Order of the Stick?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were pretty good speeches

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reminder that V did literally nothing wrong here

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Reminder that V did literally nothing wrong here
        I'd ask you to walk me through that one but it would only confirm that which I already know: that you're a bad person.

        Still, even if we set aside the moral void that is your soul and look at this from a purely pragmatic point of view, there's a Snarl gate that's broken wide open now that might not have been had all of its defenders not been wiped out by V's actions

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Black dragons are categorically evil. And highly effective evil too, not dipshit worthless evil like white dragons. The only crime V committed in killing 25% of all black dragons is that he was 75% off.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Firstly, if it can be a Good action to kill a Good creature, it can be an Evil action to kill an Evil creature (let alone scores of them).
            Secondly, it also killed anyone related to anyone related to them. That level of collateral damage is indescribable.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >No, no, no, no. You don't understand the scope of my crime. I didn't kill just one Husnock, or a hundred, or a thousand. I killed them all. All Husnock everywhere. Are eleven thousand people worth fifty billion? Is the love of a woman worth the destruction of an entire species?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Such a stupid scene. The word is "genocide," Picard. We call it good when it advantages us (smallpox) and bad when it doesn't (human eugenics). Killing off all black dragons definitely points more towards the smallpox end of the scale.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Genocide is the systematic killing of an entire group of people with planning and intent.

                The guy there killing every single member of an entire species in a single moment of rage. Picard's point is that there's no real way to judge the magnitude of his crime because we're simply not capable of that kind of action. We offer leniency for people who react poorly in the heat of the moment all the time, for example, but how do you square that with an act of genocide? The sheer quandary of his power means judging him is all but impossible, because people lose their temper all the time.

                Like if a mugger killed your wife in an alley and you responded by killing him, no reasonable person would convict you of murder. How do you square that entirely reasonable emotional response to his sheer power? How do you even conceptualize that level of existence effectively enough to judge him?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Cool motive still murder, as the saying goes. What respect should be given to a guy who was basically going around sticking his dick in bacteria, anyway?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                There's not denying he didn't commit a terrible crime. The crux of the entire episode is that what he did was absolutely terrible. The point is that he exists on a level so beyond humans that they're incapable of truly judging him.

                >if a mugger killed your wife in an alley and you responded by killing him, no reasonable person would convict you of murder.
                I know little of law but I'm pretty sure you would get convicted of murder for that, even if everyone, including the people convicting you, may be sympathetic to your case. Or maybe "manslaughter" or whatever.

                Oh, you'd still get charged with something, depending, but short of some really specific circumstances, it wouldn't be murder.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what country you're in but in America yes you'd get charged with murder.
                1st degree-planned
                2nd degree-spur of the moment, meant to kill
                3rd degree-spur of the moment, didn't mean to kill

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                What are you on about, that's the definition of manslaughter. Crimes of passion or provoked violence are specifically not called murder for precisely those reasons.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Manslaughter is for moments of negligence which resulted in someone dying. It's for things like accidentally giving someone the wrong dose of medicine, losing control of your automobile, or violating a workplace safety thing and somebody getting pulped. It's 100% accidental. Crimes of passion ARE murder. People argue that it was "passion" to change the degree, not the charge.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                In the scenario of a mugger killing your wife in front of you and so you snap and kill the mugger, you wouldn't be guilty of murder, by the simple fact that you are innocent until proven guilty in Western law, and no jury on the planet is going you find you guilty of murder under those circumstances. Ergo, you did not commit murder. In point of fact you'd most likely be found to have killed in self-defense and get no charges at all.

                In the case of Kevin Uxbridge, the circumstances and individual are so unique that it really is impossible to judge him. Genocide is a crime, but it definitionally requires deliberate action (seriously, just google it, the word "deliberate" or "intentional" is used a lot). There is no such thing as "genocide in the third degree".

