunt, Kore is still a full blown Paladin in its own right and he follows the rules of the Paladin code, but the fact is that he simply doesn't. This doesn't take away anything from what I've said, and shows further that the baseline D&D on which the story is based and the practical events in the story are inconsistent. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
I feel smart, but I'm pretty sure I'm an idiot.

User avatar
Liquidmark
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 110

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Liquidmark » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:47 pm

Guus wrote:What part of "inconsistent" is difficult here?

Hunt says that rules for paladins exist in this universe, so them being able to fall is not a stretch. BE used detect evil in Brassmoon, so there is an objective good and evil in this universe, unless the detect spells detect based on your own perspective, which would be incredibly convoluted. If there are Paladins, and they don't fall en masse, that means that it's ok to kill goblin Camps, orc tribes, giant bastions and so on and so forth, because the story starts with the warcamp being a low level adventure xp grind for new adventurers. So, as there are supposed to be objectively evil characters, the rest of the story is inconsistent with the base premise. It's not my argument that doesn't make sense, it's the discrepancy between good and evil/monsters and people in the story itself that doesn't.

On the note of Kore: I don't know how that's possible. According to Hunt, Kore is still a full blown Paladin in its own right and he follows the rules of the Paladin code, but the fact is that he simply doesn't. This doesn't take away anything from what I've said, and shows further that the baseline D&D on which the story is based and the practical events in the story are inconsistent. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
Maybe the good/evil call works on the basis of what the individual paladin or the paladin's god considers good or evil?
BiggestBlackest wrote:
Guus wrote: In D&D, creatures are if certain alignments. They can be deemed evil just because they are. In the comic, this is also true, on the virtue of Paladins being able to detect evil and not losing their powers en masse for killing random goblin camps. This is the starting point of the story, and that's just how it is. The story sheds a light on the monster races, and shows them to basically not be evil by default, when you consider the goblins, Kin, and the monsters escaping Brassmoon. Yes, MM is a mass murderer. Yes, in the way that the story has developed that should've been a big problem. But it just isn't.

In conclusion: it's a story inconsistency. I don't have trouble with it, but it's an inconsistency nonetheless.
What?

So, monsters are evil... but the story shows that monsters are not evil?

We have one example of a paladin retaining their powers while also slaughtering innocent creatures because of their race, and have a lot of evidence that there's more to it than D&D alignment restrictions. I don't think your argument makes sense at all.

Regarding "it should have been a big problem but it just isn't," I think it wasn't a problem because we were waiting for the story to pay off with Minmax learning lessons. Growing as a character. Butchering that goblin camp was an evil act, and we only sympathized with Minmax because he was an innocent idiot who didn't realize that goblins were people.

Now that he knows, and has known for a while, it's getting very hard to say that he's not just an unrepentant murderer.

... actually, I wonder why he had such a problem with raping Kin at a time when he would have had no problem killing her. Just inconsistent roleplaying? Or rather, he's being roleplayed by a guy who would rather not rape. I get that.
To Minmax, killing the goblins at the warcamp wasn't evil. From his perspective *they* were evil and trying to conquer the world.

As I stated before, Minmax has a pretty clear code of honor. Killing in battle against an opponent that can fight back is honorable. Raping a monster that is essentially a slave and can't resist is dishonorable. If Minmax had a button that would instantly kill the goblins that he wanted to kill, I would imagine that he would ignore it and demand honorable combat unless he had no other alternative. However, he would try combat first. Remember, he couldn't kill goblinslayer after he was knocked unconscious. His honor would not allow that. Tho, he wouldn't have a problem if Forgath did it...

Personally, if I were playing one of my characters in that situation, goblinslayer would be super dead because many of the characters that I've played had no qualms with doin 'em while they're asleep or stabbing enemies in the back.
Last edited by Liquidmark on Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2131
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Guus » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:57 pm

Except that, according to Hunt, the Paladins work according to D&D rules, and the Paladin code is bound to cosmic law. That means there must be objective good and evil.

Also, I already made that statement, and it doesn't hold. What use is a detect evil spell if it only considers your personal values? I can think of some, but that would mean that the Paladin itself would become jury, judge and executioner, which goes against Paladin code.
I feel smart, but I'm pretty sure I'm an idiot.

User avatar
Liquidmark
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 110

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Liquidmark » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:03 pm

Guus wrote:Except that, according to Hunt, the Paladins work according to D&D rules, and the Paladin code is bound to cosmic law. That means there must be objective good and evil.

Also, I already made that statement, and it doesn't hold. What use is a detect evil spell if it only considers your personal values? I can think of some, but that would mean that the Paladin itself would become jury, judge and executioner, which goes against Paladin code.
What about Gods? Because if it worked based on absolute objective good or evil by D&D, wouldn't Big Ears detect himself and his group as evil since goblins are evil alignment?

