You know I think Roy isn't much in favor of animal rights...

[Klev]

He just sacrificed four of them in his fall! Without counting the others he used before. :smallfrown:

I wonder if some druid organization will start to go against him :smallsmile:

[Dr._Weird]

Yeah, I was angry at him too when he just threw the animals out there without a thought. Pretty cruel of him. It obviously wasn't going to work, and yet he still killed four small cute animals without a thought.

[Morty]

Yeah, that should push Roy at least one step to Evil alignment.

[BisectedBrioche]

Maybe he'll find out that his spirit ended up in a non LG plane because of it ¬_¬

[Wrecan]

They're not dead.
From the SRD on Summoning:
"A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead."

[MReav]

Dang, I was going to say what Wrecan said.

[SaiKar]

They're not dead.
From the SRD on Summoning:
"A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead."

Wow, I didn't know that one. I was about ready to complain bitterly as well about Roy's sacrifice of cute little critters.

[Swashbuckler]

Animals have only one right. The right to be killed an eaten by humans. Or Undead. There's that, too. Okay, two rights, then. :smallamused: Roy's alignment doesn't take a hit either way. Hehehehe.

(yes, I'm being the smarmy devil's advocate here.)

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

No, remember the bag of tricks animal and Miko? The one who wanted to be her familiar/animal companion?

Well, at least Roy hasn't been committing Jack Sparrow levels of animal cruelty.

[Kaerou]

I find it hilarious you guys care more for the lives of some rodents over the life of a man who was desperately trying to save his own life. :P

[Kaolix]

Creatures that small won't necessarily die from a fall anyhow. For a lot of small critters, even 'terminal velocity' isn't necessarily terminal (Perhaps I should say fatal there for clarity :P) , smaller mass = smaller force upon impact. Am not sure quite what the largest creature that can survive a fall from any height is, but then again, that wasn't even necessarily a large enough drop for them to have reached terminal velocity :)

Whether looking at it from a D&D perspective or a laws-of-physics perspective, those animals should be ok.

[Fawkes]

No, remember the bag of tricks animal and Miko? The one who wanted to be her familiar/animal companion?

Well, at least Roy hasn't been committing Jack Sparrow levels of animal cruelty.

That one didn't die, it was swallowed whole.

[Dr._Weird]

I find it hilarious you guys care more for the lives of some rodents over the life of a man who was desperately trying to save his own life. :P

I hate Roy. :smalltongue:

[Pink]

That one didn't die, it was swallowed whole.

How much damage does digestive acids do per round?

[Justin_Bacon]

How much damage does digestive acids do per round?

Irrelevant. Miko wasn't talking to a corpse, she was talking to a living animal. Thus he clearly did not die.

[Demented]

Trolls don't have swallow whole, so they don't have digestive acid. When they consume food, it disappears and they gain benefits, just like everything else in games. Living creatures, however, don't get automatically consumed.

Which just goes to show, if you live in DnD, kill your food before you eat it! Or eat it piece by piece....

[MReav]

How much damage does digestive acids do per round?

Vomit on your hand and see how long it takes it to dissolve.

That's how much damage it does per round.

Now, the saves vs nausea, that's another story.

[Wrecan]

Wow, I didn't know that one.
It would make being a druid nearly intolerable, given that one of their abilities is to spontaneously convert any spell into a Summon Nature's Ally spell. Pretty much the whole point of the spell is to summon a wolf or a monkey to die fighting a bigger opponent.

[EvilElitest]

I hate Roy. :smalltongue:

Life must be hard
from,
EE

[the_tick_rules]

well those things are magically spawned from a bag at random, so until they're pulled they don't exist. plus hey if your facing a lethal fall you saying you wouldn't try finding an owl in there.

[menkent]

...plus hey if your facing a lethal fall you saying you wouldn't try finding an owl in there.


or at least something nice and pillowy to land on... like a large jellyfish.
speaking of jellyfish, i figured he would've landed on one of those jellyfish things that kept getting squished back in xykon's dungeon.

[jindra34]

or at least something nice and pillowy to land on... like a large jellyfish.
speaking of jellyfish, i figured he would've landed on one of those jellyfish things that kept getting squished back in xykon's dungeon.