                The Federation, further, has no actual means of compelling Uxbridge to stand trial; if they try to put him on trial and he says "no", there's jack-all they can do about it. And even if he consents and he's found guilty, they don't have an effective means of punishing him. He can't be killed, he has an immortal lifespan, and no prison can contain him for longer than he desires to be contained by it.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >no jury on the planet is going you find you guilty of murder under those circumstances
                That's only if your mugger was the sorta human whom it's okay to kill in self-defense.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >if a mugger killed your wife in an alley and you responded by killing him, no reasonable person would convict you of murder.
                I know little of law but I'm pretty sure you would get convicted of murder for that, even if everyone, including the people convicting you, may be sympathetic to your case. Or maybe "manslaughter" or whatever.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Humanoids good, Draconoids bad

                Day of the Gram soon

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Like if a mugger killed your wife in an alley and you responded by killing him, no reasonable person would convict you of murder
                Presuming it's in the heat of that moment, yes. If, a few days later you pay a visit to his house and string him up with Christmas tree lights; then things get interesting.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >if a mugger killed your wife in an alley and you responded by killing him, no reasonable person would convict you of murder.
                I know little of law but I'm pretty sure you would get convicted of murder for that, even if everyone, including the people convicting you, may be sympathetic to your case. Or maybe "manslaughter" or whatever.

                You would likely be charged with manslaughter but you could use self-defence as a reasonable defence.
                A mugger attacked and killed your wife, you have a reasonable assumption that the mugger would also intend to harm/kill you.
                This is presuming that you live in a place that allows self defence however.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If he kills your wife and walks away, then you kill him, then it would likely be treated as a crime of passion, making it a manslaughter charge instead of murder.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Are there witnesses? If no, I just tell the cops he didn't walk away.
                If yes, I tell the cops that I feared for other people's safety (self defence can apply to other people)
                Like if a random person pulled a gun and shot her, and then ran off, then chasing after and killing the crazed gunman would also be considered self defence
                Regardless, it's only a crime if a jury convicts you, and good luck getting a jury to convict a man that kills the person who killed his wife

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You really shouldn't lie to the police when you can be on trial. Like basic forensics like footprints can catch you then you're looking real fricking bad.
                But also, no. There is a lot of precedent for the person walking away disallowing any measure of self defense. It's called duty of retreat. It varies state by state.
                >good luck getting a jury to convict a man that kills the person who killed his wife
                It's happened before.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Dude me stopping a crazed gunman shooting people would make me a hero. Stop being moronic

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're the one who wanted to go over the legal ramifications.

                You shouldn't talk to the police at all ever under any circumstances. Don't be stupid.

                I'm not black anon.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You don't have to be black, you just have to be unlucky enough to run into a cop who's stupid, has bad memory, or is actively malicious and probably trying to fulfill a quota.
                Cops have quotas for arrests, tickets, and confessions so they can sometimes try to get those out of you even if they know you're innocent.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Cops have quotas
                No, they don't. In fact speeding ticket quotas are explicitly illegal in most states.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You are objectively incorrect. This is easily searched up.

              • 6 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Cops have quotas
                No, they don't. In fact speeding ticket quotas are explicitly illegal in most states.

                Around 20 states, quotas outright are illegal. Getting there at least.
                It can help to think of each state as a country of it's own. When people (even American's these days) shit on America, what they're actually doing is lumping one backwater state's frickup to every other state.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You shouldn't talk to the police at all ever under any circumstances. Don't be stupid.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This.
                Even if you believe the police are good, they're human. They can make mistakes.
                Talk to the police and they'll remember you, from that point on it's easy for them to misidentify you as being at the scene of a crime, even if you weren't.
                You can get charged for something you didn't do just for talking to the cops, without the cops ever actually deliberately doing anything wrong.