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:26 pm

Liquidmark wrote:
Maybe the good/evil call works on the basis of what the individual paladin or the paladin's god considers good or evil?

...

To Minmax, killing the goblins at the warcamp wasn't evil. From his perspective *they* were evil and trying to conquer the world.

As I stated before, Minmax has a pretty clear code of honor. Killing in battle against an opponent that can fight back is honorable. Raping a monster that is essentially a slave and can't resist is dishonorable.
This is a very silly discussion, but ok: so, a character who believed that raping slaves was an honorable act could do it and still be a paladin, and we the readers would think they were good because they had an idiosyncratic moral system?

I don't know what's up with Kore but I assume Mr. Hunt has a card he has yet to reveal. He is NOT "Good" and the mechanism by which he retains his paladin status will be revealed at some point.

I am confident that, were Minmax a paladin, he would have lost the favor of his deity (paladins can only be Good) after butchering a goblin village full of innocents who never intended harm to anyone. The only reason D&D paladins can get away with killing a bunch of goblins without checking on their moral status is that all the monsters they encounter are, in fact, Evil, which was clearly not the case here. Were someone to cast Detect Evil on our buddies the goblins they would not be evil. Obviously Ears is not, he's a fucking paladin.

BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:29 pm

Guus wrote:Except that, according to Hunt, the Paladins work according to D&D rules, and the Paladin code is bound to cosmic law. That means there must be objective good and evil.

Also, I already made that statement, and it doesn't hold. What use is a detect evil spell if it only considers your personal values?
Yeah, it's almost like this universe makes no sense, huh?

User avatar
Guus
Floods your Ears
Posts: 2131
Location: Beneath sea level

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Guus » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:36 pm

@liquid: That's my point, they should. Normally, evil creatures using detect spells would use "detect good", because they themselves are evil and good is the enemy. Gods are bound to their alignments, and the alignments are a cosmic force. If a lawful good god would go against its lawful good nature, it too would have to switch alignment. It doesn't happen in normal D&D lore because the gods are embodiments in part of the alignment they are associated with. That's where the discrepancy of the D&D baseline lies with how the story is told.

Big Ears shouldn't even be able to be a Paladin, because Paladins can only worship lawful good Gods, and Magubliyet is neutral evil. The fact that he is shows that the Paladin code doesn't really hold up to scrutiny in this comic, even though the base line is very much so represented. It is weird that in a world where you have such things as "detect good" and "detect evil" there is such a societal relationship as the humanoid factions in this world have. If the "detection of evil" was from the perspective of a god instead of the individual or the cosmic force, it could work in theory. But the goblins are compassionate, at least to each other, while they worship a god that favors trickery and deceit. So the way BE practices his faith also doesn't add up to the expectation of his god. In the end, it doesn't matter too much to me. I think that the starting point of the story should largely be ignored, because the story had a more D&D heavy feel then as opposed to now. However, it is still inconsistent if you look at the world building aspect of the story.

@BiggestBlackest: what do you expect from me? Your statements are highly confusing. Just throwing in an off hand remark doesn't really add to the discussion. Also, could I ask you to not double post and just edit your last post? It makes the forum easier to read.
Last edited by Guus on Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I feel smart, but I'm pretty sure I'm an idiot.

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Morgaln » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:44 pm

Liquidmark wrote:
Morgaln wrote:
I definitely disagree on that part. He doesn't let go; letting go would mean dropping the leash immediately. Instead he deliberately sets her free, by handing her the leash. That even requires him to give her another order, or she couldn't take it out of his hand. That is a powerful gesture, but it is the gesture of a master to their servant, not of an equal to another. "I am letting you go," as opposed to "I have no power over you."
I do agree that he was in an extreme emotional situation and wasn't thinking rationally, but I also believe that he knew full well what the leash does and that he did try to force Kin to listen. We also know from several other situations in the Maze of Many that he can think very quickly and come up with clever solutions to problems if necessary, so saying he's too dumb to realize what he was doing doesn't hold with me.
He had her take the leash from him. That's more powerful than simply dropping it.
I understand how you see it that way, I'm not sure you understand my point. I think it sends a very different message (I almost used the word signamancy here, damn you Erfworld >:( ) if he hands her the leash instead of dropping it.
There is only one person who has the right to control Kin. That person is Kin. When MinMax grabs the leash, he takes that control away from her. Whether he did it deliberately or not is something we disagree on, since it might be either way. Either way, he had no right to do that, I think everyone agrees on these points.
However, when he realises what he did, he keeps hold of the leash. That means he unnecessarily prolongs the time she is under his control. Remember that during this time, she is still forced to obey the order he gave her earlier. She has to stay under his control until he allows her to take the leash. And he literally has to give her permission to take it. That permission takes the form of another order he is giving her. Which means he turns her having control over herself into his choice. He decides how, when and where she will be able to gain control again, and he lets her have it by his grace.
I am certainly not saying he does all of that intentionally. I doubt he thought of all of this. But it is the message the scene sends to me (again, subjective impression, I'm not trying to turn anyone to my view here).

