|
navyjack posted:Man, I wish I'd spent all that money on Apple stock instead of D&D books when I was in high school. I asked my dad to buy Apple stock when it was at $16 or so. Would have been 1600% gain  EDIT: drat, new page. I still like the lizard cleric, and I hope he features more.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
For a vicious mercenary, he's a proud father!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:For a vicious mercenary, he's a proud father! Who wouldn't be proud that their lovable doofus son has somehow managed to consistently knock boots with a shapely, red haired bad girl? SlimGoodbody fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Aug 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
Honestly he's probably more proud of the facts that his son is both A) A protagonist and B) Knocking boots with another protagonist. Secondary character love interests are worth far less points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 04:32
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Honestly he's probably more proud of the facts that his son is both A) A protagonist and B) Knocking boots with another protagonist. Secondary character love interests are worth far less points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
ALSO: Bread! Circuses!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
I like Mister Fluffy trying to catch V's familiar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
Donraj posted:I like Mister Fluffy trying to catch V's familiar. no one else can see the bird right? Thus more evidence that Mister Fluffy is more then meets the eye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Nystral posted:no one else can see the bird right? Thus more evidence that Mister Fluffy is more then meets the eye. Everyone can see the bird. It's just V's familiar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
Nystral posted:no one else can see the bird right? Thus more evidence that Mister Fluffy is more then meets the eye. Everyone can see it, I thought? Now that V actually is treating it like one, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
It can only be seen when V acknowledges that s/he has a familiar at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It can only be seen when V acknowledges that s/he has a familiar at all. Which is regularly since V apologized to it and promised to be a better person to it after the whole incident with the fiends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Nystral posted:no one else can see the bird right? Thus more evidence that Mister Fluffy is more then meets the eye. I was playing through some Baldur's Gate II the other day and was reading up about familiars - Assuming Fluffy is older (2nd ed rules?), following their rules of familiar summoning, Mister Fluffy would have these attributes: Cat - Chaotic Neutral - 0 AC, 24 HP, Pickpocket, 99% Stealth, 50% magic resistance or -4 AC, 48 HP, Pickpocket, 99% Stealth, 65% magic res, 60% Find Traps. Cats are Chaotic Neutral - with the way Belkar has been acting recently maybe he had alignment shift and that's why Fluffy is hanging around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 20:40
|
|
|
Fluffy isn't a familiar. He's an animal companion. Different rules apply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
Goffer posted:I was playing through some Baldur's Gate II the other day and was reading up about familiars - Assuming Fluffy is older (2nd ed rules?), following their rules of familiar summoning, Mister Fluffy would have these attributes: Belkar's still CE, he's just learned to hide it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
Belkar's cat is smart because it's funny. The gag is the pet is smarter than the owner. A cigar is sometimes just a cigar. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
Goffer posted:
Nitpick: Cats are true neutral, now at least. They're not considered smart enough to be able to choose an alignment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:Nitpick: Cats are true neutral, now at least. They're not considered smart enough to be able to choose an alignment. OotS is still using 3.5 rules; I don't know if that makes a difference in this case, but the author made a conscious decision not to make the world 4e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 04:55
|
|
|
Idran posted:Except there are ceremonial swords too that are more useless than ceremonial maces or scepters or whatever in killing people. Pope Guilty posted:Belkar's still CE, he's just learned to hide it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
FredMSloniker posted:OotS is still using 3.5 rules; I don't know if that makes a difference in this case, but the author made a conscious decision not to make the world 4e. I'm aware. Cats are true neutral, regardless. I admit to having started with 3.5, being a youngin', but were cats or such animals anything but neutral, ever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:I'm aware. Cats are true neutral, regardless. Matter of fact, all animals are true neutral as a matter of type!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:I'm pretty sure that learning to hide CE makes you not CE anymore. He still values and loves slaughter and chaos and so on, he's just smart enough to know that showing a minimal level of self-restraint increases the amount of said slaughter and chaos that he'll be able to engage in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
Goffer posted:I was playing through some Baldur's Gate II the other day and was reading up about familiars - Assuming Fluffy is older (2nd ed rules?), following their rules of familiar summoning, Mister Fluffy would have these attributes: That's not something from 2e, that's something Black Isle made up for BG2; they gave each familiar stats like that to make them suck slightly less than a normal animal. Back in 2e all animals were still neutral/unaligned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
IIRC, the way alignments were described in some editions of D&D (AD&D 1, I think) playing anything but Lawful Good meant being deeply psychotic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:IIRC, the way alignments were described in some editions of D&D (AD&D 1, I think) playing anything but Lawful Good meant being deeply psychotic. "The man who created Dungeons & Dragons is still out there creating. If you got here following a link from his site, or if you just wanted to check out his new game, this is the place to look. And let me thank him for his positive comments on this page" http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/ And yeah there's an animated gif. Background. Modern web design suddenly doesn't look so bad. I don't really want to get into one of those weird rear end alignment arguments, but Belkar making the decision (or being reprogrammed by his cat master) to be less violent so as to escape repercussions, but more importantly selecting to stick his neck out to aid his allies, is an alignment shift towards neutral from chaotic. Having a plan that pays off in the end is totally against the grain of being chaotic. And dumb. And he was both of those things at the start of the comic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
I was just thinking about the way animals are all classified as Neutral. Oh, wait, from the AD&D 1st Ed. PHB: True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. So yeah, True Neutral in that edition meant either having no concept of good and evil (nonsentients) or being a philosophically detached servant of some arbitrary ideal of balance. This is the same edition where being Chaotic Neutral meant actively advocating for the concept of chaos and disorder without regard for good and evil. Very weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
All the alignments back then were more of a massive impetus for action like that, instead of being more a description of internal philosophy, I think. It was weird, yeah, but it was equally weird across the board so there was parity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
The AD&D 2nd Ed DMG (I think) had a scenario involving a 9-man party with one guy representing each of the 9 alignments, as a demonstration of how they were all supposed to think. I think "unintentionally hilarious" was a fair description.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
Ashenai posted:The AD&D 2nd Ed DMG (I think) had a scenario involving a 9-man party with one guy representing each of the 9 alignments, as a demonstration of how they were all supposed to think. How would they avoid killing each other for more than a few minutes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:How would they avoid killing each other for more than a few minutes? They didn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the insistence of a player being true neutral is a sign of insanity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
Or some kind of Buddhist monk. Oddly enough, monks can only be lawful in 3.5E! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:I'm pretty sure the insistence of a player being true neutral is a sign of insanity. The whole balance thing was utterly retarded. "Once we've saved the kingdom, I'll have to burn down a few orphanages to even things out. You guys are cool with that, right?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
Mylan posted:The whole balance thing was utterly retarded. "Once we've saved the kingdom, I'll have to burn down a few orphanages to even things out. You guys are cool with that, right?" If you see the balance aspect of true neutral being that, you don't understand what the balance aspect was about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 04:54
|
|
|
The Order of the Stick: Between Good and Evil
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
Ashenai posted:The AD&D 2nd Ed DMG (I think) had a scenario involving a 9-man party with one guy representing each of the 9 alignments, as a demonstration of how they were all supposed to think. Consider the battle in which they gained the treasure in the first place. Upon penetrating the heart of the ruined castle, the party met its foe, a powerful gorgon commanded by a mad warrior. There, chained behind the two, was a helpless peasant kidnapped from a nearby village. The lawful good character unhesitatingly (but not foolishly) entered the battle; it was the right thing to do. He considered it his duty to protect the villagers. Besides, he could not abandon an innocent hostage to such fiends. He was willing to fight until he won or was dragged off by his friends. He had no intention of fighting to his own death, but he would not give up until he had tried his utmost to defeat the evil creatures. The lawful evil character also entered the battle willingly. Although he cared nothing for the peasant, he could not allow the two fiends to mock him. Still, there was no reason for him to risk all for one peasant. If forced to retreat, he could return with a stronger force, capture the criminals, and execute them publicly. If the peasant died in the meantime, their punishment would be that much more horrible. The lawful neutral character was willing to fight, because the villains threatened public order. However, he was not willing to risk his own life. He would have preferred to come back later with reinforcements. If the peasant could be saved, that is good, because he is part of the community. If not, it would be unfortunate but unavoidable. The neutral good character did not fight the gorgon or the warrior, but he tried to rescue the peasant. Saving the peasant was worthwhile, but there was no need to risk injury and death along the way. Thus, while the enemy was distracted in combat, he tried to slip past and free the pea- sant. The true neutral character weighed the situation carefully. Although it looked like the forces working for order would have the upper hand in the battle, he knew there had been a general trend toward chaos and destruction in the region that must be combatted. He tried to help, but if the group failed, he could work to restore the balance of law and chaos elsewhere in the kingdom. The neutral evil character cared nothing about law, order, or the poor peasant. He figured that there had to be some treasure around somewhere. After all, the villain's lair had once been a powerful temple. He could poke around for cash while the others did the real work. If the group got into real trouble and it looked like the villains would attack him, then he would fight. Unfortunately, a stray magical arrow killed him just after he found a large gem. The chaotic good character joined the fight for several reasons. Several people in the group were his friends, and he wanted to fight at their sides. Furthermore, the poor, kidnapped peasant deserved to be rescued. Thus, the chaotic good character fought to aid his companions and save the peasant. He didn't care if the villains were killed, captured, or just driven away. Their attacks against the village didn't concern him. The chaotic neutral character decided to charge, screaming bloodthirsty cries, straight for the gorgon. Who knows? He might have broken its nerve and thrown it off guard. He discovered that his plan was a bad one when the gorgon's breath killed him. The chaotic evil character saw no point in risking his hide for the villagers, the peasant, or the rest of the party. In fact, he thought of several good reasons not to. If he party was weakened, he might be able to take over. If the villains won, he could probably make a deal with them and join their side. If everyone was killed, he could take everything he wanted and leave. All these sounded a lot better than getting hurt for little or no gain. So he stayed near the back of the battle, watching. If anyone asked, he could say he was watching the rear, making sure no one came to aid the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 05:18
|
|
|
"Oh look, 20 new posts since I checked yesterday! There's gotta be a new com-nope, more alignment discussion. gently caress."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
HKR posted:If you see the balance aspect of true neutral being that, you don't understand what the balance aspect was about. One of the examples given in the DMG was literally a druid fighting to help a village against some gnolls, then switching sides when he felt the gnolls were taking too many casualties. Ah, here it is: "True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world." True Neutral: always making sure your own actions cancel each other out! 
Ashenai fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Aug 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 12:24
|
|