                And that's not even going into the fact that police aren't under any sort of duty to help the public in the U.S, or any members of the cops who might try to charge you with something just to fill their conviction quotas.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Hell, I learned my lesson in this just talking to a supermarket's overzealous security personnel. They absolutely forget what you told them 2 minutes ago, and then rephrase it in a way that's demeaning and incriminating about you, and they might not even be doing it maliciously, it's just how they remember "details" in the heat of the moment.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Firstly, if it can be a Good action to kill a Good creature,
              It can't be. Unless it's euthanasia or something.
              >Secondly, it also killed anyone related to anyone related to them.
              They were all bad.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They were all bad.
                All of them?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most of the "collateral damage" was humans. Humans are Chaotic Evil and need to be killed. The action of killing a human is necessarily Good.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Humans are Chaotic Evil and need to be killed.
                The Order of the Stick on its own contains three Good humans, instantly dashing this line of argument.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                only most, not all. some superior elves might've died too, which is wholly Evil and unacceptable.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Have you tried looking after humans? They're monsters!
                >As they grow in number, so does their capacity for evil, and they won't even notice as they do it.
                >I was not the monster.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, yeah. I'm the evil one. That's why you live in a massive Ashland surrounded by murder bots in a massive volcanic wasteland. With the remnants of your black armored army that does nothing but kill intruders. Because you're the good guy. Right.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Black dragons are categorically evil
            Leaving aside that 3.5's MM expressly states that "Always Chaotic Evil" actually means "99% of the time but exceptions do exist, albeit rare ones", you're trying to ignore the fact that humans AREN'T categorically evil, even if descended from black dragons. In this particular case, Girard Draketooth is canonically Chaotic NEUTRAL, not evil, and his descendants would have run the gamut of good, neutral, evil, law, and chaos just like other humans.

            You're not wiggling out of this one: V's actions killed off the entire Draketooth family line since it was descended from that black dragon, which meant that there was no one to defend Girard's Gate, which directly lead to pic.

            If nothing else, if the Gate were still intact then the Godsmoot might not have happened since the world wouldn't be down to just one last intact gate.

            So, no. Vaarsuvius did a lot wrong from a purely pragmatic standpoint.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Okay so you snagged a couple of innocents. Boo hoo.
              >inb4 ur evil
              Nah, I'm pragmatic. I firmly acknowledge that there absolutely were unintended casualties. Hell there always are, even with the most well-intentioned actions. Consider the saying "better 9 guilty men go unpunished than 1 innocent man suffer." But consider that these 9 guilty men go on to commit 11 murders each, and each murder is that of an innocent. Is one life worth 99 lives? I think not.

              >inb4 what if it was you
              Obviously I'd be upset if I was being punished for something I didn't do and would do my best to fight it. And if I knew, with absolute certainty that my death would buy the lives of 99 other people... I might even do it. If it was people I cared about, almost certainly. If it was just randos, ehhhh. Probably not, but maybe.

              >inb4 perfect knowledge
              OotS is D&D where you can in fact have this kind of perfect knowledge with divination magic. But barring that, a black dragon is going to kill a LOT more than 11 innocents. These things warp ecosystems, and unless my memory fails me, are explicitly described as being sadistic, enjoying the terror and torment of their prey before killing them. The ethical calculus checks out, IMO.

              >inb4 the Gate
              Okay yeah, IF the Snarl sensed the hole and is now reaching through because the Draketooths are all dead, then yeah, from a pragmatic standpoint this was a bad thing. But we don't know whether that's true or not (yet).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Nah, I'm pragmatic.
                This generally just means "evil but won't admit to it."

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Consider the saying "better 9 guilty men go unpunished than 1 innocent man suffer." But consider that these 9 guilty men go on to commit 11 murders each, and each murder is that of an innocent. Is one life worth 99 lives? I think not.
                You're not evil you're just stupid.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh god we have a utilitarianist in our midst.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Okay so you snagged a couple of innocents
                It was way more than “a couple”. Did you k ow that here on Earth you rarely need to go back more than 500 years to connect any human to any other human? Dragons reproduce slowly, humans don’t. V’s actions probably killed a dozen humans for every dragon they killed, maybe more. Are 12 innocent lives worth 1 guilty one?

                >OotS is D&D where you can in fact have this kind of perfect knowledge with divination magic.
                No, you can’t. Augury has a failure chance, gives the same result each time if you ask it the same question multiple times (so if it was wrong the first time it will keep being wrong afterwards), and can only perceive about half an hour into the future.

                The next step up is divination, which likewise has a failure chance, likewise will give the same answer if asked the same question multiple times (and so likewise repeated castings do not help eliminate wrong answers), and can only see into the future by one week.

                And after that you’re out of dictation spells that can see the future with any kind of clarity. You’re down to begging the gods for an answer, but even the gods don’t have perfect insight into the future - especially not in OotS, where they appear to lack the insight they would according to Deities & Demigods.

                >But we don't know whether that's true or not (yet).
                We do know that the destruction of Girard’s Gate was directly responsible for the gods deciding that they might need to wipe the board and start over, however. Are however many descendants of that dragon that died, worth the lives of quite literally everyone on the planet? Would you kill a billion innocents if it meant you’d also kill a thousand guilty people?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, and let's not forget that even if you somehow find someone who IS perfectly capable of predicting the future, AND is willing to give you truthful answers, that doesn't mean that you won't still screw it up.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What do you think the raven was asking, and will it be important, like some of the other throwaway gags have been? Apparently one can eat the seeds of ginkgo and "weak evidence for alleviating dementia"...

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                From the wiki,
                >Presumably the raven was asking how to prevent Vaarsuvius from forgetting it existed.

                which seems fitting, with the running gag (at the time) of Blackwing popping into existence when someone remembers him.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Black dragons are categorically evil
            the elf didn't just kill black dragons with that spell

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'd ask you to walk me through that one but it would only confirm that which I already know: that you're a bad person.
          moron redditor. Genocide of evil races is good.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        V explained in detail why it was evil... dragons breeding with humans is common knowledge. Shit if Tarquin had had a child with his last wife, Elan would have been killed by this spell too. Being sufficiently reckless tips over to evil no matter what your original intentions were.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It wouldn't kill Elan. It "only" killed those who shared blood with those that shared blood with the dragon. If Tarquin and the wife had a child, Tarquin would've been killed for being related to a member of the dragon's bloodline, but it wouldn't then zigzag back down to kill Elan.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick, I forgot how good this series used to be.

      Huh, I was in college when I first read that page.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "we need to wrap this up because this turn took a month" upscale.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Spends 80 strips on backroom dialogue
      >"Can't spare anymore panels for the dragon fight sorry"
      Although I'm enjoying this fight pace so maybe it's for the best

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The fight isn't important though. That's literally why they're trying to rush it to a conclusion as a party. This is a distraction and a waste of resources for the real thing, which is no doubt going to matter that it happened as this goes on.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >This is a distraction and a waste of resources for the real thing
          The real confrontation with Xykon and Redcloak probably won't be a fight, but something intentionally anticlimatic and abrupt.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      What is burlews day job? Isn't the point of this ridiculously simplistic artstyle to churn out pages fast?
      I don't understand the rate of updates at all

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        The point of the simplistic artstyle is that he used a simplistic artstyle when he started the comic, and drastically changing it in the middle of a serial comic is a very dumb move that everyone will hate.

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          There was a time when he cranked out over 100 strips a year. The current pace is fricking ridiculous. You're not supposed to become worse at your job after 20 years of experience.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            He had some issue with his hand and need surgery, the pace died after this and him taking a break for a year or so. I'd guess he never fully bounced back.

            In addition, while the art style is obviously simple, it's also gotten more detailed over time, and the writing is likely a big time sink as well (not just the 'plot', but the WORDSWORDSWORDS and jokes etc). Plus, he probably has a good amount of money now and just works to his own pace, may have started a family etc.

            • 6 days ago
              Anonymous

              >artist is poor and productive
              >artist becomes rich, scales his workweek down to 2 hours every friday morning
              I hate this trens so fricking much.

              • 6 days ago
                Anonymous

                Benefit of being self-employed. Honestly, annoying as it is, it's healthier to have some balance for people. Normaly people work far to hard and long for far too little. It leaves no time for your family and active civil engagement, or skills development.

              • 6 days ago
                Anonymous

                But anon, the artist was always Rich.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous
          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            I was answering the question
            >Isn't the point of this ridiculously simplistic artstyle to churn out pages fast?
            The answer being that the real point is that changing it drastically mid-comic would be dumb.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shit, I am back after what, 6 years of not even remembering this webcomic exists, and it still isn't even close to wrapping it up. What it is with modern writers and their inability to fricking finish their magnum opuses?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rich Burlew is chronically ill.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Rich Burlew is chronically ill.
        Really, what with?
        I remember he injured his fingers once years ago, but that was over with afaik.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          IIRC, he was sick a long time before he sliced his thumb up. He never specified what his illness exactly was, just that it sometimes causes delays in his work.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          IIRC, he was sick a long time before he sliced his thumb up. He never specified what his illness exactly was, just that it sometimes causes delays in his work.

          It's Crohn's disease. Means he constantly shits himself.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            the bad part of Crohns is not that, it's that it comes with immense crippling pain

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I dont think thats how Morbus Crohn works?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Not what it means.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Modern writers? Didn't this come out in like 1998?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >What it is with modern writers and their inability to fricking finish their magnum opuses?
      Patreon.
      They get paid to *not* finish it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're nothing "modern" about that. Pic related was written in 1845 and is as long as it is because the writer was paid by the word.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My favorite part of Varney is that he's not even the real villain. The real villain is the hubris of the dipshit aristocrats that won't sell a house they don't even want.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like it was ahead of it's time.

            • 6 days ago
              Anonymous

              >an OOTS thread gets derailed
              and nothing of value was lost

              • 6 days ago
                Anonymous

                You are objectively incorrect. This is easily searched up.

                frick, meant to reply to this one

                Man this thread took a weird turn

              • 6 days ago
                Anonymous

                >The year is 2024, yet still Varney the Vampire can derail threads
                HE CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's cool that stuff is happening instead of endless talking, but how many months have they been fighting Calder? A battle that is, by the comic's own admission, just a resource sink of no narrative importance.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's of narrative importance. It shows what Sereni was once willing to do in order to defend the gate, and is no longer willing to do. It puts the party on the back foot in terms of resources as well as shows their current power level vs. a single target that is skilled at both magic and melee combat. Belkar in particular is getting narrative focus both as a combatant and in his relationship with Bloodfeast.

      The pacing is ass in real time but Rich does still know how to make the pages flow together cohesively as an actual comic.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Calder first appeared (off panel) in comic #1294 on the 30th of December 2023.
      And appeared on panel in #1295 on the 8th of January 2024

      This means that the battle with Calder has been going on for roughly 4 to 4.5 months now

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thog.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You think me a mere word? I have ordered better men than you to read!
      classic

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That's meta!
      >Caw
      How does this back to back get me the hardest.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I missed it because I thought "what's a 'ta', and why does Durkon have one"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excellent Thog.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Very very good Thog

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buy an ad or take it to Ganker you fricking spastic. The art is shit, the writing is shit, it isn’t funny, clever or original and it’s off fricking topic.

    Comics and cartoons belong on Ganker. Frick you.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OOTS has been posted on /tg/ since long before whatever sperm had the misfortune of becoming your sorry ass stopped warming your dad's pocket change and started writing fractals of misfortune into your mother's list of lifelong regrets.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This just in. No novels set in an RPG setting can be discussed here because /lit exists. No one can post an LOTR webm because it's a movie. Oops is a literal D&D comic. It's more on topic than anything you've ever posted. Don't like it? Don't read it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      OOTS is older than you are.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Words words words
    >We don't have time for you, we have a plot to go to
    >How dare you? Words Wor-ACK

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Terrible transition from the last panel of the previous page

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You know what, that's fair. They don't fit very well together. I can only hope it's because even Rich thinks it prudent to cut corners to push the events forward, even if just a little.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        still kinda sad the dragon's jaw wasn't broken

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    To think this has five more years of updates before it's complete...

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Man this thread took a weird turn

  11. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    who posts these?
    like really, i dont want to have to search the archive, why, and who is posting this 20+year old webcomic?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      all me

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Rich Burlew himself

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *