OOTS #1156 - The Discussion Thread

[Alex Warlorn]

'Honorable death' in this case meaning "not giving the bullies the satisfaction of seeing you squirm." And the bullies don't like seeing their victims get rewarded for standing up to them to the end.

[woweedd]

I wouldn't go that far. Lots of people who aren't devoid of principles have an "I am for all the people!" attitude which gets beyond those who look like them on the most superficial level, but still conks out somewhere before reaching everyone who might be classified as "people." Redcloak, without realizing he was saying anything noteworthy himself, let slip that his understanding of the Plan offers no comfort to displacer beasts, worgs, otyughs, beholders, and the like.

Or for another example, a hypothetical person could balk at the concept that "race listed alignment is Always Evil" means "they are acceptable targets," arguing for treating orcs, and goblins, and black dragons, as people, and then get to undead and say, "Nah, it's naive and wrongheaded to treat a vampire like a person."
I mean, I'd note that Redcloak is already pretty terrible, not just towards monsters, but towards other humanoids, and even towards his fellow goblins. How many few his kinsmen have died for Xykon's petty whims and a "greater good" they'll never get to see?

[zimmerwald1915]

I mean, I'd note that Redcloak is already pretty terrible, not just towards monsters, but towards other humanoids, and even towards his fellow goblins. How many few his kinsmen have died for Xykon's petty whims and a "greater good" they'll never get to see?
This is the nature of leading a people's war - soldiers and civilians will be killed. But this hazard is not reduced by a change in tactics. Even nonviolent campaigns anticipate violence, possibly lethal violence, from the state, so they can leverage it for public sympathy. Even absent a campaign for change, we have it from Redcloak that goblin life is typically nasty, brutish, and short, and that this situation is maintained by violence.

[woweedd]

This is the nature of leading a people's war - soldiers and civilians will be killed. But this hazard is not reduced by a change in tactics. Even nonviolent campaigns anticipate violence, possibly lethal violence, from the state, so they can leverage it for public sympathy. Even absent a campaign for change, we have it from Redcloak that goblin life is typically nasty, brutish, and short, and that this situation is maintained by violence.
Do they anticipate violence from the monstrous Lich who murders people for fun, that you allied with out of "necessity"? Yes, a certain amount of deaths is inevitable in war, but the countless goblins dead because Xykon thought it was funny tells me Redcloak isn't overly concerned with limiting causalities to what's necessary. And, furthermore, I don't see how allying with the Gods is "selling out", but joining up with Xykon, a ruthless monster who murders his own men for giggles, is different.

[Jasdoif]

Redcloak's never mentioned how a single moment really changed his whole perspective.I dunno... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html)

More on the point, I think that strip also highlights the aftereffect of 451: He realized he'll feel better about the death of any goblin he's supposed to protect when their death can further his goals. That he believes his goals represent the best interests of the goblin people is convenient...and will likely remain so unless/until he sees the two diverge.

[Peelee]

I dunno... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html)

Imean, he lost an eye, obviously he'll have different perspective. He can't look at things the same way again!

[D.One]

For the purposes of actually being a played character, sure. But to the best of my knowledge, Displacer Beasts and most other non-humanoid monsters are not forced to choose between attacking the cities of PC races for resources or facing starvation/extinction

Indeed, they may choose not to attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0210.html)...

[Seward]

I guess this period is to lampshade a bit now "hot pursuit" often works in D&D.

You rest to get spells back and heal instead of maybe chasing the last few enemies to cut their plans off before they begin.

I was always the guy in the party who wanted to pursue this kind of threat. My fellow players sometimes went along, but usually outvoted me.

So instead of facing 3 vampires with most of your party intact but your spellcasters low on spell slots, you face 3 vampires with everybody dominated including a bunch of folks you can't just kill. And innocent people die in the meantime.

I'm not really going to enjoy any of these strips until the Order gets off its collective butt and puts an end to Hel's stupid subplot. This arc reminds me why vampires aren't ever allowed any slack by D&D PCs. Too many powers with no limits to use that multiply their CR.

[KorvinStarmast]

You've injected a large amount of certainty that is not in the comic. The only "fact" is that The Dark One might not survive into the next world. I consider Thor a reliable witness. He's seen a few million worlds come and go.
I mean, of course I'm right, duh, still a god
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1135.html)

You are not required to consider Thor a reliable witness, even though he seems to be speaking as the author in that multi strip case of exposition that wasn't done in crayon.
Rat would likely be a reliable witness, whose input we've not yet received; Loki's utterances do not yet show to be false; and Hel's various output seems to match other evidence (beyond her frustration leaking out during her dialogue with Krym); Tiamat's oracle seems to get it about right. Odin has shown that he's not on his best, but he's not shown to be false.

Why do you think the deities are not a reliable witness? They aren't mortals.

This arc reminds me why vampires aren't ever allowed any slack by D&D PCs. Too many powers with no limits to use that multiply their CR. Yep. That's the vampire in a nutshell.

[Peelee]

I consider Thor a reliable witness. He's seen a few million worlds come and go.
I mean, of course I'm right, duh, still a god
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1135.html)

You are not required to consider Thor a reliable witness, even though he seems to be speaking as the author in that multi strip case of exposition that wasn't done in crayon.
Rat would likely be a reliable witness, whose input we've not yet received; Loki's utterances do not yet show to be false; and Hel's various output seems to match other evidence (beyond her frustration leaking out during her dialogue with Krym); Tiamat's oracle seems to get it about right. Odin has shown that he's not on his best, but he's not shown to be false.

Why do you think the deities are not a reliable witness? They aren't mortals.

Who said I don't?

He may not survive the process.
He's pretty sure TDO won't survive, which I admitted, and he's likely correct, which I admitted, but he's not 100% on it, which is what I pointed out the first time.

[pendell]

It occurs to me that if things go pear-shaped with the Dark One, we may be able to find a fourth color quiddity from another deity who rose on his own abilities without sponsorship from an existing pantheon. One who already has orc worshippers. Yes, you guessed it. All hail the mighty Banjo!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

It occurs to me that if things go pear-shaped with the Dark One, we may be able to find a fourth color quiddity from another deity who rose on his own abilities without sponsorship from an existing pantheon. One who already has orc worshippers. Yes, you guessed it. All hail the mighty Banjo!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Banjo isn't worshipped by the orcs, anymore than Hel is worshipped by anyone in the North. And I doubt Giggles would be so merciful.

[hroþila]

It occurs to me that if things go pear-shaped with the Dark One, we may be able to find a fourth color quiddity from another deity who rose on his own abilities without sponsorship from an existing pantheon. One who already has orc worshippers. Yes, you guessed it. All hail the mighty Banjo!

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Alternatively, Banjo could just show up at the Godsmoot and vote to save the world!

[Caerulea]

It occurs to me that if things go pear-shaped with the Dark One, we may be able to find a fourth color quiddity from another deity who rose on his own abilities without sponsorship from an existing pantheon. One who already has orc worshippers. Yes, you guessed it. All hail the mighty Banjo!

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Godsdamnit pendall. Giggles does not have sufficient worship, and, more importantly, is a puppet!

—Caerulea

[Caerulea]

Alternatively, Banjo could just show up at the Godsmoot and vote to save the world!
Thar puppets! Cannae ye see tha thar just puppets?!?

—Caerulea

[Kish]

Clearly we need to settle this with a pie-eating contest.

[Snails]

How D&D has degenerated the Worgs! In the Hobbit, they had just such a thing.

I was thinking the same thing! We also had a Lord of the Eagles, an Entmoot, and Shadowfax is a lord of horses.

So these possibly sapient creatures holding council is probably a thing for Tolkien, and would surely be around at the end of the Third Age, if only, say, the Chihuahuas of the West did not breed with lesser canines.

I am imagining that a Displacer Beast Jamboree would be quite exciting, although the traditional polka is where things get really confusing on the dance floor. But "whose tentacle am I really stroking?" games during the pandemonium is part of the attraction, to displacer beasts.

[Caerulea]

Clearly we need to settle this with a pie-eating contest.
PUPPETS CANNAE EVEN EAT PIE!!! Maybe some form of cake-eating contest instead. But then we wouldn't have any. What a dilemma.

—Caerulea

[hroþila]

Thar puppets! Cannae ye see tha thar just puppets?!?

—Caerulea
I find it's best to not fight the madness.

Clearly we need to settle this with a pie-eating contest.
hooray!

[Peelee]

Clearly we need to settle this with a pie-eating contest.


PUPPETS CANNAE EVEN EAT PIE!!! Maybe some form of cake-eating contest instead. But then we wouldn't have any. What a dilemma.

—Caerulea

....so Boston Cream Pie, then?

[Jasdoif]

Clearly we need to settle this with a pie-eating contest.PUPPETS CANNAE EVEN EAT PIE!!! Maybe some form of cake-eating contest instead. But then we wouldn't have any. What a dilemma.

—Caerulea....so Boston Cream Pie, then?I think this has escalated to the point that we need a higher tier of desserts (https://www.kraftrecipes.com/recipe/057763/dirt-cups).

[Caerulea]

....so Boston Cream Pie, then?
*Googles*
How is that even called a pie? It is definitely a cake. Who wants to make it?
Edit:

I think this has escalated to the point that we need a higher tier of desserts (https://www.kraftrecipes.com/recipe/057763/dirt-cups).
How about a chocolate mousse?

—Caerulea

[Peelee]

*Googles*
How is that even called a pie? It is definitely a cake.

Oh, just wait til you realize cheesecake isn't a cake. :smallamused:

[Caerulea]

Oh, just wait til you realize cheesecake isn't a cake. :smallamused:
It may technically be a tart, but it is totally a cake. It's basically the same as chocolate mouse cake, except it's cheese instead of chocolate mousse.

—Caerulea

[hroþila]

I treat all those words as synonyms. Not to my credit.

[woweedd]

It may technically be a tart, but it is totally a cake. It's basically the same as chocolate mouse cake, except it's cheese instead of chocolate mousse.

—Caerulea
I never got why cakes and pies are considered opposed. Not only are they both great, but they're completely different in terms of culinary role. Let us stop the fighting, brothers, sister,s and assorted non-binary individuals, and join hands across this delicious divide in a display of harmony between all desserts!

[Peelee]

It may technically be a tart, but it is totally a cake. It's basically the same as chocolate mouse cake, except it's cheese instead of chocolate mousse.

—Caerulea

Nonsense, it's a custard. At least, the best ones without any crust are.

Also, chocolate mousse cakes are normal, bready cakes with chocolate mousse filling, not concoctions of pure chocolate mousse.

[Larre Gannd]

Nonsense, it's a custard. At least, the best ones without any crust are.

Also, chocolate mousse cakes are normal, bready cakes with chocolate mousse filling, not concoctions of pure chocolate mousse.

Peelee, I believe you are correct, and making me hungry

[RatElemental]

I would suggest that somebody who abandons their alleged principles whenever they become challenged never actually had them. Redcloak pays lip service to a lot of things, but when push comes to shove, he's never been one to stand his ground, even before Xykon broke his spirit for a time.

Push did come to shove once (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html) and Redcloak only begrudgingly acquiesced when still living hobgoblins were threatened.

[Caerulea]

Nonsense, it's a custard. At least, the best ones without any crust are.

Also, chocolate mousse cakes are normal, bready cakes with chocolate mousse filling, not concoctions of pure chocolate mousse.
Not the type I've had. They are typically composed of four layers, a thin bottom layer of chocolate cake, a thick layer of mousse, a thin layer of filling, usually a thick chocolate sauce/fudge, another thick layer of mousse, and finally a thin layer of chocolate fudge on the top. And then a raspberry in the center. Maybe I'm eating at the wrong places.

—Caerulea

[Peelee]

Not the type I've had. They are typically composed of four layers, a thin bottom layer of chocolate cake, a thick layer of mousse, a thin layer of filling, usually a thick chocolate sauce/fudge, another thick layer of mousse, and finally a thin layer of chocolate fudge on the top. And then a raspberry in the center. Maybe I'm eating at the wrong places.

—Caerulea

It sounds like you're eating at the right places!

[Rogar Demonblud]

*tries to mop up drool while nodding in agreement with Peelee*

[Emperor Time]

Well at least she get to enjoy the afterlife with Thor.

[The Shadow]

How D&D has degenerated the Worgs! In the Hobbit, they had just such a thing.

Sigh. D&D has degenerated a lot of monsters, I'm afraid. I've had fun playing it over the years, but it can definitely come across as least-common-denominator fantasy.

These days, I think at least three quarters of creating a great world is deciding what to leave *out*. Every kitchen-sink world starts to look the same after a while.

Oh, and about the cake... *Stop making me hungry!* ;)

[F.Harr]

Oh! What a great way to let us in on the evil of these guys!

[Alex Warlorn]

Well at least she get to enjoy the afterlife with Thor.

And she gets to tell the Cleric on her way out what's going on and give a little bit extra incentive to send these monsters back to the oblivion that birthed them.

[Rrmcklin]

And she gets to tell the Cleric on her way out what's going on and give a little bit extra incentive to send these monsters back to the oblivion that birthed them.

Minrah's already aware of what's going on, and already had plenty of incentive.

There's no reason to assume the two of them will even talk to one another.

[a_flemish_guy]

I think the message of Redcloak's whole story is less "don't try to change the system" and more "don't let yourself become as bad as the monsters you set out to fight". Redcloak's sin isn't trying to change things. It's being a slaving, brother-murdering asshat who is wiling to throw his kinsmen, who he claims to fight for, away for a nebulous "greater good". He puts the benefit of hypothetical future goblins above the benefit of actual present goblins, and he's motivated, ultimately, by a selfish desire to kill his guilt. Also, why are your treating the mere EXISTENCE of Evil gods as a problem? Most likely, Hel's plan will be foiled, and she will keep on being a God, just as Fenris and Loki are. The Good Gods haven't taken them down, because that would start an escalation they might not be able to win.


IMO redcloack's biggest fault is that he isn't opposed to opression, he just thinks that the wrong race is being opressed, it would be just peachy for him to have entire human villages be wiped out by goblins

[a_flemish_guy]

Yes, but at an unspecified point in the future. My intention now is to drag that date as far forward towards the present as I can.



Entire threads have been dedicated to this topic (and the related one "Where should you stop reading"). My own rule of thumb answer? Reaper Man.

"Guards! Guards!" and "Wyrd Sisters" are also perfectly valid too.

Grey Wolf

guards! guards! is really hard to get into if you're not a native english speaker though as the troll language is based on how english sounds rather then how it's written and thus doesn't come fluently if your primary language filter isn't english ( TLDR: I need to actually say the dialogue out loud if I want to know what they're saying)

personally I've tried 3 times already but I can't get past the first chapter

[Fyraltari]

guards! guards! is really hard to get into if you're not a native english speaker though as the troll language is based on how english sounds rather then how it's written and thus doesn't come fluently if your primary language filter isn't english ( TLDR: I need to actually say the dialogue out loud if I want to know what they're saying)

personally I've tried 3 times already but I can't get past the first chapter

Have you tried a translation? I don’t know if any exist in Flemish.

[danielxcutter]

*stuff about sentinents*

I believe that Rich has made exceptions for evil beings of the supernatural variety - such as outsiders, who are literal incarnations of their alignment(IIRC, he said usually it's rare, and even then only one "step" away and not much), or undead, which are powered by negative energy(and if you ask me, I'd say OotSverse vampires are even worse than other undead; at least Xykon chose to become a lich and was already a horrible person). *summons Eldritch Banana*

Keith Baker, creator of the Eberron setting, has similar views methinks. He used aberrations(created by the Daeklyr) probably won't be Good, and certainly different from other types of sentinents(a Dolgrim raised by goblinoids is still going to think differently from their foster parents, to paraphrase), but they won't be the stereotypical, evil mooks either, because they were raised properly instead of used as cannon - er, magic? - fodder for deranged mad scientist outsiders.

Heck, the Kalashtar were originally rogue Quori(which have the Lawful and Evil subtypes), and apparently there are also canonical Neutral-aligned Quori as well(though obviously they either hide this from their kin, or just hide). One of my favorite things about the setting is that it takes the tendency to lump all "monsters" together and says "Up yours!" loudly. Of course a lot of monsters are bastards, but there's no shortage of members of PC races being bastards either, eh?



Regarding Discworld: both personal experience and the Internet agree with the fact that pre-Equal Rites Discworld was a bit... meh. Well, in comparison to the others. I prefer the Watch books and DEATH(both books centered around him and, well, him in general), but on the whole I think it's a great series.



Regarding Banjo: Thor said in #1144 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html) that gods need Belief, Worship, Dedication, and Souls. Let's see...


Belief: Even counting the entire Order and the tribe of orcs, I'd guess that mortals who even know about Banjo at all number a few dozen at most. And if Belief actively requires the mortals to acknowledge the divine being as a god, it might be even less.
Worship: Banjo lacks this even more than Belief; aside from the orcs that worship Giggles(and that's assuming the rival system works for gods too), the only actual worshiper he has is Elan. One single mortal who isn't even a cleric.
Dedication and Souls: Unless a) the rival system works for this too and a lot of orcs have been dying in Giggles' name, both the puppet gods have approximately zilch of either of these.


So yeah.

[Themrys]

RIP long-suffering daughter. Your presence was short, but appreciated.

I kinda hope her mother is rich and important enough to have her resurrected.

Though she might prefer to stay dead to escape her mom's grumpyness ... and of course, she died honourably, so ... why look back?

I'll miss her. Hope we get to see a bit of her afterlife.

And I still hope grumpy mother dwarf will throw off the domination out of sheer stubbornness. (Did she even notice they murdered her daughter?)

[danielxcutter]

I kinda hope her mother is rich and important enough to have her resurrected.

Though she might prefer to stay dead to escape her mom's grumpyness ... and of course, she died honourably, so ... why look back?

I'll miss her. Hope we get to see a bit of her afterlife.

And I still hope grumpy mother dwarf will throw off the domination out of sheer stubbornness. (Did she even notice they murdered her daughter?)

I don't think dominated people can remember what they did while they were affected by the effect.

[Keltest]

I don't think dominated people can remember what they did while they were affected by the effect.

Belkar certainly seemed able to.

[KorvinStarmast]

He's pretty sure TDO won't survive, which I admitted, and he's likely correct, which I admitted, but he's not 100% on it, which is what I pointed out the first time. In that case, we appear to be in violent agreement. (Is that allowed?) :smalleek:

As to dessert, double fudge chocolate bacon ice cream.

[Keltest]

For the purposes of decision making, I think its fair to operate off the assumption that TDO wouldn't survive. Even if its technically a possibility, its presented as being fairly unlikely.

[Resileaf]

In that case, we appear to be in violent agreement. (Is that allowed?) :smalleek:

It is, but a dance-off will be necessary release the accumulated tension.

[Peelee]

It is, but a dance-off will be necessary release the accumulated tension.

I accept these terms.

[Caerulea]

I accept these terms.
Cake will be provided after the competition to help everyone calm down. And eat cake. That's the important part.

—Caerulea

[KorvinStarmast]

I accept these terms. Sadly, I do not know the displacer beast shuffle. The betting line will tend to favor Peelee.

[a_flemish_guy]

For the purposes of decision making, I think its fair to operate off the assumption that TDO wouldn't survive. Even if its technically a possibility, its presented as being fairly unlikely.

even if it was fairly likely then it's still too great a risk to hinge your plan on

this is the first time a pantheon apeared by itself in millions of worlds, this could be a natural consequence the longer a world exist or this really is a fluke and it'll be millions more worlds lost before another oppurtunity presents itself again


before you throw the dice remember that a 1 is a possibility so crucial actions should best be undertaken without the dice being necessary (or with less crucial dice rolls)

[pendell]

Cake will be provided after the competition to help everyone calm down. And eat cake. That's the important part.

—Caerulea

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/034/053/The_cake_is_a_lie.jpg?1318992465

:(

But I wanted cake!

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[a_flemish_guy]

Have you tried a translation? I don’t know if any exist in Flemish.

I haven't looked either for 2 reasons

1) many nuances in style and language are lost in translation, this is especially important with humor

2) flemish translations are horrendous, I started reading in english especially to avoid them

[Grey_Wolf_c]

guards! guards! is really hard to get into if you're not a native english speaker though as the troll language is based on how english sounds rather then how it's written and thus doesn't come fluently if your primary language filter isn't english ( TLDR: I need to actually say the dialogue out loud if I want to know what they're saying)

personally I've tried 3 times already but I can't get past the first chapter

...?

Guards! Guards! features no troll speaking at all. Detritus does have a cameo as a troll splatter (like a bouncer, but trolls use more force), but he only waves the characters into the bar. Are you thinking of Men At Arms?

Also, the book doesn't have chapters.

(Also, as a non-native English speaker, I've never had any particular difficulties with Pratchett unlike, say, figuring out what the Jägermonsters say in Girl Genius)

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Sadly, I do not know the displacer beast shuffle. The betting line will tend to favor Peelee.

sigh

Let me break out the hammer pants...

[Breccia]

Let me break out the hammer pants...

Unfortunately, "Please, Hammer, don't hurt 'em" is the opposite of the direction this comic is going.

[Ruck]

Well at least she get to enjoy the afterlife with Thor.


And she gets to tell the Cleric on her way out what's going on and give a little bit extra incentive to send these monsters back to the oblivion that birthed them.

Not at all clear that the recently deceased is a Thor worshiper.

[D.One]

Belkar certainly seemed able to.

DnD Domination has no "forget what you've done under domination" properties. The victim remembers all she did, and, if I'm not mistaken, she also remembers being dominated (which is different from Suggestion, for example, in which the victim may not notice the magical influence and rationalize her actions).

[a_flemish_guy]

...?

Guards! Guards! features no troll speaking at all. Detritus does have a cameo as a troll splatter (like a bouncer, but trolls use more force), but he only waves the characters into the bar. Are you thinking of Men At Arms?

Also, the book doesn't have chapters.

(Also, as a non-native English speaker, I've never had any particular difficulties with Pratchett unlike, say, figuring out what the Jägermonsters say in Girl Genius)

Grey Wolf

I guess that must be it or maybe thud! (I distincly remember something about a dwarf and troll conflict), sorry for the confusion


I on the other hand have no problem with the jaegermonsters (yu zimply hef to tok like ze germans in ze zilly movies, think scratchensniff from animaniacs)

[a_flemish_guy]

Not at all clear that the recently deceased is a Thor worshiper.

well, there's only one rainbow bridge to valhalla where minrah is waiting, I don't think it's exclusive to thor worshippers

[Fyraltari]

well, there's only one rainbow bridge to valhalla where minrah is waiting, I don't think it's exclusive to thor worshippers

A LG dwarf who doesn't worship anyone is headed to Celestia, not Valhalla.

[Peelee]

A LG dwarf who doesn't worship anyone is headed to Celestia, not Valhalla.

I think flemish was talking about, for example, Odin worshippers, et al.

[Fyraltari]

I think flemish was talking about, for example, Odin worshippers, et al.

Who may not be headed to Valhalla either.

[Alex Warlorn]

I don't think dominated people can remember what they did while they were affected by the effect.

Actually, I'm absolutely sure they do. Because it would be way too annoying and awkward for players having to keep track of what they did and didn't do while Dominated.

[a_flemish_guy]

A LG dwarf who doesn't worship anyone is headed to Celestia, not Valhalla.

mmh, it does look like a dwarf is climbing alongside roy on mount celestia and the bet only says that all non-honor dead dwarfs go to hel and nothing about where the rest show up, so I guess I interpreted that wrong

[Peelee]

Who may not be headed to Valhalla either.

I'd raise an eyebrow of they weren't, though.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

mmh, it does look like a dwarf is climbing alongside roy on mount celestia and the bet only says that all non-honor dead dwarfs go to hel and nothing about where the rest show up, so I guess I interpreted that wrong

It does say what happens to the rest: they go to the appropriate plane for their alignment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html).

Grey Wolf

[a_flemish_guy]

It does say what happens to the rest: they go to the appropriate plane for their alignment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html).

Grey Wolf

I forgot about that discussion, thanks

what allignment is valhalla then? NG?

[woweedd]

I forgot about that discussion, thanks

what allignment is valhalla then? NG?
CN, leaning CG. Durkon went there because it's where his God, presumably-CG Thor, is. Durkon himself is LG. Devout types like Clerics generally go to their God's domain in death.

[Fyraltari]

I'd raise an eyebrow of they weren't, though.
Odin and his folk most likely do live in Valhalla, yes. But other gods (say Freyr or Dvalin who also have dwarven worshippers) might not.
[self-scrubbed cuz no religion]

[Rogar Demonblud]

These days, I think at least three quarters of creating a great world is deciding what to leave *out*. Every kitchen-sink world starts to look the same after a while.

It's actually a lot easier to pick what you want in, and why.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's actually a lot easier to pick what you want in, and why.
I think you are both saying the same thing, differently. :smallcool:

[Kish]

I forgot about that discussion, thanks

what allignment is valhalla then? NG?
Not stated in the comic. Some people are assuming it's another name for Ysgard (which is between CN and CG); from the way it's presented I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea of it being a less Good plane than the one Roy went to. The only other afterlife we've actually seen is the Lawful Good one.

[Peelee]

Not stated in the comic. Some people are assuming it's another name for Ysgard (which is between CN and CG); from the way it's presented I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea of it being a less Good plane than the one Roy went to. The only other afterlife we've actually seen is the Lawful Good one.

Well, depending on how you want to define the afterlife, we may have seen the briefest glimpse of the Nine Hells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0918.html).

ETA: Also Archeron (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html), though that was in crayon and had virtually no detail whatsoever, so I'd hardly say that counts. Just figured I'd throw that in for completion's sake.

[Keltest]

Not stated in the comic. Some people are assuming it's another name for Ysgard (which is between CN and CG); from the way it's presented I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea of it being a less Good plane than the one Roy went to. The only other afterlife we've actually seen is the Lawful Good one.