Liquidmark wrote:
Morgaln wrote:I haven't seen anyone claim that MinMax is evil. Did I miss a post somewhere?

Also, I don't think Complains is attacking him unfairly at all. He's pointing out a very real hypocrisy in MinMax' behavior here. It's been maybe two weeks since Minmax attacked the goblin camp and killed almost everyone Complain's ever knew. Not only did he do that, he did so gleefully and unprovoked, for his own gain. Less than a day ago, Minmax appeared at Complain's location for the express purpose of killing Complains and taking revenge for the wound he took in their last fight. Revenge for Complains daring to defend his home against an unprovoked attack. The only reason MinMax didn't kill any of the goblins then is that Kore showed up and forced them to work together for their survival. This has been after he fell in love with Kin and lost her. So he might see Kin as a person and not a monster, but clearly it hasn't made him re-assess his opinion of the goblins.

I haven't seen MinMax ever acknowledge what he did. He hasn't apologized or tried to close the rift between him and the goblins. He's doing nothing to atone for his deeds. Instead he's accusing Complains of not caring about a goblin that MinMax tried to kill two weeks ago. Complains himself said it, MinMax has no business at all to take the moral high ground here. It's about time he got called on it, even if this is a bad moment.

Before anyone repeats Thaco's line about how war is always tragic and unfair: this is not a war. MinMax is not a soldier in an army. He's a free person who attacked others unprovoked. He himself said he did it because they were monsters (meaning, because of their race), and because they had something he wanted (loot). That's about as immoral as it gets for motivation.

Until and unless MinMax acknowledges this hypocrisy and starts to actively atone, Complains is fully justified in telling him to keep out of goblin business.

I don't think Names rightfully pointed out any hypocrisy with MM. names doesn't really know much about Minmax aside from the facts that he's stupid, killed some goblins when he was level 2 and is a good fighter. Names hasn't observed Minmax interacting with either Kin or Forgath for an extended period of time. As it stands now, Minmax knows more about how the goblins relate to each other than any of them know concerning his "using" Kin or Forgath. They know absolutely nothing about his relationship with Kin aside from him possibly loving her and being thirsty for some sweet sweet snake tail. On Forgath, they know that they were party members and they were both still alive and together when they appeared on the bridge. Granted, Minmax didn't shed a tear for the three drow, but screw them, they weren't anyone's friends and Minmax was established to be in that party to help them out. He and Forgath could duo the entire warcamp without the drow.
You know, I think it's funny that you call him Names, like MinMax does, and I call him Complains, like the other goblins do. I'm not sure if you do it deliberately or not, I just noticed.
I agree that Complains has no idea about the relation between MinMax and Forgath or Kin. It was a stab designed to get a rise out of him, nothing more and nothing less; a pretty effective one, even. But the hypocrisy is still very real when you consider that MinMax claims he's the only one who cares whether Fumbles lives or dies; two weeks ago, he tried to kill Fumbles; heck, a day ago, he told Fumbles he's "dead meat". And suddenly, Fumbles is his best buddy? I wouldn't believe it either, if I was Complains.
Liquidmark wrote: I only used the most extreme example to illustrate that it's sort of out of line to say that someone doesn't care about their loved ones because they are killers of others that are not their loved ones. Not saying that Nazis should get a pass for genocide but at the end of the day, they were still human beings and it is sort of silly to believe that they didn't care about their own loved ones as though they were some sort of reptiles that hatched from eggs. Committing genocide is certainly a horrible thing to do but in Minmax's case, the closest he came to that was attacking a warcamp, that's a known warcamp and battling opponents that he believes should be able to put up a fight. Forgath went right along with it, iirc and he even took satisfaction in essentially murdering goblins that stopped fighting and tried to crawl away. But once he realized that they were actually feeling, sentient, creatures, he did a 180 on that. Minmax didn't have that revelation at the time because he was off fighting Names, who was a worthy opponent.
Just pointing out that Kin is a reptile that hatched from an egg... :D

User avatar
Arch Lich Burns
Will NOT Shut Up!
Posts: 17412
UStream Username: burnsbees
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Arch Lich Burns » Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:21 pm

Ah, thanks Morglan, I knew MM and Forgoth stalled the goblins long enough for kore to get there, they honestly did not need MM at all and could have opened the porticus with the multiple goblins that have classes based on str.

Post Reply