|
Fuego Fish posted:Anyway, that's all just conjecture v I think that trying to apply Freudian theories to this strip is a bit much.  My interpretation was that one of these fiends is the equivalent of a devil, thinking things in an ordered manner and devising plans that will enable Belkar to maximize the amount of creatures he slaughters on the long-term, while the other is the equivalent of a demon, wanting to simply randomly kill things with no regard for even short-term consequences. And, as that strip showed, a Slaad would simply be completely incapable of forming an argument and thus be useless in such a discussion, which is why I think it didn't come out.Vomax posted:Speculation based on current strip: Will the 'line of low level clerics' repel the horde of zombies and maybe even kick the death knight's rear end? Hobgoblin zombies don't strike me as having particularly many HD, and with most of them turned/destroyed I think the knight will be easy pickings. Considering that these hobgoblins seem capable of speech and don't look decayed, I'm guessing that they're some other kind of undead. Their red eyes and long teeth make them look like vampires, but since it looks like it's daytime that's probably not it.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2007 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Factor_VIII posted:I think that trying to apply Freudian theories to this strip is a bit much. That makes sense, but I prefer my mumbo-jumbo  quote:Considering that these hobgoblins seem capable of speech and don't look decayed, I'm guessing that they're some other kind of undead. Their red eyes and long teeth make them look like vampires, but since it looks like it's daytime that's probably not it. Ghouls? Ghasts? D&D has no end of undead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2007 22:44
|
|
|
those are ghasts http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html Burlew's zombies are gray
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 00:41
|
|
|
Factor_VIII posted:I think that trying to apply Freudian theories to this strip is a bit much. My interpretation was that one of these fiends is the equivalent of a devil, thinking things in an ordered manner and devising plans that will enable Belkar to maximize the amount of creatures he slaughters on the long-term, while the other is the equivalent of a demon, wanting to simply randomly kill things with no regard for even short-term consequences. And, as that strip showed, a Slaad would simply be completely incapable of forming an argument and thus be useless in such a discussion, which is why I think it didn't come out. I just figured it was Lawful Evil vs. Chaotic Evil. Both sides are cool with Belkar letting Hinjo die, it's just a matter of their preference on when.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 03:26
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I just figured it was Lawful Evil vs. Chaotic Evil. Both sides are cool with Belkar letting Hinjo die, it's just a matter of their preference on when. That would make him Neutral Evil though, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 04:23
|
|
|
HitTheTargets posted:That would make him Neutral Evil though, right? I'd say Chaotic without being crazy, which can happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 05:04
|
|
|
Belkar is Chaotic Evil, there's really no question about it. The two devils were clearly his psychotic CE side and his rational CE side. There are so many varieties of evil in that twisted halfling psyche.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 05:38
|
|
|
It's interesting that this is Burlew's first experience with writing and how his hatred of fans predicting plot twists affects him so much. I think it's a lack of experience with dealing with an audience that causes this but it's the internet's instant feedback that has made this an issue in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 06:21
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:It's interesting that this is Burlew's first experience with writing and how his hatred of fans predicting plot twists affects him so much. I think it's a lack of experience with dealing with an audience that causes this but it's the internet's instant feedback that has made this an issue in the first place. It does seem a little unfair that, thanks to the nature of internet forums, many more people are going to have a good idea of what the twists will be than otherwise might be the case - that is, the astute fiction detectives are sharing their predictions with the people who normally wouldn't guess this poo poo and they parrot them, so to the author it feels like his story is predictable enough that everyone is guessing the twists and turns before they happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 09:21
|
|
