OOTS #957 - The Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 2

Psyren

2014-07-06, 04:43 PM

I fail to see the difference between "Vampires are inherently evil monsters because Hel makes them that way." and "Vampires are not free to choose to do whatever they want.

They aren't. At least, I have no reason to believe they are (certainly not an offhand shrug statement) but would be happy to revise if such a character were introduced and believable.

That is what it's about. What started this was a comment on the accuracy of calling the High Priest of Hel "Durk Malackssen"--which is "neither greater nor less than the accuracy of calling Roy Roy Eugenessen or Roy Sarassen." What either of us calls the High Priest of Hel or Roy wasn't important enough to stop either of us from commenting on the accuracy of Bulldog Psion's nickname.

The name isn't so much what I cared about when quoting you, as the assertion that Hel creating Darkon is somehow equivalent to Eugene and Sara creating Roy. (Or Odin creating Roy and sticking him inside the product of their union, whichever you prefer.)

And he did. You're parsing his statement in ways I find profoundly goofy, and flatly refusing to acknowledge another direct statement he made on the subject of vampires being able to be good. Believe whatever you please on the subject, but you're in for nothing but frustration if you go on trying to get me to also stand at the angle you are.

Oh I wasn't trying to convince you (cue a resounding reply of "Good!"), just to clarify my own stance on the issue.

I think Rich's statement was that intelligent undead are just as free as mortals to choose whether to be clerics. Not that they can simply set all their urges aside at a whim.

Keltest

2014-07-06, 04:53 PM

They aren't. At least, I have no reason to believe they are (certainly not an offhand shrug statement) but would be happy to revise if such a character were introduced and believable.

The name isn't so much what I cared about when quoting you, as the assertion that Hel creating Darkon is somehow equivalent to Eugene and Sara creating Roy. (Or Odin creating Roy and sticking him inside the product of their union, whichever you prefer.)

Oh I wasn't trying to convince you (cue a resounding reply of "Good!"), just to clarify my own stance on the issue.

I think Rich's statement was that intelligent undead are just as free as mortals to choose whether to be clerics. Not that they can simply set all their urges aside at a whim.

Please explain to me how that stance isn't contradicted by these statements.

Malack had free will.

Nothing about the metaphysics of how vampirism works changes anything.

Yes, theres more to the post than those two statements, but its all fluff.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-06, 04:56 PM

Pardon me, haven't read the whole thread.

Question:
After seeing Belkar jumping off rather shortly, I was wondering, did they ever mention what happened to his ring of jumping?

He gave it to Roy who died. Then Roy was taken by the monster in the dark and I doubt he removed it. Then Roy was taken by Haley and Belkar.
So Belkar should have had the ring but it seems according to the panel he didn't.

Of course it's possible he is wearing it and didn't use it or that maybe they sold it for the resistance or something.

I'm just wondering if it was ever mentioned in the strip what happened to it.
I don't think it was ever explicitly confirmed, but he has been seen jumping a lot since, so chances are he got it back at some point.

YossarianLives

2014-07-06, 05:05 PM

Psyren

2014-07-06, 05:21 PM

Please explain to me how that stance isn't contradicted by these statements.

Yes, theres more to the post than those two statements, but its all fluff.

The specific context under discussion at the time was "following the orders of a deity." He even goes on to say that Hel's interaction with Darkon, and Nergal's (unseen) interaction with Malack, has much more to do with those individuals being clerics than vampires. Thus, vampirism has no effect (one way or the other) on this dynamic; I fully agree. So yes, Malack has free will to do or not do that, just as Redcloak does.

Later in that very thread, the Giant says this:

So let me see if I understand this correctly.

Part of the reason OOTS is a paper-thin placeholder of a setting is precisely because it is intended to be a parody, a comic satire. The fact that it looks like every other D&D world in existence is precisely to make your satire and commentary more effective. If you diverged from that and made your world noteworthy in its own right, the story would be less effective as satire because it wouldn't reflect everyworld -- it, would, instead, be its own standalone creation. It could only satirize itself. By making it a generic everyworld this allows you to parody and comment on D&D *as a whole*.

Is that a fair statement?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yes. OOTS oscillates between satire and pastiche, both of which are better served the closer the setting hews to the original source material.

"The original source material," in this case, is D&D - where intelligent undead are nearly universally evil, and vampires even moreso.

We can't even apply Vaarsuvius' statement in #866 about black dragons - he specifically states "they were mortals with free will," which undead are not. The distinction was apparently important enough to mention, at a time when V was more or less serving as the author's mouthpiece.

xyzchyx

2014-07-06, 05:25 PM

I spent months trapped behind enemy lines where the only thing i was allowed to kill were undead. So I've gotten pretty good at it.

I wonder if this means belkar took favoured enemy (undead)

Anyway great comic as always. I especially liked the third panel.Although Vampire Durkon could have reasonably countered with the point that he fully realizes that he is undead now, and that he hasn't been trying to conceal it, so how good Belkar got at identifying undead is really quite irrelevant.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-06, 05:26 PM

Belkar talked about being good at killing undead, not at identifying them.

Angelalex242

2014-07-06, 05:31 PM

I personally don't think Rich would WANT good vampires. Tsukiko's as close as he's going to get to the world of friendly undead, and since she's toast...It'll probably never be brought up again.

Keltest

2014-07-06, 05:32 PM

The specific context under discussion at the time was "following the orders of a deity." He even goes on to say that Hel's interaction with Darkon, and Nergal's (unseen) interaction with Malack, has much more to do with those individuals being clerics than vampires. Thus, vampirism has no effect (one way or the other) on this dynamic; I fully agree. So yes, Malack has free will to do or not do that, just as Redcloak does.

Later in that very thread, the Giant says this:

"The original source material," in this case, is D&D - where intelligent undead are nearly universally evil, and vampires even moreso.

We can't even apply Vaarsuvius' statement in #866 about black dragons - he specifically states "they were mortals with free will," which undead are not. The distinction was apparently important enough to mention, at a time when V was more or less serving as the author's mouthpiece.

Free will is not conditional. Someone either has it or they don't. Malack and Lurky are either free to pick their own path, or they aren't. They do not have free will if they simply get to pick which deity controls them. Heck, you even quote rich as saying that Malack and Lurky do the things they do because they are Clerics, not because theyre undead, and yet somehow youre still trying to claim "Theyre undead, therefore they don't have free will."

Im baffled. Truly.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-06, 05:34 PM

Many D&D undead do not have free will. Vampires are a kind that explicitly does.

Psyren

2014-07-06, 05:48 PM

Free will is not conditional.

Statements made in a particular context are not necessarily global.

Many D&D undead do not have free will. Vampires are a kind that explicitly does.

It seems to me that having your alignment chosen before you're even born ("dark spirit") would constitute a restriction of some kind, would it not?

Keltest

2014-07-06, 05:52 PM

Statements made in a particular context are not necessarily global.

It seems to me that having your alignment chosen before you're even born ("dark spirit") would constitute a restriction of some kind, would it not?

The context was "Malack was a slave to Nergal's will, unable to oppose it." Rich's response was "Wrong, Malack had free will." So where does the context say "Malack had free will, but only with respects to which deity he worshipped"? He even explicitly says that everything that Malack did was his own decision, and that Vampirism had nothing to do with it.

Psyren

2014-07-06, 05:57 PM

The context was "Malack was a slave to Nergal's will, unable to oppose it." Rich's response was "Wrong, Malack had free will." So where does the context say "Malack had free will, but only with respects to which deity he worshipped"? He even explicitly says that everything that Malack did was his own decision, and that Vampirism had nothing to do with it.

I didn't say "which deity he worshipped" - I went farther than that, even to "whether to be a cleric/worship anything at all." Malack has control over that, definitely, and vampirism indeed has nothing to do with that.

Alignment is not something I saw Rich opine on, other than the cursory statement about not caring to write good vampires.

Keltest

2014-07-06, 06:00 PM

I didn't say "which deity he worshipped" - I went farther than that, even to "whether to be a cleric/worship anything at all." Malack has control over that, definitely, and vampirism indeed has nothing to do with that.

Alignment is not something I saw Rich opine on, other than the cursory statement about not caring to write good vampires.

Im not even sure what point youre trying to make then. Vampires explicitly have free will. Vampirism explicitly does not impact that. Unless youre trying to say that theyre slaves to their nature or some pseudo-philosophical nonsense like that, anything that is contradicted by the above statements is incorrect.

zimmerwald1915

2014-07-06, 06:45 PM

It kind of does mean that. Belkar doesn't know how many hit points he has or what the max falling damage is. And anyway, it's up to the GM to decide if a given order is "obviously self-destructive".
A minor point, but the characters do have at least a rough idea of how many hit points they have (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0036.html) (see also here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0221.html) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html) for evidence to support the proposition that they have a rough idea of how many hit points other characters have). The characters also know that long falls are not necessarily lethal to unwounded characters with lots of big hit dice (see here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html)). Even Roy, at level 13, could reasonably think that he could survive a long fall after taking two fingers of death and all four spheres of a meteor swarm to the face if he could just drink what at most would be a potion of cure serious wounds (i.e., 3d8+5, or 8-29, average 18 points of healing). And it's not just Roy and V who know these things, Elan, whom Belkar mocked for his low intelligence, does too.

As for the GM deciding, if the rules explicitly offer someone discretion, then using that discretion is not breaking the rules. It is working within them.

Angelalex242

2014-07-06, 07:07 PM

Don't confuse 'free will' with 'always alignment'.

A Chaotic Evil Vampire has just as much freedom (once his sire dies) with what to do in his life as a Black Dragon or a Succubus. Durkula's free will is equal to and on par with Sabine's, for example. That doesn't mean either of them will ever choose goodly deeds, but they can choose which evil deed to do as they see fit. They can even, as noted by Malack and Sabine, form bonds of affection, friendship, and in Sabine's case, even love. The Black Dragon had many evil deeds it could've chosen to do, but she decided to get revenge for her son and nuke V's family. That didn't end well for her, but she had the free will to choose to do that.

Stella

2014-07-06, 07:36 PM

The way Protection from Evil works on possessed or controlled beings is that it suppresses the control without terminating it. That is to say, OOTS aside, my normal answer would be that if you cast it on someone who has a negative energy spirit in control of their body, the negative energy spirit will remain there, but will lose control.

Obviously in OOTS it works however the special rules in the setting say, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it might suppress Durkula's control of the body entirely for the duration.You are close to but not quite at the actual effects of Protection from Evil. It will not suppress the HPoH's control of Durkon because the spell specifically details that case:

Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast.

The spell prevents possession from occurring, but does nothing if the target of the spell is already possessed.

It will suspend the ability to command or control the protected person via external effects such as a Charm Person spell or the Dominate ability of a Vampire, but does not prevent those effects from targeting the protected person. Then, if the duration of those controlling effects is longer than the duration of the Protection from Evil spell, the ability to command will resume when the Protection from Evil expires.

The Giant is not under any obligation to follow the rules in the first place. And the rules, if it hasn't escaped your intention, are an *INVENTED* thing... they don't exist in actuality.Here's where you are wrong. The rules are not invented, in this setting. They do exist in actuality.

The rules say that a high level character has a lot of hit points. And we see the OotS refer to their levels fairly frequently. They know that levels in what classes they have taken, and they know the rules surrounding those class choices. Or we'd never see Elan using puns in combat once he took a level in Dashing Swordsman, we'd never see Haley being told to check for traps, and we'd never see Durkon turn undead. The rules say that V gets a certain number of spells of a certain level each day, and so he does. By canon all these rules exist, because we do see the various characters using all the aspects of these rules all the time. They even refer to them directly on occasion, stating which class they will take when they level, or which spells they will learn or swap out. This is all strongly canon within the story. So you cannot use "the rules don't exist" as an argument, because that is just wrong. Well, you can of course, but you're still wrong.

In the real world, jumping hundreds of feet into an ocean is a self-destructive act, [snipped]And here's your second error. This isn't the real world. Sure, it follows a lot of similar rules. Drop an apple and it hits the ground. Drop a Halfling Ranger13/Barbarian3 (or whatever) off an airship and he falls (perhaps not far if he gets hung up on a ballista bolt). The similarity between the real world ends there, however. That Halfling has a lot more ability to ignore damage than anyone in the real world. Didn't you recently see an already injured Tarquin fall from the airship onto sand and live to yell at Elan about narrative closure? Why would you find a fall into water to be self-destructive when a fall onto sand was not destructive?

All that really matters here is the interpretation of "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out" in the Dominate Person description, which is not a hard and fast limitation and which can be interpreted by the DM (or the author of a D&D setting web comic) as they see fit. And you've been given plenty of examples for why this order does not have to be considered to be self-destructive. You can decide that Rich "broke the rules" for comedic effect. That's your right. But claiming that other people are contriving explanations for why the order isn't self-destructive isn't a fair nor an accurate statement. They are looking at the same rules you are and simply coming to a different conclusion. A conclusion which I find to have a lot more merit than yours.

Kish

2014-07-06, 07:44 PM

Don't confuse 'free will' with 'always alignment'.
Don't confuse "Always [Alignment]" with Always [Alignment]. http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/enorsmileysmall.png

Keltest

2014-07-06, 07:46 PM

Don't confuse "Always [Alignment]" with Always [Alignment]. http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/enorsmileysmall.png

That's deep man.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-06, 07:47 PM

You are close to but not quite at the actual effects of Protection from Evil. It will not suppress the HPoH's control of Durkon because the spell specifically details that case:

The spell prevents possession from occurring, but does nothing if the target of the spell is already possessed.

It will suspend the ability to command or control the protected person via external effects such as a Charm Person spell or the Dominate ability of a Vampire, but does not prevent those effects from targeting the protected person. Then, if the duration of those controlling effects is longer than the duration of the Protection from Evil spell, the ability to command will resume when the Protection from Evil expires.

I think I must have thought that what the High Priest of Hel was doing was the second thing that PfE prevents, not the third. Thank you for pointing this out.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-06, 07:51 PM

Many D&D undead do not have free will. Vampires are a kind that explicitly does.

It seems to me that having your alignment chosen before you're even born ("dark spirit") would constitute a restriction of some kind, would it not?

It sure is. Are restrictions of some kind supposed to make free will impossible? Someone better tell the philosophers, because they're arguing about whether there is such a thing, when it should be obvious that there isn't. Less sarcastically: If given a choice between A B or C, does inability to choose D demonstrate a lack of free will?

It's not a great analogy, but my sex was chosen before I was born, and that has little or no relevance to the question of whether I have free will. D&D devils and dark spirits and so on are in some sense "made of evil", it's practically a physical limitation. They're created Evil. Free will is, in part, the power to do something different. Zombies can't, though vampires can.

xyzchyx

2014-07-06, 07:56 PM

All that really matters here is the interpretation of "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out" in the Dominate Person description, which is not a hard and fast limitation and which can be interpreted by the DM (or the author of a D&D setting web comic) as they see fit. And you've been given plenty of examples for why this order does not have to be considered to be self-destructive. You can decide that Rich "broke the rules" for comedic effect. That's your right. But claiming that other people are contriving explanations for why the order isn't self-destructive isn't a fair nor an accurate statement. They are looking at the same rules you are and simply coming to a different conclusion. A conclusion which I find to have a lot more merit than yours.Because it *IS* a self-destructive act... the only possibility that it is might not be depends entirely on the active participation of other people that Belkar wouldn't necessarily know he could count on -- which, I might point out, HAS NOT HAPPENED YET and might not ever happen... My basis for calling it self-destructive is based entirely on what we knowabout Belkar's character and what would ordinarily happen to a person in that situation, not based on any speculation about what might or might not happen in the future, while any speculation that it is not self-destructive seems to me to depend entirely on actions that other party members may take which The Giant hasn't actually told us will happen. We do know that at some point, probably in the not-too-distant future from now, Belkar is going to die, and for all we know, Belkar's number might really be just about up here. Given how much Belkar tends to really only think about himself, it's not very likely he would have considered any of his party supporting him... particularly since he was in the middle of making an accusation against Durkon that he already knew wasn't well received by any of the others.

Here's where you are wrong. The rules are not invented, in this setting. They do exist in actuality.No... they do not. They are *GAME* rules... and games are invented things. If you want to believe D&D rules are real, however... I suppose that's your prerogative.

I'm starting to think I should just check out of this whole discussion about the matter and just wait and see what happens, because this debate is clearly not going anywhere.

monkeyslinger

2014-07-06, 08:01 PM

On the question of breaking D&D 3.5 rules. The Giant has explicitly stated the narrative occurs in a world that runs of those rules. Has he ever explicitly broken one of those rules without immediately lampshading it (like with the Weather Control incident)?