It could be that an unusually large number of the Northern Pantheon have their home in Ysgard/Valhalla, and that particularly devote worshipers of specific northern gods (ie an above average number of dwarves) get sent to the halls of their god rather than to their alignment plane.

[Sloanzilla]

Wish some of these dwarves would make their saves every now and then. Guess "nothing happens" makes for a bad storytelling, but a world where nearly 100% of saves are missed is a different world than one where around 30% or so are made.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, depending on how you want to define the afterlife, we may have seen the briefest glimpse of the Nine Hells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0918.html).
Every time we've seen the Directors' TV room, it's been in Hell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html) (Lee's domain).

[Gnoman]

Vampiric domination is an unlimited ability, and you have to be paying attention to notice that somebody has the swirly eyes. Making a few Will Saves won't matter - eventually every target WILL fail. The Giant is just skipping all the "wonder what that Will Save was about" panels.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I think you are both saying the same thing, differently. :smallcool:

Not really. I'm talking about ordering off of a menu, as opposed to trying to pull out certain ingredients after the whole thing's already been run through a blender.

[Peelee]

Every time we've seen the Directors' TV room, it's been in Hell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html) (Lee's domain).

Huh. Didn't notice that. I even erased a bit at the end of that post speculating there were likely in the Nine Hells when not on the material plane, too.

[Snails]

Wish some of these dwarves would make their saves every now and then. Guess "nothing happens" makes for a bad storytelling, but a world where nearly 100% of saves are missed is a different world than one where around 30% or so are made.

How do you know some guards did not make their save, and the eventual result was the same as if they failed the first time?

In this case, if it is only a minority of guards that make their save, they can be grappled and/or subdued and/or corralled until they fail. The only defense is to have a spellcaster to back you up, and without the firepower to get the vamps to flee, that is a too temporary measure.

Regarding the dispel wave followed by dominates (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1122.html), The Giant could have added another 10 or 20 or 40 panels to draw out that struggle, and the result could easily have been the same.

Is it okay if The Giant cheats a little to keep the story moving?

[a_flemish_guy]

How do you know some guards did not make their save, and the eventual result was the same as if they failed the first time?

In this case, if it is only a minority of guards that make their save, they can be grappled and/or subdued and/or corralled until they fail. The only defense is to have a spellcaster to back you up, and without the firepower to get the vamps to flee, that is a too temporary measure.

Regarding the dispel wave followed by dominates (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1122.html), The Giant could have added another 10 or 20 or 40 panels to draw out that struggle, and the result could easily have been the same.

Is it okay if The Giant cheats a little to keep the story moving?

it's the old D&D purists vs the narrative of the story thing again

to those I say: imagine your GM rolling dice by himself for 15 minutes and when asked what he's doing he says
"oh, I'm rolling for the will saves against domination from the vampires at the elder council, you'll be too late to change any of that outcome so don't worry about it"
"do they have any chance to not be dominated or defeat some of the vampires by the time we get there?"
"I wouldn't count on it, there's not really any of them can do against the vampires or the guards that have already been dominated, just sit tight, I'm almost done"

you'd take your dice bag and use it as a mace

[zimmerwald1915]

it's the old D&D purists vs the narrative of the story thing again

to those I say: imagine your GM rolling dice by himself for 15 minutes and when asked what he's doing he says
"oh, I'm rolling for the will saves against domination from the vampires at the elder council, you'll be too late to change any of that outcome so don't worry about it"
"do they have any chance to not be dominated or defeat some of the vampires by the time we get there?"
"I wouldn't count on it, there's not really any of them can do against the vampires or the guards that have already been dominated, just sit tight, I'm almost done"

you'd take your dice bag and use it as a mace
Ten quatloos says not even the groggiest of old grognards ever did that.

[a_flemish_guy]

Ten quatloos says not even the groggiest of old grognards ever did that.

I know (or at least I hope so, reading bad DM threads frequently scores critical hits on that hope though), I was sort of poking fun at the notion that we should see some of these dwarves saving against domination

[Seward]

Wish some of these dwarves would make their saves every now and then. Guess "nothing happens" makes for a bad storytelling, but a world where nearly 100% of saves are missed is a different world than one where around 30% or so are made.

Rich is pretty bad about saves. It is rare for people to make saves unless a failure is very unusual, and even then somebody like Redcloak never fails a 80% save and somebody like Elan never makes a 20% save. Basically saving throws work on narrative rules the way Elan thinks probability works. Probably much to the frustration of both Roy and V.

Ditto Dispels. A lot of those odds were closer to 50/50 than 80/20. As long as an outcome he's shooting for is possible he's good with it, and I'm not sure that is entirely wrong when the universe is a self-aware stick figure parody according to one of its in-universe creators.

[Aveline]

I personally think it would take a very particular story for me to accept "the hero won a coin flip" as a valuable lesson. I realize that's not precisely what you're saying, but I do think it would be detrimental for the story to spend time acknowledging the reality of chance. Villain loses: the heroes were adequately prepared. Heroes lose: the battle wasn't to be won. Accurate portrayals, in general, aren't why I read fiction.

But that's my perspective as a non-player, and perhaps I would feel differently if D&D were such a huge part of my life like it is for many others.

[Peelee]

I personally think it would take a very particular story for me to accept "the hero won a coin flip" as a valuable lesson. I realize that's not precisely what you're saying, but I do think it would be detrimental for the story to spend time acknowledging the reality of chance. Villain loses: the heroes were adequately prepared. Heroes lose: the battle wasn't to be won. Accurate portrayals, in general, aren't why I read fiction.

But that's my perspective as a non-player, and perhaps I would feel differently if D&D were such a huge part of my life like it is for many others.

Speaking as someone who has D&D as a huge part of my life, I wholly agree with everything you said. Granted, that's true most of the time, IIRC, but I wanted to make a note of it this time since you tossed that last bit in. :smallwink:

[Sindeloke]

(Also, as a non-native English speaker, I've never had any particular difficulties with Pratchett unlike, say, figuring out what the Jägermonsters say in Girl Genius)

I am a native English speaker and I can't understand those guys half the time, so don't beat yourself up.

[The Shadow]

Ten quatloos says not even the groggiest of old grognards ever did that.

You might be surprised. I recall when 5e was being mooted, an example was thrown out about a character being chased by guards making a skill roll to evade capture and justifying it by declaring that he overturned a passing apple cart.

One hoary grognard objected on a forum. He said, "But what if there weren't any apple carts on the road at that hour?!"

After some confused questions, all became clear... Sort of. He claimed that he built his worlds so meticulously that he knew the route and hours of every street vendor in each major city. Along with their entire extended families with personalities for each.

I admit that I had an extremely hard time believing that he was telling the truth - I mean, even *Tolkien* would have told the guy to lie down for a while! - but he stuck to his story tenaciously and humorlessly. It didn't sit right with him for a player to introduce an apple cart where he knew perfectly well there wasn't one.

I could totally see that guy rolling dice for saves and informing the party they had preemptively failed.

[The Shadow]

Not really. I'm talking about ordering off of a menu, as opposed to trying to pull out certain ingredients after the whole thing's already been run through a blender.

No, we're on the same page. I don't actually use the blender any more. I've long since moved on from D&D to other systems, and make things more or less from scratch these days.

When I have time to game at all, sigh.

[Peelee]

You might be surprised. I recall when 5e was being mooted, an example was thrown out about a character being chased by guards making a skill roll to evade capture and justifying it by declaring that he overturned a passing apple cart.

One hoary grognard objected on a forum. He said, "But what if there weren't any apple carts on the road at that hour?!"

After some confused questions, all became clear... Sort of. He claimed that he built his worlds so meticulously that he knew the route and hours of every street vendor in each major city. Along with their entire extended families with personalities for each.

I admit that I had an extremely hard time believing that he was telling the truth - I mean, even *Tolkien* would have told the guy to lie down for a while! - but he stuck to his story tenaciously and humorlessly. It didn't sit right with him for a player to introduce an apple cart where he knew perfectly well there wasn't one.

I could totally see that guy rolling dice for saves and telling the party they had preemptively failed.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, a friend started a campaign with all the PCs being strangers waking up in a small dungeon with no memory of how they got there. Solving the dungeon teleported us into a random city. I decided to walk to the nearest store and ask what city I was in. On hearing the answer, I declared, "wonderful, my home town! I go home."

My charaxter's house caught fire shortly after. I approved of that decision.

[Cazero]

You might be surprised. I recall when 5e was being mooted, an example was thrown out about a character being chased by guards making a skill roll to evade capture and justifying it by declaring that he overturned a passing apple cart.

One hoary grognard objected on a forum. He said, "But what if there weren't any apple carts on the road at that hour?!"

After some confused questions, all became clear... Sort of. He claimed that he built his worlds so meticulously that he knew the route and hours of every street vendor in each major city. Along with their entire extended families with personalities for each.

I admit that I had an extremely hard time believing that he was telling the truth - I mean, even *Tolkien* would have told the guy to lie down for a while! - but he stuck to his story tenaciously and humorlessly. It didn't sit right with him for a player to introduce an apple cart where he knew perfectly well there wasn't one.

I could totally see that guy rolling dice for saves and informing the party they had preemptively failed.
Missing the point. Old grognards know the proper terminology for an improvised bag-like weapon would be sap and not mace.

[littlebum2002]

Ten quatloos says not even the groggiest of old grognards ever did that.

I absolutely did that on my first time DMing. My story required an evil wizard to complete a spell which would have blocked out the sun or something, and my original plan was to have the wizard finish the spell right as they opened his chamber, but I thought it would be "fun" to let them fight him in a battle they had no hope of winning first.

[The MunchKING]

I absolutely did that on my first time DMing. My story required an evil wizard to complete a spell which would have blocked out the sun or something, and my original plan was to have the wizard finish the spell right as they opened his chamber, but I thought it would be "fun" to let them fight him in a battle they had no hope of winning first.

That's the PCs fighting a hopeless battle though, not another bunch of NPCs fighting a hopeless battle that you decide to roll out anyway. Right?

[The Shadow]

Missing the point. Old grognards know the proper terminology for an improvised bag-like weapon would be sap and not mace.

Heh. As the kids say these days, I see what you did there.

I'm nearly old enough to qualify as a grognard myself... I just have a few too many of those pesky SAN points. ;) I started playing the red book of OD&D at age 11.

[The Shadow]

On the opposite side of the spectrum, a friend started a campaign with all the PCs being strangers waking up in a small dungeon with no memory of how they got there. Solving the dungeon teleported us into a random city. I decided to walk to the nearest store and ask what city I was in. On hearing the answer, I declared, "wonderful, my home town! I go home."

My charaxter's house caught fire shortly after. I approved of that decision.

It could be worse. Your house could have turned out to be a gazebo. ;)

As the old saying goes, "The DM is not a god. Gods are NPC's."

[a_flemish_guy]

Missing the point. Old grognards know the proper terminology for an improvised bag-like weapon would be sap and not mace.

I was using mace as a short-hand for "blunt weapon", in the same way you'd use sword to describe both a falchion and a rapier :smallwink:

also saps are mostly understood to be non-lethal

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I was using mace as a short-hand for "blunt weapon", in the same way you'd use sword to describe both a falchion and a rapier :smallwink:

also saps are mostly understood to be non-lethal

And he is using blue text to indicate he is not to be taken that seriously.

Grey Wolf

[a_flemish_guy]

And he is using blue text to indicate he is not to be taken that seriously.

Grey Wolf

I know, I used the wink emoticon to convey the same meaning

[rbetieh]

I know, I used the wink emoticon to convey the same meaning

I prefer the wink myself.... blue text just looks like a folder location to me (thats how I color my shell).

But either way, whether you sap or mace the result is the same :-D

[KorvinStarmast]

One hoary grognard objected on a forum. He said, "But what if there weren't any apple carts on the road at that hour?!" There were some people who got into that level of detail.

We didn't have MTV! (Well, not till later)

A guy I knew in college was taking a basic computer programming class. (The language was, I kid you not, BASIC). For his "files" project he build up files for a random rolling scheme to handle all seven levels of his dungeon. (And he printed it all out on yellow teletype paper).

So yeah, there was some of that going on then.

And you don't use the filled dice bag as a mace, you use it as a sap. :smallbiggrin: (Thief players knew this intuitively ... :smallcool:) (oops, looks like Cazero got there first).

I'm nearly old enough to qualify as a grognard myself... I just have a few too many of those pesky SAN points. ;) I started playing the red book of OD&D at age 11. OD&D had little brown books. You are referring to Basic/BX? (Moldvay? Mentzer?)
As the old saying goes, "The DM is not a god. Gods are NPC's." Correct. :smallbiggrin:

[Hemoparty]

I like how the vampires just go ahead and assume she's struggling for the sake of dying honorably, and not on the off chance that something she does will improve the situation at all. Gotta push that pro-Hel narrative!

[Resileaf]

I like how the vampires just go ahead and assume she's struggling for the sake of dying honorably, and not on the off chance that something she does will improve the situation at all. Gotta push that pro-Hel narrative!

Well they probably have a point that her first reflex is to try to fight back because of the whole honor thing.
That's the only point I'm willing to give them though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well they probably have a point that her first reflex is to try to fight back because of the whole honor thing.
That's the only point I'm willing to give them though.

