The Order of the Stick: T-Rex, Troll Sex and Will Checks

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > BSS: Bisexual Super Son > The Order of the Stick: T-Rex, Troll Sex and Will Checks

«‹›1413 »

RickoniX: Dec 4, 2005; A human or elf?

NO NOT A BADGER YOU GOON

greatn posted:

I don't remember any gate ever being destroyed in a forest fire. When was this? Also how many gates are there? Only 4, right?

The other gate was revealed to have been destroyed here, there are (were) six gates.

# ? Jun 7, 2007 22:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 11:13

clockworkjoe: May 31, 2000; Rolled a 1 on the random encounter table, didn't you?

Since this is the third gate lost, I bet it will trigger something horrific. Perhaps an avatar of Snarl manages to slip through the weakened barrier or something like that.

Obviously for the next phase of the campaign, it is 'save the world from the invasion of the super evil army out to destroy everything'. I just hope we don't have to go to every drat gate before the finale.

# ? Jun 7, 2007 22:50

Factor_VIII: Feb 2, 2005; Les soldats se trouvent dans la v�rit�.

Bobulus posted:

I think the comic shows that Burlew is good at pulling you in to the storyline. I'm pretty sure I don't want Xylon and Redcloak to die, since they're fun villains, but for a split moment, I was super-pissed off at they got away again, because I'd sided with the OOTS so strongly.

I was rather disappointed to see them survive. In my opinion, it would have been a better twist if they had both died and some other villain appeared later to replace them. Xykon and Redcloak have been around for quite a while after all, so its not as if they haven't had enough show time.

# ? Jun 7, 2007 23:11

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

RickoniX posted:

The other gate was revealed to have been destroyed here, there are (were) six gates.

5 gates.

Lirian's Forest Gate, the Dungeon of Dorukan, Soon's Azure City Gate, the Tomb of Kraagor, and Girard's Desert Gate.

The next one on the list is Girad's gate which is surrounded by cunning illusions.

farraday fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jun 7, 2007

# ? Jun 7, 2007 23:29

Skeet Urchin: Jun 6, 2006; by Peatpot

farraday posted:

The next one on the list is Girad's gate which is surrounded by cunning illusions.

That sounds pretty fun

# ? Jun 7, 2007 23:48

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

I am positive that the Tomb of Kraagor is going to include a lot of Conan the Barbarian references.

----------------
This thread brought to you by a tremendous dickhead!

# ? Jun 8, 2007 00:04

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Zoolooman posted:

Ferrinus, stop making this harder than it has to be. Just look at Miko. If you think she's evil, she's evil. She's an insane king-slaying antagonist who attacks and attempts to kill lawful good paladins while they're doing lawful good things. She's evil man. She was LG for a while, but she went evil.

Just apply the alignment tags where they seem fitting. Don't overthink it, or you'll find yourself claiming that Belkar is True Neutral because he follows the law sometimes and hasn't managed to do anything technically evil, even though he tries over and over again.

You realize that the obviously-flawed reasoning you applied as to why Belkar must be True Neutral is exactly the thing I'm arguing about, right?

I'm saying someone's basic intentions and desires have to what decides their alignment, not the consequences of their actions. Belkar is Chaotic Evil because he holds rules in contempt and has absolutely no qualms about killing people who bother him (or people who don't bother him), and even though Roy has managed to stop him from doing anything beyond pretty much killing a single jail cell guard Belkar is Evil through and through. Alignments are things you try to live up to, not things you pick up unintentionally.

I'm really undecided about Miko right now. It's really hard to say whether her crazy justifications are made with genuine honesty or not. If she's just deluded and crazy, she's arguably Lawful Good (just like someone who believes himself to be slaying a legion of demons when really he's hallucinating and he's just killing regular humans is arguably Lawful Good.) But then again, Miko doesn't seem to care about protecting people much anymore (as in, if she hallucinated that the Gods told her to kill an innocent she would probably do it without blinking), so she's probably Neutral at best.

Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jun 8, 2007

# ? Jun 8, 2007 01:39

Zooloo: Mar 30, 2003; just wanted to make you something beautiful

Ferrinus posted:

You realize that the obviously-flawed reasoning you applied as to why Belkar must be True Neutral is exactly the thing I'm arguing about, right?

Of course, but I mentioned that example for a different reason than you did. It isn't only intention that matters. Actions matter as well. Belkar wouldn't be evil if he wasn't trying to act evil. Alignment is obviously a mixture of intention and action, and doing something deep on the side of evil definitely weighs heavily on you and can suggest that an alignment change is in order.

Miko doesn't think LG and she doesn't act LG. She thinks chaotically (because she is insane) and evilly (because she believes that people deserve to die for the slightest offense), and she acts evilly (kills good kings, attacks and attempts to kill a LG paladin who is doing his job, etc.) and chaotically (escapes from jail, destroys the gem that she was oath-bound to preserve, etc.)

Miko went 180 and has become CE.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 02:20

Robot Bastard: Jul 14, 2004; by Ozma

Quarex posted:

I actually used to like it a lot, until I noticed that the creator had drawn all of about 5 unique panels in his entire life and seemingly used MSPaint to slightly alter facial features when it was required.

I didn't even mind that so much, until he got the idea that he should go to "massive salvoes of drama-bombs" instead of "let's all joke about D&D".

OOTS is heading the same way, but at least the guy can actually produce art.

Zoolooman posted:

Ferrinus, stop making this harder than it has to be. Just look at Miko. If you think she's evil, she's evil.

Except that the comic takes place in D&D world, and in D&D world you cannot have Paladin powers and not be Lawful Good, therefore she is Lawful Good. Or at least, she was Lawful Good until very recently, and D&D also establishes that alignment changes go "in order"--you don't pop right from LG to CE, for example. And as soon as you aren't Lawful Good, you immediately lose your Paladin powers--which didn't happen, so she can't have not been Lawful Good until she killed Shinjo--she'd have immediately Fallen and we'd know.

Ferrinus posted:

You realize that the obviously-flawed reasoning you applied as to why Belkar must be True Neutral is exactly the thing I'm arguing about, right?

I'm saying someone's basic intentions and desires have to what decides their alignment, not the consequences of their actions. Belkar is Chaotic Evil because he holds rules in contempt and has absolutely no qualms about killing people who bother him (or people who don't bother him), and even though Roy has managed to stop him from doing anything beyond pretty much killing a single jail cell guard Belkar is Evil through and through. Alignments are things you try to live up to, not things you pick up unintentionally.

[quote="Ferrinus"]If she's just deluded and crazy, she's arguably Lawful Good (just like someone who believes himself to be slaying a legion of demons when really he's hallucinating and he's just killing regular humans is arguably Lawful Good.)

Yes; although if he were a Paladin, he'd likely Fall when the hallucination wore off and he realized what he'd done. But, as we've said, he wouldn't change alignment. As I said before, if you attack an evil enemy and fail to kill it, does that mean you're evil now?

quote:

But then again, Miko doesn't seem to care about protecting people much anymore (as in, if she hallucinated that the Gods told her to kill an innocent she would probably do it without blinking), so she's probably Neutral at best.

This is also true. If she were "oh no, I've done something evil! I must atone right away by some form of heroic sacrifice, or possibly try to get to the bottom of this whole situation!" that would be one thing. But no; she's just "nothing I do can possibly be wrong because I'm the Chosen One, therefore my Fall is all just part of the plan".

Robot Bastard fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jun 8, 2007

# ? Jun 8, 2007 04:41

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Ferrinus posted:

On the other hand, there's a huge difference between conscious acceptance of the premise "Everyone who insults me must die" and "Aw crap, now I'm holding my sword in the middle of a formal dinner again."

Ok, so where is the other end of your sword? Becuase that matters a lot.

quote:

What? Why? The character's basic personality hasn't changed. His motives and aspirations haven't changed. He just slipped up due to a strong emotional response.

He slipped up and killed somebody. That makes a difference. That makes him different, it would make anyone different. You're basically saying "imagine an impossible character" and the guy you describe sounds almost like a sociopath.

quote:

This sort of attitude treats alignment as though it were a special privelige to be taken away at any moment.

not any moment, just when you murder your best friend.

quote:

Alignment is one of the ways that a player gets to define his character, and a DM has no more power over your character's alignment than he does over your character's race or background.

Bollox. Alignment changes, that's part of the rules. Alignment is based on your actions, not just your claims of innocence.

quote:

(Which is to say that he can tell you to take a different alignment because the one you've chosen doesn't fit his game, but he can't tell you you're not allowed to play as a dwarf anymore because you saw some gold and didn't obsessively try to acquire it once.)

No but he is allowed to say "You did a bunch of evil poo poo, you aren't lawful good anymore".

quote:

If I was the DM in a situation like that, I'd ask my player if his character has decided that it's now justified in general to murder people for romantic unfaithfulness, in which case I'd suggest he start calling himself Lawful Neutral because that kind of attitude simply doesn't fit within Good. But if he's instead intent on leaving the episode as something the character himself simply hasn't mentally dealt with yet, I'd leave him where he is. Because, ostensibly, he still wants to fight evil and protect innocents.

I'd knock him towards neutral, as I said. It's not the non-event you'd claim. And frankly i'd see ignoring such an act to be an evil act in and of itself.

quote:

Really, if any alignment should be strongly restricted by DMs it's True Neutral because that's the only one that leaves you immune to pretty much every alignment-affecting magic there is [/quuote]Yes but true neutral people have the drawback of being loving boring.

[quote]I'm telling you it does! Otherwise everyone who's never had any opportunity to engage in heroic or villainous action is True Neutral, no matter their personalities or motives.

No, you're drawing a false dilemme between actions and stated intentions, shorn of all merit. Just becuase somebody says they're good, doesn't mean they are, especially if they do a bunch of evil poo poo!

# ? Jun 8, 2007 05:32

Fuego Fish: Dec 5, 2004; By tooth and claw!

Let's just use the Kobolds Ate My Baby! alignment table to make things simple.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 05:51

Vicissitude: Jan 26, 2004; You ever do the chicken dance at a wake? That really bothers people.

I wonder if maybe... Just maybe... Sabine will use her hookups ( :v:

) in the Hells to have some powerful devil 'restore' Miko's powers, furthering the Linear Guild's plans while making her believe that the 12 Gods have welcomed her back and we get a spunky, up and coming Blackguard for our troubles.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 07:40

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Zoolooman posted:

Of course, but I mentioned that example for a different reason than you did. It isn't only intention that matters. Actions matter as well. Belkar wouldn't be evil if he wasn't trying to act evil.

Trying to act evil doesn't make you evil. Wanting to act evil makes you evil. If your physical actions overruled your basic intentions then you could turn someone evil by casting Dominate Person and making them commit murder.

Efreet Saiid posted:

Ok, so where is the other end of your sword? Becuase that matters a lot.

At someone's throat, I guess? Miko came pretty close to killing the Order a few times and generally treated them like a slavedriver, but she remained a Paladin the whole time. And it's not like a hot-tempered Lawful Good character couldn't jump screaming into barroom brawls as opposed to instantly going for the kill every time.

quote:

He slipped up and killed somebody. That makes a difference.

Of course it makes a difference to him. It just doesn't make a difference to his alignment because alignment is neither a comprehensive summary of every one of a character's actions since his birth nor the sum total of someone's personality. He did a bad thing that he wouldn't have done if he was thinking clearly and he still isn't thinking clearly about it, but it doesn't change the basic fact that he wants to protect the innocent and uphold the law. Like they said in that one comic, alignment is something you try to live up to.

quote:

Bollox. Alignment changes, that's part of the rules.

Are there? I generally refer to the online SRD for all my actual hard rules, and I basically see this:

SRD posted:

A creature�s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character�s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Nothing about DM-forced alignment changes.

quote:

Just becuase somebody says they're good, doesn't mean they are, especially if they do a bunch of evil poo poo!

Aaarrrgh it's not a matter of a character just offhandedly saying they're good out loud!

# ? Jun 8, 2007 07:42

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Ferrinus, I don't even play D&D and I know DM's can force alignment changes.
That argument is just idiotic.

poo poo I recall reading through one humorous recounting of a campaign where the DM kept threatening to change peoples alignments because they kept metagaming for fun and profit.

Miko no longer has any sense of objective good. Everything runs purely through the filter of her megalomania. She no longer serves any sense of law, either codified or internal, having instead passed on all judgments to the omnipotence of the gods and serving them by translating their 'signs'.

To take your killing an innocent question. If miko saw a begger on the street might she drop him a few coins? Yes, she very well might. But if one of those coins missed his begging plate and landed tails up she might decide it was a sign and decapitate the poor bastard.

I don't care how loose a system you're playing, you aren't even close to lawful good at that point.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 08:12

bgaesop: Nov 1, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

farraday posted:

Ferrinus, I don't even play D&D and I know DM's can force alignment changes.
That argument is just idiotic.

DMs can do anything they want, that's rule no. 1 of DnD. The question is whether it's explicitly in the rules or not.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 08:28

Cowcaster: Aug 7, 2002

So just as an extension of this conversation: During the crusades, were the knights attacking Jerusalem "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil"?

# ? Jun 8, 2007 08:45

bgaesop: Nov 1, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Cowcaster posted:

So just as an extension of this conversation: During the crusades, were the knights attacking Jerusalem "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil"?

The ideal ones upon whom the DnD Paladins are based are LG, the common ones were CE.

edit: or at the very least Evil, not necessarily Chaotic

bgaesop fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jun 8, 2007

# ? Jun 8, 2007 08:50

Robot Bastard: Jul 14, 2004; by Ozma

Cowcaster posted:

So just as an extension of this conversation: The Middle Age's Crusades, were the knights attacking Jerusalem "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil"?

Definitely Lawful. They were following the precepts of what, at the time, was civilised behavior; they were obeying the dictates of acknowledged authorities; and they were working towards some specific and collective goal.

"Good", "Neutral", or "Evil" depends on the individual's motives. A member of the Crusade might want to defeat the enemies of his country and religion, a Good motive; he might want to restore the benefits of civilisation to a region taken over by barbarians, a Neutral motive; or he might be in it for the loot, an Evil motive.

The members of the actual Crusade probably wouldn't be Chaotic, because Chaotic people are only in armies when they're conscripted; Chaotic Good would rather go it alone, Chaotic Evil would rather be the manipulator of the whole deal, and Chaotic Neutral just doesn't know what the gently caress.

Although see my above statement regarding Real Life and D&D Alignments.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 08:50

bgaesop: Nov 1, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

While I agree on almost everything, there are two points I must contest:

Robot Bastard posted:

he might want to restore the benefits of civilisation to a region taken over by barbarians, a Neutral motive

That's a Lawful motive, I'd say.

quote:

Chaotic Evil would rather be the manipulator of the whole deal,

That's Lawful Evil.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 08:54

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Cowcaster posted:

So just as an extension of this conversation: During the crusades, were the knights attacking Jerusalem "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil"?

I would probably call "honest" crusaders (i.e. the ones who if you read their mind would be revealed to honestly believe that they have to go and slaughter infidels to defend their religion) lawful neutral if they felt qualms about their actions or lawful evil if they didn't. This is because the Good alignment (as I see it) broadly lets you get away with killing people in self-defense or in defense of other people but not for purely ideological reasons.

I'm pretty sure you are making fun of me by the way but I am answering seriously because I like talking about the rules of roleplaying games.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 09:07

bgaesop: Nov 1, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Ferrinus posted:

I'm pretty sure you are making fun of me by the way but I am answering seriously because I like talking about the rules of roleplaying games.

He is making fun of you because the people he's talking about were the original Paladins.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 09:12

Robot Bastard: Jul 14, 2004; by Ozma

bgaesop posted:

]Manipulating events is] Lawful Evil.

Sure, Lawful Evil could also play that role, but we're talking about whether the Crusaders would be LG or CE, and I wanted to point out that the only way CE would be in an army is if it got drafted (and didn't manage to dodge the draft.) I suggest that everyone who voluntarily joined a Crusade would do so for Lawful reasons, although not necessarily Good ones.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 09:31

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Ferrinus posted:

Trying to act evil doesn't make you evil. Wanting to act evil makes you evil. If your physical actions overruled your basic intentions then you could turn someone evil by casting Dominate Person and making them commit murder.

No, that's not the same thing at all.

Both motive and actions matter. There's nothing to argue here. I don't get why you keep trying to make this more complex than it is.

quote:

At someone's throat, I guess? Miko came pretty close to killing the Order a few times and generally treated them like a slavedriver, but she remained a Paladin the whole time. And it's not like a hot-tempered Lawful Good character couldn't jump screaming into barroom brawls as opposed to instantly going for the kill every time.

Yes but if we're talking about homomcide than all the "I still think i'm good" bullshit in the world doesn't matter. And stop using Miko as if she's a valid paladin, she's not. She was set up to fall, pure and simple.

quote:

Of course it makes a difference to him. It just doesn't make a difference to his alignment because alignment is neither a comprehensive summary of every one of a character's actions since his birth nor the sum total of someone's personality.

No. You don't get to keep saying "No alignment doesn't work that way" when it does work that way. Killing your best friend changes your alignment. Denying it was bad means you're not good, or at best you're struggling. That's it. No way around that. You're actually agruing for the goofy comptuer-game style alignment you claim to oppose.

quote:

He did a bad thing that he wouldn't have done if he was thinking clearly and he still isn't thinking clearly about it, but it doesn't change the basic fact that he wants to protect the innocent and uphold the law. Like they said in that one comic, alignment is something you try to live up to.

I don't get where you got this odd notion. It's a stupid idea and there's no way in hell a guy who murdered his best friend and doesn't even feel remorse is LG. At best he's kinda-LG with a big fat spotlight issue looming about his dark and retarded past.

quote:

Are there? I generally refer to the online SRD for all my actual hard rules, and I basically see this:

Nothing about DM-forced alignment changes.

I am so not going to counter-quote the SRD to you. It's not loving happening. If your murder your best friend for no good reason and don't even feel bad about it, gently caress you, you're not LG.

quote:

Aaarrrgh it's not a matter of a character just offhandedly saying they're good out loud!

But it is a matter of what they've done, not just what they've done in the last few minutes, or what they do when everything's going great for them.

Cowcaster posted:

So just as an extension of this conversation: During the crusades, were the knights attacking Jerusalem "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil"?

Probably LE at the point where they had some vestige of the rules of war in operation.

bgaesop posted:

He is making fun of you because the people he's talking about were the original Paladins.

Actually the original Paladins were the peers of Charlemagne.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 10:21

WangNV: Mar 22, 2001; I'm so lonely

So.. stupid alignment shifting question, happily not related to Miko:

The last time I played D&D, rangers had to be of Good alignment. Wikipedia tells me that third edition got rid of that requirement; and as I understand it, the first pane of OOTS has to do with the characters suddenly transition to 3rd edition rules, yes? So does that mean before the comics posted online, Belkar was Good?

And clearly yes, I could pick up the books the next time I see them, (And most likely will), but I'm just curious now.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 17:49

Gally: May 31, 2001; Come on!

WangNV posted:

So.. stupid alignment shifting question, happily not related to Miko:

The last time I played D&D, rangers had to be of Good alignment. Wikipedia tells me that third edition got rid of that requirement; and as I understand it, the first pane of OOTS has to do with the characters suddenly transition to 3rd edition rules, yes? So does that mean before the comics posted online, Belkar was Good?

And clearly yes, I could pick up the books the next time I see them, (And most likely will), but I'm just curious now.

That was from 3 to 3.5, so the Good alignment restriction was already gone.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 18:02

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

I like OotS and you guys are taking this all way, way, way too seriously. I can only assume that the real reason Dragon magazine collapsed was because they were buried under the weight of the angry fan letters they got after they started publishing OotS.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 18:19

Cowcaster: Aug 7, 2002

bgaesop posted:

He is making fun of you because the people he's talking about were the original Paladins.

Actually I wasn't making fun of anyone, I thought it was a pretty good example of how concretely defining someone's alignment based on their beliefs is pretty hard to do. Especially in this case because looking at it one way they were knights who thought they were fighting for god's holy purpose, looking at it another way they were bigots who were killing people based on their race and religion.

Also because I actually don't get how these D&D things work anyway.

Cowcaster fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jun 8, 2007

# ? Jun 8, 2007 18:31

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Cowcaster posted:

Actually I wasn't making fun of anyone, I thought it was a pretty good example of how concretely defining someone's alignment based on their beliefs is pretty hard to do. Especially in this case because looking at it one way they were knights who thought they were fighting for god's holy purpose, looking at it another way they were bigots who were killing people based on their race and religion.

Also because I actually don't get how these D&D things work anyway.

That is true, however there is no assurance the Christian god is lawful good on the D&D scale. Trying to plaster a system of an objective supernatural good and evil and an objective law and chaos onto our reality only works at the most superficial levels.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 19:00

WangNV: Mar 22, 2001; I'm so lonely

Gally posted:

That was from 3 to 3.5, so the Good alignment restriction was already gone.

Oooh.

Right. Nevermind then.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 19:44

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Efreet saiid posted:

Both motive and actions matter. There's nothing to argue here. I don't get why you keep trying to make this more complex than it is.

It's not complex at all to say that alignment is a matter of basic beliefs and intentions rather than a matter of beliefs admixtured in some bizarre way with past actions.

The only way actions matter to alignment is in the sense that they reveal your character's beliefs and intentions. But not every character acts in the way he would philosophically prefer himself to act 100% of the time!

quote:

Yes but if we're talking about homomcide

Homocide would probably mean killing you specifically and that's not evil at all :owned:

But Miko was a valid paladin right up until the point when she wasn't, buddy. She just wasn't a very good (good in the sense of well-suited for her stated purpose) one.

quote:

No. You don't get to keep saying "No alignment doesn't work that way" when it does work that way. Killing your best friend changes your alignment. Denying it was bad means you're not good, or at best you're struggling. ... At best he's kinda-LG with a big fat spotlight issue looming about his dark and retarded past.

You deny what I'm saying but then you support it in the same breath. Obviously the guy who killed his friend in a fit of rage and isn't willing to mentally confront himself about it is "struggling", and of course he's LG with a big fat spotlight issue looming in his dark and retarded past. But he's not not-Good until he actually decides that killing people for some reason other than self-defense/defense of innocents is okay.

quote:

I am so not going to counter-quote the SRD to you. It's not loving happening. If your murder your best friend for no good reason and don't even feel bad about it, gently caress you, you're not LG.

Of course you're not going to, because there aren't any rules in it about the DM forcibly changing a player's alignment. The whole idea is probably an artifact of earlier editions when DMs were supposed to micromanage their players more.

Cowcaster posted:

Actually I wasn't making fun of anyone, I thought it was a pretty good example of how concretely defining someone's alignment based on their beliefs is pretty hard to do.

I think it only is if you're willing to stretch your definition of "good". The problem with just throwing the word "good" around is that it's meaningless without qualifiers (Good for, good if, good according to). But the actual alignment rules define what counts as good for their purposes pretty clearly. That crusading knights were ostensibly doing what they did because of their strong commitment to a particular ideology makes them lawful rather than good.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 22:01

bgaesop: Nov 1, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Ferrinus posted:

You deny what I'm saying but then you support it in the same breath. Obviously the guy who killed his friend in a fit of rage and isn't willing to mentally confront himself about it is "struggling", and of course he's LG with a big fat spotlight issue looming in his dark and retarded past. But he's not not-Good until he actually decides that killing people for some reason other than self-defense/defense of innocents is okay.

Yes, and he decided that when he killed his friend.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 22:55

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

bgaesop posted:

Yes, and he decided that when he killed his friend.

Yeah, because he was enraged to find him in bed with his wife and acted without thinking! Committing an evil act doesn't make you evil, being okay with committing evil acts makes you evil. I'm sure no one would say our Lawful Good character immediately turned Chaotic Evil if he murdered his friend in a rage and then immediately regretted it, would they? Or that somehow his alignment flipped to Chaotic Evil for the ten seconds the murder took but then flipped back?

# ? Jun 8, 2007 23:01

greatn: Nov 15, 2006; by Lowtax

In the situation, he remains lawful good if he confesses and turns himself in. He still loses his Paladin abilities, but falling from paladinhood and losing your alignment are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. One mino infraction will make you lose your powers. Not so with alignment.

The guy in your hypothetical is still lawful good if he does the right thing and turns himself in, and can later have atonement used on him.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 23:08

Sock: Oct 8, 2001; Do me. Do me.

What's going to happen now that the gate is destroyed? Are Miko (and O'Chul and Soon) going to get caught in an explosion or what?

Sock fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jun 8, 2007

# ? Jun 8, 2007 23:24

Sick_Boy: Jun 3, 2007; The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it.

Ferrinus posted:

But he's not not-Good until he actually decides that killing people for some reason other than self-defense/defense of innocents is okay.

Say, for vengeance, perhaps? Because Miko has talked about having her revenge against the OOTS pretty openly...

# ? Jun 8, 2007 23:26

Dr. Quarex: Apr 18, 2003; I'M A BIG DORK WHO POSTS TOO MUCH ABOUT CONVENTIONS LOOK AT THIS

TOVA TOVA TOVA

Halloween Jack posted:

I like OotS and you guys are taking this all way, way, way too seriously. I can only assume that the real reason Dragon magazine collapsed was because they were buried under the weight of the angry fan letters they got after they started publishing OotS.

I was like you, once, young one. A few weeks ago I thought everyone was taking it too seriously.

Then, I realized that THIS IS THE ONLY THING LEFT IN LIFE THAT MATTERS!

Actually, no, I still agree. Though it is kind of hilarious knowing that webcomics can produce this kind of argument.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 23:27

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

greatn posted:

In the situation, he remains lawful good if he confesses and turns himself in. He still loses his Paladin abilities, but falling from paladinhood and losing your alignment are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. One mino infraction will make you lose your powers. Not so with alignment.

The guy in your hypothetical is still lawful good if he does the right thing and turns himself in, and can later have atonement used on him.

Actually he's not even supposed to be a paladin. Call him a warrior or a commoner or something. If he was a paladin, he'd certainly fall for killing his friend in a fit of rage, but the point is that a fit of rage doesn't mean your basic motivations evaporate.

# ? Jun 8, 2007 23:31

Factor_VIII: Feb 2, 2005; Les soldats se trouvent dans la v�rit�.

Halloween Jack posted:

I like OotS and you guys are taking this all way, way, way too seriously. I can only assume that the real reason Dragon magazine collapsed was because they were buried under the weight of the angry fan letters they got after they started publishing OotS.

Dragon died? I'm a bit sorry to hear that; I sort of expected that it would keep getting published for as long as D&D was around, considering it's almost as old as the game itself.

Sock posted:

What's going to happen now that the gate is destroyed? Are Miko (and O'Chul and Soon) going to get caught in an explosion or what?

This has already been discussed in this thread; the explosion was the mechanism used to destroy that specific gate. Gates don't explode when they are destroyed.

# ? Jun 9, 2007 00:17

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

Ferrinus posted:

Homocide would probably mean killing you specifically and that's not evil at all

He didn't say homocide, he said homomcide, which means your mom's a whore and I killed her :iceburn:

Hey, anyone else thinks it's funny that Belkar mocks Elan for taking bard levels, when Belkar's a hilariously badly-made character?

# ? Jun 9, 2007 01:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 11:13

Kangaroo Jerk: Jul 23, 2000

Factor_VIII posted:

Dragon died?

Not quite. Dragon and Dungeon have been published by a third-party publisher (Paizo Publishing) for a few years now. Wizards wanted to make their web site a one-stop place for all things D&D, so they yanked the license to publish Dragon and Dungeon from the people who had it. Wizards will soon unveil something called a "Digital Initiative," that's their updated D&D website.

This kind of sucks, because Dungeon has been running some very well-received maxi-campaigns, and now the publisher won't be able to publish any more under the Dungeon title.

# ? Jun 9, 2007 01:17

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > BSS: Bisexual Super Son > The Order of the Stick: T-Rex, Troll Sex and Will Checks

«‹›1413 »