If I remember correctly, Rich forgot that the Mass Death Ward spell already exists, which means Durkon shouldn't have had to research it.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-06, 08:02 PM

I bet a million spacebucks that everyone who has argued that "jump overboard" is not an obviously self-destructive order has not played D&D.

JSSheridan

2014-07-06, 08:04 PM

Kind of a tangent, but Wikipedia's article has the last book's title as Blood Runs in the Family.

Has The Giant confirmed that?

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-06, 08:10 PM

Kind of a tangent, but Wikipedia's article has the last book's title as Blood Runs in the Family.

Has The Giant confirmed that?

That is the name it was given in the calendar, or so I've heard (didn't actually purchase the calendar myself). There has been no official proclamation.

Doug Lampert

2014-07-06, 08:35 PM

I bet a million spacebucks that everyone who has argued that "jump overboard" is not an obviously self-destructive order has not played D&D.

You lose, I started playing in 1975.

Keltest

2014-07-06, 08:37 PM

You lose, I started playing in 1975.

You should have taken that bet first. :smalltongue:

Kish

2014-07-06, 08:37 PM

There hasn't?

Huh. Rich actually never posted on the subject. I never realized that before.

However, I think we can take the calendar and the subsequent lack of "No, that's all somebody-or-other screwing up" posts from Rich as within 99% of positive confirmation that yes, Blood Runs in the Family is the name of the book which just ended.

You lose, I started playing in 1975.
Yeah, I'm afraid you're two million spacebucks in the hole, rodneyAnonymous.

Though if you want to bet some gold pieces, my earlier offer applies to you too. (Ten gold pieces says that the strip, Roy, the High Priest of Hel, and Durkon will treat what the High Priest of Hel just did as a moderately nasty prank, roughly comparable to Vaarsuvius' Explosive Runes pranks. Belkar may try to play it up more than that, but if he does he'll just get laughed at. Or more likely glared at; Roy rarely laughs when he's annoyed with his teammates.)

Doug Lampert

2014-07-06, 08:44 PM

You should have taken that bet first. :smalltongue:

Why? He won't pay off. Just as he ignores the rules of the game while arguing about those very rules he'll also ignore the need to pay the bet off.

Feel free to take the bet if you like.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-06, 08:48 PM

It's a good thing the exchange rate on spacebucks makes that a very small bet. Absolute statements ("all", "never", etc) are rarely a good idea. :) Should have said "most".

I don't think I've met a GM that would let that order fly, though. Too much concentration on the possible consequences, and not enough on the order itself. Both matter. Very few scenarios--like being able to fly under your own power, or the ship being on fire--would make "jump overboard" not obviously self-destructive, regardless of how awesome the Belkster is. "Extinguish that candle flame with your fingertips" is obviously self-destructive unless the subject is immune (not resistant) to fire, regardless of the fact that even a normal human wouldn't take HP damage from it.

No idea what "ignores the rules" refers to. Also that was pretty hostile. Funny that that's okay as long as you don't use any bad words.

Stella

2014-07-06, 09:04 PM

Because it [jumping into the ocean from the airship] *IS* a self-destructive act... the only possibility that it is might not be depends entirely on the active participation of other people that Belkar wouldn't necessarily know he could count on -- which, I might point out, HAS NOT HAPPENED YET and might not ever happen.And I gave you the canon example of Elan's father falling from the same ship onto sand and not dying. Which had no active participation from anyone else helping him. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept any of the many examples you've been given for exactly why Belkar is in no real danger from a fall into water.

Tumble
DC Task
15 Treat a fall as if it were 10 feet shorter than it really is when determining damage.

Jumping Down

If you intentionally jump from a height, you take less damage than you would if you just fell. The DC to jump down from a height is 15. You do not have to get a running start to jump down, so the DC is not doubled if you do not get a running start.

If you succeed on the check, you take falling damage as if you had dropped 10 fewer feet than you actually did.
So here we see two skills which Belkar possess which will reduce the effective distance he is falling. And they have synergy with each other, making both rolls a pretty certain thing.

Falling Damage
Falling into Water

Falls into water are handled somewhat differently. If the water is at least 10 feet deep, the first 20 feet of falling do no damage. The next 20 feet do nonlethal damage (1d3 per 10-foot increment). Beyond that, falling damage is lethal damage (1d6 per additional 10-foot increment).

Characters who deliberately dive into water take no damage on a successful DC 15 Swim check or DC 15 Tumble check, so long as the water is at least 10 feet deep for every 30 feet fallen. However, the DC of the check increases by 5 for every 50 feet of the dive.
Here we see that falling into water is much less lethal, and both reduces the effective distance fallen for purposes of damage and also replaces some of that damage with non-lethal damage.

You could argue about the dive rules, but I see no difference between a head first dive and hitting the water feet first. Belkar would also have the entire fall to try to reorient himself into a dive, and the skills to make any fair DC set to do that.

No... [the rules are not real]. They are *GAME* rules... and games are invented things. If you want to believe D&D rules are real, however... I suppose that's your prerogative.Automobiles are invented things, and they are real. The printing press is an invented thing, and it is real. That word you keep using, I do not believe it means what you think it means.

The D&D rules are very real when you are playing a game of D&D. And they are also very real when you are living in a setting based on that game. Of course they don't apply to real life, any more than the rules of Chess apply to real life. But as I've tried to point out, that is irrelevant to the discussion, because the OotS characters live in a setting where the rules of D&D apply to them all the time. And so any actions they take must be measured against the effect under those rules, and not your preferred method of weighing an action against the effect you presume it would have in the real world.

Are you also going to argue that the rules of chess "aren't real"? And that it's preposterous to believe that such a lowly piece as a Pawn can capture the opposing Queen? I believe that the rules of Chess are real, and I know that a Pawn can capture a Queen. It's not stated explicitly anywhere in the rules of Chess that a Pawn can capture a Queen, but I know that it is possible because I know the rules for how a Pawn may move and capture.

I also believe that the rules of D&D are real. And that a Halfling Ranger/Barbarian can easily survive a fall from an airship into water. It's not stated explicitly anywhere in the rules of D&D that a Halfling Ranger/Barbarian can survive a 200' drop into water, but I know that it is possible because I know the rules for Hit Points and falling damage and skills.

That doesn't make me delusional, as you appear to be insinuating, it makes me a realist.

You, on the other hand, appear to want to base a large part of your argument on the insistence that the D&D rules are not real, when they have been in publication since 1974. You seem to want to point at how things work in real life and then attempt to apply them to a game setting. That makes no sense for Chess, and it makes no sense for D&D either. Because their rules are quite real, and apply fully when playing the games. Or when reading a web comic based on their rules.

I bet a million spacebucks that everyone who has argued that "jump overboard" is not an obviously self-destructive order has not played D&D.I'll take that bet. And you lose!
I would have said that the safe money was to bet that the people who were arguing that "jump overboard" is an obviously self-destructive order had not played D&D. Or at least aren't terribly familiar with the rules.

Kish

2014-07-06, 09:17 PM

It's a good thing the exchange rate on spacebucks makes that a very small bet. Absolute statements ("all", "never", etc) are rarely a good idea. :)

I don't think I've met a GM that would let that order fly, though. Too much concentration on the possible consequences, and not enough on the order itself. Both matter. Very few scenarios--like being able to fly under your own power, or the ship being on fire--would make "jump overboard" not obviously self-destructive, regardless of how awesome the Belkster is. "Extinguish that candle flame with your fingertips" is obviously self-destructive unless the subject is immune (not resistant) to fire, regardless of the fact that even a normal human wouldn't take HP damage from it.

No idea what "ignores the rules" refers to.
Whether "self-destructive" should be read to mean literally "unlikely to survive" or "will actually hurt" is a GM call. Rich is not somehow "not following the rules" if he chooses the former.

(Not that he'd care in the least if he was; remember what he let Suggestion do when Vaarsuvius used it on the young black dragon? But pointless exchanges are 90% of what the forum does.)

gmoyes

2014-07-06, 09:22 PM

One thing I would like to note with this argument. HPOH told Belkar to jump overboard. Jumping over the railing to the ballista is jumping overboard. Also with Belkar's high jump skill, it wouldn't be to difficult to make that jump. So in this case, Belkar has jumped overboard without it being self destructive.

Think of it like this. You're Dominated and told to jump off a cliff. The 100 foot drop would harm you even with high PC stats. However, there is also a ledge 5 feet below where you're standing. It is easy enough to jump to that to fill the instructions of being Dominated, and it wouldn't cause self harm.

Also I can see either A: them just leaving Belkar on the ballista until they make port or B: drag him up off screen.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-06, 09:30 PM

Importantly, the order "jump off a cliff" is obviously self-destructive, and it would take some serious extenuating circumstances to make it not. Mostly regardless of the cliff or who the order is given to. There being a ledge a few feet down the cliff, for example, has no effect on whether that is a legal order unless the subject already knows the ledge is there. (And that fits under "serious extenuating circumstances" IMO... declaring that's what happened in the absence of any evidence is kind of silly.)

warrl

2014-07-06, 09:30 PM

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-06, 09:46 PM

But if that were to happen (ignoring the little problem that by the rules it might not work), what would be the result? Would Durkon be in control of the body? Or would the body be temporarily dead?

I think it could be either. Either Durkon temporarily controls the body while the High Priest of Hel is suppressed, or he is temporarily freed.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-06, 09:46 PM

If I remember correctly, there is also a non-Evil Vampire or two in the canon.

Yes: Jander Sunstar (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Jander_Sunstar) is one of them. He was evil when first turned, but became neutral.

Rodin

2014-07-06, 11:38 PM

Here's where you are wrong. The rules are not invented, in this setting. They do exist in actuality.

The rules say that a high level character has a lot of hit points. And we see the OotS refer to their levels fairly frequently. They know that levels in what classes they have taken, and they know the rules surrounding those class choices. Or we'd never see Elan using puns in combat once he took a level in Dashing Swordsman, we'd never see Haley being told to check for traps, and we'd never see Durkon turn undead. The rules say that V gets a certain number of spells of a certain level each day, and so he does. By canon all these rules exist, because we do see the various characters using all the aspects of these rules all the time. They even refer to them directly on occasion, stating which class they will take when they level, or which spells they will learn or swap out. This is all strongly canon within the story. So you cannot use "the rules don't exist" as an argument, because that is just wrong. Well, you can of course, but you're still wrong.

Just a nitpick here: While we can assume that the rules exist, and will be followed to a certain extent, those rules can be broken at any time. And unless it's specifically stated in-comic, they are not using the rules of D&D. If Rich wanted to kill Belkar by having him jump off an airship, he would kill him by having him jump off an airship. Why then did Tarquin survive the fall? Because he had "Belkar's HP + Plot" HP when he fell. You cannot do the math because we have never been given the numbers or formulas used in the calculations - falling damage could be twice that of standard D&D.

In the case of the Dominate Person, all we know is that Belkar wasn't prevented from jumping overboard. It could be because it wasn't seen as self-destructive. It could be that it was, and Belkar got an additional save and immediately failed it, because his Will save sucks. It could be because the spell outright doesn't have a self-destructive clause in it within OOTS. This is without regards to whether the D&D equivalent has that clause - it hasn't been stated in-comic, therefore we do not know. For all we can tell, that fall was indeed fatal, and Belkar didn't resist the compulsion because reasons.

Ionathus

2014-07-06, 11:53 PM

Kish

2014-07-06, 11:59 PM

Oh, boy.

I want to hear people's theories as to why the HPoH fought back like this so easily. I mean, Old Durkon wouldn't do this. And earlier in this very argument, HPoH was TRYING to maintain that persona, playing off Belkar's anger with fake joviality, but now he just legitimately attacked. Durkon would never command Belkar to jump off an airship. And I don't feel like the HPoH is portraying it either in his performance as "Still-Durkon."

What I'm saying is that, unless I'm missing something, this "prank" is going to achieve the exact opposite of getting Belkar to drop the issue.

What do you all think? Is it a carefully planned move? Or is it the HPoH's pride/vengefulness/urge to kill momentarily breaking through?
I think the High Priest of Hel lost his temper.

I think Rich just sent a big hint, which is largely getting occluded in layers of "shouldn't have worked!/will be treated as a serious attempt to kill Belkar!" that the High Priest of Hel has a significant weakness in his (lack of) ability to control his temper.

Edited to add, about "trying to maintain that persona": And another one that the High Priest of Hel's ability to understand any motivation Durkon has that takes more than two syllables to express is lacking. Durkon wouldn't have played it off with joviality; he would have run out of patience with Belkar some time ago and started responding with variations on, "Piss off, ye obnoxious little wanker!" His uncharacteristic failure to rise to Belkar's taunts, insults, and accusations would have been suspicious to someone far less determined to find evidence of a fake Durkon than Belkar is.

Ionathus

2014-07-07, 12:09 AM

I think the High Priest of Hel lost his temper.

I think Rich just sent a big hint, which is largely getting occluded in layers of "shouldn't have worked!/will be treated as a serious attempt to kill Belkar!" that the High Priest of Hel has a significant weakness in his (lack of) ability to control his temper.

Excellent.

Funny how I'm just now starting to really like Belkar. I hope that, before he has to go, he gets the chance to take down a certain smug, lying, murderous vampire. And when I say take down, I'm not talking "oh no he killed me," I'm talking full-blown helpless thoughtless uncontrollable emotionally implosive rage of the "Azula at the end of Last Airbender" variety.

I don't care if negative energy spirits do or don't have emotions. Five seconds after we found out he was corrupting the most loyal member of the team, I already wanted to see someone make him cry.

Stella

2014-07-07, 12:37 AM

I don't think I've met a GM that would let that order fly, though. Too much concentration on the possible consequences, and not enough on the order itself. Both matter.See, now you're just making things up. The consequences (i.e. being "self-destructive") are all that matters. The order itself has nothing to do with this because the consequences are all situational.

Like so:
Order: "Jump off the cliff."
Situation: I am Tarquin, and can easily survive this kind of fall even when injured (we have seen this happen, it is canon). Moreover, I have a Ring of Regeneration and other magics which will allow me to quickly mitigate the damage.
Consequence: Obviously not self-destructive.

Order: "Jump off the cliff."
Situation: I am a 1st level Fighter and will die from the falling damage.
Consequence: Obviously self-destructive.

Importantly, the order "jump off a cliff" is obviously self-destructive, and it would take some serious extenuating circumstances to make it not.Importantly, you are simply wrong. The order to jump off a cliff is only self-destructive when weighed against the risk of death to the person being ordered to jump.

If you cannot communicate with the Dominated creature you can still give it basic commands. One such command listed in the rules is "fight." Fighting can be self-destructive, and so it is only the situation which matters, and not the order at all. Tarquin commanded to fight against 4th level Fighter: Obviously not self-destructive. 4th level fighter commanded to fight against Tarquin: Obviously self-destructive.

It's the same command, but one dominated creature may ignore it, while the other must obey.

Just a nitpick here: While we can assume that the rules exist, and will be followed to a certain extent, those rules can be broken at any time. And unless it's specifically stated in-comic, they are not using the rules of D&D.While you are correct that the author can break the D&D rules anytime he wants, you have the rest exactly backwards.

The rules for D&D are followed constantly in this comic. In every comic people could point out ways in which the rules are being followed. That makes sense, because the comic setting itself is a D&D world. In this comic the rules which say that Vampires have the ability to dominate humanoids was followed. And then the rules for giving orders to a dominated creature were followed. You should only assume that the rules have been broken when your knowledge of the rules makes that quite clear to you.

Amphiox

2014-07-07, 12:45 AM

No, I'm suggesting that he is free to do so - but he quite simply won't, not unless something fundamental to his very nature drastically changes.

If it is his "something fundamental to his very nature" then he is no different from any undead.

Granted, the chains strapping him to this particular wheel are not quite so cosmic* in nature - see again my "implanted with an evil spirit at birth" statement - and are largely self-inflicted, but they are still there.

It is wholly arbitrary and open to interpretation of the individual reader what is and is not cosmic and to what extent, and to what relative extent. Redcloak had what was for all intents and purposes a mindmeld-by-proxy with his God, even if the cloak did not directly implant anything into him other than ideas. I don't see that as any less cosmic as another god fashioning a soul and shoving it into a the body of a dead dwarf. To judge a soul as somehow more important than an idea is a wholly arbitrary choice.

I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that Rich is absolutely free to write a vampire or other intelligent undead who is not ultimately a bastard.

He has already done so. Soon Kim and the rest of the Ghost Martyrs were all intelligent undead in all ways that matter except for the name.*

(And even the name includes "Ghost")

Angelalex242

2014-07-07, 01:35 AM

Lord Soon and the Ghost Martyrs aren't Undead, they're Deathless. Positive Energy Spirits from the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Specifically, out of that book, they all instantly become Sacred Watchers when they die and Lord Soon calls them to service.

http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/sacredwatcher.shtml

So you can all look up the template yourselves.