They are vampires.
They suck.

All else is rubbish.

[The Shadow]

OD&D had little brown books. You are referring to Basic/BX? (Moldvay? Mentzer?) Correct. :smallbiggrin:

Urgh. Apologies, I got my wires crossed. You are right, and I meant the Mentzer Basic set.

[littlebum2002]

That's the PCs fighting a hopeless battle though, not another bunch of NPCs fighting a hopeless battle that you decide to roll out anyway. Right?

No, you're right, it's not exactly the same, but they showed a similar level of appreciation for it

[Fyraltari]

In the real world, the vampires are right that Hell is named after Hel, however in Stickworld it seems to be the other way around (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1083.html) (unless it was Loki who convinced the devils to name their place after his daughter).

[Rogar Demonblud]

Actually, the two terms (Hell and Hela) are separately derived from a common root (xaljo, meaning hidden place). Which hints that Hela may not be her name but rather a kenning (woman in xaljo), similar to how Medea means 'Mede woman'.

[Fyraltari]

Actually, the two terms (Hell and Hela) are separately derived from a common root (xaljo, meaning hidden place). Which hints that Hela may not be her name but rather a kenning (woman in xaljo), similar to how Medea means 'Mede woman'.

It’s not uncommon for death deities to be called by the name of their domain rather than their own for fear of drawing their attention to the speaker either.

[Kish]

Whether Hel's name is based on the Nine Hells as 1083 implies, or the Nine Hells are based on Hel's name as the vampire in #1156 asserts (without any reason to expect them to know what they're talking about)...

There's no character in the comic named Hela.

[Rogar Demonblud]

True, the Hel/Hela divide is simply a convenience to avoid confusion between the OOTS deity and the RW deity.

[Peelee]

True, the Hel/Hela divide is simply a convenience to avoid confusion between the OOTS deity and the RW deity.

I thought it was simply a convenience of staying with the old D&D deity Hel. After all, there's no similar convenience between OOTS Thor and RW-religion deity Thor.

[Ruck]

True, the Hel/Hela divide is simply a convenience to avoid confusion between the OOTS deity and the RW deity.


I thought it was simply a convenience of staying with the old D&D deity Hel. After all, there's no similar convenience between OOTS Thor and RW-religion deity Thor.

Having seen Thor: Ragnarok recently, I assumed that it was the Marvel mythology that changed the name from "Hel" to "Hela" because studios don't typically greenlight big-budget movies with characters named Hell.

[Kish]

Having seen Thor: Ragnarok recently, I assumed that it was the Marvel mythology that changed the name from "Hel" to "Hela" because studios don't typically greenlight big-budget movies with characters named Hell.
Hades, now...Hades can even have a house.

Explaining the joke: The British Fighting Fantasy Gamebook series included a book called House of Hell. When the series came to America, they renamed that one to "House of Hades" and the final villain, a Hell Demon, to a "Hades Demon."

[Keltest]

Hades, now...Hades can even have a house.

Explaining the joke: The British Fighting Fantasy Gamebook series included a book called House of Hell. When the series came to America, they renamed that one to "House of Hades" and the final villain, a Hell Demon, to a "Hades Demon."

Yeah, but Hades is a cool dude who just gets a bad rap.

[woweedd]

Having seen Thor: Ragnarok recently, I assumed that it was the Marvel mythology that changed the name from "Hel" to "Hela" because studios don't typically greenlight big-budget movies with characters named Hell.
I assume it's more to avoid confusion between her and the place she rules, both of which are called Hel. The Hela spelling predates Stan Lee. There's a painting from 1909 called ""Hermod before Hela".

[hroþila]

Yeah, but Hades is a cool dude who just gets a bad rap.
He's everybody's favourite Hercules character, so at least he has that.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, but Hades is a cool dude who just gets a bad rap.

Hades is the one guy in the Olympian family who just wants everybody to leave him alone and refuse to partake in their nonsense...

... Most of the time.

[georgie_leech]

Hades is the one guy in the Olympian family who just wants everybody to leave him alone and refuse to partake in their nonsense...

... Most of the time.

He also had a great flair for karmic punishments.

[mjasghar]

I assume it's more to avoid confusion between her and the place she rules, both of which are called Hel. The Hela spelling predates Stan Lee. There's a painting from 1909 called ""Hermod before Hela".
Also helas was often used for Greece

[zimmerwald1915]

Also helas was often used for Greece
"Hellas," and it's still used today. Greece's actual name is the "Hellenic Republic."

Not that this has anything to do with the goddess Hel. The etymologies are unrelated.

[Larre Gannd]

"Hellas," and it's still used today. Greece's actual name is the "Hellenic Republic."

Not that this has anything to do with the goddess Hel. The etymologies are unrelated.

Wait, really? Huh. Today I have learned something new.

[Aeson]

Wait, really? Huh. Today I have learned something new.
Hellen is a mythological king of Phthia, the son of Deucalion and Pyrrha and the grandson of Prometheus, from whom all true Greeks ("Hellenes") were supposedly descended, the Aeolians through his son Aeolus, the Dorians through his son Dorus, the Ionians through his grandson Ion, and the Achaeans through his grandson Achaeus.

[Goblin_Priest]

Seems to me that, with their vampiric powers, those clerics could cause a lot of dwarves to die unhonorably.

[Fyraltari]

Seems to me that, with their vampiric powers, those clerics could cause a lot of dwarves to die unhonorably.

"He jumped in a chasm to his death, but he did so because a vampire forced him to with his Domination powers while attacking one of people's government office. That totally counts as dying in combat! Mine!"

- Thor, probably

[Kish]

Also, I'm eternally thrown by the argument that a handful of dwarf souls either way makes a difference to Hel's scheme.

Her scheme is successful if the world is destroyed and the vast bulk of dwarven souls come to her. Her scheme is unsuccessful otherwise. Whether the Council themselves go to Hel, whether a few dozen dwarves who the vampires personally encounter go to Hel: these things matter a great deal to those dwarves, but not at all to Hel's scheme.

[Resileaf]

"He jumped in a chasm to his death, but he did so because a vampire forced him to with his Domination powers while attacking one of people's government office. That totally counts as dying in combat! Mine!"

- Thor, probably

Domination cannot force someone to kill themselves. Self-destructive orders are never followed.
But it can make someone execute someone else while they are helpless.

[Aveline]

Domination cannot force someone to kill themselves. Self-destructive orders are never followed.
But it can make someone execute someone else while they are helpless.

According to the SRD:

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. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

This could be interpreted as "the order would obviously be ignored", but that rhetoric is very strange from what I've read of the SRD, so I prefer the alternate interpretation of "orders which are obviously self-destructive will be ignored". I mean, for example, how does the victim tell that the glass they were instructed to drink contains poison?

[Fyraltari]

This could be interpreted as "the order would obviously be ignored"

That would require a comma after "Obviously", no?

[Resileaf]

According to the SRD:


This could be interpreted as "the order would obviously be ignored", but that rhetoric is very strange from what I've read of the SRD, so I prefer the alternate interpretation of "orders which are obviously self-destructive will be ignored". I mean, for example, how does the victim tell that the glass they were instructed to drink contains poison?

Well the 'jumping down a chasm' order is obviously self-destructive and it's what I was answering to. XD

[Quebbster]

Hel's plan concerns ten million dwarf souls or more. Those three vampires would have to work hard to kill ten million in a dishonorable fashion.

[Kish]

Also, while the argument that Durkon was going to Hel the second time he died because he was Flame Striked unexpectedly while on his knees was already goofy the first time around, I am, at least, glad to be able to point out that it is established that "murdered without defending myself" counts as an honorable death.

[RatElemental]

Also, while the argument that Durkon was going to Hel the second time he died because he was Flame Striked unexpectedly while on his knees was already goofy the first time around, I am, at least, glad to be able to point out that it is established that "murdered without defending myself" counts as an honorable death.

Well combat seems to count in general and it was never established it had to be mutual.

[The MunchKING]

I mean, for example, how does the victim tell that the glass they were instructed to drink contains poison?

They're dwarves. My guess is ALL of the glasses contain poison (like alcohol) and they'd make their saves anyway. :D

[SilverCacaobean]

Self-destructive orders are never followed.

I don't know about the rules, but it seems like obviously self-destructive orders can be followed in OotS world. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html)

[Fyraltari]

I don't know about the rules, but it seems like obviously self-destructive orders can be followed in OotS world. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html)

I mean that's the problem with "obviously self-destructive orders" it depends on the phrasing "drown yourself" is obviously self-destructive but "jump off the ship" or even "jump five meters to the left" aren't even though they describe the same action.

[Jasdoif]

I mean that's the problem with "obviously sefl-destructive orders" it depends on the phrasing "drown yourself" is obviously self-destructive but "jump off the ship" or even "jump five meters to the left" aren't even though they describe the same action.Was it an obviously self-destructive order, if he managed to land (hanging off the harpoon) on the Mechane? Or did he aim for the Mechane because that prevented the order from being obviously self-destructive?

[The Shadow]

I don't know about the rules, but it seems like obviously self-destructive orders can be followed in OotS world. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0957.html)

Rule of Funny, I suspect. I mean, in OotS world, a simple Suggestion spell can turn a dragon into your slave. I've yet to meet a GM (including myself) who would allow that.

[Goblin_Priest]

Dominate Person
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.

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. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don’t spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.

Yea either the self-destructive clause is ignored or you must head cannon stuff like "Belkar knew he could safely jump on that ballista and thus it wasn't self-destructive".

[Fyraltari]

Yea either the self-destructive clause is ignored or you must head cannon stuff like "Belkar knew he could safely jump on that ballista and thus it wasn't self-destructive".

It also says protection from evil doesn’t stop from being Dominated so it seems like the Giant is just playing a bit fast and loose with the rules here.

[woweedd]

It also says protection from evil doesn’t stop from being Dominated so it seems like the Giant is just playing a bit fast and loose with the rules here.

...Yes it does.

[Fyraltari]

...Yes it does.
:smallconfused:

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.
So it shouldn't protect Belkar from Domination like the gnome girl says it does (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0969.html).

[Dion]

...Yes it does.

Yes... it does.

[zimmerwald1915]

:smallconfused:

So it shouldn't protect Belkar from Domination like the gnome girl says it does (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0969.html).
Her phrasing is "block compulsion magic," which is as good a description of "prevent a domination spell from allowing the caster to compel you to take actions" or "suppress the effects of compulsion magic" as anything else that would keep the comic from being too wordy for chief grukgruk.

[Goblin_Priest]

It also says protection from evil doesn’t stop from being Dominated so it seems like the Giant is just playing a bit fast and loose with the rules here.

Especially the part where the cat triggers the ring somehow, and the ring somehow makes him regain consciousness. ;)

[Fyraltari]

Especially the part where the cat triggers the ring somehow, and the ring somehow makes him regain consciousness. ;)

If you say so.

[factotum]

So it shouldn't protect Belkar from Domination like the gnome girl says it does (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0969.html).

Read the part you quoted again. It specifically says that a Protection from Evil spell will prevent you exercising control over the dominated subject or using your telepathic link to them, which renders Domination effectively useless so long as the Protection is in effect.

[Resileaf]

Read the part you quoted again. It specifically says that a Protection from Evil spell will prevent you exercising control over the dominated subject or using your telepathic link to them, which renders Domination effectively useless so long as the Protection is in effect.

Well if you RAW that statement, it does say that it doesn't prevent the domination from taking place, just that it keeps you from giving orders... Would it mean that the dominated character simply stops acting?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well if you RAW that statement, it does say that it doesn't prevent the domination from taking place, just that it keeps you from giving orders... Would it mean that the dominated character simply stops acting?

No. The character continues to perform regular activities in absence of a command - a command you cannot give while they are under Protection from Evil ("PfE"). Commands "[are carried out to the] exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival", which means that, without a command, they do not exclude all other activities.

There is a bit of a grey area in what happens if you give them a command and then they are put under PfE, though. Technically, I'd read it to mean that they complete that commandm, and then they are free from your control for the duration of the PfE, but I think RAI is that the last command would be aborted immediately.

Grey Wolf

[Goblin_Priest]

Yea, the rules are pretty vague as to what happens with PfE and Dominate Person.

Is the domination completely suppressed during the warding? This would allow the character to act normally until the ward fails. Or does it just make him idle? Or does it just make him non-receptive to later commands, thus making he stuck on the last one received?

It's clear from the text that PfE neither prevents nor dispels Dominate Person, but it's really not clear how those two interact when they both apply.

[Kish]

What ring?

[Peelee]

What ring?

His Ring of Jumping, I'm assuming. Don't know why Mr. Scruffy bothered with that when he could have rubbed the clasp, though.

[Keltest]

His Ring of Jumping, I'm assuming. Don't know why Mr. Scruffy bothered with that when he could have rubbed the clasp, though.

Obviously he was jump starting Belkar.

[pendell]

What ring?

I think ze's referring to Belkar's protection from evil gizmo which grants some protection from mind-affecting attacks as well as causing him great pain, since Belkar is evil. I forget if it was a ring or some other trinket, and I'm not really interested enough to dig through the back pages at this time to find out.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

Obviously he was jump starting Belkar.

Let's not jump to conclusions, my modifier isn't too great.

[Keltest]

Let's not jump to conclusions, my modifier isn't too great.

Sometimes you just need to take a leap of faith.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sometimes you just need to take a leap of faith.

Probably not a good idea unless Saint Anselm recommends it.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Sometimes you just need to take a leap of faith.

That's a good way to encounter a house of pain.

[D.One]

That's a good way to encounter a house of pain.

I believe encountering anything would be best done with Search.

[Goblin_Priest]

His Ring of Jumping, I'm assuming. Don't know why Mr. Scruffy bothered with that when he could have rubbed the clasp, though.

https://oots.fandom.com/wiki/Belkar_Bitterleaf

This page calls his Protection from Evil trinket a ring, a brooch, and a clasp. Re-reading the strip where he bought it, it's true that it is described there as a clasp, and not a ring, but every depiction of it makes it look awfully like a ring, right on the finger, or otherwise just like a ring on a string, like Frodo and the One Ring.

Not sure I see the importance it has, though. RAW, you can't activate items on/for other people. Ring, or clasp, or whatever.

[Fyraltari]

https://oots.fandom.com/wiki/Belkar_Bitterleaf

This page calls his Protection from Evil trinket a ring, a brooch, and a clasp. Re-reading the strip where he bought it, it's true that it is described there as a clasp, and not a ring, but every depiction of it makes it look awfully like a ring, right on the finger, or otherwise just like a ring on a string, like Frodo and the One Ring.
Not it doesn't. It's the clasp that holds his hood. It looks nothing like a ring.

[Peelee]

https://oots.fandom.com/wiki/Belkar_Bitterleaf

This page calls his Protection from Evil trinket a ring, a brooch, and a clasp. Re-reading the strip where he bought it, it's true that it is described there as a clasp, and not a ring, but every depiction of it makes it look awfully like a ring, right on the finger, or otherwise just like a ring on a string

Despite that he's never worn it on his finger, and it's consistently depicted as a solid object with no holes in it (which, I dare say, contributed to his never wearing it on his finger)?

Also, I advise you to not take the OOTS wiki as indicative of anything other than the thoughts of the person who wrote it. It carries zero authoritative weight.

[Kish]

Incorrect assumption on silly wiki corrected. Y'wanna call it a ring, you'll need to come up with another excuse for doing so.

Or edit it back, but if you want to do that, y'might want to reflect on the logical contradiction in editing it to say something wrong and also treating it as an authoritative source.

(I take no responsibility for anything about that page except that it now correctly states that Belkar activated his Protection from Evil clasp, not ring. If two or three paragraphs up it states that Belkar is an ogre, I didn't put it there and, much more importantly, neither did Rich.)

[Peelee]

Incorrect assumption on silly wiki corrected. Y'wanna call it a ring, you'll need to come up with another excuse for doing so.

Or edit it back, but if you want to do that, y'might want to reflect on the logical contradiction in editing it to say something wrong and also treating it as an authoritative source.

(I take no responsibility for anything about that page except that it now correctly states that Belkar activated his Protection from Evil clasp, not ring. If two or three paragraphs up it states that Belkar is an ogre, I didn't put it there and, much more importantly, neither did Rich.)

Nah, it's still there (assuming that there's no weird cache trickery going on for me). If you run a search for " ring" it's the sixth hit of seven. That said, I was sorely tempted to alter the article and change that to boot just to see if the argument would alter accordingly. I thought better of it, so I guess we'll never know.

[Kish]

There are still lots of hits for "ring" on that page--all talking about his Ring of Jumping +20. If you're finding one that talks about the clasp as a ring, then yes, I'd suggest reloading the page. The lone reference to the clasp as a ring that I saw, "Belkar and the order fought the vampires, with Belkar using his ring of Protection from Evil to prevent Domination," is now properly, "Belkar and the order fought the vampires, with Belkar using his clasp of Protection from Evil to prevent Domination."

Should probably have capitalized Order while I was at it. This will come back to bite me in future threads as the wiki is cited to prove that the Order of the Stick is not actually capitalized, I'm sure.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not sure I see the importance it has, though. RAW, you can't activate items on/for other people. Ring, or clasp, or whatever. I am pretty sure that "RAG" (rules as giant) supersedes RAW. This has been pointed out by the Giant himself. I am not sufficiently versed in D&D 3.5 Ranger arcana to know whether or not a Ranger's animal companion could, or could not, do what Mr Scruffy did per 3.5 RAW, but Mr Scruffy seems to have done it in
panels 6, 20, 22 of 1129 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1129.html) and
panels 2, 3, 5, 7 of 1130 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1130.html)

I am also not sure if what Mr Scruffy did was something a bit simpler: try to wake up an unconscious/incapacitated/slept ally. Whatever he did, the result looks like a triggering of halfling / barbarian rage, due to perhaps the doodad hurting Belkar enough such that damage to him gets rage going. I am going to review the discussion we had on 1129 and 1130 to see what people more versed in 3.5 minutiae were able to come up with.

[Peelee]

There are still lots of hits for "ring" on that page--all talking about his Ring of Jumping +20. If you're finding one that talks about the clasp as a ring, then yes, I'd suggest reloading the page. The lone reference to the clasp as a ring that I saw, "Belkar and the order fought the vampires, with Belkar using his ring of Protection from Evil to prevent Domination," is now properly, "Belkar and the order fought the vampires, with Belkar using his clasp of Protection from Evil to prevent Domination."

Should probably have capitalized Order while I was at it. This will come back to bite me in future threads as the wiki is cited to prove that the Order of the Stick is not actually capitalized, I'm sure.

On desktop now, and yeah, it's reading. Also, regardless of anything else, that space in the quotes was intentional; there are a bunch of hits for "ring", but only seven (now six, with the correction) hits for " ring", which has the added benefit of omitting words like "murdering."

Laziness is the mother of efficiency, and I try to be as efficient as possible.:smalltongue:

[Dion]

Since the clasp doesn’t remove domination, it just prevents the effects of domination while it’s activated, is Belkar still dominated (according to RAW)?

Which vampire dominated him?

And, is that vampire still (not) alive?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Since the clasp doesn’t remove domination, it just prevents the effects of domination while it’s activated, is Belkar still dominated (according to RAW)?

No, he is not: no swirly eyes.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Moved the quote a bit for ease of reply:

Which vampire dominated him?
The human one. Eighth panel. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1123.html)


And, is that vampire still (not) alive?
No. Fourteenth panel. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1130.html)

Since the clasp doesn’t remove domination, it just prevents the effects of domination while it’s activated, is Belkar still dominated (according to RAW)?
Dunno about RAW, but going by the comic, clearly not.

[Keltest]

No, he is not: no swirly eyes.

Grey Wolf

Although this is most likely because of the death of the vampires, not because of the clasp.

[Aquillion]

The swirly eyes probably just indicate active domination. Per RAW, yes, he's still dominated, but it does nothing because Protection from Evil is suppressing it:


Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.

By the time his Protection from Evil spell expired, the vampire who dominated him was dead. The spell might technically still be in effect depending on your interpretation and on whether OOTS has houserules on spells expiring on their caster's death, but either way it's meaningless because the gaze acts like Dominate Person and the vampire wasn't able to give him new orders. Whether he would have to continue following his previously-established orders would probably be a DM call (in this case, the answer was obviously no.)

[The Shadow]

right on the finger, or otherwise just like a ring on a string, like Frodo and the One Ring.

Just pointing out the misspellings of "Frudu" and "Ming" - which, by the way, we've never seen on a string.

[D.One]

Just pointing out the misspellings of "Frudu" and "Ming" - which, by the way, we've never seen on a string.

I must say that I cracked a huge laugh when I saw your username. Then, I saw your signature and I came to think "The Shadow" you were quoting is not "The Shadow" I imagined (in case you ask, I thought of "The Shadow" from 2002 movie The Gamers)

[rbetieh]

How is the Exarch's plan more egalitarian than what is there now? Everyone has the same opportunity to end up in one of 2 choices now...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

How is the Exarch's plan more egalitarian than what is there now? Everyone has the same opportunity to end up in one of 2 choices now...

Which means some end up in a better place than others do. It's more egalitarian if everyone ends in the same place, rather than have these tiers of rewards.

Grey Wolf

[The Shadow]

I must say that I cracked a huge laugh when I saw your username. Then, I saw your signature and I came to think "The Shadow" you were quoting is not "The Shadow" I imagined (in case you ask, I thought of "The Shadow" from 2002 movie The Gamers)

It's actually a quote from my own character The Shadow, who in turn was heavily inspired by the radio, pulp, and movie hero. You know, the guy who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

His adventures can be read here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?77340-The-Shadow-Knows!-(Final-Update-6-3-04)), if you're interested.

[rbetieh]

Which means some end up in a better place than others do. It's more egalitarian if everyone ends in the same place, rather than have these tiers of rewards.

Grey Wolf

I guess, I always took it as opportunity not final outcome. It's more egalitarian if everyone has a chance to get rich (but only a few do...) maybe I just dont know the word well enough

[zimmerwald1915]

I guess, I always took it as opportunity not final outcome. It's more egalitarian if everyone has a chance to get rich (but only a few do...) maybe I just dont know the word well enough
Equality of opportunity is ideological bunkum that has no truck in the real world. It depends on equal starting conditions, which implies that a previous generation had equality of outcome, which has not been true in millennia.

[Aeson]

Which means some end up in a better place than others do. It's more egalitarian if everyone ends in the same place, rather than have these tiers of rewards.

Grey Wolf
Egalitarianism is a belief in some form of equality between individuals, but it is not necessarily a belief that everyone deserves equality of circumstance, outcome, or reward regardless of merit. The belief that everyone is deserving of equal rights, opportunity, and treatment regardless of background or circumstance is at least as much a form of egalitarianism as is the belief that everyone is deserving of equal circumstance, outcome, or reward regardless of merit. Under an ideal egalitarian system, David and Mary are both necessarily guaranteed equality of opportunity to a given quality of education, but they are not necessarily guaranteed equality of outcome - not all forms of egalitarianism guarantee the same reward regardless of the effort put in.

The reason why the current system is less egalitarian than the system which Hel intends to impose is not, therefore, that under Hel's system all would meet the same fate. Rather, it is that under the current system a circumstance largely beyond the control of the individual is a primary determinant of how that individual's soul will be treated in the afterlife. Specifically, the manner in which a dwarf dies determines whether a dwarf's soul will be sent to Hel or be judged according to its deeds in life and sent to a fitting afterlife. This is not an egalitarian system - there is an inherent inequality of opportunity or treatment given to individuals here, which can be eliminated by awarding all souls the same fate regardless of the manner of their deaths or their deeds in life - as under Hel's proposed system - or by judging all souls rather than only those whose deaths were 'honorable' - as appears to be done for at least human souls, and possibly all non-dwarf souls. That Hel's system also creates equality of outcome - all souls receive the same reward, or lack thereof, regardless of merit - is irrelevant unless the definition of egalitarianism which you use demands equality of circumstance/outcome/reward rather than equality of rights/opportunity/treatment.


I guess, I always took it as opportunity not final outcome. It's more egalitarian if everyone has a chance to get rich (but only a few do...) maybe I just dont know the word well enough
Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are both egalitarian; they're just different forms of it. Neither is 'more' egalitarian than the other, nor is either particularly more realistically attainable or particularly more worthy than the other.

[KorvinStarmast]

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are both egalitarian; they're just different forms of it. Neither is 'more' egalitarian than the other, nor is either particularly more realistically attainable or particularly more worthy than the other. That's a nice and concise point, and we are getting a bit close to RL moralizing here ... so I'll offer this.

As I went through the comic today, 1156, I grokked that in the last three panels there was something light-hearted, nearly joyful, in the way the three vampires were presented to us and in how they were talking to one another. Not sure if that was intentional, but it struck me that it was.

[Dion]

As I went through the comic today, 1156, I grokked that in the last three panels there was something light-hearted, nearly joyful, in the way the three vampires were presented to us and in how they were talking to one another. Not sure if that was intentional, but it struck me that it was.

There’s something absolutely terrifying about anyone who has justified their world view to themselves.

“I’m doing this thing to make the world better!”

[The Shadow]

There’s something absolutely terrifying about anyone who has justified their world view to themselves.

“I’m doing this thing to make the world better!”

It's only terrifying when it's delusional. Some people really are making the world better.

[D.One]

It's actually a quote from my own character The Shadow, who in turn was heavily inspired by the radio, pulp, and movie hero. You know, the guy who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

His adventures can be read here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?77340-The-Shadow-Knows!-(Final-Update-6-3-04)), if you're interested.

Thanks.

I know The Shadow (this one) too, but I got stuck with the way they say "THE SHADOW!!!" in the 2002 film since I've watched it.

[Goblin_Priest]

Incorrect assumption on silly wiki corrected. Y'wanna call it a ring, you'll need to come up with another excuse for doing so.

