Rules of the Godsmoot: INs and OUTs [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : Rules of the Godsmoot: INs and OUTs

Dr.Zero

2016-01-20, 03:48 PM

The Godsmoot is at the end, we are still discussing if Roy is or not a BG, if this influences anything and whatever.

So it's time to take a methodical approach for this.

At least if the Godsmoot goes on, we can have a discussion where we do not need to explain again and again the same things and why they are true or false.

Legend:

+ Evidence, proofs
- Counter-arguments
HP=High Priest
HPoX= High Priest of god whose name starts with X
BG= Bodyguard.

General Principles.

What is not forbidden is legit

+: Practically everywhere, this is why Durkula could wipe out the Creed, for example and why Roy could attack Durkula (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html).

Rules which are said to exist/be true

A HP cannot attack a delegate of another church, penalty is death

+: Said by Wrecan before entering the cathedral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0994.html)

A BG cannot attack a HP of another church, penalty is death

+: Said by Wrecan before Roy could attack

A cleric attending can only have 2 BG accompany him or her onto cathedral ground

+: Said by Wrecan on the Mechane (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0993.html)

Only the formal HP of each of the northern Gods may attend

+: Gontor before that Durkula whispered his true status. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0994.html)

No backsies.

+: Hel to Heimdall: "No changing your vote, Heimdall" + Loki to himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1001.html).
Notes: Aside the single sentence we don't know what kind of influence it really has (ie: if a God cannot order to a HP to kill himself to nullify a vote or if only the god cannot change his vote)

If the HP of a god is not present before the vote ends, his vote is nullified.

+: The whole point of the fight Durkula vs Roy.
-: It's only the whole point of the fight from an in-universe perspective.
-: If Roy believed it to be true, it would be reason enough to fight Durkula, rule existing or not.
+: Roy and Wrecan's dialogue here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html) heavily implies this, as Wrecan was in quite a few of these meetings (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0993.html).
-: We don't know if a situation like this happened in any of Wrecan's attendances. He would not need to know the specifics as he is only a BG.
+: #1017 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1017.html) definitely proves this, as Durkula has knowledge of the rules through Hel.
-: Durkula may have acted in #1017 as a way of keeping Roy in the room trying to destroying the nHPoH, instead of chasing him. In the next strip, Roy can dust her, only to be told that the no backsies rule still apply.
+: When Roy started to attack Durkula a HP clearly said that "He's fighting to save us all" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1002.html), meaning she agreed that killing the HPoH would have invalidated his vote.

Proven-Not-Rules: possible inferences which are proven wrong (this is different from the opposite being true!)

Attacks against official HP/BG are forbidden.

+: Roy attacked Durkula without consequences.

BG are allowed/forbidden to attack their own priests.

+: dialogue between Roy and Wrecan
"And there are any rules about what happens if a bodyguard attacks his own priest?"
"No. No, there are not!"
He says that there are no rules about it.

All believers are protected from attacks by other churches.

+: The massacre of the vampires.

Collateral/indirect damage is considered an attack.

+: Durkula to Wrecan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1009.html).
-: The priests in 1018 seem to believe this is true, at least for someone not interfering with your fight.

Not-Proven: possible inferences which have not been proven nor disproved
Notice that here we try to prove that an inference -sometime sounding pretty reasonable- is false (because empiric data can only prove it is false) so a + means "evidence that this is false" and a - "evidence that it is not false". Yeah, I know, double negation is a hell.

Intruders must be executed/cannot be helped.

+: Half of the priests buff the vampires.
-: they were not intruders because their bodies were of the Creed's member, who were already inside (or something on this line).

Who has no role, must be expelled.

+: Church of Hel had more than the allowed 1 HP +2 BG (allowed by 2.3), with the vampires. They were not expelled, but half of the priests buffed them.
-There was no time to expel them, they died (for good) too fast.
-And anyway there did try (and some managed) to get out on their own will, before anyone protested about their intrusion.
-Moreover at least some of the high priests still refers to them as the administrators, who have a role (strip #1018).

A BG can be fired.

+: if he could, Durkula would have done that: he could have attacked Roy, without him being able to retaliate, even more, the other HP would have been obliged to help Durkula in the fight, if Roy retaliated.
-Durkula is just very, very stupid.
-Durkula could have wanted to vamp Roy to have a strong ally and being in fear that help from the other priests could have killed Roy before the vamping process
-Another counter-argument: the point that follows.