They are called FLumphs...

[Varachan]

In the campaign I DM'd, we joked about a bar on the Celestial Planes holding all the critters that get summoned. They poof out for a few rounds and come back with stories ...

CELESTIAL BADGER: "You won't *believe* what that wizard had me do just now..."

TEN OTHER CELESTIAL BADGERS AND A LANTERN ARCHON: "Oh, dear. Do tell."

[Assassinfox]

In the campaign I DM'd, we joked about a bar on the Celestial Planes holding all the critters that get summoned. They poof out for a few rounds and come back with stories ...

CELESTIAL BADGER: "You won't *believe* what that wizard had me do just now..."

TEN OTHER CELESTIAL BADGERS AND A LANTERN ARCHON: "Oh, dear. Do tell."

The giant did a comic about this sorta thing in Dragon magazine. Hopefully, he'll release it for people who don't read the magazine...

[Ralfarius]

Vomit on your hand and see how long it takes it to dissolve.

That's how much damage it does per round.

Now, the saves vs nausea, that's another story.
That experiment sounds too hilarious to not perform!

...

It's not going very fast.

[Threeshades]

They are called FLumphs...

yeah, and it's Dorukan's Dungeon, not Xykon's.

[Pyrian]

Pretty much the whole point of the spell is to summon a wolf or a monkey to die fighting a bigger opponent.

At, say, 9th level you summon a pack of dire wolves, cast animal growth on them, and they'll eat just about anything you could reasonably be fighting at that level which can't cast dispel magic or protection from good/law/chaos/evil. I had one casting defeat a whole herd(!?) of gorgons.

[Threeshades]

At, say, 9th level you summon a pack of dire wolves, cast animal growth on them, and they'll eat just about anything you could reasonably be fighting at that level which can't cast dispel magic or protection from good/law/chaos/evil. I had one casting defeat a whole herd(!?) of gorgons.

My next character is so going to be a druid!

But at early levels it really is nothing but animal cruelty. So I vote yes for it. Just to piss off Peta.

[Bunch of Grapes]

I hate Roy. :smalltongue:

Obviously.

[squidly_bard]

i to am in favor for stopping the death of animals BUT it's the bags fault for not providing a giant bird of some sort! (owls Ect.) (carrying salted nuts of course) so it's not roy's fualt! that bag is to blame! and the bag is a cloning device! it put's animals in and uses infinet space to hold them! com'n Roy! just stick a rino a bird a tiger and a dragon in there! (they turn good so why not stuff zykon's face in there?)

[Demented]

Imagine if a flying animal DID come out of there... and all it did was carry away the other animals to safety!

[Fawkes]

That's adding insult to injury, that is.

[Izodor]

Yeah, that should push Roy at least one step to Evil alignment.

I think he should fall <no pun intended> and lose his fighter-abilities.

[Fawkes]

I think that you should fall and lose your...um... fan club-abilities.

[tanonev]

That experiment sounds too hilarious to not perform!

...

It's not going very fast.

Last year I had a dormmate who threw up on herself after having too much to drink. She went to bed with vomit on her forehead. The morning after she woke up and wiped the vomit off. That wasn't the only thing that came off, though :smalleek:

But if a round is 6 seconds and acid damage is 1 or more per round, she must have been Epic level...

(The real explanation, of course, is that acid "eats through" stuff by reacting with it, so if you start with a small amount of vomit, all of the acid will be used up far faster than if you're considering acid still inside the stomach, which can be replenished.)

[Closet_Skeleton]

Think about all the animals people eat to stop them from dying. I don't think killing 4 animals to stop yourself from dying is that differant.

[Kreistor]

Human life >>>>> animal life

Even if Roy did wind up with some dead animals trying to find a way to survive his fall, that comes under the heading of "intelligent life is far more important that non-intelligent life". It wouldn't affect his alignment in the slightest. (Especially since the "Good" section demands respect for sentient life, not all life.)

[Pink]

the problem with that is that the animals have been shown as sentient.

[Wrecan]

Only the weasel, and he didn't come out of the bag. (Even more evidence of his sentience.) All the other animals act like summoned animals.

[Pink]

I recall the animals gathering to have tea and the beaver speaking.

[Duffren]

The animals arent dead. Rules aside, youve all forgotten one of the many rules of Plot.

Off screen implied death /= death. They will return with a vengence!

[Setra]

Wait.. so Roy can kill hundreds of Sentient Goblins...

But killing animals is evil?

[jindra34]

Wait.. so Roy can kill hundreds of Sentient Goblins...

But killing animals is evil?

Exactly. just like killing an octagenarain is fine but killing two people who are threating you with death is not...

[Wrecan]

I recall the animals gathering to have tea and the beaver speaking.
Elan stuck the animals at the table with his Banjo puppet and lute. But you're right. The beaver does speak. Maybe the waiter was a druid or ranger!

[Legendary]

This just proves how willing people are to attack Roy for everything he does.

I believe that any "evil" from the deaths of the animals is negated by the fact that he came to terms with Elan. I mean, come on, that's GOTTA prove he's LG. In the end, all he did was hope for Elan's happiness.

[Tharr]

The sad thing is they might need the shovel to scrap up Roys body now.

[Koga]

When your falling and about to die. The first thing on your mind is not "ohnoes if I use this summoning tool I might needlesly kill a bunchof innocent animals!"

Not that The Koga ever thought Roy was lawful good. He's more of a grouchy neutral good.

[Tharr]

The song random on was "Free now Falling" by Tom Petty on random.

[Tharr]

The song was "Free now Falling" by Tom Petty on random.

[Craptactular]

You know, I had to read this topic, just because initially I couldn't except that it was serious. If you were falling in the same circumstance, are you telling me you wouldn't go for the slim hope of a large flying animal appearing from the bag? And don't answer "I would use the booty talisman". You've actually had time to think it through, whereas if you were suddenly falling to your death...

[KurenaiYami]

Just to piss off Peta.

People who Eat and Torture Animals?

[Closet_Skeleton]

the problem with that is that the animals have been shown as sentient.

No, we know that Miko heard the weasel saying things. Miko has already been proven to have paranoid delusions.

[Wrecan]

No, we know that Miko heard the weasel saying things. Miko has already been proven to have paranoid delusions.
Now that's funny!!

[Roderick_BR]

It would be hilarious if Roy got another hippopotamus... XD

[Dr._Weird]

Think about all the animals people eat to stop them from dying. I don't think killing 4 animals to stop yourself from dying is that differant.

But we need them to survive and they are so tasty.

[Pink]

No, we know that Miko heard the weasel saying things. Miko has already been proven to have paranoid delusions.

I am referring more to the talking beaver and tea party (which set up or not they still seemed to be intelligently enjoying it.)

[Mad Scientist]

Creatures that small won't necessarily die from a fall anyhow. For a lot of small critters, even 'terminal velocity' isn't necessarily terminal (Perhaps I should say fatal there for clarity :P) , smaller mass = smaller force upon impact. Am not sure quite what the largest creature that can survive a fall from any height is, but then again, that wasn't even necessarily a large enough drop for them to have reached terminal velocity :)

Whether looking at it from a D&D perspective or a laws-of-physics perspective, those animals should be ok.

As far as I know, as long as the rat doesn't do a nose dive it's terminal velocity will be too low for a lethal impact. So, the rat should be just fine. I'm not sure about the other critters though.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I am referring more to the talking beaver and tea party (which set up or not they still seemed to be intelligently enjoying it.)

Yes and I am referring to the fact that I was making a joke.

Not that I've never done what I'm telling you off for doing :smalltongue:.

[Pink]

...I blame the internet for not being able to properly relay sarcasm and humorous tone of typing.

[Devils_Advocate]

It obviously wasn't going to work
How was that obvious? As Roy pointed out, the bag produced a friggin' rhinoceros once. The thing quite conceivably could have come up with a giant eagle with enough tries.


Animals have only one right. The right to be killed an eaten by humans. Or Undead. There's that, too. Okay, two rights, then. :smallamused:
Y'know, under some definitions of the word, humans are animals too. Better look out for zombies. They might be interested in protecting your rights. :smallamused:


(yes, I'm being the smarmy devil's advocate here.)
Hey, leave that to me. :smalltongue:


I find it hilarious you guys care more for the lives of some rodents over than the life of a man who was desperately trying to save his own life. :P
Why is that hilarious?

... For that matter, who said that they care more about the Bag of Tricks' animals than they do about Roy?


Human life >>>>> animal life
What do you mean?


intelligent life is far more important that non-intelligent life
"Important" in what sense?

Also, how dumb does someone have to be before it's OK to off him? Or is it more of a sliding scale, so that Marilyn Vos Savant's life is worth more than yours, but yours is worth more than an infant's, which in turn is worth more than an ant's? If so, how does one decide how much more? How many middle managers would it be acceptable to sacrifice to save Bill Gates, assuming that the sacrifice were somehow necessary? As a f'rinstance.


the "Good" section demands respect for sentient life, not all life.

the problem with that is that the animals have been shown as sentient.
Really, I think we can pretty safely assume that a random rat, beaver, cat, or badger is sentient. Such animals exhibit behaviors that demonstrate awareness of their environments. Plus they have, y'know, eyes and ears and brains and whatnot. Those organs pretty much only exist to provide an animal with awareness.

I suppose I could go into a lengthy discussion here about the obvious differences between an awake mouse and a sleeping mouse, and between a blind mouse and a seeing mouse, and how if you're going to justify mistreating other beings by saying that they're really just automatons, then you might as well apply that to everyone but you, including other humans, and be done with it... but I think I'll just say "Sentience is a prerequisite for sapience, not vice versa" and leave it at that.


Wait.. so Roy can kill hundreds of Sentient Goblins...

But killing animals is evil?
Destroying innocent beings is Evil, yes. With the Standard Alignment Discussion Diclaimer that It Depends On the Circumstances. Of course, "innocent" is as relative a term as "intelligent", really. So maybe Belkar's life is worth more than Nale's, but Hinjo's is in turn worth a lot more than Belkar's. Hmm, that makes pretty good sense.

(Important alignment issue crying out for DM clarification alert!: Are the lives of Evil beings intrinsically worth less than the lives of innocent beings, or is it acceptable to kill Evil beings purely because doing so tends to protect others (since Evil beings tend to harm others)? If you're in a position where you can lock a murderous sociopath away so that he can never harm anyone again, is killing him then as Evil as cutting down a random peasant?)

In any case, I would note that slitting the Linear Guild's throats wouldn't have been any more Evil than coup de gracing a bunch of sleeping goblins. ("You should save him becaue he's your brother", incidentally, is a Lawful argument, even if one made for a Good conclusion.)


Think about all the animals people eat to stop them from dying.
I should hardly think that eating animals would stop them from dying. :smallamused: More seriously, though, the issue of slaughtering other beings for sustenance is more clear-cut in the cases where doing so isn't necessary for one's survival because other sources of food are readily available. As is often the case.

"Dogbert, I fail to see why you, or anyone else, would become a vegetarian."
"You mean, why don't take a piece of dead cow, heat it until it becomes carcinogenic, and then eat it instead of something nutritious? Is that your question?"
"Exactly. I mean, is there any really good reason? Have you joined a cult?"


I think he should fall <no pun intended> and lose his fighter-abilities.
Well, I do suppose he did. I don't imagine that Roy can make use of any of his Fighter abilities at this point.

[Finn Solomon]

If I'm going to die and the only conceivable way of saving myself would be to kill a bunch of animals, just hand me that shotgun. Anyone who says otherwise really is havin' a laugh.

[Rason]

Survival of the fittest

[Fawkes]

But the argument is moot, because the summoned animals don't die. STOP THE MADNESS!

[JackShandy]

As far as I know, as long as the rat doesn't do a nose dive it's terminal velocity will be too low for a lethal impact. So, the rat should be just fine. I'm not sure about the other critters though.

According to J.B.S. Haldane's classic essay on scaling (On Being the Right Size (http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html)), a 1000 ft. drop will kill a rat but a mouse would survive. He doesn't actually do the math, though.

However, I don't believe there's anything in the D&D rules about differing max fall damage based on creature size, so I think they are all getting reduced past zero HP.

[Klev]

Wow and when I made this topic I was just making a joke...guess I have to put sacarsm in the title or something...

Altrough it would be to funny see a organization of druids a la PETA against Roy.

[Kreistor]

the problem with that is that the animals have been shown as sentient.

All normal animals have an Int score of 2, and the Bag of Tricks summons normal animals (not Celestial or Fiendish). In DnD, a creature with an Int score of 2 is not sentient. I think you're confusing Rich's sense of humour with game rules here.

[Kreistor]

Human life >>>>> animal life


What do you mean?

According to your mathematics schooling, you should know that the '>' is the 'greater than' sign. '>>>' in math means, then, 'much greater than'. I used five because I felt like it.


intelligent life is far more important that non-intelligent life


"Important" in what sense?

Pick one. Pretty much all of them, within reason. Importance to the future of biologgical life in this universe... importance to the needs of others, importance to the future of the world... importance to other individuals...


Also, how dumb does someone have to be before it's OK to off him? Or is it more of a sliding scale, so that Marilyn Vos Savant's life is worth more than yours, but yours is worth more than an infant's, which in turn is worth more than an ant's? If so, how does one decide how much more? How many middle managers would it be acceptable to sacrifice to save Bill Gates, assuming that the sacrifice were somehow necessary? As a f'rinstance.

Must... resist... straight... lines...


Also, how dumb does someone have to be before it's OK to off him?

I suggest you reread my post. I did not say it was okay to kill without reason. I said it was okay to try to save your life even if it cost non-sentient life in a failed attempt. That is not carte blanche to kill on whim.


Or is it more of a sliding scale, so that Marilyn Vos Savant's life is worth more than yours, but yours is worth more than an infant's, which in turn is worth more than an ant's?

It's a 3 dimensional scale. On one axis is "rhetoric", the second "extending my statements beyond their meaning", and on the third is "reasonableness".


If so, how does one decide how much more?

Unfortunately, there have been times when people have had to select who and what lives and who dies. Such occurs most often in situations of famine and disaster. It has never been an easy question to answer, and there has never been a consistent manner of dealing with the problem. Frankly, it's not something I'm going to answer, but I pray that none of us ever have to face that situation.


How many middle managers would it be acceptable to sacrifice to save Bill Gates, assuming that the sacrifice were somehow necessary?

I decline to answer on the basis that it may encroach on the limits of the real world politics and religion prohibitions on this forum.

[Pink]

All normal animals have an Int score of 2, and the Bag of Tricks summons normal animals (not Celestial or Fiendish). In DnD, a creature with an Int score of 2 is not sentient. I think you're confusing Rich's sense of humour with game rules here.

Not even mentioning the randomness and range of animals summoned from the bag, the bag description never says the animals cannot be intelligent if it's a dm ruled in bag, and considering not only the range but how it breaks other rules (such as the one animal exsisting at a time.), this bag is most definately DM ruled in. It is entirely possible that this bag's animals are sentient.

[Legendary]

How many middle managers would it be acceptable to sacrifice to save Bill Gates, assuming that the sacrifice were somehow necessary?
Do you not understand the definition of MIDDLE MANAGER?

[menkent]

or at least something nice and pillowy to land on... like a large jellyfish.
speaking of jellyfish, i figured he would've landed on one of those jellyfish things that kept getting squished back in xykon's dungeon.

hah! i might not have remembered what they were called, but i was right!
:smallcool:

[Kreistor]

Not even mentioning the randomness and range of animals summoned from the bag, the bag description never says the animals cannot be intelligent if it's a dm ruled in bag, and considering not only the range but how it breaks other rules (such as the one animal exsisting at a time.), this bag is most definately DM ruled in. It is entirely possible that this bag's animals are sentient.

Animals, by definition, are not sentient. If the creatures coming from the bag are senitent, then by DnD definitions, they would be magical beasts or aberrations. That would mean that my statement did not refer to these particular beasts. I said that sacrificing animals in order to try to save himself was okay.

If, in another realm, these creatures are intelligent, but when summoned they cannot reveal their intelligence and act like animals, then Roy cannot be held responsible for the death of sentients, since what he cannot know he cannot react to. We see the animals drinking tea, but Roy does not. A rose is a rose, until someone proves it is a tulip. Treating a tulip that looks and smells like a rose as if it were a rose is the only reasonable choice.

[Pink]

I don't think it's fair to say that they aren't sentient just because "when summoned they cannot reveal their intelligence and act like animals" I mean, after all, just take from example V's experience as a lizard and the party's reaction to her/him/it. They're animals, of course they can't exactly relay sentience to us unless some spell or special ability is probably involved. In fact, eith such spells like speak with animals, it could almost be deemed that all DnD critters are sentient in thier own way. :P

[Albion]

It would be hilarious if Roy got another hippopotamus... XD

It was a rhino though!

That's all the input I'm willing to give to this thread. :smallsigh:

[Moechi_Vill]

With this thread going on it is no wonder I got hauled over by the Giant sometime ago for not splitting hairs on a demographic survey I commented on... would any of you not do the same?

[Tobrian]

Yeah, that should push Roy at least one step to Evil alignment.

Oh please. Others have probably said it before but

a) these are summoned creatures from a bag of tricks. By the rules, they disappear back into the bag after a while anyway, and if they're killed they just disappear. It's not even certain that they're real (talking) animals. Look at other magic items or spells that "conjure" riding mounts or watch dogs, or magic statuettes that turn into creatures... these creatures seem alive, but they aren't, they're creatures of magic.

b) Do you consider every conjurer EVIL who summons dire animals or even *gasp!* sentient beings from other planes to fight for him? What about druids or rangers who uses poor cute widdle animals to attack a foe? Please.

What's next, a paladin loses his powers when his horse steps on a dire ant?


Wow and when I made this topic I was just making a joke...guess I have to put sacarsm in the title or something...

*groan* Then why did you use a "small frown" emoticon? :smallconfused:
You know... internet = not being able to see the other person, means having to judge their intention purely from their words. :smallannoyed:

[Ultimatum479]

Human life >>>>> animal life
That's the stupidest of the stupid comments in the thread.

And there have been many.

[Psychonaut]

You know, I don't have any particular opinion on the matter at hand, but this is just silly (I would say "ironic" but I'm sure someone would come along to point out some way in which I'm misusing the word, and then we'd have a whole 'nother thread on our hands. :smallamused:):


That's the stupidest of the stupid comments in the thread.

And there have been many.

Perhaps. But unless you bother to explain your reasoning, what have you done besides simply adding yet another?

[jindra34]

You know, I don't have any particular opinion on the matter at hand, but this is just silly (I would say "ironic" but I'm sure someone would come along to point out some way in which I'm misusing the word, and then we'd have a whole 'nother thread on our hands. :smallamused:):


Do not worry we already have a thread on that.

[Tmabbbb]

I hate Roy. :smalltongue:

To be completely honest, so do I. :smalltongue: I cheered when I saw the X's in his eyes, but got depressed again when I realized that he could be, and probably would be, ressurected. Ah well, at least I get to enjoy the strips without him. :smallsmile:

[spmyke]

Animals, by definition, are not sentient.

Actually, the definition of sentient is simply having the power of perception via the senses, or a person or thing that is sentient. Therefore, animals, being self-aware, are sentient. Although, one could easily argue that human beings are more sentient than animals.

Edit: comma splice.

[GoC]

Ultimatum479: That's a question of fundamental belief. Some people believe that non-sentient life holds no value while others disagree. There is little point in arguing over that.

[Pyrian]

Actually, the definition of sentient is simply having the power of perception via the senses...

See, this is a great example of where dictionaries are so inclusive as to destroy the actual meaning of a word with a so-called "definition". Remember that they document language, they don't author it.

I'm going to have to opine that any definition of sentience which includes a Roomba (http://store.irobot.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2501652&cp=2174940) is entirely inadequate to convey the meaning of the term. Unfortunately, I don't think we really know what sentience (as the word is normally used) exactly is, which makes it impossible to adequately define.