Psyren

2014-07-07, 01:38 AM

If it is his "something fundamental to his very nature" then he is no different from any undead.

Exactly.

It is wholly arbitrary and open to interpretation of the individual reader what is and is not cosmic and to what extent, and to what relative extent. Redcloak had what was for all intents and purposes a mindmeld-by-proxy with his God, even if the cloak did not directly implant anything into him other than ideas. I don't see that as any less cosmic as another god fashioning a soul and shoving it into a the body of a dead dwarf. To judge a soul as somehow more important than an idea is a wholly arbitrary choice.

I'm fine with this too. Until we know more about what the cloak did to him, all we have is speculation on Redcloak's part however.

He has already done so. Soon Kim and the rest of the Ghost Martyrs were all intelligent undead in all ways that matter except for the name.*

(And even the name includes "Ghost")

Except they're not undead - they're "positive energy spirits."

Not that they don't illustrate my point either. Since only paladins could have been chosen for this martyrdom, it's pretty safe to say every spirit in that room was LG, just as every intelligent undead we've seen so far has been some flavor of E.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 01:40 AM

The rules say "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." (emphasis added) All I said is the command itself matters too. It kind of has to. Right? That isn't making anything up. It is reading. That it matters less in a particular scenario is not proof that it doesn't matter at all. The contrived scenarios where "jump overboard" is not obviously self-destructive very often either ignore the word "obviously" or the fact that what Durkon said was "jump overboard".

I strongly disagree that ordering Tarquin to jump off a cliff, whether or not he survives and whether or not he has a ring of regeneration, is not obviously self-destructive. It totally is. "Self-destructive" absolutely does not mean "killing yourself", it is merely "harming yourself".

What is up with the hostility, by the way? I don't get it.

blunk

2014-07-07, 04:00 AM

"Self-destructive" absolutely does not mean "killing yourself", it is merely "harming yourself".Can you dominate somebody and successfully get them to eat a doughnut?

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 04:04 AM

See, there's this gradient, but some things (like eating doughnuts) are on the light side, and other things (like commanding someone to jump out of a moving vehicle) are over on the dark side. My argument is not bolstered by the fact that I can come up with a scenario where, no, I could not successfully force a dominated subject to eat a doughnut. Nor is it undermined by someone coming up with a scenario where "jump overboard" is not an obviously self-destructive order. Probably nothing is absolutely always an okay dominate command or always a bad one.

White Magic

2014-07-07, 04:15 AM

interesting points:
~ since Belkar did "Jump Overboard" when dominated, either
a) the "dominate" limitations are different in OOTS than D&D or
b) Belkar judged the jump non-self-destructive (how close is the ship to the water?) or
c) is another theory needed when either of those will do?
and "Whee" is funny

~ since "Sorry" result to HPoH's search for "personal memory"
~ AND In OOTS 111 Durkon and Belkar are the only persons surviving the event,
a) no event was personal enough or
b) Durkon built some resistance to HPoH's memory rape
and the error panel is awesome funny

blunk

2014-07-07, 04:18 AM

See, there's this gradient, but some things (like eating doughnuts) are on the light side, and other things (like commanding someone to jump out of a moving vehicle) are way over on the dark side. The argument is not undermined by the fact that I can come up with a (very unlikely) scenario where, no, I could not successfully force a dominated subject to eat a doughnut. Probably nothing is absolutely always an okay dominate command or always a bad one.If I were running a campaign (or writing a comic), I'd probably factor in the impulsivity of the character. In this case, if I were debating whether Belkar would jump, I'd err on the side of "yeah, definitely".

Also, of course, it's funnier.

Stella

2014-07-07, 04:41 AM

The rules say "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." (emphasis added) All I said is the command itself matters too. It kind of has to. Right?Wrong. Again, you are putting the italics in the wrong place, on "orders" instead of where it belongs, which is on "obviously self-destructive".

That it matters less in a particular scenario is not proof that it doesn't matter at all.
[snippage]
I strongly disagree that ordering Tarquin to jump off a cliff, whether or not he survives and whether or not he has a ring of regeneration, is not obviously self-destructive. It totally is. "Self-destructive" absolutely does not mean "killing yourself", it is merely "harming yourself".Your interpretation would appear to allow for the order “Fight" to be ignored. Because, you know, you're likely cause yourself harm by taking that action.

What you appear to be failing to recognize is that the command “Fight” is not only an explicit example in the rules of a command which can be given, but one which is so intrinsic to the spell that you don't even have to be able to communicate with the Dominated creature in order to issue it. If you prohibit all commands which might lead to injury but not death (in your words: "Self-destructive" absolutely does not mean "killing yourself", it is merely "harming yourself"), you prohibit the command “Fight," and unfortunately for your position the rules expressly allow that order.

Look, here is some more text from the Dominate spell which might aid in your understanding:

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth).
The limitations you want to put on the effect are so restrictive that if the Dominated person had to cross a desert and therefore risked getting a sunburn, they could refuse the order because you define "Self-destructive" as merely "harming yourself". Or risked stubbing their toe while walking through a dense forest. Or had to make a swim check to ford a river. Or had to fight their way through three encounters a day while carrying out the order to "Go to Suchnsuch city" which happens to be 10 days away. Things that adventurers do all the time without a second thought to the "self-destructive" activities they are participating in. But the spell clearly details that only the minimum effort necessary for survival can be diverted away from carrying out the command. Your interpretation guts the spell effect, and in ways which I believe it is quite clear that neither the RAW nor the RAI support.

What is up with the hostility, by the way? I don't get it.You must be projecting. Or misinterpreting. I don't know, because other than disagreeing with you and pointing out where you are wrong I've been nothing but polite to you.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-07, 06:07 AM

~ since "Sorry" result to HPoH's search for "personal memory"
~ AND In OOTS 111 Durkon and Belkar are the only persons surviving the event,
a) no event was personal enough or
b) Durkon built some resistance to HPoH's memory rape
and the error panel is awesome funny

The error panel is funny, and it's pretty obviously a).

GPuzzle

2014-07-07, 06:55 AM

"I am going to shove the sunshine so far up where the sun don't shine that you will vomit nothing but warm summer days!"

Best.

Insult.

Of all times.

Darth Paul

2014-07-07, 07:07 AM

...pointless exchanges are 90% of what the forum does.

FYI? I'm totally swiping this for a signature line. Proper credit will be given.

And I agree that the main point of the update, which has been overlooked in the furore over the whole "Dominate" issue, is how easily the HPoH lost his temper. Belkar's goading set him off way too easily. If this doesn't turn out to be a key flaw, I will be surprised and disappointed. The question, to me, is whether Belkar can draw anyone else in on the act. My money is still on Haley.

Keltest

2014-07-07, 07:21 AM

FYI? I'm totally swiping this for a signature line. Proper credit will be given.

And I agree that the main point of the update, which has been overlooked in the furore over the whole "Dominate" issue, is how easily the HPoH lost his temper. Belkar's goading set him off way too easily. If this doesn't turn out to be a key flaw, I will be surprised and disappointed. The question, to me, is whether Belkar can draw anyone else in on the act. My money is still on Haley.

I don't know, HPoH's actions did not strike me as those of a particularly angry individual. Heck, V has done nearly as much with their explosive runes and animal affections, and nobody would accuse them of being violently frustrated when they did it, except maybe in a Bugs Bunny way. Theres nothing in HPoH's physical stance to suggest a particular temper, although the spirit seems to lack any sort of a sense of humor or anything like that.

TheAmishPirate

2014-07-07, 08:02 AM

"I am going to shove the sunshine so far up where the sun don't shine that you will vomit nothing but warm summer days!"

Best.

Insult.

Of all times.

That line right there was a thing of beauty. :'D

Darth Paul

2014-07-07, 08:24 AM

I don't know, HPoH's actions did not strike me as those of a particularly angry individual. Heck, V has done nearly as much with their explosive runes and animal affections, and nobody would accuse them of being violently frustrated when they did it, except maybe in a Bugs Bunny way. Theres nothing in HPoH's physical stance to suggest a particular temper, although the spirit seems to lack any sort of a sense of humor or anything like that.

V has done it, but Durkon has not. Durkon has never done more than inconvenience Belkar (that I remember right now), he never went so far as to outright injure him or make him injure himself. The masquerade that Jerkon is just Durkon with fangs slipped badly at that point. This was my meaning. Once more I expressed myself badly.

Keltest

2014-07-07, 08:35 AM

V has done it, but Durkon has not. Durkon has never done more than inconvenience Belkar (that I remember right now), he never went so far as to outright injure him or make him injure himself. The masquerade that Jerkon is just Durkon with fangs slipped badly at that point. This was my meaning. Once more I expressed myself badly.

All the HPoH needs to do is Blackmail Belkar into shutting up by threatening to off him for real just as easily next time. By all appearances people were not paying too close attention to what happened.

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-07-07, 08:39 AM

Wow. And Belkar continues to get some awfully powerful character development. Those were some pretty revealing lines there.

Reddish Mage

2014-07-07, 09:00 AM

Wow. And Belkar continues to get some awfully powerful character development. Those were some pretty revealing lines there.

I agree. Right now Belkar is clearly the most interesting thing in the comic.

Shining Wrath

2014-07-07, 09:12 AM

HPoH is going to have some serious explaining to do, because ordering Belkar to jump overboard *costs time*, and Roy is very concerned about time passing. If Belkar had landed in the ocean the time required to fish him out might have been considerable, and that was the most likely result of the order.

I expect Roy to believe Belkar that he was dominated and ordered to jump overboard. Because while Belkar is many, many undesirable things, suicidal is not among them.

The fecal matter may not impact the rotary impeller in #958, but it draws nigh.

FYI? I'm totally swiping this for a signature line. Proper credit will be given.

And I agree that the main point of the update, which has been overlooked in the furore over the whole "Dominate" issue, is how easily the HPoH lost his temper. Belkar's goading set him off way too easily. If this doesn't turn out to be a key flaw, I will be surprised and disappointed. The question, to me, is whether Belkar can draw anyone else in on the act. My money is still on Haley.

Thesis: creatures composed of pure negative energy, a.k.a. evil, are likely to have numerous ethical shortcomings. One or more of Envy, Lust, Sloth, Avarice, Pride, Gluttony, and *Wrath* (you must pardon me for bringing it up) are likely to manifest themselves.

Shining Wrath

2014-07-07, 09:19 AM

It sure is. Are restrictions of some kind supposed to make free will impossible? Someone better tell the philosophers, because they're arguing about whether there is such a thing, when it should be obvious that there isn't. Less sarcastically: If given a choice between A B or C, does inability to choose D demonstrate a lack of free will?

It's not a great analogy, but my sex was chosen before I was born, and that has little or no relevance to the question of whether I have free will. D&D devils and dark spirits and so on are in some sense "made of evil", it's practically a physical limitation. They're created Evil. Free will is, in part, the power to do something different. Zombies can't, though vampires can.

Even if a creature must be evil, it can have free will if it chooses how, when, and where to be evil.

Kish

2014-07-07, 09:52 AM

Thesis: creatures composed of pure negative energy, a.k.a. evil, are likely to have numerous ethical shortcomings. One or more of Envy, Lust, Sloth, Avarice, Pride, Gluttony, and *Wrath* (you must pardon me for bringing it up) are likely to manifest themselves.
Impossible to test scientifically due to the vagueness of the term "likely."

Thomar_of_Uointer

2014-07-07, 10:45 AM

~ since "Sorry" result to HPoH's search for "personal memory"
~ AND In OOTS 111 Durkon and Belkar are the only persons surviving the event,
a) no event was personal enough or
b) Durkon built some resistance to HPoH's memory rape
and the error panel is awesome funny

I'd imagine that Belkar has strong memories of that event (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0111.html), but Durkon remembers it as just another battle.

Doug Lampert

2014-07-07, 11:08 AM

HPoH is going to have some serious explaining to do, because ordering Belkar to jump overboard *costs time*,

V has overland flight up already, and the area they are in is no longer stormy. I'm not sure I'm seeing how this costs all that much time.

Note that Roy is still on deck holding a rope AFAICT. He presumably knows that Belkar deliberately confronted Jerkula, and then jumped overboard landing hooked on a ballista. I'd guess Roy probably considers this a fine place for Belkar to cool off for awhile. If he strongly objects we'll know next comic.

Person_Man

2014-07-07, 11:46 AM

Shining Wrath

2014-07-07, 11:53 AM

Impossible to test scientifically due to the vagueness of the term "likely."

Also, because it's hard to fit a vampire into a test tube.

zinycor

2014-07-07, 11:54 AM

I, for one, hope that this leads directly to Durkula being controlled by the Evil spirit thing I don't understand, and that Evil spirit thing being removed as quickly as possible. I hate the "enemy within (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnemyWithin)" trope. I'm cool with Durkon being a vampire for a while because it's more interesting and gives him some character development. But I want to root for Durkon and OotS, and not wish that they as a group or any individual member of the team fails so that some larger Evil scheme within a scheme fails.

Why do you hate the enemy within trope? I think is a very effective one in terms on showing the characters way of thinking, how they relate to each other and the resolution of these conflicts are usually very exciting. Of course, this depends on the excecution of the drama, but i find that on this case the execution has been wonderful.

Personally, while i root for the OotS, i think it's more important that this scheme gets resolved in a exciting way, rather than a faster one

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 02:30 PM

You must be projecting. Or misinterpreting. I don't know, because other than disagreeing with you and pointing out where you are wrong I've been nothing but polite to you.

Telling someone they are wrong wrong wrong, accusing them of making things up, saying they have stuff backwards, etc., is not polite. You can communicate the same messages without there being any possibility of someone thinking you're being hostile.

If someone says they think you're being hostile, it is very unlikely that it's 100% their fault. Even if I were projecting and misinterpreting... it's all because of that? Doubt it. And, that was also directed at Doug Lampert, who is very much more obviously upset, and I don't understand why.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-07, 02:51 PM

All the HPoH needs to do is Blackmail Belkar into shutting up by threatening to off him for real just as easily next time. By all appearances people were not paying too close attention to what happened.

This much is true. However, the strip could still be seen as showing that the High Priest of Hel has much worse of a temper than Durkon did, and that the temper might eventually cause him to fail to successfully infiltrate the Order.

Porthos

2014-07-07, 03:08 PM

In the real world, jumping hundreds of feet into an ocean is a self-destructive act, and I consider that it is not unreasonable to label it as such in a fantasy world either, even if the fantasy world has means to counter them...

And this is the problem in a nutshell. The generic D&D fantasy world has very little to do with the real world sometimes, even taking magic out of the equation.

So if you are about to make an argument that in anyway shape or form starts with the phrase, "Well, in the real world, <BLANK> would happen", I suggest you try a different tact. :smallwink:

====

To put this in a different way, people can't stand in the middle of a raging inferno and brush it off as no big deal. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) People can't react with little more than an 'ouch' after being impaled by a five foot hunk of steel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0929.html) (Or, indeed after having being impaled a dinosaur horn (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0927.html)). People can't fall a distance of well over 700 feet and just walk way with what amounts to them as some nasty brusies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html).

But all of that is D&D for you. Without bringing in a drop of magic into the equation.

Or, in the words of the author:

If I showed Roy getting stabbed through the chest once and dying, I would be facing an even longer thread of people complaining that I wasn't giving Roy the proper durability that was appropriate to a high-level fighter and that it therefore broke their suspension of disbelief because they feel like I'm not following the D&D rules closely enough and there's no rhyme or reason to anything that happens and they can't enjoy the comic anymore.

In other words, someone's delicate suspension of disbelief is going to be broken even if I post a comic of everyone sitting calmly and drinking weak tea. Everyone just wants me to cater to the things that bug them, personally, and ignore the people with the exact opposite set of pet peeves. My honest suggestion at this point is for everyone to toughen up their respective suspensions of disbelief and realize that this is a crazy fantasy comedy and that unbelievable stuff will happen, like, a lot.

Mostly for the last line which I bolded for emphasis. :smallwink:

Seward

2014-07-07, 03:19 PM

Sure, protection from evil is a D&D wizard's staple, but so is the entire conjuration school, and V can't possibly use that. The FAQ goes out of its way to point out that just because a tactical option is a D&D staple doesn't mean the characters will use it or have access to it. Even if it's easy and cheap to get. Even if - especially if - it would be a good problem-solving tool.

This is doubly true when you're traveling with a cleric.

