OOTS #1126 - The Discussion Thread

[Shatteredtower]

Hilgya was free to not go on a revenge quest that involved going straight into a temple in an attempt to murder a high-level spellcaster there. Unlike a PC in a campaign, there's no central game conceit that Hilgya needs to be going on adventures; she could have kept Kudzu in sight and out of harm's way, by not going into harm's way.


She's not in a game, but she is in a setting where narrative causality has a rough and aggressive sense of humour.

In "Answering the Callback" (#1106), she tells the Order that Loki sent her here, in answer to her prayers. She's on assignment--one that she wanted, but the next strip makes it clear she didn't know Durkon had become a vampire. As far as she knew when she took the job, she'd be confronting a dwarf that would never harm a child. There was no safer place for Kudzu under those circumstances than under the direct supervision of a high level cleric Hilgya could trust: Hilgya.

Once she had the other details, where was she supposed to leave Kudzu that would be safe from the end of the world? She can't just tuck him in a corner somewhere-- the kid wouldn't survive an encounter with one normal rat, let alone a wandering vampire. No, there's no safer place for baby in these circumstances than with a high level cleric, even if she underestimated the dangers of facing a squad of undead spellcasters with the supernatural ability to dominate enemies.

[Keltest]

She's not in a game, but she is in a setting where narrative causality has a rough and aggressive sense of humour.

In "Answering the Callback" (#1106), she tells the Order that Loki sent her here, in answer to her prayers. She's on assignment--one that she wanted, but the next strip makes it clear she didn't know Durkon had become a vampire. As far as she knew when she took the job, she'd be confronting a dwarf that would never harm a child. There was no safer place for Kudzu under those circumstances than under the direct supervision of a high level cleric Hilgya could trust: Hilgya.

Once she had the other details, where was she supposed to leave Kudzu that would be safe from the end of the world? She can't just tuck him in a corner somewhere-- the kid wouldn't survive an encounter with one normal rat, let alone a wandering vampire. No, there's no safer place for baby in these circumstances than with a high level cleric, even if she underestimated the dangers of facing a squad of undead spellcasters with the supernatural ability to dominate enemies.

I think its pretty clear that Hilgya does not actually understand a darn thing about Durkon, up to and including his unwillingness to harm innocents. Indeed, she seems to believe him a cruel and terrible person.

[Grey Watcher]

The 25k gp figure to me suggests True Resurrection. And one of the key distinctions between True Resurrection and its lesser cousins (Resurrection, Raise Dead) is that you don't need any remains. Tenrin's remains are under a few tons of rocks. This is what makes me think that her "donation" was specifically not having Tenrin brought back (thereby saving the church some money). Now, whether that was her idea or she had to be "persuaded" will be interesting to discover (assuming I'm correct).

[siprus]

I bet the Giant has been waiting for this moment for years. Finally we see the long theorized baby armor inaction.

[Fyraltari]

I bet the Giant has been waiting for this moment for years. Finally we see the long theorized baby armor inaction.

I can't tell if that's a pun or a typo.

[tvknight415]

Predictions:

Roy will take a calculated gamble and throw the sword again at Durkula, but will aim deliberately off mark to avoid hitting either. Durkula will continue to be distracted by the memory. Hilgya will sense danger to Kudzu, and combined with his crying, save and break free of the domination. Durkula will suddenly have a very pissed off high level cleric standing right next to him.

[Perficio]

I've got it. Evil Durkon is Durkon's father.

Nobody saw it coming!

[Thecommander236]

Pragmatic, I would love it if it wasn't for how evil it was. Why is he trying to hurt or even KILL the kid though with an anti-life shell? Isn't that going to break Hilyga out of the trance? I mean, I can see him to try to use it as leverage to get Roy to surrender, but that isn't going to work.

[martianmister]

Pragmatic, I would love it if it wasn't for how evil it was. Why is he trying to hurt or even KILL the kid though with an anti-life shell? Isn't that going to break Hilyga out of the trance? I mean, I can see him to try to use it as leverage to get Roy to surrender, but that isn't going to work.

He's not, anti-life shell is to keep Roy away.

[Dion]

Pragmatic, I would love it if it wasn't for how evil it was. Why is he trying to hurt or even KILL the kid though with an anti-life shell? Isn't that going to break Hilyga out of the trance? I mean, I can see him to try to use it as leverage to get Roy to surrender, but that isn't going to work.

The anti-life shell doesn’t do damage to living things, it just prevents “living” things from entering the shell (“living” in this case is shorthand for a long list of creature types).

Based on a strict reading of the spell description, Hilgya and Kudzu are probably free to move around inside the shell, or even leave the shell without ill effect. The only restriction on them seems to be that if they leave the shell, they can’t renter.

[Shatteredtower]

I think its pretty clear that Hilgya does not actually understand a darn thing about Durkon, up to and including his unwillingness to harm innocents. Indeed, she seems to believe him a cruel and terrible person.


She understands he hurt her and saddled her, a cleric of Loki, with responsibility. The only thing she thinks her son needs to fear from him is a bad example and boring lectures about putting duty before happiness. Repeated stabbings were never a concern, and that's not because Durkon always wielded a hammer.

[Mandor]

Predictions:

Roy will take a calculated gamble and throw the sword again at Durkula, but will aim deliberately off mark to avoid hitting either. Durkula will continue to be distracted by the memory. Hilgya will sense danger to Kudzu, and combined with his crying, save and break free of the domination. Durkula will suddenly have a very pissed off high level cleric standing right next to him.I very much doubt it for two simple reasons.

(a) that's not Roy. Even on his worst day, I do not see Roy choosing to take a gamble that MIGHT result in him murdering a baby if Greg might stand up and move to the left. Greatsword tosses have travel time. He cant' KNOW that an off-center throw is safe.
(b) leaving aside personal mores, if that did anything to Hilgya, it would probably result in Hilgya unloading ALL her firepower.... ON ROY.... as it would be ROY who threw a sword in the general direciton of her baby. THAT would get the aggro, not Greg sitting there with the baby in his lap.

[Dion]

Predictions;

My prediction: OotS will lose this fight.

Roy will be taken down (energy drain, hold person, charm, or whatever).

And after the battle is irrevocably lost, then whatever is being revealed in the flashback will take effect and help... a little.

But the terrible storytelling cliche of being saved by the cavalry will annoy Elan enough to snap him out of the domination, allowing him to sing his song of freedom, saving the day for real — with FREEDOM!

[Elanasaurus]

That he did not do so on some of his bad days only makes him human.

Kudzu isn't human! Stop oppressing dwarfen culture, you anthrocentric stretch!

There.
:elan:

[Jasdoif]

As far as she knew when she took the job, she'd be confronting a dwarf that would never harm a child.I think its pretty clear that Hilgya does not actually understand a darn thing about Durkon, up to and including his unwillingness to harm innocents. Indeed, she seems to believe him a cruel and terrible person.Additionally, a temple of Thor can be reasonably expected to have multiple clerics of Thor, who can be reasonably expected not to be complicit in the murder of one of their own.


Once she had the other details.......the bad decision had already been made and was being implemented: she was already well on en route into danger with Kudzu. (You could probably find someone to argue that she should have left Kudzu with the acolytes at the temple, but I think we already established that Kudzu's safer with Hilgya in that situation...although not as safe as if he hadn't been brought into that situation in the first place)

[Sapphire Guard]

Very neat. Good work, Giant.