The "allowed to attack by silence of the rules" is true only for BGs.

+: the point above+ hypothesis that Durkula is not very, very stupid.
If so, an attack from a follower still counts as "internal church dispute".
The hypothesis in this case is that the only rule existing in the Godsmoot is that "A delegate of a church cannot attack a delegate of another church.", which is a pretty neat single rule which seems to explain all.

A BG cannot get out from the Godsmoot.

+: Ask to Belkar. As pointed out in another thread, it was another room and before the voting began. So for now there is no really evidence about this point.

Violating a rule means that your church is expelled.

+: The church of Hel had more followers than the 1 HP + 2BG allowed, and it was not expelled.
-:We have not been informed about a rule regarding how many followers may be present.
+:We had: 2.4 "Only the formal HP of each of the northern Gods may attend", indeed not even the Creed was there, when the vote did start
-:But Veldrina and Wrecan were there, so it is only a partial rule and we don't know how many other exceptions there are about it.

Violating a rule means death.

+: Church of Hel had more than 1 HP +2 BG (allowed by 2.3), with the vampires. They were not put to death for that, but half of the priests buffed them.
-: the same of the point above: they were not allowed to enter, but once inside and then vamped still inside, no rule was violated.
+: checking better, Wrecan said: "A cleric attending can only have 2 BG accompany him or her onto cathedral ground" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0993.html), so this holds true for the whole zone of the cathedral. Durkula at that point had more than only 2 BG accompanying him.
-:We have not been informed about a rule regarding how many followers may be present.
+:We had: 2.4 "Only the formal HP of each of the northern Gods may attend", indeed not even the Creed was there, when the vote did start
-:But Veldrina and Wrecan were there, so it is only a partial rule and we don't know how many other exceptions there are about it.

Feel free to contribute, if you want. Even with better grammar. :smallbiggrin:

First writing.
Some minor grammar edits.
A rule "proved false" has been marked as deleted.
Some rules have been specified better and with the proper links.
Moved an "almost-not-rule" to "proven not-rule"
Better layout.
Confirmed rules moved to the top.
Added a - more specific in 4.2 (by Pyrous)
Added another - in 4.2 (by Deliverance), modified its layout
Changed the name of the "almost-not-rule" section
Added a - in 4.3 (by Onyavar)
Note added in 2.5 (by Pyrous)
Modified the representation of the beliefs: from "Proof, evidence, counter-argument" to "+= Proof,evidence" and "-=counter-argument, evidence against it"
Moved the edit history in a spoiler (suggested by Pyrous)
Moved some of the not-rules from category 3 to category 4, because there were counter-arguments .
Added a -in 4.6 (by Deliverance)
Added a - in 4.7 (by Deliverance)
Added a + in 4.6 (by Dr.Zero)
Added a + in 4.7 (by Dr.Zero)
Added a - in 4.6 (by Deliverance)
Added a - in 4.7 (by Deliverance)
Added a - in 2.6 (by Pyrous)
Added a - in 2.6 (by Pyrous)
Added a + in 2.6 (by Pyrous)
Added a - in 2.6 (by Pyrous)
Added a + in 2.6 (by Pyrous)
Added a - in 2.6 (by Pyrous)
Added a + in 2.6 (by Dr.Zero)
Edited a + in 2.6 (by Dr.Zero)
Added a - in 3.4 (by Lvl 2 Expert)

Pyrous

2016-01-20, 09:48 PM

Nice thread.

Here's a contribution:

4.2 Counter-argument: there was no need to expel them, they were trying to reach the vampire with the teleport orb so they could get out.

Dr.Zero

2016-01-21, 05:44 AM

Nice thread.

Here's a contribution:

4.2 Counter-argument: there was no need to expel them, they were trying to reach the vampire with the teleport orb so they could get out.

Thanks, added. :)

Draconi Redfir

2016-01-21, 05:48 AM

Dr.Zero

2016-01-21, 06:18 AM

quick question: Why do you reffer to "Bodyguard" as "BD"? Wouldn't "BG" make more sense?

i'm asking because i've seen it pop up as "BD" sevral times now, enough to realize that it's likely not a simple typo.

Because I started with it (I cannot remember if I was the one starting the trend using it or I did just see someone else doing so and copied it without wondering about the reason) and then didn't think too much. :smallbiggrin:

In my case it is a bit like that experiment where they show you a text with random letters within every single word, to prove that people recognize a word only by the starting and ending letters, instead of really reading every single letter. :smallbiggrin:

I'm going to correct it, at least if someone doesn't point out a reason to use BD, because BG seems to make more sense, indeed. :)

Deliverance

2016-01-21, 07:25 AM

Violating a rule means that your church is expelled.

Proof: The church of Hel had more followers than the 1 HP + 2BG allowed, and it was not expelled.

Counter-argument; The church of Hel is not in technically in violation and the devil is in the details: We have not been informed about a rule regarding how many followers may be present.

The high priest, who was allowed entry due to his position, was accompanied by two bodyguards, who were allowed entry in accordance with the rules. There are no rules regarding the religion of the bodyguards that we know of (see e.g. Wrecan being sent by the church of Marduk to protect Veldrina, favoured soul of a really minor elven goddes). On the cathedral grounds, members of the administrators, who are allowed entry due to their position, were vamped and became worshippers of Hel.

If there were a rule about how many followers of a god might be present, it would mean that the religion of the bodyguards was important. I find it hard to imagine that Wrecan, that sacred knight of the plot exposition, would in that case have failed to inquire of Roy's and Belkar's religion if one of them worshipping one of the northern gods would put that god's church in violation of the rules (assuming the church's high priest had brought two bodyguards of his own).

Thus Hel's previous high priest has neither brought more than two bodyguards with him (and the same goes for the Frontarch), nor has Hel sent anybody else to join the conclave in violation of the rules. Everybody present at the conclave have the right to be there.

Also note that NO high priest has until now stated that Hel is in violation of any of the rules. So far, they have treated all that has happened as being legal. That Hel is in violation is a theory that, for now, exists only in the forum.

Violating a rule means death.

Evidence: Church of Hel had more than 1 HP +2 BG (allowed by 2.3), with the vampires. They were not put to death for that, but half of the priests buffed them.
Counter-argument: the same of the point above: they were not allowed to enter, but once inside and then vamped still inside, no rule was violated.
Definitive Proof: checking better, Wrecan said: "A cleric attending can only have 2 BG accompany him or her onto cathedral ground" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0993.html), so this holds true for the whole zone of the cathedral. Durkula at that point had more than only 2 BG accompanying him.

Same counter-argument as above; Hel's cleric attending has not brought more than 2 bodyguards with him on the cathedral grunds. The presence of people that Hel's cleric hasn't brought with him, and who are allowed by the rules to be on the cathedral grounds, and who just happen to worship Hel, is a stroke of fortune, for sure, but it is unrelated to the question of how many people Hel brought brought to the grounds.

Who has no role, must be expelled.

Evidence: Church of Hel had more than the allowed 1 HP +2 BG (allowed by 2.3), with the vampires. They were not expelled, but half of the priests buffed them.
Counter-argument: there was no time to expel them, they died (for good) too fast. And anyway there did try (and some managed) to get out on their own will, before anyone protested about their intrusion.

Also the same counter-argument as above; Hel didn't break the allowed limit on how many to bring to the grounds and the vampires are the administrators, who have a role and right to be there.

There is suggestive evidence of at least some of the high priests thinking the latter, as in #1018, where the high priestess says, "if they can attack the administrators, so can we"; They may have been vamped, but she still refers to them as the administrators, who have a role.

Dr.Zero

2016-01-21, 09:46 AM

Counter-argument; The church of Hel is not in technically in violation and the devil is in the details: We have not been informed about a rule regarding how many followers may be present.

We have been. :)

2.4 "Only the formal HP of each of the northern Gods may attend"

By word of Gontor.

With the only exception said explicity from rule 2.3, regarding the "2 only BGs".

It doesn't say "may enter", so that once they entered everything is fine.

They are the only one who may attend.

Now, here I admit my english could betray me: if "attend" means "partecipate actively/voting", then you are right.
If "attend" is, between the other meanings, synonymous of "being present to a cerimony/ritual", you are not.
But the fact that the HPoB needed to go up to the stairs to call an usher (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1005.htm), seems to confirm the literal interpretation. Not even the Creed could attend.

If this is the meaning of attend, we had some people who attended the ritual without having the right and who were even followers of Hel (and one of them become the successive HPoH). And nothing particular happened to them or to the church they belonged.

So, if there are no objections to this, later I will polish the "proof".

There is suggestive evidence of at least some of the high priests thinking the latter, as in #1018, where the high priestess says, "if they can attack the administrators, so can we"; They may have been vamped, but she still refers to them as the administrators, who have a role.

