Order of the Stick - Book 5 Discussion Thread

Cafe Society
7902

Well, ok, they’re at least temporarily over-powered, albeit the degree to which this is true is perhaps mitigated in time and a bit of leveling. But some vampire powers are fearsome for encounter design purposes, especially the at will dominate ability, not to mention energy drain, damage reduction, fast healing, and massive increase in all base abilities, except constitution of course. Gaseous form is also a potential serious problem for encounter design. Some of these are offset by the weaknesses, but in dungeoneering circumstances, there’s a problem.

And I think my point stands that Drizz’t was good because his actions were good, and at odds with the usually overwhelming effect of Drow culture and breeding.

7903

Yes, I’m not saying the act was unjustified. But before his transformation Durkon would have regretted the necessity of having to kill an enemy. Now he doesn’t seem to care if he kills somebody.

7904

There was that super-sad bonus strip in War and XPs where Miko tried to make friends with two of the other female paladins and was rebuffed because of her annoying personality, so she went back to her place and we saw that she had prepared three meals, which she ended up eating alone (well, with Windstriker).

On the other hand, she did try to kill me – and probably a lot of the rest of you too! – for reading a book, so I don’t know why I’m bothering to say anything nice about her.

7905

I mean that outside D&D, and apart from a passel of assholes, we generally tend to attribute goodness or evil to people based on what they do, and/or the reasons they do it, and/or the way they do it, rather than based on what/who they are.
It’s also true in D&D to some extent, when it’s not being retarded about it. E.g. Joe the Hero doesn’t do charitable things because they’re Lawful Good, they’re Lawful Good because they do charitable things (caricaturally speaking). And when they stop doing them, they stop being Lawful Good as well.

So, yeah, All Vampires Are Evil… but then again, the concept of the mostly decent Evil Monster struggling with his nature is not exactly new and uncharted ground. Hell, half the games of Vampire:The Masquerade are all about miscast PCs lamenting and attempting to delay their own fall and trying to cling on to their morality. The other half, granted, is about exploring the fabulous extents to which one can be a colossal dick. Not that there’s anything wrong with that :p.

So I’m not writing off Durkula just because he’s an unholy mockery of life powered by bad voodoo and fainting teenage girls just yet. Yeah, he channels negative and spontaneous Inflict, but that’s just what people of the cleric class who happen to have a negative alignment do. You could be a priest of the child goddess of fluffy kittens and channel negative, if you so wished (especially in more modern incarnations and settings of D&D where priestly powers aren’t really, or necessarily, bestowed directly by gods - you can be the priest of a philosophical concept these days. You can even be the priest of atheism, though the gods might not find it as funny :)).

His dealing with Zz’drrit however did bother me a bit, so we’ll see. I’d actually be pleasantly surprised if Giant wrote Durkula as an actually, repulsively Evil dude now, causing the others (Roy in particular) to have moral qualms about keeping him in the squad. Although of course, D&D rules provide for a simple brute force solution to this problem, long as you’ve got enough diamond dust. Even in fantasy realms, it’s all about the bling :stuck_out_tongue:

7906

I seems to me that Burlew draws a distinction in his mind between D&D evil and moral evil, albeit with some correlation between the two. That permits him for example to show paladins commit morally evil acts (IMHO, I guess). I would say that it should be difficult for him to work vampires into his framework, except that he’s a thoughtful guy and furthermore has been thinking about Durkula for basically the lifespan of the strip (minus ~2 issues).

All that is by way of introduction to an interesting comment he made at Oots. The OP opined that while alignment was part of D&D, most roleplaying games have nothing like it and they aren’t any worse for the wear. So the question arises, “Why have it all?”

[QUOTE=The Giant]
Generally, it is most useful either as a.) shorthand between experienced players to allow them to easily discuss a broad range that a character falls in, or b.) a tool for inexperienced players to even consider issues like what their characters believe. And it’s b.) that’s really the benefit.

It’s tough for those who spend all their time talking about D&D to remember that most players are very casual and don’t think too deeply about this stuff at all. For that sort of player, picking an alignment is a great introduction to the idea of having a group of characters with diverse motivations. We all take for granted that you have to decide what your character believes, but remember that D&D gets taught to kids who haven’t even really figured out what they themselves believe yet. Left to their own devices, they’re unlikely to delve deep into their fictional character’s philosophies. Alignment is good for starting that conversation. It’s also a good way to keep beginning players on the general sort of path of heroics without them burning down the village for kicks.
… [Another poster wonders why the DM can’t just punish bad behavior.]

