"You're the one who taught me that bards are underpowered"

[luna the cat]

"You're the one who taught me that bards are underpowered"
"They are! With their mastery of narrative structure, they should be ruling the entire cosmos by now, instead of wasting time singing in taverns"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0821.html

I just looked at that strip again, and caught some irony, because the "entire cosmos" that Tarquin is referring to, unknown to him, *is* a creation of a storyteller), so... a 'bard' actually IS ruling the entire cosmos :P

[littlebum2002]

Really? Rich always struck me as extremely Lawful.

[Goosefarble]

Really? Rich always struck me as extremely Lawful.

I dunno. A lawful writer wouldn't break as many popular fantasy archetypes as Rich does. He's at least neutral.

[Kish]

Redacted; on second thought I think Rich's alignment is "Would-Prefer-People-Not-Speculate-About-His-Alignment-On-The-Forum."

[Ghost Nappa]

I think he's probably Neutral Good. He's made his feelings clear on indiscriminate and unjustified murder of other sentient beings rather clear (Good) and obeys and defies both D&D Rules and literary conventions as he sees fit (Neutral).

The only difference is that Wisdom is not a dump stat for him, even though most Bards do drop it.

[littlebum2002]

My speculation on "Lawful" came less from his writing in the strip and more on his personal feelings expressed in the forums. He adhered to Copyright and other intellectual property rights about as strictly as he can. Any slight deviation on the rules in the forum, even ones like thread necromancy which would be tolerated in other forums, is not allowed. It just screams Lawful.

Of course, the comic strip is funny because it subverts tropes, but I don't think being Lawful means not having a sense of humor (unless you're Miko)


And don't take this as complaining. On the contrary, it's nice to see a forum that actually follows the rules. But yeah, I'd definitely pin him as Lawful Good.


(Also, I don't think discussing alignment is bad, as long as nothing negative is said. If that assumption is incorrect, I'll delete my statements)

[Perseus]

My speculation on "Lawful" came less from his writing in the strip and more on his personal feelings expressed in the forums. He adhered to Copyright and other intellectual property rights about as strictly as he can. Any slight deviation on the rules in the forum, even ones like thread necromancy which would be tolerated in other forums, is not allowed. It just screams Lawful.

Of course, the comic strip is funny because it subverts tropes, but I don't think being Lawful means not having a sense of humor (unless you're Miko)


And don't take this as complaining. On the contrary, it's nice to see a forum that actually follows the rules. But yeah, I'd definitely pin him as Lawful Good.


(Also, I don't think discussing alignment is bad, as long as nothing negative is said. If that assumption is incorrect, I'll delete my statements)

Well being lawful isn't about following the rules because you have to or you get sued... It is about following the rules because you feel you must always follow the rules.

A chaotic person can follow the rules every time all the time... If they are in his favor. That person just wouldn't think twice about breaking the rule or law if he knew he wouldn't get caught or if he could get away with it (posting evidence on the internet makes it hard to get away with something when you have your name attached).

So the question would be, does Rich follow copyright and other laws because he wants to or because he doesn't want lawsuites and stuff... Which is something I don't think we can determine without his input.

Of course it also could be both wants to follow the rules AND doesn't want to be sued.

[drazen]

By the standards of strip #490 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), a Good man "regularly battle[s] the forces of evil without expecting compensation."

I'm pretty sure Rich isn't fighting crime, and he probably expects compensation for his books.

Rich uses and subverts his tropes at his whim, serving his own best interest (in the plot/story).

Thus, I will offer my very tongue-in-cheek speculation that Mr. Burlew is actually Chaotic Neutral. ;)

[Synesthesy]

I think that, if Julio will be killed by Tarquin, we all will know the truth: the Giant is fact the Belkster.

[Perseus]

By the standards of strip #490 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), a Good man "regularly battle[s] the forces of evil without expecting compensation."

I'm pretty sure Rich isn't fighting crime, and he probably expects compensation for his books.

Rich uses and subverts his tropes at his whim, serving his own best interest (in the plot/story).

Thus, I will offer my very tongue-in-cheek speculation that Mr. Burlew is actually Chaotic Neutral. ;)

Nah, totally Chaotic Evil, he created this forum to spread chaos umong those who play D&D!

Oh and to fund his evil plans that involve sharks with fricken lazor beams on their heads (or burning hands, whatever).

/blue

[littlebum2002]

So the question would be, does Rich follow copyright and other laws because he wants to or because he doesn't want lawsuites and stuff... Which is something I don't think we can determine without his input.

Of course it also could be both wants to follow the rules AND doesn't want to be sued.

Of course, no one wants to get sued.




By the standards of strip #490 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), a Good man "regularly battle[s] the forces of evil without expecting compensation."

I'm pretty sure Rich isn't fighting crime, and he probably expects compensation for his books.

Rich uses and subverts his tropes at his whim, serving his own best interest (in the plot/story).

Thus, I will offer my very tongue-in-cheek speculation that Mr. Burlew is actually Chaotic Neutral. ;)


I think you drastically overestimate the amount of money Rich makes from this strip. I mean, he does profit from the books, but not very much. He's doing this for the love of the writing, not to make money. Artists, and especially cartoonists, are not generally known to be fabulously wealthy people.


Let's face it, OOTS fans buy the books because they like OOTS. They don't buy them just to get the few extra strips in each book. I'm sure that even if he posted all the strips online for everyone to see, the sales of the books would not drop very much. I don't think he's protective of his work because he wants the money, I think he's protective of his work because he respects copyright laws and wants everyone else to, as well. I really don't get the vibe from Rich that he'd throw copyright laws out the window if he could. He doesn't follow them because he has to, he follows them because he wants to. Lawful Good.

[warrl]

I think {Rich, the author, is} probably Neutral Good.

No writer who aspires to write good stories can be Good. We have to torture our characters, or our stories will be boring.

Of course, we do this so that the readers will like the stories. The readers prefer stories where the characters are tortured. So the readers also must not be Good.

[drazen]

I think you drastically overestimate the amount of money Rich makes from this strip. I mean, he does profit from the books, but not very much. He's doing this for the love of the writing, not to make money. Artists, and especially cartoonists, are not generally known to be fabulously wealthy people.

I did say I was speaking tongue-in-cheek... as in, just making a silly and friendly speculation, rather than some grand theory.

However, I didn't imply anything at all about how much money Rich was making. I just said that he was putting out a product (books, among others) and expected to be compensated when people purchase that product.

If you really want to speculate on the author's position on copyright laws, the only references I've seen in the strip treat it as a joke (the two idiot lawyers who drag away the Mind Flayer/Squid Thingy, and later ZZ'dtri, for being a violation of intellectual property). I hesitate to mention this because I don't want the thread to devolve into a discussion of copyright law, but the in-comic evidence appears to be a parody of overly aggressive copyright defense (which is later subverted when ZZ'dtri returns). Maybe the author said something elsewhere, but I haven't read everything he's written, so I can't speak to that.

All in all, I'd say someone who subverts expected norms when it suits them, but doesn't do anything overtly manevolent, while being in it largely for themselves (be it for profit or just the fun of it) would be Chaotic Neutral. Hey, even Julio Scoundrel has the facial hair and ponytail!

[Ramien]

Wait, are we even using alignments in this system? My character sheet doesn't have a spot for it...

[Perseus]

Of course, no one wants to get sued.


*snip*

He doesn't follow them because he has to, he follows them because he wants to. Lawful Good.

*sigh* you kinda missed my point...

Also to the second part, has he said this? And even if he did how do we know its the truth? He could be just watching out for his own butt out of necessity rather than because it is ethically and morally just. His name as a professional is on the line here.

Not saying he IS but hey if I had a website attached to my name (that part of my income and professional life depended on) I wouldn't be saying "I encourage the breaking of laws!" even if I thought it was alright.

So just because he follows copy write laws doesn't mean he is lawful, just that he is smart.

Side note:
Also if a LG person (D&D character) broke the law (and got caught) and it was a suable offense I could see them hoping to be punished because they broke the law. Just like Durkon let Roy and Belkar sit in jail for breaking the law after being caught not having their papers. Of course part of being Lawful is knowing that you don't break the law until caught (technically) as seen by Durkon going out and getting his papers even though he was already in the city illegally.

[TurtlesAWD]

Is it just me or does this thread seem to be getting a bit far into serious speculation territory regarding morality/psychology when it would be a better thread if it kept the tone a bit more cheap joke centric?

[Kish]

Wait, are we even using alignments in this system? My character sheet doesn't have a spot for it...
Are you so sure the DM's thumb wasn't over your alignment entry when you asked to see your character sheet, then?

[Perseus]

Is it just me or does this thread seem to be getting a bit far into serious speculation territory regarding morality/psychology when it would be a better thread if it kept the tone a bit more cheap joke centric?

I wasn't talking about Morals (Good/Evil) for the most part but about Ethics (Law/Chaos).

Big difference.

Though most people who play D&D (and those that dont) don't understand the difference between ethics and morals.

[TurtlesAWD]

See that still sounds like you're taking this too seriously.

[Sunken Valley]

Rich is chaotic evil. He pretends to be Neutral Good on forums with all his talk of killing orcs= racism and Javert is a villain. He's secretly a puppy kicker and bard killer.

[Ramien]

Are you so sure the DM's thumb wasn't over your alignment entry when you asked to see your character sheet, then?

Yep, he emailed it to me just to show me that my 'Detect Sarcasm' skill was a lot lower than I thought it was. No thumbprints on the pdf

[TurtlesAWD]

Yep, he emailed it to me just to show me that my 'Detect Sarcasm' skill was a lot lower than I thought it was. No thumbprints on the pdf

Hmmm, he could have edited it in photoshop before sending it! Or even just MS Paint! You might want to try and track down a standard copy of a character sheet for comparison purposes.

[AKA_Bait]

I think Rich's alignment is "Would-Prefer-People-Not-Speculate-About-His-Alignment-On-The-Forum."

Yes, this. In fact, I suspect he would have some "Would-Prefer-People-Not-Speculate-About-Any-Real-Person's-Alignment-On-The-Forum" tendencies as well.

[littlebum2002]

No morality speculation at all. It is specifically mentioned that "is X a Good act of an Evil act?" questions are OK, while "Is X morally acceptable or not?" are not. We are simply discussing alignment. The only difference is that we are discussing the alignment of an actual person, not a character.

[Procyonpi]

Of course, no one wants to get sued.

Let's face it, OOTS fans buy the books because they like OOTS. They don't buy them just to get the few extra strips in each book. I'm sure that even if he posted all the strips online for everyone to see, the sales of the books would not drop very much. I don't think he's protective of his work because he wants the money, I think he's protective of his work because he respects copyright laws and wants everyone else to, as well. I really don't get the vibe from Rich that he'd throw copyright laws out the window if he could. He doesn't follow them because he has to, he follows them because he wants to. Lawful Good.

FWIW, While I now own a full collection, I bought the exclusively print books well before I bought the rest, and I'd imagine there a quite a few people who still just have the print-exclusives.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review. I'd advise people to avoid speculating on Rich's alignment, business, or legal perspectives.