Wizards almost never bother scribing spells that duplicate what a party cleric can do, especially defensive or utility spells. (dispel magic, or something else similar that it's helpful for both to cast in the same combat might get scribed, but resist energy, prot evil and similar tend to be low priority especially in a campaign where access to scroll-marts in every small town isn't a given)

Procyonpi

2014-07-07, 03:55 PM

So this strip is more proof that Belkar's INT is substantially higher than his Wisdom.

Angelalex242

2014-07-07, 04:21 PM

...No. His Int and Wis are both under 10. What it argues for is that he's been purchasing a lot of ranks of sense motive.

Amphiox

2014-07-07, 04:39 PM

If a dominated person is given a vague order that could be fulfilled in either a self-destructive or non-self-destructive method, would he or she not be compelled to fulfill the order in the non-self-destructive method rather than simply refusing the order?

So Belkar could have jumped overboard aiming specifically to be caught on the ballista bolt.

Furthermore, when HPoH dominated Tarkin's soldiers and had them form a cordon shielding the Order, and specifically Belkar, that too was a directly "self-destructive" order. Those soldiers had the low ground, were surrounded, and taking direct archery fire. To stand and fight in that position is as manifestly self-destructive as it is for a high-level ranger-barbarian to jump off an airship. Moreso, in fact, since for a level 1 mook, a single arrow hit can be fatal.

Psyren

2014-07-07, 04:43 PM

Even if a creature must be evil, it can have free will if it chooses how, when, and where to be evil.

This is the crux of my point regarding Malack and Darkon.

...No. His Int and Wis are both under 10. What it argues for is that he's been purchasing a lot of ranks of sense motive.

I would say panel 7 shows he has (possibly much) more Wis now than he did when the story began.

That, or the Giant is having their mental stats take a backseat to the character development. Belkar staying as mentally static as, say, Thog just would not fit with the story right now.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 04:47 PM

...when HPoH dominated Tarkin's soldiers and had them form a cordon shielding the Order, and specifically Belkar, that too was a directly "self-destructive" order.

I think that use was on kind of shaky rules ground, too, and don't think anything in the comic can be used as a counter-example, since part of the case is "suggestion, charm person, dominate person, and similar effects are way more powerful in OOTS World than RAW would make them" (which is not up for debate I don't think) and "one facet of their being more powerful is that you can give commands that are not normally allowed" (which is clearly debatable). "This other thing is also wrong" is not a point in favor of the first thing.

Mathalor

2014-07-07, 05:16 PM

Isn't over drinking self destructive? Or verbally sniping your friends or support network? Or one night stands, or relying on your friends to heal you when you do something stupid, or stabbing people without considering the consequences? Or several of the many other things that Belkar's been known to do because they're "fun." Maybe DnD has it's unique definition of self destructive, but I'd be surprised if it only applies to suicidal acts.

Plus I think he aimed for the bolt using his high jumping skills.

Angelalex242

2014-07-07, 05:38 PM

I'll believe Belkar raised his wisdom score when I see him cast Ranger spells and not a moment sooner.

Cyanide

2014-07-07, 06:17 PM

Which is about when Roy remembers 489, where the Deva specifically said cutting his throat in his sleep is not the answer...

Off topic as it can be, but I had never noticed that in 489 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) the measurement unit for evil is Kilonazis.
I'm going to start using that.

Porthos

2014-07-07, 06:24 PM

Furthermore, when HPoH dominated Tarkin's soldiers and had them form a cordon shielding the Order, and specifically Belkar, that too was a directly "self-destructive" order. Those soldiers had the low ground, were surrounded, and taking direct archery fire. To stand and fight in that position is as manifestly self-destructive as it is for a high-level ranger-barbarian to jump off an airship. Moreso, in fact, since for a level 1 mook, a single arrow hit can be fatal.

What's funny/interesting is, I don't think a single poster complained about that at the time. Not to my recollection, at least.

Guess it only matters when it hurts the protagonists. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 06:27 PM

Porthos

2014-07-07, 06:39 PM

No it is probably because that was too borderline to raise any eyebrows, whereas this last example was in many eyes a more blatant example of an illegal dominate command. That's why I, for one, didn't say anything: I didn't notice.

And yet, one was far more self-destructive than the other. :smallwink:

Personally I think the reason is a bit more nuanced. People might expect to see someone get Dominated to protect someone in a fight, no matter how dangerous it is to said person. It's a classic situation used time and time again in fiction and in gaming. OTOH, telling somone to go jump out of a boat/airship, is less so and therefore it stands out more.

Then there's the RL angle at play. As has been noted in this thread, jumping out of an airship (even one crusing not that far above water) just seems more dangerous than being in a pitched battle, even though in D&D that very much isn't the case.

But I also think the 'narrative focus' was more on How Will the Order Get Out of this Life or Death Situation, thus people weren't primed to look for that sort of thing. But here, it was a two-hander between Belkar and the HPoH. Thus it stands out more. That it was done for comedic purposes adds to this, I think. It makes people think about it more than they might in other situations.

PS: As an aside, I wouldn't exactly say 'many' people found it more blatant, but rather 'some' people did. But that's really a nitpicky comment and a side point to what I really want to talk about above. :smallsmile:

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 06:41 PM

And yet, one was far more self-destructive than the other. :smallwink:

Yes, the actual result of following the command was worse for the soldiers, but that's sort of irrelevant. The question is whether that command to that subject in that scenario was obviously self-destructive. The actual consequences of an action are necessarily beside the point if the debate is whether it was okay to order that action in the first place. Information about future events is not usually available to people making a decision. An obviously self-destructive command might actually work out really well for the subject.

PS: As an aside, I wouldn't exactly say 'many' people found it more blatant, but rather 'some' people did. But that's really a nitpicky comment and a side point to what I really want to talk about above. :smallsmile:

I figure if some people post it, many people are thinking it. (People who post on forums are often a fraction of the people who read that forum, which is in turn a fraction of the people who read the comic. Also I got the impression, early in this thread, that several readers read that comic, decided "huh that was weird", and chose not to engage in any arguments about whether their decision was correct.)

Stella

2014-07-07, 06:51 PM

What's funny/interesting is, I don't think a single poster complained about that at the time. Not to my recollection, at least.

Guess it only matters when it hurts the protagonists. :smallwink: :smalltongue:I think it's more like it only matters when someone has built a case about an order given to a Dominated person, despite the mountains of contradictory evidence they have been presented with. They then are forced to view all other orders in the same light, or admit they are wrong.

Yes, the actual result of following the command was worse for the soldiers, but that's sort of irrelevant.No, it is not. The result is the only thing that allows the controlled person to ignore a command. Telling soldier A to fight soldier B is not a death sentence. These are generic soldiers, they arguably know that, and so the rules supported command to "fight" is not self-destructive.

Porthos

2014-07-07, 06:56 PM

I figure if some people post it, many people are thinking it.

'Many' has a different implication than 'some', though. Even when talking about a large readership base. It's like talking about 'medicore' and 'average'. Techincally, they mean the same thing. But one has a different implication than the other.

Either way, as I said, it was a side comment to my main point. The only reason I brought it up is that I personally do doubt all that many people (however one wishes to define many [and, no, I am NOT going there today :smalltongue:]) even noticed it as an issue in the first place.

That some did is absolutely established. Beyond that? Beats me. But my personal guess, which admittedly is at least partially shaped by my own biases, is not so much.

Is it driving disucssion on this thread? Sure. In and of itself that doesn't say all that much, though.

To put it another way, there have been far more controversial things in this comic than this little matter. This one doesn't even break into the Top 20, near as I can tell. :smallwink:

Still, as I said... side comment. :smallsmile:

CaDzilla

2014-07-07, 06:57 PM

Good comic. the ones divisible by three are usually the best

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 06:58 PM

I think it's more like it only matters when someone has built a case about an order given to a Dominated person, despite the mountains of contradictory evidence they have been presented with. They then are forced to view all other orders in the same light, or admit they are wrong.

That is extremely ungenerous. Perhaps I do, in fact, view some other orders in that light. Not assuming good faith I guess.

Yendor

2014-07-07, 07:05 PM

I don't think the order given to the dominated soldiers was any more self-destructive than the one they were following before they were dominated. They were already doomed; there probably wasn't any "safe" order they could have been given.

Porthos

2014-07-07, 07:07 PM

This part was edited in, so let me address it in a separate post:

Yes, the actual result of following the command was worse for the soldiers, but that's sort of irrelevant. The question is whether that command to that subject in that scenario was obviously self-destructive. The actual consequences of an action are necessarily beside the point if the debate is whether it was okay to order that action in the first place. Information about future events is not usually available to people making a decision. An obviously self-destructive command might actually work out really well for the subject.

But that is my point. Having a bunch of soldiers turn traitor and stare down a force that outnumbers them something like 100-1 is far more 'obviously self-destructive' to the soldiers in question, IMO. Especially when you see your fellow soldiers getting cut down before you personally get dominated by 'Durkon' and replace them. Double especially when you consider the kind of orders Tarquin gives to people who go against his wishes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0918.html)

After all, I can't imagine the penalty for treason (which, even if magically induced is what this is) is that much lighter than attacking Elan. :smallamused: It's not like Tarquin was in a very forgiving mood at the time. :smalltongue:

If that isn't considered 'obviously self-destructive', then this isn't remotely in the same ballpark. Again, IMO. :smallsmile:

I don't think the order given to the dominated soldiers was any more self-destructive than the one they were following before they were dominated. They were already doomed; there probably wasn't any "safe" order they could have been given.

As my link showed, all Roy and co. could do is kill them. Getting Tarquin upset had far worse consequences as far as they were concerned. :smallwink:

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 07:27 PM

Having a bunch of soldiers turn traitor and stare down a force that outnumbers them something like 100-1 is far more 'obviously self-destructive' to the soldiers in question, IMO.

I disagree (not with the conclusion, exactly, since it follows from the premises... I disagree with the premises), but there is probably nothing else I can say that would clarify my position; I will leave it there.

CaDzilla

2014-07-07, 07:58 PM

It's not an obviously destructive order to Belkar. He has no real understanding of his surroundings due to his low wisdom. He probably didn't realize it until he was over the edge. You can still give destructive orders, you just have to rely on your target being stupid enough to see no danger.

Lombard

2014-07-07, 08:49 PM

Perhaps the rule itself will become part of the plot... HPoH could claim "Belkar knew it wouldn't hurt him that bad or else he wouldn't have done it". If he's called out for it. And doesn't quickly dominate someone else to fire that ballista lol.

Darth Paul

2014-07-07, 09:10 PM

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 09:12 PM

Yes. I don't understand why anyone thinks rule breaking is so bad and that explanation should be avoided whenever possible.

Keltest

2014-07-07, 09:17 PM

Yes. I don't understand why anyone thinks rule breaking is so bad and that explanation should be avoided whenever possible.

I don't either. Im especially baffled by the argument that the Giant has never broken the rules without lampshading it, therefore the rules weren't broken. He is not under any sort of obligation to either change his story to work within the rules or to lampshade it whenever it goes out of those rules. Its his story, he knows where he wants it to go, and if following the rules means that it cant go there, sucks for the rules.

Kish

2014-07-07, 09:18 PM

I do not believe that anyone is arguing that rule breaking is bad. Some people believe what happened goes against the D&D rules, some people do not believe it does. No one seems to actually think it matters, as such.

I think if a hypothetical person wanted to protest a perceived hostility in tone, not assuming bad faith on the part of people who disagree with him would be kind of beneath bare-minimum. Just a thought.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 09:39 PM

People have definitely argued that. It's not an assumption. Here is one:

So it's more preferable for you to believe that Rich "broke the game's rules" in order to make a joke than just accept Belkar thought leaping off the side wasn't a self-destructive act?

Seriously?

(No it doesn't literally say "breaking rules is bad", but it alleges that the latter explanation should be inherently preferable, and mocks the idea that anyone could disagree with it. Nobody has literally said "breaking rules is bad" as far as I know, and of course not everyone "on that side" thinks so, but it is not irrational or otherwise uncool of me to assign that motivation to at least some people. It's been strongly implied.)

Kish

2014-07-07, 09:45 PM

Oh well. If someone else said he thinks you (and the people who take your position) are arguing in bad faith, clearly that means it doesn't contribute to a hostile tone at all for you to say you think the people who take the opposite position are arguing in bad faith.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-07, 09:48 PM

I made that claim about exactly one person, and they were obviously doing exactly that. Whatever.

Gift Jeraff

2014-07-07, 10:23 PM

I, for one, hope that this leads directly to Durkula being controlled by the Evil spirit thing I don't understand, and that Evil spirit thing being removed as quickly as possible.

The evil spirit is Durkula. That's how vampires in this setting works: a new intelligence born of Negative Energy inhabits the drained corpse, traps the victim's soul, and then renanimates the corpse as a vampire.

greatscott

2014-07-08, 12:05 AM

Anyone else have an issue with the error page containing suggestions that actually make sense?!? :smallsmile:

BriarHobbit

2014-07-08, 12:25 AM

Great strip. Liked it a lot. Belkar did not bring enough reinforcements.

Rogar Demonblud

2014-07-08, 12:32 AM

People can't fall a distance of well over 700 feet and just walk way with what amounts to them as some nasty bruises.

Actually, people have fallen from significantly greater heights without severe injury. I think the record is a gunner blown out of a B-17 at altitude back in the war. He literally walked away.

Lombard

2014-07-08, 12:50 AM

Truthfully? The rules of the "Dominate Person" spell didn't even enter into my thinking until I started reading this thread, and even now it doesn't really make enough difference to make me question how it could have happened, since obviously it did.

Well, I'll agree with the latter part to a certain extent. Obviously the strip's not going to be rewritten or anything so we roll with it as it is. To the first part.. haven't tabletopped in quite some time but it was one of the first things I thought of when I saw that.

zinycor

2014-07-08, 01:14 AM

Truthfully? The rules of the "Dominate Person" spell didn't even enter into my thinking until I started reading this thread, and even now it doesn't really make enough difference to make me question how it could have happened, since obviously it did. Maybe my disbelief suspends higher than others', or maybe I just don't analyze the mechanics as much as the story itself. If an acceptable bend or even break in the D&D rules makes a better story, then the rules are secondary as far as I'm concerned.

I think most gaming groups have the same moments around the table, where they are willing to break a rule because the way the story is flowing makes whatever just happened so much more entertaining.

My group recently (kinda 2 months ago) faced a vampire who used dominate on 1 of us, the vampire commanded him to kill himself. We immediatly went to see the rules, since when you a re a characte, it doesn't really matter which is a better story if the spell is about to kill you :D.

For me, the discussion goes on this trend, If this were to happen in my game, the order would not be followed. But Rich is totally free to disregard of that pesky detail if he wants to.

Stella

2014-07-08, 01:34 AM

Yes. I don't understand why anyone thinks rule breaking is so bad and that explanation should be avoided whenever possible.It might be because of how often people on the forums cry out "OMG! Teh D&D rules were broken! Shame on the author for that!"

It's rather simple to point out that the rules haven't been broken in most cases, and citations from the rules typically suffice. For some, that is. That's not "explanations being avoided", instead it is explanation being provided to support the comic as depicted being ignored.

I like this comic, and I don't see the D&D rules being broken that often at all. It hardly ever happens, really. We're at comic #957 and the rules breakage is what? 5 times? If that? So, about a 1/2% or less, and probably much less.

And while I'm well aware of the authors posts which have said things sort of like "If the D&D rules get in the way of my story, they can go cry in the corner," I'm also well aware that this is a webcomic written in a D&D rules setting. It is bound to follow those rules or it becomes irrelevant. Rules breaking is bad. You're free to disagree, but if Roy suddenly starts using the Dominate ability of Vampires, it breaks the setting. If Haley suddenly starts casting spells, it breaks the setting. If Durkon suddenly starts detecting and disarming traps, it breaks the setting. I won't be interested in following this comic any further should any of those things come to pass, because this is a story set in a D&D setting, and it must abide by those rules or I will lose interest. That's not to say that a 1/2% or lower instance of rules breakage in any way ruins the story for me. It does not.

Any author can break the rules of their own setting, and many have done so. But those who do it frivolously are going to lose readers. You cannot develop a setting which says that Ogres turn to stone if the sun hits them and then have that not happen without explanation and without breaking the setting you have spent time developing. And you can't set a story in a D&D rules setting and constantly break the rules of D&D without breaking your setting.

Luckily, even the rules of D&D leave so very much up for interpretation that cries of "You broke the rules!" are fairly easy to counter. Characters can roll a 20 on a saving throw, or a 1. They can inflict critical damage with a weapon strike, or roll the minimum. A spell which does 18D6 damage can do a mere 45 damage, or an excellent 81 damage, instead of the almost certain ~63 damage that tossing 18D6 will add up to*. And we don't know the exact Hit Points of the characters, or their exact skill levels, magic items, and feats. So a lot of times when people cry out "You broke the rules!" what they are really saying is "Something happened which I find to be improbable!" And those people have no leg to stand on. Unless they can cite with certainty that what happened was completely impossible within the rules, they are just arguing about probability. And we all know that probability is more than willing to service drama like a 2 copper whore. Or something like that.