Or edit it back, but if you want to do that, y'might want to reflect on the logical contradiction in editing it to say something wrong and also treating it as an authoritative source.

(I take no responsibility for anything about that page except that it now correctly states that Belkar activated his Protection from Evil clasp, not ring. If two or three paragraphs up it states that Belkar is an ogre, I didn't put it there and, much more importantly, neither did Rich.)

Yes, I think I already pointed out that I was incorrect, as the comic names it as a clasp. I was just pointing out that it wasn't a ridiculous mistake, as others made it. Feel free to disagree with me on that point, though, and judge it a ridiculous mistake if you want to. The nature of the trinket is rather irrelevant, though. Ring, clasp, shoelace, earring, tattoo, could be whatever, it's all functionally the same, just uses a different "slot".


I am pretty sure that "RAG" (rules as giant) supersedes RAW. This has been pointed out by the Giant himself. I am not sufficiently versed in D&D 3.5 Ranger arcana to know whether or not a Ranger's animal companion could, or could not, do what Mr Scruffy did per 3.5 RAW, but Mr Scruffy seems to have done it in
panels 6, 20, 22 of 1129 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1129.html) and
panels 2, 3, 5, 7 of 1130 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1130.html)

I am also not sure if what Mr Scruffy did was something a bit simpler: try to wake up an unconscious/incapacitated/slept ally. Whatever he did, the result looks like a triggering of halfling / barbarian rage, due to perhaps the doodad hurting Belkar enough such that damage to him gets rage going. I am going to review the discussion we had on 1129 and 1130 to see what people more versed in 3.5 minutiae were able to come up with.

Yes, that was the point of my initial comment. That scene does not use RAW, but rather ROC (rule of cool). RAW, there's no reason that the cat could activate the item for Belkar to benefit from the effects, and there's no reason that this activation would cause Belkar to regain consciousness.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing and we should all shun Rich for deviating from the rules, but I do believe that this fight is the one that deviates the most from 3.5 RAW, both by the incredibly unlikely defeat and by the impossible comeback. The OotS clearly had a -20 plot debuff to saves for that whole fight.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The OotS clearly had a -20 plot debuff to saves for that whole fight.

No, they didn't. Not clearly, and not non-clearly.

Grey Wolf

[D.One]

Yes, I think I already pointed out that I was incorrect, as the comic names it as a clasp. I was just pointing out that it wasn't a ridiculous mistake, as others made it. Feel free to disagree with me on that point, though, and judge it a ridiculous mistake if you want to. The nature of the trinket is rather irrelevant, though. Ring, clasp, shoelace, earring, tattoo, could be whatever, it's all functionally the same, just uses a different "slot".



Yes, that was the point of my initial comment. That scene does not use RAW, but rather ROC (rule of cool). RAW, there's no reason that the cat could activate the item for Belkar to benefit from the effects, and there's no reason that this activation would cause Belkar to regain consciousness.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing and we should all shun Rich for deviating from the rules, but I do believe that this fight is the one that deviates the most from 3.5 RAW, both by the incredibly unlikely defeat and by the impossible comeback. The OotS clearly had a -20 plot debuff to saves for that whole fight.

And now I notice we have RAI, RAW, RAG, ROD and ROC... They could be a band:

Rai Goalmeister
Raw Aswasdone
Rag Aw'thorules
Rod Talemaker
Roc Seemsrad

[Fyraltari]

That scene does not use RAW, but rather ROC (rule of cool)

Nah, Rule Of Cool covers sharks with laser canon, sound in space and cars exploding for no discernable reasons, these kind of things. There is nothing spectacular in Mr. Scruffy activating Belkar's ward. If you really want to call it rule of something, call it Rule Of Plot.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Nah, Rule Of Cool covers sharks with laser canon, sound in space and cars exploding for no discernable reasons, these kind of things. There is nothing spectacular in Mr. Scruffy activating Belkar's ward. If you really want to call it rule of something, call it Rule Of Plot.

Given that we saw the clasp hanging on the wall pain Belkar on activation and explicitly told that it turns on by rubbing it, I believe the correct term is Rule of Chekhov.

With the added benefit it retains "RoC" as its initialism.

OK, so it's should be rule of Чеховское, and thus RoЧ, but I'm not sure how to make that 4-looking letter happen.

Grey Wolf

[D.One]

Nah, Rule Of Cool covers sharks with laser canon, sound in space and cars exploding for no discernable reasons, these kind of things. There is nothing spectacular in Mr. Scruffy activating Belkar's ward. If you really want to call it rule of something, call it Rule Of Plot.

Rop Storycraft

Edit: I believe all this debate is due to RoIF - Rule of Internet Forum :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

Rop Storycraft

Edit: I believe all this debate is due to RoIF - Rule of Internet Forum :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:RoIF is what it sounds like when a dog speaks with a British accent. :smallcool:
And when the fire hydrant is speaking, it's Ah no, man, a peeyah!
(I'll let myself out)

[Larre Gannd]

RoIF is what it sounds like when a dog speaks with a British accent. :smallcool:
And when the fire hydrant is speaking, it's Ah no, man, a peeyah!
(I'll let myself out)

I feel like “peeyah” is more Boston.

[Peelee]

I feel like “peeyah” is more Boston.

You mean Bahstin?

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like “peeyah” is more Boston. It's a fair cop, but society's to blame, and Bahstin is in New England. :smallconfused:

[D.One]

It's a fair cop, but society's to blame, and Bahstin is in New England. :smallconfused:

A fair cop gives the bandit a reasonable time to try to run away before chasing him?

[Rogar Demonblud]

That scene does not use RAW, but rather ROC (rule of cool). RAW, there's no reason that the cat could activate the item for Belkar to benefit from the effects, and there's no reason that this activation would cause Belkar to regain consciousness.

First, Rich just allowed an animal companion to get up to some of the same antics as a familiar.

Second, it has already been established that using the clasp really hurts. Apparently more than getting slapped, and slapping awake someone unconscious is a well established trope of its own.

[Goblin_Priest]

First, Rich just allowed an animal companion to get up to some of the same antics as a familiar.

Second, it has already been established that using the clasp really hurts. Apparently more than getting slapped, and slapping awake someone unconscious is a well established trope of its own.

Sure, but RAW...

If my character goes and does an unarmed attack for non-lethal damage against one of my unconscious friends, there's a very good chance that this slap will *kill* my ally, and there's a 0% chance that my ally will be able to regain consciousness.

Nobody said that Rich was always obeying to RAW, though, so I'm not sure why it seems important to contest the claim that a cat activating a clasp of Protection from Evil for another, and thereby bringing him back into the fight, doesn't respect it.

[knag]

Despite that he's never worn it on his finger, and it's consistently depicted as a solid object with no holes in it (which, I dare say, contributed to his never wearing it on his finger)?

Also, I advise you to not take the OOTS wiki as indicative of anything other than the thoughts of the person who wrote it. It carries zero authoritative weight.

As the original author of that unfortunate line, I fully support this view of the wiki.

Though I will just add, as a person who created a great deal of the content there, that my editorial intention is always to first and foremost align with canon material, and when speculation or extra-canon material is incorporated (such as needing a character name for HPOH or Ponchula), I have always endeavored to conform to the consensus opinion of this forum. The clasp was always called a clasp in the equipment section, and that one word in the bio was a careless oversight. The whole point of the wiki is that the community can correct such issues.

[Peelee]

As the original author of that unfortunate line, I fully support this view of the wiki.

Though I will just add, as a person who created a great deal of the content there, that my editorial intention is always to first and foremost align with canon material, and when speculation or extra-canon material is incorporated (such as needing a character name for HPOH or Ponchula), I have always endeavored to conform to the consensus opinion of this forum. The clasp was always called a clasp in the equipment section, and that one word in the bio was a careless oversight. The whole point of the wiki is that the community can correct such issues.

For what it's worth, I greatly appreciate your efforts, and have used that wiki multiple times to help me form arguments or find sources. My only thing is, just like I would use the cited sources and not a wiki directly on an academic paper, I wouldn't use the wiki directly to back up an argument on the comic forums. Also, I'm impressed at how fast that got changed, though I don't know if that was you or someone else.

[Fyraltari]

For what it's worth, I greatly appreciate your efforts, and have used that wiki multiple times to help me form arguments or find sources. My only thing is, just like I would use the cited sources and not a wiki directly on an academic paper, I wouldn't use the wiki directly to back up an argument on the comic forums. Also, I'm impressed at how fast that got changed, though I don't know if that was you or someone else.

Incorrect assumption on silly wiki corrected. Y'wanna call it a ring, you'll need to come up with another excuse for doing so.

[...]

(I take no responsibility for anything about that page except that it now correctly states that Belkar activated his Protection from Evil clasp, not ring. If two or three paragraphs up it states that Belkar is an ogre, I didn't put it there and, much more importantly, neither did Rich.)
Seas are surprisingly fast sometimes. You ever been to Mont-Saint-Michel? It gots tide "as fast as a galloping horse".

[knag]

For what it's worth, I greatly appreciate your efforts, and have used that wiki multiple times to help me form arguments or find sources. My only thing is, just like I would use the cited sources and not a wiki directly on an academic paper, I wouldn't use the wiki directly to back up an argument on the comic forums. Also, I'm impressed at how fast that got changed, though I don't know if that was you or someone else.

Thanks! It's been a labor of love over the past three years. I wanted there to be a good wiki for OOTS, but the wiki as it was had been abandoned for quite some time so I kind of adopted it. I totally agree that the best way to use it is by using the citations. Not all pages are well cited, but many are. Sometimes its hard to cite things because the item is deduced from a combination of canon sources, but mostly it's just the bandwidth of editors to actually cite their work. I didn't change the "clasp" reference; someone in this thread did.

[Kish]

Me. And sorry about my abrasive phrasing earlier.

[Peelee]

Me.

Ooooohhhhhhh, now I understand what you meant about the "i take no responsibility for anything except it being fixed." I am not a smart man.

I would also like to lodge a formal complaint that you did not change it to "boot," and then see if the argument reflected the new status.

[RatElemental]

Sure, but RAW...

If my character goes and does an unarmed attack for non-lethal damage against one of my unconscious friends, there's a very good chance that this slap will *kill* my ally, and there's a 0% chance that my ally will be able to regain consciousness.

Nobody said that Rich was always obeying to RAW, though, so I'm not sure why it seems important to contest the claim that a cat activating a clasp of Protection from Evil for another, and thereby bringing him back into the fight, doesn't respect it.

I don't see how attacking for nonlethal damage would ever kill someone knocked out. With the -4 to hit for using a lethal weapon to do so, you might miss, but if you do hit you're going to be dealing nonlethal damage no matter what.

[osual]

I don't see how attacking for nonlethal damage would ever kill someone knocked out. With the -4 to hit for using a lethal weapon to do so, you might miss, but if you do hit you're going to be dealing nonlethal damage no matter what.

In 3.5 (like in a lot of game systems) nonlethal damage overflows into lethal damage. For an unconscious character (negative hp) nonlethal damage would be treated as lethal.

No children were killed to acquire this knowledge.

[hroþila]

I don't see how attacking for nonlethal damage would ever kill someone knocked out. With the -4 to hit for using a lethal weapon to do so, you might miss, but if you do hit you're going to be dealing nonlethal damage no matter what.

In 3.5 (like in a lot of game systems) nonlethal damage overflows into lethal damage. For an unconscious character (negative hp) nonlethal damage would be treated as lethal.

No children were killed to acquire this knowledge.
I like that you can kneel on an unconscious person and kill them by slapping them, but only if you don't miss.

[mjasghar]

In 3.5 (like in a lot of game systems) nonlethal damage overflows into lethal damage. For an unconscious character (negative hp) nonlethal damage would be treated as lethal.

No children were killed to acquire this knowledge.
Wait so going to sleep gives you negative HP?

[D.One]

In 3.5 (like in a lot of game systems) nonlethal damage overflows into lethal damage. For an unconscious character (negative hp) nonlethal damage would be treated as lethal..

You see, I've always believed that, and played with such "rule" in effect, but I couldn't recently find where such "rule" is written.

[Goblin_Priest]

In 3.5 (like in a lot of game systems) nonlethal damage overflows into lethal damage. For an unconscious character (negative hp) nonlethal damage would be treated as lethal.

No children were killed to acquire this knowledge.

And... wait... does it? I was sure it did. But looking it up, I can't find any such reference anymore. I thought, "oh, maybe pathfinder", but I can't see it there either. I was sure that when one dealt enough subdual damage to a guy, it would overflow and potentially kill him. Like, "whoops, I didn't MEAN to kill him!"

Still, despite all of my flawed claims of the past...! Slapping cannot by RAW wake someone.

On that, I'm sticking.

For now...

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Nonlethal_Damage

[Kish]

Wait so going to sleep gives you negative HP?
No, because "sleeping" and "unconscious" are different states in D&D.

[Peelee]

Slapping cannot by RAW wake someone.

On that, I'm sticking.

... Has anyone claimed that slapping could wake someone by RAW? It sounds like you're preparing to die on a hill nobody is attacking.

[hamishspence]

It should be noted that, by RAW, slapping someone who is under the influence of a sleep spell wakes them:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm

So, it follows that "slapping someone to wake them up" is not "doing nonlethal damage to them" but "a special application of the "Aid Another" standard action".


Sure, but RAW...If my character goes and does an unarmed attack for non-lethal damage against one of my unconscious friends, there's a very good chance that this slap will *kill* my ally, and there's a 0% chance that my ally will be able to regain consciousness.


I like that you can kneel on an unconscious person and kill them by slapping them, but only if you don't miss.


The "nonlethal damage done to an unconscious person becomes lethal damage" thing in 3.5, tends to only apply in very specific circumstances, like heat exhaustion.

It's not a general rule that applies in all cases of nonlethal damage by default.

[Fyraltari]

Wait so going to sleep gives you negative HP?

What you don't knock yourself to unconsciousness every night? How do you go to sleep, then?

[Peelee]

What you don't knowk yourself to unconsciousness every night? How do you go to sleep, then?

I never get my 8 hours unless someone hits me upside the head with a a bottle, I can tell you.

[D.One]

It should be noted that, by RAW, slapping someone who is under the influence of a sleep spell wakes them:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm

So, it follows that "slapping someone to wake them up" is not "doing nonlethal damage to them" but "a special application of the "Aid Another" standard action".





The "nonlethal damage done to an unconscious person becomes lethal damage" thing in 3.5, tends to only apply in very specific circumstances, like heat exhaustion.

It's not a general rule that applies in all cases of nonlethal damage by default.

Thanks. Now I'm wondering:

1) Why my group always assumed this was an official rule.

2) Why so many people seems to interpret the same point the same way. (Maybe some case of RPG-Players rudimentary hive mind)

[Peelee]

Thanks. Now I'm wondering:

1) Why my group always assumed this was an official rule.

2) Why so many people seems to interpret the same point the same way. (Maybe some case of RPG-Players rudimentary hive mind)

Could be like in Monopoly, where taxes going into the middle and Free Parking taking the pot are a ridiculously common house rule (and are a big part of what extends games severely, to the point that people hate the game because the house rules they use make it less fun).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Could be like in Monopoly, where taxes going into the middle and Free Parking taking the pot are a ridiculously common house rule (and are a big part of what extends games severely, to the point that people hate the game because the house rules they use make it less fun).

There is a genius to Monopoly. It was, after all, intended to be a device for teaching the evils of capitalism because of its unintended consequences of causing people to not be able to participate in the communal experience of ownership, and it is therefore a game that is less enjoyable because of the unintended consequences of applying a rule that, on the face of it, sounds like it should increase the fun but in fact lengthens the game, thus making people eliminated early not able to enjoy the communal experience.

I still prefer playing Spirit Island, mind you.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

There is a genius to Monopoly. It was, after all, intended to be a device for teaching the evils of capitalism because of its unintended consequences of causing people to not be able to participate in the communal experience of ownership

Much in that same vein, you are explicitly not allowed to let another player out of paying rent for landing on your property in exchange for a number of free rides on their property. There is literally a "**** you pay me" rule.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Much in that same vein, you are explicitly not allowed to let another player out of paying rent for landing on your property in exchange for a number of free rides on their property. There is literally a "**** you pay me" rule.

I read somewhere that the reason one of the core philosophies of Euro style game design ("no player is to be eliminated from the game before the game ends") exists is pretty much thanks to Monopoly demonstrating how much it was needed. I'll probably never play it again, but in a way, Monopoly has been crucial to my current enjoyment of board games.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I read somewhere that the reason one of the core philosophies of Euro style game design ("no player is to be eliminated from the game before the game ends") exists is pretty much thanks to Monopoly demonstrating how much it was needed. I'll probably never play it again, but in a way, Monopoly has been crucial to my current enjoyment of board games.

Grey Wolf

I have this old board game, The Stock Market Game (the aristocrat of money games, it claims!) last produced in like 1968 or somewhere around there. The board looks incredibly similar to Monopoly, but the gameplay is significantly different, and I think it's vastly better. One of the interesting things is you have to "work" to get the initial capital to invest - each job pays money based off die rolls, with the more rare rolls paying more. If any player loses all their money, they're not out, they just go back to work to get investment capital again (and can still potentially win. It's a very well-designed game, IMO).

Learned about it from my friends whose parents had a copy from way back when. Found a sealed version on ebay for like twenty bucks. Totally worth it. Highly recommend it. Very unique game design, from what I can tell.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I have this old board game, The Stock Market Game (the aristocrat of money games, it claims!) last produced in like 1968 or somewhere around there. The board looks incredibly similar to Monopoly, but the gameplay is significantly different, and I think it's vastly better. One of the interesting things is you have to "work" to get the initial capital to invest - each job pays money based off die rolls, with the more rare rolls paying more. If any player loses all their money, they're not out, they just go back to work to get investment capital again (and can still potentially win. It's a very well-designed game, IMO).

Learned about it from my friends whose parents had a copy from way back when. Found a sealed version on ebay for like twenty bucks. Totally worth it. Highly recommend it. Very unique game design, from what I can tell.

Reminds me of a game I used to play with my parents. Can't remember the name, and hell if I know if they translated it accurately in the first place, but it was a stock market simulator. We loved it so much my dad wrote a program in Basic to automate the math involved in compound interest and the like.

Unfortunately, they aren't co-op, though. I'm afraid these days I only play co-op. I don't enjoy losing and I don't enjoy making others lose either - thus, Spirit Island, which I too highly recommend, especially if you have any friends who swear by Catan.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

Much in that same vein, you are explicitly not allowed to let another player out of paying rent for landing on your property in exchange for a number of free rides on their property. There is literally a "**** you pay me" rule.Outside of the "if you don't ask for your rent before the next player's dice hit the board, deal with it", anyway.

In my opinion, most of Monopoly's depth comes from it encouraging freeform deals between players...which I imagine has some connection to why the people who I know hate Monopoly never initiate such things on their own. (One time, I paid a player to buy Park Place to ensure Boardwalk's owner didn't get a monopoly). It's been quite some time, so I may remembering this wrong (or it may have changed since then)...but I believe the only restriction is that if you're trading property to pay rent, you can't trade it for less that it could be sold to the bank for except to the player you're owing rent to. Probably to prevent giving everything away before you go bankrupt.


For economic simulation games in general, I prefer M.U.L.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E.) ...admittedly not a board game, but it sort of plays like one in some respects.


I read somewhere that the reason one of the core philosophies of Euro style game design ("no player is to be eliminated from the game before the game ends") exists is pretty much thanks to Monopoly demonstrating how much it was needed. I'll probably never play it again, but in a way, Monopoly has been crucial to my current enjoyment of board games.Quasirelevant, but an interesting read. (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/3205.html)

[Aveline]

Reminds me of a game I used to play with my parents. Can't remember the name, and hell if I know if they translated it accurately in the first place, but it was a stock market simulator. We loved it so much my dad wrote a program in Basic to automate the math involved in compound interest and the like.

Unfortunately, they aren't co-op, though. I'm afraid these days I only play co-op. I don't enjoy losing and I don't enjoy making others lose either - thus, Spirit Island, which I too highly recommend, especially if you have any friends who swear by Catan.

Grey Wolf

I'll have to give Spirit Island. Try, if I ever get the chance.

As far as cooperative board games go, the closest I can think of that I've personally played is the Bloodborne board game, based on the video game Bloodborne. It's a tense, brutal PVE game that can kill your team before you get a move. But it was fun the time that I played it.

I do love me some Catan.

[Ruck]

What you don't knowk yourself to unconsciousness every night? How do you go to sleep, then?


I never get my 8 hours unless someone hits me upside the head with a a bottle, I can tell you.

You're supposed to just drink the contents of the bottle.


Reminds me of a game I used to play with my parents. Can't remember the name, and hell if I know if they translated it accurately in the first place, but it was a stock market simulator. We loved it so much my dad wrote a program in Basic to automate the math involved in compound interest and the like.

Unfortunately, they aren't co-op, though. I'm afraid these days I only play co-op. I don't enjoy losing and I don't enjoy making others lose either - thus, Spirit Island, which I too highly recommend, especially if you have any friends who swear by Catan.

Grey Wolf

Is it Pit? I only know Pit from its appearance in an episode of Freaks and Geeks, but it's about stock trading.

I need to look into Spirit Island. (I work in tabletop game development now, so this conversation is professionally illuminating, which is how I'm justifying my participation while I'm on the clock.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'll have to give Spirit Island. Try, if I ever get the chance.

As far as cooperative board games go, the closest I can think of that I've personally played is the Bloodborne board game, based on the video game Bloodborne. It's a tense, brutal PVE game that can kill your team before you get a move. But it was fun the time that I played it.

I do love me some Catan.

...

I may have slightly mislead you. Spirit Island is a co-op where you play as the Island being colonized. These white dudes keep showing up and building towns and cities, blighting the land and killing the locals, and you, as one of the spirits that live in the island, are trying to stop them with the help of the other players (who are other, different, spirits).

It thus plays nothing like Catan, and my off-the-cuff comment was because it causes people to rethink Catan, rather than because it appeals to the kind of person that enjoys Catan.


You're supposed to just drink the contents of the bottle.
Like the old saying goes, if you drink the bottle, you sleep for a night, but if you hit yourself with it until you pass out, you sleep for an eternity.



Is it Pit? I only know Pit from its appearance in an episode of Freaks and Geeks, but it's about stock trading.

Not sure. The cards look similar, but the one I played wasn't about commodities, but companies. Still, it's clearly been updated from the one I played, and it might be?

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

Not sure. The cards look similar, but the one I played wasn't about commodities, but companies. Still, it's clearly been updated from the one I played, and it might be?

Grey Wolf

Well, Freaks and Geeks was set in 1982, which is why I thought of it. Doing a little research, though, it seems like Pit has always been about commodities (and was originally created in 1904, to boot).

[Rogar Demonblud]

Thanks. Now I'm wondering:

1) Why my group always assumed this was an official rule.

2) Why so many people seems to interpret the same point the same way. (Maybe some case of RPG-Players rudimentary hive mind)

It's likely the same answer for both questions. Carry over from a previous edition. Sacred cows and legacy coding are a prevalent issue for most games.

[Peelee]

Reminds me of a game I used to play with my parents. Can't remember the name, and hell if I know if they translated it accurately in the first place, but it was a stock market simulator. We loved it so much my dad wrote a program in Basic to automate the math involved in compound interest and the like.

Unfortunately, they aren't co-op, though. I'm afraid these days I only play co-op. I don't enjoy losing and I don't enjoy making others lose either - thus, Spirit Island, which I too highly recommend, especially if you have any friends who swear by Catan.

Grey Wolf
I'll have to check it out, I like co-op games (I assume you already know of Pandemic). Stock Market Game was a very, very bad simulator, though; the board is, again, monopoly-like, except instead of each side of the square being 10 spaces, it was 12. You enter the market from the middle on any side, and depending on whether you roll odd or even you move left or right on the board. Each space has the market go up or down a certain number, and also a direction arrow; the direction arrow is the direction you must move on your next turn (so you can spend the entire game on only one side of the board, potentially). After moving, you can sell any stocks you wish, or buy any number of stock for the company on the space you just landed on.

There is a slider bar in the middle - it is a single column with 41 rows, going from -20 to +20. There are eight companies, four on the top of one side of the slider bar, and four on the bottom of the other side of the slider bar. The closer the slider bar gets to the name of the company, the more that company's stock is worth (so you could have a huge amount of capital in one company and a pittance and massive financial loss in another at the same time). The value potential of the stocks also go from a low range to a high range, I think as a very basic representation of risk-reward. The corners are the big deals - if you land on those, you must sell all shares of whatever company it tells you, AND the slider moves 20 spaces in the direction it tells you to, so it can drastically alter the payouts for stocks.

Also, the slider bar bounced; if, say, it was at the +19 position, and I landed on a corner that made my move the slider up 20, I would go up once to the max of +20, then go back down 19, ending at a measly +1. Which is the most median price for all stocks, and most likely to disappoint most players.

There were a few other mechanics like shareholder meetings where you could multiply the shares you had, but that's the basic gist of it. I really like how it's very competitive without actually having direct competition; you can't affect how anyone else is doing, you can't help or hurt other people, all you can do is try to make the best bets for yourself and see how well they play out.

Outside of the "if you don't ask for your rent before the next player's dice hit the board, deal with it", anyway.
True. I suppose that could be gamed to effectively let players do an end run around the "no free rent shenanigans" rule, but at that point it's not fun because of the players, not the game.

In my opinion, most of Monopoly's depth comes from it encouraging freeform deals between players...which I imagine has some connection to why the people who I know hate Monopoly never initiate such things on their own. (One time, I paid a player to buy Park Place to ensure Boardwalk's owner didn't get a monopoly). It's been quite some time, so I may remembering this wrong (or it may have changed since then)...but I believe the only restriction is that if you're trading property to pay rent, you can't trade it for less that it could be sold to the bank for except to the player you're owing rent to. Probably to prevent giving everything away before you go bankrupt.
Wheeling and dealing is a huge part of the game, and I hate that so many people don't ever engage in that aspect. I'm guessing you paid the person to buy Park Place because you didn't want it to go up for auction and be at risk of the Boardwalk owner getting it?

[RatElemental]

Sounds like people here might like red november. It's a (mostly) co-op game about a bunch of gnomes trying to survive on a nuclear submarine until they can be rescued. The only possible act of pvp you can take is to abandon ship and leave the others to their fate, but it's hard to even do and you lose if they survive anyway.

[Jasdoif]

I'm guessing you paid the person to buy Park Place because you didn't want it to go up for auction and be at risk of the Boardwalk owner getting it?If I remember correctly, we weren't using the auction-unbought-properties rule but the owner of Boardwalk was 6-8 spaces away from Park Place.

[Peelee]

If I remember correctly, we weren't using the auction-unbought-properties rule but the owner of Boardwalk was 6-8 spaces away from Park Place.

I love the auction rule. It not only speeds the game along, it tends to let people buy more properties because they can be gotten cheaper than normal as well as being tactical (everyone else has less than $20, I have $25, and I land on Boardwalk? Hello significantly-lower-than-asking price Boardwalk because nobody else can beat my $20 price!).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(I assume you already know of Pandemic)

Indeed I do, but I've never played it - I'm put off by the criticism that is is not so much co-op as it is a solitaire that can be watched by other people - i.e. that any Pandemic game with a chance of being won inevitably has one person making the decisions and directing everyone else. In general, I am weary of any co-op game that is "hardcore difficulty".

I am now slowly saving to purchase Gloomhaven, which keeps getting glowing reviews despite, at first glance, looking like the kind of purple prose setting a mopey 13 year old might come up with.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

There is a genius to Monopoly. It was, after all, intended to be a device for teaching the evils of capitalism because of its unintended consequences of causing people to not be able to participate in the communal experience of ownership, and it is therefore a game that is less enjoyable because of the unintended consequences of applying a rule that, on the face of it, sounds like it should increase the fun but in fact lengthens the game, thus making people eliminated early not able to enjoy the communal experience.

I still prefer playing Spirit Island, mind you.

Grey Wolf
If you prefer your games with a different ideological bent, might I recommend communopoly (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/comic/301-communopoly/)?
Cooperative games that I like are things like Forbidden Island / Desert. I also tend to like long strategy games such as Diplomacy or Risk, though I rarely finish any of them. Pandemic can be one player directed, but when I played I found that, because everybody worked together to propose possible actions and create a strategy, it worked out.

—Caerulea

[zimmerwald1915]

If you prefer your games with a different ideological bent, might I recommend communopoly (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/comic/301-communopoly/)?

Well someone has missed the point of Monopoly, which is to criticize landlordism and to propagandize for the Single Tax on land.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Cooperative games that I like are things like Forbidden Island / Desert.

I have Burgle Bros to scratch that particular itch.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Indeed I do, but I've never played it - I'm put off by the criticism that is is not so much co-op as it is a solitaire that can be watched by other people - i.e. that any Pandemic game with a chance of being won inevitably has one person making the decisions and directing everyone else. In general, I am weary of any co-op game that is "hardcore difficulty".

Grey Wolf

That's not an unfair characterization. Every time we've played it, all the players have communally strategized, so we're all working towards the goal but the individual cards don't really matter since it's more or less majority rule on what each person does on their turn.

Also the hard modes are bullhonky.

[hroþila]

I have this old board game, The Stock Market Game (the aristocrat of money games, it claims!) last produced in like 1968 or somewhere around there. The board looks incredibly similar to Monopoly, but the gameplay is significantly different, and I think it's vastly better. One of the interesting things is you have to "work" to get the initial capital to invest - each job pays money based off die rolls, with the more rare rolls paying more. If any player loses all their money, they're not out, they just go back to work to get investment capital again (and can still potentially win. It's a very well-designed game, IMO)
Jesus. Game quality aside, this sounds like quite the propagandistic game, what with the "self-made millionaires" and "you just need to work hard" narratives :smalltongue:

[zimmerwald1915]

Jesus. Game quality aside, this sounds like quite the propagandistic game, what with the "self-made millionaires" and "you just need to work hard" narratives :smalltongue:
And the play-pretend that barriers to entry today are the same as they were in the mid-nineteenth century, when it was at least possible, if not terribly likely or plausible for most people, to set by a stock of capital from wages alone.

[Peelee]

Jesus. Game quality aside, this sounds like quite the propagandistic game, what with the "self-made millionaires" and "you just need to work hard" narratives :smalltongue:

Oh, not at all. You work hard to break into it, and it's a ton of luck and guessing from thereon out. It's also easy to lose everything, where you have to go back to work again, which sucks while everyone else is making money. Also, at work you either get a pittance on a somewhat regular basis, or a good haul at rare intervals.

It's fun.

[Sir_Norbert]

Sounds like people here might like red november. It's a (mostly) co-op game about a bunch of gnomes trying to survive on a nuclear submarine until they can be rescued. The only possible act of pvp you can take is to abandon ship and leave the others to their fate, but it's hard to even do and you lose if they survive anyway.

Yup. Played it once and it was a good game. We won, barely :)

[mjasghar]

What you don't knock yourself to unconsciousness every night? How do you go to sleep, then?

Getting drunk on the tears of redditors

[Seward]

In 3.5 (like in a lot of game systems) nonlethal damage overflows into lethal damage. For an unconscious character (negative hp) nonlethal damage would be treated as lethal.

No children were killed to acquire this knowledge.

OK, in 3.5 and Pathfinder, the way it works is you track nonlethal damage separately. If it ever exceeds current hitpoints, you go unconscious.

In 3.5, nonlethal damage never becomes lethal so it is 100% safe to go to town with a merciful weapon or metamagicked merciful fireballs. However it was a fairly common tactic at OOTS level of play to have a fighter like Roy do his top iterative as "nonlethal", then do lethal for the rest, which take -5 or -10 to hit. The idea is if you can hit with nonlethal you do enough that you're unlikely to kill somebody with your followup strikes, because instead of a 10 hitpoint buffer before you die, it is now 10+however much damage you did with your first strike. (and if you can hit with nonlethal you can also hit with that -5 iterative, but might miss if you try to make the -5 iterative nonlethal and bring the attack down to -9 to hit). As a side benefit, if you want to wake up the downed target, mixing lethal and nonlethal gives you twice the bang for the healing spell buck (as a heal spell heals both lethal and nonlethal tracks)

In Pathfinder Nonlethal damage can never add up to more than your base hitpoints. After that, nonlethal damage does lethal damage. So basically you have to do 2xhitpoints+10 to kill somebody with nonlethal damage in Pathfinder. It does happen, especially on "nonlethal" axe or longbow crits. Or, say, a fireball combined with nonlethal metamagic rod when the targets are ordinary civilians. (unlike in 3.5, a merciful fireball might leave the furniture intact but can still leave corpses if they are just ordinary folks with 3-4 hitpoints)

All that said, no, there is no way activating a painful clasp would help you recover from being unconscious from any combination of hitpoint damage plus nonlethal damage in 3.5 RAW. Even assuming Scruffy could activate it. However I've seen that sort of thing happen in Living Greyhawk and Pathfinder Society games, because one thing you sometimes earn on adventures was one-time perks/favors that let you get a random heal at a key moment, or reroll a save of similar. When TPK's started to stare us in the face, everybody would start paging throught their old adventures for some one-time favor or perk that would turn the tide. Just assume Belkar's stellar roleplay in earlier adventures gave him the option of a one-time-ever heal instead of Roleplay XP (we know roleplay xp is real in OOTS), and the rest was just how the universe chose to play out that perk. It isn't all that different in concept from Roy searching through his backpack for an item to save him while he fell (and entirely consistent with the Giant not letting a rules nitpick spoil a key story moment. These favors were a way to inject a bit of narrative power to PCs in organized play, simulating the kind of break a GM might give his party in a normal campaign that isn't fair to do in Organized play with randomly mustered parties and GMs)

[hroþila]

Oh, not at all. You work hard to break into it, and it's a ton of luck and guessing from thereon out. It's also easy to lose everything, where you have to go back to work again, which sucks while everyone else is making money. Also, at work you either get a pittance on a somewhat regular basis, or a good haul at rare intervals.

It's fun.
It does sound like fun.

[Goblin_Priest]

It should be noted that, by RAW, slapping someone who is under the influence of a sleep spell wakes them:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm

So, it follows that "slapping someone to wake them up" is not "doing nonlethal damage to them" but "a special application of the "Aid Another" standard action".

I don't think Roy cast Sleep on Belkar, though. ;)


The "nonlethal damage done to an unconscious person becomes lethal damage" thing in 3.5, tends to only apply in very specific circumstances, like heat exhaustion.

It's not a general rule that applies in all cases of nonlethal damage by default.

AH! HA!!! That must definitely be where I remembered it from. Because who the hell deals non-lethal damage anyways? ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Also, yea, I'm the only GM in our group that ever even used environmental damage, and I only GMed a few times, a short while back... :P


Outside of the "if you don't ask for your rent before the next player's dice hit the board, deal with it", anyway.

In my opinion, most of Monopoly's depth comes from it encouraging freeform deals between players...which I imagine has some connection to why the people who I know hate Monopoly never initiate such things on their own. (One time, I paid a player to buy Park Place to ensure Boardwalk's owner didn't get a monopoly). It's been quite some time, so I may remembering this wrong (or it may have changed since then)...but I believe the only restriction is that if you're trading property to pay rent, you can't trade it for less that it could be sold to the bank for except to the player you're owing rent to. Probably to prevent giving everything away before you go bankrupt.

Ha! Back when I first met my now-wife, sometimes I'd go to her family's house, and we'd all play board games. Once, they took out Monopoly. Nobody there made any kind of deals. I was looked at like some sketchy thrifter for even offering deals, and later told I had a "peculiar way of playing". We've not played Monopoly again since, at least 10 years back ago that was.

Worse than Monopoly is Risk!, though. Because if people needlessly gang up on someone, it's unwarranted, unfun for the person (as it removes him from the game completely), and likely to lead to hurt feelings (why did you gang up on me?). But if players act completely rationally, then the game lasts forever, because as soon as you are down to three players (or if you started out with three), then the two runner-uppers will always gang up on the strongest player, and will shift pressure as the balance between players evolves. Likewise, the strongest player, unless he can hope for a swift kill, will always focus on the second most powerful player, to prevent him from getting an edge. Overall, with three rational players fighting each other, you basically reach an equilibrium that makes all three players stay within the same scope of power. Until cards and dice roll get crazy or serious tactical mistakes are made.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I may have slightly mislead you. Spirit Island is a co-op where you play as the Island being colonized. These white dudes keep showing up and building towns and cities, blighting the land and killing the locals, and you, as one of the spirits that live in the island, are trying to stop them with the help of the other players (who are other, different, spirits).

It thus plays nothing like Catan, and my off-the-cuff comment was because it causes people to rethink Catan, rather than because it appeals to the kind of person that enjoys Catan.

That does sound like quite a bit of fun, and I say that as someone who also enjoys Catan from time to time. :smalltongue:

For me personally, one of my favorite co-op board games is the Lord of the Rings board game, which is kind of a pain to win but pretty easy to play.

I’m not a big fan of Monopoly, but I am always looking for suggestions for fun games to play, or, in the case of this thread, ways to play Monopoly so it can be at least some fun.

Also, Goblin_Priest, sounds to me like you’re basically describing 1984 there. :smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That does sound like quite a bit of fun, and I say that as someone who also enjoys Catan from time to time. :smalltongue:

I myself own a version of Catan (vanilla, I think), and on the rare occasion that I find myself in the mood for a competitive board game, it is one of my go-tos. But it's a completely different game, even if the setting is deliberately similar.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I’m not a big fan of Monopoly, but I am always looking for suggestions for fun games to play, or, in the case of this thread, ways to play Monopoly so it can be at least some fun.

By the rules, and only by the rules. No houserules at all, and it will be fun (or at least significantly more fun than any other grand of Monopoly you've ever played). Also, do trades (which are actively encouraged by the rules, coincidentally enough).

[Goblin_Priest]

Also, Goblin_Priest, sounds to me like you’re basically describing 1984 there. :smallbiggrin:

I never thought about that, but that is... very correct indeed.

And just as the endless 3-way tug of war in 1984 was no fun, either is an eternal game of Risk!.

I think George Orwell played Risk! to get his inspiration on that one. (even if the book came out 8 years prior) ;)

[Fyraltari]

Also, Goblin_Priest, sounds to me like you’re basically describing 1984 there. :smallbiggrin:

No, even assuming the party is telling the truth about the existence of three warring superstates*, the war is not going on forever because the two weakest are ganging up on the strongest but because each state ahs a vested interest in the war never ending and therefore is not making a serious attempt to win.


*Which I doubt because one it come from the party and two it's suspicious that Oceania always has one ally and one ennemy and is never in the position of one against two.

[The_Weirdo]

Monopoly brings out the worst in people. So does Risk. It's why I play Overwatch: people are shooting at one another, but at least they're honest and semi-cooperative about it.