That’s true, but that requires the DM to be able to create and communicate those disadvantages. Which means it’s not much of an option when the DM is also a novice. Alignment has the stamp of authority on it because it’s part of the rules. By the time anyone figures out that it doesn’t NEED to be part of the rules, they’re already past the part where it’s most useful.

Or, to continue the bike analogy: An experienced rider teaching you is better than training wheels, but not everyone knows someone willing to do that—and training wheels are better than nothing.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306212
So given that the Giant seems to think that character should drive alignment rather the other way around, he (once again) has a fair amount of plausible flexibility moving forwards.

One part of the vampire legend depicts them as “Feral, but refined”. Think of the aristocratic vampire with good manners papering over ravenous needs. Given humanoid’s propensity for self-justification (as seen to some extent with Malack) it’s easy to see empathic indifference and bloodlust leading to evil deeds even if the character retains a lawful nature, at least initially.

7907

Somebody like Durkon might do Good for a while out of force of habit. But he’s not feeling it anymore.

7908

I’m genuinely not understanding your criticism, here.

That’s one reason I’m really hoping for Evil Durkon - I’m sick to death of the “conflicted vampire” trope, and appreciate a return to a more, “Kill the unclean thing!” approach to the subject.

The “cleric of a philosophical concept” idea has been around at least since the Red Box, so that’s not exactly new. I’m not really following the “priest of fluffy kitten who channels negative energy” thing. You don’t have to be evil to channel negative energy - neutral clerics can choose to do either positive or negative, so the fact that Durkon channels negative energy isn’t proof that he’s evil, if that’s what you’re getting at. But it is proof that he’s changed alignment (good characters can’t channel negative energy at all), and it would be kind of weird if being changed into a vampire made you turn neutral. (What makes a man turn neutral, anyway? Lust for power? Greed? Or are they just born with a heart full of neutrality?)

Rich really does love his affably evil characters. It would be interesting to see someone who’s just a straight up monster (Belkar hasn’t been able to fill that role for a while now), but that would make the Order’s decision to just kill him and rez him a little too easy.

7909

I don’t see that distinction existing in the comic at all. What specific instances do you think highlight it?

“Lawful” is entirely separate from “Good” in D&D. “Lawful Evil” isn’t less evil than “Chaotic Evil,” it’s just evil in a more controlled and orderly fashion. Durkon retaining his lawful alignment isn’t going to act as any sort of a bulwark against him committing evil deeds, it’s just going to inform the manner, and to a lesser degree, purpose, of those deeds.

7910

The best example is during RedCloak’s first appearance in Start of Darkness: paladins raid village and show no concern for civilians. Another example would be the paladins in the party Roy originally signed up with in the PC prequel. Paraphrasing, “Hey Roy we can’t do this evil deed but you could wink, wink.” From a utilitarian perspective, Miko is arguably evil. From a D&D perspective she is not. The distinctions between RL evil and D&D evil are part of the reason the Giant bans moral discussions from his board I speculate.

The treatment of goblinoids within the comic is profoundly wrong, something the author understands. Any RL good utilitarian philosopher would acknowledge this, but I can accept a D&D good character having that sort of blind spot. Roy gets it though: think of his prequel encounter with the Orc metalheads.

I think Nemo had a better take than mine: Durkula might act in a good fashion out of habit. To a weak extent habit/unpredictability might be part of the law/chaos spectrum though I would argue not necessarily. A disciplined character might hesitate before acting outside his former personality, at least before being given time for introspection. I don’t see that as angst: it’s closer to prudence.

7911

I think the paladin’s in Roy’s first are more of a meta-joke about gamers than an insight into the moral system Burlew’s making in his comic. That being said, I would expect that if Roy had gone along with their plan, they would no longer be paladins - for that matter, if they’re still alive somewhere in the 'Stickverse, I’d bet that its been a long time since they’ve been able to take a level in paladin. Being a paladin doesn’t mean one can’t commit an evil act, it just means that there are immediate consequences when you do.

Which puts the raid on the goblin village in an interesting light, because that was obviously sanctioned by the paladin’s deities - indeed, we can see that smite evil works on the goblins in the village. While it’s certainly impossible not to feel sympathy for Red-Cloak and his people, it’s also worth noting that if Burlew wanted to make a point about not judging goblins by the color of their skin, he might have included at least one goblin in the ten year history of this comic who was demonstrably not evil. The only time you ever see a goblin caring about the well-being of another person, it’s only when the other person is another goblin, and even that’s pretty rare. Red-Cloak’s concern for his own people is part of what sets him apart from other goblins, and even then, it wasn’t until his Road to Damascus moment at the siege of Azure City that it occurred to him that hobgoblins might be people, too.