My understanding until contradicted is that this only worked because Durkula actually is the baby's father, she wouldn't have handed him over to any other person.


I've got it. Evil Durkon is Durkon's father.

Huh. This is actually possible, assuming that cave in counted as dying dishonorably. The memory needs to matter somehow for Durkula.

[Keltest]

Very neat. Good work, Giant.

My understanding until contradicted is that this only worked because Durkula actually is the baby's father, she wouldn't have handed him over to any other person.



Huh. This is actually possible, assuming that cave in counted as dying dishonorably. The memory needs to matter somehow for Durkula.

Technically, even if it was against her nature to hand over her baby to anybody (and I think there is evidence that it is), she would just have to fail another save to obey the command. And that's assuming that it was a command at all, and that Greg didn't just take Kudzu from her without giving her any orders at all beyond "come here".

[JumboWheat01]

Elan's attempts to get Roy to join the dominated side continue to be funny.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You sure have. What you haven't done, is explained why the domination gaze power, and for that matter the Dominate Person spell, doesn't spell out "the victim gets a new save to break the Domination whenever you order them to do anything," if any action that benefits an enemy or hurts allies automatically trips the "against your nature" clause.

For nearly all of the order except Belkar (and he's had character growth since the last time that would've been nice to highlight by him making the new save he wouldn't have even gotten previously), attacking your own allies is against their nature. Take Elan for example. He didn't want to fight Nale even when Nale was trying to kill him, and he values Roy just as much. I could see him ceasing to fight either side and trying to talk them into not fighting. But he's gleefully shish-kebabing Roy like it's nothing, and that's ridiculous and against character for him.
As for Hyglia, she hates Durkon and presumably wouldn't want to help his side in the fight. And now vampire Durkon is putting her child in harm's way. But...nope, no new save.

What short of an order to commit suicide would "against your nature" to you?

[Kish]

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

[Ruck]

I asked the Giant once on Twitter if Greg's "worst day" line was an accurate description of his personality or just an attempt to demoralize Durkon. His answer: "Why not both?" I lean it's more the latter than the former, but it's not not accurate


I'll say that I've never found that quote terribly convincing (comic 80, and Roy's being a jerk). Elan is remarkably good at coming up with insights into people and has a strong sense of will. I'd be surprised if his Wis was worse than a -1 penalty on average despite the poor common sense, which is more than low enough to qualify for 'can't cast as a cleric'. If you have most of your levels in Bard and you're somewhere in the teens with a -1 wis penalty, you still should be around on par with even a very wise fighter of the same level.

We've also seen Elan actually be rather insightful at times-- the climactic sequences of book 5 display that. I'd say he has OK (probably not great) wisdom but rather low intelligence.

[luna the cat]

This comic reminded me of Dio the vampire from Part 1 of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure

Where Dio promises not to harm a mother's baby... but makes no promises against turning the mother into a vampire... and then it leads to a sad conclusion :smallfrown:

[Jasdoif]

And now vampire Durkon is putting her child in harm's way. But...nope, no new save.Why would it be worth a new save? Hilgya willingly took Kudzu along on her murder quest in the first place; putting her child in harm's way is clearly not against her nature.

[ThePhantasm]

And technically the child is not in harm's way. There's no indication that Durkula intends to harm the child.

[Kish]

Why would it be worth a new save? Hilgya willingly took Kudzu along on her murder quest in the first place; putting her child in harm's way is clearly not against her nature.
And similarly, Elan doesn't carry that rapier because he's a pacifist.

[eilandesq]

And technically the child is not in harm's way. There's no indication that Durkula intends to harm the child.

When has that stopped Hilgya from coming to a conclusion about Durkon/Durkula before? She literally just handed her baby to the subject of her obsessive hatred for the last two years--only now he's a vampire (which she loathes as a separate matter).

[Sloanzilla]

There is pretty close to a 0% chance that Roy is going to throw his sword at anyone holding Kudzu.

[ThePhantasm]

When has that stopped Hilgya from coming to a conclusion about Durkon/Durkula before? She literally just handed her baby to the subject of her obsessive hatred for the last two years--only now he's a vampire (which she loathes as a separate matter).

I have no idea what any of this has to do with what I said.

[Jannoire]

I have no idea what any of this has to do with what I said.

Just because Kudzu is technically no more in harm's way than he was a few rounds ago, doesn't mean Hilgya would hand him over to the one being she hates and came to murder... PLUS said being is now an undead, and they are such gross, icky things... One could argue that this is enough to grant a new save...

I wouldn't, because I learned the hard way to not argue with the DM over such things... And I trust The Giant to know exactly when Hilgya's gonna need that save...

[Gift Jeraff]

Hilgya's going to snap out of it because that will distract Durkula from finishing the memory right as it starts getting juicy.

[ThePhantasm]

Just because Kudzu is technically no more in harm's way than he was a few rounds ago, doesn't mean Hilgya would hand him over to the one being she hates and came to murder...

Are people usually dominated by enemies that they don't hate?

As far as I can tell Durkula's only command was "come here." He can take the baby himself. We never saw Hilgya hand Kudzu over to him.

[Jasdoif]

Just because Kudzu is technically no more in harm's way than he was a few rounds ago, doesn't mean Hilgya would hand him over to the one being she hates and came to murder... PLUS said being is now an undead, and they are such gross, icky things...If the only reason she'd object to handing him over is who she'd be handing him over to; then the action of handing him over isn't against her nature, and therefore wouldn't prompt another save. (I don't feel there's a productive point behind the question of whether there's a distinction between "hand Kudzu to HPoH" and "idly let HPoH take Kudzu")

It's like Kish is getting at: If the intent was to flatly grant a save with any action you wouldn't normally take, the "actions against your nature" wording doesn't support it; and mind-affecting effects are generally known for affecting minds.

[AstralFire]

This thread highlights why I have basically never used dominate person as a GM except against very weak NPCs. I think it moves things into very uncomfortable territory.

[CJG]

I'm guessing Sigdi chose not to have her husband ressurrected becuase he was undeniably, indisputiably, dying with honor in the line of duty.
That makes him absolutely 100% SAFE from Hel.

And to dwarven society, that's about as big a deal as you can get. As we have from Hel herself, Thor guided the dwarves into creating the most honor-bound society the world had ever seen.

If someone you love is dead in way, then ressurecting him becomes selfish, requiring them to risk falling prey to Hel if they die dishonorably in the future.
If would be much more honorable, much more your duty, to allow them to remain dead, and safe from Hel.

And being a dwarf is about doin' yer duty. Even when it makes yeh miserable. ESPECIALLY when it makes yeh miserable.

I think she donated the money in part to make sure she would NEVER have the means to have him ressurrected.

This is pretty much where I’m at. A res seems great in every culture, save dwarvish. It’s might be against the culture to call back people who died honorably unless there was a special reason.

I don’t think Durkon was resurrected as a fetus/embryo though, I suspect that since no one knew Sigdi was pregnant (including her or her husband it seems) I’m guessing that she was pretty early on. Then again, I have no concept of dwarvish developmental biology!

[Psychronia]

Whoa...That memory of a conversation is really getting interesting now.

Also, Elan is the best salesman for vampire domination I've ever seen.

[Keltest]

If the only reason she'd object to handing him over is who she'd be handing him over to; then the action of handing him over isn't against her nature, and therefore wouldn't prompt another save. (I don't feel there's a productive point behind the question of whether there's a distinction between "hand Kudzu to HPoH" and "idly let HPoH take Kudzu")

It's like Kish is getting at: If the intent was to flatly grant a save with any action you wouldn't normally take, the "actions against your nature" wording doesn't support it; and mind-affecting effects are generally known for affecting minds.

So, I do think the distinction between Greg telling her to stand somewhere and then doing a thing to her and telling her to instigate the thing herself is meaningful. Its the difference between "go stand on that X" and "go drop this anvil on your head from a great height." One of those trips the limitations of the ability, the other does not.

[jokem]

Are people usually dominated by enemies that they don't hate?



My answer is yes. A succubus trying to dominate a True Neutral Fighter, doesn't mean the Fighter hates the Succubus. In fact, the Succubus could
be in disguise, as one of their favorite tricks is to pretend to be a helpless girl. Even without that, the fighter's hatred of the Succubus cannot
expect to rise to the level of the Hilgya/Durkon animosity.

In this case Hilgya has two hate factors. She has a personal vendetta vs Durkon, and probably reviles him more than anyone else in the world.
Maybe for reasons less than fully justified, but still reviles him. Second, he is an undead now, which, to followers of Loki approximates a Favored
Enemy.

I have to admit, I am surprised she blew the save in the first place. High level Clerics have good will saves, plus a decent wisdom of at least 17
(for Chaos Hammer), but that has already been discussed. Now she has been commanded to 'Come Here', like some Concubine or other Chattel
Slave. That has to merit another save, but I defer to the Giant on this matter.

[Resileaf]

The wording of the spell is very important. It only gives you a new save if someone tells you to do something against your nature. If that person does something, but doesn't ask you to partake in it, there is no reason for a save to happen because he never asked you to do something in the first place. You might think that Hilgya's maternal instinct would kick in and it's against her nature to ignore Kudzu, but Greg never told her to ignore him. She's just passively not doing anything because nothing further was asked of her.

[jokem]

I asked the Giant once on Twitter if Greg's "worst day" line was an accurate description of his personality or just an attempt to demoralize Durkon. His answer: "Why not both?" I lean it's more the latter than the former, but it's not not accurate



We've also seen Elan actually be rather insightful at times-- the climactic sequences of book 5 display that. I'd say he has OK (probably not great) wisdom but rather low intelligence.

I have not seen book 5, so I ask, was Elan's insight having to do with Plot Exposition? I think that is one of the things he is good at.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I suspect the reference is to strip 938. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html)

Also, can we stop bringing up the hunk of beard that Sigdi buried? It's been pointed out repeatedly that it has jack and squat to do with a Resurrection spell, since it wasn't cut off Tenrin's dead body.

[Yael]

This comic reminded me of Dio the vampire from Part 1 of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure

Where Dio promises not to harm a mother's baby... but makes no promises against turning the mother into a vampire... and then it leads to a sad conclusion :smallfrown:

Same here, although a bit sad for both the mother in Part I, and the baby in this strip.

[Kish]

My answer is yes. A succubus trying to dominate a True Neutral Fighter, doesn't mean the Fighter hates the Succubus. In fact, the Succubus could
be in disguise, as one of their favorite tricks is to pretend to be a helpless girl. Even without that, the fighter's hatred of the Succubus cannot
expect to rise to the level of the Hilgya/Durkon animosity.

Requiring that level of subtlety from every use of Dominate Person and abilities that duplicate it strikes me as entirely contrary to its portrayal in 1) D&D, and 2) much more importantly, OotS.

("A vampire's gaze might subtly affect the victim's actions but certainly won't be used to make them directly attack their fellow vampire hunters and/or significant others" also strikes me as entirely contrary to every example of vampire fiction I know that gives vampires a mind-controlling gaze, for that matter.)

[gatemansgc]

now that i think about it, with everyone guessing about how the dominated people are going to earn a new save, that gag happened already back in azure city with thanh. the giant knows everyone would see that coming, he wants to keep us guessing.

it's probably going to be something completely out of left field but still makes complete sense.

[Sermil]

The wording of the spell is very important. It only gives you a new save if someone tells you to do something against your nature. If that person does something, but doesn't ask you to partake in it, there is no reason for a save to happen because he never asked you to do something in the first place. You might think that Hilgya's maternal instinct would kick in and it's against her nature to ignore Kudzu, but Greg never told her to ignore him. She's just passively not doing anything because nothing further was asked of her.

I'm with the "just because her baby is crying doesn't mean she gets another save" crowd, but...

My Prediction: next round, Roy is going to loudly and clearly yell. "Sorry, Hilgya, but the fate of the universe is at stake. I'M GOING TO THROW MY SWORD THROUGH KUDZU TO HIT LURKON. Right now!" and start raising his sword. Lurkon knows Roy well enough to know it's a bluff... but Hilgya doesn't. She'll think her baby is in mortal peril, and when Lurkon tells her to stay still and not to grab Kudzu... That's when she gets a new save.

[WolvesbaneIII]

[QUOTE=Fyraltari;23220452]To be clear, I am not saying tha Durkon* is a second Durkon the way, say the Metacrisis Doctor was a second 10th Doctor. I am saying he is a different person, with the same personnality (and memories more or less) but with a greter emphasis on the darker parts because of how the process works. Durkon was religious, so Darkon is religious but where Durkon's faith was one of service and devotion, Darkon's seems to be more of mutual benefit and servitude. Thor is a fitting god for the former and Hel for the latter. Besides Yhor wouldn't grant Jerkon spells, anyway.

I think it was to just demoralize durkon. nothing more.

So, what kind of thing is strong enough to resist the vampires gaze? Belker resisted nales request to give him all his magic doodads, so he just said kill all your friends, keep their magic stuff and sing show tunes while your at it.

the gaze is similar to that spell, so maybe they are just going along with it, resisting all the while to set up undurkon to lull him into a false sense of security, hilgya swipes the baby at the last second and undurkon is foiled after a long drawn fight scene, in both senses of that phrase.

[Nymrod]

A random musing but one of the reasons why a soul may not be available for True Rez is undeath. Maybe Durkon's father, feeling he has unfinished business in letting Sigdi alone with a child, became a Ghost. He could function like an oath spirit and only appear when someone of his blood line is in danger, like if Kudzu is about to die (because yes, I'd kill a baby in Roy's position, the alternative is EVERYONE dying). They can always try and raise the kid.

[Mightymosy]

How does this vampire domination thing work when a character is told to do something "against their nature"?

Do they just roll a new save, but if they fail, they still do what they're told?

For example, could a vampire mind control a victim to stab themselves?

[Dragonus45]

Something funny occurs to me, how do we know that the true res payed for a while back had even been used yet? Could it have been paid for ahead of time on retainer?

[Keltest]

I'm with the "just because her baby is crying doesn't mean she gets another save" crowd, but...

My Prediction: next round, Roy is going to loudly and clearly yell. "Sorry, Hilgya, but the fate of the universe is at stake. I'M GOING TO THROW MY SWORD THROUGH KUDZU TO HIT LURKON. Right now!" and start raising his sword. Lurkon knows Roy well enough to know it's a bluff... but Hilgya doesn't. She'll think her baby is in mortal peril, and when Lurkon tells her to stay still and not to grab Kudzu... That's when she gets a new save.