So while I'll freely admit a predisposition to giving the author a lot of leeway with probability when it comes to the outcomes of character actions, I also know the D&D rules. And Dominate has a "fight" command which has a large chance of causing injury to the Dominated target, and yet it is a legal command by RAW. So "Jump overboard" is obviously not self-destructive if the Dominated person doesn't even stand a chance of dying, but only being injured. Which in this case is the case.

* Really, toss 18D6 a few dozen times and see how far from the average of 63 you ever get. Strong odds are it won't be very far away. But then there is always the 1 in 50,779,978,334,208 chance that you'll roll 18 (all 1s) or 108 (all 6s). People do win the lottery, after all.

Dracon1us

2014-07-08, 02:28 AM

Rodin

2014-07-08, 03:46 AM

Any author can break the rules of their own setting, and many have done so. But those who do it frivolously are going to lose readers. You cannot develop a setting which says that Ogres turn to stone if the sun hits them and then have that not happen without explanation and without breaking the setting you have spent time developing. And you can't set a story in a D&D rules setting and constantly break the rules of D&D without breaking your setting.

Rich doesn't do it frivolously, but he does do it. For instance, Mass Death Ward. Yes, it turned out that is a real spell, but he didn't know that when he wrote it. Further, the backdoor to dispel it is also totally invented, since there isn't a "Death Ward but with a way for an unrelated third party to cripple it" written into the rules. Vampires don't have evil spirits controlling them in standard D&D - in OOTS, they do.

And that's all my point was. I'm not arguing the mechanics of Dominate Person, or how much damage Belkar would take from the fall. The point is that Belkar jumped overboard because it was narratively convenient that he do so. If it was completely ludicrous that he do so (like if Vampires didn't have Dominate Person, and had no way to get it), then it obviously wouldn't have happened for the same reason that Haley isn't going to suddenly start casting spells. Durkula would have picked Belkar up and chucked him off, or something.

You cannot make a definitive argument based on D&D rules, because plot trumps rules. Every time. OOTS follows the rules 99% of the time because it is well-written and the Giant is great about sticking within them where he can.

He just isn't constrained by them.

Maybe it was self-destructive, maybe it wasn't. I highly doubt the Giant cared when he wrote that scene.

Edit:

Just as a note, I personally find it suicidal to jump into an ocean with a strong chance of no rescue - whether you do it from 1000 feet or 10 feet. I read the scene as "Belkar fails yet another Will save". It's plausible either way.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-08, 06:06 AM

looks like we finally (and thankfully) are at the end of "fake-durkon on a boat" ... Roy or V can't miss the fact that 1) Belkar is not putting himself at danger for no good reason, live...ever. 2) Belkar was accusing Durkula

I can see the dwarf out of the boat and knocking on his former home...to finally fulfill the prophecy

I doubt it will be over this quickly. Perhaps Vaarsuvius and Roy will not believe Belkar, or will treat this incident lightly, or perhaps Belkar will keep quite, but I suspect the High Priest of Hel will be remaining with us for a while.

Dracon1us

2014-07-08, 07:21 AM

I doubt it will be over this quickly. Perhaps Vaarsuvius and Roy will not believe Belkar, or will treat this incident lightly, or perhaps Belkar will keep quite, but I suspect the High Priest of Hel will be remaining with us for a while.

I hope not. I Feel he is dragging the story down. he needs to go bring destruction off-screen...he's too much an elephant in the room.

he distracts from the the other characters.

plot-wise, this is the right place. No way narcisistic Belkar is gonna jump overboard for no good reason...Also, It's time for Roy to realize his mistake. too much time into it and the Oots become a joke, not a great heroic story. 10 more strips with durkula fooling him and Roy goes from smart warrior-leader to foolish puppet.

it's not that kind of story

Jay R

2014-07-08, 08:23 AM

Rich doesn't do it frivolously, but he does do it.

A fact which nobody here has questioned, and is consistent with both sides of the argument.

The point is that Belkar jumped overboard because it was narratively convenient that he do so.

A fact which nobody here has questioned, and is consistent with both sides of the argument.

You cannot make a definitive argument based on D&D rules, because plot trumps rules. Every time.

Nope. Plot trumps rules only when they are in disagreement. The discussion has been whether this particular occurrence is in accordance with the rules, or whether the rules are clearly against it, so Rich had to make the plot trump the rules this time.

OOTS follows the rules 99% of the time because it is well-written and the Giant is great about sticking within them where he can.

Right. Which means that there is a 99% chance that Rich was following the rules this time, unless somebody can make a compelling case that this was against the rules.

Just as a note, I personally find it suicidal to jump into an ocean with a strong chance of no rescue - whether you do it from 1000 feet or 10 feet. I read the scene as "Belkar fails yet another Will save". It's plausible either way.

"[S]trong chance of no rescue?" With a high level party and an airship right at hand? Simply false. There were people on deck to see him fall, and Vaarsuvius is a capable wizard. It's simply not true that a member of a high level party has a "strong chance of no rescue" when the rest of the party is available.

This party has rescued its members from bandits, baleful polymorph, jail, a Mark of Justice curse, various nemeses, Kubota-level politics, a giant demon, death, golemhood, high-level illusions, an allosaur, an army, a high-level party on a triceratops.... A short swim in the ocean isn't going to stop them now.

Rodin

2014-07-08, 11:06 AM

Edit: Nevermind, I can't read.

Amphiox

2014-07-08, 12:05 PM

Rich doesn't do it frivolously, but he does do it. For instance, Mass Death Ward. Yes, it turned out that is a real spell, but he didn't know that when he wrote it. Further, the backdoor to dispel it is also totally invented, since there isn't a "Death Ward but with a way for an unrelated third party to cripple it" written into the rules. Vampires don't have evil spirits controlling them in standard D&D - in OOTS, they do.

The Giant didn't deliberately break any rules with "Mass Death Ward", because the "Mass Death Ward" spell in the narrative was essentially a Home-brewed spell that Durkon and Malack collaborated on together to create. And there's no rule that says you can't stick a backdoor into a homebrewed spell.

He just didn't know that another Mass Death Ward spell already existed in the rules, and AFAIK there's no specific rule that says you can't name a homebrewed spell with the same name as some other spell.

Kish

2014-07-08, 12:11 PM

And yes, actually vampires do have evil spirits controlling them in standard D&D; check Libris Mortis. This is particularly ironic because what Rich did there was not house rule something that so many DMs do houserule that when he follows the book, it causes a great cry of "WTF?"

pendell

2014-07-08, 12:15 PM

looks like we finally (and thankfully) are at the end of "fake-durkon on a boat" ... Roy or V can't miss the fact that 1) Belkar is not putting himself at danger for no good reason, live...ever. 2) Belkar was accusing Durkula

I can see the dwarf out of the boat and knocking on his former home...to finally fulfill the prophecy

10 zorkmids say Durkula won't be revealed until the end of the book.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Keltest

2014-07-08, 12:16 PM

The Giant didn't deliberately break any rules with "Mass Death Ward", because the "Mass Death Ward" spell in the narrative was essentially a Home-brewed spell that Durkon and Malack collaborated on together to create. And there's no rule that says you can't stick a backdoor into a homebrewed spell.

He just didn't know that another Mass Death Ward spell already existed in the rules, and AFAIK there's no specific rule that says you can't name a homebrewed spell with the same name as some other spell.

AFAIK theres no rule that says you can stick a backdoor into a spell either, especially one developed primarily by someone else.

Psyren

2014-07-08, 12:39 PM

I'll believe Belkar raised his wisdom score when I see him cast Ranger spells and not a moment sooner.

He is undoubtedly wiser than before - this comic proves it. Whether that has anything to do with his wisdom attribute is something I can't determine.

AFAIK theres no rule that says you can stick a backdoor into a spell either, especially one developed primarily by someone else.

The DM (in this case Rich) has to sign off on any homebrew spell. It's homebrew. So he can stick anything in it that he wants.

Who knows, even Protection from Daylight might have something, though that would be a lame way to bump off Darkon.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-08, 02:50 PM

I hope not. I Feel he is dragging the story down. he needs to go bring destruction off-screen...he's too much an elephant in the room.

he distracts from the the other characters.

plot-wise, this is the right place. No way narcisistic Belkar is gonna jump overboard for no good reason...Also, It's time for Roy to realize his mistake. too much time into it and the Oots become a joke, not a great heroic story. 10 more strips with durkula fooling him and Roy goes from smart warrior-leader to foolish puppet.

it's not that kind of story

I disagree. I enjoy having Durkon more in the spotlight and taking away from the other characters more than what was happening before.

I don't disagree that Belkar would just jump overboard of his own free will, but I don't think it will lead to the High Priest of Hel being revealed.

Having the Order not realize what is happening does not make them a joke, or any less heroic. They are being fooled by not only the High Priest of Hel, but also their feelings toward Durkon. It doesn't help that Belkar is as untrustworthy as you can get. Even someone as wise as Roy can be wrong.

Smolder

2014-07-08, 03:09 PM

AFAIK theres no rule that says you can stick a backdoor into a spell either, especially one developed primarily by someone else.

Makes sense to me. If you want to research a lower level version of a spell, you just have to add limitations and caveats to the spell description. It makes sense that Malack would know that and would use that to his benefit. It's Durkon who didn't know a similar spell existed. If he had known, he would have been immediately suspicious of how easily they created a lower level version without any (obvious) limitations compared to the original.

Keltest

2014-07-08, 03:12 PM

I disagree. I enjoy having Durkon more in the spotlight and taking away from the other characters more than what was happening before.

I don't disagree that Belkar would just jump overboard of his own free will, but I don't think it will lead to the High Priest of Hel being revealed.

Having the Order not realize what is happening does not make them a joke, or any less heroic. They are being fooled by not only the High Priest of Hel, but also their feelings toward Durkon. It doesn't help that Belkar is as untrustworthy as you can get. Even someone as wise as Roy can be wrong.

I think its less likely that the Order will continue in self-inflicted ignorance, and rather they will bide their time until they have a reason not to. After all, for all his evil-ness, they don't actually know what, if anything, the HPoH wants, and his explanation for staying with them was completely legitimate.

Rover

2014-07-08, 03:13 PM

I wonder if Belkar has undead as one of his favored enemies...

We know making will saves is.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-08, 03:17 PM

I think its less likely that the Order will continue in self-inflicted ignorance, and rather they will bide their time until they have a reason not to. After all, for all his evil-ness, they don't actually know what, if anything, the HPoH wants, and his explanation for staying with them was completely legitimate.

That's possible. I would say that right now is not when they will finish their biding, though.

Keltest

2014-07-08, 03:20 PM

That's possible. I would say that right now is not when they will finish their biding, though.

Ditto. We haven't even established anything in the book beyond a conflict between Belkar and HPoH. If he runs off now, the Order will have nothing else they can do with that plot, go "Oh crap, I hope Hinjo has a cleric or three that can help us with Xykon at the gate." and keep going.

the_tick_rules

2014-07-08, 05:24 PM

Belkar's poor will save continues to be a problem.

Stella

2014-07-08, 05:24 PM

You cannot make a definitive argument based on D&D rules, because plot trumps rules.Yes, you can. It is trivially easy to examine action in the comic and determine if the D&D rules are being followed. The fact that plot trumps rules is irrelevant to that examination, and in no way deters it. All that fact does is to make it all too easy to falsely claim that the rules of the setting aren't being followed.

Dracon1us

2014-07-09, 01:51 AM

10 zorkmids say Durkula won't be revealed until the end of the book.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

deal! :)
also a virtual beer?

Dracon1us

2014-07-09, 01:54 AM

I disagree. I enjoy having Durkon more in the spotlight and taking away from the other characters more than what was happening before.

I don't disagree that Belkar would just jump overboard of his own free will, but I don't think it will lead to the High Priest of Hel being revealed.

Having the Order not realize what is happening does not make them a joke, or any less heroic. They are being fooled by not only the High Priest of Hel, but also their feelings toward Durkon. It doesn't help that Belkar is as untrustworthy as you can get. Even someone as wise as Roy can be wrong.

well to each is own taste, no problem in that.:smallsmile:
but Durkula needs to bring destruction in his homelands...he can't do that with our guys around

Tharias

2014-07-09, 03:30 AM

Imho, it doesn't matter if they do discover the HPoH's true nature (though I don't think they will for a while). Either way, there's plot. Let me explain.

Scenario One:
-HPoH convinces the party that he's still Durkon, just changed, and it continues to be only Belkar that suspects him.
-Thus, we still have an inner conflict of Durkon wanting to escape, and the outer conflict of Belkar hating HPoH, but the party still has their cleric.

Scenario Two:
-HPoH is revealed and... he's still in the party. Really, what else are they going to do? Ditch their cleric, destroy any chance of their friend coming back? Even if they openly acknowledge that HPoH is evil, that doesn't change the fact that they need him, and they want to resurrect Durkon.
-Thus, we have the inner conflict of Durkon wanting to escape, and the outer conflict of the party not trusting HPoH, but the party still has their cleric.

GrimoireM

2014-07-09, 05:07 AM

I actually think Belkar has a chance to convince someone in the OotS that he's right, but the problem is he keeps trying to convince Roy. Of anyone, I think Belkar has the best odds with Elan, since their relationship has generally been placid, and Elan from what I've seen isn't one to dismiss people.

HPoH also drew unnecessary attention to himself here. The verbal blow out that follows might spark a productive conversation between Belkar and Elan later on. Then it's a matter of Elan somehow convincing Haley, then Haley confronting Roy, which might take the whole book.

I think it's possible, but very very unlikely, maybe. We'll see.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-09, 06:03 AM

well to each is own taste, no problem in that.:smallsmile:
but Durkula needs to bring destruction in his homelands...he can't do that with our guys around

I feel like he'll manage (maybe that's when he's revealed?).

F.Harr

2014-07-09, 10:34 AM

Belkar gets the greatest lines!

The GREATEST!

LINES!

So, um, yeah. That. :)

Krim

2014-07-09, 10:46 AM

I doubt it will be over this quickly. Perhaps Vaarsuvius and Roy will not believe Belkar, or will treat this incident lightly, or perhaps Belkar will keep quite, but I suspect the High Priest of Hel will be remaining with us for a while.

Personally, my theory is (and I don't know if someone has said it first) that, of all the order, Elan has noticed that the vampire is not really Durkon.

However, he has not said anything and is simply making plans to confront him effectively when he turns on the order. This may include getting some protection from negative energy potions or stuff, warning Haley/V Off-panel, and the like. Why?

Because confronting him right off the bat would NOT be dramatically appropiate of course!! :D

Keltest

2014-07-09, 11:05 AM

Personally, my theory is (and I don't know if someone has said it first) that, of all the order, Elan has noticed that the vampire is not really Durkon.

However, he has not said anything and is simply making plans to confront him effectively when he turns on the order. This may include getting some protection from negative energy potions or stuff, warning Haley/V Off-panel, and the like. Why?

Because confronting him right off the bat would NOT be dramatically appropiate of course!! :D

Ah, but if the hero knows, theyre supposed to make a mistake like blowing the whistle before theyre prepared to deal with the rat they cornered.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-09, 03:08 PM

Personally, my theory is (and I don't know if someone has said it first) that, of all the order, Elan has noticed that the vampire is not really Durkon.

However, he has not said anything and is simply making plans to confront him effectively when he turns on the order. This may include getting some protection from negative energy potions or stuff, warning Haley/V Off-panel, and the like. Why?

Because confronting him right off the bat would NOT be dramatically appropiate of course!! :D

That's an interesting theory. I don't really think that Elan of all people would be the first to notice the differences, but it is possible. Another reason for him not to confront him is that the Order does still need a Cleric.

zimmerwald1915

2014-07-09, 04:26 PM

Ah, but if the hero knows, theyre supposed to make a mistake like blowing the whistle before theyre prepared to deal with the rat they cornered.
:elan: Stories are fun and all, but they're not worth hurting people [or letting them be held hostage indefinitely] over.

Keltest

2014-07-09, 04:32 PM

:elan: Stories are fun and all, but they're not worth hurting people [or letting them be held hostage indefinitely] over.

Elan is weird :smallfrown:

I move that we stop using him to decide what direction the plot will head in.

zimmerwald1915

2014-07-09, 04:36 PM

Elan is weird :smallfrown:

I move that we stop using him to decide what direction the plot will head in.
Motion seconded, with a rider: we can still use his prophecy to predict that The Order of the Stick will have a hapy ending...for him at least.