Burlew is far from the first artist to deal with the concept of fantastic racism, but for the most part, he’s done very little to subvert the cliche. One of his great strengths as a writer is his ability to create well-rounded villains, but who are still unambiguously evil. It’s hard not to sympathize with Red-Cloak’s grievances, but he’s also a guy who’s willing to march a line of innocent people through a rip in the universe that he believes utterly annihilates anyone who enters it, just because he can’t think of anything better to do. And so far, we haven’t been presented with a single goblin voice questioning the rightness of this. It could very well be that goblins really are “always evil.” Hell, according to Burlew’s cosmology, they were specifically designed that way, by the Gods, to serve as antagonists to their more favored species. Obviously, this argues that their behavior isn’t their fault, but that sort of abstract moralism tends not to hold up so well when there’s one of these buggers climbing through your bedroom window with a cleaver clenched in its teeth.

Of course, there’s also the question of what exactly is the morality of murder, in a world where death is a treatable illness, and you can take day trips to the afterlife?

7912

It’s the simplistic dichotomy of D&D Evil vs. moral evil that chaps my hide.

Of course he’s changed alignment - he’s become a vampire. And per D&D rules, simply *existing *as a vampire (or any kind of undead, really) means that your alignment is Chaotic Evil, punkt, end of discussion - and it doesn’t matter what you do anymore, you’ll always be considered evil, both by the rules and by people.
That defeats the purpose of alignment itself, both as a guideline to how a character is supposed to react in the future, and as a “kharma meter” type thing based on prior actions.

So that’s the “criticism” here, such as it is : that we do know Durkon has turned 100% D&D Evil, but moral evil ? Dunno yet.

:smiley:
Who knows what neutrality lies in the heart of men ? The Penumbra knows !

Eh, straight up monster might be going a little too far, but I’d really like Durkon to have become a pure, emotionless combat pragmatist, “kill his children so he’ll get mad, that’ll give us a tactical edge”, that sort of thing. Not sadistic, or particularly cruel, but utterly ruthless.

7913

A bit of a nitpick, but I understand that it’s just Evil, not necessarily Chaotic Evil; so Durkon’s probably Lawful Evil now. Malack was pretty clearly Lawful Evil himself.

7914

For that matter, Tarquin is Lawful Evil, too. Now it’s true that he does try to manipulate things so that what he wants to do is legal, but he does know the rules and he does abide by them, in his own evil way.

7915

I rather liked the comment by someone that he’s an example of “Lawful Crazy”. He’s determined that the world works the way he wants it to, and he’s going to force it to comply to his vision if he has to, no matter the cost:
Elan: "The safety of the world - "

Tarquin: “- is meaningless if everyone is going to run around doing whatever they feel like without regard for proper story structure. There must be some sense of order - personal, political or dramatic - and if no one else is going to bring it to the world, I will.”

7916

Or it means your character has been killed and turned into an evil mockery of life, and you are cheating if you try to weasel your way around that fact.

7917

Just for the record, demons and most undead are listed in the books as “always evil” (which still isn’t quite completely absolute; there are still one-in-a-million exceptions), but goblins and orcs are only “usually evil”. If good parents raise a demon orphan from infancy, the demon is still almost certainly going to turn out evil, since that’s an inherent part of their natures, but if you do the same with an orc or goblin child, it’s probably going to end up the same alignment as the adoptive parents. They might have some racial inclination towards evil, but it’s mostly a cultural thing: Most orcs are evil because they’re raised in an evil society.

7918

I don’t think Miko ever does anything particularly evil for the most part, does she? She’s a fanatic, and kind of a jerk, and really not a very good paladin. But really, the only outright evil thing she does in the strip is kill Lord Shojo, and the Twelve Gods and Burlew make the point that that’s Not OK, because the action strips her of her paladin status.

7919

Miko as an archetype is a shittily played paladin. A deliberate satire. And she got what she deserved, which is the loss of her paladin status.

The OOTS universe example of a true paladin is O-Chul.

7920

Not only a paladin, but in more general RPG terms, a tankadin. That boy’s TOUGH.

7921

For sure! And in more ways than one.