Unfortunately, the spell doesn't work like that either. New saves are only granted when explicitly ordered to do something against their nature. A background situation that they have no orders relating to wouldn't do squat to snap them out of it unless Rich has just entirely discarded the domination rules.

[Sylian]

How does this vampire domination thing work when a character is told to do something "against their nature"?

Do they just roll a new save, but if they fail, they still do what they're told?

For example, could a vampire mind control a victim to stab themselves?"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out."

I imagine "stab yourself" would count as an obviously self-destructive order. Aside from that, if they fail the safe they do carry out the order, yes.

[Kish]

How does this vampire domination thing work when a character is told to do something "against their nature"?

Do they just roll a new save, but if they fail, they still do what they're told?

For example, could a vampire mind control a victim to stab themselves?
Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

(Cue five page argument over Greg being able to order Belkar to jump off the airship.)

[brian 333]

Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

(Cue five page argument over Greg being able to order Belkar to jump off the airship.)

Which may have been Mr. Burlew's way of saying, "This is how I rule Dominate to work in the OotSverse."

But, as a humorous aside, neither jumping nor falling are harmful in the least. Durkula didn't order Belkar to land, he simply ordered him to jump, which Belkar does all the time, so jumping isn't against Belkar's nature. Read Suggestion's Acid Bath description for an example of ordering someone to do something harmful without violating the self-harm condition.

I'm reminded of the scene of the gnomish elevators in Mount Nevermind in Dragonlance. The gnomes did studies on falling and proved it to be absolutely harmless.

But aside from my obvious attempt at humor, when ambiguity exists it is the role of a DM to rule one way or the other. This is not a house rule, but a DM doing his job. (Can I use that line, or is it plagiarism?) The Giant has established, long before this scene, that "obviously self destructive" is limited to the order itself rather than to the extrapolated result of obeying that order.

[WolvesbaneIII]

Which may have been Mr. Burlew's way of saying, "This is how I rule Dominate to work in the OotSverse."

But, as a humorous aside, neither jumping nor falling are harmful in the least. Durkula didn't order Belkar to land, he simply ordered him to jump, which Belkar does all the time, so jumping isn't against Belkar's nature. Read Suggestion's Acid Bath description for an example of ordering someone to do something harmful without violating the self-harm condition.

I'm reminded of the scene of the gnomish elevators in Mount Nevermind in Dragonlance. The gnomes did studies on falling and proved it to be absolutely harmless.

But aside from my obvious attempt at humor, when ambiguity exists it is the role of a DM to rule one way or the other. This is not a house rule, but a DM doing his job. (Can I use that line, or is it plagiarism?) The Giant has established, long before this scene, that "obviously self destructive" is limited to the order itself rather than to the extrapolated result of obeying that order.

also, rule of cool and funny trump actual d&d rules.

[Mightymosy]

Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

(Cue five page argument over Greg being able to order Belkar to jump off the airship.)

Nice, never caught that one!


I think Hylgia should get new saving throws whenever Durkula orders her to do something, because following orders - by Durkon! - would be veery much against her nature, in my opinion.

But anyway, thanks for clarification.
So there's a "hard limit": Everything self-destructive is auto-cancelled.
And a "soft limit": Everything "against the subject's nature" grants a new save - which leaves a lot of room for interpretation, which I think is good for a Pen&Paper RP game.

How did Roy break out during his last fight with Durkula?

[Kish]

Roy was never under Greg's control.

Saying "following orders is against her nature" amounts to adding a "doesn't work on Chaotic people" clause to Dominate Person. Wiggle room shouldn't extend to "so this ability is actually useless for its intended purpose; vampires are slightly more persuasive than ogres but can't actually mind control you to do anything."

"Against the person's nature" would be telling a pacifist to attack someone. Telling an ethical vegetarian to eat meat knowingly. Telling Hilgya to make an argument for honoring tradition. Not telling someone who, like Elan, is enthusiastically willing to stick his rapier in enemies "right now Roy is an enemy." Manifestly, neither bringing her baby into danger, nor letting her baby out of her grasp to be a foot away from her, is against Hilgya's nature.

[Oxenstierna]

Would Roy risk throwing a weapon at an enemy holding a baby? No. Would Belkar? Absolutely. Just putting that out there what with the throwing daggers. Not understanding the ‘against the nature’ disputes I’ve seen here on the domination will saves. Would someone under domination do things they wouldn’t naturally or usually do? Sure. In my view ‘against their nature’ would be (for example), a lifelong pacificist who has suffered long and hard to hold that peaceful nature being ordered to attack. Not someone who routinely attacks enemies and loots their corpses. Yes, you wouldn’t normally attack your friends or hand over the baby, but it’s not meeting the ‘against their nature’ test for me.

[Mightymosy]

Roy was never under Greg's control.

Saying "following orders is against her nature" amounts to adding a "doesn't work on Chaotic people" clause to Dominate Person.

I thought 1001 means Roy is under control because he has red swirly eyes?


I think Hylgia is particularily rebellious, and her hatred against Durkon should mean that it is really really against her nature following orders from that guy.

Elan is also chaotic, but he LOVES following orders, so I don't think your sentence about chaotic people being immune to domination is true.

Anyway I am not saying this because I have problems with either scene. Rich bends or breaks rules which he never said he'd follow to the letter, because he thinks it's a better story that way? Fine for me.
Just saying that if I were to interpretate the rules you cited, what that would mean for me.

[Kish]

As one of your players, I'd hope you'd mention the "this spell may randomly just not work for no mechanical reason" clause on Dominate Person at least as soon as I considered taking it.

On the flip side, "I automatically get more saves until the mind control breaks because it's against my nature to be mind-controlled!" sounds like a Dungeon of Dorukan-era joke, where the point is that the speaker is a thoroughgoing munchkin, so if you accepted that argument from one of the other players, I hope you'd be prepared for my eyes to roll out of my head.

[Mightymosy]

As one of your players, I'd hope you'd mention the "this spell may randomly just not work for no mechanical reason" clause on Dominate Person at least as soon as I considered taking it.

On the flip side, "I automatically get more saves until the mind control breaks because it's against my nature to be mind-controlled!" sounds like a Dungeon of Dorukan-era joke, where the point is that the speaker is a thoroughgoing munchkin, so if you accepted that argument from one of the other players, I hope you'd be prepared for my eyes to roll out of my head.

So "against their nature" is objectively mechanically defined within the ruleset of D&D? I find it vague.

Also, I explained twice now that Hylgia resisting domination by Durkon seems like a specific example to me.

[Kish]

If you object to that explanation being paraphrased as saying that you would accept the argument that it's against a character's nature to be mind-controlled, and thus Dominate Person automatically fails, you'll need to explain where the difference is.

(To potentially shortcut the next round, adding the clause "by an enemy" or even "by an amplifying-adjective enemy" would not cause me to stop regarding the argument as goofy.)

[Jasdoif]

I think Hylgia is particularily rebellious, and her hatred against Durkon should mean that it is really really against her nature following orders from that guy.Following orders isn't an action against Hilgya's nature; following a command (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html) is why she showed up in the comic in the first place. HPoH isn't an order, so her hatred there is irrelevant.

As a general guideline, if you have to add context to an action for it to be against one's nature, the action itself isn't against one's nature; overriding context is how mind-affecting compulsion effects usually work. To take a blatant example from the PHB, suggestion (another mind-affecting compulsion effect) doesn't work to convince someone to jump into a pool of acid...but convincing someone that a pool of acid is actually water, and "a quick dip would be refreshing", does.

[Mightymosy]

Following orders isn't an action against Hilgya's nature; following a command (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html) is why she showed up in the comic in the first place. HPoH isn't an order, so her hatred there is irrelevant.

As a general guideline, if you have to add context to an action for it to be against one's nature, the action itself isn't against one's nature; overriding context is how mind-affecting compulsion effects usually work. To take a blatant example from the PHB, suggestion (another mind-affecting compulsion effect) doesn't work to convince someone to jump into a pool of acid...but convincing someone that a pool of acid is actually water, and "a quick dip would be refreshing", does.

Ok on the first one.

The second one I don't get: So you can have anyone do anything if you just get the wording right?

"Stab yourself doesn't work"

But
"Your sword is a banana.
Eat it."

Works?

ETA:
@Kish: I still don't get where you get a definition on what "against the nature of a person" means, and that is the clause the spell description uses.

For you, Hylgia obeying Durkon is not against her nature, for me it seems that way. What I am asking for is a definition from the rules that helps identify whether "against their nature" applies or not.

[Sermil]

Unfortunately, the spell doesn't work like that either. New saves are only granted when explicitly ordered to do something against their nature. A background situation that they have no orders relating to wouldn't do squat to snap them out of it unless Rich has just entirely discarded the domination rules.

Right, but "Don't protect your baby" is an order. An order to stand still is still an order.

[Ironsmith]

The second one I don't get: So you can have anyone do anything if you just get the wording right?

"Stab yourself doesn't work"

But
"Your sword is a banana.
Eat it."

Works?

This sort of thing is explicitly stated to work in Suggestion's description, so if the logic holds, it should be fine for Dominate Person, too.

That being said, getting the wording right is a terrific tactic both in and out of game; If you told me to take a long walk off a short pier, I'd probably be upset. If you told me to just go for a walk, then pointed me in the direction of the pier (without pointing out how short it is), I might just do what you say.

[Kish]

For you, Hylgia obeying Durkon is not against her nature, for me it seems that way. What I am asking for is a definition from the rules that helps identify whether "against their nature" applies or not.
And what I'm asking for is engagement with, or at least acknowledgement of, the fact that you're saying being mind controlled itself can be against someone's nature.

I guess neither of us gets what we want.

[brian 333]

The question of it being against one's nature is easily answered: have we seen them do it when they were not dominated?

Haley shoots Roy. That is not against her nature because we've seen her shoot hundreds of people, including on my desktop page which is wherd Red Guy and Green Guy show her the correct path to the Oracle. Haley's hypothetical player cannot even say Haley wouldn't shoot her boss because Bozzak was shot multiple times.

Same with Elan. Although as Elan's player, were I dominated and ordered to attack, I'd whip out the lute and try to claim it's my most offensive weapon...

The thing about magical effects like Suggestion and Dominate is that the affected character wants to obey. They don't go looking for excuses to not do a thing.

[Vendanna]

The only thing I can think off that would make her get a second save, is if someone mentions to her that being dominated is like getting oppresed (they are telling her what to do) which is what she already hated and made her flee the first time around.

(I think they call themselves a free spirit)

there's also a possibility that she's faking it, the same way that she faked she was working with Nale while she wanted the amulet for Loki. after all, we know that Loki answered her prayers but we don't know AT ALL what loki talked with Hilgya.

[Mandor]

I'm surprised at Elan attacking Roy, because all through the comic we've seen how much Elan craves Roy's approval and sees him as a big brother. You've gotta be in real dire straits to stab someone like that. But, I'm willing to write that off as "he failed his save", because Elan's will, UNLESS he's focused in dramatic fashion, is probably floating somewhere in the neighborhood of Belkar's WIS score. But who knows. Nale WAS slowly building up Elan to enough hate to attack Haley before she suddenly regained her voice and shouted out her love for Elan. If Dominate is a stronger form of compulsion... I can't say it's beyond what the spell can do.

Hilgya relinquishing Kudzu to Greg does surprise me, but I think Hilgya still believes Greg is Durkon. And Roy saw no need to dissaude her from thinking that as long as he got more firepower and support against the vampires. It may be an overdone trope, but it is possible, that Hilgya genuinely still feels something for Durkon and that most of her anger is a backlash at rejection/ being sent back home. One can see it as a simply human (er... dwarven) foible, or one can see it as sexist, but it's possible on some level she wants Durkon back and sees him wanting to hold Kudzu as a starting point down that road. Wise? No, but again, Hilgya is right up there with Miko in her ability to see things through preconcieved notions.

[Dion]

Look, you guys all remember the time when Greedo shot first, right? Well, when George Lucas was figuring out the script for Star Wars, he rolled a d20 and it came up a one, which means Greedo missed.

And it’s a really good thing that happened, too, because otherwise Han Solo would have died and the movies would have been really different.

Anyhow, that’s why I’m not worried about Hilgya being dominated like this. I assume she keeps rolling poorly on her saves, just like Greedo failed on his THAC0.

[jwhouk]

<snip>
My Prediction: next round, Roy is going to loudly and clearly yell. "Sorry, Hilgya, but the fate of the universe is at stake. I'M GOING TO THROW MY SWORD THROUGH KUDZU TO HIT LURKON. Right now!" and start raising his sword. Lurkon knows Roy well enough to know it's a bluff... but Hilgya doesn't. She'll think her baby is in mortal peril, and when Lurkon tells her to stay still and not to grab Kudzu... That's when she gets a new save.

THIS, so much this. Durk-ula and Roy both know it won't happen, but Hilgya doesn't. Heck, the action might snap the rest of the group out of their domination long enough to get back to butt-kicking.

[Keltest]

Right, but "Don't protect your baby" is an order. An order to stand still is still an order.

This would be true, except "stand there passively" is the default state for somebody who is both dominated, has no active commands and has no life-sustaining action they need to perform.

[Mandor]

Look, you guys all remember the time when Greedo shot first, right? Well, when George Lucas was figuring out the script for Star Wars, he rolled a d20 and it came up a one, which means Greedo missed.

And it’s a really good thing that happened, too, because otherwise Han Solo would have died and the movies would have been really different.

Anyhow, that’s why I’m not worried about Hilgya being dominated like this. I assume she keeps rolling poorly on her saves, just like Greedo failed on his THAC0.

Greedo never fired a shot, ever.
Han was the ONLY one to shoot.

Unless you mean the godawful abomination of revisionism that Lucas put out after the fact.

[EDIT: But J. Random Stormtroopers who couldn't shoot the broad side of a planet, I'll give you that. Always had that whole "Hmmmm" situation if a squad of ranodm stormtroopers from the first movie who always miss were faced off against a group of guest redshirt ensigns who must die within 20 minutes of bieng introduced.]

[Mandor]

THIS, so much this. Durk-ula and Roy both know it won't happen, but Hilgya doesn't. Heck, the action might snap the rest of the group out of their domination long enough to get back to butt-kicking.

And then Hilgya hits Roy with "Slay Living"? Remember she has ZERO attachment to OOTS. They're an ally of the moment for her, nothing more.

[Snails]

Saying "following orders is against her nature" amounts to adding a "doesn't work on Chaotic people" clause to Dominate Person. Wiggle room shouldn't extend to "so this ability is actually useless for its intended purpose; vampires are slightly more persuasive than ogres but can't actually mind control you to do anything."


I am sure you get this but I will say it out loud to fill out the argument: Every character can claim not doing what they want is against their nature, if the bar is too low. "Hey, I am Chaotic, so I do not follow instructions from others" is fundamentally no different than "Hey, I am Lawful, so I follow through to further my cause, even if this charming dude has great ideas to do something else right now."

[Peelee]

But J. Random Stormtroopers who couldn't shoot the broad side of a planet, I'll give you that. Always had that whole "Hmmmm" situation if a squad of ranodm stormtroopers from the first movie who always miss

Owen and Beru Lars would like to have some words with you. And the Jawas from the sandcrawler. And the entire crew of the Tantive IV. And Leia after she said "they let us escape." And Vader and Tarkin after they said "we let them escape."

[factotum]

The second one I don't get: So you can have anyone do anything if you just get the wording right?

"Stab yourself doesn't work"

But
"Your sword is a banana.
Eat it."

Works?


There's a significant difference in difficulty between convincing someone that a pool of clear liquid is water, and convincing someone that a long metal sharp object is in any way cognate with a curved yellow edible fruit. It's also worth noting that a quick dip in acid isn't actually all that deadly to a typical D&D character--we've already seen O-Chul swimming in the stuff for an extended period in-strip, albeit he's supposed to be extremely tough.

[SilverCacaobean]

According to the above quote, the Giant said that True Ressurection does not exist in the OotS world.

Not exactly. "Not available" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Haley even mentions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) it. It's just that it's a high level spell that will be unavailable to the order throughout the story. There could have existed a, now long dead, high enough level cleric of Thor back then.

[Mightymosy]

And what I'm asking for is engagement with, or at least acknowledgement of, the fact that you're saying being mind controlled itself can be against someone's nature.

I guess neither of us gets what we want.

I suppose being mindcontrolled could theoretically be against someone's nature.

What now? Do you have what you want? :smallconfused:

[Arkku]

"Your sword is a banana.
Eat it."

Works?


Well, I don't know about you but when I eat a banana I don't usually stab myself in the mouth with it. =)

[Mightymosy]

Well, I don't know about you but when I eat a banana I don't usually stab myself in the mouth with it. =)

Well, it was a rather quickly put together idea to try out the boundaries of how the spell is supposed to work, rules-wise.

Because I find the example with the acid pool a little odd.
It required that you can use the spell to make the victim see the world differently, like an illusion. Right?

So then for me the question would be how far this goes.

For example, can Durkula convince Elan to stab Haley by convincing Elan that Haley really is a big slime ball monster?

[hamishspence]

Or that she's been replaced by a shapeshifting monster disguised as her.

[Resileaf]

Nale nearly did convince Elan that Haley had turned against the Order when she was speaking gibberish.

[Keltest]

Nale nearly did convince Elan that Haley had turned against the Order when she was speaking gibberish.

True, but that was before they were in a relationship, while Haley was still largely keeping secrets from the group and keeping her personal life a mystery.

[Resileaf]

True, but that was before they were in a relationship, while Haley was still largely keeping secrets from the group and keeping her personal life a mystery.

True as well. Was just mentionning that is is possible to turn allies against one another with the proper use of mind control magic and deception.

[Keltest]

True as well. Was just mentionning that is is possible to turn allies against one another with the proper use of mind control magic and deception.

Charm Person isn't mind control. It just makes everything about you seem friendly and be seen in the most positive possible light. It makes Nale sound like a trustworthy authority, for example (and also makes it so that Elan, should he actually believe Nale and attack, will try to avoid harming Nale during the fight).

[Calmen1]

So, let´s think about this whole True Ressurection hypothesis in a narrative structure study fashion.

What do we know about Durkon´s father story? According to Thirden, we know that he died bravely without knowing he was going to be a father. We also knows that dwarves really, really, really, value dying with honor. And we know that Thirden is not telling the whole true story.

It ´s quite possible that Tenrir was a target of True Ressurection but refused to come back. He had a honourable death fighting a troll, was in Valhala and had no idea that his fiancée was pregnant. In this situation, Thirden was omissive about the True Ressurection.

But you know what is amazing in this narrative? Well, it has a simetry in this comic, a reflection. Durkon died fighting Malack. And was happy about dying in a honourable way, even crying of joy because of that. He was so similar to his father that he was okay about dying, leaving the Order(a sort of family) behind. He also didn´t know he had a son, since Kudzu was a completely mistery to everybody. And he may also be a target of the Ressurection Spell and have to chose between family and Valhala. The Tenrir-Durkon past story is a reflection of the Durkon-Kudzu current situation.

That is not a coincidence: that´s what make The Giant a master storyteller.

There are other reasons Thirden may have lied to young Durkon. Tenrir could have died without honor and Thirden lied to Durkon to protect him from this truth(remembering: dwarves are obsessed with honourable deaths). Tenrir may be alive(but not in the cave in somewhere) and abandoned Durkon and Sidgi. And so on. But the fact that the True Ressurection hypotesis is a complete mirror of the Durkon-Kudzu situation is amazing.

Now, talking about the "Hylgia doesn´t roll a saving throw against domination" thing. Because of Elan, we know that dominated characters think that Durkula is Durkon. Probably, the same happens to her so Hylgia is giving her baby to his daddy. But Hylgia says she hates Durkon. Two solutions to this: 1 - Hylgia hates Durkon and will have a saving throw soon or 2 - Hylgia deeply love Durkon and doesn´t have a saving throw yet.

However, it is quite probable that Belkar and Hylgia will be the first two to leave the domination gaze and help Roy.

[Goblin_Priest]

So, let´s think about this whole True Ressurection hypothesis in a narrative structure study fashion.

What do we know about Durkon´s father story? According to Thirden, we know that he died bravely without knowing he was going to be a father. We also knows that dwarves really, really, really, value dying with honor. And we know that Thirden is not telling the whole true story.

It ´s quite possible that Tenrir was a target of True Ressurection but refused to come back. He had a honourable death fighting a troll, was in Valhala and had no idea that his fiancée was pregnant. In this situation, Thirden was omissive about the True Ressurection.

But you know what is amazing in this narrative? Well, it has a simetry in this comic, a reflection. Durkon died fighting Malack. And was happy about dying in a honourable way, even crying of joy because of that. He was so similar to his father that he was okay about dying, leaving the Order(a sort of family) behind. He also didn´t know he had a son, since Kudzu was a completely mistery to everybody. And he may also be a target of the Ressurection Spell and have to chose between family and Valhala. The Tenrir-Durkon past story is a reflection of the Durkon-Kudzu current situation.

That is not a coincidence: that´s what make The Giant a master storyteller.

There are other reasons Thirden may have lied to young Durkon. Tenrir could have died without honor and Thirden lied to Durkon to protect him from this truth(remembering: dwarves are obsessed with honourable deaths). Tenrir may be alive(but not in the cave in somewhere) and abandoned Durkon and Sidgi. And so on. But the fact that the True Ressurection hypotesis is a complete mirror of the Durkon-Kudzu situation is amazing.

Now, talking about the "Hylgia doesn´t roll a saving throw against domination" thing. Because of Elan, we know that dominated characters think that Durkula is Durkon. Probably, the same happens to her so Hylgia is giving her baby to his daddy. But Hylgia says she hates Durkon. Two solutions to this: 1 - Hylgia hates Durkon and will have a saving throw soon or 2 - Hylgia deeply love Durkon and doesn´t have a saving throw yet.

However, it is quite probable that Belkar and Hylgia will be the first two to leave the domination gaze and help Roy.

I like where you are going.

I'll add, about the baby part: Durkon* just took the baby, and only just now used him as a living shield. Maybe she'll get another save in the next panel.

I must reiterate, though, how silly I find that the whole party fell victim to the vampires' domination gazes... especially the Hylgia. She's got a good will save progression, a lot of levels, and presumably wis up the wahoo. Unless she's a cleric that dumped wis... given she's not very wise at all... Still, good will save progression and many levels. Will save should be somewhat decent at the very least.

[fishhead202]

Question: Everyone is debating what would trigger a new save. In D&D rules, if a vamp doesn't order something that triggers a save, when would a PC get a new save? I can't imagine that one failed save would cause them to become a slave in perpetuity.

Also, while I'm enjoying everyones theories about the Durkon flashback, I still have to ask: "So what?" If his dad's still alive, is he was resurrected instead of his dad, if his dad died dishonorably, if his dad's a troll........... "So What?" Why does ANY of it matter? What flashback would have any effect on the real world? And if one did, why wasn't that card played immediately?

[Keltest]

Question: Everyone is debating what would trigger a new save. In D&D rules, if a vamp doesn't order something that triggers a save, when would a PC get a new save? I can't imagine that one failed save would cause them to become a slave in perpetuity.

Also, while I'm enjoying everyones theories about the Durkon flashback, I still have to ask: "So what?" If his dad's still alive, is he was resurrected instead of his dad, if his dad died dishonorably, if his dad's a troll........... "So What?" Why does ANY of it matter? What flashback would have any effect on the real world? And if one did, why wasn't that card played immediately?

They get a new save each day unless the caster spends a round concentrating to counter that effect. Otherwise, if they just ordered somebody to sit in the corner and then didn't interact with them at all beyond concentrating, that person is basically screwed. They wont let themselves die (ie they'll get up to go get food, they'll sleep) but they otherwise wont leave the corner and get no additional saves.

Edit: The duration of the spell is also one day per level, so it could conceivably time out.

[Resileaf]

Question: Everyone is debating what would trigger a new save. In D&D rules, if a vamp doesn't order something that triggers a save, when would a PC get a new save? I can't imagine that one failed save would cause them to become a slave in perpetuity.

Also, while I'm enjoying everyones theories about the Durkon flashback, I still have to ask: "So what?" If his dad's still alive, is he was resurrected instead of his dad, if his dad died dishonorably, if his dad's a troll........... "So What?" Why does ANY of it matter? What flashback would have any effect on the real world? And if one did, why wasn't that card played immediately?

A vampire's domination spell allows someone to make a new save every day (if the vampire doesn't concentrate to keep it up) to escape control. If one is particularly weak-willed though, they might just about never manage to make that save unless they get a natural 20. The spell also has a limit of 1 day per level, but the vampire can cast it at will, so it's a simple matter to re-dominate someone when the time limit is expired.
A vampire will most likely drink someone's blood to make them a spawn before they have any chance of escaping their control, though.

[fishhead202]

Wow, well that just ... sucks. Thanks for the info/replies!

Narratively, I feel like Durkon has to save the day. I still have no idea how though.

[b_jonas]

No, that is not "calling it differently". That is the opposite of a donation. The Temple would make exactly 0 profit from such a transaction (or even a -1530 loss, if the cleric still needs to be paid), which is not the kind of thing that gets you put in a golden plate of generous contributors. Yes, the diamonds worth 25000 are consumed as the material component of the spell, and the 1530 gold pieces is the payment for the priest who prepares and casts the spell. But I wonder if the god the priest worships would benefit somehow from the diamonds consumed. Such as, it makes Thor more powerful if his priests cast spells with expensive material components. If it were so, then the temple could count it as a donation for Thor, and at the same time not count the salary that the priest gets as a donation.

What I'm more surprised about though is why the Wall of Donors is hidden in some room that only priests can see ("temple's back rooms" in #1124 third panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1124.html)). In real world churches and museums and other cultural institutions, a plaque of donors (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Budapest-erzsebet-nagytemplom-jotevoi.jpg) is usually displayed prominently in the antechamber so that every guest could see it, so Durkon should have seen the Wall several times before he started working as a cleric.

[Resileaf]

What I'm more surprised about though is why the Wall of Donors is hidden in some room that only priests can see ("temple's back rooms" in #1124 third panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1124.html)). In real world churches and museums and other cultural institutions, a plaque of donors (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Budapest-erzsebet-nagytemplom-jotevoi.jpg) is usually displayed prominently in the antechamber so that every guest could see it, so Durkon should have seen the Wall several times before he started working as a cleric.

It's probably bad taste in dwarven society to flaunt your wealth and donations.

[Dion]

What flashback would have any effect on the real world? And if one did, why wasn't that card played immediately?

This is the most important question.

Hypothesis: maybe it wasn’t played immediately because Durkon hadnt figured it out yet. We know Durkon can connect his memories together in ways that Durkula can’t. Maybe a set of memories just started to make sense to Durkon.

Or maybe the plan only works in this particular spot at this particular time.

But what could it be?

I have a lot of WAGs, but no answers.

[Kish]

I suppose being mindcontrolled could theoretically be against someone's nature.

What now? Do you have what you want? :smallconfused:
Yes. But do you truly not see how dysfunctional that is? How it amounts to house ruling away the vampire gaze entirely, except for NPCs to use on other NPCs? (Diplomacy explicitly can't affect other PCs, so don't argue that it might be intended that dominate person and effects that duplicate it aren't for use on PCs.)

I am unaware of anywhere in the D&D rules that spells out beyond "actions against a person's nature" what actions give a second save (nor will I ever agree that those words bend the way you're bending them, so I don't consider such necessary). If you want to try and figure out what Rich is doing in the comic rather than arguing that what's in the latest strips shouldn't be, this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html) strip and the ones preceding it might give some insight.

[fishhead202]

n.

Or maybe the plan only works in this particular spot at this particular time.



This was my guess, but how donating 25K to Thor, some big "dad" reveal, and setting up the ambush in this particular spot all line up, I just can't figure out.

Also, if there was some place oriented trigger, why not have done it before now.

I also think the baby is important. I feel like Durkon getting the idea for this flashback when he realized he was a father is more than "I give up, don't hurt my kid".

[Mightymosy]

Yes. But do you truly not see how dysfunctional that is? How it amounts to house ruling away the vampire gaze entirely, except for NPCs to use on other NPCs? (Diplomacy explicitly can't affect other PCs, so don't argue that it might be intended that dominate person and effects that duplicate it aren't for use on PCs.)

I am unaware of anywhere in the D&D rules that spells out beyond "actions against a person's nature" what actions give a second save (nor will I ever agree that those words bend the way you're bending them, so I don't consider such necessary). If you want to try and figure out what Rich is doing in the comic rather than arguing that what's in the latest strips shouldn't be, this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html) strip and the ones preceding it might give some insight.

Unfortunately, no. Why should it only work on NPCs? I don't get your logic.

[Skull the Troll]

This was my guess, but how donating 25K to Thor, some big "dad" reveal, and setting up the ambush in this particular spot all line up, I just can't figure out.

Also, if there was some place oriented trigger, why not have done it before now.

I also think the baby is important. I feel like Durkon getting the idea for this flashback when he realized he was a father is more than "I give up, don't hurt my kid".