Leikr Elferston posted:Actually that's a really dumb thing that crappy authors tell themself because they aren't creative. I really get sick of people saying there's nothing new under the sun, it's not true on anything but the most absurdly generalised level. Man, gently caress you. There isn't a drat theme that hasn't been explored yet, and lots of good authors agree on this. No one can think up an entirely 100% original never-been-done before concept. The difference is in the pacing, the dialogue, how much you focus on what aspect of your story. Every good author knows this, and DOESN'T LET IT BOTHER THEM. If I think up an idea for a book about a detective hunting down a serial killer, I won't throw the book in the garbage if I find out it's been done. The lovely authors are the ones who try too hard to be "fresh" without trying to be good, and think they're too clever. Where did I say there's nothing new under the sun? There's tons of new poo poo, but there's nothing so new as to not be easily compared to a previous work. Invincible is new and awesome, but if you break it down it's really nothing groundbreaking, for example. Please, show me an idea that's been done in the last 20 years that's never ever been conceived by anyone. EDIT: Actually, you're on my ignore list now, so don't bother. t  >
Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Apr 9, 2007 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 10:37
|
|
|
HitTheTargets posted:That would make him Neutral Evil though, right? clockworkjoe posted:It's interesting that this is Burlew's first experience with writing and how his hatred of fans predicting plot twists affects him so much. I think it's a lack of experience with dealing with an audience that causes this but it's the internet's instant feedback that has made this an issue in the first place. Lurdiak posted:Man, gently caress you. There isn't a drat theme that hasn't been explored yet, and lots of good authors agree on this. No one can think up an entirely 100% original never-been-done before concept. "exploring themes", I already mentioned that pointlessly vague and broad terminology does not proper your claims. quote:Please, show me an idea that's been done in the last 20 years that's never ever been conceived by anyone. For instance, there have been plenty of undead evil overlords in fantasy fiction, but I doubt you'll find a flippant ADD wierdo like Xykon amongst them. He's clearly derivitive, but that doesn't mean he isn't original. quote:EDIT: Actually, you're on my ignore list now, so don't bother. t
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 13:53
|
|
|
e: nevermind
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 14:27
|
|
Leikr Elferston posted:And people wonder why i'm not bothered that 750 guys like this have me on ignore. All right, I overreacted a bit there, but you basically called my writing philosophy and that of a man I greatly admire "A really dumb thing crappy authors tell themselves". Forgive me for being incensed by your incediary invectives! As you can probably guess I took you off my ignore list because you might be a troll, but you're sometimes able to actually contribute something to a discussion, and it wouldn't be conducive to proper discourse if I couldn't read your points. My point is that "new" isn't something that can be created on a basic level. You can't go "Uh space aliens... THAT ARE BREATHING FIRE! PURPLE FIRE! And a bunch of heroes have to stop them" and call that an original idea just because it hasn't been done. The difference, and often enough the worth, lies in details, not in concept. A major plot point or plot twist in any modern story is very likely to be reminescent of something before it. Betrayal, death, love, you'll find these in every story. But one must not get discouraged just because one's idea is not an entirely unique construct. For example, The DnD aspect of order of the stick differentiates it from a lot of fantasy comics(or fantasy stories told in any medium), but that's not the entirety of what the comic is, nor is it the sole reason people like it so much. Same goes with the choice of art style. Uniqueness is a trait that an immature person seeks. Everyone wishes to believe their idea is totally original, even though it's been done thousands of times before. It's self-delusion of the same level as someone thinking their fanfic of anything is just as good as the writing of the original author, or fixes the "mistakes" made by the plot. Once someone accepts that no, the ideas you have are not original, especially since nothing originates from an artistic void, so your ideas clearly have subconscious or conscious influences in what you've seen, either in life or in art, then you can truly begin to make something worthwhile. Look at it this way: it's like lego building blocks. Despite what people think, everyone has the same set of blocks they're working from. A few of the blocks are specially shaped pieces that are rarer than the average brick, but they were still molded in a factory somewhere, and hundreds of them exist. But what's truly important is what you build with the blocks, the big picture, what's important is WHY you pick such and such block and put it somewhere. I'm not saying everything is a bland exercise in repetition and that everyone should strive for mediocrity, I'm saying that being new and unexpected are not qualities an author should overly concern themselves with when writing something. If you truly have writing chops and believe your story is good, then simply write it as best as you can. Fan input should play a limited role in the crafting of your tale, and definitely shouldn't cause you to change things just because you like feeling one step ahead of the audience.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 15:17
|
|
|
I will pay you to put me back on your ignore list (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 15:47
|
|
|
If I was in Rich's place I imagine I would find myself pretty annoyed at having every plot twist called in advance by someone, so I can really sympathize with his plight. On the other hand, I think whoever it was that said upthread that guessable plot twists are a good thing has it right - it means that the story is developing in a logical and believable way and doesn't just contain arbitrariness for the sake of arbitrariness. For instance, I wouldn't have thought of just putting decoy skeletons in robes until Redcloak made that offhanded bullseye comment (that's right guys, I saw it coming, me, Ferrinus, the smartest poster) but once it occurred to me I realized that it had to happen because it was a sneaky, intelligent move, and Redcloak was being written as smart and creative enough to come up with it, and the guy writing Redcloak's lines was smart and creative enough to think of it in the first place. I really enjoyed that bit with the arrow, by the way, because it did really well at poking fun at those people who notice that one pixel is out of place in panel 34B of the strip one hundred comics ago and spin a vast conspiracy theory around it. Once I skimmed the GiantITP forums and saw a post by someone wondering if the scrap of string floating away from Roy in the frame that Xykon snatches his crown back had some kind of huge story significance, because Rich Burlew wouldn't have drawn it in otherwise! It was the piece of string around Roy's neck that the crown had been hanging on! Those three frames where Varsuuvius is first standing there screaming incantations with eldritch fire blazing from his hands, then glancing curiously behind him as the poisoned arrow bounces off his shielding, and then is back in the same spellcasting pose are gold, too. Also, I grin every time I see this panel because it's so loving metal: 
Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Apr 9, 2007 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 16:02
|
|
|
Yeah, the whole arrow sequence was pretty funny, I don't know if he did that to mess with speculation or what, but either way it worked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 16:09
|
|
|
Leikr Elferston posted:I will pay you to put me back on your ignore list Come on man, that really isn't necessary. Yeah, that arrow sequence to me felt like a specific response to speculation, almost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 16:27
|
|
greatn posted:Yeah, that arrow sequence to me felt like a specific response to speculation, almost. Note that despite my rant, I also enjoyed that and don't have a problem with it. Unless he starts writing "response" sequences every other strip, mind you. A wink here and a nod there are quite all right. I'm reminded of when Brian Clevinger rekilled the black belt time displaced double just so people would shut up about him using that as a loophole to bring the character back. Or that famous spider-man and Tony sequence from the other.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 16:40
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Note that despite my rant, I also enjoyed that and don't have a problem with it. Unless he starts writing "response" sequences every other strip, mind you. A wink here and a nod there are quite all right. I'm reminded of when Brian Clevinger rekilled the black belt time displaced double just so people would shut up about him using that as a loophole to bring the character back. Or that famous spider-man and Tony sequence from the other. Especially because the arrow scene isn't even necessarily just a response to speculation-- it's also a callback to the oracle's prophecy about Belkar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 18:35
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:That's interesting. I've never heard of an artist or writer being so influenced by his fan base in such a negative way. I think I once gave Sean Howard of "A Modest Destiny" an aneurysm on his message board. Of course, everyone who disagreed with him on his message board gave him an aneurysm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 18:54
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Especially because the arrow scene isn't even necessarily just a response to speculation-- it's also a callback to the oracle's prophecy about Belkar. Oh yeah, she did say he would indirectly cause the death of either V, Roy, that paladin woman or her horse, all of which the arrow whizzed by(except the horse of course). Personally, I hope it is the horse somehow, even though it is on the celestial plane and can't be summoned by her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 19:36
|
|
|
High Altitude Hair Stylist posted:I think I once gave Sean Howard of "A Modest Destiny" an aneurysm on his message board. Of course, everyone who disagreed with him on his message board gave him an aneurysm. Oh? Do tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 20:02
|
|
|
greatn posted:Oh yeah, she did say he would indirectly cause the death of either V, Roy, that paladin woman or her horse, all of which the arrow whizzed by(except the horse of course). Personally, I hope it is the horse somehow, even though it is on the celestial plane and can't be summoned by her. Maybe he dies and then gets a brief moment to celestial stab that stupid horse summon. Then he could be revived for saving Hinjo. Everyone wins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 20:28
|
|
|
My real question about Belkar is why you would want someone who'd casually murder you in your party. There really isn't any question he's chaotic evil in my eyes. Why have someone who's such a huge liability on your team?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 20:37
|
|
|
sakesniper posted:My real question about Belkar is why you would want someone who'd casually murder you in your party. There really isn't any question he's chaotic evil in my eyes. Why have someone who's such a huge liability on your team? Because he's really good at killing other people too? v  v
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 20:42
|
|
|
sakesniper posted:My real question about Belkar is why you would want someone who'd casually murder you in your party. There really isn't any question he's chaotic evil in my eyes. Why have someone who's such a huge liability on your team? It's a joke about how there's nearly ALWAYS a person in a D&D party who really wants to play the evil character, alongside the freakin' Paladin and Knight of the Forest and blah blah blah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 20:53
|
|
|
Leikr Elferston posted:I will pay you to put me back on your ignore list
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:28
|
|
|
sakesniper posted:My real question about Belkar is why you would want someone who'd casually murder you in your party. There really isn't any question he's chaotic evil in my eyes. Why have someone who's such a huge liability on your team? Also a dual-wielding barbarian hafling is an interesting idea, i'm wondering if he uses weapon finesse. He doesn't seem that strong, although I admit the only similar character I can think of is the goblin complains-of-names. CapnAndy posted:I'm holding your dumb rear end to that. Lurdiak, post proof he's ignored again and let's start the Toxx clock. Anyway if he wants to put me back on ignore i'd be happy to buy him an avatar or plat, I just didn't think it would be constructive to have that kind of argument in this thread since he seems to think that trying to be creative in certain ways is 'immature'. I'm fine either way, or he can leave me off ignore and you can throw a tantrum and ban me anyway. Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 9, 2007 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:29
|
|
|
Kahrytes posted:It's a joke about how there's nearly ALWAYS a person in a D&D party who really wants to play the evil character, alongside the freakin' Paladin and Knight of the Forest and blah blah blah. Don't rangers have to be good in alignment? He's obviously evil, but he should be good, based on the rules. Or is it only that they must START good in alignment? I can't imagine Belkar at any point eve having been good though. Maybe this is no longer a rule in D&D 3.5, but they started the game in 2nd edition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:40
|
|
|
Kahrytes posted:It's a joke about how there's nearly ALWAYS a person in a D&D party who really wants to play the evil character, alongside the freakin' Paladin and Knight of the Forest and blah blah blah. Leikr Elferston posted:Also what everyone else said, the "guy who just wants to kill stuff" is a common component of many groups, I think Belkar is playing on that, to the point where some of his psycho logic makes more sense when viewed from the pov of a homomcidal player who's trying to max out his kill count. Oh, it makes much more sense now
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:46
|
|
|
greatn posted:Don't rangers have to be good in alignment? He's obviously evil, but he should be good, based on the rules. Or is it only that they must START good in alignment? I can't imagine Belkar at any point eve having been good though. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:47
|
|
|
I don't want to sass in any way, but is it possible that we can all just ignore happyelf when he says something assinine and not spend time on it so that it's easy just to skip over? Again, I'm not trying to sass, but it's kind of hard to overlook stupid stuff that's off topic when it's being highlighted.Leikr Elferston posted:They started the game in 3.0 and moved to 3.5. Belkar has been evil all along. He did however suffer shrinkage during the transition  stupid small weapon size damage
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:49
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I'm holding your dumb rear end to that. Lurdiak, post proof he's ignored again and let's start the Toxx clock. Normally I wouldn't do this sort of thing but I know he'll be back if he gets banned, and I've been wanting an avatar for a long time now.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:53
|
|
|
PM sent
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 21:56
|
|
|
Leikr Elferston posted:They started the game in 3.0 and moved to 3.5. Belkar has been evil all along. He did however suffer shrinkage during the transition Ohhhhhh. If they want to be really confusing they can try Hackmaster 4th edition sometime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 22:11
|
|
|
greatn posted:Ohhhhhh. Did that game ever accomplish anything other than ruining Knights of the Dinner Table and turning the comic from an entertaining spoof of DnD and other RPGs to a big advertisement/errata for the game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 22:42
|
|
|
Backdoor Blanche posted:Did that game ever accomplish anything other than ruining Knights of the Dinner Table and turning the comic from an entertaining spoof of DnD and other RPGs to a big advertisement/errata for the game? In point of fact the amount of the comics in the magazine have remained consistent, they've just upped the page count adding articles on hackmaster(and 3.5 sometimes) rules. The comics themselves are not even in fourth edition, so it does not serve as errata for the game. Advertisement for it... well I'd say the game itself is more advertisement for the comic than the other way around. I've always had fun with it, though we're starting a 3.5 game soon and I'll be trying to get my GM to switch our various characters over. Still, Hackmaster has enabled me to have characters such as a pixie fairy berserker, so I can't fault it too much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 23:00
|
|
|
Backdoor Blanche posted:Did that game ever accomplish anything other than ruining Knights of the Dinner Table and turning the comic from an entertaining spoof of DnD and other RPGs to a big advertisement/errata for the game? It gave sanctuary to the bitter old fat guy with a thick beard and did nothing but bitch about 3rd edition at the back of the comic/hobby store. I think each store by gamer law is required to have one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 23:31
|
|
|
greatn posted:In point of fact the amount of the comics in the magazine have remained consistent, they've just upped the page count adding articles on hackmaster(and 3.5 sometimes) rules. I can't recall if they've upped the price to go along with that, but they've certainly lowered the quality of the comics content. They've also stuck a ton of continuing, sucky storylines in there that I hate, but that's unrelated. quote:Still, Hackmaster has enabled me to have characters such as a pixie fairy berserker, so I can't fault it too much. But I can already do that in DnD, which was the entire point of the comic. Things like that were not "hey what if we could do this in dnd laffo" it was "hey you can do this in dnd isn't that ridiculous laffo." There was some hyperbole, yes, but the entire point of the comic was taking the rpg genre's preexisting quirks and laughing about them, occasionally exaggerating them, but just making your own (really lovely) system up just serves no point except to remove Hackmaster from the realm of "fictional generic RPG we can just make poo poo up about" and into the realm of "real life" and therefore "not funny." Gassire posted:It gave sanctuary to the bitter old fat guy with a thick beard and did nothing but bitch about 3rd edition at the back of the comic/hobby store. I think each store by gamer law is required to have one. Actually at my store it was nothing but 13 year old goths who thought it was "lol so EXXXXXTREME BADASSSS" in a completely non-ironic way who played it. edit: sorry if I came off angry here. I just used to really, really like KoDT and it just got so lovely once they came out with Hackmaster, it really pisses me off. bgaesop fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Apr 9, 2007 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2007 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Backdoor Blanche posted:There was some hyperbole, yes, but the entire point of the comic was taking the rpg genre's preexisting quirks and laughing about them, occasionally exaggerating them, but just making your own (really lovely) system up just serves no point except to remove Hackmaster from the realm of "fictional generic RPG we can just make poo poo up about" and into the realm of "real life" and therefore "not funny." They didn't make up their up system though. They bought the rights to 2nd edition added a couple house rules and slapped a Hackmaster sticker on it. That was part of the joke. Hackmaster really is what they were playing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2007 00:03
|
|