All in favor?

Keltest

2014-07-09, 05:53 PM

Motion seconded, with a rider: we can still use his prophecy to predict that The Order of the Stick will have a hapy ending...for him at least.

All in favor?

Aye!

Motion carried!

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-09, 06:51 PM

Motion seconded, with a rider: we can still use his prophecy to predict that The Order of the Stick will have a hapy ending...for him at least.

All in favor?

Sure. I also second the statement that Elan is weird.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-09, 07:00 PM

Aye! 66666

Darth Paul

2014-07-09, 10:02 PM

I'm amazed at how we got from discussing a comic featuring a sociopathic mass-murderer halfling and a possessed vampiric dwarf, to talking about how Elan is wierd.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-09, 10:31 PM

I'm amazed at how we got from discussing a comic featuring a sociopathic mass-murderer halfling and a possessed vampiric dwarf, to talking about how Elan is wierd.

Welcome to the forum. We do that a lot. :smallbiggrin:

MrMercury

2014-07-10, 01:09 AM

I fail to see the difference between "Vampires are inherently evil monsters because Hel makes them that way." and "Vampires are not free to choose to do whatever they want." Yes, Redcloak is devoted, but that's part of his character, not something inherent to his very being. He is capable of reflecting on his devotion and deciding its stupid at any point.

Redcloak did reflect upon his devotion and chose not to follow it when Right-Eye suggested that he settle down with his cousin
Just my two cents, but this proves Redcloak does have the will to turn his back on it, therefore, it is not integral to his being
EDIT: also, on the "self destructive act" topic, I think a lot of people are, in my view, misinterpreting what "self-destructive action" is.
the phrase "self-destruction" obviously evolved as a way of describing actions that cause a person to bring destruction upon themselves.
But what is "destruction"? death? serious harm? a mild itch on your left foot's fourth toe? I don't think self destruction is limited to death or serious harm, however, I don't think it's so broad as to include my last example. Therefore, I believe self destruction is "the bringing of harm upon oneself, intentionally, or no.
With relevance to D&D, specifically, to dominate person in this case, my interpretation is that how "Self-destruction" relates to the dominate person command is mainly up to interpretation for the GM (as many rules in D&D are). However, there are certain actions that are obviously self destructive, even within a fantasy universe. An action that will lead to direct harm of some, for example, roasting your own hand on a fire, is obviously self-destructive. You are bring harm upon yourself. I'm fairly certain jumping off an airship several hundred meters above an ocean will lead to harm, minimal as it may be in this context. Heck, even jumping off a regular boat after a massive storm is a bad idea, with heaving waves everywhere, it's very possible to get pushed a long way away from a boat. Whether or not Belkar could survive the fall in this case is moot, as the harm would continue after the fall.
Now, the argument that "V could reach him" is also moot, as we do not know whether a dominated person takes this into account, because the fall would still cause harm. If you put your hand over a fire with full knowledge that there was someone there to heal you, it'd still be a self destructive action, even if the "destruction" wrought by your action is immediately reverted.

In conclusion, regardless of if Belkar could survive the fall into a storm tossed ocean that could full well rip him quickly away from the ship, it's irrelevant as the fall itself, and the aftermath, causes harm to Belkar. My interpretation ( which is also replicated by a lot of dictionaries, and indeed, Wikipedia) is that a "self destructive action" is an action that brings more harm to oneself than one benefits from it. In this case, Belkar is receiving NO benefits (maybe a cooling wind on the way down?) as compared to an almost certain chance of harm, so his act of jumping off the ship is self destructive.

This whole speculation, interesting as it might be, is of course rendered moot considering Rich has stated that his comic does not religiously follow D&D's rules, instead merely uses them as a framework (yes that is paraphrasing).

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-10, 05:52 AM

EDIT: also, on the "self destructive act" topic, I think a lot of people are, in my view, misinterpreting what "self-destructive action" is.
the phrase "self-destruction" obviously evolved as a way of describing actions that cause a person to bring destruction upon themselves.
But what is "destruction"? death? serious harm? a mild itch on your left foot's fourth toe? I don't think self destruction is limited to death or serious harm, however, I don't think it's so broad as to include my last example. Therefore, I believe self destruction is "the bringing of harm upon oneself, intentionally, or no.
With relevance to D&D, specifically, to dominate person in this case, my interpretation is that how "Self-destruction" relates to the dominate person command is mainly up to interpretation for the GM (as many rules in D&D are). However, there are certain actions that are obviously self destructive, even within a fantasy universe. An action that will lead to direct harm of some, for example, roasting your own hand on a fire, is obviously self-destructive. You are bring harm upon yourself. I'm fairly certain jumping off an airship several hundred meters above an ocean will lead to harm, minimal as it may be in this context. Heck, even jumping off a regular boat after a massive storm is a bad idea, with heaving waves everywhere, it's very possible to get pushed a long way away from a boat. Whether or not Belkar could survive the fall in this case is moot, as the harm would continue after the fall.
Now, the argument that "V could reach him" is also moot, as we do not know whether a dominated person takes this into account, because the fall would still cause harm. If you put your hand over a fire with full knowledge that there was someone there to heal you, it'd still be a self destructive action, even if the "destruction" wrought by your action is immediately reverted.

In conclusion, regardless of if Belkar could survive the fall into a storm tossed ocean that could full well rip him quickly away from the ship, it's irrelevant as the fall itself, and the aftermath, causes harm to Belkar. My interpretation ( which is also replicated by a lot of dictionaries, and indeed, Wikipedia) is that a "self destructive action" is an action that brings more harm to oneself than one benefits from it. In this case, Belkar is receiving NO benefits (maybe a cooling wind on the way down?) as compared to an almost certain chance of harm, so his act of jumping off the ship is self destructive.

This whole speculation, interesting as it might be, is of course rendered moot considering Rich has stated that his comic does not religiously follow D&D's rules, instead merely uses them as a framework (yes that is paraphrasing).
I think that this definition is too broad, as it eliminates almost any action that would make dominate person useful. In almost any case in which the person dominating would benefit, the other person would be harmed more than they are benefited, rendering dominate person effective useless.

Stella

2014-07-10, 06:29 AM

This whole speculation, interesting as it might be, is of course rendered moot considering Rich has stated that his comic does not religiously follow D&D's rules, instead merely uses them as a framework (yes that is paraphrasing).You know, people keep saying this as though it's relevant. It isn't. It's putting the exception well before the rule, and that's just silly.

Despite his disclaimer, the author really does follow the rules of D&D religiously. He has to, it's the setting he chose to set his story in. If he doesn't follow the rules as a rule the setting falls apart and so does the story. And despite a very few exceptions across 957 comics, it's still quite true that the rules are being followed as a matter of course. You can point to examples of this in almost every comic.

Take this comic for example: The worst he's done in this specific case is to make his own judgement call on what constitutes a "self-destructive order," which is terminology used within a spell description which only provides four examples of legal orders. One of which, "fight," is arguably self-destructive and yet is still perfectly legal and described clearly as such. It's not "breaking the rules" to make a judgement call that someone else might disagree with. DMs have to do this on occasion where the rules don't specifically spell out the rules for a specific action, such as issuing any order other than the four examples given in the spell description.

And then there is the case I support, which is that "jump overboard" is also a perfectly legal order in this situation because it clearly does not violate the "self-destructive" test, seeing as Belkar wouldn't even take the same amount of damage he could be expected to take if ordered to "fight" against a level appropriate challenge, such as a Belkar clone.

Keltest

2014-07-10, 06:49 AM

I think that this definition is too broad, as it eliminates almost any action that would make dominate person useful. In almost any case in which the person dominating would benefit, the other person would be harmed more than they are benefited, rendering dominate person effective useless.

Apparently I identify people based on portraits, but not names, because I thought you made that spiel. Huh, odd.

Anyway, my understanding of the way many domination type effects (and the one Nale uses specifically) is that it works by making the caster's wishes be seen as inherently good ideas. So if you have a soldier willing to give his life for a cause, the domination changes that cause to whatever the caster wants it to be. So Durkon couldn't have made Belkar take those arrows in the battle at the rift, but the soldiers were willing to die anyway, so Durkon basically told them "Die for us instead. Join the light side, we have ice cream."

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-10, 03:21 PM

Apparently I identify people based on portraits, but not names, because I thought you made that spiel. Huh, odd.

Anyway, my understanding of the way many domination type effects (and the one Nale uses specifically) is that it works by making the caster's wishes be seen as inherently good ideas. So if you have a soldier willing to give his life for a cause, the domination changes that cause to whatever the caster wants it to be. So Durkon couldn't have made Belkar take those arrows in the battle at the rift, but the soldiers were willing to die anyway, so Durkon basically told them "Die for us instead. Join the light side, we have ice cream."

I've done that before, since I sometimes identify people that way too. Makes me want to get a unique avatar.

I can see that interpretation working (although it's not necessarily the one that I hold) as the basic principle is that you try to convince your dominated person that what they are doing is a good thing. That is different from what MrMercury posted, though, because you are not changing the level of harm or even perceived harm.

Kish

2014-07-10, 04:28 PM

Apparently I identify people based on portraits, but not names, because I thought you made that spiel. Huh, odd.
That's not a very good way to identify people, Darth Paul.

Keltest

2014-07-10, 04:46 PM

I've done that before, since I sometimes identify people that way too. Makes me want to get a unique avatar.

I can see that interpretation working (although it's not necessarily the one that I hold) as the basic principle is that you try to convince your dominated person that what they are doing is a good thing. That is different from what MrMercury posted, though, because you are not changing the level of harm or even perceived harm.

Its not necessarily about the level of harm, perceived or otherwise. Its about the question of "Is this action worth it?" When Durkon dominated the soldiers, he was getting them to join the "save the world" team. Understandably, that's a goal that most inhabitants of the world can support. I have a difficult time thinking of a reason, any reason, for Belkar to think that jumping overboard would result in anything other than bad or, at best, non-beneficial things happening to him.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-10, 04:51 PM

Its not necessarily about the level of harm, perceived or otherwise. Its about the question of "Is this action worth it?" When Durkon dominated the soldiers, he was getting them to join the "save the world" team. Understandably, that's a goal that most inhabitants of the world can support. I have a difficult time thinking of a reason, any reason, for Belkar to think that jumping overboard would result in anything other than bad or, at best, non-beneficial things happening to him.

This is still different though, because the worth of an order is different from the harm vs. benefits derived from following an order. In the example you give, they would see the order as a worthy goal, but it is still causing more harm to them than benefits. You could argue that it benefits the entire world, but that isn't directly tied to them.

Kish

2014-07-10, 04:56 PM

I'm also dubious that the High Priest of Hel was explaining anything to them, even a brief, "Join me and save the world!" thing. As far as they knew, they were joining the "Latest Fools to Stand Against General Tarquin" team.

Keltest

2014-07-10, 05:22 PM

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-10, 05:39 PM

Well, the alternative is that Rich really doesn't care about that particular rule for the spell/ability, which is what ive been arguing for most of the thread anyway.

I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, just that it definitely differs from MrMercury's.

Keltest

2014-07-10, 05:55 PM

I'm not saying that your definition is wrong, just that it definitely differs from MrMercury's.

Less than you might think. He is saying that its based on a harm versus benefit analysis. Im saying that the magical effects could easily include things that can change to a limited degree what the victim considers a benefit.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-10, 08:07 PM

"Harm versus benefit" is evidently a very common consideration.

Peelee

2014-07-10, 09:03 PM

That's not a very good way to identify people, Darth Paul.

I think this thread has now hit the apex, and it's all downhill from here. That was glorious, sir.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-10, 09:16 PM

Darth Paul

2014-07-10, 09:29 PM

That's not a very good way to identify people, Darth Paul.

Ouch.

Made even ouchier because I complemented Keltest on his taste in avatars in a different thread.

Stella

2014-07-10, 09:58 PM

This is still different though, because the worth of an order is different from the harm vs. benefits derived from following an order. In the example you give, they would see the order as a worthy goal, but it is still causing more harm to them than benefits. You could argue that it benefits the entire world, but that isn't directly tied to them.

I've been thinking on this a bit. The command(s) you can issue can be quite complex if you share a common language. The spell has a 1 day/level duration, and will have a minimum duration of 9 days for a Wizard and 10 days for a Sorcerer or Bard. A lot can be done in that many days, if planned correctly, and especially if not done while in a combat situation where "fight" might be the best and easiest order to give.

I wonder how "self-destructive" it would be to Dominate a politician and command her to give a speech which endorsed ideals which are the polar opposite of those she has endorsed for her entire career? It'd be like Dominating Boehner and commanding him to give a speech every day which espouses every agenda item Obama is pushing for. Or Dominating Obama and commanding him to give a speech every day which endorses every ideal of the Tea Party, to give a fair and opposite example and not appear to be taking sides politically, which I am not. I'm just wondering if a command to essentially commit political suicide would be able to be refused.

Or to moon your employer, for a similar but different example. You'll lose your job and your reputation (assuming you have a good one), and might have a hard time finding other employment if the story spreads and sticks to you. Is that "self-destructive?"

These may better fall under the rule stating:

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.

Or say you have already been unfaithful in your marriage. Would an order to go seek another bed partner every day be either "self-destructive" or "against your nature?"

Or say you are a clergyman, and you enjoy fine wine a bit too much already, and tend to drink beyond your capacity on occasion, just not too much while you are "on duty", or so you tell yourself. You are ordered to "Enjoy a bottle or two of a fine wine before every religious ceremony you will be presiding over. You have a lot weighing on you, you need to relax." That's not a great remove from your ordinary behavior, especially if you've ever drunk alcohol at all before going on duty, whether you felt it was enough to impair you or not. So is it either "self-destructive" or "against your nature", even if it may cause you embarrassment amongst your peers, superiors, and your congregation?

Or how about the scholar who is has struggled for years, and occasionally unsuccessfully, to hold his tongue while in the presence of 'those idiots and buffoons' who couldn't understand his work if they tried. But he really should because they could be either powerful patrons, or powerful enemies. Would an order to "Go ahead, tell them what you really think" be judged as an order to "take actions against its nature?"

I guess what I'm trying to explore are the more subtle uses of the spell. It could have enormous potential in a campaign which focused on political and/or social interactions.

I think that there could never be consensus on many or all of these examples, and that the DM is the one who has to make the judgement call.

Kish

2014-07-10, 10:51 PM

I think this thread has now hit the apex, and it's all downhill from here. That was glorious, sir.

Agreed. And it's only made funnier by how I've identified them just by their avatars and almost made that some mistake several times. :smalltongue:

Well done, Kish.
Thanks.

Ouch.

Made even ouchier because I complemented Keltest on his taste in avatars in a different thread.
Hey, I'm just glad some people caught it. When Keltest didn't respond, I was afraid it would pass unnoticed.

Darth Paul

2014-07-10, 10:59 PM

Hey, I'm just glad some people caught it. When Keltest didn't respond, I was afraid it would pass unnoticed.

If I hadn't been at work I would have responded a lot sooner.

I salute you, sir.

Nevertheless; ouch. :smallamused:

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-11, 05:48 AM

Hey, I'm just glad some people caught it. When Keltest didn't respond, I was afraid it would pass unnoticed.

I saw it, but didn't respond quite away and almost forgot to. I'm glad Peelee brought it up again so I remembered it.

Keltest

2014-07-11, 06:51 AM

Thanks.

Hey, I'm just glad some people caught it. When Keltest didn't respond, I was afraid it would pass unnoticed.

I didn't think there was anything I could say that would remotely approach that. :smalltongue:

Marfisa

2014-07-12, 07:28 AM

The way I read the scene, the following happens: EvilDurkon tries to convince Belkar that he is really Durkon; he fails; Belkar threatens him; he wants to get rid of Belkar and orders him to kill himself; “Wheee!”.

This reading has the problem that it’s slightly in conflict with the rule that dominate can’t make a person to perform a self-destructive action. I think it’s a reasonable deviation from the DnD-rules for narrative reasons: with DnD, making domination-like spells too powerful would make the game playing mechanism unbalanced, but within the context of the comic, it serves to establish EvilDurkon as a meaningful menace: it is well established that Belkar is a formidable fighter, so to establish EvilDurkon as a serious threat, he needs a plausible method to harm Belkar. Combined with the prophecy of Belkar’s imminent demise, this enables the author to create suspense: will Belkar survive this confrontation with EvilDurkon? How will the gang as a whole cope with this situation? If the author would slavishly follow the rules here, EvilDurkon would be a rather impotent adversary, since Belkar could simply kill him, which would kill all the suspense and end the story arc prematurely.

As far as I see, there have been two lines of reasoning why the order to jump doesn’t violate the rules at all. One strategy is to point out that, since a dominated person can always be ordered to fight, which can lead to the death of the dominated person, “self-destruction” must be interpreted as narrowly as possible. I don’t think that follows: if you fight someone, your intention is not to get yourself harmed: that’s simply a possible consequence; your intention is to harm someone else. So while it may lead to your destruction, it isn’t necessarily a self-destructive behavior. I would consider the order “fight a monster of which you know that it is invulnerable to all your attacks, has an incredible short temper, and can kill you without breaking a sweat”, if the only conceivable purpose is to get yourself killed, as something a dominated person wouldn’t do, despite the order to fight explicitly mentioned as the one thing that always works.

The other line of reasoning is that within the fictional universe of OOTS, jumping ship is something Belkar can easily survive; some posters insisted on such an jump not only being survivable, but being obviously harmless. Like the first argument, this, for me, raises the question: if getting Belkar killed isn’t the sole purpose of the whole exercise, what purpose does the command to jump have?

If I assume that such a jump is completely and obviously harmless, then the story reads like this: EvilDurkon tries to convince Belkar that he is really Durkon; he fails; Belkar threatens him; EvilDurkon orders Belkar to jump because of… reasons; “Wheee!”. What does EvilDurkon hope to accomplish here? I can start all sorts of speculations, but none of them is very satisfying, and worse, none of it is there on the page itself.

Perhaps EvilDurkon wants to humiliate Belkar; there is the precedent of the explosive runes mentioned above, but EvilDurkon doesn’t strike me as the person likely to engage in playful jokes, especially considering that Belkar threatened to kill him, and the situation is much too grave for harmless pranks between vitriolic best buddies, which they aren’t.

Or perhaps EvilDurkon just wanted to intimidate Belkar; but then, he would have to have said something along the lines of “You better keep quiet, or do you forget what I can do to you? A friendly reminder: JUMP!”. But he doesn’t say anything like that: it’s just not there in the narrative; Belkar reminds EvilDurkon that he is good at killing the undead, and EvilDurkon makes Belkar jump: the context is the context of a death threat, so the immediate and obvious interpretation is that EvilDurkon is trying to kill the person who threatened to kill him, and anything else reads something in the text that isn’t there.

Or maybe EvilDurkon forgot that Belkar can’t be easily killed by making him jump overboard, despite the insistence of some posters that it should be obvious. But that requires that EvilDurkon also forgot who his spell works: he has to commit two errors (issuing a self-destructive command despite that being impossible, and also not taking into consideration that his command isn’t self-destructive after all for a though guy like Belkar) which somehow cancel each other. Once again, nowhere does the narrative indicate that EvilDurkon commits two errors which silently cancel each other.

Furthermore, if jumping into the ocean is such harmless, inconsequential fun as some claim, why isn’t that what happens? What narrative purpose does it serve that Belkar gets stuck on the ballista arrow? Under my reading, Belkar almost gets killed, he narrowly escapes death, but next time, he might not be so lucky, so now we know that the stakes are really high, and I’m on the edge of my seat to learn how the story continues.

Following the alternative reading, Belkar was at no time in any real danger, the behavior of EvilDurkon is completely erratic and doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, and there is no fathomable narrative reason why Belkar was shown stuck on a giant arrow, instead of showing him delivering his rant floating in the ocean. I see some inconsequential antics between some people with no plausible motivation for the way they act, and I don’t care all that much what happens next to them. But hey! At least no DnD rules have been broken.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-12, 08:31 AM

So, are you claiming that jumping into the ocean was in fact potentially quite deadly for Belkar? Because, the fact remains that jumping from high distances is really not all that much of a problem for adventures of higher levels. I could see the claim being made that, regardless of how much damage he is likely to take, the act is still self-destructive (as many have claimed) but you are of the opinion that the High Priest of Hel ordered Belkar to jump with the intent of killing him. Unless the way that falling damage works has suddenly changed in the past 21 comics, that is extremely unlikely.

Miaow

2014-07-12, 08:54 AM

Maybe the HPoH ordered Belkar to jump off the ship hoping no one would notice he was gone until they were too far away to go back for him.

Jay R

2014-07-12, 09:07 AM

If I assume that such a jump is completely and obviously harmless, ...

For purposes of the rules discussion, it doesn't have to be "completely and obviously harmless". It only has to not be "completely and obviously harmful." If there is legitimate doubt, then it isn't "obviously self-destructive" per the wording of the spell.

Entering a melee under the Domination spell is not "completely and obviously harmless" either, and we know that it is an acceptable command. So "completely and obviously harmless" does not qualify as the standard for this spell.

...then the story reads like this: EvilDurkon tries to convince Belkar that he is really Durkon; he fails; Belkar threatens him; EvilDurkon orders Belkar to jump because of… reasons; “Wheee!”. What does EvilDurkon hope to accomplish here?

Exactly what he did accomplish. He ended the threat instantly, ended the conversation instantly, and reminded Belkar (and the audie3nce) that with his abysmal Will save, he can't seriously threaten Durkon.

Why look for some goal other than the immediate and obvious one shown?

... there is no fathomable narrative reason why Belkar was shown stuck on a giant arrow, instead of showing him delivering his rant floating in the ocean.

Because it's funnier. And ended the scene without having to show the rescue, so the whole jump sequence is merely the easiest and quickest way to end this scene so #958 can start a new one. And it establishes that the harpoons are there for some narrative reason to be seen in the future. And prevented further discussion that Rich might not want to have. Or maybe it's the best segue into the Roy /Belkar confrontation next strip. Or possibly ...

Lots of possible narrative reasons. My personal guess is that Rich's goals for this conversation was the exposition we'd already had, a demonstration of how easily Durkon can stop Belkar, and Belkar committing to revenge. So after the discussion, this was the most straightforward way to complete the narrative sequence.

But that's only a guess. I haven't seen what this will lead to. But whether or not I'm right, and whether or not you agree with any of these several possible narrative reasons, is immaterial. The fact that they were easy to come up with is proof that the statement "there is no fathomable narrative reason ..." is false.

Peelee

2014-07-12, 10:40 AM

there is no fathomable narrative reason

Until the narrative is finished, you can't know that.

Kish

2014-07-12, 10:46 AM

Ironically, this debate is reminding me a lot of the very-long-ago debate over whether it was going to trigger Belkar's Mark of Justice when he killed Vaarsuvius by pushing her/him into an owlbear's mouth.

(You don't remember that killing Vaarsuvius, so much as mildly inconveniencing him? Huh. There sure were a lot of people on the forum between #322 coming out and #323 coming out who thought Belkar had just killed Vaarsuvius.)

orrion

2014-07-12, 11:03 AM

Or perhaps EvilDurkon just wanted to intimidate Belkar; but then, he would have to have said something along the lines of “You better keep quiet, or do you forget what I can do to you? A friendly reminder: JUMP!”. But he doesn’t say anything like that: it’s just not there in the narrative; Belkar reminds EvilDurkon that he is good at killing the undead, and EvilDurkon makes Belkar jump: the context is the context of a death threat, so the immediate and obvious interpretation is that EvilDurkon is trying to kill the person who threatened to kill him, and anything else reads something in the text that isn’t there.

Or he's just disabusing Belkar of the notion that he can kill the HPoH just because he's good at killing undead. "I can kill you anytime I want!" "I have a Vampire ability that stops you in your tracks that you apparently forgot about, so here you go. Sucker."

Or maybe EvilDurkon forgot that Belkar can’t be easily killed by making him jump overboard, despite the insistence of some posters that it should be obvious. But that requires that EvilDurkon also forgot who his spell works: he has to commit two errors (issuing a self-destructive command despite that being impossible, and also not taking into consideration that his command isn’t self-destructive after all for a though guy like Belkar) which somehow cancel each other. Once again, nowhere does the narrative indicate that EvilDurkon commits two errors which silently cancel each other.

What the about the much bigger error that killing Belkar here would probably make the Order highly suspicious of the HPoH? He has every reason not to rock that boat (heh), so it stands to reason that this was merely an annoyed reaction and not an attempt at killing Belkar. Durkon himself hasn't shown any particular animosity toward Belkar, so the HPoH killing him for merely talking would be a major breach, and I'm not sure he could sell "I killed him in self defense."

Furthermore, if jumping into the ocean is such harmless, inconsequential fun as some claim, why isn’t that what happens? What narrative purpose does it serve that Belkar gets stuck on the ballista arrow? Under my reading, Belkar almost gets killed, he narrowly escapes death, but next time, he might not be so lucky, so now we know that the stakes are really high, and I’m on the edge of my seat to learn how the story continues.

Any number of reasons. Maybe Rich thought Belkar hanging from the harpoon is funnier than Belkar in the ocean (and it is). Maybe he didn't feel like drawing an ocean scene. Maybe he'd have felt compelled to show an ocean rescue if Belkar landed there and didn't want to waste space on that. Maybe it has something to do with the HPoH just wanting to disabuse Belkar of any attempts to kill him by showing the halfling how easily he could be stopped. And then there's the 50 other narrative purposes I didn't think of because I'm not writing the story.

Following the alternative reading, Belkar was at no time in any real danger, the behavior of EvilDurkon is completely erratic and doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, and there is no fathomable narrative reason why Belkar was shown stuck on a giant arrow, instead of showing him delivering his rant floating in the ocean. I see some inconsequential antics between some people with no plausible motivation for the way they act, and I don’t care all that much what happens next to them. But hey! At least no DnD rules have been broken.

See above. It's not erratic and just because you don't immediately see a narrative reason doesn't mean there isn't one (or more).

Keltest

2014-07-12, 11:04 AM

Stella

2014-07-12, 11:45 AM

and there is no fathomable narrative reason why Belkar was shown stuck on a giant arrow, instead of showing him delivering his rant floating in the ocean.
That word you used, "fathomable", does not appear to mean what you think it means.

Jay R

2014-07-12, 12:17 PM

That word you used, "fathomable", does not appear to mean what you think it means.

A "fathom" is a unit of measurement used to measure the depth of water. When Belkar got stuck on the giant arrow, that meant we couldn't use his plummeting body to measure the depth of the ocean.

Hence, not fathomable.

Rogar Demonblud

2014-07-12, 01:38 PM

Excellent wordplay to go with your avatar's swordplay, good sir.

Lexible

2014-07-12, 01:44 PM

You cannot make a definitive argument based on D&D rules, because plot trumps rules. Every time. OOTS follows the rules 99% of the time because it is well-written and the Giant is great about sticking within them where he can.

Even in D&D, Rule 0 says plot trumps.

ManicOppressive

2014-07-12, 06:04 PM

Seriously, so many people arguing fine rule details (not just about Order of the Stick) forget that. When the rules and the DM come into conflict, the rules lose. Always.

Darth Paul

2014-07-12, 09:50 PM

That word you used, "fathomable", does not appear to mean what you think it means.

"Fathomable" is the adjective form of the verb "fathom", meaning "to penetrate (a mystery, problem, etc); discover the meaning of".

So, I have to say that it kind of does.

Stella

2014-07-12, 10:58 PM

"Fathomable" is the adjective form of the verb "fathom", meaning "to penetrate (a mystery, problem, etc); discover the meaning of".

So, I have to say that it kind of does.Well, let's break it down, shall we?

and there is no fathomable narrative reason why Belkar was shown stuck on a giant arrow, instead of showing him delivering his rant floating in the ocean.
Translating, there is no narrative reason Marfisa can possibly discover for why Belkar was stuck on the ballista bolt. Which either shows a great lack of imagination, or shows that the word was used incorrectly. I went with the assumption which does not call into question the mental capabilities of Marfisa, but perhaps you hold a different view.

Darth Paul

2014-07-13, 09:23 AM

Well, let's break it down, shall we?

Translating, there is no narrative reason Marfisa can possibly discover for why Belkar was stuck on the ballista bolt. Which either shows a great lack of imagination, or shows that the word was used incorrectly. I went with the assumption which does not call into question the mental capabilities of Marfisa, but perhaps you hold a different view.

Not meaning to insult Marfisa's imagination either, just pointing out that the word was used correctly.

I also could not fathom why Belkar ended up on the ballista, other than Rule Of Funny, which was sufficient for me. I didn't see it as a mystery that needed penetrating. However, just because one of us cannot fathom the reason, does not make it unfathomable. I guess maybe I'm suggesting Marfisa's overthinking the situation.

zimmerwald1915

2014-07-13, 09:30 AM

I also could not fathom why Belkar ended up on the ballista, other than Rule Of Funny, which was sufficient for me.
Indeed. The Order of the Stick is a comedy, and Belkar is a comedic character. I'd call him a comic character but in a sense so is everyone else.

davidbofinger

2014-07-13, 09:33 AM

I would consider the order “fight a monster of which you know that it is invulnerable to all your attacks, has an incredible short temper, and can kill you without breaking a sweat”, if the only conceivable purpose is to get yourself killed, as something a dominated person wouldn’t do, despite the order to fight explicitly mentioned as the one thing that always works.

This is a very specific scenario. On the other hand, we know sending a dominated enemy against a force strong enough the mission is near-suicidal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html) ("they're getting offed almost as soon as I turn them") is OK. Fighting back under those circumstances was surely more dangerous than anything Belkar was asked to do. I'm not sure how that affects your argument but it seems important.

My take: Durkula figured it was worth a try, because Belkar's wisdom was so low the DM might let him get away with more than usual. Belkar probably aimed for the ballista.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-13, 09:58 AM

Not meaning to insult Marfisa's imagination either, just pointing out that the word was used correctly.

I also could not fathom why Belkar ended up on the ballista, other than Rule Of Funny, which was sufficient for me. I didn't see it as a mystery that needed penetrating. However, just because one of us cannot fathom the reason, does not make it unfathomable. I guess maybe I'm suggesting Marfisa's overthinking the situation.

That seems to be a reasonable suggestion. I think most people are of the opinion that he ended up there due to Rule of Funny. I think it looks far funnier for him to be suspended by his cloak than splashing around in the ocean.

warrl

2014-07-13, 10:02 AM

This is a very specific scenario. On the other hand, we know sending a dominated enemy against a force strong enough the mission is near-suicidal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0917.html) ("they're getting offed almost as soon as I turn them") is OK. Fighting back under those circumstances was surely more dangerous than anything Belkar was asked to do. I'm not sure how that affects your argument but it seems important.

I'd say that for those mooks, being in the front ranks attacking Roy was near-suicidal. So being Dominated and ordered to defend Roy did not significantly increase their risk.

Jay R

2014-07-13, 03:42 PM

I'd say that for those mooks, being in the front ranks attacking Roy was near-suicidal. So being Dominated and ordered to defend Roy did not significantly increase their risk.

The rule isn't that they will do anything unless it increases their risk. The goal is they will do anything not "obviously self-destructive." Presumably, you can't command somebody currently sinking in quicksand to cut their own throat, even though tit doesn't change their risk level one iota.

DaggerPen

2014-07-13, 05:52 PM

Not meaning to insult Marfisa's imagination either, just pointing out that the word was used correctly.

I also could not fathom why Belkar ended up on the ballista, other than Rule Of Funny, which was sufficient for me. I didn't see it as a mystery that needed penetrating. However, just because one of us cannot fathom the reason, does not make it unfathomable. I guess maybe I'm suggesting Marfisa's overthinking the situation.

If we need a reason beyond Rule of Funny - Belkar could survive the fall, sure, but unless there's a "falls over water do no damage" rule I'm unfamiliar with, he'd still take damage. Showing him requisitioning potions because Durkula isn't healing him might throw a complication that Rich would rather not deal with into the follow-up scene.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-13, 05:58 PM

If we need a reason beyond Rule of Funny - Belkar could survive the fall, sure, but unless there's a "falls over water do no damage" rule I'm unfamiliar with, he'd still take damage. Showing him requisitioning potions because Durkula isn't healing him might throw a complication that Rich would rather not deal with into the follow-up scene.

There is a way he could take no damage, actually, be the DC would be pretty high.

Falling into Water
Falls into water are handled somewhat differently. If the water is at least 10 feet deep, the first 20 feet of falling do no damage. The next 20 feet do nonlethal damage (1d3 per 10-foot increment). Beyond that, falling damage is lethal damage (1d6 per additional 10-foot increment).

Characters who deliberately dive into water take no damage on a successful DC 15 Swim check or DC 15 Tumble check, so long as the water is at least 10 feet deep for every 30 feet fallen. However, the DC of the check increases by 5 for every 50 feet of the dive.

Darth Paul

2014-07-14, 08:05 AM

Keltest

2014-07-14, 08:11 AM

One thing I'm not sure anyone's mentioned; does the target of the Dominate power have to understand that the action being commanded is "obviously self-destructive" in order to nullify the command?

In which case, Belkar (whose mental acuity is akin to that of a table, and who sees himself as a sexy shoeless god of war) likely never considered the possibility of a leap into the ocean being harmful in the first place. His combination of having INT and WIS as dump stats added to his belief in his own indestructibility actually made it easier for the HPoH to give him an order that (as has been repeatedly pointed out) should have caused him to break the Domination, or at least not follow the order, under the rules as written.

This is the kind of thing that comes up in our D&D compaigns from time to time as well, when a player will argue against doing something under a "Charm Person" spell, only to be reminded that their character did the same thing voluntarily 50 times last week. In which case the DM wins the debate.

A charm works differently than Dominate. It cant make an obviously bad idea sound like a good idea, but it can make them do something theyre on the fence about. It literally just makes the orders seem like theyre coming from a trusted and well-liked advisor. Dominate doesn't take their natural inclinations into account. You couldn't order a suicidal person to actually do the deed any more than you could someone who is happy with their life, but you can order a lawful good fighter like Roy do go burn down orphanages as long as doing so doesn't have a high likelihood of getting them killed or maimed.

Coat

2014-07-14, 11:12 AM

Self-destructive is also a matter of personal perspective.

I just want to point out:

Wheeee!
Jumping off ships looks awesome and is totally cool
Ship = Roy = Total drag on getting the murders on
Ocean = lots of fun things to stick knives in
Ocean += swim to shore + unfettered killing
Ocean += fish. Tasty for cooking, refreshingly free of offensive B.O.

I would rule that any act that starts with the phrase "Wheee!" does not count as self-destructive.

Admittedly, jumping off a ship potentially carries a risk of drowning and death, but since when has the Belkster cared about that? He's too awesome to die, and Death knows it.

So yeah, sure, I see nothing odd about Dominating Belkar to jump off the ship. What I don't understand is how you can persuade him to jump without taking Mr Scruffy and Bloodfeast the Extreminator with him.

warrl

2014-07-14, 11:52 AM

So yeah, sure, I see nothing odd about Dominating Belkar to jump off the ship. What I don't understand is how you can persuade him to jump without taking Mr Scruffy and Bloodfeast the Extreminator with him.

Jumping into water while holding a cat is obviously self-destructive. :smallsmile:

Darth Paul

2014-07-14, 01:06 PM

Jumping into water while holding a cat is obviously self-destructive. :smallsmile:

This is one of the best arguments I have seen to date. Well played, warrl. Well played.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-14, 03:04 PM

Jumping into water while holding a cat is obviously self-destructive. :smallsmile:

A very good point. Well said.

Jay R

2014-07-14, 09:56 PM

Jumping into water while holding a cat is obviously self-destructive. :smallsmile:

OK, close the board.

The discussion is over; warrl has won.

Stella

2014-07-15, 02:07 AM

His [Belkars] combination of having INT and WIS as dump stats added to his belief in his own indestructibility actually made it easier for the HPoH to give him an order that (as has been repeatedly pointed out) should have caused him to break the Domination, or at least not follow the order, under the rules as written.Despite being repeatedly pointed out, that does not make those assertions accurate. They are not accurate, for reasons which have been repeatedly pointed out, under the Rules As Written.

You couldn't order a [Dominated] suicidal person to actually do the deed any more than you could someone who is happy with their life, but you can order a lawful good fighter like Roy do go burn down orphanages as long as doing so doesn't have a high likelihood of getting them killed or maimed.You can give this order, and the "self-destructive" clause doesn't allow them to ignore it. But since the order is clearly against their nature (that whole "I'm Lawful Good, I don't burn down orphanages thing) they will get another immediate saving throw with a +2 bonus.

Keltest

2014-07-15, 07:05 AM

Despite being repeatedly pointed out, that does not make those assertions accurate. They are not accurate, for reasons which have been repeatedly pointed out, under the Rules As Written.

You can give this order, and the "self-destructive" clause doesn't allow them to ignore it. But since the order is clearly against their nature (that whole "I'm Lawful Good, I don't burn down orphanages thing) they will get another immediate saving throw with a +2 bonus.

Is it +2 or charisma based? I thought I saw something about a charisma based save somewhere.

Edit: Oh, no wait, that's Charm Person.

Burner28

2014-07-15, 08:22 AM

*Thread hops*

So what's been going on in this thread?

Faramir

2014-07-15, 12:21 PM

A "fathom" is a unit of measurement used to measure the depth of water. When Belkar got stuck on the giant arrow, that meant we couldn't use his plummeting body to measure the depth of the ocean.

Hence, not fathomable.

This almost makes the entire preceding discussion worthwhile. Thank you.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-15, 01:52 PM

*Thread hops*

So what's been going on in this thread?

We're arguing about the dominate ability as used in the strip! We're also making clever jokes!

Burner28

2014-07-15, 02:46 PM

We're arguing about the dominate ability as used in the strip! We're also making clever jokes!

Ah, I see.

Darth Paul

2014-07-15, 09:06 PM

"Clever" is a subjective term, of course. There have been highs and lows.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-15, 09:08 PM

"Clever" is a subjective term, of course. There have been highs and lows.

Well, obviously not all of us are making clever jokes. There have been a couple excellent ones, though.

Darth Paul

2014-07-15, 09:16 PM

I included you in there on the "clever" side, Jaxzan, just so you know. There have been too many to catalogue completely.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-15, 09:20 PM

I included you in there on the "clever" side, Jaxzan, just so you know. There have been too many to catalogue completely.

That's very kind of you. I haven't been joking around much in this thread. In other threads...

...

2014-07-15, 10:42 PM

With average HP and max falling damage, a 15th level ranger would survive. The Belkster has levels in barbarian, so he's fine.

DaggerPen

2014-07-16, 12:36 AM

With average HP and max falling damage, a 15th level ranger would survive. The Belkster has levels in barbarian, so he's fine.

I'd just like to take a moment to congratulate you on your username.

Peelee

2014-07-16, 01:05 AM

I'd just like to take a moment to congratulate you on your username.

Seconded..

TheMiningDwarf

2014-07-16, 11:18 PM

Seconded..

Agreed.

Now on to the comic.. I feel like dominate person was more being used to it's greatest effective than breaking the rules. Also it was funny :smallbiggrin:

I also think this was more of a reminder of just how little of a chance Belkar actually has against Durkula one on one as if not even being able to hit him once was bad enough now he can't even get near him without losing the fight.

More than anything I hope the Order will actually do something about this more than just "No fighting with teammates" Because I can see it going like that right up until Durkula kills Belkar in front of them.

Have I mentioned I hate this storyline? Just the willful ignorance on the part of the Order to allow this monster to come along with them at all without having someone watching him or some kind of precautions in place.

Domino Quartz

2014-07-17, 02:31 AM

Have I mentioned I hate this storyline? Just the willful ignorance on the part of the Order to allow this monster to come along with them at all without having someone watching him or some kind of precautions in place.

There's no willful ignorance - the only person who suspects anything (and just had his suspicions confirmed) is Belkar. The rest of them think he's still their old pal Durkon, only Evil. They don't know how vampirism works in their world.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-17, 05:49 AM

Have I mentioned I hate this storyline? Just the willful ignorance on the part of the Order to allow this monster to come along with them at all without having someone watching him or some kind of precautions in place.

I don't get where you see willful ignorance. Until recently, the High Priest of Hel hasn't done anything suspicious that the Order (except for Belkar) could see. They think that he is Evil, but willing to help the party. And, there is even a chance that some of the smarter members suspect something is up, but realize the need to keep him undead, for now.

Rogar Demonblud

2014-07-17, 10:23 AM

Yeah, it's more of a calculated risk.

Darth Paul

2014-07-17, 11:46 AM

Yeah, it's more of a calculated risk.

Given that "Evil, but willing to help the party" is Belkar's character description as well, that would argue they have been treating him with "willful ignorance" all along, right? :smalltongue: (Not that I'm agreeing with this, just pointing it out.)

RedneckTex95

2014-07-17, 01:13 PM

And, there is even a chance that some of the smarter members suspect something is up, but realize the need to keep him undead, for now.

Smarter members as in:

Book smarts (V)

Street smarts (Haley)

Or Common Sense smarts (Roy)

Haha, the Order has it's faults. Remember, Nale tricked everyone into thinking he was Elan.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-17, 01:16 PM

Haha, the Order has it's faults. Remember, Nale tricked everyone into thinking he was Elan.

Everyone except Belkar. DUN DUN DUNNNNN!!!!!

RedneckTex95

2014-07-17, 01:18 PM

Everyone except Belkar. DUN DUN DUNNNNN!!!!!

You're right!

Does that make Belkar the smartest??

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-17, 01:37 PM

I dunno but it makes him the best at spotting Evil people with ulterior motives that are trying to be part of the Order.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-17, 02:42 PM

You're right!

Does that make Belkar the smartest??

If Belkar was smart, he probably wouldn't have revealed the fact that he was aware of Nale's and the High Priest of Hel's true identities. In both cases, things didn't turn out so well for him. His good at recognizing when people are pretending to be something they're not though... wonder why. :smalltongue:

Keltest

2014-07-17, 02:54 PM

If Belkar was smart, he probably wouldn't have revealed the fact that he was aware of Nale's and the High Priest of Hel's true identities. In both cases, things didn't turn out so well for him. His good at recognizing when people are pretending to be something they're not though... wonder why. :smalltongue:

well obviously he cheats on his sense motive checks.

Rogar Demonblud

2014-07-17, 07:26 PM

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-17, 07:46 PM

You have read the latest strip's title, right?

Of course. I know perfectly well why he's good at that, hence the :smalltongue:.

Catticus

2014-07-17, 09:36 PM

If Belkar was smart
Exactly. ...

...

2014-07-17, 10:59 PM

If Belkar was smart, he probably wouldn't have revealed the fact that he was aware of Nale's and the High Priest of Hel's true identities. In both cases, things didn't turn out so well for him. His good at recognizing when people are pretending to be something they're not though... wonder why. :smalltongue:

That would be a high wisdom score to figure out when to stay under the radar, not intelligence. Everyone knows that Belkar has a horrible wisdom score.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-18, 05:37 AM

That would be a high wisdom score to figure out when to stay under the radar, not intelligence. Everyone knows that Belkar has a horrible wisdom score.

Smart can refer to either one.

davidbofinger

2014-07-18, 07:53 AM

If Belkar was smart

... then he could pit his intellect against that of an equally intelligent alternate Elan. While Vaarsuvius observes a vow of silence, Hayley a vow of poverty, Durkon a vow of alcoholic abstinence and Roy his luxuriant head of hair.

Keltest

2014-07-18, 07:55 AM

... then he could pit his intellect against that of an equally intelligent alternate Elan. While Vaarsuvius observes a vow of silence, Hayley a vow of poverty, Durkon a vow of alcoholic abstinence and Roy his luxuriant head of hair.

Is Roy bald? I always assumed he just shaved his head, like how Belkar has the buzzcut thing going on. Now Durkon on the other hand would have a long flowing mane.

Rogar Demonblud

2014-07-18, 10:07 AM

He used to shave his scalp, back at Bash University. Now, he's ripped it all out because of the antics of the Order, especially Elan.

DaggerPen

2014-07-18, 12:41 PM

Keltest

2014-07-18, 12:47 PM

IIRC, there was a line in one of the prequel books to the effect of:

Eugene: Decided to beat genetics to the punch, I see.

So it seems both Durkon and Roy have early male pattern baldness. No wonder they get along so well. :p

Well, I dunno about "early" for Roy, but I don't have any of the prequel books to know the context of that comment, other than it sounds like Roy is shaving his head.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-07-18, 02:45 PM

... then he could pit his intellect against that of an equally intelligent alternate Elan. While Vaarsuvius observes a vow of silence, Hayley a vow of poverty, Durkon a vow of alcoholic abstinence and Roy his luxuriant head of hair.
That would be a funny AU Order of the Stick.

Well, I dunno about "early" for Roy, but I don't have any of the prequel books to know the context of that comment, other than it sounds like Roy is shaving his head.

I believe that context is that Eugene is bald, not of his own choice presumably, and is commenting on Roy's decision to shave his own head rather than wait for himself to go bald.

Keltest

2014-07-18, 02:49 PM

That would be a funny AU Order of the Stick.

I believe that context is that Eugene is bald, not of his own choice presumably, and is commenting on Roy's decision to shave his own head rather than wait for himself to go bald.

yeah, that makes sense.

Ikuryo

2014-07-20, 04:35 AM

I've seen several comments describing ordering someone to hold their hand in a fire or killing themselves as self-destructive actions that a dominated person could ignore under the selfdestruction clause and using that to show that jumping overboard would not be allowed. The act of jumping overboard does not carry any risk of taking damage. The resulting fall is an unrelated matter. If he had ordered him to jump into the ocean or something similar to that it would be a different matter.

The act of jumping over the side of the ship does not cause any direct harm to the person doing so, the consequence of the action has no direct bearing on if the order would be folowed or not. Ordering someone to fight someone/thing else will not kill them, whatever they are attacking might take offense and attack them back which could result in their death but the act of attacking in and of itself will not cause direct harm to the one dominated. The one they attack might also just go defensive and cause them no harm, is all dependant of factors besides the order.

The fact that the Belkster has a ring of jumping +20 and found it fun to clear the railing by several feet just made the scene much more amusing.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-20, 04:17 PM

That is exactly the opposite of my reasoning: in almost all situations, regardless of the surroundings or other context, "jump overboard" is a self-destructive order. Even in a conventional ship where the deck is only a few meters above the water. Extremely extenuating circumstances (like if the subject can fly under their own power, or the ship is not moving and the landing is on a pile of pillows and the subject knows it, or something) are necessary to make it not self-destructive. Even if it's only a minor inconvenience and Belkar aimed for the ballista tip when he jumped, that is all downside and no upside. He'd be doing something risky ("self-destructive") for no apparent reason.

Not trying to convince you I'm right (that is demonstrably futile), but pointing out that similar logic can be used to make the opposite point. (The fact that he says "Wheeeeee!" as he jumps is especially damaging to my case. Maybe the perceived upside is "fun".) There isn't really a Right Answer, it depends on the DM.

PS: The resulting fall is not an unrelated matter. If you want to completely ignore causality, then the logical conclusion is that any order is okay. ("It wasn't pulling the trigger that killed him, it was the bullet", or "It wasn't the hanging that killed her, it was lack of oxygen to her brain.") Of course the probable nearly-immediate consequences of the action should be considered. (I mean what is likely to happen in the future, not what actually happened in the past... unlikely things happen all the time, just because it is possible to get a bad beat doesn't mean you should throw strategy out the window.)

Ikuryo

2014-07-20, 04:55 PM

So you would also have not allowed him to order Belkar to jump backward 10', because he would end up off the ship as if he jumped overboard. Disallowing any action that could result in injury of the one controled kind of limits its usefulness. If you had someone dominated and you ordered them to not move with a boulder rolling toward them could they ignore your order? They are going to end up dead or injured if they followed your order after all.

Your examples also fails to prove your point as they come under the "kill yourself" action, unless they are doing it to someone else of course.

Also, I'm not sure where the (demonstrably futile) line came from, that was only my second post on these forums. Were you the one using the flame example? I had just read 17 pages of comments and remembered that as one of the examples and found it to be a poor analogy.

My previous post was not directed at you, unless you are the only one that has such a narrow stance about if the order was valid or not.

rodneyAnonymous

2014-07-20, 04:56 PM

Woah, woah, exactly. Sheesh.

I meant it is demonstrably futile to convince anyone their interpretation is wrong, and that rule is evidently open to a wide variety of interpretations. Other people have demonstrated to me that it would be futile to try to change your mind. The "futile" was about your mind but the "demonstrably" was not. Your post seems to say "this is right and that is wrong", though, and it is simply not possible to define objective right and objective wrong in this case. It depends on the DM. That's all I'm saying.

And, yeah, I was the one who gave the candle flame example. It was not intended to be an analogy at all, but a literal example of an obviously self-destructive dominate person command. You think it is weak, I think it is strong. The odds of either of us (or anyone else who has an opinion about it) changing their mind are very low.

I do think it's inconsistent to draw a line between attacking an armed enemy ("the order is 'attack'; the probable consequence is not relevant") and eating a gun ("the order is not relevant; the probable consequence is 'kill yourself'"). I say the logical conclusion (and reductio ad absurdum) of the first interpretation is that any order is okay depending how it's phrased, but I am going to spend zero energy trying to convince anyone I'm right. (If you or anyone else cares, I think neither interpretation is correct, and both the order itself and the probable consequences are relevant.)