I agree, hes had little to do with his time other than how he might leverage Durkula's inability to make those connections. This story already seems a bit different in that it seems to be happening in real time. I'm of the opinion that he is more distracted by Durkons memories that he has wanted to let on.

[chy03001]

I actually really like how Rich had Durkon's mom address her son's misconception of her pension and correcting him that it's not a hand out.

In this day and age there are forces at work that try to shame people for taking what's rightfully theirs and I'm glad we're calling it out regardless of political views.

[anonymsly]

I find it interesting that people are assuming Hilgya was ordered to hand Kudzu over. The last order given was ‘come here’ as far as we know: nothing about ‘gimme’.

It’s entirely possible that Greg just TOOK the baby. And now, for the first time we’ve seen, Kudzu is crying and afraid. And we know no order to comfort her child will be forthcoming from Greg. No order to do anything is, transitively, an order to do nothing.

Hilgya is a mother so possessive and protective of her child that she won’t leave him in uncertain danger, because she handles danger better than anyone she could leave her baby with.

Now we have a situation where her baby has been taken away, is terrified and bawling, and she’s effectively being ordered to do nothing.

I’d grant a fresh save for that argument.

[Rogar Demonblud]

She repeatedly displays a callous attitude to her child's safety, preferring to control it rather than protect it, to the point of making sure it is clearly visible and between her enemies and her vital organs. I'd rule no new save at all for this.

[The_Weirdo]

She repeatedly displays a callous attitude to her child's safety, preferring to control it rather than protect it, to the point of making sure it is clearly visible and between her enemies and her vital organs. I'd rule no new save at all for this.

If she were that evil, she'd have either killed Kudzu or gave him up for adoption long ago. No, she wasn't using the baby as a shield. And no, if there's one thing Chaotics aren't about, it's control.

[Keltest]

If she were that evil, she'd have either killed Kudzu or gave him up for adoption long ago. No, she wasn't using the baby as a shield. And no, if there's one thing Chaotics aren't about, it's control.

Contrary to apparent popular belief, evil people do not kill or otherwise antagonize babies and other cute things out of reflex. She may not have been deliberately using him as a shield, but given the choice between exposing him to danger and, you know, not doing that, she chose to expose him to danger. And hey, look at what happened.

[The_Weirdo]

Contrary to apparent popular belief, evil people do not kill or otherwise antagonize babies and other cute things out of reflex. She may not have been deliberately using him as a shield, but given the choice between exposing him to danger and, you know, not doing that, she chose to expose him to danger. And hey, look at what happened.

Again: even assuming she's BoVD Chaotic Evil (rather than, you know, CN), the path of least resistance is for her to give her baby up for adoption. Or, heck, to abandon it.

[Keltest]

Again: even assuming she's BoVD Chaotic Evil (rather than, you know, CN), the path of least resistance is for her to give her baby up for adoption. Or, heck, to abandon it.

… And? The claim you were attempting to refute was that allowing her baby to be put in harms way is par for the course with her, and not against her nature, which it demonstrably is. There weren't any moral judgments attached, let alone any claims about her interest in keeping Kudzu.

[Kish]

It is clear that she has ego, and what passes for affection with her, invested in Kudzu. It is equally clear (and currently being highlighted, for that matter) that he would be far safer if she had given him up for adoption, or responded to Roy pointing out the problems with dragging him into battle with reason instead of with an instant "don't tell me what to do!"

There are different ways of being evil. Tarquin, for example, fought his ex-wife for custody of at least one of his sons, obsessed over fitting both of them into his narrative, and killed one of them and tried to mutilate the other rather than letting either of them go. Pretending evil can only mean "would give up for adoption" is an excellent way of avoiding facts you don't wish to grapple with, but you can refute nothing by pretending it's not there.

[The_Weirdo]

It is clear that she has ego, and what passes for affection with her, invested in Kudzu. It is equally clear (and currently being highlighted, for that matter) that he would be far safer if she had given him up for adoption, or responded to Roy pointing out the problems with dragging him into battle with reason instead of with an instant "don't tell me what to do!"

There are different ways of being evil. Tarquin, for example, fought his ex-wife for custody of at least one of his sons, obsessed over fitting both of them into his narrative, and killed one of them and tried to mutilate the other rather than letting either of them go. Pretending evil can only mean "would give up for adoption" is an excellent way of avoiding facts you don't wish to grapple with, but you can refute nothing by pretending it's not there.

I did mention killing him. :smalltongue:

[Keltest]

I legitimately don't understand what your point is. Yes, Hilgya could have done worse things to Kudzu. So what? She could have done better things too. What are you trying to prove?

[The_Weirdo]

I legitimately don't understand what your point is. Yes, Hilgya could have done worse things to Kudzu. So what? She could have done better things too. What are you trying to prove?

I meant as a path of least resistance. If she didn't care at all about Kudzu, aborting is the quickest and easiest way to solve the issue for her. The way the other guy put it, it sounded like she was actively using him as a shield.

[Keltest]

I meant as a path of least resistance. If she didn't care at all about Kudzu, aborting is the quickest and easiest way to solve the issue for her. The way the other guy put it, it sounded like she was actively using him as a shield.
Something something attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. Wittingly or not, she placed her child such that he would take any blows meant for her. We now have Greg highlighting that exact thing. It was even explained to her that this would be a likely consequence. So while I don't think she was deliberately endangering him, her judgment is clearly flawed.

[Peelee]

I meant as a path of least resistance. If she didn't care at all about Kudzu, aborting is the quickest and easiest way to solve the issue for her. The way the other guy put it, it sounded like she was actively using him as a shield.

Who says she has to take the path of least resistance to be Evil?

[The_Weirdo]

Who says she has to take the path of least resistance to be Evil?

I'm not claiming she isn't here. I'm claiming she's not Stupid Evil (as in, will do Evil things in the most inefficient way possible because she's Evil).


Something something attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. Wittingly or not, she placed her child such that he would take any blows meant for her. We now have Greg highlighting that exact thing. It was even explained to her that this would be a likely consequence. So while I don't think she was deliberately endangering him, her judgment is clearly flawed.

Precisely. I was calling the other guy out for attributing it to malice in this one case.

[Peelee]

I'm not claiming she isn't here. I'm claiming she's not Stupid Evil

Then why bring up Neutral at all?

Again: even assuming she's BoVD Chaotic Evil (rather than, you know, CN)

[The_Weirdo]

Then why bring up Neutral at all?

Lest people make assumptions regarding my views. :P

[Kish]

Given that her son is currently being used as a dwarven shield by a vampire, we agree that she doesn't want her son killed, and Roy tried to point out the danger she was dragging her son into and got angrily rebuffed, she's Stupid Something.

[The_Weirdo]

Given that her son is currently being used as a dwarven shield by a vampire, we agree that she doesn't want her son killed, and Roy tried to point out the danger she was dragging her son into and got angrily rebuffed, she's Stupid Something.

Chaotic Stupid. I mean, even the people that call her Evil admit she's more Chaotic than Evil, so the thing that Stupid should replace is the Evil or Neutral part of the alignment, yes?

[Mightymosy]

No.
Chaotic Evil Stupid

[LuisDantas]

Between Sigdi's certainty that Durkon does not know the whole story and Thirden's own establishment of plausible denial, the tale of Durkon's father's death back in #991 has become somewhat questionable.