Yes, I noticed it, and it is in some contrast with the fact they were administering it as neutral party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0994.html), which they were not anymore.

But since it is not clear, it is for sure debatable and as such a possible counter-argument and will add it in 4.2, thanks. :)

Edit: anwyay later (for now I have no time to do it) I will move the first two from "proven" to almost, at least as long as the situation is not clarified.

Deliverance

2016-01-21, 10:31 AM

We have been. :)

2.4 "Only the formal HP of each of the northern Gods may attend"

By word of Gontor.

With the only exception said explicity from rule 2.3, regarding the "2 only BGs".

It doesn't say "may enter", so that once they entered everything is fine.

They are the only one who may attend.

This statement is not equivalent to a statement about how many followers of a God may be present. See my argument concerning how the religion of Roy and other bodyguards shouldn't affect other priests. (Were it not so, it would be possible to deliberately sabotage the vote of another God by bringing along one of his worshipers as bodyguard.)

MOREOVER, Gontor was answering Roy's question when he pointed out that Durkon was a pretty strong cleric of Thor, so it makes sense that his answer is an answer to this, that, sorry, being a pretty strong cleric isn't enough, he'd need to the the high priest, and the high priest of Thor has already arrived, rather than a literal statement of the only people being allowed present being the formal HPs of the northern gods (+bodyguards), that can be used to exclude people you need to exclude for purposes of argument (such as regarding the status of the Creed of Stone).

FINALLY, if you insist on the literal interpretation with only one exception, I'm dying to know Veldrina as representative of the Western Pantheon (who was admitted right before Gontor made the statement to Roy that you interpret literally) and Blueguy as representative of the Southern Pantheon are allowed to attend. Neither is HP of a northern god and would be excluded by the literal interpretation even when amended by the one exception mentioned.

In light of this I'd say that Gontor's words don't constitute quite as firm a limit on who is allowed to attend as you are arguing.

Now, here I admit my english could betray me: if "attend" means "partecipate actively/voting", then you are right.
If "attend" is, between the other meanings, synonymous of "being present to a cerimony/ritual", you are not.
But the fact that the HPoB needed to go up to the stairs to call an usher (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1005.htm), seems to confirm the literal interpretation. Not even the Creed could attend.

Since you insist on being logical in this thread (an uncommon occurrence in this forum), allow me to point out that HPoB going up the stairs to call an usher is equally well explained by the Creed of Stone, as the neutral party hosting the conclave, having no reason to attend at the conclave itself after ensuring that all the participants are led there and thus choosing diplomatically to absent themselves unless called to help.

This is a very normal way of arranging such neutral party diplomacy in the real world; the hosts absent themselves unless needed by their guests (to encourage frank discussion and reduce risks of diplomatic missteps) or they feel that there are weighty matters that justify their being present (with the risks that the guests take this ill), but as they are the hosts it isn't as if they are forbidden being present by their guests.

Now, OOTS is not the real world and things might well work as you suggest, but it just struck me as weird that you jumped from the HPoB having to go call the ushers to "the ushers are not allowed to attend".

If this is the meaning of attend, we had some people who attended the ritual without having the right and who were even followers of Hel (and one of them become the successive HPoH). And nothing particular happened to them or to the church they belonged.

So, if there are no objections to this, later I will polish the "proof".

I consider there to be a few too many ifs and your guess regarding Balder too unsubstantiated in the face of a reasonable alternative explanation to constitute proof. :smallsmile:

Yes, I noticed it, and it is in some contrast with the fact they were administering it as neutral party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0994.html), which they were not anymore.

But since it is not clear, it is for sure debatable and as such a possible counter-argument and will add it in 4.2, thanks. :)
Hey, something we could agree on. :smallsmile:

Pyrous

2016-01-21, 11:29 AM

Onyavar

2016-01-21, 02:18 PM

Evidence: if he could, Durkula would have done that: he could have attacked Roy, without him being able to retaliate, even more, the other HP would have been obliged to help Durkula in the fight, if Roy retaliated.
Counter-argument: Durkula is just very, very stupid.
Another, better counter-argument: the point that follows.

I would guess that Undurkon (better known as Phyrnglsnyx) had a different motive not to fire Roy as BG: He wanted to defeat him and subsequently vampirize him, so that in case of Plan B, he would have a very strong vampire bodyguard he could take with him to the dwarves. He neglected to meta-game (i.e. take Roy's status as protagonist into account).

Pyrous

2016-01-21, 02:32 PM

2.5 The "No Backsies" rule

While there is in fact such a rule, we don't know how it works. Maybe we should put that in the OP.

EDIT:

Maybe put the edit history in a spoiler.

Dr.Zero

2016-01-21, 03:26 PM

This statement is not equivalent to a statement about how many followers of a God may be present. See my argument concerning how the religion of Roy and other bodyguards shouldn't affect other priests. (Were it not so, it would be possible to deliberately sabotage the vote of another God by bringing along one of his worshipers as bodyguard.)

Because they were Durkula's BG, was Durkula interest to check, if he wanted.

MOREOVER, Gontor was answering Roy's question when he pointed out that Durkon was a pretty strong cleric of Thor, so it makes sense that his answer is an answer to this, that, sorry, being a pretty strong cleric isn't enough, he'd need to the the high priest, and the high priest of Thor has already arrived, rather than a literal statement of the only people being allowed present being the formal HPs of the northern gods (+bodyguards), that can be used to exclude people you need to exclude for purposes of argument (such as regarding the status of the Creed of Stone).

FINALLY, if you insist on the literal interpretation with only one exception, I'm dying to know Veldrina as representative of the Western Pantheon (who was admitted right before Gontor made the statement to Roy that you interpret literally) and Blueguy as representative of the Southern Pantheon are allowed to attend. Neither is HP of a northern god and would be excluded by the literal interpretation even when amended by the one exception mentioned.

Yes, I thought of Veldrina and Wrecan as well, as the other guy from the 12 gods, but you should ask Rich about them. ;)

I don't have any problem to believe that there was an exception for them in the rules, since they were there.
The creed was not, instead. ;)

So I've decided for what I think is a fair way to do it: since we cannot have a wiki here, with free edits, you (or whoever has an idea/counter-argument/evidence) say me it summarizing it briefly (a couple of lines, with maybe some link, not too long, else every single voice will become an essay in its own :smallbiggrin:) and I will add it, wiki-way.
And we will make so for every single point, creating a mini-summarizing debate section.

Like you and Pyrous did for 4.2, to make it clear.

I would guess that Undurkon (better known as Phyrnglsnyx) had a different motive not to fire Roy as BG: He wanted to defeat him and subsequently vampirize him, so that in case of Plan B, he would have a very strong vampire bodyguard he could take with him to the dwarves. He neglected to meta-game (i.e. take Roy's status as protagonist into account).

I will add this as: "Counter-argument: he could have wanted to vamp Roy to have a strong ally and being in fear that help from the other priests could have killed Roy before the vamping process". Is it ok?

2.5 The "No Backsies" rule

While there is in fact such a rule, we don't know how it works. Maybe we should put that in the OP.

Well, it is a thing said for sure, thus I'd leave it where it is.

But it means we introduce a new section: Notes! "Note: Aside the single sentence we don't know how it works (ie: if a God cannot order to a HP to kill himself to nullify a vote)".

Dr.Zero

2016-01-21, 03:30 PM

Maybe it would be better to change the title of section 4 to:

Not-Proven: possible inferences which have not been proven right nor wrong (Edit for better reading)

Not-Proven: possible inferences which have not been proven nor disproved

And drop the parenthesis, as it becomes redundant.

Edit: With the change we don't have the subjective qualifier "very close".

Seems fair. :smallsmile:

EDIT:

Maybe put the edit history in a spoiler.

Yes, good idea, thanks. :)

I've changed even the representation of the beliefs to a more neutral + and -, so it will be less crazily nested with list-inside list- inside list -inside list.
Now I will try to add some of the points made by Deliverance, but if he manages to give me his own short versions, it is better. :smallbiggrin:

Ok, the whole debate between me and Deliverance has been summarized in:

-:We have not been informed about a rule regarding how many followers may be present.
+:We had: 2.4 "Only the formal HP of each of the northern Gods may attend", indeed not even the Creed was there, when the vote did start
-:But Veldrina and Wrecan were there, so it is only a partial rule and we don't know how many other exceptions there are about it.

And inserted.

The power of the recaps belongs to me. :smallbiggrin:

Pyrous

2016-01-21, 04:45 PM

2.6 If the HP of a god is not present before the vote ends, his vote is nullified.

+: The whole point of the fight Durkula vs Roy.

-: It's only the whole point of the fight from an in-universe perspective.
-: If Roy believed it to be true, it would be reason enough to fight Durkula, rule existing or not.
+: Roy and Wrecan's dialogue here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html) heavily implies this, as Wrecan was in quite a few of these meetings (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0993.html).
-: We don't know if a situation like this happened in any of Wrecan's attendances. He would not need to know the specifics as he is only a BG.
+: #1017 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1017.html) definitely proves this, as Durkula has knowledge of the rules through Hel.

Definitely include the last one. Edit as you must.

The other ones are at your discretion, although I recommend adding the 2 counter-arguments to the evidence in the OP if you don't delete it.

goodpeople25

2016-01-21, 04:57 PM

Dr.Zero

2016-01-21, 05:08 PM

Just wanted to say that some of these points in contention seem to rely on all rules being equal or even being from the same source, like would they really put Belkar to death (or if he went into the nave, effect Hel's vote in anyway outside of maybe an informal reprimand to durkula for picking Belkar) for not having a chaperone especially since he was ignorant of that rule and while ignorance is not an excuse (as a Major in my former cadet unit was fond of saying) I think it matters in this case, and it also seems a rule that would be handled by the hosts.
Similar thing with expulsion, amount of worshippers ect, intruders (and those seem like they would normally be dealt with by the hosts)

If you manage to summarize it in simple (even more than one, even divided in more than 1 section) points with + or - or "notes" I will introduce this. :)

I'm even thinking about introducing meta narrative. Like: "- this would make too simple for Roy to save the day", but it would move the focus a little too much toward speculation against the more "empiric" approach.

@Pyrous: done.

goodpeople25

2016-01-21, 05:11 PM

If you manage to summarize it in simple (even more than one, even divided in more than 1 section) points with + or - or "notes" I will introduce this. :)

I'm even thinking about introducing meta narrative. Like: "- this would make too simple for Roy to save the day", but it would move the focus a little too much toward speculation against the more "empiric" approach.

@Pyrous: done.
Yeah i Figured, i'll think on it. But i'm pretty bad at it.

Bulldog Psion

2016-01-21, 05:32 PM

Very nice thread. I wish it was possible to give Kudos or something on this forum at times like this. :smallsmile:

Pyrous

2016-01-21, 07:34 PM

Dr.Zero

2016-01-22, 05:58 AM

Posting from mobile, so won't care about formating, nor linking.

2.6 again

-: Durkula may have acted in #1017 as a way of keeping Roy in the room trying to destroying the nHPoH, instead of chasing him. In the next strip, Roy can dust her, only to be told that the no backsies rule still apply.

I didn't check to see if another strip was posted, and I feel this is extra relevant before #1020 comes on-line

Uhm, this seems to be too much in the speculation field. :)
Every single rule could be said at some point that: "Oh, no, in this case it doesn't work as you thought" but at the moment we have no empiric data making us even only suppose this is the case for 2.6.

Anyway I will add it with the counter-argument. ;)

Edit: Oh, now I see your point: it's because after Wrecan replied "Yes", then when Roy asks specifically about the invalidation of the vote, Wrecan replies only: "...I suppose.", thus the rule is not said for sure to work that way. Perfect, then. :)

@Bulldog Psion: Thanks, in behalf of all the tropers lawyers partecipants. ;)

Lvl 2 Expert

2016-01-22, 08:15 AM

3.4: Collateral/indirect damage is considered an attack.
+: Durkula to Wrecan.

-: The priests in 1018 seem to believe this is true, at least for someone not interfering with your fight.

Dr.Zero

2016-01-22, 11:54 AM

-: The priests in 1018 seem to believe this is true, at least for someone not interfering with your fight.

Inserted.
But doesn't the girl worry more like about a direct hit from an AoE spell?

Kish

2016-01-22, 01:05 PM

I think it's more a matter of "you're not responsible for hitting someone who rams their chin into your fist."

So the priests have to take reasonable care to avoid hitting the other priests and bodyguards, but if Wrecan jumps in the way of a swing the High Priest of Hel is launching at Roy--which he came very close to doing in that fight--that's Wrecan's fault, not the High Priest's. (Or, more specific to the immediate case, the High Priest was not obligated to dismiss Hel's Might even should Roy, Wrecan, and the Giant Vampire Dwarf together exceed that balcony's weight allowance.)

Dr.Zero

2016-01-22, 08:19 PM

It could be.
Even if a common sense measure like "reasonable care" doesn't fit well in a place where people use every single loophole they can think. :smallbiggrin: