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

«‹›3 »

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Yeah he specfically mentioned that hating other species is ok, and everybody hates mystic theurges anyway. They would be pretty useful in a war, though.

Ferrinus posted:

Oh yeah and only reinforce how totally overpowered they are god why did they even make "Xykon" a playable character class

Hey relax man i'm just saying, they're probably going to be on good terms once they get back together, and yes I do think they're going to beat the ghost martyrs.

In fact I wouldn't be suprised if Xykon has a chat with him afterwards or during, kind of like he did with roy. In fact the more I think about it the more I wonder if Xykon's CHA is a big factor in the creation of his personality. He has this kind of flippant approach to things but still manages to comunicate well with people despite being kind of a ditz. He's an interesting take on a master'mind', and it makes more sense for him to be kinda of evil overlord-ey than somebody who's supposedly really smart or wise.

Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 07:53 on May 27, 2007

# ¿ May 27, 2007 07:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 18:25

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

The Oldest Man posted:

So I guess they are leaving Thog in that leprechaun outfit. Huh.

They said they're going off to buy new equipment.

# ¿ May 29, 2007 20:56

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

MikeJF posted:

Is Burlew developing a thing for sonic damage?

D&D has a thing for sonic damage, it's a superior attack form because nobody is immune or resistant to it.

Except for the Bentusi, aparently < :rolleyes:

Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 10:29 on May 30, 2007

# ¿ May 30, 2007 10:27

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Big Ears is tearing poo poo up in the recent panels, too. I think they all the have "the person drawing me likes to do awesome detailed combat scenes" feat, wich is even better than toughness in NWN2. They're what, second level last time they mentioned it? Third maybe? Just more proof that low-mid level adventures are way better than uber-level bloat.

# ¿ May 30, 2007 16:04

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Well i'd assume without an artist nothing would get drawn. Either way I think colaberation carries it's own risks of developing stupid ideas. It may be the strip is the result of two competing creative visions, or rather two competing creative mirages, the type where you dive into the pond and start drinking but you find yourself eating sand in a dry lake bed and bugs bunny is laughing at you from a nearby dune.

# ¿ May 30, 2007 22:27

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

RentACop posted:

"Neither do I. I wasn't actually paying attention when I did it." Friggin , I love it.

Unfortunatly smite evil is the ultimate comeback.

# ¿ May 31, 2007 11:29

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Also he still had overland flight that probably helped him manuver a fair bit.

# ¿ May 31, 2007 20:54

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

These aren't low level paladins, the real newbies are guarding the city.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2007 23:27

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Nobody's getting upset. Well I think somebody could get upset if they really tried to read and enjoy erfworld, but it would more be that kind of upset where people get really stressed and tired and people are all "hey lay off that guy he's had a bad day".

# ¿ Jun 2, 2007 01:46

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Ferrinus posted:

I'm pretty sure the only paladin that isn't in the throne room right now is Hinjo.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0413.html

Hinjo sent the newbies to guard the city, although 'behind the wall' might mean they already got mastadowned when recloack stormed the wall.

Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Jun 3, 2007

# ¿ Jun 2, 2007 19:19

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Bobulus posted:

As an illustration of how a paladin can be played badly, she's pretty two dimensional. As a LE character who doesn't realize she's evil, I'd say she has a chance at development into something interesting.

In my deepest and most shameful fanfiction fantasies i'm hoping that she'll vanish, only to turn up later by suprise as a vassal of elan's dad (who we don't even know is ever going to even be in the strip but would be really awesome!)

Robot Bastard posted:

dangit, and it was such a great idea, too.

I'll also say that I don't agree that Miko is LE. I think that she's LG, just dumb. She may be acting in ways that evil would be happy about, but not at the behest of evil, or with evil intent. It's D&D Alignment; intent is more important than outcome. If I get manipulated into doing something Evil, I don't involuntarily undergo an alignment change.

Bollox. she's evil, or heading there. D&D alignment is not nearly as retarded and people pretend.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2007 07:40

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Ferrinus posted:

This brings us back to the age-old question of whether deluded is the same as evil.
Miko thinks she's doing the will of the gods and that Roy and co. were basically minions of Xykon and so on and so forth. The alignment written on her character sheet could easily still be "Lawful Good", there'd just be a bunch of assorted derangements written under it.

Yes but that's only if the DM is loving with her player or they're having an argument over it.

In reality she killed an old man and hosed up a bunch of poo poo for no good god-drat reason and that means she's at least neutral.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2007 09:38

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Miko would actually do ok against a lich, if she's got a few monk levels. Not super-great but still she could knock him around for a panel or two. I'm wondering if instead Burlew is going to pull a switch, and suddenly have her "divine" good fortune reverse itself by crushing her with masonry or something.

Ferrinus posted:

But she doesn't have a player!

Then she doesn't have an alignment :colbert:

quote:

Honestly, I think she's the example of the only way that a (Lawful) Good character can serve as an antagonist for a Good (or maybe Neutral) party - the Good antagonist is not in possession of all the facts and somehow prevented from acquiring them.

I think there's a lot of ways you can send non-evil people up against each other, after all the facts only say so much. Not all good people have the same opinons, and you can stray pretty far from a universal consensus without becoming evil- just not as far as Miko did. This is particularly the case if we're talkig about good people who are part of cultures or nations who are at odds, in wich most of the institutionn is neutrla or even evil.

Anyway, i've lost track of the number of "neutral is the new good" plotlines and storylines wich centre around an ignorant do-gooder going up against pinfully cliche "moraly ambiguous" neutral protagonists.

Ferrinus posted:

Hey, I don't think Miko is misunderstood or shortchanged or treated unfairly - by real-world standards, she's a horrible monster. But she's still "Lawful Good" until such time as she decides to stop trying to serve justice and the gods and so forth.

Oh cool, hitler is LG! Yeah that's really useful.

quote:

Basically I see alignment as a statement of intentions, so there's no point in telling someone who (honestly, as far as they can tell) claims to be some alignment that they're really a different alignment.

I see alignment more like it is in the rules, where it's based on people's actions, with some recourse against harsh jugement based on their intentions and knowlege of the situation. As another example see NWN2, where amongst the companion list are a NE and CE character, who each claim to have a defensable moral position, and even make a good point some times, but that doesn't change the fact that they're both enormous jerks who kill people for lovely reasons.

I find that alignment is not nearly as wierd and counter-intuitive as people claim. I mean it's not like it's V:TM's humanity/paths system or something.

Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jun 5, 2007

# ¿ Jun 5, 2007 15:03

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

I'm wondering if Burlew is foreshadowing in order to gently caress with us, or wether he's just bracing us for the inevitable?

Ferrinus posted:

Well, yes, she's an egomaniacal lunatic, but she's still attached to the idea of thinking of herself as Lawful Good, which means she is.

No, she's not, that's stupid. I don't know why you've got this barmy notion in your head. As I said, some people tend to overthink alignment, it's just a convenient label. Alignment is not that complex. It's not a big deal. It's just roughtly what it obviously appears to be. Miko is clearly evil, or at best neutral. There you go. That's it. Being delusional doesn't make you LG anymore than it makes you hyperinteligent or charismatic.

quote:

If, for instance, a bunch of peasants came to her and begged her to save them from a marauding demon or something she would have to help them, because she thinks of herself as the good guy.

A LE character may well do the same thing if it's by the letter of the law and the code they live by. But he'll come back next week and kill them all for heresy all the same. It doesn't mean he goes +5 good one day and then +15 evil the next, but his alignment is still based primarily on his actions, even if they are not overt. And i'm sure most LE characters in most settings have themselves convinced that they're good or "just".

Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jun 6, 2007

# ¿ Jun 6, 2007 04:44

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Ferrinus posted:

It's a convenient label, but it can't be a convenient label for the sum total of your past actions. Otherwise we have the silly Neverwinter Nights system where I remain Neutral by donating to charity on odd-numbered days and raping and murdering on even-numbered days.

No, you don't. You're setting up a false dillemma. Just because it's a convenient label doesn't mean it has to be poorly applied.

quote:

A variant D&D ruleset where you have to explicitly earn any alignment beyond "true neutral" by adhering to stringent codes of behavior (and get cool bonuses for it and maybe Paladin becomes a hard-to-qualify-for and powerful prestige class) would be fun, but it's not how the game works now. You don't build up an alignment, you declare it.

And you also have to embody it, or it changes.

quote:

Oh, certainly. There are strong guidelines in D&d for what constitutes Good and what doesn't (altruistic self-sacrifice concern for the dignity of sentient beings, yadda yadda) and it's up to the DM whether a given set of motivations or plans of action fall within it. For instance, I wouldn't call a ruler who just slaughters everyone infected with a certain disease in order to prevent it from spreading further Good in D&D terms, even though he would certainly describe his actions as being for "the common good".

Well then your original claim is not valid: Saying you're good does not make you good.

quote:

But, if Miko's crazy delusions were true, her actions would still fall within the Lawful Good alignment as it seems to work in Order of the Stick.

Actually, no. Even if she was right, she's being reckless, muderously so, and wrathful, and that's not good. Because after all, mortals are fallable so for a mortal to be good, they must recognise their own falability, at least as far as not murdering their monarch on the crest of a war in a fit of pique and then trying to kill their heir and fellow paldin for attempting to talk you down.

quote:

After all, it's not like she wasn't a bloodthirsty slayer of men before she met the Order, and she still happily maintained Paladin status.

Yes but she never should have been a paladin in the first place and it's not D&D's fault that Burlew set her up for a fall. Even if we assume she was marginal LG all these years and levels, she clearly passed the point of no (easy) return in those strips where she falls.

quote:

She fell for the same reason that a paladin who kills a bunch of imps who turn out to have been glamered children would fall from grace - the unknowing commitment of an inarguably evil act.

No. She fell for the opposite reason, that being she juged evil where there was no evidence of it, as opposed to juging evil where there is (false) evidence of it. BTW paladins don't fall if that are mislead in that fashion anyway. Paladins must knowingly and willingly commit an evil act. Unless they acted rashly they are not blame.

quote:

It's just occurred to me though that in the strip directly following that one, she appeared ready and willing to kill Hinjo before Roy smashed her into a wall. This kind of puts a dent in my position. I guess I could say she was just really angry and not thinking clearly...?

No, she's loving evil! She's off the rails.

She wasn't even toppling a ruler she felt was a threat, she was just killing whoever got in her way after she flipped the gently caress out. That was the whole point of the scene with Hinjo, he was giving her a chance to redeem herself, to step back from the precipice, and she threw it back in his face because she was to proud and fearful to accept her error.

And in turn Hiro says "yep, you're loving done!" because she is.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2007 06:39

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Ferrinus posted:

That's not a "poor application", it's a demonstration of why making alignment literally consist of a summary of your past actions doesn't work.

No, it does, it just has to be weighted differently and have a bunch of caveats and as noted, motives and such also play a role.

quote:

The slightly less extreme example is one I've already brought up - the murderous psychopath whose alignment is True Neutral because he's been locked up in jail his whole life and unable to actually kill anyone.

Somebody doesn't have to be active to have intentions and a behaviour, wich are distinct from what they may cliam them to be or even have themself deluded into thinking they are.

quote:

I mean that saying (honestly) out-of-character that you are Good by D&D standards makes your character Good. There's a difference between "My character is willing to torture and murder but tells himself that it's for the common good" and "My character is actually, honestly committed to saving the lives of good people but is extremely hot-tempered and doesn't often stop to think before drawing a weapon".

Um, neither of those are good if they result in a high body count. Maybe the latter is marginally chaotic good at best, more likely neutral or even evil.

quote:

If a character ostensibly works towards upholding the law and protecting innocents from harm at a personal cost, they are Good, even if greivous psychological flaws stand in the way of their accomplishing this!

Wrong. Those grevious flaws have an impact. You're basically saying "somebody who is good, only they're not, is still good". Likewise, a LE character can be honeable, even just, uphold the law and work for the common good and everything. But they're not the guy you want to talk about the "spirit of the law" when your buddies are for the gallows based on a technicality, and they're not the guy you want to take into an enemy city to do a 'peacekeeping' patrol.

quote:

Wait, you're right, Paladins can't fall for acting on incorrect information.

But they CAN fall if they make ludicroulsy poor assumptions that convenielty fit their ego and wrath issues.

quote:

But, Miko had just heard Shojo describe the lengths he had gone to to break the big important Sapphire Guard oath thing and spy on the other gates and fake the Order's trial. She executed him because she thought that simply jailing him would be pointless since the entire legal system was obviously corrupt to start with, and she's definitely gotten away with overly-zealous and not-carefully-judged executions before.

Yes but if they were that bad, she shouldn't have gotten away with them before. That was Burlew's setup. And as noted, she didn't stop there, and Hinjo talking to her is the point where it is well and truly proven that nope, she ain't just misunderstood.

quote:

I had figured that she had previously just been lucky and/or supported by technicalities ("Hey, those two bandits were beginning to attack me, I was totally justified in eviscerating them instantly and mercilessly") but Shojo represented her first serious blunder re: murdering someone who neither had the Evil alignment or was even any kind of immediate threat. But since she has to willingly and knowingly do evil in order to lose her powers, we can pretty neatly assume that her monologue about everyone being servants of Xykon was pretty much ad hoc bullshit.

She lost her power because she did evil, not because she fits your previous bizzare standards of "evil only if I say I am". She did not have to willingly do evil in terms of "ha ha i am evil now", and being delusional due to pride is not a defence.

quote:

The thing is, what about situations like a Good character finding his best friend in bed with his wife and killing them both in a fit of rage? It's definitely an evil act, but it doesn't mean an alignment change.

Yes it does. A paldin who kills in that situation would fall. BOOM! Perhaps they could skirt it if the rules against adultery were nasty enough, but then again, Lord Soth probably thought similarly about his wife when misled into thinking she was cheating on him. And that just ended up loving great!

quote:

Wouldn't someone whose chief priorities are obeying the law and defending the good against evil be Lawful Good, even if there's an unambiguously Evil act in their past that they refuse to repent about?

Nope. I guess you could argue formal repentence is not that big a deal, but they would have to have changed their ways or dealt with why they performed that act. Good people feel remorse.

quote:

Heck, even Miko was willing to put her insane and dishonestly-justified vendetta against the Order of the Stick on hold when saw that Azure City and the throne room were in danger.

Yes but that doesn't make her good. The thing is, you don't have to have a good alignment to act good or to think you are. Most characters think that.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2007 07:55

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Yes I guess it was always going to come down to the gem smashing, but it was cool to see how close the badguys came to defeat. I am wondering if the ghost martyrs were a late inclusion, but in any event I liked how things turned out. Now it's just a matter of how big the boom is, assuming one is coming. I'm sure there will be some kind of climax, because this seems like a lead-up to one. I'm really wondering what will be left of the city after this, it's already on fire.

Ferrinus posted:

But really though, hot-headedness is not a feature of moral alignment. Heck, it's not even a feature of ethical alignment. It's a basic personality trait that any character can have. Good means that you are willing to make personal sacrifices to defend innocents against the depredation of monsters, not that you have good table manners and impeccable judgement.

There's a huge difference between good table manners and not bareing steel over a petty insult.

quote:

No, I agree with you here, killing Shojo was definitely evil. But your alignment doesn't constantly change to match the last act you performed!

But is is weighed towards the substance of your actions and how grevious they are.

quote:

Oh, they'd definitely fall. But they'd still be Lawful Good. A single moment of weakness doesn't change your entire alignment if it doesn't change your basic intentions!

No, most DM's would give an alignment hit and they'd be right to do so. A single moment of weakness can change your alignment, fiction (and reality) is full of people changing their ways in a moment, and the moment does begin that change- it's not trivial or meaningless as you're implying.

quote:

Well let's say the guy (he's a Ranger or something so leave the Paladin thing out of this) who killed his best friend/adulterous wife develops a huge obsession over the event and refuses to admit that he was in the wrong - but continues living as he did before as a Lawful Good character. He still donates to charity and protects villages from goblins and so on because he believes it's the right thing to do. He doesn't reconcile the wife thing with his other beliefs because he simply doesn't want to due to personal issues, even though it's obviously contradictory. What is he?

LN with strong good tedencies? Maybe low LG? Or more likely, since we're talking about a story, he'd have to face up to his past at some point, and his obsession would either destroy him or he'd reject it. That happens with real people too- denial is not healthy. It tends to have some unpleasant effects.

quote:

The point isn't that everyone thinks they're lowercase-g good. The point is that the personalities and motives of some characters are structured in such a way that they honestly want to uphold the details of the Good alignment in D&D, which means altruism and do-gooding and general civic service.

Yes but that still doesn't mean they're good, if they aren't. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Sorry, I missed this particular but of guff when skipping past robot bastard's post:

Robot Bastard posted:

You know, I think I see the fundamental problem here.

You're applying real-world gray-area moralistic reasoning to the "Dungeons & Dragons" Alignment system. I'm surprised that you haven't yet learned that this never has a satisfactory result.

Actually no it's not really a big deal, and people who play this card tend to be ignorant of real world morality issues anyway, tending towards moronic levels of relitivism without any actual grasp of

Nobody is saying D&D alignment is like real world alignment, but it's not the bizzare impossible premise people claim, either. It's just a set of loving guidelines. There's no reason you can't use it as part of a 'morally grey' scenarion, that's bullshit invented by people who don't know anything about character motivation and ethics (real or fictional) anyway.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2007 11:45

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

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

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

That's a pretty nice boom. I assume Miko survived, and i'm wondering about o-chul and roy because their bodies are both helpless without aid. Despite how many people are around, I think it would be cool if a new group was introduced, like actual good guys, coming to the aid of the city, collecting roy and ochul along the way- that seems unlikely however.

While these strips seem to be coming fast, they're not fast enough for me, I really want to see what happens next, and in particular what kind of status quo results from the outcome of the battle. I'm worried that along-dead roy might end up as the kind of prolonged sidetrack that is notorious in webcomics, especially since they've already been on one for so long.

Now, back to the main event:

Ferrinus posted:

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.

Somebody is the result of who they are and what they've done. Ignoring what they've done is absurd. Especially for them!

quote:

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!

That's your logic, not mine. My logic is, actions matter.

quote:

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

Do we have to take this to helldump? Oh, i'll do it, don't think I won't! And I am in good there, you better realise!

. . . of course, it would only take one terrifying reversal of fortune to see my high status utterly destroyed. Yes, they are fickle, always looking for weakness. . .

Very well! I shall not make a helldump thread about you if your promise not to try and kill me. Shall we call this a gentleman's agreement?

quote:

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.

She was what 10th level of higher she should have been long fallen. At the very least you must admit she was set up for a fall.

quote:

You deny what I'm saying but then you support it in the same breath.

No because i'm not denying beliefs and such matter, it's just not the only thing that matters.

quote:

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.

He's already decided that, unless he admits that what he did was not ok.

quote:

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.

Oh please. I'm feeling pity now. You know what? I'm going to go get you a blanky and some warm milk, because it's clear you just can't handle the harsh realities of the world and are mere moments from an emotional breakdown. Yes Ferrinus, your DM gets to change your character's alignment. If they don't do it when they should, it's because they're a loving pussy.

Gumby posted:

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.

They're continuing thir adventure path under the "Pathfinder" imprint. It looks promising.

I agree that the move is a bad one though, I mean I can walk into a newsangency in a hick-town in queensland and find a copy of the dungeons and dragons magazines, that is not the kind of exposure you want to lose.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2007 08:42

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

She can't become a snarly death knight, I want her to wander off and re-appear by suprise as the leiutenant of elan's dad who may not ever even be mentioned again! Ferrinus, your idea is inferior to my own and I insist we debate our respective fanfiction predictions for the next ten pages.

SuperKlaus posted:

Maybe you should take it to another thread, Ferrinus and happyelf.

Dude nobody was getting heated and I already stopped arguing before you posted.

Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Jun 11, 2007

# ¿ Jun 11, 2007 09:18

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Of course now that she's dead, will she end up meeting Roy? I loving hope not, I really want these guys to get back on the adventuring trail.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2007 08:05

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Sick_Boy posted:

*Que Return of the Jedi-like celebration*

There's still about ten thousand hobgoblins and change to deal with.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2007 14:36

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

I'm hoping Hinjo will hang out with the OOTS but I doubt it.

Shmafty posted:

Burlew has actually stated in the OOTS FAQ that he has an 'uncontrollable urge' to do this:

Yes that's why he's saying we should do it.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2007 07:05

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

I'm happy with people talking about erfworld as long as we get to talk about how much it sucks. Also we can talk about Goblins, too. Notice how I capitalised "Goblins", but left "erfworld' in lowercase?
Yeah, that was intentional :colbert:

# ¿ Jun 21, 2007 21:44

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Ferrinus posted:

It took me a while to start reading Goblins because I just can't stand how that guy draws goblins - they're these weird blobby alien things whereas everything else is more or less normal.

Once I got bored enough to read through the archive and get past the mandatorily lame "I didn't realize this would turn into a serious story" early gags, though, it began to grow on me and now I awaiting the next update

I like his goblins, after all they're supposed to be alien and wierd by human standards.

But hey, if you don't like your goblins all big-eyed and floppy, you can always go to the other extreme like pathfinder has.

Efreet saiid fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jun 23, 2007

# ¿ Jun 23, 2007 01:17

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

I can't beleive that people were bitching about us quibbling over D&D rules, and then once we stopped everyone sighed with relief and started talking about erfworld and miko porn.

sakesniper posted:

Those goblins are badass

And they have an awesome theme song, too. It turns out goblins don't like dogs- which is understandable.

Ferrinus posted:

The goblins in that link rule!
What I mean by "everything else is more or less normal", though, is that literally everything else is more or less normal. That lizard dude looks like a lizard. Orcs look like orcs, ogres look like ogres. But goblins are apparently from Mars.

Yeah but they're kinda boring and generic as they're normally drawn, which is no doubt part of why Pazio did up their own version for pathfinder.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2007 07:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 18:25

Efreet saiid: Jan 29, 2006; by Lowtax

Fuego Fish posted:

The thing is, when talk of Erfworld and porn comes up, it's not two people bickering back and forth with page-sized replies that make us want to gouge loving own eyes out.

Yeah man it's totally way better when somebody sphams the thread with a shitload of stick figure porn.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2007 08:50

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

«‹›3 »